Showing posts with label Duty to Die Lecture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Duty to Die Lecture. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Socialized Medicine Update – From Congressman John Campbell’s Laptop to Yours (8/5/09)

Wednesday, August 5, 2009:

Socialized Medicine: The final committee mark-up in the House for the socialized medicine bill finished late Friday evening with the bill passing by a vote of 31-28. Five of the "Blue Dog" Democrats (Gordon, Hill, Harman, Ross, and Space) who had previously opposed the bill, voted in favor of it, with the announcement of some minor modifications. Three other "Blue Dogs" (Matheson, Barrow, Melancon) voted ‘No.’ In essence, the bill is the same as it was before. What’s interesting here is that Committee Chairman Henry Waxman called for the vote on the bill when there were still 52 amendments pending that had neither been debated nor voted upon. The Chairman provided a vague promise that those amendments would be heard in September.

So why take a vote on a bill that supposedly isn't done yet? This is pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that those who are pushing this mess (including the President and the Speaker) want to show momentum before the August recess. That’s to be expected, but the Republicans in Congress and the majority of Americans, who oppose this increase in taxes, costs, deficit, debt, and the incumbent reduction in the quality of care and competency of caregivers, will not be silent during these next 5 weeks either. I intend to tell the truth about this government-run healthcare plan every chance I get in every medium.

In all practicality, I believe that there will be a healthcare reform bill passed at some point this Congress, and It will likely be directionally opposite from where I think we ought to go. We should be moving further away from the government run systems we have now, and instead be moving toward a true open market where everyone buys the plan they want. Those who cannot afford it are subsidized, and pre-existing conditions are handled through a high-risk pool. The best we can probably hope for in this Pelosi-led Congress, is legislation that will not completely destroy private medicine in this country. With this Congress and this President, this is the new standard for the definition of winning.

Here is an article I wrote for last Sunday's Washington Times which explores some of the deeper consequences of the push for socialized medicine. I hope you enjoy it.

Cost-benefit analysis vs. American citizens' lives
Sunday August 2, 2009
By Rep. John Campbell


Click here to go to WashingtonTimes.com
Prior to the founding of the United States, political theorist and philosopher John Locke developed the theory that government derives its power and authority from the consent of the governed. Benjamin Franklin once wrote that "in free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns."

These are the principles that are fundamental to the American system and have helped shape the nation we know and love today.
Flash forward to the current setting and context. President Obama has made his intent clear on health care: Medical decisions will no longer be made by doctors and patients, but by the omnipotent prowess of the federal government. By proposing creation of a bureaucracy to ration care and determine the cost-effectiveness of care for individuals, he has violated at least one fundamental tenet of America's founding.

The House version of the bill creates fifty-three new departments, agencies and commissions, but one stands out: the ‘National Institute of Comparative Effectiveness.’ Though it may sound benign, this bureaucracy will be used to ration care.

A similar institution exists in Britain, called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, given the curious acronym of N.I.C.E. Rulings on whether people live or die are made frequently in Britain and Canada, and if an individual has a pre-existing condition, is elderly, or for some reason deemed "unfit" for a lifesaving procedure, his chances of being granted that lifesaving procedure become uncertain. With health care rationing, lives will literally hang in the balance, subject to the whims of government.
In fact, it is documented that in countries where socialized medicine is in place, citizens suffer from drastically lower survival rates from ailments such as cancer and heart disease. On balance, survival rates range from around 30 percent to 50 percent below that of countries with private medicine.

This socialized-medicine package is a giant leap in a direction that changes the dynamic of government as a servant to the people, violating the widely acknowledged precept of democratic government, that it derives its power from those which it governs. Mr. Obama and other big-government advocates are now effectively forcing a shift in how the government views those it serves. The American government will begin to view its citizens as liabilities rather than assets.

By definition, a liability is an item to be categorized, managed, and ultimately dispensed with. If government views its citizens through the prism of structured assets and liabilities, a terrible precedent has been set.

I and my Republican colleagues view the American people as assets with the intelligence and power to decide for themselves what is best for them and their families. This is something we are committed to fight for, and we continue to do so.

Our grand republic was founded on the premise that the government derives its power from the "consent of the governed." If Mr. Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have their way and this bill passes, perhaps we should change that to "consent of the governed, unless they represent too high of a liability."


Until next time, I remain respectfully,
Congressman John Campbell's signature
Congressman John Campbell
Member of Congress

The only way to stop socialized medicine which will include loss of control and choice over your health care decisions, rationing, more government control in our lives, and tax increases for less services and worse care is to stand up.

Morris (author of Catastrophe and former advisor to President Clinton) notes that senior citizens will pay the biggest price under the overhaul.

SEE THE NEW TV AD DICK SAYS CAN DEFEAT OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE TAKEOVER -- CLICK HERE!

Read Dick Morris’s suggestions Here

Related Posts:

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Monday, August 3, 2009

Copy of ObamaCare Health Plan

Here is a copy of the ObamaCare health plan.
You better read it because you will be forced to live with it!

Members of Congress will be exempt from being forced into this plan. They will have their own. The liberals, Democrats and some Republicans - while forcing you to join the plan - refuse to include themselves. Members of Congress will have a better plan which gives them freedom you will be denied.

You can read an updated and revised overview of HR 3200 compiled by Liberty Counsel.

OR, READ THE FULL HEALTH CARE BILL (HR 3200) ON THE PATRIOT UPDATE WEB SITE!

Your Senators and Representative will soon be home for the August recess of Congress. Get a car load of friends and go meet with your Senators and Representative. Find out where he or she is holding Townhall meetings. Go to those meetings and ask for some answers! Some of them may try to avoid discussing ObamaCare. Don't let them! Find your Senators and Representative local offices here.

Whether Red or Blue, we’re still screwed… like the poor American Indians on Reservations, whose Healthcare the government has been managing for years.

Source: Patriot Update

Sunday, August 2, 2009

The Ultimate Resting Place of Socialized Medicine?

My wife and I disagree about some of the key end-of-life issues. When such morbid subjects arise, as they must and as they have with increasing frequency as the debate over medical care rages on, she remains adamant that she does not want to linger in pain, holding on to those final months, weeks, days or moments through any extraordinary medical intervention.

On the other hand, I want to live for every additional second modern medicine or Providence might permit. Dylan Thomas summed up my feelings in his most famous poem:

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

As President Barack Obama and Congress discuss health care legislation, and we citizens worry over the ramifications of possible policy outcomes, there arises the haunting specter of euthanasia. My wife and I may disagree on what end-of-life decision to make, but we agree that it should be our decision, not the government's.

A proposal to cover millions more Americans with medical insurance predicated on spending less on medical care in the process perplexes enough. But for those who care about freedom -- not having government tell you how to live -- and those who wish to live as long as they can -- by definition, not having the government tell you to hang it up and die -- there is even more to fear.

It's not that Obamacare is a one-step federal government takeover of medicine. But it does qualify as another giant step in that same frightening direction.

We've known for years that the more the government picks up the tab for our doctors, nurses, and drugs, the more the government will tell us how to live our lives. What to eat. What not to eat. What not to smoke or drink. What recreations not to engage in (too dangerous), and that we need to do more leg-lifts and jumping jacks with more gusto -- like a scene I recall from 1984.

Already cities have banned trans fat. The poor, who happen to smoke or drink alcohol in larger percentages than those more well off, are increasingly crushed under sin taxes. There's talk of hiking taxes on Dr. Pepper -- and candy.

We can hope that the power of police unions can keep donuts on the market at relatively low expense.

But expect much worse. And though the excuse for ever greater nannying will always be to protect the taxpayers (forced by politicians to pay the medical bills of everyone else), it will be government experts, not taxpayers, dictating dietary and exercise mandates to the population.

Still, the issue of euthanasia is even more frightening. Older people, as their bodies deteriorate, cost more money. Putting hospitals under increased government budgetary oversight and command will not miraculously increase government budgets for hospitals. Cutting costs will become a draconian theme, never ending . . . until death.

Even now, "death by waiting" is a common rationing procedure in Britain and Canada. If you are young and living under socialized medicine, getting dialysis from government-run hospitals is fairly easy; if you are old, wait. The system's limited medical facilities, doctors and nurses practice a kind of triage. The aged are the hopeless, in this common scenario, and give up their lives for the good of the hospital budget.

This is hardly an "easy death" or "good killing" ("euthanasia" comes from euthanos or “good death”). It is death by bureaucracy. Bureaucrats love their queues,need their queues. And the impetus is clear: Saving "the taxpayers" -- not the patients.

Former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm addressed this issue decades ago when he philosophized, "We've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life."

Mr. Obama and the congressional architects of their new medical regime are promising to cut the overall cost of care. Are we really to believe there will be no pressure to deny expensive treatments in order to save money?

Many opponents of Obamacare are jumping on a provision in one version of this legislative work-in-progress, a directive to pay doctors to counsel the elderly -- and terminally ill patients -- on various end-of-life issues. In the New York Post, Betsy McCaughey said this mandate "invites abuse" and that "seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care."

A front-page Washington Post article, headlined "Talk Radio Campaign Frightening Seniors," reported that this controversy "undercuts what many say is the fundamental challenge of discussing sensitive costly societal questions about how to align patient wishes at the end of life with financial realities, for both the family and taxpayers."

Not getting a pacemaker at 75 years old may mean a person dies at 77 or 78, instead of at 83. What are five years of life worth? Who should decide? (And for many it means 10 ,15 or 20 additional years, and often productive years or years valued by their families.)

With the federal government in the medical care business through the so-called Public Plan, folks in Washington will have the power to decide.

If you don't like your health insurance company, you ain't seen nothing yet!

Paul Jacob :: Townhall.com Columnist by Paul Jacob – Townhall - The ultimate resting place of socialized medicine?

Related Resources:

Additional related information in Dick Morris’s Catastrophe

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Who Will Tell Michael J. Fox He Needs to Die?

"If they would rather die they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." -- Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol

Should Michael J. Fox be put to death?

Celebrities and death. Now there's a potent cocktail.

