Video: Are the elderly cost effective?
posted at 2:35 pm on May 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Greg Hengler at Townhall captures this revealing moment in the Senate Finance Committee hearings on health-care reform. The speaker, Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, tells the committee that resources get wasted in the American health-care system, especially for one segment of the population. Professor Altman says he’s reluctant to mention it, but why waste money on in-depth treatment for people who won’t live long anyway? Better to warehouse them and save the resources for the young:
Remember, our population is aging. And with the very, very elderly, the costs go down, so that percentage should be falling, and it’s not. Second, the cost of care is growing by so much, so at the same percentage, it’s worth a lot more. So let’s go back to the issue of comparative effectiveness, which we’re supporting. That’s where that can have a big impact. It’s not only there, but that’s where the waste is. That’s where people are using technologies that really either don’t work at all or keep people alive for for very limited [time] and [at] very high cost.
Hospice is one option, but we do need take account of the cost — you know, I hate to say it, the cost-benefit of some of the things we do. And either we can do it directly, or we can do it by bundling the payments and let the delivery system deal with it. So it’s a combination of the delivery system dealing with it, or, and/or providing more information for people to make the right decisions, both for themselves and for the care.
Once again, we have people taking the shortage, rationing approach to its logical conclusion. In a non-shortage, free-market approach, people can choose for themselves whether to pursue cost-effective strategies based on their own resources, and the free market would incentivize the creation of enough resources to meet the demand. Only by restricting choice and setting prices will resources become scarce, which we have seen gradually for the last several decades in our own heavily-regulated health-care system, and seen dramatically in the various single-payer systems around the world.
What happens when the state controls all the resources? New resources do not develop, and the government winds up rationing care based on its own priorities, and not the priorities of the patients or caregivers. Professor Altman’s suggestion that the elderly get hospice treatment to save scarce care resources is exactly the kind of decisions the state will make for its citizens, and it won’t be limited to the elderly, either. Anyone whose value does not show a positive “cost-benefit” ratio to the state will also likely wind up without the kind of care necessary to stay alive and healthy.
Progressives who back this plan get offended that people with more resources can get better care, just as they can get better housing, better food, and better entertainment, among many other things. Like in all other arenas, their prescription for equality of result will mean that everyone gets treated equally poorly, and that we will eventually start culling out the weak in favor of the strong. We’ve essentially returned to the eugenics arguments of the early 20th century, a dark period of human history we should be avoiding rather than embracing on the floor of the Senate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
The pace-maker my dad got at 74 probably wasn’t very “cost-effective,” either, I’m betting.
Kensington on May 12, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Yup, with Ethan Hawke.
And what the People ALWAYS end up fearing – is the State.
OhEssYouCowboys on May 12, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Of course it wouldn’t. A black market will surely emerge, if not in this country than somewhere where free access to healthcare still exists (Costa Rica, maybe, or somewhere like that). People like Ted who have the money to go seek out and take advantage of such options will still do so. There may be some inequalities in our current system; for instance, if there are experimental treatments available to Ted that aren’t covered by insurance, he can probably afford to pay out of pocket for them whereas many ordinary Americans couldn’t. But these utopian morons in Washington delude themselves if they think nationalizing healthcare is going to address these inequalities. The result will be quite the opposite. With rationing comes scarcity, and with scarcity comes higher cost. Now even MORE people will be barred from getting the treatment they want or need because not only will they not be able to get it in their own neighborhood, but even if the CAN afford to travel to another country to get it, they will be competing with scores more people to get it, thus meaning only those with the most money are going to be able to get adequate care.
This is such basic economics that I find it breathtaking that it’s lost on so many people in Washington. There seems to be some misconception among these people that the healthcare industry is somehow subject to different laws of economics than other industries. It’s not. Is this really something we want to figure out the hard way?
I’m all for people opting to end their own lives painlessly and efficiently if they are terminally ill (or not). That choice is between them and their God. The problem becomes when some faceless committee of bureaucrats comes up with a list of criteria a person has to meet in order to get to stay alive and fails to meet it. Some people might be OK with being warehoused in that case; others might not. If they have the means, why should they be barred from trying different forms of treatment? How is it ethical or moral to prevent them from doing so. My grandmother recently passed away at age 93, but she first became sick about five years ago. She was treated, she got better, and she had five additional good years to live and enjoy her dog and her family and her trips to the casino. Who is Barack Obama and his band of socialist followers to deny her that fundamental right?
Amazing.
Welcome to the Fourth Reich, everyone.
NoLeftTurn on May 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Not yet, but netflix is all I feed my television anymore, so it will go on the list.
Vashta.Nerada on May 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM
So, not President Obama is talking about the chronically ill, not just the terminally ill?
It is bad enough that he wants to kill off anybody with a terminal diagnosis, but now he is talking about denying care to people who have chronic diseases, many of which can be managed, leaving them productive and able for years or even decades?
I would like to think he mis-spoke, but I have no confidence in the man.
gridlock2 on May 12, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Oh, no, he sees the consequences of his actions. And he doesn’t care if it does in a lot of Americans in the end; like his grandamother, they were too expensive to keep around.
Odd that he wants his judges to have “empathy,” but apparently his physicians not to.
Wethal on May 12, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Confirming what conservatives already know, and what liberals refuse to understand.
hawksruleva on May 12, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Is this really what Obama supporters want???????
capejasmine on May 12, 2009 at 3:36 PM
How old is too old for life-saving medical intervention? Once that little question gets sorted out, there’s clearly no point in bothering to diagnose illness in the ‘elderly’. Why waste the money on diagnosis if you’re not going to treat the disease? And come to think of it, why should we bothering to spend money on such life-sustaining things as blood-pressure medication and monitoring, insulin, and cholesterol-lowering medications for people who are going to die soon anyway?
And of course it isn’t just the ‘elderly’ who are a waste of medical resources. There are people of all ages with incurable cancers (why waste money keeping Elizabeth Edwards alive for a few years). Those cases are ‘obvious’ write-offs. But what about the ones whose chances of survival are statistically less than 50:50? Isn’t it irresponsible to be throwing money away on such a poor bet?
And isn’t it irresponsible to throw precious health-care dollars into care of people who don’t care for themselves? People who smoke, drink alcohol, eat potato chips, hamburgers, fries and all that fatty stuff. People who drive too fast, don’t wear their seatbelts, or have run more than one red light in their lives? And what about people who engage in risky behavior like downhill skiing, mountain climbing, white-water rafting, and sky-diving?
And the disabled. Well forget them. Just a bunch of useless eaters.
/major sarcasm off
ProfessorMiao on May 12, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Just remember that the concept of cost and benefit for the left is not the same as it is for conservatives.
Conservatives:
cost = expenses
benefit = production
Liberals:
cost = carbon (- adjustment for necessities for celebrities)
benefit = steady Democrat vote
pedestrian on May 12, 2009 at 3:38 PM
They don’t realize that it is themselves on the list.
Vashta.Nerada on May 12, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Nah, more like Logan’s Run, except without the arbitrary age requirement and the freaky anti-gravity light show.
JeffWeimer on May 12, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Statists are turds!
Anyone with terminal cancer should “cost effectivize” Stuart Altman, which may or may not mean that he will no longer need to buy food.
Glenn Jericho on May 12, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Welcome to “The Brave New World Of Obama”.
GarandFan on May 12, 2009 at 3:41 PM
He only wants his judges to have empathy for the ‘right kind’ of people. Certainly not for the holders of secure investments at Chrysler, or the kids in DC who need access to good education.
In the case of medical care, it’s all about defining who is meritorious of empathy and who is not.
ProfessorMiao on May 12, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Maybe it’s just too obvious to point out that when people have to actually pay for their own and loved one’s health care, they almost never bankrupt their family to give an elderly relative another week or two of low-quality life.
