Are you "lucky"if you have a secure retirement?

[texasjohn]

I thought it went: "4 out of 3 people have difficulty with math".....

guys, guys....we're going to have to save it for the numbers thread...where the rest of the 3/2 of people can respond. :dance1:

 

[Parkanzky]

I read a piece that had this statistic. Half or 50% of everyone's lifetime medical costs are spent in your last ten days of life. I wonder if people hoping for miracles or doctors not not being truthful in conveying the reality of situations, or distraught families not being able to face reality waste valuable medical dollars for impossible outcomes. HS

Many of those dollars are spent making sure that people are as comfortable as they can be for as long as possible. That's not an "impossible medical outcome," but it's still very expensive. My mother fell and broke a hip. She had a hip replacement, spent some time in a nursing home with physical therapy, and now she's on her own again. She walks with a limp and still has some pain, but I'd argue that she's better off than she'd be if she'd been condemned to life in a wheelchair (or worse).

All that care was expensive and, since she's elderly, she's obviously not going to be using that hip forever. In my opinion, it was worth the money/temporary suffering/recovery time for the increased quality of life she'll have for the next several (few? Who knows?) years.

So who gets to decide when the cost/benefit means that someone shouldn't get treatment? I'm a pretty smart guy. Can I decide for you?

 

[houstonscott]

Many of those dollars are spent making sure that people are as comfortable as they can be for as long as possible. That's not an "impossible medical outcome," but it's still very expensive. My mother fell and broke a hip. She had a hip replacement, spent some time in a nursing home with physical therapy, and now she's on her own again. She walks with a limp and still has some pain, but I'd argue that she's better off than she'd be if she'd been condemned to life in a wheelchair (or worse). All that care was expensive and, since she's elderly, she's obviously not going to be using that hip forever. In my opinion, it was worth the money/temporary suffering/recovery time for the increased quality of life she'll have for the next several (few? Who knows?) years. So who gets to decide when the cost/benefit means that someone shouldn't get treatment? I'm a pretty smart guy. Can I decide for you?

I don't think your story fits the model here, you mom was not terminal in her last ten days, your story doesn't apply. HS

 

[Pixguy]

All Americans have had access to healthcare without being turned away since Reagan signed it into law.

Having access to insurance is another matter.

 

[ovrszd]

Thankfully, I don't know. Probably seven figures.

Yeah, that would be my guess, easily. I wasn't trying to be nosey. Just wanting to make the point about how even the richest man could see a dramatic change in his portfolio during a medical downturn and no insurance.

25 years ago my Dad had open heart surgery for a by-pass. $165,000.

 

[ovrszd]

I read a piece that had this statistic. Half or 50% of everyone's lifetime medical costs are spent in your last ten days of life. I wonder if people hoping for miracles or doctors not not being truthful in conveying the reality of situations, or distraught families not being able to face reality waste valuable medical dollars for impossible outcomes. HS

Yes, I believe they do. Probably more than not.

 

[ovrszd]

Many of those dollars are spent making sure that people are as comfortable as they can be for as long as possible. That's not an "impossible medical outcome," but it's still very expensive. My mother fell and broke a hip. She had a hip replacement, spent some time in a nursing home with physical therapy, and now she's on her own again. She walks with a limp and still has some pain, but I'd argue that she's better off than she'd be if she'd been condemned to life in a wheelchair (or worse).

All that care was expensive and, since she's elderly, she's obviously not going to be using that hip forever. In my opinion, it was worth the money/temporary suffering/recovery time for the increased quality of life she'll have for the next several (few? Who knows?) years.

So who gets to decide when the cost/benefit means that someone shouldn't get treatment? I'm a pretty smart guy. Can I decide for you?

I'll hafta side with HS on this one. She obviously was not terminal.

My Dad on the other hand was in advanced Alzheimer's. Could not walk or stand without assistance. Fell out of bed and broke his hip. Doctor said he'll never walk again without surgery. Mom said I can't stand the thought of him not walking again. Let's do the surgery. Dad never walked again and died a week after surgery. Sorry, I don't know what the cost of that was.

 

[Parkanzky]

I'll hafta side with HS on this one. She obviously was not terminal.

My Dad on the other hand was in advanced Alzheimer's. Could not walk or stand without assistance. Fell out of bed and broke his hip. Doctor said he'll never walk again without surgery. Mom said I can't stand the thought of him not walking again. Let's do the surgery. Dad never walked again and died a week after surgery. Sorry, I don't know what the cost of that was.

The rub is that we're all terminal. So exactly when do you start withholding life-saving or life-sustaining care?

My father had a stroke. My mother had a lot of difficult medical decisions to make when it happened and we (their six children) helped talk her through my father's wishes, the long-term prognosis, etc. In the end, my father lived just long enough for all his children to get into town (a few days). If my mother had made different decisions, he'd have "lived" many months more hooked to machines and oblivious to it all.

But who should get to make that decision for you?

 

[Parkanzky]

I don't think your story fits the model here, you mom was not terminal in her last ten days, your story doesn't apply. HS

It doesn't change my question. Who gets to decide the cost/benefit?

People with terminal cancer can life many months or sometimes years with aggressive treatment. A lot of that time can be almost asymptomatic. But those treatments can be extraordinarily expensive. Who gets to decide when the extra time is not worth the number of dollars it will cost?

 

[ovrszd]

The rub is that we're all terminal. So exactly when do you start withholding life-saving or life-sustaining care?

My father had a stroke. My mother had a lot of difficult medical decisions to make when it happened and we (their six children) helped talk her through my father's wishes, the long-term prognosis, etc. In the end, my father lived just long enough for all his children to get into town (a few days). If my mother had made different decisions, he'd have "lived" many months more hooked to machines and oblivious to it all.

But who should get to make that decision for you?

In the context of this discussion, we are most certainly NOT all terminal. So if I cut my hand today in the shop and am ultimately bleeding to death without care am I terminal?? Or would a quick trip to ER change that?? I'm certainly not terminal.

As to who should get to make that decision? The same people that you described in your analogy about your Dad. Sounds like that situation was handled logically and with compassion by the family as it should be. All you and I can do is hope our kids can apply that same mentality.