Denying health care to sick people because they can't pay is immoral.

[Joanne98]

It's IMMORAL and people who support a system like that do NOT have any morals values.

That is a fact.

Conservatives should be called immoral hundreds of times a day.

This is a very simple and indisputable truth. When you deny sick people healthcare because they don't have enough money to pay for it you are indirectly committing an act of murder.

Conservatives know this therefore they are committing pre-mediated murder by proxy.

Murder is immoral. Conservatives who support murder are immoral. PERIOD!

[Kingdom1979]

1. Double standards?

Apparently aborting a foetus is totally abhorrent and worthy of all kinds of vicious attacks and as we have seen recently justification for murder. Yet someone is allowed to die because they cannot afford medical bills or because their insurance company will not pay up...hmmm....maybe its just because I am English, but I really do not understand this

[Joanne98]

11. Conservatives are responsible for all abortions because their policies make people to poor

to have children.

And Christians who support conservative policies are heretics hated by Jesus who are going to Hell.

And that's a fact.

[Deja Q]

12. And for the talk of family values, they constantly support initiatives that lower families' pay

Then they have John Gibbon of FAUX Network go on TV and tell every honky to breed because somehow white people have more money or feel they deserve a half-modern life... Go to hell, Johnny... telling people to be poor and then damning them elsewhere for being poor and therefore irresponsible...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0af-RiRDoGk

[area51]

19. The reason you don't understand ...

... is because you're sane.

:hi:

[devilgrrl]

23. excellent observations

eom

[LeftishBrit]

33. According to the Christian Right, it seems that the right to life begins at conception and ends at

birth.

Also British; also horrified by the callousness of those who don't believe that health care is a basic human right.

[excess_3]

2. are there going to be objective criteria for denying care?

if so, who decides what these criteria are?

Congress
Courts
private sector

can this panel be sued?

[Joanne98]

3. It's a moral issue. There is no criteria. You're either moral or you're not.

[excess_3]

4. OK. what was Obama talking about ...

what was Obama talking about when he brought up
that an elderly cancer patient should not get
a hip replacement


who decides these kind of things
Congress
Courts
game of chance

something else?

[frogcycle]

9. the patient !!!!

All that is being suggested is that patients have a right to all the facts to make reasoned decisions

Today, plenty of medical practitioners will recommend or, worse yet, say "you need..." and many elderly patients say "yes doctor" and submit to invasive, disruptive, pointless tests and procedurtes that make their last few months or years miserable. They are entitled to a complete understanding of the ramifications.

That hip replacement will require an extended stay in a "rehabilitation" facility that is probably the medicare-supported wing of a for-profit nursing home (read "warehouse"). There is an excellent chance that you will never leave it.

If you knew you had at best 6-9 months to live and would likely be bedridden for the last 4-5 of those, would you want to go through a hip replacement surgery that some surgeon was going to make a bundle by performing? Or would you rather stay at home and start planning where you want to be for the end, like a top-notch hospice?

From my personal experience elder care can be abusive by doing TOO MUCH that the patients generally accept passively because they are not prone to question the advice of the doctor.

[davsand]

29. Quality of life discussions absolutely have GOT to be a part of the decision.

I agree with you. There are too many times where procedures are done simply based on what a Doc says and the discussion about quality of life or actual benefit to the patient never seems to come up.

We have a family member that is in the end stages of a protracted cancer battle. There have been multiple surgeries and multiple rounds of chemo and radiation. Yes, those things probably did prolong life, however, the quality of life has been really poor for about the last year. There has been a lot of pain and suffering in these last 12-16 months. Only ONE Doc has been willing to say directly that doing anything more is adding to the pain and suffering.

While I do not feel anyone has the right to make those treatment decisions for anyone else, I will also admit that I would not personally choose to endure a lot of this stuff. I have already told my family point blank that if I was faced with a similar set of facts, I'd probably just opt for a case of scotch, a bale of pot and a lawn chair in the back yard. I would still end up dead, but at least I'd be doing it on my own terms and it'd cost a hell of a lot less.

This entire discussion about limiting treatment is completely out of bounds, IMO, because treatment is ALREADY limited by either the ability to pay or the morality of the docs involved. At least by taking the profit motive off the table, we are limiting the the treatment discussions to mostly about the ONE thing that matters--the welfare of the patient.



Laura

[LeftishBrit]

34. Agreed

BTW, my elderly mother is in process of changing her doctor, because she thinks her current one might be too strongly in favour of keeping her alive even if she ends up in a state where she has poor quality of life. She wants to make sure that she has a doctor who values her quality over quantity of life.

So much for for the NHS having 'death panels' to euthanize the elderly!

[Cerridwen]

20. You might want to research a bit before catapulting r/w talking points

on a Democratic message board. I'll leave Media Matters to explain the propaganda usage to you.

WSJ misrepresents Obama interview to fearmonger about end-of-life rationing

SUMMARY: Claiming that it's "(n)o wonder so many seniors rebel" at President Obama's health care proposals, a Wall Street Journal editorial misrepresented a New York Times interview of Obama to claim that Obama seems to believes that end-of-life "medical issues are all justifiably political questions that government or some panel of philosopher kings can and should decide." In fact, in the interview the Journal cited, Obama made clear that an advisory panel that would issue guidance on end-of-life issues would "not (be) determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance."

[The Blue Flower]

24. It was a terminally ill patient

Perhaps elderly, but the salient fact was that the person was already terminal.

[excess_3]

41. somebody will always be on the bubble ...

of having the plug pulled.

who decides?

does anybody even know?
does Congress know?

[lunatica]

17. If you listen to Obama he says no one (NO ONE) will be denied healthcare

for any reason. Not for pre-existing conditions or for any other reason. Today, on the other hand, the insurance company bean counters and paper pushers who don't have a clue about medicine decide who gets denied health care. People whose job it is to spend as little of the insurance company's ill gotten profits as is humanly possible.

[excess_3]

42. OK, so what life expectancy precludes a knee replacement

< 5 years

< 1 year

something else

please be as specific as you can
tia

[annabanana]

5. Hey Joanne...

You caught yourself a coupla big ones!

[Joanne98]

8. lol

[Echo In Light]

6. Rec for moral truth

I've long maintained that any of the tags currently being supported by these types are nothing more than euphemisms for fascist. Ever since I became politically aware in the 80s, the "conservatives" have ALWAYS, in lockstep uniformity, used the tactic of claiming the 'high moral ground' w/their bass-akward "Family Values, Inc" nonsense (along w/bible and flag/nationalism) as upstanding citizen disguise for their open disdain for the poor, the less fortunate, and basically most people who aren't of their ideological ilk.
It's amazing that these types have been so effectively able to define un-reality in this country for so long w/so few calling them on what should be obvious.

[dkf]

7. Hows about saving their lives and leaving them in debt for 30 years?

[Joanne98]

10. That's extortion and that's immoral too.

[kevinbgoode]

13. Con-artist Conservatives ARE death panels.

Where else can you listen to crazy people screaming about their goddamn taxes, when they received TWO tax cuts WHILE the country was at war...and then go on and on and on about how goddamn "patriotic" they are and how much they love and support the troops.

They like deciding which people are beneath them and view America as an entitlement society given to them alone - and that they worked real damned hard conning other people to get the income to be the entitled. The rest who didn't make it were "lazy" "stupid" "inept."

They go to churches which fleece the conservatives, again, with promises of God's plan for granting them wealth and that they must contribute or live in fear of God, who only rewards those who make the church wealthy with everlasting life. Everything is a scam operation with them - from the professional liars who sit on the airwaves making up more lies about "the evil liberals" and "the death panels". . .if these people would lie with such propensity on simple public policy issues, can you imagine how they run a business?

So conservatives love actually being able to point at the "loosers" and pronounce that they "chose" to die. Responsibility isn't in the con-artists game. . .the world is merely a place to reap as much as possible from every other person and let the loosers die along the way. In their minds, it's just economic natural selection...and there ain't no morality to that. Morality is just another tool they use to try to hold other Americans back from getting a piece of the action.

