Is this true? Will americans be required to have microchips?

[SgtRock]

Dear Tom66:

--A  couple of points. Yes, I already understood that you do not like the newspaper in question. Do you have a source for the information mentioned in the article that is not the Daily Mail? If I thought that the information was untrue or inaccurate I would not have cited it. I rely on my friends in the gentle opposition to provide sources which disprove any inaccurate facts.

--You said "imagine killing a patient, then finding out in the autopsy it was a simple cure, or something like that". Am I to understand that your assertion is that denying food and water to a patient, is not killing them? Does not compute, alarm, alarm alarm...

"The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other peoples money."
Margaret Thatcher 1925 -

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[G7PSK]

It has long been the case that patients are allowed to die both in hospital and care homes and their own homes, this hardly news. At some point in treatment it becomes futile to try to continue life at all cost, there is also the point reached in many cases where either you try to control pain or you don't,the choice is either the next dose of pain control is insufficient to control the pain or it is large enough to do so but it will kill the patient, this is exactly what happened with my brother in law when he died from prostate cancer.

[poptones]

In the case of old age it is, I am told my more than one care worker, common for them to deny themselves food and water. And I know this is true for I have seen it with my grandfather when I was a child, and with my own father not three years ago. I was called and told he had refused to eat or drink for two days, that the end was certainly near. Wanting ot have a last beer with my dad I felt sure he would, at least, take this last little bit of sustenance - nope. I had to give the beer I had smuggled in to the nurse so she could dispose of it, as it was clear my dad was having none of it.

You may not agree with it, but when someone decides for themselves they're done with food and water you have to respect that. Hooking them up to an iv in order to prolong their now miserable life would be a disgusting cruelty.

[G7PSK]

In the case of old age it is, I am told my more than one care worker, common for them to deny themselves food and water. And I know this is true for I have seen it with my grandfather when I was a child, and with my own father not three years ago. I was called and told he had refused to eat or drink for two days, that the end was certainly near. Wanting ot have a last beer with my dad I felt sure he would, at least, take this last little bit of sustenance - nope. I had to give the beer I had smuggled in to the nurse so she could dispose of it, as it was clear my dad was having none of it.

You may not agree with it, but when someone decides for themselves they're done with food and water you have to respect that. Hooking them up to an iv in order to prolong their now miserable life would be a disgusting cruelty.

Exactly! I have no time for the life at all cost brigade. And those who try to force that belief on every one else. When its time to go, its time to go.

[SgtRock]

Dear G7PSK:

--My condolences on your recent losses. I think many of us probably have had experieces of this kind. I think I can agree with your remarks, in the main. My contention was that the doctors should be making these kinds of decisions, and that government bean counters should not be paying bonuses based on croak quotas. And, if you are going to kill someone, would it not be better done painlessly?

--Of course, if the person has a living will saying they want their life prolonged as long a possible, and they have provided a funding source, then they should not be killed, till the money runs out. But of course, the idea that someone who saved their money rather than spending it all on booze and drugs, should be allowed to use it to prolong their life, would offend socialist sensibilities, no doubt. When private property is allowed these kinds of moral conundrums are bound to arise.

--I think I would much prefer to deal with a Dr. Jack when the time comes, rather than the government. It would be quicker and less painful.

"If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well. It were done quickly."
William Shakespeare 1564 - 1616

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[tom66]

Are you suggesting someone with more money has more entitlement to a longer life? That's a rather bold statement, if I'm reading you correctly.

[SeanB]

I had an uncle who was an alcoholic, and who developed gangrene. When he was at the hips his doctor gave him 6 months of morphine at a time and a syringe to inject for the pain, He went through 2 years worth in the last 3 months.

Dad could not stand the morphine, he preferred the pain to the nausea he had from it. 1 Feb 2007.........

Friend of mine his mother was in a NHS unit, where they would pump it in if she moaned at any time. Not awake the last 3 weeks, but given IV fluid and glucose all the time.

