Posted on 08/12/2009 2:59:22 PM PDT by betty boop
Dear Nikki Tsongas:
I attended your Town Hall Meeting at Hudson High School last evening. I just want to say that I found it disgraceful that I was not allowed to bring my handbag into the event. I volunteered to have it searched, just to keep it with me (I mean, my money’s in there, my credit cards, my personal identification documents, etc.), but my request was declined. I had to leave it outside, if I wanted to go inside. I was told there had been “calls.” But nobody could tell me anything about their nature, or why private citizens wishing to attend a public event sponsored by our own Representative in Congress should be treated as if they were potential jihadi terrorists. Are you really that afraid of your own constituents? If so, why???
Down to business. I’m writing to you today regarding HR3200, the flamboyantly (and misleadingly) named “America’s Affordable Healthcare Choices Act of 2009.” In order properly to frame my argument, I find it useful to recollect the Hippocratic Oath as the bottom-line frame of understanding in which healthcare services and the relations of healthcare consumers with healthcare providers have historically, traditionally been understood in our nation.
The Hippocratic Oath is an oath taken by doctors who, in taking the Oath, bind themselves to the practice of medicine according to the traditional standard of moral conduct based on respect for all human life, even unborn life. It is attributed to Hippocrates, the father of western medicine, in the 4th century BC. The Oath means “Above all, do no harm.” It reflects a moral code far different than the one that seems to underlie HR3200 — as we shall see in what follows.
What the original Oath says:
“I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.President Obama’s chief healthcare policy advisor and main architect of “ObamaCare” is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel subscribes to an ethical theory called utilitarianism. This is definitely not a “love thy neighbor as thyself” or “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” kind of thing — which is the moral code subscribed to by most Americans, regardless of how well they follow it in terms of their personal actions. To give you the flavor of ethical utilitarianism, this is what Dr. Emanuel has to say about the Hippocratic Oath:“I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman [an abortive remedy]….
“In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing….
“All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession … which ought … to be [kept private], I will keep secret and will never reveal.
“If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.”
“Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others.”As if it is ever possible to take any sworn oath “too seriously.” (Though evidently there are people in Congress who ascribe to that theory.) That particular Oath is the foundation of the doctor–patient relationship. It is the basis of the people’s profound (and eminently well-deserved) trust and confidence in the medical community.
Yet Dr. Emanuel advises it is better for us all if doctors breach their Oath, to the extent that they submit their own professional decision making to judgment by a third party, which HR3200 introduces into the doctor–patient relationship; that is, an expert panel of the federal government with final authority to say “yea” or “nay” as to whether and under what conditions a medical procedure or treatment plan can be “authorized,” be permitted to take place. Under the single-payer “public option,” if your “insurance” won’t cover the procedure, then one cannot use private funds to pay for it. In short, if the federal expert panel says “no,” that could be a death sentence, and there’s no appeal.
As for the doctors, my heart goes out to them. Their position under HR3200 would seem to be this: You have a simple choice. Breach your Oath thus to become a functionary of the federal government and continue to earn a salary; or don’t breach your Oath, and be put out of business altogether.
But back to Dr. Emanuel. He is a widely published scholar, so we know a good deal about him. Much of his scholarly work has been devoted to healthcare rationing issues, and he produced a study back in 1998 that explored the cost–benefit ratio of physician-assisted suicide, in terms of total national healthcare expenditures and in terms of economic impacts on families.
And THIS is President Obama’s number-one healthcare policy expert and architect of “ObamaCare.”
So naturally, when I read Section 1233 E & F — “Advance Care Planning Consultation” — a chill ran up and down my spine. As you’ll recall, this section would mandate every United States citizen to “consult” with a federally-approved “practitioner” regarding end-of-life issues, commencing at age 65, to be repeated every five years thereafter (if not sooner, in case one becomes ill). Of course, there would have to be penalties for non-compliance. What’s especially interesting to me is that the issues being consulted about are things involving families — healthcare proxies, for instance. What is macabre about this whole exercise is that it seems to promote a certain “conditioning” of thinking regarding death-related issues, as if to inculcate one to resigned acceptance of the inevitable rationing of healthcare services that any “Public Option” would necessarily entail.
Recently President Obama himself publicly stated that 80 percent of total U.S. healthcare expenditures go to pay for “old people.” Sure. And 100 percent of the outlays of the Social Security Retirement System also go to pay for “old people.” Indeed, that was the original idea, its entire purpose. Meanwhile, the twin Ponzi schemes of Medicare and Social Security are coming close to financial implosion. So, why not just get rid of the “old people” as expeditiously as possible? That’ll solve the problem!
Democrat “talking points” on this issue basically hold that anyone who worries about such things as Section 1233 are either insane or criminal, and possibly both; but certainly “un-American,” “unpatriotic.” I am sickened by the sheer irrationality of such a suggestion, not to mention its abject malignancy towards American citizens who have a better grip on reality, on actual realism than (seemingly) the average Congressperson nowadays.
Meanwhile, back to Dr. Emanuel, the champion of healthcare rationing. He is a big fan of what he calls “the complete lives system,” which allows expert “judgments” to be made as to how the government should allocate “scarce” healthcare resources in an aging America.
As Dr. Emanuel has written (Lancet, January 2009), “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated…. Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them.”
Justice. That’s what the man said. But why should we blindly assume that one can get “justice” out of a political body, even a panel of federally recognized and empowered experts? The basic dynamic of political bodies is not justice, it is power. That’s why the Framers gave us the Constitution in the first place, which We the People ordained and established for the benefit of ourselves and our posterity. HR3200 not only does not benefit us, it destroys our posterity — financially and in terms of human liberty.
President Obama is on record as not especially liking the Constitution (though he did swear an Oath to it. Twice). He complains that all it does is tell the government what it cannot do. In other words, it is not a charter for positive government action. So I gather, he is simply ignoring it. As is much of Congress right now, as it would appear.
But I digress. Back to healthcare rationing. This is how Dr. Emanuel envisions it —
— from the above-cited Lancet article (Jan. 09). A picture is worth a thousand words….
In closing, I need to dispose of three canards being tossed out there as pro-HR3200 “talking points,” and from the President himself:
(1) “If you like your present health insurance, then by all means keep it.” Sure. And yet there is a provision in this bill that very quietly states that private health insurers will not be allowed to bring in new subscribers after the year 2012. Thus these plans that 90 percent of the American people like and trust will die a slow, agonizing death: No system of pooled risk can survive if new people cannot be brought into the system to replace those who are leaving it. When these plans inevitably die, the only recourse would be: the federal government’s “plan.” Surprise surprise!I am all in favor of rational, well-deliberated and bipartisan healthcare reform. But having studied these issues, my conclusion is that HR3200 is a moral monstrosity. And if you support it, I will feel well justified in characterizing you, my Representative in Washington, as a moral monster — and thus completely unfit to receive my support for or in any office of public trust whatsoever.(2) “If you like your present doctor, then of course you can keep him (or her).” Sure. But would this still be the same person who I know and trust if he has been transmogrified into a state functionary, who needs permission from the federal government to take care of me in the way he deems best?
(3) “The Public Option is simply about creating enhanced competition in the healthcare marketplace.” That is total baloney. What kind of “competition” can there possibly be if one of the players in the game — in this case, the federal government — is also the writer of the rules of the game, and is the ultimate referee of play on the field?
At the end of the day, HR3200 is not about “healthcare reform.” It is about massive cultural change. I cannot, do not, and will not support it.
It’s a Trojan Horse. I implore you not to support it.
Respectfully yours,
Etc.
I wonder how many acorns and seius were searched? Or the people who were allowed in early to take up the seats?
This goes "snail mail" tomorrow.
Great letter...
Too bad it will be ignored - if read at all - by its intended recipient....
Great letter. I applaud you.
It’s unreal! They keep your bag for safety reasons after searching it and let Gitmo terrorists run free? Where is the rationale in that?
My general feeling is that you will receive a canned form letter, thanking you for contacting their office regarding the important issue of Climate Change.
The American people are waking up. Thye intrinsically know that any major overhaul to something as critical as health care is going to impact every one of them and they want to know how it will impact them.
And who can possibly blame them? Except the influence peddlars and those who think that they are somehow the ruling elit.
Well, the health care debate is blowing the lid off all of that, and it is now time to carry the realizations it brings through on this issue and every other similiar issue (like Cap & Trade, FOCA, etc.) that these wanna-be tyrants propose.
President Barack Hussein Obama said on August 7, 2009, that he expected the people who caused the financial and health care mess to be quiet, stand out of the way, and let it be fixed. Well, Mr. President, if you do not want the people who created this mess standing in the way of fixing it, then you, Mr. Obama...and Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, et all had best step out of the way yourselves. Because you not only helped engineer the problems that ensured the fiasco...you are now intent on making it immeasurably worse in your drive towards abject marxism.
In order to hide this, and in an effort to push their monstrosity Health Care, the liberal-left and Obama seem intent on turning the frustration and angst of the American people over his policies into something more akin to Iran over this issue, with their own Basij thugs sent out to silence us, and Obama supporters called on by the Whitehouse to report any dissent.
