This Is What You Get With Government Care
Aug 2, 2009 Political
The federal government wants to take over health care administration in this country and effectively drive private insurance companies out of business. The plan that is being batted around Congress is a monstrocity that members of Congress want no parts of with regard to administration of their health. They want it for the rest of us.
If the government takes over health care administration then care WILL be rationed in order to save money. The almighty dollar will take precedence over the health of people, particularly the elderly who will be required to receive counseling on end of life options. The government wants to save money on health care and Social Security by putting the elderly in hospice.
Look at what is happening in the United kingdom. The National Health Service wants to reduce the number of corticosteroid injections (for back pain) that people receive from about 60,000 per year to around 3000. This means that people with back pain that is not alleviated by other means (or requires extensive surgery) will be denied the injections that take their pain away. The government is doing this to save money. It is reported that £33 million ($55 million) will be saved by denying the care.
The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year. NICE said in its guidance it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million. Telegraph UK
The move would save the NHS money. This is the motivation in a government run system and this is what our government will do if it takes control of health care.
We do not need to completely overhaul our system and turn it into the same things that have been tried and have failed in the UK, Canada, and other countries around the world. Yes, we need some tweaking to our system but we do not need the government in control of our lives. The government already controls the elderly by holding them hostage to Social Security, we do not need to all be held hostage under the health care system they want to impose.
During this recess call your Representatives and Senators and tell them that you oppose this and that they risk losing their jobs if they vote for it.
Let’s kill this bill and then replace all of these morons.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: denial of services, health care, rationing, socialized medicine, united kingdom
Look At All The Pretty People
Jul 16, 2009 Political
The arguments about “Universal Healthcare” continue to swirl around Capital Hill, all without the main point being uttered, and that point is Eugenics.
Eugenics is the study and application of a form of population control that came into vogue in the 1920s with the ‘Progressive” movement- yes, the same people we call Liberals today have the same basic beliefs in population control, especially with respect to “undesirable” people.
Sounds kind of Nazi- like, doesn’t it? Well, that is because the Nazis learned it from people like Woodrow Wilson, and Margaret Sanger, the “Mother” of Birth Control, and the founder of Planned Parenthood.
Margaret Sanger, the Saint of Planned Parenthood, advocated beliefs that were not dissimilar to those of my twisted teach. The fabled women’s rights activist was all about negative eugenics – meaning making sure ”social misfits” and other undesirables never got the chance to repulse the right people, by making sure they never got born.
“Birth control,” she declared in 1923, “is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, or preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.” Her mission: to stop ”keeping alive thousands who never, in all human compassion, should have been brought into this world.”
Sanger was ambitious. She actively advocated for sterilization of the great unwashed – the “feeble-minded, insane… deaf, deformed and dependent,” including “orphans, ne’er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers.” Talk about a hard knock life.
bighollywood.breitbart.com
She was and is not the only one who felt this way about the various parts of our society, you know, the parts that Liberals like to bus to the polls to vote for them, and then never see in public again? Yea, those people. Hillary Clinton says she proudly calls herself a “New Progressive”, and the liberal Democrats are trying their best to re- brand themselves as “Progressives”, as it seems as if “Liberal” has a negative connotation. Oh really? More negative than “Nazi”?
“I hated the wretchedness and hopelessness of the poor,” Sanger wrote, “and never experienced that satisfaction in working among them that so many noble women have found.” Indeed, her whole life seems to have been spent rebelling against the devout Roman Catholicism of her parents; Sanger’s mother got pregnant a whopping 18 times (which probably explains a lot).
Yes, thanks to Sanger’s one-woman crusade, 8300 people were sterilized in the state of Virginia alone. Her most famous casualty was a young rape victim named Carrie Buck, whose tubes were ultimately cut – against her will – because she was allegedly promiscuous and mentally “challenged” with a rocky family history. “Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote of the case. Snip snip.
bighollywood.breitbart.com
There we go, with even Oliver Wendell Holmes, the noted Jurist, taking sides on behalf of the People police. The sad truth, though, is that this isn’t just past history, a sorry episode in our past, but will be revived with the commencement of “Universal Healthcare”, as our loving government will put a price on treatment, and if you do not fit in their criteria, you will die, plain and simple.
You will have been judged to not be worth the cost.
Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. If we ration we won’t be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money. The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it?
Last year Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence gave a preliminary recommendation that the National Health Service should not offer Sutent for advanced kidney cancer. The institute, generally known as NICE, is a government-financed but independently run organization set up to provide national guidance on promoting good health and treating illness. The decision on Sutent did not, at first glance, appear difficult. NICE had set a general limit of £30,000, or about $49,000, on the cost of extending life for a year. Sutent, when used for advanced kidney cancer, cost more than that, and research suggested it offered only about six months extra life. But the British media leapt on the theme of penny-pinching bureaucrats sentencing sick people to death. The issue was then picked up by the U.S. news media and by those lobbying against health care reform in the United States. An article in The New York Times last December featured Bruce Hardy, a kidney-cancer patient whose wife, Joy, said, “It’s hard to know that there is something out there that could help but they’re saying you can’t have it because of cost.” Then she asked the classic question: “What price is life?”
nytimes.com
Great question- What price is life? I guess that depends on the person, but shouldn’t that not be the government’s decision? I can say that yes, the system needs fixing, but I certainly do not want the government to decide who lives and who dies.
With the criteria that proponents of Eugenics would apply, Stephen Hawking would never have been kept alive to postulate his theories on black holes or string theory- he would have been killed, if not actively, than by neglect, because the government cannot quantify potential.
When a Washington Post journalist asked Daniel Zemel, a Washington rabbi, what he thought about federal agencies putting a dollar value on human life, the rabbi cited a Jewish teaching explaining that if you put one human life on one side of a scale, and you put the rest of the world on the other side, the scale is balanced equally. Perhaps that is how those who resist health care rationing think. But we already put a dollar value on human life. If the Department of Transportation, for example, followed rabbinical teachings it would exhaust its entire budget on road safety. Fortunately the department sets a limit on how much it is willing to pay to save one human life. In 2008 that limit was $5.8 million. Other government agencies do the same. Last year the Consumer Product Safety Commission considered a proposal to make mattresses less likely to catch fire. Information from the industry suggested that the new standard would cost $343 million to implement, but the Consumer Product Safety Commission calculated that it would save 270 lives a year — and since it valued a human life at around $5 million, that made the new standard a good value. If we are going to have consumer-safety regulation at all, we need some idea of how much safety is worth buying. Like health care bureaucrats, consumer-safety bureaucrats sometimes decide that saving a human life is not worth the expense. Twenty years ago, the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, examined a proposal for installing seat belts in all school buses. It estimated that doing so would save, on average, one life per year, at a cost of $40 million. After that, support for the proposal faded away. So why is it that those who accept that we put a price on life when it comes to consumer safety refuse to accept it when it comes to health care?
nytimes.com
Because miracles do happen- people do come out of comas, overcome handicaps, and become inspirations to us all. Because we are a nation of lost causes, and we love the underdog.
Just because the “Progressives”, the Nazis in our society do not want to look at the great unwashed, the less than perfect members of our society, should not give them the right to say that these people haven’t the right to live. This began with the “Pro- Choice” movement, where they can kill off the smallest, most defenseless members of our society, but now they are putting a price on everyone’s life, and that is just plain wrong.
That should be everyone’s personal choice alone- certainly not some snooty governmental watchdog’s.
This is not about creating a master race, or getting rid of the undesirables, but something just as sinister- getting rid of people who cost too much.
This is all about dollars.
Not so much about sense.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: birth control, eugenics, human cultivation, rationing