General Question

basp's avatar

What do you think of this proposal?

Asked by basp (4806points) June 2nd, 2009

One of the proposals on the table to address the severe deficit in the California state budget is to eliminate treatment for breast cancer and dialysis for patients who receive MediCal and are over the age of sixty five.
What do you think about this proposal?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

12 Answers

DarkScribe's avatar

Why not make politicians use public transport? It would save even more money.

jrpowell's avatar

It is dickish. Really, find other shit to cut. And the AARP will hand them their ass. It is political suicide. Republicans already lost the youth and minorities. Lose the elderly and they are so fucked.

basp's avatar

I think it is appalling. We treat animals better than that. It speaks to how little we value our elderly in this country.

To top it off, the argument I have heard to support this is that we need the money to support the parks. Well, I am a big supporter of the parks, but, when it comes to taking care of our elderly or our parks, it seems to me we should be taking care of our elderly.

ragingloli's avatar

i think it would be better if they released people from prisons who are no danger to society.

Crusader's avatar

It is simply more fear mongering never intended to pass…Just like Bushes attempt to eliminate or decrease the 4th rail-scoial security, (which every industrialize nation has…and many second world too…) RINO’s (Repulican in name only, actuall liberal sympathizing centrists,) craft such legistlation to undermine their own party, deliberately…for profit…

Kayak8's avatar

If they said we are not going to cover cancer for anyone over 65, the outcry would be enormous. Politicians have long learned that cost savings while harming the disenfranchised is often possible when the subject doesn’t have a voice.

dynamicduo's avatar

Considering cancer rates are highest in the elderly anyways, I can’t see how this would be a beneficial proposal at all. Why not just kill the eldest X% of Californians who logically aren’t contributing as much tax revenue?

I’m seriously hoping we’ll see them legalize cannabis to reap the tax benefit, and that will cause other places to rethink the approach as well, and hopefully that will be enough to let Canada legalize it without having America breathing down our necks like some scary dragon.

PandoraBoxx's avatar

And the pro-lifers in the state are okay with this?

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

It is terrible. I would support cutbacks in almost any area to save the economy of a state or country, but the two areas that should never be deprived of required funding are health and education. These people are effectively handing down a probable death sentence to every poor person who suffers from breast cancer or renal failure. The purpose of the state is to serve the people, not to let them die.

SuperMouse's avatar

It is absolutely ridiculous. Who are these people to play God and decide who should get treatment for life threatening illnesses?

PandoraBoxx's avatar

How is MediCal different than Medicare? Aren’t these treatments covered under federal insurance if the recipients are over 65, which makes them Medicare eligible?

As for playing God, arguably providing medical treatment could be construed as “playing God.”

basp's avatar

Pandoraboxx,
MediCal is California’s version of medicaid.
And, yes, people who are 65 and over qualify for medicare. However, since the medicare reform, things have changed greatly and it really isn’t such a great deal for those who are middle income. Most middle income seniors end up paying more out of pocket than before. So, what this will effectively do is bring those middle income folks down to the poverty level, at which time, their medicare will pick up enough of the bill so they can manage.
There are a lot of other things they can do with MediCal/Medicad to save money…...they can reverse some of the mandates put into place during the Bush adminstration that have cost us more money in the system, such as unbundling services, criteria for duel eligibles, etc…...why should they look to stopping treatments to save money when they can cut corners in other places?
This is simply appaling. If there was talk about treating animals this way, there would be a bunch of animal rights groups up in arms…........and, yet, our legislators are looking at this as a vialbe option.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther