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 ...
Playing Devil's advocate - Terri could get private donations - but what about others not so well known?
Exactly! I saw it a mile away - how will we reactto it? This has so emotionalized the cause that national health care is going to be hard to fight off now because we will come off as hypocrites.
Since Terri never got a chance to improve - I'd deteriorate myself if all I did was stay in bed all day - so we'll never know if she could've been eventually moved to her parents' house, cutting a great deal of expense. So this example is a terrible one.
Their entire argument is that we can't afford people, so they should be snuffed out.
In God's Providence, some folks have different situations - it is not the governments's job to correct every one of the differences which God created.
If their care is going to be extremely expensive, I don't think they should get it. Where do we draw the line, with modern technology that could easily spend tenss of millions of dollars per person artificially extending a very technical condition of "life"? If that became routine, society would quickly be completely bankrupted by it, there would first be no money for *anything* else, and pretty soon the practice would become completely impossible, since almost no one actually produces that much wealth in their lifetime. If the average lifetime wealth production per person is, say $3 million, we obviously can't spend an average of $4 million per person on regular healthcare plus artifical life extension care. And what kind of values would lead a person to actually WANT to inflict that sort of huge cost on society, just in order to preserve an extra year or two of barely- or un-conscious bedridden "life" for themselves? Only extremely selfish people, if you ask me. And I don't think the taxpayers should be footing the bill for that sort of selfishness.
National Health Care would increase the liklihood of Government ordered and sanctioned murder. That is the argument.
I heard Jesse giving a speech in Florida,that Terri is exactly why we need government ran healthcare.(Not so much a speech as talking to the cameras)Made me sick to hear him using this woman as an excuse for a government ran healthcare program.
Terri Schiavo
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. March 29-30, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you agree or disagree with the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube?"
Agree: 42%
Disagree: 38%
Unsure: 20%
"If you were in Terri Schiavo's place, what would you want your guardian to do? Would you have your guardian remove the feeding tube or keep the feeding tube inserted?"
Remove: 61%
Keep: 24%
Unsure: 15%
"Some people say that removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was an act of murder, while other people say it was an act of mercy. Which is closer to your opinion?" Options rotated. If "neither" or "unsure": "Which is closer to your opinion?"
Murder: 29%
Mercy: 54%
Neither: 7%
Unsure: 11%
"The feeding tube that was keeping Terri Schiavo alive was removed about 10 days ago. If Schiavo's feeding tube had been kept inserted, do you believe there is any chance that down the road she could have improved?"
Could Have Improved: 23%
Could Not Have Improved: 60%
Unsure: 16%
"If it were up to you, who would you put in control of Terri Schiavo's care as her legal guardian: her spouse or her parents?"
Spouse: 46%
Parents: 43%
Neither: 4%
Unsure: 8%
"Do you believe Terri Schiavo told her husband she would not want to be kept alive under these types of circumstances?"
Yes: 43%
No: 25%
Unsure: 32%
"Do you think the actions Republicans took in the Terri Schiavo case will help them or hurt them in the next election?"
Help: 16%
Hurt: 37%
Neither: 25%
Unsure: 22%
"Do you think the actions Democrats took in the Terri Schiavo case will help them or hurt them in the next election?"
Help: 16%
Hurt: 25%
Neither: 33%
Unsure: 26%
Absolutely. The incredible cost of Nat. Health Care would inevitably pressure the govt. to pull the plug on the disabled and/or unproductive. We see it in Europe already.
The return argument is so pro fetus but anti child health care??
The return argument is so pro fetus but anti child health care?? "Culture of Life" as long as you don't have to pay your "fair" share for it?
U.S. Code
TITLE 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
CHAPTER 138 - ASSISTED SUICIDE FUNDING RESTRICTION
§ 14401. Findings and purpose
(a) Findings Congress finds the following:
(1) The Federal Government provides financial support for the provision of and payment for health care services, as well as for advocacy activities to protect the rights of individuals.
(2) Assisted suicide, euthanasia, and mercy killing have been criminal offenses throughout the United States and, under current law, it would be unlawful to provide services in support of such illegal activities.
(3) Because of recent legal developments, it may become lawful in areas of the United States to furnish services in support of such activities.
(4) Congress is not providing Federal financial assistance in support of assisted suicide, euthanasia, and mercy killing and intends that Federal funds not be used to promote such activities.
(b) Purpose It is the principal purpose of this chapter to continue current Federal policy by providing explicitly that Federal funds may not be used to pay for items and services (including assistance) the purpose of which is to cause (or assist in causing) the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual.
§ 14402. Restriction on use of Federal funds under health care programs
(a) Restriction on Federal funding of health care services Subject to subsection (b) of this section, no funds appropriated by Congress for the purpose of paying (directly or indirectly) for the provision of health care services may be used—
(1) to provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing;
(2) to pay (directly, through payment of Federal financial participation or other matching payment, or otherwise) for such an item or service, including payment of expenses relating to such an item or service; or
(3) to pay (in whole or in part) for health benefit coverage that includes any coverage of such an item or service or of any expenses relating to such an item or service.
(b) Construction and treatment of certain services Nothing in subsection (a) of this section, or in any other provision of this chapter (or in any amendment made by this chapter), shall be construed to apply to or to affect any limitation relating to—
(1) the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or medical care;
(2) the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition or hydration;
(3) abortion; or
(4) the use of an item, good, benefit, or service furnished for the purpose of alleviating pain or discomfort, even if such use may increase the risk of death, so long as such item, good, benefit, or service is not also furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing, death, for any reason.
He's got it backwards; they will use universal health care to enforce the culture of death.
No - your view is pure selfishness run amok.
I will never support any effort by any to play god. Your talk of the expense is pure selfishness. How come every generation before was able to afford not to resort to killing people to survive?
Are we less capable than they were?
It is wrong and no good could come of it.
For one thing - you would have set in motion the ability of SOME to do away with OTHERS. Where does that stop? What about the moral character of those willing to decide to kill others?
You will end up with a nation of murderers as the weak and those that display our humanity by the care the society is willing to give to them, will have been stomped down or done away with.
If you sincerely wish to worry about the costs - what about doing away with welfare. That is very expensive. Just do away with medicare, welfare, medicaid. And, if you live you live.
From your attitude I imagine you to be very cold, very heartless resenting the fact that any of your money has to go for anything other than yourself. You forget those that are paying school taxes for your kids when they don't have any. If you got sick and unable to pay, you would be one of the first to find a way for us to pay for you.
You are full of talk and feel you are better suited to decide who lives and dies.
So you would support govt funded health insurance??
There is a tax gimmick that people use to get the government to pay for hospice care. If the dying party has a spouse, transfer all of the dying person's assets into the name of the spouse; then, Medicade will pay for the hospice care since the dying person is indigent. If the dying person's assets are transferred to someone other than a spouse, there is a three-year waiting period (the lookback clause).
Everyone is also ignoring another law that was secretly slipped into the end-of-life legislation - the need to recover.
There has never been a need to recover in our law before and should not be now. There are any number of medical problems that will never be cured, only contained.
Now, there is a law -----without hope of recovery-----. How many want that law to apply to them. So you have a heart condition -----without hope of recovery-------, so you have cancer-----without hope of recovery-------, so you have a mental problem-----without hope of recovery----.
What a slick little piece of legislation that was for the death cult. Could get rid of any of those using insurance that way and we would have the perfect society filled with only the chosen. How rich we would be then.
Of course, they may have a little more money, but they are nothing but murdering ghouls who have set up a purely selfish society. Kill anything that bothers you.
First of all, there's a difference between "killing" and refraining from providing artificial life support. And every generation before us has had limitations on medical technology such that all medical options could be exhausted without incurring expense beyond what the average person could pay. This has changed, and it's going to keep changing towards more and more extremely expensive high tech medical options being available. While employing those options to a reasonable degree to extend people's years of real living and productivity pays for itself, employing them to an unreasonable degree to delay natural death in an already severly and permanently incapacitated person does not, and would simply be unsustainable. What are you going to do when you get an annual tax bill for $500,000 to pay your share of the nationalized keep-people-technically-alive program? You don't have it, and neither do most other people. The program is unsustainable, and the people have to be allowed to die. We need to face these facts head on, not pretend we can do the impossible, and not destroy our government and eocnomy and freedom in a futile attempt.
No I don't support government funded health insurance.
and
No, I will never support state-sponsored need-to-die determinations. It is evil, and in no way represents life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans.
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.