I'm about to turn 76, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thoroughly disagrees. Life is just as full of thrills and chills, ups and downs, pleasure and pain, as it always was. My health is excellent, I look forward to getting up in the morning, and I intend to do my best to stick around for a while.
I’ll just say it: it’s pretty fucked up that a "chief architect of Obamacare" (as described in TFA) has this opinion, imo. Seems sus and anti-commensurate with the stated goal of making healthcare easily accessible
My mother is about to turn 89. She's active and enjoys life, and she makes a real difference to the people around her. She supports them, encourages them, and provides wisdom and a sympathetic ear.
> First of all, it’s not an extreme position. 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.
The leading causes of deaths at an age > 65 years is heart attack and cancer. Is this fellow going to refuse thrombolytic drugs or chemotherapy, as he tells us plebeians to do? (Yes, I know that chemotherapy has terrible side effects, I worked in cancer research for some time.)
Morality aside, the economic argument is strong, not that we didn't think it was there but the magnitude is striking.
> Lots of presidents and lots of politicians say, “Children are our most valuable resource.” But we as a country don’t behave like that. We don’t invest in children the way we invest in adults, especially older adults. One of the statistics I like to point out is if you look at the federal budget, $7 goes to people over 65 for every dollar for people under 18.
Time to point out that the federal budget includes Social Security. This gentleman needs to convince me that this isn't an effort to balance the Social Security budget. Also time to point out that founds for schooling come out of the state budget. Yes, a very transparent attempt to balance the Social Security budget.
I can't understand how anyone entertains this guy's views. His main arguments boil down to:
"These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work."
According to this "ethicist", the lives of non-productive, non-creative people should not be supported/extended by medicine.
Try telling that to Medicare recipients, those that retired in their 50s, families with members with special needs, the homeless, those with long term disabilities, manufacturing skills that cannot find employment, in the coal industry, with PTSD and mental health issues, addicted to Sacklers' poison. Why stop there? Why not argue that work is not meaningful unless one makes more than minimum wage or at least a living wage.
That is a dystopian future that sounds to me more like Logan's Run than anything else.
"This guy" was recently named to Biden's Coronavirus Task Force, FYI. The average age of COVID19 deaths is in the 80s. It will be interesting to see how he applies his views on old age in that role.
15 comments
[ 22.2 ms ] story [ 341 ms ] threadThe world is better for her being in it.
> Lots of presidents and lots of politicians say, “Children are our most valuable resource.” But we as a country don’t behave like that. We don’t invest in children the way we invest in adults, especially older adults. One of the statistics I like to point out is if you look at the federal budget, $7 goes to people over 65 for every dollar for people under 18.
The "economic" argument for a "Logan's Run Carousel" for those reaching 40 is even stronger.
"These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work."
According to this "ethicist", the lives of non-productive, non-creative people should not be supported/extended by medicine.
Try telling that to Medicare recipients, those that retired in their 50s, families with members with special needs, the homeless, those with long term disabilities, manufacturing skills that cannot find employment, in the coal industry, with PTSD and mental health issues, addicted to Sacklers' poison. Why stop there? Why not argue that work is not meaningful unless one makes more than minimum wage or at least a living wage.
That is a dystopian future that sounds to me more like Logan's Run than anything else.
Will he argue that those over 70 should be the last to be vaccinated? That seems like a likely conclusion to make.