Tag Archives: Death Panels

Death Panels: The ObamaCare Real-Life Nightmare

death1Originally posted at The Blacksphere

It started out as an ‘I have a dream’ come true in 2008, but it’s nearly 2014 and that dream has transformed into a nightmare.

Five years after openly weeping in response to America rejecting its racist past, people are weeping again, but not for sentimental reasons.

In 2010, despite a complete lack of Republican support and contrary to the will of the American people, the Affordable Healthcare Act was signed into law. Liberals were so elated at the potential for the progressive dream of socialized healthcare coming to pass, that as a symbol of triumph, then-Speaker of the House Queen Nancy Pelosi strutted around Capitol Hill with a huge gavel in her hand.

The Affordable Health and Patient Care Act, which was sold as long-overdue bureaucratic benevolence toward those without health insurance, is currently absorbing the healthcare future of one-third of the US population.

Such a monumental takeover translates into control of 1/6th of the US economy and, if truth be told, limits healthcare choices, intrudes upon freedom and privacy, and forcibly pilfers the blood, sweat and tears of hardworking Americans.

At that time, America didn’t know that Pelosi’s gavel would become an oppressive sledgehammer used to bludgeon the living daylights out of the perfectly acceptable American healthcare system.

Initially, in an attempt to issue a warning that liberal insistence on altering the health insurance of 270 million already-insured Americans as an excuse to insure 40 million uninsured Americans was a bad omen, vocal conservatives spoke out. Realists like Sarah Palin were scoffed at as alarmists and publicly ridiculed for insisting that costs would inevitably take precedence over patient need.

What started out as 40 million uninsured has grown to 45 million uninsured Americans, five million of whom were the first victims of the Obamacare lie. Next in line it’s predicted that 100 million already affordably and adequately insured Americans will lose their employer-provided healthcare and be forced, along with the first five million, into an Obamacare exchange scam whose suffocating grip restricts quality, access, and doctor choice.

It doesn’t end there though. Regulations, mandates, and government intrusion are forcing physicians to retire early rather than have government so thoroughly impact their patient care.

It gets worse. Obamacare marketplace policies also will limit access to the nation’s most prominent hospitals, including two world-renowned cancer centers, Sloan-Kettering in Manhattan and MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, as well as top research and teaching hospitals such as Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, California.

As industry experts confirm that insurers are being forced to limit patients’ choices by pushing them away from hospitals that provide treatments that are considered too expensive, those who warned about impending “death panels” are being vindicated.

Health and Human Services hid behind the excuse that ‘health insurance companies are notorious for canceling policies’ when five million Americans were left without insurance. HHS is again passing the buck by saying, “Decisions about which private health insurance plans cover which doctors is a decision currently made by insurers and providers and will continue that way.”

How typical. Obamacare imposes “new costs,” and then, when access and quality are limited by insurance companies because of those higher costs – that famous gavel cudgels insurance companies.

Health policy expert Tim Jost explained that in order to cut costs, it’s necessary to limit the sickest patients’ access to certain high-end facilities that offer “the most cutting edge medical care.”

In other words, thanks to Obamacare, insurance costs have sky rocketed. As a result, it’s necessary to compensate by placing the focus on cost control rather than necessity. That means hospitals that cater to “life threatening illnesses” will no longer be able to provide high-cost “innovative care” to those who require specialized attention and will choose not to participate in Obamacare.

As it now stands, the people who decided American consumers were incapable of selecting their own individual health insurance plan and so cancelled those plans and then provided them with choices made by someone else, will be the same people who will choose the extent of care every American gets based on the bottom line.

Barack Obama is right. Healthcare is about to become more affordable because, more often than not, out-of-pocket costs for many will be the onetime fee for funeral expenses.

Too harsh? Not really, because persons with pre-existing conditions won’t be denied healthcare outright. They’ll just be denied access to lifesaving treatment at top-notch research and cancer hospitals.

That’s why denying a sick person the right to access the best specialist or hospital is really not much different than a “death panel.”

Either way, like it or not, the healthcare apocalypse is due to arrive on January 1st.

In the weeks remaining the hope is that Americans will come to realize that after being grossly manipulated by Barack Obama’s ‘if you like your …you can keep your’ falsehood, all our lives hang tentatively in the balance.

