Death Panels,

Nevada · #41 09/28/12, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesgal

There is a difference between the "quality of life" I was referring to and that of your friend. I'm referring to those that can't get out of bed and have lost mental acuity.

That describes Alma's last year pretty well. Her mental state wouldn't allow her to live alone or manage her own affairs, to be sure, but she knew who she was, where she was, and I saw to it that she had enough quality of life to make life worth living. Rehab hospitals didn't like sending her home with me, since they saw her as "good product" (her doctor's words, not mine). I knew that she wouldn't have lasted long in a nursing home setting.

When she lost her ability to walk I knew that we had to either her her back on her feet or it would all be over. Her fall risk was too extreme for her to take anticoagulants, so getting her walking again was a matter of life or death. She never walked again, but she still lasted 10 months.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesgal

Unfortunately, Hospice has become the answer when the patients no longer needs a hospital but still needs some sort of "supportive care". I think the types of patients you are refering to need better nursing home care (and for alot, the ability to pay for a nursing home).

I would have settled for more aggressive care in her home nursing care and her short hospitalizations. There were a lot of things we could have tried that never happened.

Narshalla · #42 09/28/12, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevada

I don't believe it has to be that way.

You don't believe it has to be that way? I agree, it does not have to be that way.

But what way do you think it will be? How do you think this is going to turn out?

There isn't going to be enough money to cover everyone, and we already know this, because there already isn't enough money to cover the uninsured right now. Waving the magic wand that is Obamacare isn't going to change that.

There already is a shortage of doctors, and Obamacare proposes to pay them less. There's already too much paperwork, and Obamacare proposes to increase it. Development of new drugs is already slow because of the high cost of research and approval, and Obamacare does nothing to improve it.

Fewer doctors, less money, more paperwork, all to treat more people -- it's nice that you believe that it doesn't have to be that way, but if you thing about what's going to happen instead of believing, you're going to come to the obvious conclusion that the Elderly and disabled are going to receive less care at lower standards, and then eventually it will be the Liverpool Care Pathway.

And Nevada, you've said you're almost old enough to start receiving SS and Medicare -- and this will happen right at the same time that ed.gov will realize that Obamacare is a pie-in-the-sky plan. Your care is on the cutting block, and you might not believe it has to be that way, but look at Great Britain -- it is that way there, and it will be that way here.

2017, no later, Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid will all be bundled into one great big mess, and Medicare will gradually be defunded. This is what the Dems always accuse the Reps of wanting to do and doing, but strangely enough, it is the Dems who will accomplish it.

You, personally, Nevada, will be up the creek in less than ten years from now because you are relying on fed.gov -- who is broke and won't be able to keep its promises, despite all the promises to the contrary.

Nevada · #43 09/28/12, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narshalla

There isn't going to be enough money to cover everyone, and we already know this, because there already isn't enough money to cover the uninsured right now. Waving the magic wand that is Obamacare isn't going to change that.

What's the conservative/republican solution?

nchobbyfarm · #44 09/28/12, 08:09 PM

The solution is simple. Insurance was designed to be for catastrophic events. Make it so again. Stop using it to pay for the sniffles or a physical.

Let the insurance companies sell across state lines.

Let me chose what coverage I want. I do not need drug and alcohol abuse coverage, my wife does not need child birth coverage, etc.

Tort reform for loser pays.

Let me negotiate costs myself.

Stop treating the uninsured as if they will pay. This would mean opening clinics to provide basic services so hospitals were not used as basic care and those of us responsible enough to pay our way don't have to pay for those that choose to buy a big screen instead of catastrophic coverage insurance.

That would be a good start. I have more but you get the idea.

Others poor decisions are not my problem and I should not be made to pay for their decisions. Those with real needs could get help from charities if I was left with enough to donate.

Nevada · #45 09/28/12, 08:22 PM

[QUOTE=nchobbyfarm;6167669]The solution is simple. Insurance was designed to be for catastrophic events. Make it so again. Stop using it to pay for the sniffles or a physical. Since Nixon proposed the HMO Act, consumers want comprehensive healthcare insurance. I don't know how to reverse that.

Let the insurance companies sell across state lines. That violates state rights to regulate insurance. I doubt that's constitutional.

Let me chose what coverage I want. I do not need drug and alcohol abuse coverage, my wife does not need child birth coverage, etc. I'm sure you can have the insurance you want.

Tort reform for loser pays. We have tort reform in this state. It didn't help.

Let me negotiate costs myself. I sure you can.

Stop treating the uninsured as if they will pay. This would mean opening clinics to provide basic services so hospitals were not used as basic care and those of us responsible enough to pay our way don't have to pay for those that choose to buy a big screen instead of catastrophic coverage insurance. We do that here. Go to UMC emergency with a cold and you'll become a UMC Quick Care patient. It's just a clinic.

Trixie · #46 09/28/12, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boiledfrog

Well they said that with the banks. Why not with the medical corporations. They will just create an extra trillion or so. Heck probably won't know the difference. A trillion here a trillion there. Long as we keep voting them back in.

This is my thinking as well. I don't think there a snowball's chance the healthcare industry is going to give up making all that money. If there was a chance, it would not have been passed. They have more money than God and money runs this country.

I do agree there comes a time when it is time to let go.

The hospitals and doctors may not want that to happen. There was a case of an elderly lady who had terminal cancer, was in a coma and the doctor knew she would never come out of it. She had stated, and signed a written statement she did not wish to be kept alive in such an event. She was on life support, the family told the doctor it was time to honor her wishes and the doctor refused. When the man told us about it, we told him to take the doctor to court. The man said he just didn't want to do that as he stood to inherit a nice sum, this was a small town and he didn't want them saying he did it to get her money.

Yes, families do want all measures taken, but usually in a case like that the family is not really capable of making decisions - they are just in pain. That's when the advice of the doctor and hospital should come into play. Why, though, should the healthcare providers give up the money they will make from this patient. That's the problem in a nutshell.

It isn't the fear the healthcare industry will make the decision to have the 'death panels', they are going to do what is best for them.

What chills me is when, what I consider, real people begin to talk that way.

nchobbyfarm · #47 09/28/12, 10:22 PM

Nevada, please be realistic. Each state regulates who can sell insurance in their state and what each policy must cover. So I can not buy insurance from SC or Ga. I must buy from a company approved by the NC Dept of Insurance. That is why you have Blue Cross and Blue Shield of NC. And not an individual, national company.

And you do not have loser pays in Nevada. You have limits on awards if I am not mistaken. That is not what I propose. I do not think you should limit who can sue or what size the award can be. You make the lawyers cover the costs for the loser. Then you will not get these frivolous lawsuits.

I cannot negotiate the costs myself. The insurance co. has already set the prices with the hospital. I must pay my 30% and like it.

You have no right to someone else's life. By requiring them to treat you for the price the govt sets, you are enslaving the medical professionals. The 13th amendment outlawed slavery. How can the govt then be allowed to tell a doctor they must treat a patient for X dollars. It is up to the doctor to decide who to treat and for how much.

willow_girl · #48 09/28/12, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Yet when Obamacare was first brought up everyone on the left denied that there would be death panels. Looks like the right was right on this one.

Where did you get that from my post?

What the nurse told me was that they constantly get acutely ill dementia patients from nursing homes ... and once their medical crisis is past, they go back to the nursing home ... until the next crisis ... and 'round and 'round we go. It appears all the lifesaving measures *are* being performed, even when there is no chance the patient will recover 'quality of life' again.

Quote:

Big difference between Rover and Grandma. Anyone that can't see that is beyond hope.

Is there, though? You have two sentient beings that are greatly beloved, nearing the end of their natural lives, and suffering.

I can only conclude that we're either committing a moral outrage by euthanizing Rover, or we're being unnecessarily cruel by taking extreme measures to keep Grandma alive.

Anything else seems cognitive dissonance, IMO.

Quote:

The reason hospice is becoming more powerful is because of statements like yours. It's always assumed that old, expensive patients would be a lot happier dead. That really should be up to the patients though, don't you think?

The one thing of which I'm certain on this issue is that everyone should make their wishes known to their close family members, and to make it official with a living will, etc., if possible. And family members should respect those wishes and put their personal feelings aside if necessary.

I really can't say whether it's morally wrong to keep someone alive in a vegetative state or advanced dementia, providing they didn't make their wishes clear ... but if they DID say, "I would never want to be like that," then I think it's cruel to keep them alive in that condition.

Nevada · #49 09/29/12, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willow_girl

I really can't say whether it's morally wrong to keep someone alive in a vegetative state or advanced dementia, providing they didn't make their wishes clear ... but if they DID say, "I would never want to be like that," then I think it's cruel to keep them alive in that condition.

If someone in in a vegetative state or has advanced dementia I don't think there's a lot you can do to keep hospice away from him, regardless of what might be in his living Will. But I'm not talking about people in a state like that.

I'm talking about people who are mentally aware and have every chance of surviving for years, yet are expensive patients. The reality is that insurance companies are using hospice as a method to eliminate expensive patients. It's real, it's here today, and they are getting away with it.

Hospice services have a great deal of legal and political power. I suspect that's because other powerful entities save so much money through hospice. After Alma's brush with hospice I tried to expose their actions, but got no traction at all. Alma formally requested her hospice records in writing, but they didn't reply. Hospice services are virtually untouchable.

Trixie · #50 09/29/12, 03:06 PM

I agree, willow_girl these are things we need to discuss and have clear.

My family knows full well, and knows me well enough that in no way do I want to be kept alive that way.

That is me making the decision - now while I am in as right a mind as I'll ever be. It's a little different making it for someone else.

It would seem to me it would save tons of money, and people would have a better quality of life if the healthcare corporations were held accountable for all unnecessary 'treatment' - of everyone, but especially the elderly.

The cholesterol pill can make people so weak they can't move. I saw it happen to a friend of mine. She was what others consider elderly, 70-ish, the last time I had seen her she could still move furniture, work in the dairy, push cows around. About 4 months later, she was so weak, her hand would shake when she picked up her coffee mug. At first I didn't want to say anything, but I cared and finally asked about it. She didn't know, so I asked what was different in her life and she said the doctor had prescribed the pill for cholesterol. Knowing her to be someone who took little medications, I told her to do some research on it. That was what caused it, she stopped and within a couple of weeks she was almost back to normal. She had only taken it a short time, I don't know what long term consumption of it might do.

I shudder to think what other 'treatment' or medications they could have foisted on her to fix the effects of that pill - then the next and the next.

It just scares me though, to think we would allow the government to be the one to make that decision. We know from past experience they can use their powers in some very 'creative' and scary ways.

fishhead · #51 09/29/12, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7thswan

WE need death panels.

Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.

But in the pantheon of toxic issues — the famous “third rails” of American politics — none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.

Steve Rattner | Economic News Analyst, Overhaul Book Author, Car Czar & Renowned Wall Street Financier

Previously, Mr. Rattner served as Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury and led the Obama Administration’s successful effort to restructure the automobile industry, which he chronicled in his book, Overhaul: An Insider’s Account of the Obama Administration’s Emergency Rescue of the Auto Industry.

We're also not entitled to decide when to end our lives thanks to the wackos that think every breath no matter how painful and futile is precious.

We should have the right to decide when it's time to call it quits and take a lethal doctor prescribed drug.

Nevada · #52 09/29/12, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7thswan

unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.

We had a deal. I contribute 15% of my pay during my entire working life, then I draw Social Security and Medicare benefits after retirement. I kept my end of the deal so it seems that the government has a contractual obligation to deliver.

