NOOOO! NO WAY WE ARE HEADED TOWARD’S HITLER’S T-4! SHUT YOUR MOUTH!
I RANG THE BELL already on Terri’s fight for life and how it is about MORE than JUST TERRI! I have warned. I have been criticized for it QUITE A BIT! I’m “over the top.” I’m just “inciting” people. YEAH! Uhuh! I knew it was coming. I just had NO IDEA it was TRULY SO CLOSE, or coming SO FAST!
What do I find TODAY?
By ADAM BRODSKY
April 6, 2005 -- TERRI Schiavo's protracted death focused attention on the right to die, but it should also spark some serious thinking about an equally vital — and emotion-laden — matter: the cost of keeping people like Schiavo, and those near death, alive.
Certainly, this is a matter for families, who bear heavy emotional and financial burdens and devote hours to caring for disabled family members.
But it is also of concern to society, which subsidizes the costs.
NO! WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE COSTS ($$$$) TO SOCIETY?
Leading all other states in that regard: yup — New York.
The public costs here are mind-boggling.
That's partly because New Yorkers are so compassionate, health-care unions so powerful and government so generous with other people's money.
Those damn compassionate people. Funny, conservatives have been accused of having NO compassion for YEARS! Now that conservatives have identified themselves as compassionate, it is a dirty word when Pro-Lifers use it?
Think about it: Medicaid spending on long-term care in New York amounts to some $14 billion a year — or nearly a third of all Medicaid costs.
Now we have changed the words again! We went from euthanasia for those terminally ill to LONG TERM CARE! HUGE DIFFERENCE! HUGE DIFFERENCE! DIABETICS are on LONG TERM CARE!
Medicaid overall, meanwhile, has been carving huge craters in state and local budgets.
Counties and cities have rocketed up taxes and laid off workers to pay Medicaid bills. Erie County pink-slipped some 2,000 people last month.
The tax hikes, meanwhile, are throttling local economies.
I thought it was George W Bush’s tax breaks and the War on Terror that was KILLING the economy. HUH? So we change more than just definitions, we change reasons for claimed problems as well. Anything to get the agenda pushed, eh?
For people like Schiavo (and certainly folks more functional than her), subsidized long-term care may be the only morally defensible option.
But what about the pain to public employees, like those in Erie, who lose their jobs? Or to residents denied sufficient police and firefighters? Or to firms forced to close, move or fire workers because of onerous Medicaid-fueled taxes?
What about the millions of New Yorkers who must struggle to pay outrageous tax bills to cover the costs of elderly or home-bound New Yorkers?
Let's face it: Keeping people alive — and providing for much, if not all, of their long-term care — takes a huge economic toll.
HOW DARE THESE PEOPLE GET SICK? HOW DARE THEY REQUIRE OUR HELP TO LIVE? THE AUDACITY! LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO "OUR" ECONOMY!
Families can decide for themselves how much care they want to provide. But when government foots the bill, a cold, dispassionate public debate of the costs is essential.
A “cold, dispassionate public debate of the costs is essential.”? I thought it was about “Death with Dignity!” SO now we have changed BOTH ends of the argument. DO you NOT SEE WHAT THEY ARE DOING? They draw you in with on one issue, and then subtly change words, phrases, and definitions to end up in a TOTALLY different place! Don’t you remember those word games. You start with GAME then you go to LAME, then to LIME, then to LINE, and then you end up with LINK. See how this works?
And again, nowhere is that more urgent than in New York, which spends far more on long-term care than other states.
Albany, to be sure, is not unaware of the pricetag. But reforms have been meek.
This year, in his State of the State Address, Gov. Pataki announced "bold changes" to health care, including steps to encourage elderly and disabled patients to stay at home, rather than go to more expensive nursing homes and hospitals.
It sounded good; after all, many folks would rather remain home anyway if they could.
So what were the "bold" new initiatives?
A few million dollars in new spending — with uncertain savings on the other end.
Nor does Albany want to get serious about closing loopholes that allow even the not-so-poor to get long-term-care subsidies.
If nothing else, the Schiavo affair was about letting individuals and their families make the hard choices about their fates. Schiavo's parents fought relentlessly to keep their daughter alive. They opted to suffer — devoting endless days to visits, arranging care, fighting legal battles.
THEY OPTED TO SUFFER? YES! YES THEY OPTED TO SUFFER IN FIGHTING FOR LIFE, rather than SUFFER IN KNOWING THEY DID NOTHING TO STOP MICHAEL FROM KILLING HER! Actually, their FIRST step was back in 1993 to have Michael removed as guardian when he decided that all the money he got for her care was a WASTE on her. They began the fight for Terri in efforts to use the money awarded FOR HER CARE- to be spent ON HER CARE!
Some folks, by contrast, feel relief when a long-ill family member succumbs, mostly because the emotional strain ends. But expenses matter, too — or should. And if individuals and families are not responsible for costs, they'll never feel a need to have them stopped — no matter how hopeless the situation.
Here we go again. Adam changes the language. Now it is about succumbing. This makes you think he is talking about those on their death bed and the acceptance of imminent death. But ALL through this he is talking about the brain damaged, elderly, and those on LONG TERM CARE!
In an era when science allows incapacitated, brain-damaged patients to live for years on a feeding tube, governments — like the one in Albany — cannot afford to hand out blank checks.
SEE! Told ya!
Terri Schiavo reminded everyone that when it comes to care-dependent patients, public officials, too, must make some tough choices.
YES! AND THEY NEED TO CHOOSE LIFE!
IF THEY DON’T…. Tell me Adam;