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.
The healthcare system in our country is big business, if we restrict the age when care can be provided then this business will take a huge loss. God forbid if we find a cure for cancer, diabetes and other diseases, the drug companies will go broke.
So how do we fix the medicare problem? Do we start to restrict access to care based on age, health or long term need. Just like everything else in this society, we'll just throw it away and forget about it. We can round up everyone over the age of 70 and send them to extermination camps, anyone over 65 who gets sick, oh well, good luck on your recovery. Infants that are born with health defects, they're going to become a burden on society anyway, so let's just restrict healthcare for them also.
This would be a very sad world to live in, one would be better off dead.
Okay, and how would it be different if it was for all?
It wouldn't. The ratios would be the same for the most part. Five percent of the whole population would still use the vast majority of the allocated funds and 1/3 of that population would use the largest proportion amongst them.
The risks and costs would then be spread out over a much larger population, always good when it comes to insurance. Of course the relatively young and healthy may pay a bit more in this system, but they will eventually get old...
And, then, you have states resisting right-to-die laws, and people prosecuted for assisted suicide. I am neither for nor against assisted suicide, which I consider a personal choice. Personally, I think right-to-die an extremely morbid subject, although I know people very active in that movement who keep sending me newsletters which I throw away without reading.
I think 67 is too young to be denying hip/knee replacements, pacemakers, etc. From my observation, many older people do very well until their mid-80s. I do think after 85 or 88, depending on the overall health of the individual, no major surgery should be paid for by the government such as that 96 y/o example cited earlier. Clearly the doctor only wanted his fee. No one in their right mind, not doctor or patient, should consider major surgery at that age.
My uncle had a pacemaker installed at age 89 and was dead the next year. At that time, I thought the entire effort pointless, as was proved shortly thereafter.
End of life care, my aunt was in a nursing home for 2.5 years, died at age 90, her husband was on his feet to the end - even after the pacemaker was installed, but eight months later entire body shut down and he died in hospital after a few days at age 91.
Not everyone lingers and costs multi-hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many die in their sleep. Many just keel over.
At my age - 71 - can't say I would be particularly anxious to undergo major surgery, rehab, whatever. I don't have the energy for it. Fortunately, my health right now is perfect, take no medication, eat well, exercise sensibly - I've always practiced prevention when it comes to my health. Too bad more don't.
I do think poor health practices should not be rewarded and people should be forewarned. Obesity, alcoholism, smoking, drug abuse - there's a limit to what society should pay when people ignore common sense.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 07-23-2013 at 06:54 PM..
The risks and costs would then be spread out over a much larger population, always good when it comes to insurance. Of course the relatively young and healthy may pay a bit more in this system, but they will eventually get old...
Okay, I can agree with that. But healthy people aren't going to keep voting for the "we'll pay more, but the more has no limit" politicians. Self interest will say no to that every step of the way.
That was my point in the first place. In a UHC system limits and tough decisions have to be made.
Good for them, but they cost too much to keep alive after that age. It's just the economic reality. Why should we ask young people to pay for them? Maybe an exception could be made for people still working on the condition that the care would return them to work. Otherwise, there is no economic sense in spending the kind of money we do simply to prolong the lives of unproductive people.
so that obamacare can avoid being an abysmal failure?
Okay, I can agree with that. But healthy people aren't going to keep voting for the "we'll pay more, but the more has no limit" politicians. Self interest will say no to that every step of the way.
That was my point in the first place. In a UHC system limits and tough decisions have to be made.
Our enormous future HC expenses will require huge amounts of newly created money. There can be no other sensible and humane way. The people will first have to decide how much tax they are willing to pay in to offset this new money. And then decide how much real wealth they are willing to transfer to the elderly. Because that is the real core of the nut, not the money itself.
Many people with Downs Syndrome...... who are never going to be productive..... have heart problems that require heart surgery to stay alive. What about them? What if they get cancer? Should they just get palliative care?
They are a bigger drain on society than a 68 year old who could live independently for many years after heart surgery......without expensive, special care.
What I am driving at, is that heart surgery, etc. shouldn't be tied to an arbitrary age or productivity.....but more on the likelihood of a successful outcome. And that is something that can only be determined on a case by case basis.
There is no successful outcome in keeping an old codger around for a few more years following heart surgery. He is not going to get a job, he is taking out more than he is paying in to the treasury. He is simply a burden on society.
We can't have it all unless we are will to pay at least double the taxes we now pay. We could get rid of defense and mind our own affairs and that would help, but eventually we have to face the fact that to balance our books, without large tax increases, the boomers need to go with as little expense as is possible.
[ He is not going to get a job, he is taking out more than he is paying in to the treasury. He is simply a burden on society.
Hell, that describes millions of people; including many that Obamacare was created for. $500 billion would be back in Medicare's coffers if not for the creating of Obamacare you know.
AGE is not the only factor that makes people a burden on society.
I haven't read one single post. I've heard this over and over. All that means is that people are sicker in their final year of life.
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.
are you advocating this
