Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 1999 Texas law circus

  1. #1
    Featured Member polecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    1,391
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts

    Default 1999 Texas law circus

    In an effort to remove a thread de-rail and also give a completely unrelated topic a fair place in order to discuss it's merits, discussion of the 1999 Texas law George Bush put in place several years ago will go here rather than in the Terri Schiavo circus/Florida thread.

    From that thread:
    Once again, who exactly are you calling names like a loon ?
    A 'loon' is what I define as anyone that tries to take one topic, and completely derail it off-track.

    And that law doesn't have any right to be mentioned because... why ?
    I started that thread in the spirit of discussing the topic of Terri Schiavo's case, discussion of possible misconduct on the part of Florida judges, and points and elements concerning the whole debacle occurring in Florida.

    While the topic of a law passed in Texas in 1999 that has to do with providing free healthcare (or lack thereof) to terminally ill or otherwise uninsured recipients stands merit for discussion, it has absolutely nothing to do with Terri Schiavo, the spirit or topic of that thread, or her situation for a number of reasons:
    1) It's about Texas, not Florida.
    2) It's about patients that have no healthcare or healthcare coverage, nor anyone willing to flip the bill for healthcare. Last I heard, Michael Schiavo, several local hospices, as well as the family are all willing and able to afford healthcare.
    3) It's about a law put in place in 1999, while this is 2005
    4) It's appearance is one of someone trying to point a finger at George W. Bush rather than Judge Greer, Michael Schiavo, Terri Schievo, the Schindlers, the Florida circuit court system, the US Supreme Court, or The House of Representatives or the Senate... all being the related parties of that thread in it's topic and spirit.

    Is this not a discussion about removing life support and the merits or problems and issues surrounding court and government involvment in such matters ?
    We can discuss such matters here, where such important topics do deserve discussion and debate. But, the topics of that thread were along the lines of:
    * Political ramifications of emergency congressional efforts/wrangling with the Supreme Court at the federal level
    * Judges possibly obstructing justice or evidence in the appeals process.
    * Discussions of whether or not one personally believes Terri has been properly diagnosed as a 'vegetable' or having no conscious thought.
    * Discussions of interesting evidence that may suggest Michael Schiavo is either negligent, responsible, or both- for his wife's condition.


    Is that law not an example of court and government involement in end of life issues ?
    That law sure is! Feel free to discuss such here in this (proper) thread since it's now open season to open debate about such important topics.
    It doesn't matter if you're somebody in this world, it rather matters you mean the whole world to somebody.

  2. #2
    Veteran Member Hello~Kitty's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    345
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: 1999 Texas law circus

    Well, I was not trying to point fingers at any of the above listed people.I'm sorry if you took it that way, but that wasn't the intent. I was just joining in on the discussion.

    And while I'm at it, since it was otherwise assumed and implied I'm gonna clear this up too, ok. I actually would have sided with the parents if I had been the the first judge or appeal judge. But at this point , a decade later no less than 12 court decisions later from the lowest to the highest court of the land , well I now have to side with respecting the Courts and the law. I don't think that makes me a "liberal biased loon" as I was immediatly labled.

    I do think this law and Terri's situation have alot to do with eachother but , whatever. Maybe this is an invite only area or something ???

    I dunno, but either way , I think this 1999 law is worthy of discussion even without current events, so I'm glad you started a new thread about it.

    I am looking forward to reading other people's thoughts and ideas. But after the, uh,not so warm welcome I got from polecat well I think I'll just go back to lurking instead of posting. Please accept my apology for trying to join in on the conversation.

    Last edited by Hello~Kitty; 03-27-2005 at 12:55 PM.

  3. #3
    Featured Member polecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    1,391
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts

    Default Re: 1999 Texas law circus

    I agree we should open that law in Texas up for discussion since, at the state level, it's the same thing we see at the federal level- which is where the executive and legislative branch coerces the judicial branch to do their bidding.

    And you should never curb posting into lurking regardless of what I or anyone else says or does on the forums. If you feel your opinions don't warrant standing up for them, then you'd be illustrating just what is so wrong with our country today. I *welcome* anything you or anyone else has to say, and I DO hope you will continue to post and contribute in any way you feel. I only directed the discussion here since I felt it was the kind of contribution that leads threads away from the point of discussion, which is going to happen often. But please, NEVER feel bullied or unwelcomed under any conditions- what you feel IS important to be heard, regardless of what anyone may hint or tell you.

    The 1999 Texas law is a hotbed of discussion and could only dilute the saga and tragic outcome of what's happening in Florida. It truly belongs in it's own thread.

    Now on the law itself, it's known as the Texas "Advanced Directives Act".. It was passed into law in 1999 by then-govenor George W. Bush and it allows a patient's surrogate or guardian make decisions as towards the right to live or die on his or her behalf. It also gives hospitals and doctors the ability to consult a bioethics committee to determine if a patient should be disconnected from life-support if all members deem the patient's condition is hopeless.

    Florida and other states operate from the same principle. Without a living will, guardians or patient surrogate's have the deciding factor in these cases. The most famous case getting media attention was for Baby Sun Hudson- born with a rare and terminal form of thanatophoric dysplasia, born of a single mother with no healthcare insurance, was determined to be taken off life-support and allowed to die. The baby was unable to breath on it's own, so the choice was to remove the respirator.

    The mother disagreed- although she never contested that her baby was going to die soon, she insisted it be left on life support for as many weeks or months as it would live, and as she had no form of insurance for her child, she insisted the state and citizens pay for that costly ICU care.

    My argument here is that Sun's mom could have gotten insurance, or should have been required to have insurance prior to giving birth. At the very least, lobbied to find a federal grant or terminally ill insurance lottery, which all major insurance companies have.

    Her flight to obtain insurance was also mainly fluff. Open applications for insurance with pre-existing conditions or ill condition new dependents are a guaranteed denial. If I broke my toe and didn't have insurance, I could apply to 100's of insurance companies for coverage of the pre-existing injury and find 0 would comply or allow this. I could go on major media and show how I applied to 80+ insurance companies to pay for my broken toe and make a big stink about this process.

    Alternatively, insurance companies have a limited number of 'pre-existing' coverage plans that form off a monthly lottery. The reason I am so well versed in this is I helped a woman with cancer last year with this very situation. She had no insurance and was diagnosed with cancer, then compiled a list of 30+ insurance companies that declined/denied her coverage to treat her cancer over the course of three months. I got her insurance inside of 20 days by simply getting a broker involved to get her correctly in-line with several lottery pools for High Risk/Major Risk policies.

    Insurance companies cannot just simply accept anyone that needs immediate coverage, else nobody would have health insurance. What finances medical care are all the folks with policies and not using the benefits. That's why it's called "Insurance"- it's to insure someone IN CASE they befall health problems. In the case of someone terminally ill, it's just a total loss for the insurance company. So they have a limited number per month they allow under "total loss" payouts per month.

    What is very important to note is this is how it is for EVERYONE in countries such as Canada, where they marvel over government subsidized and provided healthcare. Baby Sun would have been disconnected with no ability to thwart as there is no privatized health insurance. The rule of the physicians and any form of bioethics consultation would arrive at the fact that the baby was dieing and death was imminent from it's condition, which would therefore authorize the immediate disconnection from it's respirator.

    In the case of Terri Schiavo, she would have never been revived at the point of the initial heart-attack as Canadian laws would suggest being without a pulse for the number of minutes that transpired would declare her as 'brain dead' and the revival process wouldn't be authorized to be paid. At least here in America, privatized health insurance or private citizens/organizations can come forth and flip the bill, so our options are much greater.
    It doesn't matter if you're somebody in this world, it rather matters you mean the whole world to somebody.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    128
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: 1999 Texas law circus

    Umm... you are aware that Terri Schaivo's medical fees are being paid by medicare, right?

    Pointing a finger at Bush it justified. Essentially, the 1999 law he signed allowed people outside of family to decide whether the patient lives or dies if the patient cannot foot the bill. That is a decision that should be left up to the person who has guardianship of the patient, not the hospital. Bush's grandstanding 'err on the side of life' bs shows that he was there only because the pro-life lobby wants action, not because he cares. If he actually cared that much, he wouldn't have signed that law. He'll gladly 'err on the side of life' as long as it's a big political issue, otherwise he'll side with the big business.

  5. #5
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: 1999 Texas law circus

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergent D
    Umm... you are aware that Terri Schaivo's medical fees are being paid by medicare, right?

    Pointing a finger at Bush it justified. Essentially, the 1999 law he signed allowed people outside of family to decide whether the patient lives or dies if the patient cannot foot the bill.
    1. If that is correct, then one might not equate to the other. If Medicare is picking it up, I guess the bill's being footed.

    2. My quick reading of the Texas statute would indicate that there's a misstatement here. The Texas statute says that if the treating docs agree that life support should be discontinued, then they can do so, contrary to the family's wishes, after going through a hearing and appeal process if that's what the family wants. The family can also choose to move the patient to another facility. Yes, that presumes that those expenses will be met.
    But in any event, saying "by decision of the treating physicians" is not the same as saying "pull the plug if they can't pay."

    3. I agree, one would have a hard time being philosophically consistent in arguing for the Texas law and against life support for Schiavo.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2011, 03:05 AM
  2. circus work
    By glitzy in forum Other Work
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-17-2008, 12:06 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-09-2008, 10:07 AM
  4. Anyone do circus?
    By jaizaine in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 07-11-2007, 06:59 PM
  5. Flea Circus
    By Guenevere in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2006, 09:36 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •