Wow, when Dan Riehl wants to get your attention, he goes right for the jugular.
The left are going bonkers over his post, Tommy Christopher is reduced to threatening Dan’s livelihood. Republicans are holding their collective noses and staying silent. Conservative bloggers are making the uncomfortable comparisons between what Dems have stated and what Dan is saying about healthcare.
Dan stated: I’m not sure I quite understand this, given that cost is so important as a burden to taxpayers when it comes to health care. If Democrats want so badly to abort babies because of it, why are we bothering with someone who has a broken neck and back at 69?
Ezekiel Emanuel would argue that Dan’s suggestion would be in line with his proposal to allocate healthcare by age.
“However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear.” In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel’s chart nearby).
Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.“
Agreeing that aborting babies as a cost saving method, it is an easy jump to say those on the opposite end of the life spectrum are an economic drain as well. If Dr. Emanuel’s plan was in effect, Mrs. Reid would be in a hospice, not a hospital. Even Stupak is stunned by the Democrats commitment to limit human life to save a buck:
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”
Pelosi is unapologetic in her stance of abortion as an economic stimulus:
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduced costs, it reduced costs. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crisis now, and — and part of it, what we do for children’s health, education, and some of those elements that are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those — one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, is — will reduce cost to the state, and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies, no. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.
Good thing Mrs Reid isn’t a veteran or she might have been asked to answer questions like “Have you ever heard anyone say, ‘If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug’?”
The Obama administration has revived the Death Book for Veterans:
Last year, bureaucrats at the VA’s National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, “Your Life, Your Choices.” It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA’s preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated “Your Life, Your Choices.”
Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.
“Your Life, Your Choices” presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political “push poll.” For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be “not worth living.”
Looks like Mrs Reid won’t have to face a Death Panel:
On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. “We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”…
Taking what the Democrat leadership has been openly stating about end of life ‘guidance’, age determining the intensity of health care received and abortion as an economic stimulus; where is the offense in Dan’s post? His stinging commentary is meant to grab your attention to what the Democrats have been advocating. Of course Mrs Reid will get the best of care, she is a Senator’s wife after all. Having such connections under obamacare, her family would be exempt from all the above – but not you and I. That is the point of Dan’s post, the blatantly hypocritical care advocated by our Democrat leadership and their supporters.