er... the one Larry said was a quack said she squeezed his fingers when asked. The judge disagreed.
(brain stutter) Dana On Apr 3, 2005 9:55 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gruss > > Did you actually read any of the links in that post? Go take a look at > the LeanLeft and JustAMinute blogs in particular. The Schiavo case is > not about economics. But ok, let's go there for a minute. The fallacy > in your thinking is that you assume that all government spending is > static and unchanging. That nobody would ever cut EPA enforcement in > order to fund public relations campaigns. I'm merely saying that > instead of buying Halliburton execs a junket to some spa, we *could* > increase funding for hospitals or even, heaven forbid, research. > > But let me tell you a dirty little secret -- you ask if you should pay > for Terry Shiavo. Actually, in her case the question is irrelevant, as > money was available for her medical bills; her guardian merely chose > to spend it on legal bills instead. > But let me explain something to you. It isn't the Terri Schiavos who > are expensive. It's the people who unquestionably *do* have brain > function. I was thinking after my last post, hmm, I'm probably > actually in the six figures for the year, what with all the CAT cans > and ER visits and EKGs. > > Ah but I can benefit, you cry. Yes, I did, and there is still > significant doubt that Terri Schiavo would have benefited too. Before > you start again with the hundreds of doctors and the thousands of > judges, let me share with you that I just took a good hard look at the > original judgement that found that she was PVS and guess what? It's > highly unclear whether the doctors who said she was were ever even in > a room with her. There is a reference to the one Larry saying she > squeezed his fingers. Hmm. I think I'd rather have a quack that > examines me as my doctor than two that say there is no point. > > And I repeat, it was ONE judge and a whole bunch mor that said the > ruling was legal. Remember that legal doesn't mean fair. Or right. > Just legal. > > Dana > > On Apr 3, 2005 9:33 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dana wrote: > > > Shiiiiiiiit. Don't get all moral with me about who is supposed to pay > > > for this stuff. > > > > > > > I'm not getting moral, I'm getting practical. It's one thing to > > advocate for someone's life support, it's another to actually step up > > and provide it. You've only done the first. > > > > Take a look at the anti-choice people: they take a moral position on > > abortion, but when you ask them to adopt a crack baby they run for the > > hills. How is your position any different? Aren't you basically > > saying, "keep her alive but I don't want to pay for it"? > > > > The bottom line is, either we're all going to have to take big pay > > cut to fund random people living on machines or we're going to have > > get comfortable with pulling the plug. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:152680 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
