Posted on 07/25/2009 9:03:56 AM PDT by trueamerica
An 83-year-old woman from Östergötland in southern Sweden was forced to pay for back surgery out of her own pocket after doctors at her local public hospital told her she was too old for the treatment.
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.se ...
Oh, my! Poor Granny! It’s hard when life comes back and bites you on the butt. ;)
This is anecdotal, but it’s true.
My aunt’s hip broke when she was 90 years old. We prepared ourselves for the predictable outcome— death. Well, she had hip surgery, recovered and was mobile until she died at age 99.
You just never know.
To everyone that keeps posting these facts about socialized healthcare..Obama asks that you please stop and repeat this phrase “It’s time...” over and over while you think about having your tonsils removed by a qualified surgeon for no reason...I mean — surely not enough healthcare is better than too much healthcare?
It's not unusual at all. That's why "surgery tourism" to places like India and Thailand are booming business right now.
To everyone that keeps posting these facts about socialized healthcare...
Under ObamaCare, won't it be illegal for providers to accept cash? After all, it wouldn't be "fair"!
If you don’t mind sharing, how old was your father-in-law?
I ask because my husband, aged 69, Parkinson’s, fell last fall, breaking his hip, and it was covered. But, falls are going to happen again, because Parkinson’s has destroyed his sense of balance.
So, at what age will Medicare stop paying?
When I broke my left arm at the elbow 4 years ago, I was 70 and the specialist I was referred to declined because of age risk factors. He did find me another specialist and the operation was successful-involved reconstruction of radius and ulna. The surgeon said I should get back 85% use--I got back 99% use.
My husband, age 80, was diagnosed with a need for bypass Dec. 24,08. Dec 25 underwent diagnostic tests; Jan 6 had quad by-pass surgery. Jan 13th a Pacemaker for heart arythmia. He is out bush hogging today. Thanks to our superior health care--2 weeks from diagnosis to surgery!
I guess in UK, Sweden and other Socialistic countries, neither would have gotten surgery. I would have a useless left arm and my husband would be unable to function fully while he waited for the "big one", which the heart surgeon said was imminent.
At least the woman in Sweden was allowed to pay herself. From what I have heard, Obamacare wants to nix self pay--guess it just would not be fair to those who COULDN'T pay. Got to be fair doncha know?
Is fair having Congress, Pres., and govt. employees get a different, better plan than us?
vaudine
One size does NOT fit all, but that is what Obama, Emanuel, etc. want.
Today, my husband is driving, taking care of business, mowing the lawn, bush-hogging at our farm, and enjoying life. Should we feel guilty for having access to good medical care and give it up because everyone doesn't have it?
vaudine
Yes, you can, and it is something you shouldn't be without when you reach Medicare age. It covers a lot of what basic Medicare doesn't cover - X-rays, diagnostic testing, etc. There are a myriad of Medicare supplement plans, some of which are "advantage" plans, i.e., HMOs.
Of course, there are deductibles and co-pays, but it's a heckuva lot better than not having anything other than basic Medicare A and B.
|
Having to pay for healthcare herself? Deplorable!
If he were alive he’d be 95. I don’t recall his age at the time, but I think, it was 82. He lived to be 90. As I understand it, there is an age cut off on a procedure by procedure basis. I definitely intend to get as much done as possible before age 65 and I’m forced onto Medicare. My employer requires employees over 65 to join Medicare and but you “keep” your employer paid coverage, they get partially reimbursed by Medicare. My employer is “self insured”, Blue Cross/Blue Sheild administer the plan, but the employer pays dollar for dollar.
well first glad to hear that they could help you and you are feeling fine.
But i get the impression many americans have a total wrong impression what the “european” version of “socialized” or “free” health care really means. Well it shure differs from country to country but for example in my country (austria) “we” have so called free or “socialized” health care. and this system works pretty well (of course not every single time perfekt but it really works). socialized health care does not mean that you are forced to use a state run health insurance it just guarantees everyone (even the poorest one) acess to basic medical care, meds...
but no one is forced to use this system anyway. there are a lot of private insurance companies out there (of course most are more expensive) who may have better conditions. and the moment you have a private insurance you will not have to pay only a single cent for the state run insurance. the state program just ensures that every one is covered by an ensurance that´s all. For example it´s true that if you work the state will use a certain percentage of your income tax to pay for your health insurance. (if you have no job they use some money of your “unemployed check” (again percentage based) to pay this. but as long as you have a private insurance you are not taxed for this. so usually people with a higher income opt out of this system because “they” benefit more from a private insurance. this is no problem. (btw. opting out does not mean that you will not be covered by the state again if you may lose the private insurance (maybe because you lost your job an are not able to pay the high rates anymore...). then you will just fall back into the “old” system. kids and people under 18 are covered anyway even they have never earned or payed in a single cent. (this is indeed payed from the normal tax everyone has to pay). so it just guarantees that every one has an insurance thats all. so it´s not this bad i guess it covers 99% of the people who are living here.
I don’t get it. The argument seems to be that healtchare isn’t socialized enough. Everyting, all the time, paid for by taxpayers. Go figure.
This is true... but your Aunt tends to be the exception; not the rule. We've seen too many elderly (over 80) have surgical procedures from which they never recover. Rehab is the toughest part....even for younger patients. They just can't muster the stamina, endurance and overcome infections readily.
I think surgeons are in a Catch-22 with this sort of thing. The elderly are angry if they don't operate ...and their families are furious if the patient dies because they do...
My father had knee replacements, bypass, and pacemaker in his late 70’s. He is now 81 and playing golf 4-5 times per week and has a garden. My mother is also doing well at 79. She goes to the gym several times a week to work out. They are relatively healthy for 80 yr olds.
A lot of people in their 80’s can live active lives with modern health care.
It really depends on the person’s condition. My grandmother developed colon cancer at 85. She had surgery and lived another 12 years. All but the last two, she lived independently and had a full life.
Should she have been given nothing but palliative care because of her age even though she was an active, independent person who could still drive and had full mental competency?
A friend of mine whose patents both worked for the Library of Congress and had Kaiser coverage, that foretaste of government health care told me how his parents retired and moved to the Left Coast, keeping their membership in Kaisser. At 92 his dad needed a heart bypass and Kaiser told him he was too old. So he left Kaiser had the operation succesfully and had one more bypass before he died a few years ago at 102. We wonder if the old who stayed home ans allowed the One to be elected have any regrets at this point?
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.