Architect of Health Care Law Hopes to Die at age 75 – Do you?

[TexaninVA]

Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm, Mayor of Chicago) is one of the moving forces and intellectual leaders whose efforts culminated in the recent Affordable Health Care Act. He has come out directly and stated he thinks it would be ideal if he dies at age 75. That got my attention! While he says he is not advocating this for anyone else, I’m thinking … of course you would not come out and advocate this for obvious reasons.

While I can’t find any evidence yet to support it, I think it’s reasonable to ask if that philosophy is thus embedded somewhere in the law? I hope not. But this guy is charmingly chilling in his prescriptions and gives me the creeps.

What do Villagers think of the idea of his idea dying at age 75? I’m curious to see peoples’ reaction to Dr. Emanuel’s” enlightened” views, particular since his fingerprints are all over the new law, and probably in ways we don’t even yet know about.

Ps Here’s a direct quote that I thought was particularly interesting from Dr. Emanuel

“This means colonoscopies and other cancer-screening tests are out—and before 75. If I were diagnosed with cancer now, at 57, I would probably be treated, unless the prognosis was very poor. But 65 will be my last colonoscopy. No screening for prostate cancer at any age. (When a urologist gave me a PSA test even after I said I wasn’t interested and called me with the results, I hung up before he could tell me. He ordered the test for himself, I told him, not for me.) After 75, if I develop cancer, I will refuse treatment. Similarly, no cardiac stress test. No pacemaker and certainly no implantable defibrillator. No heart-valve replacement or bypass surgery. If I develop emphysema or some similar disease that involves frequent exacerbations that would, normally, land me in the hospital, I will accept treatment to ameliorate the discomfort caused by the feeling of suffocation, but will refuse to be hauled off.

What about simple stuff? Flu shots are out. Certainly if there were to be a flu pandemic, a younger person who has yet to live a complete life ought to get the vaccine or any antiviral drugs. A big challenge is antibiotics for pneumonia or skin and urinary infections. Antibiotics are cheap and largely effective in curing infections. It is really hard for us to say no. Indeed, even people who are sure they don’t want life-extending treatments find it hard to refuse antibiotics. But, as Osler reminds us, unlike the decays associated with chronic conditions, death from these infections is quick and relatively painless. So, no to antibiotics.”

Here’s a link to the full article:

Why I Hope to Die at 75 - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/)

[Topspinmo]

IMO the health care act was about money's for the government and Insurance companies. when some idiot says we have to pass to see what's in it. give you idea how clueless majority are! May for an incident it was good idea till greed to over

[Bay Kid]

Biggest tax increase ever. Plus we just gave up control over our own health care to whoever is running the government....

[gomoho]

I wonder if push came to shove if the good Dr. Emmanuel would walk the walk or high tail it to the best doctor he could find to treat his condition and extend his life.

[graciegirl]

Ever wonder why so many older people become more moderate at they age?

Because they learn from life experiences.

[rubicon]

Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm, Mayor of Chicago) is one of the moving forces and intellectual leaders whose efforts culminated in the recent Affordable Health Care Act. He has come out directly and stated he thinks it would be ideal if he dies at age 75. That got my attention! While he says he is not advocating this for anyone else, I’m thinking … of course you would not come out and advocate this for obvious reasons.

While I can’t find any evidence yet to support it, I think it’s reasonable to ask if that philosophy is thus embedded somewhere in the law? I hope not. But this guy is charmingly chilling in his prescriptions and gives me the creeps.

What do Villagers think of the idea of his idea dying at age 75? I’m curious to see peoples’ reaction to Dr. Emanuel’s” enlightened” views, particular since his fingerprints are all over the new law, and probably in ways we don’t even yet know about.

Ps Here’s a direct quote that I thought was particularly interesting from Dr. Emanuel

“This means colonoscopies and other cancer-screening tests are out—and before 75. If I were diagnosed with cancer now, at 57, I would probably be treated, unless the prognosis was very poor. But 65 will be my last colonoscopy. No screening for prostate cancer at any age. (When a urologist gave me a PSA test even after I said I wasn’t interested and called me with the results, I hung up before he could tell me. He ordered the test for himself, I told him, not for me.) After 75, if I develop cancer, I will refuse treatment. Similarly, no cardiac stress test. No pacemaker and certainly no implantable defibrillator. No heart-valve replacement or bypass surgery. If I develop emphysema or some similar disease that involves frequent exacerbations that would, normally, land me in the hospital, I will accept treatment to ameliorate the discomfort caused by the feeling of suffocation, but will refuse to be hauled off.

What about simple stuff? Flu shots are out. Certainly if there were to be a flu pandemic, a younger person who has yet to live a complete life ought to get the vaccine or any antiviral drugs. A big challenge is antibiotics for pneumonia or skin and urinary infections. Antibiotics are cheap and largely effective in curing infections. It is really hard for us to say no. Indeed, even people who are sure they don’t want life-extending treatments find it hard to refuse antibiotics. But, as Osler reminds us, unlike the decays associated with chronic conditions, death from these infections is quick and relatively painless. So, no to antibiotics.”

Here’s a link to the full article:

Why I Hope to Die at 75 - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/)

TexasinVA: You are spot on and many stories have been published in various papers about the government attempts to reduce medical care for older people. Of course they denied it but then we learned that we really can't keep our doctor or our insurance plan. Last year my wife and I asked for a pneumonia shot when we got our flu shots at a drug store and were told that people no longer age 65 or older would need them. I will ask again this year and see what they say. Statistically people in the last two years of life use more medical care and you know the government based on their actions concerning medicare billing will do whatever they can to cut back One could go but to what avil. Emanuel is typical of the extreme left leaning liberals very unpleasant and mean people....................................

[Sophie11]

People who are in government jobs are exempt from this insurance.

[janmcn]

One point Emanuel is making is that one in three people age 75 or older will develop Alzheimer's or other dementia. Why take extraordinary measures to end up sitting in soiled diapers in a facility for a decade or two? I can't think of any.

[pbkmaine]

I thought the point he was trying to make is that quality of life is more important to him than longevity. It is to me, too.

[billethkid]

he is either so politically biased it does not matter what he says as long as it backs the plan of the (he was one of the architects of Obamascare).....or

he is just a totally stupid person not knowing the impact of words from his mouth.

As one of the architects he KNOWS Obamascare to be financially viable needs more young people paying in and fewre older people using benefits.

In this day and age of medical and technological advances that have been and continue to extend longevity....how could ANYBODY with even half a brain make such a stupid commentary?

Easy; partyism!

I hope and strive for the day when I am in an audience when any such comparable stupid, brainless, uncaring, biased comments are made.

