Recently, an elderly relative had a routine procedure to screen for colon cancer. This particular relative is an active, healthy, vital 82-year-old that still works. Unfortunately, there is a family history of colon cancer, which, for prevention, requires bi-annual screening.
Two-years-ago a large pre-cancerous polyp was found and removed. Now, two years later, another pre-cancerous polyp found, which was thankfully also removed. Without the bi-annual screening, there is a good chance cancer would have developed.
This time, after the anesthesia wore off, the doctor was quick to inform her that, based on age, and despite a precarious looking growth being removed, this colonoscopy was her last. The procedure would no longer be covered nor would it be recommended.
Does this now mean that in America age now disqualifies some people from being eligible to locate pre-cancerous growths before they have a chance to turn into full-blown cancer?
The doctors reasoned that older people donâ€™t handle chemotherapy very well. Therefore, even if malignancy were found, nothing would be done about it anyway â€“ so why even bother to look for it?
In other words, for lack of any other fatal disease, why not embolden colon cancer cells to run wild in the lower intestines of old geezers?
The conversation between my family member and the doctor brought to mind the 2010 town hall meeting where a woman named Jane Sturm asked President Obama if he had been in charge five years prior would he have allowed her 105-year-old mother, who received a pacemaker when she was 100-years-old, to receive similar care based on zest for life?
Or would he have cut off care based on age?
Imagine, instead of healthcare decisions being a personal choice, Americans are asking a pro-choice president whether he would choose to allow an old woman who wants to live to receive treatment?
Obama, who had a virtual colonoscopy heâ€™d deny to a WWII veteran, had an â€œend of lifeâ€ answer for Jane Sturm. In order to cut down on waste and expense, Obama would have denied surgery, and instead of a pacemaker, would have granted â€œGranny Sturm a pain pillâ€.
Six years after that town hall meeting and my elderly relative is being told that at a certain age individuals will not only be denied the right to have cancer treatment, theyâ€™ll also be denied screening for cancer prevention.
With that in mind, as a nation, Americans are at a serious juncture.
What we have here are liberals who claim to believe in the right to healthcare proving once again that they donâ€™t believe in the right to life.
Maybe someone should tell those meting out cancer screening approvals that being dead is unhealthy.
As for the living; our problem is that the right-to-healthcare party is deciding who has the right to healthcare, which ultimately puts those that argue there is no right to life in the position of determining who lives and who dies.
If ever there was a warning of what horrors lie ahead for our healthcare system, Cubaâ€™s decision to give raises to their medical personnel is a sobering look into a future where Americaâ€™s private physicians are downgraded to government employees.
Now, Cubaâ€™s Communist Party daily newspaper Granma is reporting that Cuba â€œexpects to take in $8.2 billion this year for the tens of thousands of medical workers it sends to care for the poor in countries such as Venezuela and Brazil.â€ In turn Cuba will reward health workers with raises that, in some cases, surpass a 100% increase.
Thanks to that infusion of money, as well as an â€œelimination of 109,000 redundant jobs in the last four years,â€ a cost-cutting effort that, quite frankly, the US federal government should attempt, 440,000 Cuban medical sector employees, also known as those without a â€œvested interest in disease,â€ will soon be rolling in the big bucks.
That should inspire the top 1% types here in America to encourage their children to pursue medicine as a career.
This is the pay scale our future doctors and nurses can look forward to if Barack Obama continues to have his way: Cuban doctors with two specialties such as hematologist/oncologists will see their salary go from the equivalent of $26 a month to $67, or $2.23 per day. For entry-level nurses, woo-hoo, the pay will jump up from $13 to a whopping $25 per month.
According Health Minister Roberto Morales, even double pay is still a small fraction of what Cuba collects from the 66 nations where 50,000 Cuban healthcare professionals work.
Nevertheless, one of those lucky winners of lifeâ€™s lottery, 62-year-old nurse, Soraida Pina, is over the moon with excitement over the impending influx of extra cash. Sounding like a Cuban version of Warren Buffett, Soraida had this to say: â€œThis is very good news that makes me tremendously happy. â€¦ With my first paycheck Iâ€™m going to buy a toy for my youngest grandson, whoâ€™s three.â€
A toy for a grandson is a tad extravagant, but maybe just this once nurse Pina can splurge without the National Revolutionary Police Force addressing her unwillingness to share.
Donâ€™t be fooled by the scarcity that permeates the socialist stronghold; while its people are poor, Cuba is a rich nation that, despite the impressive pay hikes and supposed economic changes, maintains a socialist system that is â€œirrevocable.â€
Thatâ€™s why Laura Vazquez, a 38-year-old pathologist, isnâ€™t all that impressed with the news, because in the beautiful socialist paradise that is Cuba, the salaries are low and the cost of living remains high. â€œThey had talked to us about this,â€ she said, â€œand itâ€™s very important for the family economy, but it continues to be a salary that means very little because everything is very expensive.â€
Itâ€™s not â€œvery expensiveâ€ Laura, itâ€™s just central planningâ€™s effort to keep the Cuban people grateful for things like the limited availability of rationed goods.
With that in mind, Dr. Laura should just be thankful that healthcare professionals assigned to international missions to countries like Venezuela, a nation that supplies Cuba with 92,000 barrels of oil a day (which can be exchanged for hard currency), are paid double.
Meanwhile, here in America, with the Castro brothersâ€™ secret admirer â€˜fundamentally transformingâ€ the US healthcare system, itâ€™s not implausible that American doctors will one day be demoted to government workers too.
Thatâ€™s why all the medical professionals and future medical professionals who favored Obamacare should be relieved to know that when they voted for Barack Obama they also voted for a future salary of about $67 a month.
After heading up a ‘poor me’ sob-story session with mothers in the Oval Office, packing for the nine-hour flight to Oahu, and wrapping up a 16-day Obamacare public relations blitz, ‘Mom-to-Mom’ Michelle found time to take to the airwaves and dial in to the “Keeping it Real with Reverend Al Sharpton” radio show.
If I might digress for moment, Al Sharpton is a man who, judging from his hairdo and his manner, is neither ‘real’ nor ‘reverend.’
Nonetheless,Â apart fromÂ making some inane arguments as to why everyone should sign up for Obamacare, true to form the first lady began by dragging out the heart-wrenching stories. The first one was about daughter Sasha being stricken with illness as an infant. Like most liberals who have limited experience with anything, Sasha’s bout with meningitis instantly transformed Mrs. Obama into an authority on the need for health insurance.
While talking to the right reverend, who mostly listened, the first lady ramped up the fear factor when she cited studies that show that the primary reason Americans are forced into bankruptcy in the U.S. is being buried in medical bills because they were unable to afford health insurance in the first place.
What she didn’t mention is that people in countries with single-payer healthcare systems also go bankrupt. Why? Because despite having socialized medicine, in countries like Canada and Great Britain while waiting for months to receive medical care, many desperately ill people are unable to work.
In Sweden, the bastion of socialism, the Association of Insolvency states that “the four most common reasons for indebtedness [are]… illness, unemployment, divorce, or bankruptcy,” all of which, thanks to Barack Obama, America is currently experiencing. At present, the only thing missing here is the shoddy healthcare system that’s set to crash and burn come January when tens of millions of Americans wake up with no insurance.
The most striking part of the Al and Shelley show was when Mrs. Obama homed in on the “young invincibles” who she says wrongly perceive themselves as indestructible. Michelle stressed that “it’s not just about moms and babies, it’s about young people who feel invincible… we need young people signed up too for this.”
It seems that after voting for Barack Obama, the 18-29 year-olds are, for maybe the first time ever, discerning correctly and rejecting Obamacare. Now the big push is on to lie, frighten, manipulate and exploit the emotions of those finally thinking rationally for themselves.
In an effort to convince resistant Millennials to submit, over and over again Mrs. Obama cited “curveballs.”
The first lady talked about life’s curveballs — the ones that land people in the hospital and cause them to go bankrupt and the curveballs that could cause young people working part-time to stumble and do a face-plant while walking and texting without health insurance.
Michelle related a story to Al about one woman at her meeting in the Oval Office who hoped to be saved by socialized medicine whose “son was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer.” The first lady shared that this concerned mother prayed every night that the Act wouldn’t be repealed and then cried herself to sleep.
