The old die to make way and free up resources for the young. That's the way it's supposed to work.
Enjoy your manadatory execution when you're forty you old bastard.
Where along that spectrum will you draw the line? Is that even possible to describe without being needlessly cruel, like someone who lost the use of both hands due to a stroke is killed but someone who lost the use of one hand and one leg gets to live?
These sorts of decisions should be left in the hands of those who are most impacted by it: The person in question. I'm a supporter of more dignified end-of-life options, of people being able to opt-out of life-saving treatment if they think it's not worth the fuss or the outcome is undesirable.
There's still a huge difference between someone electing to die with dignity because their cancer treatment has a 10% chance of delaying the onset by a few years, but a 100% chance of making their life a living hell for the duration, and someone who's told they're too ill to live and has their life abruptly terminated.
I wouldn't want to live on life support. I'd rather my wife/kids get a nice (well managed) trust fund for the remaining savings and just go in peace early.
I had a coworker who was a hardcore Ayn Rand type who had a real harsh point of view like this, until his infant was born with a congenital heart defect that resulted in hospitalization for 3-4 months.
Frankly, my own experience gave me a similar perspective, although I was more "meh" on the issue. I had a serious back surgery at 25, and spent a lot of time in PT around people whose lives were falling apart due to expenses and lost wages. Meanwhile I had a great employer with generous benefits and leave. The trucker I was around was struggling to live with workers comp and disability coverage. He was selling most of his possessions to keep his house. It was chilling.
I'm actually hoping that our shared generational suffering with respect to our baby boomer parents makes us get our generations' butt in gear and do something about it.
Got to use all that unnecessary suffering for something positive :/
Yes, seriously.
He told us repeatedly while he was alive that he didn't want to be put in a home. He wanted to cut his grass, feed the birds and be left alone - and after the stroke there was no way he could do that. We respected his wishes and opted out of the feeding tube, but he essentially starved to death. No fluids, no food for two weeks. Those two weeks burnt up all of his savings.
Everyone in my family agrees that it'd be better if assisted suicide were legal. No starving, no pain - just a nitrogen mask, and you don't even know you're dying.
Frankly, I find your 'older-and-wiser' posturing disgusting. Obviously it should be their choice, but today it's not their choice - the government says they must suffer and starve to death.
edit for less meanness
The legalization of euthanasia raises some moral questions with respect to coercion and self-serving misrepresentation, but in cases like your grandfather's, where a decision has been made, those concerns no longer apply.
If we have to choose between helping someone who's already lived 70 years live another miserable 10 years in a hospital bed hooked up to a machine vs. helping a 30-40 year old person overcome cancer so they can go back to supporting their family, we should do the latter first. Just thinking off the top of my head maybe we could accomplish this with pricing, by making end of life care more expensive and using the cost to subsidize care for younger people.
Regardless, this is the way we should allow it. Eating up the savings of the dying seems particularly ghoulish when the wishes of the afflicted and their family are not respected.
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/10/46997075...
Dat arbitrage!
I don't know about the Philippines, but happy to look into it.
That is 37,760 USD / year. Too much?
edit: Whoops, should be 22,622.04 USD / year
A lot of countries hunt for wealthy retirees, like Portugal and Australia. Sure you must have your health insurance.
In order to emigrate and retire in New Zealand[1], for example, you need to
a) be healthy b) bring your own insurance c) bring ~$350k in savings and $40k annual income with you
The UK imposes an "independent means[2]" requirement, to prevent retirees from being a drain on the economy, as does Australia, Canada[3], etc.
[1] - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/072115...
[2] - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083052/Foreigners-6...
[3] - http://www.livingabroadincanada.com/getting-started/retireme...
Either the host country's end-of-life medical care is not great by American standards (in which case what you write is true, but many Americans wouldn't care to move), or it is, and a retiree would consume considerable public resources. Unfortunately, there's no way to have it both ways.
As a specific anecdote of the problem of government in healthcare: in my city a new children's hospital opened up a few years ago. The other area hospitals petitioned the government to not allow them to build the hospital until certain concessions were met. Among the concessions I'm aware of are not allowing the new hospital to own a medical chopper for 8 years. It was also not allowed to build a Level 1 trauma center. And of course that's after YEARS of not even being able to break ground while all this negotiating and concessions were being figured out. This type of interference raised the cost of healthcare for everyone in my city while likely decreasing the quality of care.
Outpatient treatment is increasingly more popular and more cost effective. Hospitals often raise costs by introducing massive capital costs that need to be amortized as well as other overheads.
With the exception of lower-cost, higher value primary care, there are rarely any meaningful access issues to doctors in metro areas. Those shortages are largely being addressed with PAs and NPs.
I'd be interested in a citation for this because it's counter to basic economic theory of supply and demand. If the supply outpaces demand, then the price should be going down, not up.
Here's an example. A quick good will find you many more. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150221/magazine/30...
Medical services are a complex market. It's nonsensical to randomly apply basic economic principles without knowing what you are doing. (Good luck telling congress that) The smart thing to do is to make primary care more accessible -- you'd be able to close many hospitals and improve outcomes.
The other reason is that the government has an interest in maximizing economic growth, among other things, which is why it has zoning power. Citizens in the area, including local businesses such as other hospitals, may raise any number of concerns about building projects. Further, any citizen (or corporation) can hold up just about any project for as long as it's willing to keep paying legal fees to fight projects based on trumped up bullshit about esoteric zoning laws that were written a century ago that they probably broke when building their own hospital.
If you ignore healthcare, nursing homes, etc., perhaps.
The trick is to move to a country [where taxpayers are going to pay for your medical care]. Nice plan. Several people in this thread already noted that there are ways to make American taxpayer pay, without having to move.
You don't have to study the situation really closely to get what I'm driving at. The patients will generally stay in separate areas. Just walk around and use your sense of smell.
Person A was rich, her 500k in savings was all spent to provide her care at a rate of 5k per month until it is gone.
Person B had 100k to her name. She paid the nursing home 5k per month until it was gone. Then care is free until the money runs out.
Person C had 0 money. They paid $0 from day 1.
All three got the same medical care. All three got the same food. Maybe person A spring for a private room vs a shared room... But otherwise all would be the same.
Nursing homes in general aren't great. Hopefully you can stay out of them. Eating well and exercising seem to help. If not, money won't do much.
> Person B had 100k to her name. She paid the nursing home 5k per month until it was gone. Then care is free until the money runs out.
> All three got the same medical care. All three got the same food. Maybe person A spring for a private room vs a shared room... But otherwise all would be the same.
Person b experienced a lower standard of care once the money ran out.
(I'm sure this isn't universally true, but in my experience it is. It's a free market...)
And frugality (and excessive government austerity) has been a European problem, too.
All that money doesn't get you superior results. I talk to some of the more coherent patients all the time on the phone. The lonelier ones keep me on the line for longer. I can't help but think there is a better model.
It's a crazy system the U.S. has.
But with humans, I find that reminding them to do the right thing is a constant necessity...
Honestly, the best argument for single payer is all of that bullshit is gone.
What I was going to post based on your original report of retiring in 1988 with $3M (keeping it for illustrative purposes):
He must have sold the stock when he retired to buy that house and those cars. Had he kept it in XOM, his $3 million would have been worth $22 million today, with a dividend that would have covered his expenses and that kept pace with inflation.
Not that keeping your nest egg in a single stock would have been advisable, but the S&P return for that would have been comparable.
His house value probably rose at a higher rate than XOM's did.
Also, what's your point? His shares would be worth $22 million today and he'd still be dead.
But that's moot--the edit I made was because the $22M was based on a chronology problem in the original post. The ten year difference in retirement date from 1988 to 1998 is a much better explanation of the facts, and fits the OP's premise better.
Also have a living will that specifies no heroic measures so you won't languish in a hospital bed for years while squandering all your life savings
* to give you one random example coming to mind - the journalist in Mexico who got killed by murderers from a drug cartel past week knew very well what was at stake and chose to keep doing his job - so I'd argue he managed to come to terms with having to die. it's an extreme example but reaching this mental state is likely easier in less extreme life circumstances - those most of us are impacted by.
When you get old, if you need skilled nursing care at home or in a nursing home, that's your dime.
Typically, you get admitted to a nursing home, spend all of your money, and when you run out go to Medicaid. Your county DSS will liquidate your home and remaining assets and you'll be paid for by that until you die.
If you have a surviving spouse, they get to keep some allowance.
https://www.medicare.gov/what-medicare-covers/part-a/what-pa...
Nursing home: https://www.elderlawanswers.com/medicares-limited-nursing-ho...
Home care: https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/home-health-services.html
Activities of daily living: "Activities of daily living (ADL) are routine activities that people tend do every day without needing assistance. There are six basic ADLs: eating, bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring (walking) and continence."
He built a house and bought a couple of nice cars living on about 100,000 a year. About 12 years ago he had a heart attack and stroke and was bed ridden. 12 years of doctor bills and hospice ate through almost every dollar he saved.
My grandmother sold the house and now lives on her social security. Maybe people 60 should not be so fast to go spend their cash. He was 72 when he got sick and 84 this year when he finally passed away. If something happens to our grandmother there wont be a nice $3 million to cover 12 years of hospitalizations and surgeries.