[chachacha]

just found out my little $8 prescription has now been deemed tier 3 with copay of $95. plus i need preapproval to even be covered. wonder how many thousands of times this scenario will be repeated for seniors...i saw the dr's interview and obviously at 57 it is easy for him to claim life is no longer worthwhile at 75, but for me who will be 70 next month, my life is very enjoyable and valuable, thank you very much! our best defense is a healthy lifestyle so we won't need their rotten healthcare!!!

[TexaninVA]

The hca will be remembered in history as a huge breakthrough in the reduction of health care costs. Right wing diatribe will not change it!

Spoken as a true believer indeed. I’m impressed with your zeal.

And, just to be precise, what I posted were direct quotes from the good Doctor himself, not “right wing diatribe” in case that was not clear.

As far as reducing health care costs goes, if everyone is “encouraged” to die at age 75, and at some point the Government starts to enforce that, then you are absolutely right … costs will be reduced. The only problem is that a lot of us old people here in TV will be dead because of reduced access to health care.

Dr. Ezekiel really could not have made it any plainer in terms of what he thinks should happen. Too bad the proponents were not honest about it before the law was voted on however.

[Sable99]

just found out my little $8 prescription has now been deemed tier 3 with copay of $95. plus i need preapproval to even be covered. wonder how many thousands of times this scenario will be repeated for seniors...i saw the dr's interview and obviously at 57 it is easy for him to claim life is no longer worthwhile at 75, but for me who will be 70 next month, my life is very enjoyable and valuable, thank you very much! our best defense is a healthy lifestyle so we won't need their rotten healthcare!!!

I saw the interview too and I couldn't believe the words coming out of his mouth. My 90 year old mother is still living life to the fullest and only takes 4 meds on a daily basis. Her two main health issues are arthritis and restless leg syndrome -- you can have those two issues at any age!

Cha, I had labs in late August and the hospital told me that the basic "standing labs" the doctor ordered 5 years ago are no longer covered. I have to have the standing order re-written. I'm new to Medicare so I'm learning. The hosptal and (since then) a doctor have told me that if Medicare doesn't honor your claim that the secondary insurances are now automatically denying the claim. I'm debating what to do about my secondary insurance before my next open season. Both the hospital and the doctor told me this change started in August.

[blueash]

People who are in government jobs are exempt from this insurance.

Please, for the billionth time stop lying about the ACA. You are wrong, completely wrong, 1000 times wrong and I suspect most everything you have been taught to believe about this legislation is wrong. And no I won't apologize for being strident. You came here not to offer an opinion on the utility of medical interventions after 75, nor the value of extending life beyond that age. Instead you are lying about a law because you hate it, out of gross ignorance

Congress and an Exemption from ‘Obamacare’? (http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/)
Did Obama exempt 1,200 groups, including Congress, from Obamacare? - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/16/did-obama-exempt-1200-groups-including-congress-from-obamacare/)
For the last time: Congress is not exempt from ObamaCare - The Week (http://theweek.com/article/index/254747/for-the-last-time-congress-is-not-exempt-from-obamacare)
Fact Check: Did President Obama exempt members of Congress from Obamacare? – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/09/fact-check-did-president-obama-exempt-members-of-congress-from-obamacare/)
In Obamacare, Congress must buy insurance from marketplaces but president and his administration keep "gold-plated" coverage, Rep. Sean Duffy says | PolitiFact Wisconsin (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/oct/21/sean-duffy/obamacare-congress-must-buy-insurance-marketplaces/)
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/congressional-exemption-obamacare-another-myth-153149342.html
Right-Wing Media's Latest Zombie Myth: Congress Is "Exempt" From Obamacare | Research | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/09/17/right-wing-medias-latest-zombie-myth-congress-i/195925)

If that is not enough to get you and other ACA bashers (prevaricators) I can continue to list many more links to educate you. There are no death panels, there are no reductions in the type of services Medicare requires etc. And millions, many millions of Americans now have coverage and no longer face bankruptcy should an illness or injury strike their family.

[blueash]

Spoken as a true believer indeed. I’m impressed with your zeal.

And, just to be precise, what I posted were direct quotes from the good Doctor himself, not “right wing diatribe” in case that was not clear.

As far as reducing health care costs goes, if everyone is “encouraged” to die at age 75, and at some point the Government starts to enforce that, then you are absolutely right … costs will be reduced. The only problem is that a lot of us old people here in TV will be dead because of reduced access to health care.

Dr. Ezekiel really could not have made it any plainer in terms of what he thinks should happen. Too bad the proponents were not honest about it before the law was voted on however.

Well, nice job cherry picking what he said, and his entire history in medical ethics. He has always opposed euthanasia and even physician assisted suicide. His article, and I will give you credit for having read it in its entirety, is a personal statement of what he wants for himself. He absolutely states that he would not support any requirement for anyone else to not have whatever health care they desire. He opposes any rationing other than self imposed rationing (the right to death with dignity).

"And I am not advocating 75 as the official statistic of a complete, good life in order to save resources, ration health care, or address public-policy issues arising from the increases in life expectancy. What I am trying to do is delineate my views for a good life and make my friends and others think about how they want to live as they grow older. I want them to think of an alternative to succumbing to that slow constriction of activities and aspirations imperceptibly imposed by aging. Are we to embrace the “American immortal” or my “75 and no more” view"

Dr. Emanuel simply asserts for himself, and no one else, that his definition of a full life and his reading of studies on the decline of mental and physical function in the elderly has lead to a conclusion for himself that once he reaches 75 he will accept the progress of nature with no medical interventions other than pain control.
"while enduring the physical pain of an elongated dying process."

So you are wrong in suggesting he suggested people be encouraged to die at age 75. He never says that. What he does say is that beyond that age for most, but not all and he acknowledges the exceptions, medical interventions have not been successful in benefiting patients the way he personally feels are worthwhile for HIM. And he concludes that he may change his position on this as he ages.

"My daughters and dear friends will continue to try to convince me that I am wrong and can live a valuable life much longer. And I retain the right to change my mind and offer a vigorous and reasoned defense of living as long as possible. That, after all, would mean still being creative after 75."

[TexaninVA]

Please, for the billionth time stop lying about the ACA. You are wrong, completely wrong, 1000 times wrong and I suspect most everything you have been taught to believe about this legislation is wrong. And no I won't apologize for being strident. You came here not to offer an opinion on the utility of medical interventions after 75, nor the value of extending life beyond that age. Instead you are lying about a law because you hate it, out of gross ignorance

Congress and an Exemption from ‘Obamacare’? (http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/)
Did Obama exempt 1,200 groups, including Congress, from Obamacare? - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/16/did-obama-exempt-1200-groups-including-congress-from-obamacare/)
For the last time: Congress is not exempt from ObamaCare - The Week (http://theweek.com/article/index/254747/for-the-last-time-congress-is-not-exempt-from-obamacare)
Fact Check: Did President Obama exempt members of Congress from Obamacare? – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/09/fact-check-did-president-obama-exempt-members-of-congress-from-obamacare/)
In Obamacare, Congress must buy insurance from marketplaces but president and his administration keep "gold-plated" coverage, Rep. Sean Duffy says | PolitiFact Wisconsin (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/oct/21/sean-duffy/obamacare-congress-must-buy-insurance-marketplaces/)
Yahoo! (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/congressional-exemption-obamacare-another-myth-153149342.html)
Right-Wing Media's Latest Zombie Myth: Congress Is "Exempt" From Obamacare | Research | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/09/17/right-wing-medias-latest-zombie-myth-congress-i/195925)

If that is not enough to get you and other ACA bashers (prevaricators) I can continue to list many more links to educate you. There are no death panels, there are no reductions in the type of services Medicare requires etc. And millions, many millions of Americans now have coverage and no longer face bankruptcy should an illness or injury strike their family.

You produced an impressive research list but you are still missing the primary point of this thread.

To wit, the architect of the ACA says he would like to die at age 75. In effect, he’s saying after age 75 he believes life is not worth living. That is a startling statement to read, especially if you live in a retirement community like The Villages. Would you not agree?

While he says he does not prescribe this for others, it is by no means unreasonable to ask the question …hmm, I wonder if he really believes that? It’s also quite logical to then ask well, if the architect thinks life after 75 is not worth living, and given the need to control health care costs, is it possible the government might actually at some point in the future say … you know, maybe Ezekiel was right in that these pesky old folks are costing us a fortune etc

It’s simply not enough for you to readily dismiss this set of questions as “ACA bashing” while accusing questioners as being “prevaricators.” Even if you are zealous ACA true believer (actually “strident” as you yourself say) you presumably also want to live beyond 75 years, so maybe it’s time you at least thought about the potential influence this guy has on the ACA???

You cannot deny that he said what he did.

[Carl in Tampa]

.

Originally Posted by Sophie11
People who are in government jobs are exempt from this insurance.


Please, for the billionth time stop lying about the ACA. You are wrong, completely wrong, 1000 times wrong and I suspect most everything you have been taught to believe about this legislation is wrong. And no I won't apologize for being strident. You came here not to offer an opinion on the utility of medical interventions after 75, nor the value of extending life beyond that age. Instead you are lying about a law because you hate it, out of gross ignorance

Congress and an Exemption from ‘Obamacare’? (http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/)
Did Obama exempt 1,200 groups, including Congress, from Obamacare? - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/16/did-obama-exempt-1200-groups-including-congress-from-obamacare/)
For the last time: Congress is not exempt from ObamaCare - The Week (http://theweek.com/article/index/254747/for-the-last-time-congress-is-not-exempt-from-obamacare)
Fact Check: Did President Obama exempt members of Congress from Obamacare? – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/09/fact-check-did-president-obama-exempt-members-of-congress-from-obamacare/)
In Obamacare, Congress must buy insurance from marketplaces but president and his administration keep "gold-plated" coverage, Rep. Sean Duffy says | PolitiFact Wisconsin (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/oct/21/sean-duffy/obamacare-congress-must-buy-insurance-marketplaces/)
Yahoo! (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/congressional-exemption-obamacare-another-myth-153149342.html)
Right-Wing Media's Latest Zombie Myth: Congress Is "Exempt" From Obamacare | Research | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/09/17/right-wing-medias-latest-zombie-myth-congress-i/195925)

If that is not enough to get you and other ACA bashers (prevaricators) I can continue to list many more links to educate you. There are no death panels, there are no reductions in the type of services Medicare requires etc. And millions, many millions of Americans now have coverage and no longer face bankruptcy should an illness or injury strike their family.

Well, no...............Sophie11 is not wrong.

Every link you provided has to do with Congress and only Congress. For political cover Congressional employees, but not other government employees, were included in Obamacare. BUT they were also given financial supplements to cover the additional expense that was incurred due to Obamacare.

All other government employees continue to be covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program which is not affected by Obamacare. Both current and retired government employees are covered by FEHB. I know, because I am one of them.

And when a retired government employee reaches Medicare age and Medicare becomes primary, the FEHB Program continues as secondary insurance. I know, because that's where I am.

So, you see Sophie11 was correct.

:icon_wink:

[Rags123]

One point Emanuel is making is that one in three people age 75 or older will develop Alzheimer's or other dementia. Why take extraordinary measures to end up sitting in soiled diapers in a facility for a decade or two? I can't think of any.

I am over 75, and take great offense not only to your post, but you and/or the government making that decision for me. So, individual rights can just go away at 75...... Cheerful, compassionate country we are building.

Thanks for your post.....learned a lot

[blueash]

Last year my wife and I asked for a pneumonia shot when we got our flu shots at a drug store and were told that people no longer age 65 or older would need them. I will ask again this year and see what they say. Statistically people in the last two years of life use more medical care and you know the government based on their actions concerning medicare billing will do whatever they can to cut back One could go but to what avil. Emanuel is typical of the extreme left leaning liberals very unpleasant and mean people....................................

I have no idea what your pharmacist said, or what you understood but there has been absolutely no denial of the pneumonia shot for those who need it. Now perhaps you don't understand that this vaccine is only needed once in your life at age 65, not yearly as with a flu shot. Thus if you had one at 65 or older you should have been informed you didn't need another one. Of course if you want to have it over and over again and pay for it yourself, once you are fully informed of any risks of over use of this vaccine, that would be your choice to make. And this has nothing to do with the ACA, rather vaccine recommendations are made by the ACIP and the CDC.

Pneumococcal shots | Medicare.gov (http://www.medicare.gov/coverage/pneumococcal-shots.html)

Vaccine Information Statement: Pneumococcal Polysaccharide - Vaccines - CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/ppv.html)

I am amazed at your ability to assess the meanness of liberals. So often we get accused of having bleeding hearts and being too soft on the underprivileged. It is hard to keep up with other's expectations.

[TexaninVA]

Well, nice job cherry picking what he said, and his entire history in medical ethics. He has always opposed euthanasia and even physician assisted suicide. His article, and I will give you credit for having read it in its entirety, is a personal statement of what he wants for himself. He absolutely states that he would not support any requirement for anyone else to not have whatever health care they desire. He opposes any rationing other than self imposed rationing (the right to death with dignity).

