Should Boomer's die at age 75 'for the Good of Society'?

The Atlantic: Why I Hope to Die at 75

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, former senior health adviser to President Obama, and one of the Affordable Care Act's chief architects writes in The Atlantic: “An argument that society and families—and you - will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly" and that "society would be far better off if people quit trying to live past age 75" [no shit, he said "Society" would be better off... Pfffff.... *snort*]. See, to Emanuel, it is inefficient to waste medical resources on those no longer productive.

AKA: You, the retired, the unproductive, the old, no longer paying tax to the State, well, the State..... Errrrr, I mean "society" has no use for you any longer - so, for the Good of the State..... Errrrrr, I mean, for "Society" (hell, State/Society - pretty much synonyms) - your quite demise is preferable - bye bye time.



“75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop”
-- Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (former senior health adviser to POTUS Obama)



See? Isn't it wonderful living as tax-chattel in a hyper-regulated tax-pen? Isn't it nice knowing the State has the power, not just the power - but the LEGAL OBLIGATION, to initiate force against innocent 75 year olds, IF that's what the State 'Regulators' deem is good for them. And, if media tells the functional illiterate Millennial voter, someone who's been conditioned for 12 years to raise their hand and ask permission to pee, that 'This is Good for Society', then guess what? They'll unquestioningly support their Regulators and Political Masters who, without need of vote, decide to enact this as Law of the Land. Anyone found providing Healthcare to the elderly, they'd be just as easily placed into a State-run rape case as some guy who had the gall to smoke a bit of weed for his back-ache. That's the funny thing about idiots and their ability to normalize to anything and every transgression made against them. Up becomes Down. Right becomes Left. Wash, rinse, and let History repeat.


Enjoying the New Economy yet? Don't worry, we've plenty more decades of this to live through. So, if you're not enjoying it, you will be soon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good point. We should switch to your "just let them die" model. Then you could let them die at age 60 and save a ton of money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not 'my' model. It's been proposed by one of O-blah-blah's senior health advisers.

The State's hyper-regulated medical "industry" already injures a few million due to medical error - the State could just let them die, you know, roll them over into the half a million or so outright killed due to error and incompetence. There's a savings for the State that would be "Good for Society". And if we really want to save money, then just let everyone who's critically ill die. Particularly the morbidly obese. Oh, and children with terminal illnesses - yes, putting them down will save Amooorikkka a ton of money. Money the U.S.S.A Military Industrial Complex can waste losing wars and killing people in the ME.

I mean: You use the Roads. Why don't you just, move to Somalia. Libtard. Paul-bot

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yup, just trust the State "officials".... errrr, I mean "servants" - they'll take care of what best for them, ....you. People like Dr. “75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop” Ezekiel Emanuel former senior health adviser to POTUS Obama and one of the Chief Architects of ObamaCare. ALL for the Good of our Progressive Central-Banker-Centrally-Planned hyper-regulated Society.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong as always. He's never been Obama's senior health advisor, and he has been lobbying for years for a much different system than the private capitalist insurance market Obama adopted from Governor Romney.

He's been a lifelong opponent of legal euthanasia, btw.

Why do you always get your facts wrong?

 

Why are you bringing up facts with Michael? They irritate him.

 

because libertarians are arrogant. they think anyone who doesn't subscribe to the the gospel of greed. if it wasn't said by a libertarian well than clearly the person wasn't intelligent. your dealing with an ideology that present both a childish and sociopathic. humans are inherently social creatures intinctively drawn to help the group, libertarians present as an abberation. They attack and hate the bonds that connect people because on a fundemental level they just aren't able to get them.

 

Well, maybe you and other readers might care to read the real article, rather than relying on 3rd hand hysterical distortions: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/

The quote from this long and reflective article that puts it into perspective seems to me this one:

"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."

The article is all about the fact that while medicine is good at prolonging life, the quality of the late stages of it is still crappy, and that he, PERSONALLY thinks it better to succumb to natural cause of death at 75 than life on in a reduced state until he is 85 or 90 or so. It's a thought-provoking point of view. I speak as one who has just turned 60 and who has aged and infirm parent in their late 80s.

 

Michael has never been good at reading or understanding the material he references. Unfortunately, I don't see that changing.

 

Quite true! He also cherry-picks - out of context! - some small piece of info and focus solely on that. VERY annoying

 

Ezekiel's "75" is an arbitrary number based on "quality of life" and averages.

I switched the truck radio to the pbs talk station to avoid a rather tedious piano concerto on the music station while driving the dog to the vet a couple days ago, and got to listen to an interview with him. He was advocating for personal choice based on quality of life, and how he wanted to be remembered.

On a personal note: My great uncle Charlie was completely lost in his distant past by age 77. As a teenager, my mom took us to visit with him in the county "home". Shortly after we began our visit, he focused his attention on me and proceeded to engage me in a 45 minute conversation. I had absolutely no idea what he was talking about, but did my best to uphold my end of the conversation anyway. When it was over, I asked my mom if she had any idea what Charlie had been talking about.
And, she said that I had reminded Charlie of his brother Bill who had died young, and that Charlie was finishing a conversation that he had been having with Bill when Bill died.
While Charlies memories of 64 years ago were crystal clear, I doubt that he knew what he had had for breakfast.
The thing is, that Charlie seemed to be having a good time of it, and once I understood the nature of our "conversation" I was able to reflect on the things said within that context, and found nothing lacking in the information gleaned from that episode.
So, (bottom line) I felt fortunate to have had that time with Charlie.

 

I think the above quote sums it up well. And I think the article is talking about something society as a whole does not address much, rather its pockets of people who are facing the challenges for self or a family member with increasing disabilities due to age.

My step-dad killed himself due to increasing disability. It was his choice and I understand (though I wish he had stuck around a bit longer). My mom died 6 years later and I wish she wouldnt have suffered as much as she did. The Hospice care was fantastic, and my brother took great care of her... but suffer she did. Not so much from pain rather suffered with the increased disability.

And I work for an elderly couple trying to help them with their increasing limitations, increasing medical issues and deteriorating quality of life issues. The author of the article has some valid points. My step dad was very aware of his deteriorating mental condition. My mom fought it as long as she could. And I am watching and listening to the elderly couple lament the loss of mobility, memory, and vibrancy with verbal warnings to me "these are not golden years". ..

I would rewrite some of this. I would add:
It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world and to family.
a state that may not be worse than death but nonetheless leaves us increasingly dependent on others for our basic needs.

And dont kid yourself. I heard my step-dad declare he didnt want to be a burden, my mom didnt want to be a burden and my elderly couple both lament that they dont want to be a burden on their child. They dont want to have him miss out on the grandchildrens needs/functions/fun to take care of them. And I feel the same way towards my own kid. I wouldnt want her to miss out on adventure/life to take care of me.

But as a counter-point, my brother was (and remains) glad he was able to keep mom at home and take care of her in her final years. And I love the elderly couple I work with and consider it a privilege to be a part of their lives.

 

Non-starter, Zeke is 60.
You have to be at least 15 years under the age at which you want people to die.

 

Good point. It did strike me, as I read the article, that he may well decide, when he gets to 65, that perhaps 75 is not his personal cutoff date after all and that maybe , ooh, er, say, 80 or so, is more appropriate……

It will take real balls to start refusing medical treatment when the day arrives. Unless, I suppose, one is diagnosed with some disease for which the treatment prolonged, painful and of dubious efficacy, e.g. some kinds of cancer.

 

Honestly... if I ever come down with something incurable that results in a loss of my faculties and/or motor functions... I really think I would prefer to just be put out of my misery. A vegetative or semi-vegetative state is like... nightmare fuel for me...

 

I guess you don't understand that the private health insurance system already does that. In fact any scheme to pay for health costs must weigh these questions. What amount of money are you willing to spend to go to extraordinary lengths to save someone's life who may only have a short life ahead and no quality of life? Would you pay a million dollars and rob your children's inheritance to extend the life of your grandmother several years? It feels good to be self-righteous but if you have no alternative, then your criticisms sound like a childish outburst.

 

It's something many people live with every day. I witnessed my aunt loose her memory. She halucinated frequently. It was tough. Though she had little memory, her emotions were very real. She feared everything. She had almost no control over anything. She would cry for no apparent reason. She was always confused. It was tough on her. It was a bad way to die.

I placed her in a Medicare hospice program and hired healthcare workers to care for her. Thank God for the hospice people. They were wonderful. Even with the best of care it wasn't easy on her.

 

I couldn't do it Joe...I really couldn't. My mind is my greatest asset, my most potent weapon, and my primary defense... to lose it is to lose myself. I don't think I could live like that, I really couldn't.

 

If ever I'm not able to watch TV and suck beer through a straw,
I'll think that life's not worth living.

 

But you don't know how you would feel when that situation actually arrived. The urge for self-preservation is very strong. I suspect you might feel "Maybe one more day, then I'll call a halt."….every day. Unless you were in great physical pain or mental anguish. But I really think none of us can predict whether a given state of incapacity would leave us feeling it was all hopeless or whether we would, surprisingly, find reasons to make life worth continuing.

 

Indeed. we never know until it happens and sometimes not even then. In my aunt's case her disease snuck up on her. It was slow and insidious. She lacked the mental faculties to comprehend her situation. Her mental faculties gradually diminished but her emotional capabilities remained fully intact and unrestrained. I know her confusion scared her. Her fears were very real to her. I knew what she was going through, but was powerless do help. No magic and no medicine could cure her or restore her. Medications helped to a degree but only to a degree. It was a horrible way to go. Back in the day, some 40 plus years ago when I was a young corpsman attending my first patient, a cancer patient, I thought that was the most horrible way to go. Now I don't know which is worse.