But with insurance that limits the cost to a few hundred or thousand dollars, people will ALWAYS make the decision to have SOMEBODY ELSE pay for a few weeks of low-quality life that even the relative probably doesn’t want.
notagool on May 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM
+1
(Now, can we find a leader of the Loyal Opposition to point that out, loudly and consistently?)
March Hare on May 12, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Professor Altman is 72 years old. It looks like it’s about time for him to go out on the ice floe…
gridlock2 on May 12, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Obama would have made one hell of a slave owner. It seems to come so naturally to him!
capejasmine on May 12, 2009 at 3:49 PM
“You had your run, grandma. Time to get off the stage and make some room for the kiddies.”
Cicero43 on May 12, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Well, that means conservatives can kiss their health care goodbye! It certainly isn’t “cost effective” for a socialist government to keep us pesky conservatives around to vote against their hair-brained schemes. “Government ‘help’ to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.” Ayn Rand
College Prof on May 12, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Ooh, good one. Burn!
College Prof on May 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM
More like Soylent Green, because in that story people were allowed to live past 30, so long as they swallowed govt cheese, ie, PEOPLE!!! But eventually they’re all kevorkianized by the state. That movie also feel much less sci-fi than Gattaca or Logan’s Run. Aren’t we just a short ways away from scooping up front-loaders full of rioters and dumping them into the hopper to make wholesome nutritious obambi treats.
Mmmm, Mummy, can I have another golden delicious obambi graham?! Thanks Mum, heil Hopenchange! Hey, what happened to Grandma? She was just here yesterday.
Western_Civ on May 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Where is this all going to end?
A-ha! I got it…
newton on May 12, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Wethal on May 12, 2009 at 3:35 PM
He cannot be trusted, that’s for sure. What I meant about his not seeing the consequences is based on my opinion that he is so blinded by his ideology and determination to make the country over to conform to what he thinks it should be, that he is unable to comprehend, accept or entertain any idea that these consequences may be negative on any level. That is how I have begun to see him and why he does not hesitate to break the law, lie and offend our allies if anything they might say or do tarnishes what he sees as the right outcomes. (sorry, too wordy, but found I couldn’t shorten it easily)
jeanie on May 12, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Actually I said that. It was the first comment on this thread.
upinak on May 12, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Imagine for a moment that this is an executive at an insurance agency and imagine the outrage. Now ask yourself why is there no outrage when the govt says it?
jeffn21 on May 12, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Western_Civ on May 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Actually I said that. It was the first comment on this thread.
upinak on May 12, 2009 at 4:03 PM
I’ll have to learn to read one these days. My bad. Anyway, Soylent is where we’re going. Buy stock in process machinery.
Western_Civ on May 12, 2009 at 4:06 PM
It isn’t bad, but let me tell you this.
The Elitist are still in power in the movie… but you get a sense of utopia concerning those whom are not so “perfect” which is odd.
It wasn’t a bad movie, almost a prediction of where we are going.
upinak on May 12, 2009 at 4:06 PM
I hand crank my own meat. So I make my own hamburger and sausage. Thanks though.
wow, that sounds so wrong.
upinak on May 12, 2009 at 4:07 PM
This is no shock to me. Revolutions generally try to kill or control mature adults first. Such people are usually a pain in the butt to the new order — they are too smart, or too stubborn to change.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on May 12, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Didn’t Hitler test the waters when he culled the disabled?
And pigs like Garafalo and Olby call us Nazis.
RobCon on May 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM
+1
Like all their other attempts to control everything from cradle to grave, the government will turn this private, personal, difficult and painful part of life into just more grist for its nightmarish totalitarian mill. Count me out.
JiangxiDad on May 12, 2009 at 4:14 PM
It’s funny how this guy never utters a word in Chinese, yet he’s red all the way.
