Do The Democrats Want Me Dead?
By
Dear Jim Bob,
I’ve been reading about this Democrat healthcare law they are trying to pass. Is it true that old people are going to be encouraged to give up and die? I’m 70 years old. Do Obama and the Democrats want me to die Jim Bob? If so, why?
Eileen Enoughisenough
Elgin, Alabama
Dear Eileen,
Lots of information is now coming out about what’s actually in the new Socialized Medicine Bill the Democrats want for all of us, but they will be exempt from participating in themselves. One of the provisions of this new plan requires anyone on Medicare to sit down every five years to be counseled about whether it’s a good idea for them to keep on breathing. Evidently these government “Death Advisors” will be trying to thin out the population of older people.
About two years ago I told a group of people that I believed government mandated euthanasia was in America’s future. Many in the group rolled their eyes and shook their head as if such an idea was ridiculous. Well, golly…here it is right on our doorstep wrapped up in a package by the same, compassionate Democrat party Americans voted into power last November. American’s wanted change and brother are they getting change!
As far as why the Democrats might want you dead Eileen, think about this: For the past 15 years people have been demanding that some kind of “fix” be created to solve the Social Security problem. What is that problem you ask? It’s that when all the baby boomers retire there will be far more people “getting” than there are people giving (those who actually pay taxes) to support them. Are you beginning to get the picture of why “Death Counseling” for the elderly might be a priority item on the Democrat agenda? If they can reduce the number of elderly people getting benefits they might be able to “fix” social security!
It’s a short trip from “Death Counseling” to mandated euthanasia. That’s when, some bureaucrat will be empowered to rule that living 75 years is probably enough for anybody. I’m sure it will be called something like prohibiting existence beyond the “Optimal Beneficial Longevity Standard (OBLS)”. When you exceed the OBLS you will be picked up in a government car and taken to the “Federal Euthanasia Center”. Of course, the Congress will be exempt from this requirement, just as they exempt themselves from many other laws they put into effect.
Obama World is not pretty.
Such an enjoyable read, and fantastic comments
This “euthanasia” fantasy is a radical rightwingnut attempt to needlessly scare people. It’s a complete lie. Here’s the truth:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp
And here’s the actual proposed bill. Look on page 425 to see for yourself:
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
OK Diogenes, here’s the point. The bill authorizes “End of Life” counselling and the government will pay for it. That’s a nicer term for “Death Counselling”.
This “radical, rightwingnut” has been watching how Democrats operate for over 40 years and they have a clear track record. First, they get someting into law that looks pretty reasonable on the surface. Then they add the “Regulations” to the law and the regs take everything up a notch and what may have seemed reasonable suddenly becomes a bureaucratic plague and a little more freedom and liberty is lost.
Here is a short list of Governemt activites that started out as little things that grew into bloated bureacracy: The Dept of Education, All Federal Entitlement Programs, The Federal Income Tax Code, The Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Obama’s new socialized medicine agency will turn these other agencies into small-time operators by comparison.
If you don’t think that “Death Counselling” for the elderly will become mandatory you are very naive, or a “Radical Leftwingnut”. My guess is that you are both. Just keep your mouth shut for about two more years and then come back and tell me I was wrong. In the meantime, I’m sticking with my theory.
The Dept. of Education was set up by Ronald reagan. I think he was a Republican.
You can make up whatever words you want to, and you can make up whatever you want about the bill, but the facts are that NONE of that stuff is in the proposal. But you’re free to stick with your “theory” even though it isn’t based on anything real or factual.
But “Death Counseling” is a bizarre choice of terminology. Letting people know about living wills, durable powers of attorney, how to craft a legal order that expresses what you would like to see happen FOR YOU if a critical issue arises regarding your health.
Now, all the proposal does is allow for Medicare to reimburse for the costs associated with that sort of consultation. Don’t you think even the government would have a hard time stretching that definition of a reimbursable expense into a regulation that REQUIRES that everyone have that sort of consultation?
I mean, Medicare will reimburse you if your doctor has to amputate your leg, right? But has anybody stretched that so far out of shape that it’s interpreted to say that Medicare can REQUIRE an amputation, even if you don’t think you need it or want it?
Very interesting and amusing subject. I read with great pleasure.
I write a music blog for my audience research class. I’m new to blogging and I want them to be good! So any advice you guys could give me would be great
Still awaiting your posting of my response, JimBobJoeHarvey. I’m hoping that you’re not one of those rightwingnut bloggers who won’t post facts contrary to your stated positions.
