5 ms·

It requires extreme naivete to believe that this will not rapidly shift from doctor assisted suicide to mandatory removal of medical benefits except "end of lif

It requires extreme naivete to believe that this will not rapidly shift from doctor assisted suicide to mandatory removal of medical benefits except "end of life care". The medical-insurance complex in the US cannot wait for this to happen.

slt2021 2y ago
in single-payer government funded healthcare systems (Canada UK), medically assisted suicide is ENORMOUS cost savings. imagine paying taxes all your life and hoping to get a good care in later stage of your life, and government just MAIDs you instead of providing care The current UK/CA social contract seems to be: you work for 45+ years and pay taxes, but when you get old and sick and need medical care, we will just MAID you and instead give away all your taxes to welfare recipients
- EncomLab 2y ago
  In the US there will be share-holder lawsuits against insurance companies that do not enforce this strictly enough. It's just a return to a time when only the wealthy could receive medical care - this time it's just being marketed better.
  - nradov 2y ago
    You seem to be confused about how US medical insurance companies operate. First, the majority of terminal patients are on government Medicare or Medicaid health plans. Second, commercial insurers have their profits capped by a minimum 85% medical loss ratio so they have no direct financial incentive to restrict care or push plan members towards assisted suicide. Rather the opposite.
    - EncomLab 2y ago
      As if this legislation in the US would not entirely upend the current rules and regulations. That's exactly the issue - you can't say "well currently things are X, and introducing Y won't change anything" when Y does, in fact, change everything. A positive example of this was EMTALA in 1986 when the US gvt told hospitals "if you want to bill Medicare you have to provide ER treatment to everyone." That was a radical change to the way in which medical care had been provided in the US up to that point. Introducing any form of assisted suicide introduces many complex legal issues just around liability from a practice standpoint - to say nothing of the complexities of who determines what even constitutes legal authority for the decision itself.
- kranke155 2y ago
  The government can't do that to you. You do realise that, right?
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Why do you think they can't do it? The government can always just say, "We aren't treating your diseases anymore. We will put you out of your misery whenever you like however."
    - kranke155 2y ago
      In a democracy, you vote for the other guy. Do you live in a democracy? This poll showed widespread support for MAID in the UK. https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/public-opinion/ https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/public-opin... Every single constituency supports law change: Three-quarters of respondents (75%) said that they would support making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying in the UK, with just 14% against Support for changing the law consistently high regardless of voters’ political affiliation Two-thirds (66%) of respondents with faith support law change, including 69% of Christians
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        Yes most people are against war too yet you don't see people voting their way out of that now do you? If assisted dying is on the table, it won't be long before prescribed dying is too. I am not as hopeful as you that normal political processes will prevent that, but one can dream.
        nradov 2y ago
        Which war are you referring to? Some wars are popular, others not. During the 2020 US presidential election campaign, Joe Biden promised to end the war in Afghanistan and after he took office he did it. In a democracy, voters absolutely do influence these policies.
- tim333 2y ago
  I think it's going to be pretty optional. You can ask for it. They can't just MAID you.
  - slt2021 2y ago
    The Overton window shifts gradually. They are already boasting about cost savings to the government from MAID https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3947481 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3947481
    - stackghost 2y ago
      "They" meaning an internal medicine researcher?
      - tim333 2y ago
        Also cost savings through MAID doesn't have to mean forced. I mean would you rather have a good life, get diagnosed with terminal cancer and die peacefully or the same plus die after two years of pain in hospitals?
CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
What makes Canada so different from other countries where this didn't happen?
- kranke155 2y ago
  It's just another insanity-driving information warfare topic. Yes, let's imagine all the horrible things that could happen because the government suddenly allowed something that happened anyway - people committed suicide in end of life situations all the time - and let's base it off this one country where the law wasn't written well enough or enforcement is lax or whatever. Let's use that as an example of why this should be banned always, forever, in all situations, because the X abuse of this in country Y shows it should never be done. I have family who's dying with dementia. If I ever get into that situation, which I hope I don't, I hope people end it with my permission.
adabyron 2y ago
I believe a patient currently & their family members are required to state what kind of care a person should have if things go wrong before a surgery. Why could the law not just continue this by adding an additional option that states when you would want assisted suicide? I would think lawmakers could specify that insurance or doctors are not allowed to make this decision or let it effect their services.
sebazzz 2y ago
Worked out fine in the Netherlands, which has an even more progressive assisted dying act.