Quick! Someone tell Ted Cruz that if Obamacare is repealed, all across America children with cancer won’t have insurance and every night their praying mothers will cry themselves to sleep.
Throughout the interview the reverend spent most of the time responding to every word Michelle said with a, “Yep, yep, yep… Right, that’s right.” Then, after discussing people who can’t afford health insurance finally getting affordable insurance they still won’t be able to afford, things spiraled from the annoying into the ridiculous.
Issuing words of caution, Michelle Obama warned that like a sword of Damocles, tragedy looms, waiting to strike the twenty-something set who believe they’ll never get sick because they’re young and “healthy now.”
First she brought up how “young people are the ones who are driving around late at night… [and]… can get into a car accident.” Without pointing out to Michelle that anyone of any age is capable of getting into a car accident, Sharpton responded, “Yep.”
Then Michelle turned her attention toward club kids who typically like to spin around on the dance floor splashing adult beverages all over the place. Beware, partiers! You can “slip at a club.”
For the athletic types who aren’t into drinking and dancing, Michelle reminded Al that kids who “play pick-up games [can] get a black eye, you know” — or elbowed in the face, resulting in a split lip that requires 12 stitches!
Mrs. Obama warned that homebodies who don’t like to venture out to nightclubs or outdoors for athletic events shouldn’t be complacent either. Michelle rightly forewarned aspiring Bobby Flays not to play with knives without health insurance because “Cooking for the first time [one can] cut a finger…[or]… bust an artery.”
A question for Michelle: Why stop there — don’t you know that a girl can slip on the ice on the way into a clinic to get a fully-funded abortion? During Obama speeches haven’t youthful devotees been known to collapse in a swooning faint? What about the very real possibility of an energetic soup kitchen volunteer, while hurrying to buy $540 Lanvin foot gear, suffocating while trapped inside the revolving door of a high-end boutique?
How about the danger of choking on a wayward tongue piercing? And let’s not overlook the millions seeking treatment for Obamacare website-induced Carpel Tunnel Syndrome and Obamaphone-caused brain tumors.
And if all these cautionary tales fail to convince the cocky, after January 1st Michelle Obama can always come back and ‘Keep it Real’ with Reverend Al Sharpton again. During that appearance, the first lady will be fully loaded with bloodcurdling anecdotes about people injured while running from IRS agents and left to die simply because they refused to heed her warning.
Originally posted at American Thinker blog
Slowly but surely, the Obama administration is introducing the general public to the idea that fewer people born translates into health care cost savings. Liberals are so committed to the idea of fewer live births that by issuing conscience-disturbing mandates, Barack Obama, honorary doctor of obstetrics and gynecology, has even found a way to restrain the growth of prolific, pharmaceutical birth control-shunning Catholic families.
In addition to promoting contraception, the United States Preventative Services Task Force hasÂ also indicatedÂ that annual preventive breast cancer Â screening should be considered a luxury. Thus, without yearly mammograms, if breast cancer isn’t detected until it’s too late, women on birth control pills may also contribute to the left’s initiative to foster fewer human beings.
From the looks of things, it certainly appears as if the Obamacare concept of prevention seems obsessed with curtailing the population. And while birth control is not exactly a ‘death-panel’ per se, it could be described as a life-preventative.Â The death panel idea may be reserved for those who manage to make it out of the womb and who, after being tethered to a tax burden for 65 years, tap the health care system for expensive geriatric care.
With that in mind, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ recent appearance before aÂ House panelÂ takes on new meaning.Â Â Ms. Sebelius testified that reducing the number of human beings born in the United States will “compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying withÂ the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.”
Speaking before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health on behalf of Barack Obama’s 2013 budget proposal, Secretary Sebelius argued that the hope is that in tandem with a predicted drop in American babies being born, the “estimated cost” forÂ insurancesÂ payouts will go “down not up.”
Therefore, based on Ms. Sebelius’s formula for fiscal solvency, it’s clear to see what’s up ahead on the road to universal/socialized health care.Â Fewer human beings keep costs “down not up,” which is why the fewer the better — from deterring live births to the potential for cost saving implementation of early death.
During the hearing, Ms. Sebelius touched upon the subject of religious liberty and how the First Amendment “free exercise of religion” is impacted by the government imposition of ‘sterilization, contraception or abortion’Â regulationsÂ on Christians who, together with Catholic bishops, agree that they “cannot…[and]…will not — comply with this unjust law.”
Verbalizing the Obama administration’s peculiar interpretation of the Constitution,Â CatholicÂ Kathleen Sebelius insisted that a mandate that forces Christians to violate their conscience “upholds religious liberty,” which is sort of like the liberal “right to privacy” belief that abortion really isn’t ‘killing.’
During the hearing, Sebelius revealed to Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) a minor detail that shed light on how liberals also disregard the canon of the Catholic Church.Â Ms. Sebelius admitted that “Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice.”
Having it all figured out, Sebelius explained to the subcommittee that “The rule which we intend to promulgate in the near future around implementation will require insurance companies, not a religious employer, but the insurance company to provide coverage for contraceptives.”
Apparently, the premise is that if an insurance company pays for a Catholic’s tubal ligation, it’s as good as receiving papal dispensation.
During the subcommittee hearing, Tim Murphy (R-PA) made the point that “contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be free.” Murphy asked, “Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service.”
Well that’s for sure; especially when what’s being offered has such a high cancerÂ risk.Â If cultivating less people is the real plan, why not just advance population control by handing out free cigarettes?
Either way, Sebelius responded that whether birth control is free or not is not the point with insurance. “The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. In other words, by doling out “free” morning-after pills, insurance companies save money in the long run by avoiding the cost of having to pay for little Susie’s tonsillectomy.
Murphy expressed surprise at Sebelius’s “addition by subtraction” answer, saying, “So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” By probing a tiny bit further Mr. Murphy could have verified the obvious by asking whether the long-term plan also included saving money by applying similar logic to dying people.
Using cost-benefit language, Sebelius replied, “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”Â But a yearly mammography is not?
Murphy again sought clarification: “Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back.”
Sebelius responded that according to bigÂ pusher of contraceptionÂ and promoter of population control, theÂ Institute of Medicine, “Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country.” Yeah, but what about theÂ health riskÂ related to birth control and abortion and their alleged causal relationship to breast cancer?
After the hearing, Brett Guthrie (R-KY), a member of the subcommittee, injected additional logic into Sebelius’s line of reasoning.Â The Kentucky congressman said that if “mandating contraception saves money there shouldn’t be a need for a mandate.” Guthrie argued further, “If theÂ health insuranceÂ companies were really acting in their own best interest, they would be giving these pills out for free, if it really saved money.”
And so, the bottom line is this, don’t think about it — just accept it.Â Because whether America wantsÂ YazÂ®Â or not, ObamaCare free contraception, sterilization and abortion will be provided to women who, in addition to not having children, will also have the opportunity to decrease the population when the government deprives them of preventative mammography’s to head offÂ breast cancerÂ that’s been induced by federally-fundedÂ Depo-Provera.
In Tucson, Arizona, Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was gravely injured in a horrific shooting that seriously injured 12 and killed six, including a nine year-old child. â€œShocked and saddened lawmakersâ€ are now grappling with the idea that â€œnew laws and regulations are needed to curb incendiary speech.â€
Although despondent and disgusted over the bloodbath, Americans should not be fooled. Compassionate concern from the left has little to do with protection for politicians and everything to do with reining in freedom of speech.Â If inflammatory words â€“ not politics â€“ were the real issue, â€œAllahu Akbarâ€ would be relegated along with â€œtargetedâ€¦crosshairsâ€¦kill the billâ€¦the â€˜Nâ€™ word and Hawaiian Punchâ€ to the no-no column of the vocabulary list. The last time I checked, the terrorist battle cry â€œAllahu Akbarâ€ was not on that list.
Itâ€™s safe to say that itâ€™s not beneath liberal logic to tie together fire/arson/shouting/panic and Rush Limbaugh if the result accomplishes the curtailing of First Amendment rights. Democrats would love to apply to unrelated circumstances the 1919 US Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States where Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: â€œThe most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.â€ Using legislative duct tape, the left can seal the mouths of anyone who disagrees with liberalism and promote it as prevention of political violence ignited by the use of combustible words.
In 2007, a tow truck driver was convicted of stealing from a victim â€œin a double-fatal car crash.â€Â As the crumpled casualties lay in the road, Ronald Forget of Pawtucket, Massachusetts â€œtook the wallet of one of the victims and used credit cards from the wallet to pay his cell phone bill and to buy gasoline.â€
The truck driverâ€™s actions, cold as they seem, are eerily similar to the response of liberal politicians and left-wing media types to the carnage brought about by the psychotic madman in Tucson, Arizona.Â Â The left smells blood from miles away and will pull up alongside any convenient casualty.Â In this case, liberals all but politically picked the pockets of the deceased in hopes of furthering a freedom-stifling agenda.
Granted, caution should be used when accusing anyone of heartlessly exploiting tragedy.Â However, following the horrendous shooting, and based on the leftâ€™s ghoulish behavior, the only conclusion that seems reasonable is that the crisis provided a prime opening for liberal government bureaucrats to look for another excuse to further restrict the Constitutional rights and freedoms of US citizens, and to do it on the backs of those who suffered and died.
Based on public disapproval of healthcare reform and reeling from stinging defeat, Democrats came across a pileup in Arizona that has provided a liberal Thought Police scenario with the potential to justify a â€œwarning against a return to [what they call] the divisive rhetoric of last yearâ€™s healthcare debate.â€
Misfortune provided post-election Democrats the perfect storm.Â The situation culminated in an impeccably timed critical mass, where politics, guns, conservatism, the healthcare reform debate, and the Tea Party could be directly tied to a massacre.Â Rather than focus on truth, the left chose to manipulate terror to quash telltale condemnation of an out-of-control left-wing ideologue President, an ousted Congress, and a Democrat-controlled Senate hell-bent on placing a yoke of socialism on the back of a resistant nation.
After the fact, in a pseudo-display of false solidarity, the shooting is now being described as a â€œrare moment of unity on Capitol Hill.â€Â That is pure political spin. What transpired was the Democrat ambuscade hit pay dirt.Â The left patiently laid in wait for an excuse to blame unrelated violence on â€œinflammatory rhetoric,â€ Fox News, conservative talk radio, and popular politicians, and in the process are using a self-righteous demeanor to chide anyone who dares disparage liberal/Democrat policies or politicians.
Rhetoric-reaction to the shooting has been so bizarre that Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree proposed expunging the word â€œkillingâ€ from the name of the â€œRepeal the Job-Killing Healthcare Law Act.â€
Phantom Democrats are parsing words and pointing fingers at the innocent, making ridiculous statements such as Pingree saying â€œIâ€™m not suggesting that the name of that one piece of legislation somehow led to the horror of this weekend â€” but is it really necessary to put the word â€˜killingâ€™ in the title of a major piece of legislation?â€
Hey Chellie, do we really need the word â€œpunchâ€ in punch line? How about bullet proof, gun shy, slaphappy, choke hold, and shoot off your mouth?Â The words kilt and kiln sound too much like â€œkill,â€ which poses a potential problem in a heated political environment. How about cutting the rug, loaded for bear or pipe down?
So far, despite the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the shootings, the left has yet to acknowledge the multitudinous examples of provocative language used by Democrats. For example, for twenty years, Barack Obama was mentored by a racist, anti-Semite, anti-American deranged preacher whose revolting rhetoric far exceeded use of the word â€œtarget,â€ or the metaphoric placement of benign symbols on a map.
There is still not one scintilla of evidence that the Arizona shooter was motivated by political rhetoric.Â Nevertheless, even before the police and ambulance arrive the left continues to cruise the Arizona crash site by censuring crosshairs, touting the merits of the Fairness Doctrine, and blaming Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle for influencing a person who was unbalanced long before either woman showed up on the national scene.
So as Gabrielle Giffords heals and six innocent murder victims, including nine year-old Christina-Taylor Green, are laid to rest, it appears the left will continue to pick-pocket the dead by taking advantage of heartbreak, feigning righteous indignation over nothing more than hyperbole, and looking for obscure excuses to muzzle political opposition in the name of moderating incendiary rhetoric.