Vaya a Dios, Vieho
There was a recent letter published in our daily newspaper from an MD who bemoaned the fact that 70% of health care dollars are spent on the elderly, those over 60. His recommendation was to restrict expensive medical procedures, even life-saving, from older folks. (Full disclosure: I am one of those "old folks.") He suggested the return on investment was too little to warrant spending all that money on the elderly, especially since medical costs are so high and rising.
Professor Peter Singer at Columbia University, who is the philosophical guru for the pro-abortion movement, openly advocates assisted suicide and the withholding of medical procedures from the elderly who, in his opinion, are unproductive and not worth the cost.
Obamacare incorporates medical advisory panels responsible for issuing "guidelines" concerning the cost effectiveness of medical procedures. These are not the so-called "death panels" widely discussed by some opponents. I am not in favor of Obamacare, mainly because I don't trust the government to do much of anything right, but the "death panel" accusation is unwarranted, at least for now.
Elderly parents suffering from strokes, Alzheimer's or just general infirmity, are routinely shunted off to nursing homes and often virtually forgotten. Heaven forbid that caring for the old folks should interfere with our lifestyle. I have seen the insides of two well-rated nursing homes and witnessed the neglect to which many residents are subjected. I heard the granddaughter of a 104-year-old resident curtly inform the lady, in response to a plea to go home, "No, Geneva, this is your home for the rest of your days." Geneva lived out her days in half of a semi-private room.
I saw ranks of white-haired old folks, mostly ladies, lined up in wheelchairs against the wall where they spent most of their days except for the occasional visit by an activity person and mealtimes. This was truly warehousing. Family visits were rare, usually on holidays or the occasional weekend. I've been told by someone who worked in nursing homes for years that once-a-year visits by the children are not uncommon.
Caring for the elderly and infirm at home can be daunting, as I well know. In many other cultures, respect and obligation to elderly family members is simply a given. They are permitted to live out their days in familiar surroundings with loved ones rather than in a sterile institution tended by underpaid and often indifferent staff. I have seen this first hand. Even in so-called "good" nursing homes, care is minimal. My wife was of necessity in nursing homes for a period of a few months. I visited with her for most of every single day. Even with my close presence, she ended up with a bedsore and two rather nasty heel ulcers which took months to heal when we finally got her home. Incidentally, I was the one who detected both problems, not any of the staff. (I noticed blood seeping through her socks.)
Most of the elderly are parents who raised children. They loved, nurtured, fed, clothed, housed, educated and protected them through their growing up. Sadly, too many become, in the words of the Pete Seeger folk song, "obsessed with the mania for owning things." They become wrapped up in the daily demands of their own little lives and are wroth to allow anything or anyone to interfere with their hard-won lifestyle. Mom and Dad are fine so long as they are self-sufficient. When that is no longer the case, "out of sight, out of mind" comes into play in too many instances.
To illustrate the attitude toward elderly parents in other cultures, let me relate an example from personal knowledge. A very close friend, an observant Jew (observes all holidays and festivals) with dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship, had his elderly and infirm mother living with them in Texas. Travel requirements necessitated by family issues out of state made it difficult to continue to care for Mother. Mike then travelled to Israel to other family in Tel Aviv, a sister as I recall, who were able to care for the lady. He transported her to Israel and settled her in the sister's home. She lived there until she died at the age of 100, among family who loved and cared for her. Mike was there when she passed on.
From a purely practical standpoint, the cavalier attitude toward the elderly in this country is quite understandable. After all, effort expended to care for aged parents must be taken from the precious little time available in most families today. Financially, lawyers and advisors are hired to set up finances so that the old folks' assets are transferred early enough that they quickly become indigent and the county pays for their long-term care. Private pay in nursing homes is rare. (I know. I private-payed for my wife, Joan, for one month and it totally screwed up their accounting system to the extent that it took six months to send me the bill. And then it was wrong.)
Many older folks have conditions, usually involving arthritis, that incur chronic and severe pain. By way of example, my wife, Joan, has extremely severe lumbar spinal arthritis (lower back). All five lumbar vertebrae and the one sacral are involved. There is significant stenosis which resuls in extreme pain. She has virtually no discs left. This situation is inoperable and there is no effective therapy. She has been on major pain medication for many years--the notorious oxycodone. Before her stroke, it allowed her to function. (Despite what you may have read in newspaper articles, the stuff does work.) And yes, she is addicted. So what? At her age, this is irrelevent. Her situation is not unusual, yet our daily newspaper and a number of other do-good organizations are crusading to make it difficult for non-cancer patients to obtain pain medication. No-one suggests an alternative; let the old folks suffer.
The stated goal here is to reduce prescription drug abuse by addicts. The fact is, most illicit pain medication is not prescribed, but rather obtained through a thriving black market supplied via the hijacking of bulk shipments. Some drug store chains have resorted to camouflaging their trucks to reduce the chances of being hijacked. Since law enforcement is unable to stem the hijacking epidemic, the (mostly) liberal "fixers" resort to the easier target of the law-abiding elderly under the theory that "we have to do something."
The hard truth is, old folks are a problem in this country. They threaten to bankrupt Medicare, already nearly 50% subsidized by general tax revenue, take too many medications increasing demand which justifies higher prices, and overload clinics and emergency rooms. Worse, they do not pull teir own weight or produce sufficient wealth and contribution to society to justify their expense.
Am I exaggerating? Perhaps I am a bit today, but the trend is there. Rationing of medical care, limitations on drug prescribing and cutting Medicaid payments for long term care are on the horizon. Medicare funding is being cut, somehow magically not impacting service.
Much of this would be solved if we had a culture of caring for our parents and grandparents instead of trying to find ways to duck the responsibility and dump them off on someone else, like government. Most opioid pain medication is generic and not a major contributor to the overall cost of medical care. Unnecessary tests often justified to protect against litigation needlessly increase costs.
Nevertheless, the bottom line is we have a responsibility for our elders. Personal sacrifices made to care for them can be rewarding. I speak from experience. Besides, we owe them! We neglect them at the peril of our souls.
P.S. Translation of the Headline is left to the reader.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.






103 Comments
aneuhauser - Oct 02, 2012 1:01 AM
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 02, 2012 9:48 AM
You are an accomplished wordsmith. You know the importance of word choice, both in terms of their precise meaning and in the context of how they are used.
With that in mind, allow me to drill down on a comment you made in your essay.
“Professor Peter Singer at Columbia University, who is the philosophical guru for the pro-abortion movement,” – Al
I must question your reference to the “pro-abortion movement.” I would challenge that comment simply on its face value. I know a lot of people across the political, social and religious spectrum, and I have to admit to not knowing anyone who is “pro-abortion.”
The main reason that this term is in the political/religious lexicon of today is simply because it “scored” the highest in a Frank Luntz focus group test. The clear objective is to gain a competitive advantage in the political war of ideas.
This is very similar to the attempted change in terminology from the long-held and accepted use of the “inheritance tax” to the “death tax.” Another example would be the term “global warming” instead of “climate change.”
I completely understand the reason for this linguistic slight-of-hand; it works. Whenever you can take a complex concept and reduce it to a simplistic phrase you can use with advantage in the marketplace of ideas – you win. Whether or not it is intellectually honest matters little.
I consider this issue a matter of intellectual integrity. I think when you make an industry out of how effectively you can prostitute the language to achieve some cheap political objective - our culture pays a very heavy price.
WFB resident - Oct 02, 2012 12:49 PM
WFB resident - Oct 02, 2012 6:44 PM
lied and people died ? For he did not lie but somehow it was ok to do it sibnce he
was a Rino ! lol... As for pointing out Al's comment . If his were untrue then your
point wouyld have been spot on . Sorry though !! lol...
ExToDResident - Oct 03, 2012 1:39 AM
Bush is/was not a Rino, in fact G W Bush epitome of what the republican party
has become.
WFB resident - Oct 03, 2012 8:41 AM
understand Conservatives/Republicans ! You assume many things of those you are
against . lol...
WFB resident - Oct 03, 2012 10:49 AM
ExToDResident - Oct 03, 2012 1:16 PM
Ditto for you as well. LOL
And G W Bush is the epitome of what the republican party has become.
aneuhauser - Oct 03, 2012 4:16 PM
"Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.
"We may not want a child to start on life's uncertain voyage if the prospects are clouded. When this can be known at a very early stage in the voyage, we may still have a chance to make a fresh start. This means detaching ourselves from the infant who has been born, cutting ourselves free before the ties that have already begun to bind us to our child have become irresistible. Instead of going forward and putting all our effort into making the best of the situation, we can still say no, and start again from the beginning."
He has advocated in lectures that it is perfectly acceptable to "terminate" a "defective baby", e.g. with Down's Syndrome, within 28 days of birth. Obviously, he is in favor of abortion at any stage. NARAL loves him.
Incidentally, I erred. Peter Singer is a Professor at Princeton, not Columbia.
aneuhauser - Oct 03, 2012 4:24 PM
aneuhauser - Oct 03, 2012 4:27 PM
WFB resident - Oct 03, 2012 9:50 PM
abortion ?
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 03, 2012 10:57 PM
A simple question - Do you know anyone who is pro-abortion?
You know, as in someone who actually promotes abortion?
Have you ever known a young woman who was a victim of rape or incest?
Would you council that woman she must carry that baby to full term?
In your view, should a Doctor who performed an abortion for that woman, after she had sought advice from her family, religious adviser, medical and psychological professionals - that Doctor should be subject to criminal manslaughter charges?
Having spent some time reading through your archive, I also have questions on your views regarding evolution and climate change.
To what extent are your views informed by your fundamentalist Christian beliefs versus the preponderance of scientific evidence?
I have a great respect for your perspective Al. I am just trying to understand.
aneuhauser - Oct 04, 2012 1:11 AM
No I have not known a rape victim; however, I believe executing the unborn child simply compounds the tragedy.
Abortion is legal, with restrictions in most states. So long as the doctor stays within the law, he should not be prosecuted. That doesn't make what he does right.
My views on evolution and climate change are solely based on my interpretation of the science. I once strayed completely away from religious faith as a youth due to the teaching of evolution in grade school. I returned when in college I began to realize that the Theory of Evolution was scientific nonsense. I still believe that. My religion only provides the alternative. My primary quibble with climate change (you win!) is the assumption that the minor warming is caused by CO2, which constitutes .04% of the atmosphere. I believe solar activity is a much more powerful causation. (So do the Russians.)
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 04, 2012 9:59 AM
I raised 3 issues in my last post, abortion, evolution and climate change - the moral/religious implications of each range from high to low respectively. Let’s examine the lowest – climate change.
Now, I am not the smartest guy in the world when it comes to climate science. Like you, I am not an expert on the subject, but I have read a fair amount on the subject. Some, like you, would have me believe there is a great deal of controversy on the science of anthropogenic climate change (ACC). They would tell me they don’t believe in ACC because of this, that or some other thing.
So let’s say, you were to survey the top climate scientists (about 1,380) in the world and asked them if they believed in ACC. Those “experts” would be those who possessed a high degree of expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility. Further, you ranked those scientist based on the number of peer-reviewed studies that they authored on the subject and the number of times those works were cited in papers done by other experts in the field.
Finally, let’s say the results of that survey concluded two facts – 1) The overwhelming number of experts (98%) support the tenets of ACC; 2) those 2% “experts” who were unconvinced fell in the lowest ranking of expertise and prominence. Bottom line – there is no scientific controversy on the subject.
So, in the face of such a study, would you continue to cling to the belief that global warming is caused by the sun and not by the activities of man?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
WFB resident - Oct 04, 2012 2:04 PM
has anything to do with it !!! That is why they dropped the word "Man made"!!! lol...
Look outdside around 4:00 today you will se climate change with in hours !!
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 04, 2012 3:29 PM
Thank you for that response and allow me to remove any confusion.
You are exactly right - the issue is not whether the climate is changing, but whether it is being caused by the activities of man. That is what the word anthropogenic means - caused by man. That is why I referred to it as Anthropogenic Climate Change, or abbreviated as ACC. That is what is known as an acronym - taking the first letter of each word in a chain of words and using it as a sort of shorthand to reference the longer chain of words.
I properly took the liberty to define that use of the shorthand - (ACC) in the second paragraph.
So, Ms. WFB, are you with Al in believing that our climate is not being caused by the activities of man? If you don't really know, or aren't really sure, that would be fine. Honest answers are always the best.
WFB resident - Oct 04, 2012 9:38 PM
stray a little bit but it will sufise with your comment . : Phlem do you mean Scientists
? Well if you go back one year and look at the
German news corp . They have an artical that 25 Climate Scientists !
Repeat:"Climate Scientists " !!!! Have now switched and are refuting your supreme
leaders opinion !! Were you not awake when the information came out about
doctored Climat studies ??? As for particular names I do not remember the single
names fro both sides ,for it accomplishes nothing but makes PDLS's (feel) superior .
But I am sure if you read the news and see that article you can get 25
names from it !! Have fun learning !!! lol... Better yet why do yopu assume that we
can control the weather ? Temperature ? Have you recently made it get cold for a ski
outing when it was over 100degrees this summer ? Better have you made it over
100 degrees in January of last year ? Why ? I thought you can control, the weather ?
How about telling us how man madfe global warming caused the earth to come out
of the last Ice age ? lol... (sarcasm next) I know it was Barney rubble with his car
that caused the global warming for the past 10,000 years ,right ? Some how the
effect of us coming out of a freezing period over the last 10,000 years seems to
escape your way of thinking ! lol... But we all know that it must be man ,right ? lol...
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 05, 2012 8:01 AM
It is true - we have become a nation of trial attorneys. You say - "Here, look at this piece of evidence. See it proves that everything you are saying is wrong and should be rejected."
I call it the "This, that, or the other thing" defense.
Sorry WFB, but your response is a perfect example of what I am talking about.