Several parts fame, a few jiggers of Hollywood and a splash each for sports, business and journalism. Did I mention politics and government bureaucracy? Sorry. Without that essential element the mixture has no wallop. And a wallop this concoction surely will have, particularly if you believe actor Michael J. Fox has overstayed his welcome on the planet.

Let's pour the dry ingredients of politics and government bureaucracy into the pitcher first, beginning with the politics of death and dying.

Laws in America come into being because someone somewhere saw a problem, devised a would-be answer and then persuaded politicians to pass the law based on the philosophy and politics one group or another saw as underlying that answer. Need revenue? Raise taxes. Global warming? Shut down the coal plants. Dopey kids? Pay more to teachers. Everyone knows how this works.

So what is the driving philosophy underpinning the Obama health care plans for all of us? Let's begin with a few short quotes and one definition that outlines the idea succinctly.

President Obama; "There is a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier."

• Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University: "Life as a whole has no meaning. Life began, as the best available theories tell us, in a chance combination of gasses; it then evolved through random mutation and natural selection. All this just happened; it did not happen to any overall purpose."

• America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R.3200) by Congressmen Dingell, Waxman, Rangel, Stark and others: "The Secretary shall establish within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research…with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures."

QALY: Quality-Adjusted Life Year. A formula devised by left-wing policy wonks that purports, as David Catron has so ably illuminated on these pages, to measure the worth of your life by assigning a numerical value to each year of your existence. In Catron's words: "A year of perfect health, for example, is given a value of 1.0 while a year of sub-optimum health is rated between 0 and 1. If you are confined to a wheelchair, a year of your life might be valued at half that of your ambulatory neighbor. If you are blind or deaf, you also score low. All that remains is to assign a specific dollar value to the QALY and, voilĂ , your life has a price tag."

This is all a bit dry to the taste, isn't it? QALY, Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research, HR 3200. Blah blah blah. Let's add the fizz to this baby.

So. Who will tell Michael J. Fox he needs to die?

Which health care mouse out there will have the guts to bell the cat who is one of the most famous Parkinson's Disease sufferers in America? Who is going to tell him that the treatments that are associated with Parkinson's -- drugs like Sinemet, Symmetrel, Eldepryl, Parlodel, Permax, Mirapex, Requip, and surgery with the quaint name "deep brain stimulation" -- are just no longer possible for Fox because, well, Mike, your QALY just isn't up to snuff, babe. You have Parkinson's. You boozed (according to you). As a result, the government has decided treatment for you, Mike, lacks "appropriateness." The "outcome and effectiveness" of treating you -- which is to say the worth of your 47-year old life -- just isn't worth it for the rest of us.

Sorry Mike. Say Goodbye to Hollywood. Close your Parkinson's Foundation (waste of scarce resources, to wax Singeresque). Just go home to the wife and kids, cut off these expensive meds and please die. Quietly. And for heaven's sake, get yourself buried in private. We don't want any of this Michael Jackson type-hoopla disrupting our favorite programs. We have lives to get on with.

A bit harsh?

Heck, we haven't begun to shake this cocktail. There's more to mix.

You see, the philosophy behind ObamaCare, as promoted just a week ago in the New York Times Sunday Magazine by Professor Singer, is the hard cold necessity Obama sees for government to ration health care for people like, well, Michael J. Fox. As Mr. Singer says: "Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another." And quite obviously, with Mike Fox's QALY being what it is (and Singer is a big proponent of using QALY to judge the worth of a life), the time to cut his treatment off was... yesterday. Actually, a lot of yesterdays ago.

This is what President Obama believes when he says "there's a whole bunch of care" that someone -- this would be the government -- will have to decide not to employ in treating someone like Mike Fox. What about the idea that Michael J. Fox -- not to mention his wife and children, extended family and friends who might actually love the little lug -- think Mike's spirit should count for something here? After all, he did an entire documentary on The Adventures of an Incurable Optimist. In the President's words: "I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules...."

Right. Rules. Got it. Government rules. Which is another way of saying decisions on Mike Fox's life will, if Obama and company get their way, be resting in the hands of this whiz bang group of policy wonks and bureaucrats called the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Located, but of course, within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Where the Rule of QALY will reign. Did I leave out that this will all be established by The Secretary?

Let's get rid of the bureaucratese here and just call this agency what it really is: The U.S. Bureau of Death (or "BOD" in the acronym form loved by bureaucrats everywhere).

Now let's toss in all the rest of this cocktail's ingredients and give it a shake. Take a real, deep drink.

So. Whose bod in Hollywood will BOD be coming for? Who in celebrity land -- and here we can add in journalism, sports and business -- will be on the BOD Squad's hit list when the information is received that well, sadly, like poor old Michael J. Fox, their QALY just doesn't make the grade? Let's take a look into this perilously close future for all of us as the BOD Squad makes its rounds.

Elizabeth Taylor. La Liz. Born in 1932, her age alone raises the appropriateness question She's had more health problems than husbands, as one BOD Squad staffer apparently scribbled on a report. Are you kidding? The Secretary of the Department (known internally as the SOD BOD) was furious to see what the American people had been putting up with from this woman: Congestive heart failure, a benign brain tumor, skin cancer, a back five-times broken, both hips replaced, bouts with pneumonia, osteoporosis and scoliosis. In the succinct observation on her leaked file: "Toast." Say hello to Jacko.

David Letterman: A quintuple bypass was given to Dave. That was under the old pre-Obama system and it won't be allowed again. Dave's QALY is nowhere near that of a healthy teenager who might have a case of pneumonia that is cheaper to treat and not likely to recur. Former Governor Palin's last official act as Governor of Alaska was to file an addendum to Dave's file at BOD Squad HQ. To be officially classified a "dirty old man" takes 10 points off anyone's QALY.

Patrick Swayze: As this is written, the National Enquirer is on the stands proclaiming this famous cancer victim has had a heart attack. According to news accounts, Swayze has been undergoing "pioneering Cyberknife radiotherapy at California's Stanford University Medical Centre." Cool. But alas this kind of thing doesn't meet the BOD Squad standards for appropriate or effective treatment. Loved you, Patrick, but the government says you have to go. Worse, you wasted a lot of people's resources with all this dancing around that you were going to fight on. Shameful.

Magic Johnson: Eighteen years ago, the legendary Los Angeles Lakers star had to quit because he contracted the AIDS virus. He is still here, healthy and active at 50. The problem: every day Magic has to swill a "multidrug cocktail" of GlaxoSmithKline's Trizivir and Abbott's Kaletra to keep himself healthy. Let's face it, if you're a BOD Squad staffer eighteen years ago looking at the paperwork from Mr. Johnson, you will believe that if his primary activity in life was professional basketball -- and he has had to quit because he has AIDS -- well, no more magic for Magic. The Glaxo cocktail will go elsewhere.

Larry King: CNN's talk star suffered a heart attack in 1987 and had quintuple bypass surgery. In signs of just what a racket this Hollywood-Big Surgery connection is, Larry and Dave Letterman had the same surgeon. I guess that's one Doc who can retire, huh? Sounds like one of those thieving tonsil doctors the President gripes about. Larry's father had died at 44 of a heart attack, and Larry was a smoker. Gee, you think this QALY is gonna be wearing brassy suspenders? Ole Lar was supposedly so shocked by his experience that he has written not one but two books on the subject. Mr. King, You're Having a Heart Attack: How a Heart Attack and Bypass Surgery Changed My Life and Taking On Heart Disease: Famous Personalities Recall How They Triumphed over the Nation's #1 Killer and How You Can, Too. As with Michael J. Fox, King too set up a foundation based on his illness, the Larry King Cardiac Foundation. Alas, this kind of thing can now easily be deemed irrelevant if not a stealer-of-resources by the BOD Squad. Who cares if Larry has a Foundation? Do we really need more heart attack books? Sorry Larry, if the BOD Squad had been here in 1987, you wouldn't be. Memo to Mrs. King: Stop sending Larry's daily QALY updates to the SODBOD.

Regis Philbin: Regis had a triple-bypass at 75 years of age, after having an angioplasty fourteen years earlier. Seventy-five? Whoa! There's no QALY statistic in the world that will say these resources were better used on Regis than on some 21-year-old. Regis, buddy. What were you trying to pull? The BOD Squad almost had a coronary when they saw this. Sorry. But if ObamaCare were here, you'd be chatting with your friends Dave and Larry somewhere not on the planet. Or maybe nowhere at all, as Professor Singer says life is meaningless anyway.

David Hasselhoff: News reports out there say the ex-Baywatch star and current judge on America's Got Talent was rushed to the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center back in May, yet again undone by a battle with the bottle. The Hoff's alcohol level registered at .39, more than four times the legal limit in California. Alcohol poisoning, yet again, came close to doing him in, say the stories, this one in Radar Online.com. This, says the always juicy quote from a Hollywood source, "is about the 7th time he's been taken to a hospital over the last few years with alcohol poisoning. How many visits will it take before he dies?" Well, considering the BOD Squad has that video of a while back taken by the Hoff's daughter, which displayed the star's agonizing battle in disturbing detail, the answer is: not long. Sadly, the Hoff just drank himself into a seriously bad QALY. Sorry to say, the bottom of the bottle has at last been reached. America will be one talent less.

Joan Rivers: Can we talk? A dozen plastic surgeries? A dozen…meaning twelve? Joan, sweetheart, America can't grow plastic fast enough to do this. You're surely in violation of a good dozen environmental laws before we even get to the health care issues. Multiple facelifts? OMG! That's before or after the "brow lift, botox, soft tissue fillers, jaw implants, multiple nose jobs, veneers, blepharoplasty (eye work), liposuction, cheek implants, breast implants" catalogued on FamousPlastic? Honey, the BOD Squad has a memorandum from the EPA and determined that you can't be buried, burned or dumped with all this stuff inside you. Please have your lawyer file an "Extinction and Burial Application Form 1A." Immediately.

And now, one last report. Perhaps the most interesting in the celebrity death struggle with ObamaCare.

Steve Jobs: A liver transplant for the creator of Apple? Well, well, well. Now this celebrity death struggle is particularly interesting. Why? Because Mr. Jobs had his transplant only three months ago, just as the ObamaCare toxin was seeping into the political atmosphere. This has already resulted in news stories speculating that the secrecy of the operation, the fact that Jobs traveled unannounced and unknown to Tennessee to have it, means that Jobs was, in the words of an actual news report, "gaming the system." How? The wait-time for a liver in Tennessee is about 48 days, on average. The United Network for Organ Sharing says the national wait time is 306 days. In other words, before the BOD Squad legislation has even passed Congress, one prominent American celebrity is under fire for "gaming the system" when it comes to transplants. Another couple of months and Mr. Jobs would have been either dead because of instructions on his QALY or brought up on charges for getting around "the rules." There will be penalties for trying to save your life, right?

Gaming the system. An interesting concept. You mean government rules can be manipulated? Nooooooo! Really?

Perhaps you've heard of a federal agency called the IRS? Like the soon-to-be bureaucrats at the BOD Squad, the Internal Revenue Service is in theory designed to be a "just-the-facts" kind of agency. And yet….hmmm.

In 1952, a controversial Senator from California named Richard Nixon found his tax returns leaked from the Truman-run IRS to a virulently anti-Nixon columnist named Drew Pearson. (In those days, candidates did not release their tax returns as they frequently do today.) In 1963, a few months after Nixon lost a humiliating race for governor of California, his political life was presumed by all seers of the day as dead. Yet low and behold, private citizen Nixon found himself subject to a lengthy and exhaustive audit by the IRS. Years later, the IRS supervisor of the case admitted that, well, his Washington superiors in the Kennedy administration had ordered him three times to re-open the original audit and try and get Nixon for tax evasion.

Thus, when Nixon became president at last, he tells us he was so furious at his treatment by the IRS when in the hands of Democrats that he personally and repeatedly "urged Haldeman and Ehrlichman [the Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod of the day] to have IRS checks made on [1972 Democratic nominee] McGovern's key staff and contributors."

In other words, power can be abused. In a blink. You think David Letterman is sorry now for the things he said about Sarah Palin's daughter? Wait 'til ole Dave discovers he has a recurrence of heart problems down the road and appeals for a little Obama-esque empathy from the BOD Squad -- and the response he receives telling him to go pound sand and die is coming from an appointed bureaucrat of President Palin's. FYI to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright: Watch your QALY, brother.

Or imagine the current kerfuffle with Harvard's Professor Henry Gates and Cambridge police Sergeant James Crowley. Let's change the story a bit. Instead of Crowley being a policeman, let's make him Dr. James Crowley, a member of the BOD Squad. He and his fellow bureaucrats have told the sick Professor Gates that, gee, sorry. Your QALY just isn't that good. Please file an Extinction Application. To which Professor Gates snaps off from his hospital bed exactly the same reply he gave to Sergeant Crowley in his house: "Why…because I'm a black man in America?"

What's the racial composition of the BOD Squad? How many Wise Latinas are there to decide on the worth of a brown-skinned life over the worth of a white-skinned life? Have Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson gotten wind of this yet? If civil rights activists believe there are too many blacks in American prisons, what will they say if the number of blacks being sent off by the BOD Squad is, percentage wise, higher than the number of whites? Whose life has more -- or less -- value? A white? Or a black, brown, yellow or red life? Does the black guy live or the Latina? The American Vietnamese or the Native American? Just what Washington, D.C. needs -- more lobbyists. Not to mention the QALY law practices that will quadruple the size of the trial bar.

You think the gay community is upset over same-sex marriage prohibitions? This is as nothing compared to the fuse that will be lit when gays come to believe the BOD Squad is filled with homophobics intent on claiming AIDS is such a disqualifying QALY feature that simply being gay means a death sentence ASAP.

We haven't even gotten to Senator Kennedy's brain surgery, the latest hospitalization for West Virginia's 91-year old Senator Robert Byrd, Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer or Tiger Woods's knee operation. Needless to say, the agonized Farrah Fawcett would never have been allowed to struggle on as she did from the moment of her cancer diagnosis, Ed McMahon's QALY, with a broken neck and two neck surgeries in his eighties on file, would have had him announcing himself to God long before the other week. And Michael Jackson? Maybe the Bod Squad already made their first call.

Which returns us to Michael J. Fox. Remember the dust-up a while back when Mr. Fox was appearing in political ads supporting stem-cell research? One can agree with Mr. Fox, or not. But without doubt his opponents on the issue believed the importance underlying the issue was the larger point of respect for human life. The issue was at play in Missouri, where state funding was under discussion, and it elicited this fairly standard response from a Missouri State Senator: "I believe that a human embryo is worthy of legal protection," said state Sen. Matt Bartle (R), who vows to press the fight. "Western medicine has been founded on a principle: First, do no harm."

For Fox, this issue now falls precariously close to the old caution about being careful what you wish for. Once upon a time in America the issue of "life" was about the death penalty for murderers. Then it was abortion. Next it was about stem cell research. Now, it's about whether Michael J. Fox's life has sufficient QALY points to justify letting him live.

Does Michael J. Fox's life deserve respect? Of course.

But if they can come for Michael J. Fox, they can come for you.

And they will.

By Jeffrey Lord on 7.28.09 @ 6:08AM - Jeffrey Lord worked on five Supreme Court nominations as a Reagan White House political director, including that of Robert Bork. He is the author of a book on the Senate's judicial confirmation process and writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com

Source:  American Spectator

 

First They Came

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
I did not protest;
I was a Protestant.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

If you think this article is way out there… you aren’t paying attention!!

Our country has always valued life and individual rights above all else.  And there are more Centurions in good health alive and contributing than ever before.  Wasn’t that the goal… living longer healthy lives.  We’ve spent millions and millions on the research.  And in most cultures, the elderly are revered for their knowledge and connections with the past, a source of living history.  But now all of a sudden people in their 70’s+ are taking up too much room… not worth the investment of surgeries, life extending procedures or newly developed medicines?  What happened to living to 110 or 120?

As far as costs go… the government has been borrowing from social security and Medicare for years instead of investing and building up the coffers in the anticipation of the baby-boomers, who paid into the system all their lives, retiring. 

Also, it has been pointed out by the experts that if we initiated serious tort reform; stopped insurance, social security and Medicare fraud; stopped paying for “un-needed” elective plastic surgeries and other unnecessary elective procedures; focused on prevention; included holistic and natural remedies, procedures and supplements in the system; did away with pre-existing condition exclusion for insurance, stopped gauging by big Pharma; allowed competition of insurance companies across state lines; allowed test sharing instead of duplication of tests, set-up co-ops for small business owners and the self-employed, excluded illegal aliens from any type of free medical coverage, and made medical coverage portable (that you can take from job to job) etc, we would be well on our way to paying for covering everybody. Additional options could be to reduce coverage for the wealthy and minimal tax increases.

There is no country in the world where nationalized, government-run or socialized medicine has worked well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  America has the best medical system and coverage in the world and just needs common sense overhauls including cutting fraud and waste.  The government needs to regulate the insurance industry, the AMA and Big Phama… but not run or pay for any additional programs.  Just look at Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Healthcare and Indian Reservation Healthcare and any doubt that you might have that government is the answer will melt away instantly.

Read HR-3200 - full report for yourself or checkout the *overviews below, if you haven’t.  The nightmare speaks for itself!

The experts are saying: 

  • Scrap all 5-bills that are being debated in both Houses of Congress
  • No public option – it will eventually lead to single payer totally government controlled healthcare program
  • No central government electronic medical record system – the possibilities for its us are too scary!
  • Overall our private system and existing government programs using the above means, etc.
  • No rationing

Be Sure to Watch 20/20 Segment on Nationalized Healthcare tomorrow night with Jon Stossell – 7-31-09

Related Resources:

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

ObamaCare for Seniors: Sorry, You're Just Not Worth It

The debate over Barack Obama's health care plan continues. Senators are trying to cut deals and members of the House of Representatives are doing the same. Democrats are trying to push through a massive government plan that will cost Americans billions and billions of dollars all because Obama wants to take power away from the people and put it in the hands of government.

Throughout this debate, the voices of seniors have been strangely and disturbingly silent. Do they not know the details of ObamaCare? Are they so enamored with this "nice, young man" that they don't even look at what the plan has to offer? ObamaCare has a strong message for seniors, and it is one they shouldn't ignore: If you are old in America, then don't get sick... you're not worth the cost.

In a recent update by The Heritage Foundation, seniors can read for themselves some of the results of ObamaCare on their daily lives.

First, seniors would face an increasing risk of losing their doctor. With cuts to Medicare reimbursements, more and more physicians are no longer taking Medicare patients. ObamaCare makes it worse: "Obama plans to pay for up to a third of his plan by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients."

Obama's plan also places a disincentive on people to become physicians as his "public" option "could decrease the annual net income of hospitals by $36 billion, while the annual net income of physicians could drop by $33.1 billion."

Then there is the worry that seniors will lose their coverage. As noted in The Heritage Foundation's report, "22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. These health plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coor dinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. President Obama has proposed killing this program entirely."

And, of course, there is the issue that Obama and the liberal Democrats want seniors and all Americans to ignore: the rationing of health care. Under Obama's plan, there will be a new government bureaucracy known as a "federal health board." The purpose of this board is to determine whether various procedures and tests are deemed necessary in the eyes of the federal government. That notion is truly scary.

Obama supporter and infanticide advocate Peter Singer made the case for rationing health care recently in the New York Times, writing: "The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated." Conservatives in Congress have given Obamacare supporters every opportunity to disavow government-rationed health care, but Obamacare supporters have voted down every anti-rationing amendment proposed. Make no mistake, Obama plans to pay for expanded coverage for the young and healthy by denying treatments to the old and sick.

As noted in a story by the Associated Press, a group of senators is actually working to squeeze more money out of Medicare. "Under the plan, an independent commission would be empowered to recommend changes in Medicare annually, to take effect automatically unless Congress enacted an alternative."

Cantor on Obama’s Healthcare Reform

As noted in a new Rasmussen Reports poll, only 23% of Americans believe that health care costs will go down under ObamaCare.

Most Americans are happy with their coverage. Most have coverage. Yet in order to cover the ten percent or so of Americans who don't have it and are having trouble getting it, he wants to impose a new government plan on the other 90% of the country. This is just crazy. ObamaCare is bad news for seniors and bad news for the entire population.

Source/Posted by Bobby Eberle – The Loft - July 29, 2009 at 7:32 am

-----------

++ Contact Congress Today! Hands Off My Health Care Decisions!

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Dems Ensure Illegal Aliens Included in ObamaCare and Other Atrocities

The Heller Amendment—which would have removed from ObamaCare those who have entered and are living in the USA illegally—has been defeated 26-15 (along straight Party lines) by the Democrat controlled House Ways and Means Committee. So, along with all of their other “break-the-bank-and-everything-else” programs, our Usurper and Dictator in Chief Obama and his Democrat minions are demanding that we US citizens pay for illegals. Note: Another interesting datum included in the Socio-fascist ObamaCare package is that US citizens wanting to keep their current health insurance will be fined approximately $2,500/year. But, Obama’s illegals will NOT be penalized a penny.

Other atrocities associated with ObamaCare are rationing of medical services and a push towards “no-more-health-care-for-you” euthanasia (deceptively referred to as “Advance Care Planning”) for those Obama considers elderly. End of life counseling or “Duty to Die" lecture—every five years until they finally die due to lack of provided health services—for said elderly (ostensibly once one is in his or her 60s) will also be mandatory. Note: One wonders if said euthanasia will also soon extend to his growing political “enemies” list. And to ensure against discrimination, the beginnings of life are also covered under ObamaLifeSnuffOut. We will be forced to pay for abortions under ObamaCare.

By design, ObamaCare is also racist. Two of the myriad agencies the patients must maneuver through are the “Office of Civil Rights” and “Office of Minority Health.” Presumably, if one is not an ObamaMinority, one will not receive as “suitable” health care as do Obama’s select. Note: These days Obama continues to light the fires of racism wherever he seems to go. As witnessed with his ill-advised (dare I say “stupid?”) comments regarding the Cambridge Police Department, perhaps Obama just can’t help himself. And this is the man acting as POTUS—the one who still refuses to produce a true and viable birth certificate? Scary stuff.

There is so much anti-Health legislation contained in ObamaCare’s 1018 pages (see link below) that it would be impossible to list them all here. But, some of them that Robert Wenzel and Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) discovered include:

  • Government (by ObamaThugs) auditing of the books and fining of businesses who opt to continue private health care
  • The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your healthcare Benefits for you. You have no choice!
  • Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Health card will be issued
  • Government rationing of healthcare
  • No company can sue the government on “price fixing.” No “judicial review” against Govt monopoly
  • An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the Government public plan
  • Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor will be affected. Note: One wonders if only Obama’s “non-minority” seniors, low income and poor folks will be penalized

There are thousands more appalling examples of tyrannical control of We-the-People contained in the ObamaCare plan. Coupled with the ObamaCon Cap ’n Tax, Obama’s control of US citizens, their finances and all of their actions will be complete. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has already said that the unsustainable costs of this latest Obama-Folly do not match Obama’s and Pelosi’s promises. In other words, Obama and Pelosi continue to lie—and lie—and lie.

In a few short months (it actually only feels like a lifetime) Obama has almost—again by design—bankrupted the country. ObamaCare and his Cap ‘n Con ‘n Tax should complete his job of destroying the country and the American people. ObamaCare—alone—will drive the tax rate to at least 50% and upward paid to the government—that means Obama and his adherents. And please do not forget that Obama, his family and friends, all three branches of government and government employees are NOT subject to ObamaCare. These are the “political elite” who are not subject to oppressions of the more “common folk.” Congress, alone, will maintain their premium choice of twelve (that’s 12 folks) private health care plans.

Keep on calling the Capitol Hill Switchboard at 202.224-3121 and tell your representatives and senators to vote NO on ObamaCare. Also advise your senators to vote NO on Cap ‘n Tax. Remember, we are NOT in a healthcare crisis except in the mind of Obama and illegal aliens. Costs of private insurance need to be lowered—that’s it and it can be done. And Cap and Trade will NOT heal the environment. Like Obama’s “job and economic stimulus packages,” these programs are also fraudulent. The true purpose of both of these is to control We-the-People and bleed us dry of our personal resources—or “keep ‘em poor to keep ‘em controlled.” And, by the way, keep your pitchforks and torches at the ready.

By Sher Zieve Friday, July 24, 2009 -

ObamaCare will cover illegals:
HYPERLINK “http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_illegals_healthcare/2009/07/23/239369.html”http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_illegals_healthcare/2009/07/23/239369.html

House Health Crimes Bill (all 1018 pages):
HYPERLINK “http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf”http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

Shock: Inside the Healthcare Bill (Robert Wenzel):
HYPERLINK “http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/whats-in-healthacre-bill.html” http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/whats-in-healthacre-bill.html

CBO on ObamaCare:
HYPERLINK “http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/cbo_health_care_obama/2009/07/16/236667.html”http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/cbo_health_care_obama/2009/07/16/236667.html

ObamaCare 50%+ tax rates:
HYPERLINK “http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/BA_ObaCare090720.pdf”http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/BA_ObaCare090720.pdf

Useless Eaters

While Americans worry over government insurance plans, longer waits for treatment, and "healthcare rationing," a more sinister agenda lurks in the shadows of the healthcare bill now before the House of Representatives. Today's Medicare recipients could be the first to experience our government's new solution to America's "useless eaters."

Section 1233 of HR 3200, the healthcare reform measure under consideration, mandates"Advance Care Planning Consultation." Under the proposal, all senior citizens receiving government medical care would be required to undergo these counseling sessions every five years. Further reading of the law reveals that these sessions are nothing more than a not-so-veiled attempt to convince the elderly to forego treatment. HR 3200 calls outright for these compulsory consultations to recommend "palliative care and hospice." These are typically administered in the place of treatment intended to prolong life, and instead focus on pain relief until death. These are, of course, reasonable and beneficial options for terminally ill patients and their families.

But this legislation doesn't stop there. Section 1233 requires "an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title." But, under the terms of the section, the federal government can compel more frequent end-of-life sessions if it declares a "significant change" in the health of the Medicare recipient, a change that the bill does not confine to fatal illness, but which encompasses broad and abstract conditions described as "chronic," "progressive," or "life-limiting." The bill even empowers physicians to make an "actionable medical order" to "limit some or all specified interventions..." In effect, the government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment.

The bill puts the Secretary of Health in charge of life and death decisions coming out of these sessions. Under the heading, "QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE," the bill says, "For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment."

These measures are merely an extension of the healthcare provisions hidden in the stimulus bill, which contained alarming new guidelines that required medical practitioners to judge whether or not treating certain patients was "comparatively effective." These decisions were to be based on the findings of a presidential advisory council on the costs of varying treatments. As a result of these changes, treatment is now a question of "cost" and humans are viewed as potential "liabilities" instead of patients.

Doctors up in arms over these radical changes have been attacked with the worst kind of demagoguery imaginable. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) lacks any shame, saying that doctors who oppose this legislation have "lost sight of the common good and the pledge they took in the Hippocratic oath." Last time I checked, the Hippocratic oath didn't say anything about refusing to treat patients on the basis of cost. And somehow, whenever the words "common good" are thrown around, individuals are about to be hurt. McDermott even went on to accuse anti-reform doctors of "practicing fear without a license," saying that "they should be subject to a malpractice suit."

President Obama has even been so disingenuous as to accuse Republicans of denying medical treatment to people that need it, saying, "The opponents of health insurance reform would have us do nothing. But think about what doing nothing, in the face of ever increasing costs, will do to you and your family." This is a classic false choice scenario. Either we pass Obama's legislation, or people will die. In fact, doing nothing is infinitely preferable to doing the wrong thing, especially when we're being pushed to move too quickly.

It was the same with the stimulus package. And we all know how that turned out: 9.4 percent unemployment and a budget deficit four times larger than when President Bush was in office. Obama has become a master at using false urgency to achieve hidden goals completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

The real concern is not the imaginary people who might die without this legislation, but rather those real people who might die because of it. Never before have we been this close to making federal law that formalizes procedures for limiting the care we will provide to certain categories of citizens.

Never before have we been this close to adopting a system that will tell certain citizens to forego treatment for the good of their country.

Totalitarian regimes approach matters of human worth in this way. But this is America, and our Constitution says that, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process."

But if HR 3200 becomes law, "due process" regarding someone's life will become a question for bureaucrats. When all is said and done, the ultimate result of the proposed bill is to transfer to government the unprecedented power of determining who lives and who dies.

Once a government adopts this utilitarian stance toward human life, anything becomes possible. Suspend for a moment your jaded response to Hitler references, and note that in Germany, Order T4 required physicians to kill 70,273 people[i] "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination"[ii] or those "unworthy of life."[iii] 5,000 of these victims were children. The elderly, the mentally infirmed, the deformed, and the racially impure, were put to death by teams of "medical experts." Thousands were sterilized. By 1939, 360,000 people had been sterilized to prevent the reproduction of the socially "unfit."

Although the methods have grown more subtle and the language more libertarian, our attitudes are not so very different in America today. We casually discuss whether people with certain afflictions merit the costs necessary to keep them alive. Quality of life trumps sanctity of life in most quarters. Dr. Jack Kevorkian's assisted suicide methodology, once unthinkable, is now an acceptable topic for polite conversation.

In America, a rising number of parents abort children on the basis of tests indicating imperfections or disorders, the effective slaughter of the mentally ill. In fact, over 80 percent of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted.

Once a nation that cherished the right to life, America is now a nation that cherishes the right to death. 50 million dead unborn children testify to this fact. Prior to the ban in 2003, partial birth abortion-effective infanticide-claimed the lives of 5,000 children every year.

The language of Obama's healthcare reform bill should be a warning to us. This is only the first step in a process that spells death to our way of life. This bill is a test to see what the American people will allow. If you treasure the elderly and the wisdom of previous generations, if you value human worth and care about equality for all Americans.

By: John Griffing – July 26, 2009


[i] Robert N. Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis, (Harvard 1988), 191.

[ii] Ibid., 177.

[iii] Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by (holocaust-history.org)

Source: American Thinker

Posted: Daily Thought Pad