[rucky]

14. This is a no-brainer - and the one thing cons don't want to discuss.

They'll pull every stop to avoid it, so it's the one point we need to hammer in every discussion.

[HughBeaumont]

43. And at the Town Halls.

Confront them directly with this issue.

They'll deny up and down that these instances of Insurance Conglomerate heartlessness even happens in this country.

Still, it is so.

[Brewman_Jax]

15. Absolutely right!

and letting insurance companies profit on health care, rather NO health care, is just as immoral. Health care should be in the business of caring, not profiting.

[prairierose]

16. Healthcare and business should be mutually exclusive...

Why should anyone be allowed to profit on illness? A reasonable profit may be allowed to allow a business to continue to exist but the obscene profits that the corps seem to feel is their due should not be allowed and they are immoral. There is no way around that reality.Other nations do not allow this type of profit since they consider healthcare to be a human right as the UN charter has stated.

The fantasy that business is always more efficient than government is one of the problems that we face. It is time for that fairytale to be exposed for what it is. Fairytales are nice in their place but should have no place in government policy.

[MercutioATC]

18. Depending on one's morals, perhaps.

Regardless of one's morals, however, it's still financially impossible.

We can do better than we are, but we cannot afford to provide EVERY procedure to EVERY person regardless of their ability to pay.


Even under a government-run plan, there will still be rationing.

[FarCenter]

21. It's a fact of life, we can't afford top care for everyone

If you have cancer, your chances of recovery or of living longer are better at a top institution like Sloan Kettering than they are at some random community hospital.

However, most cancer patients never get to one of the top tier hospitals and expire locally.

[Kievan Rus]

22. "Christian" conservatives ignore Matthew 25:40 a lot

They say they're the Christian side of the aisle, yet consistently screw over the poor so the rich can get richer.

[madamesilverspurs]

25. And that's why I made this sign:

[GreenArrow]

26. Driving people into debt

because they can't pay for their healthcare is immoral as well.

[Overseas]

27. Yes it is.

And I wish the simple point that the privatized healthcare sector trotted out the same scary arguments against public options ten years ago, saying they could do far better. They have had ten years to prove their case and have failed miserably. They have failed on a grand scale.

Over 45 million remain uninsured.

Whatever sub-groups are selected to poll about how they are satisfied with their coverage--

Over 45 million remain uninsured.

45,000,000 people.

And millions more like me are under-insured.

The privatized system has failed.

So the ingenious right wing had to fund the flaming of fear and anger to dominate the national discourse with fear of reform with their angry town-hall shout-downs. They are willing to stir up dangerous hatred to protect the billions in privatized healthcare profits.

[lefthandedlefty]

28. Trying to rob the ones that try to pay is immoral also

[Dutch]

30. Indeed it is.

It's positively nausea-inducing that the fanatical right are the one's screaming "evil" and "nazi" when they want 40,000,000 poor people to rot in the gutter because they don't have enough cash to line the pockets of some asshole insurance company.

What is this, bizarro world? It is the opponents of universal health care who are evil, if that concept is to have any meaning whatsoever- pure, black-hearted evil. Immoral, worthless, inhumane scum, all of them. So let's start saying it- as one conservative who actually had a couple of brain cells to rub together said, all that is neccesary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

[Odin2005]

31. +1

[LeftishBrit]

32. Absolutely agree!

[Joe Chi Minh]

35. Now! Now! Joanne! You know that Dick Cheney said that the American way of life

is not negotiable. Only Christ said the Second Commandment isn't negotiable. Priorities, girl, priorities!

[samsingh]

36. repugs are immoral

[ControlledDemolition]

37. In fact it is the ultimate death panel! Poor people are out of sight and out of Republican minds.

[handmade34]

38. making any person pay for health care

that generates a profit is immoral.

[readmoreoften]

39. The fact that only 28 people have rec'd this is telling. Far Right & Far Righter.

That's the "public's political options" these days.

[leftstreet]

40. K&R