Posted on 12/10/2002 10:36:08 PM PST by Sir Gawain
And you're right.
But it should be society's choice as evidenced by their Personal Accountability ... be they Mother Teresa, some Junior Leaguer, a philanthropist or Frederic Ozanam.
The State's ability to provide healthcare and ensure "quality of life" has got to rank somewhere well below the ability of their "peacekeepers" to win wars.
You can refuse to eat. Works every time.
It's just that it's a rather painful way to go. That's one reason folks like Teresa Schiavo are in the news. As it dawns on people that the Courts cannot euthanize folks but must kill them slowly and painfully by starvation, the clamor will come for the Compassion that is the needle -- and dignity -- of the dog pound.
I hope you realize how much progress IS being made in this regard. "Food and water" are now known as "ANH" in the legal briefs ... or "Artificial Nutritition and Hydration". Trust me, if you can't demand to eat and actually feed yourself, chances are good the argument can be made that feeding you falls within the realm of Extraordinary Measures like "ANH".
I guess the only part you and the rest of the Deathists are forgetting is that it's only if your Fit Enough that you'll have the option to choose the good death. Unfortunately -- unless rendered temporarily insane by the pain the State refuses to alleviate or the depression that's a Manageable Illness only if you're a Productive-aged human -- most folks don't really wish to die when they're still fit enough to suicide.
The unfit, unproductive and dying will just be offed whether they or the "Life Force" animating them like it or not ... same as the Unwanted.
I too have spent a great deal of time caring for the dying. I have witnessed long, agonizing and painful deaths I would not wish on anyone, certainly not a beloved friend or family member.
It's just that I've yet to see any of them actually ask for a fatal dose from the bowl of morphine at their bedside. They could have. They didn't. Many talked of slipping away when the time was right. Retiring to a room and taking some pills as the party went on without them.
Never once did it come to that. It was in those deaths I think I learned a great deal about dignity and life. Those lessons are coming in handy now as I deal with family members who are close to the end of their lives and confronting the various overwhelming emotions, physical limitations and flagging spirits a part of carrying on til death does them part. Obviously, I'm still in touch only with the Survivors ... those who survived the Plague and -- more importantly -- those who survived watching wave after wave of their dear ones die without letting Death conquer their minds or hearts.
Sorry, but I don't see the percentage in saddling my family and my future grandchildrens' families so that these over the hill hippies can retire to their geriatric crashpads in style.Yet you voted for Bush?posted on 12/11/2002 0:51 AM PST by Bush2000
READ MY LIPS ... his kin been working the elderly -- the Greatest, and possibly most selfish, Generation -- for years.
Is a rather funny thought ...
I've often wondered whether or not it might not be fair for children who survived the gauntlet of abortion to get the same Choice where their Unwanted family members are concerned.
Then I think of Peter Singer and realize that -- if even he won't off his Mom after she's dipped well below his strict minimum for "Personhood" -- not much hope for winnowing the Baby Boomers thus.
Damn. =)
All families that function properly are somewhat socialistic, in a voluntary fashion. We don't practice strict personal responsibility with our kids; they'd starve to death. When a sufficiently limited group is united by bonds of love that are sufficiently strong, we can eschew the rigid allocation of responsibility for one's health and welfare to oneself, and ask that others in the group help out. But that model is not appropriate to a whole nation. It wouldn't even be appropriate to a small village.
All in all, the politicization of health care and retirement has had the same effects as the politicization of everything else that's properly a matter for private decisions; it's destroyed the rights of privacy, increased our costs, weakened voluntary relationships, muddied the waters of accountability, given the unscrupulous lots of ways to rip us off while hiding behind a veneer of public service, and created intense interest-group warfare that threatens our social cohesion. Apart from that, it's perfectly all right.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Bs ill take care of my own parents I have no desire to do anything for the boomers in general. They've on the whole been totally parasitic. By the time your old if you haven't arranged for something to take care of you well...
Sandy: Oh please. It's money coming from people who work going to people who don't. It's a simple tranfer of dollars from those with ability to those with needs. It's welfare, plain and simple.
Exactly. But, that's how Socialist Security was "sold" to the public when it was instated. They were living through a depression and couldn't resist the idea of a "safety net".
They think they're just "getting their money back" that they paid in over the years, not realizing that each generation of retirees needs more and more working people to finance each stipend, since the gov't is stealing the money for other uses rather than "keeping it in trust" as it originally promised it would do.
A few people end up dying before they "use up" all the money that was taken from them, but most of them end up taking out a lot more than was taken from them to put in. And since the 70s or so, one doesn't even have to have contributed anything in order to suck off the SS teat.
They put their trust FedGov and sucked all of us who came after into its pyramid scam.
I guess liberal Republicans think the appropriate way of discussing issues is to call other people's parents names. My parents were never parasites. They earned their own living and supported themselves to the end.
I do not know if you have children, but if you do, I pity them. I would never consider what I did for my children imposed an obligation on them to "pay me back." Everything I have done for them I have done by my choice for my enjoyment of nourishing, supporting, and raising them to be decent self-sufficient, moral individuals. The only, "reward," I sought is the one I receive every day in observing them enjoying successful adult life. There is something essentially evil about those who think their children "owe" them something.
Have a dekko at the Ten Commandments: honoring one's father is a Good Thing.
Since when does the commandment, "Honor thy father and mother," abrogate the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." Your way of obey one commandment is by breaking another.
So ... it's not so much "Republican" or "Democrat" but rather the Materialists v. the rest of us.
A materialist is one who is concerned about material things, like food, clothing, houses, medicine, and money, which represents those material goods produced by the honest effort of decent men. A non-materialist is concerned with things like feelings, and "good-will," and whatever else has neither substance or any practical use. If non-materialists were honest, they would not want the materialist's money, and food, and medicine. Instead, when someone is in "need" we ought to write them a poem, sing them a song, and pray for them. After all, who wants to burden others with all those nasty material things.
Randian Selfishness and soulless capitalism pitted against death to self and a natural moral law that trumps the marketplace.
These people do a lot of talking about, "death to self," and it would no doubt help if they demonstrated this, but they cannot. What it really means is that everyone else should be ready to "die" so they can more easily be fleeced by the non-materialists.
Whereas, the non-materialist could live at someone else's expense forever without batting a moral eye, the materialist, like Sandy would say:
Old and poor is better than being a thief. I'll die before I ever force other people to take care of me.
I'll take this ruthless soulless materialistic morality any day to that mushy, "natural-moral-law," that makes everyone a slave to everyone else. Please spare me your mutual parasitism parading as morality.
Social Security is NOT welfare. I am 4 years away from being eligible and what I would get is actually pocket change but you can bet the farm I am going to collect it because for 30 years I was forced to pay the maximum amount into it. However, the best part is it pisses off drones like you and the Hanky.
Here is a nice example of the altruist-collectivist morality. It is morally right, according to this view, to force others to pay because, "for 30 years I was forced to pay." (The correct name for forced payment is extortion.) This "two wrongs make a right," morality could have been applied to the slavery problem too, and might have been if these liberals had been around then. Instead of freeing the slave, the slaves should have been allowed to have slaves too. Come to think of it, that's exactly what is being done. "I've been enslaved by the government for 30 years, now it's my turn to enslave all those younger then me."
These people never thought of identifying the SS program for the evil that it was and fighting it. It was much easier to go along with evil and wait for their chance to impose it on others. This is exactly the kind of compassionate concern for others that can be expected from them. All that stuff about concern for the old, the sick, the disabled is a big cover-up for their intention to grab all the unearned benefit they possibly can, without a moments concern to how much suffering that causes to others.
The one good thing about mooches and parasites is they are also arrogant, and plainly identify themselves as those terrified of being responsible for their own lives and preparing for their own future. It is helpful that they are this way so that decent folk can avoid and protect themselves from their intended thefts.
Rabid Ruthless Individualist - Hank
Your way of obey [sic] one commandment is by breaking another.
Don't make silly assumptions, for example: dighton luvz social security, medicare and whatnot. I jumped down the author's throat 'cuz I don't like the tone of his voice.
That is all.
I have seen both of my grandmothers die in nursing homes over the last two years. Both were well into their late 80's, and they didn't get that far because of high-tech medicine. They were lucky to have all of their children around them constantly to be sure they were well attended to, but both of them went through their entire life savings to pay for it. Neither had to go on Medicaide, but everything they worked for during their lifetimes was gone to pay for it, including their homes. Some may see that as planning "just right," but I don't see it that way at all.
I am very fortunate, as the child of my parents, that after having been through this with their mothers, they purchased Long Term Care Insurance. If and when they need care in the home, assisted living, or (God forbid), nursing home care, it will be covered without draining everything they have worked hard to save. When they reach that point in their life, there will be plenty of worries for me but money won't be one of them. They have done the responsible thing and planned ahead. And the government and YOUR pocketbooks will not be involved.
My mother had to rely on the insurance only a few months after she purchased her policy (Guillane-Barre Syndrome). She is fine now, but when she needed it she was given in-home care. Someone to clean, help her dress, etc. Luckily (I guess you could look at it that way!) I had just lost my job so I had the time visit while she was still in the hospital, and after she was home I cooked and helped her get to the doctor -- things like that. The home health aid could have done those things, I guess, but since I had the time I wanted to. (My father was injured in a freak accident and he was in no shape to help -- he needed help too). The bottom line is that my parents aren't wealthy, but when they need long term care (1 out of 3 people will), they won't be in your pockets, and their daughter will be free to spend her time making sure they get the best of care and spending as much time with them as is possible. And they will have the choice of recieving skilled care while staying in their own home as long as possible, living with their children, assisted living, or (God forbid) a nursing home.
