SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Terry Maloney who wrote (225134)2/6/2022 2:10:41 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (3) of 354455
 
if there's an inherent understanding of that framework, I for one am not aware of it

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

most of us think of it as merely a practical way of paying for and administrating health care

IMO the advocates in the US would be well advised to pitch it from a pragmatic perspective and quit framing it as a right. The US is inherently resistant to welfare programs let alone contrived rights from progressive countries.

...ever more advanced technologies are developed to keep ever more frail elderly patients alive.

Yes, that's a real problem in the US. Way too much deity and way too little common sense. It has gotten better, though. Hospice is more prevalent and there are a few more right to die states. But it's an uphill fight.

Back during the development of Obamacare there was a lot of talk about "death panels," the British version in particular, a situation that is inherent in socialized medicine where your aged smoker doesn't get his lung transplant. Of course, that happens anyway but the government doing it rather than the transplant managers in the medical system is anathema. I don't know how the US advocates can get past that, particularly now since the pandemic culture schism.

how is it that your Constitution allows the government to tell you to go die in Vietnam,

The Constitution gives the federal government the authority to raise armies. The Supreme Court affirmed that. The Constitution doesn't say anything about supplying insulin to individuals. The framers would never have entertained the notion, not even in a drug induced fantasy.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News