Friday, June 12, 2009

Michael Reagan: Obama Health Reform = DEATH

Yes, that's Ronald Reagan's son weighing in on "President" Obama's proposed nightmare.

Article here.

Our problem, however, lies in the dwindling supply of health care providers. Most doctors are overworked, many are underpaid. The number of doctors is increasing at a woeful 1 percent a year, and the number of available nurses has been flat for years. With an increasing population -- and one that is aging as baby boomers move into their 60s -- who is going to provide health care to 45 million more Americans, even if we make the wildly optimistic assumption that we could afford to pay for it?


Apparently the agreed-upon approach is to give health care to 47 million new beneficiaries without massive new costs by being “more efficient” in allocating the currently available health care assets. Well, efficiency is good, right? Not necessarily.
Here is what this “efficiency” would mean in stark terms: severely restricting health care services to our elderly, and the severely and terminally ill. “Efficiency” here means providing services to millions of young and healthy, who do not need much of it, and cutting health care to seniors and the severely ill who “statistically do not have as much to lose by not getting good health care.”

Hmm... I think I saw this sort of thing in the movie Soylent Green.

In other words, the administration believes that those of above 60 will not live nearly as long, no matter what health care we receive, as a healthy 25-year-old, so why “waste” doctors, nurses, drugs, hospitals and surgeries on us? Health care resources, in cold, hard, inhumane computer calculations, are more “efficiently” used letting the elderly die years earlier after a less-healthy retirement.

Sounds plausible for a regime that uses taxpayer dollars to slaughter babies by the millions.

Myself, as a Canadian living under a regime of purely-socialized medicine, I know from first-hand observation that state-run, bureaucratic, red-tape-intensive, budget-constrained medical care is deadly. All too frequently it simply cannot save many lives as it could if it worked properly. It is naturally forced to discriminate, to pick and choose. First the elderly, next, who else, what other groupings? One cannot help but recall the horrific decisions of the likes of Joseph Mengele.

Yes, socialized medicine is scary and deadly. It can also be used as a tool for those who want to reengineer society, to reduce the population more quickly, "more efficiently", via rationing, via socialism.