OT: Anyone hear the NPR interview about the person getting dependant care coverage from parents

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]BG,

Sorry about your sister’s early death. Even though I believe in having a more “positive” relationship with the reality of death, I do feel that young lives are worth fighting for, especially if they are children, or parents/guardians of dependent children.

IMHO, cost-saving measures should first be focused on the elderly (70/75+ or?), because they ARE going to die soon, no matter what. It’s silly to tack on another 3 months of hospitialization to an eighty-year-old person’s life, but it’s not silly to try to save the life of a parent young children, or the CEO of a thriving company.

I don’t want to see “acceptance of death” used as an excuse to give up on trying to find cures, either. We have a lot more research to do, and there may be a day when cancer can be largely prevented or curable.

And this is how the “Death Panel” dicussions get started. ;)[/quote]

Thanks for your condolences, CAR. I think about her often. Her doctors didn’t give her any hope from the beginning, but she wanted to try, because of having minor children. I think the same could be said of Dr. Pausch, here . . . his kids were VERY young. The type of related cancers that my sister and Pausch were diagnosed with are rarely discovered when they are still curable and are typically “late-stage” diagnoses (where distant metastasis has already occured) and are nearly always terminal. It’s just a matter of when . . . and what kind of life the patient wishes to live until the end. Patrick Swayse lasted about as long as Pausch did with the same diagnosis. This is a relatively long time considering that death usually comes in about four months to a person diagnosed with Stage 4 pancreatic cancer who elects NOT to be treated. The price these patients paid to live longer was enormous, in every way, shape and form (they went thru several painful, life-threatening ordeals in attempt to buy more time).

I think 75+ year olds could undergo cancer surgery/treatment if there is a good chance of a remission and if they are in otherwise good enough shape to get thru it. If not, and/or if its a 2nd/3rd recurrence, then no, it’s probably not worth it. Every patient, along with their doctor, has to decide.

Yeah, a lot more research needs to be done and it is happening but since it is research, it takes a long time and many more people will die waiting.

For me, I would rather just “accept” my fate and do nothing if there was no hope for me than go thru what my sister (and other relatives) have.

[KSMountain]

Great posts eavesdropper.

It’s interesting how this thread, if memory serves, has gone in kind of a different direction than the “Is healthcare a right?” thread. The last part of this thread has been about “acceptance” it seems to me.

I think one thing that hasn’t been brought up here yet is that not only do some/many Americans want *control*, they also are cynically encouraged to find someone to *blame* when there is a health problem.

I saw this in some of the speeches leading up to the health care vote. Politicians would pick tragic examples of children and imply that it was only our lack of caring or health insurance that *caused* the problem (or could fix it), when in reality sometimes bad things just happen, and no amount of money will fix it.

I think things have gotten very cushy in the west (probably the cushiest in human history, right?), and folks are now naturally drifting to the mindset that tax dollars can (and should) be used to try to eliminate all misfortune and give everyone an equal outcome.

No amount of money will do that.

Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…

[KSMountain]

Great posts eavesdropper.

It’s interesting how this thread, if memory serves, has gone in kind of a different direction than the “Is healthcare a right?” thread. The last part of this thread has been about “acceptance” it seems to me.

I think one thing that hasn’t been brought up here yet is that not only do some/many Americans want *control*, they also are cynically encouraged to find someone to *blame* when there is a health problem.

I saw this in some of the speeches leading up to the health care vote. Politicians would pick tragic examples of children and imply that it was only our lack of caring or health insurance that *caused* the problem (or could fix it), when in reality sometimes bad things just happen, and no amount of money will fix it.

I think things have gotten very cushy in the west (probably the cushiest in human history, right?), and folks are now naturally drifting to the mindset that tax dollars can (and should) be used to try to eliminate all misfortune and give everyone an equal outcome.

No amount of money will do that.

Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…

[KSMountain]

Great posts eavesdropper.

It’s interesting how this thread, if memory serves, has gone in kind of a different direction than the “Is healthcare a right?” thread. The last part of this thread has been about “acceptance” it seems to me.

I think one thing that hasn’t been brought up here yet is that not only do some/many Americans want *control*, they also are cynically encouraged to find someone to *blame* when there is a health problem.

I saw this in some of the speeches leading up to the health care vote. Politicians would pick tragic examples of children and imply that it was only our lack of caring or health insurance that *caused* the problem (or could fix it), when in reality sometimes bad things just happen, and no amount of money will fix it.

I think things have gotten very cushy in the west (probably the cushiest in human history, right?), and folks are now naturally drifting to the mindset that tax dollars can (and should) be used to try to eliminate all misfortune and give everyone an equal outcome.

No amount of money will do that.

Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…

[KSMountain]

Great posts eavesdropper.

It’s interesting how this thread, if memory serves, has gone in kind of a different direction than the “Is healthcare a right?” thread. The last part of this thread has been about “acceptance” it seems to me.

I think one thing that hasn’t been brought up here yet is that not only do some/many Americans want *control*, they also are cynically encouraged to find someone to *blame* when there is a health problem.

