Should Medicare (Taxpayers) pay for my 81 year old Mother inlaw's $100,000 Heart Surgery? (health care system, solution)

[Kele]

If we are now going to determine whether or not a person deserves to live based upon our own preconceived notions of quality of life--i.e.; whether or not they should receive medical assistance from the very taxpayer funded programs that they likely paid into all of their lives, then those programs should be discontinued--from Medicaid and Medicare to Social Security.

Why should we be forced to pay into a system which will then determine whether or not our lives are worth living based upon their own prejudices and an eye for the bottom line? Or as in the case of Social Security--likely to be bankrupt by the time we are entitled to receive our hard earned dollars back?

Ridiculous.

I'm glad I'm not related to the OP. Talk about cold-blooded.....

[Refugee56]

Is there any examples from other countries that are facing the same issues?

[jtur88]

The future difficulty if our health care system lies not with Who signs the check, but What people are entitled to expect. Americans believe now that every person has, as a birthright, a long life without discomfort, regardless of the cost. That is not possible to realize. The cost will catch up as the expectations rise.

I would propose the following solution. Every person receives at birth, a fixed money account for their lifetime to be drawn on to pay for health care. Any person is free to go to the private sector and buy supplemental health insurance to pay for whatever eceeds the basic free coverage, or this can be added by an employer plan. The basic universal allowance per person, in today's dollars, might be something like $100,000, which would cover incidental fees, tests, etc., and maybe a couple of common surgeries. A llittle over $1,000 a year, which that amount of tax would offset. To keep from overusing his allowance, a person can price-shop for care, or use any other cost-cutting devices. As a result, there would be absolutely no-one who is denied basic care. But high-quality care for even catastrophic events is still readily available to those willing to pay, which would not cost taxpayers anything.

[The Dissenter]

Originally Posted by Refugee56

My 81 year old Mother in Law just got some very expensive Heart Surgery. Because of her age and financial situation, it was all paid for by the taxpayers. She is a nice enough woman but not really much of a value to society anymore. She never worked and basically just sits in a chair all day, eats and watches television. She is about 300 pounds.

Maybe in the very near future our society will determine that our taxpayers can not afford to offer this life saving medical care to people like her. As the number of expensive tests continue to grow, prescription drugs get more expensive and expensive life saving technology is used to keep people going for years, we just will not be able to afford to keep 81 year old retired people like my Mother In Law alive.

When will this happen and how will it be done ethically, morally, and politically?

Personally, i think it is time for charities to take the role the govt has been paying for helping its citizens. I think that govt spending should be used as a LAST resort for your in-law's surgery. America is a pretty generous country in terms of charitiable giving, it is time for charities to step up and relieve our government.

[bily4]

Take your mother to Mexico or India. Only 5k or 10k there for heart surgery.

Or take her behind the barn and shoot her. Then pay for a cremation. Generally much less expensive then a traditional coffin.

Or you could just try to build a really big hole in your back yard.

Just be sure to make it deep enough and dig it at night.

[KantLockeMeIn]

Originally Posted by Alanboy395

Personally, i think it is time for charities to take the role the govt has been paying for helping its citizens. I think that govt spending should be used as a LAST resort for your in-law's surgery. America is a pretty generous country in terms of charitiable giving, it is time for charities to step up and relieve our government.

I agree that charities need to fill the void rather than government, and we can do so by giving tax credits for charitable donations up to a certain percentage of your tax burden... AND make donation of time within your profession a tax deduction (A doctor spending 6 hours pro-bono on medical work, or a lawyer spending 6 hours pro-bono on litigation, or a carpenter spending 6 hours doing Habitat for Humanity, etc).

BUT... this really has no impact on this discussion. Given a limited amount of resources, you have to ration what is available. At some point a line will be drawn and those behind the line will not get services because there aren't enough to go around.

Doctors make decisions like these every day. Your chances of getting a liver as an alcoholic are pretty low... just as your chances of getting some surgeries being morbidly obese are lower as well.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Refugee56

In ten or twenty years will someone like my Mother in Law have her $100,000 Surgery paid for by the tax payers?

If there's national "health insurance" the answer is "yes." The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution provides for equal treatment under the laws.

[01Snake]

Too bad she's not an illegal.


YouTube - Testimony of illegal alien care from 1 Florida hospital

[texdav]

I thnik if we had national healthcare she would have died on a waiting list.With what the governamnt pays on so many operations 'I have no trouble saying yes because she has coverage under medicare.If you want to decide who gets care by what they do;I believe that many felons and other offenders will be on the treatmant list way below her. I hate to think were unwed mother living completely offf welfare will be on your list or even the long term unemployed.

[freefall]

Better than spending 12 billion a month to blow up Iraqis?