Rationing and Euthanasia Already in Govt Health Care Proposal

SoylentGreen2The rationing of health care is just one of a host of reasons why socialized health care is a terrible idea for the free people of the United States.

Still, many Americans don’t want to acknowledge this very real, very dark outcome of socialized medicine. Even though the foundations for it are already written into the bill, even though the Canadian government health care system is looking at rationing, even though the British system is already doing it, and remarkably a leading British bioethicist says the elderly and those with dementia have a “duty to die,”  somehow some Americans find that ignoring an ugly truth is easier than dealing with it head on and avoiding it.

Those of us who have spent some time living under socialized health care systems in other countries know that even without official rationing mandates, the poor quality, long lines, long waiting lists and such already amount to de facto rationing.  Even the Massachussetts government health care system, in it’s very young life, has already seen this begin.

The National Center for Policy Analysis draws our attention to a piece by John C. Goodman, President, CEO and the Kellye Wright Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.  Goodman examines how health care “guru” Tom Daschle cited the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as a model for government health care.

There’s just one problem: NICE says that if it costs more than $22,000 to save six months of life, your sorry carcass isn’t worth it.

As a result, British cancer patients do not have access to drugs that are routinely available in the United States. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 25,000 British cancer patients die prematurely every year because of these restrictions.

Did you know that Zeke Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, wrote an article about health care rationing in the medical journal Lancet on January 31, 2009?  Goodman says Emanual’s article reckons that the life of an elderly person isn’t worth spending as much on since they have less remaining natural lifespan anyway.

Suppose a 25-year-old and a 65-year-old have a life threatening disease. Since the 25-year-old has many more potential years of life ahead of him, he should receive preferential treatment, says Emanuel. He justifies denying care to elderly patients

Emanual also published an article for the for the Hastings Center Report about 13 years ago in which he says we shouldn’t spend health care money on “individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.”  In other words, if you’re no good at contributing to the almighty state, you’re no good at all, and we should just let you die.

Sounds a lot like the old stories and movies we used to know from Logan’s Run, Soylent Green and Brave New World, eh?  Where human dignity is an obsolete concept and the value of human life is reduced to formulas used to calculate the material contribution of the individual to the state.

Section 1233 of the health care bill, HR 3200, requires “death with dignity” aka euthanasia consultations every five years for senior citizens. Our government seems to be eager to convince the elderly to just get out of the way.

Better hope you’re not too attached to grandpa or grandma.  Better hope you’re not grandpa or grandma under the liberals’ socialist health care scheme.

This government health care proposal is un-American from start to finish, from the socialist philosophy upon which it is based, to the inhuman lack of value it places on human life.

Comments are closed.