Hope this is not the beginning of a wave.
I got my flu shot and I always encourage everyone to do so as well.
Link: https://www.livescience.com/cdc-investigation-flu-outbreak-university-of-michigan
(no message)
you are one interesting Dude...
But why do you care about seniors anyway?
They are such a drag on society... as your Obamacare architect/guru once proclaimed.
If he's right that there is no reason to live past 75... COVID has been a godsend.
No?
Link: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-coronavirus-adviser-zeke-emanuel-age-75-the-atlantic-essay
drop out at 75 and "Let nature take its course"?
As for Dr. Emmanuel, he raises interesting questions as well...it is true that a LOT of $$ gets spent on HC for seniors (illnesses and frailties come with the territory) and the actuarial charts don't lie, the "ROI" isn't the best...which is why many seniors ('moi' included) sign 'DNRs' to forestall 'unreasonable' measures being taken. Nonetheless, in our own extended family, there are numerous examples of very active and treasured members who have made it to their mid-to-upper 90's, and when they get sick, we're very, very happy that they have the medical care to keep them with us.
Perhaps as a slight aside, I feel blessed to have learned a great deal from them in many conversations over the years...through their 80's and 90's...they've been more cogent and wise than many younger folks I've come in contact with, so if I had to perform a triage on who to protect from serious illnesses, I'd have to add in a few more caveats than just age...get where I'm going on this?
As for "Slippery Slopes", it could be argued that arbitrarily denying HC to persons simply due to age on an actuarial chart could lead to similar denials for younger people with "actuarial limitations" as well...you know...like "pre-existing conditions"...what's your stance on that?...after all, they can be such a drag on profits.
The feds always make things worse.
“A day in the Life of Sue the Trump supporter…
Sue gets up at 6 a.m. and fills her coffeepot with water to prepare her morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.
With her first swallow of coffee, she takes her daily medication. Her medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of her medications are paid for by her employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Sue gets it too.
She prepares her morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Sue's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the shower, Sue reaches for her shampoo. Her bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for her right to know what she was putting on her body and how much it contained.
Sue dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air she breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
She walks to the subway station for her government-subsidized ride to work. It saves her considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Sue begins her work day. She has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Sue's employer pays these standards because Sue's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
If Sue is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, she'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think she should lose her home because of her temporary misfortune.
It's noon and Sue needs to make a bank deposit so she can pay some bills. Sue's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Sue's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Sue has to pay her Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and her below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Sue and the government would be better off if she was educated and earned more money over her lifetime.
Sue is home from work. She plans to visit her father this evening at his farm home in the country. She gets in her car for the drive. Her car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards.
She arrives at her childhood home. Her generation was the third to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
She is happy to see her father, who is now retired. Her father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Sue wouldn't have to.
Sue gets back in her car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Sue enjoys throughout her day.
Sue agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm self-made and believe everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."”
(no message)
things for all U.S. citizens that make their lives much better...in "Stark" contravention to his statement...so if you mean to say that Curly was being "non-sensical", I agree with you.
(no message)