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.
You are naive if you think there will not be any bean counters deciding when certain medical procedures will be denied, based on the age of the person seeking care, and the costs involved.
They will use cold hard statistics, were no thought will be given to the spirit of the 80 year old grandmother seeking a pacemaker. They will let statistics compare the age of the applicant to a comparative cost savings analysis, and deny the procedure. Granny will be seen as too old, past her statistical life expectancy, and the cost of installing a pacemaker someone who may only live a year or two longer is just too much of a financial burden on our taxpayer funded health care system.
This 60 Minutes piece is fascinating.
The budget of over 50 billion dollars in the last two months of life is insane.
That's more than the budgets of the Dept. of Education and the Department of Homeland Security!
Constantly treating the underlying conditions of a terminal disease is the problem.
Your entire argument is not based on the fact that the 93 year old grandfather had a pacemaker put in while he has terminal cancer. (Just in case, he has a heart problem).
You are naive if you think there will not be any bean counters deciding when certain medical procedures will be denied, based on the age of the person seeking care, and the costs involved.
What is your proposal to prevent this, though? Are you willing to accept higher levels of taxation to finance the associated costs of keeping everyone alive at all costs as long as possible? If your solution is private insurance, you'd have to accept that the costs would be offset by much higher premiums on everyone else. Which is basically taxation anyway. If not one of those two approaches, then what is your plan? An honest question.
Because they didn't want to make a living will because they didn't choose to die easily. That's why. Living wills have been around for a while. What this is about is to "handle" those people who didn't want to make one. Now the government will do it for you whether or not you wanted to have the plug pulled.
Obviously you didn't watch the piece otherwise you would know that multiple studies have shown that the majority of patients and family members in this end of life stage are not aware or made aware of the end of life care options that are available, including living wills and home hospice care.
That's what 'end of life counseling IS' but instead a bunch of propaganda people with an agenda have now wrapped them up into this 'death panels'
nonsense.
I am so surprised, though I should not be, of those who believe in an afterlife and think they will be saved of being are so scared to die that they would rather live in pain or in a daze than meet their maker. The lady in the article who explained how many tests her dying mother went through is also to blame. She should have put her foot down and said no. Of course the hospitals want lots of tests - they make money but that is the American corporate way.
There are already "Living Wills" so we don't need this propaganda to justify the death panels. This is more euthanasia, it will be the government who decides because people already have the right to decide and do when they create their living wills.
What an utterly ridiculous statement. That people would..... Oh, wait a minute, many of the posters here post these idiocies, just go get response. I guess I got caught! Some other too, it seems.
Granny doesn't need Uncle Sam tapping her on the shoulder every 5 years to remind her she's old and should be thinking about end of life. My grandma knows what's best for her.
WTF is this WE business. We are not a collective. Your resources are not tied to me. Take your WE out of MINE.
So, you would pull the plug then? Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what people want, because one day they oppose HC bills, and the next they say medicare funds should be used to the max.
Granny doesn't need Uncle Sam tapping her on the shoulder every 5 years to remind her she's old and should be thinking about end of life. My grandma knows what's best for her.
That's the point. Now we use medicare funds to prolong their lives even when that is not what they want.
So, you would pull the plug then? Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what people want, because one day they oppose HC bills, and the next they say medicare funds should be used to the max.
I admit I read the original post from the bottom up and got stuck at that collectivism comment. In light of medicare, I may have worded it differently.
To answer, I think in cases with catastrophic illnesses, you should be able to write it off (taxes). I believe that family members who help with the medical bills should be able to write off the expense as well.
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.
Get Your Hand Out of My Pocket
