Aren't conservatives for euthanasia and health care rationing?

[sqweels]

@John_Mace

Is that a retraction of what you said earlier? I can’t tell. But clearly there are alternatives other than “do everything possible to keep that person alive or we can do nothing and let him die”. Do you need me to spell them out?

Of course under Republicare seniors would get a certain degree of coverage, but there comes a point beyond which they won’t be given the care they otherwise would under the current system. Doctors and patients will find ways to do more with less to a certain degree, but on a macro scale, more grandmas are going to get unplugged sooner.

Yes. But keep in mind that estimates are that 20- 30% of health care costs are spent in the last ~2 months of life, often keeping people in intensive care units where the cost can easily be $10k/day. You can call that “euthanasia” if we expect people w/o funds to pay for that to go to a hospice care facility instead, but you can also call it sensible use of health care dollars.

I want to hear what the people who went nuts over Terry Schiavo call it.

[sqweels]

@Voyager

The problem with your OP is that you are assuming that conservatives have a consistent position on this.

No, I’m demonstrating their lack of a consistent position on this.

This issue is kind of a big deal too, I think.

[Voyager]

@sqweels

No, I’m demonstrating their lack of a consistent position on this.

This issue is kind of a big deal too, I think.

I read you as being surprised that they are hypocrites. And I agree it is a big deal.

[sqweels]

@Voyager

I read you as being surprised that they are hypocrites. And I agree it is a big deal.

I’m giving them a chance to refute the idea that they’re hypocrites and look how they’re staying away in droves.

[sqweels]

So if no conservatives are going to weigh in to challenge my postion, does that mean I hit the nail on the head?

[XT]

Or it could mean that none of them take your position seriously enough to bother replying. Or, it could mean that none of them have seen your thread. I guess you can interpret it however you like.

But with the massive cuts to the federal budget that we’re facing how are we going to keep the elderly alive?

How did people stay alive before the federal budget became so large? It’s a puzzlement, no doubt.

I hear talk of “weaning” the elderly from Medicare. Does this mean that Medicare would pay less and less of an elderly person’s health care costs as he or she ages? That’s what I would support. There comes a tipping point where you’ve lived long enough and the health care you’re starting to need isn’t going to buy you enough additional life to be cost effective.

How did the elderly survive before Medicare? I presume by ‘weaning’ they mean onto some other system, but I’d have to see some cites that put it into context to know what this ‘talk’ you’ve heard means or doesn’t mean.

So given that government spending=life, have these economically hard-nosed conservatives gotten with the program on death?

Doubtful. They probably envision some sort of private sector solution driven by the market, if they are thinking about it at all. Whether that would mean certain death for all of the elderly if the evil private sector got involved is, of course, open to debate, but I doubt that most ‘conservatives’ are looking to cut the elderly loose and let them fend for themselves or go out to be eaten by wolves (since if we have to cut the budget there will obviously be wolves again). You’d need to provide some cites showing ‘conservatives’ discussing this issue, though, to really know what this ‘talk’ you’ve been hearing actually means, in the context it was being discussed. My guess is that you have filtered it through your own political partisanship and have interpreted it in a way that makes your opponents to be the slimy dog and evil capitalist pigs they so obviously are.

-XT

[humanafterall]

I tend to agree with "personal responsibility’. It should be up to me to decide that I’ve had enough time in this world, and it should also be up to me to decide how I leave it.

[svd678]

“How did the elderly survive without Medicare?” They didn’t.

[sqweels]

@xtisme

Or it could mean that none of them take your position seriously enough to bother replying. Or, it could mean that none of them have seen your thread. I guess you can interpret it however you like.

Well, I was going to conclude with, “Or is it just me?” But my position is that conservatives’ position appears to be contradictory. You’d think they’d be eager to correct that impression.

Doubtful. They probably envision some sort of private sector solution driven by the market, if they are thinking about it at all. Whether that would mean certain death for all of the elderly if the evil private sector got involved is, of course, open to debate, but I doubt that most ‘conservatives’ are looking to cut the elderly loose and let them fend for themselves or go out to be eaten by wolves.

How about a somewhat increased likelihood of death for a somewhat larger number of people?

If you read my OP, you can see that I favor budget cuts and paying for them by feeding the elderly to wolves, as it were. So my position is not contradictory.

You’d need to provide some cites showing ‘conservatives’ discussing this issue, though, to really know what this ‘talk’ you’ve been hearing actually means, in the context it was being discussed.

So it it your position that no such talk has taken place?

@Michelle "Pro-life" Bachmann

“So, what you have to do, is keep faith with the people that are already in the system… But basically what we have to do is wean everybody else off,” said Bachmann. “And wean everybody off because we have to take those unfunded net liabilities off our bank sheet, we can’t do it. So we just have to be straight with people.”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/bachmann-wean-everybody-off-social-security-and-medicare.php

To Bachmann’s credit, she’s halfway there. But there’s being straight and there’s being straight.

My guess is that you have filtered it through your own political partisanship and have interpreted it in a way that makes your opponents to be the slimy dog and evil capitalist pigs they so obviously are.

You see that little symbol at the end of the thread title? It’s called a question mark. I’m asking conservatives to clarify their position wrt end-of-life issues given the political points they’ve scored by demonizing their opponents over ‘death panels’ etc, and given the inevitable consequences of spending cuts.

[BigT]

And the conservative position of personal responsibility is in direct defiance of the Bible, the book most social conservatives believe in. Jesus preaches forgiveness. Jesus preaches rendering unto Ceasar. Jesus and Paul preach giving to the poor. Heck, the Old Testament says you have to give 10% to the poor, and then give them all your leftovers, and even then you have to accept them into your house.

Furthermore, “personal responsibility” is often a code word for “I got mine, you don’t. Screw you.” Very few conservatives seem to espouse personal responsibility when the results for them are negative. If they did, then the Boomer conservatives wouldn’t care so much about SS and Medicare.

I mean, when’s the last time you heard someone say, “Oh, no. A bear attacked me. I guess I just have to lay here and die, since I don’t have insurance or enough money to pay for a doctor. Got to stick with my personal responsibility.”

[F.U.Shakespeare]

Everyone’s heard the definition of a conservative: a liberal who’s been mugged.

Lesser know is the definition of a liberal: a conservative who’s been laid off, or falsely arrested. And I would update this by adding, “suffered a major medical problem and been turned down by their insurance”.