If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Great Moments in Socialized Medicine #4,901: NHS doctors decide whether to operate on breast tumors based on the patients' age. Before they meet the patients. Don't worry; you'll be fine as long as you're under 50   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 156
    More: Scary, thou, Cancer Research UK, NHS, West Midlands, breast cancer patients, University of Manchester, lifesavings, breast cancer  
•       •       •

3917 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jun 2011 at 11:22 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-16 11:35:10 PM
Whoa. They can see doctors over there?

I wish I lived somewhere I could go to a doctor to have things checked out.

But I live in America and work two low-paying jobs with no benefits and can't afford insurance.

I haven't had a check-up in 20 years.
 
2011-06-16 11:36:11 PM

GaryPDX: what compels them is the need to pay their own bills.


You're arguing that the mafia will be well-behaved because their continued income stream demands it. Because surely those being shook down for protection money will shop around for the best boss, or refuse payment to those who fail to meet their commitments, or righteously opt out of the racket altogether without suffering negative ramifications.

i wish your childish view of reality was even half-true.
 
2011-06-16 11:36:34 PM

7of7: Great moments in US healthcare: you're poor so you can't have healthcare, go away and die in the street please. Make sure none of your capitalist masters can see your corpse.


T H I S.
 
2011-06-16 11:36:40 PM
It's still a better health care system than ours.
 
2011-06-16 11:37:20 PM

ragekage: GaryPDX: brainiac-dumdum: Isn't that an argument against insurance companies rather than HCR?

The blaring discrepancy is the scrutinization of providers, what they charge. There is ZERO policing of that. Insurance companies get these huge claims and no one is looking at the "front end" as it were.

No, it doesn't quite work that way, Gary. And I've seen kids with leukemia be denied bone marrow transplants because of a "death panel" run entirely by for-profit bureaucrats. The parents were poor, though, and unlikely to raise a fuss. The kid with a heart transplant who was a state politician and to whom the COO of our hospital gave heavily to financially, though, wow! That kid got everything, all the stops pulled out. Funny how that works.

But I digress. Let's hear more about how evil the socialist system is.


Are you kidding me? So you believe all people can be taken care of like some Utopia, right? Please tell me you're not a Eugenics fan and just disregard that part off hand.

Look, it's very sad and tragic about death, very particularly the innocent with leukemia but there are 7 Billion people on this planet and left wingers are sporting this Margaret Sanger, left wing Eugenics shiat and we're not going there. I'm not saying the other side is perfect, it has it's draw backs too, everything costs.

But I'd rather have the freedom to choose.
 
2011-06-16 11:38:17 PM
Thanks Obama!
 
2011-06-16 11:38:28 PM
Oh, and the whole "great moments in socialized..." bullshiat is beyond old, time to think of something new, factual, and intellectually honest.
 
2011-06-16 11:38:29 PM

GaryPDX: Here's an example, car wind shields. If you pay cash for a windshield they charge 300 bucks or so. If you LET THEM bill your insurance company, they bill 1500 bucks and send you some dinner coupons.


In socialized medicine, you generally don't have anything like this -- the doctor gets a salary and that's it. No fees, no markups.
 
2011-06-16 11:39:31 PM
FTR, providers account for only 10% of health care costs. Even if you could cut their pay, which seems kind of stupid given how expensive their education is and their malpractice insurance, you wouldn't save much. Since medical school enrollment has been declining, I really don't think we want to make the profession less appealing.
 
2011-06-16 11:39:49 PM
Pretty sure fark has got quite a bit worse since the Daily Fail started being a regular thing here.
 
2011-06-16 11:39:55 PM

Occam's Chainsaw: GaryPDX: what compels them is the need to pay their own bills.

You're arguing that the mafia will be well-behaved because their continued income stream demands it. Because surely those being shook down for protection money will shop around for the best boss, or refuse payment to those who fail to meet their commitments, or righteously opt out of the racket altogether without suffering negative ramifications.

i wish your childish view of reality was even half-true.


Hey, if this ObamaCare goes through I might start a Wellness Non-Profit and contract out checking on people's "wellness". I could come around and poke you with a stick to see if you're "Well". Don't get uppity, I would be a government worker.
 
