TexasCHLforum.com

Pure eugenics evil. He telegraphed Obama care, now he's telegraphing the next phase of his and his minions' evil plans.

victory wrote:If they're opposed to people who don't contribute to society, why don't they get rid of welfare and other handouts, as well as artificial price/wage floors. The free rider problem will self correct, if they would unshackle The Invisible Hand.

Those are democrat voters.

They will not realize the problem until the government teat goes dry.

Anygunanywhere

MechAg94 wrote:While I do not think I should have to pay for end of life care via taxes, I do think people should get all the end of life care they wish to pay for. It is not a decision Govt should be making.

Well I am 67 and have a major health issue and a few minor ones that are putting some doctors kids through college.

I paid taxes all my adult life and I have made more of a “contribution to society” than most people.

When I retired I was required to take Medicare part A which is free. You can’t turn it down. I also took part B which I pay a small amount for. I kept my group health insurance which I pay $400.00 a month for.

I have more than “paid my dues and I expect the same quality of medical care for my wife and I as when I was young. Doctors nor the government should not be making decisions as to how much care older people should get.

Medicare is my primary insurance and Blue Cross Blue Shield is my secondary. We normally do not have a deductible or co pay. The doctors that won’t accept Medicare won’t be seeing retired people.

Read the whole article on the Atlantic. He is not saying that people should end their lives at 75. He's saying that he believes that by age 75 he will have lived a whole and complete life and will not take measures to prolong his life to the point where living is only a burden.

"Again, let me be clear: I am not saying that those who want to live as long as possible are unethical or wrong. I am certainly not scorning or dismissing people who want to live on despite their physical and mental limitations. I’m not even trying to convince anyone I’m right. Indeed, I often advise people in this age group on how to get the best medical care available in the United States for their ailments. That is their choice, and I want to support them.

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?"

In some ways I agree with this view. I don't (I say now) want to live to the point were there's no life left.

jmorris wrote:In some ways I agree with this view. I don't (I say now) want to live to the point were there's no life left.

Yeah, but I want to live to celebrate my 75th wedding anniversary with my hypothetical wife. I'm 35 and single, so it'll until a bit past 75 for me.

jmorris wrote:I don't (I say now) want to live to the point were there's no life left.

IMHO this is a very different view than what is being portrayed in the article. He uses his father as an example, he stopped doing his "rounds" after a heartattack at age 77. He was still able to swim and enjoy life with his wife and grandkids. But accordinging to the article that's not good enough. Because he is no longer a "productive" member of society (not doing his rounds) he should cease to exist. This is very different than "no life left".

jmra wrote:

jmorris wrote:I don't (I say now) want to live to the point were there's no life left.

IMHO this is a very different view than what is being portrayed in the article. He uses his father as an example, he stopped doing his "rounds" after a heartattack at age 77. He was still able to swim and enjoy life with his wife and grandkids. But accordinging to the article that's not good enough. Because he is no longer a "productive" member of society (not doing his rounds) he should cease to exist. This is very different than "no life left".

First of all, we don't stop being productive when we retire from work.....whatever age that happens to be at. Let's talk about grandkids, since I'm a new grandpa. I have a role to play in my granddaughter's life, regardless of whether or not I am still producing income. Aging grandparents have MUCH to teach children, and that is called "being productive". Their presence gives children a sense of the connectedness of the generations. Even my death will teach my granddaughter something about life.

Life is PRECIOUS!!!! I cannot emphasize that enough. For me, it is a gift from God. The idea that we can arbitrarily arrive culturally at the conclusion that it no longer is precious in the face of the vicissitudes of aging ....... well....... in my opinion that is a direct consequence of the abortion culture. We don't want helpless babies who inconvenience our lives, and we don't want want helpless elderly.....who inconvenience our lives. To go down either road requires abandoning the idea that life is a precious gift, and that we (as individuals, not necessarily as "the state") owe nothing to the One who gave it.

I realize that not everyone shares my particular faith. I'm OK with that. Whatever your spiritual condition happens to be is between you and God...... or the doorknob...... or whatever you happen to believe in. But whatever the case, EVEN when that gift seems like a burden, it is STILL precious. I live in pain. Every. Single. Day. If that is the price I pay for enjoying the rest of the beauty that this life has to offer, then so be it. I will gladly pay that particular piper until the day The LORD calls me home, and not a day sooner than that.......because I want to cherish every single minute of every single day that HE has given me. Only then will I be ready to go home. It saddens me to the point where I am typing this with moist eyes that there are people on this planet who believe that life begins to lose its value when we stop being income earners.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jmra wrote:

jmorris wrote:I don't (I say now) want to live to the point were there's no life left.

IMHO this is a very different view than what is being portrayed in the article. He uses his father as an example, he stopped doing his "rounds" after a heartattack at age 77. He was still able to swim and enjoy life with his wife and grandkids. But accordinging to the article that's not good enough. Because he is no longer a "productive" member of society (not doing his rounds) he should cease to exist. This is very different than "no life left".

First of all, we don't stop being productive when we retire from work.....whatever age that happens to be at. Let's talk about grandkids, since I'm a new grandpa. I have a role to play in my granddaughter's life, regardless of whether or not I am still producing income. Aging grandparents have MUCH to teach children, and that is called "being productive". Their presence gives children a sense of the connectedness of the generations. Even my death will teach my granddaughter something about life.

Life is PRECIOUS!!!! I cannot emphasize that enough. For me, it is a gift from God. The idea that we can arbitrarily arrive culturally at the conclusion that it no longer is precious in the face of the vicissitudes of aging ....... well....... in my opinion that is a direct consequence of the abortion culture. We don't want helpless babies who inconvenience our lives, and we don't want want helpless elderly.....who inconvenience our lives. To go down either road requires abandoning the idea that life is a precious gift, and that we (as individuals, not necessarily as "the state") owe nothing to the One who gave it.

I realize that not everyone shares my particular faith. I'm OK with that. Whatever your spiritual condition happens to be is between you and God...... or the doorknob...... or whatever you happen to believe in. But whatever the case, EVEN when that gift seems like a burden, it is STILL precious. I live in pain. Every. Single. Day. If that is the price I pay for enjoying the rest of the beauty that this life has to offer, then so be it. I will gladly pay that particular piper until the day The LORD calls me home, and not a day sooner than that.......because I want to cherish every single minute of every single day that HE has given me. Only then will I be ready to go home. It saddens me to the point where I am typing this with moist eyes that there are people on this planet who believe that life begins to lose its value when we stop being income earners.

AMEN!!!

Anygunanywhere

jmorris wrote:Read the whole article on the Atlantic. He is not saying that people should end their lives at 75. He's saying that he believes that by age 75 he will have lived a whole and complete life and will not take measures to prolong his life to the point where living is only a burden.

"Again, let me be clear: I am not saying that those who want to live as long as possible are unethical or wrong. I am certainly not scorning or dismissing people who want to live on despite their physical and mental limitations. I’m not even trying to convince anyone I’m right. Indeed, I often advise people in this age group on how to get the best medical care available in the United States for their ailments. That is their choice, and I want to support them.

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?"

In some ways I agree with this view. I don't (I say now) want to live to the point were there's no life left.

Of course that's what he said, he well knows the result of bluntly stating what he wants to say. He's just running the concept of euthanasia up the flag pole. He's testing the response for guidance into the next phase. The left knows you have to turn the heat up gradually. You can't let the pot boil over too quickly.

VMI77 wrote:

jmorris wrote:Read the whole article on the Atlantic. He is not saying that people should end their lives at 75. He's saying that he believes that by age 75 he will have lived a whole and complete life and will not take measures to prolong his life to the point where living is only a burden.

"Again, let me be clear: I am not saying that those who want to live as long as possible are unethical or wrong. I am certainly not scorning or dismissing people who want to live on despite their physical and mental limitations. I’m not even trying to convince anyone I’m right. Indeed, I often advise people in this age group on how to get the best medical care available in the United States for their ailments. That is their choice, and I want to support them.

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?"

In some ways I agree with this view. I don't (I say now) want to live to the point were there's no life left.

Of course that's what he said, he well knows the result of bluntly stating what he wants to say. He's just running the concept of euthanasia up the flag pole. He's testing the response for guidance into the next phase. The left knows you have to turn the heat up gradually. You can't let the pot boil over too quickly.

Exactly, and this is the author's quote which gives it away:

I want them to think of an alternative to succumbing to that slow constriction of activities and aspirations imperceptibly imposed by aging.

There IS only one alternative, and that is to end it all before "succumbing to that slow constriction of activities and aspirations imperceptibly imposed by aging." There is only ONE way to interpret that statement, because we ALL will succumb, if we do NOT take the alternative route. The ONLY alternative is to end it before succumbing.

So Emmanuel is disingenuous in extreme to try and couch it as anything else. There are only TWO alternatives: succumbing, or taking matters into your own hand. My answer to him: Either get busy livin', or get busy dyin' but leave me (and Obamacare) out of your decision; and don't expect me to praise your "courage" for taking an early out, you coward.

anygunanywhere wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jmra wrote:

jmorris wrote:I don't (I say now) want to live to the point were there's no life left.

IMHO this is a very different view than what is being portrayed in the article. He uses his father as an example, he stopped doing his "rounds" after a heartattack at age 77. He was still able to swim and enjoy life with his wife and grandkids. But accordinging to the article that's not good enough. Because he is no longer a "productive" member of society (not doing his rounds) he should cease to exist. This is very different than "no life left".

First of all, we don't stop being productive when we retire from work.....whatever age that happens to be at. Let's talk about grandkids, since I'm a new grandpa. I have a role to play in my granddaughter's life, regardless of whether or not I am still producing income. Aging grandparents have MUCH to teach children, and that is called "being productive". Their presence gives children a sense of the connectedness of the generations. Even my death will teach my granddaughter something about life.

Life is PRECIOUS!!!! I cannot emphasize that enough. For me, it is a gift from God. The idea that we can arbitrarily arrive culturally at the conclusion that it no longer is precious in the face of the vicissitudes of aging ....... well....... in my opinion that is a direct consequence of the abortion culture. We don't want helpless babies who inconvenience our lives, and we don't want want helpless elderly.....who inconvenience our lives. To go down either road requires abandoning the idea that life is a precious gift, and that we (as individuals, not necessarily as "the state") owe nothing to the One who gave it.

I realize that not everyone shares my particular faith. I'm OK with that. Whatever your spiritual condition happens to be is between you and God...... or the doorknob...... or whatever you happen to believe in. But whatever the case, EVEN when that gift seems like a burden, it is STILL precious. I live in pain. Every. Single. Day. If that is the price I pay for enjoying the rest of the beauty that this life has to offer, then so be it. I will gladly pay that particular piper until the day The LORD calls me home, and not a day sooner than that.......because I want to cherish every single minute of every single day that HE has given me. Only then will I be ready to go home. It saddens me to the point where I am typing this with moist eyes that there are people on this planet who believe that life begins to lose its value when we stop being income earners.

AMEN!!!

Anygunanywhere

AMEN!!! AMEN!!!

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jmra wrote:

jmorris wrote:I don't (I say now) want to live to the point were there's no life left.

IMHO this is a very different view than what is being portrayed in the article. He uses his father as an example, he stopped doing his "rounds" after a heartattack at age 77. He was still able to swim and enjoy life with his wife and grandkids. But accordinging to the article that's not good enough. Because he is no longer a "productive" member of society (not doing his rounds) he should cease to exist. This is very different than "no life left".

First of all, we don't stop being productive when we retire from work.....whatever age that happens to be at. Let's talk about grandkids, since I'm a new grandpa. I have a role to play in my granddaughter's life, regardless of whether or not I am still producing income. Aging grandparents have MUCH to teach children, and that is called "being productive". Their presence gives children a sense of the connectedness of the generations. Even my death will teach my granddaughter something about life.

Life is PRECIOUS!!!! I cannot emphasize that enough. For me, it is a gift from God. The idea that we can arbitrarily arrive culturally at the conclusion that it no longer is precious in the face of the vicissitudes of aging ....... well....... in my opinion that is a direct consequence of the abortion culture. We don't want helpless babies who inconvenience our lives, and we don't want want helpless elderly.....who inconvenience our lives. To go down either road requires abandoning the idea that life is a precious gift, and that we (as individuals, not necessarily as "the state") owe nothing to the One who gave it.

I realize that not everyone shares my particular faith. I'm OK with that. Whatever your spiritual condition happens to be is between you and God...... or the doorknob...... or whatever you happen to believe in. But whatever the case, EVEN when that gift seems like a burden, it is STILL precious. I live in pain. Every. Single. Day. If that is the price I pay for enjoying the rest of the beauty that this life has to offer, then so be it. I will gladly pay that particular piper until the day The LORD calls me home, and not a day sooner than that.......because I want to cherish every single minute of every single day that HE has given me. Only then will I be ready to go home. It saddens me to the point where I am typing this with moist eyes that there are people on this planet who believe that life begins to lose its value when we stop being income earners.

100%. If my post suggested anything different then I misspoke. I wasn't suggesting that I agreed with jmorris, I was just pointing out that what he was saying was even different than what was being portrayed in the article.

jmra wrote:If my post suggested anything different then I misspoke. I wasn't suggesting that I agreed with jmorris, I was just pointing out that what he was saying was even different than what was being portrayed in the article.

jmra, I understand, and actually, my post wasn't aimed at jmorris, it was aimed at Ezekiel Emanuel. Like jmorris, I don't want to "live to the point where there's no life left" either, so I'm not really picking on him at all. But for me, that means that once I'm in a coma with no hope of recovery, then unplug me and let me go.....not before. It doesn't mean that I'll be ready to shuffle off this mortal coil just because I've got a bad ticker, or emphysema, or lumbago, or impetigo, or the sniffles. Even if bedridden, if I am conscious, if I can talk, and if I can continue to give and receive love, then life is worth continuing, right down to the last minute of this gift. If the way I handle my own impending death can teach something to my survivors, especially my grandkids, then it is worth it for me to be that teacher. Better they should learn it from someone who loves them without reservation, than to learn it from a world that doesn't care one bit about them.

Unlike Ezekiel Emanuel, I'm not living my life for myself, I'm living it for those I love. And in that regard, I intend to deliver the full measure. Anything less is unbelievably selfish.

I knew that when abortion became acceptable, euthanasia would ultimately follow.

If a kids parents abort a brother or sister because they don’t want the bother and expense, why wouldn’t the kid consider euthanasia when the parents grow old and are just a bother and expense?

Karma?

VoiceofReason wrote:I knew that when abortion became acceptable, euthanasia would ultimately follow.

If a kids parents abort a brother or sister because they don’t want the bother and expense, why wouldn’t the kid consider euthanasia when the parents grow old and are just a bother and expense?

Karma?

With the way today's society is being pushed (family values) that idea is right in line.