ObamaCare…coming soon

[air_ogi]

Here is an article about healthcare reform opponents from the highly liberal Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080603854.html

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]Obama Care, The Next Generation: Time to go, Grampa.
by Pat Buchanan
Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life. To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In Weimar Germany, two professors published “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life,” which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and “empty shells of human beings.” Hitler’s Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea — of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life — has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are — what do you think is going to be Option A?

Let’s hope you make the right decision when it is your time to go….[/quote]

Beautifully written by a racist fear monger. But it has nothing to do with any proposal now in congress. It is without basis. It is devoid of any conclusive truth.

Currently, the insurance companies constantly try to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs. They do this in order to increase profits. So the more important question is not whether you trust the government to make the right decision, but whether you trust an insurance company. Too many times, for too many people, that question has already been answered. With cancellations, with denials of claims, with death by spreadsheet. For the more than 40 million currently uninsured, the question is moot.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]Obama Care, The Next Generation: Time to go, Grampa.
by Pat Buchanan
Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life. To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In Weimar Germany, two professors published “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life,” which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and “empty shells of human beings.” Hitler’s Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea — of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life — has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are — what do you think is going to be Option A?

Let’s hope you make the right decision when it is your time to go….[/quote]

Beautifully written by a racist fear monger. But it has nothing to do with any proposal now in congress. It is without basis. It is devoid of any conclusive truth.

Currently, the insurance companies constantly try to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs. They do this in order to increase profits. So the more important question is not whether you trust the government to make the right decision, but whether you trust an insurance company. Too many times, for too many people, that question has already been answered. With cancellations, with denials of claims, with death by spreadsheet. For the more than 40 million currently uninsured, the question is moot.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]Obama Care, The Next Generation: Time to go, Grampa.
by Pat Buchanan
Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life. To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In Weimar Germany, two professors published “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life,” which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and “empty shells of human beings.” Hitler’s Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea — of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life — has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are — what do you think is going to be Option A?

Let’s hope you make the right decision when it is your time to go….[/quote]

Beautifully written by a racist fear monger. But it has nothing to do with any proposal now in congress. It is without basis. It is devoid of any conclusive truth.

Currently, the insurance companies constantly try to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs. They do this in order to increase profits. So the more important question is not whether you trust the government to make the right decision, but whether you trust an insurance company. Too many times, for too many people, that question has already been answered. With cancellations, with denials of claims, with death by spreadsheet. For the more than 40 million currently uninsured, the question is moot.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]Obama Care, The Next Generation: Time to go, Grampa.
by Pat Buchanan
Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life. To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In Weimar Germany, two professors published “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life,” which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and “empty shells of human beings.” Hitler’s Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea — of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life — has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are — what do you think is going to be Option A?

Let’s hope you make the right decision when it is your time to go….[/quote]

Beautifully written by a racist fear monger. But it has nothing to do with any proposal now in congress. It is without basis. It is devoid of any conclusive truth.

Currently, the insurance companies constantly try to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs. They do this in order to increase profits. So the more important question is not whether you trust the government to make the right decision, but whether you trust an insurance company. Too many times, for too many people, that question has already been answered. With cancellations, with denials of claims, with death by spreadsheet. For the more than 40 million currently uninsured, the question is moot.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]Obama Care, The Next Generation: Time to go, Grampa.
by Pat Buchanan
Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life. To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In Weimar Germany, two professors published “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life,” which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and “empty shells of human beings.” Hitler’s Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea — of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life — has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are — what do you think is going to be Option A?

Let’s hope you make the right decision when it is your time to go….[/quote]

Beautifully written by a racist fear monger. But it has nothing to do with any proposal now in congress. It is without basis. It is devoid of any conclusive truth.

Currently, the insurance companies constantly try to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs. They do this in order to increase profits. So the more important question is not whether you trust the government to make the right decision, but whether you trust an insurance company. Too many times, for too many people, that question has already been answered. With cancellations, with denials of claims, with death by spreadsheet. For the more than 40 million currently uninsured, the question is moot.

[dbapig]

[quote=Zeitgeist]The illegals ARE uninsured. You just don’t get it.[/quote]

Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.

[dbapig]

[quote=Zeitgeist]The illegals ARE uninsured. You just don’t get it.[/quote]

Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.

[dbapig]

[quote=Zeitgeist]The illegals ARE uninsured. You just don’t get it.[/quote]

Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.

[dbapig]

[quote=Zeitgeist]The illegals ARE uninsured. You just don’t get it.[/quote]

Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.

[dbapig]

[quote=Zeitgeist]The illegals ARE uninsured. You just don’t get it.[/quote]

Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.

[an]

[quote=dbapig]
Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.[/quote]
What’s the % of uninsured are US citizens vs illegals?

[an]

[quote=dbapig]
Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.[/quote]
What’s the % of uninsured are US citizens vs illegals?

[an]

[quote=dbapig]
Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.[/quote]
What’s the % of uninsured are US citizens vs illegals?

[an]

[quote=dbapig]
Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.[/quote]
What’s the % of uninsured are US citizens vs illegals?

[Author]

Posts