[villagerjack]

Originally Posted by jblum315

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]

Originally Posted by villagerjack

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

[blueash]

Originally Posted by rubicon

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)

[blueash]

Originally Posted by villagerjack

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

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by blueash

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.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

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]

Originally Posted by janmcn

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by chachacha

.........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!

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by blueash

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)

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]

Originally Posted by chachacha

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.