Black Adam on May 12, 2009 at 4:14 PM
No proposal from Dems so far on health care reform, as far as I can tell, includes one essential part: tort reform. Medical costs are high because doctos practice defensivce medicine in anticipation of possible malpractice. But the Dems would not alienate a core constituency: the “trial lawyers,” a/k/a personal injury plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Wethal on May 12, 2009 at 4:15 PM
I wonder what all those Obama AARP supporters think of this?
katiejane on May 12, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Also remember that today’s old people were Reagan voters in 1980 and 1984. Killing them off faster is just one more way to ensure a solid Democratic majority for the next 30 years.
rockmom on May 12, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Wethal on May 12, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Not sure this is entirely a government shortage vs. free market point, Ed. We all die someday. Do we exhaust our finances to keep ourselves alive, denying an inheritance to our posterity?
Unfortunately, and more to your overall point, the question is not left to an individual person when medical care is funded by the government. Does that mean the people cannot cut off financial support at some point? It’s one thing to condemn the elderly to death directly, but quite another to do so indirectly by no longer expending society’s resources to cover the care. Frankly, if government had carrots enough for everyone, we should all eat heartily! The reality is, however, that resources are limited–even the resources of the United States federal government, as we’re fast learning.
cackcon on May 12, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I got a good laugh out of it.
Daggett on May 12, 2009 at 4:28 PM
There are savings to be had in end-of-life care, with expensive machines, machines and specialists squeezing another 72 hours of life out of a body that is obviously giving up. We need to have more transparency and thought given to how we want to spend the end of our lives if a cure is not possible. Most of us would rather be home, surrounded by loved ones rather than mechanically ventilated and receiving fluids via invasive lines.
I still don’t trust the govt. to decide when to give up on me or my loved ones, though.
cs89 on May 12, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Second “machines” should be “chemicals.” Sorry.
cs89 on May 12, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Fifty is too old for hip replacements in Britain. Not cost effective, don’t you know. Better to spend the money on a twenty year old illegal immigrant from some ‘asian’ country.
eaglewingz08 on May 12, 2009 at 4:35 PM
I just wrote a seminar paper on this topic for my information privacy seminar.
HITECH, which passed as part of the stimulus, provides 19 billion to get all of our healthcare records in sharable electronic format. What used to be private healthcare information will be going into a system that you CANNOT OPT OUT OF unless you pay for your medical treatment in full out of pocket.
That information can then legally be sold and shared with the government.
There is also another billion in comparative effectiveness research (CER) in the stimulus bill, which created a council to coordinate CER efforts amongst all federal departments and agencies.
Dr. David Blumenthal (the brand spanking new HIT Coordinator) writes all about CER and how to get dr’s to be more cost-effective using payment incentives and computers making decisions for physicians will make physicians better providers.
The CBO published a report warning that without allowing physicians to retain control over treatment decisions, patients who benefit from more expensive treatments may be denied. Rep Boustany from LA referred to the report during the debate over HITECH, pointing out that it specifically indicates that CER will be sued to deny expensive treatments regarldess of whether a dr thinks they are necessary. He introduced an amendment when HITECH was being debated requiring physicians retain control over what treatments are ordered preventing CER from empowering federal beaureaucrats to overrule physicians. The democratic majority DENIED the amendment, which provides legislative history in an applied challenge to show that it is ACCEPTABLE for CER results to OVERRIDE physician decisions.
Scary stuff, boys and girls. My best advice to you is what my hubby and I have done: TAKE CARE OF YOUR HEALTH! DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO NOT GET SICK. Exercise, take vitamins, whatever you need to do. Bad times are a coming.
JustTruth101 on May 12, 2009 at 4:38 PM
(typo) CER will be
suedusedJustTruth101 on May 12, 2009 at 4:40 PM
eaglewingz08 on May 12, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Is that really true? 50? Besides a hip replacement would ultimately be much cheaper for the health care system than 20+ years in an assisted living faciity because this person couldn’t walk I should think.
jeanie on May 12, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Somebody needs to start a big fat prime time ad campaign highlighting this feature of government health care.
