View Full Version : How do you feel about Prop 106?
Uberjager
10-10-2016, 23:00
I personally support it. I've had a handful of relatives spend several weeks/months in hospice care only to whither away.
I'll put up a poll.
Great-Kazoo
10-10-2016, 23:18
Personal choice, quality of life, etc.
Zundfolge
10-11-2016, 08:21
I think its a distraction issue, and when it comes down to it I don't care what you and your doctor decide to do. My concern is that this starts out as a "right to die" issue and ends up down that slippery slope to mandatory euthanasia of the elderly and children instead of medical treatment.
I also oppose it because my opposition pisses off libtards. So I'll be voting against it purely for spite.
While I generally support a personal decision to end one's own life, the devil is in the details of the legislation.
Ari Armstrong addresses the problems with the proposal as it is written: http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/10/why-i-oppose-the-colorado-end-of-life-options-act-proposition-106/
Like with the other propositions the interest groups that have written them have included gotchas that make the laws unworkable. Another is the Amendment 71 with it's 5% signature provision in all counties which effectively destroys the Colorado initiative process. Also, the part of Prop. 108 which allows unaffiliated voters to choose candidates for the Republican or Democrat parties. It's a blatant attack on the two party system.
We'll be voting no on all the amendments.
I oppose purely based on religious belief and not on logic.
Zundfolge
10-11-2016, 09:18
Ari Armstrong addresses the problems with the proposal as it is written: http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/10/why-i-oppose-the-colorado-end-of-life-options-act-proposition-106/
There's an excellent argument against 106 that doesn't rely on religious belief.
Ehh, protecting the ability of catholic hospitals to fire doctors who choose to violate their anti-suicide policy is pretty low on my list of priorities.
osok-308
10-11-2016, 09:55
As usual, the devil is in the details of it as well.
I oppose purely based on religious belief and not on logic.
Might want to rethink your religious convictions if they're not able to be based on logic.
The Catholic Bishops of Colorado seem to think this proposition is opposable based on religion AND logic (because true religion must not be opposed to epistemic and ontological examination of the environment in which such conviction is held, and thus logic cannot be opposed or in conflict with religion and positions taken by it). I digress... feel free to PM me if you would like to talk about that.
http://denvercatholic.org/church-leaders-proposition-106-offers-flawed-logic-false-compassion/
The reality of Prop 106 is it is demonstrable from everywhere else this Orwellian speech has taken hold with force of law, that it morphs into something which is a far cry from the supposed good it would allow.
As it stands, there is nothing which prohibits a person from committing suicide. Nothing. People do it every day, unfortunately.
Where does this end? At what point does society and the .gov which is supposed to be representative of society say, "Enough."?
Shall we end up in a place where, recognizing that all future is comprised of the "now", wherein the "now" is what is only truly experienced in actuality and not potential, we devolve into a place where I feel bad now, and therefore, I kill myself now? Why is 6 months or less left to live so special? Why not a few more years of pain? How much pain is able to be physical experienced to meet the onus of self-murder? Is there a sliding scale where a combination of mental exhaustion and emotional pain in union with a small amount of physical pain should be an acceptable reason to snuff out your own life?
Why are cancer patients so special? Why not the clinically depressed? There can be joy and living amidst physical pain, but nothing raises the black cloud of depression but the alleviation of the condition itself.
What about PTSD sufferers? Fat folks? The diabetic? The triggered? The young? The old? The bankrupt? The person horrified at their own perverted proclivities? The person with a chemical deficiency which causes them a ton of pain and suffering? The person taking stop-smoking-drugs who otherwise would NEVER kill themselves? If not any of those people, why the hell not if we accept someone killing themselves over a perception of pain, physical, mental or some combination?
At what point do we morph from the pain we experience as individuals as a viable reason to engage in self-murder to the pain we as individuals cause society as a reason to be murdered? And not for a valid conviction of an objectively obvious crime such as 1st degree murder, but our mere status as being as undesirable as the pain which is the present excuse?
Will we stop having negotiators talk people down off buildings, from shooting themselves in the head, from this, that, or the other?
This is a dangerous codification of something which has always been in the hands of the willing. Let’s call it what it is: suicide.
Well said. I'm not nearly as sophisticated as that. My instincts and moral code tell me that human life has value. I believe in a creator and generally believe that killing is wrong.
