Medical Assistance in Dying: MAID

Quote: Mission146

Good! Dead bodies don't require tax dollars. At least not as a continuing investment that will not have a positive return.

Does the term "survivor benefits" mean anything to you?

Quote: Mission146

Good! Dead bodies don't require tax dollars. At least not as a continuing investment that will not have a positive return.

I see you are taking a remarkably cynical view of several subjects. Just saying.

Examining this particular comment, we are to believe that Mission takes the cost of Welfare quite seriously, to the point of celebrating the decision of a homeless person [those with multiple problems anyway] to have authorities expedite his exit from this world. One less 'mouth to feed'! I'll grant that it would still be important to Mission that this is with the person's consent/advocacy. We don't have to trot out facts and figures from Nazi Germany. Granted.

But did you, Mission, instead just wish to kind of be that 'shock jock' who will say about anything ... taking delight in the reaction? I think maybe so, and almost didn't make any comment, being pretty sure about it. But if you wish to be taken seriously, and I think you do, you can't just be that shock jock all the time. Just saying.

Quote: kenarman

Does the term "survivor benefits" mean anything to you?

You simply stipulate that the surviving no longer get those if the person commits Medically-Assisted Suicide. That's easy.

Quote: odiousgambit

I see you are taking a remarkably cynical view of several subjects. Just saying.

Examining this particular comment, we are to believe that Mission takes the cost of Welfare quite seriously, to the point of celebrating the decision of a homeless person [those with multiple problems anyway] to have authorities expedite his exit from this world. One less 'mouth to feed'! I'll grant that it would still be important to Mission that this is with the person's consent/advocacy. We don't have to trot out facts and figures from Nazi Germany. Granted.

But did you, Mission, instead just wish to kind of be that 'shock jock' who will say about anything ... taking delight in the reaction? I think maybe so, and almost didn't make any comment, being pretty sure about it. But if you wish to be taken seriously, and I think you do, you can't just be that shock jock all the time. Just saying.

Not at all.

You go around the world and you see these people with severe depression, or other issues, and it's just one problem after another for them. I also don't believe in God or that life has any inherent meaning other than whatever meaning we can find for ourselves to give to our own lives, and perhaps, those of others.

With that, if someone wants to die, then I say let them die. Even if they were to recover from what ails them, depending on what it is, there's a really good chance that said recovery will not be sustained. Even if it is sustained, then it is just as likely that they will be confronted with an entirely new problem.

On balance, I suspect that it would be a net benefit for those who wish to die, and who have been made to spend an ample amount of time contemplating this, to do so.

You'd have to think about how many people would this actually apply to. Do you suppose that people with great lives and future prospects are going to be lining up in droves to take the needle? I don't. Any number of people endure a terrible existence as it is, and yet, wouldn't want to die.

One possibility that I see is that people with long prison sentences, pedophiles, people situated like that might decide to off themselves rather than serve those sentences (in the former case) or continue to resist their sick urges (in the latter case). The latter deciding to commit assisted suicide saves any number of potential victims; the former deciding to do so saves the money required to incarcerate them.

I'm very serious about this. If people have a right to live, then they should certainly have the right to die. They, in fact, do have the right to die (usually), but the means available to them could result in a catastrophic failure that makes their situations even worse.

I assume OG is for people being able to take great risks to their health, like free style rock climbing, powered lawn mower engine paragliders, Wing suit flying, probably standing out in an open field during a bad lightning storm, drinking a entire quart of liquor, YET, he draws the line at someone getting assisted suicide???????????????????????????????????????????

GIMME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Trying to outdo Terapined in EXCLAMATIONS AND QUESTION MARKS)

Quote: rxwine

I assume OG is for people being able to take great risks to their health, like free style rock climbing, powered lawn mower engine paragliders, Wing suit flying, probably standing out in an open field during a bad lightning storm, drinking a entire quart of liquor, YET, he draws the line at someone getting assisted suicide???????????????????????????????????????????

GIMME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Trying to outdo Terapined in EXCLAMATIONS AND QUESTION MARKS)

I mean, you'll know you drank a quart the following day, but for some people, that's not really that much. What I mean is some people could easily drink that with almost no risk to life.

