"Right to Health Care/Right to Life/Slavery" arguments - New England Patriots Forums

PatsFanInVa · 02-29-2012, 05:08 AM

There are a number of bumper-sticker style arguments out there that change to suit the situation, regarding a "right to life," "no right to health care," "no responsibility for those who don't work," etc. One recent broadside that got a lot of support here recently was Ron Paul's declaration that if a Doctor has to work for a health care system w/government involved in the insurance system, it amounts to slavery... and on and on.

We all remember the Terry Shiavo case a few years back. It was about removing a feeding tube from a woman in a vegetative state.

Let's just say that removing the tube would be an invasive act that amounts to a murder. This was the religious right position, and we'll start the conversation from there: the tube must stay in, because we're stipulating the religious rightist position that letting nature take its course is wrong in this case.

I would like to figure something out here, based on the above-mentioned bumper sticker arguments.

The tube itself doesn't fabricate food paste out of thin air.

There are trained personnel who hang bags of food once a day and turn on a pump to get the food into Terry's belly.

Someone hangs that bag, and someone turns on that machine. And of course, someone pays for that machine and for the people who hang the bags and the like.

1. If we dictate that they must hang a bag of food and turn on a machine, isn't that slavery?

2. If we can't deny an obligation to hang the next bag of food paste, how do we deny an obligation to treat any other condition that will end in earlier death?

So how about it? Can you COERCE medical personnel to hang the next bag of food paste or fluids, and turn on the machine?

Remember, nobody's talking about that affirmative act of removing the tube. We're just not turning the machine on again or hanging another bag of paste.

We won't even get into the "No-work-no-eat" meme. We'll stick to "right to health/Right to life" stuff for the time being.

PFnV

Hamar · 02-29-2012, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

There are a number of bumper-sticker style arguments out there that change to suit the situation, regarding a "right to life," "no right to health care," "no responsibility for those who don't work," etc. One recent broadside that got a lot of support here recently was Ron Paul's declaration that if a Doctor has to work for a health care system w/government involved in the insurance system, it amounts to slavery... and on and on.

We all remember the Terry Shiavo case a few years back. It was about removing a feeding tube from a woman in a vegetative state.

Let's just say that removing the tube would be an invasive act that amounts to a murder. This was the religious right position, and we'll start the conversation from there: the tube must stay in, because we're stipulating the religious rightist position that letting nature take its course is wrong in this case.

I would like to figure something out here, based on the above-mentioned bumper sticker arguments.

The tube itself doesn't fabricate food paste out of thin air.

There are trained personnel who hang bags of food once a day and turn on a pump to get the food into Terry's belly.

Someone hangs that bag, and someone turns on that machine. And of course, someone pays for that machine and for the people who hang the bags and the like.

1. If we dictate that they must hang a bag of food and turn on a machine, isn't that slavery?

2. If we can't deny an obligation to hang the next bag of food paste, how do we deny an obligation to treat any other condition that will end in earlier death?

So how about it? Can you COERCE medical personnel to hang the next bag of food paste or fluids, and turn on the machine?

Remember, nobody's talking about that affirmative act of removing the tube. We're just not turning the machine on again or hanging another bag of paste.

We won't even get into the "No-work-no-eat" meme. We'll stick to "right to health/Right to life" stuff for the time being.

PFnV

I did not see that situation in the same way. What I heard over and over was that only God could decide if she lived or died. The incredible part of all that was that people could not see that God had already made a decision.

***Harry Boy*** · 02-29-2012, 08:38 AM

There are some that say "we shouldn't play God and remove the tubes, they say we should keep the vegetables alive"

I say "we shouldn't play God and put them in there in the first place"

GOD IS CALLING THAT VEGETABLE HOME. LET THEM GO.

I have "No Life Support" all over my Will, every doctor in New England knows they better not put those f-cking tubes down my throat.

Real World · 02-29-2012, 10:43 AM

And the point, or question, is what exactly?

The Brandon Five · 02-29-2012, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

There are a number of bumper-sticker style arguments out there that change to suit the situation, regarding a "right to life," "no right to health care," "no responsibility for those who don't work," etc. One recent broadside that got a lot of support here recently was Ron Paul's declaration that if a Doctor has to work for a health care system w/government involved in the insurance system, it amounts to slavery... and on and on.

I am not sure why you thought that idea came from Ron Paul, but let's put that aside. Why are you convinced that the philosophical difference between claim rights and liberty rights (or negative rights vs. positive rights) comes from a bumper sticker? It predates Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" starting with the rise of Socialism. In the 1850's Bastiat addressed the idea of the law being used to guarantee claim rights:

Bastiat: Selected Essays, Chapter 2, The Law (Cain translation) | Library of Economics and Liberty

Quote:

And, in all sincerity, can anything more be asked of the law? Can the law, having force as a necessary sanction, be reasonably employed for anything else than safeguarding the rights of everyone? I question whether the law may be extended beyond this domain without turning it, and consequently without turning force, against human rights. And as this is the most disastrous, the most illogical social disturbance imaginable, we must recognize clearly that the true solution, so much sought after, of the social problem is comprised in these simple words: The law is organized justice.

Now, organizing justice by law, that is, by force, excludes the idea of organizing by law or by force any manifestation whatsoever of human activity: labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, the fine arts, or religion; for one of these secondary organizations would inevitably destroy the essential organization. How, in fact, is one to imagine force encroaching on the liberty of the citizens without striking a blow at justice, and thus acting contrary to its proper object?

Here I come into conflict with the most popular prejudices of our day. People not only want the law to be just; they also want it to be philanthropic. They are not satisfied that justice should guarantee to each citizen the free and inoffensive exercise of his faculties for his physical, intellectual, and moral development; they require of it that it should directly spread welfare, education, and morality throughout the country. This is the seductive aspect of socialism.

But, I repeat, these two functions of the law contradict each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free. M. de Lamartine wrote me one day: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program; you have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first half." And, in fact, it is quite impossible for me to separate the word "fraternity" from the word "voluntary." It is quite impossible for me to conceive of fraternity as legally enforced, without liberty being legally destroyed, and justice being legally trampled underfoot.

- -2:72-2:75

The idea that "rights" are centered around liberty is much older. Everyone's favorite demography bore and Islamophobe had this to say just a couple of days ago:

Mark Steyn: The all-you-can-eat salad bar of rights | rights, government, free - Opinion - The Orange County Register

Quote:

When it comes to human rights, I go back to 1215 and Magna Carta – or, to give it its full name, Magna Carta Libertatum. My italics: I don't think they had them back in 1215. But they understood that "libertatum" is the word that matters. Back then, "human rights" were rights of humans, of individuals – and restraints upon the king: They're the rights that matter: limitations upon kingly power. Eight centuries later, we have entirely inverted the principle: "Rights" are now gifts that a benign king graciously showers upon his subjects – the right to "free" health care, to affordable housing, the "right of access to a free placement service" (to quote the European Constitution's "rights" for workers). The Democratic National Committee understands the new school of rights very well: In its recent video, Obama's bureaucratic edict is upgraded into the "right to contraception coverage at no additional cost." And, up against a "human right" as basic as that, how can such peripheral rights as freedom of conscience possibly compete?

The transformation of "human rights" from restraints upon state power into a pretext for state power is nicely encapsulated in the language of Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which states that everyone has the right "to receive free compulsory education." Got that? You have the human right to be forced to do something by the government.
...
The point is, with so many pseudo-"rights" bouncing around, you need a bigger and bigger state: Individual rights are less important than a "rights system" – i.e., a government bureaucracy.

This perversion of rights is killing the Western world. First, unlike real rights – to freedom of speech and freedom of religion – these new freedoms come with quite a price tag. All the free stuff is free in the sense of those offers that begin "You pay nothing now!" But you will eventually. No nation is rich enough to give you all this "free" stuff year in, year out.
...
So maybe you're not interested in philosophical notions of liberty vs. statism – like Danica Patrick, tens of millions of people are happy to "leave it up to the government to make good decisions." Maybe you're relatively relaxed about the less theoretical encroachments of Big Government – the diversion of so much American energy into "professional services," all the lawyering and bookkeeping and paperwork shuffling necessary to keep you and your economic activity in full compliance with the Bureau of Compliance. But at some point, no matter how painless the seductions of statism, you run up against the hard math: As those debt per capita numbers make plain, all this "free" stuff is doing is mortgaging your liberty and lining up a future of serfdom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

We all remember the Terry Shiavo case a few years back. It was about removing a feeding tube from a woman in a vegetative state.

Let's just say that removing the tube would be an invasive act that amounts to a murder. This was the religious right position, and we'll start the conversation from there: the tube must stay in, because we're stipulating the religious rightist position that letting nature take its course is wrong in this case.

