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.
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?
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.