It's the conservatives who keep harping on how people need to live up to their contractual obligations.

nchobbyfarm · #53 09/29/12, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevada

We had a deal. I contribute 15% of my pay during my entire working life, then I draw Social Security and Medicare benefits after retirement. I kept my end of the deal so it seems that the government has a contractual obligation to deliver.

It's the conservatives who keep harping on how people need to live up to their contractual obligations.

And as you are over 55, they will!

Haven't we been here before? Seems like déjà vue.

Oh yea, and those under 55 can elect to stay in just as it is also. For your sister and kids if I remember your response correctly.

Nevada · #54 09/29/12, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nchobbyfarm

And as you are over 55, they will!

Haven't we been here before? Seems like déjà vue.

Oh yea, and those under 55 can elect to stay in just as it is also. For your sister and kids if I remember your response correctly.

What are you going to replace Medicare with?

nchobbyfarm · #55 09/29/12, 07:43 PM

I am not replacing anything. I am paying my taxes and understand that I will not get any benefit as it all will be bankrupt. Fact of life, those that let the govt. get away with stealing the money and still demand benefits will destroy all for those that come after which is me.

However, the Romney/Ryan plan will create vouchers for those that opt to go that route. Key word is opt. But you already know the plan they offer. But you want yours and to h..l with those behind you. Good, get yours while it lasts. I will make plans to take care of myself and die proudly when I cannot afford the care they say I need.

Danaus29 · #56 09/29/12, 08:23 PM

Sure cancer screenings were guaranteed for coverage under the 0bamacare act. Cancer treatment is another story. READ THE BILL and WAKE UP people!!!!! Expensive patients or those who are not expected to contribute to the general benefit of society are NOT guaranteed care or treatment! Why do you think all of congress and all the unions fought to keep themselves EXEMPT????

Frankly the healthcare bill scares me to death! There are so many times that it states your level of care will be decided by your general expected contribution, your geographic location and the cost of your care. And to top it off, there will be a panel of experts that will decide if a patient qualifies for expensive or experimental treatment.

You will NOT be able to get "extraordinary care" even if you are personally willing and able to pay for it out of pocket. Any health practitioner that gives any person such care will lose their license.

TxHorseMom · #57 09/30/12, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevada

Yes, I have a chip in my shoulder. They tried to kill my friend, and nobody (including you) denies that.

Well, actually, I never said that they tried to kill your friend. I said I'm sorry you had a bad experience. Truthfully, I don't think they tried to kill your friend. But you do, and there is no point in arguing with you about it.

Nevada · #58 09/30/12, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TxHorseMom

Well, actually, I never said that they tried to kill your friend. I said I'm sorry you had a bad experience. Truthfully, I don't think they tried to kill your friend. But you do, and there is no point in arguing with you about it.

To remove any doubt, the hospice service admits that is what they wanted. They justified it by telling me she would be a lot happier dead (whatever that means). When I refused to let them do it, they let me sign her out of hospice.

KnowOneSpecial · #59 09/30/12, 11:20 PM

Part of the problem is that our society doesn't accept death as a part of life. We live like we can live forever and we expect to never die. Europeans view it a lot differently. Death is a natural part of life. The thought of putting an 87 year old woman with heart failure, a broken hip and diabetes on life support is unheard of. Here it's always an option...and it's taken quite a few times. Over there they accept that Grandma will die. Over here we want her to live forever.

Nevada · #60 10/01/12, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnowOneSpecial

Part of the problem is that our society doesn't accept death as a part of life. We live like we can live forever and we expect to never die. Europeans view it a lot differently. Death is a natural part of life. The thought of putting an 87 year old woman with heart failure, a broken hip and diabetes on life support is unheard of. Here it's always an option...and it's taken quite a few times. Over there they accept that Grandma will die. Over here we want her to live forever.

I didn't want long-term life support for her. All I wanted was for her to get the benefit of a hospital when she had a medical crisis. They wanted her to say at home the next time she had a medical crisis, then treat it with morphine & ativan regardless of what the problem was.