Oby!!!! Take down this health care site!!!

We can agree.

 

Hey, just got back online and don't have long to type a response right now. Thanks for your reply and will respond (and read more of this thread) more either later tonight or tomorrow....but, first of all, the 11 yr old girl w the lung you are referring to? It's not the kid from PA that needed a lung transplant and originally was not allowed because of rules for the donation process.... who's family then appealed that whole process....and then this child DID get a lung transplant, and happily, lived?... you're not talking about that kid, are you? I don't know more details except it was a girl, around age 11 I'd say and CNN and other networks covered this whole situation extensively. Do you have any links about the child you are referring to?
Also... I see what you are saying and it is pretty scary- OR it COULD BE pretty scary... I can see bad things happening with this... but, you ARE aware that we do not have, nor will be having, government ran health care (like in some European countries) in the U.S., correct? I mean, private insurance, and employer bought insurance, still exists? The healthcare law has actually really been watered down and they got rid of a lot of the features that would have made it more government ran/European like, correct?
Anyways... will read/reply more later but I think I understand now what you and others have meant by "death panels".. I was never sure the meaning of that..

 

Anyways....this thread is funny.

 

What do you think they are?

 

(reading this thread, and between the lines) I know what certain people think they are (even though they know they are not) I'm going with the theory that some people think they are something they are not, and am wondering what that something is.

 

AT

I think he is...

I think you need to step back or atleast not briefly read what he is saying.
RIPTIDE59 knows full well there are not 'death panels' and the child's fate was not 'judged' by a panel.
The truth is, a transplant on a 12 year old with an adults donor tissue is VERY dangerous, and isn't just a case of waiting for a donor to come forward.
The parents basically want ANY donor to be available for their girl, and IF the donor was in any way compatible then a transplant should take place - regardless of outcomes.
The so-called 'death panel' is actually weighing up if a child would survive an adult donor, and when it is viable for a child to receive an adult organ.
The parents, obviously wanted no restrictions on when a child should be viable for an organ.
RIPTIDE59 obviously does not want clinical expertise making any kind of judgement when and if it is viable for a child to receive an organ, and would prefer for any tissue match to trump any risks involved in transplantation.

 

That was the kid , Terrorist , The mere fact that his little girl was initally refused her lung was in fact proof of death panels. Look for more. Intense public pressure led to her survival. Odomns post is incorrect. Very disengaged from reality in this country even for a foreigner. If you are correct , how did she survive? Certainly NOT from government edict.

 

Why was she 'refused'? Didn't she 'survive through sheer good luck? I'm sure if she had died it would have been 'gods will'. She was not 'refused' - it's simply extremely dangerous for a child to receive an adult donor tissue. You know this. Why claim you don't?

 

Why are you shilling for a system that came frighteningly close to letting someone die?

 

RIPTIDE59


What is incorrect? The parents wanted to replace reason with luck. She would have been 'judged' at some point, and the parents knew that. They just wanted it to be a year earlier. I do not blame them. But thinking it is any other process is ridiculous. It's not a 'government edict' it's a clinical fact.

 

She could have died anyway.
I accept the parents wanted to increase her chances.
I do not blame them.
You have to wonder if they would have been so adamant if their child was 5 or 6 - even 8.
It was the fact she was on the cusp.

 

No silly. It was once again a power struggle. Why are you bitching ? The girl lived. A huge victory for her. And, her family. Liberty wins. Government regulation goes down. Life is good. Next?

 

Why won't you answer any question that has to do with facts? you are like STPLSD, as soon as something you say comes under question, you move onto the next soundbyte.

and please, let's not talk about 'letting someone die' when you have 1 example of a fairly complex situation, which still doesn't prove your point, and I have only to open the newspaper every morning to see how many people are killed by guns every day, which you support the right of everyone and anyone to have. Let's get a bit of perspective here; if preserving human life is your ultimate maxim (which it isn't, because you couldn't care less about those less fortunate than you), then obamacare so far has been resoundingly more successful than the second ammendment of the constitution.

 

Circular logic all going left. Firearms don't control the citizenry despots do.

 

Absolutely.

Two words come to the fore...

Insurance companies.

tell me, how anything that has been discussed in this thread has fucked up the entire health care industry more than insurance companies?

 

besides of course...



makers of those awesome inventions like oxy

 

LOVE THIS POST !!! :love:

 

'Sarah received a double lung transplant on June 12, but the transplant failed. On June 15, she received a second lung transplant.'

Why do you think the first transplant failed?