Hacker News Reader

Comment by quacked | Hacker News Reader

This is one of those things that seems so made-up I don't even have emotions about it. This article claims similar things that various far-right propagandists claim about the Canadian healthcare system--if you're depressed, the government will kill you for free, but you'll have to wait until an appointment opens up.

It's such an absurd dystopian science-fiction concept that I have to assume it's false, and that every report of assisted suicide for someone other a terminally ill person is in some part fabricated.

If these stories are not fabricated, and the government really is voluntarily euthanizing depressed people, then were I a citizen I'd be seriously thinking about [redacted] the Canadian government.

View on HN

This seems dangerously close to saying "I don't believe this story because if it were true, then that would mean my side is wrong and the other side is right."

I think there’s a lot of people who have trouble coming to grips with the fact that the “right wing propaganda” of ten years ago is today’s reality. Give credit to the poster, they’re at least acknowledging that such a thing might be possible.

Poster here--I consider myself "far-right" already, I just have a habit of not softening language when it's describing my own in-group. There are far-right thinkers and far-right propagandists, and I tend to listen to the first group and merely observe the second group. It's insane to see the ramblings and ravings of people who I considered sheer grifters come apparently come true.

Coming from the far right, are you in favor of assisted suicide for people who cannot support themselves but are not terminally ill?

No. I believe any culture or society where suicide is considered a legitimate solution to anything except for terminal, unsolvable medical conditions is diseased and if the state participates in it I would consider such a government illegitimate.

Let me present some additional sources then:

https://unherd.com/thepost/leaked-slides-reveal-dark-side-of...

> But her organisation’s internal training seminars tell an entirely different story. In a seminar tellingly titled “Accessing Alternatives to MAiD: What is the role of the MAiD Assessor when resources are inadequate?”, Althea Gibb-Carsley, a recently retired MAiD professional in Vancouver, documents several real-life cases of patients who have sought to die because of a lack of housing or of other resources.

> What euthanasia providers don’t say out loud is that a patient who is turned down by one assessor can simply “doctor shop” for another one until a willing assessor is found. In another CAMAP seminar, Dr Ellen Wiebe describes a case of a man who was rejected by a MAiD assessor for the procedure because, as Raikin writes, “he did not have a serious illness or the ‘capacity to make informed decisions about his own personal health.'” But a pro-euthanasia group connected him with Dr Wiebe, a prominent MAiD supporter who was previously accused by a Vancouver Jewish nursing home of sneaking in to euthanise one of its patients (to which she admitted; the provincial medical regulator cleared her of wrongdoing). As she recounts, she performed an assessment online, found him eligible, found another assessor who agreed with her, and drove him from the airport to her clinic, where she “provided for him” or, in other words, ended his life.

> One 55-year-old woman who sought to die “identifies poverty as the driver of her MAiD request – food insufficiency and inability to access appropriate treatments”. The slide (above) points out that “what she really needs” is “an extra $600 or so /month”. Another patient, a 57-year-old man and published author, identified lack of housing and lack of access to medical care among the reasons for his request to die. He had been told that obtaining social housing would take between three and six years; he planned to “stretch credit to the edges then […] set final date” for his death.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanisin...

> Many in the healthcare sector came to the same conclusion. Even before Bill C-7 was enacted, reports of abuse were rife. A man with a neurodegenerative disease testified to Parliament that nurses and a medical ethicist at a hospital tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him with extra costs or by kicking him out of the hospital, and by withholding water from him for 20 days. Virtually every disability rights group in the country opposed the new law. To no effect: for once, the government found it convenient to ignore these otherwise impeccably progressive groups.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/paralympian-claims-cana...

> Paralympian claims Canada offered to euthanise her when she asked for a stairlift

These are just a few quick searches that corroborate what is discussed in the article.

This is absolutely nuts! a 55 year old considering suicide for poverty?! something which can be solved with another $600/month and the govt allows them to die?! There has to be better ways for society to deal with these issues

Euthanasia patients get in front of the social housing queue!

No, people won't sign up for euthanasia just to get a roof over their head, no, they would never do that.

