Just thought I'd throw this in there for those who trust their government to take control their health decisions. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...n-the-NHS.html

they are looking to get anything passed, NO MATTER WHAT IS IN IT, before year end to accomplish the objective.

And the objective is? They can ALL (both parties) say they finally passed a health care bill.

Now how confidence inspiring is that? Another tile in the mosaic that continues to leave out the needs of we the people.....AGAIN!!!

All incumbents out 2010 & 2012.

btk

Just because someone is old and/or ill should not be a death sentence. My friend's husband back home was "written off" about 10 years ago and is now working again, playing golf, and lots of things younger ones cannot. He is no spring chicken but you sure wouldn't know it.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I missed your question, Dilly. But at the end, you noted that you were more blessed than many other Americans. I'd have to agree. Many of us currently have healthcare insurance and are in a position to complain about increasing costs. There are tens of millions of others who have only the local hospital ER to rely on. We've all seen the news clips--the young woman with diagnosed cancer, with no money or no insurance, etc., etc.

When you say you don't trust Pelosi and company, unfortunately we all have to trust Ms. Pelosi and the other members of Congress. We've all read the statistics, and they're real. Eighty thousand Americans or so dying each year because they have no health insurance; one American filing for bankruptcy every thirty seconds because they can't pay their doctor and hospital bills, 45 million with no insurance at all. And on and on. The numbers are real.

Congresses for the last 30-40 years have put off doing anything about the impending healthcare crisis. Most agree that we're on the edge of the cliff right now. The failure of the 111th Congress to do something to reduce the spiraling cost of healthcare is the equivalent of pushing the country off the cliff.

Note that I said they must reduce the cost of healthcare. When we listen to what the elected reps say, what is written about the proposals, what the pundits say, we should all be asking the question...does this plan or program reduce the cost of healthcare in the U.S.?

Providing health insurance to 45 million people who don't have it will reduce costs in the long term. But in the short term it will have to be paid for. Same with improved diagnostic information technology, preventive care or wellness programs, and so on. I implore anyone who reads this to thoughtfully consider whether what our Congress proposes and passes will really "bend the cost curve". If whatever reforms that are passed don't do that, it's simply another failure of our politicians to do the right thing.

But, answering a question that I'm not sure you asked, Dilly, we're stuck with Pelosi, Reid, Grassley, McConnell, Rangel, Boehner, etc. as the ones who will have to craft the legislation to correct this critical problem. As much as we don't trust them, we're stuck with them. They're the ones who were elected to represent us. They'e the ones who will have to solve the problem.

Remember, as I've said in this forum many times before--if we don't like what's going on in Washington, we can change the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate in November, 2010--only a year or so from now. All we need to do to get rid of all those that we have been so critical of is to not vote for anyone who is currently a member of Congress. It's really a pretty simple solution.

In the meantime all we can hope and pray for is that the 111th Congress finally does the right thing, not just the thing that they think will get them re-elected, or even worse the thing that the special interests paid them to do. Remember the key question: will this reduce the cost of healthcare in the U.S.?

Do you really and truely believe that there is anything but a political agenda to all of this ?

There WILL BE A HEALTH BILL....and frankly I dont think congress or the President care what is in it seriously ! STILL to this day they use numbers that include illegal immigrants as uninsured but tell us they will not be covered by any bill....??

Originally Posted by Bucco

Do you really and truely believe that there is anything but a political agenda to all of this ?...

Of course there's a political agenda. With politicians, there always is. The only thing we can hope for is that they collectively have enough feeling of responsibility that they will pass reform legislation that will really address the main healthcare issue facing the country--unsustainable and unaffordable increases in healthcare costs. I don't have high expectations for that happening, but I'm willing to keep the glass "half full".

Originally Posted by dillywho

...I can barely pay for what you refer to as "deeply discounted" now and am aware that we will be paying more come next year. My resources are not going up and at that rate, it is not really difficult to understand why so many are uninsured....

Dilly, your situation is exactly why we need healthcare reform legislation this year. The costs are escalating at four times the rate of inflation. Many are feeling the pinch, including yourself.
--------------------------------------
We'll know a lot more about the specific plans of the President when he speaks to the joint session of Congress next Wednesday night. Finally, we really will have a package of proposals that can be called "Obamacare". I think we'll also get some sense of how the Democrats will go about passing the bill. Do I expect a bi-partisan approach? No, that's been tried and hasn't worked. I think it'll be a pure power play.

