Rebecca,

Are you going to pay for the long term care these people require???? If not, who is??? The family?

I am glad your situation worked out well for your father, and maybe he or you paid for all his medical and recovery care.

the reality is these people, if at home, would die anyway. because nature says it is time to go.

you compared your father, a heart attack patient with a stroke patient? These poor folks that have strokes CAN'T even swallow food or water.

If I was in that situation I would want to be euthanized not let thirst and starve to death, I'm with you on that part, but we are too chicken to get it overwith quickly.

Why are you so afraid to die? Why are you OK with saddling other people with the cost of trying to extend the lives of people that nature has determined it is time to go?

I don't think this philosophy of mine applies to children. In fact I think abortion should be made illegal and ALL medical monies spent on the young.

If they could vote that would probably happen...

THAT is the evil. Same as your argument about the old. They can't vote, they can't work so they add no value. The difference is that children have their full lives in front of them and have had no chance to experience anything. Nature moves the old out of the way for the young. Why do we remove the young to keep the old around??????????????

Wow, Marcus! How is that someone's value comes from the dollar? Why is it that your compassion is limited to your estimation of their worth to society?

First your facts are wrong. They did not "let [the man] thirst and starve to death," they FORCED him to thirst and starve to death. (See above.) "'Comfort Care.' This insidiously evil, but lovely sounding procedure simply means you are heavily drugged while you are denied food and water." This is identical to Terri Shiavo's case where they withdrew basic needs: food and water.

Second, NO ONE has the right to force death onto another person. That would put a human being into the role of God. Do we really want to play God?

Third, where does it end? According to your value assessment, anyone who does not fit the "They can't vote, they can't work so they add no value" definition is no longer worthy of our time. Does that mean that people who retire are not worth living? Does that mean that the severely mentally retarded or the ones suffering from muscular dystrophy do not deserve life? Where does the line stop?

Fourth, your argument on the unborn is contradictory. Either all life is valuable or none of it is. You cannot devalue one member of society without devaluing the rest.

My grandmother is 94 years old and still makes quilts for the needy. But someone in her doctor's office decided to put a Do Not Resuscitate on her records without her permission. She sat there, in her chair, upset as she told this to us. She defended herself saying that she is still very productive. I was angry with the doctor, to be sure. But I was more angry that she felt she had to justify her VERY EXISTENCE. I DO NOT CARE IF SHE SAT IN A ROCKING CHAIR READING BOOKS OR SLEEPING. She is a valuable person because she is a person and no one has the right to decide when her life should end.

Finally, in caring for the ones who can't vote, can't work, can't take care of the themselves, we become better people. We care for someone other than ourselves, we learn to value ALL life, and we give back what we ourselves have been given. My grandmother put her life into her family. She deserves our respect, our honor, our care and I will NEVER let ANYONE decide her value!

Marcus, you are an IDIOT in my opinion and aparently you are a LIBERAL. I oppose abortion like you but if you really feel the way you do about old persons, maybe people who think like you should have been aborted. AGE DOES NOT MATTER IN MEDICAL CARE!!!!!!

Thanks, Brenda. Your words are as encouraging as Marcus’ are scary. The trouble is his rationale, and the insidious “Comfort Care” are going to become the rule as Obamacare comes to fruition. At 85, that’s a tad worrisome especially since despite an excellent recovery and being in good health, a previous heart attack will be considered two strikes against me by the system. Hippocrates, call your office.

Thank you for the feedback folks. My point really is there seems to be a huge amount of support and argument for enormous spending on the elderly and I truly don't understand that motivation. Please note that I don't dislike old people.

where are the defenders for the young who can't get a great education, who are neglected and abused and forgotten and underfed in this country?

The unborn and children do not get to vote and so we have a huge amount of death and destruction in the womb, and over 20% of children in this country in poverty. Where are their lobbyists?? Where is their AARP?

Ken is remarkable in that he is more than willing to kill me before I was born even though he is against abortion because of what I said.

Brenda asked me about my value assessment. I don't prescribe to a value assessment any different than what nature calls for and what the individual old person can afford for themselves. It is unjust to society to impose hundreds of thousands of dollars or medical expenses on society so that one person gets a couple more years, maybe. As a country we have limited resources and I just think those resources should be directed at children.

