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 the idea of not wanting to be a burden to the young, healthy people around me that have their whole lives in front of them, should my health fail in a big way. IMO, that's a very reasonable and caring attitude. Let those who are able to live life to its fullest live their lives without being burdened by an infirm neck violin that is near death regardless of whether the 100,000 dollars was wasted or not.
Bingo! I see we're in agreement on that. Some people die gracefully when it's their time. Others insist on wasting everyone's money and time and end up suffering miserably for all that, a burden to their loved ones.
Bingo! I see we're in agreement on that. Some people die gracefully when it's their time. Others insist on wasting everyone's money and time and end up suffering miserably for all that, a burden to their loved ones.
They insist exactly how...write their congressman? Threaten to remove the kids from the will? How exactly is it they go about this "insisting"?
So now it's guilting the elderly to resort to the 13th century practice of taking a walk in the blizzard when they can't chew their food any more. That's your answer to the failure to think of universal healthcare as a moral and ethical imperative? Brother!
Not necessarily true. MIL died at 86 of colon cancer. FIL died at 89 of prostate cancer. Doctors were up front about everything and we all knew the prognosis was grim. The doctors didn't push for this, that, and every other kind of treatment, cost be damned. In fact, they strongly advised against it.
It's a quality of life issue. Some people consider that very carefully.
In laws, well, not nearly in the same ball park as wife or child.
And over 80/85, a whole different and much easier ball game.
Bingo! I see we're in agreement on that. Some people die gracefully when it's their time. Others insist on wasting everyone's money and time and end up suffering miserably for all that, a burden to their loved ones.
Proof again that you have not been there!
Time and again it is the family that tends to move toward too aggressive therapy or futile life prolongation. Most folks over about 85 these days do not want to go there.
They insist exactly how...write their congressman? Threaten to remove the kids from the will? How exactly is it they go about this "insisting"?
They insist by burdening everyone in their "risk pool" (aka, modern legalized gambling scheme). Average Joe pays into the "kitty" all his life, trips over a cement crack one day, smacks his head, and dies instantly. No cost to the pool--hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted by Average Joe with no compensation. Average Jane gets some terminal illness and modern medicine extends her life by six months (in misery and bedridden the whole time) at an expense of 2.7 million dollars from the "kitty," the overwhelming majority of which she did not pay into the "kitty." You leftists always prattle on about equity and fairness. Sound fair to you? It doesn't to me either. Yet you are quite content to continue with that particular gambling scheme, or, worse yet, another gambling scheme in which half of the gamblers don't pay a dime to play.
I've seen such a scenario play out three times in my family. Painful, debilitating terminal illnesses prolonged with the ultimate outcome unchanged. Six months, a year, two years of needless suffering and a horrible quality of life. On top of that, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent (from the "kitty") in order to prolong this suffering. It makes me very mad even thinking of it. And it was not family who made this choice or the dying person, it was the "system." If you think that is a-okay, then that is your prerogative, but from my perspective and the perspective of caring family members, it is downright cruel and barbaric. Your little rant about pushing grandma out into the snow would have been less cruel. So having seen it play out three times, should a similar situation come up for me personally, it will not end that way. It will not end with prolonged suffering. It will not end with heartbroken family members. And it will not end with a financial burden upon everyone in order to prolong the suffering which only extends the ultimate outcome. Either way, family members are going to be saddened. Better that they be saddened without the prolonged suffering, the strain on their lives, and the strain on everyone's (including the family's) purse strings.
NORAD includes Canada. Both countries work together and Canada does it's fair share.
Billons more will be spent in the coming years, according to our current government. The US really doesn't shield the rest of the world. I know that's what American's want to believe since your military spending is out of control. The truth is , the US defends it's interests overseas.
EDIT: It is also impossible for Canada with such a small population, to have a massive military. That's why NATO and NORAD are important.
I am well aware of NORAD, having served many years ago with the U.S. Fifth Infantry Division at Fort Carson, whose mission was to defend NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs. I was certainly not putting Canada down -- Canada is America's faithful ally and a good friend. I was trying to make the point that because Canada falls under the US defense umbrella, less of its budget has to go for defense, and more can be devoted to social programs. I only wish that the US would join the rest of the developed world in providing dignified, affordable health care for all of its citizens.
They insist exactly how...write their congressman? Threaten to remove the kids from the will? How exactly is it they go about this "insisting"?
When they demand to have every possible treatment, cost be damned.
Quote:
So now it's guilting the elderly to resort to the 13th century practice of taking a walk in the blizzard when they can't chew their food any more. That's your answer to the failure to think of universal healthcare as a moral and ethical imperative? Brother!
Why wouldn't they be making that selfless choice on their own? How utterly selfish does one have to be to bankrupt their own family and create a burden for everyone else just to have a few more months or so of (a poor quality of life by that time) existence?
I just explained how I've been there. I was actively involved in the decision-making process when my in-laws had cancer, as my husband had the medical power of attorney for each and was the executor of their estates.
I just explained how I've been there. I was actively involved in the decision-making process when my in-laws had cancer, as my husband had the medical power of attorney for each and was the executor of their estates.
You did. And as I explained there are typically major differences when it involves your own spouse or child, or when the terminal patient is young.
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.
