[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by blueash

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’?
Did Obama exempt 1,200 groups, including Congress, from Obamacare? - The Washington Post
For the last time: Congress is not exempt from ObamaCare - The Week
Fact Check: Did President Obama exempt members of Congress from Obamacare? – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
In Obamacare, Congress must buy insurance from marketplaces but president and his administration keep "gold-plated" coverage, Rep. Sean Duffy says | PolitiFact Wisconsin
Yahoo!
Right-Wing Media's Latest Zombie Myth: Congress Is "Exempt" From Obamacare | Research | Media Matters for America

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.

Originally Posted by blueash

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’?
Did Obama exempt 1,200 groups, including Congress, from Obamacare? - The Washington Post
For the last time: Congress is not exempt from ObamaCare - The Week
Fact Check: Did President Obama exempt members of Congress from Obamacare? – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
In Obamacare, Congress must buy insurance from marketplaces but president and his administration keep "gold-plated" coverage, Rep. Sean Duffy says | PolitiFact Wisconsin
Yahoo!
Right-Wing Media's Latest Zombie Myth: Congress Is "Exempt" From Obamacare | Research | Media Matters for America

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.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by rubicon

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

Vaccine Information Statement: Pneumococcal Polysaccharide - Vaccines - CDC

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]

Originally Posted by blueash

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]

Originally Posted by rp001

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]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

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]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

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.

Originally Posted by blueash

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]

Originally Posted by Rags123

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

But who defines quality, the government?