[SgtRock]

Dear Tom66:

--What I am saying is that I am in favor of private property. If someone wants to use their legally obtained money to prolong their life, they should not be robbed and murdered by socialist looters. If you can prevent people from using their own money for private health care, then you can prevent them doing anything whatsoever with it. Hello Brave New World, unless you plan on outlawing private medicine, and successfully preventing back alley clinics.

--Are you saying that a family that works, and earns, and saves, should not be able to buy a better house, than the people on the dole, whom they support, with their taxes.

“I do not think that the wireless waves I have discovered will have any practical application”
Heinrich Rudolf Hertz 1857 1894

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[poptones]

My father was a vet, in a vet center at the time of his death. He was on social security and had a retirement that paid for his stay - it was all money he had earned and saved. They took good care of him there and would have stuck an iv in him had I wanted it. When a man is over 90 years old and decides he wants to die, it is evil to stop him. He had always said he wanted to be kept alive as long as possible, so should I have taken him at his word when he was "in his right mind" and instead forced him to stay alive?

I don't care if he was a Billionaire, he would have been allowed to die. So that makes me a murderer I guess.

This newspaper article is sensationalistic bullshit. People at the end often choose to not eat. The article makes it sound like doctors respecting their wishes are murderers. They show an elderly couple sitting there on the edge of the bed having a nice conversation just waiting for the killer nurses to start witholding food and water. That's absolute bullshit, the end for most looks nothing like the picture. I had a cousin who dropped dead of a heart attack one morning while walking to the shower. He was lucky.

[SgtRock]

Dear EEVBees:

--Poptones has said "So that makes me a murderer I guess."

--I cannot help but get the feeling that Poptones is deliberately misconstrueing my remarks, in the most sensationalistic B.S. way possible. Really, now I am accusing him of murdering his own father. Please. If any of you happen to be the competent family representative in an end of life situation, then of course you would be the one to make the difficult decisions, and you would have my approval and sympathy. We all lose people. It is not a solipsistic universe, I hope. Tom66 on the other hand does not think that you and/or your loved one be been allowed to spend your own money to prolong life. Logan's Run, anyone?

--I will try to restate my point once again. If socialist looters were to prevent someone and/or the family from paying for life prolonging healthcare, using their own money, then to my mind that would clearly be murder.

--Enough with the straw men. I never said everyone should be kept alive against their will, or the will of the family. And yes I have seen more that one Veteran pass away in a Veterans Hospital. I am an elderly veteran myself. I have a living will, which allows my brother to make any decision he sees fit with regard to end of life, when the time comes, providing headache #44 does not get me first.

--Either the facts as related in the article are true (I.E. not B.S.) or they are not. I welcome any facts that are dispositive with regard to this matter.

"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
Benjamin Franklin  1706 - 1790

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[baljemmett]

--I cannot help but get the feeling that Poptones is deliberately misconstrueing my remarks, in the most sensationalistic B.S. way possible.

Something about geese and ganders comes to mind, for some reason.

--Either the facts as related in the article are true (I.E. not B.S.) or they are not. I welcome any facts that are dispositive with regard to this matter.

It's utter tripe, at least as far a friend of mine (who happens to be an nurse at a highly-regarded cardiac hospital) is concerned.  A similar article written by one of the Mail's complement of rabble-rousers earlier in the week had her absolutely spitting features; it turns out that people working at the sharp end of healthcare find the suggestion that they use care pathways as anything other than a way to help their patients rather offensive, to put it mildly.

Not that that counts as a 'fact', of course, but as someone who lives in this country and understands our stable of actual and alleged newspapers, I tend to treat anything printed in the Mail as 'not a fact' too until it's picked up by an outlet that isn't just a cheap, sensationalist gossip rag pandering to the easily outraged.  C'est la vie.

[andyturk]

"Will americans be required to have microchips?"

No, but we have a right to bear ARMs. rimshot

The US is the only country stupid enough not to have [a national universal healthcare system], because they somehow equate it to being an evil "socialist" thing.

People here don't know *how* to evaluate the alternatives. It's much easier to adopt an opinion one saw on TV. But what we lack in thoughtfulness, we make up in rabid political loyalty.

