Spending money to save at risk people might not be profitable!

[Shadow Wolf]

What codswollop. You guy's on the leaft seem to be having a collective breakdown and resultant hallucinations.

Many of you on the Right seem hellbound to keep your head in the sand and ignore how dangerous an overloaded medical system is. That happens and it wont just be covid victims dying.There wont be enough for covid patients, let alone them and everybody else.
Have also ignored the news in Italy?

 

[tytlyf]

Many of you on the Right seem hellbound to keep your head in the sand and ignore how dangerous an overloaded medical system is. That happens and it wont just be covid victims dying.There wont be enough for covid patients, let alone them and everybody else.
Have also ignored the news in Italy?

RW media doesn't report news. If it's bad for the republican party, all radios will be silent in RW media.
This is why studies show people who rely on RW media are less informed than people who don't watch news.
That's because RW media is in the DISinformation business of taking advantage of gullible people for republican establishment votes.

 

[shmogie]

Let me give you guys and gals some perspective

I was (emphasis on was) in active clinical practice when SARS broke out - I am a critical care physician.

There was intense concern among the members of my professional brotherhood that we would be on the front-lines deciding who gets the ventilator and who does not - at that time it did not come to that.

I remember going to ethics meetings and intense debates where no one on the front lines of healthcare delivery wanted to touch this proverbial hot potato. I have also done a course in ATLS - Advanced Trauma Life Support - where the training is to leave the most critically / potentially non salvageable in a multi trauma - think battlefield or multi car pile up or mass shooting and try and save those that can be - with the limited resources and time. Even the "fastest and most brilliant" surgical team can operate on only one patient at a time. With only so many operating rooms and teams to staff them - who would they take - someone very badly injured who might take hours under the knife or maybe two or three people with lesser injuries who could perhaps all be salvaged? Who decides? Based on what authority? Those are the scenarios being spoken about.

Remember while ventilators and masks can be manufactured - they still need qualified people to operate or oversee them. AI running our ICU's is not yet a fact of life. So hard as these decisions are - and again I sincerely hope - we do not come to that - given the nightmarish scenarios of the amount of people struck down and needing help in hospitals and ICU's - talking about it ahead of time is not something I would put the kibosh on

Again for those who think I am spouting off - here is an article that addresses some of the issues.

And a newer one from the fabled New England Journal of Medicine

You aren't spouting off, you know what you are talking about.

I Dealt with disaster planning in Southern California in my working life, which was primarily concerned with the massive earthquake that is coming.

We planned in detail, and our working groups included physicians, first responders, engineers, hospital specialists etc.

The plan for dealing with folk in the immediate aftermath was simple, those that would die before transport could get in would be given what brief treatment that was available for comfort, and the teams would move on. There would be no time to lavish resources and effort while many, many others required help.

The Hospitals themselves, through their disaster committees and emergency docs, planned to triage in a manner where some would be, based upon their injuries,and surgeons, available, etc. left to die. It sounds cruel, but it is reality.

Then, there was the school of thought that when actual treatment could finally be available, only relative minor injuries would need to be treated, as all others would have died.

We are learning for the first time in a very long time how cruel the world really is, and how limited our responses to that cruelty are.,

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Let's just say I agree with the article on principle.

I don't agree with the article on overall practicality.

You should not tank an entire nations economy for 2% of the people.

It's the classic philosophical argument in which needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few.

Even if an overloaded medical system managed to somehow stop deaths at 2%...
You're talking about death panals, let's be clear.

 

[shmogie]

Many of you on the Right seem hellbound to keep your head in the sand and ignore how dangerous an overloaded medical system is. That happens and it wont just be covid victims dying.There wont be enough for covid patients, let alone them and everybody else.
Have also ignored the news in Italy?

I don't get your point. EVERY medical system in EVERY country will be overloaded. No one could have foreseen this or invested in capital resources to just store or stand empty.

Most hospitals in the US are not for profit, that means they are allowed a small profit (5-6%) for plant maintenance, equipment replacement etc. In most cases, their expansions are funded by donations,

The hospital capacity simply isn't here for something like this. Being on the Right has nothing to do with it. It is the same for countries with state built and state owned hospitals.

No one is ignoring it, it is a fact.

 

[ManSinha]

You're talking about death panals, let's be clear.

Please see my post with the linked articles and @shmogie 's post #84

If you would like to characterize it that way - it is your choice - but ultimately it is the good of the many versus that of the few or the one (As Mr. Spock would say)

If you have a credible alternative - I would be very interested in hearing it - please supply solutions instead of merely resorting to name calling

 

[shmogie]

LMAO... See, here you are broad-brushing the left immediately after crying about the right being broad-brushed.

No, not broadbrushing at all. It was directed specifically to the lefties here who are becoming unhinged and have gone down the rabbit hole to pure absurdity.

If the shoe fits..................................

 

[shmogie]

Are you in favor of the socialist spending bill for the coronavirus? I'd assume you aren't a fan of that evil socialism found in Venezuela

An emergency spending bill is not a government economic system. Yes, I support it and hope the democrats will quit blocking it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Please see my post with the linked articles and @shmogie 's post #84

If you would like to characterize it that way - it is your choice - but ultimately it is the good of the many versus that of the few or the one (As Mr. Spock would say)

If you have a credible alternative - I would be very interested in hearing it - please supply solutions instead of merely resorting to name calling

It isn't name calling. And rescinding restrictions on social distancing and allowing the virus to take its effect isn't a solution. It would just make the problems in your post worse, by creating more illness quicker and hitting hospitals harder. The post I was replying to was mischaracterizing 2% loss as a realistic and acceptable outcome. It is neither.

 

[Cooky]

It will be significantly higher if this isn't slowed down. And more people than those with covid will die.
Are Hospitals Near Me Ready for Coronavirus? Here Are Nine Different Scenarios.

I know.

Many of you on the Right seem hellbound to keep your head in the sand and ignore how dangerous an overloaded medical system is. That happens and it wont just be covid victims dying.There wont be enough for covid patients, let alone them and everybody else.
Have also ignored the news in Italy?

Who do you mean by "many"..? Are you including me in there..?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What a stupid presentation of the the stupid lefty urban myth. I really thought that most on the left were at least of average intelligence and average emotional maturity. I am beginning to doubt my assumption. LOOK at what you wrote. A second grader wouldn't write something like this.

You guy's on the leaft seem to be having a collective breakdown and resultant hallucinations.

You guys aren;t doing well with the stress of this virus, are you?

What idiocy, and I mean pure idiocy.

Try to keep to ideas. Nobody here cares if you consider them an idiot.

Regarding emotional maturity, you're the one who turned to insulting the people present on the thread that have given opinions you don't like. They didn't treat you that way.

Your point being what? A hypothetical whereby grandparents would be willing to die to ENSURE their grandchildren could continue having the means for a quality life? Is there something wrong with grandparents thinking like this?

Straw man. The claim is not that the elderly are willingly sacrificing their hospital beds to their grandchildren and dying for it, which would be noble. It is that the Republicans are more interested in protecting dollars than lives. These people are not offering to sacrifice themselves in a noble cause. They don't have noble causes. They would spare no public dollar being spent to save them. Watch how the Congress treats itself in the crisis.

The pro choice movement is rooted in killing inconvenient people

The pro-choice movement is rooted in the freedom and individual autonomy of the pregnant woman. It's about empowering her, as were the right to vote, the updated divorce laws, increased ability to get credit, workplace changes, oral contraceptives, and now reproductive rights.

And yes, one of the potential mother's choices is to end a pregnancy that she finds inconvenient. The early-term fetus has no standing in the mother's decision unless she gives it to the fetus or the church gets to use the government to enforce its religious views on her.

 

[metis]

Many of you on the Right seem hellbound to keep your head in the sand and ignore how dangerous an overloaded medical system is.

Back in 2009, Newsweek ran a front page headline that said "We Are All Socialists Now", and it was in reference to the bank "bailouts" that included some technically illegal action that simply had to be taken by the fed (bank "stress test"), plus using deficit spending to prop up business and try to jump-start the economy. Compared to where we are right now, that will most likely be a cake-walk in comparison.

What we have is an economy that is losing jobs hand over fist while people don't have the money to pay their bills, and that may well including the vast majority of American families over the next several months. And who's going to pay the massive medical bulls? What happens when insurance companies run out of funds to pay? What happens when states and local communities run out of money to pay employees and maintain our healthcare system? What about pay for federal agencies, including the DoD, when the fed isn't getting enough paid in taxes? Etc.?

There may be only one real solution, and that is "We Are All Socialists Now" in order to keep the American "boat" afloat. The only other "solution" might be "social Darwinism", namely a fight to the finish. But if we did that, democracy will be gone as most Americans simply would not put up with this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Back in 2009, Newsweek ran a front page headline that said "We Are All Socialists Now", and it was in reference to the bank "bailouts" that included some technically illegal action that simply had to be taken by the fed (bank "stress test"), plus using deficit spending to prop up business and try to jump-start the economy. Compared to where we are right now, that will most likely be a cake-walk in comparison.

What we have is an economy that is losing jobs hand over fist while people don't have the money to pay their bills, and that may well including the vast majority of American families over the next several months. And who's going to pay the massive medical bulls? What happens when insurance companies run out of funds to pay? What happens when states and local communities run out of money to pay employees and maintain our healthcare system? What about pay for federal agencies, including the DoD, when the fed isn't getting enough paid in taxes? Etc.?

There may be only one real solution, and that is "We Are All Socialists Now" in order to keep the American "boat" afloat. The only other "solution" might be "social Darwinism", namely a fight to the finish. But if we did that, democracy will be gone as most Americans simply would not put up with this.

You & Newsweek misunderstand what socialism is, ie, it's about the people
(which means government) owning/controlling the means of production.
Bail-outs, assistance, loans...whatever they're called...if they're temporary,
& don't result in government ownership/control, are not socialism.

I advocate the fed assisting all people & businesses in need because of
this crisis. Why? Because it's a severe emergency which will soon end.
But if people & businesses are allowed to go under in great numbers, it
will be a very costly & lengthy recovery. Spending taxpayer money to
address this crisis would be cheaper to the taxpayer than economic loss.
This isn't "socialism"....it's "insurance", albeit an unwritten policy.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

An emergency spending bill is not a government economic system. Yes, I support it and hope the democrats will quit blocking it.

Maybe if Republicans stopped adding in corporate bailout riders. Like the 30b corporate bailout, stock buybacks and six month private loans to entities (pg 391, sec 417)
And had the big relief aids dems have be asking for, like eviction and foreclosure forbarance and worker protections.

Republicans are complaining about dem riders, but keep a beam in their eye about their own.

I want a relief bill that won't just be corporate welfare.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe if Republicans stopped adding in corporate bailout riders. Like the 30b corporate bailout, stock buybacks and six month private loans to entities (pg 391, sec 417)
And had the big relief aids dems have be asking for, like eviction and foreclosure forbarance and worker protections.

Republicans are complaining about dem riders, but keep a beam in their eye about their own.

I want a relief bill that won't just be corporate welfare.

So you'd just let larger corporations fail?
How would you handle all the people thrown out of work?

I say that if anyone is threatened with eviction because they
can't make the payments, graphic artists should be forced to
provide them with the money. Then the creditor won't have
to bear the full burden. Everyone wins.

 

[Cooky]

So you'd just let larger corporations fail?
How would you handle all the people thrown out of work?

That'll be the push into socialism she's looking for perhaps?

...Get everyone on assistance and "bam".

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So you'd just let larger corporations fail?
How would you handle all the people thrown out of work?

If you believe that the billionaire corporate offices are in legitimate danger than i can't help you. Your fat cats are fine. The working class isn't. Letting the corporate fat cats extort people with cutbacks unless they get more money than they need won't help them.
Nor will establishing anemic loans instead of union grants.

 

[Revoltingest]

That'll be the push into socialism she's looking for perhaps?

...Get everyone on assistance and "bam".

Ya know.....I was thinking the same thing.
Some posters here strike me as the socialist's equivalent of John Galt.

 

[Cooky]

If you believe that the billionaire corporate offices are in legitimate danger than i can't help you. Your fat cats are fine. The working class isn't. Letting the corporate fat cats extort people with cutbacks unless they get more money than they need won't help them.
Nor will establishing anemic loans instead of union grants.

That wasn't really addressing the question but I'm not complaining ma'am... Just saying.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That wasn't really addressing the question but I'm not complaining ma'am... Just saying.

I absolutely addressed the question by pointing out that it is a false premise.