Obama’s Nationalized Negligence-unto-Death Plan

The opposite of health is disease, which, if terminal, results in death. The opposite of care is neglect, or dereliction, which can also result in death.

Keep that in mind as I present the case for renaming Obama’s nationalized health-care plan to better reflect the principles—or lack thereof—that are being proposed. The new name would be the nationalized negligence-unto-death plan.

A look at history will reveal why I recommend this name change.

The British have also been dealing with rising health-care costs for many years. Thus, it is not at all surprising that, just recently, Parliament began debating whether British citizens should be allowed to assist others to travel abroad to commit suicide without risking prosecution.
Thankfully, some have argued that doctors in Britain want nothing to do with any sort of direct killing.  But the very fact that this discussion is occurring in a nation with nationalized health care—and rising health-care costs—should warn the politicians in Washington, D.C. that promising more than can be delivered can end up being deadly for some people.

Then there’s the news now coming from Canada, another country with a history of nationalized health-care: “With great caution, the Quebec College of Physicians is prepared to cross the line on the controversial debate over euthanasia and propose that it be included ‘as part of the appropriate care in certain particular circumstances.’”

Lest we overlook it, the abortion rate in Britain and Canada is very high, since there are few, if any, restrictions on it. In fact, in Britain, between 1968 and 2003, there have been almost six million abortions committed, or about 550 per day. In 2006, statistics were released indicating that about three million abortions had been committed in Canada between 1969 and 2003. We learn from Jim Hughes, national president of Canada’s Campaign Life Coalition, “The magnitude of this atrocity appears to be lost on the average person in Canada.”
Clearly, in both countries, where some form of nationalized health care is in place, the suggestion that killing people is part of the long-term “benefit” is not unknown. This brings me to the sad state of affairs in the United States. In this country, we currently abort/murder one preborn child every 26 seconds. This is, by far, the most grotesque death rate in the allegedly civilized world. Mind you, this figure is for surgical and medical abortions only; the exact number of chemical abortions is unknown.
So, we should not be too surprised to learn that, under Obama’s health-care proposals, there would be changes in the way so-called health care is delivered— some subtle and some all too obvious. We have been given a hint of this in President Obama’s recent words about seniors. According to the Los Angeles Times,

President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don’t stand to gain from the extra care… He added: “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

Interesting, don’t you think, that a former community organizer with no medical degree is discussing how people should die and what they should be willing to surrender for the good of the cause? My oh my!

We also note that the president has sent his Office of Public Engagement director, Christina Tchen, to speak at Planned Parenthood’s national convention. Tchen was also part of a “common ground” conference call made by the White House, supposedly to engage people from both sides of the abortion debate in a dialogue.

“According to participants in the call, speakers expressed specific interest in finding common ground on pregnancy prevention—especially for adolescents—reducing the need for abortion, increasing maternal and child health care and assisting those who want to adopt children.”

We can very safely assume, from Tchen’s activities, that the White House’s chief advisors on formulating “health-care reform” will include the Planned Parenthood folks, who, as we know, never met an abortion they didn’t try to disguise with euphemisms. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood’s brand of “pregnancy prevention” leads to promiscuity, venereal disease and more money for the abortion coffers.

Congressman Chris Smith, a leading pro-life champion in the U.S. Congress, has warned of this and, according to a recent report, exposed the Obama agenda once again: 

 One quote from Obama himself, prior to his election, described “reproductive care” including abortion as the “heart” of his idea of healthcare reform.

“Well, look, in my mind reproductive care is essential care, basic care so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose,” Obama told a Planned Parenthood Action Fund Event in July 2007 during a Q&A session.

Obama also indicated that he expected all insurers to be forced to cover abortion, saying: “Insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care … that’s going to be absolutely vital.”…

”If the proposed plan moves forward without an explicit exclusion that ensures that abortion is excluded from any government mandated or government subsidized benefits, health care reform will be a death sentence for thousands of unborn children,” wrote Smith.

Obama’s health-care proposal has been described as “the silent FOCA” (Freedom of Choice Act), since, according to Smith, “Obamacare opens the spigot of public funding and does more to facilitate abortion than any action since Roe.”  I would add that it’s a “duty-to-die” proposal as well.

When we talk about bringing human beings into the world and caring for them, there should never be any thought of cutting costs over the bodies of people who are preborn, frail, deemed economically burdensome, etc. Such a notion is called utilitarianism.

Pondering the Obama plan, I have wondered aloud if it might include proposals to allow people to be sterilized in order to save money that would otherwise be spent on raising children and providing for their health care? Is it possible that the government could embrace a “child-free” policy? 

Let’s face it, when you have someone like Professor John Holdren now wielding power as the Obama administration’s new science czar, who can tell what kind of schemes might emerge to accomplish unspoken goals? All the while, Obama might be giving us smiling assurances that we all need to be not only healthy, but also environmentally friendly—by having fewer children, if any at all. Would anyone be the wiser?

If this sounds far-fetched, then I recommend that you do a little research of your own. Experience should be the best teacher for the White House team, and Canadian David Gratzer, M.D. has already led the way. In Canada today,

[o]nly half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc…

Ironically, as the U.S. is on the verge of rushing toward government health care, Canada is reforming its system in the opposite direction…

Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?

What is the rush? Who will read the legislation, word for word? Who will investigate the impact? Will anyone pay attention to the details?

There is no need to repeat the failures of nations that have already experienced nationalized health care and have realized their errors, unless, of course, what appears to be bad medicine to some whets the appetites of those who don’t really object to a little nationalized negligence unto death.