Throw the belief in God out and I don't see a problem with assisted suicide. Basically, if there is no absolute right and wrong, or, a higher power to answer to, then who is to say what is right and wrong. It all becomes a little grey.
Well said. I'm not nearly as sophisticated as that. My instincts and moral code tell me that human life has value. I believe in a creator and generally believe that killing is wrong.
Throw the belief in God out and I don't see a problem with assisted suicide. Basically, if there is no absolute right and wrong, or, a higher power to answer to, then who is to say what is right and wrong. It all becomes a little grey.
Indeed. "What is truth?" - Pontius Pilate
Honey Badger282.8
10-11-2016, 16:55
After watching a loved one die a protracted death, I'm for it.
Aloha_Shooter
10-11-2016, 17:40
As one who has not-so-jokingly expressed a wish to be left in the car with the engine on and a hose going to the exhaust if I reached certain states of mental infirmity, I oppose it. The fact of the matter is, suicide occurs regularly. The last thing we need are more laws and more government intrusion -- for or against -- into social issues. I view this as just one more backhanded attack by the Left on religious institutions and the freedom to practice religions or philosophies the Left doesn't approve of.
DavieD55
10-11-2016, 19:16
I think its a distraction issue, and when it comes down to it I don't care what you and your doctor decide to do. My concern is that this starts out as a "right to die" issue and ends up down that slippery slope to mandatory euthanasia of the elderly and children instead of medical treatment.
I also oppose it because my opposition pisses off libtards. So I'll be voting against it purely for spite.
Exactly. You're right on the money. When criminals in the government decide that we are overpopulated (like the left and global RINOs already believe) and since they are completely destroying healthcare this will become the new solution to healthcare. Lets face it, the alinskyites takeover of medicine and the destruction of healthcare isn't really for the betterment of society.
Vote no on this communism
NO on 106 for all the reasons listed above.
Exactly. You're right on the money. When criminals in the government decide that we are overpopulated (like the left and global RINOs already believe) and since they are completely destroying healthcare this will become the new solution to healthcare. Lets face it, the alinskyites takeover of medicine and the destruction of healthcare isn't really for the betterment of society.
Vote no on this communism
Are you concerned that since loans are legal, that during the next recession the government may force me to get a loan in order to help stimulate the economy?
DavieD55
10-12-2016, 03:02
Here is a good write up as to why proposition 106 is not the right solution and is an all around bad idea.
National ReviewThe Culture of Death, on the March in Colorado
Euthanasia kills more than a human being facing life’s most challenging moment.
By George Weigel — September 29, 2016
http://www.colsoncenter.org/images/content/breakpoint/Document_Links/National_Review_Online_-_Culture_of_Death_in_CO.pdf
This past summer, three elderly members of my summer parish in rural Québec received adiagnosis of cancer at the local hospital, a smalltown facility an hour’s drive from cosmopolitan
Ottawa and even farther from hypersecular Montréal. Yet after the diagnosis had been
delivered, the first question each of these people was asked was “Do you wish to be
euthanized?” That is what the new Canadian euthanasia regime has accomplished in just a few
months: It has put euthanasia at the top of the menu of options proposed to the gravely ill.
Then there is Belgium, where, as reported in NR’s October 10 print issue, a minor was recently
euthanized by lethal injection. You might think that, with the suburbs of Brussels having become
the de facto capital of the ISIS caliphate (Eurosubdivision) and a birth rate so far below
replacement level that native Belgians will soon be a rare anthropological specimen, the good
burghers of Flanders and Wallonia would have something better to do than hasten the deaths of
teenagers, even when the teenagers in their distress request just that. But if you thought that,
then, as Richard Nixon famously said, “That would be wrong.”
The more apt mot about all of this lethality masquerading as compassion, however, is from the
quotable quotes of another Richard, Richard John Neuhaus, who famously said of the morally
egregious and its relationship to law, “What is permitted will eventually become obligatory.”
Canada isn’t quite there yet, nor is Belgium; but they’re well on their way, not least because their
singlepayer healthcare systems will increasingly find euthanasia costeffective — and because
the arts of pain relief combined with human support will atrophy in those countries as the “easy
way out” becomes, well, easier and easier.
The citizens of Colorado might wish to keep all of this in mind when they vote this November 8
on Proposition 106, the Colorado “EndofLife Options Act,” which is currently favored to win
and thereby legalize physicianassisted suicide in the Centennial State.