But when all gets said and done, we should look at what's being proposed in comparison to the problem it is supposed to correct. Do the plans "bend the cost curve"? Do they really reduce the cost of healthcare over the long run? Those answers will be important to all of us.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Just thought I'd throw this in there for those who trust their government to take control their health decisions. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...n-the-NHS.html

This same report could be written about similar situations hundreds of times every day in many, many different hospitals in many, many different countries.

The article is correct, forecasting death in an inexact science. In almost all hospitals that I know of, the decision to begin to withdraw treatment to patients deemed terminally ill is a decision by a panel of physicians from the hospital staff, but only with the agreement of the family (unless the patient had executed a Living Will). Even then, there are disagreements.

I had a situation that I was responsible for myself. I take care of an elderly woman whose doctor told me that she had less than six months to live because of a cancerous lung tumor. To make the end easier, I arranged for her admission to a hospice program. Guess what? She "graduated" from hospice and she's back in the nursing home general population--at age 97!

Then there's the case of Terri Schiavo. You remember that case, don't you? Congress even came back from their August recess to hold hearings. Her family couldn't agree; her doctors couldn't agree; and neither could Congress.

My point exactly Kahuna. Thank God for the lucky woman in your care that you had the ability to make the right decision. In a government run and dictated system, which is what Obama-care is really about, services would be rationed and your friend would maybe have been deemed too costly to provide extended benefits at her "advanced age". You would have merely been informed on what her care was to be and you would have no recourse. Right or wrong, don't you want to have at least the ability to purchase the care you desire and can pay for or have provided for with a health care plan that you purchased according to your needs and ability?
In the case of Terry Shiavo, if you believe that was done to her was correct, which I don't, don't you think it would have been better to give her a lethal injection than to deprive her of sustenance until she slowing starved and dehydrated to death? If you're going to kill someone, which is what was done, don't you think it should be at least as humane a death as we provide murderers on death row. No one can say with any certainty that she was not brain aware or pain free.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

... Thank God for the lucky woman in your care that you had the ability to make the right decision....

Don't give me too much credit. The old lady, a lifelong friend of my Mom's, is in a nursing home in south suburban Chicago. I'm in Florida, of course. She obviously doesn't get a lot of my personal attention. Beyond that, her dementia has reached the stage that's she's forgotten who I am anyway.

But her "graduation" from hospice back to normal nursing home care was actually the result of Medicare, which indicated that it would stop covering the cost of hospice care after she survived for six months, was gaining weight, showing no ill effects of her tumor, etc. So in this case, Medicare can at least be credited with paying attention to her condition and "kicking her out" of hospice, where she would get no life-prolonging care, back into the general population where she would get treatment for the various ills that would confront her.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

...don't you think it would have been better to give her a lethal injection than to deprive her of sustenance until she slowing starved and dehydrated to death?...No one can say with any certainty that she was not brain aware or pain free....

I would agree with that approach, but it would have been illegal in Florida. As it turned out, her autopsy showed that there was very little brain mass left, confirming the opinion of those that said she was brain dead anyway.

I guess if the doctors conclude that a patient is actually brain dead, or whose condition is irreversible, they're not going to have the ability to be hungry or thirsty anyway. So short of making euthanasia legal, what other choices are there? My experience has been that the medical people administer pain drugs, which both control pain and slow body functions, having the effect of hastening death while making sure the patient is at least free of any discomfort.

I had to make exactly that decision with both my parents, neither of whom had Living Wills, and concluded that to be the case. Both my wife and I decided that we would never require our children to make that decision for us. We both have executed Living Wills and periodically review them and update our signatures.

Geez, this is a depressing thread. Let's quit talking about this stuff.

Agreed Kahuna. It is a lot to think about and none too pleasant. I appreciate the civil discussion with you on troubling topics on which we may sometimes disagree. I am often trying to judge my own thoughts by seeking out the well thought out opinions of others. I am not always correct as my wife loves to point out; but learning is a life long pursuit.

Whether or not we agree on all fronts, I respect your input and your sharing of your personal opinions and experiences.

For what it's worth, I agree that somethimg has to be done. I just think they're kinda like the song "looking in all the wrong places". They have finally started getting tougher with the drug companies (note the article in today's Sun, re: Pfizer). I still say that controlling TV ads about medical stuff (no, I don't view it as censorship, just good sense), lawyers looking to sue, etc. would certainly save big bucks. As I have said before, I don't need some TV ad telling me to "ask my doctor if xxx is right for me". If he doesn't know without an ad telling me to ask him, then it's time to change doctors. As for Medicare picking up the tab for "end-of-life counseling", to me that is another waste. If they are going to pay doctors for this, can't you just discuss it with him/her at an already scheduled appointment? As for some government yahoo "counseling" us, no way.

Originally Posted by dillywho

...As for Medicare picking up the tab for "end-of-life counseling", to me that is another waste. If they are going to pay doctors for this, can't you just discuss it with him/her at an already scheduled appointment? As for some government yahoo "counseling" us, no way.

Agree completely. In my case, the "counseling" amounted to an explanation by the doctor(s), who already knew the condition of my parents, as to what the prognosis might be if heroic (and expensive) treatment was provided to prolong life, versus what would happen if nothing was done. If they got paid by the hour for that counseling, they wouldn't have made very much.

I can remember when my wife was dying and I called a home care service (I will not give the name in order to avoid a long list of people yelling at me.) to help me. She was a Registered Nurse, had been head nurse in a number of area of the hospital (e.g. Cardiac Care, ER, Pedeatrics, etc.etc.) and in fact her picture is on display in the hospital where she practiced.
Back to the story..She was diagnosed with Stomach cancer, Stage IV and told it was most likely terminal. We spent 8-9 months going through various treatments, surgerys (e.g. Chemo, etc.). When it was determined she only had a few weeks to live and I had to turn her every couple of hours, etc. she told me I had to call for help. I did. I called these home care people. They came in a very business like way and went through what they would and would not do. One thing they said was that they would not give her fluids as that would just "prolong life". She started to cry and tell them she would die from dyhydration and the other problems by denying her fluids. They stood steadfast. I ended up throwing them out and securing another home care who did provide fluids and she died a peacful death. There is no way in this world I would want the gov't to start following the practices of this terrible home care practice but I am afraid that is just what they would do. THE DIFFERENCE WAS DYING A PEACEFUL DEATH VS DYING BECAUSE OF BEING DENIED ONE OF THE MAJOR REQUIREMENTS OF LIFE..WATER. IT IS QUICKER. Please don't preach to me the benifits of some bizzare expediting of death. You have to be there, understand it from a medical and human standpoint.
We do not need a bureaucrat telling us the treatment we can have at the time of a terminal illness. What the heck kind of nation have we become to start choosing who will and will not die and how long they will get and what kind of treatment.

Originally Posted by REH7380

I can remember when my wife was dying and I called a home care service (I will not give the name in order to avoid a long list of people yelling at me.) to help me. She was a Registered Nurse, had been head nurse in a number of area of the hospital (e.g. Cardiac Care, ER, Pedeatrics, etc.etc.) and in fact her picture is on display in the hospital where she practiced.
Back to the story..She was diagnosed with Stomach cancer, Stage IV and told it was most likely terminal. We spent 8-9 months going through various treatments, surgerys (e.g. Chemo, etc.). When it was determined she only had a few weeks to live and I had to turn her every couple of hours, etc. she told me I had to call for help. I did. I called these home care people. They came in a very business like way and went through what they would and would not do. One thing they said was that they would not give her fluids as that would just "prolong life". She started to cry and tell them she would die from dyhydration and the other problems by denying her fluids. They stood steadfast. I ended up throwing them out and securing another home care who did provide fluids and she died a peacful death. There is no way in this world I would want the gov't to start following the practices of this terrible home care practice but I am afraid that is just what they would do. THE DIFFERENCE WAS DYING A PEACEFUL DEATH VS DYING BECAUSE OF BEING DENIED ONE OF THE MAJOR REQUIREMENTS OF LIFE..WATER. IT IS QUICKER. Please don't preach to me the benifits of some bizzare expediting of death. You have to be there, understand it from a medical and human standpoint.
We do not need a bureaucrat telling us the treatment we can have at the time of a terminal illness. What the heck kind of nation have we become to start choosing who will and will not die and how long they will get and what kind of treatment.

Thanks for your post REH...that had to be difficult to relive and post and my best wishes to you and just wanted to know that it is appreciated that you cared to share it.

I have been blessed and not had to endure that thus do not post about what I cant speak about with some certainity but had to reply and say thank you for such a heartfelt post !

Originally Posted by REH7380

. . . There is no way in this world I would want the gov't to start following the practices of this terrible home care practice but I am afraid that is just what they would do.

THE DIFFERENCE WAS DYING A PEACEFUL DEATH VS DYING BECAUSE OF BEING DENIED ONE OF THE MAJOR REQUIREMENTS OF LIFE..WATER. IT IS QUICKER. Please don't preach to me the benifits of some bizzare expediting of death. You have to be there, understand it from a medical and human standpoint.
We do not need a bureaucrat telling us the treatment we can have at the time of a terminal illness. What the heck kind of nation have we become to start choosing who will and will not die and how long they will get and what kind of treatment.

Gee, do you think that is what our government is doing to our wounded & dying soldiers??