Utter insanity

The system is new and there are some instances of abuse, that doesn't mean it's a bad system. To me the idea in the US where you should remain alive and suffer immensely because you are poor and can't afford any help is far far less humane. I don't even consider the US a first world country due to how barbaric it's medical system is, not to mention it's outright slavery based prison system.

>>remain alive and suffer immensely because you are poor and can't afford any help is far far less humane.

Where exactly does that happen? The biggest complaint (rightly) about the US health system is the middle class is one accident, or health crisis away from bankruptcy.

I am not aware of anyone that is "suffering immensely because they are poor". There are plenty of avenues to get care even if you can not afford it in the US.

Among many others, it's easy to point out one simple example. I've talked to many many many many americans who are reluctant to even go to a dr for a simple checkup because they cannot afford it. That is barbaric, that you even have to consider your health vs your money. In most first world countries you can go to the dr any time for free.

>That is barbaric, that you even have to consider your health vs your money.

Why is health care any different from Food, Shelter, Transportation, or any other thing we require but have to pay for in the market?

Should government take over all grocery stores and provide you with "free" food as well?

The idea that it is barbaric to charge for healthcare does not pass even a first pass logic test. To believe that you must reject the very idea of capitalism and market based economics, and if that is your position well history has a lot of lessons for you...

>I've talked to many many many many americans who are reluctant to even go to a dr for a simple checkup because they cannot afford it.

There are many reasons to forego that, I suspect the cost is not the only reasons. How many of them have even looked into what the price would be to go? I bet very few have taken even the first steps to find out. Cost is an easy scape goat

>In most first world countries you can go to the dr any time for free.

It is far far far far from free, taxpayer funded is not free. Most of those nations also look to the US protect the world, See the latest in UKR, while the US is spending billions there I do not see the EU, Candada or any other nation matching our defense contribution, either to UKR or NATO, or anywhere else. personally I would support moving to more of a medicare for all if (and only if) we go in to full isolationism and let the EU defend themselves

that is with out getting into all the problems with EU, UK, or Canada Health systems (wait time, rationing, etc). Lots of rich people come to the US from those nations for care for a reason

If we are comparing food - I can walk into food stores, easily compare prices , and find substitutes. Let’s also remember there are subsidies for farming and other food products and some states have no tax on food specifically. Now if I walked into a food store and could get anything but would get a random bill where the price of a single tomato ended up being $100 6 months later and it only made sense to have some third party insurance to pay the bulk of food costs then you have a comparison. Medical has no comparison in the US. The system is not good , insurance adds limited value to the process and getting prices to easily shop around is not possible. Im not looking for a full take over of the medical system in the US but having it function like a regular market is ideal.

>> Medical has no comparison in the US. The system is not good ,

First off you have confused medical insurance system with medical care.

healthcare in the US is the best. How we pay for that healthcare, namely employer led "comprehensive" insurance plan is TERRIBLE

So lets solve for that, and the solution to that is NOT government taking over the entire thing

>>I can walk into food stores, easily compare prices , and find substitutes.

I would absolutely love is the healthcare industry moved away from the employer led "comprehensive" insurance plans to a more free market solution

> Why is health care any different from Food, Shelter, Transportation, or any other thing we require but have to pay for in the market?

It's not. Most or all first world countries have some form of social net that attempts to ensure people don't go hungry. Homeless shelters exist and many of us in Europe agree that governments should do even more to provide a better safety net and help people get back on their feet.

> The idea that it is barbaric to charge for healthcare does not pass even a first pass logic test.

I don't think anyone implied that it's barbaric to charge for healthcare. What's barbaric is people being denied preventative care because they're unemployed or don't have hundreds of dollars to go to the doctor.

> It is far far far far from free, taxpayer funded is not free.

Of course the visit is free. Universal healthcare as a service costs money to fund, but you're not charged to use the service.

> Most of those nations also look to the US protect the world

You should look up the map of US military bases and think critically about what the US is getting in return - the ability to respond to threats originating almost anywhere in the world, for one.

> personally I would support moving to more of a medicare for all if (and only if) we go in to full isolationism and let the EU defend themselves

Good news - you don't need to spend more as you're already outspending every country that has universal healthcare by around a factor of 2. Unsurprisingly, the supposed "free market" healthcare system isn't very efficient in practice.

