Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When my mom was more mobile (she's now in a wheelchair fulltime)..even with her walker - and she had doctor appointments around town and my siblings couldn't get away from work to take her? It frightened her to no end to take the local eldercare bus. Staff were less than helpful (she's no longer at that assisted living center). Then - on the other end at the doctor's office - very few were there to see that she boarded and disembarked the bus carefully enough so she wouldn't fall. It's truly frightening.
Some docs and health care providers make ALC visit. More should.
The podiatrist will come. But the radiation therapy for cancer won't.
Look at your local situation for ambulance transport to medical stuff - either through Medicare or Medicaid. When we moved my FIL from NC to JAX via ambulance - we (along with everyone else) were surprised that Medicare paid for the move. Robyn
OH YES THEY CAN!!! If the patient is soooooo abusive/combative/aggressive that the workers are being injured, then the patient is only eligible for a geriatric psych ward.
Of course in that circumstance they can kick you out. But I meant being kicked out for having to go from private pay to Medicare/Medicaid.
Gosh - how old are you? I think you're younger than I am (I'm 63). Average age in terms of admission to a SNF these days is over 80.
I would think more in terms of where you'd like to be between ages 60 and 80 (which in all probability wouldn't involve SNFs or a self-help kill yourself DVD). Robyn
I'm a bit younger than you. Remember that making it to age 60 is a very big deal in the history of humanity. The natural life span was once even shorter. My dad died at my age of a stroke after a prostate op. My mom lived to 92. I read somewhere that you can take the average distance between those two ages and that's probably "your time" (for me, that would be 75, not all that long away when I think of how fast the last dozen years have flown by. No one knows when they may go into a health crisis and need SNF or other. So while I contemplate enjoying the next 20 yrs I'm also a realist and do think ahead. One thing for sure that I would pray for is any way I could possibly stay out of a nursing home. I cannot handle even visiting one.
My mother would have been "spent down" this year but she died a Christmas. Her Long Term Care insurance was exhausted and the last of her savings would be gone. I am just thankful for Medicaid, without it she would have had to move with me. I wonder what percentage of the elderly would be effected by cuts to medicaid
I'm a bit younger than you. Remember that making it to age 60 is a very big deal in the history of humanity. The natural life span was once even shorter.
No, I feel I have to object whenever I see that, because it really is not true. 60 is in no way a big deal in the history of humanity, and we are not living longer thanks to the Big Drug companies (although they want us to think so ).
Infant mortality is naturally high in all species, so a very high percentage of human babies and children used to die. This changed dramatically within the past century, probably mostly because of antibiotics.
Human beings who survived childhood, and did not die from war or accidents, had a life span not so different from ours.
The medical industry wants us to think we need them to survive, once we have passed the "normal" life span of 35. It's really important to know this is a fallacy. You need some basic knowledge of statistics to see why.
Averaging in a lot of very small numbers -- infants who died -- brings the average way down. It is, as we say in statistics, a "skewed distribution," rather than a "normal distribution." Yes, it matters.
The result of this misunderstanding could be devastating for our society. Drugs that are expensive and useless are considered necessary for survival, driving up health care costs to astronomical levels.
Our modern American lifestyle is deadly. If our grandparents died in their 60s, it was from tobacco. If our parents die in their 60s, it's from obesity.
Avoid those two, and your chances for a healthy long life are pretty good.
My mother would have been "spent down" this year but she died a Christmas. Her Long Term Care insurance was exhausted and the last of her savings would be gone. I am just thankful for Medicaid, without it she would have had to move with me. I wonder what percentage of the elderly would be effected by cuts to medicaid
No, I feel I have to object whenever I see that, because it really is not true. 60 is in no way a big deal in the history of humanity, and we are not living longer thanks to the Big Drug companies (although they want us to think so ).
Infant mortality is naturally high in all species, so a very high percentage of human babies and children used to die. This changed dramatically within the past century, probably mostly because of antibiotics.
Human beings who survived childhood, and did not die from war or accidents, had a life span not so different from ours.
The medical industry wants us to think we need them to survive, once we have passed the "normal" life span of 35. It's really important to know this is a fallacy. You need some basic knowledge of statistics to see why.
Averaging in a lot of very small numbers -- infants who died -- brings the average way down. It is, as we say in statistics, a "skewed distribution," rather than a "normal distribution." Yes, it matters.
The result of this misunderstanding could be devastating for our society. Drugs that are expensive and useless are considered necessary for survival, driving up health care costs to astronomical levels.
Our modern American lifestyle is deadly. If our grandparents died in their 60s, it was from tobacco. If our parents die in their 60s, it's from obesity.
Avoid those two, and your chances for a healthy long life are pretty good.
Some of what you say is true. E.g., the decline in infant mortality has led to longer average life expectancies. Still - at any age - most people in most demographic groups now have longer life expectancies than they did 30-40 years ago (there are some counter-examples - like young black males - but the leading cause of death there last time I looked is homicide).
And part of that is due to drugs. For example - drugs used to treat infectious diseases that were once killers. The most recent example of this is AIDs - which has pretty much gone from being a relatively short term deadly disease to a long term chronic disease. And then there are anti-hypertensive and diabetes drugs. I don't think you could argue with a straight face that people with hypertension and/or diabetes shouldn't be treated with drugs (yes - some people with hypertension and/or diabetes can benefit from lifestyle modification - but it doesn't work in all cases). And then there are cancer drugs (some don't make sense in terms of cost/benefit analysis but many do IMO). Drugs for arthritis. And I will be interested to see the very long term results of statin use. My husband's cardiologist - who does clinical research - says heart attack rates have gone way down since statins became common. IOW - drugs for lots of things make a lot of sense.
Did you have any particular drugs in mind when you spoke of ones that are "expensive and useless"? I personally think some drugs fall into that category - but wonder what *you* had in mind.
And there is medical care other than drugs. I had lunch with my 92 year old aunt last week (I was in NYC and she lives in NYC). She has always led a healthy life - but wound up with 2 badly arthritic knees (the engine is running fine but the chassis was shot). She has had 2 total knee replacements within the last 3 years. And is a much happier person now that she isn't a "cripple". Are her knee replacements a waste of money? Keep in mind that her mother lived to 103 - and even the life expectancy tables give her another 5 or so years to go. We don't necessarily need the medical profession "to survive" - but it can really improve the quality of our lives. Robyn
P.S. If you're interested in learning more about these issues - as opposed to simply expressing personal points of view - read "Who Shall Live - Health, Economics and Social Choice" by Victor Fuchs. It's an older book - last edition 1983 - and may be out of print - but you can pick up a copy on Amazon. It's a slim book - but chock full of interesting information and intriguing ideas.
I'm a bit younger than you. Remember that making it to age 60 is a very big deal in the history of humanity. The natural life span was once even shorter. My dad died at my age of a stroke after a prostate op. My mom lived to 92. I read somewhere that you can take the average distance between those two ages and that's probably "your time" (for me, that would be 75, not all that long away when I think of how fast the last dozen years have flown by. No one knows when they may go into a health crisis and need SNF or other. So while I contemplate enjoying the next 20 yrs I'm also a realist and do think ahead. One thing for sure that I would pray for is any way I could possibly stay out of a nursing home. I cannot handle even visiting one.
I wouldn't use a stat based on a post-op complication to try to figure out my life expectancy - especially if I were a woman and the operation was a prostate operation. Also - good hospitals are very aggressive about post-op care in terms of stroke prevention today. After I had minor gyn surgery last year - I was in a hospital room for about 15 hours (from 5 pm to 8 am). And the whole time I was there - I had these things like bellows on my legs - to avoid the possibility of throwing a leg clot.
There are some nice nursing homes in the US. Although I reckon they're few and far between. I never minded going to visit my FIL - because his place was nice - and he was never into "organ recitals" (i.e., talking 24/7 only about everything that was wrong with him - OTOH - when something was really wrong - out of the ordinary wrong - he wasn't reluctant to speak up and we'd try to figure out what was going on - that's a good balance IMO). IMO - if someone can't handle seeing lots of older sicker people - even when the environment is nice - even the best nursing home won't do the trick. And a hospital won't be any fun either.
But you know what - the hardest thing I ever did was taking a friend of mine - not a super close BBF - but a friend - to lunch when she was dying from breast cancer. She was young - maybe 45 - with young kids. And her feet were such a mess from her chemo that she could no longer walk. So I took her in a wheel chair. We talked about this - that - the other thing. But the thing she said that stuck in my mind was that of most of the people she knew - I was one of the few who didn't "abandon" her when she got really sick.
There are a lot of people in the world who can't stand being around sick people - of any age. Perhaps because it reminds them of their own mortality. Perhaps for other reasons. I wouldn't go out of my way to volunteer at any place with a lot of sick strangers. But I won't avoid family or friends because they get sick. Even if I can't do a thing to help other than enjoy a meal or a chat with them.
So what do you think is the cause of your antipathy when it comes to nursing homes? Robyn
My mother would have been "spent down" this year but she died a Christmas. Her Long Term Care insurance was exhausted and the last of her savings would be gone. I am just thankful for Medicaid, without it she would have had to move with me. I wonder what percentage of the elderly would be effected by cuts to medicaid
I don't know what percentage - but I suspect the most significant area would be care in SNFs - because that's where most Medicaid money is spent on the elderly. Robyn
Some of what you say is true. E.g., the decline in infant mortality has led to longer average life expectancies. Still - at any age - most people in most demographic groups now have longer life expectancies than they did 30-40 years ago (there are some counter-examples - like young black males - but the leading cause of death there last time I looked is homicide).
And part of that is due to drugs. For example - drugs used to treat infectious diseases that were once killers. The most recent example of this is AIDs - which has pretty much gone from being a relatively short term deadly disease to a long term chronic disease. And then there are anti-hypertensive and diabetes drugs. I don't think you could argue with a straight face that people with hypertension and/or diabetes shouldn't be treated with drugs (yes - some people with hypertension and/or diabetes can benefit from lifestyle modification - but it doesn't work in all cases). And then there are cancer drugs (some don't make sense in terms of cost/benefit analysis but many do IMO). Drugs for arthritis. And I will be interested to see the very long term results of statin use. My husband's cardiologist - who does clinical research - says heart attack rates have gone way down since statins became common. IOW - drugs for lots of things make a lot of sense.
Did you have any particular drugs in mind when you spoke of ones that are "expensive and useless"? I personally think some drugs fall into that category - but wonder what *you* had in mind.
And there is medical care other than drugs. I had lunch with my 92 year old aunt last week (I was in NYC and she lives in NYC). She has always led a healthy life - but wound up with 2 badly arthritic knees (the engine is running fine but the chassis was shot). She has had 2 total knee replacements within the last 3 years. And is a much happier person now that she isn't a "cripple". Are her knee replacements a waste of money? Keep in mind that her mother lived to 103 - and even the life expectancy tables give her another 5 or so years to go. We don't necessarily need the medical profession "to survive" - but it can really improve the quality of our lives. Robyn
P.S. If you're interested in learning more about these issues - as opposed to simply expressing personal points of view - read "Who Shall Live - Health, Economics and Social Choice" by Victor Fuchs. It's an older book - last edition 1983 - and may be out of print - but you can pick up a copy on Amazon. It's a slim book - but chock full of interesting information and intriguing ideas.
No, I did not simply express personal points of view. Everything I said was based on a lifetime of studying. You recommended one small book to me, but I could recommend hundreds to you. I am not a conspiracy theorist or a fanatic, but I am sorry to say there is any awful lot of inaccurate and false information about medicine in our society. Many things are taken for granted and obediently accepted because the medical industry says so.
You hit on most of the major misconceptions in your comment. First, I want to say I have absolutely no objection to medical treatments that work, such as knee replacements, and many other types of surgery. I object to the ones that do not work, or seldom work, and yet are advertised as life-saving.
"I don't think you could argue with a straight face that people with hypertension and/or diabetes shouldn't be treated with drugs "
These are almost always lifestyle diseases. They can be reversed at the early stages. In later stages people can be kept alive in an unhealthy state by drugs. Yes I am arguing this with a straight face, it is a deadly serious subject. Lifestyle diseases ought to be avoided or caught early and reversed. Avoid the drugs because most of them are not medicine, they do not heal.
"The most recent example of this is AIDs - which has pretty much gone from being a relatively short term deadly disease to a long term chronic disease."
There have been terrible misunderstandings about AIDS drugs. The claims that are made for them are based on the most flimsy evidence, often on no evidence at all. Whether they help patients at all is debatable. But even if they do sometimes help some patients, they are toxic and cause more harm than good. This is hysterically denied by mainstream medicine and the drug companies. Partly because they have invested so much in these drugs and they desperately want to believe their own deceptions. I have studied this subject very carefully.
"most people in most demographic groups now have longer life expectancies than they did 30-40 years ago"
I have not seen any evidence for that. And small increases can be accounted for by things like decreased cigarette smoking. I know that you can't provide evidence that new medical treatments are responsible, because even mainstream MDs admit they are not.
"And then there are cancer drugs"
Cancer treatment is very controversial. You obviously have heard only one side of all these stories. Many mainstream medical researchers concede that cancer treatments are often ineffective and that any real understanding of cancer is as far off as ever. There is a claim that cancer cure rates are improving, but that could be mostly an illusion caused by earlier detection.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
