The Dutch Village Where Everyone Has Dementia 231
HughPickens.com writes Josh Planos writes at The Atlantic that the isolated village of Hogewey on the outskirts of Amsterdam has been dubbed "Dementia Village" because it is home to residents who are only admitted if they're categorized as having severe cases of dementia or Alzheimer's disease. "There are no wards, long hallways, or corridors at the facility," writes Planos. "Residents live in groups of six or seven to a house, with one or two caretakers. Perhaps the most unique element of the facility—apart from the stealthy "gardener" caretakers—is its approach toward housing. Hogeway features 23 uniquely stylized homes, furnished around the time period when residents' short-term memories stopped properly functioning. There are homes resembling the 1950s, 1970s, and 2000s, accurate down to the tablecloths, because it helps residents feel as if they're home."
In Holland, everyone pays into the state health care system during their working years, with the money then disbursed to pay for later-in-life expenses — and that means living in Hogewey does not cost any more than a traditional nursing home. The inspiration came about in 1992, when Yvonne van Amerongen and another member of staff at a traditional nursing home both had their own mothers die, being glad that their elderly parents had died quickly and had not had to endure hospital-like care. A series of research and brainstorming sessions in 1993 found that humans choose to surround and interact with other like-minded people of similar backgrounds and experiences; the arrangement at Hogewey provides this by ensuring that residents with similar backgrounds continue to live closely together. On a physical level, residents at Hogewey require fewer medications; they eat better and they live longer. On a mental level, they also seem to have more joy. "The people here keep their independence, as much as they can have of it, and they stay active," says Theo Visser. "Here they still have a life. It's not the sort of slow, quiet death you get in other places. Here everyone feels at home."
In Holland, everyone pays into the state health care system during their working years, with the money then disbursed to pay for later-in-life expenses — and that means living in Hogewey does not cost any more than a traditional nursing home. The inspiration came about in 1992, when Yvonne van Amerongen and another member of staff at a traditional nursing home both had their own mothers die, being glad that their elderly parents had died quickly and had not had to endure hospital-like care. A series of research and brainstorming sessions in 1993 found that humans choose to surround and interact with other like-minded people of similar backgrounds and experiences; the arrangement at Hogewey provides this by ensuring that residents with similar backgrounds continue to live closely together. On a physical level, residents at Hogewey require fewer medications; they eat better and they live longer. On a mental level, they also seem to have more joy. "The people here keep their independence, as much as they can have of it, and they stay active," says Theo Visser. "Here they still have a life. It's not the sort of slow, quiet death you get in other places. Here everyone feels at home."
We have one in the US, too (Score:5, Insightful)
We call it "Washington".
We have one in the US, too (Score:2, Insightful)
Incorrect. Washington is not for dementia patients, it's for people with incurable narcissistic sociopathy. Oddly enough, the afflicted are not the people who suffer as a result of the disease, it's everyone else who suffers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. An entire state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, quoting from the original summary " and they live longer. ". That is against the basic concept of Obamacare. And D.C. isn't for those with Alzheimers, it is for the criminally insane.
Re:We have one in the US, too (Score:5, Interesting)
What is it specifically you object to about the ACA? Covering more people? You do realize the whole idea behind any health insurance is that healthy people support the unhealthy. My main objection to it is that it let the health insurance companies and their "death panels" ("actuaries" to you) live. It has only been since the 1960's that insurance companies have gotten into health insurance in a big way. And we can mark the cost rises for health care to them.
Re: (Score:3)
What is it specifically you object to about the ACA? Covering more people? You do realize the whole idea behind any health insurance is that healthy people support the unhealthy. My main objection to it is that it let the health insurance companies and their "death panels" ("actuaries" to you) live. It has only been since the 1960's that insurance companies have gotten into health insurance in a big way. And we can mark the cost rises for health care to them.
My objections to the ACA? It raised my premiums 200% for similar coverage. It forces everyone to have health insurance (or pay the tax penalty), meaning that insurance companies can charge what they want. No one knew what was in the 2000+ pages before it was passed (with the promise they could read it later).
