When the Democrats rammed the health care takeover down the collective throats of Americans we were promised that the program would bend the cost curve, cost less and save money. When people like Sarah Palin raised the issue of “death panels” we were told she was out of her mind and that the government would not turn people away or deny care to those who were in bad health.

The health care takeover will not be fully instituted until 2014 (after Obama runs for a second term) but some parts of it have taken effect or will shortly. One of those programs is for the high risk patients. It was fronted $5 BILLION and the program is designed to provide health care to the high risk folks, those who cannot get insurance and who have risky health conditions. It looks like the government will not be able to cover everyone and is considering denying health care to people who need it. It also looks like benefits will be reduced:

The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.

Critics of the $5 billion high-risk pool program insist it will run out of money before Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the program sunsets and health plans can no longer discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

Administration officials insist they can make changes to the program to ensure it lasts until 2014, and that it may not have to turn away sick people. Officials said the administration could also consider reducing benefits under the program, or redistributing funds between state pools. But they acknowledged turning some people away was also a possibility. [emphasis mine] The Hill

Denying health care to high risk patients amounts to a death panel. Government bureaucrats will determine who will best benefit from the available funds and those who are not deemed viable will be turned away. This sounds like what Palin described as “death panels.”

Additionally, the care could be rationed as a method of providing some care to more people.

While it is early and the regime could procure more funding we are left with a snapshot of what health care will look like once the government program goes into effect.

We were assured that this would be paid for and that it would save money. We are already seeing that this is not the case. The relatively small high risk program is in financial trouble so what makes anyone think the entire program will do any better?

We were also assured that care would not be rationed and that a bureaucrat would not get between us and our doctors. Looks like this small program has put this lie to bed. People will have care rationed or denied and this will be decided by government bureaucrats. If they have not ruled it out then it means they are at least considering that which they said they would not do.

The small program portends badly for the entire program where millions more people will be affected and where money will not be available.

The government will certainly ration or deny care and will have severe cost overruns.

This is all contrary to the line of BS that we were sold when they decided to ram it through against the will of the public.

Those of you who support this regime and think they are wonderful can take solace in knowing that they will not be denied care and will do quite well.

You didn’t think that the rulers would be hampered by such problems, now did you?

They knew this when they sold it to us because they only provided the CBO with what was needed to get the numbers to sell it. It is expected to cost at least $2.5 TRILLION. The CBO expects it to cost more than advertised now that it has been able to look at the entire package.

They lied to us and now the early warning signs are present in the relatively small high risk program. There will be “death panels” and there will be rationing and denial of care.

This has been the case from the start and we all knew it.

So did those who decided that we should have it.

Vote everyone of them out of office in November.

Never surrender, never submit.

Hugo Chavez rang in the New Year in Venezuela by rationing electricity. The government there owns damn near everything and the people are dirt poor. The country is a huge oil producer but is unable to generate much electricity because it depends on hydroelectric generators and there has been an ongoing drought.

So, Chavez celebrated the new Year by limiting the amount of electricity that businesses can use, what hours they can be open and what other items can use electricity and when (billboards, casinos, etc). There are penalties for businesses that do not comply with the order.

This is the Socialist nation that the liberals love so much. Penn, Obama, and a handful of others have all been down to kiss Chavez’s ring (or a lower and posterior part of his anatomy). He is held up as a great leader by the liberals who want our country to follow the path of Venezuela.

It is not hard to imagine being like Venezuela with Obama and his government taking over one private business after another. Obama took the lead of Bush and got government involved in the banking system (should have let them fail) and then moved on so that now we all own car companies. How long will it be before Obama is snapping up other private businesses? The government is already working on telling business how much executives may be paid. It is not a far stretch to get to the point where government is running everything (health care included). It happened in Venezuela and liberals love that place and its dictator.

If we have to ration anything then it should be food and water. Liberals get none until the crisis is over.

Never let a good crisis go to waste…

The idea of death panels made the liberals laugh at Sarah Palin. She suggested that the Obamacare plan would create an environment where care would be rationed and the elderly would not get the care they needed. She likened those who would make those decisions to death panels and the left ridiculed her for it.

They ridiculed even though there is no doubt that there will be rationing of care. Forcing people to have health insurance and then adding millions more people to the mix will mean that care must be rationed for two very simple reasons.

The first is that there will not be enough health care providers.

The second is that the plan will cost so much money (two or three times what they say) so care will be rationed based on cost and the number of years a person has on this Earth. Young people work (when Obama has not caused unemployment to rise) and they pay taxes. The elderly consume about two-thirds of the health care dollars spent in this country so they will be allowed to die off for the sake of efficiency and cost savings. Obama did tell them they might be better off just taking a pill.

The elderly are already finding out what rationing will be like and they are finding out because of the Swine Flu vaccine. The elderly cannot get it. They are being denied the vaccine because of shortages. There are plenty of elderly that have underlying diseases who should be vaccinated but the vaccines are being rationed to children, young people with underlying medical conditions, pregnant women and health care workers. The elderly, left out in the cold:

But as grateful as he is, the 74-year-old Anter admits one thing will be bugging him during the holidays.

“The truth is,” the retired paper sales executive said last week, “when I think about not being able to get a swine flu shot, I get real pissed off.”

Two months after H1N1 flu vaccine was first distributed to public health districts around the country, people 65 and older with serious medical conditions still can’t get vaccinated.

Anter’s doctors at Stanford University Hospital, where he received his transplant, tell him he has a compromised immune system and “the H1N1 flu could do me in.”

He takes at least nine prescription medications daily to stay alive.

“But when I try to get a shot, I’m told I’m too old ” he said as he sat in the study of his Peccole Ranch home.

“I feel that they see me and other older people as garbage and are just waiting for the trucks to come pick us up,” Anter said.

“I served my country. I enlisted during the Korean War. You don’t treat people this way just because they’re older.” Review Journal

I am well aware of the statistics of who is more likely to get the Swine Flu and the young appear to be more susceptible than the elderly but this assumes the elderly who are in relatively good health. Those with serious medical conditions, especially conditions that compromise their immune systems, should be immunized.

They should be in the group of people who get the vaccine first but since they are old they are not getting it.

What other possible reason could there be for denying the vaccination to old people with compromised immune systems?

The sad reality is that they are not as productive and do not have as many years left as the younger folks so they are not getting the vaccine. Sure, those in good health have no reason to worry but the elderly with medical conditions that put them more at risk should be vaccinated.

This is a foreshadowing of the death panel. Care is being rationed because the government could not fulfill its promise to have a vaccination for every citizen who wants one. Since the vaccine must be rationed the elderly with health problems are the ones who are denied.

The senior citizens in this country are getting a preview of Obamacare. You folks better get busy and let the people who represent you in Congress know to kill this bill.

What will happen when they decide that the elderly should not have costly blood pressure medication, clot busting drugs for myocardial infarction, antineoplastic drugs for cancer treatment, or joint replacement surgery all because of age?

Well, at least Obama will give you a pill instead.

It will probably be a cyanide capsule.

The federal government wants to run health care. It is the desire of the Obamatons to take control of this large part of our economy so that it can take control of the people. This is what happens with Social Security and Medicare. Every time there is an election old people are scared to death over threats about cuts in services if the right candidate does not win. They also hear the doom and gloom as excuses for tax increases come into play. The government realizes that a large portion of the elderly vote so the politicians try to placate them.

This year there will be no cost of living increase because the cost of living has not gone up. The Congress is looking to give each SS recipient a $250 check because there will be no COLA. The law says that benefits cannot be reduced so the SS never goes down regardless of how well the economy is doing. The law also says that there is no COLA increase if the COL does not go up so why don’t we stick with the law? The Congress wants to placate the elderly by buying them off.

The real concern should be what will happen to them if the government controls health care. Rationing WILL take place. If the government needs to control costs or if there is a disaster then people not deemed worthy, per Ezekiel Emanuel, will be denied care.

The state of Florida is a prime example. The Florida Department of Health, a state government agency, has issued guidelines to hospitals regarding who is to receive care and who is not should the H1N1 flu cause a shortage of hospital beds.

Florida health officials are drawing up guidelines that recommend barring patients with incurable cancer, end-stage multiple sclerosis and other conditions from being admitted to hospitals if the state is overwhelmed by flu cases. Sun Sentinel

A state government agency has drawn up guidelines on who should be refused care should the flu overwhelm the system. The state agency has given guidance for rationing care.