I'm not saying I would know any of those people, personally, or that I would see them when I look into mirrors.

Quote: Mission146

I mean, you'll know you drank a quart the following day, but for some people, that's not really that much. What I mean is some people could easily drink that with almost no risk to life.

I'm not saying I would know any of those people, personally, or that I would see them when I look into mirrors.

i was thinking more along the lines of chugalug in one go. Admittedly, was presuming too much probably.

Quote: kenarman

Does the term "survivor benefits" mean anything to you?

In addition to that stipulation, I should also point out that we could simply remove Survivors' benefits entirely.

Social Security Survivorship benefits started in 1939, just a few years after the program started, and sort of harken back to a time when you had more traditional households and it was sort of the expectation that the man would be the sole breadwinner. At the time, in the event of an untimely death of a spouse, if the spouse did not have life insurance, the survivors would be pretty screwed.

For comparison, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) wasn't established until 1965. The Department of Health and Human Services did not exist until 1953. While HUD replaced the Housing and Home Finance Agency, which itself sort of consolidated different programs such as The National Housing Act and U.S. Housing Authority, the agencies replaced didn't have much to do with providing free, or low-income, housing, but rather, constructing cheap housing.

Similarly, Medicare and Medicaid did not exist until 1965. Those programs came into existence replacing nothing as no program similar had existed previously. There were efforts toward some sort of national program as early as the 1930's, which would have been part of the Social Security Act, but they didn't make it.

WIC is another example of something that didn't exist at that time as it started in the 1970's.

The First Food Stamp Program (nationally) started in 1939, which is the same year as survivorship benefits. However, the program ended after a few years because there was no longer a food surplus that had to be dealt with.

The point of all of this is that Social Security Survivorship should be eliminated as it is based on an outdated paradigm of the expected family model in which a couple remains together and also, generally, only has one full-time worker. In addition to these other programs (both federal and state) not being around at that time, and if they were, not nearly to the same extent they operate today, programs established since then, in fact, accomplish roughly the same ends whether or not the spouse/children are survived by the departed, or not.

In essence, the program is outdated and the function it serves is now irrelevant as it is replaced by other programs in the scope of its original intent. It should be eliminated.

Quote: Mission146

Not at all.

You go around the world and you see these people with severe depression, or other issues, and it's just one problem after another for them. I also don't believe in God or that life has any inherent meaning other than whatever meaning we can find for ourselves to give to our own lives, and perhaps, those of others.

With that, if someone wants to die, then I say let them die. Even if they were to recover from what ails them, depending on what it is, there's a really good chance that said recovery will not be sustained. Even if it is sustained, then it is just as likely that they will be confronted with an entirely new problem.

On balance, I suspect that it would be a net benefit for those who wish to die, and who have been made to spend an ample amount of time contemplating this, to do so.

You'd have to think about how many people would this actually apply to. Do you suppose that people with great lives and future prospects are going to be lining up in droves to take the needle? I don't. Any number of people endure a terrible existence as it is, and yet, wouldn't want to die.

One possibility that I see is that people with long prison sentences, pedophiles, people situated like that might decide to off themselves rather than serve those sentences (in the former case) or continue to resist their sick urges (in the latter case). The latter deciding to commit assisted suicide saves any number of potential victims; the former deciding to do so saves the money required to incarcerate them.

I'm very serious about this. If people have a right to live, then they should certainly have the right to die. They, in fact, do have the right to die (usually), but the means available to them could result in a catastrophic failure that makes their situations even worse.

Now that is a thoughtful response as opposed to "Good riddance to the bums!"

Quote: rxwine

I assume OG is for people being able to take great risks to their health, like free style rock climbing, powered lawn mower engine paragliders, Wing suit flying, probably standing out in an open field during a bad lightning storm, drinking a entire quart of liquor, YET, he draws the line at someone getting assisted suicide???????????????????????????????????????????