I would like to figure something out here, based on the above-mentioned bumper sticker arguments.

The tube itself doesn't fabricate food paste out of thin air.

There are trained personnel who hang bags of food once a day and turn on a pump to get the food into Terry's belly.

Someone hangs that bag, and someone turns on that machine. And of course, someone pays for that machine and for the people who hang the bags and the like.

1. If we dictate that they must hang a bag of food and turn on a machine, isn't that slavery?

If the family is saying "we won't pay" and the State backs them up, then sure. Presumably the hospital/hospice staff were paid in the case above. If the State said that the obligation fell to the manufacturers and the local union for nurses aides then that would be compulsive labor. I believe that Terry's care was funded by a guardianship account.

What you are missing is that cases like this arise when the person on life support does not have a legal document outlining their wishes and delegating someone to make decisions (living will/healthcare proxy). That leaves people in a position to try and guess what they would have wanted. One group wants to err on the side of keeping them alive while another group views things in terms of limited resources. We get it that you have no respect for the first group.

This appears to be a case like emergency room care. That is another scenario where you cannot be refused care regardless of ability to pay so a "right to healthcare" has existed for sometime now (although when arguing about the HC situation pre-Obamacare single-payer advocates denied that this provided any protection for those in dire straits at all). The difference to me is that it puts some limits around the availability of "free" care. Can you imagine if the law stated that the same rules applied to every single medical provider? There wouldn't be a need for insurance (Google "free rider problem"). That is where the idea that HC is a "right" leads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

2. If we can't deny an obligation to hang the next bag of food paste, how do we deny an obligation to treat any other condition that will end in earlier death?

So how about it? Can you COERCE medical personnel to hang the next bag of food paste or fluids, and turn on the machine?

How were Schiavo's caretakes coerced? The bills were paid. If it ended up being one of those cases where the assets had been exhausted and now the hospital or the state was getting stuck with the bill, then we are closer to what I think you are trying to bring up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Remember, nobody's talking about that affirmative act of removing the tube. We're just not turning the machine on again or hanging another bag of paste.

Actually, it sounds like you are talking about who will cover the bill. The people in your example were all paid.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 02-29-2012, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Brandon Five;2973227I

That leaves people in a position to try and guess what they would have wanted. One group wants to err on the side of keeping them alive while another group views things in terms of limited resources. We get it that you have no respect for the first group.

Kind of strange you would feel confidant enough to make that statement, Brandon, seeing as how you really know nothing of what our family has or has not done in this very situation. I can confidantly speak for both MrP and myself in saying that we have the utmost respect for any family member who is called upon to make such a decision, regardless of what their decision ends up being. We recognize that each case is individual and must be judged as such.

Quote:

How were Schiavo's caretakes coerced? The bills were paid. If it ended up being one of those cases where the assets had been exhausted and now the hospital or the state was getting stuck with the bill, then we are closer to what I think you are trying to bring up

I don't thnk that's at all what he was trying to bring up - but since you've "gone there" let me point out that if anyone lives long enough with an artifically prolonged life, the hospital or the state is definitely going to get "stuck with the bill," because Medicare and private insurances do not cover nursing home care beyond 30 day at full price and the next 60 days at partial payment and beyond that - nothing at all.

Quote:

Actually, it sounds like you are talking about who will cover the bill. The people in your example were all paid.

Yes, they were....by Medicare and Medicaid.

Quote:

Michael Schiavo's lawyers have said that $40,000 to $50,000 remains. Patient care at the Florida hospice where Schiavo lives averages about $80,000 a year, but the hospice now pays for much of her care. For two years, Medicaid has covered other medical costs, including prescription drugs, the attorneys have said in published reports.

Schiavo Case Puts Face on Rising Medical Costs (washingtonpost.com)

I don't think the getting paid, not getting paid or who pays it has anything to do with the morality or immorality of a decision regarding the removal of life support systems, however. At least it has no bearing on anything MrP or I would decide. Perhaps you feel differently, however, and that's why you've brought it up.

The Brandon Five · 02-29-2012, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Kind of strange you would feel confidant enough to make that statement, Brandon, seeing as how you really know nothing of what our family has or has not done in this very situation.

Who said anything about your family? I was talking about the Schiavo case and others like it. Get over yourself.

Quote:

I don't thnk that's at all what he was trying to bring up - but since you've "gone there" let me point out that if anyone lives long enough with an artifically prolonged life, the hospital or the state is definitely going to get "stuck with the bill," because Medicare and private insurances do not cover nursing home care beyond 30 day at full price and the next 60 days at partial payment and beyond that - nothing at all.

If the assets have been exhausted. Which (as you stated below) they hadn't, so why was Medicaid picking up the tab?

Quote:

Yes, they were....by Medicare and Medicaid.

How is that slavery for the people who actually provided care?

Quote:

I don't think the getting paid, not getting paid or who pays it has anything to do with the morality or immorality of a decision regarding the removal of life support systems, however. At least it has no bearing on anything MrP or I would decide. Perhaps you feel differently, however, and that's why you've brought it up.

It has to do with whether the work required is slavery. Please refer to the OP.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 02-29-2012, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Brandon Five

Who said anything about your family? I was talking about the Schiavo case and others like it. Get over yourself.

Well, if "my family" has been involved in such a decision, wouldn't that qualify as "and others like it?"

Quote:

If the assets have been exhausted. Which (as you stated below) they hadn't, so why was Medicaid picking up the tab?

Because when a couple is married, assests are considered "joint," and, while I have no idea of how a settlement is included in that, apparently it is.....the spouse of a person on public aid is allowed to keep a certain portion of cash assets as well as the entire house (if there is one) and an automobile and enough money per month to cover household expenses. Plus, Terry Schaivo had been transferred to a hospice and hospice care IS covered under Medicare while nursing homes are not. Terry, as is any other disabled person, was entitled to be covered under Medicare.

Quote:

It has to do with whether the work required is slavery. Please refer to the OP.

I'll wait for MrP to answer that one....no fair that I get all the "fun."

The Brandon Five · 02-29-2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Well, if "my family" has been involved in such a decision, wouldn't that qualify as "and others like it?"

You mean you advised a family member not to legally document their wishes? The point is that the reason there is an argument is because the wishes of the actual person were not recorded. I am sorry if you went through a difficult decision like that. It does not invalidate the strong feelings of people who want to keep someone alive. I wasn't taking a side, just offering my assessment of why we even know about a case like Schiavo's.

Quote:

Because when a couple is married, assests are considered "joint," and, while I have no idea of how a settlement is included in that, apparently it is.....the spouse of a person on public aid is allowed to keep a certain portion of cash assets as well as the entire house (if there is one) and an automobile and enough money per month to cover household expenses.

I was assuming that the assets in the guardianship account would be spent down entirely, but I'd have to check with a Medicaid expert to know for sure.

Quote:

Plus, Terry Schaivo had been transferred to a hospice and hospice care IS covered under Medicare while nursing homes are not. Terry, as is any other disabled person, was entitled to be covered under Medicare.

Ok, that makes sense (Medicare).

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 02-29-2012, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Brandon Five

You mean you advised a family member not to legally document their wishes? The point is that the reason there is an argument is because the wishes of the actual person were not recorded. I am sorry if you went through a difficult decision like that. It does not invalidate the strong feelings of people who want to keep someone alive. I wasn't taking a side, just offering my assessment of why we even know about a case like Schiavo's.

And I was not "taking a side," either, I don't think.

And no, I would never advise a family member not to legally document their wishes...on the contrary, I encourage everyone I know to do just that.

Be that as it may, I gotta tell you, from what I've observed, both personally and in the decades of ER work, even with wishes well documented, if even one family member wants something different done, it's going to create a nightmare. Even when a person has made their wishes not to be kept alive by artificial means known beforehand, and done so legally and in writing (unlike Terry Schaivo whose husband said she had told him she would not want to live in a vegatative state but did not document that wish) if a spouse, a parent, a sibling or a child says, "Keep them alive," the doctors are going to keep them alive if that patient is currently unable to speak for themselves and verify that their wishes have not changed. If there are no written directives, and 9 family members say, "let him go," and 1 says, "Keep my dad alive," they will keep him alive. The family's only recourse will be to go to the ethics committee or a court of law and argue their case.

Quote:

I was assuming that the assets in the guardianship account would be spent down entirely, but I'd have to check with a Medicaid expert to know for sure.

The laws are different state by state, but I do know that in all 50 states that if a spouse is alive, the assets do not get totally spent down because, legally, half of all cash assets belong to each spouse and the family home is left to the person living in it without attachment of any kind.