Slashdot Mirror
The Dutch Village Where Everyone Has Dementia
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 call it "Washington".
When my time comes I hope they provide a (then) retro version of Slashdot.
um, no, it doesn't mean that. It may mean that it isn't priced any higher, and it may in fact be cheaper to operate, but 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.
I'm not saying it's not a good idea (sounds like it is) and I'm not saying a lot of other things, I'm just saying that if a large scale public works or social benefit project operates in a money saving way, it's a story worth telling in detail, it doesn't generally "follow" automatically
Neatly collects people with dementia into one out of the way place...
Is what a nursing home costs in the US. Fortunately after paying down all assets Medicaid kicks in. Unfortunately Congress seems poised to slash medicaid. Good luck to all of you out there who may end up taking care of someone with Alzheimer's or dementia. The best you can do is pray for an early death.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Where's your IRC channel?
Why am I picturing something out the TV series "The Prisoner" from the late 60's
https://www.google.ca/search?q=the+prisoner&espv=2&biw=1117&bih=629&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=T4JqVImWGpWzyATShICwCQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#tbm=isch&q=the%20prisoner%201967&revid=649089287&imgdii=_
Number 6?
Somehow scary giant floating white bubbles chasing you down?
where I work!
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.
I'm sorry, this is Slashdot, not Stormfront. I know both start with an S, I understand the confusion.
In Holland, everyone pays into the state health care system during their working years
In America everyone pays into Social Security during their working years.
Then Congress raids it and leaves an I.O.U. that they can never possibly pay.
They would do exactly the same thing for a State Healthcare System. So I can see why that would be popular with them.
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.
Thank you very much for the insightful ("informative", rather) rebuttal. Will definitely bookmark and read again.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
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.
which succintly sums up Obama-care
There's an old abbandoned sanitarium town near Kamloops BC https://www.google.ca/search?q...
It was on the tv show called After People
Its pretty awesome when you drive by it and quite a creepy feeling.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Don't forget the health detriments of inbreeding. Interestingly enough, two of the first signs to show up are lowered intelligence and increased aggression.
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."
This opens up an interesting possibility. As neighborhoods and even small towns become empty as the population shifts to cities, perhaps repopulating them with dementia patients would be a way to put them to use. Of course it could just as likely end up being a dysfunctional version of the village in "King of Hearts."
... who read the village's name as "Hogwarts"?
#DeleteChrome
Because just as soon as the ACA passed, that's when hospitals started to be miserable places to be. Thanks Obama.
Oh, and it's spelled "succinctly". Why is spell check like kryptonite to Tea Partiers?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Is this some kind of inside joke? As in, this is where slashdot editors reside? Only reason I can think of for this to be posted here at all.... (sigh)
Doesn't matter if it doesn't cost extra if the waiting line to get in is 100 miles long.
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]
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.)
...omphaloskepsis often...
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.
News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters.
Hard for Americans to understand, but they are just grown up to enough to accept democratic allocation of such resources. And while they might vote for those who best match their opinion on how those monies are allocated they accept the end result knowing they'll win some and lose some. As opposed to throwing a temper tantrum every time something doesn't go exactly there way.
Given the Dutch life expenctency is 81 I doubt they consider living past 75 immoral, and I'm sure they give all of two shits about the opinion of one American doctor - a doctor who is anti-ethenasia anyway and whose opinions (well his stated ones, who know what he actually thinks of course) aren't what you claim them to be anyway.
Or it means it's restricted to the people who match what it was designed for. Or it means it's an experiment done on a reasonable scale rather than putting all the eggs in one basket - if it proves to be a good solution then they can duplicate it elsewhere to meet demand, if it doesn't then they won't. Or it means it happens to cost the same as other options, like a Mars bar costing the same as a Kit-Kat does not mean that a Mars bar is not particularly desirable to some people.
--
Ah, I see, the Dutch are grown-up, whereas Americans aren't... Racist much?
Somehow I dislike anything remotely like "democratic allocation" of my resources... Maybe, I'm just a child throwing a tantrum — but if I were, how come I was able to earn any such "resources" to begin with?
I don't see a connection...
The point was, if one option is better than another, than the only way to fairly limit access to the better option is to make it more expensive. It just may be, of course, that there no need to impose such limits — e-mail, for example, is both better and cheaper than First Class mail — and it is great, when this happens. But it is rare...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Cue the usual American assholes who can't beliveve universal health care is better, despite the way it works well elsewhere!
Wow
I'm in another country (Australia), and I've recently experienced both private and public care due to a stage IV melanoma. I went private because I genuinely felt I would have better care, but got a post-op infection, and some of what I saw worried me. I checked myself into the public system for my second operation and did indeed recieve much better care - In particular wound management seemed much more professional. I've since spoken to people who have worked in both systems (nuclear physicist and a couple of nurses) and the consensus was that on average public system care is superior. I heard yesterday on Australias ABC that private hospitals are a few years behind in infection management, and I'm not surprised.
It's ok, AC. He was accurately moderated.
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.
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 pick and pay their own insurer. The increased competition in the new system hasn't stopped medical costs from rising though.
That's what the Republican call a dog whistle. Normal people hear nothing out of the ordinary, but as racist hears that Negros are not allowed. That's why it's called a dog whistle. That place is disgusting and is a throwback to when the Nazis ruled there. Many of the people here still fondly remember that time.
"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 treating them as not grown up and thus unable to make choices for themselves.
I'm not sure what ability to earn resources has to do with it? Lots of temper throwing people have earned lots of resources. Lots of non-temper throwing people have earned few resources.
It's a simple difference in outlook - but for some reason you expect your "but they might spend money on something I don't personally like" view to be shared by the rest of the world - which is the bit that seems childish. America has a system in which the individual is more important than the collective (with some exceptions of course - the US does have a public highway system after all). The Netherlands has a system in which the collective is more important than the individual (with some exceptions of course - the Netherlands does have "the presumption of innocence"after all).
There are plenty of actual arguments against such a collective system which don't rely on "they should think the same as me". Though it's good to remember that Europe went through monarchies, fascism and totalitarian communism they know what happens to the extremes but they aren't at the extreme.
So the Netherlands has a health care system that produces better overall results on average (as indicated by higher life expectancy), while the US has a system that produces better results for the individuals who have significant personal resources (where "better" is relative between the US and the Netherlands). Of course the rich in the Netherlands get to use the US system anyway. Migration is not *that* difficult (though it's not as simple as it once was, especially migrating to the US) so people (in particular the rich) can choose which system to live in anyway.
You can prefer the US system, but that doesn't mean everyone has to (in fact wouldn't it be unamerican to do so - if some individuals wish to live in a collective first society shouldn't they be able choose to do so?).
I guess many have argued that you only have the ability to earn those resources because of society in the first place and hence owe something back. If you actually want an answer to your question. But that's arguable.
You brought up that some American thought living over 75 was "immoral" (even though they stated no such thing) for no apparent reason. Given the no apparent reason it's not surprising no one can see a connection.
You declared "well that means" and provided a dichotomy. Are you now saying that you were presenting a false dichotomy?
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 end up if I lost my marbles. I have no delusions that I will be rich and be able to care for myself in that sort of state, nor would i want to burden my children with caring for me as my grandparents did to my parents.
But sure I guess, pile some more guns on the problem you have with healthcare in your country. See if that works.
-
The ACA doesn't create a public health care system in the US.
And there really is no general conclusions you can draw about the performance of public vs private systems from any country or anecdote.
Exactly my first thought. "Where am I?" "In the Village...."
The stealthy gardeners put me over the top.....
Love the captcha challenge: specter. That's eerie.
gymkata
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 as the amount of money you have.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Rising costs are no surprise. There doesn't appear to be direct collusion between insurers, but there is no real competition either. Do you think an insurer would prefer to charge a €100 monthly premium to cover a €1000 average yearly medical bill, or charge €200 premium for a €2000 bill? And prices are further inflated by empire building, ie. setting up and staffing a bunch of auxiliary functions and services that are not directly related to healthcare (and in practise do not work to benefit health either)
Since everybody has mandatory insurance for a fixed package of health care items, what added value do the insurers actually have? There's a few things that are mentioned from time to time:
- efficiency in operation. State-run schemes are notoriously bureaucratic, but there's no indication that private insurers are any more efficient; on the contrary. Especially since there are multiple companies, each with separate administration and management.
- purchasing savvy. Again, there's no indication that they are better at buying care and medicine than, for instance, the New Zealand govt which managed to get a massive discount on medicine.
- value added services like fitness programmes, health awareness campaigns, etc. this amounts to little more than the aforementioned empire building, and appears to add very little value.
I'd much prefer the Dutch government to handle basic insurance themselves, leaving the insurance companies to handle additional insurance packages (additional dental, homeopathic, acupuncture etc). I'm no commie, but universal health care has clear benefits, and if it's truly universal and socialised, it's better to let the state run it instead of a (in case of Dutch health insurance) dysfunctional market.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Even the caretakers?
um, no, it doesn't mean that. It may mean that it isn't priced any higher, and it may in fact be cheaper to operate, but 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.
I'm not saying it's not a good idea (sounds like it is) and I'm not saying a lot of other things, I'm just saying that if a large scale public works or social benefit project operates in a money saving way, it's a story worth telling in detail, it doesn't generally "follow" automatically
Practically if you want a certain substance , procedure, or medical apparatus there is rarely any concurrence in any country. But even if there was, who do you think will get the more rabatt ? The 3-5 different insurance company which each negotiate individually for a region for each of their percentage of persons, or the government which want to reduce spending and has 100% of the population ?
