The goobermunt should have nothing to do or say as relates to our demise. If you are able to assert your wishes for continued existence and can foot the bill, then you should be allowed to. If you think it better to skip out a little early, then go ahead. If your loved one desires to pursue medical attention, you should support them in that choice and advocate for them against the vultures of the medical establishment, goobermunt and insurance.
clay On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:25 PM, G Mann wrote: > Doesn't this all come down to both our individual moral conscience and our > public moral conscience? > > If I make the personal decision not to have medical treatment and to die, > or to take treatment and try to extend life, it is according to my own > desire to control my own life. > > If someone else makes the decision how I will die, or whether or not my > life will be preserved, extended, or extinguished, there is another name > for that. The reward for making the decision whether another person lives > or dies has usually been execution, or lately, incarceration for long > period. As a moral society, we have long held that standard. > > Now comes the "moral dilemma" imposed by government, which removes the > ability for personal decision and imposes upon some un-named persons with > no personal interest in your individual well being, the ability to decide > "perhaps" when and how you will die.. all for the "betterment of the > state"... > > Question: As a society, have we become so intensely lacking in Moral > Compass that we must now debate how this government imposed ability to > grant someone or something [agency] other than the individual citizen total > control over their own life, can somehow be accepted? > > I object your Honor.. Foundation > > Grant... > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Mountain Man <maontin....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Allan wrote: >>> Why not leave that decision up to the individual? If someone else is >>> deciding, that is a "death panel." That all that phrase means. >> >> Totally. >> That decision must take in to account actual cost, not cost to the >> aggregate, i.e. some make claims, others do not. Part of the system >> probably should have limits, not unlike a health savings program. No >> $$ in the savings account? - no treatment, and the individual made >> that choice. Now, if the system deems it better to keep the person >> alive, and is willing to food the cost, fine. The unrealistic costs >> we know today for "health care" are directly related to insco and >> banking - read The Law by Frederic Bastiat downloadable from fee.org >> mao >> >> _______________________________________ >> http://www.okiebenz.com >> >> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ >> >> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: >> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com >> > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