"And I am not advocating 75 as the official statistic of a complete, good life in order to save resources, ration health care, or address public-policy issues arising from the increases in life expectancy. What I am trying to do is delineate my views for a good life and make my friends and others think about how they want to live as they grow older. I want them to think of an alternative to succumbing to that slow constriction of activities and aspirations imperceptibly imposed by aging. Are we to embrace the “American immortal” or my “75 and no more” view"

Dr. Emanuel simply asserts for himself, and no one else, that his definition of a full life and his reading of studies on the decline of mental and physical function in the elderly has lead to a conclusion for himself that once he reaches 75 he will accept the progress of nature with no medical interventions other than pain control.
"while enduring the physical pain of an elongated dying process."

So you are wrong in suggesting he suggested people be encouraged to die at age 75. He never says that. What he does say is that beyond that age for most, but not all and he acknowledges the exceptions, medical interventions have not been successful in benefiting patients the way he personally feels are worthwhile for HIM. And he concludes that he may change his position on this as he ages.

"My daughters and dear friends will continue to try to convince me that I am wrong and can live a valuable life much longer. And I retain the right to change my mind and offer a vigorous and reasoned defense of living as long as possible. That, after all, would mean still being creative after 75."

You know, I don’t think it can be said any plainer than this---Just because he said it does not mean he truly believes it.

I do not know for a fact what he truly believes, and neither do you, but then again, it would not be the first time in world history someone has obscured their true beliefs or told an untruth for whatever reason. He is a smart, committed guy and is very eloquent.

Nonetheless, I think it’s entirely reasonable to ask that question – does he really truly believe that what applies to him should not apply to others (ie die at age 75)? I mean, come on, this is the guy that essentially wrote the ACA law!

I know you won’t ask this because you’re a zealous supporter, but others will ask it and should. We all have a lot riding on the outcome.

[2BNTV]

If Emmanuel doesn't want to live past 75, that's his decision.

I firmly believe if one has quailty of life, then life is worth living. Physical death is forever, and I personally don't want to rush my final demise.

This thread is starting to debate the ongoing value of the ACA and everyone mind will not be changed. Some are for it, and a lot of people are against it, especially if they take a hit in their wallet.

Either way, it is here to stay. Could it have been a better constructed bill and the answer is yes. Does it need changes and the answer is yes.

Hopefully, the necessary changes will be forthcoming.

[Halibut]

I thought the point he was trying to make is that quality of life is more important to him than longevity. It is to me, too.

I agree. Nowhere does he state that he doesn't want to live beyond 75.

[gomoho]

Guess it's all in perspective. I watched his entire blurb and took away he didn't think life was worth much past the age of 75. I will once again ask the question - when that time comes will he walk the walk or go to the best in the field to treat his ailment that can save and extend his life. Hope to live long enough to learn the answer to that question.

[rjm1cc]

The hca will be remembered in history as a huge breakthrough in the reduction of health care costs. Right wing diatribe will not change it!

But will that be from reducing services or improved preventive health care.

[CFrance]

You produced an impressive research list but you are still missing the primary point of this thread.

To wit, the architect of the ACA says he would like to die at age 75. In effect, he’s saying after age 75 he believes life is not worth living. That is a startling statement to read, especially if you live in a retirement community like The Villages. Would you not agree?

While he says he does not prescribe this for others, it is by no means unreasonable to ask the question …hmm, I wonder if he really believes that? It’s also quite logical to then ask well, if the architect thinks life after 75 is not worth living, and given the need to control health care costs, is it possible the government might actually at some point in the future say … you know, maybe Ezekiel was right in that these pesky old folks are costing us a fortune etc

It’s simply not enough for you to readily dismiss this set of questions as “ACA bashing” while accusing questioners as being “prevaricators.” Even if you are zealous ACA true believer (actually “strident” as you yourself say) you presumably also want to live beyond 75 years, so maybe it’s time you at least thought about the potential influence this guy has on the ACA???

You cannot deny that he said what he did.
And that's all you can do--ask the question. There is no proof, nor even a tiny bit of a hint, that he constructed the ACA with the idea in mind that people's lives were not worth living after age 75. That is your personal speculation not backed up by any facts, and it's an outrageous accusation.

And I can deny that what he said applies to anyone other than himself, because he said so.

I am agreement with blueash that this ACA-bashing is based on inaccurate information being put forth by people who are just plain ticked off from listening to the rhetoric of certain people rather than doing their own research.

I am sure there were those violently opposed to Medicare as well. And where would you be without it? And try affording a medical insurance supplement before ACA with a prior existing condition.

And oh--at age 66 last year, I was offered--offered!--a pneumonia shot, paid for by Medicare. I was offered one again this year. I have been having the same labs I always had, with no denial of coverage. I have a supplemental D plan that I pay decent money for so it will cover me anywhere and with any doctor. I am not trying to get along on a free or cheap advantage plan that keeps changing benefits and doctors. You get what you pay for.

[Barefoot]

To wit, the architect of the ACA says he would like to die at age 75. In effect, he’s saying after age 75 he believes life is not worth living.


So you are wrong in suggesting he suggested people be encouraged to die at age 75. He never says that. And he concludes that he may change his position on this as he ages.


It scares us to think anyone could contemplate that life after age 75 isn't worthwhile or fulfilling.

[billethkid]

I am over 75, and take great offense not only to your post, but you and/or the government making that decision for me. So, individual rights can just go away at 75...... Cheerful, compassionate country we are building.

Thanks for your post.....learned a lot

Hey rags if you and I are OK then we just need her to volunteer to "check out" and that would fullfill her one in three support obligation.

When people have nothing invested or any risk from what they support they can speak very bravely (remaining polite about it!)

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by rp001 View Post
The hca will be remembered in history as a huge breakthrough in the reduction of health care costs. Right wing diatribe will not change it!

Of course it will be remembered and when there is a possibility they may not make a reduction they can always reduce the viable age from 75 to something lower to make/fake the numbers:1rotfl:

[chachacha]

CFrance asks where we would be without medicare? i think we would have lower medical charges and private insurance. when any organization knows the govt is going to pay for something, charges go up....look at college tuition! it is almost impossible to buy health ins if you are over 65, since they only sell supplements for medicare! i experienced this personally when my late husband could not find ins (he was not American) in this country. his excellent private european coverage would have covered him anywhere in the world except USA because of our obscene costs. we really don't know where we would have been if medicare did not come in and force everyone to be on it. as it stands now, of course, we are glad to have it because there is nothing else!

[villagerjack]

I thought the point he was trying to make is that quality of life is more important to him than longevity. It is to me, too.

But who defines quality, the government?

[jblum315]

I thought the point he was trying to make is that quality of life is more important to him than longevity. It is to me, too.

That is exactly what Mr. Emanuel said. No more, no less.

