The Fake Bus Stop

[FelixDeCat]

:music: you can check out any time you like....but you can never leave :music:

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: thirtythree
But how do "real" people know it's fake?

Hopefully the lack of buses stopping there will tip them off.

 

[Damn Dirty Ape]

The memory loss can be frustrating and depressing, this is an idea that is good in spirit and implementation.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: thirtythree
But how do "real" people know it's fake?

Hopefully the lack of buses stopping there will tip them off.

Yeah, most will probably leave. Or it probably just says "Fake Bus Stop." wonder if the patients even pay attention....

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: thirtythree
But how do "real" people know it's fake?

Hopefully the lack of buses stopping there will tip them off.

People often wait at a bus stop without knowing the local routes or when exactly a bus will show up, at least in large cities. I'd be kind of angry if they started planting fake bus stops around town (granted, I almost always know the bus route I want and when it should arrive).

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: thirtythree
People often wait at a bus stop without knowing the local routes or when exactly a bus will show up, at least in large cities. I'd be kind of angry if they started planting fake bus stops around town (granted, I almost always know the bus route I want and when it should arrive).

You're not German and have never been in Germany, amirite?

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: thirtythree
People often wait at a bus stop without knowing the local routes or when exactly a bus will show up, at least in large cities. I'd be kind of angry if they started planting fake bus stops around town (granted, I almost always know the bus route I want and when it should arrive).

You're not German and have never been in Germany, amirite?

Just saying. I have no reason to assume that bus systems are drastically different in Germany.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: thirtythree
People often wait at a bus stop without knowing the local routes or when exactly a bus will show up, at least in large cities. I'd be kind of angry if they started planting fake bus stops around town (granted, I almost always know the bus route I want and when it should arrive).

You're not German and have never been in Germany, amirite?

Just saying. I have no reason to assume that bus systems are drastically different in Germany.

The people are, though.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Having had a Grandpa picked up on the side of US-50, I say it's a good idea.

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: thirtythree
People often wait at a bus stop without knowing the local routes or when exactly a bus will show up, at least in large cities. I'd be kind of angry if they started planting fake bus stops around town (granted, I almost always know the bus route I want and when it should arrive).

You're not German and have never been in Germany, amirite?

Just saying. I have no reason to assume that bus systems are drastically different in Germany.

The people are, though.

They don't wait for buses at bus stops?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: thirtythree
People often wait at a bus stop without knowing the local routes or when exactly a bus will show up, at least in large cities. I'd be kind of angry if they started planting fake bus stops around town (granted, I almost always know the bus route I want and when it should arrive).

You're not German and have never been in Germany, amirite?

Just saying. I have no reason to assume that bus systems are drastically different in Germany.

The people are, though.

They don't wait for buses at bus stops?

No, they're simply smarter and know their environment far better, on average, by far.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: herkulease
its actually pretty smart. Its way better than them wandering off somewhere and getting killed.

:thumbsup:

Those Germans sure are smart.

They have the same thing at an alzheimer's home near us. People pack up their bags, thinking they're going home or their kids are coming to get them. Wait a while, forget why they're there, and go back inside.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Am I evil if I want to go and buy a secondhand bus just so I can drive by these fake stops, slowing down and pretending like I'm going to pick up the person only to speed off at the last second?

Either that or actually pick the old people up and watch the nursing home staff freak out.

(Yeah, I'm evil.)

ZV

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Am I evil if I want to go and buy a secondhand bus just so I can drive by these fake stops, slowing down and pretending like I'm going to pick up the person only to speed off at the last second?

Either that or actually pick the old people up and watch the nursing home staff freak out.

(Yeah, I'm evil.)

ZV

So wrong, but I laughed. :laugh:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Am I evil if I want to go and buy a secondhand bus just so I can drive by these fake stops, slowing down and pretending like I'm going to pick up the person only to speed off at the last second?

Either that or actually pick the old people up and watch the nursing home staff freak out.

(Yeah, I'm evil.)

ZV

Probably, but I'd like to come along for the lulz.

 

[Auggie]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Auggie
Life is never pointless. Suicide or euthanasia are remarkably un-civilized despite proponents' arguments that it is the most humane solution to the problem of aging.

have you ever seen euthanasia endorsed simply for aging, or are you just trolling?

From an op-ed piece back in May:

Consider the case of Barbara Wagner, an Oregon
woman who was diagnosed with a recurrence of lung cancer last year at age 64.
Her survival prospects were grim, but her oncologist offered her one final
hope: a $4,000-a-month drug that could slow the cancer's growth and give her
another four to six months to live. Wagner, a great-grandmother and retired bus
driver living in a low-income apartment, could not afford the drug herself. So
she asked her state-run health insurance plan for help.

The response she received shocked her. Oregon state officials sent a letter
saying that they would not pay for medication to extend her life, but they
would foot the drug bill for an assisted suicide ? an expenditure of roughly
$50.

Question for you, zinfamous (or anybody else):

What's the difference between a 64-year-old cancer victim who needs $4000/month health care assistance and a (getting back to the OP's story which produced comments from other forum members about suicide) and a 85-year-old Alzheimer's patient that likewise needs government help for assisted living and age-related healthcare?

What's the difference between refusing to pay for healthcare (instead offering a $50 suicide option) and euthanasia?

So yes, I do believe that 1.) euthanasia has already started in some states in America, and just as it has in Europe and that 2.) age-related euthanasia is imminent.

At what point does one become oblivious enough to human behavior to believe that money and limited resources don't dictate healthcare for the disabled, unborn or elderly if their rights are not vehemently protected? It's rather difficult for them to protect themselves. Therefore, as soon as public opinion deteriorates to a point where the majority of people don't believe living in disabled states or to enfeebling ages, such practices will become commonplace and unworthy of national attention or op-ed newspaper space.

What I'm really interested to see in the upcoming decades are how the same people who in their 20s 30s 40s and 50s voted to enact Right-to-die laws in Europe change their mind once they become the elderly and the demographic that needs the vast majority of health care.

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: Auggie

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Auggie
Life is never pointless. Suicide or euthanasia are remarkably un-civilized despite proponents' arguments that it is the most humane solution to the problem of aging.

have you ever seen euthanasia endorsed simply for aging, or are you just trolling?

From an op-ed piece back in May:

Consider the case of Barbara Wagner, an Oregon
woman who was diagnosed with a recurrence of lung cancer last year at age 64.
Her survival prospects were grim, but her oncologist offered her one final
hope: a $4,000-a-month drug that could slow the cancer's growth and give her
another four to six months to live. Wagner, a great-grandmother and retired bus
driver living in a low-income apartment, could not afford the drug herself. So
she asked her state-run health insurance plan for help.

The response she received shocked her. Oregon state officials sent a letter
saying that they would not pay for medication to extend her life, but they
would foot the drug bill for an assisted suicide ? an expenditure of roughly
$50.

Question for you, zinfamous (or anybody else):

What's the difference between a 64-year-old cancer victim who needs $4000/month health care assistance and a (getting back to the OP's story which produced comments from other forum members about suicide) and a 85-year-old Alzheimer's patient that likewise needs government help for assisted living and age-related healthcare?

What's the difference between refusing to pay for healthcare (instead offering a $50 suicide option) and euthanasia?

So yes, I do believe that 1.) euthanasia has already started in some states in America, and just as it has in Europe and that 2.) age-related euthanasia is imminent.

At what point does one become oblivious enough to human behavior to believe that money and limited resources don't dictate healthcare for the disabled, unborn or elderly if their rights are not vehemently protected? It's rather difficult for them to protect themselves. Therefore, as soon as public opinion deteriorates to a point where the majority of people don't believe living in disabled states or to enfeebling ages, such practices will become commonplace and unworthy of national attention or op-ed newspaper space.

What I'm really interested to see in the upcoming decades are how the same people who in their 20s 30s 40s and 50s voted to enact Right-to-die laws in Europe change their mind once they become the elderly and the demographic that needs the vast majority of health care.

It isn't assisted suicide if the lady didn't *want* to die. I don't think rational people are proposing that in cases where the patient wants to live; that would be madness. I guess this also means you support government funded health care?

She also has cancer. It's not just "aging".

Don't distort the facts. Argue your position with some fucking dignity.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: herkulease
its actually pretty smart. Its way better than them wandering off somewhere and getting killed.

If I'm ever in that state I give anyone permission to fucking kill me.

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: Auggie
What I'm really interested to see in the upcoming decades are how the same people who in their 20s 30s 40s and 50s voted to enact Right-to-die laws in Europe change their mind once they become the elderly and the demographic that needs the vast majority of health care.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163...upport-euthanasia.aspx

You'll see that there aren't big differences between <50 and 50+, and that in 3 out of 4 cases the 50+ support is higher.

 

[Auggie]

Thirtythree - The fear is that once physicial-assisted suicide (right to die) is allowed and instated, it will move from being "available upon request" to a more standard mode of operation, or even compulsory in some cases. The next decades will determine if this actually become the case or not, not in situ polling data from current demographics. It might change opinions of those who are in the crosshairs if it plays out that way.

Ichigo - I'd argue that the fact that the lady is 64 years old and not a 25 year old muddies the waters a bit. Even if it doesn't, and her age and income bracket didn't change the decision from the state's perspective, there's another connection here between assisted-suicide and non-voluntary euthanasia. Logically, just as a terminal cancer patient faces sure death soon, so too does an elderly person, right? Or should there be a national debate on how many weeks/months/years of life constitutes a non-terminal situation? I strongly believe that all questions regarding quality of life and worthiness or unworthiness of life should be excluded from the government. Anyhow, in this case, she wanted to live but was only given the option to die, which is "madness" to me.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous in the slightest, so I'd appreciate a bit of civility in this discussion, vis-a-vis "arguing with some fucking dignity."

Getting back to the OP, I don't think it's humiliating or wrong for this bus stop to function as it does - it's quite a brilliant idea!

 

[Auggie]

Actually, it's really evocative that the polling data skews the way it does based on whether or not the word "suicide" is included in the question.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: herkulease
its actually pretty smart. Its way better than them wandering off somewhere and getting killed.

:thumbsup:

Those Germans sure are smart.

you know they always make good stuff

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Auggie
Anyhow, in this case, she wanted to live but was only given the option to die, which is "madness" to me.

Then pay for her medicine yourself; don't go shoving your sticky fingers into other people's pockets to force them to pay for it.

I'll grant that it was emotionally insensitive for the state-run health care system to offer assisted suicide as an alternative but the fact is that on some level health care has to be rationed weather we like it or not. Otherwise it would be possible to end up in situations where we end up paying millions to keep a person alive for 1-2 months. At some point the expense is no longer justified.

Excellent article on the justification for rationing.

ZV

 

[Auggie]

ZV, your point is actually very good. There are never enough resources to meet the absolute requirement. It's the entire operational assumption for all life on this planet (Darwin et al). In fact, this entire discussion is occurring only because we live in such a successful country that such matters are even up for discussion. The majority of humans alive today, and certainly that have existed in the past and before modern medicine, wouldn't have any option in the matter: you get sick, you die, suffering is a part of life that we must deal with.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea that "to adequately provide healthcare for every needy citizen, our taxes would have to be astronomical, we couldn't fund public works, maintain our infrastructure and education systems and this is unacceptable, therefore we need to accept that we can't help everyone" etc... because in essence, if we can only provide half of the total sum that is needed, for the needy half that don't receive healthcare, it's similar to the way human life has always been: oops, you got Some Ailment and you die. Meanwhile, we actually are able to improve the quality of life for the half that manages to receive care, so ultimately there is some net gain, some Good achieved. There's definitely nothing wrong with dying, it's a completely natural and intended consequence of life, even if it's tragic that not all are able to receive assistance with their care.

The problem comes when discrimination works its way into any system: how do we decide who's "worthy" of resources? This is the insidious part of the question that is most disturbing to me. Who makes the decision? Society? HMO board members? NIH directors? Men elected to office? Lobbyists?

Like I said above, there's nothing inherently "wrong" with death - but there is something inherently wrong with living to die, wanting to die, or wanting to live but being forced to die. Let alone the pressure to 'willingly' commit suicide because the way society approaches life (and death) hinges more upon the financial incentive for you to die for a cheap fifty bucks than for the reason to continue to live until your natural death, even unaided by medicine.

In other words, it's not that I don't realize that not everybody can have adequate publicly-funded care: it's that it seems like we are turning to embrace suicide and quick-exits as a society, which indicates a lack of respect for the living, which is what I believe is the most important thing.

 

[thegimp03]

Haha, that's awesome.