Obamacare Architect Says Society Would Be Better Off If People Died At 75

Here's part of what he is advocating....

And I am not advocating 75 as the official statistic of a complete, good life in order to save resources, ration health care, or address public-policy issues arising from the increases in life expectancy. What I am trying to do is delineate my views for a good life and make my friends and others think about how they want to live as they grow older. I want them to think of an alternative to succumbing to that slow constriction of activities and aspirations imperceptibly imposed by aging. Are we to embrace the “American immortal” or my “75 and no more” view?

I think the rejection of my view is literally natural.

If you like your insurance and doctor, you can keep your insurance and your doctor !!

These guys always talk in opposites. Very effective indeed.

The "Dr." of spin and suggestion

for reference:
Independent Payment Advisory Board

Very Very Suggestive !!

The elderly are already starting to drop like flies.

Expect to hear more about "palliative care" and "hospice care" or "home hospice" as time goes on. The bean-counters are in full swing.

A good industry to be in coming up would be hospice care. You won't live past 75 unless you are rich.

Am I the only one that's been seeing a lot more people die than normal this year?

a reply to: arjunanda

I am 67. I can speak from the perspective of an old white guy.

Your opinions, if based on your YOUTHFUL perspective, are of no consequence.

The statement is rational. He states that MOST folks are pretty much nothing but a burden after age 75. My observations agree with this. They are mostly fat, ugly and stupid. They consume medication and resources while producing little. They have no utility and have degenerated into uselessness.

Our society is based on monetary policies that make this situation inevitable. It is not related to medical care.

Essentially we elders are not used but that does not make us useless. We should be made to assist society through policies promoting our use. We can answer phones, teach or sweep streets. Particularly in our earlier retirement years, normal levels of exertion are not beyond us. Getting employed is still possible but difficult. Volunteering is ok but let's be honest, how often do we perform important tasks as judged by ourselves or society.

We become irrelevant in many ways but for one. We can vote and exact goods from the system. We, because we are old, think that we know stuff, lots of stuff. As anyone who is familiar with the stiffened perspectives of the aged, we know nothing except for possessing lots of cunning. Every field advances so fast that we are not capable of learning or adjusting to it all.

There are exceptions to these statements. This is a set of overarching observations.

For a personal example, My MOM is nothing but a complete care body and has been so for many years. YOU pay for her care because she is 24/7/365 incapacitated. How much money can be spent on some/one/thing that gives no return?

There are strict outcomes from attempting to propagate a system that can not afford it's aspirations. Eskimos launching granny on an ice floe had purpose. When the use of economic modeling is applied, what did this guy say wrong?

This has nothing to do with I'llbombya. This is a societal issue which has been resolved to favor the ELITE's positions.

If we elders, prior to dotage, were employed on a P/T basis, how do you think we would receive orders from superiors that we DO NOT have to respect? How would the organizations act knowing we DO NOT have to respect them?

The strongest position for any entity is to not be dependent on the system but to be able to influence it. All of us old discarded folks might have a higher use than we are allowed. To adjust the attitudes of the masters because they cannot adjust ours.

(Please keep it in mind we are declining in every ability except manipulation. Few folks can compete against youth as we approach 75. very few. (and then decades' differences not a half century) Only a few professions actually have elderly participants making contributions.)

originally posted by: jtma508
Political hysteria aside... the gentleman isn't advocating killing-off the elderly. He's simply looking at the situation from an actuarial perspective. The older you get the more frequent and more expensive healthcare becomes. It's not about 'end-of-life' care. It's about the accelerating costs of the elderly. Especially with us baby-boomers getting old it is without question a huge financial burden. But no, no one is going to be going around offing your grand parents. But it makes for a tasty sound bite doesn't it?

Really?

Here is a snippet from Zeke's article

Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions

"considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had a few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern the disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable….

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."

I would highly suggest those of you who choose to defend the likes of Emanuel by listening to what he is saying currently, to look at some of the things he has promoted in the past.

The only way they will save the Trillions they plan on with this new health care utopia is to weed out the weak and sick and elderly by not allowing life extending treatments.

Take a good hard read at what these so called social engineers are talking about when it comes to the future of health care.

I refuse.
And I wasn't really sure but since I work in healthcare myself:
I will refuse to even take a crap because you tell me you're better of when I take a crap at your convenient point in meticulously planned out time.
I'm human deal with it.

originally posted by: largo
...Eskimos launching granny on an ice floe had purpose. When the use of economic modeling is applied, what did this guy say wrong?

...This is a societal issue which has been resolved to favor the ELITE's positions.

...The strongest position for any entity is to not be dependent on the system but to be able to influence it.

Appreciated your thoughts on the topic...and, particularly those quoted.
It is frustrating to think we might grow so selfish and miserly as to require someone-else (our children, family, the government) to pay...for the possibility of...a little more time...

Perhaps if we treated Life as precious in the preceding years and decades, we could be more gracious in accepting that No-One owes us a VERY long life.

a reply to: xuenchen

It's been bugging me for some time that I could not nail-down the main propaganda technique you exploit, though there are many, in your posts, but I believe I have figured it out.

Apophenia /æpɵˈfiːniə/ is the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.

Induce and Exploit Apophenia Apophenia is also known as "seeing through tinted lenses". People's brains have an unfortunate tendency to see what they expect to see, and only notice what they want to see. Once somebody buys into a peculiar model of reality, a perceptual filter kicks in where they notice more and more "facts" that appear to reinforce their chosen beliefs, and they ignore any conflicting information that comes along, so they become more and more convinced of the correctness of their beliefs: "It's all so obvious to anyone who learns the real truth!"

A skillful propagandist can use this human logical failing to his advantage. Apophenia helps to create really blinded, convinced, true believers. Radical politicians, extremist preachers, and cult leaders all encourage and exploit apophenia in their followers. Start off by teaching the followers and believers merely biased and questionable "facts", and then use those non-facts as the basis for believing more unrealistic ideas, which form the basis for more radical views, which lead to unquestioning belief in even more radical ideas.

Source
Source

You're intentionally spreading propaganda in order to convince people that this man is not only advocating for death panels, but his connection to the ACA, ergo Obama, implies that we are going to see the murder of the elderly through the ACA.

Stop spreading propaganda, dude.

a reply to: arjunanda

Well, that's wonderful..but guess what...we live in a country where we make our own decisions. You want to die at 75, then fine. If you really feel so fervently about it, you should indeed commit suicide the day before you turn 76. So ridiculous.

Gotta love social engineering.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Yep. It's sort of a repetitive hypnotism. It's like repeating a lie over and over, until people believe it's a truth. People promoting a fear reality that can only be achieved through lies and innuendo, in order to pursue a political agenda, are just a as low as any common terrorist.

But here is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.

In this paragraph, the "Dr." seems to "speaking" for the many, not just himself.

His thundering opinions.



the resurrection of the I.P.A.B.

As there are 7,000,000,000 of us and less than 1% can give the square root of 83 in less than a second, run the hundred meters in less than 12 seconds and dunk a basketball, that age should lowered.

Derek

a reply to: xuenchen

This is an illusory or false correlation. You are trying to imply that just because the Dr is talking about himself and his opinions about elderly people, that the IPAB is going to implement a plan to create death panels that "take care" of the problem.

Once again, more garbage from the echo chamber.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: xuenchen

This is an illusory or false correlation. You are trying to imply that just because the Dr is talking about himself and his opinions about elderly people, that the IPAB is going to implement a plan to create death panels that "take care" of the problem.

Once again, more garbage from the echo chamber.

But the "Dr." used the word "WE" more than 100 times in his gem piece story.

What a good way to talk about "himself" eh.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

Folks, this is called "flipping" or "projection".

When you are accused of something, you can quickly turn it around and accuse the opposition of doing the same. This is usually used when the debater feels they must quickly counter the accusation but do not have facts or logic to come up with anything better.

Next propaganda technique please.....Sheepslayer will see them all.

I am glad you posted this. It is the single most infuriating thing when critiquing Obama and the subject is changed to Bush. Good on you!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Night Star

People who advocate that people of a certain age should die, should get in the front of the line.

That appears to be the case here.

Why I Hope to Die at 75, By Ezekiel J. Emanuel

By HIS own choice, but he extends it by advocating that HIS choice be the default for everyone.

Leftists can't stand to do anything on their own. If they think it's good for them, they have to find a way to force everyone else to do it, too.

originally posted by: howmuch4another

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

Folks, this is called "flipping" or "projection".

When you are accused of something, you can quickly turn it around and accuse the opposition of doing the same. This is usually used when the debater feels they must quickly counter the accusation but do not have facts or logic to come up with anything better.

Next propaganda technique please.....Sheepslayer will see them all.

I am glad you posted this. It is the single most infuriating thing when critiquing Obama and the subject is changed to Bush. Good on you!

Good observation. It is used quite often and is no better.

a reply to: xuenchen

He is talking about himself and elderly people in general. Yes, not just himself.

Still does not provide any common sense reason to imply that his general comments are an indication of the ACA implementing death-panels.

The only reason to believe or say as much is if you are trying to peddle fear, have a hard time with reading comprehension, or are blinded by political ideology.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which two you are going for.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Night Star

People who advocate that people of a certain age should die, should get in the front of the line.

That appears to be the case here.

Why I Hope to Die at 75, By Ezekiel J. Emanuel

By HIS own choice, but he extends it by advocating that HIS choice be the default for everyone.

Leftists can't stand to do anything on their own. If they think it's good for them, they have to find a way to force everyone else to do it, too.

He does not advocate for his thoughts to be default for everyone.

The leftists may not be able to do anything on their own, but at least they can fricken read.

Apparently this thread is proof that to the people on the Right (not all) have a problem with reading comprehension.