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.
How about this. Eliminate all of those programs and tell people to manage their own lives. It is a win/win as people get to keep their money and invest it as they see fit rather than having a bunch of lying faux concerned people blow smoke up peoples arse about how they care when in fact that could care less.
If you are going to support a program as such and justify theft from the american people to fund these programs, then you don't get to change your mind after you have the money and tell people to get lost when they start using it.
I swear, this society is degrading into a bunch of witless morons without a shred of responsibility to the stupid mandates they support.
You mean like before Medicare and seniors couldn't get either insurance or have enough money to pay out-of-pocket?
The reality is, that unless one is rich, they aren't going to be able to accumulate enough savings to pay for medical care when they are old.
I do not think the issue is whether to care for people or not, it is more the question of what level of care makes sense.
Unfortunately this is one more area where our technological ability to do something, has outpaced our intelligence to properly use that technology.
The fact that there are conflicts of interest financially further complicates the situation.
Pharmaceutical companies and large corporate medical facilities make huge profits by prolonging the lives of people who have neither the quality of life, nor a reasonable chance of recovery.
The fact that this very expensive care is being paid for by the tax payers who are given no say in any of it, and who’s interests are not being represented by anyone further complicates the issue.
I recently read an opinion by one doctor who related the difficulty in dealing with the families of a person who was terminal. He was relating how unreasonable the families could be and how were demanding extreme measures regardless of costs.
He said it was his opinion that if these people actually had to pay for the treatment themselves or have the money taken out of the estate, they would change their tune in a hurry.
If you looked at my last post, you will see that it not only hits taxpayers but it takes the remaining assets of the elderly as well. Perhaps they would rather be able to will their savings and assets to loved ones, rather than the State prolonging the inevitable.
Then there are other conditions that are very costly to treat besides old age, such as dementia, alzheimers, and a host of chronic diseases. There could be more focus on quality of life and prevention of disease, rather than treatment after the fact. I am talking about alternative means, such as nutrition and boosting immune systems.
Personally I have made my wishes explicit to my family...I am not to be kept alive using extraordinary means if there is little to no hope of a meaningful recovery. If I'm going to be disabled for life, let me go.
I can only hope that by the time I'm old, euthanasia/assisted suicide is available. I do not want a lingering death attached to machines. It's all spelled out in a legal document. Unplug me, make me comfortable, and let nature take its course.
That's another thing, we have the means to eliminate suffering, but often don't because of the dependency of the drug, or the potential for death. I say give me as much as it takes, if my heart stops, I'm okay with that.
The topic, as I read it, isn't about terminally ill patients. It's about what happens naturally prior to an old person dying, they use a lot of medical care at the end.
wrong, nothing that happens in a hospital is natural.
You mean like before Medicare and seniors couldn't get either insurance or have enough money to pay out-of-pocket?
The reality is, that unless one is rich, they aren't going to be able to accumulate enough savings to pay for medical care when they are old.
That is true. We have to address the costs, which Obamacare doesn't touch.
We used to have longterm care insurance, which, after many years of paying into, we just couldn't afford anymore. We got nothing out of it, but the insurance company got plenty for providing nothing in return.
You mean like before Medicare and seniors couldn't get either insurance or have enough money to pay out-of-pocket?
The reality is, that unless one is rich, they aren't going to be able to accumulate enough savings to pay for medical care when they are old.
The point is, that this person is complaining about a programs drain of expense that was forced on people to pay into and now he wants to cut people off from being able to use it.
So, explain to me how having this option and not having medicare at all makes a damn difference in that case?
The topic, as I read it, isn't about terminally ill patients. It's about what happens naturally prior to an old person dying, they use a lot of medical care at the end.
I've been reading posts where people just want to kill everyone over 67.
If people are in their "final year of life" they are frequently terminally ill.
How would one determine what one's final year of life might be?
I've been reading posts where people just want to kill everyone over 67.
If people are in their "final year of life" they are frequently terminally ill.
How would one determine what one's final year of life might be?
I don't see how that matters. What needs to be figured out is how much is a human life worth? In countries with UHC a human lives are worth the funds they collect in revenue and no more than that. If the state runs out of revenue you get a special card that says "thank you for your service to the country and we hope you have a nice day (if you make it that long)."
My 92 year old father certainly deserves medical care. He's fought in three wars; saved his money and his life has value to others - if not to the poster. However, he would NOT choose to prolong his life should he have a stroke, etc at this point in time. He most certainly would deserve to be made comfortable and to die with dignity. Would he want to be kept alive for a 'few more months' IF he wasn't really 'living'? No, he wouldn't.
However, to blame him for the condition this country is in - extremely unfair. He did HIS part.
I'm not sure why you included me in your post.
Bless your dad in many ways. And how blessed you are to have had him in your life.
How sad that there are people who are so shallow, so selfish, and have no compassion for the elderly and can only see the end of their life and not the full picture of their life. I truly wonder how they can be quick to dismiss someone who loved them and took care of them from the day they were born and then to see them as not having any value and the end of their life.
There's a third option, permit people to end their lives with dignity.
Assisted suicide is a valid response to terminal illness and dementia.
Heck, I have no problem with people ending their lives because they're tired of living.
It should be their choice.
Can't have that.
They want old, sick people to die.....but they don't want them to die too easy.
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.
Can't have that.
