We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Not intending to go full Godwin, but the Nazis had lots of bioethicists, didn't they? And Margaret Sanger too. When ethicists, or people in the medical fields in general, begin thinking about "the greater good" instead of individuals, our culture is in trouble.
From the utilitarian, practical standpoint of the State, the economically-unproductive or parastic should go away. Maybe we should ban bioethicists due to their lack of souls.
This is what a socialized health care system requires. The cost of caring for the older people will bankrupt a government "free stuff" program. However when you die they will tax your estate because free stuff ain't free don'tcha know.
I have already witnessed a nurse in a Seattle VA hospital decide that a patient should not receive further treatment for skin cancer. He was asking for treatment and wanted to "continue the fight" the nurse--no doctor present--comitted him to hospice and he died 10 days later. Before he was committed and two days after he had been out to dinner the patient told me he was asking for treatment to combat the disease but was told "no".
Nice-eh? Those fem/nazis are so damn moral don't you think?
He should have been in charge of the decision, not the nurse, but really--if he died 10 days later it wasn't because there were treatments available that were being withheld from him. It almost certainly was a case of a nurse recognizing that further treatments were entirely futile for someone of any age, rather than a "push Gramps out on the ice floe" kind of thing.
It's pretty horrifying to see people continuing to torture themselves with cancer "treatments" days before their inevitable deaths. Do they really not know? Are they that deep in denial, or has someone been feeding them wildly unrealistic ideas?
They try to hide it, but as usual it's about the Benjamins.
Peter Van Doren: Well, age. Age is certainly an indicator. I’ll give you some numbers. The per capita expenditures vary predictably by age. These are 2012 numbers. [00:15:00] Less than 19 years of age, the average is 3,550 a year. Between 19 and 44, it’s 4,458 a year. Between 45 and 64, it’s 9,500 more or less. From 65 to 84, it’s almost $17,000 per capita. Above age 84, it’s $32,400 a year. Healthcare expenditures rise predictably with age. They also [00:15:30] increase with what I call high cost conditions, cancer, diabetes etc. etc. the usual horribles.
That S.O.B. Ezekiel Emmanuel, the father of Obamacare, thinks 75 years is enough for most of us---him, not so much. Why are we insane enough to put our health and welfare at the mercy of utilitarian policies?
Of course your point is true. The question is who decides? In my state we have a state health insurance for poor people and they do indeed ration care. But at the same time they provide healthcare to illegal aliens. So now we have a situation where they tax the citizens under the guise of providing needed care but they then deny citizens that care but give it to people who never paid into the system. How is that in any way fair? This is exactly the kind of thing that we can expect from any socialized health care.
I have a friend who underwent a quadruple bypass when he was 51. Same age as me at the time. I was concerned that I was going to see him die right in front of me. Now, 23 years later he is doing fine. So who is to say that older people should not get expensive surgery?
My wife's grandfather was told he needed a quadruple bypass or he would die. He was 82, living in a country with socialized health care and they wouldn't perform the operation to save money. So sure enough he died two years later. He was a healthy robust man and probably with the operation he could have lived a much longer life. How is that fair? He paid his taxes for decades and when he needed it the most his country let him down.
A lady that my wife worked with had a new baby with heart troubles. The child had to undergo numerous surgeries and treatments and still passed away after four years. So where was the money better spent and saved? Should my wife's grandfather been given the bypass and this baby provided with no health care because it was going to be wasted expense? Who is to say? More importantly who knows the future well enough to make these decisions?
This is why, for me, it's so important to pay for my own healthcare. If someone else is paying for it, then of course their priorities are going to figure prominently in the decision whether the cost is worth the benefit.
Do you remember when all the talk was about living longer and healthier lives, 50 is the new 40 etc. Then obamacare came along. I kinda remember something about death panels being said. Let's see who was it that mentioned that and how much sh#t did she take.