Search This Blog

Friday, February 18, 2011

"Death Panel" in Canada to Kill Baby Against Parents' Wishes

The parents just want to take their baby home to die, but doctors and the court have mandated a quicker death in the hospital against the parents' wishes. (See article here...) Is this type of mandate where doctors and judges, not parents, decide when your children die coming to a hospital near you? No, it's already here. Remember Hugh Finn and Terri Schiavo. Obamacare rationing will increase these atrocities. Where is this family's "right to choose?"

Pray for this poor family and their precious little one and, if you're on Facebook, join their page.

6 comments:

AnnMarie said...

I'm sorry for this couple, but we still need a national health care program in our country. In the 21st century, health care should be considered a basic human right. We pray every year that none of the kids get sick because even our double-income household cannot afford good health care. The per-person deductible for my husband's policy is $3000.00! There is no coverage for preventative care and we pay a premium for our "extra" three children because we are more than a family of four. Meanwhile, our insurance company posted an enormous profit in the last quarter of 2010, while I take my kids to the city health department for their immunizations. There can be good, affordable, national health care without 'death panels.'

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

There are a lot of approaches to fixing health care: medical savings accounts, more competition among insurers, tort reform, etc. Nationalized health care is the worst. Obamacare claims you can insure millions more people, give them more services, and have it cost less. Explain how that's possible. I will in one word -- rationing.

AM said...

Well, I work in health care and do know something about it - in medicine, competition is not always a good thing. If every family practice in town buys their own $250,000.00 piece of diagnostic equipment, they pass on the price of that purchase to the patients. However, if there is one diagnostic machine at a center and everyone goes together to purchase it, it costs patients less. I've seen this firsthand in our community.

I absolutely agree with you about tort reform. But our medical savings account (which we use every year) tops out at $2500, which is less than the deductible for ONE person in our seven-person household. Plus neither of our employers (a hospital and university) offer dental or vision insurance.

And Medicare works. The doctors in our practice agree it is one of the best payers and the basis of what the rest of the insurance companies pay. They are also just about the easiest to work with in regards to billing and appeals. Why can't medicare work on a larger scale?

Sorry - not trying to just argue with you for the sake of arguing, but I am tired of people just saying "NO" to *everything* Obama offers on health care. SOMETHING has to be done and we've got to start somewhere.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

It has to be real reform, though. Medicare and Social Security are fine for the folks at the front of the line, but both are predicted by their own folks to be bankrupt within the next few years. Then what? When no money is left, how do you pay for the medical care? That's why rationing and death care panels MUST be part of the package. They have to deny care to folks whom they consider not worth it. And doctors have to see more patients in less time which means substandard care. I don't know how it will all play out, I just know Obama is spending money like a drunken sailor. A day of reckoning is coming.

Ray Schneider said...

The fallacy about mandated centralized stuff is that it gives no incentives whatsoever to lowering prices. Everything will be covered by big daddy (read the citizens collectively) until the money runs out. Socialism works great until you've destroyed the goose that laid the golden egg in the first place.

In the past before we got all the "help" doctors tended to charge based in part on ability to pay. They can't do that anymore taking away a personal freedom. They also have to defend themselves against predatory lawyers who have created the idea that if your treatment doesn't work it's necessarily the doctor's fault and sob stories to juries which produce big payouts. The result is that doctors have to pay huge, I mean really huge, amounts for malpractice insurance. That drives the cost of health care up for all but increases the payouts to mostly the lawyers.
Then we've interposed government and insurance companies between doctors and their patients so that these bureaucratic agencies control in many respects the treatment your receive. Add in the drug companies and you have a royal medical practice manipulation fest. I'd be in favor of going back to doctors and patients and some sort of simple catastrophic care insurance.

Anonymous said...

New developments with this story- http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/02/20/17349066.html

God is answering our plea for Baby Joseph and his family!