Posted on 07/26/2009 5:29:45 PM PDT by pharmamom
Ezekiel Emmanuel, Rahm’s health-wonk brother, wants the nation’s seniors to just get on with it. Death, that is. Believing that older Americans have already had their fair share of time, he suggests that they be denied health care resources—out of a concern for justice, apparently. This, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, sums it up:
'In a January article published in the British medical journal Lancet, Emanuel and his co-authors advocate a health rationing policy that discriminates against older people. They wrote, “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination … Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life years is not.” And, “although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them.”'
So, does that mean Obama is going to deny the mother-in-law medical care should she suffer illness or injury? What about his own mother? Maybe he could talk to some of those Canadian Muslims about swimming lessons for the elderly, get some tips about how to make it go smoothly.
Somehow, I don’t think this is going to go over very well with the AARP.
Obama Care - Deathcare.
Backhoe do you have any of your great graphics you could add to this thread?
Ezekiel playing roulette huh. With others’ lives in play. Or is it Wheel of Fortunes?
See page 425 of the new healthcare bill - counseling sessions for seniors on how to die - this is not a joke
Hmmm...I thought that was his dad.
The AARP knows all about it. They agreed with the Obama Administration to the cuts in Medicare providing Medicare was opened up to people between ages 50 and 64 - that way, AARP can sell a new group of people Medicare Supplement Insurance (as approved by the Obama Administration).
The AARP is primarily about selling insurance - protecting the rights of seniors is just a sales ploy.
Men who think like Ezekiel Emanuel need to be contained for the good of society.
Yes, I know, I have been trying to explain the deathcare bill to several today who supported it. EVEN with the end of life counseling mandatory, I could not win. These are Obama koolaid drinkers of the worst sort.
“We have to do something about healthcare”
One even said - for a doctor to make $350K is outrageous and must be stopped!
But, I said, putting a government bureaucrat in charge of what care you receive and don’t receive and your end of life situation which should by no means include government bureaucratic decisions.....is more like Nazi Germany than the USA!
How about posting it, if possible?
The longer their parents live, the less inheritance they’ll get.
I agree. The problem really lies with 71 1/2 and over. They want heart transplants and want us to pay for it.
As I have said before, we just allocate a percentage of GDP to Medicare and be done with it. But Obama wants to cut healthcare to people over 65 and give it to illegal immigrants.
F*ck Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
The solution is LESS government involvement in healthcare, not more. It includes tort reform bigtme. It includes giving more tax incentives to healthcare reimbursement accounts and users of those accounts....just for starters.
Start calling Ft Myers and snow bird papers to ask if the communities like the snowbirds’ business (and relatives’) or not.
Farm agencies & small weeklies. 4-H.
Think it is brother...
Pharmboy, eh. Am I your mother?
AMen!
I agree 100% about the solution’s being less government involvement. My point was that many seniors have abetted this march towards socialism by refusing to consider HOW the government will pay for endless entitlements. Many old Americans who are now afraid they won’t get pacesetters at age 100 were the same people who got hysterical when raising the age for SS benefits was ever raised.
bump
To be sure, end of life care and the costs associated with it is an ethical issue we need to address. What we don’t need, though, is for the government to address it for us. And end of life care is a different question than allocating resources to seniors for routine care...we do not want to be in the position of having the government deciding at what point a life loses value.
From what I read, the bulk of our healthcare $ are spent on a minority of the populace with chronic disease (80/20). That 20% is probably mostly of an older age, but not necessarily. Do we want the government denying care to a 40-year-old with chronic disease because they have used up “their share?”
The government needs to free up the market for something that is truly “insurance;” people need to pony up for their routine maintenance care; and conversations about end-of-life care and extraordinary measures need to take place privately, among family members, not with the government bean-counters.
I have paid into SS my entire working life by force. I am a few years away from Social Security. I understand that I will likely never see it.
The seniors in this country who have worked all their lives and by force had to pay into Social Security are DUE their payout. I do not begrudge them that at all and at age 65.
What I resent is government workers who retire at 50 and get full benefits at THAT age for the next 40 or 50 years at taxpayer expense. Let’s talk about the fairness of THAT.
AARP supports it.
They want the “old” people dead so the “newly old” have more resources.
I’m not a member of AARP and detest that my Insurance Company is associated with them.
Everyone should get his SS benefits, but we must raise the age at which people can receive them. Very, very few people will consider doing this, and this mentality has paved the way for more socialism.
Yeah, we can have medicare only in reverse. Everyone has full coverage up to age 65, then nothing, can't even see a Doc because it would take up the time which could otherwise be devoted to a 25 or so year old. I'll bet this guy is great with kids having learning disabilities as well.
You are right, so lower the cost with tort reform, but BO is the Mistress of he Trial Lawyers.
My friend has this idea.
