I'm confused on a couple of things here.
First, two words.
Where's the outrage now?
Barely audible, among the chirping crickets, I'm hearing on the right, whispers that Nataline Sarkisyan wouldn't have made it much longer anyway.
My question to the right is this. The right had a national tantrum over cutting off a brain dead woman with no hope of recovery, yet there is one giant collective yawn when a health insurer denies a transplant to a living/breathing/aware 17-year old girl? Where is the "every life is precious" meme now? If this girl had a 5% chance of survival is the transplant worth it? Is it health insurer's right to deny services if it deems "six months" not worth the cash? What about "six years"? Not enough to authorise that prostate surgery and cancer treatment? "You'll be dead in six years anyway?"
What's amazing is the deafening silence that this situation is being greeted with on the right. Just goes to show you, you wait awhile and the real truth comes out.
Wingnuts: "Oh well, that girl would have died anyway, transplant probably wouldn't have worked. Please donate to the Terry Schiavo memorial fund." I mean, and I say this with all seriousness, WTF?
My next puzzlement is on the ability of government to run Healthcare.
They seem to trust them enough to give them the most powerful standing army on the planet.
This has always seemed twisted logic to me. You don't trust the government to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but you trust it to have lethal powers and nuclear weapons and give it a huge chunk of our taxes to do it? You'll give it powers to spy on it's own citizens and throw citizens in jail without trial but health care is not government's job and it can't be trusted in such an important thing?
Back in the early days of the Republic it wasn't the job of the government to maintain a standing army either and the Constitution does not mandate one. Why don't I ever see conservatives arguing to get rid of that?
Can someone explain this to me?