Re: [acb-chat] The Midnight Cry: a voice in the wilderness

Karen and Bob and All who worry about our Nation's well being.
What I have read here, posted by Bob, is only one person's opinion.
But Bob is far enough off base that we should do a little fact
checking on his claim that Medicare is bankrupt.
What I post as an example, needs to be read with the understanding
that it is opinion journalism. But it does suggest that the old adage
is true: Figures don't Lie, but Liars sure can figure.

Carl Jarvis

******
In an article in the New York Post, Betsy McCaughey wrote:

As the new Congress convenes, budget cutters are eyeing Medicare,
citing forecasts the program for seniors is running out of money. But
federal bean counters
have erroneously predicted Medicare's bankruptcy for decades. One
reason: They don't consider medical breakthroughs.

Another problem is medical ethicists like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who
insist the elderly are a burden and that resources would be better
spent on the young.

The facts prove otherwise. New medical findings give plenty of reason
for optimism about the cost of caring for the elderly. Medicare
spending on end-of-life
care is dropping rapidly, down from 19 percent to 13 percent of the
Medicare budget since 2000. Living to a ripe old age shouldn't be
treated like it's
a problem. It's a bargain. Someone who lives to 97 consumes only about
half as much end-of-life care as someone who dies at 68.
Surprised? Myth has it that the older people get, the sicker they are
and the more costly their care becomes. But in truth, disability and
chronic illness
are declining among the elderly.

Dementia, an especially costly condition for seniors, is down a
staggering 24 percent over the last 12 years, according to data
published in the journal
JAMA Internal Medicine.

Octogenarians, and even centenarians, are staying active instead of
languishing crippled in wheelchairs. How?

Medical advances such as carotid artery stenting and thrombolysis
prevent stroke damage, something many seniors fear worse than death.

Scientists call this overall improvement in aging "compression of
morbidity." The elderly live longer, stay healthier and have shorter
illnesses at the
end of life.

All the more reason for seniors to resist making politically correct
end-of-life medical plans or advance directives that forgo medical
interventions,
long before they're actually facing a terminal illness. They shouldn't
rule out the use of tools like respirators and feeding tubes that
could keep them
going during a bout of flu or an accident, allowing them to recover
and resume active lives.

Patients mistakenly assume ventilators and feeding tubes are
permanent. But most patients recover after these interventions. Few
ever remember being on
a ventilator after it's removed because they're sedated while on it.

Why would we emulate Zeke Emanuel, age 59, who swears that at 75, he
will forego all medical care and let death come quickly? "Our older
years are not
of high quality," he insists. He'll skip them.
In The Atlantic magazine,
he dismissed compression of morbidity as "quintessentially American"
wishful thinking, and mocked seniors for trying to "cheat death."

Sorry, Doc. It's not a pipe dream. Science proves old age is getting
better. It's worth living.

Like Emanuel, the federal government ignores this fact and writes off
seniors. Take cancer screenings. Currently the US Preventive Services
Task Force
recommends against routine colon-cancer screenings after age 75. Even
though patients over 75 have the highest risk.

The Task Force also recommends routine mammograms only until age 74.
But Dr. Judith Malmgren of the University of Washington explains, "a
75-year-old woman
today has a 13-year life expectancy" and should get screened as well.

The Task Force's guidelines alarmingly resemble those of Britain,
where patients over 75 are routinely denied knee replacements,
mastectomies and other
surgeries. It's a slippery slope.

Too often, Congress treats Medicare as a piggy bank — raiding it when
money is needed elsewhere. In 2010, Democrats in Congress paid for
over half of ObamaCare's
spending by cutting Medicare. This year, Republican lawmakers eager to
control federal health spending should avoid that error and instead
focus on fixing
Medicaid, the money pit program for the poor, where spending per
capita is growing twice as fast as for Medicare.

Medicaid spending now is nearing $8,000 per recipient. That's
thousands more than is spent on people in private plans. And for all
that money, studies
show Medicaid isn't improving patients' health.

By contrast, Medicare is a success story. It has transformed aging,
enabling older Americans to lead longer, more independent lives than
our grandparents
did. The average man turning 65 today will live five years longer than
in 1970. Not just more years. Quality years. What a gift.

Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research.

