sorry granny, your life just isn't worth all that much anymore, isn't it about time you kicked that bucket?

that home you are in is expensive, and we could use the space for those younger than you that are infirm, crippled, deficient and slightly damaged. after all, they can still push an elevator button as members of the lowest Class, clean bathrooms and fetch coffee.

come to think of it, we will get to them next, and turn the place into condos, but that is for later. They will take a bit more "persuasion" to see the societal benefits their "departure", but that is to be expected from the poor things.

actually, we are starting to get quite a list, but it is best to keep it quiet for now.

once the machinery is in place to for we who know best to decide what the value of life is, it will all get much more efficient.

You pretty much hit the idea I was thinking of when I read that article. The biggest problem which nobody with any sort of ethics would want to face would be establishing a cutoff point. It's pretty safe to assume that people who get to be in their 90s and 100s are not the kind of people who can pay for surgeries themselves (people like George Burns are the exception that proves the rule). Therefore, we'd be telling them that once you hit a magic number, you're pretty much on your own. But if you want to take it further, why not lower the age limit even more? Or stop paying for any medical benefits at all? The pandora's box that would be opened boggles the mind. Medicaire needs to be fixed, but cutting off people who could still contribute something to their families is not the answer.

What the article doesn't mention is the way that Medicare costs are exploding, and that the fund is in serious financial trouble. If you can't afford to provide everyone all the healthcare they need, how do you decide, then?

Medicare costs are exploding because private for-profit insurers are able to dump all the cases that would cost them money to someone else. The insurance company doesnt use that money to advance the health and well being of those it serves. Wait, yes it does, because the people the insurance companies actually serve are the stockholders. They don give a good goddamn as long as the dividend stays good and they get some nice, appropriately dated options.

The point of healthcare, of medicine itself, is beyond the scope of dollars or costs. Dont start talking to me about medical need, or costs, or healthcare in this country until you have some idea of what the scope of the problems that exist are. This is a minor element in the costs at best, and it was served up to make a rather ugly and nasty point. That you or others might agree with that point is not suprising, but it still remains disturbing.

Look up 'spritzing' on the web, or 'phenol injected into the heart'. The Nazis also had a cost effective, efficient plan to deal with the infirm, the elderly and the disabled. Is that the sort of change we as Americans are looking for in the next election?

'The Nazis also had a cost effective, efficient plan to deal with the infirm, the elderly and the disabled."

Or when a person hits 90, just push 'em out on an ice flow. No need to waste the cost of a shot. And hey, why stop at saving Medicare dollars? Why should anyone want to live on Social Security past the age of 80? That should save billions per year.

Capitalism is great and I'm sick to my stomach...

that was kind of the point, sarcastic though it was.

once we empower the govt (and majority) to make those decisions, to rule on the value of life, then who is next?

it is a very dangerous door to open.

The point of healthcare, of medicine itself, is beyond the scope of dollars or costs.

Nonsense. Someone has to pay for all those fancy treatments and that someone is you and me either through our pockets or our taxes.

The question isn't *wanting* to give unlimited medical access to everyone. We do. But it's becoming clearer and clearer we can't pay for that.

Ergo *someone* has to decide who gets treated and who doesn't, and either we do this openly or we do it behind closed doors.

If we as a society decide we want to pay a million dollars to help a 100 year old hit 101, that's fine on the face of it. If we decided to pay for this by not funding vaccinations for 10,000 children... well then maybe that's less fine.

DBuss:

If we decided to pay for this by not funding vaccinations for 10,000 children... well then maybe that's less fine.

Exactly. This is what make the topic (morally) a brainer instead of a no-brainer.

That is an extremely faulty assumption that some expenditure on one end has anything to do with the other. They dont. Thats not the way it works.

Insurance companies have no interest in any programs or ideas that inprove the overall health of Americans. They can do a better job actuarialy by selecting their pool than they can by modifying it. Their motive is profit, plain and simple.

We as a nation spend almost 20% of GDP on healthcare. Its not that the money isnt there, or that its not being spent. It could just be spent better all the way around. The problems with the health care system wont be fixed without comprehensive address. However, the very inertia of 2 trillion dollars is enough to make it a sissyphean task.

The question of witholding of service is a simple one, it is not to be done. There are times when a service cannot be provided, such as a transplant and who gets the organs becomes a life or death question.

Ultimately, health care will end up becoming somehting like a utility that is strictly regulated and available to all at some base level of engagement. There will of course be private plans and provisions for different groups, but there should be a baseline of service and expense. And yes, all the people will be pooled so they cant be cherry picked.

The answer is, we get both, pacemakers for great grandma and vaccinations, smoking cessation, a plugged in activity/training/therapy component and lower costs overall. No more scooter scams, no longer dropping a family that has a child with cancer, no more patient dumping.

Wont happen mind you, but a boy can dream, cant he?

That is an extremely faulty assumption that some expenditure on one end has anything to do with the other. They dont. Thats not the way it works.

That's right. The way it works is society has been unwilling to face up to the fact that we *don't* have unlimited resources for medicine so we've played games to hide that fact.

So we make people jump through hoops, fill out paperwork, etc. Granted, that's where some of your 20% GDP goes. But that paperwork exists to prevent Insurance companies or the government (etc) from going bankrupt.

We're never going to get a truly efficient system as long as we claim everyone can get everything for "free". When we do that we're putting *someone* in the position of limiting service or going bankrupt.

So the question becomes how do we want to limit service?