:bigbow:

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.

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 ...

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.

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-Governm...-Gruber-Period

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)

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

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.

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

Bet he changes his mind when gets to 75

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.

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.

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

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:

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.

"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.

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.