Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
“End of life” is another way of saying “death.”
Here’s a Panel wanting to reform medical care for dying people.
It’s a Death Panel.
She called it, years ago. Credit where due . . .
Joe Doakes
Some of us were saying so at the time.
Are you claiming that individuals should not have the personal liberty or the freedom to create a living will and/or a healthcare directive?
Emery are you saying that economic costs of extending care should be the primary driver in the equation?
Talk about pushing Granny over the cliff
Emery:
Are you saying that if you want to life as long as possible and you think the best care to get that done is to be in the hospital that you shouldn’t be stopped from being in the hospital because a panel says it’s cheaper and just as efficient for you to be treated at home? The panel makes the choice for you?
That’s what is going on, but once again you didn’t read the article.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Emery, who believes that there is no such thing as a premature death after age 60, has made it clear in the past that only those membered among the wealthy elite should have any expectation of access to expensive medical care after the age of 60. Everyone else should treat 60 as their sell-by date and take advantage of those government sponsored exit plans that are generously provided by our elites.
Dammit, my mom died 15 years ago at age 59. Who should she sue?
Emery, thanks for coming to this End of Commenting Panel meeting. We on the panel are experts and we’re here to help you make good decisions. We’ve noticed the quality of your posting has deteriorated and it’s only going to get worse as you age. Reading your comments is a burden on others. And it’s expensive for Mitch to pay to store your comments. You don’t want to be a burden, do you? You don’t want to selfishly take food off Mitch’s table to pay for your comment care, do you? The wise thing, the generous thing, would be for you to voluntarily decline to comment. Just let yourself go quietly, naturally. Nobody will be upset, they’ll understand that you are doing it to be a good person, a kind and caring person. And you’ll bring peace to those you leave behind. Do it today. For the grandchildren.
.
Emery, nothing against advance directives, but you seem to be rather slow on the uptake on what an emphasis on palliative care, and a de-emphasis on curing measures, means. To complete the death panel, all you need to so is to insert a very little comment about what measures will not be provided medically.
Now I’ll grant that at some point, all health care is rationed (not that those who voted for the Health Insurance Deform Act will recognize this), but there is something quite Orwellian about this once you read between the lines.
If you ever feel the urge to give credence to Glenn Kessler’s ‘fact check’ column in the WaPo, please read his incoherent babbling regarding Sarah Palin’s “death panel” claims:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sarah-palin-death-panels-and-obamacare/2012/06/27/gJQAysUP7V_blog.html
It begins “First of all, Palin is not quoting herself correctly.”
And Kessler writes without irony “The health-care law, by the way, explicitly says that the recommendations cannot lead to rationing of health care.”
Which implies that Kessler does not understand that as far as the government is concerned “health care” does not mean doctor visits, medicine and surgical procedures, it means $.
Didn’t take long for Medicare to get to the point (as Lady Thatcher coined the term) where it is running out of other peoples money already. What’s it been, 40-50 years?
I love when they note in the article that they only want doctors / care givers to have a “conversation” with old timers regarding end of life care. Reminds me of the guy the MET Council sent to the University Ave merchants regarding the Green Line when he said “you can have your say, but no matter what, we are getting to Yes”.
Some seniors I have known welcomed the end of their life and asked that no extraordinary measures be taken to prolong it. And they didn’t need to have a conversation with a G-Man to come to that determination. On the other hand, I know of an 85-year-old who recently had cataract surgery and a knee replacement. Would you really want to have to go before some government panel and argue for your life? (That is if you could get their attention between their watching pr0n while you were talking and reviewing your voting record & political party affiliations prior to making their decision?)
Nate +1
On the other hand, I know of an 85-year-old who recently had cataract surgery and a knee replacement.
I had a 96 year old uncle who still had the “one drink per day” his doctor allowed — in a quart jar while smoking one of the biggest cheroots you’ve ever seen. And he still had a 186 league bowling average, and worked on the farm daily. Someone like that certainly warranted his cataract surgery. (He didn’t make it to 100, though. Farm accident got him.)
I wouldn’t advocate for throwing anyone off a cliff, but if they stumble in a cliff-ward direction, don’t try too hard to save them.
I am curious, Emery, if you are familiar with the concept of “charity”. Not in the tax deductible sense, but in the “Christian charity” sense of the word.
Basically, it means that you do try to save people who are trying to throw themselves off of cliffs.
I didn’t realize you were such a fan of paternalism.
Where “stumble in a cliff-ward direction” means “live one more year”?
EmeryTheUSAHater weighs in, has his ass handed to him, digs in further by advancing Logan’s Run premise. Once again proving that libturds not only do not have a brain, but a heart either.
Suppose you are a person — any person — with a medical issue that will cost money to address. Who should decide if it is worth the cost?
If your first answer is “the federal government” you are these three things:
-in the minority
-a member of the ruling class (or a wannabe member of the ruling class)
-a crazy person
I could be wrong, but I think Dr Strangelove Emery and Sean Connery (I think?) Emery Incognito are different people. Their comments read like they are different people. Otherwise someone has too much spare time.
The “lebensunwertes leben” theme is used by both Emerys.
And thanks to global warming we’re running out of ice floes.
While the numerous income transfers from the working young to the idle old increase and the young begin to complain, will a coherent political movement result, and which party will represent which side?
Given the number of young folks demonstrating in favor of their own poverty the other day, I don’t think the oldsters have much to worry about, Emery.
The idea that every social issue must be addressed by government is one of the pathologies associated with modernism.
One of your earlier comments alludes to paternalism. Which is followed by your comment referencing Nazi’s. Thank you for your — as usual — tightly reasoned comment.
oh poor Emery, you’ve been victimized!
Emery whinges for sympathy.
here lets make it so simple a (putative) PhD can understand:
your “idle old “ = “lebensunwertes leben”
Modernists need to embrace all aspects of modernism. Who, after all, is qualified to judge the value of a human life if not the state? Individuals are prone to neuroses and cheap sentimentalism. Religion has been discredited.
Personhood is a legal concept. It is a privileged granted by the state to individuals who meet certain qualifications. These qualifications can be altered at any time if doing so serves state interests.
PM is being so damned polite.
Emery, Who is qualified to judge the value of a human life if not the state? give us a direct answer if you posses the courage.
People do have living wills and create healthcare directives to specify that they don’t want doctors to take extraordinary measures to keep them alive, but such instructions are often ignored due to legal problems. Its time for a national debate on this issue leading towards legislative action. Its not about saving the health system money, but rather about the rights of patients and their families to make informed choices about what kind of treatment they get. If my mind is going or I’m suffering, I want to end it, and I want an institutional system set up to act on my wishes without hindrance.
If your mind is going, by definition you can’t make responsible decisions.
And it is about saving the health system money. I am not certain what you mean by “legal problems”. Laws against murder? Laws against suicide?
You could start by reading the link Joe Doakes provided.
Of course I’ve read it, Emery. Have you? You write “ts not about saving the health system money”
The article is all about saving the health system money by changing the way the government handles end of life care. Sheesh.
The problem to the bureaucrats seems to be that the phrase ‘end of life” actually refers to living persons with legal rights and minds of their own.
Emery, it’s worth noting that since advance directive laws have been in place for years, and people have been free to do this, we don’t need legislative action to get these in place. They already are.
So what is obviously at issue here is not whether people can have such directives, but rather whether government shall be authorized to “push” them onto people through mandatory clauses in insurance policies. Like Mrs. Palin said.
Here’s another bit of proof that Sarah Palin is right:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0914/hanson092514.php3
Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of “pissin’ match” Chicago mayor Rahm and chief mover of the Health Insurance Deform Act, moving policy for people to die at age 75. Sounds like death panels to me. And,for that matter, “Logan’s Run”.