[CFrance]

CFrance asks where we would be without medicare? i think we would have lower medical charges and private insurance. when any organization knows the govt is going to pay for something, charges go up....look at college tuition! it is almost impossible to buy health ins if you are over 65, since they only sell supplements for medicare! i experienced this personally when my late husband could not find ins (he was not American) in this country. his excellent private european coverage would have covered him anywhere in the world except USA because of our obscene costs. we really don't know where we would have been if medicare did not come in and force everyone to be on it. as it stands now, of course, we are glad to have it because there is nothing else!
But who paid for your late husband's excellent European health care--his government? I don't know where he is from, but that is the case in most European nations. And their health care costs are much lower than ours.

The flaw in the ACA is that a compromise had to be made so that it is not a single payer system, like Medicare.

[Rags123]

Hey rags if you and I are OK then we just need her to volunteer to "check out" and that would fullfill her one in three support obligation.

When people have nothing invested or any risk from what they support they can speak very bravely (remaining polite about it!)


I noticed that. Seems from these posts that when I reached 75 I should have just reported to some warehouse to be processed and get out of everybody's say. Without details, I believe I give and offer more to this country than most of those who are posting about my group.

At least, I am not intending to " take extraordinary measures to end up sitting in soiled diapers in a facility for a decade or two?" What a crass and cold statement that is.

I hope when the posters who make comments like that or feel that way, get to 75, they will feel the same way about themselves or loved ones.

I suppose to be in the elite allows such views.

[TexaninVA]

And that's all you can do--ask the question. There is no proof, nor even a tiny bit of a hint, that he constructed the ACA with the idea in mind that people's lives were not worth living after age 75. That is your personal speculation not backed up by any facts, and it's an outrageous accusation.

And I can deny that what he said applies to anyone other than himself, because he said so.

I am agreement with blueash that this ACA-bashing is based on inaccurate information being put forth by people who are just plain ticked off from listening to the rhetoric of certain people rather than doing their own research.

I am sure there were those violently opposed to Medicare as well. And where would you be without it? And try affording a medical insurance supplement before ACA with a prior existing condition.

And oh--at age 66 last year, I was offered--offered!--a pneumonia shot, paid for by Medicare. I was offered one again this year. I have been having the same labs I always had, with no denial of coverage. I have a supplemental D plan that I pay decent money for so it will cover me anywhere and with any doctor. I am not trying to get along on a free or cheap advantage plan that keeps changing benefits and doctors. You get what you pay for.

And that's all you can do--ask the question. There is no proof, nor even a tiny bit of a hint, that he constructed the ACA with the idea in mind that people's lives were not worth living after age 75. That is your personal speculation not backed up by any facts, and it's an outrageous accusation.
...
It is not “outrageous” in the least to ask the question that I did. To the contrary, it is only logical to inquire given what’s on the table and especially given who said it. Actually, it’s worse to willfully ignore the possibility and then react with predictable indication to those who ponder it.


I am sure there were those violently opposed to Medicare as well. ....
....
Talk about outrageous  I honestly don’t recall anyone, ever, being “violently” opposed to Medicare. That’s a very loose use of the word violent. Perhaps you meant "vehement?"


And I can deny that what he said applies to anyone other than himself, because he said so....

Now this is truly one of the most unbelievable comments I’ve ever seen posted anywhere. If effect, you can take what he said at full faith “…because he said so.” Did you really mean to say that?

I hope you misspoke because this is the weakest argument anyone can ever conjure up. I hate to break it to you but people sometimes don't always tell the whole truth and nothing but. There are, in history, literally infinite numbers of examples to the contrary of which I cite only a few here.

• I did not kill my wife and her boyfriend …. OJ Simpson
• In 1962, Nikita Khrushev assured John F. Kennedy that no offensive missiles would be placed in Cuba.
• Chancellor Hitler told me he would not invade and thus no war
• "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
• “read my lips … no new taxes”
• “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”
• “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus”

[Gary7]

But who paid for your late husband's excellent European health care--his government? I don't know where he is from, but that is the case in most European nations. And their health care costs are much lower than ours.

The flaw in the ACA is that a compromise had to be made so that it is not a single payer system, like Medicare.
"The flaw in the ACA is that a compromise had to be made so that it is not a single payer system, like Medicare." --->
I totally agree. If ACA was single payer, then it would alleviate some of these issues that we are discussing.

Also, would all those against ACA be the first in line to give up their government sponsored Medicare benefits? I bet they would not give these benefits up.

[blueash]

CFrance asks where we would be without medicare? i think we would have lower medical charges and private insurance. when any organization knows the govt is going to pay for something, charges go up....look at college tuition! it is almost impossible to buy health ins if you are over 65, since they only sell supplements for medicare! i experienced this personally when my late husband could not find ins (he was not American) in this country. his excellent private european coverage would have covered him anywhere in the world except USA because of our obscene costs. we really don't know where we would have been if medicare did not come in and force everyone to be on it. as it stands now, of course, we are glad to have it because there is nothing else!

Well, it seems that you believe that Medicare is a boon to providers. That because it is paid by the government there are higher costs. How about explaining then why doctors and hospitals would MUCH rather have patients covered by private insurance than by Medicare? Yes we have obscene costs driven in part by our fee for service system and in part by our insistence that there is a test, a medication, an operation, a therapy for everything, damn the cost I have insurance for that. We do know a lot about how the elderly did before Medicare. And you are not required to participate in the Medicare system so that argument is specious. Go ahead and find an insurance carrier willing to cover you. By the way, one place you will likely find lower rates for your private insurance non Medicare policy is by using, wait for it....
Healthcare.gov or as you might call it the Obamacare website. And you can be sure that hospitals and private doctors will be receiving higher payments from your private policy than they would have from Medicare

[rubicon]

I have no idea what your pharmacist said, or what you understood but there has been absolutely no denial of the pneumonia shot for those who need it. Now perhaps you don't understand that this vaccine is only needed once in your life at age 65, not yearly as with a flu shot. Thus if you had one at 65 or older you should have been informed you didn't need another one. Of course if you want to have it over and over again and pay for it yourself, once you are fully informed of any risks of over use of this vaccine, that would be your choice to make. And this has nothing to do with the ACA, rather vaccine recommendations are made by the ACIP and the CDC.

Pneumococcal shots | Medicare.gov (http://www.medicare.gov/coverage/pneumococcal-shots.html)

Vaccine Information Statement: Pneumococcal Polysaccharide - Vaccines - CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/ppv.html)

I am amazed at your ability to assess the meanness of liberals. So often we get accused of having bleeding hearts and being too soft on the underprivileged. It is hard to keep up with other's expectations.

