Skip to comments.Gingrich: A slippery slope from gov't health to euthanasia
Posted on 08/09/2009 12:28:16 PM PDT by SmartInsight
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said as Congress continues to hammer out healthcare reform legislation, lawmakers will need to be cautious that the policy doesnât allow care to be denied to key patients.
"I don't want somebody in between the doctor and the patient," Dean said today on ABC's "This Week." "I don't want the possibility... of people setting standards of denying care."
"Communal standards historically is a very dangerous concept," Gingrich said. "You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in American who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
If people were required to pay their own medical bills, they wouldn’t have to worry about the health insurance companies or A GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRAT being involved in their medical decisions. That would be between them and their doctor.
The latter have no possibility of Private Sector competition while the former do - And the results are clear.
Who has the money in this relationship? It isn't the patient, or the doctor, its the government. Its the government-doctor relationship we need to worry about.
In a single payer system, the doctor is dependent on one entity for his or her salary. The has a chilling effect of resisting directives from the government about how health care will be rationed.
we already reports from Oregon about people being denied care and offered assisted suicide.
Its a diving board!
The whole point of insurance is to spread the risk. Are you proposing that all insurance should be outlawed, as in no health insurance, no fire insurance, no car insurance, and so on? Let the poor die, if they can’t pay for the medical bills, let people lose their home and possessions, if their house catches fire, let people go bankrupt if they have an accident? And of course this extended to companies as well, any company that gets sued, let them go bankrupt, or if a doctor gets sued, let him go bankrupt and stop practicing?
Let’s just go back to the stone age, where we have nothing — those would be the consequences of what you are proposing.
You are trying to change the debate — it’s about whether the GOVERNMENT should be in charge of our health and life.
“”Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.”
From Ezekiel Emanuel’s 1996 Hastings Center article. See link.”
AND he is on the panel of doctor’s on the “Medican efficiency panel” or what4ever the name of it is, that will determine who is eligible for what treatment. I forgotthe name of the panel, but it already exists, it was created in the stimulus bill.
I posted this in an online discussion with an Obama supporter and after feebly trying to spin out of it, he had to concede that he could see where the concerns come from. That quote is damning and Obama should be forced to clearly and totally reject it and dump Ezekiel Emanuel or it should be hung like an albatross around his neck.
Note that in every one of these posters, the argument is about the cost (the number followed by RM) to take care of those targeted. Sound familiar?
My son was without medical or dental insurance since May 26. He is 25 and healthy. He went to Denist and I paid $136 for it, much cheaper than it would have been if I had paid for health insurance for him for three months. That would have been about 500 dollars. It was cheaper to pay cash for that one dental appointment. Obama Care will jack up the prices. And does it even cover dental or vision? Those can be expensive. I think it will be expensive to have oBAMA care and it won’t cover anything more than a broken arm. And I have never broken a bone and I am 58.
That is a very very scary statement! Is this guy related to Dr Mengele, the Nazi war doctor? Would this so-called dictor kill Sarah Palin's baby, Trig?
This statement should be broadcast and published in every news outlet, what obamma own medical advisor has written.
Interesting, to say the least.
The euthanasia part starts at 11:30. (drag the bar to 11:20, hit pause and let it load for a while to avoid buffering)
note that Newt is warning 'not to trust the government' on this, it's a thousand pages, and the door is wide open for 'community standard' which can easily include dictating who should not get health care.
Would anyone go to a doctor that espoused those kind of sentiments?
howard dean is a deluded, demented psychopath. gingrich, apparently, is the master of understatement. “Slippery slope” indeed. Like the McDonald’s menu is a “slippery slope” to quarter-pounders with cheese.
The establishment press has promoted the euthanasia crowd's viewpoint so energetically for the last ten years, often portraying the Jack Kervorkians of the world as sympathetic figures fighting the good, just & compassionate fight for humanity.
Time and again we've been told by the leftists' flunkies in the press that a growing number of Americans agree with the idea that doctors and others should be able to unilaterally decide for themselves when to pull the plug on other citizens.
And yet now we're supposed to take their word that the same "growing American consensus" of people advocating for euthanasia would never allow the possibility of the same thing being perpetrated against us when government (which itself makes policy decisions in accordance with - ta da ! - the whims of democratic majority consensus) seizes control of the plug?
Media shills for the left have to decide here which one of these contentions which it's been peddling to us for years now is true:
1)The only people left in America who could possibly believe that the 'compassionate' euthanasia of other citizens under curcumstances of liberals' own enlightened determination is not a good thing are a dwindling band of hopelessly irrational troglodytes & religious nuts or
2) A health care system operated by the government would never target its own citizens for euthanasia, even according to the enlightened determination of pro-euthanasia liberals such as those for whom the press has been working so hard to try to convince the rest of us they actually have the full weight of momentum of public opinion on their side now.
Those two premises are laughably self-contradictory.