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
WFB resident - Oct 05, 2012 9:12 AM
annocdotal evidence !! lol... YTou can tell me how wrong I am , all that you want but
Scientists disagree with you !!!! lol...
WFB resident - Oct 05, 2012 9:15 AM
WFB resident - Oct 05, 2012 1:15 PM
Obama-Romney presidential debate 2012: Mitt clobbers Obama lol...
aneuhauser - Oct 06, 2012 1:20 AM
A British climate research group does consist of so-called climate scientists, but that is the bunch largely discredited by getting caught falsifying data to support warming.
I wrote seven papers (blog posts: "Global Humbug I-VII") on this subject based on considerable research. They're in the archives a way back. I am convinced, based on science, that the whole thing is a scam, probably to redistribute wealth mainly from us to the third world.
WFB resident - Oct 06, 2012 9:27 AM
remembering the fall out of the doctored studies ! Not only that but many climate
Scientists have refuted the Man made part . I can only assume thast he wants to
deny any facts and promote just an agenda !! Did you guys see that electric cars are
(possibly) causing twice the amount of carbon foot print than a fossil fuel car ? lol...
That is just to funny . So the o started to give companies money because he wanted
to reduce the carbon footprint in the world . Yet he doubles it and his henchmen
deny facts !! lol... I would like you PDLS's to actually learn that forcing people to do
things actually hurts us most of the time as a country !!! lol... ps Al did you see the
Tiwanese debate on utube ? lol...
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 06, 2012 12:48 PM
If you haven’t already done so, I highly recommend you read the study, and WFB, read it (only 3 pages).
Sorry Al, but your entire first paragraph – Simply has no bearing, whatsoever, on the study I referenced. As a wordsmith I am sure you recognize that as a complete distraction.
The study started with a universe of 1,372 whose sole field of research was climate science. They were then ranked those by 1) the number of published studies in pier reviewed journals, and 2) the number of times those studies were referenced by other researchers in the climate science arena.
That universe of 1,320 scholars was further reduced to the top 75% based on rankings. That group represented the cream of the crop – no anthropologists or evolutionary biologists.
The purpose of the study was to present incontrovertible evidence that there is absolutely no statistically significant controversy within the scientific community over whether ACC is real.
The practical conclusion is that people who reject ACC do so for reasons other than science. They may be political, religious, economic, whatever (which is fine as long as they are honest and say so), but please don’t say it is because of the science.
Science is under attack from too many directions today. I personally have too much respect for the scientific process to let this kind of stuff just pass.
WFB resident - Oct 06, 2012 2:39 PM
just ignore them ? lol... Only the ones who agree with you that used the doctored
information ,somehow they are correct huh ? lol...
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 06, 2012 11:12 PM
Please read the study.
What about all those Climate Scientists who disagree with you Pier ?
They would fall within the 2%.
Any other questions?
WFB resident - Oct 07, 2012 12:33 AM
and are you saying global warming is happening ? or it is caused by man ? The two
self proclaimed wiki leaks groups that study it are not studying if man caused it but
that it is happening ! So what is your answer ?
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 07, 2012 4:06 PM
I think you are referring to the stolen emails from East Anglia University.
Here are the conclusions of National Academy of Scientists who reviewed the results of multiple formal investigations into this matter;
"The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate."
This manufactured controversy is completely irrelevant to the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Any other questions?
WFB resident - Oct 07, 2012 5:50 PM
studies so they came out to their wanted conclusions !
WFB resident - Oct 07, 2012 5:53 PM
little amount that we can control will have any effect ? Any proof ? on your part ? Or
are you just one of those that assumes they are able to control the weather ?
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 08, 2012 12:56 PM
Listen to what a four term congressman from Georgia who serves as Chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBy3MbP4WDo&feature=player_embedded
Just as with the global warming issue – there is absolutely no controversy in the scientific community with regard to evolution - NONE!
Here is a guy who sits as chairman of an important science committee in congress who completely reject the long-accepted scientific consensus on evolution, who believes the earth is only 9,000 years old and that creationism should be taught in public schools.
One of the great things about the US is you are free believe any kind of weird stuff and practice any form of religion you want. But when you try to inflict those ideas into the main stream of scientific discovery - it needs to be rejected out-of-hand.
Congressman Braun has completely disqualified himself from making any judgments whatsoever about science, space and technology.
WFB resident - Oct 08, 2012 6:54 PM
to believe what it wants no matter what you are shown !! Yet ,why not debate it over
showing me what like/you minded people say ? Do you acknowledge that some
climate scientists disagree with you ? Do you know more about it than those
Scientists ? Do you admit your side has been caught doctoring studies ? Until you do
,you are just as bad as those unscrupulouse Scientists that would not allow the
studies to prove themselves !!! Just to push their opinions !!! lol...
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 09, 2012 8:07 AM
Like you and Al, I don't claim to be an expert in climate science. So when I am forming an opinion on the subject I tend to lean heavily on experts in the field. You know, like scientists who have studied the subject for most of their careers.
Then I tend to put greater weight on those scientists who are widely recognized as leaders in the field. You know, like those who have published studies in respected peer-reviewed journals. And, those who have their work cited by others researchers who publish in peer-reviewed journals.
Some people like to cling to that 2% who question the validity of man made climate change because it reinforces their religious, political or economic biases.
What I reject is when people try to wrap themselves in the mantle of respectable scientific study in a desperate attempt to legitimize their non-scientific reasons.
Believe me Al, I am not criticizing your religious beliefs. What I am critical of is your attempt to justify those beliefs on scientific grounds.
WFB resident - Oct 09, 2012 12:35 PM
and goverment that want those studies to come out in that direction ! Do you
acnowledge that ? For instance the o recieved an honor/nobel when he first took
office !! Other than just talk what did the o do to aquire it ? Nothing but it made
people feel like something was hasppening ! Kind of like exlax ! lol...
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 09, 2012 1:12 PM
and government that want those studies to come out in that direction!" - WFB
Please read what I wrote.
"Then I tend to put greater weight on those scientists who are widely recognized as leaders in the field."
That recognition does not come from groups or governments. It comes from fellow scientists who also do research in climate change and have studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Do you have a clue what that means?
WFB resident - Oct 09, 2012 2:12 PM
their direction of thinking ! Plus those studies after ward are skewed for the direction
is wanted . You will see that studies can be misdirected even without the Scientist
intentionally trying . For his way of thought is then skewed . When those corrupt
Scientists were caught they showed how their studies were used for many studies
afterward to cooberate information !!! But thery were false from the beginning !!!
Funny how that works . By the way if it were true why did those scientists feel the
need to lie in the first place ? You have yet to answer my previous questions . lol...
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 09, 2012 2:55 PM
Could you give me a source or link that explains what you are talking about?
aneuhauser - Oct 09, 2012 5:41 PM
Just two points: 1) The "near-unanimous" support for ACC is based on a "consensus" of scientists. Consensus has no place in science, which should be concerned with facts, not a confluence of opinion. Those scientists who question ACC are ostracized for deviating from the religious dogma. 400 meteorological scientists signed a letter some years back questioning the dogma of ACC. It saw only a glimmer of daylight before being suppressed. (I can't find a reference to it anywhere.)
2) Some facts: CO2 comprises 0.04% of our atmosphere, 1/2500th part. It is up from 0.035% 50 years ago, most likely due to our paving over of green space. CO2 is an inevitable result of almost all combustion, which is the oxidation of carbon, the most common non-gaseous element on earth. Gasoline, oil, natural gas and ethanol all contain carbon. Coal contains 80% carbon. The human body captures oxygen via the lungs and oxidizes carbon, mostly from sugars, to heat us up to 98.6º. The byproduct is CO2, which we, along with all other animals, exhale.
This proliferation of CO2 is counterbalanced by plant life which uses it for photosynthesis, releasing--you guessed it--oxygen as a byproduct. The more CO2, the happier plants and trees.
The conclusion of the "consensus" that this miniscule component of the atmosphere generates--or will--catastrophic global warming is ludicrous. This is justified via creation out of thin air of a totally unproven "enhancement" effect of CO2 on water vapor, the most potent greenhouse gas at 43% atmospheric concentration. There is no observational or any other verification of this effect.
In the words of Prof. Walter Farrell (Marquette), "Follow the money."