slt2021 2y ago

in single-payer government funded healthcare systems (Canada UK), medically assisted suicide is ENORMOUS cost savings. imagine paying taxes all your life and hoping to get a good care in later stage of your life, and government just MAIDs you instead of providing care The current UK/CA social contract seems to be: you work for 45+ years and pay taxes, but when you get old and sick and need medical care, we will just MAID you and instead give away all your taxes to welfare recipients

EncomLab 2y ago
In the US there will be share-holder lawsuits against insurance companies that do not enforce this strictly enough. It's just a return to a time when only the wealthy could receive medical care - this time it's just being marketed better.
- nradov 2y ago
  You seem to be confused about how US medical insurance companies operate. First, the majority of terminal patients are on government Medicare or Medicaid health plans. Second, commercial insurers have their profits capped by a minimum 85% medical loss ratio so they have no direct financial incentive to restrict care or push plan members towards assisted suicide. Rather the opposite.
  - EncomLab 2y ago
    As if this legislation in the US would not entirely upend the current rules and regulations. That's exactly the issue - you can't say "well currently things are X, and introducing Y won't change anything" when Y does, in fact, change everything. A positive example of this was EMTALA in 1986 when the US gvt told hospitals "if you want to bill Medicare you have to provide ER treatment to everyone." That was a radical change to the way in which medical care had been provided in the US up to that point. Introducing any form of assisted suicide introduces many complex legal issues just around liability from a practice standpoint - to say nothing of the complexities of who determines what even constitutes legal authority for the decision itself.
kranke155 2y ago
The government can't do that to you. You do realise that, right?
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Why do you think they can't do it? The government can always just say, "We aren't treating your diseases anymore. We will put you out of your misery whenever you like however."
  - kranke155 2y ago
    In a democracy, you vote for the other guy. Do you live in a democracy? This poll showed widespread support for MAID in the UK. https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/public-opinion/ https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/public-opin... Every single constituency supports law change: Three-quarters of respondents (75%) said that they would support making it lawful for someone to seek assisted dying in the UK, with just 14% against Support for changing the law consistently high regardless of voters’ political affiliation Two-thirds (66%) of respondents with faith support law change, including 69% of Christians
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Yes most people are against war too yet you don't see people voting their way out of that now do you? If assisted dying is on the table, it won't be long before prescribed dying is too. I am not as hopeful as you that normal political processes will prevent that, but one can dream.
      - nradov 2y ago
        Which war are you referring to? Some wars are popular, others not. During the 2020 US presidential election campaign, Joe Biden promised to end the war in Afghanistan and after he took office he did it. In a democracy, voters absolutely do influence these policies.
tim333 2y ago
I think it's going to be pretty optional. You can ask for it. They can't just MAID you.
- slt2021 2y ago
  The Overton window shifts gradually. They are already boasting about cost savings to the government from MAID https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3947481 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3947481
  - stackghost 2y ago
    "They" meaning an internal medicine researcher?
    - tim333 2y ago
      Also cost savings through MAID doesn't have to mean forced. I mean would you rather have a good life, get diagnosed with terminal cancer and die peacefully or the same plus die after two years of pain in hospitals?

CorrectHorseBat 2y ago

What makes Canada so different from other countries where this didn't happen?

kranke155 2y ago
It's just another insanity-driving information warfare topic. Yes, let's imagine all the horrible things that could happen because the government suddenly allowed something that happened anyway - people committed suicide in end of life situations all the time - and let's base it off this one country where the law wasn't written well enough or enforcement is lax or whatever. Let's use that as an example of why this should be banned always, forever, in all situations, because the X abuse of this in country Y shows it should never be done. I have family who's dying with dementia. If I ever get into that situation, which I hope I don't, I hope people end it with my permission.

adabyron 2y ago

I believe a patient currently & their family members are required to state what kind of care a person should have if things go wrong before a surgery. Why could the law not just continue this by adding an additional option that states when you would want assisted suicide? I would think lawmakers could specify that insurance or doctors are not allowed to make this decision or let it effect their services.

sebazzz 2y ago

Worked out fine in the Netherlands, which has an even more progressive assisted dying act.