Hi Blueash: My wife and I did have a pneumonia shot at 65. The event had been arranged by The Villages. the medical providers made it clear then that the injection was good for only 5 years. So at age 70 we approached CVS for both the flue shot and an updated pneumonia. Perhaps the CVS doc was wrong and we will make another attempt

What transpired from the government concerning the need during those 5 years since I leave to people like you who argue that they are more enlightened.

As for liberals their well intentioned activities have advanced an entitlement state and have poisoned the minds of students with their anti-capitalist.
anti-nationalism can you say Bill Ayers or Ward /Churchill?

Because of ACA I have to search out supplement this year as my employer is savvy enough to recognize that prices are going to go out of sight and deductibles and co-insurance increase but we have the satisfaction of knowing the big O found room in ACA to accommodate the recent flood of illegals complements of taxpayers.

You also do not mention the tight and exclusive control government will possess with this newly organized healthcare system

[pbkmaine]

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/)

The countries with the best health outcomes and lower costs are those with universal healthcare through their governments. There are trade offs. Long waits for some procedures. Private options are available for those who want them. The Canadians and Europeans I know are generally happy with their systems. To me, that makes more sense than my very expensive Aetna coverage (I am not yet eligible for Medicare) where doctors go on and off the list every year. And if I end up in an emergency room, I may be liable for tens of thousands of dollars in charges because maybe that doctor does not take Aetna.

[billethkid]

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/)

The countries with the best health outcomes and lower costs are those with universal healthcare through their governments. There are trade offs. Long waits for some procedures. Private options are available for those who want them. The Canadians and Europeans I know are generally happy with their systems. To me, that makes more sense than my very expensive Aetna coverage (I am not yet eligible for Medicare) where doctors go on and off the list every year. And if I end up in an emergency room, I may be liable for tens of thousands of dollars in charges because maybe that doctor does not take Aetna.

For those of us who have enjoyed excellent coverage and doctors we will have to take advantage of the private options to remain at parity with what we are accustomed to and will continue to have. IT MOST CERTAINLY WILL NOT BE WITH ACA!!!!!

And those who support it today will find in the future that the health care you have now is the very best and at the lowest cost you will experience from here onwards. When the REAL costs finally come to roost and insurance companies begin to raise prices or close up shop there will be one payer....the US Government. Just look at the USPS and how much money they lose every year. The real cost of insurance will rise more dramatically than anything we have seen to date.

Good luck in your belief.....while it lasts.

[Rags123]

I think this law has been rolled out in a very neat package.

I am concerned that we have not even seen the taxes associated with this nor its impact on those who give it rave reviews.

Examples...

"A significant benefit of the Affordable Care Act is the opportunity to receive money-saving tax credits up front to cut the overall cost of health insurance, but now hundreds of thousands of consumers could owe back some of that money next April.

Those affected took advance payments of the premium tax credit for health insurance. Some married couples could owe $600 or $1,500 or $2,500 or even more. It might feel like a raw deal for some who are already suffocating under the escalating costs of health insurance.

"Health insurance is confusing enough, and now they're adding the complexities of the Tax Code," said Lorena Bencsik, a member of the Michigan Association of CPAs and owner of Prime Numbers in Ferndale."

Tax refunds will be cut for ACA recipients (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/tompor/2014/09/21/susan-tompor-tax-refunds-will-be-cut-for-some-who-get-health-credits/15958211/)

5 Tax Impacts of Obamacare

5 Tax Impacts of Obamacare - TheStreet (http://www.thestreet.com/story/12057127/1/5-tax-impacts-of-obamacare.html)

The delays by the administration to fully implement this law is going to surprise folks soon.

I have always worried about the costs of this bill, and no amount of politics or current studies can convince me that these delays are simply putting us at ease until the @@@@ hits the fan.

"Massachusetts representative Stephen Lynch isn’t just worried about the negative impact Obamacare will have on his party’s performance this fall — he also thinks its worst effects on our health-care system are still to come. Lynch, who voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2010, warned that the situation is “going to hit the fan” when the law’s delayed provisions go into effect down the road.

“There are parts of Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, that were postponed because they are unpalatable,” he told the Boston Herald. The “Cadillac tax” that goes into effect in a few years and taxes employer health plans over a certain value, he said, will be “the first time in this country’s history that we have actually taxed health care.”

Dem Congressman on Obamacare: The Worst Is Yet to Come, It's 'Going to Hit the Fan' | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/376191/dem-congressman-obamacare-worst-yet-come-its-going-hit-fan-andrew-johnson)

The key phrase here is....."“There are parts of Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, that were postponed because they are unpalatable,” he told the Boston Herald. "


These delays have made any CBO studies moot.

But then again, I am over 75 and probably have Alzhiemers and am sitting in soiled diapers

[B767drvr]

For those of us who have enjoyed excellent coverage and doctors we will have to take advantage of the private options to remain at parity with what we are accustomed to and will continue to have. IT MOST CERTAINLY WILL NOT BE WITH ACA!!!!!

And those who support it today will find in the future that the health care you have now is the very best and at the lowest cost you will experience from here onwards. When the REAL costs finally come to roost and insurance companies begin to raise prices or close up shop there will be one payer....the US Government. Just look at the USPS and how much money they lose every year. The real cost of insurance will rise more dramatically than anything we have seen to date.

Good luck in your belief.....while it lasts.

:bigbow:

[chachacha]

But who paid for your late husband's excellent European health care--his government? I don't know where he is from, but that is the case in most European nations. And their health care costs are much lower than ours.

The flaw in the ACA is that a compromise had to be made so that it is not a single payer system, like Medicare.

no, my husband had a private ins based on his income, in conjunction with the govt program. i later edited my post to insert the word private to avoid remarks like this.

[perrjojo]

The good doctor must have read Boomsday, a book by Christopher Buckley. In the book the government asks people to "transition" at age 70 in exchange for Botox and tax breaks. This is all in the name of saving on health care. It is also obvious that he is a long way from 75.

[TexaninVA]

The good doctor must have read Boomsday, a book by Christopher Buckley. In the book the government asks people to "transition" at age 70 in exchange for Botox and tax breaks. This is all in the name of saving on health care. It is also obvious that he is a long way from 75.

Yes, as you and other posters have noted, will be interesting to see how the good Doctor feels about this at age 75. He'll have grandkids, life expectancy will probably be expanded etc. In any event, if he wants to pull his own plug that's up to him. But, my question remains ... how much influence does the architect of the ACA have on the edifice he built?

To simply say "none" as a matter of religious like belief is incredibly naïve. It's also interesting to see how true believers quickly, and literally, get indignant for even raising the question. It's like they've switched their skepticism buttons into mute mode. Whatever happened to that timeless bromide on the Left about "question authority? "

Be that as it may, any other civil observations or thoughts on this topic are welcome ...

