Seen a lot of sliver foxes running around lately? That's because the population of folks in the US over 100 has nearly doubled since 2000. If the candle-blowing continues like this, within 40 years, it could exceed one million. A million people over 100. Slate has a piece examining the cause and effect of great medical care — people live longer, and consequently require more and more care for many years longer than the Medicare system was equipped to handle — like one woman who received a $35,000 pacemaker the month before her 100th birthday.
Living long is fantastic, but it raises a question: Would the health care money be better spent on younger patients? The piece makes the argument that health is like wealth. Some people are blessed with it, and some aren't — and it floats this theory:
Just as some people have enough money, others have had enough time. If you make it to 100 and can fund your own surgery, that's terrific. But Medicare should focus its resources on people who haven't been as lucky as you. Living to 99 is no tragedy. It's a blessing.
Should there be an age consideration for patients to receive spendy medical procedures for those who've lived good, long lives?
Oli
They've been out of the workforce for 30-40 years, let's take away their healthcare so they can become productive members of society again. That sounds real smart. (sarcasm)
1I am conflicted on this one, I think about my own mom making it to 100 and if she needed surgery I would want her to get it, but i also am frightened for my own generation being denied care because of the baby boomers and thier parents sucking it all up through their dentures
2"We've determined that you've lived long enough and we aren't going to spend any more money on you."
Why not have insurance company actuaries tell us each one of us how much we're each worth over our expected lifetime, factoring in our individual health risks, genetics, education, IQ, earning potential, social activities, neighborhood we live in - and set aside a pre-determined amount that the government is willing to spend on us. Then, we'll pay individually set taxes based on that.
3This would be a good reason to let people self-fund their retirement, instead of requiring everyone to pay into a government fund. That way, each individual gets to use the money they have, and not have to wory about some government agency saying, "well, you've lived a long fruitful life, but it's about time you kicked the bucket."
4People are allowed to self-fund their retirement. Sadly, scandals like the savings and loan crisis and Enron showed the best laid plans of individuals can be totally destroyed by the greed of others and that a compassionate country offers a back up plan.
5^^^
What stephley said.
In addition, I find the very idea of denying necessary care to one group of people in favor of another based on age to be disturbing and sad.
6I don't mind it, as long as it isn't my age group that is getting denied.
JK
7Doesn't determining the cost efficiency of supporting longer lives conflict with the idea of the sanctity of life?
8"But Medicare should focus its resources on people who haven't been as lucky as you. Living to 99 is no tragedy. It's a blessing."
Lucky? Blessing? these vague words are inappropriately used in defense of this claim.
They are overly subjective: yes, let's try comparing the relative suffering of, say someone with third stage cancer who is in their 80s to someone with kidney failure in their 40s. What a heartless game of pick and choose.
9i have a hard time suggesting that older people lose benefits just because they are living longer... many of these 80-100 year olds worked their entire lives for companies/in the military or public service and paid into retirement plans... and even now they are forced to pay out of pocket for medical care that is often only SUPPLEMENTED by medicare. if they were promised something we should not take it away at a certain age. then the government is no better than the big auto companies and airlines who are now dismantling medical retirement plans.
10absolutely stephley: and it would eventually sap the funds from palliative care facilities, while pressuring older patients and their family to deny care or turn to euthanasia (which may or may not be the right fit for the patient in question)
11What the hell is a Sliver Fox? LOL!
12An old person who is still active and attractive...
13No, I believe that these procedures should still be funded and keep in mind that next year our health care system could be cleaned out and completely reconstructed from the floor up so who know what new prospective that will provide on this issue.
As for young people they have the benefit of main stream knowledge in prevention vs. medication. There is no longer any excuse not to take care of the body temple and the more people who do focus a lifestyle towards prevention rather than medication the more money will be freed up to deal with other matters.
14I think it's more important for younger people to be given Medicare than people over 100. It is a waste of good money that could be better used. Isn't it more important to save a person who has cancer at 65 than it is to save one that has it at 105?
15I highly suggest reading this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/health/05slow.html?scp=7&sq=Jane%20Gro...
