should a coma patient without insurance be allowed to die?

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:21 pm

People die every day

/s/

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:42 pm

exterminate all the brutes

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:53 pm

No, a board needs its tards.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:00 pm

Wow, rackable takes from both Cuda and Sirfuckafist in the same thread. I should go buy a lottery ticket.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:17 pm

wait until Ucant shows up to claim you're my troll, and you can get the trifecta

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:25 pm

Cuda wrote:wait until Ucant shows up to claim you're my troll, and you can get the trifecta

Exercise due diligence with this one, Cuda, imo.

Imus · Post by **Imus** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:29 pm

It could be so simple. If you feel the need to help out some autistic coma tard, then feel free to pony up cash along with your other liberal feel good cohorts. Else mind your own fucking business and do not ask for my money. If I feel like helping out some poor loser, I'll go ahead and do it. Without your prompting. Goddamn this pisses me off.

Yes my dinner Does taste better when I think about starving people in Africa.

Python · Post by **Python** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:30 pm

Rack Cuda.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:11 pm

88 wrote:He also noted that it was a bad idea to have government try to exericise the personal responsibility that people should exercise for themselves.

A very bad idea.

If government was some entity - separate from the people, which just floated down from space and landed here - and had it's own source of finance, yeah, they could go ahead and pony up to keep a person like this alive.

But it isn't.
Government is people's money.

If you're going to FORCE people to give up their money to pay for the poor decisions of others, isn't that theft?

Isn't that immoral?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:50 pm

poptart wrote:
If you're going to FORCE people to give up their money to pay for the poor decisions of others, isn't that theft?

Isn't that immoral?

Immoral...like your son pulling a "gubmint paycheque" kind of immoral...or did you mean a different kind of immoral?

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:53 pm

poptart wrote:Isn't that immoral?

what would Jesus do, poptart?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:56 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
poptart wrote:Isn't that immoral?

what would Jesus do, poptart?

Jesus would be too busy day-trading with Adam Smith and telling people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:03 am

Ah. So if everybody had insurance, they wouldn't die?

What a country! Who knew insurance cured death?! When do we get to vote on that?!

Oh wait....

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:19 am

I think Ron Paul is just sick of teenagers toilet papering his yard and throwing eggs at his windows.

P.S. ~ get off his lawn

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:24 am

Truman wrote:Ah. So if everybody had insurance, they wouldn't die?

No. But curable stuff would be taken care of.

Are you this stupid?

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:36 am

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Truman wrote:Ah. So if everybody had insurance, they wouldn't die?
No. But curable stuff would be taken care of.

Are you this stupid?

He's not in the smackaholic or Derron stupid category just yet. Give him a loose leash for now.

(edit) I forgot add Wags to that list. Amazingly stupid.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:44 am

Jsc810 wrote:Here is his answer, such as it is.

What's wrong with that answer?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:52 am

Bizzarofelice wrote:
poptart wrote:Isn't that immoral?

what would Jesus do, poptart?

At the very least, he would be making donations to charity hospitals which are most frequently run by religious organizations. I'm guessing you're one of the atheist idiots who "think" that organized religion is nothing but pure evil and has contributed nothing to the betterment of mankind.

If you're struggling to comprehend the difference between coerced taxation and charitable donations, let me know. I understand that you're a fucking moron and I'm willing to help.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:05 am

mvscal wrote:I'm guessing you're one of the atheist idiots who "think" that organized religion is nothing but pure evil and has contributed nothing to the betterment of mankind.

Nope. Not an atheist. You'll have to try a different image to attack.

If you're struggling to comprehend the difference between coerced taxation and charitable donations...

I understand those. I just want to know what poptart the missionary would preach to the people. What would Jesus do for a man in a coma? Simple question for a man who understands the New Testament.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:41 am

Martyred wrote:
poptart wrote:
If you're going to FORCE people to give up their money to pay for the poor decisions of others, isn't that theft?

Isn't that immoral?
Immoral...like your son pulling a "gubmint paycheque" kind of immoral...or did you mean a different kind of immoral?

Why would a young man serving in the armed services be immoral?

Ron Paul's answer was great.

Bace, if you want to know about what Jesus says, come to the Theology Forum.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:47 am

Martyred wrote:I think Ron Paul is just sick of teenagers toilet papering his yard and throwing eggs at his windows.

P.S. ~ get off his lawn

Ron Paul has been trolling as Wolfman?

Who knew?

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:54 am

Martyred wrote:
Cuda wrote:wait until Ucant shows up to claim you're my troll, and you can get the trifecta

Exercise due diligence with this one, Cuda, imo.

What?