Take this to the next level and you have the federal government. The federal government will also have guidelines that determine who gets what treatment based on age and general health. A 90 year old person stands little chance of getting a hip replacement or heart surgery if the procedure costs too much based on life expectancy. The big difference is that an emergency need not exist for the feds to ration care. The budget will be a major consideration as a cost is placed on human life. If they only expect you to live a few years more then you will not get what you need.

We see it in place in Florida based on a flu outbreak but the fact that they are deciding now who lives and who dies is a foreshadowing of things to come should government take control of the health care in this country.

No longer will a doctor and patient decide. It will be some bean counter in DC who decides based on life expectancy charts and the budget.

We, as a nation, need to decide that it is time for all members of Congress to be denied what they need to exist. That, of course, would be elected office.

Vote them all out in 2010.

And say no to government run health care.

It has been stated that if you like the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Post Office then you will love Obamacare. The government cannot run anything efficiently and there will be lines and denied claims (Medicare is the biggest denier of claims) so the question is why do some want the government involved in health care?

In Detroit word got out that government was giving away $3000 to people in order to help them make ends meet. This is part of the stimulus (if the stimulus worked these people would not need the money). Chaos ensued, fights broke out and people were mobbing the place.

Imagine what it will be like when they can get free health care.

This is a picture from the Detroit handout. Just think, if Obama gets his way this could be your doctor’s office.

This is the one page “Small Bill” proposed by Republicans. It is much better.

I have heard that the best way to stir up a hornet’s nest is to walk up, thrust a stick into the entrance, and stir it around vigorously. You will get a result.
You will note I did not say this was a smart thing to do. And yet that seems to be the result of this Healthscare legislation that the Resident is flinging on the walls. He has targeted senior citizens, what with the 500 billion dollars he wants to cut from Medicare (don’t worry- this is money you won’t need), and the talk, however incendiary, of “death panels” whose purpose is to deny care.

The two groups you don’t want to piss off are seniors and veterans, and yet the Resident, like some little kid whose mind aint right, continues to stir with the stick. He seems surprised at the reaction.

If President Obama wants to better understand why America’s discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA’s National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, “Your Life, Your Choices.” It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA’s preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated “Your Life, Your Choices.”

Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

online.wsj.com

Health-care rationing. End-of-life counseling.  There it is again, inconveniently popping up like some bizarre whack-a-mole game. The Resident says it aint so, but here it is again. That surely must chafe his nether regions- wow- an “Inconvenient Truth”! See, it can bite him on the butt, again and again.

The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to “shake the blues.” There is a section which provocatively asks, “Have you ever heard anyone say, ‘If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug’?” There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as “I can no longer contribute to my family’s well being,” “I am a severe financial burden on my family” and that the vet’s situation “causes severe emotional burden for my family.”

When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?

online.wsj.com

Really! Gee Mr. Resident, can you explain that one in your dulcet tones and excess verbiage? I do not truly believe you can, because here’s the truth: Seniors are tough- they have lived through a process called life, where the weak are naturally winnowed out of the population, and old people have survived. That word means something special, because not everyone makes it this far, so seniors are tough. 

In addition, these seniors are the parents of the baby boomers, who, while having supported you in your quest for the ultimate power, are beginning to have their doubts, because these seniors are their parents, and they quite naturally don’t want to hear that their mom or dad will just have to live diminished lives because you are too niggardly with the choices available for their health.

No, they want their parents to have the best, and you sir, are not providing the best- not even close.

And they (baby boomers, seniors, and veterans) are figuring this out.

If I were you , I would watch your step- the footing gets tricky from here.

In the Healthcare debate, a small part of the discussion is the illegal alien component that has disproportionate costs relative to benefits. And actually, the only benefit is that of a compassionate, feel- good nature, like helping an old lady across the street- only in this case, the “old lady” in question has cost a Las Vegas hospital around 24 million in lost revenue. I don’t care who you are- that’s a chunk of money that aint ever coming back.

A Las Vegas hospital providing emergency dialysis services to 80 illegal immigrants says that accounts for much of its operating deficit.

The University Medical Center says the treatment will cost it about $24 million this fiscal year, aggravating a budget deficit that is expected to approach $70 million.

