There I was standing in line today, like I was taught in Kindergarten. One of the most useful things I was taught by the way. Along with asking permission, saying thank you, and that chewing gum is really hard to get out of your hair. I was standing in line waiting, as being in line may indicate, I was waiting for my turn and watching the monitor that had beein hung there to distract us line people from the fact that we really were having to wait, and it was playing the news highlights from around the world, when something caught my eye.
You guessed it, I had to take pause.
The snippet stated something to the fact that under the proposed new healthcare legislation, there would include the creation of a new branch that would counsel the elderly, and disabled, (read those who recieve social security benefits), on their right to die.
Yes you read it right, their right to die. Being of a curious nature, and not wanting to jump on anyone's wagon before knowing at least a communicative amount of facts. I let my fingers do the walking thru my good friend google and this is what I found...
“I’ve read about a third of HR 3200 and the counseling parts are designed to encourage euthanasia,” claimed Dr. Katherine Schlaerth, an associate professor of family medicine at Loma Linda University School of Medicine. “Seniors will be counseled every five years, and more often if they get sicker.”
“Patients who have a worsening of their chronic condition, but who may not even be pre-terminal, are included in this strong-arm counseling, and their respect for authority figures could pave the way for agreement with cessation of care not in their interest at all,” Schlaerth said. “Health-care providers, meanwhile, may be forced to give counseling directly opposed to their religious or moral beliefs.”
Many people are in agreement with this interpretation. Read on.
“Section 1233 encourages health-care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration’ and other end-of-life treatments and may place seniors in situations where they feel pressure to sign an end-of-life directive they would not otherwise sign,” said the House Republican leader, John Boehner, R-Ohio, and the Republican Policy Committee chairman, Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., in a July 23 statement. “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”
Yes you did read that correctly, Euthanasia.
Now previously I had determined that my next blog was going to be about the credit card companies, of which I do still have to say, but this tidbit just made me stop, and well you know, take pause. I mentioned in an earlier posting, my suspicion on how this might turn out, but now that I have been validated, instead of gratification, I am actually scared.
The legislative language of the bill regarding counseling is vague and open to interpretation. “I’m a lawyer, and I find this language incomprehensible,” stated Wesley J. Smith, associate director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. “I believe it is done maliciously. What is clear is that seniors will receive counseling — read ‘re-education’ — every five years or whenever their health status changes. The point is to reduce cost. While the language doesn’t require it, these mandatory sessions will often be directed towards not wanting care, in much the same way that genetic counseling of a mother carrying a Down [syndrome] fetus often is directed toward abortion.”
Section 1233 does state the counselling will be performed by a doctor or other practitioner, however, they are directed to provide a list of national and state specific departments that can provide further information. These departments are specifically instructed to offer choices and options on how to end the life, rather than preserve it.
Yea, I think thats all I have to say about that...
Props to: http://www.ncregister.com/daily/health_care_duty_to_die/
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Things That Make Me Pause
Cz..Cz..Cz..Czarndite!
Pardon me I had to sneeze. Being of a curious nature, and not wanting to make an opinion without having some semblance of understanding of the topic, I have decided not to take pause on the use of abundant appointments to the position of Czar within our government.
I will, however, of course make some statement, in general terms, or this would not be the blog you thought it might be. No I am not going to talk about smoking today. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe never. It depends on what the No Smoking Czar says.
The use or appointment of czars within our government is not a new thing. Nixon started it with his appointment of a Drug Czar. Then there was an Energy Czar. Now there may one day be a Copyright Czar. No idea here what the heck this person may do, but I bet it pays well. We have a never ending supply of paper and ink, we can print more money if we need to.
I am going to distract you for just a moment and input an observation about Government Healthcare. Revisit if you will, then back on topic... I promise.
When the bailouts began for banks, the money was non-repayable. The government handed trillions of dollars to the banking industry to bail out the now infamous 'every man deserves a house' theology preached by the Clinton administration, with the caveat that the money could not be repayed and the government would mandate loaning practices of the banks which accepted the bailout. After deliberation it was decided that indeed, as the banks recovered they could pay the money back. This is a good thing. Now we presume that the money would be earmarked to repay some of our national debt, but we all know two things. First that the national debt is an arbitrary term, and the money is not ever going to be 'paid back'. Secondly, we know that the bailout money is not real money anyway, its all just numbers on someone's ledger, who is kept prisoner in that top secret hiding hole under the reflecting pool at the Washington Monument. This brings us back to Government Healthcare....
Since the bailout money that is paid back is not real money, and the money is not going to downsize our national debt, why not use those trillions to fund the healthcare proposal? I take pause when I hear that anyone who makes over $175,000.00 a year will have to pay a surcharge of $20,000.00 to fund this project. MOST especially when we already have healthcare available to everyone who wants/needs it. Do not make the mistake of confusing healthcare with health insurance. Alot of people do not have health insurance, but they do have access to healthcare.
I am not happy with the crappy health insurance I have. The insurance company has already decided that the medicines my doctor has prescribed are not really necessary for my well being and quality of life. I get really worried at the thought that the government will decide that I don't need high blood pressure medicine. I should excercise more often. Tricky part is that if I don't take the medicine, and excercise, then I have a stroke or heart attack while doing it. Vicious cycle. This won't come for awhile, but it will come a day when you won't get benefits for lung cancer under the government ran plan, because you should have told your significant other to stop infecting you with second hand smoke 20 years ago. (I am not going to talk about smoking, someone make me stop before this gets out of hand.)
A company the size of mine should have the buying power to dictate to the insurance company the level of service they expect. Which maybe they do, but if they do, then they suck at it. Maybe they need an Insurance Czar. I will put that in the comment box tomorrow.
Czar in U.S. Government, as written by Lauren Meckler in The Wall Street Journal :
I believe, and I can be swayed, that the situation is this.. A czar does not go thru confirmation hearings, like other presidential appointments. The Czar answers to noone, except the President, and is given as much power as the President sees fit to complete their assigned task, or govern their particular zone of interest.
This makes me take pause. In a government which is rapidly becoming a socialist republic, do we really want people in positions of almost absolute power making decisions that will effect us forever? With noone to answer to except the person that appointed them, not the American people.
We can say of course that the government is for the people, and by the people. However, once these people are placed in power there is little that can be done without concensus to remove them. Another little known fact...(CSPAN is pretty cool during primetime, I highly reccomend it).
Winston Churchill said of socialism:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
In or around 1948, The UK instituted Government Healthcare. In Winston Churchill's bid for re-election he stated that the UK had tried Socialism and it did not work. The UK still has government healthcare. Why is that? Because once a government program is in place, once it becomes law, it cannot be undone. This statement might be a little strong, certainly we have measures in place to change or ammend a law, or program. It's just that our wonderful world of democracy allows it to be bogged down in red tape in perpetuity.
Thomas Jefferson called it an experiment of democracy. I think the instructor has left the building.
Czar of Blogs. Thats a title I could get into. Yes Mr. President, I have had my staff (of 25,000, not including Bubba) proof read all of the blogs that were submitted for approval. We have censored them by your guidelines and added those bloggers that may offend to the national blog terror list, and passed the information along to Homeland Security. The Czar of Polls indicates that when these blogs are released your public opinion ratings will soar, in full accordance with your mandate that all polls are to be conducted thru content of blog posts, which represent the true voice of America.
I am not the only one saying it. I am just jumping on the bandwagon, as it were. Someone has to say it, and someone has to say it loud. I need a puppet.... anyone here from Mississippi? I notice a spot on my local school board open....
Props to : The Bizarre Title of Czar in U.S. politics
http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2009/01/the-bizarre-tit.html
Pardon me I had to sneeze. Being of a curious nature, and not wanting to make an opinion without having some semblance of understanding of the topic, I have decided not to take pause on the use of abundant appointments to the position of Czar within our government.
I will, however, of course make some statement, in general terms, or this would not be the blog you thought it might be. No I am not going to talk about smoking today. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe never. It depends on what the No Smoking Czar says.
The use or appointment of czars within our government is not a new thing. Nixon started it with his appointment of a Drug Czar. Then there was an Energy Czar. Now there may one day be a Copyright Czar. No idea here what the heck this person may do, but I bet it pays well. We have a never ending supply of paper and ink, we can print more money if we need to.
I am going to distract you for just a moment and input an observation about Government Healthcare. Revisit if you will, then back on topic... I promise.
When the bailouts began for banks, the money was non-repayable. The government handed trillions of dollars to the banking industry to bail out the now infamous 'every man deserves a house' theology preached by the Clinton administration, with the caveat that the money could not be repayed and the government would mandate loaning practices of the banks which accepted the bailout. After deliberation it was decided that indeed, as the banks recovered they could pay the money back. This is a good thing. Now we presume that the money would be earmarked to repay some of our national debt, but we all know two things. First that the national debt is an arbitrary term, and the money is not ever going to be 'paid back'. Secondly, we know that the bailout money is not real money anyway, its all just numbers on someone's ledger, who is kept prisoner in that top secret hiding hole under the reflecting pool at the Washington Monument. This brings us back to Government Healthcare....
Since the bailout money that is paid back is not real money, and the money is not going to downsize our national debt, why not use those trillions to fund the healthcare proposal? I take pause when I hear that anyone who makes over $175,000.00 a year will have to pay a surcharge of $20,000.00 to fund this project. MOST especially when we already have healthcare available to everyone who wants/needs it. Do not make the mistake of confusing healthcare with health insurance. Alot of people do not have health insurance, but they do have access to healthcare.
I am not happy with the crappy health insurance I have. The insurance company has already decided that the medicines my doctor has prescribed are not really necessary for my well being and quality of life. I get really worried at the thought that the government will decide that I don't need high blood pressure medicine. I should excercise more often. Tricky part is that if I don't take the medicine, and excercise, then I have a stroke or heart attack while doing it. Vicious cycle. This won't come for awhile, but it will come a day when you won't get benefits for lung cancer under the government ran plan, because you should have told your significant other to stop infecting you with second hand smoke 20 years ago. (I am not going to talk about smoking, someone make me stop before this gets out of hand.)
A company the size of mine should have the buying power to dictate to the insurance company the level of service they expect. Which maybe they do, but if they do, then they suck at it. Maybe they need an Insurance Czar. I will put that in the comment box tomorrow.
Czar in U.S. Government, as written by Lauren Meckler in The Wall Street Journal :
The problem is that "czars" are meant to be all-powerful people who can rise above the problems that plague the federal agencies, he said, but in the end, they can't. "We only create them because departments don't work or don't talk to each other," Mr. Light said, adding that creation of a White House post doesn't usually change that. "It's a symbolic gesture of the priority assigned to an issue, and I emphasize the word symbolic. When in doubt, create a czar."
The word czar comes from the Russian tsar which in turn was derived from the Latin Caesar. It means an emperor or autocrat. When used in relation to American government it is used sardonically to suggest that someone is given authority inconsistent with a democracy.
I believe, and I can be swayed, that the situation is this.. A czar does not go thru confirmation hearings, like other presidential appointments. The Czar answers to noone, except the President, and is given as much power as the President sees fit to complete their assigned task, or govern their particular zone of interest.
This makes me take pause. In a government which is rapidly becoming a socialist republic, do we really want people in positions of almost absolute power making decisions that will effect us forever? With noone to answer to except the person that appointed them, not the American people.
We can say of course that the government is for the people, and by the people. However, once these people are placed in power there is little that can be done without concensus to remove them. Another little known fact...(CSPAN is pretty cool during primetime, I highly reccomend it).
Winston Churchill said of socialism:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
In or around 1948, The UK instituted Government Healthcare. In Winston Churchill's bid for re-election he stated that the UK had tried Socialism and it did not work. The UK still has government healthcare. Why is that? Because once a government program is in place, once it becomes law, it cannot be undone. This statement might be a little strong, certainly we have measures in place to change or ammend a law, or program. It's just that our wonderful world of democracy allows it to be bogged down in red tape in perpetuity.
Thomas Jefferson called it an experiment of democracy. I think the instructor has left the building.
Czar of Blogs. Thats a title I could get into. Yes Mr. President, I have had my staff (of 25,000, not including Bubba) proof read all of the blogs that were submitted for approval. We have censored them by your guidelines and added those bloggers that may offend to the national blog terror list, and passed the information along to Homeland Security. The Czar of Polls indicates that when these blogs are released your public opinion ratings will soar, in full accordance with your mandate that all polls are to be conducted thru content of blog posts, which represent the true voice of America.
I am not the only one saying it. I am just jumping on the bandwagon, as it were. Someone has to say it, and someone has to say it loud. I need a puppet.... anyone here from Mississippi? I notice a spot on my local school board open....
Props to : The Bizarre Title of Czar in U.S. politics
http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2009/01/the-bizarre-tit.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
