Via Tyler Cowen, a shocking story about an Oregon woman whose state health plan wouldn't give her the money to pay for drugs that might prolong her life, but was eager to pay out for drugs that would allow her to commit suicide under the state's "death with dignity" protocol.
Like Tyler says, we're going to be hearing a lot more stories like this as government and private insurance companies prove unwilling and/or unable to meet the medical costs of aging boomers. The kind of individualist-materialist culture we've created -- what Pope John Paul called the Culture of Death -- will make it hard to put the argument to the young that they should sacrifice even more of their money to care for the old. Why not just put the selfish old geezers down? they'll ask. You watch.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Marching through the institutions", the Assisted Suicide folks have now brought Washington the opportunity to vote on "death with dignity" on Nov. 4.
It's called I-1000 and the Pro people are well-funded so we get constant TV and radio ads telling us that "out-of-state religious interests" are trying to kill this perfectly safe measure that "works so well in Oregon". Those who oppose it can only afford yard signs and flyers in church bulletins.
Thanks, Old Susan for the thoughtful comment at 12:05.
I am generally supportive of Death with Dignity statutes, and I am aghast at this.
(I do not care if the drug is experimental and expensive, or if her life would be lengthened incrementally. That is totally beside the point.)
How terrible.
Nightstalker, we've been down this well-worn path a number of times, so I'll just take a break from your strawmen and suggest you start your own blog. You'll get better mileage from a forum over which you have editorial control and can filter out the hogwash.
JustMakingItUp, you sound so much like Ayn Rand I'm shocked that Nightstalker hasn't jumped down your throat yet. I guess Daniel and I are just easier targets.
Rob G makes the best point: the system needs to be redesigned from the floor up. I'd happily tolerate a capitalist approach if it meant covering people for what ails them, and denying payment for fraud and elective procedures. The flip side of TANSTAAFL is that everyone tries to get one. Any system of health care payment that doesn't mandate strict oversight is doomed to failure.
Oh, and Nightstalker: insurance actuaries have been calculating mortality rates based on the US Census forever. If you're going to distrust government sources for statistics, at least be consistent. And BTW, I used to be an actuary. Don't try to teach your mother to suck eggs.
I've got cancer, Oregon.
Kill yourself!
That was news months ago.
JustMakingItUp: The only legitimate purpose of government is the prevention of force and fraud against its citizens; as a rule, government doesn't even do that well. And even this limited function can be performed by other and better means than a coercive government.
I would suggest this excellent site as a refutation of the workability of minarchist libertarianism of the type you espouse. I also recommend the excellent book Liberalism at Wits' End: The Libertarian Revolt, by Stephen L. Newman. I might also point out that governments are not the only entities that coerce. However, a close friend of mine is a minarchist libertarian, and based on years of conversations with him, I have no illusions as to any effects reading this site or this book, if you do so, might have. As has been pointed out, libertarianism of the minarchist and anarcho-libertarian types is more of a religion than a politics.
Franklin: High five to your 11:25 PM post! Couldn't say it better!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.