Reference Page 425 Of Death Care
Masquerading As Health Care Bill – A Summary Of What PRAVDA USA Is NOT Telling
You About Obama's Horrendous Death Care Bill
On page 425 it says in black and white that
EVERYONE on Social Security, (will include all Senior Citizens and SSI
people) will go to MANDATORY counseling every 5 years to learn and to choose
from ways to end your suffering (*and your life*). Health care will be denied
based on age. 500 Billion will be cut from Seniors
healthcare. The only way for that to happen is to drastically cut health
care, the oldest and the sickest will be cut first. Paying for your own care
will not be an option.
Below are links which tell the truth about Obama's death care masquerading as health care bill. Excerpts from the links are included but read the full link to get the full story that you will never get from PRAVDA
MANDATORY End Of Life Counseling For Seniors In Obama's ‘Death Care’ Bill - Obama's Dept Of ‘NO Treasury’ Thinks Their Destruction Of Your Country Is Funny And Needs A Cartoonist To Get That Point Cross - Senate Vote For 'Hate Crimes' Sparks Warning
God had a very different view of the aged in the Bible in deserving the respect for their wisdom as God blessed them with many years for being faithful to Him!
15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace, and be buried in a good old age.
25 His shoe shall be iron and brass. As the days of thy youth, so also shall thy old age be.
15 And thou shouldst have one to comfort thy soul, and cherish thy old age. For he is born of thy daughter in law: who loveth thee: and is much better to thee, than if thou hadst seven sons.
9 Cast me not off in the time of old age: when my strength shall fail, do not thou forsake me.
18 And unto old age and grey hairs: O God, forsake me not, Until I shew forth thy arm to all the generation that is to come: Thy power,
15 They shall still increase in a fruitful old age: and shall be well treated,
31 Old age is a crown of dignity, when it is found in the ways of justice.
14 Son, support the old age of thy father, and grieve him not in his life;
7 Despise not a man in his old age; for we also shall become old.
4 Even to your old age I am the same, and to your grey hairs I will carry you: I have made you, and I will bear: I will carry and will save.
36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:
17 And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see
visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
talking about an
Shock: Inside The Death Care Masquerading As A Health Care Bill For The USSA Under Comrade Obama Which Has The Insane Peter Singer's Footprints All Over It
I strongly suggest that all of you take a really careful look at just what's contained in Comrade Obama's so-called 'health-care' bill for the USSA under his dictatorship! Is this what you want for you, your children, your grandchildren, and future generations of Americans not yet born if they will be fortunate to survive Obama's abortuaries? Is this what you call a country fit to live in where the government goes out of its way to make you miserable from the cradle to a grave that can't come early enough for seniors who must undergo 'end-of-life counseling' every five years
MANDATORY End Of Life Counseling For Seniors In Obama's ‘Death Care’ Bill - Obama's Dept Of ‘NO Treasury’ Thinks Their Destruction Of Your Country Is Funny And Needs A Cartoonist To Get That Point Cross - Senate Vote For 'Hate Crimes' Sparks Warning
to be encouraged to check out soon? - Gary L. Morella
Shock: Inside the Healthcare Bill
the mad recommendations of Peter Singer made in NYT's
Sunday magazine, it pays to take a look at what is actually in the healthcare
It's worse than you can possibly imagine. Somehow, it manages to be Singer on steroids. Who wrote this bill. It has Singer's footprints all over it.
Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) is reading it and has been posting on Twitter his findings. This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman's)
Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monop
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.
Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll
pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll
Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay)
Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have, you'll all be paid the same
PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr's time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries
PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs
PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals 4 what Govt deems preventable readmissions.
Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admiss that results in a readmiss-Govt will penalize u.
Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand
pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!!
Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing
Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority 2 disqual Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps in2 Govt plan
Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl! So much for those with Down syndrome!!
Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can u say HC by phone?
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding u in death
Are you being targeted for euthanasia?
By Mary Therese Helmueller, R.N.
In 1984, while working as charge nurse in the intensive care unit, a 20-year-old man asked, “Can you give my mother enough morphine to let her sleep away?” I was horrified. “I can not kill your mother,” I responded. That was only the beginning. Recently, an 80-year-old was admitted to the emergency room and the physician said, “LET’S DEHYDRATE HER”; one more patient was sentenced to die in hospice with NO TERMINAL DIAGNOSIS and once again, THE LIVING WILL determined the death of a 70-year-old man regardless of how he pleaded to live. I can no longer remain silent.
Your life may be in danger if you are admitted to
a hospital, especially if you are over 65 or have a chronic illness or a
disability. The elderly are frequently dying three days after
being admitted to the hospital. Some attribute it to “old age syndrome” while
others admit that overdosing is all too common. Euthanasia is not legal but it
is being practiced. Last year the New England Journal of Medicine reported that
1 in 5 critical care nurses admit to having hastened the death of the
terminally ill! I believe the percentage is much higher. I have worked with
nurses who even admit to overdosing their parents. No one knows the exact
euthanasia rate in the
Did you know that many doctors and nurses whom we trust are speaking openly about their desire to practice euthanasia? In fact they are even speaking about ending their OWN lives when they reach the age of 65 or BEFORE if diagnosed with an illness. Some even admit to stealing the drugs for their own lethal injection. Think about it. These are the same people who will determine the value of YOUR life. If they do not value their own, how can you expect them to value yours?
I am a registered nurse in the
On Monday, February 20th, my grandmother was admitted to a local Catholic hospital with a fracture above the left knee. She was alert and orientated upon admission but became unresponsive after 48 hours and was transferred to hospice on the fourth day and died upon arrival.
I was in
Carefully tracing the events it was evident that my grandmother became
lethargic and unresponsive after each pain medication. She would awaken between
times saying “I don’t want to die, I want to live to see Johnny ordained”; “I
want to see Greta walk.” Johnny was her grandson studying in
The truth however can be found in the hospital chart which indicates that everything was normal! The CAT scan was negative for stroke or obstruction, the EEG states “no seizure activity” and all blood work was normal indicating that she was not in renal failure! How were we to know that the coma was drug induced and that all the tests were normal? Why would they lie?
Looking over the chart it is clear that obtaining a “no code” status was the next essential step in executing her death. This is an order denying medical intervention in emergency situations. The “no code” was aggressively sought by the medical profession from the moment of her admission but was not granted by my family until it appeared that she was dying and there was no hope. Minutes after obtaining the “no code” a lethal dose of Dilantin (an anti-seizure medication) was administered intravenously over an 18-hour period. It put her into a deeper coma, slowing the respiratory rate and compromising the cardiovascular system leading to severe hemodynamic instability. The following day she was transferred to hospice and died upon arrival. The death certificate reads “Death by natural causes.”
My grandmother had no terminal diagnosis but the hospice admitting record indicates two doctors signed their name stating that she was terminally ill and would die within six months. How was this determined? The first doctor, who was the director of hospice, never came to evaluate her or even read the chart. More interesting is the fact that the second doctor was on vacation and returned three days after her death! Obviously these signatures were not obtained before or even upon her admission to hospice. How can this be professionally, morally or even legally acceptable? Can anyone therefore be admitted to hospice to die? It certainly seems possible especially if sedated or unresponsive. In fact, this hospice has recently been under investigation for accepting hundreds of patients who had no terminal illness.
It could happen to you.
How can this happen? A serious problem lies in the definition and interpretation of “terminal illness” which permits the inclusion of chronic illnesses and disabilities. Terminal illness is defined as “an incurable or irreversible illness which produces death within six months.” The fact is that many chronic illnesses such as diabetes and high blood pressure are incurable and irreversible and without medical treatment such as insulin and other medications these illnesses would also produce death within six months. Therefore, those with chronic illnesses or disabilities can be conveniently denied medical treatment and even food and water to make them terminal. Typically it is the elderly who arrive in the hospital that are at the greatest risk. But it could be ANYONE! Especially those whose life and suffering is viewed as useless and burdensome.
Difficult to believe? Well it was for our prolife lawyer until his mother-in-law was admitted to a hospital several months later for a stroke. She became “unresponsive” and “comatose” a few days after her admission. The neurologist wrote an order to transfer her to hospice refusing an I.V. and tube feeding stating “this is the most compassionate treatment.” Remembering my story, our lawyer requested the removal of all narcotics and demanded an I.V. and tube feeding. This infuriated the neurologist. He began to accuse the family of being uncompassionate and inhumane. To prove his point he began a neurological assessment on the patient. Just then she opened her eyes and pulling the physician’s neck tie, forced his face to hers and said very clearly “Give me some water!” It was obvious that she was awake, alert and orientated. He angrily cancelled the transfer to hospice and ordered a tube feeding and intravenous. Several weeks later she was discharged and was exercising on the treadmill! She escaped the death sentence. Unfortunately many others like my grandmother have not. A stroke does not make you terminal but not receiving food and water does!
A clear understanding and definition of euthanasia is essential for a correct and moral judgment. Unfortunately the meaning is being altered by those who hold society’s values and by those who seek financial gain. According to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and reaffirmed by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae euthanasia is defined as “an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering.”
The killing in hospitals today is commonly referred to as “the exit treatment” and disguised by the word “compassion.” Many doctors and nurses honestly believe that this is the most compassionate treatment for the elderly, the chronic and terminally ill, especially those whose suffering is seen as hopeless, inconvenient and a waste of time or money. Those who hold this twisted and corrupted idea of compassion actually believe they are doing good because suffering has no value and materialism is their god. For instance, how often have we heard that Medicare and Medicaid are “running out?” “So why not relieve pain and lighten the financial burden of our families and society?”
As a result, many patients are intentionally oversedated
and forced to die from dehydration, starvation or over medication. “Death by
natural causes” will be officially documented on the death certificate. Did you
know that this is the exact same proclamation on the death certificate of St. Maximillian Kolbe? Everyone knows however that he died from
a lethal injection in
Pope John Paul II states clearly in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae: “Here we are faced with one of the more alarming symptoms of the ‘Culture of Death’ which is advancing above all in prosperous societies, marked by an attitude of excessive preoccupation with efficiency and which sees the growing number of elderly and disabled as intolerable and too burdensome.”
Many souls are being denied the opportunity to reconcile with God and family members because their death has been hastened or deliberately taken. This is a grave and moral injustice. Pope Pius XII in his Address to an International Group of Physicians on February 24, 1957 stated, “It is not right to deprive the dying person of consciousness without a serious reason.” Pope John Paul II confirmed this in Evangelium Vitae saying, “as they approach death people ought to be able to satisfy their moral and family duties, and above all they ought to be able to prepare in a fully conscious way for their definitive meeting with God.”
Recently the Carmelite Sisters shared this tragic story of a friend whose husband was euthanized. Her husband was diagnosed with terminal cancer but was not expected to die for several months to a year. He had been away from the Catholic Church and the sacraments. He also was estranged from his children. One day he complained of pain that was not relieved by medication. The wife spoke to the nurse who then called the doctor. When the doctor arrived he gave an injection through the intravenous line. The husband took three breaths and died! The wife screamed, “I did not ask you to kill my husband!” “We needed time to reconcile our marriage and family.” She continued to cry, “He needed time to reconcile with God and the Church!”
It is evident that euthanasia is being even more cleverly planned and executed.
A very holy priest from
There is a good and legitimate purpose for hospice units, but how can it ever
be morally acceptable to transfer patients to a unit to die when they have NO
TERMINAL ILLNESS? How can sedating a patient and refusing a tube feeding and
intravenous be considered compassionate? Dehydration and starvation is not a
painless death! Has this become the
Would a “living will” prevent these tragic
events? The living will makes you a clear and easy target to be euthanized. A
“living will” has nothing to do with living. It is your death warrant.
It actually gives permission to facilitate your
death by denying medical treatment. Did you know that it was originally
developed by Luis Kutner in 1967 for the Euthanasia
Many people fear the loss of control that comes with illness and hospitalization. Tragically, they are deceived in thinking that the “living will” protects them and restores this control in their lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one knows the exact condition in which they will be admitted to the hospital. The “living will” is written in very broad terms leaving it open to the interpretation of medical professionals and others who stand to benefit from your demise. Remember your best interests or your interpretation may not be theirs! Can you imagine writing general instructions or signing a legal contract for the care of your Mercedes Benz several years before any problem occurs? “Please do not give oil or gas”; “If in three days it can not be fixed stop everything and trash the car.” How absurd and ridiculous! It takes time to diagnose and treat even car problems! If we would not foolishly demand this for a car then how can we demand it for a human life which has an eternal value?
Recently, a 70-year-old was admitted through the emergency room in respiratory distress. He was placed on a ventilator and transported to the intensive care unit. He was awake, alert and orientated anxiously writing notes: “I don’t want to die”; “I changed my mind”; and “Please don’t take me off the machine.” He was very persistent and urgent with his pleading. I soon understood why! His family and physicians were meeting to discuss a serious problem. He had signed a “living will” declaring that he did not want “any extraordinary measures.” He was now viewed as “incapable” of making any decisions and they wanted to follow his wishes as stated in the legal document! Very convenient for those who do not want their inheritance spent on hospital costs and for those who do not want to be bothered with a “useless burden” to our society!
Today hospitals and health care facilities are required to ask patients if they
have a living will or lose government funding! The question is proposed in such
a way to create pressure on patients so that they think it is something good,
desirable and necessary. “Do you know that you have a right in the state of
Can you or a loved one be targeted for euthanasia without a living will? The course of events and treatment in my grandmother’s short hospitalization are documented. She did not have a living will. Please know the following steps—it could save your loved one’s life.
Oversedation causing lethargy and unresponsiveness
Difficulty or inability to awaken a patient.
Some patients, especially the elderly, are very sensitive to pain medications which are slowly metabolized by the liver. Toxic levels build quickly with very small doses commonly producing lethargy and unresponsiveness. Elderly patients require approximately 20% less of the normal adult doses.
A hopeless picture of any recovery
The patient appears to be comatose and dying. The medical staff affirms this with overwhelming reports and statements.
No code status also referred to as DNR/DNI (do not resuscitate/ do not intubate)—The consent is obtained
from the family.
It is a request to deny a patient delivered emergency care in a life-threatening situation.
Lethal doses of Dilantin or narcotics —(morphine)
This will hasten the death, shortening the hospital stay and expenses.
5) Transfer to hospice without tube feeding or
Due to sedation and inability to eat or drink the patient will die of dehydration and starvation.
If a loved one is lethargic or unresponsive demand to see the medical chart and
medications sheet. If you do not understand the terminology and medications,
consult a pharmacist. A computer printout is available at pharmacies on most
medications. If you suspect over sedation speak to a prolife
doctor or nurse and then ask to stop all narcotics and wait at least for 48
hours to see if there is any improvement. Contact prolife
organizations such as National Right to Life—to obtain information and local
phone numbers of prolife organizations, doctors,
nurses or lawyers in your area: National Right to Life;
Think twice before giving consent to a “no code status.” It has become too convenient for those nurses and doctors who hasten the death of their patients! Furthermore, it not only denies emergency medical treatment but many professionals also deny the following: antibiotics for pneumonia; medications and assistance to choking victims!
If your loved one is being transferred to hospice DO NOT assume there is a terminal illness. Ask to see the chart especially in regards to unresponsive elderly and comatose patients. Remember that “comatose” is not a terminal illness, but not receiving food and water will make anyone terminal! Always ask for a second opinion. Consult with prolife nurses or doctors.
If you need assistance in finding a prolife doctor,
information, or just need to discuss your concerns on a particular case, please
contact The Moscati Institute;
Your life may be in danger especially if you are
over 65 and admitted to the hospital. Euthanasia is not legal in the
Euthanasia is embraced by the lack of Christian values in our society. It is the result of a culture that has accepted and promoted the killing of unborn children. The value of life is the extent of the pleasure and well-being it brings. Suffering, imperfection, illness, and inefficiency are viewed as unbearable setbacks, useless and burdensome. Death is viewed as a “rightful liberation.” As a result, euthanasia is packaged to appear desirable and then sold to the unsuspecting public as the “living will,” “death with dignity” and “the right to die.” Is it not logical that those who can kill the child in the womb will also kill their parents in their old age for the same reasons of convenience, compassion, money etc. . . . ?
It is our
moral obligation as Catholics to promote the teachings and truths of the
Church. As an authentic Catholic we can never promote euthanasia by saying: “I
hope there is a Kevorkian around when I get older,” or “Just shoot me if I ever
become like that.” There is a great spiritual value to suffering. Every human
life must be valued and supported as a precious gift of God. We can not afford
to patronize movies, TV programs, businesses or any forms of entertainment that
promote, encourage and support the killing of innocent life. We must support
and vote for prolife political candidates or we share
the responsibility of killing. We must support prolife
organizations with our available gifts and talents. It is our duty and
obligation to be informed Catholics. We can not fight what we do not know or do
not see. Please contact Human Life International and ask for their monthly
newsletter. Human Life International; 4 Family Life; Front
Most important however we must pray for the conversion of our government officials and medical professionals that their minds are enlightened and inspired to work in building the kingdom of Jesus Christ by seeking to protect all human life from the moment of conception to natural death.
It’s time to wake up! Euthanasia is here! We will be responsible to almighty God for doing nothing. You have escaped death by abortion but you are all being targeted for euthanasia!
Miss Mary Therese Helmueller, R.N. lives and works in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. She is a registered nurse with fifteen years of experience in emergency and critical care. This article originally appeared in Homiletic and Pastoral Review.
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program 4 orders 4 end of life. The Govt has a say in how ur life ends
Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will b used frequently as patients health deteriorates
PG 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may incl an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life
Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?
Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based org. Like ACORN?
PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt in2 ur marriage
Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs
Here's the full Health Care bill that sits in the House.
Comrade Obama, "Let's Not Get Distracted" Over Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Coverage In Health Care, As Baby Killing Is NO BIG THING for Obama, And Neither Will Be Senior Citizen Killing
Abortion is pre-natal euthanasia;
euthanasia is post-natal abortion. The latter is a logical consequence of
the former, as a country capable of killing its innocents in what should be
their safest place of refuge, their mothers’ wombs, is a country capable of any
moral atrocity. Welcome to the
This Is Not About Health Care; This Is About Government Control Of Your Life - The Doctor Will Kill You Now - Catholic Nurse Ordered To Help With Abortion - Obama's Insidious War On The Middle Class
The American people need to know the facts about what Obama is doing to our country. To come right
to the point, he's destroying it for us, for our children, and our
grandchildren. This is news that you will never get from the MSM
because they've long since been in the tank for Obama!
We're talking about a death-care, not a health-care, bill here folks. Take a good look for yourselves. - Gary L. Morella
Swedish Case Of Age Discrimination In Health Care A Warning
About Obamacare - Michelle Obama:
To The Manner Born - Windfarm Plan Means Very
Expensive Electricity - Renewable Energy At
Ezekiel Emanuel, one of President Obama’s premier
health care advisers–and the brother of his chief of staff–insists that rationing based on age isn’t invidious
discrimination. Oh no? Check out this story from
An 83-year-old woman from Östergötland in
Skogh has suffered from pain and numbness in her legs since 2004. After waiting for more than a year to see a specialist in the public health system [my emphasis], Skogh was finally told that the pain was likely to do problems in her back. Doctors told her she suffered from spinal stenosis, a disease that involves a narrowing of one or more areas in the back. The narrowing puts pressure on the spinal cord or on the nerves that branch out from the compressed areas, often causing cramping, pain or numbness. But despite the lengthy wait for the diagnosis, Skogh was then told that, even though the ailment was treatable [my emphasis, again], she was too old for the surgery.