One thing that should be mentioned is that those who oppose public healthcare want those who can't afford it to die. They won't admit it, but they want that bum on the street "disappear". They want the riffraff to "go away". They think these people are worthless,  that certain minorities, members of certain races, members of the lower classes etc. are worthless and don't deserve medical treatment. They think they themselves will never be ill or will always have enough money to not be one of "those".

All this talk about health care quality is just a red herring. It is not about quality. It is about money and getting rid of those they hate.

It's not about hate. The privileged don't want to make poor people disappear, they simply don't give two shakes. If you don't have compassion for a poor person on another continent, why should you care about the people who live under freeways closer to home? Geography doesn't figure in moral issues anyway, right?

You are correct though when you say that the privileged assume they won't become poor themselves. Some folks are surprised when reality comes knocking.

If everyone refused to pay the high cost of healthcare, companies would be forced to reduce prices, just like every other good or service sold. It is only worth what people are willing to pay.

Yup. The problem is that people (well, Americans) don't have much if any choice at the moment. Your employer decides which healthcare plans you have access too and usually what your percentage of the cost is. It's almost impossible to shop around for health insurance as an individual.

Health insurance companies *hate* individual customers. Their risk models prefer large populations where the costs are more predictable.

Contrast this with the process for purchasing auto, property or just about any other kind of insurance. There's a wide variety of providers and plans and it's up to the consumer to go with a cut-rate plan or pay up and have everything taken care of.

[poptones]

If socialist looters were to prevent someone and/or the family from paying for life prolonging healthcare, using their own money, then to my mind that would clearly be murder.

--Enough with the straw men. I never said everyone should be kept alive against their will, or the will of the family.

You just said it again, so don't pretend the high road of how you never said it. My father, when his mind was better, clearly said again and again he wanted great measures to be taken to extend his life. He was not religious and died of alzheimer's, which as you may or may not know destroys the mind and its abilities for critical thought. His choice in the end could easily be construed as due to madness.

What difference does motive make in "murder?" This is not manslaughter we are talking about, or even accidental death. This is one person deciding to end the life of another. By your argument I am every bit the murder those "socialistic" doctors.

Your arguments, as usual, are hype and bullshit based on more hype and bullshit. You make Rush Limbaugh and Bill Oreilly  look like reasonable men.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--The latest from Poptones is "You just said it again, so don't pretend the high road of how you never said it. My father, when his mind was better, clearly said again and again he wanted great measures to be taken to extend his life. He was not religious and died of alzheimer's, which as you may or may not know destroys the mind and its abilities for critical thought. His choice in the end could easily be construed as due to madness."

--He provided a redacted quote by me, which omitted my statement that:

"If any of you happen to be the competent family representative in an end of life situation, then of course you would be the one to make the difficult decisions, and you would have my approval and sympathy."

--I cannot help but wonder why he left that statement out. A rather glaring omission, no?

--I am still waiting for any citation indication that NHS did not offer cash incentives as indicated.

--An this the latest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/lizhunt/6322738/Pathway-for-the-elderly-that-leads-to-legal-execution.html

"The Daily Telegraph reported two cases this week. Hazel Fenton, an 80-year-old from Sussex, was admitted to hospital in January with pneumonia and put on the Pathway regimen. Her daughter, Christine Ball, fought to stop her mother from being left to "starve and dehydrate to death". Nine months on, Hazel is doing well and is "happy", Christine says. Jack Jones, a cancer patient from Merseyside, wasn't so lucky. Doctors did not treat the 76-year-old's pneumonia because they claimed his cancer was spreading aggressively. A post-mortem examination found otherwise. His wife has never managed to confirm that Jack was on the Pathway, but she has no doubt he was denied precious time with his family."

--And from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-19956955

"Relatives of a cancer patient denied fluids at a Norfolk hospital have made an official complaint he was not given care he needed at the end of his life.
Andy Flanagan, 48, was being treated for pancreatic cancer at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King's Lynn. After a cardiac arrest staff stopped giving him fluids and wrote on his medical records "do not resuscitate. The family said they only discovered this when he came round during a visit. The hospital said it could not comment."

