# Right to Die, or Duty to Die?



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2014)

This is an excerpt from a much longer opinion piece with the same title.



> ... it is understandable why so many bioethicists believe that "a right to die implies a duty to die."
> 
> Philosopher John Hardwig, for instance, makes the following remarkable claim:
> "The lives of our loved ones can be seriously compromised by caring for us. The burdens of providing care or even just supervision twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week are often-overwhelming. When this kind of caregiving goes on for years, it leaves the caregiver exhausted, with no time for herself or life of her own. Ultimately, even her health is often destroyed. But it can also be emotionally devastating simply to live with a spouse who is increasingly distant, uncommunicative, unresponsive, foreign, and unreachable. Other family members' needs often go unmet as the caring capacity of the family is exceeded. Social life and friendships evaporate, as there is no opportunity to go out to see friends and the home is no longer a place suitable for having friends in.​
> "We must also acknowledge that the lives of our loved ones can be devastated just by having to pay for health care for us. One part of the recent  SUPPORT study documented the financial aspects of caring for a dying member of a  family. Only those who had illnesses severe enough to give them less than a 50% chance to live six more months were included in this study. When these patients survived their initial hospitalization and were discharged, about 1/3 required considerable caregiving from their families, in 20% of cases a family member had to quit work or make some other major lifestyle change, almost 1/3 of these families lost all of their savings, and just under 30% lost a major source of income." ​For Hardwig, the duty to die becomes greater as we grow older, as our loved ones put more and more resources into our lives, and when "the part of you that is loved will soon be gone or seriously compromised."


​How do you feel about euthanasia as an obligation? A duty? 

If you think such a thing is unthinkable I suggest you read the full article here: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/09/01/4078456.htm


----------



## Vivjen (Sep 1, 2014)

I find this a very dangerous concept.

A right to die, I can just about get my head round; under certain circumstances; but a duty to die is one step too far.
these concepts need discussion within families, which most people don't face until it is too late; like wills.
i feel that no human being has a right to turn to another, saying I have had enough of looking after you, so it is your duty to die; and let me get on with my life.

Some cultures would not tolerate this way of thinking, and I don't think I do either.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 1, 2014)

Everybody has an obligation to check out or be checked out and stop taking up space and oxygen at some point...


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2014)

Everybody inevitably checks out and stops taking up space and oxygen at some point. 
No-one gets out of this life alive. What's the hurry? 

I'm gunna hang around until the movie is over and all the credits have rolled past.
If you want to leave before the last act, then go ahead. I'm not coming with you.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 1, 2014)

Well, if you are going to be stubborn about it perhaps  an intervention will take place at an appropriate time to see that it happens...


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2014)

That's why I glad to have a very big ocean between me and all you gun happy Yanks. :hide:


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 1, 2014)

Who says that we would have to do it?  Your government could well be able to determine how to get rid of the surplus population, especially the elderly who take up so much of the health care resources...


----------



## Pappy (Sep 1, 2014)

I'm gonna stick around til the fat lady sings although the curtain looks like it could go up at any time.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2014)

Have to do it?
 I thought you trigger happy guys would love to do it.
For nothing.

Anyway, we only have 23 million in a land mass the size of continental USA.
We can't afford to lose any of them.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 1, 2014)

Certainly some of your jihadists should be dispatched, and probably by hanging as you seem to fancy that method...


----------



## WhatInThe (Sep 1, 2014)

Maybe it's about needlessly using up valuable resources? But who is to say it's 'needless' or futile. There are no take backs or re-dos at the end of life. The patient should make this decision on their own.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 1, 2014)

I'm all for legal euthanasia for those who choose to end their lives, it is a personal decision, as WhatInThe has said.  It should never be done as an obligation for another.  We cared for both of my husband's parents in our own home during their last years, and my sister did the same for my mother.  We wouldn't have wanted it any other way, although it definitely affected our lifestyles, and can be both physically and emotionally exhausting at times.


----------



## Debby (Sep 1, 2014)

If everybody did some reading and research into Near Death Experiences, we might collectively not have so much angst about dying.  While I am not inclined to hurry it along, I have to say that I'm actually looking forward to my big day with some anticipation.


----------



## Sid (Sep 1, 2014)

"The burdens of providing care or even just supervision twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week are often-overwhelming. When this kind of caregiving goes on for years, it leaves the caregiver exhausted, with no time for herself or life of her own." 



       Child rearing is a bitch ain't it.


----------



## Sid (Sep 1, 2014)

Debby said:


> If everybody did some reading and research into Near Death Experiences, we might collectively not have so much angst about dying.  While I am not inclined to hurry it along, I have to say that I'm actually looking forward to my big day with some anticipation.




  Let us know how it turns out. Will ya?


----------



## BobF (Sep 1, 2014)

Hello Dame Warrigal.   What you talk about in the first post got me curious.   My father died in his seventies of a heart attack.    My mother then lived alone till in her late 80's.    When she got too sick to take care of herself my sister helped her to find a decent place to live and get full time care and even some of the simpler medical helps.   Her doctor would come and visit when possible, maybe on a scheduled visit for checking health.   Serious things required a hospital trip till better.   She paid nothing as our Social Security system covered the bills for her and she was even given a set number of dollars each week for personal things she wanted or whatever.   

This was set up for low income folks so for her to become low income she had to surrender all her money and any bank accounts and properties, if she had any.   From then on she was well kept and had no worries for pocket money as the home always gave her some for herself to use or save for a holiday.

Being you are Australian I don't think you folks have been given that type of shelter for old age.   For my mother she had to surrender her property and accounts.   For others I saw when I went to visit her I saw some that were in the local poor group of folks that seldom worked, live in a shanty down by the city dump, were always known to be beggars.    So in our system the well to do, so so wealthy, or dirt poor could end up in the same, well fed, clean, and medically tended till they did die.   Mother died at about 97, I think.   All this done by private money, no government involved except with the SS stuff.


----------



## Ina (Sep 1, 2014)

I don't see the problem. If a person wishes to leave this world, there are many comfortable ways of accomplishing it, and without pain. But I don't think we owe it to anyone. Children are not obligated to care for their parent, and many don't. I don't think the government has any right to make this kind of decisions for us. They'll just have to find another way to pay off the national debt.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2014)

BobF said:


> Hello Dame Warrigal.   What you talk about in the first post got me curious.   My father died in his seventies of a heart attack.    My mother then lived alone till in her late 80's.    When she got too sick to take care of herself my sister helped her to find a decent place to live and get full time care and even some of the simpler medical helps.   Her doctor would come and visit when possible, maybe on a scheduled visit for checking health.   Serious things required a hospital trip till better.   She paid nothing as our Social Security system covered the bills for her and she was even given a set number of dollars each week for personal things she wanted or whatever.
> 
> This was set up for low income folks so for her to become low income she had to surrender all her money and any bank accounts and properties, if she had any.   From then on she was well kept and had no worries for pocket money as the home always gave her some for herself to use or save for a holiday.
> 
> Being you are Australian I don't think you folks have been given that type of shelter for old age.   For my mother she had to surrender her property and accounts.   For others I saw when I went to visit her I saw some that were in the local poor group of folks that seldom worked, live in a shanty down by the city dump, were always known to be beggars.    So in our system the well to do, so so wealthy, or dirt poor could end up in the same, well fed, clean, and medically tended till they did die.   Mother died at about 97, I think.   All this done by private money, no government involved except with the SS stuff.



It is the same over here, Bobf. Aged care is very good now and well funded. The better off pay out of their means and the people without assets are funded out of their pensions with enough left over for pocket money. There is a lot of subsidised in-home assistance available too. I have an aunt, now 94, who is living in an aged care facility in Wellington NSW and it is a not for profit home run by the Returned Services League. She is comfortably well off and very happy there. My cousin, her niece, looks after her finances and lives in her home at Bathurst. Apart from an accommodation bond she is not obliged to turn over all of her income and assets to the home. 

Nationally, aged care is very well regulated.


----------



## BobF (Sep 1, 2014)

The smart ones here will sell their property first, then apportion as much as they can, before committing to these private shelter places for care.   My mother had sold the house after dad died and lived in a retire home for those with mobility.   When she became unable to get herself around she went to this other place and got accepted.   So all they got from her were the check book account and her slim savings.   I don't know how much that was but it was less than a bunch.   Our family was not rich, but they always paid the bills on time and made sure the home was paid for before dad retired.   Kind of the way I have been living too.   After I was laid off into an early retirement situation I found several ways to get short term jobs and pretty much put all I earned into paying down the home.   After the kids went to college or military we did sell the home and moved south to southern Colorado.   Now we live in Arizona to avoid the high altitude in much of Colorado.   Hopefully I am planning on doing something similar so if I do something like live too long and become handicapped I will be able to go into a care home with only what I have as my portion of the wife and I fortune, sounds good doesn't it, and the rest goes from any Social Security moneys due to me.    Then the wife will be able to do the same with her life too.

And good to hear that your system is working well too.


----------



## Denise1952 (Sep 1, 2014)

Hey, we've already made it easy to throw away babies that mess up our cushy lives, lets throw away all the old people too, how bout the mentally disabled, let's trash them too, oh yeah, and those with too big a nose, we can't have that, oh yeah, too fat of people, they eat too much take up way too much space, and the skinny people oh yeah, they are just too sickly to look at.  Hey crap, think of the dough we could all have if we didn't spend it on cancer patients, discard the "imperfect".  Geesh, that ought to leave about zero people on Earth, just as it should be if they are going to think this way.  How freakin sad, wish I hadn't even got on here today.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2014)

Denise, read the link in my OP to hear the reasons why even having right to die might soon become a duty to die. It's a counter argument to the current debate about assisted suicide. I found the illustration of pre WW II German public opinion very interesting.


----------



## Ina (Sep 1, 2014)

Denise, It's not law yet, and besides all those things you mentioned, just give us character. Remember us old codgers are  to fiesty for that to come about.:dontworry::grin::bighug:


----------



## Debby (Sep 2, 2014)

Sid said:


> Let us know how it turns out. Will ya?




You'll get the opportunity to find out Sid without any help at all. 

On the other hand, if you're the sort of person I am, curious, curious, curious, all it takes is for someone to mention the 'right thing', and you start off on a bit of a research tangent.  That's how I came to understand a little more of the logistics of 'after death life' and I have to say, it's been a wonderful release from that age-old human fear of death.  No end, just a change.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 21, 2014)

I personally feel very strongly that no one has the right (or ability, for that matter) to judge whether another person has the right to continue living or not.  Sounds very Nazi-like to me, to decide that anyone or any group, whether defined by age, race, religion or anything else, has no right to continue living . . . .  and I think it is very dangerous thinking.


----------



## romfty (Sep 21, 2014)

Not much to add to this thread, think you guys have got it all covered.................but did'nt I read somewhere that ancient Indians used to put old folk out in the cold of winter to die when they were of no more use............or was that a movie?.    Think we have moved on a bit?


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 21, 2014)

In hunting societies this is a survival mechanism. Old Inuit women, whose teeth had been worn down from constant chewing of the hides to soften them could not easily be supported by the hunters. When they became a drain on the family they often voluntarily walked out into the snow to ensure the survival of their offspring and their children. They had a duty to die so that others might live.

