Pretty sure it was a spending cut, not a tax cut, but I guess it's the flip side of the same coin.

I figure it was that leukemia that did it.

thompsonius: Pretty sure it was a spending cut, not a tax cut, but I guess it's the flip side of the same coin.

Endless Republican demands to cut taxes mean massive budget deficits, so spending must be cut instead of raising taxes back.

Brandyelf: That woman is just horrible, absolutely horrible. How do people like that get elected? Do they hide the crazy until after they're in office?

No, in places like Arizona they get elected by flaunting their craziness.

Its very sad that people are dying when a transplant could save or extend their life.

There is no guarantee, it depends on a lot of factors, but you can't say that "So and so would have lived if only they had gotten that transplant"

There is no guarantee, it depends on a lot of factors, but you can't say that "So and so would have lived if only they had gotten that transplant",

Of course; however their probability of living goes above 0

Sleeping Monkey: Brandyelf: That woman is just horrible, absolutely horrible. How do people like that get elected? Do they hide the crazy until after they're in office?

No, in places like Arizona they get elected by flaunting their craziness.

And they'll defend this sh*t to the bitter end.

Too bad the Right to Life^TM movement doesn't wade in on this one but I understand their mission statement limits them to persons not yet alive.

edmo: Right to LifeTM movement

That only applies to things that are not yet persons.

Meh, people who get transplants die too. There are no guarantees in such serious cases.

These high risk patients are solely responsible for their own conditions. Why should tax payers have to pay for people who decide to get cancer? The majority of people manage to avoid getting illnesses which require lung or other organ transplants, so why are they being asked to pay for the small minority of those foolish enough not to avoid such ailments? When do we get to say "Enough is enough" and stop the funding of sick people. I didn't make these people sick, why should I be expected to spend money to keep them from dying, how did I become responsible? Perhaps if they had planned their lives a bit better, they would have been able to avoid medical issues. They get themselves sick and then demand entitlements of wellness.

basemetal: Meh, people who get transplants die too. There are no guarantees in such serious cases.

The only guarantee is that they WILL die if they DON'T get the transplant. I know, thats some pretty complex thinking there.

basemetal: Meh, people who get transplants die too. There are no guarantees in such serious cases.

Yes there are, you can say that a person with hepatic failure is guaranteed to die if they dont get a transplant. They have a good chance at survival if they get a transplant.


/it is guaranteed you'll reply to this post with more misinformed derp

AxL sANe: Need to work bootstrappy in there somewhere, but overall very good.

Perhaps some of the cancer patients are actually growing bootstraps

Speaking in general (not about this specific case), is every single life worth saving? If not, at what point is does the cost outweigh the gain? What is the acceptable cost for a 5 year life extension? How about 1 year or 6 months? What if they end up in horrible debilitating pain for the rest of their time? What if their condition was brought on by their own poor choices? Where exactly should the government draw the line?

Thune: Tax cuts don't kill Leukemia patients.

Leukemia kills Leukemia patients.

Not true. Sometimes they get hit by a bus

TV's Vinnie: [thinkprogress.org image 192x313]
Sorry, Tiffany....
[www.washingtonpost.com image 605x404]
Your Governor was too busy drama-whoring her book in front of the President to give a damn if you live or die.

And we're done here.

"The possible solutions included using $2 million from an AIG settlement that the state of Arizona will receive or "transferring $1.2 million in funds that Arizona once planned to use to build bridges for endangered squirrels."

Yeah, because using that money to try and save the lives of terminally ill patients would be a total waste.

then again, I'm sure they're just holding onto the money to try and bail out Sheriff Joe when his house of cards finally caves and he's thrown in jail.

MyRandomName: Raithen: Speaking in general (not about this specific case), is every single life worth saving? If not, at what point is does the cost outweigh the gain? What is the acceptable cost for a 5 year life extension? How about 1 year or 6 months? What if they end up in horrible debilitating pain for the rest of their time? What if their condition was brought on by their own poor choices? Where exactly should the government draw the line?

Medicare puts it at roughly 300k for at most a 1 year life extension, you can extrapolate from there. Liberals seem to think there are no actual costs associated with the search for the fountain of youth that we call Medicare.

It must be scary in your head. Every single time I see you post, it has something about how liberals are the dumbest people who never think about anything, and everything is their fault. Wind blows a tree down? Libruls!11!11

I feel sad for people like you. Anyone who can't see that both conservatives and liberals have good and bad ideas but blames everything bad on one side or the other is what's wrong with the political climate in this country.

Wasn't this an onion story?