[graciegirl]

Here he is, appears to be a smart man who was born the year I graduated high school.Ezekiel Emanuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezekiel_Emanuel)

Seems like he shouldn't say how he'd think to feel when he is 75,

I have as much, maybe more, zest for living now as I had when I was much younger. 75 is the new 39.

[villagerjack]

That is exactly what Mr. Emanuel said. No more, no less.

If he was not the architect of Obamacare, perhaps that may be true.

[Chi-Town]

If he was not the architect of Obamacare, perhaps that may be true.
Breitbart said the chief architect of the ACA (Obamacare) was MIT economist Dr. Jonathan Gruber. Perhaps we're attaching too much importance to Dr. Emanuel.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/06/Congress-Relied-on-Obamacare-Architect-Gruber-Period

[blueash]

Hi Blueash: My wife and I did have a pneumonia shot at 65. The event had been arranged by The Villages. the medical providers made it clear then that the injection was good for only 5 years. So at age 70 we approached CVS for both the flue shot and an updated pneumonia. Perhaps the CVS doc was wrong and we will make another attempt

What transpired from the government concerning the need during those 5 years since I leave to people like you who argue that they are more enlightened.

As for liberals their well intentioned activities have advanced an entitlement state and have poisoned the minds of students with their anti-capitalist.
anti-nationalism can you say Bill Ayers or Ward /Churchill?

Because of ACA I have to search out supplement this year as my employer is savvy enough to recognize that prices are going to go out of sight and deductibles and co-insurance increase but we have the satisfaction of knowing the big O found room in ACA to accommodate the recent flood of illegals complements of taxpayers.

You also do not mention the tight and exclusive control government will possess with this newly organized healthcare system

And staying on topic of whether the ACA resulted in a CVS pharmacist denying you a shot, the answer is no. I will not attempt to refute your other errors as they are not germane to this thread. And I don't understand why when you have been informed that if you had a pneumonia (PCV-23) shot at age 65 or older you do not ever need a second dose you nonetheless insist that you are going to try to get one again. If the information you provided is true, that you and spouse received a dose at age 65 you are done, no more needed pneumonia shots. Clear and understood? If you don't believe my post, and there is no reason you should, please click on the links I provided giving the CDC and ACIP guidance for the shot. Just to further confuse you, 2 weeks ago the ACIP proposed adding the pediatric PCV-13 vaccine which is a different with some overlap set of antigens. Should this recommendation be accepted then there will be a suggestion of a different pneumonia vaccine to be given 12 + months after the PCV-23. But that is completely new and not implemented. Note the word preview in the link.

Use of 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine and 23-Valent Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine Among Adults Aged ?65 Years: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6337a4.htm#box)

[blueash]

If he was not the architect of Obamacare, perhaps that may be true.

This is at least the third repeat of the phrase "architect of Obamacare" Billethkid in post #10, TexaninVA post 16, "this guy essentially wrote the law" in post 20, and of course the name of the thread.

Now what I had believed until you told me that Dr. Emanuel wrote the ACA was that it was written by Sen Baucus's staff. Dr. Emanuel is on record as supporting a private voucher system which altered the role of private insurance certainly not the formulation of the ACA. He also wanted to eliminate the corporate tax deduction for employee health insurance. Dr. Emanuel was an advisor to the White House on health care but if you are familiar with what he wanted in the bill it seems to me he got very little of what he wanted for someone who you label the guy who wrote the law.

Inside the Making of Obamacare - WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303824204579421553914382752)

[TexaninVA]

This is at least the third repeat of the phrase "architect of Obamacare" Billethkid in post #10, TexaninVA post 16, "this guy essentially wrote the law" in post 20, and of course the name of the thread.

Now what I had believed until you told me that Dr. Emanuel wrote the ACA was that it was written by Sen Baucus's staff. Dr. Emanuel is on record as supporting a private voucher system which altered the role of private insurance certainly not the formulation of the ACA. He also wanted to eliminate the corporate tax deduction for employee health insurance. Dr. Emanuel was an advisor to the White House on health care but if you are familiar with what he wanted in the bill it seems to me he got very little of what he wanted for someone who you label the guy who wrote the law.

Inside the Making of Obamacare - WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303824204579421553914382752)

I think the phrase “architect” is quite properly an accurate description of Dr. Emanuel’s role. Obviously he did not literally write the entire law, and that’s not to say that others also did not have an influence. There are others who played a key role, such as Donald Berwick and Professor Gruber. But, you seem to be saying “nope, Emanuel really didn’t have much to do with it” thus no worries about any undue influence.

However, any reasonable evaluation of the history of ACA and the press coverage thereof, indicates that Dr. Emanuel has long been a leading force in this area and can reasonably described as the architect of ACA. If one wants to split hairs, then say he’s one of the key architects. It doesn’t really matter.

What’s really interesting about this discussion is that, by even asking the question that I did, some are truly offended. Worse, their natural skepticism seems to simply go mute in ways it would not for other topics of interest. In one case, asking the question about Dr. Emanuel in connection with his preference to die at age 75 (and the possible repercussions policy-wise down the road for us the patients) was deemed “outrageous.” It’s almost like some people want to simply cover their eyes and ears, or maybe reach for the vapors.

But, the reality remains … this guy (a key player in ACA no matter how one slices it) obviously thinks the world would be a better place if people died at or around age 75. He says this just applies to him. Just because he said this, does not means it’s true, nor does it mean we should just ignore what he said.

This is particularly relevant given we all know the system is going to be broke at some point, and they will need to find a way to save money. That’s where this philosophy could well come into play. It's not that much of a stretch to imagine some administrator pondering this as an option.

[janmcn]

I think the phrase “architect” is quite properly an accurate description of Dr. Emanuel’s role. Obviously he did not literally write the entire law, and that’s not to say that others also did not have an influence. There are others who played a key role, such as Donald Berwick and Professor Gruber. But, you seem to be saying “nope, Emanuel really didn’t have much to do with it” thus no worries about any undue influence.

However, any reasonable evaluation of the history of ACA and the press coverage thereof, indicates that Dr. Emanuel has long been a leading force in this area and can reasonably described as the architect of ACA. If one wants to split hairs, then say he’s one of the key architects. It doesn’t really matter.

What’s really interesting about this discussion is that, by even asking the question that I did, some are truly offended. Worse, their natural skepticism seems to simply go mute in ways it would not for other topics of interest. In one case, asking the question about Dr. Emanuel in connection with his preference to die at age 75 (and the possible repercussions policy-wise down the road for us the patients) was deemed “outrageous.” It’s almost like some people want to simply cover their eyes and ears, or maybe reach for the vapors.