Similarly, in these societies baby girls were exposed at birth until boys (future hunters) were born. Unlike the baby boys, girls had no intrinsic right to live.


----------



## Debby (Sep 21, 2014)

Butterfly said:


> I personally feel very strongly that no one has the right (or ability, for that matter) to judge whether another person has the right to continue living or not.  Sounds very Nazi-like to me, to decide that anyone or any group, whether defined by age, race, religion or anything else, has no right to continue living . . . .  and I think it is very dangerous thinking.




You are talking about something very different than the 'right to die'.  To equate murder and choosing for yourself, when you are going to leave this world are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

If I am very sick, terminal and in great pain, I would prefer that people with good or reasonable health not tell me that I have to lie there in my bed, and 'enjoy' the suffering that could go on for a significant length of time.  To choose for myself to be done with the pain and suffering isn't Nazi-like at all.  It's my last 'choice' on this side of the grave.


----------



## Debby (Sep 21, 2014)

Ina said:


> I don't see the problem. If a person wishes to leave this world, there are many comfortable ways of accomplishing it, and without pain. But I don't think we owe it to anyone. Children are not obligated to care for their parent, and many don't. I don't think the government has any right to make this kind of decisions for us. They'll just have to find another way to pay off the national debt.




I'm not sure I understand your post Ina.  When you say, 'we don't owe it to anyone', what are you referencing?  Owe people the opportunity to end their own lives peacefully and without suffering or were you thinking of something else? 

I wouldn't like to see anybody arbitrarily deciding that I am taking up space or whatever, but if I'm 85, in pain from some illness that's terminal anyway or maybe comatose, I think I should be allowed to call a halt to the 'endurance test'.  "How long can she last despite the suffering because we have laws" is not a good enough reason to force anyone to stay alive when they want out.  As it stands now, the government stops me from choosing to do what I want in that dreadful circumstance and sentences those who suffer to keep suffering.

And I think the right to die issue encompasses the frequent need of the elderly and dying who are unable through infirmity, to be able to facilitate the process.  For example, a Vancouver woman named Sue Rodrigues, many years ago, sued for the right to have her doctor help her die.  She had that disease that slowly paralyses you until even breathing is impossible and you suffocate.  On her best day, she couldn't have managed a 'comfortable' way to accomplish it.  And personally, as a healthy person, I can't conceive right now of a comfortable or painless way to kill myself and I'm able bodied.  Sue's case was turned down by the courts and ultimately, she had to arrange secretly to have 'someone' give her a fatal shot of something but the person who helped her had to do it in secret so that he/she wouldn't go to jail for murder.  

Over the years of I've also heard of a number of cases where elderly husbands or wives of senior spouses (who'd been married for decades and loved one another) killed their terminal and suffering spouse and then were charged with murder.  That's not right at all.  

As for the national debt, sorry but I don't understand.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2014)

I have worked in healtcare for nearly 40 years.  I've pretty much seen it all.   There is an alternative to living in agony and killing ones self...  It's called HOSPICE.   This allows for pain control while not doing anything that will prolong life with no quality.   Unfortunately, Doctors do not bring this option up to patients and families soon enough.. HOSPICE is for people who have been determined by a doctor to have less than 6 months to live.. but can go on a lot longer.. What I see is that by the time Hospice gets involved.. the patient is already nearly dead.. SO what's the use.    I think doctors look at it as them having failed.   Nurses have the obligation to give the doc a push to offer this option.  People can die in dignity without pain... usually in their own home, with loved ones aroundl.   It's up to the Hospice nurses to keep pain under control.. make passing as easy as possible and to counsel the family throught this difficult time.   The family needs more attention than the patient usually... to keep calm.. to accept.. and to let the inevitable happen naturally.


----------



## Debby (Sep 21, 2014)

nwlady said:


> Hey, we've already made it easy to throw away babies that mess up our cushy lives, lets throw away all the old people too, how bout the mentally disabled, let's trash them too, oh yeah, and those with too big a nose, we can't have that, oh yeah, too fat of people, they eat too much take up way too much space, and the skinny people oh yeah, they are just too sickly to look at.  Hey crap, think of the dough we could all have if we didn't spend it on cancer patients, discard the "imperfect".  Geesh, that ought to leave about zero people on Earth, just as it should be if they are going to think this way.  How freakin sad, wish I hadn't even got on here today.





That's not at all what this debate is about.  This debate is about the elderly or those suffering from terminal illnesses being able to call a halt to the farce.  This debate is about letting those who have a mind to not suffer, being able to make that choice legally and safely.  So that their loved ones don't have to decide between being true to their mom or dad or husband or wives wishes or going to jail (for breaking the law by ending their lives/ending the suffering).  This is about providing legal and medical means that the person/patient/dying human can decide for themselves, just how long they will endure the suffering.  It's not at all about dealing with 'inconvenient' people and to frame it that way is disingenuous.


----------



## Debby (Sep 21, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> I have worked in healtcare for nearly 40 years.  I've pretty much seen it all.   There is an alternative to living in agony and killing ones self...  It's called HOSPICE.   This allows for pain control while not doing anything that will prolong life with no quality.   Unfortunately, Doctors do not bring this option up to patients and families soon enough.. HOSPICE is for people who have been determined by a doctor to have less than 6 months to live.. but can go on a lot longer.. What I see is that by the time Hospice gets involved.. the patient is already nearly dead.. SO what's the use.    I think doctors look at it as them having failed.   Nurses have the obligation to give the doc a push to offer this option.  People can die in dignity without pain... usually in their own home, with loved ones aroundl.   It's up to the Hospice nurses to keep pain under control.. make passing as easy as possible and to counsel the family throught this difficult time.   The family needs more attention than the patient usually... to keep calm.. to accept.. and to let the inevitable happen naturally.




Not everyone has access to first rate hospice care and not everyone wants to be medicated up to the eyeballs while their body takes weeks to die.  My aunt's sister-in-law, who had Alzheimers, lay in her bed in the senior residence for six years.  She knew no one, she spoke to no one, no one came to visit, she layed there and waited til death came by itself.  Where was the merit in that?  

On the other hand Susan Griffiths of Winnipeg who had multiple system atrophy went to Switzerland to end her life, when she was ready to do it.  She and her family walked and talked and sang songs together in a garden, and then the time came for her to 'go to sleep'.  And her family are left with lovely warm memories of that last day with their mom instead of memories of tubes and monitors and struggling to breathe and pain.  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/26/susan-griffiths-suicide-switzerland_n_3154469.html

Letting the inevitable end happen naturally can still be a long and arduous process that leaves no one with good feelings.


----------



## Debby (Sep 21, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> In hunting societies this is a survival mechanism. Old Inuit women, whose teeth had been worn down from constant chewing of the hides to soften them could not easily be supported by the hunters. When they became a drain on the family they often voluntarily walked out into the snow to ensure the survival of their offspring and their children. They had a duty to die so that others might live.
> 
> Similarly, in these societies baby girls were exposed at birth until boys (future hunters) were born. Unlike the baby boys, girls had no intrinsic right to live.




But we're a different society now in many ways aren't we so are we really talking about the same thing?  And how do any of us know how those old Inuit people were feeling by that point in their lives.  Maybe it was seen as a release by them as well, and an opportunity to go to meet those they longed to see and maybe leave behind the illnesses that plagued their bodies and made their lives miserable.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2014)

> Not everyone has access to first rate hospice care and not everyone wants to be medicated up to the eyeballs while their body takes weeks to die. My aunt's sister-in-law, who had Alzheimers, lay in her bed in the senior residence for six years. She knew no one, she spoke to no one, no one came to visit, she layed there and waited til death came by itself. Where was the merit in that?


 

So your Aunt's sister-in-law had no concept of what her situation was.. BUT the family didn't want to see her that way?    What I'm saying is... there is a danger of people (families) euthanizing others because they are tired of caring for them.. or paying for them to be cared for.   Not that your Aunt's sister in law's family did this.. but you have to admit.. that sometimes families see a financial benefit to doing away with someone.  Like inheritance..  just sayin'    It HAS to be the decision of the patient.. unfortunately some are not capable of making that decision.  Do we let others do that for them??     I think that is a pretty slipery slope..  don't you?


----------



## Debby (Sep 21, 2014)

One thing I always wonder about, is the fear that our 'Christian' society has about dying.  Considering that the church teaches about a God of love, angels, happily ever after, go to be with Jesus, yada, yada, yada, one would think that Christians would be waiting with some level of anticipation for that glorious day instead of recoiling in abysmal fear of the moment and being willing to plug into every type of machine and take every kind of pill just to stall the process.  What does that say about 'faith'?


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 21, 2014)

It says that faith, like people, is imperfect.


----------



## Debby (Sep 21, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> It says that faith, like people, is imperfect.




What does that mean 'faith is imperfect'? Does that mean they like their family and this planet more than they like God?   Does that mean that they aren't 100% sure?  Does that mean they are slightly afraid that they won't make the cut?  

I guess in a way the question is rhetorical because having had previous experience in this regard (was a devout Christian for about 12 years), I know that based on what I read in 'the Book', I wasn't 100% sure most of the time.  

Considering how Christianity is so willing to rule the lives of others as in this instance of me choosing when I will die for example, I would have thought that true faith would inspire a deep yearning to 'be back home with God'.  Oh well, chalk one up to the ambiguity of humans right?


----------



## Debby (Sep 21, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> So your Aunt's sister-in-law had no concept of what her situation was.. BUT the family didn't want to see her that way?    What I'm saying is... there is a danger of people (families) euthanizing others because they are tired of caring for them.. or paying for them to be cared for.   Not that your Aunt's sister in law's family did this.. but you have to admit.. that sometimes families see a financial benefit to doing away with someone.  Like inheritance..  just sayin'    It HAS to be the decision of the patient.. unfortunately some are not capable of making that decision.  Do we let others do that for them??     I think that is a pretty slipery slope..  don't you?





Do you want to be in that position?  I sure don't and for a variety of reasons, including that I don't want to be a source of angst and pain for my family as I lay there and that too is a valid reason.  No one is suggesting that you should take the same route as me, just as no one is suggesting that having abortion rights enshrined in law means that every woman is in danger of being forced to have one.  So if it's your choice to lay there like a vegetable for a decade(?), that's your choice.  Mine is to not go through that process.  What benefit is there, save a hospital making money off that person's 'existence'.

Let's say I'm diagnosed next week with Alzheimer's.  I have the prospect of the next five years with my mind reasonably intact, but from that point on, it's a downhill slide and within ten years of diagnoses, I'm guaranteed to be like my aunts sister-in-law.  If I was allowed to die when I decided, then I could enjoy life for the next five years, and then perhaps half way through the next five, my doctor would be able to supply me with a combination of drugs that would allow this body to stop functioning.  But if dying-with-dignity never gets off the ground, I have two options.  I can either drive my car into a tree or find some other horrid means of killing myself probably with lots of gore and pain involved, while I am still functional and capable of enjoying the comfort of my home and family......or I can wait for the inevitable and wind up alone and trapped in a body and with a mind that has given up.  My family continues to suffer (as do I) and the hospital and medical establishment continues to make a buck off my continued miserable existence.

