Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Koligman who wrote (8317)	8/17/2009 2:04:22 PM
From: Little Joe	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Your post raises important and difficult issues. I think many politicians agree with you, but they are too spineless to say so and to engage in an intelligent discussion on the subject. My mother in law is 94 years old and she has refused several health care procedures which were of marginal benefit, if any, but certainly were expwnsive and inconvenient and which may have resulted in her death. lj

To: John Koligman who wrote (8317)	8/17/2009 4:18:02 PM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 42652

i am not sure it should be based on age vs quality of life. look at the millions spent each year on premature babies. often it runs into a million or more to cover a few months in the hospital for babies born too early. Should we make the judgement on them not to spend these huge dollars like canada and other countries do? these are usually planned expenditures.. later in life women decide on having a baby, they go through procedures very expensive ones which have been added to our medical expense insurance mandated by some states. then we see them go through abortions to clean out those babies that have been created but because of drugs the woman is carrying too many for any to live. then they cannot carry full term and end up having children too early, without lungs developed etc. all this adds to medical insurance.. should this be discontinued? how about the elderly that need cataracts removed.. a cousin now 92 should she be denied... she already refused by pass twenty years ago when doctors said she wouldn't survive without having by pass after two major heart attacks. who is to say her quality of life may not last another decade? she attends the gym three times a week. we do have a few relatives who have lived past a 100, @ 102/103 and were still functioning right up to the end. the situation mentioned should be addressed to all in extreme cases not just the elderly.. oh, my wife was on a machine three times throughout her life.. one in early seventies. once in early 80's and once in early 90's. she passed on three months ago at no major hospital expense as we chose hospice vs ever going back to a hospital. i think his judgement is much too narrow.

To: John Koligman who wrote (8317)	8/17/2009 4:31:44 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

shouldn’t we instantly cut some of the money spent on exorbitant intensive-care medicine for dying, elderly people and redirect it to pediatricians and obstetricians offering preventive care for children and mothers? While I agree with the author, pretty much, on the wasteful end-of-life spending, I utterly disagree with where he's coming from. His framework is redistributionist. "We" should be giving our money to kids rather than to the elderly," sez he. It's scary when "we" think "we" or some bureaucrat who is our proxy should redistribute resources amongst citizens. I’m just wondering why the nation continues incurring enormous debt to pay for bypass surgery and titanium-knee replacements for octogenarians and nonagenarians I have a couple of ninety-something aunts who got knee replacements in their eighties. They're pretty frisky. One is still working (to support her shiftless daughter and grandson). Seems to me that those knee replacements were worthwhile. Now, if they were bedridden, not so much.