simple question

[dolf]

if a person of limited means is given 12 months to live, should they have all their health, social care and basic income paid for by the state?

 

[unregistered]

 

[dolf]

This is not at all easy for me to answer, although I very much want to say yes.

expand? even if it's not cohesive, i'm interested to here your thoughts.

 

[GimpyIntellect]

OMG, you're dying??

 

[dolf]

OMG, you're dying??

I broke a nail. it may prove fatal.

 

[unregistered]

 

[dolf]

Having supported multiple loved ones with terminal illnesses, even having watched my mother fall to one (when she was 30), I know what this looks like. I know the suffering and I truly believe worrying about the devastating financial burden only serves to make this infinitely worse for the person. I would very much like to see that stressor alleviated, at the very least the medical costs.

Yet, health care is such an explosive and divisive issue here in the states. People don't seem to be thinking of all humans as worthy, especially by comparison to the almighty insurance corporation.

Issues like these, that I think SHOULD unite us but actually divide us make me sad for this country.

I suppose my answer to your question is yes, truly, but that I'd like to see many other changes along with that, mostly on the people to change, and for the government to be responsive and not just power-driven.

This makes sense in my head...

no, that makes lots of sense. thank you

 

[GimpyIntellect]

I broke a nail. it may prove fatal.

Happy Mother's Day, dolf..

 

[dolf]

Happy Mother's Day, dolf..

thank you!

 

[Saint Peter]

Yes.



Happy Mothering Day!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

if a person of limited means is given 12 months to live, should they have all their health, social care and basic income paid for by the state?

Then, the side effect of a yes becomes, as we have with our billowing disability rolls, a subset of ethically-challenged doctors who are willing to pronounce such things in exchange for the subsidy dollars the state provides for that stubborn poor patient that just won't die on schedule...



There are no omniscient doctors, even though I know a few surgeons who would beg to disagree.



What's the difference between a surgeon and Gawd?

Gawd doesn't think he's a surgeon.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes.



Happy Mothering Fucker Day!

Do you kiss your cat with that mouth?

 

[colddiesel]

I say no because if death is certain, firstly there is not too much or too long to worry. Death is a personal thing involving largely family and friends, I personally think that it is extra-ordinarily arrogant that the State should consider it has a role at all.

Insofar as the state takes over the role of family, that diminishes the role of family generally - what was a family duty tends to become an entitlement from the state which in turn erodes the importance of personal relationships.

I have had the personal experience of losing my own wife more than 30 years ago, and knowing it was about to happen for six months previously. It was a difficult time but one which had its rewards as well. My mother and my wife, for example had never much liked each other, but they put that to one side and worked out a sort of accomodation. I'm not going to sentimentalize, they were never going to love each other, or even like each other - but in the end there was a mutual respect as both women did what they thought they should (their duty?)

Death at close quarters can grow people sometimes - I think it has something to do with facing and overcoming adversity. Slot the state into that equation and that opportunity is lost.

Having said that, it is difficult to know what to do about people who have no, money, no family, and no friends. I would still like to keep the State at arms length, but in a society which is fearful of death, who will volunteer to step up to the plate?

My pet dislike is seeing the neglect of the dying, followed after death by the sentimentalisation of the relationship with the dead person.

 

[PoppingTom]

I say no ..... I personally think that it is extra-ordinarily arrogant that the State should consider it has a role at all.

Insofar as the state takes over the role of family, that diminishes the role of family generally - what was a family duty tends to become an entitlement from the state which in turn erodes the importance of personal relationships.

.......

Having said that, it is difficult to know what to do about people who have no, money, no family, and no friends.

But that's the point. It's about money, about independence. Not about relationships. If a person that lived his own life and made his own money can't do that because of his disease, he's a finacial burden to his family, no matter how deep the relationship is. Just because I have to pay for somebody doesn't mean I'll get a better relationship to that person.

 

[GiggLeGasm]

I answered no. I very much appreciate the things pointed out in the post above. I agree that medical care should be covered but I don't think that is the biggest concern. Terminal illness is already a qualifier for government assistance. Social care and basic income are where I struggle with the yes response.

It would be hard for me to define social care. There is a cultural component. Some people consider death a rite of passage that is surrounded by ritual. Others cling to religion. These are areas that I do not believe can be handled by agencies far removed from the personal experiences associated with dying. Respite care for families can be provided by agencies like Hospice and Visiting Angels.

I applaud healthcare institutions who have bothered to establish Hospice (and similar) agencies as a part of their standard services. It isn't realistic to be willing to help people with every aspect of health except for when it's failing. I wish there was something we could do for people who only have 12 months to live simply because they're aging. Without the terminal diagnosis, it can be difficult for them to access additional resources.