You say 'some are not capable of making that decision'.  Valid point and no one should be deciding for anyone, just work at making them as comfortable as possible.  But for those who have put into writing, or stated their desires to various people (that they don't want to be put on life support or have 'heroic measures', etc.) or who have their wits about them but are suffering terrible pain and incapable of 'driving the car into a tree', should those people not have the right to decide their end and request the help of a doctor who knows how to help them?  And all of these issues and ways to manage these decisions can be written into laws that would prevent abuses.  Panels of doctors and ethics experts could be in charge of guiding those kinds of decisions.  It doesn't have to be a slippery slope.  We have the intellect to prevent that.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2014)

I don't want people who stand to benefit financially to make the decision to have a loved one euthanized.  I think it's a dangerous proposition and would very likely be abused.   I'm not talking about pulling the plug, or withholding care here..  I'm talking about actively having a person killed.  If someone has never communcated with anyone their last wishes.. then there is no way anyone could be able to make that decision for another person.   IF euthanasia were legal... and IF the person had put their wishes in writing.. then perhaps that is a different matter.. but without that... NO WAY..   I can see a huge abuse happening.   IF a person has all their faculties.. and again, if euthanasia were legal, and decides that is what he/she wants, I agree.. they should be able to make that choice.


----------



## Debby (Sep 21, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> I don't want people who stand to benefit financially to make the decision to have a loved one euthanized.  I think it's a dangerous proposition and would very likely be abused.   I'm not talking about pulling the plug, or withholding care here..  I'm talking about actively having a person killed.  If someone has never communcated with anyone their last wishes.. then there is no way anyone could be able to make that decision for another person.   IF euthanasia were legal... and IF the person had put their wishes in writing.. then perhaps that is a different matter.. but without that... NO WAY..   I can see a huge abuse happening.   IF a person has all their faculties.. and again, if euthanasia were legal, and decides that is what he/she wants, I agree.. they should be able to make that choice.




It's not going to be a case of 'decide on Wednesday and off Granny by Sunday'.   While family may finally come to a point where they feel that a dying parent/grandparent has suffered enough, there would be doctors and boards and consulting lawyers who would have to be convinced enough to give approval before the court would allow them to follow through. That is really what the debate and the push for changes of law is all about.  To allow me to decide when I've had it with the suffering that is accompanying my terminal illness or even my old age weariness and to not be held captive by the fears and insecurities of society.  To allow my doctor and my family to legally help me leave this world when that time comes.  And it's about protecting my right to communicate with my family that if I am incapacitated by an accident or sudden illness, that they won't be forced to keep me on indefinite life support or life extending care.

Continually holding up 'the slippery slope' as the reason to not affect a change ignores the rights of those who believe that it is wrong to force someone to linger by the application of technology and drugs.  Get all the legalities and ethics of the situation tied up tight so you have to kind of jump through hoops to do it, but make it legal.  We give our pets more compassion in some cases then we give people.  Sue Rodrigues had to find someone willing to do an 'illegal act' so that she could die when she couldn't stand her suffering any more.  That mystery person was compassionate and had to be brave as well.


----------



## WhatInThe (Sep 21, 2014)

There is no duty to die but I do think many, not just seniors need to take more responsibility for their health. I'm not talking about those with some kind of life debilitating chronic illness but those that are relatively healthy and don't do squat for themselves ASSuming they'll go to a doctor one day and get pills or a procedure or two or three. I find it very frustrating that those that are capable don't do squat even if a walk. Or at least take a few of the cheaper vitamins.

 Prime example I know a relatively healthy 80 year old with no arthritis, no cholesterol problems, no heart attacks etc who refuses to at least walk. Their balance is getting poor from basic strength issues, even their doc said they need a round of physical therapy, they absolutely refuse to go through it. They talk about they'll use a cane if it gets to bad like it's a status symbol or right of passage. One thing anyone has to keep in mind is that if you don't use it you WILL LOSE IT. You don't workout and use your muscles you WILL BE UNFIT. A lot of old age issues are lack of use issues especially if you think about the activity level when young. Heck you got an entire generation of teens that have been deemed unfit for military service. Also something like B vitamins can help with energy and some nerve problems. Same person who won't do therapy refuses to take a B vitamin assuming their multiple vitamin will do the trick. Again the doctor recommend B12 which they take when they feel like it or remember-they simply don't believe non prescription nutrients might help them but they want cures not help. I think extra B vitamins would stop them from doing the herky jerky every time they move. This has been going on and off for over a decade now. They were always sickly like and they absolutely put zero credence in fitness or nutrition and yet scream bloody murder about the state of health care in the US thinking everyone should get 100% coverage for any health issues.

I'll help anyone live to 200 if they want but they have to put in just as much effort and not just wait for the cure like these cryo clowns. If you are willing to expect 100% medical care in your old age I expect a 100% effort on your part to do anything and everything to contribute to your own health and fitness-at all ages. But HEALTH care is NOT just a drug or procedure so seniors shouldn't be expecting truck loads of just pills and procedures in their old age.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2014)

And then I have seen families that have totally unrealistic expectations about healthcare.  They seem to think that doctors can cure anyone if they just knew what they were doing.  They demand ALL sorts of tests and procedures and life prolonging procedures to keep granny alive.. even if granny is 95 years old, riddled with cancer and hasn't known what is happening for the last 5 years.  They want everything done.. and expect a miracle..  There needs to be some rationing of resources in cases like this..  Ethics committees need to get involved or there won't be care for the rest of us...


----------



## Debby (Sep 21, 2014)

WhatInThe said:


> There is no duty to die but I do think many, not just seniors need to take more responsibility for their health. I'm not talking about those with some kind of life debilitating chronic illness but those that are relatively healthy and don't do squat for themselves ASSuming they'll go to a doctor one day and get pills or a procedure or two or three. I find it very frustrating that those that are capable don't do squat even if a walk. Or at least take a few of the cheaper vitamins.
> 
> Prime example I know a relatively healthy 80 year old with no arthritis, no cholesterol problems, no heart attacks etc who refuses to at least walk. Their balance is getting poor from basic strength issues, even their doc said they need a round of physical therapy, they absolutely refuse to go through it. They talk about they'll use a cane if it gets to bad like it's a status symbol or right of passage. One thing anyone has to keep in mind is that if you don't use it you WILL LOSE IT. You don't workout and use your muscles you WILL BE UNFIT. A lot of old age issues are lack of use issues especially if you think about the activity level when young. Heck you got an entire generation of teens that have been deemed unfit for military service. Also something like B vitamins can help with energy and some nerve problems. Same person who won't do therapy refuses to take a B vitamin assuming their multiple vitamin will do the trick. Again the doctor recommend B12 which they take when they feel like it or remember-they simply don't believe non prescription nutrients might help them but they want cures not help. I think extra B vitamins would stop them from doing the herky jerky every time they move. This has been going on and off for over a decade now. They were always sickly like and they absolutely put zero credence in fitness or nutrition and yet scream bloody murder about the state of health care in the US thinking everyone should get 100% coverage for any health issues.
> 
> I'll help anyone live to 200 if they want but they have to put in just as much effort and not just wait for the cure like these cryo clowns. If you are willing to expect 100% medical care in your old age I expect a 100% effort on your part to do anything and everything to contribute to your own health and fitness-at all ages. But HEALTH care is NOT just a drug or procedure so seniors shouldn't be expecting truck loads of just pills and procedures in their old age.




You sound like some one who is involved in some form of health care where you see this attitude a lot and are a little fed up.  And I'm in agreement with you by the way on pretty much all of what you've said.


----------



## MaggieJewel (Sep 22, 2014)

The problem (in the USA) is that in order to get complete care for old age is you must surrender all your savings and properties to reach the "low income level" required for Medicaid (Tax Dollars paid by working citizens of the USA) to supplement the Social Security (a fund that was initially established to provide a safety net for seniors, but that has been used for other purposes over the years).  With modern medical care and the enormous cost of prolonging life at any cost, there are questions one has to ask.  I don't think anyone should be forced to submit to euthanasia, but if it is a choice between living my final years alone and in pain or taking a permanent sleeping pill, I think I would choose the pill if it were available.  This is where a living will (legally stating your final wishes while you are still able to think clearly and without coercion) comes in to play.


----------



## MaggieJewel (Sep 22, 2014)

That is exactly why I want the ability to choose when and how I will quit being a drain on family and society in general.  I choose to live a sedentary life, visiting the doctor only when I feel there is a real need, and spending my saved earnings (leaving something to my children) on what I want instead of the medical and pharmaceutical big companies.  Nobody should be forced to accept my way for themselves, but this is my choice.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 22, 2014)

The baby boomers will break the system in a matter of a few short years.  There won't be enough government funding or probably enough workers to keep this lot going on and on...


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> The baby boomers will break the system in a matter of a few short years.  There won't be enough government funding or probably enough workers to keep this lot going on and on...



Not so.. SS is solvent at 100% payout until 2037..  Medicare less... BUT there is a very simple solution.. to keep both solvent forever.  Raise the cap on FICA contirbutions.   Right now.. we pay FICA tax on only the first $113,000 of income.  After that FICA stops being deducted.  For most of us.. that well over the amount we make.  However, there are many folks that make MUCH more..   Millionaires and Billionairs pay FICA on only a very small fraction of their yearly income. Why not on 100% like most people?   If we did this there would be no problem funding SS and Medicare.    HOWEVER,  there is a factor.. controling the House.. that REFUSES to consider this simple solution... Because they are in the pockets of the wealthy... and would rather reduce their taxes and have the rest of us living in poverty.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 22, 2014)

It is Medicaid that funds nursing home care and that is the big enchilada that is unsustainable...


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> It is Medicaid that funds nursing home care and that is the big enchilada that is unsustainable...



 There are income and asset limitations on a Senior getting Medicaid, and  Medicare will pay for only the first 100 days of care PROVIDED there is a rehabilatative diagnosis..  In other words, provided that the patient has the possibility of improving with some rehab... as in the case of a Stroke.. or post surgical wound care.   After that 100 days, the patient is on their own and must either pay  privately , or turn their Social Security check over to the facility.   So.. long term custodial  nursing home care will drain private bank accounts and assets first before turning to Medicaid, and Medicare coverage is limited to 100 days if at all.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 22, 2014)

Seniors have figured out to hide their assets by putting them in their children's names five years in advance of going to a nursing home as that is now the "look-back" period by the Government...


----------



## Debby (Sep 22, 2014)

I'm not positive and if there are any Canadians here who know the real facts please jump in.  But I think in Canada, they look at your 'income' when it comes to going into nursing homes.  So if you have say $100,000 worth of savings or bonds or whatever just kind of sitting there and you have some stocks that pay you some dividends and a pension that pays you an allowance (as my husband calls it), then they ignore the savings and bonds but take into account your dividends and pension (income) as they determine how much help you'll get on your living expenses.  

For example, my one aunt who never worked outside the home had a little nest egg from the sale of her little apartment.  She also got the Old Age Pension which is about $480.00 per month and then she got the Guaranteed Income Supplement (because she was below the poverty level as far as income goes I guess) which is also in the vicinity of $400 or $500 per month.  But the residence that she lived in was about $2500 per month so the difference was made up by the government.  So when she died, there was a small estate that was divided up between the kids and grandkids.

Frankly, as a woman who never worked outside the home, and who raised a family of seven children (three fosters) on her husbands Social Security payments (he was injured when he was young in a logging accident) and whatever home based 'jobs' he could come up with, she did pretty good in her last years.  I would love to have a cozy little one bedroom apartment like she had!  Nothing fancy, nice building, and two square meals a day!  Who could ask for more?


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2014)

In my opinion, far too much of our retirement care is given to the government and not enough is kept in the hands of the person themselves.   We should never just let it all fall into the hands of the government and should be working to pay for care and protection on our own.   I really hate it when I see more and more of our care being taken by the government and being told how expensive it will be for our care.   Right now I find I can not even understand our current retirement and medical care from the confused, still not completed, rules and regulations we call Obama care.   How much will it cover and what portion of payments will I be required to pay.   Nothing clear in the paper work I have received before or since being covered.  The entire system is a big fog of rights and responsibilities.   All this stuff about retirement living and health care should be in the hands of the individuals, not some major government group sucking up so much money while they spend most of their time overseeing restrictions on who gets paid and how much.

Many won't like my comments as there are those that only want to sit on their butts and depend on the big, unaffordable, government to take care of them.   Life end care should also be easier to choose from and not so much involved with lawyers protecting their careers.

Just my thinking.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 22, 2014)

You had better have big assets to pay for your care if you don't want help at some point.  Private nursing home care can break many within a few years...


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2014)

Around here.. $4,000 per month.. and that's on the cheap side. Pretty easy to blow through life savings.

But let's put this into perspective though..  The percentage of elderly living in nursing homes is only 17%.. so it's not the rule of thumb.. or inevitable.  Most live with famlies or independently until their "final illness".   Usually people die withing a few weeks of that.  It's not a given we all will need long term care. 

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_elderly_population_reside_in_nursing_homes


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 22, 2014)

The numbers are growing and medical improvements are keeping the residents around longer...


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2014)

My point was, and is, that we should all have our own health insurance and not have to depend on any large and expensive government agency to do it for us.    We are now living in a true mess of government rules that also try to govern the private insurance companies products.   No reason for all of the people of the US to have to live in this government mangled mess called health coverage.   I know I am now getting less and paying more.   Something I am not real happy with.   I was quite happy with my employer provided health coverage and doctor/hospital coverage of the past.   There were many ways for hospitals to make up for personal shortages, and they did.   Now I am not sure they will be allowed to be so generous as before.

Yes, before, we did need to have our own insurance, from employers, unions, personal supplements.   Or would pay our way as needed.    One person I know of had hospitalization only insurance and payed their own way for daily needs and doctors.    Our new care did not allow that to stand.   I don't know which way this person finally went.    No insurance at all, government demanded insurance that was much more expensive, or still holding on to their own way of doing their things.

Big government is not the answer to our health needs and should be amended or stopped.   Overall cost of government run health care is much higher than before and the true cost, hundreds or thousands of more government employees to oversee and run the mess, are just not included in the total costs of medical care as it should be.   Looking forward to a few more years and when many of the current errors and unneeded controls can be gotten rid of.   Maybe then the health care program will have been allowed to return to the people and away from the government.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2014)

BobF said:


> My point was, and is, that we should all have our own health insurance and not have to depend on any large and expensive government agency to do it for us. We are now living in a true mess of government rules that also try to govern the private insurance companies products. No reason for all of the people of the US to have to live in this government mangled mess called health coverage. I know I am now getting less and paying more. Something I am not real happy with. I was quite happy with my employer provided health coverage and doctor/hospital coverage of the past. There were many ways for hospitals to make up for personal shortages, and they did. Now I am not sure they will be allowed to be so generous as before.
> 
> Yes, before, we did need to have our own insurance, from employers, unions, personal supplements. Or would pay our way as needed. One person I know of had hospitalization only insurance and payed their own way for daily needs and doctors. Our new care did not allow that to stand. I don't know which way this person finally went. No insurance at all, government demanded insurance that was much more expensive, or still holding on to their own way of doing their things.
> 
> Big government is not the answer to our health needs and should be amended or stopped. Overall cost of government run health care is much higher than before and the true cost, hundreds or thousands of more government employees to oversee and run the mess, are just not included in the total costs of medical care as it should be. Looking forward to a few more years and when many of the current errors and unneeded controls can be gotten rid of. Maybe then the health care program will have been allowed to return to the people and away from the government.



Sorry, but I am going to disagree with you. Medicare is VERY much more efficient and has less overhead than private insurance. Up until the ACA took effect, private insurance could deny coverage for ANY pre-existing condition. It could place lifetime caps on dollars paid for care.. So if you were in the middle of Chemo treatmet, and your cap was reached.. you would be SOL.. right? Private insurance could raise primiums indiscriminantly and pay obscene bonuses and salaries to the CEOs and shareholders. They can also deny treatment for just about any reason they choose, or restrict which doctor you can see. As opposed to Medicare... Part A Medicare is free... Part B carries a small premium deducted from SS.. Supplimental policies are around $150 or less a month. You can see any doctor, and THERE are no approvals needed for services.   Below is a chart showing just how much more cost effective Medicare is compared to private insurance.  The Government may screw up a lot of things.. BUT they do Medicare VERY well.


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2014)

Sorry, but now you are trying to turn this discussion into a political argument.

First is as I suggested in my previous post, it is not cheaper as you claim.    Why the increased taxes for the government that is totally out of control.   You don't count that apparently and just use what we are supposed to see as given by the government.   No government is cheaper than private business nor as effective either.   Local medical is much better that what we see with government controlled run out of DC with no real knowledge of our particular situations.  We all must live to some sort of national norms and standards.   Those certainly do not truly represent the high cost living in cities with the much lower cost of living in rural areas.

So for you, vote the political party you wish and I will do the same for my votes.   There is no true right or wrong for all and what I see now is that what has happened is not good for me or many and for me it definitely is much more expensive for lessor coverage.   One casualty for me was the loss of my employers many coverages for health care for whatever the Obama care felt was a cheaper way to go.   It was not.

Our national debt has gone from about $10 trillion when Obama come in to about $18 trillion today.    How does that make our medical cheaper.   The country is in much deeper debt than before.

This conversation has gotten out of hand so I will respond no more.   Overall, our health system is not cheaper as some think.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 22, 2014)

Debby said:


> You are talking about something very different than the 'right to die'.  To equate murder and choosing for yourself, when you are going to leave this world are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
> 
> If I am very sick, terminal and in great pain, I would prefer that people with good or reasonable health not tell me that I have to lie there in my bed, and 'enjoy' the suffering that could go on for a significant length of time.  To choose for myself to be done with the pain and suffering isn't Nazi-like at all.  It's my last 'choice' on this side of the grave.



Debby, I didn't say I was against the "right to die."  I am not, and think we should have that choice.  I am, however, very outraged at the idea of a "duty to die."  No one has to right to decide that another person has no* right* to continue living.  Having said that, however, practicalities enter into the picture when families must make the decision whether or not to continue drastic life support measures to keep someone alive long after that person's body is ready to die.  I don't believe that is right, either.  I think that's why we all should consider having a living will or right to die affidavit, or whatever our jurisdiction calls it, in place, and to be sure our families and physicians know our wishes.

I absolutely agree with you that we should all have the right to decide whether we want to lay around in pain till the bitter end or not.  But I also strongly believe that it a choice we should make for ourselves, not that others should make for us based on some outside criteria, like that we are "too old," for example.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2014)

Blaming Obama for the increase in national debt.. Is a bit silly isn't it?   AND it certainly isn't from Medicare or the ACA..  NO... my friend.. you can put that increase squarely on the shoulders of our old buddy GW.  and the bail out of the Banks... to avoid the entire economy from collapsing due to his poor policies... his unfunded wars.. His tax cuts to the wealthy AND his unfunded prescription drug program.   Couple that with the fact that the GOP held House has not allowed one single thing to be done to create jobs, or address the tax issues with a large percentage of Corporations paying no taxes at all.. I hardly think one can point fingers at Obama.  The goverment has to run.. and it has to have money to do that.  The GOP has tried relentlessly to destroy the government.... except that is for the ultra wealthy.


----------



## WhatInThe (Sep 22, 2014)

Obama Care designer says 75 are enough years to live.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-co...thinks-75-is-long-enough-to-live-2909394.html

Everything including cost and care are based on outdated thinking and mindset.

The only people with any excuse are the gold watch generation who were able to get a 30 year career with pension and good benefits. American society is almost based on a prison mentality. Do your time-working and you'll be taken care of. 

Too many have been led to believe all they needed was a high school diploma or a college degree. Now that's the absolute bare minimum to exist not exceed in the work place. That being said it is that generation that thought they would learn all they needed to know in school and use their degrees the rest of their lives. This is the same generation that fails to evolve, develop, progress or learn their own survival skills including a fitness and nutrition routine above and beyond what the doctor ordered. More importantly all they had to do was pay someone else to do a lot of stuff they should've of learned on their own wether it be a computer, kitchen, tools etc. Too much emphasis on learning what someone can do for someone else rather than take care of themselves. This is why alot of things come down to money pure and simple. 

Why do it yourself when you can pay someone else to do it. Is that an indication of lazyness, incompetence or you actually have the money to pay someone else to do it.


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2014)

Now you are definitely trying to make this entire discussion a political one and not one of personal experience which I have been posting from.

Not a problem of George Bush either as Bush had the debt held into the $7 trillion level that came from Clinton's years.   Still at $7 trillion till the last two years of Bush when the Democrats took over both houses of Congress with Reid and Pelosi.    Those two went on spending sprees and only allowed Bush's requests for funds when a lot of their nonsense was allowed.   Bush was attempting to run two wars and the country within the $7 trillion window left by Clinton and did so until Pelosi and Reid took control of Congress.   In two years they had lifted the debt to the $10 trillion that Obama then raised to $18 trillion.    Definitely not due to the so called banking rescue and the other distortions of truth.   If all you say were even partly true, why then is Obama's loyalty so low as to be in the 40% for some surveys and even lower, 35%, in other surveys?    Obama has created his very own sadness for the US and in two years we may have Hillary or someone else for the Democrats and whomever for the Republican party.   Either one will have the job of cleaning up a lot of financial mistakes Obama has made and helping to get this country back on its feet and out of debt.    Now for one of the biggest problems in today's Congress, look to Reid.   He will not even look to any of the House offerings so any help is just allowed to sit on the desk.    Just eliminating Reid would be a big help to getting the country operating again.

I said I would not respond to your jokes but it was so gross that I had to make a response.    Here is a look at reality.    Look at how the debt came down under Clinton when he had a Republican Congress to help him.   And how fast the Democrat's raised the debt even before Obama got elected and continued this rapid waste of US wealth into something none of us can see.


----------



## Ina (Sep 22, 2014)

A few years back, my husband, the son, (that was living on, and working our farm), and me had this very coversation.  My husband let us know that he just wanted to live and died at home, as both my parents did. We kept both of my parents in our home to be able to home care them. My father was bed riden and on oxigon. He lived five years. My mother, who had her small trailer in the back yard, (they were divorced), died three years after my father. She had a massive heart attach, and died as I held her.
So all three of us were aware of the requirements it would take to allow for this kind of care.  Our son had agree to help us both live out the remainer of our years as we wish.

