Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We let it get to that point sooner or later the insurance company is going to want in on the decision making.
Then the law will have to be changed.
The law clearly says that a doctor must have diagnosed a person with a terminal disease and the doctor must have documented and proven that the patient has 6 months or less of life.
An insurance company can't get involved beyond paying for the drugs. The law won't allow it.
The drugs in question are cheap, that is not the concern, the concern is that insurance companies would see the potential cost savings in convincing people to end their lives vs. continuing treatment.
Unlike some people I don't see insurance companies as evil, but one does have to consider that this may factor into their cost considerations.
Ok let me try this again.
It's written into the law that the only way an insurance company can be involved is to pay for the drugs.
Other than that, no insurance company can be involved with doctor assisted suicide.
So what you're saying might happen can't happen unless the law is changed. It's written so that no insurance company can influence a patient or be involved beyond paying for the drugs.
Laws that prohibit influence are notoriously hard to enforce, or have you not noticed all the lobbying that goes on, both over and under the counter?
So you decide to commit suicide as a realistic alternative to living, a personal choice you say. Okay, then why make a media event out of it? Unless it was just another in a series of selfish choices.
Or it was an attempt to help others who may not have the financial means to relocate to Oregon. It raises awareness of the need for laws allowing this sort of mercy.
I salute your service. But smashing a stolen motorcycle headlong into a car driven by an innocent civilian has nothing to do with the Tet Offensive. It does have to do with a reckless, irresponsible attitude.
Are you sure you're not living out on the ledge? You seem to have all the emotional stability of a Slinky on the stairs.I salute your service. But smashing a stolen motorcycle headlong into a car driven by an innocent civilian has nothing to do with the Tet Offensive. It does have to do with a reckless, irresponsible attitude.
No you don't "salute my service" because if you did you'd realize what I might have learned from it. How dense are you or in need of conversation to think I'd have any desire to "run headlong into a car" on my stolen Ducati? The whole purpose would be to try to make it to the mountains not commit suicide. If I were killed it would be from speed and obstacles not my steering into oblivion. You have obviously never lived on the edge....me? I always liked it out there.
We let it get to that point sooner or later the insurance company is going to want in on the decision making.
Then the law will have to be changed.
The law clearly says that a doctor must have diagnosed a person with a terminal disease and the doctor must have documented and proven that the patient has 6 months or less of life.
An insurance company can't get involved beyond paying for the drugs. The law won't allow it.
The drugs in question are cheap, that is not the concern, the concern is that insurance companies would see the potential cost savings in convincing people to end their lives vs. continuing treatment.
Unlike some people I don't see insurance companies as evil, but one does have to consider that this may factor into their cost considerations.
Ok let me try this again.
It's written into the law that the only way an insurance company can be involved is to pay for the drugs.
Other than that, no insurance company can be involved with doctor assisted suicide.
So what you're saying might happen can't happen unless the law is changed. It's written so that no insurance company can influence a patient or be involved beyond paying for the drugs.
Laws that prohibit influence are notoriously hard to enforce, or have you not noticed all the lobbying that goes on, both over and under the counter?
If you want to erroneously believe that an insurance company can violate the law then fine. Believe that.
If you're worried about insurance companies influencing people to die then don't commit physician assisted suicide.
It's that easy.
Are you sure you're not living out on the ledge? You seem to have all the emotional stability of a Slinky on the stairs.
As the poet once said: Come on you raver, you seer of visions, come on you painter, you piper, you prisoner, and shine!Are you sure you're not living out on the ledge? You seem to have all the emotional stability of a Slinky on the stairs.
Well, I'm 67, have had a great and satisfying life, hope to get another ten years of it, and still willing and able to rock and roll any time, any place. When you hit this age (which you may or may not) remember ol Bull and what you might have finally gotten through the mush between your ears but couldn't admit it out loud.
But you ARE Christian, right?Are we Americans living in a secular society, or are you espousing Christian Sharia?
There's nothing "sharia" about Christian law, asshole....no Christian wants to behead you for drinking a beer or laughing at God. Take a look where our "secular society" has gotten us. You can scream at me but I didn't make the rules or always follow them until I got the Word. If you knew anything about my life you'd know only God could have saved me from death so many times. Comes a point in every person's life they take stock of their close calls....some call it luck but I know better.
And if you want to follow your faith, that is all well and good.
But you do not have the right to make laws governing others based solely on your religious beliefs.
Really? Maybe you should check out who the Founders were and what they said about law and justice. I'm not suggesting that suicidal people should be fined or jailed. All I'm saying is that your kind is willing to accept their horrible decision as somehow okay....okay for who? you? You ain't a Christian so shut the fuck up about our rules.
But you ARE Christian, right?When one is engaged in using his or her religious values to tell and make another what he or she thinks is best, then, yes, that is a form of sharia.
Hey Starkey....you're a liar and and a fool.....why you think chirping with your dumbass little one-liners has any effect on anybody is way past wrong.
Then the law will have to be changed.
The law clearly says that a doctor must have diagnosed a person with a terminal disease and the doctor must have documented and proven that the patient has 6 months or less of life.
An insurance company can't get involved beyond paying for the drugs. The law won't allow it.
The drugs in question are cheap, that is not the concern, the concern is that insurance companies would see the potential cost savings in convincing people to end their lives vs. continuing treatment.
Unlike some people I don't see insurance companies as evil, but one does have to consider that this may factor into their cost considerations.
Ok let me try this again.
It's written into the law that the only way an insurance company can be involved is to pay for the drugs.
Other than that, no insurance company can be involved with doctor assisted suicide.
So what you're saying might happen can't happen unless the law is changed. It's written so that no insurance company can influence a patient or be involved beyond paying for the drugs.
Laws that prohibit influence are notoriously hard to enforce, or have you not noticed all the lobbying that goes on, both over and under the counter?
If you want to erroneously believe that an insurance company can violate the law then fine. Believe that.
If you're worried about insurance companies influencing people to die then don't commit physician assisted suicide.
It's that easy.
If you are worried about large capacity magazines, don't own one....
Now you are ranting..
You cling to your beliefs. I have no problem with that. But when you demand that your beliefs govern those of us who do not share them, I will oppose you and win.
Why not go FULL OBAMA and say I'm also "clinging" to my guns too? Listen, I don't care what you have a problem with. I've never said in this thread I want a law to prevent suicide or legal remedy for those who try it. You keep clinging to that because you're at a dead end (pun) trying to defend your hippie bullshit. What you "win" is a matter of atheist judges who hate themselves more than Christians because down inside they know they're pathetic. So like all stalinists, they pass laws to allow things long forbidden in the Scriptures....to get us all down in the sewer they live in. You ain't anything special....just another sucker who bought that garbage at a price you'll one day have to pay.
The drugs in question are cheap, that is not the concern, the concern is that insurance companies would see the potential cost savings in convincing people to end their lives vs. continuing treatment.
Unlike some people I don't see insurance companies as evil, but one does have to consider that this may factor into their cost considerations.
Ok let me try this again.
It's written into the law that the only way an insurance company can be involved is to pay for the drugs.
Other than that, no insurance company can be involved with doctor assisted suicide.
So what you're saying might happen can't happen unless the law is changed. It's written so that no insurance company can influence a patient or be involved beyond paying for the drugs.
Laws that prohibit influence are notoriously hard to enforce, or have you not noticed all the lobbying that goes on, both over and under the counter?
If you want to erroneously believe that an insurance company can violate the law then fine. Believe that.
If you're worried about insurance companies influencing people to die then don't commit physician assisted suicide.
It's that easy.
If you are worried about large capacity magazines, don't own one....
Why are you posting about guns when this thread is about physician assisted suicide?
I gave you the facts.
I guess when the facts get in the way of your propaganda you change the subject.
Typical.
Ok let me try this again.
It's written into the law that the only way an insurance company can be involved is to pay for the drugs.
Other than that, no insurance company can be involved with doctor assisted suicide.
So what you're saying might happen can't happen unless the law is changed. It's written so that no insurance company can influence a patient or be involved beyond paying for the drugs.
Laws that prohibit influence are notoriously hard to enforce, or have you not noticed all the lobbying that goes on, both over and under the counter?
If you want to erroneously believe that an insurance company can violate the law then fine. Believe that.
If you're worried about insurance companies influencing people to die then don't commit physician assisted suicide.
It's that easy.
If you are worried about large capacity magazines, don't own one....
Why are you posting about guns when this thread is about physician assisted suicide?
I gave you the facts.
I guess when the facts get in the way of your propaganda you change the subject.
Typical.
Just throwing your line of logic back at ya. Not surprised you are not grasping that.
Actually not.We've had the Death With Dignity Act here in Oregon since '97. I believe the number of patients utilizing the law, are still under 100.
I remember back when we first voted this in, critics claimed that there would be thousands of people moving to Oregon to commit suicide and Oregon would be known as the suicide mecca of America.
It's never happened.
More objectively, if we're going to be a nation that's ok with abortion, assisted suicide is the logical extension.
I'd rather have seen her become a morphine addict than throw away her soul like that. God has no pity for a suicide.
