The Death Care Bill

The more I hear about this health care plan the more I despise it. The good news is that politicians and people are now talking about the clause in the bill that turns it into a death care bill, not a health care bill. I quoted it in an earlier blog but it deserves to be repeated because people need to know what our government is proposing: “chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill” and therefore there will have to be some kind of “difficult” and “democratic conversation” that will take place to give “guidance” as to what patients will receive life-sustaining, and expensive, treatments. Oh great. That's all we need - the government to determine who should get medical treatment. No potential for scandals there, right?

And yet they do have a point. I recently had a discussion about a 93 year old woman who had a hip replacement surgery and I must admit that I thought it was a bit much at that age. I was even more disturbed when told that they had found bone cancer and were reviewing all kinds of treatments to extend the poor old woman’s life for another six months or so. In this case I thought it was a waste of money and the doctor’s time; that the best treatment was to make the elderly woman comfortable and out of pain and let her end her life with dignity.

So in this case I agreed with the proposed health care plan. But this was about cutting off surgeries to a 93 year old. How do you determine what that cut off age should be? Should treatment be stopped at 90 or maybe 80 or perhaps go down to 70? In actuality, the health care plan was written where they could refuse treatment to anyone over 59 years old! Hell, Tom Watson, who will turn 60 in Sept. nearly won the British Open and yet this health care bill will consider him as old and potentially unworthy of medical treatment in 2 months!

Think about the implications of this odious bill. A healthy 60 year old man who has a heart attack could be given minimal treatment while a 64 year old woman with breast cancer could be denied chemo treatment since keeping these “old” people alive would be deemed “too expensive” especially if they lived to the current average age of 78. It would instead be much cheaper and we would free up surgeons and medical centers if we simply give these sick people pain meds and let them die. And yet, one of the first things Obama did upon becoming president was to restore a provision in the Endangered Species Protection Act that Bush had removed that would provide greater protection to animals.

What does this tell us? That liberals seem to be more concerned about the welfare of the spotted owl, titmouse, American burying beetle and other obscure animals than they are for your grandparents, parents, diabetic Uncle, chronically ill sister, paraplegic friend or Cystic Fibrosis niece? And at a time when Obama promises new jobs with shovel ready federal projects he has just hamstrung those very federal projects by reinstating that clause in the Endangered Species Protection Act which would require any federal project to undergo an independent scientific review that might affect a protected species. So these new federal projects needed to provide jobs could be delayed or even stopped because of some mouse or fish or bird. Yet while denying jobs in order to save a damn bug the government is condoning euthansia by denying medical treatment to the elderly. This is insane!

What makes it even more preposterous is if you factor in the liberals religious beliefs. For it almost is forgivable to let the elderly die if, as in most religions, you believe that they will be going to a better place. But liberals tend to be atheists. So they don’t have this comforting belief that those who are dying will go to heaven. To the atheists, when you die, you are dead and gone and that’s it. Believing there is nothing after death makes their proposal to take away expensive treatments from seniors (defined as over 59, mind you) and to simply let them die that much crueler than if they thought the dying would go to heaven. Think about it. How cold is that?

We have got to stop this insanity. Mankind must come first and people should recognize that each life is precious. For if we start to deny aid to the elderly then who will be next? Liberals already deplore using animals to test potentially life saving drugs so they might decide we could save a lot of money (and animals) by not funding research to find cures for chronic illnesses and simply let them die, too. Or will expectant mothers one day be required to take tests to determine if their fetus’s have any chronic illness and therefore the pregnancy must be terminated before the child is born and all the health costs are incurred? What might they decide to do with the mentally ill? Once started how far down that slippery slope will we go?

This is still America. The health care reform is the very antithesis of why this country was founded. For remember that each of us was promised Life, not death, in our country’s Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.