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.
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.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
"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.
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.
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. ;)
I don't read AC A human right
If you are the sole buyer, and you use that leverage of yours too much, you'll simply have no sellers/service-providers. 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.
Ok, let's stipulate for a second, the Dutch CEOs — unlike the American ones — are all asexual, and do some computations. Let's say, five big-pharma CEOs, are overseeing development and production of drugs for, say, 1bln people. Even if each one had 20 mistresses to support, an extra dollar per year from the beneficiaries of their work would give each mistress a whopping $10mln per year. You are barking up the wrong tree. Easy though it is to harp at the executive pay, it is largely irrelevant to the cost of the final product...
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.
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*
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."
Is what a nursing home costs in the US.
For about 3500 euro a month you can live here: http://www.rosorum.nl/locaties...
(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.
Within the European Union, doctors who treat foreigners (i.e. non-EU patients, or EU patients who can't show an EHIC) for one-off emergency visits commonly waive payment. It's just considered too much of a hassle to draw up all the billing, especially if the person may leave the country immediately after. Now, if the patient is going to receive a course of treatment, lots of tests, etc., then of course things are taken more seriously and he will be charged fees.
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.
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...
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.
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 much money as possible. Expecting them to serve the public good is romantic twaddle.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
--
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...
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.
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.
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.
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. 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...
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.
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.
You are correct- I meant to type mean, since our median wealth is already down at eastern-bloc levels. I was trying to illustrate that we only look good when using the mean.
.5) gini coefficients, you barely impact the average.
;)
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 really, I should have said, shave 1% of our population off, and all of a sudden we're wealthier than the likes of Spain and Greece, but none of those other commie socialist freedom haters. Shave 1% off of your average western European country, and thanks to their fantastic (near
What's the grand point to all this? We may have the best opportunity as Americans in the world to rape and pillage beyond belief, and become richer than God, but when it comes right down to it- the Europeans enjoy better success for a greater percentage of their population.
I thank you for the opportunity to elaborate
Even the caretakers?
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC