(08-23-2019 09:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  He is an author. He's an Ivy League Doctor. And he's the brother of the man who is former president's chief of staff and among his closest confidants.

So he's not a "nobody."

I'd never heard of him, you? How much policy did Billy Carter effect?

Maybe if it had to do with his expertise, beer, he had a big impact.

(08-23-2019 09:28 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 09:11 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Ezekial Emanual is creepy and at face value his idea sounds absurd.

....but I kind of agree with being better stewards of health care resources on the elderly. Health care is a limited resource. Medicare has limited money. It is not practical nor responsible to provide any and all treatments and procedures to people with limited years left.

A friend of mine's mother was 94 and got ovarian cancer. Her family wanted her to do chemo and radiation. She refused the cancer treatment and opted for comfort care. She said she was ready to go. Even if her cancer could be cured...a what cost to Medicare...and for how many additional years of life?

Another friends mother was diagnosed with advanced Lymphoma at 72. She receive all of the traditional treatments and some experimental ones (one cost $400,000!). Her total treatment was nearly $1,000,000. I'm sure she and her family wanted to prolong her life and hoped she'd get a miracle and be cured. She died 7 months after the diagnosis. While I understand their family pain...was $1,000,000 for a slim chance of beating cancer a good use of medical resources?

Medicare can't pay for everything for everyone.

I understand where you are coming from, but where do you draw the line? I know many 75 year olds who are healthier than super obese 40 year olds who drink, smoke 2-pack a day. If we are going to cut the benefits off to grandpa we should also cut off the beni's to the other group I mentioned who likely have numerous comorbidities due to their sedentary, gluttonous lifestyles.

So we cut off certain undesirable populations.

Its a slippery slope.

I've heard it floated a couple of times that there needs to be a general cutoff age for the elderly for a couple of things - driving is one and voting is another. The logic was that if you aren't skilled enough until 18 to drive or vote and if you devolve as you get older after a certain point, then it makes sense to have to prove you're still physically and mentally viable enough to either drive or vote. I see the point - an old person who can barely walk and who has Alzheimer's doesn't really need to do either. They're not physically or mentally sound enough to. However, I'm also not one of those elderly people yet so I take a step back and try to think about the unintended consequences.

This is also one of those situations where I can see the point but it can't be applied to everyone as per the couple of cases mentioned already where there are plenty of old folks that can and do deserve all of it. There is no easy way out here though because there are also plenty of elderly people that have outlived any monetary contribution they're making and when looking at it in a purely dollars way, it's a drain on the whole.

I am a proponent of euthanasia for this very reason. Terminally ill and don't wanna cause your family sky high medical bills - you do what you need to with the assistance of your doctor. If memaw gets Alzheimer's and has a will that states that in that condition she'd rather be gone, go for it. These seem like common sense measures to me and it surprises me that anyone would oppose that kind of thing.

States are simply requiring the elderly to renew their license, not cutting it off.

My Mother accidentally let hers expire and I'm kind of glad. I don't think she could pass a test. She's nearly 90.

On medical, doctors already limit what they will do. They won't do a high risk operation for someone elderly or in ill health. Again, my Mother has a condition that ultimately will be fatal. But at her age her normal life expectancy would be 2-3 years. It might not kill her in that time frame. The alternative would be major surgery that might kill her and would take months to recover from. So doctors won't do that surgery. "Do no harm." If she was 50 and in good health, they would do it promptly.

(08-23-2019 09:37 AM)king king Wrote:  I've heard it floated a couple of times that there needs to be a general cutoff age for the elderly for a couple of things - driving is one and voting is another. The logic was that if you aren't skilled enough until 18 to drive or vote and if you devolve as you get older after a certain point, then it makes sense to have to prove you're still physically and mentally viable enough to either drive or vote. I see the point - an old person who can barely walk and who has Alzheimer's doesn't really need to do either. They're not physically or mentally sound enough to. However, I'm also not one of those elderly people yet so I take a step back and try to think about the unintended consequences.

This is also one of those situations where I can see the point but it can't be applied to everyone as per the couple of cases mentioned already where there are plenty of old folks that can and do deserve all of it. There is no easy way out here though because there are also plenty of elderly people that have outlived any monetary contribution they're making and when looking at it in a purely dollars way, it's a drain on the whole.

I am a proponent of euthanasia for this very reason. Terminally ill and don't wanna cause your family sky high medical bills - you do what you need to with the assistance of your doctor. If memaw gets Alzheimer's and has a will that states that in that condition she'd rather be gone, go for it. These seem like common sense measures to me and it surprises me that anyone would oppose that kind of thing.

Murder is wrong. Assisted suicide is a form of murder. Viewing people on monetary terms alone is throwing morals out the window. So it surprises you that people have moral codes that don't focus heavily on money?

(08-22-2019 09:11 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Ezekial Emanual is creepy and at face value his idea sounds absurd.

....but I kind of agree with being better stewards of health care resources on the elderly. Health care is a limited resource. Medicare has limited money. It is not practical nor responsible to provide any and all treatments and procedures to people with limited years left.

A friend of mine's mother was 94 and got ovarian cancer. Her family wanted her to do chemo and radiation. She refused the cancer treatment and opted for comfort care. She said she was ready to go. Even if her cancer could be cured...a what cost to Medicare...and for how many additional years of life?

Another friends mother was diagnosed with advanced Lymphoma at 72. She receive all of the traditional treatments and some experimental ones (one cost $400,000!). Her total treatment was nearly $1,000,000. I'm sure she and her family wanted to prolong her life and hoped she'd get a miracle and be cured. She died 7 months after the diagnosis. While I understand their family pain...was $1,000,000 for a slim chance of beating cancer a good use of medical resources?

Medicare can't pay for everything for everyone.

What did the doctors and researchers learn from her treatments? There are benefits beyond extending her life. It sounds cold, but information gained from her treatment could be work towards a cure.

(08-23-2019 09:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  He is an author. He's an Ivy League Doctor. And he's the brother of the man who is former president's chief of staff and among his closest confidants.

So he's not a "nobody."

I'd never heard of him, you? How much policy did Billy Carter effect?

He worked in the Obama administration too.

It isn't believable than you've not heard of him.

(08-23-2019 10:16 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  He is an author. He's an Ivy League Doctor. And he's the brother of the man who is former president's chief of staff and among his closest confidants.

So he's not a "nobody."

I'd never heard of him, you? How much policy did Billy Carter effect?

He worked in the Obama administration too.

It isn't believable than you've not heard of him.

Believe it or not, I don't remember everyone who worked in the Obama administration.

Per wiki, he was only a special advisor to Peter Orszag at OMB, who I have heard of.

(08-23-2019 10:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:16 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  He is an author. He's an Ivy League Doctor. And he's the brother of the man who is former president's chief of staff and among his closest confidants.

So he's not a "nobody."

I'd never heard of him, you? How much policy did Billy Carter effect?

He worked in the Obama administration too.

It isn't believable than you've not heard of him.

Believe it or not, I don't remember everyone who worked in the Obama administration.

Per wiki, he was only a special advisor to Peter Orszag at OMB, who I have heard of.

Better you find out who he is now and question his ideas, than find out when he fits your definition of "somebody" and you are about to turn 75.

(08-23-2019 12:56 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:16 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  He is an author. He's an Ivy League Doctor. And he's the brother of the man who is former president's chief of staff and among his closest confidants.

So he's not a "nobody."

I'd never heard of him, you? How much policy did Billy Carter effect?

He worked in the Obama administration too.

It isn't believable than you've not heard of him.

Believe it or not, I don't remember everyone who worked in the Obama administration.

Per wiki, he was only a special advisor to Peter Orszag at OMB, who I have heard of.

Better you find out who he is now and question his ideas, than find out when he fits your definition of "somebody" and you are about to turn 75.

Let me know, again, when he's in any sort of position to be writing health care policy.

(08-23-2019 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  He is an author. He's an Ivy League Doctor. And he's the brother of the man who is former president's chief of staff and among his closest confidants.

So he's not a "nobody."

I'd never heard of him, you? How much policy did Billy Carter effect?

Maybe if it had to do with his expertise, beer, he had a big impact.

This. Who was Jonathan Gruber?

Author, Ivy League Economist

(08-23-2019 10:12 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 09:11 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Ezekial Emanual is creepy and at face value his idea sounds absurd.

....but I kind of agree with being better stewards of health care resources on the elderly. Health care is a limited resource. Medicare has limited money. It is not practical nor responsible to provide any and all treatments and procedures to people with limited years left.

A friend of mine's mother was 94 and got ovarian cancer. Her family wanted her to do chemo and radiation. She refused the cancer treatment and opted for comfort care. She said she was ready to go. Even if her cancer could be cured...a what cost to Medicare...and for how many additional years of life?

Another friends mother was diagnosed with advanced Lymphoma at 72. She receive all of the traditional treatments and some experimental ones (one cost $400,000!). Her total treatment was nearly $1,000,000. I'm sure she and her family wanted to prolong her life and hoped she'd get a miracle and be cured. She died 7 months after the diagnosis. While I understand their family pain...was $1,000,000 for a slim chance of beating cancer a good use of medical resources?

Medicare can't pay for everything for everyone.

What did the doctors and researchers learn from her treatments? There are benefits beyond extending her life. It sounds cold, but information gained from her treatment could be work towards a cure.

Medicare almost certainly wouldn't have paid for experimental medicine, though other sources including those awful drug companies might have.

(08-22-2019 09:11 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Ezekial Emanual is creepy and at face value his idea sounds absurd.

....but I kind of agree with being better stewards of health care resources on the elderly. Health care is a limited resource. Medicare has limited money. It is not practical nor responsible to provide any and all treatments and procedures to people with limited years left.

A friend of mine's mother was 94 and got ovarian cancer. Her family wanted her to do chemo and radiation. She refused the cancer treatment and opted for comfort care. She said she was ready to go. Even if her cancer could be cured...a what cost to Medicare...and for how many additional years of life?

Another friends mother was diagnosed with advanced Lymphoma at 72. She receive all of the traditional treatments and some experimental ones (one cost $400,000!). Her total treatment was nearly $1,000,000. I'm sure she and her family wanted to prolong her life and hoped she'd get a miracle and be cured. She died 7 months after the diagnosis. While I understand their family pain...was $1,000,000 for a slim chance of beating cancer a good use of medical resources?

Medicare can't pay for everything for everyone.

The difference is in both of your examples it was the individual who made that decision, not some doctor or some nameless, faceless, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat making it for them.

If someone decides of their own free will to forgo treatment other than comfort care that's one thing, but when someone else makes that decision for them the line has been crossed.

(08-23-2019 01:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 09:11 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Ezekial Emanual is creepy and at face value his idea sounds absurd.
....but I kind of agree with being better stewards of health care resources on the elderly. Health care is a limited resource. Medicare has limited money. It is not practical nor responsible to provide any and all treatments and procedures to people with limited years left.
A friend of mine's mother was 94 and got ovarian cancer. Her family wanted her to do chemo and radiation. She refused the cancer treatment and opted for comfort care. She said she was ready to go. Even if her cancer could be cured...a what cost to Medicare...and for how many additional years of life?
Another friends mother was diagnosed with advanced Lymphoma at 72. She receive all of the traditional treatments and some experimental ones (one cost $400,000!). Her total treatment was nearly $1,000,000. I'm sure she and her family wanted to prolong her life and hoped she'd get a miracle and be cured. She died 7 months after the diagnosis. While I understand their family pain...was $1,000,000 for a slim chance of beating cancer a good use of medical resources?
Medicare can't pay for everything for everyone.

The difference is in both of your examples it was the individual who made that decision, not some doctor or some nameless, faceless, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat making it for them.
If someone decides of their own free will to forgo treatment other than comfort care that's one thing, but when someone else makes that decision for them the line has been crossed.

Exactly. And single-payer and single-provider systems live across that line. That's how they save money. It should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about economics, but somehow we have allowed the left to trumpet this myth that there is some mystical quality of government-run health care. Question: if government-run has this mystical quality to save money, who doesn't it work anywhere else?

There ain't no free lunch.

(08-23-2019 09:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:37 AM)king king Wrote:  I've heard it floated a couple of times that there needs to be a general cutoff age for the elderly for a couple of things - driving is one and voting is another. The logic was that if you aren't skilled enough until 18 to drive or vote and if you devolve as you get older after a certain point, then it makes sense to have to prove you're still physically and mentally viable enough to either drive or vote. I see the point - an old person who can barely walk and who has Alzheimer's doesn't really need to do either. They're not physically or mentally sound enough to. However, I'm also not one of those elderly people yet so I take a step back and try to think about the unintended consequences.

This is also one of those situations where I can see the point but it can't be applied to everyone as per the couple of cases mentioned already where there are plenty of old folks that can and do deserve all of it. There is no easy way out here though because there are also plenty of elderly people that have outlived any monetary contribution they're making and when looking at it in a purely dollars way, it's a drain on the whole.

I am a proponent of euthanasia for this very reason. Terminally ill and don't wanna cause your family sky high medical bills - you do what you need to with the assistance of your doctor. If memaw gets Alzheimer's and has a will that states that in that condition she'd rather be gone, go for it. These seem like common sense measures to me and it surprises me that anyone would oppose that kind of thing.

Murder is wrong. Assisted suicide is a form of murder. Viewing people on monetary terms alone is throwing morals out the window. So it surprises you that people have moral codes that don't focus heavily on money?

Suicide by its very definition cannot also be homicide. If they refuse food are you gonna say they should be prosecuted for trying to murder themselves? What about a failed suicide attempt?

It's all a numbers game...if it wasn't there would be no actuarial tables. Doctors don't refuse to operate on your mom solely out of the need to do no harm...they also don't wanna assume the risk should she die during the operation or from complications from it.

Sorry to hear about your mom, fwiw.

That’s what happens with socialized medicine. I have a Canadian friend who had to bring his Mom over to Michigan every week for chemo treatments because the their free coverage in Canada refused to treat her.

The thought of some bureaucrat sitting behind a desk deciding if I or one of my loved ones receives life saving care is sickening. Keep in mind as The Left pushes this they know those in power will never have to worry about receiving the care they need.

(08-22-2019 01:36 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 01:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/s...or-says-no

No death panels, right? This guy is Rahm Emmanuel's brother.

"It’s been five years since Ezekiel Emanuel published his controversial essay “Why I Hope To Die At 75,” in which he claimed that he would refuse any antibiotics or vaccinations once he turned 75, opting instead to let nature run its course. Now, in a new interview with the MIT Technology Review, Emanuel says he stands by what he wrote and questions “whether our consumption is worth our contribution” once we hit 75.

Emanuel, who is a medical doctor and the brother of former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel and notorious Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel, clarifies that he doesn’t have a death wish. “It’s not an extreme position,” he told the publication. “I’m not going to die at 75. I’m not committing suicide. I’m not asking for euthanasia. I’m going to stop taking medications with the sole justification that the medication or intervention is to prolong my life.”

He argues that our cultural obsession with longevity is taking attention and resources away from future generations...."

Let's see if his tune changes when he is 75. If he makes it that long.

Disgusting.

Really, death is easy....until you're facing it.