Oh my. I'm glad As-hol is a healthy 72 year old and not in need of assistance or medical care. And let me be clear: I do believe there are situations where prolonging life that lacks quality can be burdensome, not just financially, but from a humane perspective as well. Aso's comments, however, are sadly reflective of notions of deservedness which run rampant in Western society as well."Why should I have to pay for people who just eat and drink and make no effort? I walk every day and do other things, but I'm paying more in taxes" {via The Guardian}.
Who defines what "quality of life" means? And more importantly, who decides who deserves health care and who should just "hurry up and die"? Believe me, I get that in the U.S. a lot of government spending in health care (in the form of Medicare and/or Medicaid) is distributed to our older population. I'm not sure what long term care looks like in Japan, but when we in the U.S. talk about "exploring innovative ways to finance services for the elderly", and the never-ending chatter about cutting back programs like Medicare and Medicaid, it seems like we're shooting ourselves in the foot.
Image via: http://www.nyspltc.org/rates.htm |
Instead of threatening to cut Medicare and/or Medicaid benefits to the elderly (because let's face it, with the expense of long term care, the government allocates a good chunk in Medicaid benefits for the aging population), why not expand home health care benefits? Programs like Meals on Wheels and Adult Day Care Centers are much more doable financially and do heighten quality of life for many elderly people committed to remaining at home as long as they can. Home health care including ongoing physical therapy, social services and daily aide services would undoubtedly make a difference in whether a person could stay home (and save money/not need to tap into government aid so hard) vs moving into skilled nursing where the care costs are exorbitant.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Share your view