It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And you're saying this from experience of having written an health care reform act that was actually going to go before congress & the senate for approval?
Government mandates healthcare for everyone. Everyone gets covered. Insurance rates are kept in check because they have to compete with a subsidized government option.
Free market healthcare where only those who can afford healthcare get covered. Insurance rates continue to skyrocket due to there being absolutely no checks on the insurance companies.
What is wrong with this picture? You don't want less fortunate people to be able to see a doctor? You would rather the insurance companies decide who lives and who dies based on profit? Where does this mindset come from? How can people possibly be this heartless (and stupid) in this day and age?
Research has shown that 16.5 percent of all deaths in the UK are associated with continuous deep sedation until death, a number twice that of Belgium and the Netherlands, both countries that already have legalised direct euthanasia.
"It's important to make the distinction," Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.com, "between what we do with someone who is nearing death and someone who is in pain but not dying." In some cases, he said, patients who are not dying but may be suffering are put into deep sedation, and then dehydrated to death - a use that is always unethical.
However, "if your patient is nearing death and is experiencing organ failure, you really can't be putting food and fluid into a body that can't use the fluids. When the body is shutting down, this is a natural part of the dying process. But when they're not dying, like Terri Schiavo, or someone who is experiencing great pain associated with cancer, that is a different issue, because then we are talking about causing that person's death.
"[Deep sedation] can be a backdoor route to euthanasia if it is used unethically," he said. "The issue is intention. The intention must be the alleviation of pain and suffering. Even a long-term sedation can be ethical as long as the person is not being dehydrated to death. A good palliative care physician won't use the technique very often."
"Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy…," Obama told the American Medical Association in Chicago June 15.
"Older, sicker societies pay more on health care than younger, healthier ones," Obama told the AMA.
In Europe, governments already ration health care, just as Obama plans to do here. The older and sicker people are, the less care they get.
In England, for example, bureaucrats determine a patient's eligibility for health care using the QALY system (quality-adjusted life years). They divide the cost of treatment by the number of "quality" years the patient is expected to live. Older, sicker patients are expected to live fewer "quality" years, so why bother treating them at all? On this basis, British elders are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses.
Many die in filthy, overcrowded hospitals or nursing homes, rife with pestilence, including the deadly, antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" Clostridium difficile and MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). Each year in the U.K., nearly three times more people die from hospital infections than from traffic accidents.
In the nation where Florence Nightingale invented modern nursing 150 years ago, cleanliness has become a lost art. British newspapers reported in 2007 that patients in government hospitals were told to "go in their beds" when they had diarrhea.
In March 2009, British health inspectors reported that poor treatment at one hospital may have killed up to 1,200 people in three years. That's 1,200 people at just one hospital.
Denied food, water and medicine, patients at Stafford Hospital in Staffordshire were left screaming in agony, drinking from flowerpots and lying helpless in their own waste. Many waited for operations which were repeatedly postponed.
British officials were quick to label the Stafford horror an "isolated incident." But many health care professionals in England say it is typical. Unfortunately, dissenters have little voice in Britain's National Health Service. The system is notoriously hostile to whistleblowers.
Take Margaret Haywood, for instance, a nurse of 20 years, who went undercover for the BBC, filming abuse and neglect of elderly patients at Royal Sussex Hospital. In April 2009, British health authorities punished Haywood for going to the press, banning her from practicing nursing. If she had complaints, they told her, she should have made them through proper channels.
Originally posted by oneclickaway
I think people are hiding in the sand because reality is too sickening to accept and look at. Obama has said that his own grandmother should not have had a hip replacemnt when her hip broke but just be sedated as it was a waste of resources.
Originally posted by Shakesbeer
Kind of like the statement above about any program being open to abuse, so does that mean we should have no programs to help people then?
Because obviously private business and interests have done the country a great service so far huh?
[edit on 20-8-2009 by Shakesbeer]
Originally posted by Shakesbeer
reply to post by centurion1211
So why is this bill "bad" in your opinion? What would be a satisfactory alternative?
All I see once again is rhetoric and rewrites of history to suit anyone's given opinion and agenda. It's amazing how people deny things that have had written statements & sound/video clips of statements made by politicians, only to be rebuffed with interpretation & implication not direct observation...meanwhile, no solutions are being brought up, just bickering for the sake of bickering.
So blame yourselves, not the thread, not Obama, not Palin, not the Dems, not the Reps: We're the ones dealing with effects of crappy health care in the country on top of everything else, they aren't.
Shill - 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
I am neither of the above, once again pure speculation & rhetoric. And if you're going to try to insult someone, make sure you're accurate.
[edit on 20-8-2009 by Shakesbeer]