2011-06-16 11:42:22 PM
You can't compare the care of geriatrics to that non-geriatrics

1) People in their 70s have lived more than twice as long as those young whipper snappers in their 30s.
2) People in their 70s will have more complications than those in their 30s.
3) People in their 70s will have quite a higher mortality rate after surgery compared to people in their 30s.
4) People in their 70s tend to have more chronic conditions which will do them in any way.
5) People in their 30s can go back to work.
6) If you think this is a problem due to rationing then you're sorely misguided.
7) Do you think it's better that we kill off 30 year olds to save grandma who has already lived quite a full life?
 
2011-06-16 11:42:40 PM

MrEricSir: GaryPDX: Here's an example, car wind shields. If you pay cash for a windshield they charge 300 bucks or so. If you LET THEM bill your insurance company, they bill 1500 bucks and send you some dinner coupons.

In socialized medicine, you generally don't have anything like this -- the doctor gets a salary and that's it. No fees, no markups.


The markups happen in your taxes.

When I was sick a few months back, the urgent care I went to was going to charge my insurance about 350, but when I told them I had none they only charged me 136 and then gave me a 40 percent discount on top of that.
Also, doctors, nurses, and the rest that work at hospitals/do patient care takes a hit.

I will be taking a hit.
 
2011-06-16 11:43:59 PM

brainiac-dumdum: Humans are not cars!


Pixar has melted his brain.
 
2011-06-16 11:45:23 PM

Lithanus: Not that I expect it to ever happen, but we do (as a nation) need to have a real discussion about allocation of resources (which is all money is), especially in regards to health care. Is it really wise to spend as much resources on giving a 90 year old person 2 years as giving 1000 13 year olds 50? I honestly don't know what the answer is, but we do it every day and don't even talk about it.


I'll settle for a system in which, when I'm 90, I get whatever treatment I want as long as I'm willing to pay for it out of my own pocket. As Medicare currently stands, doctors who accept Medicare have to accept whatever reimbursement Medicare dictates for a given procedure. You the patient aren't allowed to pay him/her anything additional over that amount. So either you go to a doctor who doesn't have Medicare patients or the doctor has to be willing to treat you with whatever procedures Medicare thinks are justified for your condition for whatever sum Medicare thinks is reasonable compensation. Guess who isn't likely to get the gold standard treatment in that scenario? Oh, and if you sign up for Social Security, you're automatically enrolled in Medicare. I'd like the ability to opt out if I want.
 
2011-06-16 11:46:25 PM
FTA...

90 per cent of breast cancer patients aged 30-50 are offered surgery to remove tumours...

According to the research, just 87 per cent of women in their fifties - who are normally otherwise fit and healthy - have surgery


So the rate of surgery goes down a whole 3% between ages 30 and 59? Big deal. Who cares.

Seriously, as an over-50 female, I can think of a whole bunch of reasons why I would not have a painful, invasive medical procedure now that I would have wanted when I was younger.

This is a non-issue. The survey numbers probably fall within the standard deviation anyway.
 
2011-06-16 11:47:28 PM
Please...before everyone has an attack. Oncologists, surgeons, hospital tumor boards and clinical trial administrators make these kinds of decisions every day. Surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy depend on multiple factors, only ONE of which is age, but it can be a significant factor in how the patient tolerates (or even survives) the treatment. It would be malpractice to NOT consider the patient's age -- as well as every other factor in play.

I've seen many, many patients over 80 (on Medicare) offered chemo... sometimes they accept treatment, sometimes they accept the fact of their impending demise.
 
2011-06-16 11:47:53 PM
How CUTE! Subby doesn't know their insurance company does the exact same thing every day.
 
2011-06-16 11:49:11 PM

Aupey: MrEricSir: GaryPDX: Here's an example, car wind shields. If you pay cash for a windshield they charge 300 bucks or so. If you LET THEM bill your insurance company, they bill 1500 bucks and send you some dinner coupons.

In socialized medicine, you generally don't have anything like this -- the doctor gets a salary and that's it. No fees, no markups.

The markups happen in your taxes.

When I was sick a few months back, the urgent care I went to was going to charge my insurance about 350, but when I told them I had none they only charged me 136 and then gave me a 40 percent discount on top of that.
Also, doctors, nurses, and the rest that work at hospitals/do patient care takes a hit.

