Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (106028)	3/26/2005 11:54:57 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 793684

The best I can tell, there is no objection to the right to die if the party, himself, clearly articulates the wish to do so and if the death can be achieved by simply withholding life support intervention. Conversely, anyone not meeting those criteria must continue to live. I think that's their position, however murky the articulation. That sounds pretty clear. I don't see anything murky about it. The other is that the parties who want this take responsibility for coming up with the resources to support it. That would mean building lots and lots of long-term hospices, fixing the nursing shortage, adjusting whatever laws are necessary to protect the families from the legal implications, and paying for all this, the enormous cost of which would currently fall to Medicaid. Even though I disagree with your position, I can understand it - it is at least consistent. But those others are the same people that want to privatize SS and do away with medicaid. They are also the people (by and large) who are for the death penalty and executing juveniles and the retarded. How can you feel so passionate about Terri Schaivo and not object to prisoners (detainees) tortured to death? How can you feel so passionate about abortion and not feel for all the "collateral damage" (innocent people) who die in war? Talk about murky and mushy. I would like to hear David Brooks reconcile the two.

To: Lane3 who wrote (106028)	3/26/2005 12:59:20 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793684

Economies are not zero-sum games. The money that is spent keeping sick people alive goes to nurses, doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and they use that to pay for their own food, clothing, and shelter. I can buy the argument that it's not a necessity for survival of the species, just a luxury, but no more of a "waste" of money than money spent on flowers or music or stained glass windows. Spending money on things that matter to you is not the same as wasting money. It's a mystery to me how it works, but it works. That's the incontrovertible truth.

To: Lane3 who wrote (106028)	3/26/2005 3:07:23 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793684

So, are you saying that the care of people with, lets say, AIDS, or Cancer, or any number of other totally terrible illnesses, should be all self funded? For those who can't afford it, then they should just die? Is that what you mean? The other is that the parties who want this take responsibility for coming up with the resources to support it. That would mean building lots and lots of long-term hospices, fixing the nursing shortage, adjusting whatever laws are necessary to protect the families from the legal implications, and paying for all this, the enormous cost of which would currently fall to Medicaid.