$120 billion annual saving on US Medicare spending


Just over here by this ditch, gramps, come on ...

Just over here by this ditch, gramps, come on …

That’s what it costs the federal government to keep Alzheimer’s patients around, with an additional $80 billion paid by private citizens.

Belgium now proposes to relieve its citizens of a similar burden by euthanizing the senile. France is “looking into” accelerated deaths – speeding the dying out the door.I expect we’ll soon hear calls for the shedding of our own helpless for the common good. Personally, I wouldn’t want to wait around while I gradually slipped into dementia and I don’t intend to, but the idea of being pressured to do so by others eager to save on feeding me mush irritates me – I might just stick around out of spite.


Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “$120 billion annual saving on US Medicare spending

  1. Cos Cobber

    You will definitely stick around to spite us and that would be strongly preferred.

  2. Libertarian Advocate

    Europe’s entitlement society is beginning to buckle. Killing off the elderly is the only near term solution they have to avert a full collapse of their socialized systems. How far behind them are we?

  3. Peg

    OK… so – a bunch of you may think I’m a Nazi – but – here goes.

    According to the article, the government is not going to simply “off” people who fall into these categories. They are going to allow requests that when people find themselves in a certain category, that they can request (I assume in advance in a health directive) that they be permitted to die.

    In recent years, I have seen friends die from ALS and alzheimers. With the latter, people can live in institutions for years – not knowing family or friends, not able to perform simple tasks …. some having to be fed artificially, lying in a bed for over a year.

    I know that personally, should I ever get to the stage where my brain functions are so minimal that I am unable to take nutrition, control my waste functiosn and know anyone or anything – I truly prefer to go to the great beyond. Assuming that we have reasonable protections included in health directives, then why can’t I and others who believe as I do get a bit of assistance in checking out earlier? Perhaps some want to lie in a bed, being fed by a tube and covered in bed sores. Not I. And frankly, I’d be delighted to save society the $$$ that it would take to keep me there.

  4. Fred2

    Peg I think most people are with you there, I think the big BIG question is who chooses and when.

    Especially when there might be HUGE conflicts of interest: family stands to inherit and save beaucoup $$ and get rid of annoying family vegetable, Dr’s & staff get rid of an irritating patient. Done deal! No done yet? We can help that along… a little bit of this drug, not enough of that one and presto! You become an eligible vegetable, 2 years early.

    I personally hope I know when it’s time to go off behind the woodshed and have a terminal “gun cleaning accident”, but life doesn’t work out that way, hope springs eternal – until it’s too late.

  5. Peg

    Yes, I am sure that there are a number of Eager Beaver family members who would love to snuff out Mommy to get to Mom’s bank accounts. So – definitely a number of safeguards would have to be built into such medical directives. And – they could be revokeable up to …. some rational point. Not to mention that, if people had any worries about who would be making the final decisions (should never ever be just ONE person) – then, they could instead decide to take their chances being in really lousy shape.

    Alas; just about nuthin’ comes with gold plated guarantees these days.

  6. If you look at the brain of someone who died of Alzheimer’s (yes, it’s inevitably terminal) you’ll see that it’s shrunk to about 60% of it’s normal size and has lesions that make it look like swiss cheese. The humanity checked out years prior to death.