| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
The Democrats (big tent party;) have declared war on the elderly.
On Feb 14, 9:26*pm, "CalifBill" wrote:
"Sure,Not" wrote in message ... On Feb 11, 11:51 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: Actually is probably a good thing. 80% of a persons medical costs are gotten in the last 2 years of life. My mom's good friend with congestive heart failure went into the hospital a couple years ago at 94 years of age. The medical billing was $68,000 for an extra week of life. My mom, who was 92 at the time was upset about the amount of money wasted. Both Betty and my mom were RN's, and most likely have seen a lot of this. My wife's aunt with brain tumor got 3 months of a coma and left absolutely nothing to her son, because the doctor decided the inoperable brain tumor could be operated on. Put some thought into who we are lavishing expensive healthcare on. If you have a terminal disease, do not decide that a few hundred thousand dollars of other peoples money is well spent to extend your life for a month or two. If it is my money I should be able to spend it anyway I want. But, I shouldn't expect you, the taxpayers, to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend my life by a month or two. The problem is you demand or sue the insurance company for the hundreds of K $. It is not your money, it is the insurance pool. Spending your own is not a problem with me. It is shifting your costs to hundreds of other payers.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So, tell me. *What qualifies for coverage? By your logic, if your coverage exceeds what you have paid in, you are toast. *Fine. *Apply that to Social Security. Nope, different things. *SS is lifetime annuity, where insurance is to cover illness. *Dieing of old age is not necessarily an illness. *Spend $3-400k to keep a terminal patient alive for another-3 weeks is criminal and totally unnecessary.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Absolutely. But SS is not an annuity. |
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Democrats (big tent party;) have declared war on the elderly.
|
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Democrats (big tent party;) have declared war on the elderly.
On Feb 16, 12:31*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:18:12 -0800 (PST), "Sure,Not" wrote: On Feb 14, 9:26*pm, "CalifBill" wrote: "Sure,Not" wrote in message .... On Feb 11, 11:51 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: Actually is probably a good thing. 80% of a persons medical costs are gotten in the last 2 years of life. My mom's good friend with congestive heart failure went into the hospital a couple years ago at 94 years of age. The medical billing was $68,000 for an extra week of life. My mom, who was 92 at the time was upset about the amount of money wasted.. Both Betty and my mom were RN's, and most likely have seen a lot of this. My wife's aunt with brain tumor got 3 months of a coma and left absolutely nothing to her son, because the doctor decided the inoperable brain tumor could be operated on. Put some thought into who we are lavishing expensive healthcare on. If you have a terminal disease, do not decide that a few hundred thousand dollars of other peoples money is well spent to extend your life for a month or two. If it is my money I should be able to spend it anyway I want. But, I shouldn't expect you, the taxpayers, to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend my life by a month or two. The problem is you demand or sue the insurance company for the hundreds of K $. It is not your money, it is the insurance pool. Spending your own is not a problem with me. It is shifting your costs to hundreds of other payers.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So, tell me. *What qualifies for coverage? By your logic, if your coverage exceeds what you have paid in, you are toast. *Fine. *Apply that to Social Security. Nope, different things. *SS is lifetime annuity, where insurance is to cover illness. *Dieing of old age is not necessarily an illness. *Spend $3-400k to keep a terminal patient alive for another-3 weeks is criminal and totally unnecessary.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Absolutely. *But SS is not an annuity. If we really wanted to ensure the viability of Social Security and Medicare we should encourage smoking. More people would die before they got their benefits. Smokers also tend to avoid going to the doctor since the first thing he will do is tell them to stop smoking.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Lol. Why not encourage guns? |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Democrats (big tent party;) have declared war on the elderly.
On Feb 16, 12:31*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:18:12 -0800 (PST), "Sure,Not" wrote: On Feb 14, 9:26*pm, "CalifBill" wrote: "Sure,Not" wrote in message .... On Feb 11, 11:51 am, "Calif Bill" wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: Actually is probably a good thing. 80% of a persons medical costs are gotten in the last 2 years of life. My mom's good friend with congestive heart failure went into the hospital a couple years ago at 94 years of age. The medical billing was $68,000 for an extra week of life. My mom, who was 92 at the time was upset about the amount of money wasted.. Both Betty and my mom were RN's, and most likely have seen a lot of this. My wife's aunt with brain tumor got 3 months of a coma and left absolutely nothing to her son, because the doctor decided the inoperable brain tumor could be operated on. Put some thought into who we are lavishing expensive healthcare on. If you have a terminal disease, do not decide that a few hundred thousand dollars of other peoples money is well spent to extend your life for a month or two. If it is my money I should be able to spend it anyway I want. But, I shouldn't expect you, the taxpayers, to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend my life by a month or two. The problem is you demand or sue the insurance company for the hundreds of K $. It is not your money, it is the insurance pool. Spending your own is not a problem with me. It is shifting your costs to hundreds of other payers.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So, tell me. *What qualifies for coverage? By your logic, if your coverage exceeds what you have paid in, you are toast. *Fine. *Apply that to Social Security. Nope, different things. *SS is lifetime annuity, where insurance is to cover illness. *Dieing of old age is not necessarily an illness. *Spend $3-400k to keep a terminal patient alive for another-3 weeks is criminal and totally unnecessary.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Absolutely. *But SS is not an annuity. If we really wanted to ensure the viability of Social Security and Medicare we should encourage smoking. More people would die before they got their benefits. Smokers also tend to avoid going to the doctor since the first thing he will do is tell them to stop smoking.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Only smokers. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Democrats (big tent party;) have declared war on the elderly.
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The Democrats (big tent party;) have declared war on the elderly. | General | |||
| The elderly | Cruising | |||
| O/T: The Elderly | Cruising | |||
| Pope declares Democrats as "Party of Death" | ASA | |||
| Democrats - Party of Sabotage. | ASA | |||
Hybrid Mode