Will the congressional Republicans? the RNC? Pfffft.
rockhead on May 12, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Fifty is too old for hip replacements in Britain. Not cost effective, don’t you know. Better to spend the money on a twenty year old illegal immigrant from some ‘asian’ country.
eaglewingz08 on May 12, 2009 at 4:35 PM
I had a hip replacement at 32 years old. I was born with hip dysplacia then the joint was taken over by arthritis. I couldn’t walk without pain medicine before my surgery. So in Obozo’s world, I would have been doped up on meds rather than living a pain-free life for at least 30 years. Oh, I had brain surgery 7 months before the hip operation so I would have been taxed to death on top of the medical bills. Why didn’t I vote for Obozo? He is the bestest.
txag92 on May 12, 2009 at 4:48 PM
CBO report
Also, very interesting, the committee report documenting the Boustany amendment, item D (bottom of page) is only available in google’s cache, no longer in the library of congress thomas system. What is up with that? Glad I documented it before turning my paper in.
JustTruth101 on May 12, 2009 at 4:55 PM
The hospice movement is a response to that. There are hospitals that now have a hospice wing with rooms like a person’s bedroom. Sometimes they’re suites with a room for a relative to stay nearby. No machines except to administer pain medication. Nursing station outside.
After several days in ICU, an elderly family member of mine was moved over to such a suite, with his knowledge and consent. He knew he didn’t have long, and preferred just to be comfortable, with as many family members around who could make it. (ICU has limited space for visitors).
He died peacefully, knowing he might have eked out a day or two more on the machines, but it would not have been the way he wanted. Closest thing to dying in your own bed.
Wethal on May 12, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Wethal on May 12, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Have nothing but praise for the Hospice movement. And…even more praise for those with the temperament to do this.
jeanie on May 12, 2009 at 5:08 PM
And now they want to tax soda pop to pay for part of it.
The only hope that we have is that the democrats push us far enough that 2% of the 52% finally see what their vote really meant.
We’ll all have to do with less so that everyone can have a little more.
rockhead on May 12, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Absolutely revolting. Margaret Sanger would be proud.
OneGyT on May 12, 2009 at 5:09 PM
I think we can kill two birds with one stone here…reduce health care costs in the US and end hunger in the third world nations! I call it Soilent Green!
BadMojo on May 12, 2009 at 5:13 PM
We’ll all have to do with less so that everyone can have a little more.
Except the Obama’s apparently.
jeanie on May 12, 2009 at 5:14 PM
The Onion has this issue pegged!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29507
alflauren on May 12, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Old codgers?? Where’s the Sen.Robt.Byrd interview? anybody?
-
I’ve been wondering .. when he’s killed off all the old folks, and aborted a bunch of the young’uns, that leaves .. umm .. the Chinese model??
/just wondering.
CaveatEmpty on May 12, 2009 at 5:39 PM
What a good point, I should have had you review my article before turning it in to the professor.
JustTruth101 on May 12, 2009 at 5:52 PM
The only ones that need to be warehoused are f’ing a’holes like Altman.
n0doz on May 12, 2009 at 5:55 PM
He is not going to live long. He’s obviously an old codger. So let’s withdraw medical care from him. It’s obviously not cost effective. Let’s hear him squeal.
{^_^}
herself on May 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Wethal on May 12, 2009 at 4:57 PM
I’m familiar with hospice, personally and professionally. I’m glad it was peaceful for your family members.
Too many in our culture avoid the topic of death and care decisions until they must be made, and often after the patient is unable to participate effectively in the conversation.
There are some savings available through a broader focus on addressing desires earlier (e.g., most hospitals ask about advance directives as part of admissions processes). I still don’t want Uncle Sam deciding when/how to pull the plug on a cost basis, though.
cs89 on May 12, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Of course it won’t but not for the same reason. They will be exempt, just like the politicians in Canada and the U.K.
E9RET on May 12, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Is there no way to stop this nonsense? I am truly scared to death (no pun intended) about where we are going in this country.
red131 on May 12, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Soylent Green is made out of people. Old people.
I guess that explains it tastes like Ben-Gay and Hometown Buffet.
TheMightyMonarch on May 12, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Not really, I completely understand. Been there done that. I think the one on the left is what we had :-)
Oldnuke on May 12, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Ice floes for the aged, anyone?
Liam on May 12, 2009 at 7:02 PM
I don’t think that is so. I think most people have a pragmatic attitude toward those with just a few weeks or a few months to live. Most don’t want heroic measures used in these cases; just palliative treatment, with an eye toward keeping the person as comfortable as possible.
Nobody is doing heart transplants on 90-year-olds. No one is recommending kidney transplants for 85-year-olds whose kidneys are shutting down. Nobody is recommending heart surgery for people who are doomed to die in a few months anyhow.
If, however, a surgery can basically cure an ailment, affording the individual years more of life, then yes, people want that.
In the case of Obama’s grandmother, she was not doomed (unless I’m misunderstanding it), but needed surgery to enjoy any sort of pain-free quality of life at all. It just so happened that “things fell apart” after the surgery was done.
Obama, and others, would have it that you decide what the odds are of dying, and procede thusly. Such that the older a person is, the odds of them dying within a few years are much greater than, say, a young adult dying within a few years.
Which brings one to the conclusion that past a certain age – say 70, or say 80, or say whatever – then it is better to let the person languish in pain for a few months, rather than have five or ten years of quality life.
That – is clearly a dismal, criminal way of thinking.
Somehow I have the idea that if Obama had been supported by most of society, he would have fairly easily made the “hard” decision to let his grandmother languish in pain until her death.
Certainly he’s suggesting we all come to view these “hard” decisions as something that is in any way, shape, or form ethical.
Of course the elderly and the chronically ill require the most health care. When we have health care available only for things like fixing broken arms in the young, we will have no health care at all.
Then again, I believe a lot of these Utopians really do think it would be a better world if we could just get rid of all those consuming, carbon-producing old and disabled and otherwise not financially productive individuals.
Alana on May 12, 2009 at 7:10 PM
mine is like the one on the right, with a hand crank. Talk about a workout!
upinak on May 12, 2009 at 7:13 PM
It’s People!
ronsfi on May 12, 2009 at 7:15 PM
One of my wife’s closest friends from when we lived in Canada died from cancer. They basically told her to go home and die, because they weren’t going to waste money on someone who was terminal anyway.
Buford Gooch on May 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM
I was just wondering why they keep harping on Medicare, which seniors pay $100.00 a month from their SS, instead of Medicaid which I don’t think they have to pay anything,I could be wrong but I don’t think so. If the Democrats had left SS alone as the Trust Fund it was suppossed to be instead of making part of the General Fund I don’t think we would have this big an issue, but then they never met a dollar they couldn’t spend especially when it’s someone elses.
concernedsenior on May 12, 2009 at 7:45 PM
She had terminal cancer, fell and broke her hip, and the question was whether to do surgery at that point. She made the choice to do it.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/personal-experience-weighs-on-obama-in-health-policy-debate/
Any chance a govt. agency would say, “sure we’ll approve this surgery so you have a chance to live out your final weeks/months in less pain?”
cs89 on May 12, 2009 at 8:00 PM
When in the military I was an Asian bum…loved the people… now I think I know why. Their elderly worry about nothing. They are revered, honored and cared for. If times were hard the grandma got the first helping. Unashamed love, respect and reverence for those that deserve it. God help us elderly in the care of these self-centered little monsters we have parented.
PaCadle on May 12, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Where are my critics….is this the last word?
PaCadle on May 12, 2009 at 8:45 PM
These people vote and many of them vote for Democrat scum, so they’re safe.
