Why is Canada euthanising the poor?

gwb-trading said:
This is not a one off. We are seeing a pattern of stories of people being told by authorities in Canada to consider euthanasia.
More...
And what exactly is wrong with that assuming the suggestion is being made to those whose health is badly deteriorating with no hope of recovery. It's an option, it's not mandatory. And if this is a new option, then yes, the word should be gotten out so that those who are tired of living like a baked potato, entirely dependent on someone else to turn them over when done on one side, can at least know they have another option other than waiting around in pain to die.

The title of this thread is an insult to one's intelligence, as it is apparently intended to suggest to the weak minded that Canada is euthanizing people because they are poor. What total Crap!
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
My impression is that Canada Heath's problem is being misrepresented by anecdote. The real situation is different than would be assumed from these misleading anecdotes we read of. For example, consider the case of Mr. Foley who was deteriorating from a totally debilitating neural disorder, and who wanted to stay in his home with virtually 24 hour nursing care but had not the means to afford it. Under Health Canada he could have been transferred to a nursing home with subsidy based on his ability to pay, though he made no mention of that in his complaint. He presented his case as though his only options were euthanasia or staying home without the care he required. The options in Canada are the same as in the United States, except there is no U.S. Euthanasia option, with the exception of Oregon, and also of course the cost for equivalent care is less in Canada.. Obviously options are expanded in Canada by comparison with the U.S., but you wouldn't know it from these misleading anecdotes. It is simply impossible for us here to make valid judgements in specific individual Canadian cases based on the anecdotal information we have available to us. But if we take the time to check up on Canadian Health care options we will quickly see that no, old folks in Canada are not being required to kill themselves!
More...

In America we actually try to keep you in your home. I’m sure this is very much a case by case basis in Canada though. But Medicare has found it’s more cost efficient to “age at home.” I don’t know what happens when someone needs 24 hour care though.
 
UsualName said:
In America we actually try to keep you in your home. I’m sure this is very much a case by case basis in Canada though. But Medicare has found it’s more cost efficient to “age at home.” I don’t know what happens when someone needs 24 hour care though.
More...

Medicare does not provide any long term care (room and board type) benefits such as basic cost of institutional/facllity living. Medicaid does for income-eligible- as in low-income- persons.

If you are Medicare eligible in your home then that coverage follows you over to any facility that you may move to and it covers your medical costs (to the extent that Medicare pays anyway). It goes with you- no more/no less- than at home.

Can get a little complicated. You might be medicare eligible but cannot pay the 20% that medicare often does not pay in which case Medicaid pays that portion and you are so-called "dual eligible." Obviously applies to disabled but eligible too as many medicare recipients seemingly are these days.
 
Last edited:
TreeFrogTrader said:
Medicare does not provide any long term care (room and board type) benefits such as basic cost of institutional/facllity living. Medicaid does for income-eligible- as in low-income- persons.

If you are Medicare eligible in your home then that coverage follows you over to any facility that you may move to and it covers your medical costs (to the extent that Medicare pays anyway). It goes with you- no more/no less- than at home.

Can get a little complicated. You might be medicare eligible but cannot pay the 20% that medicare often does not pay in which case Medicaid pays that portion and you are so-called "dual eligible." Obviously applies to disabled but eligible too as many medicare recipients seemingly are these days.
More...

Excuse me it’s called aging in place. Many if not most seniors prefer to stay in their homes. See below…

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/aging-place-growing-older-home
 
UsualName said:
Excuse me it’s called aging in place. Many if not most seniors prefer to stay in their homes. See below…

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/aging-place-growing-older-home
More...

Oh, pooh. You are dumping basic knowledge.

I was clarifying the piece where you said "medicare has found it's more cost efficient to.."

Medicare does not provide any funding for long term care as I stated. If you are saying "Medicare, the agency, did some generic studies about costs not included in medicare expenditures" then that is fine. Then figure out what you are saying.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Oh, pooh. You are dumping basic knowledge.

I was clarifying the piece where you said "medicare has found it's more cost efficient to.."

Medicare does not provide any funding for long term care as I stated. If you are saying "Medicare, the agency, did some generic studies about costs not included in medicare expenditures" then that is fine. Then figure out what you are saying.
More...

Look if the gentleman in Canada needs long term care and wants in home services but it is no longer feasible then that is the issue there but here in America we try to keep seniors in home for as long as possible. It’s a win win all around. I’m not getting into the specifics because it turns into “Canada is euthanasing their elderly” right wing nonsense but long term care stays in America have declined significantly in the past couple of decades for seniors.

But yes studies have shown delivering services in home for the elderly is overall cost effective and better life quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top