On Dec 25, 9:56*pm, John H wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:36:20 -0500, Gene





wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:14:37 -0500, John H
wrote:

...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. “We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it’s not.”"

Another - "Because Dartmouth’s analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus’s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth’s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?

When my time comes, I don't WANT to be in "a place where doctors will
go to virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient’s
life."

I have a DNR and I MEAN it...... *extreme medical intervention to keep
one's bodily functions going after sentience has ceased does not
constitute (at any rate of their cherished revenue) *life*.... at
least not *life* as I care to know it....

This has been, in essence, a loophole in the law that allowed doctors
and medical facilities to continue charging for "medical care" long
after the patient was, by any sane definition, dead. It was legal
fraud that the insurance companies allowed.... I DO NOT want my tax
dollar wasted in that manner....

Good on ya. I don't want my tax dollar wasted on you either. However,
I believe you should have the choice. And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, you don't want your tax dollars wasted on someone else, but you're
fine with taxpayers paying to keep YOU alive if you so choose?