I like that insurance companies can't deny coverage based on preexisting conditions.
Re: (Score:3)
200%? I dont believe you. Flat out. I'll state you are lying.
Forcing everyone to have insurance doesnt mean they can charge what they want. Thats only true if there is no competition, ie, nonly one insurance company, which is tue only in a couple fo states. If anything the ACA fosters a free market approach and better enables competition by making the product and what you get for your money more transparent enabling you to make a better choiuce as a consumer, which will have the effect of forcing comapnies
Re: (Score:3)
im quite sure you dont know what you're talking about, but not compeltely sure.
So please enlighten me.
How is it against the basic premise of the ACA? What specifically in the ACA is counter to the concept of living longer?
Because I know its not the part where more people get insurance and thus more people get medical care, casuse that part is pretty clearly tied living longer, healthier lives.
We even have scientific studies and charts that prove that proper medical care, and access to it, helps people live
Re: (Score:2)
They rarely have altzheimer. It's more a case of selective amnesia every time some reporter asks about something they'd rather not want to be remembered.
Re: (Score:2)
We call it "Washington".
No: In the article I distinctly remember it saying they too *fewer* drugs.
Necessary reading (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Necessary reading (Score:4, Funny)
they can run the same dupes over and over each day
Re: (Score:3)
And if you were evil in this life, it would be slashdot beta.
Group homes vs nursing homes (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been giving this a fair bit of thought recently. I have a number of co-morbid conditions that are rapidly going to cause me to no longer be able to take care of myself. Example: I have woken up in the floor after fainting several times in the past few months. Often I am injured, but as of yet have not hit my head. Further, I suffer from conditions that make it effectively impossible to leave my dwelling on a regular basis and I have PTSD flashbacks routinely.
However, in my early 40's there are no establishments I am aware of for persons like myself. Instead I must resort to a nurse who visits occasionally. I would think a group home would work better and be less expensive.
Re:Group homes vs nursing homes (Score:5, Funny)
I have woken up in the floor [...] in the past few months
Often I am injured
effectively impossible to leave my dwelling on a regular basis
I have PTSD flashbacks routinely
there are no establishments I am aware of for persons like myself
I'm almost 100% positive you have lycanthropy.
Re: (Score:2)
I am almost 40. When I live in Christian college dorm(itorie)s, I had room and suite mates. Same for neighbors, outdoor access, and easy access to near by. I loved it, but I don't have that anymore because everyone moved out to get married, have their own families, etc. :( Of course no female mates want to marry me (still never had a date and a virgin). :(
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if you got outside once in a while and learned how to interact with the rest of society this problem would take care of itself.
Re: (Score:2)
How when I am disabled and cannot communicate orally? :(
Re: (Score:2)
There are people who do not have that option for one reason or another...
Re: (Score:2)
Your symptoms don't sound like dementia or other common old age problems. Does your country have free healthcare? You should get it investigated, chances are there is some kind of acute problem that can be fixed.
Canada Tranquille BC (Score:3)
There's an old abbandoned sanitarium town near Kamloops BC https://www.google.ca/search?q... [google.ca]
It was on the tv show called After People
Its pretty awesome when you drive by it and quite a creepy feeling.
Was I the only one (Score:2)
... who read the village's name as "Hogwarts"?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and here is you ticket. Go to platform 9 3/4 and have a good trip, grandad...
"I am not a number!" (Score:4, Interesting)
Shades of another quaint and serene Village from 1967, where The Prisoner (- a Secret Agent, played by Patrick McGoohan) was kept in a surreal setting among people who sometimes behaved as though brain dead. The quote reflects the prisoner's anger that nobody in the Village would call him by name; only his assigned number 6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org] [Wikipedia]
Still, everything was provided to the inmates. If The Prisoner wasn't so stubborn he might have enjoyed it. (Youngsters rejoice; if you missed the original Prisoner TV series, you may have another chance- director Christopher Nolan may be planning a movie version.)