GIMME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Trying to outdo Terapined in EXCLAMATIONS AND QUESTION MARKS)

Am I drawing the line? I have said I have mixed feelings. I do think what MAID has evolved to should give us some pause. Let's see how it goes with the different states that allow assisted suicide. And for that matter, what goes on in un-transparent, like activity in palliative care in my state.... in which I question the consent factor ... maybe that is worse?

And yes that was a lot of ?s and !s

Quote: Mission146

In addition to that stipulation, I should also point out that we could simply remove Survivors' benefits entirely.

Social Security Survivorship benefits started in 1939, just a few years after the program started, and sort of harken back to a time when you had more traditional households and it was sort of the expectation that the man would be the sole breadwinner. At the time, in the event of an untimely death of a spouse, if the spouse did not have life insurance, the survivors would be pretty screwed.

For comparison, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) wasn't established until 1965. The Department of Health and Human Services did not exist until 1953. While HUD replaced the Housing and Home Finance Agency, which itself sort of consolidated different programs such as The National Housing Act and U.S. Housing Authority, the agencies replaced didn't have much to do with providing free, or low-income, housing, but rather, constructing cheap housing.

Similarly, Medicare and Medicaid did not exist until 1965. Those programs came into existence replacing nothing as no program similar had existed previously. There were efforts toward some sort of national program as early as the 1930's, which would have been part of the Social Security Act, but they didn't make it.

WIC is another example of something that didn't exist at that time as it started in the 1970's.

The First Food Stamp Program (nationally) started in 1939, which is the same year as survivorship benefits. However, the program ended after a few years because there was no longer a food surplus that had to be dealt with.

The point of all of this is that Social Security Survivorship should be eliminated as it is based on an outdated paradigm of the expected family model in which a couple remains together and also, generally, only has one full-time worker. In addition to these other programs (both federal and state) not being around at that time, and if they were, not nearly to the same extent they operate today, programs established since then, in fact, accomplish roughly the same ends whether or not the spouse/children are survived by the departed, or not.

In essence, the program is outdated and the function it serves is now irrelevant as it is replaced by other programs in the scope of its original intent. It should be eliminated.

Actually, let's play Mission gets his way for a day and what I say goes:

1.) Eliminate Federal personal income tax.

2.) Implement a Universal sales tax and broaden the definition of what constitutes a, 'Sale.'

3.) Eliminate every single Federal entitlement program.

4.) Abolish the Department of Education, at the Federal level.

5.) Eliminate the Social Security program (aspects of which are NOT entitlement; they are getting back what you paid in) and pay everyone out on a FIFO basis.

6.) Eliminate, at a minimum, the following Federal Agencies:

-Access Board
-Administration for Children and Families
-Administration for Community Living
-Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
-Africa Command
-Africa Development Foundation
-Agency for Global Media
-Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
-Agency for International Development
-Agricultural Marketing Service (What?)
-Agricultural Research Service
-Agriculture Department
-Agriculture Library
-Alhurra TV
-American Battle Monuments Commission
-AmeriCorps (And AmeriCorps Seniors)
-Amtrak (Divest FEDERAL ownership stake)
-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
-Appalachian Regional Commission
-Architect of the Capitol***----Keep the agency, but get rid of the botanical garden or just stop doing anything with it.
-Arctic Research Commission
-Armed Forces Retirement Home

(!!!!!!!)I could go through the rest, but you get the idea. That's just the, 'A's,' there shouldn't even be that many at all, but that's just one letter!!! Eliminate them all; leave it up to the individual states. Pay off the national debt. Balance the budget.

Why do we have agencies to broadcast information about the U.S. in other parts of the world? What could we possibly be doing other than propagandizing them? What a waste of money!

Basically, keep highways and get rid of most other stuff. Let the states figure it out. They'll get what they vote for, but most of them won't want it when they get it. We'll find out what works and what doesn't in a real hurry. The states that couldn't afford to do what they'd want to do will just have to figure out ways to bring in businesses.

Say what you want about California, but they take care of themselves financially with room to spare. They're actually a net provider to the Federal Government. People from Georgia should be required, by law, to call every Californian, 'Daddy.' That won't last long if they get everything they want, of course. But, for those states who don't want their help---fine, don't take their help. They're better off without you anyway.