I don’t trust WHO nor SAGE, Bob. We can only take their word for it regarding how this current flu is acting, and who it finds ‘tasty’. And our current administration espouses the same philosophy on age based treatment, and not only as it relates to this flu.
I am not a ‘senior’ quite yet, Jen. I’m almost 7 years away from Medicare eligibility. But do I get any credit, in your mind, for contributing toward it for perhaps 35+ years longer than you? If Medicare goes away tomorrow, who is the biggest loser, you or me?
What I want, or think should be, in a perfect world, which this certainly isn’t and never will be, doesn’t matter. We cannot afford to provide healthcare for all, adding to the burden of what we are already obligated to under Medicaid and Medicare. Similar programs have been implemented in three different States and none have lived up to their stated objective of containing costs while increasing healthcare availability.
What I am opposed to, and do not want, is government rationing of healthcare based on age.
I suppose like most other things, credibility is in the eye of the beholder, I would consider most “main stream media” sources as the least credible in recent history. But here are three different sources, other than WND. I don’t know how credible you will find these articles, but here they are:
Commentary on Medicare for all:
There’s no free healthcare:
The test cases mirror Obamacare in one way or another. In 2003, Maine decided to cover the uninsured by expanding the state's Medicaid program and creating a government-run "public option" to provide health insurance with subsidized premiums. Controls on hospital and doctor costs would lead to reduced premiums and savings for everyone, without tax increases, or so it was claimed. Five years later, "the system that was supposed to save money has cost taxpayers $155 million and is still rising," the Wall Street Journal reported. Meanwhile, Medicaid enrollment has doubled to 22 percent of the state's population, and access to the public plan has been capped.
In Massachusetts, "universal" coverage was enacted in 2006 along with a requirement that everyone be insured or pay a fine. (By 2009, the fine was up to $1,068.) Again, the claim was made--a claim Obama repeats--that costs would decline once everyone was covered. Today, 97 percent of Massachusetts citizens are covered, the highest rate in the country. But costs have soared to the point the New York Times characterized them as "runaway." Spending on the state's health insurance program has risen by 42 percent. A major cause shouldn't have surprised anyone: The newly insured have flooded doctors' offices for medical care paid for by others. Now Governor Deval Patrick, a close ally of Obama, wants to impose cost controls.
The Tennessee experiment began in 1994 with one thought in mind: curbing the rise in health care costs. TennCare was established to cover everyone either on Medicaid or unable to obtain insurance. Rather than bend downward, the cost curve has steeply climbed. In a decade, spending surged from $2.5 billion to $8 billion. To cope with this, the state is cutting the TennCare rolls and reducing benefits. The program still consumes a higher share of the state budget than any Medicaid program in the country.
Outrageous. Going after Humana for daring to alert recipients of Medicare Advantage that services could be cut under health care bill:
The desire for ‘instant gratification’ is a big problem and on the rise, I agree, Michael. You can hear it in Acorn & SEIU chants of : What do we want? Healthcare! When do we want it? NOW!!!!