|
DemeaninDemon posted:I remember my aunt being absolutely furious at my dad for pretty much letting my grandmother die. Her quality of life was zero the year or so leading up to it. Alzheimer's mixed in with general old, failing body basically means you're a zombie with barely a hint of self-awareness. Keep her alive for what? Another visit or two where every few minutes she asks her grandsons who fathered her great grandson? I'm not quibbling about letting nature run its course. I am quibbling about what I assumed was a endorsement of assisted suicide.
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:44 |
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Who, exactly, pays for this hospice service? Apparently the Hospice does. The article is pretty badly written though, and the reference to it is just dropped in the middle with no pre-amble or background.
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Fine. Add in assisted suicide to help nature get off its lazy rear end. It's up to either the person or the family just like other care.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Apparently the Hospice does. The article is pretty badly written though, and the reference to it is just dropped in the middle with no pre-amble or background. I find it hard to believe that this Hospice can just pull money out of thin air. Someone is giving money to this Hospice and while I would love them to have been able to shoulder the cost burden, I somehow doubt it works that easily. There might be income or asset limits to help constrain demand, and these two might not have qualified. Or it might have taken so long to go through the qualification process that they would have been bankrupted anyway or risked the wife's well-being in the meanwhile. But then I know neither this hospice nor the pair's particulars that might have made them more or less eligible for service. None of this excuses the action taken mind you, but sometimes things aren't as rosy or optimistic as you might otherwise think. After all, if the wife was (hypothetically) too young for Medicare, well... It's not like Florida is one of the state's known for its generous Medicaid programs.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Apparently the Hospice does. The article is pretty badly written though, and the reference to it is just dropped in the middle with no pre-amble or background. Yes but they were quoting some retired hospice nurse. Hospice may coordinate care, which is basically what she's describing, but someone still has to pay them. Medicare Part A does pay for hospice if she was eligible (there are conditions) but if they had fallen into the coverage gap then they may have had to pay out of pocket.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Fine. Add in assisted suicide to help nature get off its lazy rear end. It's up to either the person or the family just like other care. Yep the family, to kill someone. Because they obviously exist as jsut a drain on resources, now lets get someone to stick them with a lethal cocktail so they are no longer a drain. Frankly being that Hospices are meant for the dying I think they should be totally covered.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Where's the gif from that? I feel like that gif is going to get a lot of mileage. The gif I use most from that whole debacle is still: 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yep the family, to kill someone. Because they obviously exist as jsut a drain on resources, now lets get someone to stick them with a lethal cocktail so they are no longer a drain. Frankly being that Hospices are meant for the dying I think they should be totally covered. Yeah pretty much. Better than being pumped full of Dilaudid for months on end waiting to die. Or not waiting because they're so far gone they lose the ability to perceive reality. Like it's not something to take lightly but in terms of an option it's acceptable to me. It has nothing to do with resources and everything to do with letting someone be free of a miserable existence.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I'm not quibbling about letting nature run its course. I am quibbling about what I assumed was a endorsement of assisted suicide. What's wrong with assisted suicide? Watched that VICE documentary on it, seemed pretty alright.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Boon posted:What's wrong with assisted suicide? Watched that VICE documentary on it, seemed pretty alright. Its someone taking their own life. DemeaninDemon posted:Yeah pretty much. Better than being pumped full of Dilaudid for months on end waiting to die. Or not waiting because they're so far gone they lose the ability to perceive reality. Yes, and you just free them as you want to without them not having any ability to decide. Good job.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
It is like a basic fact of nature that oftentimes family can stand in the way of letting nature take its course by making sure the doctor does every little thing to prolong the life of their loved ones regardless of the quality of that extra bit of life, how much it will cost, and whether or not the person they're "helping" actually wants it or not. This is why everyone should have a living will; nobody wants to be Terri Schivo. Doctors are at the whim of the family otherwise, and even if it's only one person, if that person can get control, they can drain the entire family of money, time, and emotion, and it's pretty terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Its someone taking their own life. Oh no
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Even if you have "do not put me on life support let me die" tattooed on your forehead and signed by Jesus Christ, if a family member is there and says put you on life support the doctors will because it's murky legally and nobody wants to lose their license The only reliable living will is a buddy who is willing to put you down if it comes to it
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Its someone taking their own life. Yes. It should also be someones right to get off at the stop they want rather than enduring through some awful disease that's going to tear them and their family up through the process.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Death panels! No, she wasn't literally refused care at the (Arizona) State government level, due to the Governor's orders to pull back spending. Unlike seven other people... 
Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 06:16 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Even if you have "do not put me on life support let me die" tattooed on your forehead and signed by Jesus Christ, if a family member is there and says put you on life support the doctors will because it's murky legally and nobody wants to lose their license Yeah if you say DNR, it should be DNR. Whether your family complains or not. Just as it should not be, "Well I think he is suffeirng also its costing me alot of money, so lets just give him a deadly cocktail".
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Its someone taking their own life. Crowsbeak posted:Yeah if you say DNR, it should be DNR. Whether your family complains or not.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:
I am perfectly fine with changing the law to make this so.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:it should not be, "Well I think he is suffeirng also its costing me alot of money, so lets just give him a deadly cocktail". Someone doesn't agree with my religion? And that's legal?! 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Someone doesn't agree with my religion? And that's legal?! Hey I admitted I oppose it for religious and moral reasons, just as I assume we all oppose extreme wealth disparity for moral reasons. Likewise most of us for reasons of morality would oppose the watchmen being governing themselves when they kill civilians.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
What about miscarriages? It ok to drag them out or do they have to end naturally?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hey I admitted I oppose it for religious and moral reasons, just as I assume we all oppose extreme wealth disparity for moral reasons. Likewise most of us for reasons of morality would oppose the watchmen being governing themselves when they kill civilians. Almost nobody chooses to be on the short end of the stick of income inequality. Pretty sure innocent civilians don't choose to be killed by the watchmen either but I never saw that movie. It's almost like there's a crucially important difference here that you're ignoring.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:What about miscarriages? It ok to drag them out or do they have to end naturally? Drag them out how? If its a miscarriage the child is dead.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hey I admitted I oppose it for religious and moral reasons, just as I assume we all oppose extreme wealth disparity for moral reasons. Likewise most of us for reasons of morality would oppose the watchmen being governing themselves when they kill civilians.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I don't oppose wealth inequality for moral reasons I oppose it for practical reasons. It makes for a shittier economy and it undermines democracy. Likewise for anything else I try to keep my "moral objections" as narrowly-focused as I can, because it's too easy to believe a lot of dumb poo poo if you make a habit of playing the "moral objection" card all the time. You should do the same. Really you have no disgust at seeing people living in mcmansions while a mile away you can see people living with bad sewer systems and children whose parents work two jobs to keep afloat. No moral revulsion whatsoever?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
They probably worked really hard for their gaudy uncreative warehouse with beds while the poor people probably loafed for decades and need to catch up
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Drag them out how? If its a miscarriage the child is dead. Miscarriage but the unviable fetus still in the oven. Do you remove it or let nature take its course? I'm not pulling this hypothetical situation out of my rear end, either.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Really you have no disgust at seeing people living in mcmansions while a mile away you can see people living with bad sewer systems and children whose parents work two jobs to keep afloat. No moral revulsion whatsoever? I feel moral revulsion at the prospect of a suffering terminally ill person being forced to remain in pain against their will just so the Reverend Mrs Lovejoy doesn't have her religious sensibilities offended, what now.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Miscarriage but the unviable fetus still in the oven. Do you remove it or let nature take its course? Depends. Is its heart still beating?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
I originally had dead fetus in there but changed it to unviable for basically that reason.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
I have a question for the thread if you don't mind. I would post this in YCS but I'd rather hear educated opinions instead of an echo-chamber. So I've seen that the response in this thread toward the situation in Nevada has been mostly to roll their eyes and the Sanders camp and their outrage toward the proceedings. The consensus seemed to be that the Sanders delegates were simply uninformed about the process and got mad for no reason. Could someone explain to me how this is the case? Because it seems kinda fishy how they were calling for voice votes a half hour before the convention was supposed to have started and before people had finished filing in and filling out paperwork. And then the voice votes seemed to have been ignored completely and in a manner that signified disdain for the Sanders crowd. Full disclosure: my sources for this came from other Sanders supporters as well as a compilation of cell phone footage and periscopes from the reddit group: https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4jid77/basic_stepbystep_of_what_went_down_yesterday_at/. My questions are: 1. Were these proceedings fully in line with the DNC rules? 2. The manner in which this took place seemed rather callous and the chair seemed very annoyed by the time she ended the convention. Would the things that took place be reasonable if we assume that the DNC is actually an organization that is interested in a just and democratic primary process? 3. Am I being naive to think that it was ever possible for Sanders to become elected or at least influence the planks of the Democratic party? Is Democracy, in general, a sham?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Also I saw some folks here talking about Young Turks like they were the leftist version of Rush Limbaugh or something. I've just recently started watching their channel and the only thing I don't like is sometimes the main host talks down to the female co-host in a condescending manner. Kind of a "mansplaining" kind of vibe. Other than that annoying part of the delivery I haven't seen too much that strikes me as innaccurate or disingenuous. Can anyone give examples of their unreliability? I don't want to waste my time watching them if they are just some alt-left hacks.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
I'd be annoyed too if a bunch of my guests (delegates) didn't show up and the one's that did were assholes. Really though your source is poo poo. Politifact has some light reading about it. Big take away here is the rules are complex as hell but were available to learn before the convention.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Drag them out how? If its a miscarriage the child is dead. I assume he's talking about things like ectopics which are terminated before they get dangerous.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:I'd be annoyed too if a bunch of my guests (delegates) didn't show up and the one's that did were assholes. I read that article but NPR has since called that account into question: http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2016/05/18/478579787/fact-checking-nprs-reports-on-vegas-violence. Also that article states that the convention started at 9 am but the Sanders group states that people hadn't even finished checking in and filling out paperwork and also several delegates had their credentials conveniently questioned at the last minute. The videos posted showed a rather polite old lady asking for extra time for folks to fill out their paperwork and cast their ballots which was summarily ignored. I would be much more inclined to believe the DNC narrative if the response was something approaching human. For example, "I'm very sorry but convention rules are clear on this matter and we have a lot to cover in the following hours so we have to move on". But everything I've seen has been along the lines of "gently caress you these are the rules" so I'm not sure exactly what sort of response the DNC was expecting.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Also, how is my source poo poo? Direct footage of the events from cellphones and periscopes seem like pretty solid sources. It's a lot harder to spin things when it's not through the filter of a major media outlet. Remember the protests in Ferguson? The unedited footage of events provided by Democracy Now and Vice showed a very different picture than the slick production of the mainstream media at the time.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
I think a middle of the road answer might be that Bernie got ratfucked, in complete accordance with the written rules and procedures. Now, if these guys who got decertified can show that something fishy happened, e.g., someone changed their registration without their knowledge, maybe this story has some wings.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Let me make sure I understand the conspiracy theory here. So after winning the Obama coalition of diverse groups of voters across the country, including in Nevada, racking up a lead of hundreds of pledged delegates, and reaching the point at which because of the proportional allocation system Hillary is all but guaranteed to clinch the nomination after the big contests of June 7th, she nevertheless ordered the Nevada Democratic Party to fabricate the registration status of Sanders delegates to unrightfully refuse to seat them and somehow pulling off this devious plot was easier than just making sure all her delegates showed which would have given her the majority anyway... all so she could steal 2 delegates which won't change the outcome of the convention. Is that right.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Let me make sure I understand the conspiracy theory here. So after winning the Obama coalition of diverse groups of voters across the country, including in Nevada, racking up a lead of hundreds of pledged delegates, and reaching the point at which because of the proportional allocation system Hillary is all but guaranteed to clinch the nomination after the big contests of June 7th, she nevertheless ordered the Nevada Democratic Party to fabricate the registration status of Sanders delegates to unrightfully refuse to seat them and somehow pulling off this devious plot was easier than just making sure all her delegates showed which would have given her the majority anyway... all so she could steal 2 delegates which won't change the outcome of the convention. Similarly it's not that exit polls oversampled young white voters, it's that there has been systematic electoral fraud in every single state to throw the primary to Clinton and absolutely no one in the 10,000+ person strong conspiracy has spoken a word.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
That's the claim. I think it's way more likely that these delegates were independents and either hosed up their registration, or changed back to independent after the primary because they thought it was over.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 09:53
|
|