simple question

[RobDownSouth]

I will just have to make sure I am posting while they are volunteering at the soup kitchen or tossing grandma out on the pavement.

Those kind are all more than a bit bi-polar.

Makes visitation weekend all the more stressful. Poor kiddos don't know which side of "Daddy" they're gonna get...

 

[Ishmael]

I have read most of the posts and there are very valid points in most. The only side of this is the one I went through.
My husband had his first heart attack in his late 40s. First open heart (a 5 way bypass) in 2000. From there it went down hill....slowly. He was exposed to one of the last above ground nuclear tests in the Nevada desert when he was just a child and it was decided that this probably had a part to play. He then had a mitral valve failure in 2007 and another OH surgery.
We had insurance but it only covered so much and we went through all our savings in a matter of a few years. The amount was in excess of $350K. We tried to get help and a Republican senator told us (still don't know if he was serious) to get a divorce and go on Medicaid. We ended our marriage of over 30 years and did just that.
I am not saying this for pity. It is just a fact that life is cheap to those who hold the reins.
I am an Operating Room nurse (retired now) and the reason he lived as long as he did was due to the ability to call in favors and the fact that I can be one hell of a bitch when it comes to talking back.
Bottom line? Life can suck big time. No matter how you plan, you don't have control over it all.

He was absolutely serious. That's the way the law has been from the beginning back in the 60's. It is indeed unfortunate but the divorce ploy is the only way you might be able to preserve anything in instances like you have experienced. He was actually giving you sage advice.

If you or a loved one has to go into a nursing facility you virtually have to sign everything that the patient owns, or has partial ownership in, over to the government. So, if that person is a husband or wife, you get a divorce first so that at least some of the assets the couple have accumulated over a lifetime are kept in the family.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

On top of the potential for fraud and abuse that AJ has pointed out there is one other issue involved with the premise. And that being the 12 month death sentence.

I would presume that as part of this subsidy that the patient is going to receive is the explicit notion that absolutely NOTHING will be done to either prolong the patients life nor any attempt to effect a cure. In other words only palliative care will be rendered. That in and of itself might present a problem but the bigger issue is exactly who is going to be handing down this 12 month death sentence?

Ishmael

And I'm still waiting for an answer on the above.

Ishmael

 

[doowdniw]

the question was whether or not you believe the things i listed should be provided. depending on where in the world people are posting from, there may be none of those things or all of them and more.

I voted above.

 

[dolf]

I voted above.

if you'd care to expand on your thoughts, what it would depend upon, i would be interested.

 

[PoppingTom]

If you have not lived a life that would make friends and family rally around you in your time of need, why should society care?

Why should society care about people at all?

Maybe because that's why it's called society.

 

[Saint Peter]

Mothering Sunday is for religious types. Head to the mother church etc...

One might wish another parishioner a "Happy Mothering Sunday" but otherwise its not really observed by the godless masses.

Weirdo.

 

[hobbit.]

Why should society care about people at all?

Maybe because that's why it's called society.

Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to

Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society."

 

[Sean]

Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to

Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society."

Yeah, but she, Like Ishtard, AJ and the rest of the RWCJ chiming in here, was a cunt.

Surprised you didn't know that, actually.

 

[hobbit.]

Yeah, but she, Like Ishtard, AJ and the rest of the RWCJ chiming in here, was a cunt.

Surprised you didn't know that, actually.

ah yes, but she is dead, her death was rejoiced by many.

 

[PoppingTom]

Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to

Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society."

If you don't have a society, you better get one. Life is much easier if you're part of a society.

 

[dolf]

ah yes, but she is dead, her death was rejoiced by many.

but also lamented by many. rich, kiddy fiddlers lost a friend.

 

[Sean]

ah yes, but she is dead, her death was rejoiced by many.

It wasn't drawn out enough.

 

[hobbit.]

but also lamented by many. rich, kiddy fiddlers lost a friend.

true.

It wasn't drawn out enough.

her life was drawn out too long, shouldve died in the birth canal imho. yes her death couldve been more painful, but at leaset she is dead.

 

[RobDownSouth]

And I'm still waiting for an answer on the above.

Ishmael

Poor Ish doesn't want to go on record with his answer ("fuck 'em, let 'em all die") so he continues to ask "clarifying questions".

Tell ya what, old man, for sake of argument, let's assume stage 4 liver cancer. Mortality rate of 95%+ within 12 months.

Now that I've answered YOUR question, are you man enough to answer Dolf's? Hmmmm?

 

[Ishmael]

It really is impossible to have a rational discussion with you retards.

Dolf at least has a legitimate reason for opening the discussion and an emotional investment as well. The rest of you don't have dick shit. Most of you shooting off your mouth have never cared for an end of life patient so you have no clue as to what's involved.

Further, it seems you have no interest in doing so. You're the modern day equivalent of Pontius Pilate. You just want to wash your hands of the whole affair, ship the dying off somewhere where they won't interfere with your life.

Dolf's question is legitimate. To what extent is the population as a whole responsible for the care of the dying? Both financially and emotionally? Her premise was an absolute end of life scenario. And her question was concerning the financial role of the state. My answer to the poll was 'depends.'

