As long as china keeps loaning us money.Afriend once told me his banker wasn,t too sure of his future but they were into him so far now they couldn,t back out.You know I refer to polititions as to pro wrestling. We had a pro card match up here many years ago.Because the parking lot was full I went to the back of the school after dropping my father in law out front.As i pulled into my spot the wrestlers all arrived in a white Ford van,joking around etc.When they got to the ring they HATED each other.Same way in politics keep people fighting amugst them selves,while they load up the loot.:laughing:
Right to Privacy
- Thread starter FallbrookFarmer
- Start date
- Views: 26214
- Status
dave1949
Super Star Member
It sounds like a good idea to me. I get the feeling that a lot of the testing and so forth done on terminal patients is for the purpose of making money. The longer they can keep a person legally 'alive', the more they make. For some reason, living wills can get ignored.
Dave.
OP
FallbrookFarmer
Platinum Member
Again, Find a me a politician who is willing to do that.
That is the thing that is so pernicious about these "entitlement" programs. Once they start, nobody is going to touch the "third rail" and start telling people, Sorry, you're just going to have to make do with less.
dave1949
Super Star Member
OP
FallbrookFarmer
Platinum Member
Term LimitsProblem solved, no more career troughers.
Dave.
And which politician is going to propose those?
Chuck52
Veteran Member
Dave,
A surprising number of those folks getting the Hail Mary treatments are on Medicaid or Medicare, which complicates the profit motive a bit. They may or may not have living wills or end-of-life directives, but someone has to be there to argue for them if they are already past stating their own preferences. From the stories I hear, many times the physicians just seem to go on auto-pilot....it might work, so do it! The incredible bills some families get stuck with for painful and ultimately useless procedures done to (not on) obviously terminal patients is unbelievable. I have four nurses in my family and have stated my preferences in such a way that I'm fairly confident I won't be vegetating forever when I go, but I must confess I haven't yet prepared the legal documents....most days I don't feel all that bad!
Chuck
A surprising number of those folks getting the Hail Mary treatments are on Medicaid or Medicare, which complicates the profit motive a bit. They may or may not have living wills or end-of-life directives, but someone has to be there to argue for them if they are already past stating their own preferences. From the stories I hear, many times the physicians just seem to go on auto-pilot....it might work, so do it! The incredible bills some families get stuck with for painful and ultimately useless procedures done to (not on) obviously terminal patients is unbelievable. I have four nurses in my family and have stated my preferences in such a way that I'm fairly confident I won't be vegetating forever when I go, but I must confess I haven't yet prepared the legal documents....most days I don't feel all that bad!
Chuck
gerard
Veteran Member
I find it interesting that this thread started out with a "right to privacy" question re: constitutionality and no one posted the controlling amendment? The 4th amendment reads:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
All privacy issues stem from this and subsequent court interpretations. Unfortunately this is why they call it a "living" document as court interpretations make it's meaning continually change. Guess it depends if you feel we should apply the law as the founding fathers foresaw, or should we do so in light of current norms and values? (And remember - what THEY thought was unreasonable was having the soldiers kick in your door at night, sleep with your wife, eat your food, sleep in your bed, and leave in the morning without so much as a thank you!)
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
All privacy issues stem from this and subsequent court interpretations. Unfortunately this is why they call it a "living" document as court interpretations make it's meaning continually change. Guess it depends if you feel we should apply the law as the founding fathers foresaw, or should we do so in light of current norms and values? (And remember - what THEY thought was unreasonable was having the soldiers kick in your door at night, sleep with your wife, eat your food, sleep in your bed, and leave in the morning without so much as a thank you!)
OP
FallbrookFarmer
Platinum Member
I also was waiting for someone to bring that up.
There would be some who say that "the right to privacy" does not exist. That it is a construct of as you said of later interpretations and court decisions. No where in the 4th amendment is the word "privacy" mentioned. Only against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
gerard
Veteran Member
In light of the current health care debate I can't help but share the attached quote from the 1770's. Are we too stupid to learn from history so as not to repeat the negative aspects of it and why could these people see it over 200 years ago and we can't today?
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy?
Attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish lawyer and writer, 1770.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy?
Attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish lawyer and writer, 1770.
OP
FallbrookFarmer
Platinum Member
I think that the quote is ambiguous and is subject to interpretation. After all it was over 200 years ago, How could anybody foresee what would happen now
- Status