UMC’s chief operating officer, Brian Brannman, said the hospital is required by federal law to treat anyone who shows up in an emergency but receives no reimbursement from federal, state or local governments for doing it.

chron.com

Now, keep in mind here, this is only the cost for 80 immigrants, and only for dialysis- this does not take into account other services they may need, but do not pay for- and this is just one hospital out of hundreds. Now, not all hospitals will incur the same level of deficit spending regarding immigrants- some will be less, some will be more, but all will have some out of pocket expenses regarding illegal immigrants that they still, at the end of the year, have to reconcile with their budgets, and if this aspect of the problem isn’t effectively addressed, there will still be a huge hole in the Healthcare budget.

“Our people are really torn,” Brannman told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “We want to take care of people who are ill. We’re proud that we can save lives. But our employees are also worried about the survival of UMC. They know that the appetite of taxpayers for helping undocumented immigrants is limited.”

The cost of providing dialysis to illegal immigrants doubled last year, with twice as many seeking the treatment two or three times a week, officials said.

chron.com

They come here to the U.S. because (1)- we have the cutting edge services, which gives them a head start on surviving, and (2)- They do not have to pay- we are a compassionate nation, and we do not turn them away. This is misplaced compassion, because what this means is the possibility of reduced services for our citizens who should be our first priority.

It’s time to do some population triage- we need to prioritize our services for citizens first, and others if we have service surpluses. I know that this sounds cruel, but if Mexico got off of it’s butt and reformed its system, it could be the model for Central and South America, and people (especially Hispanic people from Central and South America) would flock there.

Why Mexico does not do this is a puzzlement to me- I have been to Mexico, both coasts and Mexico City, also Monterey and Veracruz. I am familiar with the people, and have seen that their country is filled with resources that they make scant use of, simply because they seem to lack the political will to escape the third- world mentality that is pervasive there.

Until that happens, not much will be done, because the families in power do not wish to relinquish power, and so schools and hospitals are crude things down south, fated to stay in the early 20th century until people there begin to demand their own change.

One patient said she had nowhere else to turn.

“I am so thankful to this hospital for doing this for someone who is not a citizen,” Marta Berrera told the newspaper through an interpreter. “Without this help, I would die and my four children would be without a mother.”

UMC professionals say taxpayer-supported hospitals are strained to the breaking point and need to be part of the discussion on how to reform the nation’s health care system. If this problem isn’t solved, they say, others can expect to wait longer or pay more for their own emergency services.

“There’s no question that these illegals who come for dialysis treatment at emergency rooms back everything up,” said Dr. Dale Carrison, UMC’s head of emergency services. “And there’s also no question that they need help. But this isn’t how emergency rooms were meant to be used.”

chron.com

No kidding- ERs were never meant to be a primary care facility, but that is exactly what the illegal aliens do, because they know they cannot be turned away- at least for now- but if we have to make the choice of rationing care, these illegals will be the first to go, and when the ERs have to turn them away or shut down the hospital, they will turn them away.

I have an idea- let’s bill Mexico for their care- after all, it is the Mexican government that has, for years. encouraged illegals to make the trek north. They even printed brochures that described techniques and “rest stops” on the migration north.

Now, they should be willing to pay some of the cost of caring for their populace in this foreign land.

That would be a part of the solution.

Yesterday, I talked a bit about Peter Singer- an advisor to Cass Sunstein, the Resident’s Regulatory Czar, and John Holdren, the Science Czar, two of the people who have been advising the Resident during this Healthcare debacle. Just since yesterday, I have been attacked by left wing loons who say that what I have written was trash- but they cannot say that what I have written about was untrue, because those are their own words.

Today, we will speak somewhat of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who reminds me some of Dr. Josef Mengele, the “Angel of Death” in Auschwitz concentration camp. Dr, Emanuel, (that’s right- the brother of the  SAME Emanuel that is the Resident’s Chief of Staff- nepotism is a wonderful thing if you can do it), has a theory that in a crisis, ( what constitutes a crisis here?), the lives of the very young and the very old are worth less than those in the 15- 40 year range. This is presumably because these people would be able to do more work for the state, and bring in more taxes.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change,” he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, 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” (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

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.

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.
Emanuel, however, believes that “communitarianism” should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. ’96).

Translation: Don’t give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson’s or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years” (Lancet, Jan. 31).     (Emphasis mine)

nypost.com

Yeah, but now that they are 65, having been 25 does not help them, in his mind. There seems to be too little compassion here for someone who is supposed to be formulating policy for Healthcare for all the people ( not just 25 year olds). Does that send a thrill up Chris Mathews’ leg, or is it a blood clot- we may never know if Zeke gets his way- Mathews is too old to save.

Now we get to Cass Sunstein, the Resident’s Regulatory Czar, who has some ideas of his own- many of these views are stifling and radical- for example, he wants to radically amend the boundaries of free speech:

 He thinks that the current formulation, based on Justice Holmes’ conception of free speech as a marketplace “disserves the aspirations of those who wrote America’s founding document.”[9] The purpose of this reformulation would be to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”[10] He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,”[11] and thinks that in “light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.”[12] He proposes a “New Deal for speech [that] would draw on Justice Brandeis’ insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.”[10]

en.wikipedia.org

That is just one view that is out of the mainstream, and meant to silence, or at least mute critics of this administration, as well as promote the “Fairness Doctrine”, in the name of “diversity”. But there are other aspects of his views that, while out of the mainstream, would not be foreign to organizations such as PETA, but bothersome in that he is helping shape policy for this administration. His views on animal rights are right in line with those of John Holdren, and bring a troubling aspect to his task of “regulating” in this government.

Sunstein has also written often in favor of animal rights. “Every reasonable person believes in animal rights,” he says.[13] He also says that human “willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings,”[14] and that we might “conclude that certain practices cannot be defended and should not be allowed to continue, if, in practice, mere regulation will inevitably be insufficient—and if, in practice, mere regulation will ensure that the level of animal suffering will remain very high.”[13] Specifically he thinks that, “we ought to ban hunting.”[15] He also thinks that “we could even grant animals a right to bring suit”[16] and that it is possible that “that before long, Congress will grant standing to animals to protect their own rights and interests.”[17] This all stems from his claim that “animals, species as such, and perhaps even natural objects warrant respect for their own sake, and quite apart from their interactions with human beings.”[18]

en.wikipedia.org

What does this have to do with Healthcare? Simple,really- there would be less testing of drugs on animals, therefore fewer drugs able to help us in our time of sickness. I admit, there are some people I value less than some animals, but not in general, and not in policy, that is for sure.

When you combine these people with the other two people I wrote about yesterday, and add into the mix several others, like Van Jones, a convicted felon, and the “Green Jobs” Czar, and Carol Browner, an avowed socialist, and the Energy Czar, both of whom have radical agendas that will do nothing but impoverish us as we go forward, you have to be very concerned for our Republic and its future.

Our liberties are being stolen from us in the dark of the night, and they are grading Grandma to decide whether she is worth the care it will take to keep her alive. Meanwhile, as they decide that, they want to give animals more rights than they give Granny. The world is upside down, and we have truly gone down the rabbithole into Wonderland- although it is beginning to look a bit Satanic in its “answers” to the problems we face.

And I will reiterate the Resident’s own words yet again, because they bear repeating; ” If you want to see where I want to go, you need only look at who I surround myself with.”

Well, he didn’t lie about that, at least.

The Resident keeps on mocking his detractors regarding the Healthcare bill, saying that they are resorting to “scare” tactics to try and kill this obamanation of a bill, but in reality, all one has to do is look at the architects of this bill- who had input in the formation of the terms by which these “people” ( and I say that provisionally) wish to dictate our lives. 

Take Professor Peter Singer- a man who believes that a baby is not human until it can have actual thoughts, and recognize that there is a tomorrow. That alone is scary stuff, but there’s more-

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. A preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother’s preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood — “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness”^[28] — and therefore “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”^[29]

en.wikipedia.org

Kind of Nazi- like, isn’t it? But then he gets really bizarro- Don’t believe me? Okay, here we go-

In a 2001 review of Midas Dekker’s Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” and that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities.

en.wikipedia.org

Gee, now there’s somebody you don’t want working at the SPCA, much less having input in the most intrusive and expensive Healthcare bill ever to be debated.

Now we come to John Holdren, who, believe it or not, is the Resident’s Science Czar- Really? Allow me-

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens. 

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both? 

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology — informally known as the United States’ Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that: 

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; 
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food; 
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; 
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. 
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force. 

zombietime.com

This, unfortunately, is just the beginning of the wrong- headed thinking that pervades the White House, and after becoming just a little acquainted with these two  sc**bags, you really feel like washing your eyes out. These are people we want to have power in deciding our fate? Is their “input” really something that  is positive? Or is it as repugnant to you as it is to me?

I know that after doing the researchI have done, I no longer feel that Sarah Palin’s “Death Panel ” comment is that far out of line- indeed, sorry to say, she might be right on in her assessment, because these are not the only two that (A)- have had input on this bill, and (B)- are “Czars” in this administration.

The Resident once said that if we want to know how he is going to make his decisions, to just look at the people he surrounds himself with. Well- we are looking, but the glimpse is certainly not reassuring us about the state of our Healthcare.

Tomorrow, I will introduce you to Ezekiel Emmanuel, the brother of the Resident’s Chief of Staff, and Van Jones, the Resident’s “Green Jobs Czar”. They also hold views that are puzzling, considering the Healthcare Debate.

In the meantime, study these people- the more you know, the more horrified you will be.

And if I was the Resident, I wouldn’t leave Peter Singer and Bo, the Resident’s dog, in the same room.

It’s just not safe.

The liberal push towards socialized health care continues on track, with the town halls just a five week time table to voice dissent- and some of the lawmakers are simply cancelling the forums because no one can be heard.

The only thing that makes it through the shouting on both sides is genuine concern for this obamanation of a bill that will eliminate private insurance companies. Oh, not all at once, but how can private companies compete with the government? They cannot- plain and simple. And the government would ration care, in addition to driving good physicians out of business

So here’s a sample of what we are in for if government care comes down the pike.

A MUM suffering chest pains died in front of her young son hours after being sent home from hospital and told to take painkillers.

Family members claim the medic was abrupt and rude – and when Debra clutched her chest, he told her: “Your heart is on the other side.”

Seven hours later, the mum-of-two collapsed and died from a heart attack in front of her 13-year-old boy.

Debra’s furious family insist she could have survived, had medics not been so “dismissive”. They believe she should have been given medicine which could unblock a coronary artery.

Her sister Darlene McConnell said: “We are heartbroken. She tried to get help but no one would help her.”

She was suffering numbness in her toes, swelling around the ankle and leg pains. She contacted NHS 24, who took her details and said they would be in touch.

However, Debra’s condition worsened and she began to suffer severe chest pains by the early hours of Sunday.

dailyrecord.co.uk/news

Yep, a “doctor” or physician’s assistant who probably made a C- on their final exams did the “cost- efficient” thing, gave her a pain pill or two, and sent her home-exactly the same scenario we fear here with our senior citizens, and the same scenario that AARP casually dismisses, because they are in bed with the administration.

She rang NHS 24 again at 2am and requested a doctor. They instead booked an appointment for her at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, later that day.

Darlene, 44, said: “We now think Debra was actually having a heart attack around the time she telephoned NHS 24. I spoke to her on Sunday morning and she said the pains were so bad, she thought she was going to die.

“She went to the hospital as arranged at 1pm and was back out in minutes. The doctor told her to go home and take Ibuprofen.

“She said he was very rude and, as she clutched her chest, told her ‘Your heart is on the other side’.

“He also told her she had probably ‘racked’ her chest due to coughing. She went to a relative’s house nearby and lay on the settee in complete agony until she had a seizure around 8pm.”

Debra”s son John Paul, 13, was in the room at the time, while his 11-year-old brother, Luke, was upstairs. The older boy saw his mum in extreme distress and called for an ambulance – but she could not be saved.

dailyrecord.co.uk/news

Just wonderful- and this is what Hussein wants for our system? No wonder the politicians are too chickensh** to go on this system. Oh, it’s fine for us “common” people, but not for the elites, who, of course, simply have to maintain a heightened state of “wellness”- it is not that they want to, ( they would be down with us, wallowing in the public trough if only they weren’t so busy saving us from ourselves, so they are doing their public duty, you see)- Right.

Lies, lies, and more lies- that is all they have for us here, and anyone who believes this plan will help us deserves what little they get.

The majority of the people want to know more.

It’s not just a choice between the red pill and the blue pill, Mr. Resident.