What’s the Price of Tomorrow?
[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]
A dear friend recently passed away at the age of 91. He had been in fairly good health until the last year of his life, and he spent his final six months shuttling between emergency rooms, intensive care units, and a convalescent hospital as he battled pneumonia and a MRSA infection. He was even given a pacemaker a few months before he died.
One can envision that had the health-care regime now under consideration in Congress already been in place, my friend would have been denied much of the treatment he received in those final six months. What sense does it make, some would argue, to commit so many costly resources to the treatment of a 91-year-old man? Why not offer medication to keep him comfortable and then allow nature to take its course, freeing those health-care dollars for some more vital patient?
From a strictly economic perspective, why indeed?
My friend’s wife survived him and lives on today at age 90. She still drives but prefers not to if there is someone around to take her on errands, so while her husband was in the hospital, my wife and I would sometimes drive her to visit him. Though confined to his bed and in some discomfort, he was for the most part alert and responsive. The singular joy of his day was the visit with his wife, when she would sit at the edge of his bed and rub his back and tell him of the latest news from relatives and friends. They had been married for 62 years, so there was also a lot of talk about the old times. As they wrapped up their visits, she would tell him she loved him and that she would see him tomorrow. “Love you too,” he would answer, “see you tomorrow.” Finally, as all of ours will, those tomorrows came to an end.
If this monstrosity of a health-care bill becomes law, who will determine, and by what measure will they determine it, that we have consumed our allotment of medical care and are now obliged, for the sake of a healthier nation, to go away and die?
I’m certain my friend and his wife held those last few see-you-tomorrow moments as priceless. Who will put a price on ours?
–Jack Dunphy
I am sorry for your loss Jack.
It is said 5% of patients use up 50% of health care dollars. I do not know if that is true or not, but I will assume it is.
I want everyone to have the best possible health care, but I know that is not possible. There will always be haves and have nots. But what Obama and his Democratic cronies want to focus on is fairness over which system provides the highest benefits to the most people. Milton Friedman recognized this a while ago. His words and warnings are still true.
Joe (a32cff) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:06 pmIt is my conclusion that the two biggest, most glaring aspects of Liberals are Fantasy and Hypocrisy.
An example of Fantasy is that we should raise the minimum wage to $10, and everyone would be erarning a good income
REALITY:
Employers can not afford to pay $10 an hour, so a lot of people get laid off
Hypocrisy
Dave Hollenbeck (c90540) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:09 pmHere you have people who are foamy-mouthed about Abu-Gharib, abvout the death penalty for serial killers, but they almost demand that every woman should hyave the Right to kill her baby at birth or before.
Add to that:
As Jack has written above, the are wanting the Power to give older people a Death Sentence because it is uneconomical to keep them alive
Obama’s health care “reform” will ultimately take away your right to life.
Are we willing to pay that price?
Dr. K (eca563) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:15 pmNot to pick on Jack as he is far from the only person with this viewpoint, but why assume that Congress would deny care in such situations? Congressmen know they don’t get re-elected by saying ‘no’, they get re-elected by giving taxpayer money away. I think it is far more likely that a government plan would provide for open ended benefits with the costs borne in some way by taxes and borrowing.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:25 pmThis reminds me of the old saying:
Youth argues for “justice,” while the aged plead for “mercy.”
Milton Friedman’s approach is best for this. Because the folks in Congress (and I remind you that the President is “not familiar” with the House bill) want to decide what is best for you.
But what they mean is what is best for their view of society. If that means denying a kidney transplant to folks over the page of 50, that is how it will be. If that means not paying for cancer screening, that is how it will be.
I have about had it with all these smart men and women not even being familiar with the bills that they must pass, right now. It seems that is more about social engineering than about solving problems.
Jack, I’m glad that you friend had time with his wife before MRSA and pneumonia took him.
On that subject, more people die from MRSA in the US every year than die from AIDS.
http://www.webmd.com/news/20071016/more-us-deaths-from-mrsa-than-aids
Yet which problem gets more funding from the government.
Social engineering, again.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:27 pmsteve sturm,
While I am quite sure that the democrats would like to give away maximal care, this isn’t something that pure dollars can pay for. For medical care, you need time with professionals that are in limited supply.
Obama recently gave a town hall interview were he recommended pain pills for an old woman with heart problems, ostensibly because it’s wasteful to give her more.
You and I agree, apparently, that Obama’s point of view is stupid politically and also wrong.
