Firefighters say they’re swamped by calls for routine care from senior homes

Post by nradov » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:08 AM UTC

throwawayboise wrote: post #102

pmorici wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Elderly people should live with their families." Spoken with the confidence of someone who has never had to care for an elderly relative who was in both mental and physical decline. In any case it is a deeply personal decision without a definitive right or wrong answer. After seeing my Aunt try to care for my grandmother for years only for it to negatively effect their relationship because of her dementia I wouldn't…

There are probably well-run exceptions but in my experience senior communities are mostly about extracting all the wealth and insurance payments they can get from their residents before they die. You think it's hard taking care of your aging parents? They took care of you when you were a helpless, shitting, crying, little ball of flesh.

Post by nradov » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:13 AM UTC

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #95

john_yaya wrote: post #15

Senior homes and assisted living centers are a national disgrace. They are entirely about profit maximization (what business isn’t?), and as such hire people at the exact minimum and have well over 100% yearly turnover. The staff commonly steal from residents, and the management do not care. They’d rather retain a larcenous pig who barely executes her duties than have to go back and scrape the barrel for a replacemen…

> And it’s time to stop spending $500K on medical care just so an 88 year old can make it to 89. Does U.S. Medicare not use QALYs? (Quality Adjusted Life-Years) The WHO recommends using 3x GDP/capita for each QALY, which would set America's threshold somewhere around $150k, not the $500k in your example.

Post by BrianB » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:18 AM UTC

mtnGoat wrote: post #110

gruez wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Playing devils advocate here but maybe we have too many fire fighters? It sounds like the type of service that you want to over-provision for. What if a major fire broke out and you needed all of them?

The only time this really happens is wildland fires, which are historically understaffed and underfunded anyways.

Post by taxicabjesus » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:21 AM UTC

neither_color wrote: post #63

bpodgursky wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst part is the payment structure and how it doesn't allow real choice. If you told the 88 year old: "We can (a) pay $500,000 on treatments that will likely extend your life 1 year, or (b) put $250,000 in a tax-advantaged account to put your great-grandchildren through college", I bet that 99% of those 88 year olds would take option B and take hospice care instead. They would all prioritize their children, gran…

And in the rest of the non-nihilistic world those grandchildren would rather have one more year of grandma than any amount of money 15 years later. This whole discussion of letting seniors die to optimize economic potential is gross.

Post by bpodgursky » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:28 AM UTC

neither_color wrote: post #63

bpodgursky wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst part is the payment structure and how it doesn't allow real choice. If you told the 88 year old: "We can (a) pay $500,000 on treatments that will likely extend your life 1 year, or (b) put $250,000 in a tax-advantaged account to put your great-grandchildren through college", I bet that 99% of those 88 year olds would take option B and take hospice care instead. They would all prioritize their children, gran…

And in the rest of the non-nihilistic world those grandchildren would rather have one more year of grandma than any amount of money 15 years later. This whole discussion of letting seniors die to optimize economic potential is gross.