Posted on 04/01/2005 9:56:30 AM PST by Destro
James P. Pinkerton
Schiavo case: Should government pay?
March 31, 2005
The Terri Schiavo case reminds us that Americans are a people of plenty, and also a people of plenteous faith. Both forms of abundance will be tested in the years to come, as the religious right fuses with the secular left around the common project of big government.
One impact of Schiavo has been the knitting together of conservative Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, into a common cause: weaving a seamless "culture of life." And while polls show that these conservatives are a minority, it's apparent that they have political energy and alliance-building acumen far in excess of their numbers.
That's why, for example, few have dared to raise the issue of dollar cost in the Schiavo case. But once the emotions of the moment cool down a bit, it might be worth asking just how much of a burden society wishes to undertake in the name of "life."
For example, Schiavo's hospice reportedly charges $80,000 a year. Who's been paying that? The St. Petersburg Times reports that Medicaid, a government program, has been paying for "much" of Schiavo's care since 2002. Is that a good use of health care dollars? Should we pile such expenditures onto our collective tax bill - or onto the deficit?
Meanwhile, other costly strange-bedfellow alliances are being created. On March 16, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), the dean of liberalism in the U.S. Senate, teamed up with Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) to co-sponsor the Prenatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act. The purpose of the bill is to gather and distribute information about birth defects detected in utero.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
In an early posting of mine, I warned that the Left would use the Social Conservatives' "Culture of Life" mantra for their own gain. The Republican leadership inserted itself into the "Terri" issue at a time when they cut Medicaid (which Terri was on), made malpractice awards harder to win (which Terri had won and used to pay for her medical care).
How will "Culture of Life" Conservatives (who have already shown they don't mind being big spenders) react to what the Democrats will put forward now?
Will Social Conservatives be against universal health care from conception to age 18? How can you be pro-life and not back universal health care? A case of being for the fetus but against the baby and child?
Has the Terri case has opened a Pandora's Box of big govt. Socialisim?
These last few weeks have not been good for small govt./fiscal Conservatives.
I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.
Terri's case was not about no money to pay for her care.
We'll get National Health Care when the Corporations demand it (and they're already making noise about it).
Tax me so you can kill me when I get helpless is not a good pitch.
Click here for the 'tator take on how wedge issues work and why
Funny. The liberals complained for years that this wasn't happening. Now that it has they're whining that is has. Why did the (il-)liberals want so badly to see Terri's mom tortured?
Terri's case was not about no money to pay for her care.
Since when have facts gotten in the way of liberal lunacy. Please stop bringing up pesky facts. We have socialism to impose on the gullible sheeple.
Let's see, the award in the malpractice suit was $3 million-$7 million depending on who you believe. Can these people not do the math?
*80,000/year should last at least 40 years. But of course the lawyers (Felos & Company) believed their BMWs to be more precious than life itself, so there was only enough to pay for 15 years.
Answer:
British Socialist Religion of Darwinist Evolution-Science............'A Clockwork Orange'.....?
Bunk. This is just liberal spin. It will not sell. Hey, how much money does it cost to starve someone to death. The kill-'em crowd can't have it both ways. Talk about hypocrites. No, the Terri case will have a states' rights legacy. The 'rats are officially on record saying that a disabled woman's life is not a federal issue, so neither should abortion be federal issue. Or sodomy. Or countless other liberal issues.
The most important factor in my decision to support Terri's parents in this dispute, was their stated willingness to care for Terri at home at their own expense. No adult -- disabled or not -- has any right be supported at public expense. If private individuals and organizations are willing to undertake the expense of caring for someone who has no meaningful quality of life, they should be free to do so, absent reasonable proof that the patient is suffering severely and/or would not have wanted to be kept alive.
Medical technology is now capable of sustaining people virtually indefinitely at huge expense -- expense far outstripping the total economic production of our society, if it became common practice to sustain people at all costs. As with most things, getting taxpayer funding out of the picture will cause most people to reassess their positions, in line with economic reality.
There was an interesting case a few years back, involving an Amish child born with some horrible condition (can't recall what) that could have been managed enough to keep the child alive (but by no means cured) at astronomical expense. The community met, discussed the cost and how much each family in the community would have to contribute annually in order to keep this child alive, discussed everything in the context of their very fundamentalist religious beliefs, and decided not to proceed with the treatment and to let nature take its course. Our oh-so-advanced-and-modern society would do well to emulate their sensible approach.
But those millions of dollars were paid by an insurance company, resulting in higher rates which are, directly or indirectly, passed on to all people who pay their own way in society. The end result is the same as taxpayer funding.
Get the government out! They cannot manage health care, and Terri's sage proves they cannot makae decent law here either. The Medicaid cost is the small part. The litigation cost the adversaries 4 million dollars. Then there was the bogus malpractice 1 M award.
Maybe we should go back to buggies, too.
