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)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday August 13 2019, @06:11AM (32 children)
That they are calling the guy a murderer is a reflection of our society. 911 wasn't going to help his or her situation. It would have helped to have more end-of-life choices, rather than being told to hang on while you lose every last shred of dignity.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @06:39AM (8 children)
Yep, do everything the government says. Pay your insurance, pay your social security, pay your taxes for medicare, save money in the bank. Then in the end when you need it you find your savings inflated away and come up against a burecratic wall meant to just keep the Ponzi scheme going just another few years.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 13 2019, @05:08PM (7 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @09:01PM (5 children)
Well, considering almost all of them are shitty con men with the right stories, and you don't know until after the fact which is which, it is pretty hard not to vote for one. Not to mention that even if they weren't going in, the power and money involved can tempt and corrupt even the most angelic of people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:52AM (4 children)
Start with not voting for the people who tell you what you want to hear. It's not that hard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:18AM (3 children)
For most elections, there are only two options. So it looks like you are suggesting that I vote for the other party then? That is a great solution! Rather than being frustrated with the fact that a politician lied about doing something I like, I get to be content when it just turned out they lied about doing something I don't like.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 14 2019, @11:32AM (2 children)
Hasn't been true for US presidential elections for quite some time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 15 2019, @10:04PM (1 child)
That does literally nothing to negate my point that most elections do not have more than two options.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 16 2019, @12:10AM
Aside, of course, from the obvious fact that we were speaking of presidential elections in the first place. You're conflating that with elections for dog catchers and such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @09:49PM
Not me. I tend to do opposite of what the government reccomends and its worked out pretty great so far.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:10AM (5 children)
An acquaintance of mine called some hotline after falling behind on his bills, losing just about everything, and getting super depressed. Their solution was to have him committed until he was "better." They gave him some pills he couldn't afford, suggested therapy he couldn't afford, and then they sent him the bill for some five-figure sum for his stay. During that process, he also lost his job and got his rights to his daughter terminated permanently and involuntarily. They also sent him a bill for "his" lawyer during that process too. Then, he also had the mounting medical bills because some jackass stabbed him on the street for his coat in February. After the happy pills and free help programs ran out again, he got depressed again, and didn't make the "mistake" of calling them the second time. To my surprise, I was the executor of his estate and when he died, he lived on the street, had only a garbage bag full of clothing, and over $200,000 in debt.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @02:51PM (2 children)
I'm curious about what you expected to occur? People are not involuntarily committed for being, "super depressed." They are committed for being suicidal (or self-harming) or homicidal (or assaultive). While Major Depressive Disorder is often aligned with suicidal ideation, they aren't the same thing. A person is released when it is determined that the person is no longer actively in those positions. But it is no guarantee, and often times the behavior is repeated. (There is a cycle of treatment - patient takes medication - release - patient ceases medication - falls down - treatment - patient takes medication....)
If he had called a second time, do you think he would have been refused treatment? Answer: no, not if he acknowledged he was again suicidal. He would have had another stay.
The beauty of our system: He could do that as many times as necessary. At some point care would have been stepped up for him to try and avoid the ongoing hospital expenses. But so long one is credibly judged to be suicidal there are places in all fifty states where such people will be served without regard to cost or ability to pay.
Should the state pay for that? Yes, I'd agree it should. It beats letting the hospital eat the remaining costs (although most hospitals aren't hurting and can generally afford to do so). And someone who really is on the streets and penniless - there are always ways that the remainder can be written off by the facility to charity care but that takes either a patient who actively cooperates or a guardian who looks out for the patient's interests. Should the mentally ill be allowed to have a life of dignity? Yes. Comfort? Well, define "comfort," but generally yes.
The thing is: All these problems in your equation do not belong to the "healthcare system". They belong to how the healthcare system is funded, which is a governmental concern.
