Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

Thanks for one of the more sensible posts in this thread. But I have

to pick a nit:

> So ... who pays? The same GOP that wants this has also nixed every

> type of improvement in the health care system.

This statement presupposes that increasing government inputs will

improve the health care system. While I'm not in agreement with the GOP

on things like stem cell research, I don't see them as worse than any

other party. I'd like to keep politics out of health care. After all,

there's bipartisan agreement on how to handle the " dangers " of raw milk.

But you're right, " who pays " is a major problem. But I don't see it as

the problem that will be settled upon; in fact, I suspect that

euthanasia will be part of the solution to the Social Security crisis.

[Guest guest]

>

> Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:25:58 -0800

> From: Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>

>Subject: Re: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

>I don't even pretend to know what the " fix " is for the health care

>system, but I do know it won't come from the " for profit " entities.

Yep, and that's not because they are " Eeevul corporations " It's

because the whole model is flawed. When your profits come from people

being sick, you don't want to prevent them from getting sick.

>For obvious reasons. The Glutenator in me says that HUGE part of the

>issue is the food allergy one, and shoot, if we fix that, a lot of issues

>will go away.

>

>But the idea that " business " should provide health insurance is

>just silly. More than half the businesses are very small, and just

>can't afford it ... esp. as the rates change depending on, if, say,

>2 of your 5 employees are over 50. Or one has AIDS. The government

>can help a LOT just by providing a bigger " pool " . I'm not against

>private health care accounts either. I just wish this whole thing would

>be based on LOGIC not politics.

I just hate the economics and metaphysics of health insurance. I see

the 3rd party payer as being responsible for rising costs, by

insulating the producer of health care from the consumer. That's

going to be true with either single-payer or the current system,

except that single-payer, being a monopoly, will be able to impose

price controls that will lead to restricted supply of health care

(look at Canada). Business-funded health care is a very recent thing

(it was a way around wage controls during WWII).

>Euthanasia is a huge issue, and it's worse now because there are

>so many options. Science CAN keep bodies alive for weeks (and they

>do, to harvest organs) even when it's pretty clear the " person " is dead.

>Our history isn't a great guide: in the past, babies were routinely " exposed "

>and the elderly abandoned and left to starve, which isn't part of the past

>I particularly want to revisit. I think we are going to the OTHER extreme

>though, preserving life when we probably shouldn't.

Why not, if the relatives don't have to pay for it? there's

insurance, government, fat malpractice settlements...

>I have no idea what the truth is in this particular case. I HAVE

>had to deal with it on a personal level, and may have to deal with it

>with my own Mom, who has very specific ideas about what she wants

>and has put me in charge more or less.

The new Mrs. Quick got a living will with the pre-nup and regular

will, and wants me to do the same. But right now we're leaning

towards medical power of attorney. I can't see locking into one kind

of response, when I don't know what the future will hold. For me,

whether to live is a matter of sentience and hope. Without either of

those, there's no point.

>

>Personally, I hope I " go out " like my great-great-granddad, who died

>coming home from a party. He was drunk, fell off a bridge as he

>walked home, at 96.

Not quite as good as the proverbial " shot by a jealous husband " but a

very close runner-up.

--

Quick, USUM (ret.)

www.en.com/users/jaquick

Term limits: one term in office, one term in jail.-- Wolfe.

[Guest guest]

At 7:20 PM +0000 3/28/05, wrote:

>Message: 9

> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:38:11 -0500

> From: " Sharon son " <sharon@...>

>Subject: RE: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

>

> " .let the guys do their thing. " . Kind of like Terri Shiavo has done. She's

>shut up and letting the guy do his thing. Her guy has been doing his

> " thing " not that long after she found herself helpless, in the care of

>strangers, totally and completely relying on the judgment, moralities and

>ethics of her guy. He became an adulterer, the proof being the two children

>he has sired. He compromised their marriage vows, if that still means

>anything these days.

Would you rather that Mr. Schiavo continue conjugal relations with

his wife? Isn't that part of being a loyal husband?

--

Quick, USUM (ret.)

www.en.com/users/jaquick

Term limits: one term in office, one term in jail.-- Wolfe.

[Guest guest]

> Message: 1

> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:43:31 -0500

> From: " Sharon son " <sharon@...>

> Subject: RE: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

>

> No doubt there are decent men (and woman) who are loyal and decent in

> manner

> and deed, in EVERY way, fulfilling " until death do we part " . I'm

> sorry this

> concept seems so foreign to you.

>

That's funny. I asked you a question. You avoided answering the

question, and then insinuated there was something wrong with me for

asking it.

>

> I think what would have been preferred, had he truly been fulfilling

> his

> duties as her " guardian " , is to grant her a divorce when he committed

> adultery, turning the responsibility over to her parents.

That would be cleaner, yes. But maybe he did and does care enough to

watch for her interests. The more I look at this, the less the vision

of pure evil seems to fit . I still think he's wrong, and what

he's doing is wrong. But I am really disinclined to judge him for his

sexual activities and desire to move on to a new life.

>

>> he has sired. He compromised their marriage vows, if that still means

>> anything these days.

>

> Would you rather that Mr. Schiavo continue conjugal relations with

> his wife? Isn't that part of being a loyal husband?

[Guest guest]

>

> From: Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>

> Subject: Re: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

> As for restricted access ... the Canadians I know don't feel that way.

> I went up there to go to a clinic and it was nice ... fast service,

> really, really good docs. Not as spiffy as my local clinic, but a

> number

> of folks here go up there to get medical care. There may be waiting

> lists for some procedures, but shoot, there are waiting lists here too.

>

I have a friend in healthcare in Portland OR who tells me how many

Canadians come in to get surgery they can't get at home -and not just

elective stuff.

> If the state pays for someone to be on

> life support forever, it's easier not to make a decision. But

> that just can't go on forever, there's not enough money.

> I also think that in this whole issue we are dodging the IDEA

> of death. If were me, slowly dying, I'd MUCH rather have a nice

> big dose of morphine (or keep me on morphine the whole

> time I'm dying). Morphine is great stuff.

>

So I've heard. My father-in-law got an infection after heart surgery.

Heart was fine, but basically every other organ shut down. They told

the family, " He will probably never leave this hospital; what's your

call? " So whenever his brow would furrow, they'd give him a little

more morphine, for pain management. And soon it took all his pain away.

[Guest guest]

> Message: 14

> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:07:36 -0500

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Subject: Re: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

> -

>

>> Yep, and that's not because they are " Eeevul corporations " It's

>> because the whole model is flawed. When your profits come from people

>> being sick, you don't want to prevent them from getting sick.

>

> That's pretty much a fundamental flaw of the profit system. I'm in

> favor

> of private property and some sort of capitalism, but you have to look

> very

> carefully at the incentives any system provides, and capitalism

> incentivizes sickness care. I'm not suggesting any solutions here -- I

> don't know that there are any obvious ones.

I don't have a problem with the incentivization of sickness care...when

I am sick, I want somebody to want to make me well. But it's only half

the story. I suspect that sickness/health is a false dichotomy, and

what we need are real " health practitioners. " There's a movement in

that direction. There's not a lot of market push for it, but there's

getting to be enough for the category to exist. Most people still " run

it 'til it breaks " , and that's OK with me, as long as I don't have to

pay for that. Unfortunately, I do.

I don't know what you mean by " some form of capitalism " , but if we

exclude aberrations like much of the current public/private incest

(better described economically as fascism), then to the extent that you

restrict capitalism, you restrict private property. You can't separate

the two.

www.en.com/users/jaquick

" Electing Jimmy president was as close as the

American people have ever come to picking a name out of the phone book

and giving him the job. " -

[Guest guest]

>

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

>Subject: Re: Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

>-

>

>>The right-to-die movement (which I agree with

>>BTW, though not in this case) has been set back 30 years.

>

>I'm not sure that the damage has been *that* bad -- after all, something

>like 86% of the country agrees with Schiavo

I dunno...I suspect it would matter how that question was phrased. I

know a number of people who are quite the opposite of religious

fundamentalists, who are concerned with this. Criminy, Ralph Nader

and are on " Terri's side " -- though that may be out of

need for face time, just like Randall Terry.

>, though that's never

>stopped fundamentalists and the media before -- but I'm curious why you

>support the right-to-die movement but not this case.

Because I'm not convinced we are dealing with a non-sentient here,

and because in absence of a clear directive, the conservative,

rights-sparing course is to maintain life. If I had a living will

from Terri specifying under what conditions she would want to die,

and she met those conditions, I'd put her down myself.

I'm glad to see that has relented on the autopsy issue

(though he hasn't really; per FL law it MUST be done if the body is

to be cremated). It will help clear the air of some of the wilder

accusations.

> I haven't followed

>the case closely at all (I'm too busy with work to read much news at all;

>even keeping up with email is almost impossible) but I have a hard time

>believing that court after court would agree that Terri and had an

>agreement about this situation if there was no evidence of it whatsoever,

The problem was, it wasn't court-after-court. None of the subsequent

court cases altered the initial finding of fact, in which the

Schindlers were badly outlawyered.

I also find it amusing that both sides tend to say to the other " You

say that because you're uninformed and don't have all the facts. "

That's so much easier than arguing specific facts.

>and it seems like it's beyond debate that she's in a PVS,

Well, that's precisely what's been debated, what the debate has

entirely been about, so I don't see how it could be " beyond debate. "

> could never, ever

>revive, and no longer has any of the faculties required for awareness,

>consciousness, etc. The situation with her family is messy, of course, but

>since you're complaining that this case will make it so that we'll all need

>living wills with all the 'i's dotted and 't's crossed in the future, why

>would you have preferred that the right-to-die movement pick a case in

>which there was a living will with all the 'i's dotted and 't's crossed in

>the first place?

I don't think the right-to-die movement picked this case; it just

happened that way.

My own preference is for decisions on the margins to be made by the

individuals involved, and not by governments, as long as basic rights

are preserved. Same reason I'm pro-abortion and pro-self-defence,

while wanting to see few abortions or self-defence killings.

--

Quick, USUM (ret.)

www.en.com/users/jaquick

Term limits: one term in office, one term in jail.-- Wolfe.