Bloomberg Suggests We Need 2 Ration Care,Shouldn’t Give Treatment 4 Fatal Disease Past A Certain Age

DJDuck

https://www.weaselzippers.us/443870-bloomberg-suggests-we-need-to-ration-care-shouldnt-give-treatment-for-fatal-disease-past-a-certain-age/

DJDuck

Listen to this closely. And this was when he was paying a shiva call in 2011 with a grieving family whose father had just died. And when they change 95 to 75?

https://twitter.com/JoeySFromCO/status/1229147013670850560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1229147013670850560&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.weaselzippers.us%2F443870-bloomberg-suggests-we-need-to-ration-care-shouldnt-give-treatment-for-fatal-disease-past-a-certain-age%2F

PurpleThrobber

I can’t say that I necessarily disagree with the concept but the administration and decision making is what is disconcerting.

I don’t recall the exact percentage but let’s say it is 75% of the cost of medical care is for the last two months of life or something like that. It doesn’t seem to be a good use of resources relative to the payoff to keep granny alive for a few more hours.

At a logical level I can support the point. But I can’t get to the point where anyone but the individual should make that determination. Most certainly I do not want anyone but myself or my spouse to make that call.

MikeDamone

PurpleThrobber said:

I can’t say that I necessarily disagree with the concept but the administration and decision making is what is disconcerting.

I don’t recall the exact percentage but let’s say it is 75% of the cost of medical care is for the last two months of life or something like that. It doesn’t seem to be a good use of resources relative to the payoff to keep granny alive for a few more hours.

At a logical level I can support the point. But I can’t get to the point where anyone but the individual should make that determination. Most certainly I do not want anyone but myself or my spouse to make that call.

And that's how you get the death panels that the left mocked in 2008.

Your rational applies if the government is paying the cost. If not, then the patient is free to pay cash or buy insurance to cover it.

WestlinnDuck

Throbber makes a good point. My mother was a devout lady and "suicide" was in her terms the coward's way out. Well, at the end with stage 4 cancer and having gone blind she couldn't swallow. She basically died of dehydration having declined any life saving intervention - like an IV. At the end, she would have gladly had a lethal injection of morphine to stop the misery.

DJDuck

The government who would benefit from SS and Medicare beneficiaries is the one making the decisions on life and death AND the age at when to cut off care.

MikeDamone

WestlinnDuck said:

Throbber makes a good point. My mother was a devout lady and "suicide" was in her terms the coward's way out. Well, at the end with stage 4 cancer and having gone blind she couldn't swallow. She basically died of dehydration having declined any life saving intervention - like an IV. At the end, she would have gladly had a lethal injection of morphine to stop the misery.

And that choice should be hers

DJDuck

Actually with some investment the cost of healthcare can be brought down with some investment.
I know because of what I am going through right now. Libs say healthcare is a right. Are they now saying it is only a right for those of a certain age. Those that hold both of these views are illogical and hypocrites.

PurpleThrobber

MikeDamone said:

PurpleThrobber said:

I can’t say that I necessarily disagree with the concept but the administration and decision making is what is disconcerting.

I don’t recall the exact percentage but let’s say it is 75% of the cost of medical care is for the last two months of life or something like that. It doesn’t seem to be a good use of resources relative to the payoff to keep granny alive for a few more hours.

At a logical level I can support the point. But I can’t get to the point where anyone but the individual should make that determination. Most certainly I do not want anyone but myself or my spouse to make that call.

And that's how you get the death panels that the left mocked in 2008.

Your rational applies if the government is paying the cost. If not, then the patient is free to pay cash or buy insurance to cover it.

That may be my point of demarcation - if one so chooses to pay for the extra few weeks life relative to catastrophic/terminal illness and choosing to invest in a plan that would allow for it, that seems reasonable. Otherwise, state-sponsored healthcare ends at $X limit. It doesn't make mathematical sense to try to be all things to all people all the time. Sure as fuck, if it did, insurance companies would have figured out from an actuarial standpoint and offered such plans. They can't and don't.

The problem is when uninsured granny is held on life support for a few extra hours after a lifetime of poor choices, the costs are passed along to the people who did make their own choices, took personal responsibility for their actions and are fine with living with the rewards/consequences of said choices.

Or, to Mrs. Throbber v2.0's point as we discussed how fucked the Bernie Bro demands are: I'll listen to you about government sponsored healthcare when people are held accountable for smoking or not exercising or chowing down on diabetes-inducing food for most of their lives.....

DJDuck

The hypocricy and illogical thinking of totalitarian nuts like Bloomberg is amazing.

Bloomberg and his whacko ilk claim that healthcare is a right. Then he says the government can take away that right for certain identified groups. Doesn’t seem inalienable does it? What a bunch of maroons. Another specious Democrat argument that is just vacuous.

PandaOrangeChiknDuck

Which is why a national health care only option will never work. People should have the right to pay for better care if they want it, instead of settling for the lower tier coverage provided by the government.

DJDuck

Trump will pick off a lot of Union voters if the Democrats insist on eliminating their healthcare.