"Tough to Swallow" ~ Alberta Seniors

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by GGG

Well obviously during a persons life they save money so that money can be used for their retirement / Death. If you choose not to do that for whatever reason be it kids, vacations, nice cars etc that is your choice. The governments job at all stages of life should be to ensure human dignity.

You have obviously grown up in a fairly well to do family if you think that all it takes. Some people.... no A LOT OF PEOPLE... live from pay check to pay check in low paying jobs, raising their kids, paying the bills, paying the rent (yes... I said RENT... A LOT OF PEOPLE cannot afford to buy a home and get the security that goes with it)

Not everybody goes through life with a silver spoon up their ass from cradle to grave. Some have worked damn hard and in the end have very little to show for it.

[Shin Pad]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Aaaaaaaaand back to reality. Dion. Buddy. They are burdens. Sorry you don't like that but it is an irrefutable fact.

Wow - I wonder how you will feel about that after you have contributed to society for 60+ years. Oh wait, by the time you get to that age, they'll just probably take you out back and shoot you

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Shin Pad

Wow - I wonder how you will feel about that after you have contributed to society for 60+ years. Oh wait, by the time you get to that age, they'll just probably take you out back and shoot you

I just don't understand how a guy who has kids can claim anything is a "burden"

Might as well just eliminate human reproduction, that way we only have one last batch of old people to deal with.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dion

They may not recognise family and loved ones but that doesn't mean we have the right to end thier lives because we think they are a burden.

I see euthanasia as suicide and that's not something I support. I've witnessed members of my family unit endure great pain and suffering from Cancer and in the end all chose to die with dignity. You start allowing euthanasia and it will quickly become a slippery slope where it will become a family memeber making that descion and not the person with the illness.

When did I suggest that "we" (although I don't know who this we is) have the right to murder people. I am saying that they (as in the person) should have the right to end their life on their terms.

The slippery slope argument is one of the worst arguments that people can make by the way, it doesn't mean anything and it is always followed up with a fear mongering statement which isn't based in reality at all.

I do think that a degenerative brain disease is different by the way relative to cancer -with exceptions of course with cancer the person is still themselves, in an Alzheimer's patient, they aren't themselves anymore, they can become sexually aggressive people who don't recognize their own family members. They really don't exist anymore as the people they were, they are often shells of themselves. If someone is able to put into writing what they want done in X, Y, and Z situations when they are of sound mind that would be an optimal solution in my opinion.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

When did I suggest that "we" (although I don't know who this we is) have the right to murder people. I am saying that they (as in the person) should have the right to end their life on their terms.

Doctors and those who choose to assist someone in comitting suicide.

The slippery slope argument is one of the worst arguments that people can make by the way, it doesn't mean anything and it is always followed up with a fear mongering statement which isn't based in reality at all.

You can't say it won't happen. We already have a form of it in the States where Health Insurance compaines get to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't. People dying because they can't get the treatment they need. Families could decide that caring for loved one is too much of a burden to them and assisted suicide is the best way to go.

I do think that a degenerative brain disease is different by the way relative to cancer -with exceptions of course with cancer the person is still themselves, in an Alzheimer's patient, they aren't themselves anymore, they can become sexually aggressive people who don't recognize their own family members. They really don't exist anymore as the people they were, they are often shells of themselves. If someone is able to put into writing what they want done in X, Y, and Z situations when they are of sound mind that would be an optimal solution in my opinion.

No one of sound mind wants to comitt suicide and end thier life early.

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by Dion

The vast majority of them are private for profit facilities. I don't know what the profit margins are but they do ask the govt from time to time to increase the fees they are allowed to charge seniors.

From my understanding, there is also a fair degree of undercapacity and AHS has to pretty much take what they can get in terms of long term care facilities. Naturally if you're taking what you can get, there are going to be some pretty sub-par providers.



One of my issues with the video is with AUPE's flawed sample size. They used a small town as a representative for all of the senior's "plight". I'm not saying that the system is perfect or that the food isn't mediocre, but AUPE clearly has an agenda they're trying to push.

[flamesfever]

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members"

Mahatma Ghandi

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You have obviously grown up in a fairly well to do family if you think that all it takes. Some people.... no A LOT OF PEOPLE... live from pay check to pay check in low paying jobs, raising their kids, paying the bills, paying the rent (yes... I said RENT... A LOT OF PEOPLE cannot afford to buy a home and get the security that goes with it)

Not everybody goes through life with a silver spoon up their ass from cradle to grave. Some have worked damn hard and in the end have very little to show for it.

I wouldnt say we were well off when I was growing up but we werent poor either. My parents were very frugal though, for example we only had one vehicle, we never went out for supper, we didnt have cable, we had TV and furniture from the 70s until around 1994 when my parents got divorced and we needed another set of everything. My mom worked minimum wage jobs until deciding to go back to school and my Dad also went back to school to upgrade his education as well.

So I guess my life experience has been that if you dont like your situation you fix it yourself and one of the best ways to do that is through education. So when I say everyone has a choice, i really mean it, education is accessable enough that anyone can do it. I find your silverspoon comment insulting. People make choices, the government should ensure opportunity not outcomes.

And if you read the rest of my post I am saying that the government should ensure dignity is maintained and have no problem with them spending to it.

[Pizza]

Who wants to bet that for the majority of you appalled by what's going on with Senior's AHS meals are going to forget all of this in 4 years and end up voting for the same Tories that implemented and allowed this to happen?

[Slava]

I hate to attempt to steer this away from the burdens/not burdens argument, but here goes...

I give credit to the Wildrose for taking issue with this and I agree. It's just that it seems so disingenuous coming from them; they're the party of survival of the fittest, private healthcare for those who can afford it and reducing spending because "we just can't afford it". I have heard hundreds of times from Wildrose supporters that per capita spending is too high, and now they seemingly want to increase spending?

Last week on the reinstated sex-change funding Danielle Smith noted there are a lot of services not covered under AHC including dentistry, chiropractic, insulin pumps, etc. Thats great; but the Wildrose has no plans to cover these things either. Its just grandstanding.

I would assume that this is the type of politicizing that longsuffering was referring to earlier. No party is in favour of providing poor food to people; it's just silly to try to insinuate otherwise. The part that rubs me the wrong way here though is that the Wildrose has no plan to fix this either, other than spend some money. As soon as the PCs commit to that they'll cry about them spending too much. It's infantile really.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

I hate to attempt to steer this away from the burdens/not burdens argument, but here goes...

I give credit to the Wildrose for taking issue with this and I agree. It's just that it seems so disingenuous coming from them; they're the party of survival of the fittest, private healthcare for those who can afford it and reducing spending because "we just can't afford it". I have heard hundreds of times from Wildrose supporters that per capita spending is too high, and now they seemingly want to increase spending?

Last week on the reinstated sex-change funding Danielle Smith noted there are a lot of services not covered under AHC including dentistry, chiropractic, insulin pumps, etc. Thats great; but the Wildrose has no plans to cover these things either. Its just grandstanding.

I would assume that this is the type of politicizing that longsuffering was referring to earlier. No party is in favour of providing poor food to people; it's just silly to try to insinuate otherwise. The part that rubs me the wrong way here though is that the Wildrose has no plan to fix this either, other than spend some money. As soon as the PCs commit to that they'll cry about them spending too much. It's infantile really.

Well since they arent in power...they have absolutely no way to affect the change other than to put pressure on the Progressives to do something about it...i mean that IS their job afterall.

So to call it politicizing or grandstanding is just stupid and disingenuous, as if the roles were reversed niether one of you would make a peep about it and i fact would be all over the WP about it.

Its so transparent...give it a rest.

So to the topic at hand....do you agree something should be done about it by the governing body overseeing this as it is occurring or not?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well since they arent in power...they have absolutely no way to affect the change other than to put pressure on the Progressives to do something about it...i mean that IS their job afterall.

So to call it politicizing or grandstanding is just stupid and disingenuous, as if the roles were reversed niether one of you would make a peep about it and i fact would be all over the WP about it.

Its so transparent...give it a rest.

So to the topic at hand....do you agree something should be done about it by the governing body overseeing this as it is occurring or not?

Of course I think something should be done, but that's another thing that adds to my surprise at the Wildrose pressing for this. What happened to private care and people fending for themselves? It's well known that this is what they're really in favour of.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Of course I think something should be done, but that's another thing that adds to my surprise at the Wildrose pressing for this. What happened to private care and people fending for themselves? It's well known that this is what they're really in favour of.

You are completely obfuscating things.

They are the opposition to the government that is sitting in power and responsible for the subject at hand.

Nevermind there is no evidence that the WR would leave seniors to completely fend for themselves, it is not what THIS story is about and has nothing to do with WR poilcy.

This is about the Progressive Liberal party of Alberta and their failure to properly nourish those who cannot do so for themselves....period.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You are completely obfuscating things.

They are the opposition to the government that is sitting in power and responsible for the subject at hand.

Nevermind there is no evidence that the WR would leave seniors to completely fend for themselves, it is not what THIS story is about and has nothing to do with WR poilcy.

This is about the Progressive Liberal party of Alberta and their failure to properly nourish those who cannot do so for themselves....period.

Progressive Liberal? LOL, I guess that's game, set match. That's the politicking I was talking about! It's a lame attempt to insinuate that the government has known about this and has purposefully tried to withhold proper food from these people. Gimme a break.

The reality is that NO PARTY is in favour of denying proper nutrition to anyone. You're better than to think otherwise, so I'm not even sure why I would argue this with you.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by boogerz

From my understanding, there is also a fair degree of undercapacity and AHS has to pretty much take what they can get in terms of long term care facilities. Naturally if you're taking what you can get, there are going to be some pretty sub-par providers.

There are set standards that all LTC have to follow.

http://www.seniors.alberta.ca/continuingcare/ltcas/

One of my issues with the video is with AUPE's flawed sample size. They used a small town as a representative for all of the senior's "plight". I'm not saying that the system is perfect or that the food isn't mediocre, but AUPE clearly has an agenda they're trying to push.

An agenda for better quality food is what I see. It's sad that the quality of food served to seniors has gone way down since they implimented this new system.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dion

Doctors and those who choose to assist someone in comitting suicide.

It is a medical procedure and it should be treated as such. People can have elective medical procedures performed all the time, people have the right to refuse treatment as well, should people not be given the freedom to decide if they want to end their life early. Personally I say yes but that is just a personal opinion. and we all know about opinion.

Originally Posted by Dion

You can't say it won't happen. We already have a form of it in the States where Health Insurance compaines get to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't. People dying because they can't get the treatment they need. Families could decide that caring for loved one is too much of a burden to them and assisted suicide is the best way to go.

But you can make up any scenario under the guise of a slippery slope. Looking at the situation logically, do I think that there is going to be a government backed kill the elderly campaign. Of course not.

Originally Posted by Dion

No one of sound mind wants to comitt suicide and end thier life early.

Except the people in this thread who stated that they would rather die than live in a nursing home or people who have seen the long term impacts of dementia, or people who work daily with these people who say that they hope they go before they reach that point. Actually the more I work with people who are at that point in life, the more I realize I want to hit the eject button before I am no longer myself and can't make those decisions on my own. But I guess I am not of sound mind for thinking about it from a logical perspective like that based on my own experiences.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Progressive Liberal? LOL, I guess that's game, set match. That's the politicking I was talking about! It's a lame attempt to insinuate that the government has known about this and has purposefully tried to withhold proper food from these people. Gimme a break.

The reality is that NO PARTY is in favour of denying proper nutrition to anyone. You're better than to think otherwise, so I'm not even sure why I would argue this with you.

Yes ...the pc's are nothing but a demi-liberal gang at this point, i think that is fairly clear to even the most casual observer by now.

And no....i am not politicizing anything as i never said that they were "in favour" of denying what those vulnerable folks need or insinuate anything other than the Progressives are the ones overseeing the depatment that has allowed it to occur. Thats the difference ....you obfuscate with WR policy like it has anything to do with anything and i deal with the actual topic at hand and who is going to (hopefully) give it the attention it deserves.

In fact it is YOU and those that want to bring WR policy into the fray that are politicizing this debate, as it has no bearing on what is happening and who is responsible for it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes ...the pc's are nothing but a demi-liberal gang at this point, i think that is fairly clear to even the most casual observer by now.

And no....i am not politicizing anything as i never said that they were "in favour" of denying what those vulnerable folks need or insinuate anything other than the Progressives are the ones overseeing the depatment that has allowed it to occur. Thats the difference ....you obfuscate with WR policy like it has anything to do with anything and i deal with the actual topic at hand and who is going to (hopefully) give it the attention it deserves.

In fact it is YOU and those that want to bring WR policy into the fray that are politicizing this debate, as it has no bearing on what is happening and who is responsible for it.

So you saying the Progressive Liberals won't nourish people is dealing with the topic? You and I are on the same side here as far as I can see, but that's not dealing with anything. That's basically my point in all of this though, there is no question this should be examined and fixed, but instead we have politicians trying to score a few points. Its sad and pathetic really.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by GGG

It sounds like the food quality is very similar to University Residence food. If it is then it is adequate.

I think that giving homes the options to develop there own higher quality food alternatives would be helpful as good employees should be able to do better than the generic provincial plan.

I am a big supporter of the government providing a minimum levelmof service to ensure human dignity. If you want more than that you are responsible for it yourself.

Originally Posted by Zevo

Some of you that think these meals are perfectly fine need to do a 'Seniorize Me' style study ala the 'Supersize Me' Documentary. Try eating a months worth of these generic frozen meals three times a day for 30 days, and nothing else, and see you feel about them then.

Just a little tidbit on this... yes thats what I had in univ res. Potato's out of a bag? Yup. Chicken boiled with no taste? Yup. Described my meals for about 2 years... so I guess you could say I tried it. It was ok, I lived... I probably eat worse when I lived on my own.

As for the topic... I dunno, depends what the cost is. The #1 priority would be on health, not taste... people who have more money get better food, thats the way things are... life is unfair.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes ...the pc's are nothing but a demi-liberal gang at this point, i think that is fairly clear to even the most casual observer by now.

When did they become a gang?

Anyway, its nice to see that some WR supporters are to the left of even our demi-liberal gang overlords on this particular issue.