The Health Care Savings Two-fer

Barack Obama and his Democrats keep saying that the health care they want to impose will reduce costs. This is a blatant lie because they will spend trillions of dollars to implement this restrictive mandate that will affect the lives of everyone. It was recently reported that a Democrat was overheard stating that they would save money through the hospice program. In other words, they will push the elderly to die off rather than receive treatment and save money that way.

There is a provision in the bill for the elderly to begin receiving counseling on end of life decisions beginning at age 65 and occurring every 5 years thereafter. The counseling will take place more frequently if the person is sickly.

This is a practice that has the potential for widespread abuse. The elderly (as a group) are more easily manipulated and might be directed toward end of life rather than treatment. It will be presented as a more humane and dignified way to exit the Earth but the goal will be to save money by allowing the elderly to die. I also see these counselors deceiving the elderly (particularly those with dementia) or making decisions for them in order to push them toward hospice and to save the government money. The entire scheme is frightening and should not take place in this country. End of life decisions should be made by the patient, family members, medical staff, and clergy (if people desire that intervention). Government should have no role in the process.

But this whole plan might be a way for government to make Social Security more solvent as well. We are entering the time when most people must wait until 67 years of age before they can draw Social Security (full benefits). If they can be convinced at 65 to enter hospice or if they can be pushed that way every 5 years (sooner if they are sickly) then the government can save millions of dollars in Social Security benefits because the money people pay in is lost upon their death. If Social Security were an individual plan then the money could be passed on but since the government extorts the money and redistributes it, it is not reserved for the person who paid it in. If one dies before collecting then an entire life worth of Social Security is paid to someone else.

The government can kill two birds (and many seniors) with one stone. By forcing seniors to be counseled on end of life decisions and hospice, the government can hasten the end of those who are the biggest drain on health care and the recipients of Social Security and save money for both programs.

When Social Security was set up the life expectancy was lower and many people died before collecting. Those who did collect did not live very long so they collected very little. Since people are living longer there are more people being paid Social Security. The government has tried to curb this by raising the retirement age but people are still living longer. Forcing them into hospice (or directing them that way) would reduce the amount of health care treatment they receive and would hasten their demise and save Social Security a ton of money.

This is a win-win for the government but not so much for the elderly who Dr. Obama thinks should just take a pill.

The Democrats have a plan but they will not be a part of it. Under Obamacare, Ted Kennedy would not have received medical care for his terminal condition but since members of Congress will be exempt, old politicians will receive all the care they want and their lives will be prolonged. They will not be subject to end of life counseling like the peons over whom they rule.

There are many provisions of the bill that are unacceptable. Dinocrat has a list of them and they are not good. Be sure to follow the link and read them. The page numbers are included so that you can refer to the bill, if you dare.

One item on the list is that each person will receive a national insurance ID card.

Where is the ACLU on this? Where are the libtards who protest national ID cards as an invasion of privacy?

They would appear to be AWOL on this issue. Then again, they never were about rights to begin with.

We must defeat this bill and we absolutely must vote out any member of Congress who votes for it. Let them know this over the August recess. We need to show them who the boss is.

Maybe if we are lucky states will follow the lead of Texas. What a great state…

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

15 Responses to “The Health Care Savings Two-fer”

  1. Blake says:

    Is it the blue pill, or the red pill? No matter, for one will be a placebo, and the other will be the wrong medicine entirely, under this FUBAR plan.
    The ACLU would NEVER contradict Barama on anything, even when it is clearly a hypocritical position on their part.
    How is it too difficult to get a voter ID, but convenient to get a health ID?
    I have an idea- get them at the same time.
    What would the ACLU do about that?

  2. Schatzee says:

    And I bet they won’t allow us to use those same mandatory cards to weed out the illegals – no because they want to cover them in their ridiculous plan. It’s not health insurance, it’s death insurance. I hope this fails fast, quick, and permanent like.

  3. Big Dog says:

    To be fair the ACLU opposed him when he refused to release pictures of alleged abuse. Then again, they are usually in favor of anything that is damaging to America.

  4. The government can kill two birds (and many seniors) with one stone.

    Likely hoping to kill off as many conservatives as possible.

  5. Darrel says:

    With strong and proper safe guards in place I am very much in favor of euthanasia being provided by the government for free. We’ll get there in a few decades and it will hopefully be routine.

    This is a very libertarian idea. That is, that you own your life and can do with it as you wish. We treat our pets better but for some reason, some people can’t bring themselves to see that we should give human being this basic dignity.


    • Blake says:

      The idea of VOLUNTARY euthanasia is fine with me- I think the government scoring the “worth” of people is a very dangerous and stupid idea. They might score goatherders very low, and that might not suit some people.

    • Blake says:

      When people make all their decisions based solely on the bottom line, we will have truly lost our soul, our compassion, whatever you wish to call it- and that is what makes us people.
      After all, where’s the bottom line in helping starving people in Darfur? Why stem the tide of HIV in Africa? Who should care about the victims of a Hurricane in a part of the country YOU do not live in?
      It is compassion that incentivizes us to help the others less able than us, and America leads the way in this area.

  6. Big Dog says:

    There is a big difference between you taking a decision and the government taking the decision for you.

    I think if people want to refuse care and die that is there business. I don’t think that it is ethical for a medical professional to take the life. It would violate their oath.

    Right now you can make your own end of life decisions and you can refuse care. The government wants to counsel us on these things and I see major abuse because they want hospice to keep costs down.

    If this gets implemented I have no intention of participating in it. There will be a number of things I will refuse to do.

  7. Barbara says:

    These government people who want to counsel the elderly have not met me yet. Let them start counseling me and I guarantee they will get an earful.
    As for you Darrell, your life is not your own, it belongs to the Lord and His decisions. If you go against His will, then you will pay.

    • Darrel says:

      Barb: “your life is not your own, it belongs to the Lord…”>>

      That may be true. But I have never seen a drop of evidence supporting your claim. Until some comes along I will put all “the Lord” claims in the same pile we both put all claims about the thousands of other gods that for some reason act exactly as we would expect them to *if they didn’t exist.*

      “Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.”
      –Robert Ingersoll

      • Blake says:

        I have never seen evidence of NO God either, Darrel- so my claims can equal yours. Big Deal.
        Your claim to fame is simply that you like to poke your finger in people’s eyes just to get a reaction.
        Be careful of what you wish for.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “you like to poke your finger in people’s eyes just to get a reaction.”>>

          No, when people make claims, I like to actually check and see if their claims are true. Radical idea I know! But it shouldn’t be. People who make a lot of false claims may experience this as a discomforting “poke in the eye.” Sorry about that.

          You shouldn’t be so afraid of the truth.


        • Blake says:

          But when you can’t “prove” the existence of God, you give up and declare him not to be there- could it be that you haven’t looked hard enough, or with clear vision?

        • Blake says:

          If one day, God reveals his presence to you, that is going to be one heck of a “Whoops- my bad” moment, isn’t it?

  8. Big Dog says:

    Darrel like to check sources that agree with him to see if they are true. Any info that disagrees he claims is wrong, roasted, that he has gone on TV or radio and debated the person to death, etc.

    Darrel is interested in people who agree.