Posted on 05/14/2011 10:42:04 AM PDT by wagglebee
As they say apples and oranges
The insurance companies write the policies themselves. If they can’t afford to provide the service they’re selling, we should not kill their customers to make the insurance companies solvent.
What the difference? Why do you think it’s okay to kill disabled people and people with terminal conditions, but not healthy people? What makes the healthy people more deserving of humane treatment?
So, you not only support death panels you also support euthanizing people?
If god wants the person to pull through they will one way or the other.
First of all God is spelled with a capital G, those who believe in Him rarely make the mistake that you did twice in your post.
Secondly, God has given us medical knowledge.
No sane person would want his corpse to be kept warm to kill another individual who has a chance at life.
Now you seem to be a "duty to die" regardless of financial ability, is that correct?
As stated if the individual can pay for his own bed through family or personal savings then there isn’t a problem.
Why? You just declared that a "sane person" would want to die.
I replied to the premise of the article. YOU made an assumption based entirely on something I did not say and you expect me to defend your wild off topic assumption.
I replied to the premise of the article. YOU made an assumption based entirely on something I did not say and you expect me to defend your wild off topic assumption.
You took the position that the person or entity that pays the bills is entitled to decide who lives and who dies. I inquired if you extend that to all people, or just the disabled and dying. You indicated there is a difference. Please explain what that difference is. What makes healthy people more deserving of humane treatment than disabled and dying people?
I am pointing out in response to the OP the fact that if the person or or their family cant pay for the care then a insurance company or government bureaucrat is going to decide.
That's the system like it or not...
I am pointing out in response to the OP the fact that if the person or or their family cant pay for the care then a insurance company or government bureaucrat is going to decide.
That's the system like it or not...
Why should they be allowed to decide not to fulfill the terms of the contract they wrote and entered into, resulting in the killing of the other party to the contract? What is it about the condition of the other party to the contract that you find makes the contract non-binding on the part of the insurance companies? What is the point in paying insurance premiums if the simple act of turning in a claim voids the contract?
Decide what? Is that like a woman’s right to choose, where you never specify what she’s choosing? Say what you mean, without euphemisms or vague references to choice. What you are advocating is the death panels’ right to decide who lives and who dies by denying humane treatment to those who need it, even after they’ve already paid for it.
Obviously. If I had, then of course I would agree that the insurance company should have turned down my claim and had me euthanized.
There’s another factor at play.
There is a continuum of care between hooked up to all the bells and whistles, and starving/thirsting/medicating to death.
Wesley J Smith is an Orthodox Christian!
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2009/04/wesley-j-smith-orthodox-advocate-for-human-“exceptionalism”/
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.