The language deployed by supporters of Proposition 106 is appropriately duplicitous, in that the
provision of deathdealing “medication” to a patient is described as another form of “palliative
care.”
Then it gets worse. An “adult,” according to the proposition, is anyone over 18 (vote, kill
yourself, but don’t drink). The diagnosis of terminal illness must be attested by two physicians;
but the language of the proposition is so loosely drawn that, in the case of a pancreaticcancer
patient, the certifying physicians could be a proctologist and an earnosethroat
specialist of easy conscience. Similarly, the patient’s mental capacity to make the decision to kill himself must be
attested by the attending and consulting physicians and not, as one might reasonably assume, by
a trained mentalhealth professional such as a psychiatrist or psychologist. The latter are brought
in to consult only when the proctologist and the ENT specialist deem it necessary, even though
the latter have no recognized competence in identifying signs of depressions or other forms of
mental illness.
Perhaps most weirdly (and chillingly) of all, the “dying medication” must be selfadministered,
meaning that no medical professional of any sort would be present when the patient selfeuthanizes.
Then, as if to double down on the Orwellian nature of the entire exercise, the death
certificate would be required to list the underlying illness, not the autoeuthanization,
as the cause of death. Proposition 106 thus mandates that a legal document in the state of Colorado
contain a blatant lie.
Proposition 106 is full of what its proponents likely regard as circuit breakers to prevent
“mistakes.” The wannabe autoeuthanizer must have the request for lethal “palliative care”
witnessed by two persons, who will confirm that the request is being made voluntarily. The
physician in charge of the case must offer the patient “multiple opportunities” to rescind the
request. And so forth and so on, although we know from the experience of other euthanasiafriendly
jurisdictions that this is all window dressing on what is in fact medical complicity in deathdealing,
made even more odious by the fact that the entire exercise involves patients under extreme stress.
As the moral and linguistic confusions, subterfuges, and just plain falsehoods surrounding
Proposition 106 graphically illustrate, euthanasia kills more than a disturbed human being facing
life’s most challenging moment. It kills language, which means it kills public conversation,
which means it is lethal to democracy. It kills the medical profession, which by inverting its
most solemn obligations renders itself untrustworthy. It kills civil society, because the nowbroken
patient–doctor bond has been recognized for centuries as one of those
res sacrae in temporalibus,those “sacred things in secular life,” in which the state has no business interfering(and most certainly no business subverting). And, over time, it kills the instinct, for caring for
others in grave distress, that distinguishes human beings from other sentient creatures.
A Colorado brown bear sees in a wounded deer not a fellow creature to be helped but dinner. If
Proposition 106 passes, something analogous to that brutish, subhuman relationship will obtainbetween doctors and their patients in Colorado, as those who were once considered fellow
human beings to whom care was due are now taken to be problems to be technologically
“solved” — or, worse, burdens to be lifted (from others, or from the state) by the selfadministration
of a lethal drug. And if that is what liberality, tolerance, and compassion have
come to in the Centennial State, then Colorado is little more than nature red in tooth and claw,
beneath a veneer of Rocky Mountain High civilization.
— George Weigel is the Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy
Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies..
Are you concerned that since loans are legal, that during the next recession the government may force me to get a loan in order to help stimulate the economy?
Well they certainly forced a whole bunch of people to get "health insurance", force people to buy "car insurance", force people to give the government loans for asinine purposes via bloated taxes, etc. In Europe they already have negative interest rates which, in effect, is loaning the government money in a forced fashion.
In other countries, many more things are forced than here, and those countries have followed the logical end of the Liberal, Democratic platform to what that it truly is: Socialism. With that comes the natural end of the hatred of man that is the impetus of Socialism, as Socialism is ultimately diabolical in its foundation and stems from a hatred of natural order, and thus, God.
The next step for those countries is indeed the creation of a more utopian (dystopian) society through ridding it of undesirable people who cause society pain for their mere existence and need of help; the impetus and excuse was always to assist them in alleviating their own pain. We already do that with a national abortion rate (murder in utero) of up to 90% of children with Down Syndrome (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/opinion/does-down-syndrome-justify-abortion.html?_r=0). Is that not eugenics in the name of keeping one from suffering, and thus keeping ourselves from suffering? Once on a national system, such practices will become more encouraged across the age spectrum.
We were already there in the 1920's and 1930's with our own eugenics movement in forcing sterilizations of certain classes of people; the horror of Nazi Germany effectively stopped that in its tracks and our educational system conveniently glosses over that movement. Conveniently, we forget that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and her goal, unlike the excuse given today, was not so much "women's rights" but of those women, often black, "They are…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born." (www.lifenews.com/2015/02/23/7-shocking-quotes-from-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/). And not just as a racial issue, but indeed one of cost:
Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste.
Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.
(ibid)
When society is once again there, and once again sees individuals as harmful to the corporate body of society due to cost (we're actually there, though it's a bit more obscured by the rhetoric than blatant), we will crest the hill and, once again, go down that path of eugenics' logical end.
We start with 6 months or less to live and in pain. We progress to depression, PTSD, etc. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/netherlands-sex-abuse-victim-euthanasia-incurable-ptsd-assisted-suicide/ https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/depressed-belgian-woman-chooses-life-moments-before-scheduled-euthanasia). We end up meeting back up with our path of children with things like down syndrome. We eventually arrive at a point where it's not the person choosing death over continued pain they personally experience, but the pain we corporately experience at their continued living.
Make no mistake, this is an evil, horrible bill. It sends a clear and unmistakable message: if you're in pain, kill yourself. Again, I ask, what makes a cancer patient more special than a person with severe PTSD, depression, obesity, etc.? Why is a timeline so damn special? Why not just follow the logical end of "I'm in pain now, so therefore I kill myself now"?
We see the logical end of our society attempting to alleviate suffering: We start with technology to keep from suffering so much and abuse it until we suffer because of technology. We try to alleviate suffering in a socioeconomic fashion (welfare) and create an even worse type of suffering (welfare state), devaluing the reality of wealth and class, creating a society who fantasizes and idolizes wealth. We try to alleviate corporate suffering in war (draft) and create an environment where the country has no vested interest in its wars (volunteer standing Army, tech advancements which sanitize the process, etc.), devaluing the value of the Soldier and his sacrifice. We try to alleviate suffering in the hardness of education (No Child Left Behind) and create the suffering of a bunch of educated morons -- thus devaluing the very thing we sought to bolster: education. We often seek to alleviate the suffering of religion's boundaries, and in the process end up with no religion and more spiritual suffering (because the binding force of religion actually frees us to take joy in the redemptive and purgative values of suffering). And it's the same thing with this. We will seek to alleviate suffering in the name of life and happiness and in the process devalue life even further than we already have.
This bill is effeminacy enshrined (note: effeminacy is traditionally defined as lack of willingness to suffer and has nothing to do with women or female-like qualities; see St. Thomas Aquinas' definition of effeminacy in the Summa Theologiae: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3138.htm). It is a sure ticket on the train of social destruction.
It sends a message to boys that they don't have to be men. It sends a message to girls that they don't have to be women. It sends a message to men that they don't have to be strong and to women that they can simply give up. It sends a message to society that when it gets to hard, they aim their foot for the rock and trip in this race of life, on purpose. It's utterly satanic.
Good article from Davie, and excellent post from CavScout. My point was that the government doesn't really need to pass some law as a backdoor if it decides to start killing people. We've seen it in the past with Eugenics and Nazi programs.
I happen to agree with CavScout's post. One thing neither CavScout, nor the article mentioned, is how this end of life option could affect the drive to search for cures for diseases. If less people are suffering the effects of terrible diseases, then there will be less drive to search for a cure.
Good article from Davie, and excellent post from CavScout. My point was that the government doesn't really need to pass some law as a backdoor if it decides to start killing people. We've seen it in the past with Eugenics and Nazi programs.
I happen to agree with CavScout's post. One thing neither CavScout, nor the article mentioned, is how this end of life option could affect the drive to search for cures for diseases. If less people are suffering the effects of terrible diseases, then there will be less drive to search for a cure.
Excellent point, I mean REALLY GOOD as in FANTASTIC. This is some long-term thinking.
The history of the left is murder, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Che, Castro, all were mass murderers. 106 fits right in with leftist history, the left says they love life but they are a death cult just like Islam.
Why spend trillions curing human ailments when it is less costly to just kill the afflicted human, after all, we'll make more humans.
GilpinGuy
10-12-2016, 08:11
Very interesting thread......
hghclsswhitetrsh
10-12-2016, 08:19
"We need less involvement and government meddling in our lives, they need to quit telling us what to do!"
"My family member is in extreme pain and has terminal cancer and wants to move on to the next life, their dr is going to assist them in passing away easily and pain free".
