Friday, August 14, 2009

God would not endorse Obamacare

When one consider the decline in the number of people going to church regularly or being a member of an organized religion, it is not surprising that Barack Obama is as successful as he is in reforming the United States into a Marxist image. Communism is the antithesis of religion and regards religion as the "opiate of the masses." Socialism is not too far behind Communism in the condemnation of God and religion in the lives of the masses. If you keep this in mind you can understand why a program such as socialized medicine is advocated by leftists in the pursuit of expansion of government control, just as in dictatorships whether under Nazism or Communism; i.e. the devaluation of human life.

The "universal healthcare" program advocated by today’s version of "liberals" (who now choose to call themselves "progressives") as embodied by the H.R.3200, the house bill, epitomizes all that is wrong with socialism and the departure from religious values that hold all human life to be sacred and worthy of protection.

The basic premise of Obama healthcare as represented by the House bill is that not all human life should be protected; only that which the government regards as productive. Thus those under two and over sixty five should not expect to receive the same degree of healthcare as those in the productive age group. If you don’t believe this, consider that Obamacare features government-paid (tax payer paid) abortions and rationed care for the elderly. Under the system being advocated a government board will pass upon what medical care should or should not be administered taking into account the cost effectiveness of such care. In other words, if a senior citizen needs chemotherapy or a hip operation, money spent for these purposes is not as cost effective as if such treatment is given to someone in the "productive years" of life.

Consider what the new Obama appointed health-policy advisor at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Research, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, had to say on the subject of health care delivery. Incidentally, Dr. Emanuel is the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Obama’s health policy advisor propounds discrimination against the elderly and other less than productive patients. In the medical journal Lancet he wrote in January:

"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious [an irrelevancy] discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years."

As for the less than productive, in a Hastings Center Report Dr. Emanuel has written, that medical care be withheld from those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." Thus the state should decide when and if you get treatment. Does that not have a Nazi-like ring to it? President Ronald Reagan wouldn't pass muster for Obamacare since he suffered from Alzheimer's late in life.

Surely reflecting Obama’s healthcare philosophy as manifested in the House bill, Dr. Emanuel suggests how to cut costs of healthcare: (from the Journal of the American Medical Association in May of 2007):

"Too much money spent on health care reduced [sic] the ability to obtain other essentials of human life as well as some goods and services not essential to life but still of great value, such as education, vacations, and the arts."

He actually said "vacations and the arts." Therefore once we have Obamacare, and one of us is waiting for a hip replacement or some life-saving cancer treatment or a CAT scan, remember that tax payer money is being better spent on vacations or perhaps the performance art of that "artist" who immerses a cross in urine rather than on the elderly.

Those of us who believe in God and the teachings in the bible about the sanctity of life quickly realize that saving life is not the objective of Obamacare; government control is and cost containment is just a vehicle to achieve this result. Sure more money is spent on healthcare for the elderly because they need more care; does that make it wrong to provide what is needed to prolong life? Healthcare is provided to the ill; what a surprise! If we were only worried about cost, then why provide healthcare to ill people? Let’s just give health insurance to the young and those less likely to need healthcare.

Since Obama only went to Reverend Wright’s church, it is no wonder he has no appreciation of God’s teachings and of the bible; if he did, he wouldn’t be demanding a healthcare system that denies life instead of protecting it.

4 comments:

Mr Flimflam said...

I live in a country with universal health care free at the point of delivery. Nobody denied my daughter the treatment she needed, even though she's disabled.
My mother had top-quality care and treatment for cancer last year - and it's gone now. Even though she's in her 70s.
My father had a heart bypass for free. Even though he's in his 70s. Even their medications were collected from the local pharmacy FREE OF CHARGE.

I pay my taxes quite happily knowing that if I or my family ever needed it, it's there for us. Always. Free at the point of delivery, with no exceptions on the grounds of pre-existing conditions.
And no Insurance company or Death committee having a say. Only professional doctors and nurses.

So if I live in a screwed up country with a rubbish economy, why can't you have the same in the richest country in the world?

Oh and where do I live? Cuba? China?

No just a corner of Scotland in the UK.

Just don't believe all you hear on Fox news.

Mr Flimflam said...

I live in a country with universal health care free at the point of delivery. Nobody denied my daughter the treatment she needed, even though she's disabled.
My mother had top-quality care and treatment for cancer last year - and it's gone now. Even though she's in her 70s.
My father had a heart bypass for free. Even though he's in his 70s. Even their medications were collected from the local pharmacy FREE OF CHARGE.

I pay my taxes quite happily knowing that if I or my family ever needed it, it's there for us. Always. Free at the point of delivery, with no exceptions on the grounds of pre-existing conditions.
And no Insurance company or Death committee having a say. Only professional doctors and nurses.

So if I live in a screwed up country with a rubbish economy, why can't you have the same in the richest country in the world?

Oh and where do I live? Cuba? China?

No just a corner of Scotland in the UK.

Just don't believe all you hear on Fox news.

Vincent G. Gioia said...

Mr. Flimflam,

Seems your aptly named. I read the entire HR 3200 and it is diabolical. I'm glad what you have works in Scotland but people in England are dying under their universal health plan. Read the statistics: people in England have much higher cancer death rates than in the US.

Evidently Scotland has a different program than England and hopefully US won't replicat what there is in England and Canada. I don't know of anyone going from US to England or Canada for healtcare but many from there come to the US.

Vincent

brain said...

Here's a funny music video making fun of Obamacare, and the progressive view of their "New America:"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ibHFAXGUwo