Posts Tagged ‘so we’re going to let you die’

Waivers Granted To Unions And Big/Politically-Connected Companies; Death Panels For The Rest Of Us

November 15, 2010

Under Barack MaoBama, everyone is equal under the law.

Except for unions, big businesses and politically-connected companies that are a lot MORE equal under the law.

If you are a union, or a business that can afford a high-power attorney, or politically-connected, the fact that ObamaCare reeks to high heavens isn’t that important.  In fact, it’s even a GOOD thing for some companies: their competition will be driven out of business (and why should they care if their competitors’ employees lose their jobs?).

But if you’re NOT a union, or if you CAN’T hire a high-power law firm, or if you DON’T know Harry Reid or one of his ilk, you are just screwed.

That’s the message coming out of Washington.

As of Saturday, November 13, 111 unions and businesses had received waivers from ObamaCare.

That health care law that was supposed to be so great?  It’s such a pile of fecal matter that even the unions who pushed for it are begging to be waived from it.

Gateway Pundit has the facts:

This didn’t make any headlines…
The Obama Administration recently handed out 111 Obamacare waivers to special US companies… And, they’re hiding this from the American public. It takes 6 clicks to find out this information on the government’s health care website.

Unfortunately, if you’re a small business or you don’t have the right connections you can’t get a waiver for your company.
That’s the new reality under the Obama-Pelosi regime.

Unbelievable.
Via Cost of Freedom:

FOX News contributor Tracy Byrnes said it best:

“The bottom line here is that they gave out waivers is an admission of guilt. Basically they’re saying, “You’re right. We screwed up.” That’s the bottom line here. They did not create a law that benefits all of us.”

Here is the list of the 111 special companies that were granted Obamacare waivers.

Here are the 111 “special” unions and companies who are better than everybody else.  As the Gateway Pundit piece above points out, it takes 6 clicks to get to this information.  And since the government can easily make it 12 clicks – or just delete it altogether – it seems prudent to have a record:

