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.
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.
So are disabled people of any age, including children....who will be a burden on society for as long as they live.
Why should we go the extra mile for them and not a 68 year old?
If you are not going to save the elderly because they are "burdens on society"..... then why save young "burdens on society" who could be around for another 40-50 years? Never working, never contributing....only taking? Does that make economic sense?
If you are going to use "burden on society" as a yard stick.....then that should include ALL "burdens on society".....not just the elderly.
So are disabled people of any age, including children....who will be a burden on society for as long as they live.
Why should we go the extra mile for them and not a 68 year old?
If you are not going to save the elderly because they are "burdens on society"..... then why save young "burdens on society" who could be around for another 40-50 years? Never working, never contributing....only taking? Does that make economic sense?
If you are going to use "burden on society" as a yard stick.....then that should include ALL "burdens on society".....not just the elderly.
We need to have compassion as a society, I think. The elderly are not helpless, just old and sick. Old people had their life. There is a time to die and it ought not cost the rest of us a fortune in the process. And, the numbers of youthful "burdens" are very small. There is no need to fix a problem we don't have. The problem is the elderly and our cost cutting has to come at their expense.
How do other nations handle it? Most civilized countries spend less on medical and have higher life expectancy.
Those comparisons need to be looked at like for like. Currently, they're not. The US looks at infant mortality differently than those other "civilized countries." The US looks at nearly every medical tragedy differently that other "civilized countries."
Definition and measurement
Life expectancy is defined as the average number of years that a person could expect to live if he or she experienced the age-specific mortality rates prevalent in a given country in a particular year. It does not include the effect of any future decline in age-specific mortality rates. Each country calculates its life expec- tancy according to somewhat varying methodologies. These methodological differences can affect the exact comparability of reported estimates, as different methods can change a country’s measure of life expectancy slightly.
Wow! Wow! Wow!!! Somebody really hates old people! Gee, once you turn 67 your worthless? Wow! My mom is 82 and had a stroke last year. Thanks to a hospital and rehab stay she is doing fine now. My dad is 81 and has dementia and parkinsons. He still wants to live and though he has his moments of pain due to falls he is still a human being who has the same feelings and wants as he had before age 67. Even though I'm only 45 I guess I'm worthless as well since I had a heart attack this year in which the dye to place the stents destroyed my kidneys. Now it's hard to work due to scheduling in which I am on dialysis 3 days a week. Should I get pulled off that as well. After all, I'm a burden on society just like all these old people! (sarcasm) Wow!
What really scares me is there are these people that truly believe things like this should be rationed. Wow! Wonder what their thoughts will be when they have loved ones that reach that age? When they reach that age? Personally, when I turn 67 I still plan on many more years. I may be on my second or third transplant but I still plan on being around. Or do these people want to limit numbers of transplants as well.Wow!
First you ration by age, what's next, by usefullness, contribution to the greater good?
I do think we can allow those that want to end this experience, a dignified way out. Let the patient decide, if they are able.
Ever heard of the term Legal 2000? I work in a nursing home, and if you so much as say, no matter what your age: I want to die! I want to kill myself! you can be hurtled off to a Psych Ward, via the staff psychiatrist, to knock some sense into you!
I'm forever informing/warning my elderly patients about the concept of Legal 2000!
We need to have compassion as a society, I think. The elderly are not helpless, just old and sick. Old people had their life. There is a time to die and it ought not cost the rest of us a fortune in the process. And, the numbers of youthful "burdens" are very small. There is no need to fix a problem we don't have. The problem is the elderly and our cost cutting has to come at their expense.
Luckily most elderly know when they are nearly done and few ask for enormously expensive and technical medical procedures completely out of line with their end of life wishes and prognosis. This is why Living Wills are so important. Because it is not so unusual for family members and care givers to make demands for unreasonable medical services. As a practicing internist for almost 40 years, elderly patients under my direct care very rarely have received nonsensical and outrageously complicated terminal care. In fact offhand I can only remember 2 such cases. Now when my patients somehow leave my care as their primary physician, a lot more seems to happen. Either when they are in other towns, or when somehow another local doc has them in the hospital without my knowledge. I think that end of lie care is best overseen by the primary care doc. Both in terms of what's best for the patient, and in saving society's money.
It's insane to think of 67 as "too old to fix". My gosh, that's the retirement age for most of us! Even the Bible talks about "3 score and 10", e.g. 70.
I am not advocating denying care, just limiting it after a certain age. Old (over 67) people could still get their flu shots and such, but once they have that stroke or heart attack or cancer, economic reality demands that we let nature take its course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
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.
My Dad is 85 and been fighting cancer for 20 years. That's 20 years I've had my Dad, 20 years my mother has had her husband, and 20 years the kids have had a Grandpa. So **** off calling him a burden.
The money of death. We have made so very little progress in assisted death/euthanasia. There is so much money to be made. We need to change that. We torture our patients by extending their life and suffering.
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.