Liberal Semantics and the Redefining of Death Panels

semanticsOriginally posted at American Thinker

Semantics is a branch of linguistics that studies meaning in language.  Coupled with the interpretation of a “word, sentence or language form,” it is the perfect tool for moral relativists to use when rationalizing the liberal agenda.

In J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit in response to Bilbo Baggins wishing him a good morning, Gandalf asks, “Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning … or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?”

Taking a page from The Hobbit, liberal politicians pervert semantics by habitually upending the literal meaning of words that should be accepted verbatim.  For those on the left side of the political spectrum, on any given day, depending on who is doing the wishing, “good morning” can take on any connotation necessary in order to advance their political ideology.

By manipulating words, employing “nuances,” and stretching the truth, former president Bill Clinton was actually able to get many Americans to agree that the meaning of “is” is subjective, which is both remarkable and chilling.

In like manner, for forty years, liberals have also utilized semantics to impact the definition of “life,” and not for the better.

Since the ruling of Roe v. Wade, supporters of abortion have been desperately trying to convince themselves and others that a growing, developing fetus is not alive and that, much like the concept of “is,” “life” is also a subjective notion that hinges only on viability.

As a result, not only have semantics specialists managed to change the foundational definition of life in the minds of those inclined to agree with them, but they’ve also been effective at keeping the idea fluid.  Far afield from where it started in 1973, “pro-choice” has now come to mean disposing of human beings up to and including the very moment of birth (and in some cases, even after birth).

That’s why, as the government gears up to assume the role of determining who lives and who dies, the nation that has exploited semantics to explain away the morally repugnant procedure called abortion is about to find itself backed into a corner of its own making.

Ever since the idea of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was introduced, and certainly since it was signed into law, realists like Sarah Palin have forewarned that a government teetering on bankruptcy would eventually have no choice but to ration health care. 

Eschewing semantics, right from the start Palin pegged the ACA’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) for what it is: a “death panel.”  Made up of 15 unelected bureaucrats, the IPAB was established expressly for the purpose of determining whether doctor-recommended treatment will be paid for or not.

Refusing to acquiesce to pressure to renounce her death panel definition, Sarah’s bold stance can certainly be likened to pro-life Americans refusing to demote an unborn child to the sanitized identity of “fetus.” 

Now, the very people who welcomed alternate meanings of the word “is” and embraced the term “fetus” are outraged that an “independent payment advisory board” is being vilified by the right even though its function is to decide which lifesaving treatments will be paid for and which ones, because of cost, a chronic condition, and/or advanced age, will be denied.

Liberal semanticists bristle at the thought that anyone would dare to suggest that a Barack Obama-appointed review board would hand over sick Americans to a Liverpool-style “die with dignity” Care Pathway merely because, for example, a patient is too elderly to justify spending otherwise better allocated funds on a pacemaker. 

Then along comes TIME Magazine‘s senior political analyst, Mark Halperin.  In an appearance on The Steve Malzberg radio show, Mark ratcheted up the debate when he matter-of-factly stated that cost-control rationing, aka death panels, are built into the ACA.  Like Palin, Halperin, who has since toned down his original comments, avoided semantics and plainly said, “It’s not like a guess or like a judgment.”  Death panels are “going to be part of how costs are controlled.”

Since more than one person has now made the “death panel” accusation, Americans are becoming increasingly apprehensive that Barack Obama, who has lied about everything having to do with his signature legislation, is also being disingenuous about health care rationing.

In response to the panic, liberals adept at contorting reality are being reduced to paraphrasing Tolkien’s old bit: “Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning…?” 

ObamaCare apologists are attempting to temper the hysteria by stressing that controlling costs does not mean rationing, and that denying health care in order to control costs does not mean people who are dying are condemned to death just because they’re denied treatment that would save their lives.

Now the Roe v. Wade generation who leaned on semantics to justify “the right to choose” are precariously close to becoming victims of a government that stands poised to exercise the right to choose on them — this time not based upon anything so high-minded as a woman’s reproductive rights, but rather on cost efficiency. 