"Fuck no this is America we don't commit suicide here, Jesus says not to!"
"But what did you say about the government not telling us what to do?"
"Drrrr"
Yes, very conflicting.
Why does .gov have to give you permission to off yourself?
Humans are born with free will, exercise it wisely.
Look at it this way, this does not remove your ability to put a gun in your mouth should you so choose, but it does add an ability for those with a little less fortitude to choose to do the same thing in a less violent, and more certain and comfortable way. If someone wants to Kevorkian themselves, the helpers don't have to worry about going to jail for it. Fears that someone might prematurely off themselves don't cause me any loss of sleep.
Zundfolge
10-20-2016, 10:57
The Government isn't the only entity that might decide you're better off dead than being treated. Insurance Companies in states with right to die laws have already started refusing to pay for life saving treatment because its more expensive than just killing you.
source (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/10/19/insurance-company-wont-pay-for-womans-chemo-treatments-but-physician-assisted-suicide-pills-are-approved/)
Insurance company won’t pay for woman’s chemo treatments — but physician-assisted suicide pills are approved
“Compassion and Choice DENIED,” a recently released documentary, demonstrates how California’s new law allowing terminally ill patients access to end-of-life drugs could be opening the door for insurance companies to deny treatment to patients with serious illnesses.
The 15-minute documentary produced by the Center for Bioethics and Culture tells the story of Stephanie Packer, a terminally ill mom who wants to stay alive as long as possible to be an example for her four young children.
According to Packer, her insurance company appears to prefer she give up the fight and chose assisted suicide instead.
Packer suffers from a form of Scleroderma complicated with pulmonary fibrosis. Normally, Scleroderma would not be a terminal condition. Unfortunately, Packer’s diffuse form of the disease has invaded her lungs, causing the pulmonary fibrosis.
Last summer, shortly after California’s assisted suicide law went into effect, Packer was told by her insurance company the chemotherapy drug prescribed by her doctor would not be covered.
The specific, “less toxic” drug had been requested by the doctor a few months earlier. After “going back and forth,” negotiating for the medicine, Packer claims the insurance company told her, “Yes, we’re going to get it covered.”
However, a week after the assisted suicide law was passed, Packer said, “I received a letter in the mail saying that they were going to deny coverage for the chemotherapy that we were asking for.”
The rejection letter for the chemotherapy did not make reference to the physician-assisted suicide, and Packer wanted more information. So, she called her insurance company to ask why coverage was denied.
After hearing an unclear, “roundabout” explanation as to why the treatment was turned down, Packer reportedly asked if the medications for the newly legalized, physician-assisted suicide would be covered. “What about the drugs they’re using for the new law — would you cover that for me?” she asked.
The insurance company representative reportedly told Packer, “Yes, we do provide that to our patients, and you would only have to pay a $1.20 for the medication.”
“It was just like someone hit me in the gut,” Packer said.
In addition to battling her own terminal illness, Packer is also working with support groups and patient advocacy organizations to help others facing similar battles with untreatable, deadly conditions.
Packer considers California’s new law and the push to make physician-assisted suicide legal to be wrong on many levels — not the least of which is the involvement and sanctioning of suicide by the government.
“It’s maddening to me — you can choose to stop treatment. You can choose to end your life. But it should not ever be supported by physicians — it should not ever be supported or run by the government,” Packer said. “I want to carry on. I want to do everything I can to have one more second with my kids.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4z7GWP7EG8
SA Friday
10-20-2016, 11:31
Yep. Broken. You are terminal and want to peacefully die instead of lollypopping your pistol, you should be able to go through the steps and get it done.
The only counter-argument I see valid is insurance companies forcing the issue. That's not what this is about. That is a forseeable consequence to allowing personal choice and should be handled through other means than denying choice to the individual.
After watching a loved one die a protracted death, I'm for it.
Yup. My mom passed in 1998, 17 months after her first stroke, which took her from a brilliant, articulate canine geneticist who read an average of 3 books a week to an invalid that could barely communicate and could not make sense of the written word. She asked me several times to "borrow" one of my guns, as she hated living under those conditions. Death is every person's right, and the theological implications should be between that person and whatever deity they choose to follow, not written into black letter law.