Incorrect statement about Dutch health care system (Score:2)
In Holland, everyone pays into the state health care system during their working years, with the money then disbursed to pay for later-in-life expenses
The Dutch health care system never worked like that. They might be confused with the pension system, where people save for their generation's retirement. While heavily regulated, the pension system is not run by the state.
The Dutch health care system is actually a lot like Obamacare, with private insurance companies which are not allowed to turn down people who apply. The system was redesigned in 2006: before that, people with low to moderate salaries were insured via their employer, while now all people pi
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone Has Dementia? (Score:2)
Even the caretakers?
"they eat better and they live longer" (Score:2)
Re:and that means it doesn't cost any more? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, at least in the case of pharmaceuticals single payer is less expensive. You have more negotiating leverage. In the Dutch system you also do not have CEOs of medical companies having to pay for trophy mistresses, reducing costs even further.
Re: (Score:3)
In the Dutch system you also do not have CEOs of medical companies having to pay for trophy mistresses, reducing costs even further.
I'd say that the mistresses are cheaper than the advertising costs, but whatever. ;)
Re: and that means it doesn't cost any more? (Score:2)
Actually, we're talking about levels of money far beyond what you'd need to buy things for your personal use or secure the services of a mistress. It's in the just-numbers-on-a-spreadsheet territory: not money for spending, but money for counting. A way of keeping score.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are the sole buyer, and you use that leverage of yours too much, you'll simply have no sellers/service-providers [wsj.com]. Competition works both ways — or is supposed to. If the buyer is unreasonable, the seller shrugs and sells to someone else — if there is anybody else. If there is not, the seller closes down the shop.
Re: (Score:2)
My friend, who works in the pharmaceutical industry in the UK, was telling my of a pharmaceutical company refusing to provide drugs to the NHS at the price they were willing to pay. So yes, this is happening.
Though personally, I think the patent and approval process and other things are totally screwing up drug prices in the first place, the laws of supply and demand still apply, even if the market is distorted.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy though it is to harp at the executive pay, it is largely irrelevant to the cost of the final product...
As a first order effect, no, but since executive pay is often tied to the company profitability (either through stock options or bonus plans, or both), a CEO has quite a bit of incentive to massively increase the profitability of the enterprise so he/she (okay, I think they are all he) will reap the percentage rewards (along with all the other stock holders) without regard to the cost of the customers bottom line. This second order effect is simply a natural consequence of how things are set up...
If you th
Re: (Score:2)
The only fair way to help customers' bottom line is to ensure competition.
Everything else — any attempts at governmental price-controls [wikipedia.org] — means confiscating from the designers/producers (unfair in itself) and, consequently, limiting the customers' options (defeating the original goal)...
Re: (Score:2)
The only fair way to help customers' bottom line is to ensure competition.
Ok, this is beyond dubious- it's patently bullshit. Though I agree with you it's the fairest and best way.
As to the rest of your post, without pretty major patent law reform, or some other way to encourage the market to drive prices down (Oh, I don't know, allow import of foreign drugs without going through the Pharma Cartels^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFDA), they're virtually guaranteed to abuse their government granted monopolies. The price controls are just an attempt at controlling the already granted
Re: (Score:2)
Self-contradiction detected...
Competition is the way to drive prices down...
What are you going to import? What the "cartels" are selling abroad? That's reimport. Something invented abroa
Re: (Score:2)
Self-contradiction detected...
Hardly. You used the absolute term, "only fair". That's a ridiculous claim. Claiming it may be the fairest does not contradict the implied assertion that it isn't the only fair way.
Competition is the way to drive prices down...
Addressed previously. Competition is *a* way to drive prices down.
What are you going to import? What the "cartels" are selling abroad? That's reimport. Something invented abroad? We already import those things — but our government, in its wisdom, insists on requiring an approval before allowing such imports...
Cheaper drugs. We pay more for a specific drug than anywhere in the first world. Why? Because what choice do we have? The government, via the FDA is a captured regulatory body. While I certainly ascribe blame to our government for being corruptible, the fact their
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I did the math, every single hit drug the largest 5 pharmas created, produced enough money to completely fund their operational costs for the next 17 years, and they produced them once every couple years.
To me, it seems like life-or-death vendor lock-in is simply being exploited, as I suppose is their right, until we as a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shared the nobel prize with Fleming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
Invented Gardasil:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/... [couriermail.com.au]
Perhaps you should do some research before commenting - otherwise you run the risk of being perceived as a troll or a chickenhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Florey [wikipedia.org]'s work on penicilin took place in 1941. Australia's PBS [wikipedia.org] was created in 1948... Gardasil [wikipedia.org] did, indeed, originate from Australia, but it was researched by a university — not a commercial pharmaceutical corporation. The heavy-lifting, however — like the clinical trials [wikipedia.org] — were undertaken by Merck... On the hope to make a pretty penny selling it...
Re: (Score:2)
In the Dutch system you also do not have CEOs of medical companies having to pay for trophy mistresses, reducing costs even further.
the trouble with geek humor is that you are never quite sure when he is playing it straight or telling a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt that Dutch pharma CEOs have trophy mistresses too, but maybe they're also taken care of by some kind of social benefit system.
Re: and that means it doesn't cost any more? (Score:3)
You're half right. The US pharmaceutical industry spends tons of dough developing new drugs, but most of the money isn't spent on curing new diseases; it's spent finding ways around competitors' patents on blockbuster drugs. Why risk developing a cure for Parkinson's which probably won't work and definitely won't make much money when you can tweak some molecules and have a competitor to Viagra?
I'm not saying drug companies are evil or corrupt, I'm saying they're,rational. They know their job is to make as m
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, this isn't about "the US pharmaceutical industry"; European pharmaceutical companies are just as dependent on the US market as US pharmaceutical companies.
Second, you're wrong. While it is true that pharmaceutical companies waste a lot of time and effort gaming the patent system, they also sp
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there are other choices besides doing nothing and hoping for the he best, and putting politicians in charge of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely. Patents only run so long and if you can't come up with something new every now and then you're relegated to pumping out cheap generic pharmaceuticals.
Re: (Score:2)
People aren't "relegated" to doing anything; they'll just leave the pharmaceutical industry entirely and do something better with their time and money.
Re:and that means it doesn't cost any more? (Score:5, Insightful)
"as the ready availability of other people's cash saps the desire to cut costs."
Nope, that's just American propaganda talking. It may take living in the Netherlands, or a Northern European country, but when you realize not everything is about money, you realize people can have motivations outside of profit maximization.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody with half a brain generally doesn't acquire money for its own sake, they acquire it for a purpose: to go into space, to build the fastest race car in the world, to build a new and better search engine, to educate people, to make art, to protect the environment, etc.
In Europe, most of the interesting jobs you can get in Europe are publicly financed one way or another (research, a
Re:and that means it doesn't cost any more? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody with half a brain generally doesn't acquire money for its own sake
The point was that some people would choose non-monetary benefits over monetary benefits. As they say: money can't buy you love or friendship.
most of the interesting jobs you can get in Europe are publicly financed one way or another (research, art, etc.)
False. Unless you wish to invoke a No True Scotsman-fallacy.
1. 'Europe' does not have a centralized policy for funding of 'most of the interesting jobs'. The member states of the EU differ wildly in the extent to which they 'finance' certain jobs.
2. In general: art and research are subsidized, not 'financed'. There is nothing stopping anyone from attracting private investments for their activities. In fact, there are European anti-state aid laws to prevent anti-competitive subsidization by the governements of the member states: http://ec.europa.eu/competitio... [europa.eu]
Many universities in Europe cooperate tightly with institutes that are oriented towards commercial(ly viable) research and the associated private investments.
which means you don't get to do what you think is right, you bloody well have to do what society tells you to do
News flash: unless it's your company, you're not deciding what you get to do. You bloody well have to do what was in the bloody job description when you decided to take the job. If you believe that a private institution gives more of a crap about 'what you think is right' than a public one, you're deeply misguided.
Re:and that means it doesn't cost any more? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and Americans have more freedom to make those choices for themselves than Europeans.
No, most of them do not. Social mobility is provably higher in most EU member states with high taxes [epi.org]. It's pretty simple: wealth/income redistribution provides a lot of people in the lower part of society with freedom. Many (less affluent) Americans have little choice but to take on any job they can get and then work as many hours as they can get, crawling for their superiors for fear of getting fired. That's not freedom.
You can choose which company you work for, and you can found your own company. Both of those are a lot easier in the US than in Europe.
Wait a minute. You actually believe that Europeans can't choose at which company they get a job? Really?
Also, wrong: http://www.nationmaster.com/co... [nationmaster.com]
Or perhaps founding a company is easier in the US, just less of an option to most people.
Nothing, except higher taxation, less wealth, and more regulation
Bullshit. Private investments are hardly regulated and not taxed at all.
But don't let reality spoil your preconceived notions. Just keep waving that banner, man.
Re:and that means it doesn't cost any more? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are two types of freedom: negative and positive.
Negative freedom is freedom from interference and control, the freedom to do what you like. The US has traditionally been quite strong on negative freedom, with its constitution limiting how the government can impose rules and restrictions on people.
Positive freedom is the freedom to do the things you want to do, to live an enjoyable life. Europe has much more positive freedom than the US, because socialist policies help people achieve the things they want to achieve, or at least live some kind of reasonable existence where they don't suffer too much. Social mobility and redistribution of wealth increase positive freedom.
It's not quite a dichotomy, but it's certainly true that an extreme of one will result in a lack of the other. I prefer the EU model or trying to balance the two, but I know many posters on /. seem to be violently opposed to anything other than near total negative freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
That is an interesting distinction I was not acutely aware of. +1 Informative
Re: (Score:2)
A continent of idiots. Good reason to leave.
Please do.
Europe can do without people who fail at reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a typical case of Lake Wobegon effect
Re: (Score:2)
Social mobility is the ability to move between economic classes.
IE, the ability and likelihood of someone to move into a higher economic bracket and earn more than his parents.
The ability and likelihood of someone born poor improving their lot such that they move into the middle and even upper classes.
And it IS provably true.
It is less likely to the happen in the US than in most of Europe.
Only a few members of the EU have less mobility than the US.
The US even has less social mobility than England, the coun
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're also correct that the top 400 only have 2.29 trillion in assets, I thought it was more than that.
Let's call it the top 1%, who have 37.1% of our total wealth of approximately 80 trillion.
So, our average wealth goes from 357k (pretty respectable, even in comparison with Europe) to 222k. Very bottom of the list for Europe.
So
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing "average wealth" according to some table is nonsense; the demographics, purchasing power, tax structure, and composition of that wealth are entirely different in the US and European nations.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing "average wealth" according to some table is nonsense; the demographics, purchasing power, tax structure, and composition of that wealth are entirely different in the US and European nations.
It's all about context, right? When talking about the average individual *wealth* in one country vs. the average individual *wealth* in another country, I'm pretty sure the selection criteria cares little about those things.
What I said remains true: The vast majority of their population is *better off* than the equivalent wealth percentile in the US. That's precisely what those hokey pokey tables tell us. PPP is probably not a fantastic tool in this case, as it precludes the original topic of the discussio
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you clearly do have problems with math and statistics, but you aren't representative of Americans.
If you really think that the European system is better, why don't you move there? I left Europe because I think the US system is better.
Re: (Score:2)
You can choose which company you work for, and you can found your own company. Both of those are a lot easier in the US than in Europe.
Exactly how difficult do you think it is to found your own company in Europe? In my country all that you need is a bit of starting cash (a few thousand Euros) and you're up and running in a day.
And as for choosing a company to work for, I can assure you it's like pretty much anywhere else. If you're qualified, you'll get a job pretty quickly. How good a job that will be will depend on the current economic situation, but that's also like anywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's easy to register companies in Europe. That doesn't mean it's very profitable to do so.
I can assure you it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the rest of the developed world, really. Australia has medicare, New Zealand has a public health system and a compulsory accident insurer. The government being a single purchaser of medication for the whole country means that it's much more cost effective.
Re: (Score:2)
I went to the hospital, up here in Canuckistan, the other day whilst having a particularly bad bout of gastroenteritis.
Walked in at four, was in an isolation room by 4:15. Walked out several hours later full of Zofran, 2 liters of saline IV, a wave and a smile from the doctor.
It astounds and sickens me that, in America, for so many people, that would have been primarily a financial decision. 'Can my family afford for me to go see a medical professional?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a meaningless anecdote.
It's also worth noting that treatment on the UK's NHS is not free to foreign visitors. (Certain treaties notwithstanding)
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/A... [www.nhs.uk]
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
aint that the truth.
pregnancy in the us? 20-40k, of which you'll pay 4-8k depending on your OOP limits and deductible.
assuming you have insurance of course. and one trick that i keep seeng is that until the baby is born everything is charged against the mother. once the baby has arrived, the baby recieves its own seperate bill as its a seperate person under the insurance plan, triggering a new deductible and a new OOP limit, effectively doubling what you pay out of pocket. it very much is a For Profit arran
Re: (Score:2)
This is a fair point. And an issue totally unaddressed by Obamacare.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK is also a residence based system, not citizen. So even UK citizens visiting far enough away from their resident hospital can get charged.
But how much does it cost?
Still dramatically less than the US.
And if you have your own insurance plan (and many UK citizens have a supplmental private insurance plan for this very reason) it will probably still pick up its share, even for US visitors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When I was younger and still living in the UK, private medical insurance was almost unheard of. Its growth is a sign of the direction that the NHS is heading in. Given that it was founded less than 70 years ago, this is a pretty bad indication of things to come.
Re:and that means it doesn't cost any more? (Score:4, Insightful)
generally all citizens paying into something makes it cost more, not less, as the ready availability of other people's cash saps the desire to cut costs.
This is an oft touted claim of conservatives, but it just isn't true. Socialized health care gives far more bang for the buck than privatized. Take a look at how much Americans pay in healthcare costs pro capita (pre-Obamacare if you like, so you won't have that to blame), and compare that with factors like lifespan and health. Columbia pays far more and gets far less precisely because it's so privatized.
The problem is that with a capitalized system, what matters is maximizing profit, and prices will converge at the highest cost the buyers are is willing to pay. When what you pay for is your life and health, the sky is the limit.
Why do Americans go to Canada to buy prescription drugs? Because the free market does not mean lower costs. Rather the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
governments do enjoy a rather large economies of scale bonus, to put it in Economic RPG terms
Re: (Score:2)
actually, the desire of tax payers to see their dollars well spent in a democracy that holds REAL elections, elections that actually matter and reflect the will of the people, produces a pretty hefty incentive to control costs.
Re:Another pro-government article... (Score:4, Informative)
Or perhaps you could assume half a dozen more propositions to spin this into conservative economic dogma masturbation fuel. On the other hand, it would be more parsimonious for us to assume that you are simply a turd that has somehow acquired the ability to operate a keyboard. After all, that only requires one extra proposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you very much for the insightful ("informative", rather) rebuttal. Will definitely bookmark and read again.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You jerk. Nowhere in that atlantic article did the author claim what you said. You are lying about his position.
"Again, let me be clear: I am not saying that those who want to live as long as possible are unethical or wrong."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hard for Americans to understand, but they are just grown up to enough to accept democratic allocatio
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, I see, the Dutch are grown-up, whereas Americans aren't... Racist much?
An ironic race-card - well done, sir. I bet you love defending racial statistics during your off-time.
Maybe, I'm just a child throwing a tantrum
You are.
but if I were, how come I was able to earn any such "resources" to begin with?
There is a certain amount of public resources that have gone into you. I can provide examples if you lack the creativity or vigor to look for them.
You have a cost to society. It's not a difficult concept, you're not a homesteader who thinks your trusty double-barrel is keeping the Cherokee away, though you're like just as ignorant as one.
Re: (Score:2)
"American" isn't a race, so no not racist at all.
And I didn't call Americans not grown up. I just said it seems hard for Americans to understand that some people don't have an ingrained hatred for the collective good and don't see the need to throw a tantrum when the collective does something that they don't think is the perfect choice. Projecting that need seems to be trea
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the government is made up and elected by you right?
Just because america is fucked up doesn't mean the rest of the world runs their governments like ass.
Having been to a few retirement communities, and watched some documentaries on dementia, this one sounds like paradise to me. Generally dementia patients need a stressful amount of care that "modern" hospitals struggle to provide. Reading about these folks all living happily together like this is idyllic and for sure where I would want to
Re: (Score:2)
If my alternative is just to see my money being "squandered" on making the life of a few old people worth living or a CEO buying another golden backscratcher, I think the choice is an obvious one. For the simple reason that one day I might be an old person, but there is no chance that I'll ever be that CEO. Pure self interest, I admit, I'm selfish.
Also I tend to consider fairness important. And somehow I don't consider it fair that being allowed to live like a human being depends on something as negligible
Re: (Score:2)
So what matters to you most is whether its pro or anti government....
not whether or not its working...
not wther the outcomes are better or worse...
and not whether or not its producing a better return on money spent than the alternative...
See, that's why you're stupid.
--
And then you just pull some random stuff out of thin air...
and link to one man's personal choice for himself (explcitly stated in the article)...
and then pull some more random made up stuff...
And apparently you dont understand what EOL counse
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of a lot of bad things to say about most muslim countries, but you're just saying everyone would agree their children are more important than themselves in old age when they're no longer productive? I can't say that's bad or wrong.
Re:$6k to 7$7k/month (Score:4, Informative)
Is what a nursing home costs in the US.
For about 3500 euro a month you can live here: http://www.rosorum.nl/locaties... [rosorum.nl]
(ignore the language, click the photos..)
A partner requiring no care is something like 800 euro a month extra. Both prices will be for the smallest suite in the complex, and are 'starting at', but, 7K a month will buy you a lot of care.
Mind you: Dutch healthcare won't cover that kind of care. Hogewey is accessible to (severe) dementia-sufferers but has a waiting list of about a year.
Re: (Score:2)
7k? Wow... remind me to never move to the US. You can have a very nice 24/7 nursing home spot for less than 2k in Europe. Less than 1k if you don't mind moving further towards the east.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is John Galt?
Re: (Score:2)
As a connoisseur of "libertarian crap" let me just say you have a bit of a ways to go my friend. "collect?" I think you mean "steal!" And never explain that you mean taxes by that - it just weakens your over-the-top hyperbole. Not to mention "subsidize?" Next time say "give away your hard earned income."
And try to work in a reference to the Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged or Nazis next time 'kay? If I'm gonna read this crap it should at least be entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, if it is at gunpoint, then it is not "steal", it is "rob" ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Shot them yourself 'cause they weren't worth it?
Right now I'm torn between hoping you don't propagate and hoping you do have kids and they inherited the attitude...
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting we send all the old people to Detroit?
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, we're still in the "free money" phase of ACA. The destructive effects start creeping in as the costs continue to spiral out of control and now even sensible consumers of medical care can't escape the miserable conditions anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see. So the "costs spiraling out of control" part that you guys said would happen immediately and didn't has merely been postponed. I get it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Except for the part that I don't think anyone will be getting much information out of the residents.
2: WHY DID YOU RESIGN?
6: I can't find my glasses.
Kind of a reverse The Prisoner.