I saw this in some of the speeches leading up to the health care vote. Politicians would pick tragic examples of children and imply that it was only our lack of caring or health insurance that *caused* the problem (or could fix it), when in reality sometimes bad things just happen, and no amount of money will fix it.

I think things have gotten very cushy in the west (probably the cushiest in human history, right?), and folks are now naturally drifting to the mindset that tax dollars can (and should) be used to try to eliminate all misfortune and give everyone an equal outcome.

No amount of money will do that.

Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…

[KSMountain]

Great posts eavesdropper.

It’s interesting how this thread, if memory serves, has gone in kind of a different direction than the “Is healthcare a right?” thread. The last part of this thread has been about “acceptance” it seems to me.

I think one thing that hasn’t been brought up here yet is that not only do some/many Americans want *control*, they also are cynically encouraged to find someone to *blame* when there is a health problem.

I saw this in some of the speeches leading up to the health care vote. Politicians would pick tragic examples of children and imply that it was only our lack of caring or health insurance that *caused* the problem (or could fix it), when in reality sometimes bad things just happen, and no amount of money will fix it.

I think things have gotten very cushy in the west (probably the cushiest in human history, right?), and folks are now naturally drifting to the mindset that tax dollars can (and should) be used to try to eliminate all misfortune and give everyone an equal outcome.

No amount of money will do that.

Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KSMountain] Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…[/quote]

You’re exactly right, KS. Instead of addressing the real problem, we’re just giving the insurance companies an opportunity to make more money, by enlarging their risk pools with young, healthy enrollees. The insurance company execs didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday: they know that parents will pay a lot of extra money for peace of mind, and they recognized that parents are “cutting the cord” much later these days.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KSMountain] Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…[/quote]

You’re exactly right, KS. Instead of addressing the real problem, we’re just giving the insurance companies an opportunity to make more money, by enlarging their risk pools with young, healthy enrollees. The insurance company execs didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday: they know that parents will pay a lot of extra money for peace of mind, and they recognized that parents are “cutting the cord” much later these days.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KSMountain] Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…[/quote]

You’re exactly right, KS. Instead of addressing the real problem, we’re just giving the insurance companies an opportunity to make more money, by enlarging their risk pools with young, healthy enrollees. The insurance company execs didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday: they know that parents will pay a lot of extra money for peace of mind, and they recognized that parents are “cutting the cord” much later these days.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KSMountain] Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…[/quote]

You’re exactly right, KS. Instead of addressing the real problem, we’re just giving the insurance companies an opportunity to make more money, by enlarging their risk pools with young, healthy enrollees. The insurance company execs didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday: they know that parents will pay a lot of extra money for peace of mind, and they recognized that parents are “cutting the cord” much later these days.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=KSMountain] Regarding the original topic of this thread, when I first heard of the provision about insurance for 26 year olds, my first thought was, “wow we’re extending the definition of childhood even *further*”. I admit I was pretty immature at 26, but I certainly wasn’t on my parents’ policy. Where might this end? Might brian be lobbying us to extend it to 30 or 35 in a few years? Maybe we should extend the dependent child exemption to that age? Yeah, that would be good for our society…[/quote]

You’re exactly right, KS. Instead of addressing the real problem, we’re just giving the insurance companies an opportunity to make more money, by enlarging their risk pools with young, healthy enrollees. The insurance company execs didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday: they know that parents will pay a lot of extra money for peace of mind, and they recognized that parents are “cutting the cord” much later these days.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] Thanks for your condolences, CAR. I think about her often. Her doctors didn’t give her any hope from the beginning, but she wanted to try, because of having minor children. I think the same could be said of Dr. Pausch, here . . . his kids were VERY young……For me, I would rather just “accept” my fate and do nothing if there was no hope for me than go thru what my sister (and other relatives) have.[/quote]

You’ve mentioned this a few times, BG, and I understand your sister’s actions AND your views completely. When the facts were laid out before me, my children’s young ages were what decided it. I, myself, was willing to take the odds on no chemo, but I knew if they didn’t work out in my favor, I’d never forgive myself. If it had been 10 or 15 years later, it would have been different.

But that proves my point: there were factors that forced me to think about what I was going to do, and your sister, also. And in so many cases these days, patients and/or their families don’t think, don’t see the whole picture. In their defense, they’re not always encouraged to.

[quote=bearishgurl] The type of related cancers that my sister and Pausch were diagnosed with are rarely discovered when they are still curable and are typically “late-stage” diagnoses (where distant metastasis has already occured) and are nearly always terminal. It’s just a matter of when . . . and what kind of life the patient wishes to live until the end…….
Yeah, a lot more research needs to be done and it is happening but since it is research, it takes a long time and many more people will die waiting.
[/quote]

As you are well aware, pancreatic ca is incredibly scary. Fortunately, it’s starting to get more attention, but I know that you are familiar with how problematic diagnosis, treatment, and long-term study can be. However, they are doing testing for genetic predisposition to pancreatic ca, and, in some cases, performing prophylactic removal of the pancreas. You’re right: there’s a very long way to go with research. But it seems like more researchers are showing an interest in this type of ca, and, more important, more money (both government and private) is being directed to it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] Thanks for your condolences, CAR. I think about her often. Her doctors didn’t give her any hope from the beginning, but she wanted to try, because of having minor children. I think the same could be said of Dr. Pausch, here . . . his kids were VERY young……For me, I would rather just “accept” my fate and do nothing if there was no hope for me than go thru what my sister (and other relatives) have.[/quote]

You’ve mentioned this a few times, BG, and I understand your sister’s actions AND your views completely. When the facts were laid out before me, my children’s young ages were what decided it. I, myself, was willing to take the odds on no chemo, but I knew if they didn’t work out in my favor, I’d never forgive myself. If it had been 10 or 15 years later, it would have been different.

But that proves my point: there were factors that forced me to think about what I was going to do, and your sister, also. And in so many cases these days, patients and/or their families don’t think, don’t see the whole picture. In their defense, they’re not always encouraged to.

[quote=bearishgurl] The type of related cancers that my sister and Pausch were diagnosed with are rarely discovered when they are still curable and are typically “late-stage” diagnoses (where distant metastasis has already occured) and are nearly always terminal. It’s just a matter of when . . . and what kind of life the patient wishes to live until the end…….
Yeah, a lot more research needs to be done and it is happening but since it is research, it takes a long time and many more people will die waiting.
[/quote]

As you are well aware, pancreatic ca is incredibly scary. Fortunately, it’s starting to get more attention, but I know that you are familiar with how problematic diagnosis, treatment, and long-term study can be. However, they are doing testing for genetic predisposition to pancreatic ca, and, in some cases, performing prophylactic removal of the pancreas. You’re right: there’s a very long way to go with research. But it seems like more researchers are showing an interest in this type of ca, and, more important, more money (both government and private) is being directed to it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] Thanks for your condolences, CAR. I think about her often. Her doctors didn’t give her any hope from the beginning, but she wanted to try, because of having minor children. I think the same could be said of Dr. Pausch, here . . . his kids were VERY young……For me, I would rather just “accept” my fate and do nothing if there was no hope for me than go thru what my sister (and other relatives) have.[/quote]

You’ve mentioned this a few times, BG, and I understand your sister’s actions AND your views completely. When the facts were laid out before me, my children’s young ages were what decided it. I, myself, was willing to take the odds on no chemo, but I knew if they didn’t work out in my favor, I’d never forgive myself. If it had been 10 or 15 years later, it would have been different.

But that proves my point: there were factors that forced me to think about what I was going to do, and your sister, also. And in so many cases these days, patients and/or their families don’t think, don’t see the whole picture. In their defense, they’re not always encouraged to.

[quote=bearishgurl] The type of related cancers that my sister and Pausch were diagnosed with are rarely discovered when they are still curable and are typically “late-stage” diagnoses (where distant metastasis has already occured) and are nearly always terminal. It’s just a matter of when . . . and what kind of life the patient wishes to live until the end…….
Yeah, a lot more research needs to be done and it is happening but since it is research, it takes a long time and many more people will die waiting.
[/quote]

As you are well aware, pancreatic ca is incredibly scary. Fortunately, it’s starting to get more attention, but I know that you are familiar with how problematic diagnosis, treatment, and long-term study can be. However, they are doing testing for genetic predisposition to pancreatic ca, and, in some cases, performing prophylactic removal of the pancreas. You’re right: there’s a very long way to go with research. But it seems like more researchers are showing an interest in this type of ca, and, more important, more money (both government and private) is being directed to it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] Thanks for your condolences, CAR. I think about her often. Her doctors didn’t give her any hope from the beginning, but she wanted to try, because of having minor children. I think the same could be said of Dr. Pausch, here . . . his kids were VERY young……For me, I would rather just “accept” my fate and do nothing if there was no hope for me than go thru what my sister (and other relatives) have.[/quote]

You’ve mentioned this a few times, BG, and I understand your sister’s actions AND your views completely. When the facts were laid out before me, my children’s young ages were what decided it. I, myself, was willing to take the odds on no chemo, but I knew if they didn’t work out in my favor, I’d never forgive myself. If it had been 10 or 15 years later, it would have been different.

But that proves my point: there were factors that forced me to think about what I was going to do, and your sister, also. And in so many cases these days, patients and/or their families don’t think, don’t see the whole picture. In their defense, they’re not always encouraged to.

[quote=bearishgurl] The type of related cancers that my sister and Pausch were diagnosed with are rarely discovered when they are still curable and are typically “late-stage” diagnoses (where distant metastasis has already occured) and are nearly always terminal. It’s just a matter of when . . . and what kind of life the patient wishes to live until the end…….
Yeah, a lot more research needs to be done and it is happening but since it is research, it takes a long time and many more people will die waiting.
[/quote]

As you are well aware, pancreatic ca is incredibly scary. Fortunately, it’s starting to get more attention, but I know that you are familiar with how problematic diagnosis, treatment, and long-term study can be. However, they are doing testing for genetic predisposition to pancreatic ca, and, in some cases, performing prophylactic removal of the pancreas. You’re right: there’s a very long way to go with research. But it seems like more researchers are showing an interest in this type of ca, and, more important, more money (both government and private) is being directed to it.

[Author]

Posts