Second, the Democrats (not Republicans) have proposed broad cuts in Medicare when Medicare, on an aggregate level, already doesn't pay market costs and is indirectly subsidized by private sector insurers and other consumers. We've seen surveys of 40% or more of "satisfied Medicare patients" opposing the Democratic version of health care reform.
Third, it's the Obama Administration (not the Bush Administration) which revived a Clinton-era Veterans Administration booklet named "Your Life, Your Choices" (now given the VA provides medical care for disabled vets, who has a vested interest in a veteran choosing to die? This may be a more subtle, softer approach than an explicit denial of benefits, but the intent is clear...)
"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."
The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to "shake the blues." There is a section which provocatively asks, "Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug'?" There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as "I can no longer contribute to my family's well being," "I am a severe financial burden on my family" and that the vet's situation "causes severe emotional burden for my family."Fourth, it's the Democratic-controlled Oregon legislature which implemented a health rationing, Scrooge-like "If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population" policy:
An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead..."Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan."Does anyone really believe that getting a letter like that from a federal government bureaucrat is not a legitimate concern? Clearly the use of life-preserving treatment is being rationed, the woman is not being offered any financially viable alternative, but the state of Oregon will pay for the noose she needs to hang herself.
Ask the citizens of Maine, Oregon, Hawaii, Tennessee, and Massachusetts, the prototypes for Obama's vision of government-run "health care reform", what the results have been. Promised cost savings? No. Fewer uninsured? Not necessarily (hardship exemptions, etc.). Denied claims? You bet. Budget deficits beyond projections? You know it. High waiting times and doctor shortages? Of course. And Democrats in Congress really, really, really want you to believe that they will build on these "successes". That should be of concern to every American.
And Obama and his Congressional cronies can "manage" health care costs (knowing, of course, that 5% of patients account for about half the costs.) Does anyone doubt that that VA manual just might get a rewrite for the general population, suggesting if disabled veterans can do their "patriotic duty" of knowing when to make the "right choice", then other citizens, if they are truly patriotic, should follow their lead?
Never mind the fact that Obama and Democrats have been all over the lot in terms of just what health care reform consists of; for example, Obama opposed health insurance mandates during the Democratic nomination campaign last year, but mandate advocates are concerned about others taking advantage of expensive care without paying into the system, say, an otherwise healthy young man with no appreciable assets and no insurance in a serious motorcycle accident.
[I have a more nuanced view on the question of mandates. I oppose mandates involving state-specific gold-plated benefits, e.g., in-vitro fertilization, chiropractor services, etc. I'm more favorably inclined to a uniform policy involving catastrophic expenses.]
Opposition to mandates occurs from both the left and the right. For example, I was recently on an alternative-medicine website where the author ranted against having to pay for insurance/bureaucratic overhead and doctors (in conjunction with pharmaceutical companies) all too eager to prescribe serious drugs (e.g., statin drugs) at the drop of a hat. Why should the government be involved in mandating how we pay for our medical bills, whether on an as-needed basis or through a third party? We don't let the government decide where we live or what we eat.
I heard a snippet podcast of Grayson on Chris "tingling-leg-for-Obama" Matthews' Hardball with both of them in a mutual admiration society and Matthews' journalistic impartiality in full view, congratulating Grayson for putting the GOP in its place and making him out to be a profile in courage, with rookie Congressman Grayson from Orlando, barely edging 4-term GOP incumbent Ric Keller last fall in a change election year, a clear GOP target in 2010. Orlando and America deserve better.
