It is a rant because it's just an extended complaint that contains few, if any, facts.
Your need to explain the euphemism simply drives the point home. There is nothing that actually gives specific details to those who haven't discovered them from some other source.
Let's just say that I have no patience with bad punditry, which is about all that the posted article contains.
“Your need to explain the euphemism simply drives the point home. There is nothing that actually gives specific details to those who haven’t discovered them from some other source.”
The details will come when it is decided that you don’t need a hip replacement because you are only going to live (fill in the blank from the actuarial table used by the bureaucrat that decides this) years, but of course that “detail” is yet to come.
Based on the intent of the actions proposed to be undertaken, in the article posted, I think you will have reason for an “extended complaint” should you get to the logical conclusion of the article’s premise...
Your inability to extrapolate this hardly relegates this to “bad punditry.” It may simply speak to your limited ability to detect reasonable a projection...