4 ms·

> Jesus Christ. Let me get this straight: you're saying the solution to medical expenses is "let old people die, they don't want to live anyway"? That’s quite

by cr1895 4y ago

> Jesus Christ. Let me get this straight: you're saying the solution to medical expenses is "let old people die, they don't want to live anyway"? That’s quite an uncharitable take, and plainly not what they meant to express.

kerkeslager 4y ago
Well, I don't hear you offering an alternative interpretation that sounds plausible. And critically, the person I was responding to, responded back to me, and didn't disagree with my interpretation, so... Startup culture's brand of charitable interpretation glosses over a lot of anarcho-capitalistic sociopathy and I'm not interested in participating in that. Perhaps if you were more interested in actual charitable action such as making sure seniors' medical expenses are paid rather than charitable interpretation, this place would be a bit less toxic.
- jmugan 4y ago
  Your interpretation is too off the mark require an explicit response.
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    If you don't want to participate in a discussion you don't have to respond. If you think my interprepation is wrong, feel free to explain, otherwise we can only conclude that it wasn't wrong, and you just don't want to have to defend your indefensible idea.
- potatoman22 4y ago
  My take: many people spend $$$ at the end of their life to receive aggressive treatment that ultimately doesn't do much. Palliative care is underutilized -- it's lower cost and results in a higher quality of life [1]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6610551/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6610551/ Other interesting articles: https://www.nursing.upenn.edu/details/news.php?id=848 https://www.nursing.upenn.edu/details/news.php?id=848 https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2014/05/most-physicians-would-forgo-aggressive-treatment-for-themselves-.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2014/05/most-physicia...
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    I mean yes, the original "How Doctors Die" study came out over 10 years ago (I read it in college, but now I can't find it). So as I've said a few times now, I'm well aware that some people spend too much on life-extending treatments that don't work. But that is about what is best for the patient, not what costs less. It is is unconscionable to consider that as a systemic solution to medical costs. Profit motivated sociopaths cannot be given another excuse to deny people needed care. The profit incentives here are to literally murder people. And that can't be fixed, because keeping people alive costs money. The only solution I can see is that money is completely eliminated from the conversation. The fact is, some people pursue life-extending treatments in cases where it is effective and does result in better outcomes. But from a cost-cutting perspective that's no different. The incentives don't change because the life-extending treatment actually works. If you let money-hungry people near this, they'll still cut the cost. As I have said elsewhere: the decision to pursue life-extending treatment should be between the patient, their loved ones, and their doctor. Not "society" or government, as some sort of cost-cutting measure. The patient. Their loved ones. Their doctor. No one else. Let me reiterate: end of life discussions are about patient outcomes. Not about money. If you want to know why people don't like corporate types, this is it. If you literally can't tear yourself away from your obsession with money to have a human discussion about how to let people die with dignity, you're one of the bad guys.

by cr1895 4y ago

kerkeslager 4y ago

Well, I don't hear you offering an alternative interpretation that sounds plausible. And critically, the person I was responding to, responded back to me, and didn't disagree with my interpretation, so... Startup culture's brand of charitable interpretation glosses over a lot of anarcho-capitalistic sociopathy and I'm not interested in participating in that. Perhaps if you were more interested in actual charitable action such as making sure seniors' medical expenses are paid rather than charitable interpretation, this place would be a bit less toxic.

jmugan 4y ago
Your interpretation is too off the mark require an explicit response.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  If you don't want to participate in a discussion you don't have to respond. If you think my interprepation is wrong, feel free to explain, otherwise we can only conclude that it wasn't wrong, and you just don't want to have to defend your indefensible idea.
potatoman22 4y ago
My take: many people spend $$$ at the end of their life to receive aggressive treatment that ultimately doesn't do much. Palliative care is underutilized -- it's lower cost and results in a higher quality of life [1]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6610551/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6610551/ Other interesting articles: https://www.nursing.upenn.edu/details/news.php?id=848 https://www.nursing.upenn.edu/details/news.php?id=848 https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2014/05/most-physicians-would-forgo-aggressive-treatment-for-themselves-.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2014/05/most-physicia...
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  I mean yes, the original "How Doctors Die" study came out over 10 years ago (I read it in college, but now I can't find it). So as I've said a few times now, I'm well aware that some people spend too much on life-extending treatments that don't work. But that is about what is best for the patient, not what costs less. It is is unconscionable to consider that as a systemic solution to medical costs. Profit motivated sociopaths cannot be given another excuse to deny people needed care. The profit incentives here are to literally murder people. And that can't be fixed, because keeping people alive costs money. The only solution I can see is that money is completely eliminated from the conversation. The fact is, some people pursue life-extending treatments in cases where it is effective and does result in better outcomes. But from a cost-cutting perspective that's no different. The incentives don't change because the life-extending treatment actually works. If you let money-hungry people near this, they'll still cut the cost. As I have said elsewhere: the decision to pursue life-extending treatment should be between the patient, their loved ones, and their doctor. Not "society" or government, as some sort of cost-cutting measure. The patient. Their loved ones. Their doctor. No one else. Let me reiterate: end of life discussions are about patient outcomes. Not about money. If you want to know why people don't like corporate types, this is it. If you literally can't tear yourself away from your obsession with money to have a human discussion about how to let people die with dignity, you're one of the bad guys.