Times Columnist Wants Old People Dead

[Lucky]

"Conservative" New York Times columnist David Brookes today calls for trimming the health care during the last months of a person's life "so we can preserve programs for those who are growing and learning the most." Attention Sarah Palin: How does this differ from death panels? Who decides the cuts? Do the poor take the biggest hits since they probably get the most government help?

Brookes also calls for "adjusting " pension "promises" so that the old don't have the money to live as long.

He says "seniors are being protected while children are being pummeled."

What kind of America does Brookes envision? Apparently one where getting old has no reward.

[Lucky]

I suppose we all end up on the trash heap anyway!

[MsGuy]

Indiana Governor Mitchell Daniels ® has been making speeches pushing both these ideas to various consevative gatherings, Lucky, in an effort to draw attention to a possible run at the Republican nomination in 2012.

In all honesty, it's a subject that will have to be seriously discussed in the not too distant future. Basically, one can spend an arbitrarily large sum of money propping up old folks in the last few months of life.

For myself, I have repeatedly warned my next of kin that I will definitely come back and haunt him if he lets them put me on a ventilator for my last few weeks.

[Guest zipperzone]

Just think how much easier (and cheaper) it would be if the law allowed assisted suicide. Jack Kevorkian where are you when we need you? I seem to recall its now allowed in Oregon??? A step in the right direction.

[TampaYankee]

As passionately as I advocate for affordable accessible health care for all, I recognize that there has to be limits to public assistance for health care. If it is not affordable for all then it is not accessible to all.

Like it or not, we are all going to die. There is little justification for expending tremendous amounts to extend the life of the elderly or terminally diseased by a few months when that would deny prenatal care to a dozen mothers-to-be or a pediatric cancer treatment. I'm much closer to the elderly end of the spectrum than I am to needing pediatric care. Even so, I have to say I've had a pretty long run and to extend whatever life I have left for another few months at big cost just isn't practical and doesnt make sense for providing affordable national health care.

I have always advocated for private supplemental insurance to provide frills and extras beyond what a basic national program would offer. This could pick up that extraordinary end of life care. Does that mean the rich will have more options than the less well off. Yes, but that has always been the case. Nothing new there. What has not always been the case was affordable good health care accessible to all.

Bottom line is David Brooks and Mitch Daniels are stating the pratical and obvious. The devil is in the details. It may not be easy to navigate those details but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done. It should be done and is necessary to provding a practical affordable national health care plan.

End of life care should not focus on treatment for extending life but rather for making the end of life stage as comfortable and easy as possible through medications as approrpiate and hospice care as necessary.

[Lucky]

My concern is not curtailing services for extending lives a few months, but where the line is drawn. I don't trust young Republicans to draw those lines.

[RA1]

As the resident curmudgeon, I don't trust anyone to draw those lines. What I want is my friends and family + the attending to decide, if any of them are still alive when I go.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

What I want is my friends and family + the attending to decide, if any of them are still alive when I go.

No doubt at least one will be alive, RA1, unless you've got a kink for physicians from Haiti.

[Guest zipperzone]

Even so, I have to say I've had a pretty long run and to extend whatever life I have left for another few months at big cost just isn't practical and doesnt make sense for providing affordable national health care.

I basically agree. The problems will arise when it has to be decided just how much time is left. For example - if the most that can be expected is another 2 or 3 months, it probably isn't worth it - although individual circumstances can widely differ. An extra 3 months could in some instances be of immeasurable benefit to the afflicted one or to those who survive him/her.

If however, treatment could extend life by even 1 or 2 years, then I would vote yes. The real problem is who is (a) allowed, and ( competent to make these decisions.

I still say, join the Hemlock Society and be your own judge & jury.

[lookin]

I think it's a mistake to get sucked into the discussion of how a fixed amount of health care dollars gets shifted around from one group of people to another. I believe a much better discussion would be how we can make sure we all get the healthcare we need.

In my opinion, we should come at this issue from other more humane perspectives. A few leap to mind: controlling costs (single-payer system, tort reform), increasing Medicare contributions (or at the very least, not cutting them as we did a couple of months ago), shifting dollars from the military to health care, moderating corporate bailouts . . .

I could go on.

Next time you hear an argument about offing grandma so that junior can live, take a close look at who's asking you to make that decision, and why. Chances are, you'll find a rich guy who wants to get richer. I'd recommend suggesting he pull his own plug instead of coming after yours.