that and England is really getting strict about the NHS here. There's a lot of debate over immigration and the NHS and such- lots of people are getting angry that they're having to pay for the healthcare of people in other countries- especially countries with first world medical skills. I personally have mixed views on it- but if somebody is dying, they have a right to healthcare, you shouldn't have to pay to keep your life no matter where you are.
I work in medicine... lung cancer isn't curable and treatment only adds 6 months at most to lifespan. I wouldn't take the treatment either if I got it..
but also, was he a smoker?
Guest. I practice medicine for a living. You're almost certainly not qualified to make that statement wheras I am.
*I looked at my earlier statment. I did say treatable. Leaving my mistake up as a lesson to myself. Pride goeth before a fall?
Reply
·
Edited 8 years ago
deleted
· 8 years ago
If you have a right to guns (and no I'm not anti-gun rights) then you should have a right to healthcare. And princesmonstertru, it IS the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens. I do have health insurance and my premiums are $1200 a month. My medicals bills and prescriptions are also about $1200 a month. For a family of 5 our grocery bills are less than $500 a month. But I make too much for food stamps. Sorry. Did not intend for this to turn into a rant!
Guns and Healthcare have nothing to do with each other... also, no one buys you your guns. You don't force other people to pay for guns. So making this an ACTUAL comparison, if guns are a right, but you don't force others to pay for them, then the ability to obtain Healthcare is also a right, as long as you don't force someone else to pay for it...
When exactly did it become the responsability of the government to be a provider of anything? Pretty good chance that guy is a smoker. maybe the message here should be not to start a discusting habit because some point in the future you may be in a sh!tty place like this. It sure is easy to blame the government for things that happen to you. But its a lot more rewarding if you take the responsability for your own life.
No matter the reason he is ill, be it by smoking or otherwise, there should be no need to have to decide whether to DIE or not from an easily curable disease. Sure, it may be his fault; but isn't a country supposed to help protect its citizens? Deciding that he would rather die than make his family suffer financially shows exactly how messed up the system is - how much more will his family be hurting because of his death? If him dying slowly in front of his loved ones is better than the cost of curing him, something is terribly wrong.
30
deleted
· 8 years ago
You can get cancer without smoking or do anything that contributes to it.
Maybe the point here is not judging others just because "you are pretty sure" they did something to "deserve" it or contribute to it.
you can't try and justify this based on an assumption. Nor should you be trying to demean this man as a bad or idiotic person- he is sacrificing his life so that his family can live theirs without debt hanging over their heads all the time. Nobody that caring deserves to die young.
It's shattered.
but also, was he a smoker?
*I looked at my earlier statment. I did say treatable. Leaving my mistake up as a lesson to myself. Pride goeth before a fall?
Maybe the point here is not judging others just because "you are pretty sure" they did something to "deserve" it or contribute to it.