Juan (bd4b30) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:31 pmI always remember in the movie “Thornbirds” the conversation about the bird that sings it’s sweetest notes just as it dies. How can you place a price on the “Golden moment” I have witnessed as people enjoy one last moment of clarity and freedom from pain before they leave us?
Priceless indeed!
vet66 (9d1bb3) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:34 pmTo some degree, this is a false issue because studies have shown that the peak in health spending for individuals is about age 70. Those are the people who either got shortchanged in the chromosomes or had some unhealthy life style factors. Once past that point, the remaining population in this era of freedom from infectious diseases, is healthy and generally are not interested in expensive technology. I once wrote a grant proposal for UCI to do a program for the frail elderly who were living in assisted living facilities.
At the time, UCI had very little Medicare business and many of the elderly had been signed up by their children for Medicare HMOs. The assisted living administrators were having a lot of trouble getting care from the HMOs and they were willing to provide facilities for in-house care if the doctors and nurse practitioners would see the residents on-site.
The program was finally ditched by the UCI administrators, the docs were enthusiastic. I did a lot of research on the topic and may yet wind up doing the same thing privately soon. That grant proposal was 15 years ago. There has been almost no progress since.
If you manage their meds and a few other issues of chronic illness, the elderly, and I mean over 80, are quite healthy and get along well without high tech medicine. Many will refuse CABG and other expensive care.
Of course, the majority of medical expense is in the last year of life ! That’s when you die ! Most elderly folks can get along quite well if they have some support and good primary care supervision, the sort of thing that Medicare does not allow.
Mike K (90939b) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:38 pmMike K, I like your insightful points. I think the real core problem here is that it’s just plain alien and ugly to have our government… our servants, try to manage something so personal. It’s just so much power for them to have, and it’s not a one size fits all situation that could lend itself to the federal government.
No one wants to wonder if their grandmother or wife is being screwed by a bureaucrat. It’s just too much to take, for me.
Juan (bd4b30) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:43 pmThe irony is that this legislation will devastate the elderly and AARP, like most rent seeking organizations, is behind it.
Mike K (90939b) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:47 pmWill the members of Congress’s parents face the same decision making as the rest of the aging population will or will they by default, get the special treatment that members of Congress will under their nifty health care package? That’s what I want to know.
Dana (a3e680) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:50 pmJack,
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 7/21/2009 @ 12:57 pmMoving essay and good points. Sorry for the loss you must feel.
This is the type of care that tricare is already providing to the retired veterans through the dreaded Primary Care Manager.
I stayed overnight at a hospital with chest pains recently, fortunately all was well and I had a follow up two days later for the treadmill stress test. The doc said I could stay admitted and get the more expensive test that measures with radiation (for accuracy I think) or be discharged and get the routine test which was considerably cheaper. I chose to be discharged and They literally had all the stuff attahed to me and were about to run the test when the nurse said the PCM advised that I hadn’t obtained the requisite referral. Even after speaking with the PCM and explaining that I had all the wires attached I was told to phone in the request and they would get to me in about 7 days…
National health care would be so much worse – particularly for the elderly.
Why health care costs are rising…
Ace is right about this.
Joe (a32cff) — 7/21/2009 @ 1:01 pmDana, I think you know better than to even ask: it’s “the few” versus “the many.” They deserve better, because they work so hard for all of us!
Grrrr.
I like the idea that every member of Congress (and every freakin’ staff member) have to take the standard health package (or pay out of pocket). If it is good enough for us, it should be good enough for them.
But then, I also think that every member of Congress (and every freakin’ staff member) should be taxed at the highest rate without deductions.
After all, it is about service, I thought!
It will never happen, but if it did, Congress would do their best, out of self-interest.
Sort of like making the Board of Directors of a paper mill drink from downstream of their plant. Self correcting.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 7/21/2009 @ 1:05 pmComment by steve sturm — 7/21/2009 @ 12:25 pm
Congress insulates itself from these hard decisions by only writing broad policy into the legislation, and then empowering the bureaucracy to flesh-out the details through regulation – regulations that are not reviewed by the Congress (which would seem to be an abrogation of their oversight function BTW).
AD - RtR/OS! (8d7b04) — 7/21/2009 @ 1:07 pmThen, when the inevitable hard case arises, with the attendant negative publicity, the Congress steps back from the glare of the spotlight crying:
Hey, it’s not our fault, those regulations were written and interpreted by …!
Real monuments to courage.
Y’all act like Barack Obama doesn’t know what’s best for you. Sometimes in our lives we all have pain and we all have sorrow but if we are wise we know that there’s always tomorrow cause of Barack Obama loves us.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 7/21/2009 @ 1:08 pmO/T…but kudo’s to Jack and the LAPD for escaping the straightjacket of the Consent Decree with DoJ…
AD - RtR/OS! (8d7b04) — 7/21/2009 @ 1:17 pmI guess they finally got the memo that Daryl Gates was not the Chief any longer?
If anyone here has had the unfortunate situation of having to argue with your insurance company over whether a potentially life – saving treatment (for yourself or a loved one) is justified, just think what it would be like if you had to argue with a gov’t apparatchik in a similar event. I shudder to think of that reality, and I think most others feel likewise.
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/21/2009 @ 1:19 pm[…] Pontifications: What’s the Price of Tomorrow? Obama to flog his faltering takeover of healthcare State Medical Associations Oppose […]
~ Dear President Obama: Just Who Do You Think You Are, Gambling With My Grandchildren’s Future? « Quick Daily Hits — Politics and Such (b093c9) — 7/21/2009 @ 1:40 pmI assume that to be a rhetorical question…
Scott Jacobs (ed2c09) — 7/21/2009 @ 1:46 pmdmac: philosophically I am opposed to government bureaucrats making such decisions, but on a practical basis I see no difference between them and insurance company bureaucrats. a bureaucrat is a bureaucrat, the only difference is where their paycheck comes from.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 7/21/2009 @ 2:06 pmWhen the jackboots came and confiscated all weapons the Jewish people were without weapons to fight back when the same jackbooted thugs returned for them. Had they fought back in the beginning we wouldn’t be mourning 6 million of them dying in camps. If we let today’s jackbooted thugs take our weapons to fight by taking away private health care we too will be mourning needless deaths. Say “NO” to “O”!
PatriotRider (139c18) — 7/21/2009 @ 2:12 pmA big difference is that insurance companies can be sued and are quite concerned about it. When I was still involved in the medical association, I tried to set up a committee on medical fraud. The insurance carriers were very reluctant to participate and most have operated under the theory that they can just raise premiums. The government has no such concerns about liability.
Mike K (db3eb5) — 7/21/2009 @ 2:38 pmI am from the government, and am here to help you.
JD (5adcdb) — 7/21/2009 @ 2:39 pmScott @ 20:
That would be easy. The government already keeps careful records on what Soc Sec benefits you are entitled to. What makes you think that they won’t track the medical benefits the same way?
When the total of the medical benefits in a 12 month period is more than your Soc Sec Benefits over the same 12 month period, you can CHOOSE which benefits you can go without.
Just sayin.
Dr. K (f86018) — 7/21/2009 @ 2:41 pmbut on a practical basis I see no difference between them and insurance company bureaucrats. a bureaucrat is a bureaucrat, the only difference is where their paycheck comes from.
I can only add to Mike’s point about consumers at least having some recourse when dealing with an obstinate health insurance claims official. OTOH, if you’ve ever had extensive dealings with gov’t officials at the consumer level, you have to reasonably conclude that the experience would be magnified exponentially, and for the worse.
I mean, have you ever been to the DMV recently? How about a recent trip to your local Post Office? Have to get a new passport anytime soon? Have you ever had to deal with Social Security officialdom? Simply awful and/or terrifying experience, believe me. They’re positively Orwellian in temperament and efficiency.
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/21/2009 @ 2:58 pmDana, I think you know better than to even ask: it’s “the few” versus “the many.” They deserve better, because they work so hard for all of us!
Grrrr.
Eric, unfortunately we do know the answer. It’s extremely frustrating that those of us with aging parents facing the medical decisions that come with the age, will actually have to be concerned with another non-professional involved with said decision.
My dad is facing a hip and shoulder replacement (the shoulder thing has a technical name I can’t remember but it would ‘unlock’ his arm and he would be able to move it more than just half-way perpendicularly to his body). He had hoped the VA could get him scheduled before any health care reforms are in place because he knows it would not bode well for him. Unfortunately, he had a few mini-strokes last month so until a cardiologist clears him, he won’t be able to get the other stuff done. Throw in another layer of governmental assessors and determiners of the quality of life issues, and his age (75), and the picture gets bleaker.
Yet these are the real life issues we will be facing first with our parents, and then with ourselves. Unless you are a member of Congress or their parents.
Dana (a3e680) — 7/21/2009 @ 3:42 pmI’m certain my friend and his wife held those last few see-you-tomorrow moments as priceless. …
Really? Would they have made the same decisions if it was their money? I doubt Obama’s plan will prevent anyone from spending their own money to extend their life if they so desire.
James B. Shearer (819184) — 7/21/2009 @ 3:56 pmYou really think so, Shearer?
SPQR (5811e9) — 7/21/2009 @ 4:01 pmIf my current health insurance provider denies my claim, I can sue then for denial of service. I am sure that will no longer be available for those to whom medical services are denied.
TimothyJ (8fb937) — 7/21/2009 @ 4:19 pmIf our little country is just gonna be another fetid dirty socialist thugocracy I think I will get to where I am disdainful. I might could start littering even.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 7/21/2009 @ 4:36 pmJack D., I think your example illustrates well the dilemma we face. Modern medicine offers more and more expensive and exotic options to extend life. Any individual can easily consume value in medical services that exceeds the value of their lifetime productivity, especially toward the end. I know it sounds callous to say it, but scarcity of goods and services is the inevitable truth of our existence.
Where BHO and the leftoids go wrong, is that they think that wishing something, and then legislating their wishes, can make _anything_ true. The reality they cannot wish away is that there is a finite amount of service available to meet our essentially limitless demand to live just one more day. Their wishes and lawmaking are just going to make things far more costly for everyone.
No matter what scheme we come up with, free-market or govt-directed or whatever, we won’t be able to get everything we want. If politicians say differently, they’re lying, and we ought to face up to it.
gp (a3af9f) — 7/21/2009 @ 5:02 pmOne of the oft undiscussed issues is the largest upward pressure on healthcare cost:
pitchforksntorches (8165c3) — 7/21/2009 @ 5:06 pmShareholders.
Another:
It used to be”Doctor help me live through this!”
Now it is “Doctor restore me to perfection”
American Healthcare Has the highest Administrative Costs throughout the world in healthcare.
American Healthcare Has the highest Administrative Costs throughout the world in healthcare.
Wait til our corrupt dirty socialist thirdworldy president gets his hands on it. His woman was a health care ministrator and the cost of employing her more than DOUBLED. In a single year!
happyfeet (c75712) — 7/21/2009 @ 5:37 pmThe Barack Obama Decries “SCARE TACTICS”
happyfeet (c75712) — 7/21/2009 @ 5:43 pmI read this post twice, and I don’t an explanation of who paid for this last year of care (although, of course, it could have been even more expensive than it was). Were they wealthy enough to do this out of their own savings? Were they, like my father, entitled to an extremely upscale medical plan (on top of Medicare) in a white-collar lawyer retirement package? Wouldn’t it be funny if government bureaucrats at Medicare had already authorized all this? Oh, wait, not so funny. It would make for a more serious discussion about the cost of health care, instead of cheering on the Republicans as they imitate the Witch-King promising to break the wizard.
It isn’t so easy to sue your private bureaucratic health insurer for denial of care. Leaving aside the very serious problem that it may be far too late by the time your case is heard in court, you’ve probably signed away your right to sue anyway. Instead you’ll get arbitration from a company totally dependent on insurance companies for their own profits. (The Minnesota Attorney General shut down one of these arbitrators with respect to credit card disputes today.)
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 7/21/2009 @ 5:49 pmWitch-King’s lack a win-win p.o.v. I think.
happyfeet (c75712) — 7/21/2009 @ 5:53 pmI guess that should just be *Witch-Kings* I guess. I bet you what though… private health insurers can’t deny you care they can only say they won’t pay for it. Dirty socialist George Soros toadies what would be in charge in Barack Obama’s dirty socialist paradise could do both.
happyfeet (c75712) — 7/21/2009 @ 5:57 pmPerhaps JD could take a moment to comment on happyfeet saying that under Obama, you wouldn’t be able to buy care the government denies.
You see, when I said opponents of Obama were saying that, JD called me a liar.
Perhaps JD and happyfeet can reach a consensus view, and then I’ll take that on.
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 7/21/2009 @ 6:02 pmI didn’t say it was for sure goofball I said I bet you what though… if you start with the assumption that Barack Obama is a big fan of authoritarian socialist plutocracies what are run by Hungarian sugar daddies, then there are a lot of possibilities it would be foolish to rule out I think.
happyfeet (c75712) — 7/21/2009 @ 6:11 pmBut I will defer to JD cause he knows health care more better than me. I mostly just make powerpoints and think up new recipes what I can make with our K-cup machine.
happyfeet (c75712) — 7/21/2009 @ 6:14 pmAJL – I called you a liar because you were telling lies. It appears to be a habit of yours.
JD (4fcc05) — 7/21/2009 @ 6:18 pmTwo years ago my 84 year old mother was diagnosed with leukemia and received a round of treatment for it and is in remission. By the government’s calculations she wasn’t worth that expense. But we have had the joy of her being around this extra time and she will be able to share the experience of my daughter graduating from college. What is that worth to all involved?
Six years ago at the age of 50 my wife also was diagnosed with leukemia, and this month with pre-cancerous growths in her breasts. She needed mammograms, ultrasounds and MRIs which were available within days to make the diagnosis and to set the stage for surgery in August. In Canada today, or the US in a year, would she be told that an MRI (if approved) is a year off, and perhaps surgery would be ruled out because of her pre-existing leukemia? What gives the government the right to sentence my wife to pain, suffering, and ultimately an early death? Where did our Founding Fathers envision giving the government that power?
It is like we are living a national nightmare…good lord it will be a long 4 years…
in_awe (930ef4) — 7/21/2009 @ 6:24 pmJD and I both think you’re a big fat phony liar.
Consensus!
happyfeet (c75712) — 7/21/2009 @ 6:25 pmI am skeptical of consensus, but in this case, it is accurate. This AJL person seems quite angry and bitter. I wish it were happier.
JD (4fcc05) — 7/21/2009 @ 6:31 pmIt is incredible that we would entrust our national healthcare system to the same bureaucrats that gave us the post office; social security and medicare. These idiots can’t even balance the budget much less run their own cafeteria.
I don’t think anyone is dying for Obamacare, but we will be if we have it.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/21/2009 @ 7:10 pmI’m very sorry about your loss.
But we have limited health-care resources. ATM we ration it by who can pay. For most of us this means that we’ve got to hope we keep working for a company large enough to pay for our health care needs. Otherwise we’re screwed. There’s a lot of luck in this. If you’re 55 and a decent employee of a company that goes under (like Visteon, Delphi etc) you’re screwed.
How do you want to ration care? Leave it as it is? Stick with 3rd party pays?
Joe 2 (c0e4f8) — 7/21/2009 @ 7:26 pmThomas Sowell pointed this out in Basic Economics, if I recall.
Most people are willing to donate to a fund to vaccinate children in impoverished countries (increasing life expectancy per person for decades for less than one dollar per capita). Most people are not willing to donate tom a fund to pay for a heart transplant for an octogenarian.
It is true that Jewish theology (and Christian theology which inherited Jewish moral traditions) teaches that we are to take care of our elders. But back during Christ’s time, no one had access to organ transplants or cybernetic augmentation. Should the requirement to take care of our elders extend to such procedures?
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 7/21/2009 @ 8:05 pmNothing.
Would Obamacare prohibit private financing of optional medical treatments?
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 7/21/2009 @ 8:10 pmfeets and JD – Crazy Andy just hates himself some capitalism is all I think. The profit motive is a scary thing for people like Andy where the progressive illuminati must reign and no dissent from their cocooned worldviews are allowed. Equality of outcome must prevail, screw the Constitution!
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/21/2009 @ 8:21 pmOr the same bunch of people that gave us the Bradley Amendment.
Or the same bunch of people who ran King-Drew.
Or who run the criminal justice system (Innocence Project)
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 7/21/2009 @ 9:11 pmI’m reading a book about disruptive technology in health care. I don’t agree with the author on some things but there are disruptive technologies coming. Think about H pylori in ulcer disease. Genetics is going to make huge advances and we are seeing some of it now with new drugs for cancer and other diseases like rheumatoid arthritis. The anti-TNF drugs are expensive but are life changing for people with RA. Will a bureaucracy be willing to invest in these technologies ? Canada doesn’t. After the initial period of use, they become standard therapy and get a lot cheaper but the initial introduction will not happen under single payer that is government run.
I fear that Obama care will become palliative medicine for everyone, as it is in Canada.
[note: fished from spam filter]
Mike K (db3eb5) — 7/21/2009 @ 10:19 pmOne can envision that had the health-care regime now under consideration in Congress already been in place, my friend would have been denied much of the treatment he received in those final six months. On the other hand one can envision your friend would have been granted every necessary treatment in those final six months at a lower cost. Sorry for the loss of your friend. 91 incredible years.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/21/2009 @ 10:32 pmNo one born and raised in this country and who has reached the age of 25 has the right to be poor unless they are physically or mentally handicapped or have an otherwise debilitating illness. Anyone who is poor and over 25 without those extenuating circumstances should be cut loose and they can sink or swim on their own. Old folks who worked all their lives, paid taxes all those years should not in the last year of life be kicked aside like a dog so bums can get their welfare subsidies.
Anyone who can afford beer and cigarettes can afford vaccines and basic insurance for their children, Its time to cut the parasites off the public teat.
Only democrats can be stupid enough to believe that in a country of 300 million in which 45 million lack coverage ( a debatable proposition but for the sake of discussion accept as true) that by increasing the demand by 15% without increasing the supply of doctors everyone will have better care.
Only democrats can be stupid enough to believe that that capping a doctors income but not capping his or hers expenses and liabilities is going to induce kids mortgaging themselves for upwards $300,000 in university, medical school, residential training and forgoing (depending on the specialty) upwards 7 years of training after medical school before they earn a real dollar number one and having a much shorter working careers to recoup the expenses is going to volunteer to go in to medicine. As Mark Twain once said “suppose you were a liberal democrat and suppose you were an idiot but then again I repeat myself”.
Get ready to go to India in a few years if you want top medical care and you have the cash to pay for it. The Brits are already doing that in many cases for elective surgery. Thailand also offers medical tourism as well. God help us and spare us from the communists and envy ridden class warriors.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 7/21/2009 @ 11:44 pmAmazing that it took a while for the socialists to get their stories straight before they came here to try to shame us in believing that were are all heartless bastards because we do not want socialized medicine.
NEWS FLASH!!! I am a heartless bastard, and damn proud of it. I see no reason to give control of my life over to a bunch of government bureaucrats.
What ever happened to “My body, my choice”?
Dr. K (eca563) — 7/22/2009 @ 4:12 am“Let Nature take it’s course”; that is acceptable if it is the individual (and spouse/family) making that decision on the perceived quality of life. It is completely unacceptable for a faceless beancounter to make that decision.
mer (eb081e) — 7/22/2009 @ 4:20 amI’m wondering where I can buy a “Keep Your Laws Off My Body” bumper sticker these days.
DCSCA said, “On the other hand one can envision your friend would have been granted every necessary treatment in those final six months at a lower cost.” I suppose you could, if you are painfully naive. I was born on a Tuesday… but it wasn’t last Tuesday.
Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 7/22/2009 @ 6:09 amGesundheit, so you are not wishing on a fairy like DCSCA.
SPQR (5811e9) — 7/22/2009 @ 8:43 amYour quality of care in old age will depend upon who you are (politician) or what you are (member of the intelligentsia)under DUH Ones plan. The rest of us will be “expendable”.
harleycowboy (066362) — 7/22/2009 @ 9:15 amSome of you might be interested in the new rules for “counseling the elderly.
Did you change the spam rules about links ? My posts that disappeared had links.
Mike K (db3eb5) — 7/22/2009 @ 10:53 amHealth care is a basic human right. As such, it is incumbent on our governments to provide the best possible care for the least cost. Here in Queensland, Australia, where I live we used to have free health care. The whole thing was subsidized by a Qld government lottery. Then some politicians in Canberra decided to make the whole country conform to a single medical policy. Our right to free medical care was taken away and we now have to pay a portion of the fees while the federal government pays the rest.
In my humble opinion, this is not a good solution. It’s time we reformed our medical service here too. It is slow, not very good, and people die waiting for treatment.
I lived in Thailand for 30 years, where the treatment is instant, professional, and of a much higher standard than can be had in the West.
This issue is too serious for us to let it go. We need to put more and more pressure on our governments to provide the BEST health care for US….not for the insurance companies. And the BEST health care should provide a decent living for health care professionals so that they are encouraged to give their best. This is not rocket science. Keep up the good fight!
Mike Holt (2fc056) — 7/22/2009 @ 5:11 pm[…] Pontifications: What’s the Price of Tomorrow? Obama to flog his faltering takeover of healthcare State Medical Associations Oppose […]
~ Dear President Obama: Who Do You Think You Are, Gambling Away My Grandchildren’s Future On Socialized Health Care? « Critical Political Thinking (474419) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:33 am