There's a lot of BS flying around out there. The President and his congressional confreres are slinging it like crazy. Worse, some conservative critics are circulating bogus talking points and many more are sucking them up and regurgitating them without thinking.
I heard a snippet of a woman caller to a radio talk show claiming page 55 of the health care bill contained a provision for free health care for ACORN, or some such nonsense. Where's this woman's BS filter at? Yes, Congress lavishes money on their favored groups, but never so blatantly. I don't know what she was reading from, but I bet it has a fw: fw: fw: fw: towards the top and includes a lot of exclamation points.
This clueless woman just provided the angry, smirking left another opportunity to paint us all as Rushbots, insurance company shills or simply stupid right wing kooks. Please verify what you read and hear before propagating it and stay away from the kooks.
However, It's Not All BS...
So, where do the euthanasia and care rationing charges come from? They're not explicitly in the bill, but Betsy McCaughey in the NY Post demonstrates why these are valid issues:
Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.Communitarianism is a philosophy that believes right and wrong should be decided by what's best for the community, or society as a whole. Sounds good, but who decides? And how do you decide what constitutes a "participating citizen."
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Paging Dr. Mengele!
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).President Obama has appointed this man to head up his health care effort. What conclusion are rational people to draw from this, other than the president agrees with this man's philosophy? And they have the temerity to call us Nazis?
8 comments:
People with dementia and people near the end of their lives shouldn't be spared no expense.
However, here in Canada old people and people with dementia aren't cut-off from health care.
Age is a good determinent for health care though. Old people should be given priority on improving their quality of life and not longevity. The reverse should be the case for young people.
But this all doesn't matter because in Canada people all get health care and its still less expensive cause there are less admin. fees and not as much waste.
It's not naziism it's sensible and utilitarian. And no matter what philosophy you can't justify 40mill peopple without health care.
Because you say so? You're exhibit A for what's wrong with liberalism, aka "we-say-so-ism"
So what your saying is that you take my money from me for forty or fifty years and then I can just F*Off ?
While an illegal alien who hasn't contributed shit... gets the money that would have covered my chemo to pay for a few more anchor babies? Plus another $200 for school supplies?
Why don't we take communitarianism to the rational extreme... you don't contribute...you don't get jack! Solve the medical problem once and for all... don't pay income tax? don't get coverage. Or is "participating citizen" defined as one who votes for those who are so generous with the handouts? That is until they don't have enough elections left in them to be worth the bother.
It is not the right, but the left that is radicalizing America.
~Finntann~
Yah, 40 mill people shouldn't be covered because they can't get work (not because they don't want to by the way).
I could argue euthanasia, but there really is no argument against it. My ethics course we spent a quarter day on it and argued the logistical issues with it. There really is no moral argument against letting people who are sick and want to die die.
There is only religious arguments against it and I won't have any of that bs.
It's better than your money-makes -right arguments.
First of all, there are not 40 million people out of work in America (Yet... but hell, we've still got 3 1/2 years left of Obama to see if we can't hit that goal. And if you wish to bandy about leftist figures, get it right... 47 million is the figure they are using.
Second, of the 47 million people you libs like to count, an easy 12 million of them are illegal aliens. Personnally, I don't feel responsible for providing medical care for someone simply because they managed to sneak across the border. We are not the world's free medical clinic. Want free medical care? GO HOME!
Third, another 10 million are already eligible for government assistance, but are simply to lazy or stupid to apply for it. Again, not my problem.
Fourth, a eight million are uninsured by choice... meaning that they can afford it but choose not to buy it.
Fifth, 5.6 million are offered insurance by their employers but decline it... usually in exchange for something stupid (if you don't have insurance) like an extra 40 hours of vaction (which is what my company offers... and of which I sensibly partake, since I already have insurance).
Only 2.5% of the population is considered chronically uninsured...that is without insurance for 2-4 years.
So, from the original figure of 47 million, when all factors are taken into consideration, there are roughly only 10 million chronically uninsured people.
So explain to me why the government feels it necessary to involve itself in the health insurance of 97.5% of Americans, instead of simply establishing a program for the 2.5% who need it?
So instead of blowing a trillion dollars to screw us all over, why not just spend 25 billion (2.5%) to take care of the people who need it?
Even taking the 47 million figure as unadulterated truth... why mess with the other 250 million of us?
Wow, a whole quarter day spent on the ethics of euthanasia... I'm impressed, that's certainly beating a dead horse! And the argument is not about letting people who are sick and want to die, die... the argument is about letting those people who are sick and want to live...die. Google: Barbara Wagner, Oregon.
Want to know why radical conservatives are carrying swastikas? It's because you imbeciles are trying to pick up where Dr Mengele left off. They are carried in protest against your nazi tactics, not in support of nazi policies. As I have said repeatedly, and you cannot deny, the Nazis were the NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY! Of course, that aspect of it goes completely over your heads. T
Oh and if you were wondering, I got my figure from medicalnewstoday
I think there is more to this then on ths surface. But if it is true then it really poor statement and hope his family is ones be delayed tratment.
Reality-There are alot of truths and lies from both sides and lies. This is insightng fear.
Try starting with reform and let that take impact and then try tackling health care issue and not both at the same time. Goverment can't even control themselves let alone trying to form a healthcare system.
Speed was the president's greatest allie to start but that has changed. There are alot of folk watching from both sides of the issue. I do care that people that truely need care get it and not to send somebody to the poor house because of the problem. We can relate to that. Previous existing conditions shouldn't be part of the rejection for insurance. Companies want to make money which any company does. How do you govern not making profits and the other hand the problem of taking care of those that are extremely sick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1mTjWg-gh4
Watch this Ron.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.