--So, I guess the Beeb is now "making it up", eh?

--I understand that NHS cannot write a blank check for all end of life situtations. But they should at least, keep the family informed of "do not resuscitate" orders, yes? Clearly this story is not going away.

"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field."
Niels Bohr 1885 - 1962

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[G7PSK]

The QE2 in Kings Lynn Norfolk is where I had a kidney removed due to cancer, I can vouch first hand that there is nothing wrong with the treatment there, I am sure that if they thought the patient had no chance that is exactly how it was, When I had my op. I was told that they would only do it if they thought that there was a chance of a cure. I understand that the survival rate for renal carcinoma is less than 15% over a five year period, so far I am totally clear 3 years on.
A lot of what you see in the press is either people hoping to get a cash pay out (what you could call winning the health lottery) or relatives of the keep auntie Joan alive at all cost or at least until we have found the will. Where there is a will there is a disgruntled relative.

[MikeK]

The US is the only country stupid enough not to have [a national universal healthcare system], because they somehow equate it to being an evil "socialist" thing.

People here don't know *how* to evaluate the alternatives. It's much easier to adopt an opinion one saw on TV. But what we lack in thoughtfulness, we make up in rabid political loyalty.

Or is it because we're prevented from having a discussion?  We get a few people offering their opinions and we have to choose between them.  No discussion.  Is that any way to solve problems?  And political debates are NOT discussion forums.

We need to have discussions about what works.  Does giving tax breaks to wealthy people actually improve the economy?  What has happened in the past when we've done it?  Is it fair to have everyone pay the same tax rate?  Is it fair for wealthy people to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class?  Do rich people actually create jobs?  Or is it the middle class that does it?  Should we penalize poor people for being born poor?  Do everyone have the right to decent healthcare?  Should some people be denied it?  What was the tax structure like during the 40's, 50's, and 60's?  Was it different than we have today?

We should be able to discuss these things.  But we can't.  We're prevented from doing it.  The business/ruling class absolutely does not want it to happen.  What did the Romans call it?..."Bread and circuses"?  Don't let the poor people know how much they really are shit on.

[poptones]

Well, according to this "non employee" small businesses (that's like mine and maybe Dave) accounts in the US for nearly a Trillion of the GDP and over 21 Million jobs. I'd say that counts as a significant employer. Most of those are less than half a Million a year. That means there are about 20 Million middle class citizens making their own jobs outside the corporate circle. That's about 1% of the adult population and probably more than 2% of working adults.

http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html#EmpSize

The largest single group in terms of dollars in wages is the group over 10,000 employees with 1.6T. The second largest group is self employed people who account for almost a Trillion in sales. You can't assume that's all salary of course, but it does represent employment and GDP. That means, with less than 3% of the total population, small businesses are the second largest single group of employers in terms of annual GDP. Looks to me like the middle class are better at making jobs than the Billionaires.

[elektronicks]

. We're a great country. We're a world leader.

haha.. you're plain shit my friend.. not you, but the empire is going down.. then we will have a laugh about how some of us think they're king.

[poptones]

The US has the single largest GDP of any country on earth by a factor of 2. The EU has a larger GDP but that's a conglomerate of nations. Second to the US is China. Between the US and China we command a third of the earth's GDP.

The naysayers don't like to look at the big picture, because the big picture isn't as scary as they need it to be to remain in control.

[elektronicks]

The US has the single largest GDP of any country on earth by a factor of 2.

The US has the largest dept of any nation, a sum of some 7 trilion dolars, mainly achievied by the DELETED bankers (who run america) by printing money without having it covered by any real value. What you have for sale America except bullshit ?

The EU has a larger GDP but that's a conglomerate of nations. Second to the US is China. Between the US and China we command a third of the earth's GDP.

First of all, America is a conglomerate of states, and from a history point of view, they're criminals taking the lands of indians. EU is just an attempt to create a super police state, which will fail quite soon.

