Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday August 13 2019, @05:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the give-me-back-my-Obamacare dept.

From Fox News, Elderly couple found dead in apparent murder-suicide, note says they could not afford medical care:

A Washington state man allegedly killed himself after killing his wife, and left a note for authorities saying that he was driven to do so because they could not afford to pay for medical care for her serious health conditions.

The man, identified by the Whatcom County Medical Examiner Gary Goldfogel in a statement to Fox News as Brian S. Jones, was 77, and his wife, Patricia Whitney-Jones, was 76.

[...] "It's very tragic that one of our senior citizens would find himself in such desperate circumstances where he felt murder and suicide were the only option," [Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo] said. "Help is always available with a call to 9-1-1."

"We do what we can to help them," Elfo added in a telephone interview with Fox News. "We can't solve all their healthcare needs, but we can help them until a better day comes."

Elfo said he has seen people close to him struggle with healthcare issues and get exasperated fighting what can be a bureaucratic system.

"I know it gets very frustrating," the sheriff said, "you can get very easily worn down, and [roadblocks] build up over and over again."

From WSWS (ICFI/SEP), Elderly husband kills wife, then himself, in desperation over skyrocketing healthcare costs:

Police found the notes, which explained what had happened. Jones' wife, Patricia Whitney-Jones, suffered from serious health problems, and the couple could not afford medical care. Jones, an apparent Navy veteran, wrote directions as to how police could contact their next of kin. Police found the couple's two dogs and turned them over to the Humane Society.

The home was not located in a forgotten, impoverished area but in a semi-rural neighborhood near the Cascade Mountains where homes are valued in the $400,000 range. The bottom 90 percent of people in "the richest country in the world" are living under financial hardship that varies only in terms of degree.

[...] [The couple's next-door neighbor, Sherrie Schulteis] further noted:

"But here is the horribleness of this whole thing, less than 6 months ago our across the street neighbor shot himself, a young man with PTSD [Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder], cops and SWAT all lined our street then too. He was young--in his 50's-- and this guy and the whole block knew and saw him riding his bike, or walking his tiny dog also. He lived directly across from our house and we talked with him everyday as we were outside a lot. We had no idea his PTSD would kick in and he started believing everyone was someone else and he was going to kill everyone."

Also at People and The Lynden Tribune (EU blocked)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:12AM (18 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:12AM (#879524)

    We must continue to steal from the youngest generations to make sure the oldest generation scan continue their standard of living that will be higher than their children shall ever achieve. Who care that these old folks are already older than the expected lifespan of millennials and gen z, its important that they pay 60% to ensure they can continue to play shuffleboard.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Flamebait=2, Insightful=3, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:48AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:48AM (#879533)

    Theu mark you flamebait, and when this generation shows up with torches, it will be on them.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:05AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:05AM (#879539) Journal

      You are stoopid, indeed.
      It is not the small fry players that are responsible for this, eliminating them won't make any difference to you.
      Go after the sharks, they are the top of the food chain and they are gonna eat you too in the end. If not, they'll incite the younger piranha coming after you to eliminate you too.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:49AM (5 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:49AM (#879535) Journal

    old folks are already older than the expected lifespan of millennials and gen z,

    Citation please.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by deimtee on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:06AM (1 child)

      by deimtee (3272) on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:06AM (#879540) Journal

      Probably an exaggeration of the fact that lifespans in the USA are trending down. The drop isn't that sharp (yet), but it is a noticeable reversal of past trends towards longer lives.

      --
      If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
      • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:10AM (#879543)

        That's just due to Obamacare. You can see it started in 2014 when that kicked in. More people got put on drugs, and are then over/underdosing on painkiller, blood pressure, psych, etc meds and dying earlier. The rise in deaths is concentrated in poisoning and suicide.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday August 13 2019, @05:13PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 13 2019, @05:13PM (#879750) Journal
      It's a standard effect. With a near constant life expectancy, some people will live longer than life expectancy and their life expectancy will increase as they survive more years.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @09:44PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @09:44PM (#879835)

        No, it is for the same age. Just check the 2014 and 2016 actuarial life table here: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6_2014.html [ssa.gov] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html [ssa.gov]

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:55AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:55AM (#879969) Journal
          Point is that even for a slow increase in life expectancy, there's going to be people who are alive longer than the life expectancy of the newborn. It's only for fast increases in life expectancy can one get a population where no one alive is older than the life expectancy of the newborn.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:03PM (6 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:03PM (#879680) Journal

    Yep.

    Throw out your television. Your computer. Your car and all mass transit systems. If your USian, we'll take away clean water protections and clean air protections (Trump's on his way, but that's a different rant). Make your own clothing, and construct your own home (I'm interested if you can do it more safely). You can grow or hunt your own food now.
    Throw out your cell phone. You are not allowed to call 911, and if you are hurting you had better have someone take you to the Doctor because we will not give you an ambulance ride. You'd better be able to pay the amount the Doctor wants out of pocket.
    You cannot go to the library. If you want to know something you had better be able to pay for the books or have someone else teach you - good luck finding someone to do that for free.
    Pay your tax bill, and argue about the amount demanded and you will be thrown in jail or killed, no appeal.
    You'd better be a good shot otherwise, because you are no longer affected the protections of the law. May you not be lynched, and may your skin color be correct.

    Now that you no longer have any advantages that are handed down to you by the work of generations past, you can make your own standard of living better than what I have. Why do I owe you anything? You are not my child. And you don't have to pay my bills, either.

    Ingrate.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by Rupert Pupnick on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:17AM

      by Rupert Pupnick (7277) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:17AM (#879897) Journal

      Not the cellphone!!!