You mean... he's... nooooooooo!

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:43 pm

Because I'm such a sweet fella, I'm going to skip past the interesting dynamic in the background here.

That dynamic?

That you seemingly want to fight vigorously for the right of a coma patient to keep on living (at taxpayer expense) - yet have no problem with a woman deciding to kill the life growing within her (which nearly 100% of the time, barring human intervention) culminates in a beautiful new human baby.

Ok, I'm past that - because it's a discussion that is WAY played out in here.

Answer:

No, because absent government involvement (in health care, insurance, etc.), there would be a PRIVATE, VOLUNTARY, safety net which would emerge to handle such situations as you presented.
And further, absent government involvment, the NUMBER of people needing such a safety net would be decreased.

I definitely don't think such a person should (or would) be allowed to die.

The case, as presented by Wolf Blitzer there, is a fallacious scenario.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:03 pm

No because if a coma patient shows up, and didn't sign a consent form called an "Advance Directive"only a "durable power of attorney" gives legal power to the health care proxy, who is a person chosen by the patient to follow the patient's advance directives. So legally they can't pull the plug.

Hell, hospitals and clinics have been killed due to giving illegal aliens free health care. I've seen illegals lined up in clinics to bring in their little tards in for immunizations; been in rural hospitals where there are bilingual signs that tell the illegals they can't be turned away and have actually took care of one momma that squirted out a new burden on our economy.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:16 pm

Jsc wrote:You're avoiding the question, poptart.

I'm not avoiding the question, Jsc.

I'm telling you that it doesn't make any sense to keep operating under a system which PROMOTES the kind of situation you are describing.

And I told you that under a BETTER system, no, the person ought not (and would not) be allowed to die.

But as of today, my answer to your question is No, he ought not be allowed to die, because we ought to value human life and seek to always promote life.

You realize the country is broke, though, don't you?

You do realize hospitals are shutting down because of what AP has just posted, don't you?

You do realize we're in this sort of mess because the gov has gotten eyeballs-deep in health care (and so many other things) - where they have no business being?

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:01 pm

Yeah, but I don't want to CTRL-Cuda poptarts post. The answer is no.

Kansas City Kid · Post by **Kansas City Kid** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:18 pm

Atomic Punk wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:
Truman wrote:Ah. So if everybody had insurance, they wouldn't die?
No. But curable stuff would be taken care of.

Are you this stupid?
He's not in the smackaholic or Derron stupid category just yet. Give him a loose leash for now.

(edit) I forgot add Wags to that list. Amazingly stupid.

It's not fair to rip on Doron for being stupid. Afterall, he just had 3/4 of his brain removed in that operation.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:33 pm

88 wrote:The question is whether the People, as individuals, should have personal responsibility to take care of their own health, or whether the People should offload that responsibility (and the freedom that comes with the responsibility to make very personal choices) to the government.

In 1973, the fed stuck both hands in the cookie jar of health care.

For those who have never cracked a book or seen a graph... after the "federal takeover," health care/insurance costs began to absolutely skyrocket (as a % of GDP). Fast forward to today, where government is involved in about 2/3rd of all medical transactions, and the skyrocket isn't showing any signs of easing back down.

My question -- what kind of idiot does it take to believe that when 2/3rd government control of health care has resulted in an unmitigated disaster, the way to fix it is to up their stake to 100%?

That's a special kind of retard, right there.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:26 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Truman wrote:Ah. So if everybody had insurance, they wouldn't die?
No. But curable stuff would be taken care of.

Are you this stupid?

So coma patients without insurance are being turned out into the streets? Really? And folks that show up at emergency rooms without insurance no longer have their "curable stuff" taken care of? Of course you have a long list of such atrocities, and the hospitals that facilitated them.

You voted for Obama, right, Bace? Might want to re-think the stupidity card before you play it next time, amigo....

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:35 pm

Atomic Punk wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:
Truman wrote:Ah. So if everybody had insurance, they wouldn't die?
No. But curable stuff would be taken care of.

Are you this stupid?
He's not in the smackaholic or Derron stupid category just yet. Give him a loose leash for now.

(edit) I forgot add Wags to that list. Amazingly stupid.

Werd. If I were to post pics of myself mincing around in fat girl's panties, who knows to what levels of stupidity I'd sink?

BTW, Autistic Drunk, any idea what pinatas smack around when they celebrate their birthdays? Just be glad you're not A-...

Never mind.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:42 am

Truman wrote:Might want to re-think....

That's gonna be easier said than done for bizarrofeces.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:32 am

mvscal wrote:
Truman wrote:Might want to re-think....
That's gonna be easier said than done for bizarrofeces.