My husband and I both fear nursing homes, and being seperated. 

So we gave our son hand written instruction that clearly said when we reached the stage of our death, we didn't want any extraordinary measures to extend our lives other than pain medications that would relieve the pain as we died naturally.  Sounded like a good plan. It worked for my parents.

But unexpectedly, our son ended up in a hospital transplant unit with a devastated liver one day, and the next day when we went to see how he was, his doctor was waiting for us. She informed us that during he night his fever spiked so fast and high, that he was dieing.

The doctor looked at me asked me what "I" wanted to do? They could keep him on life support for a long time, or I could make the decision to stop his life support.  I asked if he had any chamce of life, and they told me he was brain dead.  I knew right then what my son would want, and although I was tempted to wait and see, I knew that was my selfishness and for my sake. I asked if I could get into his bed so I could hold him. They let me do that, then they gave him a shot, and I held him as he died.

My point in all of this is that no government agencies tried to enterfere with my parents choices, and they had no will or written statements. And when my son died, they were very caring and took their direction from my wishes. My son didn't have a will or death statement either.  :dunno:


----------



## Debby (Sep 22, 2014)

BobF said:


> In my opinion, far too much of our retirement care is given to the government and not enough is kept in the hands of the person themselves.   We should never just let it all fall into the hands of the government and should be working to pay for care and protection on our own.   I really hate it when I see more and more of our care being taken by the government and being told how expensive it will be for our care.   Right now I find I can not even understand our current retirement and medical care from the confused, still not completed, rules and regulations we call Obama care.   How much will it cover and what portion of payments will I be required to pay.   Nothing clear in the paper work I have received before or since being covered.  The entire system is a big fog of rights and responsibilities.   All this stuff about retirement living and health care should be in the hands of the individuals, not some major government group sucking up so much money while they spend most of their time overseeing restrictions on who gets paid and how much.
> 
> Many won't like my comments as there are those that only want to sit on their butts and depend on the big, unaffordable, government to take care of them.   Life end care should also be easier to choose from and not so much involved with lawyers protecting their careers.
> 
> Just my thinking.




You've made some really valid points Bob but at the same time that same government has made it possible for large corporations and every industry that wants to, to move off shore, pay lower taxes, etc., all of which has left the populace kind of in the lurch.  Either no jobs or few jobs, or poor paying jobs any one of which would make it difficult or impossible to save up for those last years. So what can they do?  We don't want to see them just trudging off into the shadows of society to die miserably.  That would say very bad things about our society wouldn't it?


----------



## Debby (Sep 22, 2014)

Butterfly said:


> Debby, I didn't say I was against the "right to die."  I am not, and think we should have that choice.  I am, however, very outraged at the idea of a "duty to die."  No one has to right to decide that another person has no* right* to continue living.  Having said that, however, practicalities enter into the picture when families must make the decision whether or not to continue drastic life support measures to keep someone alive long after that person's body is ready to die.  I don't believe that is right, either.  I think that's why we all should consider having a living will or right to die affidavit, or whatever our jurisdiction calls it, in place, and to be sure our families and physicians know our wishes.
> 
> I absolutely agree with you that we should all have the right to decide whether we want to lay around in pain till the bitter end or not.  But I also strongly believe that it a choice we should make for ourselves, not that others should make for us based on some outside criteria, like that we are "too old," for example.




I'm sorry that I misunderstood your original comment then Butterfly.  I guess I may have misconstrued your direction when you mentioned Nazi's and all that that infers.  I think on your other points we are in agreement.


----------



## Debby (Sep 22, 2014)

BobF said:


> Here is a look at reality.    Look at how the debt came down under Clinton when he had a Republican Congress to help him.   And how fast the Democrat's raised the debt even before Obama got elected and continued this rapid waste of US wealth into something none of us can see.



Interesting graph Bob.


----------



## Debby (Sep 22, 2014)

Ina said:


> A few years back, my husband, the son, (that was living on, and working our farm), and me had this very coversation.  My husband let us know that he just wanted to live and died at home, as both my parents did. We kept both of my parents in our home to be able to home care them. My father was bed riden and on oxigon. He lived five years. My mother, who had her small trailer in the back yard, (they were divorced), died three years after my father. She had a massive heart attach, and died as I held her.
> So all three of us were aware of the requirements it would take to allow for this kind of care.  Our son had agree to help us both live out the remainer of our years as we wish.
> 
> My husband and I both fear nursing homes, and being seperated.
> ...




Well I'm very sorry for your sad loss and how it all transpired Ina.  That was such a hard thing for your family to go through I'm sure.  

That said, I didn't know that Texas will actually allow doctors to proactively bring about death in a person?  Here in Canada, we've been seeing the odd court case on that go through for years with no changes so far.  I thought it was only Washington State that was allowing assisted suicide?  Hmmm, one more thing to look up I guess.


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2014)

Debby said:


> You've made some really valid points Bob but at the same time that same government has made it possible for large corporations and every industry that wants to, to move off shore, pay lower taxes, etc., all of which has left the populace kind of in the lurch.  Either no jobs or few jobs, or poor paying jobs any one of which would make it difficult or impossible to save up for those last years. So what can they do?  We don't want to see them just trudging off into the shadows of society to die miserably.  That would say very bad things about our society wouldn't it?



That off shore movement of companies and individuals wealth is due to the higher taxes and more restrictions put on everything this government has decided to do.   Companies and individual wealth could all come back to the states if the government would just ease off and make our taxes more incentive than taking the plants and wealth to other countries where taxes are half of the US.   We have a very out of control government and it should be changed or replaced.    I think this problem preceded Obama but Obama hss only made it worse.   Efforts for tax changes so far get no positive responses.

For an article on our tax rates take a look at this Forbes discussion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...4-oecd-countries-in-tax-code-competitiveness/


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 22, 2014)

I heard an interesting twist on this discussion this morning on the radio.

Apparently a Belgian man has been granted the right to a lethal injection today after a 3 year process to decide his case.

He has been in prison for 30 years for the violent rape and murder of a 19 year old girl and he was already a serial rapist. He's now in his fifties and will never be released because he still has violent urges. He asked for euthanasia, which is legal in Belgium, even for children, because of prolonged and unbearable mental anguish.

The family of the murdered girl are against the move because they want him to rot in gaol for the rest of his natural life.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/belgium-grants-jailed-rapist-murderer-euthanasia-25532158

What do you think? Does he have a right to die in these circumstances?


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2014)

BobF said:


> That off shore movement of companies and individuals wealth is due to the higher taxes and more restrictions put on everything this government has decided to do.   Companies and individual wealth could all come back to the states if the government would just ease off and make our taxes more incentive than taking the plants and wealth to other countries where taxes are half of the US.   We have a very out of control government and it should be changed or replaced.    I think this problem preceded Obama but Obama hss only made it worse.   Efforts for tax changes so far get no positive responses.
> 
> For an article on our tax rates take a look at this Forbes discussion.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...4-oecd-countries-in-tax-code-competitiveness/




That is absolute hogwash... I don't care how high the Corporate tax rate is... it doesn't matter... because Corporations don't pay that..  NOBODY pays that rate.. They are moving overseas to take advantage of cheap labor with no labor laws.  Do you want America to go back to the days when we didn't have labor laws?  How about child labor?   How about working 7 days a week... 12 hrs a day?   How about no sick time?   Seriously?  You think that's how America should be?  They also like that foreign countries allow them to polute the air and water as they please..  Do you WANT filthy air and water for YOUR family?   




> The biggest, most profitable American companies paid only a fraction of the taxes they would owe under the official corporate rate, according to a study released on Monday by the Government Accountability Office.





> Using allowed deductions and legal loopholes, large corporations enjoyed a 12.6 percent tax rate far below the 35 percent tax that is the statutory rate imposed by the federal government on corporate profits.
> The findings come amid rising criticism of the tactics that some big companies use to lower their tax bills.





http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/b...id-a-fraction-of-corporate-tax-rate.html?_r=0


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> That is absolute hogwash... I don't care how high the Corporate tax rate is... it doesn't matter... because Corporations don't pay that..  NOBODY pays that rate.. They are moving overseas to take advantage of cheap labor with no labor laws.  Do you want America to go back to the days when we didn't have labor laws?  How about child labor?   How about working 7 days a week... 12 hrs a day?   How about no sick time?   Seriously?  You think that's how America should be?  They also like that foreign countries allow them to polute the air and water as they please..  Do you WANT filthy air and water for YOUR family?
> 
> As part of your response you posted a New York Time article that explained why many do not pay the etire tax.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ina (Sep 22, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I heard an interesting twist on this discussion this morning on the radio.
> 
> Apparently a Belgian man has been granted the right to a lethal injection today after a 3 year process to decide his case.
> 
> ...



Well that would be one way to escape from prison.  If he were terminally ill and in great pain, with no relief in sight, then maybe it would be the right thing to do, and it would save the country the medical expense.  But just because he is tired of it all, and doesn't want to do it anymore, doesn't get it for me.  His victims don't have any choices.  

I'm in the process of writing a long letter to the Texas parole board, concerning the murder of my oldest son.  I have been writing about every four years for 21 years now, and I've gone to the hearings three times.  This murderer asked for and got a plea bargain of 25 years. No one asked us what we thought of the bargain at the time.  So I want him to serve the sentence he bargained for. He will be getting out in four more years, and then I wish never to think of him again.

So I don't think he should be allowed to escape his punishment. The families of his victums can't escape.


----------



## Debby (Sep 22, 2014)

BobF said:


> That off shore movement of companies and individuals wealth is due to the higher taxes and more restrictions put on everything this government has decided to do.   Companies and individual wealth could all come back to the states if the government would just ease off and make our taxes more incentive than taking the plants and wealth to other countries where taxes are half of the US.   We have a very out of control government and it should be changed or replaced.    I think this problem preceded Obama but Obama hss only made it worse.   Efforts for tax changes so far get no positive responses.
> 
> For an article on our tax rates take a look at this Forbes discussion.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...4-oecd-countries-in-tax-code-competitiveness/




I did glance at your link Bob, but I'm not sure if it's really relevant to this discussion.  I only mentioned 'taxes' as one reason why companies aren't employing people so that they can save for their last few years when they're unable to work.  My real point was, if people don't have jobs that enable them to save, how do you propose that they will navigate the last few years of their lives?  Some folks are lazy or spendthrifts, no doubt.  But many are not and it's no fault of theirs that they can't survive day to day AND save for their retirements on top of that.  Without government support, what do they do?  You can't just write them off as if they don't matter and let's face it, any one of us, through some weird series of misadventures could wind up in that position unexpectedly.  Out of work, out of luck, out of options.....


----------



## Debby (Sep 22, 2014)

Ina said:


> Well that would be one way to escape from prison.  If he were terminally ill and in great pain, with no relief in sight, then maybe it would be the right thing to do, and it would save the country the medical expense.  But just because he is tired of it all, and doesn't want to do it anymore, doesn't get it for me.  His victims don't have any choices.
> 
> I'm in the process of writing a long letter to the Texas parole board, concerning the murder of my oldest son.  I have been writing about every four years for 21 years now, and I've gone to the hearings three times.  This murderer asked for and got a plea bargain of 25 years. No one asked us what we thought of the bargain at the time.  So I want him to serve the sentence he bargained for. He will be getting out in four more years, and then I wish never to think of him again.
> 
> So I don't think he should be allowed to escape his punishment. The families of his victums can't escape.



