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.
"Seriously, who's stopping you? How hard would it be to end your life if that was your choice? As for health care, I would think it to be an idea of "betterment" or general welfare. What's the use of improving society while leaving the unfortunate behind?"
You seemed to have inferred that anyone, including me, who wants to end their life can do so. You are correct. My issue, not imagined at all, is why should anyone have to end their own life in a brutal manner or possibly not taking enough of some drug? In my opinion, they should not. If medical people can keep someone alive who does not want that for themselves, then that patient ought to be able to have it ended on their terms. DNRs are not always honored. Most people don't have DNRs since they all believe that nothing will happen to them ever. They believe they will die in their sleep at a ripe, but healthy old age. Guy in my neighborhood fell several months ago. Hit something on the way down, broke his neck. Paralyzed from shoulders down. 61 years old. He cannot end his own life unless he deliberately swallows something or chews up his own tongue. In my opinion, he ought to be able to tell his doctors to end his life cleanly and with dignity. He could stop taking nourishment provided people would cooperate with him but typically they do not. He should not have to fight for the right to be euthanized. If he wants to live in his condition, fine. He ought to have a choice.
And yes, of course, I do support my opinions. That is what this forum is all about seems to me. But for sure, I am not imagining the reign of terror that hospitals and doctors inflict on desperate people either out of fear of lawyers but more likely on making lots of money off of desperate people. Cash is king everywhere.
You're getting off track here Ollie. I merely said that I thought you were being a bit dramatic, and that there are easy, non violent ways of ending your life. And it's not that hard to find out how and with what. I know that if the time comes for me, I have a way and a means.
But another aspect to the question seems to also be personal responsibility. Does society owe unlimited healthcare to a smoker? A drug user? Someone who is disinterested in safe-sex? Someone who drinks and drives and brings harm to themselves and unfortunately others. What about a gang member who is involved in a shoot out and winds up in some ER on the taxpayer's nickel. I recall years back where one of the national magazines ran an article on a gang member who cost the citizens of LA and CA over a million dollars in medical care to tend to his wounds. Really? Is this meant to be a right? Is that what people want?
If you're sick and in pain but can't afford either the treatment or the medications, you're not going to give a damn about what gang members and smokers are doing. Trust me on that. This is precisely why this kind of debate is a privilege for the healthy and wealthy. They're the ones who can sit above it all and philosophize about such things, but when you're up until 4am punching pillows with your fists because of how terribly it hurts, you're just not going to care about anything else other than making the pain stop.
BUT ... once you start making exceptions, the lid to Pandora's box comes flying off. Where do we stop? How do we stop? If we can start denying people treatment because of a lifestyle choice, then we're back to square one. At what point will health care gain access to your shopping information via those "bonus cards" supermarkets give out. Will we be denied treatment if we ate too much bacon? What if we didn't exercise enough? What if we have a dangerous job like a cop or big rig driver? What if our parents were smokers and we breathed in second-hand smoke for 18 years? What if you work a high-stress job that causes medical issues? What if you get too many speeding tickets? What if you enjoy things like bunjie jumping and skydiving? And how far back do we go ... do we refuse someone treatment because they drank too much 15 years ago?
This is a major problem when adding a load of exceptions to health care because if the system can find a crack through which it can avoid paying out for someone's treatment, they will do it. This reminds me of the person who was denied cancer treatment because, on his insurance application, he failed to list acne as a pre-existing condition - even though he had it as a teen (like every other teen). If there's a loophole out of paying out, they'll search for it indefinitely, and that's what we don't need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie1946
Is it a right for anyone to be treated at MD Anderson, Sloan Kettering, Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Boston Women's, or one of the other world class, top of the line medical centers? Is that what you want? I think some of those I listed do not accept any Medicare payments or Medicaid. Should they be forced to treat anyone who comes to through their door?
Why not? It'll be first come, first serve, and if people want to wait around to get into the top-notch facilities, then they'll just have to wait. What I really don't like is that people always want something BETTER than what someone else has, and universal health care levels the playing field way too much for some folks. If they can't brag about going to the Mayo Clinic or paying $500 per hour for therapy, then hey, what's the point? Where you go for health care shouldn't be a status symbol, but the rich are playing that game and will want to keep playing it. Naturally the big places won't accept Medicare or Medicaid because they want to keep the poor people out, and we just don't need that attitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie1946
Some compare the US to other countries which is a faulty comparison. The USA is far more populated, diverse, and is a gun culture and violence prone. DUI is a lifestyle here. Domestic violence is part of the daily scene in many homes. WE are a want it now culture.
American cancer is the same as British cancer. American diabetes is the same as Japanese diabetes. American Parkinson's Disease is the same as Swedish Parkinson's Disease. How is that a faulty comparison? Should we really have to die or have a miserable quality of life because we live in the richest nation on earth, but we would rather out-spend the next 19 nations combined on defense than spend a dime on your neighbor's appendicitis surgery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie1946
Other places with universal coverage have waiting lists and yes they do deny treatment of some people. Check it out. The UK does that now.
That's largely a myth spread around by the staunch capitalists who want health care to be a luxury. In some places, cosmetic and elective surgery might come with a wait time, but it's not like you're going to be writhing on the floor for three weeks waiting for a doctor to perform a life-saving operation.
The UK has a conservative Prime Minister who is chipping away at their NHS because corporatists across the pond are looking greedily and covetously upon the $400,000 per year some specialists make as well as the starry-eyed dream of being on the start-up squad of brand new British health insurance companies. It's greed, nothing more. Unfortunately, the Brit government is picking up some of our bad habits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie1946
I'm guessing the others do as well at some level. Not here, we put you in ICU or operate on you no matter what your age. It is nuts! I think Americans fear dying more than any other culture. The "right to life" and the "pursuit of happiness" never meant the right to eternal life and the eternal pursuit of happiness. Recall former governor of CO Richard Lamb who once said "the old people have a duty to die".
Right ... and yet we have outlawed euthenasia.
It's not about the fear of death, it's about a certain level of cruelty - to stand by and deliberately withhold help from people who need it and some who will beg for it. Could you really stand there and look a person in the eye and deny them help when you have the power to help them? I'm guessing probably not since I'm going to assume you are a compassionate and moral person. Don't get me wrong, though, I understand your point about people in their late 80's and 90's having surgeries that they're likely not going to survive anyway or having complex cancer surgeries to give them an extra few months or a year when something else is liable to kill them before then anyhow.
But putting the decision in the hands of Man is the equivalent of handing these folks a state-sanctioned death sentence for the crime of getting old. I just have issues with the morality of DECIDING that person A gets to live and person B must die.
A recent Bloomberg (BLOOMBERG!!!) study ranks the United States at 46th overall, which puts us behind many Central and South American countries and a surprising number of Middle Eastern and Asian countries. We're even behind countries like Slovakia, China and Iran.
Even worse, the Bloomberg study reveals shows that, while our per-capita health care cost is the second highest in the world, our outcomes are among the worst. Only tiny, 9th-ranked Switzerland's per-capita health care cost is higher, but they're clearly getting world-class ("Top 10") health care for their money.
I'm no fan of the insurance industry, or the present US style health care system. HOWEVER, I find these comparisons somewhat bogus. Even the Brits and Canadians feel the infant mortality stats that some countries post to be deceptive; I think a lot of these stats are deceptive as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes
At this time of year, it seems particularly appropriate to remember the words of two of the most memorable Christmas personages in western literature. These words seem to characterize this particular debate rather well:
"... then let him die, and decrease the surplus population!" -- Ebeneezer Scrooge
"Business? Mankind was my business! The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, benevolence, were all my business!" -- Jacob Marley's Ghost
Wishing the very best of The Season to all here, and to all of your loved ones,
-- Nighteyes
Sorry, but Charles Dickens, who wrote the words that came out of these people's mouths, is not my guru.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie1946
Not sure what the OP means by the statement above regarding people preferring not to think. I think some good view points have been made in this particular thread. I think I've made it clear that in my opinion, the right to die in a healthcare delivery setting ought to be included.
But another aspect to the question seems to also be personal responsibility. Does society owe unlimited healthcare to a smoker? A drug user? Someone who is disinterested in safe-sex? Someone who drinks and drives and brings harm to themselves and unfortunately others. What about a gang member who is involved in a shoot out and winds up in some ER on the taxpayer's nickel. I recall years back where one of the national magazines ran an article on a gang member who cost the citizens of LA and CA over a million dollars in medical care to tend to his wounds. Really? Is this meant to be a right? Is that what people want?
Is it a right for anyone to be treated at MD Anderson, Sloan Kettering, Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Boston Women's, or one of the other world class, top of the line medical centers? Is that what you want? I think some of those I listed do not accept any Medicare payments or Medicaid. Should they be forced to treat anyone who comes to through their door?
Some compare the US to other countries which is a faulty comparison. The USA is far more populated, diverse, and is a gun culture and violence prone. DUI is a lifestyle here. Domestic violence is part of the daily scene in many homes. WE are a want it now culture. Other places with universal coverage have waiting lists and yes they do deny treatment of some people. Check it out. The UK does that now. I'm guessing the others do as well at some level. Not here, we put you in ICU or operate on you no matter what your age. It is nuts! I think Americans fear dying more than any other culture. The "right to life" and the "pursuit of happiness" never meant the right to eternal life and the eternal pursuit of happiness. Recall former governor of CO Richard Lamb who once said "the old people have a duty to die".
When you start on this "personal responsibility" thing, you can really go down the rabbit hole. In point of fact, nonsmokers do get heart and lung disease. How do you decide who is deserving of care and who isn't? Is the man/woman who quit smoking 20 years ago "entitled" to have care? What about those who quit five years ago, or two? "Safe sex"? When you have sex, you have sex with all your partner's partners. Lots of people get STDs from one-time encounters. Drug abusers, gang members can all change their ways. European countries are cracking down on DUI now, but recall that Princess Di was killed in a DUI accident. Do you think there is no domestic violence in Europe or Asia? Think again. If you think Americans have more fear of death than other cultures, please post some documentation.
Former Gov. LAMM is an idiot who knows far less about health care than he thinks he does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Right ... and yet we have outlawed euthenasia.
Some states do allow physician-assisted suicide, Washington, Oregon and Vermont.
No matter what you come up with regarding healthcare, there is going to be a Darwinian result. The wealthy will be first in line somewhere. Even Walter Reed had VIP suites whereas the regular troops were housed in condemned buildings. The Mayo Clinic and others are not going to be going all out to save someone who lives under a bridge and whose liver is "dead" because of alcohol. The business of fairness, justice, defeating greed sounds good but it will never happen despite the promises of the ACA or other fantasies.
As for responsibility and holding people accountable, laws, rules, policies are passed all the time governing outcomes based on behaviors. My son's company WILL NOT hire anyone who uses tobacco products and they check with an employment drug test. End of story. Healthcare will be the same way eventually. Family did not vaccinate their kids? No treatment for you when your kid comes down with some preventable disease. A price will be paid at some point.
The military will not take on people who are obese or even overweight. They discharge people who cannot maintain their correct weight. Outcome based on personal behavior.
The cost of healthcare and the state of the economy will ultimately dictate outcomes with healthcare. There will be rationing. I personally think "death panels" made up of physicians will come into play and should. There are already transplant protocols. Need a liver? You might not meet the protocol standards. If you are the patient or the family, it sounds patently unfair. There is no level playing field. No equal outcomes (except in T-ball). ERs use triage to determine who will get treatment and who won't. That philosophy is going to expand and prevail. People are going to die. I want the freedom to die as easily as I choose. If I am 80 and break a hip, I am quite likely to die anyway. I want pain free. If diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease, I want to die on my schedule; a time of my choosing. I will go to Europe to do it if necessary.
Anyone who deliberately practices an unhealthy life style is likely to get disappointed in the health delivery system that is coming down the road at us. It is all very nice to feel sorry for people and to declare that anything that seems unfair is based on the greed of others. It is all part of the Darwinian world view of our society. No reason to expect that will change.
I find the premise of "health is a right", plus most comments here as condescending and demeaning, nevermind esoteric and useless. What most of you are saying is "I am stupid, I can't take care of myself. When I am old, it will not be my kids, my grandkids, or my great-grandkids who will take care of me, but it will be some faceless system."
For those who idolize Europe -- Europe has been experimenting with socialism and universal healthcare only, really for 50-60 years. That's nothing in the history of state and societies.
If math was to be trusted, these societies are dying, they are rotting. Many of you come here and waive the Leninist banners, and proclaim that Socialism and Universal HC is such a novel idea. You are ignorant of human history and experience. Socialism, with its Universal HC is just another flavor of a very old and dated, 5000 years old, yet persistent system. It's called Tyranny. Marx called Dictatorship.
It is the American Constitution and society, a recent start-up of just 225 years old, which is the innovative and progressive society. A market-based healthcare was the American way. It is precisely this model that elevated our health science and technology to the top of the heap.
As far as Canadian healthcare -- before you idolize it, learn it first. Read below a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research. We Americans are considerable happier than Canadians with our healthcare. Secondly, healthcare in Canada's Universal BS is more income-gradient than US. That means that in Canada, the rich-to-poor health-gap is (gasp!) wider than in US.
Some people label this as a wealthy vs poor debate. But everything is based on class or how much money you have. The wealthy have the best shelter, modes of transportation, clothes, lifestyles, education, etc.
I'm not wealthy, but I don't begrudge them anything. Just because someone else has put themselves in a
position to afford the best, why should that upset me? More power to them. They earned it...they deserve it. It should inspire the have nots to want to better themselves. We do have free education in this country, free meals, free shelter, and free, yes free healthcare. Anyone with an injury gets care. Poor people get free vaccines, baby care, etc. They may not get the best care, like a wealthy person gets, but they get free care.
I find it interesting that people feel they are Entitled to anything. You are not born into this world entitled to anything. It's just that we have become a society that believes we are entitled because that is what politicians tell you, so you will vote them. And over the generations we have become accustomed to getting stuff for free, so now we expect it and believe it is our birthright.
That is why we have charities, friends, family. Why can't the people closest to you take care of you? Why do people believe that they have a Right that other people should take care of them? You have a right to your heart medicine, your insulin, etc. But you want other people to provide it for you and you feel that it is your right to demand that others pay for you. I believe we make our own way in this world. You make poor choices, you suffer for it. Maybe this would cause people to strive for a better life by staying in school, perusing better choices, better friends, etc. If things are handed to you, then some people won't strive for anything because all of the basic comforts are provided to them by other people.
It has become too easy to allow others to pay for us instead of family and friends taking care of their own. Having said that, I do believe we Should, not be made to, give to charities. If everyone who whines about free everything for everybody, would give a portion of their money freely to charities, and help take care of their own family and friends, their wouldn't be the need for this.
Many say "we as society must provide for this and that." Why do you conceal what you really mean? You want the Govt to do it. Otherwise, how would society do it?
Some others say -- "we as society decided". What you really mean is --"we, the majority elected politicians who wrote laws to coerce the minority to comply with our majority's will." Yet, it is still a tyranny -- the Tyranny of the Majority. It does exist.
We are built as a nation on the basis of consensus of the governed, not Majoritarian rule. We are built as a Representative Republic, not a democracy, or Majoritarian rule. The framers discussed these options at length, and settled; actually they innovated, they created, they started up a brand-new form of Governance.
"Healthcare as a right" must be debated within this framework. This is the Constitution our President swore to uphold.
Does the Constitution task the Federal Govt to provide and manage health insurance to all? Terms such as "society" are used to conceal the true intent of one group, who wants the Federal Govt to do it.
Under the current law, healthcare is not only a right, it is has actually become an obligation, a mandate, a dictate. The law says "either comply, or you will be punished".
OP's question is really out of the window. We have gone way beyond that.
I agree. We have become a people that elects politicians into office that will force others to take care of us. Instead of relying on our own initiative, family, friends, charities, etc., somewhere along the line we decided to make others pay for us. Because the phrase "government assistance" is used, it sounds less like charity and more acceptable. But who is the government? When someone is on government assistance, it is your neighbors and other hard working people taking care of you.
Women that have 4 kids or more with different fathers don't feel ashamed that other people are providing for and taking care of her and her kids. We may not be the father, but we provide for the kids but have no say in how they are raised. It is less shameful to pretend the government is some entity that has it's own money and just hands it out, then to recognize and admit that the government takes money from hard working people and gives it out to those who make poor choices and have no initiative.
It is like that video that was going around Facebook that showed a woman with 10 kids. She had nothing, but arrogantly stated that the government better start giving her money and start taking care of her kids because she was entitled to it. There were a handful of different fathers and some were in prison.
Here come the Death Panels, folks. Over 70? Sick? Go climb on an ice floe and drift out to sea - out of our range of vision so we don't have to watch.
I was on the cusp of 70 when my aortic valve malfunctioned. I was surgerized and in six weeks, I was driving, auditioning, and played the role I had coveted for almost 15 years. Add to that, cooking, cleaning, shopping, mowing my lawn, babysitting grandchildren. Meaningful life, wouldn't you say?
Fast forward to age 74, when a cancer invaded my colon, and once again I was surgerized to remove the tumor and a big hunk of my digestive system. After six months of chemo, I was once again on the stage and living the life I had lived prior to the Invasion of my gut. It will be five years next month since that event and I'm still doing all the same stuff.
I can't say that I'd be too anxious to have another major surgery, but since my doctors all know me well, they know what level of after-care would be intolerable to me.
For all the crying about having to pay for health insurance to subsidize other people, don't you think you've been doing that? Medicaid, (or Medical Assistance) requires a portion of your taxes to fund it.
Medicare, which I have and for which I have paid during my working life and continue to pay every month is my right, since while I worked, I helped subsidize those who were already retired and needed health care.
Private insurance is costly, and the days of employer-provided policies are pretty much gone the way of the Do-Do, unless you have a strong union contract.
The recently-enacted health care plan was rushed so as to give President Obama some legacy to mark his tenure in office. Since we already had Medicare for the elderly, and Medicaid for the indigent, what was needed was coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. That would have been Big. (Sorry, all you folks who have to pay for your own).
As another senior with similar experiences, I agree with your post and well said. All the years I worked and paid in, I never begrudged a single senior their Medicare or Social Security. Of course, it was a big old Ponzi scheme and now the governmnent, after cleaning out the SS "Trust" Fund, wants to scale back. I want to scale back their pensions and good luck with that.....
(Mods - don't know if this should be in the health forum or not - I thought it might be a larger moral issue worth all of us discussing)
As a healthy person with money, it's clear now that I'm one of the people who will be balancing the new health care system on my back. And really if you think about it, the insurance system has always been based on the premise that healthy people will pay more in premiums than they get in services while unhealthy people will get more in services than they pay in premiums.
So, I keep thinking about what degree of health care I'm really willing to pay for other people to have.
What degree of health care is a RIGHT for EVERYONE (and thus those who can't afford the care should have it paid for by others in their society.)
I'm thinking that these are the health care services I think are a RIGHT for citizens in prosperous countries:
* Dental care.
* Vision care to maintain 20/20 in people under 70.
* Immunizations for people under 18.
* Setting broken bones.
* Diagnostic services
* Antibiotics (as long as they're really needed and not improperly prescribed.)
* All care for people injured in defense of our country.
Beyond that, I'm not sure.
Is it really someone's RIGHT to: cancer treatments, pain medications, any kind of care for people over 70, and etc.?
I can see many of you arguing that if those illnesses/problem's AREN'T treated it costs our society more money in the long run, but . . . does that make health care for those problems a RIGHT?
What degree of health care do YOU think should be a RIGHT for EVERYONE to have?
I am confused why you'd think dental care should be a right, but getting treatment for cancer may not be?
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.