I outthought you in the Fact thread where you threw a tantrum and I brought reason. And it was effortless. But I think it was more effortless because you have deep emotions that you can't separate from simple issues.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:34 am

Truman wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:
Truman wrote:Ah. So if everybody had insurance, they wouldn't die?
No. But curable stuff would be taken care of.

Are you this stupid?
So coma patients...

You didn't say "coma patients". You said "everybody".

Try again.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:47 am

Bizzarofelice wrote:
mvscal wrote: That's gonna be easier said than done for bizarrofeces.
I outthought you in the Fact thread where you threw a tantrum and I brought reason. And it was effortless. But I think it was more effortless because you have deep emotions that you can't separate from simple issues.

He has a talent for retaining information, his memory is excellent, things tend to get a little bit weird after that part.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:35 am

Bizzarofelice wrote:I brought reason.

Link?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:02 pm

Truman wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:
Truman wrote:Ah. So if everybody had insurance, they wouldn't die?
No. But curable stuff would be taken care of.

Are you this stupid?
So coma patients without insurance are being turned out into the streets? Really? And folks that show up at emergency rooms without insurance no longer have their "curable stuff" taken care of? Of course you have a long list of such atrocities, and the hospitals that facilitated them.

You voted for Obama, right, Bace? Might want to re-think the stupidity card before you play it next time, amigo....

Of course they are dumbass. Don't you read the obituaries? People die every day in this country. And it's all a direct result of being turned away because they have no insurance. Canada hasn't had a death since 1964.

Here's my take on it.

No, you don't let them die. You also don't let them discharge obligations through bankruptcy. If I was king, i would tell folks, get insurance. If you don't and need care, you'll get it. Then the IRS will hound you till the grave for payment. I think even young folks might get insurance if they knew this was in store for them. And yes, I know this isn't really an IRS thing, but, they already have the skill sets necessary for hounding people for money.

Actually, come to think of it, it is an IRS thing. Yesterday I sat through an hour and a half presentation at work attempting to decipher next year's health insurance changes. It actually was a very informative session. Wanna take a guess how many times "IRS rules dictate" was uttered by the HR presenter chick?

A fukking lot x 2. maybe even x 3.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:08 pm

88 wrote:Why did the clip cut off when Mr. Paul began to explain why society should not just let the patient die?

I think if the editor of the video had let it run, you would have heard Ron Paul state that in the private sector, people have always come forward and taken care of those who did not exercise enough personal responsibility to take care of themselves. He also noted that it was a bad idea to have government try to exericise the personal responsibility that people should exercise for themselves.

Trouble is, Ron Paul doesn't live by those words. How else can you explain him letting his 2008 campaign manager die without medical insurance and over 400k in debt? Where were the friends? Where was the charity?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:23 pm

smackaholic wrote:
Truman wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote: No. But curable stuff would be taken care of.

Are you this stupid?
So coma patients without insurance are being turned out into the streets? Really? And folks that show up at emergency rooms without insurance no longer have their "curable stuff" taken care of? Of course you have a long list of such atrocities, and the hospitals that facilitated them.

You voted for Obama, right, Bace? Might want to re-think the stupidity card before you play it next time, amigo....
Of course they are dumbass.

^^^^^^^^^^^
Comma patient.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:21 pm

88 wrote:
BSmack wrote:Trouble is, Ron Paul doesn't live by those words. How else can you explain him letting his 2008 campaign manager die without medical insurance and over 400k in debt? Where were the friends? Where was the charity?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html
When clacking out your post, did you happen to notice that Mr. Snyder received $400,000 worth of healthcare, even though uninsured? How can you say that Ron Paul let him die?

I never said Paul "let him die." I said he "let him die WITHOUT health insurance and 400k in debt." There's a big fucking difference and until you figure out some basic semantics, you are not even worth any further reply.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:45 pm

Jsc810 wrote:
88 wrote:When clacking out your post, did you happen to notice that Mr. Snyder received $400,000 worth of healthcare, even though uninsured?
You do realize that 45,000 American deaths per year are caused by a lack of insurance, don't you?

There is a difference between showing up at the ER and getting enough medical treatment to stabilize a patient, and getting regular ongoing medical care like is possible with insurance.

Also, that $400,000 ends up coming out of the pockets of people who DO pay for insurance. Many people without insurance end up going to emergency rooms for treatment of colds, flu, stubbed toes, etc. that could be treated much more efficiently at a doctor's office. Though I know it's an idea that's completely anathema to anybody who believes in America it seems like it would be more efficient in the long run to make sure somehow that everybody has insurance, or can somehow find treatment outside the emergency room.