China is #1 at any economic point you want it to compare: financial stability, economic results. Look at the belowed Apple computer .. just to give you an example. And it was not European who formed queues to buy overpriced computers with bite of evil pandora kind of simbology on them, made of course, by a "genious" only experienced in robbing people by means of marketing, which is the whole point regarding US. good marketing, form without consistency, propaganda and "war for peace", a country where that last standing president was killed in open view and where the next commers are fraudulent, liars and war criminals. 

Cheers

[poptones]

Criminals? Need I remind you that the US was "settled" by Spanish, French, British... so who's the "criminals?"

Europe has fought wars over territories for centuries. The EU is made of "states" like the moon is made of cheese.

Apple computer is a US company and alone is responsible for nearly one percent of our GDP. They pay China pennies on the dollar for a premium product sold worldwide. Our debt to China is a little over a Trillion dollars. Meanwhile, Apple computer is worth half that. Our five largest companies are worth more than our debt to China. I'd never own an Apple, but I gotta love what they're able to do.

[elektronicks]

I fully agree that Europe was the place fiiled with crimes in the first place. So why pretending either of these places are better ? Human race is destructive, stupid ... but saying America is in some way leader or .. give me a break. America is in for big troubles as the big brother society (helped by electronist hobbist and engineers) develops.

[elektronicks]

apple, microsoft, google, facebook are all faces of the same ..don't know how to call it: agenda for invading intimacy, population control. not impressed at all of what the technology can do and how it is actually used by the monkey mentality and criminal government that runs US.

I often think on what benefits tehnology brought to us. In what ways electronics for instance improuved our lives ? Egh ?.

1. medical ?

-> your really think that allopathy (world medical mafia) is better than yeaaaaaaars old practice of shamans or aborigens or indian ayur veda? Try some questions to your doctor. See the reactions. Meassuring things around does not provide integrated view. More over, modern medicine views the human body as a system, consisting off smallers system: circulatory, respiratory, whatever. That does not inter-link causes and efects or transients from a system ot another. Not to mention that this medicine is a a reactive model. Does not prevent. Does not care about health. It is about wealth.

2. military ?

- are we really living in a more secure, more peacefull world ? In what ways America helped bring peace? Invading peaceful countries and stilling their resources? Sick of this "i'm proud to be american". Proud of what exacly  ?


3. education  ?   

4. space exploration ? politic correct lies on how the appolo put a man to the moon .. ?  total hoax. now we are on mars. Maybe we are, but appolo was a blatant deceiving event who help bring US ahead economicaly. 

5. transportation:

transportation speed actually decreased having so many cars produced in such a speed. speed, quality and all these are not necesarly optimals for balance, specialy when you got so many assholes floating around. 
We all sit and wait in trafic jams in some metalic cans on wheels breathing smoke. VERY SMART indeed.

6. spiritualy:

god is internet, internet is god. no book readings, no art creativity. just profiles on facebook. even now, there is this new job: "professional video blogger". what the f** that means anyway? . there's a guy with a child (?!), who needs some money right ? so he delivers industry biased oppinions towards happy crowds while we are softened by the "openness and unique style" which by itself does not need a motto, or publicity. Beeing "normal" in a anormal society kind of message.


maybe i missed something...

[elektronicks]

Apple computer is a US company and alone is responsible for nearly one percent of our GDP.

..hardly and endorsment for succes. A country which has 50% incomes from a fraud .. that tells something.


 They pay China pennies on the dollar for a premium product sold worldwide.

yes. we know you pay pennies to the others while selling "premium" products.   and please notice we haven't yet attacked the dollar which is toillet paper. The only thing that keeps the dollar where it is is that the global trade is on dollar. Change that, America gone.

Our debt to China is a little over a Trillion dollars. Meanwhile, Apple computer is worth half that. Our five largest companies are worth more than our debt to China. I'd never own an Apple, but I gotta love what they're able to do.

What is in there so fantastic? I don't get it. Putting together a computer, selling marketing crap, paying a "penny" to the slave labour who do not have any other option. Really? please enlight me.

[poptones]

So you seem to pretty much hate everything and everyone including electronics. Why the hell are you here? Isn't this place an embodiment of everything you were just bitching about?

I have no interst in such negativity. Is there anything you do like... besides bitching?