With the appointment of this eugenics styled “science czar” (google him “John Holdren"or the book he coauthored, “Ecoscience”), it is becoming more & more evident that Obama and his nationalized healthcare proponents are easing the public to accept the practice of withholding life saving measures from the elderly, infirmed, etc.
I find this troubling. The radical left are trying to keep the concept from public exposure until it is too late. They cry ‘fear mongering’ if we point out the obvious direction this is going.
Don’t trust them folks, they are merely trying to distract you with such diversionary claims. They plan to offer exemptions for the government employees, and get this, also for union members! Is that not the height of cynicism? Protect their own and the heck with the rest of us.
Some of this is purposely being introduced in a controlled manner. It reminds me of cooking a frog. If you throw it in a boiling pot of water, he will jump out. However, if you place him in the pot and slowly increase the heat, he will stay and cook.
This is what we are witnessing with this crazy radical left concept.
It will leave a bureaucrat or protocol to make decisions on who is worthy of care and who is to be comforted and allowed to die. In addition to the series the New York Times is running in the below paragraph, they have an article in their New York Magazine justifying the refusal to treat elderly and chronically ill patients. They make the claim it is not worth the money.
The New York Times is running a series titled “Months to Live” in order to help spread the sort of end of life issues that are helpful to Obama’s healthcare agenda, one of which seems to be the idea that elderly should forgo any sort of heroic measures to keep them alive so as not to waste those resources that might be able to go to younger, more vital patients.
The second these ideas become the norm, government will by necessity of control begin to determine which citizens are “worth” saving and which aren’t worth the efforts and should be denied services. And from there it won’t be long before prescriptions of euthanasia for those “not worth” the costs of government largess will become de rigueur everywhere.
For the few that watched ABC’s special on healthcare, the most important takeaway from it was President Barack Obama’s admission that he would go outside the constraints of a nationalized system to get the “very best care” if necessary for his own family.
Obama’s response should properly be seen as “a Michael Dukakis moment that exposed him as a hypocrite.“
Dr. Orrin Devinsky, who took part in the televised discussion, asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president would not make such a pledge, though he confessed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.“
It is time the American voters wake up and recognize this for what it is. A moral disaster in the making.