Posted on 05/18/2002 9:32:26 PM PDT by JMJ333
What individuals should choose to do in supporting friends and family is one thing, what the State should coerce them to do to support strangers is an entirely different matter.
Perhaps true, but would it be "skimming over" if the author did not consider it relevant? Seems to me it's a different subject to be discussed.
Whether privately or publicly funded, Doctors should not be forced or tempted to bow to expediency.
What worries the author as well as me, is the slippery slope that your beliefs lead to. There are many reforms that can be made, and the cost of care can be driven down by competition. What is really at stake is the further reduction of human life. Reread the article and think about it interms of what is happening with abortion, eugenics, and atrocities being pushed by the proponents of death. My concern is not a monetary issue. Its a "value of life" issue.
This is where the author skimmed over the issue rather than ignoring its relevance.
And the author is right. Your arguments are utilitarian in nature. I find it depressing.
By any reasonable reckoning, 65 years is a long time for a non-handicapped person to “make it.” Refugees from other countries have “made it” in less time. Truly handicapped people have made it.
So, given that healthy-in-their youth US senior citizens have had a solid chance to prepare for their own old age, why subsidize the ones that fail? Why take money away from people who are presumably being productive, (or they wouldn’t have anything to tax in the first place) and redistribute it to people who had SIXTY FIVE YEARS WORTH OF CHANCES to make something of themselves (to the point that they could afford their own d**n health insurance), and failed?
Further, you may ask, what are the characteristics of those people who need all that healthcare anyway? Old age may come to us all, but expensive old age is largely the fate of a few. In fact, there is empirical research that indicates that from 50% to 75% of inpatient healthcare dollars spend in the US are spent on people who are drug abusers (including alcoholics and smokers) or obese, or both. Why spend money to keep old druggies alive? They made their own choices; why burden others with the consequences?
Any answers?
Thanks for the candid reply. I wish things were so black and white, but they aren't. We are faced with the fact that the baby boom generation is becoming elderly, and we are going to have to make decision based on ethical morality...or not. The reality is that you have to work within the system and as of today there is no opting out of taxes. I am sorry that you have to have your money used to care for others, but what else can you do except work for reform? What is your solution? Please tell me it won't be just letting these people die because you don't want to fork over the money.
I don't want us to become another Netherlands. I don't want to live like that...but that is exactly where we are going. Life has been devalued to the point that we are now cloning people and harvesting them for their organ tissue. This country has some major issues, the least of which is monetary.
You are exactly right. However, unusual random events are the raison d'etre of insurance. I do not claim that people don't have bad luck, or that bad things don't happen to good people. I do, however, wonder why people who havn't had catastrophic bad luck (such as being born deformed) can't get it together enough to at least buy insurance after 65 years of chances to make it.
As for healthcare being expensive because of government influence: that's at least partially right. It's clear that basic care is priced up by government requirements that everyone involved have a license, be bonded, etc. It's even pretty clear that some new medical technology is delayed and expensive because of FDA intransigence.
On the other hand, some real "wonder medicine" would likely be expensive no matter what. MRI machines require huge, expensive magnets and electronics to work, lumbar laminectomies require specialized surgeons (who can charge high prices because few surgeons can consistently succeed with them), etc.
I don't like socialism any more than you do, but life issues come first. When the value and intrinsic dignity of humanity is lost, then so is society.
Several years ago, the governor of a western state opined that the elderly had an obligation to society to go on and get out of the way. Obviously to him, physician-assisted killing is the expression of the right to kill for the good of society as a whole. In an analogous sentiment, Earl Shelby, a proponent of eugenics, warned against "a tyranny of the dependent in which the production of able persons is consumed by the almost limitless needs of dependent beings." Whether out of a Nazi-like desire to purify society, a more utilitarian desire to balance the state budget, or to better allocate limited resources, this view pushes well beyond the level of comfort for most Americans. Perhaps this is why it is not frequently verbalized by proponents of physician-assisted killing as validation.
I get suspicious when a quote appears out of context. I had to look hard, but I found it. To you, perhaps this appears to be "skimming over" something you find important. I submit that the author doesn't care if it's a government, a private insurance company, or a Doc with a big vacation coming up.....killing a patient should not be an option. I imagine you had to search as well, since the search for something fiduciary was probably on your mind. I saw only a couple of references to funding in this article. I think you're inserting an issue here.
again, that is a different issue. Personally, I am in the group that says public monies are far less productive, but this is a secondary issue. I do not disagree that the federal government in charge of anything outside constitutionally delegated functions is a bad thing. It's still secondary.
If the physician is to begin making value judgements on life based upon dollars, the slope is only a matter of degree.
The family is the natural enemy of the state. It is the family that should decide if they have the resources to maintain life or not. But even this is not the issue. Should our physicians (or anyone) have the option of removing the burden of guilt and/or debt by removing the patient? I think not.
When the questions of the day are "should we" rather than "can we"....our physical abilities are surpassing our moral capacities.
IMO euthenasia, abortion, and other quick fixes fit into the liberal mindset because the unspoken - but very real - goal is the relief of the negative guilt feelings people have....the pain. The absence of pain is not freedom, it's anesthetic. The pain returns, and often it is worse than before. Give some people a little and they'll get hooked. That's more inviting of socialism than a love of life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.