Random Thought About Euthanasia and State Mandated Health Insurance

With so much hoopla about Obamacare the past couple of years and what not, I wonder why people don't speak more about allowing a person the right to die if he or she elects to do so. It's the other side of the coin that no one seems to talk about, especially those who are against Obamacare and state mandated health insurance in general.

The elephant in the room (at least to me anyway) is, if the state won't allow a person the right to die, then the state should provide meaningful health insurance for that person. However, if the state doesn't want to provide meaningful health insurance for said person, shouldn't the state allow the person to die if he or she wishes to? If a person's right to die is taken away by the state, the person should be afforded health care to ease the person's burden, be it mental or physical, or both! If the state is not willing to provide said health insurance, then the state should allow the person to die.

As of right now, a person who may be suffering from whatever ailment can't elect to be euthanized, but also does not have state mandated access to health insurance either. In a way, this is a Catch 22 and a form of torture in my eyes. So a person might argue that everyone has the right to get health insurance on their own, that there is no law out there preventing a person from buying health insurance. My rebuttal is that, for many of these people who would consider euthansia, they are most likely already at that point where their health condition does not allow for them to earn any sort of meaningful income that would allow them to receive the care they need via with or without insurance. Also, the people who fall into this category would likely fall into the dreaded "pre-existing" category. Any person, once placed into this "pre-existing" category, can pretty much forget about finding affordable insurance. What's the point of just living if all a person is living for is to pay off medical bills? Living hell...

Anyway, the courts under the 14th Amendment have allowed passive euthanasia (i.e., refusing treatment, such as pulling a respiration, etc...), but have yet to definitively tackle on active euthanasia in a direct and meaningful way. Courts have this uncanny ability to make a ruling on an issue while skirting around the real issue. Anyway, courts have by default ruled in favor of states. The states' position have always been that it is in their best interest to not allow their citizens to actively take their own lives. And this goes back to my original point. If a state is not willing to pay or provide people meaningful health insurance to make them better, then the state should also not force the person to live either. It's a simple concept...So simple that it's hardly ever spoken about.