“While discussing the upcoming Universal Health Care Program with my sister-in-law the other day, I think we have found the solution. I am sure you have heard the ideas that if you’re a senior you need to suck it up and give up the idea that you need any health care. A new hip? Unheard of. We simply can’t afford to take care of you anymore. You don’t need any medications for your high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. Let’s take care of the young people. After all, they will be ruling the world very soon.
So here is the solution. When you turn 70, you get a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives. Of course, you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head and all the health care you need!!! New teeth, great!!! Need glasses, no problem. New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Well bring it on. And who will be paying for all of this. The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. And, since you are a prisoner, you don’t have to pay any income tax. “
I am sure that anyone who falls into the category of “chronic user” is in his gun sights. I haven’t read the paper in the Lancet—I assume he published it there (2nd tier journal) because it got a cold reception with journals here in the States. Of course it would go over well in Britain—they already deny their seniors care based on their analysis of Quality-Life-Years or whatever they call them.
LOL! Why not give them a full clip, though? And don’t limit it to CongressCritters. It would solve that pesky public official problem we have, too.
Get the gov out of all of it. Free up the insurance companies to make whatever kind of policies consumers want across state lines. No free care to illegals. Tourists can take out short-time insurance policies when they come in (Mexico does that to Americans for driving cars). Let people & employers make their own decisions. Let the free market set costs of hospitals, doctors, etc.
Get the gov out of healthcare altogether.
For the truly poor let there be charity.
Why don’t you suggest governmnent workers stop early retirement? That would save TONS, billions in taxpayer money. Do that first. Then we can talk about people who don’t retire til they are 65 getting their SS benefits.
and the more the Cabal can confiscate.
Ezekiel, Rahm, and Barach are the antiChrist Triad®.
From the paper:
“Additionally, the complete lives system
assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them.”
Whenever politicians start talking about “justice,” you know we are in trouble.
By contained, do you mean 6 feet under pushing up daisies?
Seems people like him are deserving of such containment.
Government retirement is at age 50 or after 30 yrs of work.
Let’s raise that age to 65 how about it? Then we can talk about raising SS age beyond 65.
AARP doesnt give a crap about seniors, heck they are FOR Obamas cutting medicare
I remember when I was 40 that 75 looked pretty old. Now I am 67 and it doesnt look so old any more. Perhaps it would be nice if this clown figured out that one day he will be 65 and condemned because of his age.
Or maybe he is just rich and can pay his own way and wants the poor Seniors to die.
What if the age at which government workers could begin collecting their pensions were raised by, say, three years? So, a police officer who worked from age 20 to 50 and retired at age 50, couldn’t start getting cash benefits until age 53. Would you then be willing to start collecting SS one year later?
Let’s talk about people other than public safety officers. Let’s talk about your average government bureaucrat who gets to retire at 50.
No, pushing their retirement age to 53 is not the equivalent of pushing the age of retirement from 65 to 66 for someone who has worked for 45 years.
I think government workers should be able to retire after 30 years with a full pension—which they cannot begin to collect until they reach normal retirement age of 65.
Anyone that joins AARP is supporting communism!!!!
They haven’t got anything to offer in supplemental insurance that you can’t outside on your own.
They don’t even offer the best, SCAN!
Get the gov out of all of it. All gov programs are ripped off by the politicians, the lobbyists, the industry involved, and the consumers if they can figure it out.
Free up the insurance companies to make whatever kind of policies consumers want across state lines.
No free care to non-citizens.
(Tourists can take out short-time insurance policies when they come in (Mexico does that to Americans for driving cars)).
Let people & employers set their own priorities.
Let the free market set costs of hospitals, doctors, etc.
Get the gov out of healthcare altogether.
For the truly poor let there be charity.
TORT REFORM. Class action lawsuits against pharm companies is a major industry. Look at all the ads on TV for pharm products.
How is medicare/medicaid paying for all those powerchairs?
I’ll bet that’s interesting.
I second the last two words of your post and say them almost daily!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look, you are illustrating my point by refusing to agree to raise the SS age no matter what scenario I propose about other people’s government benefits. No matter what I come up with, you’re going to say, “Let’s focus on XYZ” or “What about ABC?”
You are part of the problem!
I did not say I would not consider it.
But before we push out the date of retirement (social security benefits), fairness dictates that we push out the date of government bureaucrats’ retirement - bigtime.
Let’s do that - which you do not want to agree to - first.
Then we can talk about pushing back the SS date from 65.
Otherwise you will have people being forced - in the private sector - to work longer just so that government bureaucrats can retire at age 50.
THAT is not fair nor just.
I propose we raise the age at which one can receive any kind of federal government pension by three years and the age for SS benefit by one year. Is it a deal?
No. NO deal.
50 to 53 is not fair to the private sector person who is having to work til 66 or 67 or 70 (because the age will keep being raised) just to pay for a bureaucrat to have retirement freedom 15 years earlier.
No, No deal. Are you one? (government bureaucrat who got the retirement at age 50?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.