ChadAmberg
10-20-2016, 12:42
This poll would have been more fun if people could lay out their arguments, and then people voted!
thedave1164
10-20-2016, 13:40
If it was just about decriminalization, I would support it even though I am opposed to suicide.
as it is I am voting no, and no on all of the ballot measures
wow... I am now torn and certainly have a heightened level of respect for CavScout....
Seeing my grandfather waste away and suffer a hard fought 26 month battle against 3 types of cancer while frivolously dissolving his entire legacy, all for the same eventuality... He literally and absolutely wanted to die, but couldn't. The suffering and financial irresponsibility of it are both compelling and quite personal to my family, particularly my father and his siblings. When the time comes, I would much prefer to die on my own terms, avoid an otherwise unavoidable and pointless deterioration, and be able to provide an inheritance to my loved ones.
But I also agree with the religious aspects and concern of societal decay against it....
I am torn on this one.
We all think we are the masters of our fate, until we are rendered helpless.
When we are strong we have options.
But when we are weak? What about people in hospice when it is just a matter of time? When the drugs stop working, when they can't physically end their own life, even though the pain is unimaginable?
Do we expect people to off themself when they are able thus denying them the extra weeks or months to live during which they can still stand the pain?
But from a legal point, I have to view each law as if it was written to be used against "you" by the most evil enemy imaginable.
Thus I am torn.
Aloha_Shooter
10-25-2016, 11:33
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/10/insurers-use-californias-assisted-suicide-law-to-deny-treatment-for-terminal-patients/
Stephanie Packer, a wife and mother of four who was diagnosed with a terminal form of scleroderma, said her insurance company initially indicated it would pay for her to switch to a different chemotherapy drug at the recommendation of her doctors.
…But shortly after California’s End of Life Option Act, which authorizes physicians to diagnose a life-ending dose of medication to patients with a prognosis of six months or less to live, went into effect, Ms. Packer’s insurance company had a change of heart.
“And when the law was passed, it was a week later I received a letter in the mail saying they were going to deny coverage for the chemotherapy that we were asking for,” Ms. Packer said.
She said she called her insurance company to find out why her coverage had been denied. On the call, she also asked whether suicide pills were covered under her plan.
“And she says, ‘Yes, we do provide that to our patients, and you would only have to pay $1.20 for the medication,’” Ms. Packer said.
Anecdotal but ...
Do you own your body or not? If yes, then you should be able to make choices about what to do with it (including ending it's existence)
If not, who does? If someone else owns your body, then you are not free.
Looked at another way: There is no cure for cancer because there's no money in a cure. There IS money in "treatment", so that is where the pharmaceutical companies concentrate their efforts: "managing" these diseases. That also is why they're pouring so much money into fighting this proposal. Drugs to end life are already well documented, cheap, and not particularly profitable.
ChadAmberg
10-25-2016, 17:41
Looked at another way: There is no cure for cancer because there's no money in a cure. There IS money in "treatment", so that is where the pharmaceutical companies concentrate their efforts: "managing" these diseases. That also is why they're pouring so much money into fighting this proposal. Drugs to end life are already well documented, cheap, and not particularly profitable.
I hear this a lot, but I feel it's just not true. First off, there's no such thing as "cancer", there are hundreds of completely different types of cancers. Trust me, if there was a pill or something that would cure even one cancer easily, the pharma company that came out with it would make billions from it. Because every day there would still be people being diagnosed with that cancer who would spend whatever it took to be cured.
And besides, what is it they say about secrets, two people can keep a secret if one is dead? You're telling me that out of the hundreds of thousands of people who work at all the thousands of pharma companies, somehow they're keeping the magic pill under wraps, especially when they and their family members get cancer as well? If the large criminal enterprise that is the DNC can't keep their illegal activities under wraps, somehow the medical companies, with all those people graduating med school to make a difference and heal people, can?
I just don't buy it. If there were a cure for any cancer (besides surgery, chemo, radiation, and other meds) I'm sure that it'd be released as soon as possible, like how they're now working on immune system training to eradicate it, which is the closest thing to a cure I can imagine.
Uberjager
11-08-2016, 23:02
It looks like this Nazi proposition passed. [Abused]
Updates on other local stuff?
Uberjager
11-08-2016, 23:08
Updates on other local stuff?
Open presidential primaries, the minimum wage one passed, and the healthcare one got gunned down and curb-stomped.
ThunderSquirrel
11-08-2016, 23:12
I'm pro prop 106. Hoping it helps Colorado go back red in 4 years
Well, that's only half good I guess. Thanks for the report.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.