You also asked about the retarded and chronically ill. In your comments you said that your grandmother gave her life for her family. For families that have the tragic situation of a chronically ill person or the difficult situation of a retarded person then the family should do as your grandmother did and dedicate their lives to those sick or retarded.

Your argument is actually for socialized medicine if you want to have me and my family and all the other families pay for your sick or old so that you and your family don't have to deal with it.

That is the biggest issue I have. Families who are OK to let others take care of, and pay for their old and go visit them occasionally to assuage their guilt and fear, while allowing abortions and child neglect to continue.

I wonder whose priorities are confused.

You're all wrong. Medical care is not a right, it is a privilege. Rights are freedom of speech, choice of religion, bearing arms, etc. Privileges are having doctors and hospitals to help in times of need, privilege is choosing to blow your money in Vegas, choosing doctors, choosing hospitals, choosing where to live, how to earn money, how much education to get.

Granted there are a lot of doctors and hospitals who've forgotten their oath, and our system needs changing so that the young and the old are protected from these people that have lost their moral compass, but it is still a privilege we have. Our federal government is making it worse as we speak, so be concerned about what we need to do to turn it around, not calling people names because their opinions are different. If the govt has their way, and they will, the privilege of choosing any type of medical care will be no more.

Take time to read THE UNIT http://www.otherpress.com/books/book?ean=9781590513132 by Ninni Holmqvist. "THE UNIT is a gripping exploration of a society in the throes of an experiment, in which the “dispensable” ones are convinced under gentle coercion of the importance of sacrificing for the “necessary” ones. Ninni Holmqvist has created a debut novel of humor, sorrow, and rage about love, the close bonds of friendship, and about a cynical, utilitarian way of thinking disguised as care."

Kathy,

"rights" are an illusion created by government. ultimately you do as the strong tell you to do. since there are so many of us citizens, "rights" erosion is a slow process so as to prevent uprisings.

children and the unborn can not defend themselves so they have the additional right if you will, or should, of our protection so that they may grow and learn and flourish. since they can not make a living then they have a right to be treated for medical issues, by society. the elderly on the other hand have had their entire lives to, as you say, do as they will which includes not taking care of themselves, or saving enough money to take care of themselves and ultimately having to live with the consequences of those choices, good or bad. more and more it seems that people have been making poor lifestyle choices because they "know" that there will be a monthly check and medical care at the end of their working lives. politicians have entitled away a huge portion of the wealth we create.

socialized medicine is an unsustainable situation fiscally. we are facing that situation now. hospital and medical costs are hyper-inflated because of government and private insurance. just the same as fixing a dent in your car costs $1500 even though it only takes 3 hours and a few dollars worth of material. everybody who drives pays insurance money into a huge pool that pays stupid amounts of money for minimal services. if we are truly concerned about "fixing" the situation then we would discontinue all government programs and insurance programs and let the market forces set the pricing. Malpractice suits would be limited to obvious gross negligence. Doctors would face stiff jail sentences and would lose all their personal assets but there would be no such thing as malpractice insurance.

KN, this is not an experiment. It is the results of a society becoming so used to entitlements that it is OK to demand that I and others pay to sustain it and trying in the meantime to make me feel guilty or call me a cold utilitarian because I am against socialized medicine or welfare in any form.

I am against ALL things considered socialistic. I worked all my life and saved as I should. I believe that if you have children that YOU (the parent) should have to pay all the expenses of the children produced!!!! I do not think that "It takes a village" to raise them. I do not believe in all the SOCIAL PROGRAMS that have been created in the name of SOCIAL JUSTICE or any other POLITICALLY CORRECT catch phrases. This country was not founded on those princiles. I do not expect anyone to work harder soth that someone who chosses not to work harder can live on the FRUITS OF SOMEONE ELSES LABOR!!!! I DO NOT believe that just because a person is OLD, SICK, CAN NO LONGER PRODUCE INCOME (young or old) should be allowed to die or SHOULD DIE!!!! As I said before, I do not believe in abortion, but if a parent choses to do so, it is not my place or the governments place to stop it. I do believe that the taxpayer should not have to pay for it. I also blieve that persons who want to abort their young and teach others the same, eventually therec will be extint. I do belive that if it has been determined 100% by other than SOCIAL SERVICES PERSONNEL, that a person thru no fault of their own is truly in need should be helped as necessary. ALL LIFE IS VALUABLE....

Marcus - I'm all for that!! Now all we have to do is figure out how to make it happen!

""if we are truly concerned about "fixing" the situation then we would discontinue all government programs and insurance programs and let the market forces set the pricing. Malpractice suits would be limited to obvious gross negligence. Doctors would face stiff jail sentences and would lose all their personal assets but there would be no such thing as malpractice insurance.""

Okay Marcus, if we're going to "let nature decide" when it's time for an "old" person to die, maybe we should just deny all care to all old people. Sure, they can stick around as long as they stay healthy but, once they get sick, in your view, Nature has decided they've lived long enough.

Let's deny care to anyone over - What? 70? That still leaves a lot of expensive bills "the public" has to pay, so let's drop it a little more. How about 60? But what about this big Recession the country is in? Can we afford to pay for medical expenses for people over 60? After all, a lot of them are retired and not really producing anything. How about dropping it, just for now, to 50? 40? What about the guy who caught pneumonia today but will be 40 next week? WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE AND WHO GETS TO DRAW IT?

The logical conclusion to your argument is that NO medical care is provided to ANYONE and we just let Nature decide when it's time for someone's life to end. How absurd.

Marcus' beliefs are based on the one-dimensional secular dictates of nature versus the Creator of nature -- nature's God. As human beings we are created both flesh and spirit. If the ultimate purpose of life is to find spiritual salvation and, therefore, everlasting life -- which I (and many like-minded and "life-minded" Christians) believe -- it follows that ALL life is valuable, regardless of age or physical handicap. Because a person has reached a certain age, is no longer able to work or contribute to society, does not mean he should be discarded like a lump of garbage. Even in a coma, an on-looker may see a "useless" person, but it must be noted that deep within his living spirit, salvation may be upon him as he may be making peace with his God. God waits patiently for us to come to Him throughout our lives, and salvation may often come seconds before the very last breath of life (note the "good" thief on the cross beside Jesus). Nature decides when the soulless -- animals, plant-life, etc. -- die. Nature's God decides when He will take His children. Marcus is concerned with "the children"; yet when those same children grow up and become "old and useless", according to Marcus' way of thinking, they are no longer fit for life because they are/may be a burden on society. Their eternal soul and their God are not an issue to such "thinkers" because we have become a Godless society and our nation is paying the price for it in many, many ways, one of which is "Comfort Care". God help us all.

Our country was founded on the principle that all men are created equal....certain unalienable right including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is no lease that expires when it comes to these documents on which our country was founded. So I find it incredibly uncompassionate and disgusting for the discussion to turn to rationing healthcare according to age primarily. This suggests that a lifelong druggie caught in the crossfire and now a quadraplegic facing 30 yrs of total care should receive preferential treatment over my 86 year old mother who was the primary caregiver of my 93 tear old father? We are treading on dangerous waters here. But make no mistake that euthanasia is happening all across America, under the guise of a living will. When my mother was hospitalized with pneumonia and underlying lung cancer, they overloaded her with fluid even though I told them she was gurgling' the nurse told me that her lungs were clear. Then they dehtdrated her until she went into renal failure and gave her a sleeping pill that put her in a stupor that lasted two days. She was unable to drink or eat during this time and they withheld fluids for nearly 3 days. They pressured us for her advanced directives and once we produced them, Fentanyk was administered and within 7 hrs she was dead. We were unaware of the goal of the palliative sedation amd I even told the physicians that they had two plans...the one they told the family (her resuming chemo_ and the one they implemented. Whar hurt most of all is that we were told to go home, that she would likely be ok through the night. TYhree hours later we were informed that she had died. We were robbed of the time to say goodbye. It was the most awful experience. We know that she did not want to be resuscitated but we had not read the living will closely that medications could be administered even if they hasten death. we know that there are indications to admnister this medication, but at the time we left the hosital the indications did not appear to be present. But obviously we were not inlcuded in the planning...