dagblog - Comments for "Footing the Bill for Assisted Suicide"

Thank you for a thought

barefooted — Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:12:15 +0000

In reply to Footing the Bill for Assisted Suicide

Thank you for a thought-provoking post, Elusive Trope, as well as for eliciting interesting commentary.

I found this article regarding financial motivation for insurance companies, etc. to be useful.

The government in this

Elusive Trope — Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:13:47 +0000

In reply to If you're going to look at it

The government in this country is technically a representative one. It makes the laws (including through referendums and initiatives pushed by citizen groups). The point would be I can choose to some degree where I work, but I can't choose my citizenship. So if the government makes something legal as a medical procedure to be covered by insurance, than I should have access to that procedure through my insurance (which should be through sliding scale etc equal across the board).

If you want to be claim your pet as a dependent and there is enough of your fellow citizens who agree, then get the law changed. That is the way is suppose to work. And maybe some who agree with that do so out of some religious or spiritual belief, but that is not religion engaging in politics. If a church or whatever, as organization, gets involved to push the measure through than that is engaging in politics that is against the tax code.

The Supreme Court made the distinction in their ruling that it only applies to closely held corporation - in other words, a corporation like GE or Boeing can't do the same thing. When the corporation is basically owned by individuals or families, than they can act as individuals as their religion dictates them to act. It doesn't mean I agree with their beliefs and won't be supporting Hobby Lobby knowingly.

This is in part of the Supreme Court viewing corporation as individuals, of course, which I also disagree with, and it is likely that this will start to expand to other corporations. But large corporations do want to attract the best of their fields for their top jobs, so it is also likely they will stay away from following Hobby Lobby lead on something like this for fear that they will lose some of their best to other corporations that don't insult their sensibility.

In my original blog, I state

Elusive Trope — Sun, 20 Jul 2014 14:58:56 +0000

In reply to You're avoiding the financial

In my original blog, I state that the insurance companies would most likely embrace assisted suicide (as they probably secretly embrace those who do it unassisted now, saving them all those costs of trying to prolong someone's life through expensive medical costs). And if a corporation sees a financial incentive to push what is legal onto their employees than that is their right whatever the incentive (which is one reason why we should get them out of the mix in our health care system).

If it the public is unsuspecting - then whose fault is that really. At some point we have to put the responsibility on the individual. I doubt there are those who chose to go the route of suicide because of terminal illness who don't give it much thought. And in this day and age of info overload there are plenty of people and groups out there on all sides willing to put their two cents into it.

But so far in places like Oregon, the evidence seems to indicate that this "subtle merging" isn't happening in any significant way yet. With emphasis on the "yet."

You're avoiding the financial

Beetlejuice — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 00:26:40 +0000

In reply to That's not true. If we meld

You're avoiding the financial incentive the Hobby Barn decision and assisted suicide offers both a corporation and health care insurers to make the move. It is possible the legal decision and the financial incentive of assisted suicide will merge in oh so subtle ways that corporations and health care insurers are all too well at playing on an unsuspecting public.

If you're going to look at it

ocean-kat — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 23:33:10 +0000

In reply to I see your point and in

If you're going to look at it that way its the government that is doing the subsidizing. Our current system of business supplied health care is due to the tax breaks companies get. I'd be fine with no employer mandate or regulation if corporations didn't get a tax break. You want the tax break, here's the health care you must provide to get it.

My dog is like a child to me but I can't claim her as a dependent. Theoretically religions are not allowed to engage in politics to get all sorts of tax breaks. If they engage in politics they are supposed to lose those tax breaks. There are trade offs and corporations like Hobby Lobby want it to favor them both ways.

There are those who see

Elusive Trope — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 23:22:13 +0000

In reply to There is news on the

There are those who see suicide as a "sin" - however one wants to define it. In this culture of America we have a general weirdness, if that's the word I'm looking for, about death. Mainly because we really don't want to face the whole mortality thing (see our quest for perpetual youth). Throw some "religion" into the mix and assisted suicide freaks a lot of people out even when it has nothing to do with them.