I assume that the role of the state would be to provide palliative care only. No attempt to cure or prolong life will be made. This is very inexpensive to provide, but even so should be means tested. As far as providing a salary is concerned I would not be in favor of that. If the individual has reached the stage where they cannot function then they should be institutionalized in an end of life care facility with the following exception. Preferably they would be with family who could provide shelter etc. while hospice care is provided. I can see the state providing the family with a stipend to defray some expenses, food for example. If and when the patient reaches final stage, depending on the cause of death, moving them to an end of life care facility may be required.

I have cared for two family members in end of life situations and I know for a fact that the financial expense is not great at all, the emotional expense is an entirely different subject.

I believe that that answer Dolf's question.

Ishmael

 

[patient1]

And I'm still waiting for an answer on the above.

Ishmael

My best guess is to follow the money.

If, for example the great state of California were to receive a federal subsidy for keeping you alive for 12 months, they would have an interest in keeping your comatose carcass on a machine until it slowly mummified or time ran out.

Likewise, if they had an estate tax, they would have an interest in collecting it ASAP. Presuming our patient is beyond the ability to earn wages, in this scenario the state of CA has an incentive to be the one to make those determinations, or appoint those who do, in order to maximize revenue potential with which they may further the greater good. Governments are all about the greater good.

 

[Ishmael]

My best guess is to follow the money.

If, for example the great state of California were to receive a federal subsidy for keeping you alive for 12 months, they would have an interest in keeping your comatose carcass on a machine until it slowly mummified or time ran out.

Likewise, if they had an estate tax, they would have an interest in collecting it ASAP. Presuming our patient is beyond the ability to earn wages, in this scenario the state of CA has an incentive to be the one to make those determinations, or appoint those who do, in order to maximize revenue potential with which they may further the greater good. Governments are all about the greater good.

That is pretty much the case. If the state were to be totally responsible for the financial expense the incentive would be to hasten the end.

But to get to the nut of your point, he who writes the check will be the prime determinant as to whether there is an end of life situation.

Ishmael

 

[eyer]

Under the American Constitution...

...the federal government is in no way empowered to consider such an issue any of its business.

Individual states, however, are totally different matters...

...in regards, of course, to their own Constitutions.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Even as a young kid I wondered why the ant helped the grasshopper. I would have felt different if said grasshopper had a legitimate reason for not preparing for winter. So put me down as a depends.

That being said, my, and any proper life insurance policy will have an accelerated death benefit. Meaning that if your are deemed terminaly ill you can cash in if need be, usually up to 80%.

There are very little excuses for not having life insurance.

 

[Brollyanna]

He was absolutely serious. That's the way the law has been from the beginning back in the 60's. It is indeed unfortunate but the divorce ploy is the only way you might be able to preserve anything in instances like you have experienced. He was actually giving you sage advice.

If you or a loved one has to go into a nursing facility you virtually have to sign everything that the patient owns, or has partial ownership in, over to the government. So, if that person is a husband or wife, you get a divorce first so that at least some of the assets the couple have accumulated over a lifetime are kept in the family.

Ishmael

So, rather than having healthcare that is free at the point of use, you're ok with people having to lie (and get divorced to get around the system) in order to retain their homes when a family member gets ill.

To me, that is hypocracy and heartlessness of the highest order. Ill health is expensive, but how we treat our sick is a reflection on how civilized our society is.

One day in hospital costs around $1400, just for the bed. If a person prolonged needs hospital care, the cost quickly becomes unmanageable for all but the very rich. Proper healthcare should belong to everyone.

 

[Ishmael]

So, rather than having healthcare that is free at the point of use, you're ok with people having to lie (and get divorced to get around the system) in order to retain their homes when a family member gets ill.

To me, that is hypocracy and heartlessness of the highest order. Ill health is expensive, but how we treat our sick is a reflection on how civilized our society is.

One day in hospital costs around $1400, just for the bed. If a person prolonged needs hospital care, the cost quickly becomes unmanageable for all but the very rich. Proper healthcare should belong to everyone.

First of all we are NOT talking about healthcare here. We are talking about end of life care.

And as it has turned out "ShuckNJiveCare" wouldn't have helped in the situation that was presented. As a matter of fact it probably would have made things worse.

Ishmael

 

[CandiCame]

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?

Yes. No need for extra letters. That's so annoying, Lit.

 

[Brollyanna]

First of all we are NOT talking about healthcare here. We are talking about end of life care.

And as it has turned out "ShuckNJiveCare" wouldn't have helped in the situation that was presented. As a matter of fact it probably would have made things worse.

Ishmael

Unless you're talking about "let's turn the machines off" care, end of life care often requires intensive and expensive care. People should not have to lie to be able to care for their loved ones. Most health insurance companies will bail before our hypothetical year is out.

 

[GiggLeGasm]

Unless you're talking about "let's turn the machines off" care, end of life care often requires intensive and expensive care. People should not have to lie to be able to care for their loved ones. Most health insurance companies will bail before our hypothetical year is out.

in what ways do you think the health insurance companies bail? I'm only asking because I think that perceived barriers to care keep some people from gathering information and it would be interesting to hear your impression.