I suppose my true response is that I think these services should be available but not because of a federal mandate.

 

[ReadyMike]

I voted yes.

I think there is room for a state run Hospice arrangement, even in the newly draconian US. It is easy to find examples of an illness bankrupting a large radius of extended family members, putting strain on relationships, and burdening society.

 

[Lord Pmann]

I answered no. I very much appreciate the things pointed out in the post above. I agree that medical care should be covered but I don't think that is the biggest concern. Terminal illness is already a qualifier for government assistance. Social care and basic income are where I struggle with the yes response.

It would be hard for me to define social care. There is a cultural component. Some people consider death a rite of passage that is surrounded by ritual. Others cling to religion. These are areas that I do not believe can be handled by agencies far removed from the personal experiences associated with dying. Respite care for families can be provided by agencies like Hospice and Visiting Angels.

I applaud healthcare institutions who have bothered to establish Hospice (and similar) agencies as a part of their standard services. It isn't realistic to be willing to help people with every aspect of health except for when it's failing. I wish there was something we could do for people who only have 12 months to live simply because they're aging. Without the terminal diagnosis, it can be difficult for them to access additional resources.

I suppose my true response is that I think these services should be available but not because of a federal mandate.

I couldn't possibly have stated it any better than this.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

But that's the point. It's about money, about independence. Not about relationships. If a person that lived his own life and made his own money can't do that because of his disease, he's a finacial burden to his family, no matter how deep the relationship is. Just because I have to pay for somebody doesn't mean I'll get a better relationship to that person.

If you say yes, for the reason of independence, then you still pay the cost, you just do not see it because it is an indirect payment to strangers and to your family member, when terminal, from strangers. In the former case you incentivize strong familial bonds, and in the latter case you make justification for weaker family bonds in favor of a more tribal type of bond which realizes and manifests itself in such attitudes as parents are bad for children because they make poor choices, so we need to make those choices for them.

Let us expand the scope of this issue just a tiny bit more and submit that if we know they only have 12 months to live, then a cost benefit analysis tells us that assisted suicide with dignity for the financial strength of the community and greater independence for the individuals in it who are still healthy and contributing to the tax base and no longer burdened by these "costs" to society is a beneficial thing.





PS: I fear too often that these threads devolve into, "I am compassionate and caring and the fact that you will not accept and adopt my superior position means that you are selfish and the selfish are hateful and now I really hate you. You're less than human."

 

[RobDownSouth]

So far, this poll is breaking along the lines I expected.

 

[dolf]

To clarify, in the UK social care covers washing, dressing, feeding, etc. Essentially, anything that isn't strictly medical care.

Also, I thought it would be assumed that individuals and their families could decide to opt out.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LMAO The state will send assessors to appraise your assets then schedule hearings to decide your benefit, two weeks after you expire.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

LMAO The state will send assessors to appraise your assets then schedule hearings to decide your benefit, two weeks after you expire.

Two years if you're a veteran.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

To clarify, in the UK social care covers washing, dressing, feeding, etc. Essentially, anything that isn't strictly medical care.

Also, I thought it would be assumed that individuals and their families could decide to opt out.

I let this pas before the edit, but we're talking about the poor correct?

Is that class going to ever opt out of any freebie?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I let this pas before the edit, but we're talking about the poor correct?

Is that class going to ever opt out of any freebie?

You're not working, and you said you declined unemployment benefits, right?

 

[PoppingTom]

If you say yes, for the reason of independence, then you still pay the cost, you just do not see it because it is an indirect payment to strangers and to your family member, when terminal, from strangers. In the former case you incentivize strong familial bonds, and in the latter case you make justification for weaker family bonds

I'm talking about independence from family bonds at financial things, so no, I don't care of any justifications for somebody's family relationships. You obviously don't get it.

Let us expand the scope of this issue just a tiny bit more and submit that if we know they only have 12 months to live, then a cost benefit analysis tells us that assisted suicide with dignity for the financial strength of the community and greater independence for the individuals in it who are still healthy and contributing to the tax base and no longer burdened by these "costs" to society is a beneficial thing.

For whom?

If I knew I only had 12 months to live, I'd quit work immediately. Call it selfish, but yu don't have to die that soon, how can you judge people who have to?

PS: I fear too often that these threads devolve into, "I am compassionate and caring and the fact that you will not accept and adopt my superior position means that you are selfish and the selfish are hateful and now I really hate you. You're less than human."

The answer is: no. You're human (I hope so), and I can partly follow your view, but still deny a lot of it. I call you selfish when it comes to what the state has to pay from YOUR taxes, just like nobody else is been taxed. Yes, the state pays for a lot of dumb people. What's the matter with it?