You've made some excellent points Ina! Agree with everything you've said.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2014)

As part of your response you posted a New York Time article that explained why many do not pay the etire tax.

*“Some U.S. multinational corporations like to complain about the U.S. 35  percent statutory tax rate, but what they don’t like to admit is that  hardly any of them pay anything close to it,” Mr. Levin said in a  statement. “The big gap between the U.S. statutory tax rate and what  large, profitable U.S. corporations actually pay is due in large part to  the unjustified loopholes and gimmicks that riddle our tax code.”         *

So rather than do all the cheating etc. many have decided to go to other more rationally taxed countries.   And how about this Burger King deal?   And I don't believe Canada fits any of your claims at all.   And without following all the companies that have moved and to where, I doubt lots of your claims to be valid.

http://fortune.com/2014/08/28/is-burger-kings-move-to-canada-a-raw-deal-for-u-s-taxpayers/

*Is Burger King’s move to Canada a raw deal for U.S. taxpayers?* 


by
Eileen Appelbaum 
[/QUOTE]


But they aren't cheating Debby.... Those loopholes are perfectly legal.  They are moving in order to pay NO US taxes..  As for the Canada Burger King deal?  Yes.. it's called tax inversion.. They are essentially a Canadian company now.. so they will not pay US tax..


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2014)

Debby said:


> I did glance at your link Bob, but I'm not sure if it's really relevant to this discussion.  I only mentioned 'taxes' as one reason why companies aren't employing people so that they can save for their last few years when they're unable to work.  My real point was, if people don't have jobs that enable them to save, how do you propose that they will navigate the last few years of their lives?  Some folks are lazy or spendthrifts, no doubt.  But many are not and it's no fault of theirs that they can't survive day to day AND save for their retirements on top of that.  Without government support, what do they do?  You can't just write them off as if they don't matter and let's face it, any one of us, through some weird series of misadventures could wind up in that position unexpectedly.  Out of work, out of luck, out of options.....



You are quite correct when talking about taxes is really not part of this discussion.   I have been talking back and forth with some that like to push certain political ideas over the topic itself.   For me, and my circumstances this Obama care has proven to be more costly and have less benefits than what my employer had given us.   So it is not a big deal as claimed by some in my eyes.   I hear all the publicity the Obama folks like to post, just wish they could somehow tell the facts as they really are.   More than a few are waiting for the opportunity to take on the Obama care and fix some not so good things that Obama does not want to fix.   I end up spening more and not getting the same results as I expected to see before.   It is new and with time I am sure that the medical folks and a different government leadership will get some things fixed.

Todays unemployment is still over 7% and hanging on at that level after 6 years of this Obama government.   Unemployment was in the 5% range prior to the business crash under Bush with a Democrat Congress running things.   When Obama took office it was up to 8.5%.    Usually only takes a year or two to get the economy rolling again and our national debt has gone from $10 trillion to $18 trillion so far under this President.    So we still have a sluggish country and high government costs added.   Total experience is disappointing for far too many.


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> As part of your response you posted a New York Time article that explained why many do not pay the etire tax.
> 
> *“Some U.S. multinational corporations like to complain about the U.S. 35  percent statutory tax rate, but what they don’t like to admit is that  hardly any of them pay anything close to it,” Mr. Levin said in a  statement. “The big gap between the U.S. statutory tax rate and what  large, profitable U.S. corporations actually pay is due in large part to  the unjustified loopholes and gimmicks that riddle our tax code.”         *
> 
> ...




But they aren't cheating Debby.... Those loopholes are perfectly legal.  They are moving in order to pay NO US taxes..  As for the Canada Burger King deal?  Yes.. it's called tax inversion.. They are essentially a Canadian company now.. so they will not pay US tax..[/QUOTE]

Very true, but why doesn't the government agree to rewrite the taxes as Congress had been asking for several years now, even back into Bush's years.   Means we have some very dense folks willing to play with the taxes on personal desires but won't allow for a new set of rules to lock them all into a standard way and not allow simple maneuvering to avoid taxing a friend while taxing the life out of others with this selective taxing system.   And not all companies have left yet, just watch if the government does not straighten out its taxes soon.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 22, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> That is absolute hogwash... I don't care how high the Corporate tax rate is... it doesn't matter... because Corporations don't pay that..  NOBODY pays that rate.. They are moving overseas to take advantage of cheap labor with no labor laws.


We are hosting the G20 at the moment and the Treasurers' group is looking at ways to make companies pay appropriate taxes in the countries where they raise the profits. They are talking about international co-operation at government level to stop global enterprises  structuring their businesses in such a way as to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and contributing to societies as they are morally obliged to do. It will be something that they will be legally obliged to do in the future, with a bit of luck.


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2014)

That is good news Dame Warrigal.    I did not think those member's really had any power at all.    Just some strong adviser's to their governments likely.   It would surely be likely to have the US finally get there tax laws cleaned up.   Rather high main tax but then they have all those strange ways to avoid paying taxes if the government will allow it.   One of the US's biggest companies leader is a friend of Obama and Obama set him up as a adviser or some such position.   The companies he leads pay no taxes.    This was all in the news a few years back but I can not remember the company or name of person.   It is pretty sad how our government has been running.   That some companies don't have to pay taxes and others do is not fair at all.   It appears that if you run a company and don't want to pay the heavy taxes, you have to kiss up to a favorit Congressman or the President to get a lower rate or none.   Remember I said previously that this situation existed even during the Bush times.   Not sure who is actually controlling all this shady stuff.

So those on the no or low tax schedules are happy and the others that are not getting good favors or none are willing to move to where the taxes are simpler and better enforced.    I hope you are right and this meeting will lead to better taxes and enforced taxes.


----------



## Debby (Sep 22, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> That is absolute hogwash... I don't care how high the Corporate tax rate is... it doesn't matter... because Corporations don't pay that..  NOBODY pays that rate.. They are moving overseas to take advantage of cheap labor with no labor laws.  Do you want America to go back to the days when we didn't have labor laws?  How about child labor?   How about working 7 days a week... 12 hrs a day?   How about no sick time?   Seriously?  You think that's how America should be?  They also like that foreign countries allow them to polute the air and water as they please..  Do you WANT filthy air and water for YOUR family?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But that article is by Forbes, a magazine that depends on it's credibility and relative accuracy and wouldn't you  would think that they'd check their numbers? And I think I recently heard a discussion on Canadian TV where they were talking about how they could understand why Burger King would leave a 39% tax rate behind and come to Canada's 15% corporate tax environment with our accompanying loopholes and such.  Wouldn't that be looking pretty good as a reason to make the move if your focus is the bottom line?  Mind you, disclaimer here, the mere mention of taxes and my eyes glaze over.  Very complicated issue.

I just had to recheck the title of this thread as I'd forgotten what we were talking about.  Isn't it interesting how conversations can evolve and morph into seemingly unrelated topics?


----------



## Ina (Sep 22, 2014)

Warri, What is the G20?  Would you expound on this issue more please.  You've got my attention. :magnify:


----------



## Debby (Sep 22, 2014)

BobF said:


> That off shore movement of companies and individuals wealth is due to the higher taxes and more restrictions put on everything this government has decided to do.   Companies and individual wealth could all come back to the states if the government would just ease off and make our taxes more incentive than taking the plants and wealth to other countries where taxes are half of the US.   We have a very out of control government and it should be changed or replaced.    I think this problem preceded Obama but Obama hss only made it worse.   Efforts for tax changes so far get no positive responses.
> 
> For an article on our tax rates take a look at this Forbes discussion.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...4-oecd-countries-in-tax-code-competitiveness/




It seems like governments everywhere are out of control on so many issues!  Problem is, that too often when you change the government, the new one is doing the same kind of crap, just different faces behind the mike when they're publicly lying to you.  Our Canadian government is no different.  I'm hoping that our next election will make some good changes, but you just never know.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 22, 2014)

Ina said:


> Warri, What is the G20?  Would you expound on this issue more please.  You've got my attention. :magnify:



It's an expanded version of the G8 which is a series of conferences of leaders and experts from the top 20 nations who get together to discuss and form policy on issues of global importance. It is one reason for our elevated security alert. Your President will be coming to Brisbane later this year for the Leaders (as in heads of state) meeting. There's been talk of banning Putin from that meeting as a slap on the wrist but it has been decided that it is better to have him here than not.



> *G20: Obama to own Brisbane airspace for 80 minutes*
> 
> Queensland  22, 2014
> *Amy Remeikis*
> ...



Wikipedia explains more about the 2014 G20 Summit, its participants and the agenda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_G-20_Brisbane_summit

I just found an interactive map an it looks like just about the whole world will be coming.
https://www.g20.org/about_g20/interactive_map


----------



## Ina (Sep 22, 2014)

Warri, As this develops in November, and in your country, you will be getting the best chances to observe this affair. Would you please bring the issues to us. I find this very interesting.  :wave:


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 23, 2014)

Will do. General section or Speakers Corner for just those interested?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 23, 2014)

It will make a nice bedtime story...


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 23, 2014)

You don't sleep. :grin:


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 23, 2014)

You are a strange lot, that's for sure...


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 23, 2014)

Well, we're part marsupial, dontyaknow.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 23, 2014)

Now that explains a lot!


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 23, 2014)

[h=1]Obama Administration Moves to Crack Down on Tax Inversions[/h]Source: *Forbes*

The Treasury Department issued new rules Monday evening to discourage U.S.-based companies from moving their headquarters overseas to reduce their tax bills to Uncle Sam. 

The revisions to five sections of the tax code are designed to make it more difficult for companies to strike so-called “tax inversion” deals, in which a U.S. company reincorporates overseas after merging with a foreign business, and to reduce the financial benefits. 

“These first, targeted steps make substantial progress in constraining the creative techniques used to avoid U.S. taxes, both in terms of meaningfully reducing the economic benefits of inversions after the fact, and when possible, stopping them altogether,” said Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew in a statement. “While comprehensive business tax reform that includes specific anti-inversion provisions is the best way to address the recent surge of inversions, we cannot wait to address this problem.”

Read more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyb...ration-moves-to-crack-down-on-tax-inversions/ 


He has repeatedly asked congress to address this problem, looks like he decided to bypass the do nothing congress that caters to the one percent.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2014)

I don't believe that the companies do take there business overseas as they are just trying to take the tax ability over seas to better circumstances.   Burger King for example, did not close their businesses in the US, just changed the taxable jurisdiction from the very expensive potential of the US to a less expensive Canadian tax base.   All this silliness of filthy places and nasty places just is not the fact behind these changes.   It is the potential cost to the company that is the concern.    I believe that some companies have there tax ability in some Caribbean islands.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2014)

Burger King's only value to our economy would be the taxes it should pay...meager as they are now.. an then totally none existant as they will now pay Canada.    It certainly does not provide living wage jobs.. which by the way would benefit the economy by giving ordinary people more disposible income and would be spent 100% on goods and services..  Burger King also DRAINS our economy by paying such low wages that their employees qualify for Food Stamps and Medicaid just to get by.  So in essence, WE the taxpayer are subsidizing Burger Kings unfair business model.    Therefore.. IMO other than taxes.. they are pretty much useless... except to contribute our obesity problem with the crappy food.   I personally will not set foot in one again.


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 23, 2014)

Better circumstances?  These companies have record breaking profits, pay their executives record breaking salaries.  They are cheating the system and dodging their responsibility with the help of Republicans in Congress.
The tax payers have to take up the slack, something needs to be done.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2014)

Jackie22 said:


> Better circumstances? These companies have record breaking profits, pay their executives record breaking salaries. They are cheating the system and dodging their responsibility with the help of Republicans in Congress.
> The tax payers have to take up the slack, something needs to be done.



Very true.. and so long as the disasterous Citizen's United ruling is left to stand.. and Large Corporations can pay off politicians to vote in their favor and their best interests.. our Democracy is in jeopardy.   Corporations are NOT people and money is NOT speech.  We cannot let only a small few decide what is best for America.. because you KNOW they are not going to look out for the middle class or the poor.    The game has been rigged and not in our favor.  ALL we have is our vote, and even that is systematically being taken away.


----------



## Debby (Sep 23, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Burger King's only value to our economy would be the taxes it should pay...meager as they are now.. an then totally none existant as they will now pay Canada.    It certainly does not provide living wage jobs.. which by the way would benefit the economy by giving ordinary people more disposible income and would be spent 100% on goods and services..  Burger King also DRAINS our economy by paying such low wages that their employees qualify for Food Stamps and Medicaid just to get by.  So in essence, WE the taxpayer are subsidizing Burger Kings unfair business model.    Therefore.. IMO other than taxes.. they are pretty much useless... except to contribute our obesity problem with the crappy food.   I personally will not set foot in one again.




Good point that you brought up that never occurred to me:  Low wages = drain on taxpayer via food stamps, etc.  In Canada we don't have food stamps, but we do have over burdened food banks (supplied by everyday shoppers who remember to drop a few cans(?) in the collection box before they leave) that have growing lists of clients.  Isn't capitalism wonderful - if you're a large corporation?


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2014)

Debby said:


> Good point that you brought up that never occurred to me: Low wages = drain on taxpayer via food stamps, etc. In Canada we don't have food stamps, but we do have over burdened food banks (supplied by everyday shoppers who remember to drop a few cans(?) in the collection box before they leave) that have growing lists of clients. Isn't capitalism wonderful - if you're a large corporation?



This is why I've never believed that pure unfettered capitalism works. It ends up cannibalizing the very economy that supports it. The one and only goal of every corporation under capitalism is to make a profit. It strives to reward it's shareholders and it's executives. It has no conscience. In this profit driven atmosphere everything possible is done to create MORE profit.. including underpaying employees... decreasing benefits... and avoidance of taxes. Money is slowly shifted to the top rather than being redistributed to the middle and bottom. 

It's the Middle class that drives an economy IMO.. when people have money in their pockets.. they spend it.. They do not move it into off shore tax havens. When people spend money on goods and services.. it creates a demand for MORE goods and services. This in turn stimulates business to expand and to hire to fill the demand. When businesses hire.. that makes MORE people spending AND paying taxes. IMO taxes on large corporations and the wealthy need to be increased not decreased. This will also slow down the "profit taking" and encourage business to reinvest in the business..in order to defer tax. This will create more jobs and more revenue for services.. I believe in Capitalism.. but there has to be a balance with some socialist programs... There has to be a social safety net below which no citizen can fall. More jobs and better wages will limit the number of people needing assistance... and more taxpayers will produce more revenue.

Those who believe in decreasing taxes and regulations on business are mistakenly buying into "Supply Side" econonmics. This is the mystical magical notion that somehow... someway... if you give the rich more and more money, they will become generous and share... by share I mean paying better wages and creating more and more jobs. That just doesn't happen.. and the last 30 years of "Trickle down" have been proven to not work, and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. By their very nature.. Corporations are going to protect that profit.. they will move money off shore.. OR they will play the little game of Tax inversion.. Hopefully Congress can put a stop to that garbage.. but not until we get a few folks out of office I'm afraid.. as the pockets of the wealthy are deep.. and buying elections is expensive you know.. 

We also need to impose penalties on companies who move overseas but still want to tap the US market for profit.. This can be in the form of tarrifs.. or tax codes. Or this economy is going to shrivel up and die. AND the wealthy along with it.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2014)

In spite of all the complaints, real and imagined, our systems are much better than to over socialized and communist types of government.   The more the US goes into these socialist ideas the less freedom we will have.   Big business works to protect its investors, who are very often the middle class of folks that have put money into various ventures and hoping for more in return that what our governments can or do offer us.   Banks are no longer any place to put your savings, except for the security of it not being lost.   Hardly any growth at all if not invested in something like stocks or partnerships.

In the US too much of this paying low wages is because companies like Burger King expect to hire part time folks, high school folks, and are not looking to run high wage businesses like manufacturers with full time employees.   Right now we have lots of adults now working for small businesses as they still have not gotten our major industries back on big time productions.   Unemployment in the US is still above what it was prior to the melt down.    To raise their pay levels to much higher and then they will have to raise the prices to where nobody would want to pay that much just for a small sandwich.   Business shut down means out of work for anyone at little or bigger wages.    The US is already well above what it should be for cost of living, adding more from the bottom areas does plenty to hurt the economy.

I hope by now that a certain person does realize that moving our taxes to another country does not mean moving the plants to another country.   One of the US's biggest companies is also one that pays no, or very few, taxes.    You have all probably hears of GE, General Electric.

We need to fix the tax problems, not just add on another gimmick to fix a certain problem like it sounds what Obama has done.   He fussed about a do nothing Congress but the biggest part of the do nothing is in Reid, leader of the Senate.   He will not move legislation beyond his desk.


----------



## Debby (Sep 23, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> This is why I've never believed that pure unfettered capitalism works.........
> 
> We also need to impose penalties on companies who move overseas but still want to tap the US market for profit.. This can be in the form of tarrifs.. or tax codes. Or this economy is going to shrivel up and die. AND the wealthy along with it.




Here's a link to a video that you would probably appreciate QuickSilver.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g  although maybe you've already seen it.

It's a TEDTalk by Nick Hanauer (self made millionaire business man) that was actually banned by TED.  He makes the case that tax breaks for the wealthy NEVER result in more jobs.  He points out that while a few thousand dollars tax relief will never result in that rich guy buying another pair of pants (supporting the economy) that same tax break to the middle class would mean they can go out and buy shoes for their kids, groceries for the table, etc.  And that is a VERY loose paraphrase of his talk.  

Imagine, banning his talk when every word of it was true and I think (not positive because it's been a while since I followed this little controversy) that he even got a standing ovation for it.  (Hmmm or was that another banned TEDTalk?)  Anyway, I think you'll enjoy it.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2014)

It appears to me that a certain person is doing his darnedest to change the subject from Right to die into an economic topic of his own preference.   This thread has gotten too long and is off topic so I will now leave.   That should make this one person happy as he will no longer be challenged over his often wrong ideas.   The US should never be turned over into a socialized government and lots of folks living by the graces of the government rather than due to their perseverance and independent efforts.   The US did not develop its great economies through government meddling and the more meddling our government is doing the worse our economy gets.   And more government controls and meddling will just worsen our economy more.

Have a good day folks.    Moving on to a better topic now.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2014)

Who said anything about communism... and for that matter.. who said anything about socialism. Communism doesn't work either... and Pure socialism doens't exist in my knowledge. What we need is a mixed form... as in Democratic.. or Capitalistic socialism. There HAS to be a balance. As a society.. there will always be poor. Poor children.. and elderly that need to be cared for. 

Burger King and other companies MAKE part time jobs to avoid paying benefits. Keep people under 30 hours.. so these folks have to work two or three jobs and STILL need food stamps or do without.. Also, the average age of the fast food worker is 29 and they usually are single moms or husband and wife with kids both working low wage jobs... sometimes TWO..   We are not talking highschool kids anymore.. 

Of course Burger King cannot move all it's restaurants out of the country.. BUT manufacturing firms have... by the thousands.. We have lost millions of good paying jobs to low wage countries... Thousands of companies have moved production over seas. 

As for Reid... the Republican plans coming out of the house will hurt the middle class... will descimate Medicare and Social Security and create more income inequality, by cutting social programs for the poor. THANK GOD.. Harry has not bothered bringing them up.. they wouldn't pass the Senate anyway.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2014)

Debby said:


> Here's a link to a video that you would probably appreciate QuickSilver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g although maybe you've already seen it.
> 
> It's a TEDTalk by Nick Hanauer (self made millionaire business man) that was actually banned by TED. He makes the case that tax breaks for the wealthy NEVER result in more jobs. He points out that while a few thousand dollars tax relief will never result in that rich guy buying another pair of pants (supporting the economy) that same tax break to the middle class would mean they can go out and buy shoes for their kids, groceries for the table, etc. And that is a VERY loose paraphrase of his talk.
> 
> Imagine, banning his talk when every word of it was true and I think (not positive because it's been a while since I followed this little controversy) that he even got a standing ovation for it. (Hmmm or was that another banned TEDTalk?) Anyway, I think you'll enjoy it.



Thanks... but cannot access youtube from this computer..  will take a look later.


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 23, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> This is why I've never believed that pure unfettered capitalism works. It ends up cannibalizing the very economy that supports it. The one and only goal of every corporation under capitalism is to make a profit. It strives to reward it's shareholders and it's executives. It has no conscience. In this profit driven atmosphere everything possible is done to create MORE profit.. including underpaying employees... decreasing benefits... and avoidance of taxes. Money is slowly shifted to the top rather than being redistributed to the middle and bottom.
> 
> It's the Middle class that drives an economy IMO.. when people have money in their pockets.. they spend it.. They do not move it into off shore tax havens. When people spend money on goods and services.. it creates a demand for MORE goods and services. This in turn stimulates business to expand and to hire to fill the demand. When businesses hire.. that makes MORE people spending AND paying taxes. IMO taxes on large corporations and the wealthy need to be increased not decreased. This will also slow down the "profit taking" and encourage business to reinvest in the business..in order to defer tax. This will create more jobs and more revenue for services.. I believe in Capitalism.. but there has to be a balance with some socialist programs... There has to be a social safety net below which no citizen can fall. More jobs and better wages will limit the number of people needing assistance... and more taxpayers will produce more revenue.
> 
> ...



Wow, this makes perfect sense.........I'll vote for you.


----------



## Ina (Sep 23, 2014)

Jackie, Do you think it will bring the companies that have already left back to that USA. Wouldn't that also bring back I lost job. :dunno:


----------



## Ina (Sep 23, 2014)

Ooops, how did I do that. Totally wrong thread. :hide:


----------



## Uncontrolable (Aug 12, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> This is an excerpt from a much longer opinion piece with the same title.
> ​How do you feel about euthanasia as an obligation? A duty?
> 
> If you think such a thing is unthinkable I suggest you read the full article here: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/09/01/4078456.htm


I have worked for Adult Protective Service and As a Medical Case Manager.  Care givers often do become depleted by caring for their spouse.  This includes men as well a women.  I have often had "heart to heart" discussions with my client in which I pointed out the likelyhood that they themselves would become ill as a result of their efforts to care for their loved one.  This can be almost a 24 hour a day job.  The mental stress and physical results in illness often for the care giver.  I used this information as a lever, along with the idea that it was OK to set the burden down.  I usually was trying to get the patient into a nursing home, or even get the person in home care.  

