We need Tom Tupa Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 This is interesting: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginal...ves-longer.html At birth, someone living in the Netherlands can expect to live 2.35 years longer than someone born in the US, but at age 65, the difference is reversed, and someone living in the US can expect to live 0.4 years longer than someone living in the Netherlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 This is interesting: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginal...ves-longer.html I was actually just chatting with a doc about life expectancy getting longer over the years. He says we're just keepin g sick people alive longer. I'd bet if we weren't all desk or TV or automobile bound we'd be better off. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Taking this thread in an unexpected direction... How much do you think it's costing us to keep sick people alive longer? tons. Ironic as well that the Dutch are more accepting of the right to die with dignity. We'll have a hard time selling that here. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 I was actually just chatting with a doc about life expectancy getting longer over the years. He says we're just keepin g sick people alive longer. I'd bet if we weren't all desk or TV or automobile bound we'd be better off. WSS I agree Steve...that and medicine has helped eliminate some of the reasons, such as TB and polio, that killed people in their 20's, 30's and 40's, which skewed the mortality numbers to a much lower number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I think you could make this stat fit either side of the argument. After all, what kind of health care are Americans eligible for after they reach 65? In that sense, it doesn't sound like a great argument against government-run health care. It's the only time in an American's life when they're guaranteed to have health insurance, and it turns out they fare better. Imagine that. Meanwhile, most Europeans cover every child born in their country from day one. That's not the case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Maybe we could just say those over age 70 are useless eaters and call in Dr Death' Jack Kevorkian Then we would be no better than Germany was during WWII. Here is your boy for the task at hand he can create some type of death mobile and we can get volunteers to drive down the street while everybody grabs the old geezers and carries them out and have them hung, burned, gased or whatever your flavor of the day is. Then Obama wouldn't have to worry about social security or medicare that way. Simply disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 That's what you get for sharing, Inspecta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I think we'd see something closer to the following, before we ever saw Kevorkian in a utility belt driving around a Deathmobile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I think you could make this stat fit either side of the argument. After all, what kind of health care are Americans eligible for after they reach 65? In that sense, it doesn't sound like a great argument against government-run health care. It's the only time in an American's life when they're guaranteed to have health insurance, and it turns out they fare better. Imagine that. Meanwhile, most Europeans cover every child born in their country from day one. That's not the case here. Interesting point. On the flip side, I think most physicians, nutritionists, etc. would make the case that it's how you take care of yourself between years 0-64 that weighs more heavily on your life expectancy & quality once you hit 65, rather than just "being covered" at that point. Meaning your health is compounded on your entire lifestyle, not just the availability of care. Isolating your point, as an argument for government-run health care would be like saying cramming for a test is the best way to learn the material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Different societies have different customs, but I personally would like to see people allowed to check out gracefully when quality of life is gone. Nost of us probably would want that. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 He'll still kick your ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 He'll still kick your ass. You are probably right. A great message in this clip...the guy wasn't ahead of his time...we are just now catching up to the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted August 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I think you could make this stat fit either side of the argument. After all, what kind of health care are Americans eligible for after they reach 65? In that sense, it doesn't sound like a great argument against government-run health care. It's the only time in an American's life when they're guaranteed to have health insurance, and it turns out they fare better. Imagine that. Meanwhile, most Europeans cover every child born in their country from day one. That's not the case here. Not surprisingly, I'm hesitant to heap praise on Medicare for this stat. It seems to me that the most obvious and measurable (hooray!!) place to look to explain this phenomenon is cause of death. People over 65 are significantly less likely to die as a result of violent crime or drug overdoses. I dont have the stats in front of me, but I would guess that the same is true of car accidents. All of those things result in higher death rates in America than they do in the Netherlands. Before anyone discounts the significance of these factors on life expectancy overall, consider this: firearm deaths alone decrease the life expectancy of American black males by a full year. And we havent even begun to discuss obesity.... (heck and MR are right though; this stat can go both ways at the moment) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Different societies have different customs, but I personally would like to see people allowed to check out gracefully when quality of life is gone. Nost of us probably would want that. WSS Going out with your boots on means a lot, who wants some damn bureaucrat telling you can or cannot fight for your life when you get old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Concerning Medicare. How many seniors are forced to bankrupt themselves for long term care? Medicare, (the nationalized plan as we know) does nothing, or not too damn much right? While we bemoan the fact that a 30 year old who won't pay for a policy might be bankrupted by an accident or illness? Can we expect a new bebefit to provide both A nd B to seniors free? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Going out with your boots on means a lot, who wants some damn bureaucrat telling you can or cannot fight for your life when you get old. Big difference between "fighting for life" and keeping fluid coursing through a near corpse bud. You think that decision should be made by the patient or family member? How about if it were up to that family member to pay for end of life care for years? Sound cold? Is it realism? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Big difference between "fighting for life" and keeping fluid coursing through a near corpse bud. You think that decision should be made by the patient or family member? How about if it were up to that family member to pay for end of life care for years? Sound cold? Is it realism? WSS I agree with that, my father before he died stated that he didn't want to be kept alive like Terri Schiavo, he stated that was not fun to watch and was humiliating to everyone in her family. This is something for each individual to determine and should not be determined by the gov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 This is something for each individual to determine and should not be determined by the gov. Sure. But unless your family has unlimited funds they and their insurers will have to decide between letting grandma go or bankruptcy as it is. As much as I don't care for Obama I sincerely doubt the "government" would make those decisions any differently than the family, the doctors or the present health system. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 I'm not sure I entirely agree with that idea. There are already dollar limits on health insurance and once you reach those limits you no longer have coverage...any costs after that are paid out of pocket. That's true. And when that time comes I say it's time to move on. It sounds cold and heartless but at what point does someone decide the battle is a losing one (and they all are...everyone is gonna die someday) and just make someone comfortable because it's cheaper? Unfortunately, I see that point happening sooner with a government run program than a private one. Maybe, but we just don't know that. In neither case does it make sense to keep someone alive past the point of a quality life. Even if you have the money to do it. And especxially if you don't and it's being subsidized. IMO. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 "Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections Tens of thousands with chronic back pain will be forced to live in agony after a decision to slash the number of painkilling injections issued on the NHS, doctors have warned." ******** That's in Britain. Off Drudge... Government insurance is government control, and bureaucracy wins regardless of the incompetence, cold-bloodedness, apathy, and corruption. Not good. ******************************* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.