Thank you Destro,
I have been hearing the term "Seamless garment", a buzzword used mostly by liberal Catholics, for years. The problem is that both the Dems and the Reps look at taxpayer dollars as coming from a bottomless goody bag. I really believe there a few really fiscal conservatives out there. Isn't there a way government can use our tax-dollars wisely so we get more bang for our buck and no one really feels too much of a pinch? Our mothers and grandmothers have been doing that for years. Maybe our mothers and grandmothers should be running Congress? As far promoting a culture of life I am all for it even though it may make strange bedfellows once in a while. Now the left was giving Jesse Jackson hell for going down to Florida to support the Schindler family. OK, it was typical. But the right questioned Jesse's motives as well. Was Jesse doing another self peomotion act? If he was or wasn't is not too important-the gesture I am sure was appreciated and the coverage was valuable. When one looks too hard for 100% philosophical orthodoxy on either side you're going to run into trouble. My own opinion on Death Penalty, Abortion, and Euthanasia. Sure, those who support the death penalty say that justice needs to be done for crimes committed against society. The left will use two arguments; most death row inmates are poor or black (or hispanic) and too many innocent people have been put to death. I totally disregard the first (as if being poor or black should exonerate you from capital puishment) but will give some credence to the second. With DNA testing it is less and less likely that innocent people will be executed. Personally I would not want to be on a jury where I had to make that decison. On a certain level, the death penalty is a quick fix. LET'S JUST GET RID OF THE SUCKA.
Abortion; the RIGHT to an abortion is totally ludicrous. I guess the Supreme Court just loves bestowing rights---or do they? Hey, I want the right to be an obese slob about to have a heart attack any day now and continue to shove Big Macs in my face faster than Wimpy can say Declaration of Independence. The hyper-feminists will chant on about male chauvinism and control over their own bodies, but neither boy or girl was exhibiting much control when they were getting it on or did they ever think to use protection? The right will segue into a whole array of other morality issues, some of which are best to be kept in the personal sphere; contraception, chastity etc etc. Really, the state should allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, or extreme deformity (I understand the Christian opposition to this), but again, it should be something that is reluctantly permitted by the state and not looked upon as a right bestowed upon the citizenry from God or the Supreme Court.(Are they different?) Abortion is appreciated because it is a quick fix. LET'S GET RID OF THAT SUCKA OUTTA YOUR BELLY.
Euthanasia-----always thought they were talking about kids in the Far East----the right to die, another euphemism that makes me want to barf. Honey, I am gonna die anyway....I just don't want you or the government helping me along. I am concerned more about my right to live. I know many folks have to face really personal and heart wrenching cross roads in deciding what to do with their relatives who are in these situations. Terri Schiavo's fate has definitely opened up a Pandora's Box on these issues. Baby, they should be discussed and not kept in the closet. Problem is, death and suffering are ugly....something you usually don't discuss over frittatas and margarita at your local bistro. Unfortunately we're living in a sanitized society. Whatever the cultural sensibilities out there are, I really don't want Dr. Kevorkian-like doctors and lawyers trolling around hospitals, hospices, and nursing homes looking to help people meet their maker ASAP. Euthanasia is another immediate "solution"------so was gassing the Jews at Auschwitz. LET'S UNPLUG THIS USELESS SUCKER. HE AIN'T GONNA GET BETTER, HE'S TAKING UP USEFUL SPACE, PLUS HE DOESN'T REALLY BECOME HIM HAVING ALL THOSE TUBES AND MACHINES STICKING OUT ALL OVER THE PLACE. PLUS HAVING TO LOOK AT HIM WITH ALL THOSE TUBES AND THINGS HANGING OUT OF HIM ALL OVER THE PLACE IS REALLY HARD ON MY EYES-----I CAN'T DEAL WITH IT.
Yes, I know I am being a bit crude. But all three issues, death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia are being dealt with expediently (because, we really don't like dwelling on such unpleasantness). Expediency doesn't solve everything.
Isn't it interesting that Jesse Jackasson launched the Hatellary Rodhamster ship of disinformation? ... Now we know why Jesse rushed down to Florida after Terri was failing from dehydration; Hillary's mantra will be 'national healthcare in a culture of life', and that if you live through the pregnancy age.
No, I didn't mean that. If there is clear proof that someone would have wanted to continue living, despite severe suffering, then there should be no government interference with private money being used for that purpose. However, in the absence of such proof, I think it's appropriate to let nature take its course, and not let family members who may be harboring unrealistic hopes of recovery and/or trying to impose their beliefs on a relative who is not known to have shared those beliefs, force that person to endure suffering much longer than nature intended. However, the law needs to clearly spell out what proof of "severe suffering" is required for such intervention, and who makes the determination -- currently it doesn't do so anywhere that I'm aware of.
Oh yea, the malpractice award - that Repubs voted to make harder to get........That is what the Dems will say - so we lose that issue.
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.