Posts Tagged ‘elderly’

I Predicted Obama Democrats Would Turn On The Elderly. And I Was Right. You Just Watch How Obama Will Turn On You, Old People.

April 6, 2013

Earlier this year, I wrote a post bearing this title:

What I See Coming As ObamaCare Unfolds: The Holocaust Of The Elderly As Democrats Abandon Elderly And ‘Pivot’ To Young Voters

I stand here today as one whose opinions stand confirmed as fact.

Barack Obama is beginning to turn on the elderly as he “pivots” to the young.  That fact is demonstrated in his budget, in which he breaks (because Obama is a liar without shame, without integrity and without honor just as I have kept stating) his promise from 2008 and now says he will cut Social Security benefits.

Obama’s promise back then:

Obama is now putting cuts in Social Security and Medicare on the table in complete abandonment of his promises:

WASHINGTON — Seeking an elusive middle ground, President Barack Obama is proposing a 2014 budget that embraces tax increases abhorred by Republicans as well as reductions, loathed by liberals, in the growth of Social Security and other benefit programs.

The plan, if ever enacted, could touch almost all Americans. The rich would see tax increases, the poor and the elderly would get smaller annual increases in their benefits, and middle income taxpayers would slip into higher tax brackets despite Obama’s repeated vows not to add to the tax burden of the middle class. His proposed changes, once phased in, would mean a cut in Social Security benefits of nearly $1,000 a year for an average 85-year-old, smaller cuts for younger retirees.

Obama proposed much the same without success to House Speaker John Boehner in December. The response Friday was dismissive from Republicans and hostile from liberals, labor and advocates for the elderly.

As usual, Obama is as politically brilliant as he is completely morally depraved.

He recognizes that the elderly now overwhelmingly vote Republican – because as stupid as our elderly are today, they are smarter than the young punks whom Obama owns.

It is a fact that the elderly are THE most Republican-leaning group:

Elderly Vote Republican

Obama realizes what many Democrats in their districts don’t: that the elderly aren’t Obama worshippers.

And that therefore the elderly are blasphemers who deserve to die.

What group DOES vote for Obama?  The ignorant young punks.

And what do the ignorant young punks want?

They want socialism.  They want Obama to take care of them.

What is getting in the way of the godless socialist State that the young want?  Old people – and the benefits being consumed by old people.

How can young people get free health care when the old are getting most of the government bennies?  How can young people ever hope to have a viable Social Security system when the system promised to the elderly is bankrupting America?

The answer is that if you kill off all the elderly, you can make the same false promises to the young that the FDR generation of Democrats once made to the elderly of today.

I’ve been pointing this fact out in previous articles:

ObamaCare Will Bring Abortion Mindset To Treatment Of Elderly

Democrats Vote To Let Elderly Die In Name Of ‘Stimulus’

Remember How Leftist Media And Democrats Mocked Sarah Palin Over ‘Death Panels’?  Now Überliberal Paul Krugman Is Demanding More Death Panels

Paul Ryan Versus Barack Obama On Medicare (It Aint Paul Ryan Who Already Stole $716 Billion From Medicare, People)

You can find these quotes along with many others in the articles above, but let me start with the words of lifelong Democrat and Obama supporter Robert Reich:

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you,  particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.

“Thank you.  And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

And here’s now-former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, whom Obama appointed as OMB health policy adviser in addition to being picked to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care.  Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”

And “rationed care” means death panels.  Which again for the record überliberal Paul Krugman says are an essential part of ObamaCare – all previous Democrat lies to the contrary.

I’ve been saying it all along.

I couldn’t understand why Democrats refused to take ANY of the corrective actions necessary to save Medicare – which will go bankrupt and collapse by 2016.  And now Social Security – which is now in debt to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year.  A few minor changes could have saved these programs – but Democrats are in lock-fascist step determined NOT to allow those changes.

Understand: my PARENTS are on these programs.  As terrible and as godawful as these programs are given the private-sector alternatives that Democrats refused to allow or even consider, they were the only path for my parents’ – and millions and millions of other people’s parents’ – retirement.  Republicans proposed to gradually phase in reduced benefits beginning for those who had at least ten working years remaining to prepare alternative strategies (which would also give the country time to prepare those alternatives).  Current retirees would have been untouched.

Democrats refused to make any changes and falsely and frankly demonically demagogued the lie that Republicans were trying to kill old people (again, their changes wouldn’t have affected ANY “old people.”  I couldn’t understand why Democrats would allow the systems that THEY created to simply implode.

