-
- Green Arrow
-
23 Feb 2011, 4:32 pm
rickyp wrote:Hardly. It means that the doctors appealed to the courts in order to do their duty to their patient. In order to usurp the authority of the parents, they require an independent court to adjudicate.
But I suspect you comprehend this and are just being purposefully obtuse.
I am glad to see you used the correct word.
Usurp: u·surp (y-sûrp, -zûrp)
v. u·surped, u·surp·ing, u·surps
v.tr.
1. To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority. See Synonyms at appropriate.
2. To take over or occupy without right: usurp a neighbor's land.
3. To take the place of (another) without legal authority; supplant.
v.intr.
To seize another's place, authority, or possession wrongfully.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/usurpYou have yet to answer what crime the parents committed. What form of abuse did they employ? Are they guilty of wanting their child to live? Are they guilty of not wanting their child to starve?
Color me guilty as well, then.
As for being purposefully obtuse? Hardly. I am astounded at a society's lack of compassion.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
23 Feb 2011, 6:39 pm
I am glad to see you used the correct word.
You got me there. I'll edit it to use the word "supplant".
You have yet to answer what crime the parents committed. What form of abuse did they employ? Are they guilty of wanting their child to live? Are they guilty of not wanting their child to starve?
None.
I surmise that the doctors feel that the baby is being made to suffer without any point. That would be abusive.
They know the child won't live. And frankly isn't living. What they expressed in the newspaper story was that their child would suffer when the ventillaor was turned off.
The child would not starve when the ventilator was turned off. Just stop breathing. It might starve during a the period it was home cared for...if the trach was done and he was brought home...
I don't see a winner in this Green. I can see that the doctors beleive they are acting compassionately. And I can understand the parents to a point...but only to understand that they don't want their baby to suffer but seem to be choosing the path with greater suffering...
Meanwhile, you were critical of the system? Why?
Would you like a system where a parents authority or a guardians authority can never be superceded ? Wouldn't that lead to potential abuses?
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
24 Feb 2011, 2:36 am
GA - what would you consider to be the situation if parents were taking a course of action that led to unnecessary pain and suffering to their child?
Problem is, doctors are probably more experienced at medical stuff than parents.
Anyway, didn't the USA have a similar case with a lady in Florida, before the latest Bill? The debate over what to do for care in such cases is not simply confined to places with socialised medicine, it's a question of medical ethics.
Who decides for the children? Usually the parents, but not if it's judged that the parents are not acting in the child's best interests.
-
- Green Arrow
-
24 Feb 2011, 7:50 am
You are talking about the Terry Schiavo case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_caseThis is a little different because at no time does an entity other than family make a decision for the victim. It is the husband vs. the parents. Both wanted to have custody and decision making. It was never the doctors or the government. The courts that were used were to decide between the parents.
If one parent wanted to remove the medical support and the other did not it would be more similar,
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
06 Mar 2011, 8:14 pm
Obamacare is really great. Even the government knows this--that's why they are exempting (now)
over 1000 companies or entities.
-
- Rolls
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 884
- Joined: 18 Sep 2001, 10:08 am
06 Mar 2011, 8:24 pm
Medicare (federally funded health care) works fine here in australia.
EVERYONE requires a doctor at some point in time or another. If you want special treatment or have special needs by all means get private cover.
But for the handfull of times i have been sick or injured i have not had to pay a cent and am most thankful for this. In this day in age seeing a doctor regardless of your insurance or income should be a basic free service at bare minimum.
As a non american i fail to see the link between communism and states (like california) going broke because of federally funded health care. Give it 10 years and i doubt those who are so opposed to it will still be.
Legalise marijuana, and all that money that is being wasted by LEO's can pay for it. You will even have some change left over for infrastructure upgrades and not to mention a drop in gang related violence.
-
- GMTom
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 11284
- Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am
06 Mar 2011, 9:21 pm
FYI, the copies of bills for my wife's appendectomy continue to roll in. Because I have insurance it will cost us $250 (maybe $500?) But the total so far is in excess of $13,00 it would have absolutely killed us. If I had been unemployed for a few days and this happened then, I would be sunk.
But lets say I had no insurance and had no money
The hospital could not hold back treatment and would have done it anyway, in fact I saw several people who appeared to be doing just that, using an emergency room for routine care they can not or will not pay for. It just makes no sense, this "system" of ours, somebody is paying for the care, either government taxes or higher insurance costs, it just blows me away how stupid this system really is. Why allow so many to end up in bankruptcy and allow treatment even though it isn't going to be paid? I have my fears and some are well founded but what we currently have (Including this stupid Obama plan) is frightfully insane.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
06 Mar 2011, 10:24 pm
Rolls wrote:Medicare (federally funded health care) works fine here in australia.
That's fine, but that is not what Obamacare is. It is a hybrid which will accomplish only one of its stated purposes: covering more people. However, costs will go up and it will add to the national debt.
As a non american i fail to see the link between communism and states (like california) going broke because of federally funded health care. Give it 10 years and i doubt those who are so opposed to it will still be.