Another note, I think that both of the presidential candidates have become increasingly aware about the elderly's medical costs, not that it isn't obvious, but it's a serious issue. Obama wants to ensure that everybody is eligible for some type of insurance (who know's what that is...) by keeping the tax cuts that Bush has been trying to inact for subsides (aka the pool of money for those who cannot afford insurance). McCain on the other hand wants to tax health insurance and use some of that that money to create a "high risk pool" for those people who insurance companies are afraid to insure. I'm not sure what i think of these plans as they are both fairly ambitious. I just don't see how Obama will force insurance companies to take on a 99 year old person...I can already see the backlash coming.
In my opinion, as a heathcare provider, I think that insurance companies need to be non-profit. God forbid that happen.
16I do have a problem with this. First the government says "to be healthy and live a long life you need to do these things". so, we do them, and now they are saying "well, congratulations, but now we can't afford you so you are on your own."
I am all for LESS government in our lives, (i.e., the government should have shut it's mouth in the first place about needing to be healthier and left it up to other sources) but penallizing them for living up to what they were told to? Ridiculous
17Just because they're over a certain age doesn't mean their life is worth less. What if there's a woman 100 years old with tons of family and she's happy, she takes care of herself, yada yada. And another woman, 60, who's obese and she smokes and is miserable. Should either one be denied care?
18Limiting one group leaves the option open to limit it for others. Should the money go to the young or the old? The business owner or waitress? The single mother or the confirmed bachelor.
We should be able to open specific medical savings plans that are 100% tax free. Then people would be able to save specifically for their medical needs.
19Caterpillar ~ Just for the record, there aren't any baby boomers who are in their 100s and most "baby boomers" have beautiful teeth because they were vain enough to take care of them.
Baby boomers have revolutionized this country and according to the New York Times 'Baby Boomers' Donate More, a Survey Says' to charities, so I guess they are not pining for their Social Security benefits.
Excerpt from said article:
Giving by all age groups last year totaled $96.4 billion. The most striking trend was the increase in gifts from Americans born since the mid-40's. The number of individuals within this group who gave increased, and those who made donations gave more. In addition, the survey said, the rate of increase of the 25-to-44 group exceeded that of other age groups. The group's financial contributions rose to 43 percent of all charitable donations last year, from 39 percent in 1987. The same age group provided 46 percent of all contributed volunteer time in 1987 and 55 percent in 1989. The age group makes up about 45 percent of the adult population.
''The dramatic increase in charitable behavior by these baby boomers is particularly encouraging because the sheer size and youth of this group likely forecasts two generations of continuing growth in giving,'' said
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2D91530F934A25753C1A...
I certainly feel those who pay into Social Security should reap the benefits. Those who don't work, including the rich, should not.
20Just the idea is disgusting. A 100-yearold could live another 5-10 years!
(And I bet McCain would be against it...)
21We definitely need to raise the retirement age.
22The Hippocratic oath means doctors have to try their best to save a person's life. I think the government should have the same attitude towards its population, regardless of gender, age, race, religion, sexual orientation etc.
23Unfortunately people of all ages are denied care in this country everyday. What an awful thing to tell someone, hey just be happy you made it to 100, but we aren't going to help you make it any further. What if it gets to expensive to support those who live to 85?
24What kind of care are people denied?
25We should push the health care age back. Its not fair to deny to a 100 year old man or woman because their body has lasted them so long. It is also not right to force them after Medicare is taken away to get a job, why not have them have a job at their late 60s. Taking away Medicare for those who are 100, is not a blessing for their age and the idea they have lived a long time, its rather a punishment. You can look at 60 year olds now who look younger than they really are, but can you really say a 100 year old has the body capable of doing what a 60 year old can? No because there is a 40 year difference of your body slowly dying. We should take care of our elderly as long as they are alive. To toss them out is a heartless ordeal. Can a person look at their grandmother or grandfather and just tell them they can no longer be on Medicare because he or she lived long enough to see great grandchildren? Its both heartless and greed that leads America to where it is today. Taking away Medicare from the elderly just because the younger generations can not pay for it? What America needs right now is Medicare reform, raise taxes, so we can get out of this recession. Many ideas for Medicare could be having a savings account open for people at the age of 18 and not be able to access it for years from then, and just put a percentage of his or her money in the account with each pay check like we do now, but its more personal. We don't need to lower taxes or get rid of them, in order for there to be more Medicare for the younger generation later on, in fact that just takes the government into more debt.
26Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.