It was always amazing to me when they refused.  However, having planted the seed they often times came back willing to have their mate sent to a nursing home where they could visit and provide some care themselves.  But let's consider the problem of euthanasia.  "They Shoot Horses Don't They?"  

I am very much a believer in the idea that we make a contract with God before coming to earth.  Many times I have seen people "carrying their cross"  to the end.  So I wonder if it is my job to say whether a person has suffered enough.  I am not sure that demonstrating the suffering of a caretaker is enough of a reason to end anothers life.  The caretaker is also carrying their own cross.  
Often times the caretaker has vowed to care for their spouse in the home until the end.  They carry this like it was sacred.  They also may feel enormous shame and guilt if they give it up.  If they leave they feel like they are abandoning their love.  We carry this fear of abandonment, especially if we were abandoned as children.  

If we are going to allow euthanasia then the contract must be in writing and well before the patient "needs" it.  The spouse should also be included in the discussion.  It should be like a living will, which specifies whether a patient wants heroic measures taken to save their life.  You see, this would require changing the law in every state and probably the federal government as well.

Then we must decide at what stage of responsiveness that we will initiate the contract.  We need to decide whether the patient will call for it due to pain, or just for depression.  In other words, we better know what the hell we are doing.


----------



## treeguy64 (Aug 12, 2017)

The obligation to die must be a non-issue if we are to exist in a civilized world that resembles, in any shape, way or form, the world we now occupy.  That being said, I can envision a coming "Brave New World," where all health factors are weighed, for a given individual, and then decisions are made, with or without that individual's active participation, towards ending the life of that person.  For me, personally, I would NEVER want to simply exist, sick, debilitated, almost unaware (or totally unaware) of who I am, where I am, who my loved ones are.  I have felt like opting out, only once, after a very painful surgery and healing process.  The fact that I started on a new professional path only three days after the surgery, kept me in the game, and I healed back to 100%.  Still, I had insight into what it's like to suffer and wish for an end to the same.  I cannot understand how so many greedily hang onto life, even though the lives they lead are terrible, beyond belief, and the suffering they bring on their loved ones/caregivers are also truly miserable.


----------



## Uncontrolable (Aug 12, 2017)

Ralphy1 said:


> The baby boomers will break the system in a matter of a few short years.  There won't be enough government funding or probably enough workers to keep this lot going on and on...



The boomers are going to be dying off in 15 years.  After that, with populations shrinking the world is going to have to change its ideas about having children.  The earth's population needs to be reduced by half.  If all the boomers died it wouldn't make a serious dent.  The world's economy will also need to change.  The rich will not be as rich any longer and will have to pay people at least a living wage.
The real problem will be global warming.  By the time the population has been reduced there better have been years of living with renewable energy going on and reducing CO2 levels.  That is if you want to be able to go out side.


----------



## JaniceM (Aug 12, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> This is an excerpt from a much longer opinion piece with the same title.
> ​How do you feel about euthanasia as an obligation? A duty?
> 
> If you think such a thing is unthinkable I suggest you read the full article here: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/09/01/4078456.htm



First, I agree with posters who said it's dangerous-  it could be a fast slide from 'right' to 'duty.'  
But I do have additional concerns:

One concern would be "how ill is 'ill enough'?"  I'm not heartless-  I'd have an awful time expecting someone to 'stay alive' if they were either in a permanent vegetative state or unbearable pain, but it seems what constitutes 'tolerable' is shrinking and shrinking.  
Another concern would be who calls the shots?  Going by Hillary C's remark that children should be able to make their own decisions, and with the frequent instances of teenagers and even children committing suicide, I'd be very concerned for young people who think a bad day or a difficult situation is reason to end their lives.  There are places that consider some teens 'mature minors,' and some that give underage kids full rein on their own health care with parents not even having the right to know about it.  
I know there are people who believe individuals, regardless of age, condition, or situation, should have the 'right' to end their lives whenever they 'choose,' but I don't agree with that and don't think many people would.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 12, 2017)

JaniceM said:


> First, I agree with posters who said it's dangerous-  it could be a fast slide from 'right' to 'duty.'
> But I do have additional concerns:
> 
> One concern would be "how ill is 'ill enough'?"  I'm not heartless-  I'd have an awful time expecting someone to 'stay alive' if they were either in a permanent vegetative state or unbearable pain, but it seems what constitutes 'tolerable' is shrinking and shrinking.
> ...



IMHO, first off, you can't really prevent people from committing suicide if they are determined to do so.  But that's a whole 'nother issue.  I do not believe physician assisted suicide should be available to those who, for whatever reason, have decided they just do not want to go on. 

I believe assisted suicide should be available to those facing a horrible end to their lives.  It should be limited to those who are medically certified as terminally ill, and only to those who make the decision for THEMSELVES and that mental health professionals are satisfied have indeed made the decision rationally for themselves.   I realize that would not help those who can no longer communicate in any way or who are no longer capable of making rational decisions, but I strongly feel that no one should ever make such a decision for another human being.

I don't believe that this would slide from right to duty if it were carefully regulated.


----------



## JaniceM (Aug 12, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> IMHO, first off, you can't really prevent people from committing suicide if they are determined to do so.  But that's a whole 'nother issue.  I do not believe physician assisted suicide should be available to those who, for whatever reason, have decided they just do not want to go on.
> *
> I believe assisted suicide should be available to those facing a horrible end to their lives.  It should be limited to those who are medically certified as terminally ill, and only to those who make the decision for THEMSELVES and that mental health professionals are satisfied have indeed made the decision rationally for themselves.   I realize that would not help those who can no longer communicate in any way or who are no longer capable of making rational decisions, but I strongly feel that no one should ever make such a decision for another human being.*
> 
> I don't believe that this would slide from right to duty if it were carefully regulated.



That's why I believe Advance Directives and Living Wills are a good idea.  They aren't about assisted suicide, but do make a person's end-of-life decisions clear.


----------



## LinuxCat (Aug 13, 2017)

All civilised human beings have a duty to live and to safeguard the right to live .
How many of you chose to be born?
Not a single one.
That choice was made by other people and from that point onwards those people have a moral obligation to ensure your continued right to exist.
I am well informed on  N.D. E. and I don't know of anyone who has experienced N.D.E. who would accept the " Right to Die ".
If they thought they did- that it was their choice, they would not have come back to life.
With some exceptions  - they do actually have a choice,.
I have done more than a little research on the subject.
Euthanasia, Positive Eugenics and so-called Bio-ethics are not about compassion for the suffering , they are scientific claims to ownership of life.


----------



## Uncontrolable (Aug 13, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> This is an excerpt from a much longer opinion piece with the same title.​How do you feel about euthanasia as an obligation? A duty?
> 
> If you think such a thing is unthinkable I suggest you read the full article here: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/09/01/4078456.htm



I made comments earlier about this issue and have realized that I did not go far enough with my comments.  This argument for euthanasia is based on "the slippery slope" idea.  The problem is that there is no slope.  If we carry out experiments of any kind based on the slippery slope idea we have already gone down that slope.  We have become the Nazis.  

They decided to kill more than 6 million people because Germany was running out of money.   Even the work camps could not produce enough to support themselves, so those people had to die as well.  The movie "Schindler's List" played out this theme.  Hitler never even thought about allowing these people to be taken by the Allies to other countries.  Then these people could have been repatriated.

If we have a slippery slope it is in our thinking.  If we were to consult Immanuel Kant what might he say about this problem.  "We are bound by our duty to one another to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people for the sake of the good."  The "Categorical Imperative" tells us that the individual should not be treated as a means to an end, but as the good itself.   It still applies as "the greatest good for the greatest number".   We must apply this thinking to the present and the future.  The "Golden Rule" fails here because "Do unto others" may allow us to kill others if the others would want to be killed.  

So what are we left with?  We are left with the idea that we cannot apply arguments that cannot be extrapolated from small number of cases to a large number of cases.  The U.S constitution gives rights to each individual.  We have the right to, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  This is why we must be careful not to amend the constitution in ways that would erode these rights. 

 Our civil law may not care as much for the rights of the individual.  I am not a lawyer despite the fact that I am often a sophist.  So it might appear that we would be able to kill people if the law granted a corporation the right to kill, or endanger others based on property rights.  This appears to be true and in practice in the U.S. and Canada,  in the southern Americas, probably all over the globe. For example, fracking is a very dangerous process as it leads to cancer and earth quakes.

I believe I have debunked the "slippery slope" idea because there is no way to practice the result except in our thinking.  I believe the laws should continue to back the rights of the individual because this is the only way consent for euthanasia could be practiced.  I hope this appears in other constitutions around the world in democratic and socialist countries.  

Having said all this I believe there is one more right we must consider.  Atheists may not like this discussion, considering it invalid.  Yet, the rights of the individual must prevail.  I have already considered this argument in my other comment, but will restate it here.
If we are sent to earth as part of a sacred contract, do we have a right to participate in the death of another by causing that death.  
This is difficult because we do not know even the nature of our own contracts.  I think I may have changed my opinion re: this issue.
It is not really about what God wants except to say that God wants us to live out our contracts.

We accomplish this by living through our archetypes, my belief only, and by participating in our laws and society.  So with God it still comes back to the rights of the individual.  Nuff said.


----------



## oldman (Aug 13, 2017)

Like I posted earlier last week, I had just found out that an old high school friend was just diagnosed with ALS. I saw a person die from AIDS and also a person, who was my friend's mother died from ALS maybe 10 or so years ago. Both diseases are horrific going through the process before death. I was always against taking one's own life, but I am kind of on the fence now, if a terminal illness is at hand.


----------



## kaufen (Aug 13, 2017)

One thing I always wonder about, is the fear that our 'Christian' society has about dying.


----------



## LinuxCat (Aug 13, 2017)

I think a distinction needs to be made between the right to die and the right to refuse treatment in hospital where the individual knows they are going to die anyway.
My sister passed away five months ago after suffering from cancer for years.
She was very devout and when nearing the end she decided to  leave hospital and return home to her family to die in peace.
She refused any further medical treatment knowing that it would only have kept her alive a few months longer and till her passing took only pain killers while she awaited the inevitable.
She would never have considered Euthanasia or sanctioned any form of " mercy - killing " . People do sometimes have the " right " to die where that death is not consciously instigated and knowing direct intervention to maintain their existence is of temporal value, but they do not have the right to kill themselves, nor do others have the right to kill other people.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 13, 2017)

That's the way I see it too LinuxCat. I'm not there yet but I see the process of dying as the last stage of living and I see value in accepting this time if it is given to me. I have been with my mother and aunt during their last days and I am not fearful for myself. Refusing life extending medical treatment is not the same as assisted suicide or medically induced death.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Aug 13, 2017)

You really can't stop somebody from committing  suicide.  Our gene and our health have already have picked our end, if we don't get run over by a bus.


----------