California, where I lived most of my life and am currently visiting, is broke. However, that has little to do with healthcare and nothing to do with Obamacare.
Legalise marijuana, and all that money that is being wasted by LEO's can pay for it. You will even have some change left over for infrastructure upgrades and not to mention a drop in gang related violence.
Not a chance. First, it is so far from being a politically viable position that it's not even on the radar. Second, it wouldn't save all that much (marijuana alone). Third, there are other factors that would have to be considered when walking through this--like testing for driving under the influence, training officers to field test for DUIM, etc.
-
- Rolls
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 884
- Joined: 18 Sep 2001, 10:08 am
06 Mar 2011, 10:47 pm
That's fine, but that is not what Obamacare is. It is a hybrid which will accomplish only one of its stated purposes: covering more people. However, costs will go up and it will add to the national debt.
Forgive my ignorance i still don't seem to quite grasp the situation......
Obama is trying to introduce some type of health cover for all right? (somewhat akin to medicare here in oz which is covered by the federal not state government). But people can still buy private health cover if they desire? right?
What am i missing?
How is this boogerman-communist-obamacare going to make you all poor??? Or is it just a case of breaking from the norm has you all concerned that poor people are somehow going to cost you all money?
If that is indeed the case (which i suspect it is) i think time will proove you wrong.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
06 Mar 2011, 11:15 pm
Rolls wrote:That's fine, but that is not what Obamacare is. It is a hybrid which will accomplish only one of its stated purposes: covering more people. However, costs will go up and it will add to the national debt.
Forgive my ignorance i still don't seem to quite grasp the situation......
Obama is trying to introduce some type of health cover for all right? (somewhat akin to medicare here in oz which is covered by the federal not state government). But people can still buy private health cover if they desire? right?
Nope. It's not single-payer. All will be required to buy private insurance or be covered in high-risk pools. Failure to secure coverage will result in a fine.
How is this boogerman-communist-obamacare going to make you all poor??? Or is it just a case of breaking from the norm has you all concerned that poor people are somehow going to cost you all money?
This bill is 2500 pages of regulation, increase taxes, and increased government involvement in our lives. It includes a clause to force small businesses to issue 10-99 forms when they buy materials from vendors in an amount in excess of $600. There are a lot of little oddities--like the whole thing being enforced by the IRS.
If that is indeed the case (which i suspect it is) i think time will proove you wrong.
I've said before I would be open to a socialized medical system (something like the Swiss system). However, rather than stealing from an established system, the Democrats created their own and literally told us that we would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it.
-
- Rolls
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 884
- Joined: 18 Sep 2001, 10:08 am
06 Mar 2011, 11:25 pm
ahh i see. red tape within red tape covered up by taxable red tape.
This is why we (the western world as a whole) is doomed. Rather then being a society of dooers and just doing things that need to be done we will swamp ourselves in red tape and litigations and eventually get nowhere :(
We have some similar issues here in australia (not in the realm of health care) but perhaps i understand a little better now why you have such animosity for it.
A good old fashioned slate clearing is what we need, rebuild it from the ground up, better then before!
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
06 Mar 2011, 11:36 pm
Rolls wrote:A good old fashioned slate clearing is what we need, rebuild it from the ground up, better then before!
That's it. Start with a blank piece of paper and there is no way you end up with our current system OR Obamacare.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
18 May 2011, 9:08 am
Obamacare really works!
Okay, seriously, how can anyone
defend this with a straight face:
Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.
That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.
Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.
Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.
. . .
Four-star hotel Campton Place got one too, as did Hotel Nikko San Francisco, which describes itself as “four-diamond luxury in the heart of the city.” Tru Spa, which Allure Magazine rated the “best day spa in San Francisco,” received an Obamacare waiver as well.
Before hanging up on TheDC, Tru Spa’s owner said new government health care regulations, both the federal-level Obamacare and new local laws in Northern California, have “devastated” the business. “It’s been bad for us,” he said, without divulging his name, referring to the new health care restrictions.
If businesses catering to the rich liberals in Pelosi's district can't afford it, who can?
-
- bbauska
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 7462
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
18 May 2011, 9:15 am
My main question is why have exemptions at all? If this program is so great why exempt 3 million people from it?
-
- GMTom
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 11284
- Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am
18 May 2011, 9:38 am
You already know that answer, it isn't best for all. The question in my mind is how this still manages to be "hidden" and not reported my the mainstream media (you know, those bastions of fairness and unbiased reporting) Nancy Pelosi is responsible for 20% of the exemptions in her district alone? One of the biggest supporters is the worst culprit of avoiding it? How can this be so quiet and nearly unreported? When Dan Quail mis-spelled tomato it was huge news, Obama refers to the 54 states (or whatever the number GREATER than 50 was?) Bill Clinton lies under oath, it's a non-issue, Nancy Peolsi flagrantly ignoring her own laws is also a non-issue, but the MSM is unbiased? yeah, ok
