Obamacare ruled unconstitutional

reply to post by Cocasinpry
You are a good person, obviously. I am glad that the world has as many good people as it currently does.

I will relate to you a story about a friend of mine, illustrating how the world has other people in it, that aren't like you.....

This woman had one sister, she and her sister cared for their father while he had a bout of heart related illness. He died unexpectedly one morning. This lady and her sister were cleaning out his apartment after his death (their mother had died years earlier) when they were surprised by a knock at the door. It was a young man and woman that wanted to see if 'their father' had anything of value in his house. They turned out to be younger half siblings of my friend. They never visited their father or helped care for him while he was ill, but made the effort to show up on his doorstep after he died, looking for anything of value. They complained that he had nothing worthwhile to take before they left.

There are people that would trade their grandmothers life for a television set.
I would like to know who would argue the fact that there are too many people in a bloated bureaucratic bungle of a system using ever more expensive technologies to prolong the inevitable.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maybereal11

 

I am talking about Obamacare being broken, it is overloaded with people that formerly would have died much sooner than they do now...... that is reality.

edit on 14-12-2010 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

You said 45 years of age..

If you are talking about 80-110 and unneccessary proceedures...Someone who is 85 years old and a surgery that might take someone 2 or 3 years to fully recover from and only add maybe...maybe.. 1 year to thier lives?

Someone that is 92 years old and has serious heart issues and the doctors want to hospitalize them and poke and prod them and do every test imaginable for the remaining six months of thier lives?

You are talking about "end of life counseling" ...something that Pres. Obama wanted to set aside funds for in what you call "Obamacare". Where if a family and patient CHOSE to do it...they could get together with a doctor and determine how much they wanted to do in the final months/years, whether it made sense for grandpa to live out his final days/months at home or in the hospital for weeks or months...where doctors would run dozens of expensive tests according to protocol while at the same time knowing someone is in thier final days.....develop a plan that the doctor, patient and family felt good about. Allowing folks who simply are on the precipice of dying of old age to do it at home with family rather than the hospital hooked up to machines. All Pres. Obama wanted to do was encourage that conversation between doctor, patient and family and put the framework in place where an agreement could be made ...how much intervention in the final days. Left up to a hospital? They make tons of money running a 90 year old through dozens of tests and treatments and keeping them in the hospital for those last few weeks/months.

Know what the GOP called it?...that's right....DEATH PANELS...

Did you weigh in on the death panel debate? I'd rather take your word on the matter than dig up posts? Because you can't have it both ways...complain that "Obamacare" is looking to kill off Grandma and then complaining that it adds to many elderly folks to the rolls and that nature should run it's course.

reply to post by maybereal11
Would you care to tell me where I have said that it is a governments function to tell a person when they should die?

You're trying to invent an argument.

reply to post by maybereal11

You are talking about "end of life counseling"

No.

You are.

reply to post by maybereal11

complaining that it adds to many elderly folks to the rolls and that nature should run it's course.

Nature does run its course. Always.

We are a part of nature.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Would you care to tell me where I have said that it is a governments function to tell a person when they should die?

You're trying to invent an argument.

End of care couseling is not about government TELLING a person WHEN they will die...it is about giving the PATIENT the CHOICE WHERE they will die and HOW. In a hospital bed, hooked up to machines, having blood drawn every two hours and being carted off to do another test every day...for weeks on end..or at home with family. There comes a time when even the doctors know they can't help, but protocol demands them to keep up on the tests, blood draws, machines etc....keep someone in the hostpital until they die etc. and it makes the hospital a lot of money.

You are changing the argument...and a pretty drastic bit of rhetorical gymnastics to boot.

No interest in dishonest debate.

reply to post by maybereal11
Please do tell me where I have said any of these things that you are trying to attribute to me!

YOU are the one that seemed to think that I had some stance on the 'Obamacare death panels', then when I address it, you tell me that I am doing gymnastics.

You fear your own death, I think, and it has you rattled. You should calm down, you'll probably live to a ripe old age if you give up the classic type "A" personality.

reply to post by maybereal11

No interest in dishonest debate.

It is quite odd that you seem to specialize in it then.

Why don't you, in the interest of honest debate show me where I advocated any action here, regarding health care. I pointed out what some problems are. (Hint for you here: I advocated 'inaction'.)

I don't need to pull up any of your post history, I have seen it enough. You walk a very tight line, with respect to your ideology. You tend to leap down peoples throats when you BELIEVE that they may disagree with anything that you THINK.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Please do tell me where I have said any of these things that you are trying to attribute to me!

edit on 14-12-2010 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

You made the argument that Obamacare was adding more folks to the healthcare rolls that might not warrant further care.