A nice little town where everyone knows everybody...oh wait...
hey its number six here ,
go see number 2
who is number 1
you are number 6
Typical Eurotrash nanny state liberal dystopian nightmare. Without the freedom to die alone and forgotten, poor and unseen, with little to no access to healthcare, there is no incentive to become rich: the pinnacle of American achievement and greatest purpose in life.
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.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
... so that won't fly here in the for-profit US.
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 counseling is.
It's not telling someone they need to pull the plug. The choice is always the individuals.
But many people are not accepting of death. I'm myself am not, i tell you right now.
But it doesnt matter if we're accepting, cause its gonna happen.
We cant fight it forever.
And at a certain point in our lives our bodies just start failing.
and the treatment costs go up, and we get nothing to show for it.
Funny thing though, that actually is another indictment of our own system.
you can make the case that if it didnt cost so much, there would be less reason for the EOL counseling.
in our country even EOL counseling revolves more around healthcare as a financial decision than a quality of life one.
people wouldnt have to make decisions to continue or stop treatment based on finances, but could isntead do it based on QOL.
they could make the decision instead based on the same criteria people in other (more advanced) countries do.
To not have this conversation with yoruself, your family, your doctor, until its too late, is irresponsible.
These are real question that you WILL have to ask yourself at some point:
"Do I risk open haeart surgery and dying on the table (15% chance), or just live with the problem and risk random death any day?"
"Do I take more chemo which might give me another 8 weeks of life, 8 weeks of miserable sick barely alive life...or stop chemo knowing I wont live more than another 4 weeks?"
Theres some good peices at The Incidental Economist (doctors and health professionals who write about health policy) on EOL:
http://theincidentaleconomist....
The essay is brave and constructive. It’s brave because Emanuel and others who want to encourage end of life discussions have been falsely accused of promoting euthanasia — Emanuel [the guy who wrote the piece your linked to] has been a notable opponent of euthanasia and assisted suicide — and this article elicited more of the same. It’s constructive because Emanuel writes informally, candidly, and personally in a way that may help make it possible for the rest of us to reflect on our choices in the light of our values.
(Emphasis added)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
1) you know thats not race right?
2) would you prefer a dictatorial allocation of resources?
3) he's referring to the life expentecy they have over there, which is significantly higher than we have in the US
4) you're actually defending higher prices as a means to limit access, because access to a better system must be limited? HFS are you dumb. Firstly, our system is not better (re: life expentecy and health outcomes). And secondly cost does NOT correlate with quality of care (again: re: life expentecy and health outcomes); if it did we shoul dhave the best health results of any nation on earth....but we dont, we're almost last for all western nations.
The fair way to limit access to something, if access needs to be limited, which access to helathcare DOES NOT, it should be done based on medical need, not the size of y our wallet. and yes, you are a child throwing a tantrum. a very ignorant child.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
Here, I believe this is the link you are looking for:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Repub...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Slashdot Beta with every story and comment submitted by Bennett Haselton....
Many parts of the law haven't even been implemented yet; for example, the Cadillac tax kicks in 2018, and Obama has dropped many features. Some of the bad effects people have predicted have already happened, like people having to switch to plans they don't want to switch to and premiums rising
You really have to be a blind partisan to maintain the delusion that ACA is working the way it was sold to the American people.
um, no, it doesn't mean that. It may mean that it isn't priced any higher, and it may in fact be cheaper to operate, but 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.
It may sap the desire to cut costs, but it may also provide real economy of scale benefits. Which factor weights more depends entirely on the product and market. Few people would argue that individualizing roads would make it cheaper/better, just as few people would argue that making car building a public work would make it cheaper/better.
But compared to buying a car, there are some factors that make it very hard for individuals to negotiate properly when buying health care:
- health care is not optional for those who need it (there is no public transport or buying pre-owned alternative);
- individuals rarely have enough knowledge / options to negotiate effectively (there is limited option to check the car dealer next door);
- the demand for health care is not scheduled (you know your car needs service every Y miles, and replacement after X years).
Additionally, the Dutch health care market is a bit more complex. For general health care, it is a multi-buyer, multi-provider market. People are required to be insured, but the insurance companies are commercial entities. Many of the providers are commercial entities as well. For 'uninsurable care' (such as long term nursing and whatever else the current administration wishes to label as such), it is a single buyer, multi provider market. A combination of purchasing power and public scrutiny of excesses (which do occur) does keep significant pressure on the prices / margins.
I can't imagine a place like that here in the U.S. Of course, humane is not what we do here anymore.
It's not a seperate village. It's care facility in the town of Weesp, near Amsterdam. See http://www.vivium.nl/hogewey. Silly Americans ;-).
Dementia or Alzheimer's disease is my worst nightmare. I have seen it close up (as have many others here I would guess) and I would rather go out while still able to wipe my arse and remember the names of my family and leave them the memory of a whole and functional person.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
the Cadillac tax
Normally, I am not a fan of taxes on specific items, but a heavy tax on ugly and crappy cars would be a great idea.