100,000 Patients are Killed Each Year from Shoddy Healthcare in US

[Doctor_K]

Because for the people to truly feel that healthcare is right they have to commonly agree to it and not have it mandated by law. Everyone agreed that women had the right to vote before the constitution amendment was added.

Not everyone.  A majority perhaps.  Majority enough to call on the US Congress to draft what would become the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.  It was made a Constitutional amendment because of the Federal process that used to be in place in this country.  People made demands to their elected officials, the officials listened, and legislated accordingly.

A lot of people were against Prohibition too.  But it was made an Amendment (18th), decided on by the public.  Then even more people were against it a short time later, so another Amendment was decided on, by the public, to repeal Prohibition (21st).

So if you and your colleagues believe it to be a "right" of the people, call your Conrgressperson and/or demand a Constitutional Convention be called by your State legislature on the matter, to draft what could become the 28th Amendment.  If enough people agree with you, it can be ratified and thus be an enumerated "right" of the people.

If it's not mandated by law, it's not illegal to refuse someone healthcare. 

Just like now.

[CrysG]

Because if tomorrow morning we had a constitutional amendment most of you would start crying.

Oh and we have a lot of laws that aren't in the constitution Doctor_K.

And you've proven how fickle the constitution can be. First prohibition good then prohibition bad. Without and underling belief in something we can just change it out. Doesn't mean that change is good, just that we can change it.

[Doctor_K]

Yep, we do.  Laws.  You're talking Rights.  The two are not one in the same.

I have the Right to free speech, thus codified in the Constitution.  I do not have the right to jaywalk or be naked in public.  There are laws that prohibit that.

And no, I wouldn't "start crying."  Stop thinking I'm fundamentally a cold heartless bastard who does't give a crap about 'people.' 

I'd rejoice in the fact that an Amendment was presented, adequately debated, and turned over to the states and the people to be voted on by a truly involved public.  Nothing would make me happier.  If enough people supported your position, I'd be fine with it, because that would demonstrate to me that Federalism still can be practiced.  You want a law mandating it because you feel it's a 'right,' without willing to do it the Constitutional Amedment way.  That's not how it's supposed to work.

You're talking about Rights.  That's what the Constitution primarily deals in.

[Doctor_K]

But see, there *was* an underlying belief in Prohibition.  And Women's Suffrage, AND slave ownership, AND the definition of what it meant to be a citizen.  The beliefs were there, then the organized movements formed, then the majority pressed their legislators, then legislation was passed.  Majority rule.

The Constitution is not fickle.

The problem is, I don't think the majority is on your side.  At least not yet.  You're operating in the mindset of tyranny of the minority - because you and some others think it's right, it should just be.  It's a "right."  I'm saying, if you think it's a right, then it should be Constitutionalized. 

If you were smart enough, you'd agree with Bridge and me on this.  Make it Constitutional.  Because *then* we have no argument, the people will have then spoken, and you will have won.  And I will champion it.  Hell, I'll even vote in favor of it.

[BridgeTroll]

I would love to see the amendment process work for health care.  Just think... Conservative constitutionalists would at least have to approve of the process and join into the debate.  As it stands now... they are left completely out of the debate because no one needs their approval.  It will be constructed by a few approved by a few more and the vast majority of us will simply have to live with it.

I need to look but Britain declared Healthcare a "right" within their system.  Im betting France, Canada and other western democracies did the same.  If so... it is a no brainer to form a constitutional convention to amend the constitution to declare Healthcare a right.

[FayeforCure]

It will be constructed by a few approved by a few more and the vast majority of us will simply have to live with it.

I need to look but Britain declared Healthcare a "right" within their system.  Im betting France, Canada and other western democracies did the same.  If so... it is a no brainer to form a constitutional convention to amend the constitution to declare Healthcare a right.

Yeah, I know how you feel,......single-payer was completely left off the table. Fortunately a group of 15 doctors stood up for it and questioned why single payer was off the table. But it stayed off the table.

Turns out Senator Max Baucus is the highest recipient of campaign contributions from the for profit insurance industry: over $400,000

Yet 2/3 of Americans have expressed support for single payer. Go figure, why single payer gets left off the table. Just goes to show you the huge a disconnect between politicians and the American people.

[BridgeTroll]

Exactly Faye... This is why I am a huge supporter of a Constitutional amendment process.  The process MUST involve individuals throughout the country.  All areas will be debated... by everyone.  The debate would provide multiple effects.  It would use the framework of the Constitution to explore the idea that healthcare for all is a fundamental right.  Secondly that very debate would explore all options for accomplishing the task of providing all Americans with care.  Thirdly... it would involve everyone and be voted on by... EVERYONE.  Not a select few congressmen(we all know how wise they are)

To be clear however... the process would not mandate solutions... but WOULD mandate that solutions be found and implemented.  Lets use the process Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin gave us. 

[FayeforCure]

BT, how about public financing of campaigns so industry lobbyists don't buy votes in Congress?

That would allow all options to be at the table. As it was, industry was over-represented while the favored option of the people was left off the table.

[BridgeTroll]

I assume you are referring to all lobbying and lobbyists... not just health industry reps.  My initial reaction is that it sounds good but it probably is a freedom of speech issue.  I hire someone of influence or access to insure my point of view is adequately represented.  I think lobbyists are something we may have to regulate but cannot eliminate.

One persons lobbyist is anothers advocate...

[Sigma]

The solution seems to start killing old people.  They are such a drag on social security and they will be on Uni care as well.  But if we don't have 'em, then the government systems just might work!  Let's take a lesson from the British shall we?  They are way ahead of us.

Baroness Warnock: Dementia sufferers may have a 'duty to die'

Elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families, according to the influential medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock.

By Martin Beckford Social Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:59AM BST 19 Sep 2008

The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.

She insisted there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.

Her comments in a magazine interview have been condemned as "immoral" and "barbaric", but also sparked fears that they may find wider support because of her influence on ethical matters.

Lady Warnock, a former headmistress who went on to become Britain's leading moral philosopher, chaired a landmark Government committee in the 1980s that established the law on fertility treatment and embryo research.

A prominent supporter of euthanasia, she has previously suggested that pensioners who do not want to become a burden on their carers should be helped to die.

Last year the Mental Capacity Act came into effect that gives legal force to "living wills", so patients can appoint an "attorney" to tell doctors when their hospital food and water should be removed.

But in her latest interview, given to the Church of Scotland's magazine Life and Work, Lady Warnock goes further by claiming that dementia sufferers should consider ending their lives through euthanasia because of the strain they put on their families and public services.

Recent figures show there are 700,000 people with degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's in Britain. By 2026 experts predict there will be one million dementia sufferers in the country, costing the NHS an estimated £35billion a year.

Lady Warnock said: "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives â€" your family's lives â€" and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

"I'm absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there's a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they're a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die.

"Actually I've just written an article called 'A Duty to Die?' for a Norwegian periodical. I wrote it really suggesting that there's nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so for the sake of others as well as yourself."

She went on: "If you've an advance directive, appointing someone else to act on your behalf, if you become incapacitated, then I think there is a hope that your advocate may say that you would not wish to live in this condition so please try to help her die.

"I think that's the way the future will go, putting it rather brutally, you'd be licensing people to put others down."

Her comments were criticised last night by MPs, charities and campaigners.

Neil Hunt, the chief executive of the Alzheimer's Society, said: "I am shocked and amazed that Baroness Warnock could disregard the value of the lives of people with dementia so callously.

"With the right care, a person can have good quality of life very late in to dementia. To suggest that people with dementia shouldn't be entitled to that quality of life or that they should feel that they have some sort of duty to kill themselves is nothing short of barbaric."

Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire, said: "I believe it is extremely irresponsible and unnerving for someone in Baroness Warnock's position to put forward arguments in favour of euthanasia for those who suffer from dementia and other neurological illnesses.

"Because of her previous experiences and well-known standing on contentious moral issues, Baroness Warnock automatically gives moral authority to what are entirely immoral view points."

Phyllis Bowman, executive director of the campaign group Right to Life, added: "It sends a message to dementia sufferers that certain people think they don't count, and that they are a burden on their families. It's a pretty uncivilised society where that is the primary consideration. I worry that she will sway people who would like to get rid of the elderly."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2983652/Baroness-Warnock-Dementia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html

[Sigma]

You accusing someone else of a straw man argument?  You must know - you are the master.

I actually thought it amusing and not for serious debate Stephen.  Smile.