I will be taking a hit.


Thank you, well stated.
 
2011-06-16 11:49:53 PM

GaryPDX: Hey, if this ObamaCare goes through I might start a Wellness Non-Profit and contract out checking on people's "wellness". I could come around and poke you with a stick to see if you're "Well". Don't get uppity, I would be a government worker.


Congratulations, you've proven that there's a potential for abuse in any system, and that we must be diligent in policing such. Y'know, like HMOs double-billing Medicare. How does this in any way invalidate the benefit of the overall system?
 
2011-06-16 11:50:46 PM
So... you have a longer queue to cure stuff that may kill you in 20 years when you're within 20 years of your expected lifespan? Who knew?
 
2011-06-16 11:53:07 PM

Occam's Chainsaw: GaryPDX: Hey, if this ObamaCare goes through I might start a Wellness Non-Profit and contract out checking on people's "wellness". I could come around and poke you with a stick to see if you're "Well". Don't get uppity, I would be a government worker.

Congratulations, you've proven that there's a potential for abuse in any system, and that we must be diligent in policing such. Y'know, like HMOs double-billing Medicare. How does this in any way invalidate the benefit of the overall system?


One side has one choice, the other has many. I'll take the "many" and that's NOT government healthcare.
 
2011-06-16 11:54:30 PM
I'm not trolling here, even though people will probably accuse me of it.

The reality of our existence is that we have limited resources. Maybe, in the future, this will change, and we'll have a Star-Trek-style utopia. But we're not there yet. We're not even close. You *can* put a value on a person's life.

In a perfect world, I'd love to say 'Everyone's life is invaluable' and advocate doing everything we can to prolong someone's life. But in the real world, we need to acknowledge that

1.) We can't give everyone all of the best medical treatment available. Again, limited resources. We can't give everyone their own private tropical island.
2.) Given #1 - we should try to optimize the resources we have to the greater good.

An easy example - two people are dying of a disease and there is only enough treatment to cure one of them. One is a 90 year old man, one is a 9 year old child. All other things being equal, give to to the child. I'd stand by that, even if it were me involved.

We live in a world where people are literally starving to death. Stop and think about that for a second. If you believe that all life is equal, that some kid starving to death in Africa is just as special and wonderful as you are; then how can you justify spending many tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat a cancer in an old person that might extend their life 10 years, when you could take that same amount of money and keep hundreds or thousands of people feed and alive.

Yeah, it's easy to get all upset and demand that everyone take care of everyone; but when it comes down to it, we have a limited amount of stuff we can do. And helping each other is pretty low on the list. If you want some old person to get their cancer treated on your dime, you are free to donate as much money as you want to them. But people don't want that. They just want 'someone' to provide it. Not them. Someone else. They need to buy a new HDTV.
 
2011-06-16 11:55:50 PM
Leaving the provision out where the government bargains with drug companies over prescriptions from Medicare part D is a criminal offense.
 
2011-06-16 11:56:29 PM
My brother was diagnosed with non-hodgkins lymphoma when he was 11 - I mean, we were all telling him for years and years to live healthier, apply screener, and ease off the menthols, but would he listen?

Anyhow, our family doctor explained that from the time treatment began to the time that the cancer was completely eradicated from his system was probably like $600K. Call me a filthy red canuck all you want, but my entire family knows without a doubt that if we lived in the US, the option to treat him would simply not have existed. shiat, we couldn't have afforded it even if our insurance felt generous and offered to pay 5/6 of the total cost - I mean, do you really know any family that can safely absorb being dinged $100k, especially for something right out of the blue like this. He wasn't doing goofy backflips and hurt himself. He wasn't playing with matches and burned down a library. He was being a child, and then, all of a sudden, he had cancer.

Of course, I dare you to find a parent that would be perfect okay with deciding which one of their children they're going to abandon to death, so in all likelihood my dad - a well-paid officer at the time - and my mom probably would've re-mortgaged, re-applied, whatever in order to save him. They likely would've gone bankrupt too. So really, that's what it boils down to - why should people who've done nothing wrong, and who work hard be forced into bankruptcy only to lose everything because they had a hard time letting go of their kid?

Seriously, if socialized medicine is good enough for your soldiers and veterans, it's probably good enough for the rest of you.
 
2011-06-16 11:57:18 PM

GaryPDX: brainiac-dumdum: Isn't that an argument against insurance companies rather than HCR?

The blaring discrepancy is the scrutinization of providers, what they charge. There is ZERO policing of that. Insurance companies get these huge claims and no one is looking at the "front end" as it were.


I thought the problem was on both sides? The doctors and hospitals charge $300 for a Tylenol, but the insurance will only pay $1500 for an anesthesiologist's work (numbers pulled from ass). One side grossly overvalues, the other undervalues.

Insurance companies are also notorious for denying claims, denying payment to doctors, delaying payment to doctors beyond a reasonable time. My sis-in-law works for a doctor's office doing medical billing, and the BS from insurance companies, she says, is staggering. They will deny a claim because of one error (either from the doctor or insurance company), and the time and resources wasted in rectifying one mistake is shameful.

Maybe if there were sane pricing and payment schedules we wouldn't have these issues?
 
2011-06-16 11:59:39 PM

Duck_of_Doom: Maybe if there were sane pricing and payment schedules we wouldn't have these issues?


In the restaurant business, they call that a "Menu".
 
2011-06-17 12:02:41 AM

GaryPDX: Fark this government healthcare bullshiat. I'll take my chances elsewhere.


I can't help but notice that nobody ever agrees with you about anything.
 
2011-06-17 12:03:55 AM
In every country a 'deal' is struck between the government and its citizens. Every government has certain obligations towards its citizens and citizens have an obligation towards government. They provide services, we pay taxes. They provide security, we participate in jury duty .... etc etc

Depending on your government and citizens the deal is either fair or not. Considering health care is a UNIVERSAL human right, I expect my government to provide it. I will pay them to do so out of the money I earn by allowing them to tax me.

If you don't think this works you should learn more about the world we live in. And live in a country that has a good deal ( like mine )
 
2011-06-17 12:04:16 AM
Anyone who thinks old people don't get shuffled to the back of the line because they are old in the for profit private system in the US is in for a rude awakening.
 
2011-06-17 12:04:53 AM

ginandbacon: brainiac-dumdum: ginandbacon: American men fare quite a bit worse.

Word, the men's rights movement should pay more attention to this inequity.

Sure, as soon as we achieve equal pay, we'll get right on that. (You do realize this is because men fail to build social networks, yeah? That's kind of on you guys.)


Huh? There's billions being made by men who build social networks and what do many of the girls do with those networks? Why do the women tend to kill time in the social networks men build instead of trying to become more valuable and get more money as a result?

I really don't understand. Business doesn't care what gender you are, they're all about your value to the business.
i30.photobucket.comi30.photobucket.com
 
2011-06-17 12:05:56 AM

Begoggle: GaryPDX: Fark this government healthcare bullshiat. I'll take my chances elsewhere.

I can't help but notice that nobody ever agrees with you about anything.


I beg to differ.
 
2011-06-17 12:06:17 AM

GaryPDX: But I'd rather have the freedom to choose.


What makes you think that you won't be able to choose with a socialized health care system?

Every other country that has a government run health care system also has private companies that provide insurance for those who want it, and provide privatized health care for those who want it.

Hell, in our own country, we have socialized education (from kindergarten all the way through graduate school); yet the private schools are still doing quite well. People can still choose.

Why do you think this time it will be different?
 
2011-06-17 12:06:58 AM

Begoggle: GaryPDX: Fark this government healthcare bullshiat. I'll take my chances elsewhere.

I can't help but notice that nobody ever agrees with you about anything.


Yea, okay Boris.
 
2011-06-17 12:10:42 AM
Things that are socialist:

Our National Parks
Our gas subsidy (do you really want to pay $12/gallon? I actually kind of wish we did but I think it would be the end of this country since trucking pretty much is the only way to move goods here.)
The Smithsonian Institutions
Libraries
Route 66!
Our energy production
Airports
Snowplows in the city
Our waste disposal
Listeria-free milk
Most of our education
Our armed forces
The Mars rover (cute!)
Fire departments
Downtown everywhere
Public transit
A lot of cheap food
Wild horses


And so on.
 
2011-06-17 12:11:17 AM

mgshamster: GaryPDX: But I'd rather have the freedom to choose.

What makes you think that you won't be able to choose with a socialized health care system?

Every other country that has a government run health care system also has private companies that provide insurance for those who want it, and provide privatized health care for those who want it.

Hell, in our own country, we have socialized education (from kindergarten all the way through graduate school); yet the private schools are still doing quite well. People can still choose.

Why do you think this time it will be different?


So you envision a government trough where private subcontractors dip? And the average Joe just walks in wherever he wants and those contractors just bill the gigantic behemoth government for whatever?

No thanks.
 
2011-06-17 12:12:02 AM
bulldg4life: I bet older patients are never denied surgery due to frailty and age here in America.

Nah, they don't discriminate against age here. Here, if you get sick or diagnosed with cancer, they drop your coverage as soon as you get too expensive-- regardless of age.
 
2011-06-17 12:12:23 AM

GaryPDX: So you envision a government trough where private subcontractors dip? And the average Joe just walks in wherever he wants and those contractors just bill the gigantic behemoth government for whatever?

No thanks.


I don't even know what you're saying.
 
2011-06-17 12:12:28 AM

That Guy...From That Show!: ginandbacon: brainiac-dumdum: ginandbacon: American men fare quite a bit worse.

Word, the men's rights movement should pay more attention to this inequity.

Sure, as soon as we achieve equal pay, we'll get right on that. (You do realize this is because men fail to build social networks, yeah? That's kind of on you guys.)

Huh? There's billions being made by men who build social networks and what do many of the girls do with those networks? Why do the women tend to kill time in the social networks men build instead of trying to become more valuable and get more money as a result?

I really don't understand. Business doesn't care what gender you are, they're all about your value to the business.


Oh @@ eyeroll!
 
2011-06-17 12:12:32 AM
They are not entirely off the mark, although I would argue for something based more on cost and projected outcome. Does it really make sense to spend much time or money investigating a breast tumor in a 98 year old woman with cardivascular disease and diabetes, for example? Something else is going to kill her long before the developing cancer will. Unfortunately that is the sort of stupid thing we do every day and it is why our health care system is becoming too expensive for many of us. Palin and her ilk can cry about "death panels" and/or rationing but our medical system needs to learn to make reasoned decisions of when to treat or not to treat based on cost/benefit. We already ration healthcare (based on who is employed, insured, and/or can afford it) so why not ration it based on cost and projected outcomes rather than on things that are in large part random. The fact is that we do not have infinite money that can be used to pay for procedures, so we have to make hard choices. If you can spend $1 million dramaticaly extending the lives of 10 kids who were born with some genetic defect or could use the same money to perform a million dollar heart surgery on a 95 year old to extend his/her life 5 months the choice seems pretty clear to me.
 
2011-06-17 12:22:01 AM

GaryPDX: Fark this government healthcare bullshiat. I'll take my chances elsewhere.


i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

Gary's got the right idea. Lots of Americans have been heading more and more to other countries for cheaper surgeries.
 
2011-06-17 12:29:47 AM

ginandbacon: That Guy...From That Show!: ginandbacon: brainiac-dumdum: ginandbacon: American men fare quite a bit worse.

Word, the men's rights movement should pay more attention to this inequity.

Sure, as soon as we achieve equal pay, we'll get right on that. (You do realize this is because men fail to build social networks, yeah? That's kind of on you guys.)

Huh? There's billions being made by men who build social networks and what do many of the girls do with those networks? Why do the women tend to kill time in the social networks men build instead of trying to become more valuable and get more money as a result?

I really don't understand. Business doesn't care what gender you are, they're all about your value to the business.

Oh @@ eyeroll!


There ya go. With the value as a person you've gained by wisely spending your time honing and crafting your eyeroll skills, you could easily buy the currently vacant eyeroll.com and make a bunch of money from girls who are Eyeroll Challenged.

Good thinking!
 
2011-06-17 12:31:56 AM
"Over the past few years, Paul VeHorn of St. Petersburg has taken trips to Thailand for medical procedures, including facial surgery and dentistry.He has been completely satisfied ."

Oh the jokes one could make...
 
2011-06-17 12:39:02 AM

Ima4nic8or: We already ration healthcare (based on who is employed, insured, and/or can afford it) so why not ration it based on cost and projected outcomes rather than on things that are in large part random. The fact is that we do not have infinite money that can be used to pay for procedures, so we have to make hard choices. If you can spend $1 million dramaticaly extending the lives of 10 kids who were born with some genetic defect or could use the same money to perform a million dollar heart surgery on a 95 year old to extend his/her life 5 months the choice seems pretty clear to me.


Logically, that makes some sense. Ethically, it's a minefield.

Instead of taking a worst-case scenario (98 year old woman with preexisting), what about a 60 year old? A 70 year old? A 40 year old with a lot of preexisting/risk factors vs. a 98 year old with fewer preexisting? Those are more reasonable to look at, but worse to decide.

Moreover, if we ration based on outcome, then why bother treating: pancreatic cancer, or ALS, or cystic fibrosis, in any age bracket?

Perhaps part of the problem is our attitude about death and dying. We have this cult of life-at-any-cost (Terry Schiavo, anti-abortion, anti-assisted suicide). We're more concerned about quantity of life over quality.
 
2011-06-17 12:39:20 AM
My son in law was told ten years ago he needed a hip replacement due to a repetitive stress. His insurance has told him they won't cover it until he's 45. In the meantime, he gets to take pain pills.
 
2011-06-17 12:42:38 AM
Aupey:

What you do not realize is that just because the clinic you visited were going to charge the insurance company 350 does not mean that is what they were going to get paid. Insurance companies typically negotiate rates with providers such that they will pay a fraction of the billed cost. You charge them 350, but your contract with them says they only have to pay 60% of that.
 
2011-06-17 12:44:01 AM

Stile4aly: In the meantime, he gets to takecultivate a life-long addiction to pain pills.


Fix'd for your implied intent and the reality on the ground.
 
2011-06-17 12:52:47 AM

7of7: Great moments in US healthcare: you're poor so you can't have healthcare, go away and die in the street please. Make sure none of your capitalist masters can see your corpse.


Ohh man too bad we don't have a system for low income people to get healthcare in the US. such a shame
 
2011-06-17 12:57:11 AM

icemanwol: Ohh man too bad we don't have a system for low income people to get healthcare in the US. such a shame

Having limited assets is one of the primary requirements for Medicaid eligibility, but poverty alone does not qualify a person to receive Medicaid benefits unless they also fall into one of the defined eligibility categories.[10] According to the CMS website, "Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups."[10]


Hoisted by your own link, douchebag.
 
2011-06-17 01:07:29 AM

Duck_of_Doom: Ima4nic8or: We already ration healthcare (based on who is employed, insured, and/or can afford it) so why not ration it based on cost and projected outcomes rather than on things that are in large part random. The fact is that we do not have infinite money that can be used to pay for procedures, so we have to make hard choices. If you can spend $1 million dramaticaly extending the lives of 10 kids who were born with some genetic defect or could use the same money to perform a million dollar heart surgery on a 95 year old to extend his/her life 5 months the choice seems pretty clear to me.

Logically, that makes some sense. Ethically, it's a minefield.

Instead of taking a worst-case scenario (98 year old woman with preexisting), what about a 60 year old? A 70 year old? A 40 year old with a lot of preexisting/risk factors vs. a 98 year old with fewer preexisting? Those are more reasonable to look at, but worse to decide.

Moreover, if we ration based on outcome, then why bother treating: pancreatic cancer, or ALS, or cystic fibrosis, in any age bracket?

Perhaps part of the problem is our attitude about death and dying. We have this cult of life-at-any-cost (Terry Schiavo, anti-abortion, anti-assisted suicide). We're more concerned about quantity of life over quality.


This is the discussion we need to be having.

We need to keep treating those diseases you mentioned to work towards finding a cure, but for all diseases including these, the government needs to be able to say no after a certain point of failed treatments. Think of it like being down by 30 with 2 minutes left. The government doesn't need to be wasting money throwing hail marys.

The number of people dying in hospitals these days is getting ridiculous. People are fighting to the bitter end in some cases when they don't want to b/c they can't communicate and the family when they needed to see the writing on the wall and go home with an oxygen tank and a bunch of morphine and have fun going to the great beyond.

The government and medical communities should be promoting the fark out of living wills.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report