[jblum315]

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.

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

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by billethkid

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]

Originally Posted by CFrance

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.

Originally Posted by CFrance

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.

Originally Posted by CFrance

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?"

Originally Posted by CFrance

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]

Originally Posted by CFrance

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by blueash

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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by pbkmaine

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

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

5 Tax Impacts of Obamacare

5 Tax Impacts of Obamacare - TheStreet

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

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]

Originally Posted by billethkid

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.

[chachacha]

Originally Posted by CFrance

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.