It wasn’t that she was too frail to handle the surgery–obviously–it was because they thought she was too old to be worth the expended resources. In other words, she was denied optimal care by her own doctor who placed his or her loyalty to “society” over the medical needs of his own patients.
If this is how you think we should treat our senior citizens who have given their country so much over so many years–not to mention people with serious disabilities, expensive chronic and terminal illnesses, etc.–you will support Obamacare. If not, you won’t.
‘OBAMACARE’: FAST TRACK TO ECONOMIC SUICIDE – The Baby-Killing Industry Is THE Major Job Killer With Abortion The Biggest Fraud Ever Perpetrated On The American People
By Dennis M. Howard
Bishops Wrong: Health Care Not A Right; Medical Care Is A Right - Catholic Medical Association Statement On Health Care Reform
Bishops Wrong: Health Care Not a Right
7/30/2009 5:51:00 PM
By Rev. Michael P. Orsi -Human Events
Recently, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development released a statement made to the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate stating that "health care is not a privilege but a right and a requirement to protect the life and dignity of each person." They couldn't be more wrong.
The Committee that composed the document obviously supports President Obama's desire for national health care reform (with the caveat that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortions). National health care reform is a political issue. People of goodwill can be for it or against it as the recent congressional debates will readily attest. Yet, when the seeming weight of the bishops is attached to an issue affecting the commonweal, the words they use often connote a moral imperative which in the case of health care does not exist. The only right that one human being owes to another is "medical care." This means care and treatment for an immediate need. For instance, a person has a right to expect that civil society would provide for an emergency appendectomy even if he is without sufficient means to pay for it.
Biblical support for medical care can be found in the Golden Rule and the story of the Good Samaritan. On the other hand, while preventive medicine such as an annual check-up or the right to elective surgery may benefit some people no where is it found as binding in the natural law or the Christian tradition.
Failure to differentiate between what is a fundamental human right and an opinion of what is deemed
to be good by some -- and the confusion over what is morally binding and what
is not -- has had deleterious
Since I do not wish to engage in an internecine polemic, I will speak solely to my final point.
The religious institutions of any nation have an obligation to inform civil
society of proper ethical behavior. In a democracy, freedom of speech and the
right to vote have a direct impact on the laws deemed good for structuring
society. With over 60 million Catholics in the
Two examples will make my point. The bishops' past lack of clarity with
pro-choice Catholic politicians had given license for some prominent Catholics
to endorse Barack Obama for the presidency and gave permission to 54%
of Catholics to vote for him. Thus, the Catholic vote secured the election of
the most pro-death politician to ever sit in the White House. Another failure caused by imprecise
definition has led some people to believe that the Church's opposition to
capital punishment holds the same weight as its stance against abortion. The
failure to declare the former as a prudential judgment and the latter to be
intrinsically evil has given some Catholics the cover they needed to vote
pro-choice on abortion and argue that they are pro-life because they oppose the
death penalty. Gov. Bill Richardson of
On July 7 of this year, Pope Benedict XVI issued his third encyclical entitled Caritas in Veritate -- "On Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth." In it, he continually re-emphasized one of the foundational principles of Catholic social teaching -- the common good. To achieve a good and just society, the Pope emphasizes that charity is authentic only when it is seen through the lens of truth revealed in faith and reason. The political process therefore must be so guided in order to achieve this end.
To promote health care as a right under the aegis of Catholic morality by the USCCB is not the truth. As a matter of fact, it is not even charity because, as the Pope says, "Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way."
Such carelessness with the truth, whether intentional or unintentional, by the USCCB undermines both the Catholic Church and American society.
Rev. Orsi is a Research Fellow in Law and Religion at Ave Maria School of Law.
The Catholic Medical Association (CMA) calls upon President Obama and Congress to “hit the reset button” in their attempts to address the serious problems in the nation’s health-care financing and delivery systems. The CMA is concerned that the bills that have emerged from House and Senate Committees to date are too flawed, and the process too rushed, to provide meaningful reform.
“While health-care reform is more important than ever, existing legislation in the House and Senate—combined with President Obama’s push for hasty action—could make our current, flawed system even worse,” said Catholic Medical Association representative R. Steven White, M.D., in a statement released on July 29, 2009.
“Sound reform must be based on sound ethics and economics; but so far, the House and Senate bills meet neither standard.”
The CMA is particularly concerned about two significant ethical issues (1) respect for the conscience rights of health-care providers; and (2) a mandate to finance and provide abortion.
According to the CMA’s executive director, John F. Brehany, Ph.D., the conscience rights of health-care providers are not adequately addressed in any current legislation. “The House Tri-Committee bill does not even mention the topic of conscience rights of health-care providers, and Democrats on the Senate H.E.L.P. Committee voted against an amendment that would have prohibited forcing health-care providers to perform or participate in abortion,” stated Brehany. Brehany continued, “This issue is very timely, since the department of Health and Human Services canceled a Conscience Protection Rule earlier this year and has not announced what will replace it. Yet polls show that patients want physicians who are committed to ethics and who share their values. Coercing health-care providers to deny their deepest values and ethical commitment to patients’ well-being will harm the medical profession and undermine trust in the provider-patient relationship.”
Brehany concluded, “In a July 2 interview, President Obama promised a ‘robust conscience clause.’ We think it is time to deliver the text of that conscience clause and make conscience protection an integral part of any health-care reform legislation.”
Abortion is another key ethical concern for the CMA and for most Americans. CMA President Louis C. Breschi, M.D., is alarmed that White House officials and the Senate H.E.L.P. Committee have refused to exclude abortion from health-care legislation. The House Tri-Committee bill never mentions the word “abortion, but most analysts think that, without explicit exclusion, abortion will be mandated by the Secretary of HHS and/or by the courts. According to Breschi, “Few people realize that, as things stand, abortion could be a required benefit in all health insurance plans, and it would be subsidized not only in health-care premiums, but also through taxation. This unjust mandate must be excluded.”
Apart from ethical concerns, the CMA finds significant shortcomings in the economic and clinical aspects of current legislation. First, as the Congressional Budget Office points out, the legislation does nothing to reduce long-term costs. Rather, current legislation increases costs by hundreds of billions of dollars even after tax increases and creative accounting measures. Second, the bills’ attempts to control costs and increase access rely on heavy-handed government control that is antithetical to the rights of patients and physicians, and to good clinical care. Dr. White commented:
“Unprecedented powers are entrusted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (as evidenced by over 1,120 references to the ‘Secretary’ and his/her powers in the House bill) and to a new authority—the ‘Health Choices Commissioner.’ Moreover, a Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness was created and funded, without adequate debate, by the Stimulus Bill; and there are valid concerns that the FCCCE could soon start regulating medical treatments based not only on clinical, but also ‘economic’ criteria.”
This heavy-handed federal control is made worse by two additional provisions. First, House bill regulations make it almost impossible for any current health insurance plan to survive in a new government-controlled regime. This would break President Obama’s repeated promise that Americans could keep their doctors and health-care plans—and remove the means for people to choose insurance which accords with their values and priorities. Second, House and Senate bills plan to extend health insurance coverage to millions of people by moving them onto the Medicaid rolls. However, the flaws of Medicaid are well-known—its costs have run out of control in most states, and 40% of physicians are compelled to refuse Medicaid patients because Medicaid’s low reimbursement rates do not even cover the overhead cost of office visits. Adding millions of people to this flawed system will not constitute meaningful health insurance coverage.
These problems would be exacerbated by a “public option” plan which would “compete” with private health insurance, as called for in the House Tri-Committee bill. But there is no way that private companies can fairly compete with the federal government. The government can establish below-market rates for insurance premiums and provider reimbursement and shift costs onto private companies. The government also can increase taxes or the federal deficit to absorb losses. The result is that everyone, sooner than later, will be forced to become participants in the “public option” plan and fully subject to the costs and regulations of government health care. When this happens, the American people will have lost the freedom to make important decisions about their life and health.
The Catholic Medical Association supports health-care reform that increases access and quality, and respects the values of providers and patients. These goals can best be achieved by legislation that empowers people to own their health insurance policies (as contrasted with government- or employer-controlled health-care insurance), and using targeted measures to help people who cannot afford the entire cost of their insurance premium. Legislation addressing some of these goals already has been introduced into Congress and should be reviewed to either improve or replace the current House and Senate bills.
In the meantime, current bills require such substantial amendment that it would be better to scrap them and start again. According to Dr. Breschi, it is critical for Congress to take the time necessary to address the complex economic and ethical issues involved, and to give the American people an opportunity to review any proposed legislation. Health-care reform encompasses both individual rights and the common good, ethical issues surrounding life and death, and economic issues ranging from taxes and property to economic competitiveness. It is essential that Congress first “do not harm” and then enact measures that can respect all of these complex goods.
About the Catholic Medical Association: Founded in 1932, the Catholic Medical Association is the largest association of Catholic physicians in
CONTACT: John F. Brehany, Ph.D., S.T.L.
The Health Care Reform Plans Pending In Congress Would Cause More Harm Than Good - Time To Go, Grandpa - Obama Can't Afford To Tell Truth On Health Care - Obama Democrats Will 'Fix' Our Health Care System By Destroying It
The health care reform plans pending in the
Commissar Pelosi Dodges Questioning On Health Bill's Abortion Mandate - Comrade Obama Doesn't Want To Get Distracted By Debating A Little Thing Like 'Baby Killing' - Obama Advisor, Health Care Architect, Criticized As Backing Rationing For Disabled - 10 Surprising Facts About American Health Care
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - When asked a direct question on whether she favored prohibiting the funding of abortion in the health care bill, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi dodged the question, and echoed President Obama's answer to the fiasco by downplaying the abortion debate.
A reporter at a press conference Friday asked Pelosi to give "a yes-or-no answer" on whether she personally supported "expressly prohibiting the funding of abortion through the federally subsidized health plan created by the health-care reform bill."
"Well, my position on a women's right to choose is well known," Pelosi responded.
"This issue, however, will not stand in the way of us advancing the health-care legislation. Again the committees of jurisdiction - in fact, today Energy and Commerce, tomorrow as they work on the bill, may be addressing that issue," she added.
Pelosi has been one of the leading personalities in the Obama administration's enormous push to get the bill through Congress, on a schedule tightened by the plan's falling approval rates in recent polling data.
The final House committee Friday night passed the bill with an amendment by pro-abortion Democrat Lois Capps that explicitly allows federal funding of abortion coverage, permits taxpayer subsidies of abortion-covering private plans, and mandates that at least one abortion-covering plan be available in every U.S. region. The committee rejected amendments offered by Rep.s Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joe Pitts (R-PA) to halt the abortion mandate.
The Senate version still awaited approval in the Senate Finance Committee as lawmakers left Capitol Hill this weekend for their month-long summer recess.
President Obama answered similarly to Pelosi when asked by CBS news anchor Katie Couric whether he favored a government option that covered abortions. He replied that concerned individuals should not "micromanage" what benefits are included in the public plan.
"Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station," said Obama.
While Democrat leaders continue to dismiss the issue, the abortion lobby has made no secret of their communications with the White House to secure expansion of abortion in heatlh care reform. At July's Planned Parenthood 2009 Organizing and Policy Summit, White House Public Engagement director Tina Tchen personally updated Planned Parenthood on health care reform and reassured them of Obama's commitment to "women's health."
"Health care reform is moving full steam ahead, and policymakers in Washington need to know the importance of including women's health care as part of a reform package," said Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards.
The only direct statement Obama has made on the role of abortion in the new health care plan came before he was elected, when in July 2007 he told the Planned Parenthood Action fund that abortion would be "at the center, the heart of" his health care overhaul.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Obama: "Let's Not Get Distracted" over Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Coverage in Healthcare
Obama Committed to Women's Health in Health Care Reform: White House Staffer to Planned Parenthood
By Kathleen Gilbert
"At the end of the day if the health care reform bill does not have strong language prohibiting the use of federal funding for abortion, then the bill is really a no-go for me," Cao, the first Vietnamese-American Congressman and a Catholic, told the Times-Picayune this weekend.
Cao once studied to become a Jesuit priest before turning to a career in politics.
"Being a Jesuit, I very much adhere to the notion of social justice," Cao said. "I do fully understand the need of providing everyone with access to health care, but to me personally, I cannot be privy to a law that will allow the potential of destroying thousands of innocent lives."
"I know that voting against the health care bill will probably be the death of my political career," he continued, "but I have to live with myself, and I always reflect on the phrase of the New Testament, 'How does it profit a man's life to gain the world but to lose his soul.'"
The abortion mandate may not be the only thing preventing Cao's support for the bill: he also told the newspaper that he is wary of the formation of a public health insurance option, which Cao believes could end up crippling the private insurance market and facilitating a "government takeover" of health insurance.
U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, a Louisiana Blue Dog Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, says he voted against the committee's version of the bill Friday night due to in part to his concerns over the abortion mandate.
"I am concerned that the public option, as designed, would unfairly undercut anything the private sector could offer," Melancon said. "As someone who is personally pro-life and represents a deeply pro-life constituency, I am also concerned that this bill does not do enough to ensure taxpayer dollars do not fund abortion."
Obama Advisor, Health
Care Architect, Criticized as Backing Rationing for Disabled
by Steven Ertelt
August 4, 2009
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Most Americans have probably never heard the name Ezekiel Emanuel, but he could have the power to shape the health care landscape for the disabled. Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is an Obama advisor and a chief architect of the Congressional health care plan.
Emanuel is the health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.
One respected pro-life advocate says Americans should be worried because Emanuel appeared to support rationing health care for disabled Americans. That could lead to euthanasia.
Bradley Mattes, the director of Life Issues Institute, says Emanuel was quoted in 1996 saying medical benefits of a government-controlled healthcare plan would not be given to “individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.”
Emanuel clarified his stance by adding, “An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”
As Mattes says, "If you don't think the healthcare plan of Barack Obama and the leaders in Congress will result in widespread rationing of medical services," then he urges Americans to pay attention to Emanuel.
"So who else will be killed by medical neglect under such a health plan? It will likely be patients with Down syndrome, Parkinson’s or one of many other debilitating illnesses," Mattes continues.
He points to more recent comments from Emanuel defending discrimination against senior citizens in an article that appeared in the January 31, 2009 issue of the medical journal Lancet.
“Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious [offensive] discrimination," Emanuel wrote.
As Mattes says in an email to LifeNews.com, "The 'allocation' he’s talking about is healthcare services -- many of which are critical to sustaining life or at the very least, a better quality of life. We're talking about everything from life-saving bypass surgery to joint replacements."
Chuck Colson, a pro-life syndicated columnist, has also noticed Emanuel's quotes and goes further in complaining about them.
"I'm sorry, but this is the same logic the Nazis used to exterminate the physically and mentally handicapped," Colson.
He says Emanuel's view forgets the worth and dignity of human beings -- "a dignity that is not derived from the majority’s opinion (or a government definition) about the quality of their life or their contribution to society."
He worries Emanuel's vision of health care allows "every decision about the allocation of health care-and indeed about any area of life" to become "an occasion for the young and strong to impose their will on the old and weak."
Betsy McCaughey, a former Lt. Governor of
"Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts [rationing in health care] will not be pain-free," she said.
She points out that Emanuel wrote that health care cost savings will require changing how doctors think about their patients.
Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others," Emanuel complained in the June 2008 edition of JAMA.
"Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else," McCaughey says in an editorial. "Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time."
Printed from: http://www.lifenews.com/bio2908.html
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
by Scott Atlas
Medical care in the
Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in
Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the
Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:
· Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
· Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
· More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
· Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).
Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."
Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care
than patients in
Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).
Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in
Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five
Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the
Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is a senior fellow at the
 Concord Working Group, "Cancer survival
in five continents: a worldwide population-based study,.S. abe
at responsible for theountries,
in s chnologies, " Lancet Oncology, Vol. 9, No. 8,
August 2008, pages 730 - 756; Arduino
Verdecchia et al.,
"Recent Cancer Survival in Europe: A 2000-02 Period Analysis of EUROCARE-4
Data," Lancet Oncology,
Vol. 8, No. 9, September 2007, pages 784 - 796.
 U.S. Cancer Statistics, National Program of Cancer Registries, U.S. Centers for Disease Control; Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada; also see June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 13429, September 2007. Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w13429.
 Oliver Schoffski (University of Erlangen-Nuremberg), "Diffusion of Medicines in
 June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality:
 Nadeem Esmail, Michael A. Walker with Margaret Bank, "Waiting Your Turn, (17th edition) Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada," Fraser Institute, Critical Issues Bulletin 2007, Studies in Health Care Policy, August 2008; Nadeem Esmail and Dominika Wrona "Medical Technology in Canada," Fraser Institute, August 21, 2008 ; Sharon Willcox et al., "Measuring and Reducing Waiting Times: A Cross-National Comparison Of Strategies," Health Affairs, Vol. 26, No. 4, July/August 2007, pages 1,078-87; June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S."; M.V. Williams et al., "Radiotherapy Dose Fractionation, Access and Waiting Times in the Countries of the U.K.. in 2005," Royal College of Radiologists, Clinical Oncology, Vol. 19, No. 5, June 2007, pages 273-286.
 Nadeem Esmail and Michael A. Walker with Margaret Bank, "Waiting Your Turn 17th Edition: Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada 2007."
 "Hospital Waiting Times and List Statistics," Department of
 Cathy Schoen et al., "Toward Higher-Performance Health Systems: Adults' Health Care Experiences In Seven Countries, 2007," Health Affairs, Web Exclusive, Vol. 26, No. 6, October 31, 2007, pages w717-w734. Available at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/26/6/w717.
 June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality:
 Victor R. Fuchs and Harold C. Sox Jr., "Physicians' Views of the Relative Importance of 30 Medical Innovations," Health Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 5, September /October 2001, pages 30-42. Available at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/20/5/30.pdf.
 OECD Health Data 2008, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available at http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343,en_2649_34631_12968734_1_1_1_37407,00.html.
 "The U.S. Health Care System as an Engine of Innovation," Economic Report of the President (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2004), 108th Congress, 2nd Session H. Doc. 108-145, February 2004, Chapter 10, pages 190-193, available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/2004_erp.pdf; Tyler Cowen, New York Times, Oct. 5, 2006; Tom Coburn, Joseph Antos and Grace-Marie Turner, "Competition: A Prescription for Health Care Transformation," Heritage Foundation, Lecture No. 1030, April 2007; Thomas Boehm, "How can we explain the American dominance in biomedical research and development?" Journal of Medical Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2005, pages 158-66, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 2002. Available at http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/erp/page/8649/download/47455/8649_ERP.pdf .
 Nicholas D. Kristof, "Franklin Delano Obama," New York Times, February 28, 2009. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01Kristof.html.
 The Nobel Prize Internet Archive. Available at http://almaz.com/nobel/medicine/medicine.html.
Welcome To Nazi Germany As Obama Gestapo Calls For Informants To Report Anyone Who Dares To Oppose The Lies Of Obama's 'Death Care' Masquerading As 'Health Care' Program - IMPOSING DEATH IN A GOVERNMENT-RUN HOSPICE - PROOF That Government Insurance Would Allow Coverage For Baby Killing
Tuesday, August 4th at 1:45PM EDT
If you see anybody publicly opposing President Obama’s plan to implement a government-centric overhaul of the health care system, the White House wants you to report that person (or persons) ASAP.
From the White House website:
There is a lot
of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from
control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain
emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White
House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health
insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Emphasis added. Of course, as we’ve seen in the health care debate to date, the term “disinformation” is used by the Obama White House as a catchall to describe any opposition to the President’s push for single-payer, government-run health care — meaning the White House wants to be informed of any forwarded emails or blog posts or any “casual conversations” that could be taken as opposition to their health care overhaul plan.
The White House has, as yet, offered no explanation of what it is they plan to do with the tips on policy opposition they hope to receive from citizen informers.
Interestingly, as Jake Tapper pointed out on Twitter this morning, the title of that post on the White House is a quote from John Adams’ 1770 “Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials.”
(h/t Jon Henke)
We will NOT BE INTIMIDATED by those who are destroying our country from within, ala the Obama crowd led by Pelosi and Reid. We are going to oppose them with every fiber of our being for the sake of the common good leading ultimately to a supernatural good intended by God Almighty for His creation.
We are NOT ABOUT TO SHUT UP! Get that STRAIGHT, White House! We've had quite enough of your narcissistic megalomaniacal pathological lying occupant and his facilitators to particularly include PRAVDA
None of what's being reported regarding this horrendous 'death care' masquerading as 'health care' bill has been made up. Rather, those doing the reporting are reading the bill which our pitiful excuse for representatives in both Houses of Congress can't be bothered with as they enable the Obamunists to destroy our country from within! - Gary L. Morella
Obama White House Solicits Snitches
August 4, 2009
Audio clips available for Rush
24/7 members only -- Join Now!
I just saw something at RedState.com. Here's the headline: "If you
oppose Obamacare, even
in casual conversation, the White House wants to know about it." Jeff
Emanuel put this up 1:45 this afternoon. "If you see anybody publicly
opposing President Obama’s
plan to implement a government-centric overhaul of the health care system,
the White House wants you to report that person (or persons) ASAP. From the
White House website: There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance
reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life
care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or
through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at
the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see
something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it
I want to go back to our archives, ladies and gentlemen, the Grooveyard of Forgotten
Favorites, April 28th, 2003, Hillary Clinton.
Read the Background Material...
YouTube: Keith Ellison Town Hall Meeting
EIB Parody: How Obamacare "Fixed" Martha
Obama: 'Snitch' on
opponents of health care plan
'We can't keep track of all of them here at the White House'
Conservative bloggers and opinion leaders Tuesday expressed outrage over the White House's call for informants to notify it of "disinformation" regarding the health care debate.
From the White House Web site:
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end-of-life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to email@example.com."
On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said,
"Well, I would hate to see what they're going to get now at firstname.lastname@example.org. I wonder what kind of e-mails they're going to get now. They're looking for tattletales; they're looking for snitches; they're looking for informants; they want their groupies to tattle on you if you happen to be telling the truth about what's in the health care plan.The White House has, as yet, offered no explanation of what it is they plan to do with the tips on policy opposition they hope to receive from citizen informers. Jake Tapper pointed out on Twitter this morning, the title of that post on the White House is a quote from John Adams' 1770 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials.'"
Over at RedState, Jeff Emanuel wrote,
"The term 'disinformation' is used by the Obama White House as a catchall to describe any opposition to the president's push for single-payer, government-run health care -- meaning the White House wants to be informed of any forwarded e-mails or blog posts or any "casual conversations" that could be taken as opposition to their health care overhaul plan."
And TheNextRight's Jon Henke asks:
"What, exactly, does the White House plan to do with this information?"
The complaints came on the same day that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi charged that demonstrations against health care reform during congressional town hall meetings are organized by the insurance industry and conservative groups.
White House officials are anxious to aggressively rebut what they see as disinformation. At the same time, they should be cognizant that the use of governmental resources to do so risks making them look heavy-handed or even Nixon-esque (will this lead to an enemies list?)
One wonders how many of my posts have already been e-mailed to the good folks at whitehouse.gov. Perhaps we can add an app for that at the bottom of my posts? "Click here to inform on Matt Lewis . . ."
August 4, 2009 02:38 PM by Michelle Malkin
Health care czar’s office calls for Internet snitch brigade
By Michelle Malkin • August 4, 2009 02:38 PM
Jeff Emanuel at RedState calls attention to the new push by the White House to summon Obama-bots to monitor blog postings and “casual conversations” of health care takeover opponents — and then report them to the White House.
As I noted earlier this morning, the White House pushback on the Internet is coming from the health care czar’s office.
Nancy DeParle makes $158,500 as health care czar. Her flack, Linda Douglass, is not listed in the White House employee salary chart.
Tell your congressional reps home from recess: Show us the transparency.
A very dear friend of mine recently lost her husband to
cancer. He and his wife had very little time to actually prepare for this
event. He was diagnosed on May 18 and died only two months later. The sadness
is overwhelming for his family, of course. The reality of how he was treated,
however, is beyond shameful. I want to tell you this story because
Polls show that senior citizens are more skeptical about health-care reform than any other age group.
Obama’s reference to a “medical directive” and the “control” his grandmother allegedly had are not a simple aside. They represent his convictions, as evidenced when he
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.”
Palliative care or painkillers, as he
suggested, can be used for evil, as I have already pointed out in a previous
column. Not a single one of us can control the fact that he or she will
die, but it is important to remember that unprincipled “compassion” in the
hands of those caring for someone at risk can cause premature death. Fiscal
concerns about freeing up beds for younger patients, or saving a few dollars on medications
or surgeries can have deadly results.
Featuring the collaboration of: the Hastings Center, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), George Soros' Project on Death in America (PDIA), Institute of Medicine (IOM), AARP, Choice in Dying, and a number of prestigious universities, to name only a few.
This is but one more reason why this fundamental question
must be asked about the Obama
healthcare reform initiative:
Below is PROOF that Government Insurance would allow coverage for baby killing. – Gary L. Morella
Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion
By RICARDO ALONSOZALDIVAR,Associated Press Writer - 2 hours 1 minute ago
Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.
Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.
Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama's health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs.
"We want to see people who have no health insurance get it, but this is a sticking point," said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "We don't want health care reform to be the vehicle for mandating abortion."
Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, said abortion opponents "want an abortion ban in private insurance, and that's not neutrality at all _ that's a radical departure from current law. They want something far more extreme than where I think the American public is."
A compromise approved by a House committee last week attempted to balance questions of federal funding, personal choice and the conscience rights of clinicians. It would allow the public plan to cover abortion but without using federal funds, only dollars from beneficiary premiums. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.
"It's a sham," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. "It's a bookkeeping scheme. The plan pays for abortion, and the government subsidizes the plan."
Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., author of the compromise, said she was trying to craft a solution that would accommodate both sides. Her amendment also would allow plans that covered no abortions whatsoever _ not even in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother _ to be offered through the insurance exchange.
"With all due respect, not everyone adheres to what the Catholic bishops believe," said Capps, who supports abortion rights. "Our country allows for both sides, and our health plan should reflect that as well."
For years, abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents have waged the equivalent of trench warfare over restrictions on federal funding. Abortion opponents have largely prevailed, instituting restrictions that bar federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered.
A law called the Hyde amendment applies the restrictions to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortion for low-income women to do so with their own money. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.
But the health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.
The new federal funds would take the form of subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying coverage through the health insurance exchange. Subsidies would be available for people to buy the public plan or private coverage. Making things more complicated, the federal subsidies would be mixed in with contributions from individuals and employers. Eventually, most Americans could end up getting their coverage through the exchange.
The Democratic health care legislation as originally introduced in the House and Senate did not mention abortion. That rang alarm bells for abortion opponents.
Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, experts on both sides say not mentioning it would allow health care plans in the new insurance exchange to provide unrestricted coverage.
It would mirror the private insurance market, where abortion coverage is widely available. A Guttmacher Institute study found that 87 percent of typical employer plans covered abortion in 2002, while a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in 2003 found that 46 percent of workers in employer plans had coverage for abortions. The studies asked different questions, which might help explain the disparity in the results.
In the Senate, the plan passed by the health committee is still largely silent on the abortion issue. Staff aides confirmed that the public plan _ and private insurance offered in the exchange _ would be allowed to cover abortion, without funding restrictions.
Under both the House and Senate approaches, the decision to offer abortion coverage in the public plan would be made by the health and human services secretary.
Abortion opponents are seeking a prohibition against using any federal subsidies to pay for abortions or for any part of any costs of a health plan that offers abortion. Such a proposal was rejected by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the same panel that approved Capps' amendment.
But abortion opponents say they can't accept a public plan that would cover abortion. And they say private plans in the insurance exchange should offer abortion coverage separately, as an option.
"You can have a result where nobody has to pay for other people's abortions," said Doerflinger.
Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, said applying the current restrictions for federal employees and low-income women to a program intended for the middle class will provoke a backlash.
"There is a difference between picking off one group of women here and one group there and something that would affect a very large group," Hartmann said. "Everyone would like to avoid that fight."
Commissar Pelosi Dodges Questioning On Health Bill's Abortion Mandate - Comrade Obama Doesn't Want To Get Distracted By Debating A Little Thing Like 'Baby Killing' - Obama Advisor, Health Care Architect, Criticized As Backing Rationing For Disabled - 10 Surprising Facts About American Health Care
By Michelle Malkin • August 5, 2009 07:01 AM
Tea Party-bashers gone wild
by Michelle Malkin
The activist Left can’t stand competition. Last week in
The same Democrat Masters of Astroturf who encouraged their followers to use “in your face” tactics during the campaign season now balk at vocal opposition from their fiscally conservative neighbors and co-workers. Obama’s architects of Kabuki town halls have packed public forums with partisan plants. Now, they accuse opponents gathering at impromptu rallies against the massive health care takeover legislation (which no one has read) of orchestrating “manufactured anger.”
Unaccustomed to pushback, the wealthy, astro-turfed ground troops for Obamacare – underwritten by unions, liberal philanthropists, the AARP, ACORN, and your tax dollars — have resorted to projection. As I’ve reported previously, the single-payer lobby boasts a $40 million budget and a stable of seasoned political operatives based at 1825 K Street in Washington, D.C. Now, that cabal is accusing the broad coalition of taxpayer activists, libertarians, independents, talk radio loyalists, bloggers, and first-time protesters against socialized medicine of being, yes, wealthy and astroturfed.
In a comical missive issued Tuesday afternoon, Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse complained: “The Republicans and their allied groups — desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill — are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.”
The DNC definition of “thoughtful:” Sitting silent about the lack of transparency, deliberation, truth in numbers, and reciprocity on the Obamacare plan. The DNC definition of incitement: Asking out loud, “How can you manage health care when you can’t manage Cash For Clunkers?”
White House Robert Gibbs, apparently oblivious to the dozens of well-dressed and well-heeled former lobbyists and influence peddlers employed by his own boss, derided health care town hall protesters as the “Brooks Brothers brigade.” Brooks Brothers was also the president’s clothes designer of choice on Inauguration Day. He taunted: “I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the AstroTurf nature of so-called grass-roots lobbying.” Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dispatched a memo obtained by D.C.-based newspaper Human Events assuring Democrats of “close coordination” with faux grass-roots groups “including but not limited to HCAN, Families USA, AFSCME, SEIU, AARP, etc.”
But never mind all that.
Some panicked congressional targets of the Tea Party movement have responded by shutting their offices, closing their blinds, and shooing pesky constituents off public property. The White House health czar’s office is mustering up Internet snitches to report “inaccurate” blog posts and “casual conversations” from health care opponents. And liberal bloggers and cable yakkers are waging their own war on the Tea Party movement by redefining participatory democracy as “thuggery” and “hooliganism.”
Talking Points Memo blogger
Josh Marshall bemoaned a fiscal conservative activist’s memo offering advice on how to “pack the hall..spread out” and challenge politician’s
early “to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda.” Horrors! “This amounts to a sort of civic vigilanteism,”
No, showing up at a congressional town hall and booing a talking points-programmed political hack isn’t “civic vigilantism.” Throwing rocks, pouring cement on train tracks, blocking military shipments, smashing windows, hurling paint, slashing tires, vandalizing businesses, and throwing shoes are vigilante acts.
That is what the anti-war, anti-free trade, anti-Bush mobsters did over the last eight years – and there wasn’t a peep about those brute tactics from Obama’s blogging pals now.
They sat quietly while Code Pink disrupted hearings on the Hill and harassed Marine recruiters.
They gave their tacit approval to self-declared “bank terrorists” like
Now, the taxpayers footing the bill for Obama’s redistribution of health and wealth are silent no more – and the unhinged Left is beside itself. The “thoughtful” left-wing response to the Tea Party counterinsurgency can best be summed up by hysterical Hollywood actress Janeane Garafolo, who railed last week: “F**ng redneck d**chebaggery. Unmitigated d**chebaggery.”
It’s not the town halls that have gone wild. It’s the Tea Party-bashers who can’t tolerate peaceful, open dissent.