I explained that in fact, the HCR bill Pres. Obama pushed included "end of life counseling" to help people decide when enough was enough and if they wanted to spend thier final days in a hospital or at home.

You characterized "end of life counseling" as...

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Would you care to tell me where I have said that it is a governments function to tell a person when they should die?

That is a dishonest characterization of end of life counseling since the government at no time suggested anything of the sort. The wanted to encourage people on thier deathbed to have a choice between hospitals and home. Thier choice, not the Govs...and it is a conversation folks should have.

I have no fear of death BTW...I like living a whole lot though..strange you would toss that bit in. I will write it off to an attempt to distract. Actually now that I think about it...there have been many points I have made that you ignored and moved the argument to symantics. You are claiming new and different things and abandoning other things to suit yourself.

reply to post by maybereal11

You are talking about "end of life counseling" ...something that Pres. Obama wanted to set aside funds for in what you call "Obamacare". Where if a family and patient CHOSE to do it...they could get together with a doctor and determine how much they wanted to do in the final months/years, whether it made sense for grandpa to live out his final days/months at home or in the hospital for weeks or months...where doctors would run dozens of expensive tests according to protocol while at the same time knowing someone is in thier final days.....develop a plan that the doctor, patient and family felt good about. Allowing folks who simply are on the precipice of dying of old age to do it at home with family rather than the hospital hooked up to machines. All Pres. Obama wanted to do was encourage that conversation between doctor, patient and family and put the framework in place where an agreement could be made ...how much intervention in the final days. Left up to a hospital? They make tons of money running a 90 year old through dozens of tests and treatments and keeping them in the hospital for those last few weeks/months. Know what the GOP called it?...that's right....DEATH PANELS...

These are your words.

Go back to my original post read how you responded. You have repeatedly jumped to conclusions.

I will ask you again, we will see if you can comprehend the question at all...

Why don't you, in the interest of honest debate show me where I advocated any action here, regarding health care? I pointed out what some problems are. (Hint for you here: I advocated 'inaction'.)

Try again. I am keeping my fingers crossed for you this time.

Originally posted by butcherguy
Why don't you, in the interest of honest debate show me where I advocated any action here, regarding health care? I pointed out what some problems are. (Hint for you here: I advocated 'inaction'.)

Let's try this then...please feel free to tell me where I have misread you...

You are opposed to folks over the age of 45 being insured? Let nature takes it's course? Since they are no longer physically productive?

These folks should either perish naturally from disease...or only recieve care as long as their savings or income allow them to pay out of pocket?

You oppose the HCR bill because it adds these folks to the system and covers them?

FYI - I am not looking for a guessing game. Rather than offer hints, why not summarize your position succinctly.

reply to post by butcherguy


I understand your example because I've recently been through that and I know how selfish people can be but that's completely off subject. The concept that some people didn't care doesn't rule out those that did in your example.

You have a very pessimistic perspective of society and I'm sorry for you but that doesn't make you right, that's just your opinion, it's not objective fact; it's a subjective perspective. I'm rather optimistic and choose to focus on charity, kindness and diligence... you know, humankind's many virtues.

reply to post by Cocasinpry

it's not objective fact;

Absolutely right. Just as feeling sorry for everyone that doesn't have something that someone else does will not help them in the least. Here is the fact, with increasingly expensive treatments involved in health care, we simply can't afford to take care of everyone without making tough decisions.

I don't need anyone feeling sorry for me, just because I can see things without the cloud of emotion obscuring reality. I am a giving person and do donate my time and what money I can afford to various charities. I view it as a civic duty.

I wish you the best holiday season that you have ever had and many more to come!

reply to post by maybereal11

FYI - I am not looking for a guessing game. Rather than offer hints, why not summarize your position succinctly.

Then stop playing them, silly!

You have effectively answered my question anyway, by the way you have replied. You could not come up with something from my original post, so you ask me more questions and blame me for playing a guessing game.

Maybe you will remember this from primary school, 'if you know the answer, you don't have to guess!'

reply to post by butcherguy


If you take a moment and review the posts throughout " maybereal ". You will see in his/her own post history to be nothing more than a troll. Wouldn't waste your time~

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by butcherguy

 

If you take a moment and review the posts throughout " maybereal ". You will see in his/her own post history to be nothing more than a troll. Wouldn't waste your time~

Yes, indeed.
I have been there before with that one. For some reason that member has me painted as a hard right-winger, and I am a libertarian.
Thanks for the heads-up though.

reply to post by butcherguy


Anyone against his/her views, and those whom don't project the same ideals of his/her argument is a right winger? Typical though, from someone who has a leftist mentality, and unable to provide facts with their argument. Thier sole basis of argument isn't base on facts, but " emotion ".