Will Old Folks Get in the Way of our Brave New World?

American Thinker ^ | February 13, 2009 | Pamela Meister

[neverdem]

Washington bureaucrats hoped something wouldn't see the light of day until it was too late. Buried in the stimulus bill is the framework for rationing medical care to the elderly. The part Obama and his cohorts are talking about publicly -- electronic medical records -- sounds great: no more having to fill out annoying paperwork at the doctor's office or hospital when you are ailing.

But according to the provision's author, former Health and Human Services director nominee (and tax cheat) Tom Daschle, there's much more, including the newly-created bureaucracy of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. What will the NCHIT be doing? Making sure your doctor gives you the treatment it deems to be efficient and cost-effective. And if your doctor doesn't comply? Well, that part is still a bit fuzzy.

What is clear is that the elderly will be the ones to bear the brunt of this brave new world. Older citizens shouldn't bother treating those ailments that come with age. After all, being retired and collecting Social Security and Medicare, they're not as productive as younger members of society. And Social Security and Medicare, despite Democrats' protestations to the contrary when George Bush tried to do something about it, are on thin ice as it is. So if the proposed Federal Council does not think a treatment is cost-effective due to the patient's age, then the patient will have to do without for the good of the collective. You will assimilate.

This already happens in the UK. But according to one medical ethics expert there, that's not enough. Those who suffer from dementia, for example, are not only wasting their own lives and the lives of their families, but they are wasting precious resources from the National Health Service, and so they should just get on with dying. Sooner rather than later, thank you very much.

Joe Biden told us it's our patriotic duty to pay higher taxes. Will dying off so we don't use up precious resources be our next patriotic duty? Perhaps we can consider a set "expiration date," like in the movie Logan's Run: when the crystal on your hand turns black, it's off to Carousel.

I'm going to take a page from the liberal playbook and use a personal example to put a face on the problem. A few years ago, there was a devastating fire at my mother's home. My mother was unable to get down the stairs and was forced to jump out the second story window, breaking both legs and shattering her feet. On the first day after her accident, we were told that the worst case scenario was that she might have to have both legs amputated. However, her orthopedist managed to put her legs and feet back together. She spent many months recuperating and now, while she will never be back to "normal" and still endures daily pain, she can once again walk without assistance and go about her daily routine. As a popular "English as a second language" teacher at a middle school in a nearby town, she continues to be a productive, contributing member of society.

But what if Tom Daschle's plan had been in place three years ago? Already in her sixties, would my mother have been told that the first possibility -- amputation of both legs -- was the only option open to her because of her age? Would she be sitting at home in a wheelchair today dealing with the onset of severe depression because her age dictated that even trying to repair her broken legs and feet was not a possibility and she could no longer do anything for herself? Would she, as UK medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock suggests, be better off "offing" herself so that she wouldn't waste everyone's time and taxpayer resources?

Nancy Pelosi's contraception measures were removed from the stimulus bill because she let it slip that "too many people" around is not cost-effective. Will the Daschle healthcare provision be struck out too, before it's too late?

Considering that supporters of the bill like Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) didn't seem to even know the provision exists, I wouldn't count on it.

Pam Meister is the editor for FamilySecurityMatters.org and a contributor to Pajamas Media. The opinions expressed here are her own.

[dalereed]

“Maybe if after I did that, I sent them back. They might finally stop sending this crap”

Never happen, i’ve been sending their garbage back to them with messages that wouldn’t be allowed here for over 20 years and it hasn’t even slowed their mailings down.

Anyone that belongs to them is either brain dead or a dedicated socialist.

[neverdem]

I have no idea.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Specter cared about one thing and one only -- himself... he went to the WH Superbowl party, Durbin asked him what it would take to get his vote? NIH he was told... DONE! 30% increase in NIH funding and Specter didn't give a damn about other people in this country... the old fool needs to go along with COllins and Snowe.

BTW I read Collins actually sent a letter to his constituents to "explain" her vote for this mess.

[backhoe]

Funny, how art mimics life...

 

[haroldeveryman]

“...and what’s more, under this bill, Specter wouldn’t have been covered...”

My guess is that, as is the case with Social Security, the “Obama Care” available to our leaders will be different from what the rest of us get.

[neverdem]

Put NRA-ILA information on your Website or Blog! for enemy action alerts on gun grabbers, PETA, etc. from local to national

Founding Father, Entrepreneur - The overlooked business career of George Washington Interesting history!

Zero Tolerance, Zero Common Sense

Mark Steyn: Windmills of Your Mindlessness [Flight 93 memorial]

The Worst-Case Scenario

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[neverdem]

Collins, Snowe and Specter just lost their reasons for being. If they couldn’t vote against this blatant BS, they are good for nothing. I don’t see them as being able to help the GOP any more for any reason when it counts. It’s the ultimate breakup.

[G.Mason]

The B/S never stops with these parasitic AARP people.

Make your own coffee, and study reverse mortgages. All will be better.

[freeangel]

AARP is the NYT for old people who have no brains. I’m sure it will actually end up encouraging their members along the lines of assisted euthenasia in the long term.

[MarkL]

A cross between "Logan's Run" and "Soylent Green." I wanna be a Sandman! They get all the best toys!

Mark

[MarkL]

Re: Soylent Green

Great movie.

This would be a great movie to see as an updated remake.

I thought the same thing about "Psycho" and "Rollerball." BIG MISTAKE!!! Remaking old movies (classic or not) is like electing a leftist to office. You've done it before, you know the outcome in advance, so why are you doing it again? Or like finding the milk is going bad in the refrigerator: And putting it back in, thinking "maybe it will be better tomorrow."

Mark

[metmom]

Does this mean now, that we have a right to die?

I thought of the UK when I started reading this and sure enough, the author brought it up, too.

[Travis McGee]

AARP is part of the socialist Borg.

[bert]

I don’t understand the objections to computerizing medical records. The large multi disipline medical group I use went that way beginning about 5 years ago. The office visit and lab work is much smoother and the info is available for all. When I needed to go to an outside vision specialist for a medical condition, they had the records.

Records of a visit to a Doctor in Twin falls Idaho were available to my doctor in Tennessee. It is a good thing

[Tax-chick]

She’s already sterile, or at least unable to conceive children naturally. That’s why the 14 children were conceived artificially and implanted. Without a massive, big-money, complicity “fertility” industry, she would have no children.

[P.O.E.]

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Purrcival]

It was Soylent Green, and yes, it looks like it is becoming a reality.

[Purrcival]

The problem is not the computerization of medical records. There are good arguments for having them computerized (e.g., less time to get info needed to make life-saving decisions, error reduction, etc.).

The problem is the language in the bill, which appears to lay the framework for the Federal government interfering with our own doctors’ decisions with regard to our health care somewhere in the future, and possibly even health care rationing. The bill’s language is even more sinister when taken in conjunction with a book (”Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisi”) by former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota), who came thisclose to being our Health and Human Services Secretary. Obama was going to give him the task of developing a national health care system.

Have you read this article? It outlines some of the language in the bill, gives page numbers, and ties it in with statements that Daschle made in his book. It shows the dangers inherent in the language of this bill:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Proponents argue that these are just “scare tactics”. My question is, if this language is so innocuous, why was it stuck in a so-called “stimulus” bill, at the beginning of President Obama’s term, with NO debate? Most members of Congress, when asked about it, didn’t even know it was there.

As McCaughey noted in her article:

“Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. ‘If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,’ he said. ‘The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.’”

[dalereed]

“She’s already sterile”

I wonder if that’s so since she has claimed that she hasn’t had sex since her divorce and long before having her 1st implanted.