For all that, I'm sorry your acquaintance died and you were left to clean up his affairs. And you have every right to be bitter about it. And I could be wrong.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:16PM
Yes, you will get the bare minimum treatment, and in exchange you will be left homeless and with a debt that exceeds most people's lifetime earnings.
Nobody expects anything else to happen in the current system, that's why so many feel that the currenmt system is broken.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:39PM
The point I was trying to make, and wasn't obvious with, was that the system is great at fixing immediate crises but sucks for fixing long-term problems. A nobody who wants to kill himself gets treatment because it is an immediate emergency that everyone notices. The second he is "stable" and no longer a visible problem, there is nothing. Just dumped back onto the streets with no help to beg. And it isn't even that he wasn't smart or anything. Before he was fired for being committed too long, he was near the top of his field and no one would hire him afterward. No one else seemed to want to take a chance either for various reasons, including his mental health history. He had nothing but time to try and navigate the systems and programs, but what patchwork is there isn't enough. For example, he had to use a fax machine in my office to send in paperwork to the hospital to submit a rebate for some medication. How the hell is a random homeless person supposed to get a fax machine to send in a 15 page document that I, as a probate lawyer, had a hard time understanding? Or the fact that many places wanted proof of income. Where is a homeless person supposed to get proof of income from when they don't have a job and fell out of the labor pool? Or that in order to not freeze to death, you need to go to a shelter. But those shelters have a maximum number of nights in a row/month/year that you can use them, and even then you need to get there at the front of the line to even have a chance.
The point is to have some sort of safety net, not 10 trampolines haphazardly strewn across a 2500 square foot floor covered in spikes.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @06:38PM (1 child)
So, how exactly does one go about making "Anonymous Coward" the executive of their estate?
Asking for a friend of course...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:53PM
Have AC buy you lunch while you are out begging on Wednesdays for about a month and a half and then discover he is a probate lawyer. Then you write your will, name said AC as your executor, and then file it with the state will registry. Be sure to be identifiable when you die, so that way the appropriate state office that handles unclaimed remains will locate your executor in a search for people who might be interested in your remains. Then hope they understand the badly written letter they get in the mail. Then hope they agree to be said executor of the estate in order to stop the debt collectors from harassing his 2-year-old daughter. Bonus points for having a dirty debt collector that violates all sorts of laws and bugs the shit out of said AC to the point where it becomes a personal vendetta against said company. Much fun to be had there when you know they are all bark and no bite.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 13 2019, @01:31PM (15 children)
There are an average of 123 suicides per day in the US alone. Murder-suicide is a common pattern among family members, particularly those who feel hopeless and unable to care for their loved ones.
Just because one note mentions the high cost of healthcare doesn't really mean anything. He's not wrong, it's a huge problem and absolutely shameful reflection on us as a country that we cannot bring ourselves to do anything (effective) about it. But, on balance, one suicide note means very little when there have been over 400,000 suicides since the passage of Obamacare, and we - as a country - haven't done much of anything positive toward improving the cost of healthcare since then.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @01:44PM (7 children)
The best thing you can do is stop paying insurance. Lower demand, cut out a middle man -> lower prices.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday August 13 2019, @02:55PM (3 children)
Wrong.
Lower demand comes from lower demand. And there is not lower demand.
Cutting out middle people is nice. But there will be rationing in any method you use. Therefore you need rationers.
I agree that moving to straight up single payer would cut out all the profits that insurance takes. You would still have middle people rationing the care, because there is unlimited demand and limited supply.
This sig for rent.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @04:25PM (2 children)
Yes, there is lower demand because I don't want any of these chemicals they are pushing based on flimsy pseudoscientific reasoning. The more people who realize the reality of the situation (that the healthcare industry is overrun by scammers and useful idiots from top to bottom), the less demand there will be.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:02PM (1 child)
You think chemicals are bad for you?