Right now, my 92 year old father-in-law has moved in with my husband and I. He makes out OK on his small pension, SS, and dividend check from a bond fund. He is on no medications at all (except the daily dose of Manhattans). He can't live by himself because he is blind and has a problem with short-term memory, be he does not recognize that he can longer take care of himself. He is the most unhappy person that I have ever known, because due to living with us he has "lost his independance." He would be a great candidate for assisted living and would be much happier there, but he can't afford that, so he would end up in a nursing home. So we relocated (kidnapped, practically) him to Texas to avoid that. A lot of people end up in nursing homes on wellfare (medicaid -- YOUR wallets), when assisted living would actually be much better for them, but they don't have the means or insurance to cover assisted living expenses. So you and I pay for their nursing home (after their life savings are drained away).
At the age of 44 I have purchased long term care coverage. The rates are the cheapest when you are young, and I went with the oldest in the business -- GE. They have never raised rates on policy holders. I pay $1800 a year, which in this area of the country amounts to 12 days in a nursing home. That is a very quick payout on the investment. But I like the idea of having the freedom to stay im my home as long as possible, or going to assisted living instead of a nursing home. Anything but a nursing home. My husband is 15 years older than I am, and because he is insured if he needs long term care I can keep him at home and I will have adequate help to take care of him. He has seen to it that I won't see our assets dwindle if he needs long term care, which is a big comfort since I am likely to live much longer than he does.
I don't know if you have ever been close to the caretaker of a bedridden spouse or parent. Taking care of them by yourself in your home is a tremendous burden -- one can only leave the house for very quick errands and must find someone to sit any time you need to leave the house. The lifting (are you even strong enough to lift your spouse or parent?), the feeding, the diaper changing, etc. Can you count on your children to help? If they are like most families today, they are spread out all over the country, not close by. If they are close by, can they afford to quit their job to help, or do they have to bring in the bacon to pay the bills and keep a roof over your grandchildren's heads? Ideally we'd all like to keep our loved ones at home as long as possible. I know if the need arises, I will be able to do that.
Last Friday I met, for the first time, the agent that sold my parents their long term care policy. I thanked her for all of the help she gave during the period of my mother's illness -- it meant alot to the family that when my mother needed to make a claim on the policy that she was there to get things in gear and handle the red tape. She was telling me about some "problem" sales calls she had when trying to sell the policy to potential clients. One question she has heard many times when trying to sell a policy is "Are you Republican or Democrat?" She said that every time she was asked that question, it was always a Democrat that asked it! She said that not one of the people that asked the question has EVER bought a policy from her, and the next time she hears that question, she is going to shut her book, pack her briefcase, and tell them that "she is wasting her time, that she has never sold a policy to a Democrat."
Rest assured, I will be responsible for my expenses in my old age, and I won't expect you or even any Democrats to foot the bill.
What practical use do your children serve?
I wish he had won. No way those of the GOP too bright to wave their pompons would have sat on their hands as he transformed the essential nature of our government -- empowering execution squads, even, and destroying utterly our Constitution.
I voted my conscience, of course. Constitution Party. What's not to like?
You wouldn't believe how pleasant it is knowing that I had NOTHING whatsoever with whether we ended up with Tweedledee or Tweedledum last election. No way I could go around boasting that I'd the "smarts" to choose the Lesser of the two Evils.
We're agreed on that. Only I wouldn't describe them as "parasites" so much as rabid individualists and some of the most Selfish, shortsighted and materialistic people this world has ever seen.
I've never had much interest in saving the world (only the Utopians -- of all stripes -- go in for that sort of thing ... the results are painfully obvious and can be quantified in the millions upon millions of dead bodies they've left in their wake.)
I do believe we're all obligated to take care of our own ... especially our families. And it's heartening to hang around those sorts of angels who take on the end of life care for co-workers or friends or even strangers. I know several folks like that.
But it's harder than you think, Weikel, especially if you don't have plenty of siblings who'll be willing to share the responsibility with you.
My grandparents have 6 children -- all absolutely devoted to them -- and a slew of grandchildren ready and willing to do what they can. Had a bit of a crisis recently and because they're not in quite the good shape my Dad's parents are, I quit my job to come stay with them for a while until everyone's centered again. I don't know what they'd have done without children and grandchildren prepared to fly in and spell each other around the clock for the past several months.
It's been truly wonderul to spend so much time with them and I'm going to be very sad to leave when my time's up. I have unbounded love, respect and awe where they're concerned. But it's also a pretty intense gig ... time consuming, exhausting and requires plenty of patience ... even though both of them are alert and have no dire physical impediments.
If you don't mind my asking, how old are your parents? (Just curious whether they're closer to my parents or my age in general.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.