Should medicare pay for "scooters"

[spidey07]

Please, please, please keep this on the question at hand and not deride into a healthcare debate - this post specifically addresses a particular scenario.

As much as a libertarian as I am I agree that there should be incentives to increase one's self sustenance and self reliance.

My question comes from seeing advertisements for "scooters" which enable those that cannot transport themselves...well...transport. The thing that struck me the most was "We'll work to make medicare pay for it all!"

My question is this:

Should medicare pay for this? These are expensive machines.

Pros:
1) Increases self reliance.
2) Decreases other health problems (and claims) due to lack of mobility (both mental and physical)

Cons:
Hard to think of any unless they like to crash over curbs.

I actually vote yay.

-edit- yay, given that it isn't abused.

 

[Isla]

I think so. My parents are in their 70's and so far don't need anything like that. My dad is 76 and just got a handicapped decal for parking... he's got health problems. He's still a good driver (he once drove firetrucks!) and probably has a few good years left. But one day, he may need a scooter.

I think people who have older parents will say yay, and people who have younger parents (or no parents) will say nay, in general. It is hard to imagine the need if it isn't part of your life.

<---youngest child of older parents

 

[compuwiz1]

Yes.

I suppose one's vote might swing from no to yes, if they needed a scooter. I don't think most retirees, or people with disabilities would be able to afford them, otherwise.

 

[Infohawk]

How about "it depends"? It depends on the cost of paying for these scooters vs. the cost for medicare for not having these scooters.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Please, please, please keep this on the question at hand and not deride into a healthcare debate - this post specifically addresses a particular scenario.

As much as a libertarian as I am I agree that there should be incentives to increase one's self sustenance and self reliance.

My question comes from seeing advertisements for "scooters" which enable those that cannot transport themselves...well...transport. The thing that struck me the most was "We'll work to make medicare pay for it all!" -- personally I saw the same commercial and they did not say what you stated exactly.....they basically said they would work with you and if your insurance or medicare won`t pay you get the scooter free!!
My wife works in a nursing home and there are several people who recieved ther scooters free...
Peace!!
My question is this:

Should medicare pay for this? These are expensive machines.

Pros:
1) Increases self reliance.
2) Decreases other health problems (and claims) due to lack of mobility (both mental and physical)

Cons:
Hard to think of any unless they like to crash over curbs.

I actually vote yay.

-edit- yay, given that it isn't abused.

 

[Balt]

Only if they really want to go see the Grand Canyon.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
How about "it depends"? It depends on the cost of paying for these scooters vs. the cost for medicare for not having these scooters.

Utilitarianism FTL.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Yes.

A mobile person vs a sedintary person. What costs less? Besides, some things are just right. Leaving grandma on the couch 14 hours a day is just wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

"Besides, some things are just right."

What a f@cking concept.

 

[shiner]

No. It isn't the government's job to make sure I can be mobile.

 

[MadRat]

The local states have a burden to bear here. Why do the feds need to step in for every social injustice?

 

[GoPackGo]

Why don't we put them into a fully enclosed "scooter" and teach them the ways of Davros and the meaning of "exterminate!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Yes, not even a question. My mother could not get around if it weren't for a scooter.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Yes, not even a question. My mother could not get around if it weren't for a scooter.

Why should the government pay for it?

I'd have a hard time getting to work without my car, should the government pay for that too?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Yes, not even a question. My mother could not get around if it weren't for a scooter.

So it's just a given that someone else should pay to buy her one?

 

[RightIsWrong]

I don't have any hard numbers to work with, but I would think that the cost of the scooter would be a lot cheaper than the medical costs that could/would be incurred if they (those that need) didn't have scooters.

Kind of like health care for children. If we would spend the money upfront to ensure that every child has healthcare access, how much would we save once they become adults? It is usually a lot cheaper to prevent illness than it is to treat is reactively.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Yes, not even a question. My mother could not get around if it weren't for a scooter.

So it's just a given that someone else should pay to buy her one?

Do you have any concept of what people who live on social security make? Or how much the scooter costs? Or how many other medical bills the elderly have? If medicare covers medical issues, and her getting around is a medical issue, shouldn't it be covered? If she was blind, and needed a guide dog, would medicare cover that? I honestly don't know the answer to that, but I'm guessing yes.
Especially since my dad is a WWII vet, he should still be getting medical compensation. He risked his life jumping from planes over the Phillipines for this country. And I firmly believe that medical coverage should be lifelong for any veteran who served in wartime.
We won't see eye to eye on this and that's fine. I loathe insurance companies, they have someone in a cube deciding if I get covered for x or y or if I can see this doctor or that doctor.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I don't have any hard numbers to work with, but I would think that the cost of the scooter would be a lot cheaper than the medical costs that could/would be incurred if they (those that need) didn't have scooters.

Kind of like health care for children. If we would spend the money upfront to ensure that every child has healthcare access, how much would we save once they become adults? It is usually a lot cheaper to prevent illness than it is to treat is reactively.

How do you figure?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Yes, not even a question. My mother could not get around if it weren't for a scooter.

So it's just a given that someone else should pay to buy her one?

Do you have any concept of what people who live on social security make? Or how much the scooter costs? Or how many other medical bills the elderly have? If medicare covers medical issues, and her getting around is a medical issue, shouldn't it be covered? If she was blind, and needed a guide dog, would medicare cover that? I honestly don't know the answer to that, but I'm guessing yes.
Especially since my dad is a WWII vet, he should still be getting medical compensation. He risked his life jumping from planes over the Phillipines for this country. And I firmly believe that medical coverage should be lifelong for any veteran who served in wartime.
We won't see eye to eye on this and that's fine. I loathe insurance companies, they have someone in a cube deciding if I get covered for x or y or if I can see this doctor or that doctor.

How is that, as a taxpayer, my problem?

Do you have any concept of what people who live on McDonalds wages make? Or how much cars cost?

This whole idea that the US is a socialistic nation but not until you hit 65 really urks me.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Yes, not even a question. My mother could not get around if it weren't for a scooter.

So it's just a given that someone else should pay to buy her one?

Do you have any concept of what people who live on social security make? Or how much the scooter costs? Or how many other medical bills the elderly have? If medicare covers medical issues, and her getting around is a medical issue, shouldn't it be covered? If she was blind, and needed a guide dog, would medicare cover that? I honestly don't know the answer to that, but I'm guessing yes.
Especially since my dad is a WWII vet, he should still be getting medical compensation. He risked his life jumping from planes over the Phillipines for this country. And I firmly believe that medical coverage should be lifelong for any veteran who served in wartime.
We won't see eye to eye on this and that's fine. I loathe insurance companies, they have someone in a cube deciding if I get covered for x or y or if I can see this doctor or that doctor.

First, if we're going to be throwing around the vet card, both my parents served in the Army during a period of war (Vietnam), so I can play that game too. And my mom (dad is dead thanks to a massive coronary and poor health choices) understands how much medical expenses can be, which is why she's worked for 40+ years and still works now, well into her 60's. Maybe I should just tell her to send all her medical bills to the gov't instead?

 

[dyna]

We might as well stop making wheelchairs/walkers if the government is going to give out free scooters.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Wow, it's amazing how cold hearted some of you can be. Personally, I try to think of the other person, and gladly give a couple extra bucks in taxes to help medicare, social programs, education, etc. I'd rather it go to the elderly than some bullshit war based on lies, deception and stupidity. And if you read the whole post, it said clearly that I feel that ALL vets who serve in wartime should recieve benefits, so yes, your mother should be getting care.
Goddamn there are some cold hearted selfish bastards floating around. No wonder assholes like dumbya can sleaze their way into the highest office in the country. It's sickening.

 

[nageov3t]

I wonder how much medicare really covers.

I'd say yes for old/handicapped people, but no for overweight people.

I'm a big guy myself, but I still get so angry when I see overweight people riding around on those scooter-type things. it's like, when you've gotten to the point where you can't physically walk, isn't that when you should realize that you need to either start eating healthy or have gastric bypass or something?

 

[alchemize]

I have yet to see anyone but lard-asses riding those around. Non-lard asses use a walker.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I have yet to see anyone but lard-asses riding those around. Non-lard asses use a walker.

Wow, that's insightful, my dad's 84 years old, about 5'10" and weighs around 175, he's having both knees replaced, will need a scooter to get around, lives in a very rural town, and the scooter could take him to the grocery store and back.
Do you think a 5'10" 175lb man is a lardass? Really?
And some of these lard asses as you so delicately put it, have health issues that lead to their weight issues. Not all, but some.
It's a broad brush you paint your canvas with.