The cost is more about keeping people alive when they would otherwise die quickly 99% of the time. So they go through all the procedures and use the machines that go "bing" (to use Monty Python) in some hope for a cure or at best prolong the person's life for another month or two. What right does society, or even family members, have to tell the person they can't be assisted in bringing the end that is obvious to the here and now, and have to go through this awful stage until modern medicine can no longer prolong it.

Regarding your fantasy, in real life we can a lot of times see this moment coming in the near future. I should be able to dictate when I reach what ever point, I can go down to my physician and say, "that's it for me Doc." Andset an appointment for a month or whatever down the road, and postpone as I see fit.

I see your point and in

Elusive Trope — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 23:07:48 +0000

In reply to I see where you're going and

I see your point and in general agree with you. The issue at some level is at what point does the government have dictating to me how I choose to compensate you. Say for instance I agree to subsidy your rent, but you are currently living in a place operated by a corporation that wiped out a community garden to build luxury condos. I should be able to say, look if you want the subsidy you're gonna have to find a new place to live because I can't in good conscience write a check to that corporation. You can then choose to quit or move. If you quit then I have to deal with finding a replacement for you and all the headaches that come from a turnover in staff. The government shouldn't be able to tell me I have to subsidy your rent regardless of where you live, as long as there are comparable places for you to live that I am willing to subsidize.

Of course, I should have to make this qualification upfront so you can choose to go along with my view of compensation or go elsewhere for a job.

So I would say that it is probably just best that compensation be just "cash" and the employees free to do what they want with it.

I see where you're going and

Michael Maiello — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:45:38 +0000

In reply to No I wouldn't try to limit

I see where you're going and I think it's interesting. My feeling, though, is that cash and non-cash compensation are not really all that different in terms of who owns the comp once the work has been done.

For example: a good portion of my pay goes to rent my apartment every month. It's a fixed expense and if I don't pay it, there's not much point in me doing the work. If my employer offered me my current rent as a rental subsidy and took it out of my pay, it wouldn't make much difference to me. I would also not say that my employer was paying my rent under such an arrangement. I would say that if my employer wasn't the one transferring money to the landlord that I'd expect my employer to transfer that money to me so that I could fork it over. I think that under either scenario, I am still the spender. I see no difference, in terms of who is responsible for what, if I use my health insurance to finance my own euthanasia or, more preferably, youth in Asia. My employer isn't paying for it. I am.

There is news on the

CVille Dem — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:09:09 +0000

In reply to Footing the Bill for Assisted Suicide

There is news on the Alzheimer's front this week: simple assessment tools that test smell recognition and other easily tested parameters to provide early diagnosis. Since there is no parallel treatment (simple or no) that accompanies this news, I am left wondering why this is is welcomed as good news. There is no effective treatment, and so what does one do with the information?

My fantasy about suicide (if one can call it that) is this: if I found out that I had a degenerative mental disease, and had x years to live productively, I would like to take a poison pill that would not activate for x years. That way I could enjoy my life knowing that once I lost my ability to make rational decisions I would die at a certain time and not waste away in a home. Of course, in the event of a cure there would be an antidote that people on the "registry" would give me if I was too far gone at the time. REMEMBER, this is a fantasy!

The cost of assisted suicide seems negligible to me compared to the palliative care that people who would desire to end their lives would otherwise require. I don't understand the concern about the cost aspect, really. Don't get me started on what one's employer might say. As to the moral argument, see my fantasy above.

No I wouldn't try to limit

Elusive Trope — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 19:48:39 +0000

In reply to "If there is an option

No I wouldn't try to limit the ways in which you spend your cash, and the Hobby Lobby decision doesn't say that people who work for them can't use their cash compensation for access to the services they are against.

Of course the Supreme Court has made it so rich families, like those that own Hobby Lobby, can spend their money to support initiatives, politicians and such that would limit your access to those services, but that is another issue.

As a consumer, one can also choose not to give your cash to places like Hobby Lobby.

I suppose one point of the blog is that is easy to get all riled up about the Hobby Lobby decision because what is being denied is a medical service one believes to morally or ethically okay. But one can see legitimate scenarios where, say a very liberal person, can find the decision to be a positive. That is why I chose assisted suicide, because it is one which tends to cross over simple classifications of liberal/conservative. It is also one which I think should be legal under certain circumstances, but also understand the slippery slope fears it generates in people.