If we just made a few minor changes, we could keep these programs going.  It is insane that Democrats refuse to make those changes.  The reason that Europe is going through all the “austerity” crap is because they did what the Democrats are doing now in America; they refused to make minor changes and then they went bankrupt and now there is no way out of their crisis.

I now DO understand the reason Democrats won’t make the changes we need when there’s still time to make those changes: Democrats plan to turn on the elderly whom they promised they would take care of through these programs.  When they collapse – and they surely will – Democrats will “pivot” to the young voters and leave the elderly to die.

Democrats seized power by lying to the people who are now “the elderly.”  They can now leave those elderly to perish and sell their lies to a whole new generation of truly stupid young people.

Barack Obama realizes that he will profit politically if he wages his style of fearmongering and divisive campaigning and pits the young against the old (just as he pitted minorities against white people and women against men and the poor against the rich).  He realizes that he doesn’t need the elderly any more than he needs white people or the rich.

By increasingly pointing out that the elderly have an obligation to die so that the young can inherit the earth (and the socialism), Obama knows he can seize the young vote for the Democrat Party.  He will promise them the benefits that used to belong to the elderly.  Which means the elderly have got to go.

I’ve pointed this out again and again: D. James Kennedy prophetically warned:

“Watch out, grandpa!  Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”

You’re about to pay for your wickedness and selfishness in allowing the holocaust of 56 million murdered babies since Roe v. Wade in 1973, old people.  The day is coming when you are going to be told to shove off and die with dignity so that young Obama voters can take your place.

And you are going to deserve it, even as God begins to stockpile His wrath against the final and most wicked generation of Americans who will vote for your deaths by the millions the same way you voted for babies’ deaths by the millions.

You watch with growing horror, elderly Americans: Obama is going to use his mastery of political rhetoric – based entirely on his never EVER underestimating the stupidity and wickedness of the America people – to slowly begin to turn on you.  It will be just like homosexual marriage – or as great American pastor John MacArthur called it, “the Party platform of Romans Chapter One – in which Obama begins by unequivocally stating that he is opposed to it (see here and here), and then saying he’s “evolving”in spite of what he’d promised, and finally claiming that he is completely for what he had previously said that he was completely against.  And then he’ll claim that anybody who used to hold the very position that he himself used to hold is evil.  He’s going to frame turning on the elderly in “moral” terms, as an obligation to young people who are being deprived of benefits.  And when he’s got the young behind him, he will demand that you perish in miserable deaths due to medical neglect and the confiscation of benefits that you banked your retirements upon.

Because this is God damn America, and you helped set it up.

Now you get to find out what it’s like to be “aborted.”  Because it’s coming for YOU.  You’re going to be the next group of death camp Jews.  You’re going to be the next group of non-humans to perish.

God damn America.  God damn the Greatest Generation.  That’s where Obama is heading.

The beast is coming.  And you aint seen NOTHING yet as to the liberal holocaust that is going to overtake this wicked land.

Advertisements

Even ObamaCare Backers Now Finally Admit To Seeing Shocking Premium Hikes Coming Due To The Evil Mark-Of-The-Beast ObamaCare Law

February 18, 2013

Liberals are pathologically stupid and depraved people.  They didn’t have to be; they merely radically chose evil and choosing evil means being determined NOT to see or understand the truth.

Liberals are the people for whom St. Paul wrote “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” in Romans chapter one.  In fact, the great pastor and preacher John MacArthur recently pointed out that “the Democratic Party has “adopted the sins of Romans 1 as their  platform.”

So it didn’t matter how many times we warned liberals.  They are too recklessly idiotic to comprehend.

You simply cannot argue with dishonest people.  They wave lies in front of you, they bait and switch, they change the subject with unrelated demagoguery, etc., etc.

So now you wicked people who foolishly chose the most wicked president in this nation’s history are going to get to “benefit” from his dishonest Stalinist character:

States worry about rate shock during shift to new health law
Even states that back Obama’s healthcare law worry about a jump in some insurance premiums as it takes effect.
By Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau
February 18, 2013, 3:00 a.m.

WASHINGTON — Less than a year before Americans will be required to have insurance under President Obama‘s healthcare law, many of its backers are growing increasingly anxious that premiums could jump, driven up by the legislation itself.

Higher premiums could undermine a core promise of the Affordable Care Act: to make basic health protections available to all Americans for the first time. Major rate increases also threaten to cause a backlash just as the law is supposed to deliver many key benefits Obama promised when he signed it in 2010.

“The single biggest issue we face now is affordability,” said Jill Zorn, senior program officer at the Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut, a consumer advocacy group that championed the new law.

Administration officials have consistently downplayed the specter of rate increases and other disruptions as millions of Americans move into overhauled insurance markets in 2014. They cite provisions in the law that they say will hold down premiums, including new competitive markets they believe will make insurers offer competitive rates.

Exactly how high the premiums may go won’t be known until later this year. But already, officials in states that support the law have sounded warnings that some people — mostly those who are young and do not receive coverage through their work — may see considerably higher prices than expected.

That is because of new requirements in the law aimed at making insurance more comprehensive and more affordable for older, sicker consumers.

Insurance regulators in California, which has enthusiastically embraced the law, cautioned the Obama administration in a recent letter about “rate and market disruption.”

Oregon’s insurance commissioner, another supporter of the law, said new regulations could push up premiums for young customers by as much as 30% next year. He urged administration officials to slow enactment of the new rules.

A leading advocate for consumers in their 20s, Young Invincibles, sounded a similar caution, suggesting in a letter to administration officials that additional steps may be needed to protect young people from rising premiums. Young Invincibles mobilized in 2010 to help pass the healthcare law.

And regulators in Massachusetts, which was the model for Obama’s law, recently warned that although many residents and small businesses in the state “will see premium decreases next year, a significant number will see extreme premium increases.”

Remember this infamous scene from a truly demon-possessed liar:

Did demon-possessed Nancy Pelosi tell you what was inside this wicked bill?  Did demon-possessed Barack Obama tell you?  Did demon-possessed Harry Reid tell you that this wicked law would cause premiums to skyrocket???

I remember all these liars and many other demon-possessed liars in the Democrat Party – which stands for “DEMOnic BureauCRAT” – promising you the exact opposite of reality.  Because they are the party of lies and deceit.

You keep on trusting the holocaust baby murderers, America.  And you keep uncomprehendingly wondering why your country is sliding backward into meaningless mediocrity while your false messiah president keeps pumping out more and more of his demagoguery and lies.

We warned you that ObamaCare would cause death panels.  Democrats demonized us for predicting that.  Now they admit that we were telling the truth and they were demon-possessed liars for saying there wouldn’t be death panels.  We warned you that the law would massively drive up the cost of healthcare.  Now Democrats are admitting that conservatives were right and they were all demon-possessed liars for ever promising you otherwise.  We warmed you that a flood of doctors would flee the field of medicine and create a massive doctor shortage.  We rightly predicted that companies would get out of providing their workers insurance coverage due to this wicked law.  And now it’s happening just like we said it would.  Now Democrats are admitting that their wicked bill is in fact driving doctors out of medicine and creating a critical doctor shortage just as they impose an evil socialist takeover of the health care system that demands more doctors than ever.

Democrats are dishonest hypocrites: the unions who overwhelmingly back the Democrats and demanded this abomination be passed are now demanding that somebody else other than them pay the tab for it.

So, yes, the article goes on (it’s the LA – as in Liberal AlwaysTimes you know) to suggest that this “unexpected” massive cost to ObamaCare is really only temporary.  Just a minor hickup, folks.  But just remember that absoluately everything that the Democrats said about ObamaCare has been completely wrong.  And this damn thing was sold as “not adding one dime to the deficit” when that was a complete lie that adding TRILLIONS to the deficit.  How many times are you going to keep believing lies?

You deserve this, wicked America.  You deserve this and so much more.  And now your going to pay the bill for your false mesisiah.

California leads the nation.  And these days California is leading America right straight into the hell this once-great but now depraved nation truly deserves.  They’re the ones who are shocked, shocked shocked that 30% of the doctors the healthcare system needs to function are leaving medicine due to ObamaCare.  I don’t understand how it could happen, either.  I mean, pay the doctor less money (because they’re rich and Democrats say we should punish the rich, you know), dump more patients on him who can’t afford treatment, force them to move more way, waaaaay more paperwork to comply with the bureaucracy – and, yes, the death panels – and plant a few dozen bureaucratic agencies to watch over every single move you make ready to overrule your treatment decisions, and you’ll get more people entering medicine.  Right?

You want to know what else I’m predicting, since I’ve been dead solid perfect in all my forecasts about how a truly evil and demonic Democrat Party would destroy our health care system and murder millions of helpless Americans?  Try this one on for size: as we all know, elderly people tend to vote Republican, while younger people tend to vote Democrat.  And here we have these young Democrats left holding the bill for an incredibly costly ObamaCare fascist takeover.

And the costs are going to go up because of all that expensive treatment of the elderly – who tend to vote Republican.

So you just watch while the most wicked political party since the Nazis – and if there were an “National Socialist American Workers Party” the way we had a “National Socialist German Workers Party” (Nazi Party) you can bet your farm that it would be the same socialist cockroaches filling its ranks – begins to treat old people like Jews and tell them they need to die so that the young generation can live.

The Democrat Party is ultimately going to “pivot” to the young and turn on the elderly.  And treat them like Hitler treated the Jews and like Obama has treated the rich.

Mind you, they won’t admit they’re going to do that now; just like they wouldn’t admit that ObamaCare would drive up the cost of healthcare when they were lying to you to sell their abomination.

ObamaCare started out as a 2,000 page monstrosity.  It has now grown like a cancer to well over THIRTY THOUSAND PAGES as the regulations are being furiously written and added in to this demonic legislation.

When we voted for Obama, we literally voted for the coming beast whose useful idiot Obama is.

The other thing you can count upon is that demon-possessed Democrats will find a way to blame Republicans for the disaster they made the healthcare system with ObamaCare; and that a demon-possessed media will sell that lie and that a demon-possesssed nation will swallow that lie just as they have already swallowed so many other demonic lies before.

American Doctors For Truth Pointing Out Which Party Has ALREADY STARTED THROWING Grandma Off The Cliff (Hint: It’s The DEMOCRATS)

March 27, 2012

Democrats put out an incredibly hateful and deceitful ad demagoguing Republican budget chairman Paul Ryan by having a lookalike push grandma off a cliff.

Turnabout is the fairest play of all.  Especially given the fact that the ONLY party that is pushing grandma off a cliff is the DEMOCRAT PARTY and Barack Obama:

Interestingly, in the Democrat ad, grandma dies, underscoring that Democrats really DON’T give a flying damn about grandma and are willing to kill her if they can just score rhetorical points demagoguing Republicans as a benefit for her death.

Republicans refuse to let grandma die in their ad.  Because unlike Democrats, they aren’t genuinely evil.

The video quotes a Wall Street Journal story that points out:

“ObamaCare created a commission — the Independent Payment Advisory Board — tasked with limiting spending on Medicare. Its recommendations will be binding, unless Congress can come up with equivalent cost-savings of its own. For the first time, an unelected group will be empowered to limit health spending for the vulnerable elderly.”

That’s your “death panel.”  And it’s only ONE of 160 bureaucracies that will act as death panels if BigBrotherCare becomes law:

I’ve written about the horror of ObamaCare at length.  Here’s the heart of that ObamaCare horror for the elderly: the Complete Lives System:

In a nutshell, as you get older, you start having more health problems requiring more trips to the doctor and more medical care.  But ObamaCare understands that you’re probably retired and you’re a useless eater and it’s time for you to shove off and die with dignity.  So fascist Democrats want to cut off spending on the elderly and apply it to younger proletariats who are working for the sake of Dear Leader and are therefore eligible to continue to live.

Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein wrote:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

He wrote:

“Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

That’s why liberal intellectual and Obama advisor Robert Reich had this to say:

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.

“Thank you. And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

You know the joke about starting out in diapers and ending up that way, too.  Well, just remember that Democrats are pro-abortion and don’t mind killing useless eaters at either end of the age spectrum.

One major event that is upcoming is this one: Medicare WILL go bankrupt by no later than 2017.  And the Democrat Party is steadfastly refusing to do a damn thing about it or allow the Republicans to do a damn thing about it.  When Paul Ryan courageously tried to save Medicare in his last budget, Democrats lied about him and demonized him personally.

So here’s to hoping that the US Supreme Court throws out a law that is literally intended to let millions of Americans die.

You have one last chance to vote to make the morally evil Democrat Party extinct this year.  You’d better take it while you still can.

Medical Doctor Points Out That Doctors Will Be Fined Or Jailed If They Put Patients First Under ObamaCare

October 30, 2010

I pointed out in a previous article that Sarah Palin’s “death panels” were EVERYWHERE in this chart of ObamaCare:

First Chart

Now more and more medical doctors are confirming that tragic and disturbing fact:

ObamaCare Endgame: Doctors Will Be Fined Or Jailed If They Put Patients First
by Dr. Elaina George

If Obamacare is completely implemented, doctors will no longer be practicing medicine. They will instead become the drones tasked with deciding who gets the meager healthcare crumbs doled out by the bureaucrats who have the ultimate power over patient life and death. Those who are deemed to have illnesses that require treatments which are not cost effective can expect a one way ticket to a hospice.

Like so many bills passed by Congress, there was a hidden provision in the Stimulus bill passed in 2009. It spends 1.1 billion dollars to create an important piece of the framework for the healthcare bill called the Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. It is based on the false premise that doctors in consultation with their patients don’t have the ability to make the right healthcare choices (see executive summary). The council consists of 15 people appointed by the President.

They all have one thing in common–they are all isolated from day to day patient care; and therefore, are insulated from the real practice of the art of medicine. It makes it easy to see patients as a cost center to be controlled. With views of members like Dr Emanuel, who champions the complete-lives system, it is hard to ignore the probability that senior citizens, those with chronic illness, and the very young will be on the outside looking in. This council is another example of the people of this country being told by the government that it knows what is best for us.

The framework set up by the stimulus bill merely set the stage for the implementation found in the healthcare reform bill. How can the government get doctors to participate in Obamacare thereby a) willingly destroying the doctor patient relationship, and  b) betraying their Hippocratic Oath to provide treatments that they deem to be effective? Simple – fear and intimidation.

A second board created by the stimulus bill called The National Coordinator for Health Information Technology “will determine treatment at the time and place of care”. They are charged with deciding the course of treatment for the diagnosis given by the doctor. Now it becomes obvious why there has been a big push towards the implementation of universal electronic medical record use. It becomes a tool to completely control the physician and the patient. Those physicians and hospitals that choose to practice individualized patient care in consultation with their patients will be punished because they are not “meaningful users of the system over time.” Beginning January 1, 2013, penalties for doing the right thing for a patient will cost the doctor $100,000 for the first offense and jail for the second offense. This will have a chilling effect and may be the straw that completely breaks the foundation of good medicine – the doctor patient relationship.

46% of physiciansin a survey by The New England Journal of Medicine stated that they would leave the practice of medicine if Obamacare was implemented. This will only further decrease the quality of healthcare when the 30 million more people enter the system.  Maybe that’s why there is a big push in the healthcare bill to increase the number of other providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. There is no question that rationing will become our future. If you add 30 million more people into a system with fewer resources how could you possibly avoid rationing? Perhaps those members of Congress who passed this nightmare don’t care since they made sure that it wouldn’t apply to them.

Doctor Elaina George makes it crystal clear: ObamaCare was never about health or care; it was always about massively increasing control over the people by government.  Government as God.  Government as the arbiter of life and death.

ObamaCare brings the abortion mindset to the treatment of the elderly.

It can best be summed up in the words of former Clinton Secretary of Labor and current Obama supporter and adviser Robert Reich, who said of health care:

“It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

ObamaCare amounts to a future rationing of health care to senior citizens.

Repeal and replace this monstrosity by electing Republicans, or watch as your parents and all too soon even YOU YOURSELF begin to experience the evil consequences.

ObamaCare Will Bring Abortion Mindset To Treatment Of Elderly

May 13, 2010

D. James Kennedy prophetically said years back, “Watch out, Grandpa!  Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”

And coming they are.  And coming after Grandma, too, of course.

One of the morally depraved assumptions of abortion is that the baby has a duty to die for the convenience of his or her mother.

And guess what, Grandma and Grandpa?  It’s getting to be YOUR turn to quit burdening us with your useless lives.  It’s getting to be time that you shoved off and “died with dignity.”

May 11, 2010 12:00 A.M.
A ‘Duty to Die’?
Thomas Sowell

There was a time when some desperately poor societies had to abandon the elderly to their fate, but is that where we are today?

One of the many fashionable notions that have caught on among some of the intelligentsia is that old people have “a duty to die” rather than become a burden to others.

This is more than just an idea discussed around a seminar table. Already the government-run medical system in Britain is restricting what medications or treatments it will authorize for the elderly. Moreover, it seems almost certain that similar attempts to contain runaway costs will lead to similar policies when American medical care is taken over by the government.

Make no mistake about it, letting old people die is a lot cheaper than spending the kind of money required to keep them alive and well. If a government-run medical system is going to save any serious amount of money, it is almost certain to do so by sacrificing the elderly.

There was a time — fortunately, now long past — when some desperately poor societies had to abandon old people to their fate, because there was just not enough margin for everyone to survive. Sometimes the elderly themselves would simply go off from their families and communities to face their fate alone.

But is that where we are today?

Talk about “a duty to die” made me think back to my early childhood in the South, during the Great Depression of the 1930s. One day, I was told that an older lady — a relative of ours — was going to come and stay with us for a while, and I was told how to be polite and considerate towards her.

She was called “Aunt Nance Ann,” but I don’t know what her official name was or what her actual biological relationship to us was. Aunt Nance Ann had no home of her own. But she moved around from relative to relative, not spending enough time in any one home to be a real burden.

At that time, we didn’t have things like electricity or central heating or hot running water. But we had a roof over our heads and food on the table — and Aunt Nance Ann was welcome to both.

Poor as we were, I never heard anybody say, or even intimate, that Aunt Nance Ann had “a duty to die.”

I only began to hear that kind of talk decades later, from highly educated people in an affluent age, when even most families living below the official poverty level owned a car or truck and had air conditioning.

It is today, in an age when homes have flat-paneled TVs and most families eat in restaurants regularly or have pizzas and other meals delivered to their homes, that the elites — rather than the masses — have begun talking about “a duty to die.”

Back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann, nobody in our family had ever gone to college. Indeed, none had gone beyond elementary school. Apparently, you need a lot of expensive education, sometimes including courses on ethics, before you can start talking about “a duty to die.”

Many years later, while going through a divorce, I told a friend that I was considering contesting child custody. She immediately urged me not to do it. Why? Because raising a child would interfere with my career.

But my son didn’t have a career. He was just a child who needed someone who understood him. I ended up with custody of my son and, although he was not a demanding child, raising him could not help impeding my career a little. But do you just abandon a child when it is inconvenient to raise him?

The lady who gave me this advice had a degree from Harvard Law School. She had more years of education than my whole family had, back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann.

Much of what is taught in our schools and colleges today seeks to break down traditional values and replace them with more fancy and fashionable notions, of which “a duty to die” is just one.

These efforts at changing values used to be called “values clarification,” though the name has had to be changed repeatedly over the years, as more and more parents caught on to what was going on and objected. The values that supposedly needed “clarification” had been clear enough to last for generations, and nobody asked the schools and colleges for this “clarification.”

Nor are we better people because of it.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Don’t think Sowell knows what he’s talking about?

How about lifelong Democrat talking head and economist Robert Reich?

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you,  particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.

“Thank you.  And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

That’s right, young folk.  You get to pay more to have the privilege of one day being euthanized like an unwanted dog at the county animal shelter.  I know I’D certainly happily pay more for a privilege like that.  Pay more for my health care?  And then get to die a slow, painful death of medical neglect because I’ve been considered to be a useless burden like all those millions of babies Democrats have murdered?  Where can I sign?

Oh, I’m ALREADY signed up for it?  Coool.  I just can’t wait until that cancer starts eating holes in my body, and my government health plan offers me suicide in lieu of any actual care.  Or maybe I’ll get REALLY lucky and simply be left to die in my own filth.

Robert “Third” Reich isn’t the only one pointing out this actually quite obvious central tenet of the Democrats’ health plan.  Obama has appointed at least two other “experts” to advise him on medical issues.  Here’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, whom Obama appointed as OMB health policy adviser in addition to being picked to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care.  Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel included a chart with his work (available here), which shows how he wants to allocate medical resources under a government plan:

When you’re very young, or when you start reaching your 50s and 60s, you start receiving less and less priority.

Then there’s Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explains:

“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

There’s a great deal more about Obama’s own advisers’ plans here.

Which very much jives with what Obama himself told a woman concerning her mother:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

We can sum it up quite nicely with the words of Obama’s former senior economic adviser: “So we’re going to let you die.”

Die with dignity.  Or die without it.  It doesn’t matter.  What matters in the brave new world of ObamaCare is that liberals have finally succeeded in turning health care into a socialist boondoggle.  And it will one day be your duty to die in order to sustain that boondoggle.

‘Crazy Claims About Death Panels’ Sadly Not Crazy At All

October 13, 2009

Are you familiar with the phrase, “the banality of evil”?  The opening paragraph in the Wikipedia article on the subject summarizes the concept quite well:

The banality of evil is a phrase coined by Hannah Arendt and incorporated in the title of her 1963 work Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.  It describes the thesis that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.

Again and again, we have seen great evils inflicted by governments upon their people.  And we want to find monsters, because that’s who we want to believe would alone be capable of such monstrous evil.  But again and again, we find ordinary people – faceless bureaucrats performing faceless functions – had carried out what we later realize were monstrous deeds with a blithe acceptance of the premises of their government’s policies.

One of the reasons that these policies – later correctly described as “evil” – were allowed to begin, develop, build momentum, and ultimately turn monstrous is because too many people dismissed the possibility that such evil could ever happen.  “Our government would never do such a thing.”

Only it did.  It’s happened too many times before, and it will happen again.

With that introduction, let us look at the ubiquitously mocked term, “death panels.”  Nothing like that could ever actually happen.  Right?

Wrong.  If you go to Europe, it’s happening right now.  And the same sort of quasi-socialist liberals who want to create government health care here were created it there.

Hazel Fenton, an 80-year-old grandmother who was placed under a controversial care plan and left to “starve to death” after doctors identified her as being terminally ill, only recovered after the intervention of her daughter.

By Richard Savill
Published: 10:30PM BST 11 Oct 2009

Terminally ill grandmother 'left to starve' by doctors

Hazel Fenton pictured with her daughter Christine Ball Photo: ANDREW HASSON

Mrs Fenton, from East Sussex, is still alive and “happy” nine months after doctors declared she would only survive for days, withdrew her antibiotics and denied her artificial feeding, her daughter, Christine Ball, said.

“Without my persistence and pressure I know my mother would be dead now,” she added.

Mrs Fenton, a former private school house mother, had been placed on the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) scheme, which was originally developed as a way to care for cancer patients towards the end of their lives.

However, there has been recent criticism that not only cancer patients but others with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under the NHS scheme.

Last month six prominent British doctors and health care professionals wrote to The Daily Telegraph, expressing concern that some patients were being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced in England, medical staff can withdraw fluid and drugs from dying patents and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away. But this approach can also mask signs of improvement, it has been argued.

Miss Ball, who had been looking after her mother before she was admitted to the Conquest hospital, Hastings, East Sussex, on Jan 11, said she had to fight hospital staff for weeks before her mother was taken off the plan and given artificial feeding.

Miss Ball, 42, a carer, from Robertsbridge, East Sussex, said: “My mother was going to be left to starve and dehydrate to death. It really is a subterfuge for legalised euthanasia of the elderly on the NHS. ”

Mrs Fenton was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia. Although Mrs Ball acknowledged that her mother was very ill she was “astonished” when a junior doctor told her she was going to be placed on the plan to “make her more comfortable” in her last days.

On Jan 19, Mrs Fenton’s 80th birthday, Mrs Ball said her mother had lost “an awful lot of weight” but was feeling better, and told her she “didn’t want to die”.

But it took another four days to persuade doctors to give her artificial feeding, Miss Ball said.

Mrs Ball said the fight to save her mother had been made harder by the Mental Capacity Act. “I was told that we had no rights, and food and hydration were classed as treatment, which meant they had the right to withhold feeding. It gave a doctor the power to play god with my mother’s life,” she said.

Mrs Fenton is now being looked after in a nursing home near her daughter’s home.

A spokesman for East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust said: “Patients’ needs are assessed before they are placed on the [plan]. Daily reviews are undertaken by clinicians whenever possible.”

At the same scripted event in which White House aides handed out white coats to create a propaganda moment, Barack Obama recently said:

“We have now been debating this issue of health insurance reform for months,” Obama said.  “We have listened to every charge and every counter-charge — from the crazy claims about death panels to misleading warnings about a government takeover of our health care system.”

Death panels.  Crazy, right?  Nothing like that could ever happen here.

Unless it occurs to you to stop and THINK, and ask yourself why you would think that corrupt House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Charlie Rangel – or the Democrats who refuse to hold him accountable for his crimes – would be so much better than British liberals.

Provide your case that they are only evil over there in Britain, but our big government liberals here are ontologically good, and simply incapable of creating a system that would grow and degenerate until it tries to starve human beings to death.

There are all kinds of things going on in the United Kingdom and in Continental Europe that will very quickly be going on here, too, because too many of us just shut our minds off to the banality of evil that we have already seen time and time again.

And it’s already going on here.  Right now.  Under the very sort of medical system that Barack Obama wants to impose across the nation.

Take the story of Barbara Wagner, who was condemned to die by her state government medical system.  They denied her the drugs she needed to save her life, but agreed to pay for her to be euthanized.  Some faceless liberal bureaucrats “who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal” decided that Barbara Wagner’s life was not worth saving, but only worth taking.

The banality of evil.  Coming soon to a hospital or a doctor’s office near you.

And right now, Democrats are trying to expand the banality of evil.

The Wall Street Journal exposed that ObamaCare will cut essential cardiology and oncology care in order to lower the cost of the health system:

In President Obama’s Washington, medical specialists are slightly more popular than the H1N1 virus. Compared to bread-and-butter primary care doctors, specialists cost more to train and make more use of expensive procedures and technology—and therefore cost the government more money. Even so, the quiet war Democrats are waging on specialists is astonishing.

From Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’s health-care bill to changes the Administration is pushing in Medicare, Democrats are systematically attacking specific medical fields like cardiology and oncology. With almost no scrutiny, they’re trying to engineer a “cheaper” system so that government can afford to buy health care for all—even if the price is fewer and less innovative ways of extending and improving lives.

And the results of such measures and others will be a holocaust of the elderly.  With all measures undertaken in the spirit of bureaucratic efficiency:

The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health bills with new taxes and a $500 billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as baby boomers turn 65 and increase Medicare enrollment by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 1% of Medicare cuts will come from eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.

The assault against seniors began with the stimulus package in February.  Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age.  Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.

It is also highly relevant that Medicare denies treatment at a rate of more than double any private insurer’s average right now.  Is government care the thing you should most trust, or the thing you should most fear?

When Barack Obama mocks “the crazy claims about death panels,” it is ultimately up to you have to ask yourself just how much you implicitly trust the government to take care of you even when it is in the bureaucrats’ economic interests to allow you to die.  And it is up to you to decide if history is incapable of repeating itself.

Obama Loses On ‘Don’t Think, Just Vote’ Health Care: Grandma Gets A Reprieve

July 24, 2009

Barack Obama gave a national presidential news conference on July 22.  And he did such a great job selling his Obamacare that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put the kibosh on Obama’s imperious August deadline the very next day.

Even the New York Times turned on Obama’s presentation and faulted his “facts.”  And in the lexicon of liberal heresies and heretics, that’s almost like the Apostles turning on Jesus.  The Associated Press also found plenty of Obama’s “facts” to be somewhat deficient of truth content.  The biggest gripe of all about Obama’s news conference is that he didn’t actually tell us anything.  When you’re talking about taking over 1/5th of the US economy, a few details would have been nice.

That said, it would have helped Mr. Obama if he had bothered to actually bother to read the legislation before calling a national infomercial to sell it.  Eventually Democrats are going to have to actually read the provisions of the major legislation they ram down the country’s collective throat, after all.

But no, it was a lot easier to just go out and demonize the Republicans as being the fearmongering forces opposing reform instead.  Campaigning on vague notions of “hope” and “change,” without ever bothering to really describe what “hope” and “change” actually meant – and at the same time demagoguing against those opposing said amorphous “hope” and “change” – has worked wonderfully for Obama thus far.  So it’s really no surprise that he would go back to that same magician’s hat again.

The good news, though, is that the Frankenstein monster of health care has been driven back into the castle for at least the time being.  Grandma and grandpa have a reprieve.

Obama’s answer to a question that a woman asked about her mother’s health care is incredibly illustrative as to the bullet the elderly dodged today:

Member of the audience. Jane Sturm: “My mother is now over 105. But at 100, the doctors said to her, ‘I can’t do anything more unless you have a pacemaker.’ I said, ‘Go for it.’ She said, ‘Go for it.’ But the specialist said, ‘No, she’s too old.’ But when the other specialist saw her and saw her joy of life, he said, ‘I’m going for it.’ That was over five years ago. My question to you is:  Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?”

Obama: “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s ’spirit.’ Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.

You can watch the exchange for yourself:

What is remarkable is the fact that this woman Jane Sturm was seeking reassurance that Obama would clearly and unequivocally affirm the elderly mother’s right to life, and Obama responded by telling her that maybe mom should just take a painkiller and die as a drugged-out zombie-veg due to government-sanctioned medical neglect.

This is nothing new: Democrats have been pursuing rationing as an antidote to the costs of their government system all along.

It is simply a fact that the vast majority of health care resources are consumed at the end of life.  And as costs explode – and the CBO director has already told us the ugly truth that the cost of the Democrats’ plan WILL EXPLODE – it’s going to be the “resource-hogging” and “unproductive” senior citizens who are going to start seeing the short end of the health care stick.