And so, the lives of all those who helped further the sacred “right to choose,” not to mention the lives of those who opposed it, are now in jeopardy as the liberal semantics that redefined the meaning of life in the womb are now redefining the meaning of death panels.

Pelosi Proves Palin’s Point

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

When the health care debate was raging, one of arguments from the opposition was that an eventual shortage of government monies would result in lost lives.  Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was mocked and disparaged as a fool for warning Americans that Obamacare would usher in “death panels” where, due to budgetary restrictions, the aged and chronically ill would be denied care.

Even President Barack Obama joined smarmy liberal comedians like Bill Maher to publicly scoff at the idea of “death panels.” The left condemned what they called outlandish scare tactics employed by conservatives attempting to stop a policy that would provide coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans, but in effect would put the government in control of life and death issues.

Fast-forward to 2011 and the very people who condemned Sarah Palin and the Republicans for being over-the-top on the anxiety chart became the harbingers of imminent death panels, only this time the fatalities would be driven by budget cuts.

Take for example Nancy Pelosi saying that the budget bill would starve six million seniors to death and that impoverished children would be jettisoned out of the Head Start program. Worse than that, Nancy said that Republicans, led by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), were declaring an all-out “war on women.”

When speaking to CNN, Washington’s newest Death Panel Diva left no stone unturned, especially when it came to describing the detrimental effect of Republican policies on the fairer sex:

If you are talking about jobs, their pay in the work place, health care, making — no longer is being a woman a pre-existing medical condition. They want to change all of that. So in every aspect – whether it is employment, whether it is education, whether it is health care, whether it is retirement, whether it is collective bargaining which affects women as well women have a lot to lose with the ideological old style agenda of the Republicans.

According to Nancy, even modest spending cuts would result in a nation of unemployed, underpaid, uneducated, penniless, sick females unable to retire.  Pelosi predicted American women would be destined to roam the streets like zombies, riddled with cancer and missing womanly parts of their anatomy, all victims of “the ideological old style agenda of the Republicans.”

This is the woman who “called out former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) for having made the ‘lie of the year’ for claiming the healthcare bill would set up ‘death panels.’”

According to the former Speaker of the House, cutting $38 billion, give or take a billion – which is about what it takes to run the US government for four days at $10.46 billion per day – American women would fast become the bane of planet Earth. Yet, ask a Democrat whether it will cost lives if a nation with a $14.3 trillion deficit ever had trouble coming up with $1.2 trillion for health care reform, and the answer is always a resounding “No!”

Nevertheless, when it comes to Democrat budgetary doom and gloom, Pelosi is not alone.  In response to Republicans demanding funding be cut to abortion provider Planned Parenthood, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a huge leap from those on the right not wanting to pay for dilation and curettage to accusing Republicans of wanting women to die of cancer.

On the Senate floor Reid said: “Republicans want to shut down the government because they think there’s nothing more important than keeping women from getting cancer screenings. This is indefensible and everyone should be outraged.”

Isn’t this is the same group who mocked Palin for suggesting that government run health care would end in death panels?

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi attempted to win a budget battle by implying that Planned Parenthood being denied $349.6 million dollars a year in funding could ultimately impact the well-being of 91.4 million adult women, which is quite a stretch. Such an absurd claim greatly differs from Sarah Palin coming to the logical conclusion that a shortage of health care money could equal denial of care. Reid, on the other hand, is alleging secret motives of an entire political party amounting to purposeful murder.

Lest we forget, this whole the death panel discussion was resurrected because the government’s inefficiency has placed America in an economic quandary. And this is the same government that swears there will always be ample funds to ensure that even an 85 year-old grandparent will never be denied care and sent home to die.

During the Obamacare debate, Sarah Palin was merely pointing out that a virtually bankrupt government could never cover the high cost of caring for an aging population. It took Harry and Nancy carping about denial of funds to Planned Parenthood to confirm that Sarah was right.

In an attempt to smear Republicans, Harry and Nancy probably didn’t realize it, but they proved Sarah Palin’s original point that health care reform policy poses a threat.  If the left’s argument is correct that modest budget cuts have the potential to starve old people to death and threaten lives, what will happen when the entire nation is at the mercy of a government that finds it impossible to maintain the solvency needed to keep 300 million people alive?

%d bloggers like this: