Two cases where government would rather let people die than increase much needed disability benefits.
It claims that being poor by itself is not eligibility critera to be euthenized but you need a chronic health condition too.
These people both claimed that they applied for expanded benefits first, and upon denial opted into assisted suicide.
Who says that won't be expanded? They have clearly demonstrated they would rather kill the sick than support them with what they need. If you have no compassion for the sick, you won't have compassion for the poor either.
Now, Let's be generous and assume this was an oversight of our system, and these consequences were completely unforseen. If so, these cases should motivate our legislature to immeadiately look into expanding disability benefits to prevent this from happening in the future.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Who says that won't be expanded?"
Who says it will?
"...these cases should motivate our legislature to immeadiately look into expanding disability benefits to prevent this from happening in the future."
Aren't you one of those opposing state provided health care? Why do you complain now that it simply cannot cater for everything.
I also would encourage you to read the article.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
Read the entire thing.
It's pretty bad when trash news that you behold still paints a clear picture of something so horrible when you read between the lines.
I oppose state paid health care. I have never opposed disability. (One of the the very few services I believe in.) There are people that physically cannot work because they live out their live with debilitating ailments.
My beef is not with real victims, but, I hold everything against those that pretend to be vvictims in order to manipulate everyone else so they cater to them.
"Who says it will?"
Because the only thing progressive about socialism is the cancer that comes with it. Socialism isn't a permenent form of government, just the corruption phase that transmutes liberty based societies into totalitarian ones.
When it reaches the end stage, the goodies disappear because they don't need votes anymore, (It only matters who counts them.) But the wicked things some of the goodies made way for gov keeps as crown jewles of their system.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Health care and disability is linked, it cannot (should not) be reasonably separated. There are always things that are excluded somewhere, a conservative govt you dream about would probably leave the "caregiving" to the church (as Ron Paul suggested a few years back).
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
Health care and disability should be linked for the disabled. A variety of private practices within proper standards should still be encouraged. You have the right to choose the doctors and treatment that's best for you. Medical systems do not work well with a one size fits all model.
I don't know about Spain, but in Canada Our state health care system has gotten progressively worse for 3 decades straight. There is no motivation for gov to make it better because people are largely dependant upon it. They get what they get and are expected to be satisfied with it.
More funding isn't the answer either because that opens up abuses for resources to be misappropriated. Citizens themselves don't get to choose where that funding goes. That's up to the committees which are mostly appointees. No elections and no accountability.
I would say Ron Paul brought up a bigger point with the church. Large establishments like the catholic church or Mega churches should be subject to some accountibility for their resources and spending. Imagine if we looked into our friends Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn on just the Protestant side for how their money was appropriated lol.
If you actually put a system in place for churches above a certain size, then community driven funding for disability could be achievable.
The catholic church alone definitely has more than enough disposable finances to cover discussed systems.
If you cover the most vulnerable and actually solve certain problems within the system private health care can be within reach of every class. The more variety the better, and it is up to the individual to research who is trying to gouge, and who is not operating above board to medical standard.
Hospitals which exist for emergencies, should have more accountibility for quality of practice as well. That would go a long way into restoring integrity of private practice, keeping treatment costs fair and appropriate, and allowing citizens to treat medicine as a service that they pay for as they need.
In my case, I have access to "free" healthcare, but , I see a private GP. He treats me like a king. And he's not that expensive either.
Comments
(Old Spike)
Gov is paying to euthenize the poor.
Gone are the days of putting people back to work it seems.
Connected? *Shrugs* But that policy exists.
(Old Spike)
"Gov is paying to euthenize the poor."
Now can you provide any sort of evidence for this?
(Old Spike)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/canada-cases-right-to-die-laws
Two cases where government would rather let people die than increase much needed disability benefits.
It claims that being poor by itself is not eligibility critera to be euthenized but you need a chronic health condition too.
These people both claimed that they applied for expanded benefits first, and upon denial opted into assisted suicide.
Who says that won't be expanded? They have clearly demonstrated they would rather kill the sick than support them with what they need. If you have no compassion for the sick, you won't have compassion for the poor either.
Now, Let's be generous and assume this was an oversight of our system, and these consequences were completely unforseen. If so, these cases should motivate our legislature to immeadiately look into expanding disability benefits to prevent this from happening in the future.
(Old Spike)
"Who says that won't be expanded?"
Who says it will?
"...these cases should motivate our legislature to immeadiately look into expanding disability benefits to prevent this from happening in the future."
Aren't you one of those opposing state provided health care? Why do you complain now that it simply cannot cater for everything.
I also would encourage you to read the article.
(Old Spike)
Read the entire thing.
It's pretty bad when trash news that you behold still paints a clear picture of something so horrible when you read between the lines.
I oppose state paid health care. I have never opposed disability. (One of the the very few services I believe in.) There are people that physically cannot work because they live out their live with debilitating ailments.
My beef is not with real victims, but, I hold everything against those that pretend to be vvictims in order to manipulate everyone else so they cater to them.
"Who says it will?"
Because the only thing progressive about socialism is the cancer that comes with it. Socialism isn't a permenent form of government, just the corruption phase that transmutes liberty based societies into totalitarian ones.
When it reaches the end stage, the goodies disappear because they don't need votes anymore, (It only matters who counts them.) But the wicked things some of the goodies made way for gov keeps as crown jewles of their system.
(Old Spike)
Health care and disability is linked, it cannot (should not) be reasonably separated. There are always things that are excluded somewhere, a conservative govt you dream about would probably leave the "caregiving" to the church (as Ron Paul suggested a few years back).
(Old Spike)
Health care and disability should be linked for the disabled. A variety of private practices within proper standards should still be encouraged. You have the right to choose the doctors and treatment that's best for you. Medical systems do not work well with a one size fits all model.
I don't know about Spain, but in Canada Our state health care system has gotten progressively worse for 3 decades straight. There is no motivation for gov to make it better because people are largely dependant upon it. They get what they get and are expected to be satisfied with it.
More funding isn't the answer either because that opens up abuses for resources to be misappropriated. Citizens themselves don't get to choose where that funding goes. That's up to the committees which are mostly appointees. No elections and no accountability.
I would say Ron Paul brought up a bigger point with the church. Large establishments like the catholic church or Mega churches should be subject to some accountibility for their resources and spending. Imagine if we looked into our friends Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn on just the Protestant side for how their money was appropriated lol.
If you actually put a system in place for churches above a certain size, then community driven funding for disability could be achievable.
The catholic church alone definitely has more than enough disposable finances to cover discussed systems.
If you cover the most vulnerable and actually solve certain problems within the system private health care can be within reach of every class. The more variety the better, and it is up to the individual to research who is trying to gouge, and who is not operating above board to medical standard.
Hospitals which exist for emergencies, should have more accountibility for quality of practice as well. That would go a long way into restoring integrity of private practice, keeping treatment costs fair and appropriate, and allowing citizens to treat medicine as a service that they pay for as they need.
In my case, I have access to "free" healthcare, but , I see a private GP. He treats me like a king. And he's not that expensive either.