Applicant Application
Received
Plan
Effective
Date
Number
of
Enrollees
Application
Completed by
Applicant
Waiver
Approved
1 Protocol Marketing Group 10/4/2010 1/1/2011 454 10/25/2010 11/1/2010
2 Sasnak 9/29/2010 1/1/2011 813 9/29/2010 11/1/2010
3 Star Tek 10/1/2010 1/1/2011 1,423 10/26/2010 11/1/2010
4 Adventist Care Centers 10/1/2010 1/1/2011 725 10/26/2010 10/29/2010
5 B.E.S.T of NY 10/7/2010 1/1/2011 1,200 10/27/2010 10/29/2010
6 Boskovich Farms, Inc 10/8/2010 1/1/2011 165 10/28/2010 10/29/2010
7 Gallegos Corp 9/29/2010 1/1/2011 86 10/28/2010 10/29/2010
8 Jeffords Steel and Engineering 10/4/2010 1/1/2011 112 10/28/2010 10/29/2010
9 O.K. Industries 10/4/2010 1/1/2011 1,238 10/28/2010 10/29/2010
10 Service Employees Benefit Fund 10/12/2010 11/1/2010 1,297 10/29/2010 10/29/2010
11 Sun Pacific Farming Coop 10/6/2010 12/1/2010 1,109 10/6/2010 10/29/2010
12 UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust 10/5/2010 1-Dec 68 10/25/2010 10/29/2010
13 HCR Manor Care 10/5/2010 1/1/2011 2,666 10/26/2010 10/28/2010
14 IBEW No.915 9/28/2010 1/1/2011 930 10/15/2010 10/28/2010
15 Integra BMS for Culp, Inc. 10/4/2010 1/1/2011 34 10/25/2010 10/28/2010
16 New England Health Care 9/27/2010 1/1/2011 7,454 10/26/2010 10/28/2010
17 Aegis Insurance 10/6/2010 11/1/2010 67 10/25/2010 10/26/2010
18 Alliance One Tobacco 9/30/2010 1/1/2011 138 10/21/2010 10/26/2010
19 Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund 9/29/2010 1/1/2011 2 10/21/2010 10/26/2010
20 Assurant Health (2nd Application) 9/29/2010 1/1/2011 19,024 10/21/2010 10/26/2010
21 Captain Elliot’s Party Boats 10/12/2010 11/1/2010 10 10/25/2010 10/26/2010
22 Carlson Restaurants 9/22/2010 1/1/2011 3,381 10/21/2010 10/26/2010
23 CH Guenther & Son 9/24/2010 1/1/2011 300 10/21/2010 10/26/2010
24 CKM Industries dba Miller Environmental 10/5/2010 11/1/2010 34 10/25/2010 10/26/2010
25 CWVEBA 10/14/2010 10/1/2010 4,500 10/18/2010 10/26/2010
26 Darden Restaurants 9/30/2010 1/1/2011 34,000 10/21/2010 10/26/2010
27 Duarte Nursery 9/23/2010 1/1/2011 283 10/19/2010 10/26/2010
28 Employees Security Fund 9/29/2010 1/1/2011 22 9/29/2010 10/26/2010
29 Florida Trowel Trades 9/27/2010 1/1/2011 297 10/21/2010 10/26/2010
30 Ingles Markets 9/30/2010 1/1/2011 917 10/25/2010 10/26/2010
31 Meijer 10/1/2010 1/1/2011 4,873 10/1/2010 10/26/2010
32 O’Reilly Auto Parts 9/23/2010 1/1/2011 9,722 9/23/2010 10/26/2010
33 Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund 9/30/2010 1/1/2011 534 10/21/2010 10/26/2010
34 Sun Belt 9/28/2010 10/1/2010 114 10/20/2010 10/26/2010
35 UFCW Local 227 10/12/2010 11/1/2010 1,125 10/12/2010 10/26/2010
36 Uncle Julio’s 9/30/2010 11/1/2010 115 10/25/2010 10/26/2010
37 United Group 9/24/2010 1/1/2011 177 10/19/2010 10/26/2010
38 US Imaging 10/11/2010 11/1/2010 148 10/25/2010 10/26/2010
39 Vino Farms 10/8/2010 11/1/2010 152 10/21/2010 10/26/2010
40 Advanta 9/20/2010 9/1/2011 52 9/20/2010 10/21/2010
41 Agricare 9/23/2010 11/1/2010 437 9/23/2010 10/21/2010
42 Alaska Seafood 9/23/2010 1/1/2010 262 10/15/2010 10/21/2010
43 American Fidelity 9/22/2010 10/23/2010 9,358 10/14/2010 10/21/2010
44 Convergys 9/20/2010 1/1/2011 1,400 9/20/2010 10/21/2010
45 Darensberries 9/28/2010 10/1/2010 1,450 9/28/2010 10/21/2010
46 Gowan Company 9/23/2010 1/1/2011 225 9/27/2010 10/21/2010
47 Greystar 9/23/2010 1/1/2011 1,747 10/13/2010 10/21/2010
48 Macayo Restaurants 9/22/2010 12/1/2010 46 10/18/2010 10/21/2010
49 Periodical Services 9/27/2010 1/1/2011 464 9/27/2010 10/21/2010
50 UniFirst 9/23/2010 9/1/2011 2,659 10/14/2010 10/21/2010
51 Universal Forest Products 9/23/2011 5/1/2010 1,738 10/19/2010 10/21/2010
52 UFCW Maximus Local 455 10/4/2010 1/1/2011 59 10/18/2010 10/18/2010
53 AHS 9/22/2010 1/1/2011 400 10/12/2010 10/14/2010
54 GuideStone Financial Resources 9/21/2010 1/1/2011 354 9/21/2010 10/14/2010
55 Local 25 SEIU 9/29/2010 10/1/2010 31,000 10/7/2010 10/14/2010
56 MAUSER Corp. 9/21/2010 1/1/2011 47 9/24/2010 10/14/2010
57 Preferred Care, Inc. 9/15/2010 1/1/2011 918 9/15/2010 10/14/2010
58 Ruby Tuesday 10/8/2010 1/1/2011 3,219 10/8/2010 10/14/2010
59 The Dixie Group, Inc. 8/27/2010 6/19/2010 269 10/12/2010 10/14/2010
60 UFCW Local 1262 9/20/2010 10/1/2010 5,390 9/20/2010 10/14/2010
61 Whelan Security Company 9/23/2010 1/1/2011 287 10/12/2010 10/14/2010
62 AMF Bowling Worldwide 9/14/2010 1/1/2011 295 10/7/2010 10/12/2010
63 Assisted Living Concepts 9/17/2010 1/1/2011 1,174 9/17/2010 10/12/2010
64 Case & Associates 9/17/2010 1/1/2011 87 9/17/2010 10/12/2010
65 GPM Investments 9/17/2010 1/1/2011 275 9/17/2010 10/12/2010
66 Grace Living Centers 9/14/2010 10/1/2010 534 9/14/2010 10/12/2010
67 Mountaire 9/17/2010 1/1/2011 2,074 9/17/2010 10/12/2010
68 Swift Spinning 9/16/2010 1/1/2011 240 9/16/2010 10/12/2010
69 Belmont Village 9/10/2010 1/1/2011 785 10/4/2010 10/8/2010
70 Caliber Services 9/13/2010 1/1/2011 606 9/13/2010 10/8/2010
71 Cracker Barrel 9/9/2010 1/1/2011 16,823 9/17/2010 10/8/2010
72 DISH Network 9/13/2010 3/1/2011 3,597 9/23/2010 10/8/2010
73 Groendyke Transport,  Inc 9/2/2010 1/1/2011 1,322 9/2/2010 10/8/2010
74 Pocono Medical Center 9/24/2010 1/1/2011 3,298 9/24/2010 10/8/2010
75 Regis Corporation 9/10/2010 3/1/2011 3,617 10/1/2010 10/8/2010
76 The Pictsweet Co. 9/13/2010 1/1/2010 694 9/13/2010 10/8/2010
77 Diversified Interiors 9/28/2010 10/1/2010 300 9/28/2010 10/1/2010
78 Local 802 Musicians Health Fund 9/29/2010 10/1/2010 1,801 9/29/2010 10/1/2010
79 Medical Card System 9/20/2010 10/1/2010 6,635 9/23/2010 10/1/2010
80 The Buccaneer 9/22/2010 10/1/2010 125 9/28/2010 10/1/2010
81 CIGNA 9/17/2010 9/26/2010 265,000 9/30/2010 9/30/2010
82 Greater Metropolitan Hotel 9/16/2010 10/1/2010 1,200 9/24/2010 9/30/2010
83 Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund 9/16/2010 10/1/2010 881 9/24/2010 9/30/2010
84 GS-ILA 9/15/2010 10/1/2010 298 9/15/2010 9/28/2010
85 Allied 9/13/2010 10/1/2010 127 9/13/2010 9/27/2010
86 Harden Healthcare 9/9/2010 1/1/2011 874 9/29/2010 9/27/2010
87 Health and Welfare Benefit System 9/16/2010 10/1/2010 41 9/16/2010 9/27/2010
88 Health Connector 9/20/2010 10/1/2010 3,544 9/24/2010 9/27/2010
89 I.U.P.A.T 9/16/2010 10/1/2010 875 9/23/2010 9/27/2010
90 Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. 9/22/2010 10/1/2010 326 9/22/2010 9/27/2010
91 Transport Workers 9/20/2010 10/1/2010 107 9/23/2010 9/27/2010
92 UFT Welfare Fund 9/16/2010 10/1/2010 351,000 9/27/2010 9/27/2010
93 Aegis 9/16/2010 10/1/2010 162 9/21/2010 9/24/2010
94 Aetna 9/16/2010 10/1/2010 209,423 9/16/2010 9/24/2010
95 Allflex 9/20/2010 10/1/2010 34 9/22/2010 9/24/2010
96 Baptist Retirement 9/10/2010 10/1/2010 127 9/17/2010 9/24/2010
97 BCS Insurance 9/13/2010 9/24/2010 115,000 9/22/2010 9/24/2010
98 Cryogenic 9/20/2010 10/1/2010 19 9/20/2010 9/24/2010
99 Fowler Packing Co. 9/8/2010 10/1/2010 39 9/17/2010 9/24/2010
100 Guy C. Lee Mfg. 9/15/2010 10/1/2010 312 9/15/2010 9/24/2010
101 HealthPort 9/17/2010 10/1/2010 608 9/17/2010 9/24/2010
102 Jack in the Box 9/17/2010 10/1/2010 1,130 9/21/2010 9/24/2010
103 Maritime Association 9/17/2010 10/1/2010 500 9/21/2010 9/24/2010
104 Maverick County 9/21/2010 10/1/2010 1 9/23/2010 9/24/2010
105 Metro Paving Fund 9/20/2010 10/1/2010 550 9/20/2010 9/24/2010
106 PMPS-ILA 9/19/2010 10/1/2010 15 9/23/2010 9/24/2010
107 PS-ILA 9/19/2010 10/1/2010 8 9/23/2010 9/24/2010
108 QK/DRD (Denny’s) 9/16/2010 10/1/2010 65 9/22/2010 9/24/2010
109 Reliance Standard 9/14/2010 10/1/2010 varies 9/14/2010 9/24/2010
110 Tri-Pak 9/20/2010 10/1/2010 26 9/20/2010 9/24/2010
111 UABT 9/17/2010 10/1/2010 17,347 9/17/2010 9/24/2010
total 1,175,411

Just scrolling down the list, twenty of of these “waivers” have gone to unions.  You know, the socialist “workers of the world unite!” organizations that pushed so hard for the ObamaCare death panels that they’ve decided only others should stand before.

Everything Obama and the Democrat Party told you about ObamaCare – EVERYTHING!!! – was a lie.

Obama assured us that the ObamaCare mandates that would force Americans to purchase insurance (or be punished) was not a tax.  That was a lie.

Obama told us that if we liked our doctor we could keep that doctor.  That was a lie.  Even Obama admitted that his promise turned out to be a load of crap.

Obama promised us if we liked our current plan we could keep it.  That was a lie.  Many plans have simply been canceled altogether as a direct result of ObamaCare.  And people who loved their plans found themselves dumped.  And then, on top of that, it turns out that more than half of all company plans won’t pass Obama’s muster – meaning that even more people will find themselves dumped from their plans.

Obama promised that his health care system would “bend the cost curve down.”  That was a lie.  The fact is that Price Waterhouse determined that private insurance premiums would skyrocket 111% over ten years under ObamaCare.  And that the costs for individuals and for families would very nearly double.

Even those organizations that pushed for ObamaCare are now seeing their costs to cover employees go up as a direct result of it:

Citing health overhaul, AARP hikes employee costs
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press – Thu Nov 4, 4:34 pm ET

WASHINGTON – AARP’s endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. Now the seniors’ lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.

In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.

And AARP adds that it’s changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax.

Obama promised that his health care plan would be good for businesses.  That was a lie.  Company after company has announced that it would be taking millions and even billion-plus dollar writedowns due to the additional costs that would be imposed on them by ObamaCare.

And when these lying liars tell us we’re crazy if we think ObamaCare will have a death panel, well, that’s a lie.

In the words of über-liberal icon Paul Krugman:

Krugman made his comments on ABC’s “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” during a roundtable discussion about the economy and the recent findings of the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission.

Here’s the key excerpt:

Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It’s going to be that we’re actually going to take Medicare under control, and we’re going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it’s not going to happen now.”

And fellow über-lib Robert Reich was even more explicit about this more death and more taxes health care plan of Obama’s:

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.”

Unless, of course, you’re a privileged, politically-connected liberal, in which case you can get a waiver from this “we’re going to let you die” verdict that everyone else will receive.

With that on the table, we could still say that there isn’t a death panel in ObamaCare.  Because it turns out that there are 160 death panels:

First Chart

The Democrats who rule this country now are the most evil politicians in American history.  And this generation of Americans who voted for them in 2008 is the stupidest generation (or you can call it “the Dodo bird generation”).

You’d better get smart quick.  Because these people will – now in their very own words – “let you die” with a “a combination of death panels and sales taxes.”

Advertisements

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.

Breast Cancer Screening: Government Fires First Volley Of Rationing, Death By Medical Neglect

November 19, 2009

Let me begin by saying that the current versions of ObamaCare don’t have a single death panel.

It’s more like 111 separate death panels.

Some of the names  and acronyms of the dozens and dozens of bureaucracies are undoubtedly different under the new iteration of socialized medicine, but here’s a snapshot of your new health care system if Democrats get their way:

The Senate version is 2,075 pages of fun, I hear.  Nobody understands it.  And nobody is going to end up getting a chance to read it by the time it gets voted on.

If you thought that there was going to be any kind of transparency or accountability – or even honesty – from the Obama administration – you need to stop smoking your crack pipe.

This latest event in the march toward socialized medicine reminds me of the case of Barbara Wagner.  In Oregon, which has “universal coverage” through the state, she was abandoned to die by a system that would not pay for her cancer treatment, but offered to pay for her euthanasia.

Only this time, the government wants to deny treatment on the other side of the cancer diagnosis.

IBD Editorials

Rationing’s First Step

Health Care: A government task force has decided that women need fewer mammograms and later in life. Shouldn’t that be between patient and physician? We have seen the future of health care, and it doesn’t work.

We have warned repeatedly that the net results of health care bills before Congress will be higher demand, fewer doctors, more cost control, all leading to rationing.  New recommendations issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) regarding breast cancer and the necessity for early and frequent mammograms do not convince us otherwise.

Just six months ago, the panel, which works under the Health and Human Services Department as a “best practices” study group, was shouting its concern about a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study showing a 1% drop in the number of women regularly undergoing such screening and prevention.

The task force was saying that women older than 40 should get a mammogram every one to two years. It found that frequent screening lowered death rates from breast cancer mostly for women ages 50 to 69. But that was then, and this is now.

“We’re not saying women shouldn’t get screened. Screening does save lives,” Diana Petiti, task force vice chairman, said of the recommendations published Tuesday in Annals of Internal Medicine. “But we are recommending against routine screening.”

Now the panel recommends that women in their 40s stop having routine annual mammograms and that older women should cut back to every two years. The concern allegedly is that too frequent testing can result in increased anxiety, false positives, unneeded follow-up tests and possibly disfiguring biopsies.  Preventing breast cancer and saving lives almost get lost in the new analysis.

“I have a particular concern in this case about who was involved in this task force,” says Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., who was a heart surgeon in private life. “There are no surgeons or oncologists who deal directly with breast cancer or even radiologists. … I’ve seen far too many young women develop late-stage breast cancer because they didn’t have adequate screening.”

Little, if anything, has happened medically in the last six months to cause such a shift. A lot, however, has happened politically as a health care overhaul has limped forward on life support. The Congressional Budget Office has been busy pricing these various bills, a process that includes screening and prevention.

As we have warned, the growing emphasis seems to be on cost containment rather than quality of care. About 39 million women undergo mammograms each year in America, costing the health care system more than $5 billion.

“The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40,” says Otis Brawley, its chief medical officer. “Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider.”

Daniel Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School, says: “Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and those idiots want to do away with it. It’s crazy — unethical, really.”

This, sadly, appears to be the future of medicine under government-run health care. Aside from taxes on insurers, providers and device manufacturers, we’ll be up to our eyeballs in cost-effectiveness boards that will decide who gets what tests and treatments, when and if. These are only recommendations for now, but they are the shape of things to come.

An IBD/TIPP poll found that 45% of medical doctors would consider retiring if the Congressional health care “reform” passes.  Given the fact that an increasing shortage of doctors is already one of the chief burdens in providing health care, this exodus would amount to a catastrophe that our health system would never recover from.

In Canada, the chronic doctor shortage has been bad enough that patients literally have to sign up for a lottery in order to have a chance to “win” a primary care physician.  But now we are learning that overwhelmed Canadian doctors are using a lottery of their own to dump patients.

Why on earth would anyone want this for America?

The Obama administration is preparing the health delivery system to implement the philosophy of Obama advisers such as Robert Reich, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Cass Sunstein, which can be easily summarized with the quote:

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

Robert Reich’s words in context only make the hateful idea sound even more hateful:

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.”

Then there are the words of Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, who 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.”

And Rahm Emanuel’s brother Ezekiel, whom Obama appointed as his OMB health policy adviser in addition to selecting him to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research wrote:

“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 Obama himself told a woman who wanted to keep her aging mother alive:

“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 take the painkiller rather than have that lifesaving surgery, Barry Hussein.  And why don’t you insist that Michelle and your two daughters take the pill rather than have that lifesaving surgery, too?  Just to be like all the “little people” out there.

But of course that’s not going to happen.  Rather, Democrats have now exempted themselves from 11 separate amendments that would have required them to have the same ObamaCare that they want to force everyone else to have.

You can understand why they would do so, given the promises that the system will be worse than terrible, and due to the fact that even a complete idiot who looks around and sees how horribly the administration has managed the H1N1 vaccine situation can recognize that taking on 1/6th of the economy would be beyond catastrophic.  I mean, heck, if I were a Democrat, I’d be sure to exempt myself from this monstrosity too, lest MY family members fall under the coming steamroller.

This “recommendation” of reducing mammographies isn’t mandatory now, but that’s because the government hasn’t usurped the health care system yet.  You just wait a decade from now, when the government runs everything, and soaring deficits force them to start cutting costs.

“… So We’re Going To Let You Die.” Vote Deathocrat, Vote Death Panels

October 17, 2009

Verum Serum sets up the hypocrisy of the Democrats:

Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor under Clinton and more recently an Obama economic adviser, has been all over the media lately shilling for ObamaCare. The public option is no more dangerous than a box of puppies according to this professionally produced video featuring Reich. (I won’t embed it but it’s worth a quick watch.) The real injustice, according to Reich, is that political operatives like us are trying to “confuse and scare” people about change.

So perhaps he can explain for us his comments in the video below. Reich is speaking at a Colloquium on Political Science at UC Berkeley on Sept. 26, 2007. No other set-up is necessary – watch:

Listen to the words of Robert Reich:

[Youtube link]

Here’s a transcript of the most relevant remarks of Robert “Third” Reich:

I’ll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:

“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.”

Pay more, old people die.  Check, and check.  Sounds like exactly what any big government fascist would want.

“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.”

Sarah Palin just cut right to the chase back when she wrote:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

And for all the hell that the servants of hell have unleashed on her for her comment, she was 100% correct.

The entire plan is evil:

Health-Care_Democrats-plan-Charted

And, yeah, there really are things that can very legitimately be called “death panels.”  Take “The Death Book for Veterans” – which George Bush banned and Barack Obama demanded be reinstated – that required veterans to consider life and death from a bleak perspective and consider euthanasia to avoid being a burden.  My article on that discovered some dishonest federal government shenanigans when that story was exposed as the VA sought to cover up the role of the Hemlock Society.

We’re seeing the genesis of a genuine holocaust beginning to emerge.  The Democrats’ plan will force health insurers to cover everyone regardless of whether they have a pre-existing condition, regardless of whether they honestly represented themselves when they obtained their insurance, and regardless of whether they can even pay for their coverage.  And the system the Democrats are creating completely depends on young, healthy people who have historically not bought medical coverage.  You can’t add massively to the costs of providing care if you don’t have at least an equally massive inflow of dollars coming in.  If young people who have never bought medical coverage before don’t buy coverage in huge numbers, we will very quickly face critical shortages, and massive rationing of care – particularly to the elderly who have less value under the Democrats’ plan – will ensue.

And I don’t mean just pay the “individual mandate” fines – which have been watered down significantly to make the Democrats’ plan more palatable – because they don’t create enough revenue.  I mean if they don’t purchase health care in huge numbers, we will see serious shortages, rationing, and death by medical neglect.

Harry Reid made a staggering admission while trying to prevent Democrat-special-interest anathema tort reform.  He said:

HARRY REID: “He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesnt it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, were talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. Its a very small percent.”

[Youtube]

The Democrats’ health plan will be FAR more costly than any estimates yet offered.  The government ALWAYS underestimates its cost for its programs.  Medicare cost nine times more than was estimated, for example.

And let me point out that figures such as Robert Reich, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Cass Sunstein are proponents of the Democrats’ system and believe it will go well – AND THEY ARE STILL TELLING US THAT A CENTRAL PART OF THE SYSTEM WILL BE TO ALLOW ELDERLY PEOPLE TO DIE.

Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson “warned” Americans that “Republicans want you to die quickly” during a floor speech in the House of Representatives.  But he is a liar.  It is not Republicans who are literally out talking about letting people die, but Democrats.

Please come to your senses and start denouncing the Deathocrats’ Death Panel bill.