2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

It is NOT legal if you pay for it. The law is right as it stands. It's the paying for it that creates demand—and victims.

I think unwanted viewing is a huge issue here, and I don't want to leave it to the discretion of prosecutors to not prosecute where there is no intent. Who knows how the internet is going to change in the future? They could easily come up with a way to put hundreds of images on someone's history log, or possibly even to download them to some victims' computers. Payment is the perfect place to draw the line.

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I absolutely agree. The Oregonian recently ran an article by a widow questioning whether she and her late husband should have run up $600,000 in insurance payments in his last few years with terminal cancer, with very little clear benefit,in hindsight.

Most Americans with good insurance, like this couple, have a knee-jerk reflex that no efforts should be spared in end-of-life care. I do not think this is equally the culture in the other countries that get better health results while spending half as much overall.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Until a few decades ago, drugs were advertised in the professional magazines for doctors, but they were not advertised to the public. The change has created high demand for the newest and highest-priced drugs, and has therefore increased costs substantially without significant improvement in health results compared to what we would have with advertising only to doctors.

We should reverse this change by giving Medicare and other government drug purchases default (not be limited to, but just a default preference) for drugs from companies that do not advertise to the public.

Daniel M

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context