Posted on 07/23/2009 12:29:02 PM PDT by yoe
Senator Ted Kennedy, who is now 76 years old and was ( diagnosed with brain cancer) in May of last year, is telling the world that nationalized medical care is "the cause of his life." He wants to see it pass as soon as possible, before he departs this vale of tears.
The prospect of Kennedy's passing is viewed by the liberal press with anticipatory tears and mourning. But they are not asking the proper question by their own lights: That question -- which will be asked for you and me when we reach his age and state in life --- is this:
Is Senator Kennedy's life valuable enough to dedicate millions of dollars to extending it another month, another day, another year?
Because Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy agree with each other that they of all people are entitled to make that decision. Your decision to live or die will now be in their hands.
Ted Kennedy is now 76. Average life expectancy in the United States is 78.06. For a man who has already reached 76, life expectancy is somewhat longer than average (since people who die younger lower the national average); for a wealthy white man it may be somewhat longer statistically; but for a man with diagnosed brain cancer it is correspondingly less. As far as the actuarial tables of the Nanny State are concerned, Kennedy is due to leave this life some time soon. The socialist State is not sentimental, at least when it comes to the lives of ordinary people like you and me.
The socialist question -- and yes, it is being asked very openly in socialist countries all around the world, like Britain and Sweden -- must be whether extending Senator Kennedy's life by another day, another month or year is socially valuable enough to pay for what is no doubt a gigantic and growing medical bill. Kennedy is a US Senator, and all that money has been coughed up without complaint by the US taxpayer. Kennedy is already entitled to Federal health care, and it is no doubt the best available to anyone in the world.
Before he dies, Senator Kennedy wants to feel sure that you and I and our loved ones can put that personal decision about life or death safely in the hands of a Federal bureaucrat. It is "the cause of his life," we are told.
Now there are many people in this country who believe that Ted Kennedy has not spent his life very constructively. Mary Jo Kopechne's family might still want to trade his life for hers, if she could be brought back. Senator Kennedy has exercised more power over our immigration chaos than any other person in the last half century. 9/11 was committed by illegal entrants who slipped through our deliberately full-of-holes borders, using all manner of Kennedy-authored loopholes and enforcement gaps.
Others might point to the socialist habit of importing vast numbers of voters from Pakistan and Somalia into Western Europe, to make for cheap socialist votes in order to defeat and scapegoat native Europeans. Socialism by immigrant vote buying is happening in every single socialist country in Europe. It is what keeps socialist parties there in power. Kennedy has opened our borders for precisely that kind of takeover by masses of illegal immigrants.
So there might be a rational debate over the social utility of Senator Kennedy's life. We could all have a great national debate about it. Maybe we should do exactly that, to face the consequences of what the Left sees as so humane, so obviously benevolent, and so enlightened.
Consider what happens in the Netherlands to elderly people. The Netherlands legalized "assisted suicide" in 2002, no doubt in part for compassionate reasons. But also to save money. There is only one money kitty for medical care in the socialist Netherlands. When you get old, the question is asked, either explicitly or by implication:
Do you deserve to live another year compared to young refugees from Somalia, who can use the same euros to have many years of life?
There's only so much money available. The Netherlands radio service had a quiz show at one time, designed to "raise public awareness" about precisely that question. Who deserves to live, and who to die?
But nobody debates any more about who has the power to make that decision. In socialist Europe the State does. It's a done deal.
The Netherlands legally recognizes four categories of euthanasia. One of them is:
Passive euthanasia: A physician may choose not to treat an recurrent disease or event in a patient with a terminal progressive disease.
I don't know enough about Senator Kennedy's condition, but I would suppose that he has "a recurrent disease or ... a terminal progressive disease." That would be the case if his brain cancer is not curable. In the socialist Netherlands Kennedy would be a perfect candidate for passive euthanasia.
Has anyone raised this question with Senator Kennedy? I know it seems to be in bad taste to even mention it. But if ObamaCare passes in the coming weeks, you can be sure that that question will be raised for you and me, and our loved ones. And no, we will not have a choice.
Put him on the neo-welfare state. His vast wealth was unearned and he’s opposed private savings accounts as a means to pay for private medical care.
Hoist him on his own petard.
Yeah but this one votes the way The Party demands. Of course he HAS slipped up on an abortion vote before and his staff had to make the correction for him.
It is disgusting that so many brain addled Democrats (including Robert Byrd who is in ascendency for the Presidency’s line of succession) as still exercising control over our lives (they don’t serve, they dictate).
RE: ““One Senator with good spirit and cojones could stop this by placing a hold and going public - demanding that all Congress and gummint employees MUST be included......the support from American Citizens would be overwhelming!”
**
You said: “I concur. All federal employees -— and their immediate family -— should not be permitted to have any other care other than ObamaCare.”
***
Yes! I contacted Pelosi’s DC office yesterday with the SAME message. We all need to blast reps with the news that we will NOT stand for any Obamacare plans that THEY, too, don’t participate in — either we ALL suffer under it or NONE of us do! And that includes the Zero family!
We need to make sure that this bill dies, before Teddy passed this vale of tears, just like he let Mary Jo die.
Speaking of which, get the federal workers UNDER Socialist Insecurity instead of their “private” retirement plan.
Give his the Red Pill its cheaper
Think they'd give up a perk like that and doom their families to shoddy treatment from the State?
Let’s ask Mary Jo.
If she agrees YES, then so be it.
Any federal worker hired since 1984 (25 years ago) is under social security. Don’t read much, do you?
I think you chumped YOURSELF wrt fool’s play on words, LOL
Not having worked for The State, I am not intimately knowledgable of it. I do know that I’ve read from people who spent their lives working in the public sector who won’t work for private industry and compromise their retirement.
I know there are pensions that pay upwards of 90% of annual salary.
But I am also refering to their rejection of getting under Social Security. I go by their own statements. Perhaps these are older workers since they may be less likely to retire in 2009 if they started in 1989.
You don’t need to have worked for the state to be aware of the 1983 social security reforms of the Greenspan commission - they are discussed in lots and lots of books. And by the way, the Greenspan Commission moved federal workers into social security to (temporarily) shore up the SS trust fund.
No federal pension pays 90% of annual salary, unless there is something special for the president or congress. You are simply wrong.
Actually your original play on words is the opposite of the truth - the old federal system is more insecure than the Social Security system. The old Civil Service Retirement system is a giant unfunded liability. When given the chance I GLADLY switched to SS. As I said to my wife at the time “When SS runs out of money at the same time as the old federal pension system, which do you think is going to be first in line with the politicians? You think they will fight SS receipients to pay federal pensions? Please!”
I said public sector when I made the 90% claim which is what seemed to briefly be the rate when many city employees opted to grab it while they could in Houston.
I appreciate the correction to the above statement but I my intent wasn’t to hijack this thread.
Then back to Kennedy ... enough of the talk of sending him to sea! I eat seafood, and would rather not have it contaminated, thank you very much!
In a sane and fair world he would just now be coming up for a parole hearing for the negligent homicide of Mary Jo Kopechne.
No! Give him 0bamaCare!
What about military? They are on the federal payroll as well.
I thought about exempting them, but it’s a political point, not a policy point, so keep it simple.
And, it’s great, isn’t it? Don’t we want the BEST for the military?!@
Chappaquidick episode makes him excempt........sar
This is an excellent article. Obama should publicly ask Kennedy to resist further care and take one for the team. His death by selfless health care rationing should motivate us all to force the same thing on everyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.