Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Obama Throws Our American Elders off a Cliff
Wow, American Doctors4Truth.org hits President Obama's Healthcare bill hard with the truth. Please share this! These brave medical professionals need our support and deserve our thanks! Please let them know how much you appreciate them standing for our elderly loved ones!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
True Catholic Social Teaching
From American Thinker
September 06, 2009
ObamaCare and Catholic social teachingBy Mark Wauk
The 9/2/09 issue of the Wall Street Journal, in its Notable and Quotable feature, calls attention to an important article that Roman Catholic Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa, published in his diocesan newspaper on the subject of health care and health care reform. The article is important for two reasons: first, because there has been and continues to be a certain amount of confusion regarding Catholic social teaching as it affects health care; second, because Bishop Nickless goes to great lengths to base his discussion on principles, and not merely on tactical considerations.
Bishop Nickless begins by noting the importance of the ongoing debate over proposed reforms of our health care system:
"There is much at stake in this political struggle, and also much confusion and inaccurate information being thrown around. My brother bishops have described some clear "goal-posts" to mark out what is acceptable reform, and what must be rejected. First and most important, the Church will not accept any legislation that mandates coverage, public or private, for abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell research."
After further noting particular concerncs for Catholic hospitals and health care professionals -- the possibility that the Government would attempt to force them to act in violation of Catholic teaching as well as in violation of their consciences--Bishop Nickless concludes:
"A so-called reform that imposes these evils on us would be far worse than keeping the health care system we now have."
However, Bishop Nickless doesn't stop here. He goes on to enunciate several additional considerations of great importance. The bishop's second point gets to the heart of the role that government should play in health care:
"Second, the Catholic Church does not teach that "health care" as such, without distinction, is a natural right. The "natural right" of health care is the divine bounty of food, water, and air without which all of us quickly die. This bounty comes from God directly. None of us own it, and none of us can morally withhold it from others. The remainder of health care is a political, not a natural, right, because it comes from our human efforts, creativity, and compassion. As a political right, health care should be apportioned according to need, not ability to pay or to benefit from the care. We reject the rationing of care. Those who are sickest should get the most care, regardless of age, status, or wealth. But how to do this is not self-evident. The decisions that we must collectively make about how to administer health care therefore fall under "prudential judgment."
In other words, provision of health care must ultimately rest on prudential considerations that affect an entire society. Broad assertions of generalized "rights" without reference to underlying prudential considerations are not helpful. The relevant considerations include need, but also cost. Another important prudential consideration, however, is this: who should be the main provider of health care, government or the private sector? Bishop Nickless insists that health care provision is not only not a central concern of government as such, it is also likely to introduce harmful economic and policy distortions:
"Third, in that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care. Unlike a prudential concern like national defense, for which government monopolization is objectively good - it both limits violence overall and prevents the obvious abuses to which private armies are susceptible - health care should not be subject to federal monopolization.
Preserving patient choice (through a flourishing private sector) is the only way to prevent a health care monopoly from denying care arbitrarily, as we learned from HMOs in the recent past. While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit, it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined "best procedures," which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens. The proper role of the government is to regulate the private sector, in order to foster healthy competition and to curtail abuses. Therefore any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect."
Clearly, there is much that could be said on this score. Nevertheless, Bishop Nickless' reflections are an excellent starting point for any constructive discussion of these important issues. Bishop Nickless places his own considerations in the context of demographic considerations:
"The best way in practice to approach this balance of public and private roles is to spread the risks and costs of health care over the largest number of people. This is the principle underlying Medicaid and Medicare taxes, for example. But this principle assumes that the pool of taxable workers is sufficiently large, compared to those who draw the benefits, to be reasonably inexpensive and just. ... Without a growing population of youth, our growing population of retirees is outstripping our distribution systems. In a culture of death such as we have now, taxation to redistribute costs of medical care becomes both unjust and unsustainable."
I, personally, would suggest that further consideration needs to be given to the entire notion of taxation to redistribute costs. Obviously, this occurs in many areas of our politics: national defense, public works, etc. Just as obviously, when joined to false notions of "natural rights," and a failure to consider the human dignity that and emphasis on individual responsibility fosters, the redistributive use of taxation has led to many controversial and even "unjust" abuses of the government power to tax (my quotes refer to Bishop Nickless' words, above). The power to tax is, after all, the power to destroy, and that destruction can have not only economic consequences but moral consequences as well.
Bishop Nickless appears to assume that Medicaid and Medicare were, initially in any event, established on a sound principle. Without getting into the the particulars, which are far beyond my expertise, I think that is an area that would needs to be closely reexamined before moving on to adoption of any new reforms.That Bishop Nickless is open to such discussions, and that the considerations involved are central to Catholic social teaching, becomes apparent from the bishop's final point. That point addresses the whole issue of preventive care which, as several recent studies have shown, can actually greatly increase health care costs.
Bishop Nickless places the primary responsibility squarely on the individual:
"Fourth, preventative care is a moral obligation of the individual to God and to his or her family and loved ones, not a right to be demanded from society. The gift of life comes only from God; to spurn that gift by seriously mistreating our own health is morally wrong. The most effective preventative care for most people is essentially free - good diet, moderate exercise, and sufficient sleep. But pre-natal and neo-natal care are examples of preventative care requiring medical expertise, and therefore cost; and this sort of care should be made available to all as far as possible."
The caveat "as far as possible" is a strong indication that Bishop Nickless, in the context of Catholic social teaching, does indeed recognize that cost is an important part of the entire health care equation. No society can morally devote an endlessly increasingly portion of its resources to a poorly structured health care system, while ignoring the long term financial health of its future generations.Having enunciated these four principles and their related goals, Bishop Nickless asks the all-important question: "Will the current health care reform proposals achieve these goals?" His answer is a firm: No. Not only would all current House and Senate proposals introduce government subsidized abortion (and likely several other morally objectionable features), but these proposals would strike at the heart of private sector health care provision.
The House proposal "provides a "public insurance option" without adequate limits, so that smaller employers especially will have a financial incentive to push all their employees into this public insurance. This will effectively prevent those employees from choosing any private insurance plans. This will saddle the working classes with additional taxes for inefficient and immoral entitlements."
And the Senate proposal would also "impinge on the vitality of the private sector" through various provisions.Bishop Nickless' resounding conclusion:
"I encourage all of you to make you voice heard to our representatives in Congress. Tell them what they need to hear from us: no health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform. Insist that they not permit themselves to be railroaded into the current too-costly and pro-abortion health care proposals. Insist on their support for proposals that respect the life and dignity of every human person, especially the unborn. And above all, pray for them, and for our country.
Bishop Nickless' article begins at http://www.scdiocese.org/ and continues at http://www.scdiocese.org/Stewardship/healthcare/tabid/416/Default.aspx
September 06, 2009
ObamaCare and Catholic social teachingBy Mark Wauk
The 9/2/09 issue of the Wall Street Journal, in its Notable and Quotable feature, calls attention to an important article that Roman Catholic Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa, published in his diocesan newspaper on the subject of health care and health care reform. The article is important for two reasons: first, because there has been and continues to be a certain amount of confusion regarding Catholic social teaching as it affects health care; second, because Bishop Nickless goes to great lengths to base his discussion on principles, and not merely on tactical considerations.
Bishop Nickless begins by noting the importance of the ongoing debate over proposed reforms of our health care system:
"There is much at stake in this political struggle, and also much confusion and inaccurate information being thrown around. My brother bishops have described some clear "goal-posts" to mark out what is acceptable reform, and what must be rejected. First and most important, the Church will not accept any legislation that mandates coverage, public or private, for abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell research."
After further noting particular concerncs for Catholic hospitals and health care professionals -- the possibility that the Government would attempt to force them to act in violation of Catholic teaching as well as in violation of their consciences--Bishop Nickless concludes:
"A so-called reform that imposes these evils on us would be far worse than keeping the health care system we now have."
However, Bishop Nickless doesn't stop here. He goes on to enunciate several additional considerations of great importance. The bishop's second point gets to the heart of the role that government should play in health care:
"Second, the Catholic Church does not teach that "health care" as such, without distinction, is a natural right. The "natural right" of health care is the divine bounty of food, water, and air without which all of us quickly die. This bounty comes from God directly. None of us own it, and none of us can morally withhold it from others. The remainder of health care is a political, not a natural, right, because it comes from our human efforts, creativity, and compassion. As a political right, health care should be apportioned according to need, not ability to pay or to benefit from the care. We reject the rationing of care. Those who are sickest should get the most care, regardless of age, status, or wealth. But how to do this is not self-evident. The decisions that we must collectively make about how to administer health care therefore fall under "prudential judgment."
In other words, provision of health care must ultimately rest on prudential considerations that affect an entire society. Broad assertions of generalized "rights" without reference to underlying prudential considerations are not helpful. The relevant considerations include need, but also cost. Another important prudential consideration, however, is this: who should be the main provider of health care, government or the private sector? Bishop Nickless insists that health care provision is not only not a central concern of government as such, it is also likely to introduce harmful economic and policy distortions:
"Third, in that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care. Unlike a prudential concern like national defense, for which government monopolization is objectively good - it both limits violence overall and prevents the obvious abuses to which private armies are susceptible - health care should not be subject to federal monopolization.
Preserving patient choice (through a flourishing private sector) is the only way to prevent a health care monopoly from denying care arbitrarily, as we learned from HMOs in the recent past. While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit, it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined "best procedures," which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens. The proper role of the government is to regulate the private sector, in order to foster healthy competition and to curtail abuses. Therefore any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect."
Clearly, there is much that could be said on this score. Nevertheless, Bishop Nickless' reflections are an excellent starting point for any constructive discussion of these important issues. Bishop Nickless places his own considerations in the context of demographic considerations:
"The best way in practice to approach this balance of public and private roles is to spread the risks and costs of health care over the largest number of people. This is the principle underlying Medicaid and Medicare taxes, for example. But this principle assumes that the pool of taxable workers is sufficiently large, compared to those who draw the benefits, to be reasonably inexpensive and just. ... Without a growing population of youth, our growing population of retirees is outstripping our distribution systems. In a culture of death such as we have now, taxation to redistribute costs of medical care becomes both unjust and unsustainable."
I, personally, would suggest that further consideration needs to be given to the entire notion of taxation to redistribute costs. Obviously, this occurs in many areas of our politics: national defense, public works, etc. Just as obviously, when joined to false notions of "natural rights," and a failure to consider the human dignity that and emphasis on individual responsibility fosters, the redistributive use of taxation has led to many controversial and even "unjust" abuses of the government power to tax (my quotes refer to Bishop Nickless' words, above). The power to tax is, after all, the power to destroy, and that destruction can have not only economic consequences but moral consequences as well.
Bishop Nickless appears to assume that Medicaid and Medicare were, initially in any event, established on a sound principle. Without getting into the the particulars, which are far beyond my expertise, I think that is an area that would needs to be closely reexamined before moving on to adoption of any new reforms.That Bishop Nickless is open to such discussions, and that the considerations involved are central to Catholic social teaching, becomes apparent from the bishop's final point. That point addresses the whole issue of preventive care which, as several recent studies have shown, can actually greatly increase health care costs.
Bishop Nickless places the primary responsibility squarely on the individual:
"Fourth, preventative care is a moral obligation of the individual to God and to his or her family and loved ones, not a right to be demanded from society. The gift of life comes only from God; to spurn that gift by seriously mistreating our own health is morally wrong. The most effective preventative care for most people is essentially free - good diet, moderate exercise, and sufficient sleep. But pre-natal and neo-natal care are examples of preventative care requiring medical expertise, and therefore cost; and this sort of care should be made available to all as far as possible."
The caveat "as far as possible" is a strong indication that Bishop Nickless, in the context of Catholic social teaching, does indeed recognize that cost is an important part of the entire health care equation. No society can morally devote an endlessly increasingly portion of its resources to a poorly structured health care system, while ignoring the long term financial health of its future generations.Having enunciated these four principles and their related goals, Bishop Nickless asks the all-important question: "Will the current health care reform proposals achieve these goals?" His answer is a firm: No. Not only would all current House and Senate proposals introduce government subsidized abortion (and likely several other morally objectionable features), but these proposals would strike at the heart of private sector health care provision.
The House proposal "provides a "public insurance option" without adequate limits, so that smaller employers especially will have a financial incentive to push all their employees into this public insurance. This will effectively prevent those employees from choosing any private insurance plans. This will saddle the working classes with additional taxes for inefficient and immoral entitlements."
And the Senate proposal would also "impinge on the vitality of the private sector" through various provisions.Bishop Nickless' resounding conclusion:
"I encourage all of you to make you voice heard to our representatives in Congress. Tell them what they need to hear from us: no health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform. Insist that they not permit themselves to be railroaded into the current too-costly and pro-abortion health care proposals. Insist on their support for proposals that respect the life and dignity of every human person, especially the unborn. And above all, pray for them, and for our country.
Bishop Nickless' article begins at http://www.scdiocese.org/ and continues at http://www.scdiocese.org/Stewardship/healthcare/tabid/416/Default.aspx
Thursday, September 3, 2009
August is Over
The long, contentious month of August is over. Congress will be heading back to their "jobs" next week with an ear full of their constituents' heartfelt opinions.
In the next days, leading up to the House vote on HR3200, we will see an onslaught of propaganda from the left, who will tell us we are not seeing what we are seeing(in the bill), we are not smart enought to know what we are seeing, and even if we are smart enough, Uncle Barack knows best and we need to sit down, shut up, and be grateful that we have a government that is willing to take care of us from the moment we are born until the moment they choose to allow us to die.
The magic of Dear Leader seems to have melted away as poll after poll show just how well informed the American people have become and are no longer listening to the Demagogue in Chief. I think Dear Leader is in real trouble now and I can't help but wonder how he will react if HR3200 goes down in defeat. Will we see him take a step back and decide that maybe he really does need bi-partisan support? Perhaps.
But, I have a feeling he will react in the true Chicago way once again, just what that will mean for the average civic minded American, I cannot know, but in recent weeks we've seen the "fishy" line at the WhiteHouse, tracking cookies placed on all governement websites, a move to place the entire internet under government control, and now this from Doug Ross
"NLPC has uncovered a plan by the White House New Media operation to hire a technology vendor to conduct a massive, secret effort to harvest personal information on millions of Americans from social networking websites... The targeted sites include Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr and others – any space where the White House “maintains a presence.”(EDIT**HotAir has taken a fresh look at this story and thinks it's not quite as creepy as it appeared--that it is little more than an "archiving" project--my question--why? Why do they need to "archive" and of course they claim to be very concerned about privacy(how does this work with the Privacy Act of 1974?)--and of course we have all seen just how good the government is at keeping private items private and of course everyone in the current administration only has our best interests at heart so there's no reason to think the information could be misused, so there's nothing to worry about, ...really...right? )
Of course, the Obots will be out in force telling us we aren't seeing what we are seeing, we aren't smart enough to know what we are seeing, and even if we are smart enough, Uncle Barack knows what is best and we should just sit down, shut up, and be grateful!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From American Thinker: September 02, 2009
Sarah Palin vs. Dr. Death
By Stuart Schwartz
Ezekiel Emanuel is upset. The president's health care czar sees the growing resistance to his vision, to his brave new world of government-run "communitarian" health care in which politicians and bureaucrats control one-sixth of the economy and 100% of our bodies. He doesn't quite understand how it all came apart on him, but he does know who started the unraveling: Sarah Palin.
Where does she get off attacking him? Sarah Palin, it seems forever Sarah Palin. And he wonders, as have so many others, what it takes to put a stake through her heart? People should listen to him, not Sarah Palin. He is the philosopher king of Democrat health care. And he went to Harvard, you know.
One day he was vacationing in the Italian Alps, a top-level government bureaucrat and Democrat insider enjoying the fruits of his labors on behalf of the common good. Government health care was cruising and Zeke was the guy Time magazine predicted will build the most "equitable and ethical" health care system north of Cuba. Marty Peretz, his friend and publisher of The New Republic, described him as quintessential Harvard, "very impressive" and stuffed with "gravitas."
And then he got the call: Sarah Palin had done the unthinkable. She had read the health care bill. Mainstream journalists hadn't read the bill. Congress hadn't read its own bill. But Sarah Palin did. Sarah Palin! He has a medical degree and doctorate in political philosophy from Harvard. The only Harvard she's knows is the chunk of ice off Prince William Sound, Harvard Glacier.
Then she writes something on Facebook -- Facebook, for Obama's sake! -- and suddenly the president, congress, the media, and everyone who is anyone inside the beltway is scurrying for cover. Palin wrote that she wanted nothing to do with Obama's "death panel," the collection of bureaucrats who Zeke was so proudly putting together to assess the "level of productivity" that would determine individual access to medical care
They went after her, but...it was over. Everyone was talking death panels. Sarah Palin had let people know: if you're old, if you're sick, if you're disabled, they're targeting you. It became Mrs. Mom vs. Dr. Death, the governor vs. the terminator.
She cut through the rhetoric, the academic jargon, and adoring press to the truth: Ezekiel Emanuel and Barack Obama and the Democrat-led Congress are putting in place a health care system that will control the lives -- and deaths -- of citizens to an extent never seen in this republic. Her reaction:"we're saying not just no, but hell no!
And Zeke is upset. A slam-dunk had been transformed into an epic battle and, as an American Thinker commentator put it, ObamaCare turned into a "sick joke." That's not how it's supposed to be -- he went to Harvard, you know.
Ezekiel Emanuel "abhors" what she's done. She read his articles, which "even well-educated people" would have a difficult time understanding. And she's certainly not well educated. She's a graduate of the University of Idaho, where they probably write doctoral dissertations in crayon. And she only has a bachelor's degree -- in communications, for Obama's sake!?
It's as if the waitress at the Harvard Faculty Club had, instead of a check, taken out a baseball bat and cold-cocked him. Or the ball girl at the tennis event sponsored by the Harvard Club of Washington DC had reared back and smacked a Dunlop A-Player right into his groin. This is not supposed to happen -- he went to Harvard, you know.
This is crazy! People are packing town halls in protest. They are listening to Sarah Palin and not Zeke, who has been a fellow at Oxford -- the one in England, not the suburb of Fairbanks. And he has written nine books, almost a dozen chapters in other books, and more than 225 other pieces on bioethics and morality. And certified as a genius by The New York Times, which hired him as a book reviewer for its Sunday newspaper
And yet, this, this... this Facebook writer described his thinking as "downright evil." And demanded that he explain why he's trying to put in place centralized health care that "would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential."
Evil!? Sarah Palin called him evil!? She said "death panels," he didn't. Hey, some lives are worth more to society than others. Therefore, health services cannot be guaranteed for individuals like Trig, Palin's baby with Down Syndrome, who are "irreversibly prevented" from contributing to the public good. There is a subtle difference.
Sarah Palin simply does not understand. No nuance. She did not go to Harvard, nor is she a board member of Princeton University's Center for Human Values, where Zeke provides support for philosopher Peter Singer. Singer is best known for the view that fetuses and many disabled have less of a right to live than, say, fully functioning humans and "adult gorillas and chimpanzees." No, Zeke believes that those who know better, who understand morality, should make decisions for those less able to do so.
Like Sarah Palin. Like Trig. Like your grandma. And this is because he cares. Just ask him: "I hope at the end of the day I can make things better for people, especially vulnerable people." As an original member of the academic "communitarian" movement, he has pledged to establish "just" health care by means that are "nondemocratic or practice discrimination." A just society doesn't simply happen, he explains. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs... so to speak.
So when Sarah Palin says she doesn't want her "baby with Down Syndrome" to stand in front of his medical panels... that shows just how unsophisticated her thinking really is. She has already made the anti-social choice of giving birth to a child with a severe disability, who will never be able to live the "complete life" outlined by Zeke on behalf of the government.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of a health care system that operates in the public good to deny Trig -- or grandma, for that matter -- health services that are better used elsewhere. Sarah Palin, not the government, is to blame. She chose to have Trig. She forced a situation that provides her with, as Zeke puts it, "bleak choices."
And so government, for the sake of the common good, may deny Trig medical care. And may do the same with the elderly, the severely disabled, and others who fall low on the "complete life" value scale. It is the best way, the moral way, the smart way.
And Zeke knows smart -- he went to Harvard, you know.
Stuart H. Schwartz, Ph.D., is a former newspaper and retail executive. He is on the faculty at Liberty University in Virginia.
In the next days, leading up to the House vote on HR3200, we will see an onslaught of propaganda from the left, who will tell us we are not seeing what we are seeing(in the bill), we are not smart enought to know what we are seeing, and even if we are smart enough, Uncle Barack knows best and we need to sit down, shut up, and be grateful that we have a government that is willing to take care of us from the moment we are born until the moment they choose to allow us to die.
The magic of Dear Leader seems to have melted away as poll after poll show just how well informed the American people have become and are no longer listening to the Demagogue in Chief. I think Dear Leader is in real trouble now and I can't help but wonder how he will react if HR3200 goes down in defeat. Will we see him take a step back and decide that maybe he really does need bi-partisan support? Perhaps.
But, I have a feeling he will react in the true Chicago way once again, just what that will mean for the average civic minded American, I cannot know, but in recent weeks we've seen the "fishy" line at the WhiteHouse, tracking cookies placed on all governement websites, a move to place the entire internet under government control, and now this from Doug Ross
"NLPC has uncovered a plan by the White House New Media operation to hire a technology vendor to conduct a massive, secret effort to harvest personal information on millions of Americans from social networking websites... The targeted sites include Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr and others – any space where the White House “maintains a presence.”(EDIT**HotAir has taken a fresh look at this story and thinks it's not quite as creepy as it appeared--that it is little more than an "archiving" project--my question--why? Why do they need to "archive" and of course they claim to be very concerned about privacy(how does this work with the Privacy Act of 1974?)--and of course we have all seen just how good the government is at keeping private items private and of course everyone in the current administration only has our best interests at heart so there's no reason to think the information could be misused, so there's nothing to worry about, ...really...right? )
Of course, the Obots will be out in force telling us we aren't seeing what we are seeing, we aren't smart enough to know what we are seeing, and even if we are smart enough, Uncle Barack knows what is best and we should just sit down, shut up, and be grateful!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From American Thinker: September 02, 2009
Sarah Palin vs. Dr. Death
By Stuart Schwartz
Ezekiel Emanuel is upset. The president's health care czar sees the growing resistance to his vision, to his brave new world of government-run "communitarian" health care in which politicians and bureaucrats control one-sixth of the economy and 100% of our bodies. He doesn't quite understand how it all came apart on him, but he does know who started the unraveling: Sarah Palin.
Where does she get off attacking him? Sarah Palin, it seems forever Sarah Palin. And he wonders, as have so many others, what it takes to put a stake through her heart? People should listen to him, not Sarah Palin. He is the philosopher king of Democrat health care. And he went to Harvard, you know.
One day he was vacationing in the Italian Alps, a top-level government bureaucrat and Democrat insider enjoying the fruits of his labors on behalf of the common good. Government health care was cruising and Zeke was the guy Time magazine predicted will build the most "equitable and ethical" health care system north of Cuba. Marty Peretz, his friend and publisher of The New Republic, described him as quintessential Harvard, "very impressive" and stuffed with "gravitas."
And then he got the call: Sarah Palin had done the unthinkable. She had read the health care bill. Mainstream journalists hadn't read the bill. Congress hadn't read its own bill. But Sarah Palin did. Sarah Palin! He has a medical degree and doctorate in political philosophy from Harvard. The only Harvard she's knows is the chunk of ice off Prince William Sound, Harvard Glacier.
Then she writes something on Facebook -- Facebook, for Obama's sake! -- and suddenly the president, congress, the media, and everyone who is anyone inside the beltway is scurrying for cover. Palin wrote that she wanted nothing to do with Obama's "death panel," the collection of bureaucrats who Zeke was so proudly putting together to assess the "level of productivity" that would determine individual access to medical care
They went after her, but...it was over. Everyone was talking death panels. Sarah Palin had let people know: if you're old, if you're sick, if you're disabled, they're targeting you. It became Mrs. Mom vs. Dr. Death, the governor vs. the terminator.
She cut through the rhetoric, the academic jargon, and adoring press to the truth: Ezekiel Emanuel and Barack Obama and the Democrat-led Congress are putting in place a health care system that will control the lives -- and deaths -- of citizens to an extent never seen in this republic. Her reaction:"we're saying not just no, but hell no!
And Zeke is upset. A slam-dunk had been transformed into an epic battle and, as an American Thinker commentator put it, ObamaCare turned into a "sick joke." That's not how it's supposed to be -- he went to Harvard, you know.
Ezekiel Emanuel "abhors" what she's done. She read his articles, which "even well-educated people" would have a difficult time understanding. And she's certainly not well educated. She's a graduate of the University of Idaho, where they probably write doctoral dissertations in crayon. And she only has a bachelor's degree -- in communications, for Obama's sake!?
It's as if the waitress at the Harvard Faculty Club had, instead of a check, taken out a baseball bat and cold-cocked him. Or the ball girl at the tennis event sponsored by the Harvard Club of Washington DC had reared back and smacked a Dunlop A-Player right into his groin. This is not supposed to happen -- he went to Harvard, you know.
This is crazy! People are packing town halls in protest. They are listening to Sarah Palin and not Zeke, who has been a fellow at Oxford -- the one in England, not the suburb of Fairbanks. And he has written nine books, almost a dozen chapters in other books, and more than 225 other pieces on bioethics and morality. And certified as a genius by The New York Times, which hired him as a book reviewer for its Sunday newspaper
And yet, this, this... this Facebook writer described his thinking as "downright evil." And demanded that he explain why he's trying to put in place centralized health care that "would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential."
Evil!? Sarah Palin called him evil!? She said "death panels," he didn't. Hey, some lives are worth more to society than others. Therefore, health services cannot be guaranteed for individuals like Trig, Palin's baby with Down Syndrome, who are "irreversibly prevented" from contributing to the public good. There is a subtle difference.
Sarah Palin simply does not understand. No nuance. She did not go to Harvard, nor is she a board member of Princeton University's Center for Human Values, where Zeke provides support for philosopher Peter Singer. Singer is best known for the view that fetuses and many disabled have less of a right to live than, say, fully functioning humans and "adult gorillas and chimpanzees." No, Zeke believes that those who know better, who understand morality, should make decisions for those less able to do so.
Like Sarah Palin. Like Trig. Like your grandma. And this is because he cares. Just ask him: "I hope at the end of the day I can make things better for people, especially vulnerable people." As an original member of the academic "communitarian" movement, he has pledged to establish "just" health care by means that are "nondemocratic or practice discrimination." A just society doesn't simply happen, he explains. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs... so to speak.
So when Sarah Palin says she doesn't want her "baby with Down Syndrome" to stand in front of his medical panels... that shows just how unsophisticated her thinking really is. She has already made the anti-social choice of giving birth to a child with a severe disability, who will never be able to live the "complete life" outlined by Zeke on behalf of the government.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of a health care system that operates in the public good to deny Trig -- or grandma, for that matter -- health services that are better used elsewhere. Sarah Palin, not the government, is to blame. She chose to have Trig. She forced a situation that provides her with, as Zeke puts it, "bleak choices."
And so government, for the sake of the common good, may deny Trig medical care. And may do the same with the elderly, the severely disabled, and others who fall low on the "complete life" value scale. It is the best way, the moral way, the smart way.
And Zeke knows smart -- he went to Harvard, you know.
Stuart H. Schwartz, Ph.D., is a former newspaper and retail executive. He is on the faculty at Liberty University in Virginia.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Chattering Class is Pushing back
Uncle Barry is losing his grip on the chattering class of America and he knows it. We are resisting our forced march onto Uncle Barry's plantation in greater numbers by the day. For the fourth straight week Republicans lead the Democrats in Rasmussen's Generic Congressional Ballot and support for Repubs is at the highest level in over two years.
We are getting and staying informed about issues that will affect us for generations to come and we are coming prepared for battle, witness these courageous members of the chattering class as they actually laugh out loud at the bald faced lies their congressman is trying to feed them...
...and this chattering class hero tells Obama sycophant Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "It will be a cold day in hell before he socializes my country"
We are finally digging in our heels and showing the some of the same grit and determination that our forebearers used when they brought the British Empire to a stumbling halt in the Americas over two centuries ago as we find out more and more about Uncle Barry's promised healthcare plan for us. The outrage grows as we learn the truth about the care the elderly will or will not receive under Obama's ration-based plan. Our parents and grandparents will simply be told they are not worth the expense to care for and their healthcare will be withheld. Our elderly will be hounded, yes hounded, by end of life councelors who come every five years to advise them on their end of life choices. (I double dawg dare a pencil necked wonk from Washington to show up and councel my father about end of life choices, you might just get a lesson in end of life choices yourself.)
As word spreads that abortion and the entire vile abortion industry will be included in the package, even Democratic lawmakers are becoming squeamish at the prospect of having to face their constituents with this blood on their hands.
We are standing up to the liberal media as we witnessed during the TeaParties when the snotty reporter from CNN tried to bully a TEA party participant(her contract was not renewed with CNN by the way ) We realize the media is part of the problem and very many of us view the mainstream media as aiding and abetting the enemies of our nation as they try to force us to live in a marxist state.
We tried to warn you back in the winter when we took to public squares all across this nation, but the liberal elites chose to answer with derision and scorn. But, the average American took notice and started to listen and do their own research, independent of the mainstream media sources. We emailed and blogged to organize a true grassroots network and still the elites refused to heed us. We organized and held ever larger TEA parties and shouted our defiance to an administration that has refused to hear us. But, Mr. and Mrs. Average American has heard us and joined their voices to those of us who were considered to be "far right wing extremists" Is it possible that over 50% of the nation is now saying the same thing those "far right wing extremists" spent so many days and nights jumping up and down and blogging about? If over 50% of the nation does not want this healthcare package shoved down our throats, who does that leave out on the far edges then?
But, of course Uncle Barry tried to soothe our concerns by reminding us that no, this isn't about him...it is about us, he is doing this for our own good. Oh goodie! Uncle Barry is only looking out for us because what...we aren't smart enough to look out for ourselves? Well, if it isn't about Dear Leader, then surely he is not worried that his presidency will be destroyed if healthcare is defeated, right?
..."Let's just lay everything on the table," Grassley said. "A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn't going to pass if there weren't some changes made ... and the president says, 'You're going to destroy my presidency.' "...
Oops, my bad, it seems like it IS all about him after all.
We are getting and staying informed about issues that will affect us for generations to come and we are coming prepared for battle, witness these courageous members of the chattering class as they actually laugh out loud at the bald faced lies their congressman is trying to feed them...
...and this chattering class hero tells Obama sycophant Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "It will be a cold day in hell before he socializes my country"
We are finally digging in our heels and showing the some of the same grit and determination that our forebearers used when they brought the British Empire to a stumbling halt in the Americas over two centuries ago as we find out more and more about Uncle Barry's promised healthcare plan for us. The outrage grows as we learn the truth about the care the elderly will or will not receive under Obama's ration-based plan. Our parents and grandparents will simply be told they are not worth the expense to care for and their healthcare will be withheld. Our elderly will be hounded, yes hounded, by end of life councelors who come every five years to advise them on their end of life choices. (I double dawg dare a pencil necked wonk from Washington to show up and councel my father about end of life choices, you might just get a lesson in end of life choices yourself.)
As word spreads that abortion and the entire vile abortion industry will be included in the package, even Democratic lawmakers are becoming squeamish at the prospect of having to face their constituents with this blood on their hands.
We are standing up to the liberal media as we witnessed during the TeaParties when the snotty reporter from CNN tried to bully a TEA party participant(her contract was not renewed with CNN by the way ) We realize the media is part of the problem and very many of us view the mainstream media as aiding and abetting the enemies of our nation as they try to force us to live in a marxist state.
We tried to warn you back in the winter when we took to public squares all across this nation, but the liberal elites chose to answer with derision and scorn. But, the average American took notice and started to listen and do their own research, independent of the mainstream media sources. We emailed and blogged to organize a true grassroots network and still the elites refused to heed us. We organized and held ever larger TEA parties and shouted our defiance to an administration that has refused to hear us. But, Mr. and Mrs. Average American has heard us and joined their voices to those of us who were considered to be "far right wing extremists" Is it possible that over 50% of the nation is now saying the same thing those "far right wing extremists" spent so many days and nights jumping up and down and blogging about? If over 50% of the nation does not want this healthcare package shoved down our throats, who does that leave out on the far edges then?
But, of course Uncle Barry tried to soothe our concerns by reminding us that no, this isn't about him...it is about us, he is doing this for our own good. Oh goodie! Uncle Barry is only looking out for us because what...we aren't smart enough to look out for ourselves? Well, if it isn't about Dear Leader, then surely he is not worried that his presidency will be destroyed if healthcare is defeated, right?
..."Let's just lay everything on the table," Grassley said. "A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn't going to pass if there weren't some changes made ... and the president says, 'You're going to destroy my presidency.' "...
Oops, my bad, it seems like it IS all about him after all.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Madame Speaker, can we talk?
Last week I read of Justice Ginsburg's horrifying statement about her views on Roe v Wade. Her response is the sort of thing that "right wing conspirators" toss around about the true motives behind abortion and frequently those people get called "right wing conspirators". Is it a conspiracy if it is the truth? If this was truly her understanding of the purpose of Roe v Wade, and for years she remained silent about it, I do not believe it is too great of a stretch to suggest that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an extremely vile racist human being and guilty of many things, including deriliction of her duty as a Supreme Court Justice. [I get called racist frequently because of my opposition to the policies of the Obama administration so I do not use the word racist lightly]
From Catholic Fire
Emily Bazellon of the New York Times Magazine conducted an interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg entitled “The Place of Women on the Court” which appeared in its’ July 7, 2009 issue.
Justice Ginsburg was amazingly candid about her support of unrestricted abortion. In response to a particular question she supported even eugenics as a legitimate reason for a woman “choosing” to take the developing human life growing in her womb.
Here is an excerpt:
Q If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.(emphasis added)
Read the entire article here.This is so sick! And someone like this is on the Supreme Court? Lord, have mercy! Related Information:LifeSiteNews.Com: Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations Through AbortionWorldNetDaily: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirablesWhat Does The Prayer Really Say? Justice Ginsberg originally thought Roe v Wade was about control of undesirable populations
On the other hand these 19 members of Congress are standing up to Madame Speaker and insist that she remove abortion completely from the health care reform legislation and they deserve at least a phone call of encouragement...and yes I do know that one of them is John Murtha. But, for me, the defense of life is the top priority.
From Creative Minority Report
Dear Honorable Pelosi:As the debate on health care reform continues and legislation is produced, it is imperative that the issue of abortion not be overlooked. Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly is unacceptable.We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families.
Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.
Furthermore, we want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package. Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government subsidized health care plan under general health care. The health care reform package produced by Congress will be landmark, and with legislation as important as this, abortion must be addressed clearly in the bill text.
Furthermore, funding restrictions save lives by reducing the number of abortions. The Guttmacher Policy Review, a leading pro-choice research organization noted "that about one third of women who would have had an abortion if support were available carried their pregnancies to term when the abortion fund was unavailable."
Thank you for taking the time to consider our request. By ensuring that abortions are not funded through any health care reform package, we will take this controversial issue off the table so that Congress can focus on crafting a broadly-supported health care reform bill.
Respectfully yours,
Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK); Bart Stupak (D-MI); Colin Peterson (D-MN); Tim Holden (D-PA); Travis Childers (D-MS); Lincoln Davis (D-TN); Heath Shuler (D-NC) Solomon Ortiz (D-TX); Mike McIntyre (D-NC); Jerry Costello (D-IL); Gene Taylor (D-MS); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bobby Bright (D-AL); Steve Driehaus (D-OH); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Charlie Melancon (D-LA); John Murtha (D-PA); Paul Kanjorski (D-PA); and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA).
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
I Don't Want to Get Mad-Dog Mean
"Now remember, things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is." - The Outlaw Josey Wales
This quote opens an article http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/time_to_get_mean_1.html by C. Edmund Wright. He speaks to a growing sense of unease that is spreading throughout the United States these days. America as we know and love is disappearing under the onslaught of new legislation this new administration is force-feeding us.
I don't want to be forced into a corner and left with the choice of submit or die. I don't want to get plumb, mad-dog mean, not because I am afraid to, but because that is no way to live. I don't want to fight, I just want to be left alone to live in my nation and not be forced to support 50% of the rest of the population through huge tax burdens. I don't want to be forced to support murdering unborn children by tax-payer funded abortions.
But, every day as I read about one more piece of legislation, one more presidential decree that is signed that rips and tears at the very fabric of this nation, the greatest nation in the history of mankind, I realize they are pushing me to fight that fight. I will fight, not because I want to, but because I have to. Right now I am fighting in the most civil way I know how, because that is who I am. But, do not mistake civility for passivity. Do not mistake courtesy for weakness.
"In short, provisions in the stimulus and the new budget bills take away freedom to make money, to spend money and even to give away money. And it's all done for one purpose. To give the government more control to make, spend and distribute money."
Does anyone care to take a guess why the government wants more control over every one of us? The people now running our government do not believe you or I are smart enough to run our own lives, they want to mandate for us how to do it instead, that means liberals too by the way.
Take nationalized healthcare for instance, if the government gets to decide which treatment or no treatment is most cost effective, do you honestly believe that will apply only to conservatives? No, it will apply to everyone, except for the elitists who will have ready access to anything they desire. The changes that are coming to this nation WILL affect all of us, liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, independents. all.of.us.
I don't want to get mad-dog mean...but, I will.
This quote opens an article http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/time_to_get_mean_1.html by C. Edmund Wright. He speaks to a growing sense of unease that is spreading throughout the United States these days. America as we know and love is disappearing under the onslaught of new legislation this new administration is force-feeding us.
I don't want to be forced into a corner and left with the choice of submit or die. I don't want to get plumb, mad-dog mean, not because I am afraid to, but because that is no way to live. I don't want to fight, I just want to be left alone to live in my nation and not be forced to support 50% of the rest of the population through huge tax burdens. I don't want to be forced to support murdering unborn children by tax-payer funded abortions.
But, every day as I read about one more piece of legislation, one more presidential decree that is signed that rips and tears at the very fabric of this nation, the greatest nation in the history of mankind, I realize they are pushing me to fight that fight. I will fight, not because I want to, but because I have to. Right now I am fighting in the most civil way I know how, because that is who I am. But, do not mistake civility for passivity. Do not mistake courtesy for weakness.
"In short, provisions in the stimulus and the new budget bills take away freedom to make money, to spend money and even to give away money. And it's all done for one purpose. To give the government more control to make, spend and distribute money."
Does anyone care to take a guess why the government wants more control over every one of us? The people now running our government do not believe you or I are smart enough to run our own lives, they want to mandate for us how to do it instead, that means liberals too by the way.
Take nationalized healthcare for instance, if the government gets to decide which treatment or no treatment is most cost effective, do you honestly believe that will apply only to conservatives? No, it will apply to everyone, except for the elitists who will have ready access to anything they desire. The changes that are coming to this nation WILL affect all of us, liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, independents. all.of.us.
I don't want to get mad-dog mean...but, I will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)