Tuesday June 30, 2009
New Documentary Exposes Link Between Failing Global Economy and Demographic Winter
By Peter J. Smith
SRB Documentaries has announced the release of "Demographic Bomb: demography is destiny," the sequel to 2008 documentary "Demographic Winter: the decline of the human family." (see coverage here)
The phrase "demographic winter" refers to the contemporary phenomenon of a worldwide rapid decline in birthrates. The new documentary makes a forceful case that the loss of millions due to population control efforts has meant an irreplaceable loss of millions of producers and consumers who otherwise would be participating and supporting today's global economy.
"Like 'Demographic Winter,' 'The Demographic Bomb' deals with rapidly falling birth rates and their consequences for humanity in the 21st century," said Barry McLerran, producer of both documentaries. McLerran pointed out that demographic winter in turn has economic ramifications, as fewer and fewer workers will be available to support massive populations of the elderly.
"'Demographic Winter' predicted the financial crash of 2008 to within 12 months. 'Demographic Bomb' reveals how this is just the beginning," warned McLerran.
"'Demographic Bomb' shows what happens when countries comprising 80 percent of the world's economy have plummeting numbers of workers, consumers and innovators - leading to falling consumer spending, and too few workers to support the elderly."
The documentary interviews demographers, sociologists, economists, and historians that make clear the reasons why the demographic decline and economic decline are related.
The film begins
with an interview with Paul Ehrlich of
The documentary also features Mathew Connelly of Columbia University, author of "Fatal Misconception: The Struggle To Control World Population," who explains how a coalition of organizations, institutions, governments, and the United Nations have manipulated families and violated basic human rights in the process to achieve their goals of population reduction.
Also featured are former Yale Professor of Economics Jennifer Roback Morse, USC Professor of Urban Planning and Demography Dowell Myers, Harvard PhD Nick Eberstadt, Harvard MBA Harry Dent, the author of "The Great Depression Ahead," and Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker.
For more information on the documentaries "Demographic Winter" and "Demographic Bomb" click here.
See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:
Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion
"No matter how you slice it, aggressive 'population control' exacts a huge price in future economic growth "
Stats: Europe Facing Demographic Winter, Growing Political, Economic Tensions
By 2015, European deaths will be greater than births; Russian population declining by 750,000/year
Friday February 8, 2008
New Documentary Explores Global Demographic Crisis
By John Jalsevac.
February 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - While the world focuses its energies and its fears on a purported global-warming crisis, a new, not-yet-released documentary claims that if there is any global crisis, it is not global warming, but rather demographic winter.
As the website for Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family, explains, the phrase "'Demographic Winter' denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a 'birth-death,' and what it portends."
"The ongoing global decline in human birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st century," says demographer Philip Longman in the film. The film argues that the global decline in birthrate, if unchecked, will have devastating social, political and economic effects; it also argues that the issue is studiously ignored in mainstream circles, due to the politically incorrect nature of the solution to the crisis - that is, the rebuilding of the strength of the family as the core unit of society.
headed toward a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social
and economic consequences," say the filmmakers. "The effects will be
severe and long lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of
The documentary is directed and produced by award-winning director Rick Stout, whose previous film ventures include music videos and specialty videos for celebrities. He is joined by producer Berry McLerran, executive director of Family First Foundation, and executive producer Steven Smoot, the president and founder of Family First.
In making this film, Stout, McLerran and Smoot join their voices with an increasingly vocal chorus of experts and politicians who have begun to waken to the reality that if the global birth-rate continues to sink below replacement level, then the consequences will be dire, particularly for the West where the birth-rate has in many cases plummeted far below replacement level.
the film began in May 2007, at the World Congress of Families in
Their research proved time and again the underlying thesis of the film - that the only and most obvious solution to the demographic winter facing the world is to strengthen the place of the family in society. "Of all the causes we have in the world today, many of which particularly capture the time and space of the media and academia, it is singularly peculiar that the disintegration of an institution as important as the human family should want for attention," says the synopsis of the film.
"The years have not been kind to this most important institution…particularly the last four decades. Worldwide, families have broken down at a historically unprecedented pace. There are certainly records of how now extinct societies have experienced similar declines before their demise, for what we now face is unique in that it has a global spread. This has ominous portent."
"This film will bring the voices of experts from all over the world for the first time to a general audience, an audience still being taught in their schools, on television, in film and in print, the failed ideas and philosophies of the past that we need to reduce our population and that families are merely a social construct and not crucial to society in their traditional form. Demographic Winter will correct these errant ideas in a powerful voice using forty years of social science, demographic and economic research."
Visit the Demographic Winter website at:
Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family
One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly
unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree - we are headed toward
a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic
consequences. The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already
becoming manifest in much of
A groundbreaking film, Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family, reveals in chilling soberness how societies with diminished family influence are now grimly seen as being in social and economic jeopardy.
Demographic Winter draws upon experts from all around the world - demographers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, civic and religious leaders, parliamentarians and diplomats. Together, they reveal the dangers facing society and the world’s economies, dangers far more imminent than global warming and at least as severe. These experts will discuss how:
The “population bomb” not only did not have the predicted consequences, but almost all of the developed countries of the world are now experiencing fertility rates far below replacement levels. Birthrates have fallen so low that even immigration cannot replace declining populations, and this migration is sapping strength from developing countries, the fertility rates for many of which are now falling at a faster pace than did those of the developed countries.
The economies of the world will continue to contract as the “human capital” spoken of by Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker, diminishes. The engines of commerce will be strained as the workers of today fail to replace themselves and are burdened by the responsibility to support an aging population.
Government programs will slow-bleed by the decrease in tax dollars received from an ever shrinking work force. The skyrocketing ratio of the old retirees to the young workers will render current-day social security systems completely unable to support the aging population.
Our attempts to modernize through social engineering policies and programs have left children growing up in broken homes, with absentee parents and little exposure to extended family, disconnected from the generations, and these children are experiencing severe psychological, sociological and economic consequences. The intact family’s immeasurable role in the development and prosperity of human societies is crumbling.
The influence of social and economic problems on ever shrinking, increasingly disconnected generations will compound and accelerate the deterioration. Our children and our children’s children will bear the economic and social burden of regenerating the “human capital” that accounts for 80% of wealth in the economy, and they will be ill-equipped to do so.
Is there a “tipping point”, after which the accelerating consequences will make recovery impossible without complete social and economic collapse? Even the experts can’t tell us how far we can go down this road, oblivious to the outcomes, until we reach a point where sliding into the void becomes unpreventable.
Only if the political incorrectness of talking about the natural family within policy circles is overcome will solutions begin to be found. These solutions will necessarily result in policy changes, changes that will support and promote the natural, intact family.
Just as it took the cumulative involvement of activist organizations, policy makers, the business world and the media to create the unintended consequences we are beginning to experience, so it will take the holistic contribution of all of these entities, together with civic and religious organizations, to change the hearts and minds of all of society to bring about a reversal.
It may be too late to avoid some very severe consequences, but with effort we may be able to preclude calamity. Demographic Winter lays out a forthright province of discussion. The warning voices in this film need to be heard before a silent, portentous fall turns into a long, hard winter.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ABOUT DEMOGRAPHIC WINTER
Question : What is population stability, and why is the number 2.1 so important?
Answer: Population stability is the point of equilibrium at which a country’s population is neither growing nor declining. In order to maintain current population, the average woman must have 2.1 children during her lifetime. Essentially, she needs to replace herself and a man. Because some children will die before reaching maturity, slightly more than two children are needed. Hence, 2.1.
A birthrate of more than 2.1 equals population growth. A birthrate of less than 2.1 means long term population decline. The rate of 2.1 is based on currently low infant mortality rates. In countries where infant mortality is higher, the birthrate required for population replacement would also be higher.
Question: What does the expression “Demographic Winter” mean?
Answer: “Demographic Winter” denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a “birth-dearth,” and what it portends.
Demographer Philip Longman (author of “The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity”) observes: “The ongoing global decline in human birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st. century.”
Worldwide, birthrates have been halved in the past 50 years. There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world’s population, with below-replacement fertility
Sometime in this century, the world’s population will begin to decline. At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach population free-fall in our lifetimes.
For some countries, population decline is already a reality.
The term “nuclear winter,” popularized in the 1980s, alluded to the catastrophic environmental impact of a nuclear war. The long-term consequences of demographic winter could be equally devastating.
Question: What is replacement fertility, and why is the number 2.1 so important?
Answer:Replacement fertility is the point of equilibrium at which a country’s population is neither growing nor declining. In order to maintain current population, the average woman must have 2.1 children during her lifetime. Essentially, she needs to replace herself and a man. Because some children will die before reaching maturity, slightly more than two children are needed. Hence, 2.1.
A birthrate of more than 2.1 equals population growth. A birthrate of less than 2.1 long-term means population decline.
Question: If birthrates are declining, why does the world’s population continue to grow?
Answer: If it’s already in motion, a car in neutral will continue moving for a while, especially if it’s going downhill, even if gas isn’t being injected into the engine.
Today’s population growth is due to two factors: 1. higher fertility rates in the 1950s and 60s, and 2. people living longer than ever before.
The thing to remember is this: Declining birthrates will
equal a declining population worldwide at some point in the next few decades.
In the West (especially in
A nation’s demographic future can be seen in its current
Question: Where are birthrates lowest?
Answer: Of the 10 countries with the lowest birthrates, 9 are in Europe. Overall, the European fertility rate is 1.3, well below replacement level (2.1). No European nation has a replacement-level birthrate.
While birthrates are also plummeting in developing nations, most still have above-replacement fertility – for the time being.
Question: What are the consequences of demographic decline?
Answer: Economist Robert J. Samuelson wrote in a June 15,
2005 column in The Washington Post: “It’s hard to be a great power if your
population is shriveling.” Samuelson warned: “
By the mid-point of this century, 16% of the world’s population will be over 65. By 2040, there will be 400 million elderly Chinese.
If present low birthrates persist, the European Union estimates there will be a continent-wide shortfall of 20 million workers by 2030.
Who will operate the factories and farms in the
Who will care for a graying population? A burgeoning elderly population combined with a shrinking work force will lead to a train-wreck for state pension systems.
This only skims the surface of the way demographic decline will change the face of civilization. Even the environment will be adversely impacted. With severely strained public budgets, developed nations will no longer be willing to shoulder the costs of industrial clean-up or a reduction of CO2 emissions.
Question: What factors contribute to demographic decline?
Answer: A number of social trends of the post-war era have converged to create a perfect storm for Demographic Winter.
Men and women are delaying marriage, making it less likely they’ll have more than one or two children. Today in the West, almost one in two marriages ends in divorce. The children of divorce are less likely to marry and form families themselves.
More married women are putting off having children for careers. After 35, it becomes progressively harder for women to conceive.
The news and entertainment media tell young adults that
satisfaction comes from careers, romance, travel and “personal growth” – not
from having children. It’s rare that
The growth of cohabitation also has an impact. (In
For the past 20 to 30 years, children have been taught that over-population (the so-called population bomb) will wreak havoc on the environment and economic development. Not surprisingly, children thus indoctrinated frequently choose to have fewer children when they reach maturity.
Religious observance has been shown to correlate with higher birthrates. The increasing secularization of Western societies has been accompanied by lower birthrates.
Thus, every aspect of modernity works against family life and in favor of singleness and small families or voluntary childlessness.
Question: Can’t the problem be fixed by increased immigration?
Answer: In a demographic sense, this is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The host country gains people, but the home country loses. The developing world, which has seen its own birthrate cut in half since 1970 (from almost 6 to barely 4), can ill afford to lose large numbers through emigration. The loss of labor from these countries adversely impacts their own economy and since the majority of those who leave are the men, many children are now growing up without a father, creating other social problems for these countries. The developing world is paying a high price to bail out the developed world’s lack of labor due to low fertility rates.
Mass immigration changes the national character of the host country. Immigrants tend to have a lower education level than natives. Many never learn the language of their new home or identify with its history and heritage.This changes the social and political makeup of the host countries, in some cases so dramatically that it is causing social and political unrest.
Question: Can’t demographic winter be countered by governments encouraging people to have more children?
Answer: This is being tried in Western Europe and Russia.
Couples decide to have children for all kinds of reasons – religious, emotional, cultural, etc. Money doesn’t seem to be one of them, although money concerns are sometimes cited as a reason for having fewer children.
Children are a life-long commitment. While governments should make childrearing easier, by lowering the tax-burden on families (out of self-interest if not fairness), cash incentives so far haven’t worked.
Question: If the
Answer: All of the factors that are leading Europe into the depths of Demographic Winter are present in the United States as well, including high divorce rates, the rise of cohabitation, families putting off procreation to pursue careers, an anti-family culture and voluntary childlessness.
We may be a few decades behind
National economies are interconnected to such an extent that the impact of economic collapse in one country or region can be felt around the world.
The social, political and economic decline of previously
stable nations can destabilize entire regions and create perils for neighbors and
far-away allies. The
Question: What Is “Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family”
Answer: “Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family,” is the first of two documentary films. Together they explore every aspect of demographic decline based on interviews with scholars, researchers, economists, demographers, government representatives, civil and religious leaders from 33 countries.
Produced by Barry McLerran and directed by Rick Stout, with executive director Steven Smoot, “Demographic Winter” brings together a number of disciplines to examine and analyze what could be the greatest threat confronting humanity in the 21st century.
Of all of the causes we have in the world today, many of which particularly capture the time and space of the media and academia, it is singularly peculiar that the disintegration of an institution as important as the human family should want for attention. Perhaps it is because the family is made up of individual people, and we have become a society obsessed with a focus on the self. Be that as it may, we have ignored this institution to our great detriment. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights got it right when it declared that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society”. Implicit in this inclusion in an international founding document declaring universal human rights, is the recognition that stable society’s very survival rests on the strength of this fundamental group unit.
The years have not been kind to this most important institution – the family, particularly the last four decades. Worldwide, families have broken down at a historically unprecedented pace. There are certainly records of how now-extinct societies have experienced similar declines before their demise, but what we now face is unique in that it has a global spread. This has ominous portent.
The family’s importance to basic social structures has perhaps been more explored and discussed than its importance to other aspects of our world, and certainly deserves continued study. What is probably less obvious, and therefore less examined, is the family’s impact on such things as the rule of law, democratic structures, societal and even technological advancement, education, successful commerce and economic structures. Society depends on these in order to remain stable and the family’s impact on them is profound.
When the great social experiments of the 1960’s were launched, and when concern over a “population bomb” loomed large, we did not have the social science and economic studies we have available to us today. So the world embarked unknowingly on a self-destructive course.
Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family seeks to reawaken society to the importance of the stable, intact family, and engender a discussion and greater focus in the media, in academia, in the halls of policy makers, in religious circles, in the committees of civil society and in households around the world. Our hope is that all of these circles will bring to bear on the problems facing the family the tremendous contributions each can uniquely make. In this way, we hope to avert the storm that is now most surely coming on.
June 29, 2009
From the LA Times, June 25:
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.
Read that again. Obama was subtly promoting euthanasia...
In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."
He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.
Or maybe, President Obama, the decision should be left to the patient and patient's family?
This prime-time ratings fiasco was hosted by ABC News, with 164 invited guests, pre-screened questions, and no rebuttal time for the opposing view on Obama's rationed healthcare boondoggle. Thus, this was no surprise:
The audience - which included doctors, patients, health insurers, students and people with ailing relatives - clearly was unhappy with the current healthcare system. Gibson asked for a show of hands to see how many wanted to leave the system unchanged. No one raised a hand.
This was a set up. It was not media reporting, it was an unpaid infomercial.
Gregg Cunningham of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform blog had this to say about Obama's ominous comments during the "propaganda special extraordinaire":
Who will decide whether "you're better off" without the surgery? Not your doctor but Mr. Obama. Does Mr. Obama really know "who is about to die" and who "don't stand to gain" from extra care? And what care is "extra?" As usual, Mr. Obama illustrates his point with a very dishonest, false dilemma. Of course you don't do a hip replacement on his very elderly grandmother whose very aggressive and terminal cancer meant she might not have survived the surgery. But the type of treatment decisions often criticized by rationing radicals are seldom that obvious.
Mr. Obama is willing to interfere in the relationship between a doctor and his patient when the doctor is trying to save a life but not when the doctor is trying to take a life. Is this the most anti-life president in American history?
And this, from the Canada Free Press:
But who is it that will present the "evidence" that will "show" that further care is futile? Are we to believe that Obama expects individual doctors will make that decision in his bold new government controlled healthcare future? If he is trying to make that claim, it is a flat out untruth and he knows it....
... [N]o doctor will be deciding if you are too old or infirm to get medical care. It will be a medically untrained bureaucrat that sets a national rule that everyone will have to obey. There won't be any room for your grandma to have a different outcome than anyone else's....
Ah, but we are told that Obama's ideas on healthcare are "evolving"... [o]riginally, he said it was "healthcare for all," but... it seems he's "evolved" to say that only those worth the bother should get healthcare. The rest should be left to die and/or suffer....
And whatever happened to the left's mantra that healthcare is a "right" and that money should never enter into a life or death decision? Now The One is saying it's just too darn expensive to save the old and infirm.
Barack Obama Would Take Back Vote Helping Terri Schiavo Avoid Euthanasia
by Steven Ertelt
February 26, 2008
(LifeNews.com) -- Senator
Barack Obama debated his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night and
said his biggest mistake was voting with a unanimous Senate to help save Terri Schiavo. Terri is the disabled
In March 2005, just weeks before Terri died from a painful 14-day starvation and dehydration death, Congress approved legislation allowing her family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop the euthanasia from proceeding.
Terri was not on any artificial breathing apparatus and only required a feeding tube to eat and drink. Her family had filed a lawsuit against her former husband to allow them to care for her and give her proper medical and rehabilitative care.
The Senate unanimously approved a compromise bill, which the House eventually supported on a lopsided bipartisan vote and President Bush signed, to help the disabled woman.
During the Tuesday debate, Obama said he should have stood up against the life-saving legislation.
“It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped,” Obama said.
“And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better,” he added.
This isn't the first time Obama has said the biggest mistake he made as senator was voting to help try to stop Terri from being euthanized.
During an April 2007 debate, Obama said, "I think professionally the biggest mistake that I made was when I first arrived in the Senate. There was a debate about Terri Schiavo, and a lot of us, including me, left the Senate with a bill that allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn't have.”
"And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure [Terri's parents couldn't take their case to federal court to save her life]," he explained.
Since Terri’s death, the Schindler family has established a foundation to help disabled and elderly patients obtain proper medical care and legal and other assistance when they are denied it.
Related web sites:
Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation - http://www.terrisfight.org
June 29, 2009
Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.
-President Obama (healthcare town hall meeting, June 24, 2009)
Like so many of his recently passed multibillion dollar programs, (Stimulus bill, Omnibus bill, etc.), it seems as though President Obama is off to the races regarding the passage of a universal healthcare bill. Although a universal healthcare concept might sound wonderful to many Americans, it is not a new idea. There are numerous nations that already provide socialized medicine and their programs are far from stellar. Among other problems, they suffer from budget crunches that result in rationed (therefore inferior) medical care, which, in turn, often result in unwarranted surgical procrastinations by doctors.
President Obama, forever the pragmatic one, may have been discussing healthcare for the terminally ill and the elderly, when he said, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," but why stop with the terminally ill and the old?
If everyone in need of surgery will be forced into long waiting lines, then, should not all Americans in need of surgery be entitled to a piece of President Obama's "painkiller healthcare?" We need to tell the President that his universal healthcare bill must include a never-ending renewable painkiller prescription for all Americans awaiting surgery. In fact, since life can be so difficult and our President so compassionate, why not make painkillers a part of the President's wellness initiative?
The answer, of course, is that painkillers can be, among other things, addicting, damaging to the central nervous system, and dangerous to the heart. This is where American ingenuity can come into play. President Obama is very interested in alternatives. He is interested in alternative fuels, alternative technologies, so why not alternative painkillers? Why not soma? Why not soma for everyone?
For those not familiar with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, soma is a fictitious drug designed to provide the user with a euphoric feeling. In Brave New World, all citizens do their assigned tasks, share the same state values, and are forever taking the feel good soma drug. Unlike painkillers, soma has no harmful side effects. If President Obama can inspire American scientists to invent a real soma, then his universal healthcare program will be an overwhelming success. Nobody will care how long it will take waiting for surgery. In fact, no one will care that he or she is sick. Just take some soma.
Soma is a drug whose time has come and it should be a
part of the President's universal healthcare agenda. Come to think of it,
there is no reason to supply only the sick with soma. Soma
should be for all Americans all the time. No gasoline
in the tank and you have to walk. No big deal, take some soma.
I have to admit the chances of President Obama providing a "soma earmark" in his universal healthcare reform bill is remote, and not because he opposes earmarks. He will not provide a future of soma for all Americans because the only Americans that will end up taking soma will be Republicans. After all, Democrats do not need soma to feel good; just gazing and listening to President Obama 24/7 is soma enough for them.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/painkiller_healthcare.html
at July 01, 2009 - 10:55:24 AM EDT
Thursday, June 25, 2009
I searched all over the internet for this information. I don't know why more people aren't talking about this, but perhaps it just hasn't yet shown on the radar of pro-life groups. Or, perhaps no one except the liberal extremists even paid attention to Obama's health care infomercial.
Watch this clip! Here's my transcript of what President Obama said, with most of the "uhs" taken out:
". . . make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better . . . that is, loading up on additional tests . . . that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care . . . at least we can let doctors know -- and your mom know -- that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uh, not having the surgery, but taking, uh, the pain killer."
Obama wants to euthanize the elderly and the severely ill. Why? Apparently, it makes good cost-cutting business sense.
How long before they're refusing to provide medical care for more than the couple's first child? How long before medical care is refused to babies (or adults) with Down Syndrome? You see, with nationally-subsidized health care, it's no longer about providing medical care for those who cannot afford it. It becomes all about social engineering. And if you don't believe me, google what's already started in places like the
Forgive them, Father, they know NOT what they are doing!!!!
It makes me wonder, too, in this morally relativistic world of ours, how long it is before taxpayers are footing the bill for unnecessary surgeries such as sterilization. Why should we, I ask? It's not a necessary procedure; in fact, it's BREAKING something that is working just as nature intended. And what about sex change operations? They're paying for those in
It's maddening. I wonder how much of this is all about the selfish Baby Boomer way of life: too selfish to have children, cloaked under the humanitarian lines of "doing good for this overpopulated earth." And now, they don't want to have to take care of their elderly parents, either. Of course, of course, all for humanitarian reasons. And, who knows, since image is everything, they don't want to leave this world with a less-than-perfect looking body, so being "put down" like an injured horse is better than having to suffer the indignities that sometimes accompany old age.
At the end of this news clip, the journalists comment that Obama never answered the question about how he'd care for a family member of his own. That's not surprising! I remember Communist Soviet Union. I know Communist China. The Party Leaders do not have to live according the same rules and laws that are imposed upon the proletariat. That stupid dog of the Obamas would probably be given life-extending cancer treatments before my own mother would.
I'm trying to avoid giving in to despair. But this is just so disheartening!
The next time I hear an Obama "Catholic" upbraid any politician for his stance on the death penalty, whilst praising Obama's desire for universal health care, I might scream and pull every hair out of my head!!!!!
Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)
Obama Says We Shouldn't Treat Old Folks to Save Money And the Media Goes Deaf
By Warner Todd Huston
Created 2009-06-26 01:19
I am wondering when the euthanasia folks are going to start touting this one? I mean, it sure seemed to me as if the most caring, most civil, most intelligent president evah just said that healthcare could be cheaper if we don't give old folks and the infirm the full measure of care they now get. It appeared that Obama said we should just let them die or suffer because they aren't worth the effort. Imagine if Bush had said something like this? The left wouldn't have hesitated to call him any manner of names. Oddly, though, the Old Media have not had so much as a raised eyebrow over his statements on Wednesday.
Obama said during the ABC Special on Wednesday night that a way to save healthcare costs is to abandon the sort of care that "evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve" the patient's health. He went on to say that he had personal familiarity with such a situation when his grandmother broke her hip after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer.
Obama offered a question on the efficacy of further care for his grandmother saying, "and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?"
But who is it that will present the "evidence" that will "show" that further care is futile? Are we to believe that Obama expects individual doctors will make that decision in his bold new government controlled healthcare future? If he is trying to make that claim it is a flat out untruth and he knows it.
Does your homebuilder negotiate with your city hall over whether you get a building permit, or does the permit get levied no matter what? Does a cop decide if you really broke the law, or does he simply arrest you and let the courts hash it out? Does your tax preparer negotiate with the IRS or is he supposed to just calculate your tax bill on their terms and have you pay the required amount?
Government does not work by negotiation. Government does not work from the bottom up. It works from the top down. This singular fact means that no doctor will be deciding if you are too old or infirm to get medical care. It will be a medically untrained bureaucrat that sets a national rule that everyone will have to obey. There won't be any room for your grandma to have a different outcome than anyone else's.
So, what will it be then? Who will decide when medical care is just too expensive to bother with? Who will be left to perish because they just aren't worth the lifesaving effort? Well, for sure it won't be any members of Congress or anyone that works for the federal government because they won't be expected to suffer under the nationally socialized plan. It also won't be Obama's buddies in the unions who are about to be similarly exempted from the national plan, at least if Senator Max Baucus has his way .
Ah, but we are told that Obama's ideas on healthcare are "evolving," dontcha know? During the recent campaign for president (that was only 7 months ago, if you'll recall) Obama insisted that he would never tax your healthcare benefits from work. He even ridiculed McCain for proposing such a plan. Lately, however, he's "evolved"  toward saying that such a new tax is on the table. What about his stance against fining people and businesses that don't join his UberPlan? He was against that sort of coerciveness before. Now he's "evolved." 
Originally, he said it was "healthcare for all," but as of Wednesday night, it seems he's "evolved" to say that only those worth the bother should get healthcare. The rest should be left to died and/or suffer. If he does any more "evolving" we'll all be finding just who is "worth" what as far as he and his Democrats are concerned. Somehow I'd guess that many of you reading this today won't quite be worth as much as certain others!
Let's hope none of us are ever in a position to find out if Obamacare deems our grandmothers worth saving.
And what ever happened to the left's mantra that healthcare is a "right" and that money should never enter into a life or death decision? Now The One is saying it's just too darn expensive to save the old and infirm? Will our friends on the left now disown Obama the "murderer"?
Even worse, why has the media remained mum on the possibility that President Spock, Doctor of life, just said that old folks are too expensive to treat? Hello, CNN, NBC, New York Times... anyone?