Death panels still aren’t a thing you dingus. No bodies of people deciding whether or not you should live or die, just people gaining the option to request it.
Healthcare is one of those things that will consume all available resources, and we can’t do that.
Consider someone that requires round the clock, individual care. They are consuming the entire economic output of more than three people to care for someone that will have no more. I know there’s a lot of communists here, but communism doesn’t change that fact.
What if we could keep someone alive for $1M per day? How long should we do it? We shouldn’t, and “death panels” are how that needs to be decided.
You can talk about price gouging, but really high end medical care is akin to magic. It takes very smart people to do it, and something like an MRI requires liquid helium to remain superconducting. That’s just extremely expensive.
Edit: this place is really weird. So many down votes. No argument against it. Very toxic.
While this is technically true. Back in reality land they were found to be automating the process of groundless denials having doctors lie about having examined dozens of cases despite having spent all of 10 seconds in a screen clicking deny all. Our current situation IS death panels and not just for the dying.
Sure. That’s not really a death panel though. That’s the inefficiency of lots of systems. If you make someone jump through enough hoops, they’ll give up. That saves money.
Healthcare is one of those things that will consume all available resources, and we can’t do that.
Consider someone that requires round the clock, individual care. They are consuming the entire economic output of more than three people to care for someone that will have no more.
I just pointed that it doesn’t consume so much resources in EU as in US. So it can afford better care for longer period of time. And by that i mean tenfold in some cases.
And guess what, insurance companies paying for that make huge profits yearly as well.
I’m just pointing to system that can afford to keep patients alive without killing them because they or others can’t afford to pay for them while maintaining high quality care.
Off topic
Edit: this place is really weird. So many down votes. No argument against it. Very toxic.
Like when? The big one people were up in arms about was the veteran who was advised to look into it by a Veteran Affairs employee. Veteran Affairs has absolutely no say in whether someone can or should seek MAID, and that employee was acting alone. Pretty sure they got shit canned for it too.
One involves someone who hasn’t fully developed their brain, being taken advantage of. The other involves grown people who are most likely not going to make the decision lightly, and have years of proof they’ll keep suffering. I’d also imagine it’s not some instant suicide booth like Futurama, there’s not gonna be a “Death same night, guaranteed” run of clinics.
So you don’t believe that medical conditions affect your brain?
Aging alone effects it, elderly people are arguably less mentally capable than teenagers. So if teenagers cannot consent to sex based on mental capability, then how are lower capability elderly supposed to be able to consent to death?
Those are 2 very very very different ideas you’re trying to compare, and feels like poor logic.
Teenagers can absolutely consent to sex, as sex and grooming are very different things. 2 teenagers having sex, normal. Someone much older than a teenager grooming them mentally for years to eventually have sex, not normal.
Lastly, elderly people’s mental faculties declining that hard isn’t guaranteed. Plenty of old people stay mentally sharp and capable of making decisions. Teenagers, though, 100% will have an under-developed brain until ~25, not to mention how little of life experience they’ll likely have.
You may not have literally said that, but it is the logical conclusion from your statement.
Here’s why.
You literally said “One involves someone who hasn’t fully developed their brain being taken advantage of”.
You are asserting that a not fully developed brain, lacks some mental property X that enables the person to be taken advantage of.
In order for this to be a true statement, then it must be the case that elderly must always possess the mental property X, by the simple nature of being fully developed.
If a person has mental property X then by it’s definition, they should be protected against manipulation at least as well as people who do not have it (e.g teenagers).
The problem here is there is an abundance of empirical evidence, that this property X does not confer protection, in fact fully developed brains can easily have worse susceptibility to manipulation.
“Elderly people’s mental faculties declining that hard isn’t a guarantee”
How hard? We aren’t requiring that elderly people be entirely incapacitated, merely that they meet the same threshold of mental capacity as teenagers (who we have already established cannot consent to a sexual relationship with an older person). This may be shocking to you, but many (most?) elderly people are already there, and existing medical conditions tend to worsen mental reasoning abilities.
The reasoning gap between say a 16-year old and a 25-year old, isn’t that large. In fact there is probably more deviation among 25-year olds than 16-year olds and there 25-year old selves.
Additionally one must also recognise that consenting to a possibly manipulative sexual relationship, is essentially provably less consequential than arranging your own premature death. So the mental capacity threshold could be argued to be higher.
“Feels like poor logic”
Does it just “feel like”, or do you have a formal argument? If this is in fact “poor logic” it’s actually trivial to formally prove (at least if you are familiar with analytic philosophy), the reality is that you didn’t think your own argument through and disagree with the logical consequences of your own argument.
Death panels still aren’t a thing you dingus. No bodies of people deciding whether or not you should live or die, just people gaining the option to request it.
They are in the US. They’re called insurance companies.
This is technically the case everywhere.
Healthcare is one of those things that will consume all available resources, and we can’t do that.
Consider someone that requires round the clock, individual care. They are consuming the entire economic output of more than three people to care for someone that will have no more. I know there’s a lot of communists here, but communism doesn’t change that fact.
What if we could keep someone alive for $1M per day? How long should we do it? We shouldn’t, and “death panels” are how that needs to be decided.
You can talk about price gouging, but really high end medical care is akin to magic. It takes very smart people to do it, and something like an MRI requires liquid helium to remain superconducting. That’s just extremely expensive.
Edit: this place is really weird. So many down votes. No argument against it. Very toxic.
While this is technically true. Back in reality land they were found to be automating the process of groundless denials having doctors lie about having examined dozens of cases despite having spent all of 10 seconds in a screen clicking deny all. Our current situation IS death panels and not just for the dying.
Sure. That’s not really a death panel though. That’s the inefficiency of lots of systems. If you make someone jump through enough hoops, they’ll give up. That saves money.
Well EU has pretty good healthcare but noons pays 3x market value of their car for single ambulance.
No one is talking about that. Healthcare has a budget. You have to distribute that budget equitably.
It’s a more generalized, non emergency version of triage.
Some people will die no matter what you do. Don’t waste resources on them. Some people will recover if you do nothing. Don’t waste resources on them.
Some people will recover if you spend resources on them and die if your don’t. Use your resources on them.
There’s always a cost benefit tradeoff.
Aside from you though 🫠
I just pointed that it doesn’t consume so much resources in EU as in US. So it can afford better care for longer period of time. And by that i mean tenfold in some cases.
And guess what, insurance companies paying for that make huge profits yearly as well.
I’m just pointing to system that can afford to keep patients alive without killing them because they or others can’t afford to pay for them while maintaining high quality care.
Off topic
I didn’t down vote you if that matters 😉
And those bodies totally won’t start gently suggesting this option. It totally hasn’t already happened…
Like when? The big one people were up in arms about was the veteran who was advised to look into it by a Veteran Affairs employee. Veteran Affairs has absolutely no say in whether someone can or should seek MAID, and that employee was acting alone. Pretty sure they got shit canned for it too.
What evidence do you have for this?
Removed by mod
One involves someone who hasn’t fully developed their brain, being taken advantage of. The other involves grown people who are most likely not going to make the decision lightly, and have years of proof they’ll keep suffering. I’d also imagine it’s not some instant suicide booth like Futurama, there’s not gonna be a “Death same night, guaranteed” run of clinics.
So you don’t believe that medical conditions affect your brain?
Aging alone effects it, elderly people are arguably less mentally capable than teenagers. So if teenagers cannot consent to sex based on mental capability, then how are lower capability elderly supposed to be able to consent to death?
I literally never said that…
Those are 2 very very very different ideas you’re trying to compare, and feels like poor logic.
Teenagers can absolutely consent to sex, as sex and grooming are very different things. 2 teenagers having sex, normal. Someone much older than a teenager grooming them mentally for years to eventually have sex, not normal.
Lastly, elderly people’s mental faculties declining that hard isn’t guaranteed. Plenty of old people stay mentally sharp and capable of making decisions. Teenagers, though, 100% will have an under-developed brain until ~25, not to mention how little of life experience they’ll likely have.
You may not have literally said that, but it is the logical conclusion from your statement.
Here’s why.
You literally said “One involves someone who hasn’t fully developed their brain being taken advantage of”.
You are asserting that a not fully developed brain, lacks some mental property X that enables the person to be taken advantage of.
In order for this to be a true statement, then it must be the case that elderly must always possess the mental property X, by the simple nature of being fully developed.
If a person has mental property X then by it’s definition, they should be protected against manipulation at least as well as people who do not have it (e.g teenagers).
The problem here is there is an abundance of empirical evidence, that this property X does not confer protection, in fact fully developed brains can easily have worse susceptibility to manipulation.
“Elderly people’s mental faculties declining that hard isn’t a guarantee”
How hard? We aren’t requiring that elderly people be entirely incapacitated, merely that they meet the same threshold of mental capacity as teenagers (who we have already established cannot consent to a sexual relationship with an older person). This may be shocking to you, but many (most?) elderly people are already there, and existing medical conditions tend to worsen mental reasoning abilities.
The reasoning gap between say a 16-year old and a 25-year old, isn’t that large. In fact there is probably more deviation among 25-year olds than 16-year olds and there 25-year old selves.
Additionally one must also recognise that consenting to a possibly manipulative sexual relationship, is essentially provably less consequential than arranging your own premature death. So the mental capacity threshold could be argued to be higher.
“Feels like poor logic”
Does it just “feel like”, or do you have a formal argument? If this is in fact “poor logic” it’s actually trivial to formally prove (at least if you are familiar with analytic philosophy), the reality is that you didn’t think your own argument through and disagree with the logical consequences of your own argument.
found the guy with truly hilarious ideas about what informed consent means
Removed by mod