Forum User
:yelclap::yelclap:
FLORIDA To require Drug screening for welfare
- Thread starter NW-ZJ-SCOTT
- Start date
:yelclap::yelclap:
Jeepman401
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Lisbon CT
he would be one of the first to starve
- Location
- Wasatch Range
According to Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, it's OK restrict care and let older folks die, as they have less to contribute to society. Using his logic, 420BlackXJ is 54, so he's nearing the end of this ability to contribute to society. The Obama Admin's policies support letting him pass on.
“No program simply ‘saves lives’; life-extension is always what is at issue,” Sunstein lectured. “If the goal is to promote people’s welfare by lengthening their lives, a regulation that saves 500 life-years (and, let us say, twenty five people) is, other things equal, better than a regulation that saves 50 life-years (and, let us say, twenty five people).”
He laid bare his preference: “I urge that the government should indeed focus on statistical life-years rather than statistical lives,” he wrote. “A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”
“Older people are treated worse for only one reason: They are older.”
Sunstein wrote those who believe it is wrong or discriminatory to deny care to the dying precisely when they most need it worry needlessly:
Under the life-years approach, older people are treated worse for only one reason: They are older. This is not an injustice. Every old person was young once, and every young person will be old too (if given the chance).
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/191.crs_.lifeyears-new.pdf
“No program simply ‘saves lives’; life-extension is always what is at issue,” Sunstein lectured. “If the goal is to promote people’s welfare by lengthening their lives, a regulation that saves 500 life-years (and, let us say, twenty five people) is, other things equal, better than a regulation that saves 50 life-years (and, let us say, twenty five people).”
He laid bare his preference: “I urge that the government should indeed focus on statistical life-years rather than statistical lives,” he wrote. “A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”
“Older people are treated worse for only one reason: They are older.”
Sunstein wrote those who believe it is wrong or discriminatory to deny care to the dying precisely when they most need it worry needlessly:
Under the life-years approach, older people are treated worse for only one reason: They are older. This is not an injustice. Every old person was young once, and every young person will be old too (if given the chance).
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/191.crs_.lifeyears-new.pdf
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
In a heartless way though, it makes perfect sense. Not saying I want to be on the receiving end when I'm old, or if they decide young but out of shape people are useless too, but I know I wouldn't spend heart transplant money on myself it it was only going to get me another 5 yrs or so. That's a terrible return on investment...
- Location
- WA state
Especially when the REPO MEN come after you!
tbburg
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Scottsdale AZ
I had to take a drug test to get my current job. I had to take a drug test to keep it when the apartment complex I work at was sold to a new company. I'm afraid I don't have any sympathy for anybody whining about drug testing for govt. assistance. Personally I'm in favor of compulsory random drug testing for all government employees(fail, your fired) and continuous required testing for all elected officials(fail, your jailed).
What if that 5 years would let you see your kids or grand kids graduate high school? Modern medicine is expensive. It's easy enough to make the decision(and I don't have any problem with this)to not spend the money on yourself. What would you say if your doctor told you, "Yes, it's your money. Yes, the treatment is available. Yes, you want it, and no, I'm not doing it. Regulations say your too old/useless/etc.
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
It sounds to me more like the proposal is for the government to not fund transplants in that scenario, but if you have the money, I'd imagine you could still do it. They may make a waiting list or something to let "higher priority" patients go ahead of you.
TJ Rat
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Houston, TX
Regarding healthcare and age...Very easy to comment when not on the other side of the fence.
Don't forget, it is all these 'old' people who have been paying into the program for 40+ years. Now they are going to be told, go off and die gracefully. Oops, correction, it is all the old people who actually have a job who have been paying into the system.
As far as drug screening for weflare, what is the problem?
Don't forget, it is all these 'old' people who have been paying into the program for 40+ years. Now they are going to be told, go off and die gracefully. Oops, correction, it is all the old people who actually have a job who have been paying into the system.
As far as drug screening for weflare, what is the problem?
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
I'll be on the other side of the fence someday. But like I said, from a purely logical standpoint, it makes more sense to spend money on someone who might live longer than another 5 yrs, old or young. I mean hell, for all the people that put their faith in science and see us as nothing more than evolved apes, it should make perfect sense...
Similar threads
