[Thorrez]

>Do you think insurance companies are not already doing that, just without the fast way out for the patients, so they are left to live in pain?

Just because something bad is already happening doesn't mean it's ok to do something that will make it happen more frequently.

Not to mention the many people who will get assisted suicide who don't have coverage denied, and/or don't have a terminal illness, potentially due to encouragement/coercion from doctors, nurses, family, insurance, etc.

>The current reality of not paying for the assisted suicide is cheaper than the potential of paying for it; how much would it really change behavior?

Now the insurance companies have something cheap to offer. So it gives them an excuse not to offer something better.

[LeafItAlone]

Seems like you are opposed to it because it will end up being used solely because it will be the cheaper option. So just make it not the cheaper option. Allow it, but make it expensive so the insurance companies don’t consider it before other treatments.

[Thorrez]

So put a giant tax on it? That is an interesting idea. I'm pretty sure the people who say it's a right will fight that.

And there's also the question of how big the tax should be. Someone with an illness that requires expensive treatment but is expected to not die for a long time might cost the insurance company millions in treatment. Would that tax be millions?

One problem would be in the case of government-run healthcare, or government-run insurance. In that case, to what extent would the tax just be taking money out of one of the government's pockets and putting it in the other? I'm not sure that would disincentive it.

In fact, some doctors, nurses, might consider it good to help fund the government, and thus it might almost be an incentive for them to do it.