But, the reality remains … this guy (a key player in ACA no matter how one slices it) obviously thinks the world would be a better place if people died at or around age 75. He says this just applies to him. Just because he said this, does not means it’s true, nor does it mean we should just ignore what he said.

This is particularly relevant given we all know the system is going to be broke at some point, and they will need to find a way to save money. That’s where this philosophy could well come into play. It's not that much of a stretch to imagine some administrator pondering this as an option.

Why would a 75 year old be on the ACA when they are eligible for Medicare? Your complaints should be with Medicare, and I doubt Dr Emanuel had anything to do with the 50 year old, single-payer socialist system, commonly known as Medicare, or affectionately known as LBJ care.

[TexaninVA]

Why would a 75 year old be on the ACA when they are eligible for Medicare? Your complaints should be with Medicare, and I doubt Dr Emanuel had anything to do with the 50 year old, single-payer socialist system, commonly known as Medicare, or affectionately known as LBJ care.

I would like to thank Dr. Alinsky for his keen insights and historical perspective.

[Aandjmassage]

Bet he changes his mind when gets to 75

[dbussone]

Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm, Mayor of Chicago) is one of the moving forces and intellectual leaders whose efforts culminated in the recent Affordable Health Care Act. He has come out directly and stated he thinks it would be ideal if he dies at age 75. That got my attention! While he says he is not advocating this for anyone else, I’m thinking … of course you would not come out and advocate this for obvious reasons.



While I can’t find any evidence yet to support it, I think it’s reasonable to ask if that philosophy is thus embedded somewhere in the law? I hope not. But this guy is charmingly chilling in his prescriptions and gives me the creeps.



What do Villagers think of the idea of his idea dying at age 75? I’m curious to see peoples’ reaction to Dr. Emanuel’s” enlightened” views, particular since his fingerprints are all over the new law, and probably in ways we don’t even yet know about.



Ps Here’s a direct quote that I thought was particularly interesting from Dr. Emanuel



“This means colonoscopies and other cancer-screening tests are out—and before 75. If I were diagnosed with cancer now, at 57, I would probably be treated, unless the prognosis was very poor. But 65 will be my last colonoscopy. No screening for prostate cancer at any age. (When a urologist gave me a PSA test even after I said I wasn’t interested and called me with the results, I hung up before he could tell me. He ordered the test for himself, I told him, not for me.) After 75, if I develop cancer, I will refuse treatment. Similarly, no cardiac stress test. No pacemaker and certainly no implantable defibrillator. No heart-valve replacement or bypass surgery. If I develop emphysema or some similar disease that involves frequent exacerbations that would, normally, land me in the hospital, I will accept treatment to ameliorate the discomfort caused by the feeling of suffocation, but will refuse to be hauled off.



What about simple stuff? Flu shots are out. Certainly if there were to be a flu pandemic, a younger person who has yet to live a complete life ought to get the vaccine or any antiviral drugs. A big challenge is antibiotics for pneumonia or skin and urinary infections. Antibiotics are cheap and largely effective in curing infections. It is really hard for us to say no. Indeed, even people who are sure they don’t want life-extending treatments find it hard to refuse antibiotics. But, as Osler reminds us, unlike the decays associated with chronic conditions, death from these infections is quick and relatively painless. So, no to antibiotics.”



Here’s a link to the full article:



Why I Hope to Die at 75 - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/)


I think this probably works well for him. I am on a schedule determined by God. Whether it be 75 or 95, I'll be ready.

[Villages PL]

I wonder if push came to shove if the good Dr. Emmanuel would walk the walk or high tail it to the best doctor he could find to treat his condition and extend his life.

Studies have been done showing that people change their minds about how long they want to live as they get older. When they are young they think 75 is real old and they don't want to live any longer than that. Then when they reach age 75 they will change their upper limit to about 80. And if they reach 80 they will say 85 is enough and on and on it goes.

[Villages PL]

.........for me who will be 70 next month, my life is very enjoyable and valuable, thank you very much! our best defense is a healthy lifestyle so we won't need their rotten healthcare!!!

I'm 73 and I couldn't agree more! :bigbow:

[rubicon]

And staying on topic of whether the ACA resulted in a CVS pharmacist denying you a shot, the answer is no. I will not attempt to refute your other errors as they are not germane to this thread. And I don't understand why when you have been informed that if you had a pneumonia (PCV-23) shot at age 65 or older you do not ever need a second dose you nonetheless insist that you are going to try to get one again. If the information you provided is true, that you and spouse received a dose at age 65 you are done, no more needed pneumonia shots. Clear and understood? If you don't believe my post, and there is no reason you should, please click on the links I provided giving the CDC and ACIP guidance for the shot. Just to further confuse you, 2 weeks ago the ACIP proposed adding the pediatric PCV-13 vaccine which is a different with some overlap set of antigens. Should this recommendation be accepted then there will be a suggestion of a different pneumonia vaccine to be given 12 + months after the PCV-23. But that is completely new and not implemented. Note the word preview in the link.

Use of 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine and 23-Valent Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine Among Adults Aged ?65 Years: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6337a4.htm#box)

blueash: wow! all I thought I said was CVS told me I didn't need it. what brought this issue back to me was an article in WSJ referencing your above-stated references. That is why i said I would go back and check because the article conflicted with what CVS told me. I try to post with the intent that I do not seek argument and only present my opinion but understandably it can happen that a subject touches a nerve.

Personal Best Regards:

[Barefoot]

Wrinklies often think that old is their current age plus ten years.
So we usually don't think of ourselves as old fogies.
The youngsters do that for us.

[kellyjam]

I had an Aunt who when in her early 40's saw a relative die at 56 and said well he had a full live. When she was in her early 70's a relative of hers died at 83 she said my God he was just getting to enjoy life! Age has a way of changing one's perspective. That being said with 200 Trillion of unfunded contingent liabilities the Government is now doing what they put Dr, Jack Kevorkian in jail for.

[CFrance]

no, my husband had a private ins based on his income, in conjunction with the govt program. i later edited my post to insert the word private to avoid remarks like this.

"Remarks like this..." I believe it was a legitimate remark. And this is is how Medicare is working for us--public supplemented by private. And it's working quite well for us. Plus ACA meant I could afford insurance with a pre-existing condition without having to pay $700 a month for very poor coverage before age 65. I will never be convinced that without Medicare the insurance companies would have held their costs down. They are for-profit businesses.

[chachacha]

the ins co's would have held the costs down on what they would pay for services, while the govt spends our money with abandon :) so we are billed $4 for an aspirin. i still feel that matters like pre-existing conditions and over state line coverage can be handled much more efficiently than a 2000 page bill which no one read. but i am glad that you have found a benefit from the act. i, on the other hand, have lost benefits and thousands have lost jobs in the balance.