Metsfanmax wrote: Night Strike wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote: Night Strike wrote:http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/
By the way, people should note how the chart in the link talks about the penalty for not buying insurance. Remember, if this was a penalty, it would have been ruled unconstitutional. It's a TAX, yet the government still refuses to tell that to the public.
Also player, that link itself (from the CBO) says 27 million more people will have health insurance, which is about 9% of the population, meaning my previous statements about barely increasing coverage for a massive price tag is still accurate.
Whil you are charting that, how about charting the numerous advances that mean much more care is available every year.
Also, how about charting the cost of caring for highly disabled children... you can stick with medical care, but really ought to include lost income, increased medical care for the rest of the familiy (due to stress)?
OR... care for terminal individuals, including seriously ill elderly people.
You are fine denying fully healthy people care, but have no problem with paying millions for those groups.
Actually, I don't think the government should be involved in any person's health care.
Do you believe we should rescind the rule requiring an emergency room to treat everyone who shows up there ill?
Of course not!
And, the primary reason is because during an emergency there just is not time to fully get into all the details.
Also, note, my point is about choice. Nightstrike wants to declare that he is all about freedom… but has glaring exceptional holes when it comes to women’s health and the elderly.
I know more than most people about this. I have have gone into a LOT of details in other threads at other times, maybe you caught some of it, maybe it predated your appearance, I cannot remember.
Anyway, I believe that both beginning and end of life decisions are as much about faith as biology. I think that the state has an interest in setting the EXTREME bondaries.. I mean, you can’t “knock off” your mother in law (no matter how irritating she is
) or your grandmother just to get their inheritances and I would say aborting a child for gender selection is wrong (but hard to prove). However, when it comes to saying that someone HAS to raise a particular child or even give birth to a particular child…. It goes beyond the bounds of what any outsider should say.
AND, the ultimate truth is that most people don’t really and truly think about end of life issues until they are actually faced with the decisions. When they do, it is under stress, often involves a lot of heartache as various children might have differing ideas, etc. Its much better for all if these things are thought out in advance, preferably if the person themselves makes the decisions. (failing that, the siblings should get together and talk about it).
Part of this very much does involve understanding what happens in various situations. For example, a lot of people just don’t know that dementia is not just a simple problem of “grandma cannot think” any longer. People can sometimes go on for years holding dolls, talking about Santa and the Easter Bunny, etc. However, there comes a point when it also starts to impact the throat muscles and the basic immune system… all those changes tend to happen at the same time. This means that its not just that Grandma thinks she is 5 again, she won’t be able to eat, and her body is far less resistant to many diseases. There is a high incidence of death from pneumonia in dementia patients, partially because when the muscles don’t work, the food can wind up going down the wrong tube, but also because the patient’s body is just far less resistant to illnesses. Understanding that makes a difference in how most people view care and treatment. Unfortunately, what often happens, absent a living will, is that the family that is near to the patient and who see the patient will have talked to the doctors, come to reluctantly understand that, well, their mother is just plain dying and there is really little to be done to lengthen the life, but definitely not to improve their living status. But, then in comes Johnny from across the country and he has not had the time to learn and understand, likely feels guilty for not paying attention earlier, is likely somewhat shocked by the state of his mother (“those damn nursing home people – neglecting my MOM!!!!!!” ). The people who live there know that “mom” is half (or fully) out of her mind, forgets that she ate, forgets that she cannot eat most things, etc… but “Johnny” just comes and hears his mother complain about the staff and the food and when the doctor comes in and says “maybe doing this advanced surgery (or fancy new medicine, etc.) is really not a good idea … HE thinks “oh these idiots just don’t care about mom!”.
Anyway, I see this over and over. There is a guy where I work who can basically eat nothing but hamburgers. They try to offer options, but he needs to eat with his hands, etc…. (not going into the full rundown, of course). There is another who complains that his food is “boring”… well, he is on a cardiac, renal, no sugar diet, AND is a picky eater besides! Both of these people are on “suicide watch”. (there are some other issues, but I don’t want to be too specific). Yet, if family comes in and says “oh grandpa has a tumor… get it treated” and maybe get him some counseling. Is that the “correct” decision? The ideal would be if they had thought this out and made their own decisions before they were too far along to be considered competent.
THOSE are the types of situations I am talking about that need to be discussed. I am not suggesting euthanasia. I can understand why some people might think that is a good option, but it is not one with which I am personally comfortable, BUT… I also don’t think that extraordinary measures should be taken to preserve the life of someone who is in that kind of state, not unless they have very clearly said that is what they want. Legally, though, doctors often have little choice.