Diogenes, you are a piece of work big boy. First, you can just call me Jim Bob. I don’t get the JoeHarvey addition. Second, I think I need to point out a couple of things about this blog. This is not a debate forum with liberals. If you want to debate you can go somewhere else.
The purpose of this blog is to dish out my spin on information to expose the danger socialists like you and Mr. Obama pose to this country.
Diogenes, is your memory good enough to remember the eight years of constant drivel your party dumped on George Bush. My interpretation of events may be a lot different from yours, but it pales in comparison to your parties disgusting attacks on Bush. One thing about you guys is that you never start splitting hairs on the truth if it involves conservatives. So, think of me as a conservative version of Michael Moore. Hey, maybe I’ll even make a movie.
Finally, you need to know that this blog is not my job. I don’t have the time to sit around waiting for you to write something and respond to it immediately. I work and pay the taxes you guys love to get your hands on to fund your goofy programs.
Since you have the time to monitor things here so closely, it appears you have more time on your hands than you need. Are you a government employee somewhere, or do you just not work? Or, are you playing around on the internet on your companies time? I suspect any or all of these are possibilities.
It was nice hearing from you though. However, we’ve had enough.
“The purpose of this blog is to dish out my spin on information….”
Ohhhhh I see. I didn’t realize that this was simply a spin machine to indulge your fantasies. I thought you were at least partially dealing with those things the rest of us call “facts”. See, if I knew that you could just make up anything you wanted and say it, I wouldn’t have tried to correct your misstatements. Now that we realize that you INTEND to lie whenever you want, hopefullly, you won’t be btohered by other people who also deal in facts, like me.
My bad, JimBobGeorgeHarry! Let the lies re-commence!
If I was shooting fish in a barrel I think I would name all of them Diogenes. You snapped up the bait very well.
You see Diogenes, what I’m really motivated to rail against is the behavior of the Democrat Party during the Presidency of George W. Bush. What I love more than anything is to maneuver a liberal (like you) into an admission that the Democrat Party is a party of liars and amoral politicians.
If you read my earlier post, nowhere did I claim to be purposely lying about anything. I just said the purpose of this blog was to dish out my spin on information that exposes Democrats for the socialists they are. I believe my spin is the truth. My spin is my opinion and I hold it honestly.
You have jumped to the conclusion that I am purposely lying. How did you reach that conclusion Diogenes? Was it when I said you should think of me as a conservative Michael Moore? Yes, I think that is it! What that means is that you know Michael Moore to be a dedicated liar and nothing the man ever said about George W. Bush was the truth. Since Mr. Moore was a poster boy for the Democrat Party and was eagerly supported by most of them, you have vicariously admitted the essential corruption and deceit that so characterized Democrat behavior from 2001 until Bush left office.
Isn’t it strange that the voices that so loudly attacked Bush are now virtually all silent. And nothing has really changed. We are still in Iraq. We still do wiretaps on terrorists. We still have the evil Guantanamo Bay prison. Where are all the voices and the media who raged daily about these things and painted George W. Bush as an evil monster. The thing that is different is the headlong rush into socialism your Democrats are leading. Unemployment is at 10% and there is no end in sight. Where are the voices to object to these things?
You and your ilk should be ashamed of yourselves Diogenes. I intend to keep on exposing all of you at every opportunity. If you examine this blog closely, you will notice that I have never engaged in a dialog with anyone quite like this. I picked you for a reason.
OK. Diogenes has been sending me liberal name calling email so I’ve blocked him from the site. Don’t have the patience for that stuff.
I did get an interesting email from some one who asked why I singled out Diogenes for a dialog, since I normally don’t get involved in those things. Well, it’s his moniker, Diogenes. Here is a little information about the real Diogenes:
Diogenes – “The Cynic”
(BC, c412-323)
Diogenes was chief among the school known as the cynics, though possibly not representative of it [Diogenes "carried the principles of the sect to an extreme of asceticism." (OED.)]. It was said of Diogenes that throughout his life he “searched with a lantern in the daylight for an honest man.” And though Diogenes apparently did not find an honest man, he had, in the process, “exposed the vanity and selfishness of man.”
(The meaning of cynicism today is: “A person disposed to rail or find fault; now usually: One who shows a disposition to disbelieve in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions, and is wont to express this by sneers and sarcasms; a sneering fault-finder.” The image of a cynic that has come to us is that of a dog.)
So, the moment I saw this person was calling themself Diogenes I knew I had a fish to land. Whoever Diogenes may really be, he (or she) is probably a narcissist and like all other liberals believes he/she is smarter that than everybody else. He/she lived up to my expectations.
But that’s the end of him/her here, and my comments.
Love,
Jim Bob