Posted on 12/31/2011 1:35:33 PM PST by wagglebee
Dr. Alexander K. Smith is a brave man.
It has taken physicians a very long time to accept the need to level with patients and their families when they have terminal illnesses and death is near — and we know that many times those kinds of honest, exploratory conversations still don’t take place.
Now Dr. Smith, a palliative care specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, who also practices at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and two co-authors are urging another change, one they acknowledge would “radically alter” the way health care professionals communicate with their very old patients.
In a recent article in The New England Journal of Medicine, they suggested offering to discuss “overall prognosis,” doctorspeak for probable life expectancy and the likelihood of death, with patients who don’t have terminal illnesses. The researchers favor broaching the subject with anyone who has a life expectancy of less than 10 years or has reached age 85.
(Excerpt) Read more at newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com ...
So, even though society, i.e., other premium payers, contributes to your health care costs, they get absolutely no say in monitoring those costs to make sure money is not wasted. Now THAT sounds like communism to me.
Obamacare's Palliative End of Life Optimum Serenity Initiative (PELOSI).
"Old people never seem to die, they just get in the way."
President Obama: At that age just a pill might be better than expensive cures.
Former Senate Majority Leader Democrat Tom Daschle has praised Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Former governor of Colorado Democrat Richard Lamm: Seriously ill old people have a duty to die and get out of the way.
Democrats can be gruff but honest about the problems facing Social Security and Medicare: a gizillion geezers too many! Off 'em.
My Dad used to ride ambulances in Brooklyn in the 1940s. When they went to the back bedroom in a third-floor walkup to find grandpa having a heart attack, sometimes they were asked to leave him alone, since the ride to the hospital and subsequent admission would ruin the family.
This was not a bad thing.
It is unquestionably true that Medicare pays out hundreds of millions/year that families would never, NEVER agree to if they were paying out of pocket.
What that means (i.e., what should be done)? Your opinion is no more valid that mine, or anyone else's.
Silly. We need to keep it green, dontcha know?
Food
.
Like Soylent Green.
Actually, you're advocating for putting a dollar value on a human life.
Human life cannot and should not be simply reduced to $$$$$$'s.
Advocating for a cost vs. benefit analysis puts you solidly in the pro-death, euthanasia camp.
“Now THAT sounds like communism to me.”
Then you need to read a book. (or at least something besides the NYT) Premium payers for an insurance plan do not become little commissars in a tiny collective society, that each can suddenly get a say in others treatments.
The company lives by risk assessment of it’s customers, juxtaposed against the costs of treatments the plan contracts to pay for.
Nowhere in there does it allow little Eichmanns who pay a premium to say that “yes, while the plan did agree to that,, we now deem that your quality of life does not satisfy wallop the cat”.
Your remedy is to go buy a plan that follows your pro-choice/pro-euthanasia values. Paying a premium gives you a right to argue YOUR coverage, not mine.
Then who is going to pay for it all? Yes, I’ll put a dollar amount on human life, it’s done all the time. And yes, there comes a point in someone’s treatment where it makes no more sense to continue to pay for today’s pricey procedures when the end result (death) is a foregone conclusion. Are you truly willing to pay to allow everyone the right to millions of dollars of end-of-life treatment? Do you really have that kind of dough because it will consume us as a society, especially when the Boomers start dying in droves. Every other decision, with your one exception of end of life, gets triaged? Really?
Oh boy are you going to get it now. They hate socialized medicine, but they LOVE keeping people alive till every last penny is gone.
Oh,,im with you on that what you just said. I just think it’s disingenuous for government to be “involved” even deeper, and to play at “fixing” healthcare, when every single problem in healtcare BAR NONE can be laid squarly at the feet of government.
And i know medicare won’t be repealed,, but i refuse to buy the argument that because they are here, that they should get a bigger say. That is exactly what their criminal enterprise was deliberately designed to do.
So for me,, they can pay,, AND butt out. If they don’t like to butt out and leave it to the families, then they can get out of the business.
Wallop is right. Unless you’re paying for it out of pocket, someone else ends up footing your bill.
I wouldn’t put too much credence in the “self fulfilling prophecy” kind of deal, especially when it’s not put in those terms.
A lot of medicine involves telling patients to discontinue unhealthy habits and practices. This is done by telling them the probable consequences of their actions, but it in no way is fatalistic, but acts as a warning that if heeded, may help them avoid such problems.
For many, even most people beyond the age of 70, mortality is more or less accepted, and their effort is to find a way there that is least painful and debilitating as possible. And a good way to achieve a lower stress future is to plan for it.
The trick is to get them to intelligently plan for it when they still feel reasonably good, have all their faculties, and at least to them, their demise feels a long way away.
There is an old saying that the best way to live to a ripe old age is to have a minor, chronic health problem that must be tended, and this is true. Caring for your own health is the best way to keep it.
Another trick is to avoid indulging in minor discomforts instead of dealing with them. For example, when people have a sinus infection that lasts for months, it is very debilitating. And older people must absolutely keep up their personal maintenance to have as healthy teeth as possible, and to take care of other little things before they become big things.
Having paperwork in order is a huge plus, because it gets your whole family involved in “the plan”, of how they will live when you are gone. And if you have an annual sit down to make sure everything is current and to keep everyone up to date, they are more relaxed as well, which improves everything. Yes, it may seem morbid, but only for a few seconds, until everyone starts to think.
Importantly as well, government is an enemy you can all rally against, for all sorts of reasons. You don’t want them taking your wealth away from your family, nor do you want doctors to have an excuse to pretend that your body is still alive when you are dead, so they can suck your insurance dry. Nor do you want them to kill you before your time. Nor do you want you estate circled by lawyers like vultures.
None of this is fatalistic, nor should convince anyone to die on schedule.
Your posts are the smartest thing on this thread.
I decide when I do or don’t want something, not a doctor. If I haven’t given up that’s my call not your call to make. You forget under Obama are you won’t be able to get care you want even if you can pay for it. I’m not talking about others footing the bill for me anymore than my premiums have been footing everyone else’s bills now.
I decide when I do or don’t want something, not a doctor. If I haven’t given up that’s my call not your call to make. You forget under Obama are you won’t be able to get care you want even if you can pay for it. I’m not talking about others footing the bill for me anymore than my premiums have been footing everyone else’s bills now.
I agree.
Thanks. Exactly.
We ought to have that freedom as government involuntarily confiscates money from me every paycheck for Medicare and Medicaid and social security. When they stop my involuntary contributions to other people’s bills, and I can determine who I want to help cover my bills then the government can tell whoever’s left what they give up getting government coverage.
My contract for private healthcare coverage does not have your name in it nor do I need to check with you on what care I do or don’t want. I may not even carry the same company as you. Insurance companies manage risk, they do not care if you don’t want me to have a certain procedure because you don’t think it’s good for me, your personal finances or wishes do not enter in to their contracted coverage arrangement with me - that I pay for.
They can become shareholders of the company and they can put measures on the voter ballots, and they can also vote out the officers if they are mismanaging the company.
What you describe is part of the company’s job - to run the company well and make a profit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.