MY LETTER TO THE WHITEHOUSE AND OBAMA ABOUT FREE SPEECH
Despite all this, the American people (of which you are a glowing example, betty) are downloading the Dem Health Care Plan HERE and elsewhere and educating themselves.
They are also reading the cited quotes of the main architect of the plan and Chief Advisor to Obama on Health Care HERE and elsewhere, and seeing the context of the plan from the designer of it.
So, when Sarah Palin callis it evil, they know for themselves that she speaks the truth.
So they continue to take their feelings...and their own documentation...to their reps and gett in their faces about it...as well they should.
If these reps, at the urging of Obama, Peloisi and Reid ignore this, then ti is past time to fire the lot of them and make 2010 the largest single turnout of such representatives and senators in the history of this nation..
A PETITION ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RESTORATION
A 4TH OF JULY TEA PARTY SPEECH
...and on the lighter side, take your mind off the Obamanation for a few minutes and enjoy some beautiful Western US scenery slideshows.
That is disgraceful.
I went searching for the Emanuel article after seeing the graph you included. My mother needs to see it! After registering (free) at lancet.com I was granted access. I saw the graph and I'll be reading the whole thing.
A quick look at the pdf index at the "allocation principles" this schmuck considers. There's lottery vs. first come, first served. He considers sickest first vs. youngest first; and also saving the most lives vs. prognosis. Nowhere does he consider ability to pay, or willingness to pay, or what the doctor wants to do.
And there are other Emanuel article linked. I thought one entitled, "The promise of a good death," told me all I need to know about this guy. Jack Kevorkian must have changed his name.
ML/NJ
bttt
This goes “snail mail” tomorrow.....
I am pretty sure that someone has already sent it to flag@whitehouse.gov by now.:)
This goes “snail mail” tomorrow.....
I am pretty sure that someone has already sent it to flag@whitehouse.gov by now.:)
Oh goodie! I'd love to have an intimate chat with those people....
Did you bring to meeting one of THESE?...
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=AS-EZ-CAP1&cpc=SCH
SORRY.... I mean one of THESE..
http://spypen.factoryoutletstore.com/?cid=11063&chid=1&gclid=CI_Dv9XBkJwCFQk_agod82iHcA
You have done both. And you have done both in an exemplary manner. You took your inability to be a genuine part of Tsongas’ meeting and ran in other directions with it – confronting those who were imposing rules for the sake of rules, and corralling the opposition in an attempt to have a rational one-on-one debate with them. I don’t dare ask myself how many of your countrymen would have done the same, for fear of becoming terribly discouraged by the answer.
And this letter that you wrote has powerful teeth, without being unnecessarily vicious. If Congresswoman Tsongas does not see fit to read it, or does not see fit to take its warnings and its factual arguments to heart, it will not be because you did not present your case well.
Your focus on Ezekiel Emanuel is spot on. Too many are ignoring or downplaying the critical role he is playing in this travesty.
Yesterday at Arlen Specter’s town hall meeting we heard repeated references to the fact that the new healthcare reform package will be deficit neutral – that the government will be focused on cutting waste and fraud, championing disease prevention and wellness programs, and making electronic medical records more comprehensive and available.
Such ‘cost cutting’ measures in such an enormous projected budget are akin to Obama’s crowing about having stripped $100 million from the budget. These elitists tend to magnify a grain of sand while conveniently ignoring the entire shoreline, if it is to their political advantage.
But immeasurably more significant than the obscene dollar cost of this plan is the exponentially more obscene moral price. Emanuel’s charge to doctors to look beyond the Hippocratic oath, and to look instead at a person’s contribution to/’productiveness’ for society, or to some kind of perverted sense of social justice, is about the most chilling philosophy I have heard come out of our government in my lifetime.
We all need to think back to eras in world history when a human’s ‘value’ was determined by his government’s view of his contribution to society – or, worse yet, his government’s view of the drain on that society that he represented. And then we need to ask ourselves ‘What have we become?’ The self portrait is becoming increasingly grotesque.
Again, betty, thank you for taking a stand and rendering yourself immovable in your battle against this most egregious assault on our most personal and essential liberties.
~ joanie
Oh please do feel free to do so, dearest sister in Christ!
I hope I didn't come off as too "over the top." Actually, I was trying to restrain my language, to be polite, but still to make my points clear enough.
Probably Niki will never see this thing. The thought occurred to me that some staffer might just file it in the ol' circular file as the ravings of a lunatic....
These people in Washington are really awfully out of touch with the people they supposedly represent.
Oh, well.... we do what we can.
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your kind words of support!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.