I've got to tell you about Dihydrogen Monoxide [dhmo.org]. Inhaling just a little bit of it could kill you.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @09:56PM
Yes, that is a long known chemical with well understood dangers and benefits. Now take this ssri...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 13 2019, @06:08PM (2 children)
Had a small group plan once, got rate hiked into oblivion after first child was born (premiums jumped over $1000 per month...) went "self insured" instead, banked the $1K per month for two years before having the next kid. Actually managed to get big company health insurance for the 2nd birth, but... being "self insured" is a great way to pay your insurance premiums and then some every time you go to the doctor.
MDs who will accept $50 for a procedure from your copay + insurance coverage will cheerfully present you with a bill for $700 for the same service. Don't want to be sent to collections? Ask for a self-insured discount they'll happily knock 10% off that $700 for you.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:01PM (1 child)
Then go to a doctor that makes sense instead of a scammer. Do not *ever* tell them you are insured, because there may be something in a contract with an insurance company saying they need to rip you off then.
They waste 90% of their resources dealing with insurance companies so will give you a 90% discount. Sometimes more, sometimes closer to 50%. But only a 10% discount or even a higher price means you are going to a scam doctor.
Anyone paying for health insurance in the US at this point is a fool. The only reason could be as a tax avoidance strategy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @11:50PM
Well, OK. I just hope that neither you nor anyone else in your family gets hit by a bus or comes down with cancer. It will probably be a very rough ride for you.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday August 13 2019, @05:31PM (6 children)
Cost of health care is an issue, but that isn't the only one. The other part of the issue that no one seems to talk about is the lack of familial support. The next generations should be there to support their family in old age and provide the comfort, dignity and care that many need as they reach old age. They don't even mention in the article whether the couple had children.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 13 2019, @06:12PM (5 children)
As DINKs age, that formula is falling apart for them. As SITKs (single-income, two kids) with double autism in the current generation age, that formula is blown to tiny pieces before age 50.
Not everyone could depend on their children to care for them, even in the past, but much moreso in the future - because the kids aren't there, or can't or simply don't care. Also, remember, even among couples with 2.1 "normal, average" children, the majority of those are barely able to support themselves financially these days.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:08PM
Or the SITKs were boomers that basically ensured their kids would be just barely above water their entire lives, leaving no money to take care of their parents. Or the kids were forced to wait until their mid 30s to have kids, resulting in them having young children to take care of as the retiring boomer grandparents need support.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:27PM (3 children)
Agreed. Not everyone could rely on support from their children for various reasons, but far more could before than is the case now. The problem comes from DINKs that don't plan sufficiently to cover their support needs in old age and the condition of broken families being the norm. If there's a rare family that needs additional outside support, that's something the community can handle. But when it's the majority, then there's not enough support to go around.
Based on your other posts, it seems that you prefer a top down government based solution that socializes the costs of the care for the elderly. The problem with that is that it subsidizes the same poor preparedness and lack of social responsibility that caused the problem in the first place. Yes, you can provide basic health coverage that way. Although, that is lacking in the humanity that local community and family support can provide. So, I'd rather promote policies that incentivize health related retirement savings, improve competition and transparency in health care cost and strengthen the idea of family as a core institution in society. That way we don't need the government to support everyone, rather just the vanishing few who fall through the cracks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:49PM (2 children)
I prefer such a solution to socialize "basic decency" for the elderly, poor, and even non working but "able bodied" younger. If a significant slice of society is living in fear of homelessness, starvation, inability to treat basic diseases due to lack of money... that creates a negative impact on a much larger slice of society, not only due to the higher cost net cost of care when they finally do get some kind of relief, but also the bad behavior that is only human nature when put under those kinds of stress.
I'd prefer a world that works that way. Unfortunately, that's not the world I live in. No matter how much you incentivize, promote, educate, encourage, what have you, there's a huge slice of the population that ends up on skid row - and once there it's little help to point out how they got there. More productive, in my opinion, to not let them get there, rather than to pay for them to be there as an "object lesson" to the rest of us, most of whom aren't really paying attention.