> that is with out getting into all the problems with EU, UK, or Canada Health systems (wait time, rationing, etc). Lots of rich people come to the US from those nations for care for a reason

These healthcare systems aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination but at least they're fair. Pointing your finger at queues and wait times is easy when you conveniently ignore basic needs of a large proportion of the population.

As an outsider looking in, the tone-deaf "fuck you, I've got mine" attitude is what I find barbaric about the US healthcare system. It reinforces the fact that the value of human life is exclusively measured in US dollars. Either you're wealthy enough to pay or you deserve to go without healthcare (and possibly die) as a matter of personal failure rather than a systemic one.

>> Most or all first world countries have some form of social net that attempts to ensure people don't go hungry.

As does the US which has several programs for both healthcare and food for the poor. That is not a counter to my statement, where by the government completely takes over the industry and provides the service.

There is a Huge difference between a social net, and government provided.

>>I don't think anyone implied that it's barbaric to charge for healthcare.

That is exactly what was implied

> What's barbaric is people being denied preventative care because they're unemployed or don't have hundreds of dollars to go to the doctor.

Again this does not happen in the US

>> Unsurprisingly, the supposed "free market" healthcare system isn't very efficient in practice.

the US does not have a free market, I can not believe anyone can even claim we do with a strait face. healthcare is the most heavily regulated market there is, regulation is the antithesis of a free market. Any one attempting to make things cheaper, provide care in a way that would lower costs is quickly regulated out of the market.

Government and government alone is the cause of the huge costs in health care. To proclaim government can solve the problem they created is laughable

>I've talked to many many many many americans who are reluctant to even go to a dr for a simple checkup because they cannot afford it.

Your comment is dishonest and misleading.

The demographics who routinely go without annually physicals and other basic care are not poor people. They are gainfully employed individuals or childless couples on high deductible plans. These people can't hope to hit their deductible within a year from normal preventative care alone so they pay full price for services like annual physicals. Those that are young and generally healthy frequently opt to skip such visits and keep the money because paying someone in white coat hundreds for the privilege of being told they are generally healthy but could stand to use a few pounds is an absolute crap value for money no matter how you look at it. If this seems like a perverse incentive to avoid preventative care that's because it is. HDHP plans are terrible for everyone who's annual healthcare spend is low because they create this incentive.

Ironically, with the myriad of state programs people suffering from financial hardship are actually better provided for in many cases. If they want an annual physical they're out a copay, possibly a discounted one.

The U.S. has a public system that provides healthcare to the poor (Medicaid) , the old (Medicare), to Veterans (Tricare). It provides subsidized private health care (ACA) and subsidizes private insurance for people who buy it.

None of those systems are perfect. There are some eligible people who don't enroll. There are certainly people who find the amount of money that they would need to spend to be un-affordable.

I don't have a problem with pointing that out. Or even suggesting better ways. There's a point though when the desire for whatever system a person thinks is better is so compelling that they start describing the current system as some sort of free market nature red in tooth and claw libertarian paradise that I cannot reconcile with reality.

>I've talked to many many many many americans who are reluctant to even go to a dr for a simple checkup because they cannot afford it.

Ok, so because they cannot afford the checkup, they should instead kill themselves because they are poor?

I'm not sure why this would be seen as a talking point for right-wing politics.

The Canadian healthcare system is broken (I say this as a progressive-left Canadian).

The answer to people wanting to kill themselves because they can't easily get treatment for their depression, or other life issues, is to offer more support.

That's something Canada isn't doing.

I support MAiD, but it seems like there are a large number of people using it who would be better served by other social programs.

> it seems like there are a large number of people using it who would be better served by other social programs.

Why doesn't this make you want to see the whole thing shut down, given that "using it" literally means being killed?

One aspect of right wing politics I've never really been able to square is who owns your body, so to speak. I'm sure I could put this better, but if property rights mean anything, it would seem to me that your body is the one property you should have total ownership over, to the point of deciding on your own when to end your life. But the right wing seems quite opposed to it.

In the US the "right wing" is not a monolith, in fact is more from an ideological stand point the right today is more diverse in political opinions than the left, as the left has cast out many of their more moderate members (i.e the Blue Dogs)

Conservatives do not really hold you own your body, conservatives tend to believe in various types of religion which puts your body subservient to a higher power or god. Thus is immoral to kill yourself. It is not a property rights argument, it is an ethical argument.,

then you have the libertarian right, which do use property rights and self ownership and many support assisted suicided, the ones that do not oppose governmental assisted largely because what is being perceived to be playing out out in real time (rightly or not) from Canada whereby the state has an incentive to direct people to suicided and maybe even force / Coerce them to "voluntary" dying either as a goal of the program, or just agents of the state abusing their positions. In either case state level suicided is seen as huge opening for abuse where even if you think people have the right to end their own life, trusting government with that power is not something they want to support.

Property rights is a primary focus of libertarians, not the right generally.

In the West, the right believes that there is a natural moral order to reality, which generally does not include abortion or suicide. For the most part, this position is rooted in the Christian belief that all humans are made in God's image, so killing innocent humans is to spit in God's face.

I will attempt to explain, and I describe myself as "right wing" although it may be more accurate to call myself "romantic conservative":

It is typically useful to ask yourself the following questions about any version of society:

- Can you keep your stuff?

- Can you do what you want with your stuff?

- Who has the weapons?

- Who won't be punished for making you do something?

Right wingers tend to go on and on about "freedom", but through examination of these four questions it becomes clear that they don't mean it. They don't want you to keep your stuff if you acquired your stuff through theft, so they support a legal system that can prosecute "thieves", meaning that they decide what's "your stuff", and you can't keep it if they decide it's not yours. They don't want you to become trans, abort babies, start anti-national propaganda outlets, etc. so you're not allowed to do whatever you want with your stuff. They only want people who aren't criminals to have weapons, meaning that there are some people who shouldn't have the option to revolt if they want to. They are mostly unwilling to punish police officers even for major transgressions, so they want the martial caste to be immune to consequence.

It is clear that all of the talk about "property rights", "liberty", and "freedom" is social posturing in order to appear more morally unimpeachable than their perceived opponents. Most people have semi-authoritarian views about the society in which they wish to live, and right-wingers are no different. Some of these ideals are noble in nature, but the actual implementation of these ideals in reality still requires authority prosecuting violations of rules regarding possession, trade, etc.

Therefore, there's no real need to be surprised when "property rights" don't extend to your own body per "right wing" politics; "property rights" isn't actually a meaningful principle among most right wingers, it's merely an ideal that they wish to use as the basis for certain portions of the authoritarian society in which they wish to live.

(Another example is loud music; if you own a stereo (your property) and your lot (your land) and you play loud music (your speech), most freedom-loving conservatives will do whatever they can to get the damn music off.)

> They don't want you to [...] start anti-national propaganda outlets

Distinguish between not wanting people to do something, and not wanting people to be allowed to do something. Isn't a more common position "I wish anti-national propaganda outlets would go away, but I don't think the government should make them go away, since an intact First Amendment is way more important"?

Not among voters, no. The majority of US right wing voters would happily shut down <pro-Communist, anti-Christian, etc.> sources using the government. The "I don't like what you say but will defend to the death..." principle is a luxury position most often held by educated centrist right-wingers.

I think what you're describing would better be described a libertarianism/classical liberalism than as right wing. Libertarianism is regarded as right wing, but not everything right wing is libertarianism.

It was the left that were desperate to force rushed, barely tested mRNA shots into as many arms as possible whether people wanted it or not.

There's majority rule but also minority rights. At what point should I be compelled to help you do something I have a problem with? Or on the other side, at what point am I preventing you from doing something that you want to?

To put it more plainly.

If I'm against abortion should tax money be used to pay for it? If I'm against abortion what if I use tax money to blare "Abortion is bad" from loud speakers across the country 24/7 ?

There are certainly far ends of this - I'll put you in jail if you attempt to kill your self - that are more clear but even there talk to someone who has a firm belief in property rights and I think they'll be able to make a cogent argument that's more then a rationalization.

I feel a bit of impulsive disbelief too, but it comes from totally the opposite direction.

I think it's great that people can end their own life (and I'm not qualifying it by saying it's only for elderly people in pain). Even though I think it's right, my 'disbelief' comes from me thinking "Surely legalising this would be political suicide, and it would never get through any parliament ever!".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com