Dear Charles and the firing squad,

At the risk of extending this debate beyond its sustainable life (please
just tell me to shut up if the consensus is this topic is dead - its
drifted from PD  a bit), I will give a little salvo in reply. (It will
be short because I'm off to a little coral island in the Java sea this
weekend with my notebook pc to concoct a real reply for Monday - thats
if I don't drink too much G & T and you guys don't tell me to shut up).

I'm a Brit and you can rightly say what have I to do with the USA. I'm
not so far removed, my wife is American and our 4 month old daughter
also has American citizenship. My politics often exasperate my in -
laws.

Charles, I'm definitely on thin ice with the medical statistics, but I
do understand that PD is not in itself a killer. I just followed the
logic of denying this man his social security benefit for not
conforming  to an (in my eyes) authoritarian norm; all other treatment
would be denied and therefore the secondary diseases (pnuemonia has been
mentioned) would be the killer and shorten life expectancy. This
presupposes the argument he wouldn't have the pnuemonia if he took his
sinemet and therefore shouldn't have the antibiotics because its his own
fault. (if medically speaking this is not true, forgive me, its an
example of where I could see the wedge leading)

Is the SSI an insurance programme? It strikes me that it is, at least in
part, and in essence if not by strict definition. In the UK the DSS
(Department of Social Security) administers the payment made by UK
employees called National Insurance (at least it used to be like that,
I've not really lived there for a long time).

Although you may call it a tax, it operates in some ways like health
insurance, in that a group of people pay sums of money into a fund from
which they may draw more or less than their contributions. In other
words it is a fund for social purposes, an insurance for a pension,
medicare or whatever other group coverage is included.

I must close now as its heading for midnight. There are many other
things I would like to say concerning the remaining comments you made
and to the other individuals who have come back on this question. I'll
try and compose replies over the weekend. If the debate stops, I'll send
replies to individuals, if anyone wants to hear all, I can copy them.

Yours in anticipation (of further discourse)


David

PS Charlie, I just got to the end of your letter. How dare you have
common ground (but thanks). Have you ever seen the Monty Python sketch
about arguing?     :0)



Charles T. Meyer wrote:
>
> DAVID
>
> I want to respond to your statements point by point:
>
> David Havard wrote:
> >
> > To Susan, Charles, Margie, Michel and many others who no doubt have
> > the same general authoritarian attitude,>
> > I am somewhat surprised at this stance from a group who crave
> > tolerance and support from society at large.
>
> Not authoritarian or not uncaring or not intolerant of others rights to
> make choices-  just practical. To gain support from the society at large
> we can't have the reputation of ripping off the system.
>
> > To deny this man access to the contributions he made, to whatever social
> > security fund he was a member of, is economic coercion. To make this
> > judgement is the thin end of the wedge, which ends where. It ends with
> > making economic judgements on peoples lives. It ends in culling people
> > like us because we cost society too much.
>
> I don't know how the system is funded in Indonesia or European countries
> but Social Security is a tax in the US not an insurance program.  The
> funds are not invested they are using money of today's workers to pay
> for elderly and disabled individuals.  The current projections regarding
> Soc. Security and medicare make it clear that the system will go broke
> in the early 21st century.  We don't have the luxury of a generous
> definition of eligibility.
> >
> > Listen to the economic argument:
> >
> > - if medical science is correct, he will die a lot sooner, need less money for the shorter time he is disabled
>
> Probably not! PD does not statistically shorten the life span by much.
> If he is untreated he will require nursing home care at tremendous cost
> and likely for a long time given his age.
>
> > - if he takes the drug cocktails, there will be extended non productive years, higher cost
> > Let him die! This is the thin edge of the wedge.
>
> But also his productive years will be extended.  Even if he dies 10
> years prematurely say at age 65 and he is 45 now.  He is receiving
> benefits for let us say 5 years.  If he is 45 now and requires nursing
> home care in 5 years that leaves  years of expensive care.  Even
> receiving disability income starting at age 50 he has paid into the
> system for 5 years instead of taking from it.  His improved quality of
> life will increase and time of physical dependence may be markedly
> reduced.  It is unlikely to be increased.
> >
> > Why should the goverment support Udall (if as a non American I
> > understand it)? Why don't PWP's  pay for all the research themselves.
> > Why do you expect consideration from others? We are not their
> > responsibility.
>
> >From solely the economic argument assuming that patients accepted the
> results of the research,  increased duration of productive employment,
> decreased duration in total dependent situations- e.g. nursing home make
> it a good economic investment
>
> > Society has to function on compassion. This man is not imposing has will
> > on anyone (an answer re scientology, Jehovas Witnesses and blood
> > transfusions and children). Let him have his personal choice.
>
> David -  we finally agree on something!!  But if the system goes broke
> then there are millions without benefits.  Nobody is forcing anybody to
> do anything society is just setting the criteria on what is necessary to
> receive benefits.
> >
> > This man's attitude is one end of a spectrum. I doubt whether he
> > represents a significant percentage. I can live without art - should I
> > complain when government money supports the arts  etc etc ( substitute
> > a range of your own categories). But I don't, life would be so dull if
> > we all conformed to the stereotype.
>
> We agree again!!
>
>  This man is not abusing social security (in effect an insurance
> programme to which he has contributed),
>
> An insurance program must have criteria for benefits to be paid out-
> otherwise it should be a savings program.  While I despise the insurance
> industry and their tactics (see my postings last fall about my
> experiences in trying to get a legitimate claim paid),  the economics of
> it need to be the amount of money taken in and received through
> investing that money must be greater than the money paid out.  And as I
> said in any case social security is not an insurance program.
>
> > I doubt whether he organised his disease. (Ps if you want to control
> > some of the hidden - not so hidden costs for the SSI do something about
> > medical and other fatuous litigation, overpriced medicine in general
> > and private medical insurance that dumps its responsibilities at the drop
> > of clause 2053 in 2 point print)
>
> Again we agree.  Hey this is no fun agreeing all the time!!
>
> > Forced feeding has not been in vogue for anorexia for some time,
> > neither should forced sinemet for PWP's.
>
> Agreed but without benefits!
> >
> > Regards from a high tax paying European, full time overworking PWP
> > (ps anyone have an asbestos suite I could borrow)
>
> Funny Dave-  I thought I was going to need that suit when I posted my
> first objection.
>
> It is important to disagree in order to learn and to grow. Now I am sure
> that with my explanation I have totally convinced you   and you have
> both grown and learned  (: )
>
> Charlie
>
> CHARLES T. MEYER, M.D.
> Middleton, WI
> [log in to unmask]