Democrats are fine with eviscerating people who can’t vote for them, such as children in the womb, but a brain dead 110 year old can still vote for a Democrat pol five times before breakfast (hell, he can vote for him 10 years after he dies), so he’s safe.
NoDonkey on May 12, 2009 at 8:57 PM
concernedsenior on May 12, 2009 at 7:45 PM
You are right. If they had left the fund alone since 1935, it would probably be in fine shape.And if you add the cost of Medicare and a supplemental together, it’s no small amount.
jeanie on May 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM
You are to old Professor Stuart Altman, Soylent Green Time for You!
serenity on May 12, 2009 at 9:22 PM
But he wants the judges to have sympathy for the people who have to fund those that want to cling to life like the undead. And for STDs that take the life of the young and beautiful.
Axeman on May 12, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Wethal on May 12, 2009 at 4:18 PM
The “T-4 Program”, Hadamar, Germany. Another “progressive” program brought to you courtesy of the (un)holy trinity of Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, and Adolf Hitler.
HEIL OBAMA!!
oldleprechaun on May 12, 2009 at 9:47 PM
OK, I have not read through all the comments yet, so somebody might have beaten me to this. But it has to be posted.
conservnut on May 12, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Darn-it!
conservnut on May 12, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Funny thing is saying how old people should know when it’s their time to go is one of the things that did John “Slots” Silber when he ran for Mass. Gov back in 1990. (He said loads of crazy stuff. How did you think Massachusetts managed to elect a Pub governor?)
Dave_d on May 12, 2009 at 10:16 PM
If there’s any justice in this world, a terrorist who could have been stopped by waterboarding will hatch a plan which could have been overheard by evesdropping and a nuke will go off in front of the Capitol building during Obama’s State of the Union address. This way, the Democrats will be the first to contribute to Obama’s new carbon die and trade tax, thus gaining the moral superiority they yearn for.
gordo on May 12, 2009 at 10:31 PM
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
He’s not just going after the unborn and the old in that statement.
journeyintothewhirlwind on May 12, 2009 at 11:16 PM
With socialist healthcare, what do we get? America is one of the few countries in the world even putting money into research for medical cures. With America gone, cancer research, AIDS research.. all grinds to a halt.
amkun on May 12, 2009 at 11:20 PM
New Obama Health Care Commercial:
Too many old people in the USA?
There’s always youth in Asia.
Daggett on May 12, 2009 at 11:43 PM
I say, let’s get into line now cuz the Prez and his buddies are probably already creating that list anyway. I mean, if over 45 million dead babies doesn’t explain the Left, I don’t know what will. I also think all his buddies should put in all their money except maybe for 2-3 million and that will help solve the problem a bit, anyway!!
sharinlite on May 12, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Anyone else see Logan’s Run?
Send_Me on May 13, 2009 at 12:09 AM
I was just scrolling down to see if anyone mentioned LR.
I only saw it because I had a huge 17 yr old crush on Farrah Fawcett.
jgapinoy on May 13, 2009 at 12:14 AM
If you’re Asian in the living room, & you’re North American in the kitchen, what are you in the restroom?
European.
jgapinoy on May 13, 2009 at 12:16 AM
I’d shed a tear for these elderly, if it hadn’t been the same old thieves who clamored for socialized medicine in the first place.
TMK on May 13, 2009 at 12:49 AM
It disgusts me to see the Americans’ “federal” government forcing young people, who would otherwise be bringing up more children, to turn over their money for most any other purpose. But go on, Americans, since you know so much better than me, keep sacrificing your children to fat, wrinkly, decrepit Molech. You’ve dwindled to less than 5% of the world’s populace already, even with so much help from Mexico. If you keep pumping your women full of poisons of sterility so you can afford cardiac bypasses and chemotherapy for people who will die anyway, maybe you can push yourselves down to 4%.
Kralizec on May 13, 2009 at 1:05 AM
OR, we could let individuals buy all these frivolous treatments if they have earned the money to pay for them.
PattyJ on May 13, 2009 at 1:09 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »