Posted on 05/01/2009 4:01:03 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Soros is big on the euthanasia idea, his orgs have been pushing the idea for years. He thinks we should provide purely pallative care and no treatment if the illness is terminal.
Suck it up!
Just gave it the correct terminology.
I guess test and slaughter won’t be far behind when there is a severe disease outbreak.
Typical Marxist mentality. Money is more important than the life of a person. With Marxist DemocRATS, it’s always about the money. Always. Money is everything. It’s their god.
“I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother.”
Well isn’t that special. The rulers such as zero will, of course, retain that option. After all, they’re all millionaires from gaming the socialist system that they’ve set up (in this case in Chicago).
We, on the other hand, won’t have that option. And once they start making these rationing decisions, how long do you think it will be until “potential contribution to society” (i.e., being a good socialist subject) and/or connections (i.e., being a good socialist lapdog or thug) will become a deciding factor?
Besides the obvious anti-life overtones of this, there is the fact that doctors are often wrong or they impose self-fulfilling prophecies upon the patient (e.g. the Terricide of a patient who shows no meaningful response because she’s sensually deprived, the doctor already having deemed that no meaningful response is possible).
So why didn’t he donate a few bucks to his brother in Kenya.
I have wondered about the convenience of his grandmother's death.
When Soros speaks, Comrade Obama listens.
Tell Soros he’s free to wish that upon himself, but leave the rest of us the hell alone.
I wonder how the AARP crowd feels. AARP will lose members earlier too by the way.
The membership will be split, but the leaders will undoubtedly go lefty.
Why can’t that asshat just answer a question?
That’s a rhetorical question.
Yes, but Geithner tells us that we should be focused more on what we DO rather than what we EARN.
>Money is more important than the life of a person.
Unless the person id a felon or illegal alien... [/cynic]
I’m 55. If I get cancer at this point, I die. And I have insurance.
But then, I know I will be going to be with the Lord. If I thought this life was “it”, well, I’d have a different perspective.
Euthenasia is where you actually kill a person. Denying costly treatment is different. It brings up interesting moral dilemmas, but, to give an interesting hypothetical, would you spend $400,000 for surgery on a person that is diagnosed to die anyway within the week? How about a month or a year? Where is the line drawn?
Fact is, a culture cannot survive if half of it’s citizens receive healthcare in their final year(s) that costs two to ten times more than they earned their entire life. It is simply not sustainable.
So what DO you do?
And I am only asking, because I don’t have a detailed answer myself.
So, Obama has no problem the public financing of abortion but would limited financing for the elderly...or, hospices?
Notice though, that he didn't. He was perfectly content with letting us pay for it.
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.