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.
I have no issue with Medicare but every time I see complaints from the elderly about possibly seeing a reduction in their health benefits while they insult those younger and working to pay for them, I think "then we need to give you the level of benefits you actually paid in".
I've taken the time here before (once for an entire day) showing how little the elderly have contributed for the amount of Medicare they are receiving and they hated it but the numbers don't lie. The elderly currently receiving health benefits paid very little in comparison to what they are getting.
I'm just curious and not arguing, but did your numbers factor in inflation over the term of their enrollment?
So you advocate healthcare availability be controlled by ones ability to pay or his net worth. For most Americans healthcare would only include the minute clinic at Walmart or what drugs can be found in isle 23 at Wally World. For these lucky people the last trip to an ER at the local hospital still having an ER the ER personnel will at least try to arrange a decent cremation or burial.
I do. Will it be "fair"? No, life isn't fair. I advocate for universal health care. Universal health care that isn't going to pay for just anything and everything.
At some point it's no longer cost effective to pay for care. In situations like that I advocate for those who can afford it, extraordinary health care insurance.
As an example. I know someone that had COPD. It got to the point that death was soon inevitable. The insurance said they would no longer cover oxygen treatments. His son happened to be a Dr and knew the facts and told him that at best even with treatment, he had maybe 2 weeks. They could have spent the money on oxygen treatments but opted not to.
I have no problem with the insurance cutting off treatment. If you had extraordinary insurance you could get that to pay for your treatments. If you are poor are you going to die a little earlier? Yes you are but having insurance during your younger years will arguably give you more years later on than what you would have without it.
I'm just curious and not arguing, but did your numbers factor in inflation over the term of their enrollment?
Yes, they included the inflation numbers. It's all out there and easy to find but I'm not going to get sucked in again. It's actually amazing how little retirees paid into Medicare for the kinds of expensive treatments they are getting now. I don't begrudge it really but when they start complaining about those younger and working and how they are leeches with the healthcare, I have to assume they are either very hypocritical or judge don't realize.
My fear is that the death panels will just start taking out any ill people over 75 or whatever age they decide is the cut off.
The won't be taken out but just left to die. Perhaps, Americans will wake up to universal healthcare when they realize the private model would make healthcare expensive for those who will really need it.
The article's, and C-D posters', jump from the UN's unbinding Sustainable Development Goals to death panels is remarkable.
It is akin to saying that you kill an old person each time you donate to the St Judes Children's Hospital.
Sustainable Development Goals:
"Under the proposed Sustainable Development Goals, UN member states will be given targets to cut the number of deaths from diseases like cancer, stroke, diabetes and dementia by one third by 2030."
The discrimination is still age related if the goals don't apply to people over 70 and as the UK paper says.
"If the target was met, around 42,000 lives would be saved each year for the under 70s. However if older people were included in the target an extra 130,000 lives would be saved."
I did notice in the re-reading it says the guidelines are not binding although the UN would take a dim view of non-compliers. I'm more concerned with the statement about UK discrimination with cancer care and surgery already happening.
For me the bottom line is, I have heart disease. I had my first heart attack at 40 due to a birth defect. I am not overweight, do not smoke, do not drink, I have a healthy diet and I exercise. I now have type 2 diabetes. I am now 64 and I am discriminated against by the medical community, but you know what, I have reached a point where I really don't care that I am. No-one lives forever and I have had a good life in spite of all the issues I have faced and am still facing. I, like YOU will die... I promise you this. In the meantime, I will continue doing the best I can with what I have and try to continue on till my time is here.
It's always disappointing to see that even genetics can't be outright beaten off when it comes to matters of diabetes treatment/health issues...But you say you went 24 years so far since that heart attack. Did you clean up your lifestyle and do you think that helped increase your longevity? Do you suffer from your heart disease in serious symptoms even now?
It's always disappointing to see that even genetics can't be outright beaten off when it comes to matters of
diabetes treatment/health issues...But you say you went 24 years so far since that heart attack. Did you clean up your lifestyle and do you think that helped increase your longevity? Do you suffer from your heart disease in serious symptoms even now?
My lifestyle was already clean and had been since my 20's. I still have issues and I am deteriorating over time. I have had a total of 4 heart attacks and I still have arterial issues. There isn't a family history of diabetes or of heart disease. My longevity I attribute to continuing hard physical labor and determination. I plan to be around at least another 20 years for the soul purpose of tormenting certain individuals on this forum..
Very healthy friend died last year at the age of 79, five weeks after a cancer diagnosis, hadn't been feeling well for a couple of months. Hospitalized for a week, then went to a rehab center, had a few chemo treatments, heart eventually failed. She was very thin. Never doctored her entire life.
As a 73 y/o, in pretty darn good shape, fortunate enough not to be a consumer of healthcare, I am not a believer in extraordinary and outrageously expensive treatments for the elderly which only prolong the inevitable - and often not very comfortably.
The article's, and C-D posters', jump from the UN's unbinding Sustainable Development Goals to death panels is remarkable.
It is akin to saying that you kill an old person each time you donate to the St Judes Children's Hospital.
Sustainable Development Goals:
"Under the proposed Sustainable Development Goals, UN member states will be given targets to cut the number of deaths from diseases like cancer, stroke, diabetes and dementia by one third by 2030."
Hmmm........who started that "throw Grandma over the cliff" stuff anyway?
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.
It's actually amazing how little retirees paid into Medicare for the kinds of expensive treatments they are getting now. I don't begrudge it really but when they start complaining about those younger and working and how they are leeches with the healthcare, I have to assume they are either very hypocritical or judge don't realize.
