Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by ncbullgator, Feb 12, 2018.
British citizen, stop trying to interrupt ncbullgator while he is telling you what you think.
Get back to me when you are old and someone comes to you and says "sorry, time for you to die".
As one of the most wealthiest nations in the world, I'm tired of hearing how much this kind of care for people "costs". Yet the current administration wants to spend billions more on nuclear weapons to add to an arsenal that experts say already can destroy the world over 20 times.
You're right. There needs to be some common sense here.
Eh, I'd probably Kevorkian myself if I were 88 years old and basically dead already.
Only one of your options has cost controls. We saw what happens to costs when government oversteps (one of my favorite graphs courtesy of @WarDamnGator/must give credit to my fellow Gator dems when they deserve it)...
Good for you. Your choice. But understand everyone should have that choice. I've sat at the edge of the bed next to dying family and friends. You can't understand how someone can lust for just one more week, one more day, to be with the ones they cherish an love until you see it in their eyes and feel it in their touch.
When you're young it's all just so distant and easy to eschew.
Are you in favor of not paying for it if people don’t listen to their doctor and live unhealthy lifestyles?
While on principle you will not be able to convince me of universal healthcare (I have no issues with a fund to help those who can’t help themselves and helping with chronic illnesses)...I can’t get to universally making people pay for those that choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle.
And for the record. No one is wrong for choosing to live an unhealthy lifestyle. I think we should have to the liberty to live the lifestyle we want. And there are consequences for those decisions (yes sometimes bad things happen when people do everything right but...). I am not better than someone else because I may put my health as more important to me. At the same time. You can’t teach people to be healthy without consequences. And single payer removes consequences.
The Reason we are going broke?
We buy on credit and never addresses the principal
We need an itemized budget instead of Take it all or leave it.
We need specific taxes that can only be used for what they are attended for - Gas Tax for infrastucture
When we collect enough money for a certain item like highways - Repeal the tax
We don't need every Military System AND we need to STOP NATION BUILDING
And I've sat with family in their long last weeks of pain and exhaustion, ready - wanting to die. Life can be, paradoxically and simultaneously, both tenacious and tenuous.
Catastrophic and Screenings Insurance
Pay for everything else
Allow ER to refer to Urgent Care if not a real emergency
Reduce Law Suit Maximums
Allow experimental treatments for fatal illnesses
Reduce needless testing (Stop the CYA Medicine)
Universal healthcare means universal healthcare. People get to make choices. It sucks that some act selfishly, but it is whast it is.
That's your choice. Fortunately, more and more Americans are disagreeing with your view.
How many other countries like us (i.e., developed with a good quality of life) don't have universal healthcare?
Single-payer doesn't remove consequences. It simply removes barriers to treatment. That's a positive.
And my Mom lived over 12 years with Alzheimer - the last 3 years she slept 18-23 hours and did not know her children. Is that life? Or humane?
Sad thing was, she had an IQ off the charts but could not even read half of those 12 years.
It sucks. I've been there too. But if you don't have the money to pay, you shouldn't be a drain on society. Once you're no longer treatable at a certain point in your life, we stop trying to squeeze every bit of time out.
That is tragic. Twelve years with a loved one like that can seem an eternity.
My dad died 6 and 1/2 years after being diagnosed with Alzheimer's. His last 2 were as you describe. We lost him twice - when he entered that last, long stage - and 2 years after when his body gave out. I don't know which parting was worse.
This past summer my husband's brother died from cancer. He had 5 extremely painful months at the end of his life. Bedridden, incontinent, emaciated, and miserable. He was oh, so ready to let go, but that elemental force of life refused to break, tenaciously holding him from the release he sorely desired.
I'm not talking about treatable conditions like diabetes. And yes, I am posting worst-case scenarios. That's the whole point. We spend a huge amount of money on worst-case scenarios just to keep people alive a few more months.
I am so sorry for your loss. My father died of Parkinson, it too was terrible.
I am torn over end of life issues. Though I am against euthanasia, I truly believe we try too hard to extend life of people with serious issues.
I have a family member who's mom had open heart surgery in her late 80s. She never came out of rehab. She lived her last two years in a hospital setting.
As for me, LET ME DIE.
If that happens, so be it. My grandfather, at 89, was talked into chemotherapy. After one round, he said screw that. He died a few months later. Right now, not only is our healthcare establishment not saying 'time to die' (when it truly is time to die), they are encouraging expensive treatment to keep people alive just a few more months.
My father-in-law had Alzheimer's when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He was already rapidly approaching last-stage dementia when the doctors came to discuss the cancer treatment options with my wife, her sister, and me. We had three options, 1) do nothing and the cancer would spread quickly. 2) herbal treatments that would likely slow the cancer growth with a prognosis of 3-5 years left to live. 3) Surgery, which had a 95% chance of removing the cancer completely, but had a 3 month recovery time. I asked the doctor what he thought the prognosis was for the Alzheimer's if we did nothing, and he said 6 months to a year at best.
It wasn't an easy decision, but it made zero sense for my FIL to undergo surgery that wouldn't prolong his life one minute and make himself uncomfortable for months. I convinced my wife and SIL to opt for the herbal treatments since it would keep the cancer in check long enough not to effect him while we suffered through watching him deteriorate from the Alzheimer's. He mercifully passed away about 8 months later.
There are difficult decisions to be made, and when it's your loved one, I understand it's never easy. But spending thousands on surgery that doesn't extend life and makes the patient less comfortable is not something we should be paying for. Yet, we had that option, and the surgeon was not happy we chose not to let him operate.
With that said, I think we need to come up with a rubric that takes age of the patient, life expectancy, comfort level, and potential scientific knowledge (experimental treatments) into consideration and come up with a chart that for Medicare/Medicaid patients, here's what the government would cover. For my FIL, who was 73 at the time, there was no added life quantity if we opted for surgery, a negative effect on quality of life, and it was a routine operation. In contrast, a friend who was in his 40s was diagnosed with stomach cancer, and was given 6 months to live. Was offered an experimental operation and treatment that could extend his life up to 12 months, and wasn't that invasive. Wasn't easy watching him wither away either, but he made it 22 months and I have no problem covering procedures like this, as I see it as giving him an extra year and a half with his young children.
These are hard choices we have to make, and as much as we may not like the outcomes, the best way is to form some dispassionate, third-party standard that applies to everyone.
Yep. When you've already lived far longer than the vast majority of humans who have ever lived, society doesn't owe you tens of thousands of dollars just so you can stay alive for a few more weeks or months.
We might live like we are one of the wealthiest nations but we are $20 TRILLION in debt. We are NOT one of the wealthiest nations in the world, not by a long stretch.
That might be relevant to how you measure personal wealth, but it's not how you measure a nation's wealth.