Same could be said for the US incarceration rates... are our "crime" rates any lower for having 5+x as many people in prison as other countries? Hanging pickpockets does not stop pickpocketing, even in the crowd watching the hanging.
Population had better be stabilizing, and even reversing growth, soon, for lots of reasons that are essentially beyond governmental and societal control. We're not going to solve corruption and inefficiency soon enough to support 10+B people on the planet, and even if we do that won't help us when population reaches 20B... In a shrinking global population, the shape of the family is going to change fairly dramatically. More DINKs, less of the "youngest daughter doesn't marry so she can take care of mother in her old age..." Try as you might to incentivize DINKs to save for retirement, there are going to be millions of them who don't. We could always send them to a fertilizer factory so they get one last chance to do something productive...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday August 13 2019, @09:26PM
We will never live in a world that works that way if we give up on the underlying principles and instead promote policies that undermine them. Why not choose the most effective path that still promotes the idea that people should plan ahead and take care of themselves and their families? Maybe it's not the absolute most effective path in the short term, but if it can address the problem in the long term it means fewer people have to suffer overall.
These changes are already happening on their own. People in the most economically prosperous countries are reproducing below replacements rates now. In the US, the population wouldn't be growing at all without immigration.
What we aren't doing is adapting to these changes effectively. We should have tax advantaged personal health savings plans available to everyone and make them mandatory for anyone without kids over the age of 35. We should help establish community collective care groups that can act as a surrogate family for those who can't have or don't want children. We should give additional tax breaks to those who are taking care of the elderly and generally changing what we value in society to put more value on social support of others rather than just how much we each earn.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:06PM
It abuses the term "solution" to use it in this way. It's telling that you attempt to evoke such fear in the name of relieving it. That tells me that you have no trouble with fear when it suits your purposes. Nor can fear be fixed by government. It's something that humans do really well by nature. They will be afraid of something whether they have reason to or not.
This is yet another unfixable ever-problem that forever justifies bad argument. If instead, you had proposed to reduce the risk of homelessness, starvation, etc rather than merely the perception of it, then that would be at least a useful goal - though not likely to be obtained by your approaches.
"Unfortunately, that's not the world I live in." That argument works for me as well. No matter how much of our society's resources you divert to pointless "basic decency" theater, there will still be a small portion of the population that ends up on skid row.
That's a solved problem in the US - which as slinches noted is only growing due to immigration. So you are referring to population growth in other countries or perhaps to US immigration - neither which has anything to do with US healthcare. Why are we enlarging the scope to include problems that can never be fixed by healthcare reform?
(Score: 1, Troll) by darkfeline on Tuesday August 13 2019, @09:48PM
You don't understand, the police would have helped shoot the old man and woman to death instead of them having to tragically take matters into their own hands.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:12AM (18 children)
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:48AM (1 child)
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
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)
Citation please.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by deimtee on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:06AM (1 child)
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
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)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @09:44PM (1 child)
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
(Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:03PM (6 children)
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
Not the cellphone!!!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:11PM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:17PM (3 children)
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)
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)
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
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.
It's just a large portion of overall healthcare spending. Let's look at that in a bit:
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.
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)
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)
Funny how that argument always ends up rationalizing stealing from everyone.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday August 14 2019, @08:00PM
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.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:26AM (2 children)
Sounds like a Clinton did it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:45AM
According to the horoscope of demonic sunscripts, yes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @06:37PM
Clinton wouldn't have needed three shots. One would have all that was needed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Booga1 on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:33AM (20 children)
The sheriff says, "We can't solve all their healthcare needs, but we can help them until a better day comes."
That day will not arrive in time for people this this situation.
We have decades of proof that the insurance companies are exactly the problem with health care access in the US. Tragedy after tragedy. Story after story. Yet the closest thing the politicians could get pushed through was basically to force everyone to buy health insurance from the same companies that are causing the problem in the first place. I know people ranted about "government death panels" during the run up to the Affordable Care Act(aka Obamacare), but what we have now is corporate death panels where the very company you paid for insurance decides whether you get treated or not. I fail to see how that is any better.
We need to dump all these companies as gatekeepers of the decisions for people's health care. Right now they are incentivized to deny claims and procedures since that means they can just keep your money. The job of deciding what care is provided should be left to the medical providers or a neutral government agency. If a claim is filed, the insurance company must pay, end of line.
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:36AM
Looks like I accidentally a word. It should have read, "in this situation." :P
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:44AM (7 children)
It isn't hard. Don't pay for insurance... Not only will you save your money, you'll get access to lower prices for the sake services and are less likely to expose yourself to iatrogenic harm.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:48AM
I think there must be a large overlap between the people who throw their money away to insurance companies and those who keep voting democrat/republican. The outcomes are well known and you need to be either insane or foolish to expect different.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:05PM (5 children)
Ok. You pay 100% of your care, and you get no care if you can't afford it. Happy?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:17PM (3 children)
Yes! Exactly. I want to avoid contact with the healthcare industry as much as is possible. Others want to be pumped full of every new drug fad that comes out.
The only thing I would love is a really high deductible low premium insurance plan. Like pay $100 per year with $100k deductible.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday August 13 2019, @04:13PM (2 children)
Good. We'll just let you die on the hospital steps when you run out of cash.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @04:29PM (1 child)
Well, that would be retarded because it would drive away the other patients with money. It makes more sense to stabilize the person, stitch them up if needed, and send them home. Taxes already pay for this basic emergency care around me.
But yea, just like they kick you out of the restaurant when you can't pay... same thing. There is nothing wrong with that. 75% of what they do causes more harm than good anyway at this point.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:07AM
You realize that all that extra emergency care actually costs taxpayers more money in the long run than if we just had a single payer system in the first place, right?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:20PM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @12:37PM (3 children)
Given their age, you do realize their primary "insurance" would be Medicare, right?
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Tuesday August 13 2019, @01:55PM (2 children)
Yes I do. Clearly that is also not doing enough. Universal health care is what needs to happen, but I'm not sure we'll see that in the next 40 years.
Though, we might be lucky if people wake up to how much we pay for how little we get. People bitch and moan about $12 per pill aspirin and all that like it's some kind of anomaly. It's not. It's affecting everyone, and we all need health care.
There's no reason to pretend like there's some magic free market for health care. You can't just decide not to get sick, or get cancer, or get hit by a drunk driver, or any other number of things outside your own personal control.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:25PM (1 child)
Nor can one just decide to ignore the swamp of regulation that consumed the whole sector.
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Tuesday August 13 2019, @05:08PM
Absolutely right. The entire health care system is a mess, and the regulations are definitely no small part of it.
It's a complex beast of a problem, so it's going to take a lot of work to fix it all. I'll probably be dead before then. C'est la vie...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday August 13 2019, @01:18PM (4 children)
I am a crackpot
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Booga1 on Tuesday August 13 2019, @01:45PM (3 children)
You're right, Medicare is not the answer. True universal health care is, but people won't go for it yet.
What we've got right now, at best, an average health care system that we pay twice as much for compared to just about any other country.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday August 13 2019, @06:16PM (2 children)
Sorry, in this particular case there probably was no good answer. There are lots of diseases of the elderly for which there is no cure, only a treatment. And the treatment may be expensive (actually rather than just manipulated cost), and therefore limited.
People *WILL* die, eventually, even if we manage uploading. The accessible universe is finite, so there's no way around it.
That said, true universal basic health care would be an extremely good thing. It would be a long way from perfect, but it would be a lot better than we have in the US. It should include basic care for those incapable of caring for themselves.
Note that this might not have helped in this case, as it would have meant separation of the husband and wife, which the husband apparently could not stand. ( https://www.google.com/search?q=washington+state+physician+assisted+death&ie=utf-8 [google.com] )
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Tuesday August 13 2019, @10:42PM (1 child)
As far as I've read, it was a murder, not a case where the wife wanted to die. That's part of the problem with assisted suicide laws; they too quickly result in people leaping from "this person has serious health issues that aren't fully treated (whether that means a cure or better pain medication) and/or are causing a financial strain, which is logically causing stress, isolation & depression" into "person is better off dead anyway" instead of "let's find a way to get the person the help they need."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:16PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @11:27PM
US Government likes death panels...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:17PM
Except, of course, when that ends up in the courts.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:45AM (10 children)
MAGA baby. The shining city on the hill. You sick people shut the fuck up.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @08:49AM (9 children)
How can you blame Trump? He tried to repeal the laws that caused this but was stopped by the "other team" and Mccain. Unless you are saying it is all just theatre?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @09:08AM (4 children)
So you say if that man had not had an insurance in the first place, he would have been able to afford the health cost? I don't think so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @11:23AM (3 children)
>Implying health cost isn't artificially inflated by insurance since everyone that mattered has it anyway
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:07PM (2 children)
>Implying health expenses are all just artificial inflation without having the slightest idea how much actual care collectively costs in actual dollars, nor any real knowledge of what such care would cost a person without an expense mediator.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:26PM (1 child)
>Implying expense mediators work for free
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday August 16 2019, @11:50AM
>Implying you have no idea what the term "expense mediator" means. Hint: It ain't a person. Answer: Insurance or some other method of collectively sharing the risk and expenses of healthcare (like nationalized healthcare).
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday August 13 2019, @06:50PM (2 children)
Trump has been promising to fix healthcare since before he was elected. So far all he's proposed is Hey, lets go ahead and jump out of this airplane, we can invent a parachute on the way down.
Obamacare is actually an improvement over what we had before, it's just a woefully inadequate band-aid that has failed to get at the roots of the problem. But it was the only thing that could be (barely) rammed past Congress.
The problems go well past just insurance. The entire healthcare industry is deeply screwed up when it comes to costs and billing. If getting an oil change for your car was like a medical procedure, you'd get a bill from the garage, another from the guy changing the oil, another for the oil, yet another for the filter, still another from some other guy you never met who briefly looked at the car and discussed fishing with the guy changing the oil, another from the tire inspector (even though you didn't ask for your tires to be inspected). These bills would NOT be presented at the time of service, they would trickle in over the next year or two. Few of them would actually specify what was actually done or why. Somewhere in there you would probably find a charge for adding blinker fluid. The oil would be charged at $1 per cubic millimeter. The people sending the bills (and the only contacts listed on the bills) would be 3rd parties you've never heard of that don't actually know anything about changing oil or even that the bills related to an oil change.
Of course, if any mistakes were made, such as stripping the threads in the oil pan, you would be expected to pay in full for the additional parts and labor needed to correct the error. Nobody would even hint at words like mistake or error, it would be "just something unavoidable that happens sometimes with these complicated procedures".
Of course, that doesn't happen because nobody would stand for it. They'd either change their own oil or get someone they know to do it in their driveway. If that solution was viable (and legal) for medical procedures, that is exactly what would happen. Probably people would die from that going wrong, but they would take the risk in order to avoid medical bankruptcy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:22AM (1 child)
My memory is hazy on the details but I seem to recall reading a couple of decades past about some guys who tried to go the DIY route on surgery. I can't remember if it was an attempt at wisdom teeth extraction or tonsils. One guy acted as "surgeon" and the other one was the patient. I do recall that they decided to get a bit liquored up before the "procedure"; the patient as a substitute for "anesthetic" and the surgeon because, well, what the hell. After anesthesia was applied at the local bar, they headed back home to proceed to surgery. The patient lay down on the kitchen table and then the surgeon got to work. I probably don't need to say, but it didn't go too well. I distinctly recall reading that the screams of the patient were blood curdling and could be heard throughout the neighborhood. The patient did not survive. Remember that when you try to go the DIY route on medical treatment.
While bankruptcy is no fun, there are some things that are far worse. See above.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:05AM
And thus my comment that it's not a viable solution and that people would die.
Of course, no "solution" is so bad that someone somewhere (often Florida for some reason) won't try it anyway.
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:20PM
He didn't try to repeat the laws because he thought they were bad. He doesn't give a shit how effective healthcare was pre or post ACA. He tried to repeal the ACA for no other reason than Obama did it. That's been literally his ONLY tactic for his entire presidency. He's spent orders of magnitude more time dismantling whatever Obama did (when he isn't busy using his position to enrich himself), than actually doing things that help the country.
He doesn't have a plan apart from letting the insurance companies continue to run rampant over the plebes' corpses.
While not everyone benefitted from the ACA, and there were a lot of fuck ups, the ACA did (to my knowledge) help far more people than it harmed. And the ACA is about as good as the US is going to get until you all pull your collective heads out and realize that universal health care is the only option to get things under control.
(Score: 5, Informative) by SomeGuy on Tuesday August 13 2019, @12:02PM (3 children)
I had an elderly neighbor who was in the hospital for many, many months while the doctors hemmed an hawed about what was even wrong, and milked her for a reported bill of a quarter of a million dollars before she finally died.
The bill fell on her family. I don't know how they handled it, but I'd imagine they are fucked.
Anybody who thinks health care will be there for them when they really need it is sorely mistaken.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday August 13 2019, @01:19PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 13 2019, @01:33PM (1 child)
This usually results in a reversion of the estate to the hospital. Instead of the kids inheriting the house and land, the hospital gets it.
--------
Despite all my rage, I am still just a rat in a cage.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:18AM
I'm a probate attorney and seen this a bunch. Best case scenario is that the hospital, insurance, or medicaid recovery takes a loss against the estate. That way they cover the money they are out without getting all the bad PR that comes with it. If not, between the hospital and the insurance, they will take whatever is left after the estate liquidates and the home has a fire sale. Worst case scenario that I have seen too many times is that the creditor will send the family confusing paperwork that heavily insinuates, if not outright states, that they owe the debt. In many cases like that when there are huge debts and the major creditor does dirty trick like that, I just suggest the family member send death certificates to the appropriate people, decline appointment as executor, and make sure nobody robs their parent's place before they get notice that an executor is named. What is the point of going through all the trouble when you aren't going to see anything out of it other than a major headache?
Also, NEVER, EVER name yourself or your estate as a beneficiary of any life insurance policy. Either directly name your future heirs or use an ILIT because there is no benefit to naming yourself or your estate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @12:03PM (5 children)
Debates spent a good amount of time on it
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/30/20747974/democratic-debate-health-care-medicare-for-all [vox.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @12:10PM (4 children)
Yea, I love it. Let's take a system that really sucks and put it in the hands of people who fuck up everything they touch. Let's force everyone to partake even if they don't want it too.
The government couldn't even keep Epstein alive for a couple months... No one is being held responsible. You want to put your life in the hands of this organization?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @01:01PM (1 child)
You say it like the govt would actually want to keep him alive.
US - governed by some people for some people. Epstein spilling beans would have been a serious headache for some people.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @01:12PM
The government won't want to keep you alive either once you start costing more than what you are paying in. You'll get the exact same "it was no ones fault" negligent treatment.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ilsa on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:25PM (1 child)
It blows my mind that people like you actually consider suicide and/or life-destroying debt to be preferable to universal health care.
UC may not be perfect, but it's still a hell of a lot better than what the US has now.
The collective narcissism of American society is truly something to behold. No wonder Trump is your leader.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @10:10PM
They are that special class of jackass who form their opinions before experiencing life, or that do experience life and just expect that anyone experiencing something different must have done something wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @03:46PM
What a bunch of nonsense in here
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday August 13 2019, @04:27PM (14 children)
This will not improve until universal single payer healthcare is implemented. This will not happen until the GOP is voted out of office in sufficient numbers that the Democrats have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. This will not happen until people use their fucking brains and stop listening to the drooling MAGA morons.
You may not like the Democrats, but I guarantee you that the GOP will not fix this. They will in fact make it worse for you and everyone else except the wealthy.
Look at every other civilized country on the planet to see how it is. Are they perfect? Of course not. At least you don't go bankrupt because you became sick.
Do you want healthcare to improve? Vote Democrat in the next election. You held your nose when you voted for Trump, you can surely do that voting for the 2020 Democrat. Maybe you don't care for Democrat policies in general, but at least you won't have to kill yourself and/or your loved ones to avoid massive medical bills when you grow old.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @06:14PM
Lookit this guy pushing for Sanity 2020, what a shill! Must be a Soros puppet!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Tuesday August 13 2019, @06:21PM
The Republicans will not do it. But it's not at all clear that the Democrats will do anything that cuts out the insurance companies.
BOTH of the major parties are the slaves of their big donors, because the cost of campaigning means that you need to big donors to get elected. Even Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Perot couldn't do it on their own.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @06:37PM (5 children)
For two years at the start of Obamies first term the demoncraps had a filibuster proof majority in both houses and they stuffed around and delayed until they lost it in the midterms. They don't want single-payer any more than the ruthuglicans do.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:04PM
Sadly many don't. That's why Sanders had to be sandbagged.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @07:04PM
Except now the 2018 midterms and current POTUS campaigns are realizing that pandering to the corporate interests is no longer a viable political platform. Careers will be made following the will of the people, and we already have a few politicians showing us the way.
Sadly so many US citizens are terrified of the word "socialist" thinking that people want full blown communism, no more private property, and fully open borders. I have not seen any such nonsense.
Universal Healthcare is a form of socialism. A very good form of socialism. The way forward is Democratic Socialism which means we only socialize the aspects of society that we agree should not be profit driven such as police, fire, medical, and education.
Did you know that most fire fighters are unpaid volunteers?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13 2019, @11:01PM
Yes, the major difference between the two parties: R can corral their members better.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:32PM (1 child)
Actually, the Democrats had the filibuster proof 60 for only about 8 weeks in 2009, from the time that the Franken-Coleman Senate seat was decided until the death of Ted Kennedy. They used that time to pass the ACA. They wanted single payer universal, but they foolishly wanted to give the GOP a say in the legislation. Had they worked together we would have been good, but the GOP goal was obstruction.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 19 2019, @02:13AM
I have a bridge in Boston that I can no longer look after. It is an excellent bridge. Would you like to buy it?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:12AM (4 children)
Why would voting Democrat improve healthcare? It didn't the last time (Obama). Or the time before that (Clinton).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:54AM
Sort of narrows down the possibilities when an electoral solution won't work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:21AM
If the Democrat is a corporatist, the situation won't improve much, if at all. If the Democrat is a progressive willing to fight the status quo like Bernie Sanders, you may see some actual change. Obama was a corporatist, which is why he began negotiations from a position of weakness (a public option instead of single-payer) and even gave up on the public option quickly in the face of some even worse corporatist democrats.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:41PM (1 child)
Healthcare is broken. The GOP won't fix it. The Democrats have tried to fix it, but can't because the GOP stands in the way. To fix healthcare, vote for those who want to fix it. Vote out the assholes who won't fix it.
If you truly wish for healthcare to continue on the current course then by all means keep voting GOP. Until they come up with an actual plan to actually improve things I will not vote GOP.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 16 2019, @05:15AM
Right. The last time they tried to "fix", we ended up with forced health insurance and a bunch of other crap. That retardness was then blamed on the Republicans.
I think voting for neither is more likely to actually improve things.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Saturday August 17 2019, @03:52PM
Democrats already tried to fix it, had both houses with a super majority and the presidency. All the gave us was a handout to the insurance companies.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam