erynthered Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 By 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday — 30 hours into the operation — the liver was back inside Mr. Collison. That is always a tense moment in this kind of surgery, because many things can go wrong when blood first starts flowing through a newly implanted liver that has just been through surgery itself. And in Mr. Collison’s case, things did quickly start to spin out of control. The liver bled profusely. Transfusions could barely keep up. Over the next few hours he needed 30 pints of blood. But even as the bleeding abated, his blood pressure and body temperature dropped, and his blood turned dangerously acidic. Drugs to correct one problem made others worse. He was sinking into a vicious cycle that could kill him. At 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday, after 35 hours of surgery, Dr. Kato and his colleagues did something they had never tried during an ex vivo procedure: even though Mr. Collison’s digestive tract was not fully reconnected, they halted the surgery, put a patch over the incision without sewing it up and took him to the intensive care unit to be stabilized. The seemingly desperate maneuver worked. On Thursday night, Mr. Collison was ready for surgery again. Dr. Kato worked on him from 8:30 p.m. until 4:30 a.m. and finished all the needed repairs — after a total of 43 hours of surgery. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/health/1...nted=1&_r=1 Wow. 43 hours of surgery. Get well Mr. Collison!!
The Big Cat Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/health/1...nted=1&_r=1 Wow. 43 hours of surgery. Get well Mr. Collison!! What the Hell does the non-existent Health Care plan have to do with the quoted text?
PastaJoe Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 What the Hell does the non-existent Health Care plan have to do with the quoted text? It's another weak attempt to equate health insurance reform with death panels to scare the uninformed.
erynthered Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 What the Hell does the non-existent Health Care plan have to do with the quoted text? Its a hypothetical question. The quoted text was a sampling of the article I found interesting. It an amazing story. Hittin the bong early today, eh!
The Big Cat Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Its a hypothetical question. The quoted text was a sampling of the article I found interesting. It an amazing story. Hittin the bong early today, eh! I wish. I understand it's hypothetical, but what about the [non-existant] Health Care Bill suggests that the surgical complications wouldn't have been fixed?
erynthered Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 I wish. I understand it's hypothetical, but what about the [non-existant] Health Care Bill suggests that the surgical complications wouldn't have been fixed? I posed the hypothetical question. Why are you asking me, you answer it if you want. If you dont like the hypothetical, dont respond to it.
The Big Cat Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 I posed the hypothetical question. Why are you asking me, you answer it if you want. If you dont like the hypothetical, dont respond to it. Okay. Yes.
erynthered Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 Okay. Yes. So your response to this Q, is Yes: Would Mr. Collison have lived or died under obamacare? I'm going to lunch
The Big Cat Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 So your response to this Q, is Yes: Would Mr. Collison have lived or died under obamacare?I'm going to lunch "Yes" is what I meant because Obamacare would have zero impact on him living or dying.
RkFast Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 It's another weak attempt to equate health insurance reform with death panels to scare the uninformed. Kinda like positng phony articles about a blue collar guy who may DIE becuase he's being "denied" health care under the current system. Which he WASNT.
The Big Cat Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Kinda like positng phony articles about a blue collar guy who may DIE becuase he's being "denied" health care under the current system. Which he WASNT. So all similar cases must also be false.
PastaJoe Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Kinda like positng phony articles about a blue collar guy who may DIE becuase he's being "denied" health care under the current system. Which he WASNT. When it comes to health care, "denied" means the same as can't afford it.
IDBillzFan Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 When it comes to health care, "denied" means the same as can't afford it. That doesn't justify an entitlement.
The Big Cat Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 That doesn't justify an entitlement. Does it justify denying care?
IDBillzFan Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Does it justify denying care? Does being unable to afford it justify denying you a car? A house? Food? A TV? This is probably where you try to convince me that health care is a right.
The Big Cat Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Does being unable to afford it justify denying you a car? A house? Food? A TV? This is probably where you try to convince me that health care is a right. No, but as you've just demonstrated, this is the point in the discussion where you put words into my mouth then accuse me of being unable to think. Health care is not a right, but it certainly doesn't fall into the same category as the luxury items you've named like car and tv. As for house, food, and health care, three things you can't live without, I suspect your solution for those who can't afford him is simply to let them die?
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Does being unable to afford it justify denying you a car? A house? Food? A TV? This is probably where you try to convince me that health care is a right. Why would anyone not want it as a right? Seems like a noble endeavor. HealthCare a Right or privilege The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require prisoners, as part of their humane treatment during detention, to be guaranteed the right to health care. Currently prisoners are the only group who are specifically granted the right to health care. It is probable that the founders of our country, if they could have predicted the importance of health care, would have granted that the same standard of humane treatment be extended to every citizen. At the time of the framing of the Constitution--though meager in its scope compared to today's standards--health care was generally available to all citizens. There was no major issue of lack of affordability or lack of access to care. Framers of the Constitution, such as Thomas Jefferson, were heavily influenced by their personal experiences. Thomas Jefferson's personal physician, Robley Duglison, was aware of his patient's general distrust of medicine. Duglison wrote, "(Mr. Jefferson) has often told me he would rather trust to the unaided or uninterfered with efforts of nature than to physicians in general." Based on a realistic view of the impotent and poorly organized health care as it existed in the 1700s, Jefferson and the Founding Fathers probably found no reason to include health care as a specific right in the Constitution. They had no way to predict that health care would grow to be an integral part of the fabric of modern life and essential to the pursuit of life and happiness..."
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 IMO, if healthcare is allowed to become a right, a lot of wrangling abut other issues may become clearer. Like not having to need secular marriage. The recognition of ALL marriage by the governement can leave the secular realm and go back to being strictly religious. Cue... John Adams in: one, two, three.
IDBillzFan Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 No, but as you've just demonstrated, this is the point in the discussion where you put words into my mouth then accuse me of being unable to think. Health care is not a right, but it certainly doesn't fall into the same category as the luxury items you've named like car and tv. As for house, food, and health care, three things you can't live without, I suspect your solution for those who can't afford him is simply to let them die? There is where you constantly live in dreamland. Can't buy food? The state will give you food stamps. Can't afford health care? Go the a state-run hospital. The state can help in most every dire situation. But oh, no. Let's add another federal entitlement. Let's strip some more freedoms from the people. And to imply that promoting self-reliability and self-accountability equates to wanting to "simply let them die" is a perfect example of why it's not a stretch to believe your ability to think peaked at age 8.
DC Tom Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/health/1...nted=1&_r=1 Wow. 43 hours of surgery. Get well Mr. Collison!! The bigger question is: should he have lived or died under ANY health care system? There's no right to "not die", and that's a hell of a lot of work sunk into avoiding the unavoidable. You want to fix health care? Start by realizing that death is inevitable.
Recommended Posts