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:11PM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:11PM (#880108) Journal
      The obvious rebuttal is how are younger generations going to enlarge that nice list when the resources are preferentially going to the older generations?
      • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:17PM (3 children)

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:17PM (#880357) Journal

        And the counterpoints are: 1) Prove that they are.

        The key word being "preferentially," because that most healthcare supports those who are older (preventive care aside) is pretty much the way it ought to work. Medicare certainly isn't preferential to private insurance which the young can afford and the older cannot. I'd like to see how you justify anything else on that list being given more to the older than the younger.

        2) Barring such proof, one might see that the young do in fact share in that list.

        Or in other words they are riding the coattails of the prior generation exactly the same as every generation before it. There certainly are bones to pick, like how costs of living for items that existed 70 years ago have remained pretty flat on average. What it takes to get into home ownership, for example, or college tuition or healthcare expenses. They have indeed risen and it would be nice to try and get them on more equal footing. The X'ers are smaller than the Boomers and so I can see where it will take creativity. I wouldn't deny there are challenges for all the benefits they've inherited. But are you suggesting that the younger generations cannot do work to improve that list, as prior generations have done? Are they disabled from improving things further and will have to settle for having the world they inherited, which for Americans is well less than half as bad as prior generations had it? Such that when they reach their age old being older they can rest just as uneasily as the elderly of today do.

        --
        This sig for rent.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 16 2019, @12:18AM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 16 2019, @12:18AM (#880790) Journal

          because that most healthcare supports those who are older (preventive care aside) is pretty much the way it ought to work

          There's the proof right there. You acknowledge that healthcare resources are preferentially given to older people. Let us also note that many of these programs will provide more such resources for present day older people than future older people. In the US, Social Security and Medicare are great examples of this - much has been written of their long term financial lack of viability.

          Another such proof is the near universal increase in government debt. This is a straightforward case of older generations borrowing money against the earning power of younger generations.

          • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday August 16 2019, @11:58AM (1 child)

            by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday August 16 2019, @11:58AM (#881010) Journal

            No, I acknowledge Medicare resources are preferentially given to the elderly, because of the obvious nature that the elderly have more health concerns and have less ability to address them financially. Medicare =/= Healthcare. You can go look up how much of medical spending is done by insurance and how much is Medicare. As to lack of viability that is concerned with Part A, and the amount of payroll tax collected for Part A funding is not tied to a set proportion of one's tax bracket. What would happen if we tied Part A funding as a fixed percent of the overall income tax one pays instead of binding it to a set 3% of gross income (if you take as read that 'employer share' is still really coming out of the employee as employee expense)? Part B is quite solvent as is the rest of the Medicare system.

            As to government debt, Medicare is only 15% of the Federal Budget [kff.org]. Seems you're trying to say a very small tail is wagging the big dog there. Maybe the heavy debt spending is more from all the wars we keep getting ourselves into?

            --
            This sig for rent.
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 17 2019, @12:00AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 17 2019, @12:00AM (#881353) Journal

              I acknowledge Medicare resources are preferentially given to the elderly

              There we go. The rest after the "because..." is just excuses.

              Keep in mind a key point here. Why should the elderly get any more of these scarce resources than younger generations? There is a huge unexamined assumption here that the elderly should get those resources for the greater amount of ailments that they have. But for the most part, the young have a far greater payoff from healthcare than the elderly do. And there are many things we could be doing for younger generations than merely making old people a little older.

              So your weak moral argument that "most healthcare supports those who are older (preventive care aside) is pretty much the way it ought to work" as a dismissal of an otherwise obvious counterexample needs proof more than the counterarguments do.

              Medicare =/= Healthcare.

              It's just a large portion of overall healthcare spending. Let's look at that in a bit:

              As to government debt, Medicare is only 15% of the Federal Budget [kff.org]. Seems you're trying to say a very small tail is wagging the big dog there.

              A "very small" tail which is "only" 3% of US GDP ($600 billion versus $20 trillion) and ~17% of overall healthcare spending (as a share of the 17% of GDP healthcare spending [healthsystemtracker.org] as of 2016) in the US.

              The link also has that share of the federal budget increasing to 18% in a decade. That's a 20% increase in Medicare spending in ten short years. A high growth rate like that over something (the US budget like many economy-dependent parameters) that is already increasing at a significant exponential rate is a serious cause for concern.

              As to lack of viability

              Lack of viability is tied to the amount of healthcare spending received which is significantly more than the amount paid into the system. I notice you only propose to fix this problem (yet another acknowledgement that there is such a preferential allocation of assets) by increasing tax revenue for Part A, not by controlling spending (which continues to climb). That sort of fix will only work for a few years until the spending has yet again climbed higher than the revenue. Medicare is a fiscal disaster barely contained. There will be no long term sustainability until its costs are lower over the long term.

              Finally, keep in mind that this part of a whole. I already mentioned pensions which are another way wealth is transferred from young to old. There's also zoning regulations that restrict new housing, among other things resulting in huge real estate costs associated with good school districts. That impacts young families far more than it does wealthy elders, who often bought their homes before the zoning came into play.

              And of course, the debt that governments have been piling on for the past few decades. As I noted before, that isn't going to be paid by the generations incurring the debt.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:28PM (2 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:28PM (#879805) Journal

    Or we could figure out that not letting the super wealthy steal from everyone isn't theft.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:13PM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:13PM (#880111) Journal

      Or we could figure out that not letting the super wealthy steal from everyone isn't theft.

      Funny how that argument always ends up rationalizing stealing from everyone.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday August 14 2019, @08:00PM

        by sjames (2882) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @08:00PM (#880496) Journal

        Mostly after the previously mentioned super wealthy get their hands on a few "good" politicians such that they end up paying a lower tax rate than the people who work for them.