FILED UNDER
CHRONIC ILLNESS,

DISABILITIES,

ELDERLY CARE,

MEDICARE


On 12/31/17, Bob via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
> Karen:
>
> Who are you kidding?
> Medicare, by any measurement, is not a successful program other than
> for those who receive its benefits. First of all, it is in tremendous
> debt and actually bankrupt. Secondly, there are an untold number of
> providers that don't accept medicare, thus patients. Thirdly, there
> is a tremendous amount of fraud in medicare.
> I am not suggesting that medicare not be available for individuals
> over 65. However, to suggest that medicare should be offerred from
> birth to death is naive.
> Without dispute, state and privately administered programs are far
> better run than federal programs.
> Have a Happy New Year.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On 12/30/17, Dan Weiner via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>> every time there have been attempts to reform the system in someway or
>> to broaden the safety net, people have been forecasting gloom and doom,
>> not so long ago many self-styled conservatives thought that Social
>> security was a bad idea, after all, why not invest and save for your
>> retirement, I rm remember reading about people saying such things in the
>> halls of Congress no less back in the thirties as a reason not to
>> initiate Social Security programs...never mind that in effect you
>> actually are doing that by working and getting Social Security upon
>> retirement. so is the argument, guys, that we should let people starve
>> and go without medical care? That is fine until it's you or your family
>> who is effected then I bet every one who is against any type of reform
>> will be clamoring for help. maybe we should just give everyone the
>> insurance that Congressmen seem to get for themselves, how about that
>> one--smile.
>>
>>
>> Dan W.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/30/2017 11:51 AM, Karen Rose via acb-chat wrote:
>>> Medicare is a very successful government run healthcare program. All we
>>> need do is extend that so that one not need to have to live to 65 to be
>>> permitted to automatically see a doctor is right. If we extend the
>>> eligibility for Medicare down to the age of birth we've got it!
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Dec 30, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Clifford <clifford@tds.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Karen and list members:
>>>> One advantage of having fifty state governments is that one state
>>>> can
>>>> try a program without forcing all of the other states to join that one.
>>>> If California follows your prediction, we will find out soon enough how
>>>> efficient a government run healthcare program works. I am willing to
>>>> bet
>>>> that such a program will be abandoned by California in the near term,
>>>> and
>>>> not because other states don't follow suit, but because you and others
>>>> discover that the quality and availability of healthcare services
>>>> suffer, while costs soar. If, on the other
>>>> hand, California has a wonderful experience, other states will follow.
>>>> I also believe that many healthcare providers will elect to not
>>>> participate and will only treat those who are willing to pay extra for
>>>> their services.
>>>> I am also curious as to whether or not your services will be
>>>> covered by the universal single payer system?
>>>>
>>>> I can recall from years ago that an effort to bring down the cost
>>>> of
>>>> the foodstamp program was being waged in congress, and the opposition
>>>> that sprang up, not from the folks receiving the stamps, but the
>>>> producers and processers were in the hallways of congress lobbying
>>>> against the proposed cuts.
>>>>
>>>> Yours Truly,
>>>>
>>>> Clifford Wilson.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Karen Rose via acb-chat [mailto:acb-chat@acblists.org]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 12:42 PM
>>>> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide
>>>> range of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or
>>>> whatever
>>>> comes to mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion list.
>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org>
>>>> Cc: Karen Rose <rosekm@earthlink.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] The Midnight Cry: a voice in the wilderness
>>>>
>>>> And yes the selfish me win with regard to the federal government but I
>>>> suspect that we will simply text ourselves more in California in order
>>>> to
>>>> ensure that at least everyone can see a doctor when needed. I believe
>>>> we
>>>> will go for universal healthcare in the upcoming year.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Bob Hachey via acb-chat
>>>>> <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Karen,
>>>>> Well, it looks like those on the far right who favor smaller and
>>>>> weaker
>>>>> federal government could win the day in California at least in the
>>>>> short
>>>>> run.
>>>>> Here's the sad irony. This flaming liberal truly believes that all of
>>>>> us
>>>>> Americans could fare well under a smaller federal government. That's
>>>>> right folks! You read my last sentence correctly.
>>>>> Now for the caveat. In order for such a scenario to work out, private
>>>>> corporations and citizens need to be acting with a long run common
>>>>> good
>>>>> approach in mind. That means, among other things, treating both
>>>>> employees and the environment with respect, moving away from the
>>>>> commodification of basic services such as electricity, running water,
>>>>> gas, heating oil, and the provision of healthcare services. This means
>>>>> that those at the top would earn smaller profits. But, imagine if we
>>>>> could redirect all of the resources that now go into regulatory
>>>>> agencies
>>>>> like EPA, OSHA and the departments of Energy and Education into
>>>>> creating
>>>>> more jobs, higher wages, better-maintained infrastructure, etc? Now
>>>>> that
>>>>> could be a win-win situation for each and every one of us.
>>>>> Time to get my head out of the clouds now!
>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> acb-chat mailing list
>>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> acb-chat mailing list
>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
> Telephone: 800-345-9760
> _______________________________________________
> acb-chat mailing list
> acb-chat@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>
>
>