<p>He obviously wasn’t all that influential in the drafting of the current law. I think most people, as evidenced on this thread, feel his views are extreme.<br>
Right now mom and mom-in-law’s insurances are doing everything they can to keep them healthy. I see no evidence that his views are getting any traction.</p>
<p>I googled Emanuel and I will be mean and say that even though he is just 57, he could pass for 75.
Pale, balding, grey and wrinkled. I know that is horribly catty of me, but seriously, he should go surfing or something - maybe that will give him more of a zest for life.</p>
<p>People who are 57 should not pretend to know what it is like to be 75. Proclamations made at 57 like saying I want to die at 75 are meaningless. I don’t see a bunch of people at age 75 killing themselves because they are 75.</p>
<p>My dad and father in law are both 87 and they both are a mess. Yet, neither is killing himself. I think my dad enjoys life.</p>
<p>I think I will wait until I am actually in my 80’s to decide what it is like to be in my 80’s. I had no idea what the 50’s would be like when I was in my 30’s. I am shocked how I think now compared to how I thought in my 30’s.</p>
<p>The elderly are already treated differently. No more breast exams for my 80 year old mom. She can eat what she wants. No more prostate exams for my dad. No colonoscopies for either parent. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Screening tests for conditions that will take longer to kill than one’s remaining life expectancy are likely of low value (and perhaps negative value if they lead to invasive follow-up that reduced qualify of life, or if the screening test itself has risks). However, such remaining life expectancy does depend on factors beyond just age.</p>
<p>Emanuel was extremely influential in the drafting of the ACA. But his alleged advocation of reduced services for the elderly is a huge and offensive distortion of his position.</p>
<p>He advocated that <em>in cases of scarcity</em>, such as in choosing who gets transplantable organs, priority be given to younger recipients. And he had some other recommendations about how to ration things that have inherent scarcity- he’d choose people who stood to benefit more, and so forth. Read Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions to get the whole story; it was in the Lancet. The article is an attempt to solve the difficult ethical dilemma of reconciling various principles we might want to use to allocate hearts and livers, when we don’t have enough.</p>
<p>But flu shots and pacemakers are not scarce resources, so the article doesn’t apply to them.</p>
<p>Money is a scarce resource and he has always been very clear about his views on who is and is not valuable to society. Society as a whole would be better off if everyone was productive. It’s the greater good and it’s creepy. But,not surprising .</p>
<p>The whole medical care and insurance debate seems to be poisoned by most people’s expectation of being able to choose up to unlimited amounts and types of medical care for themselves, paid for mostly by a willing third party. How many would support the idea of eliminating all government subsidy of medical care, including Medicare and tax favors for employer-provided medical insurance, leaving a truly private market (government may still have a role in regulating safety, price and quality transparency, etc.) instead of the hodgepodge that we have now (pre- or post-ACA)?</p>
<p>If money to pay for health care is a scarce resource (and I agree, it is) then how SHOULD we ration health care, Flossy? Should age not be a factor?</p>
<p>Not me, ucbalumnus. </p>
<p>The son of a friend of mine has ALS, Lou Gehrig’s disease. He is only in his early 30’s. He is completely paralyzed. He cannot eat. He is fed through a tube. He has to have all his bodily functions taken care of by nurses. He has a ventilator because he cannot breathe on his own. He cannot speak. </p>
<p>The only portion of his body he can control are his eyes. Using his eyes he operats a computer to write and ‘speak’. </p>
<p>Many of us would think that a life like that was not worth living and that we’d be better off dead. He could die soon or like Stephen Hawking he could be in the state his is currently in for years. </p>
<p>This young man has a remarkable will to live. He has started an organization for handicapped mobility. He says that he is content because for the first time in his life, he has time to just think and write. He has his family around him who love him and care for him. </p>
<p>None of us can judge for another whether another’s life is worth living. </p>
<p>The hubris of someone like Emmanuel to infer that doctors, public policy makers or government bureaucrats should decide is horrifying.</p>
<p>Somebody has to decide. Some people think money should be the deciding factor. If you have the money, you live, if you don’t have the money, you die. </p>
<p>But if money is scarce, the government has to decide what it will pay for and what it won’t pay for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A completely false premise, as to the scarcity.</p>
<p>Healthcare dollars are only scarce for my family and me if the government thinks the money I spend on my policy and on my healthcare cash outlays is the government’s money to allocate. It is not; it is my money, and thus government should not be determining my healthcare and how I allocate my dollars. </p>
<p>EDIT: Now, if one is in Medicaid or Medicare programs, scarcity does exist because there is a limit of tax dollars going in. However, that did not apply to everyone who had a private policy before ACA made their private policies illegal, as they could choose to increase their coverage if they want.</p>
<p>Somebody actually studied this and I wish I could quote you the study
Young people say they would like to die and skip the hardships of old age and disease.
Old people want to live no matter what their circumstances for the most part. That “will to live” is very strong.
The more family and ties a person has in life will strengthen their will. It doesn’t matter how old they are–a 95 year old wants to live as much as the young. Nobody should make decisions for another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People age 75 are on the government dole for medical care (Medicare), so there is a government and taxpayer interest in how medical care money is spent (whether or not you agree with the linked opinion).</p>
<p>Awctnb, you aren’t going to allocate the dollars. </p>
<p>I hope posters read Peter Thiel’s piece last week. Competition is for suckers. </p>
<p>Gouf78, this man I know was dying of cancer. Had a few days to live . He was 83. He said, “I want to play tennis.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, not everyone was or is on medicare at age 75. There were / are millions who had private policies before ACA made those policies illegal.</p>
<p>My parents are in their 80s and never saw Medicare in their lives. Neither did my grandparents.</p>
<p>I want to find a swimming pool like the movie Cocoon when I’m 70.</p>
<p>Looks like about 42 million (over 97%) of the 43 million people age 65+ in the US are on Medicare:
<a href=“FastStats - Older Persons Health”>NCHS - 404 Error - Resource Not Available;
<a href=“Medicare Fast Facts - NCPSSM”>http://www.ncpssm.org/Medicare/MedicareFastFacts</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, we have different idea of allocation when it comes to policies and healthcare spending. </p>
<p>When one chooses a particular policy that covers X services, one is allocating where your coverage dollars can be spent. If something is not available, then one can add that to one’s policy. If something is useless, then one can drop it. Well, that is the way it used to work.</p>