Hello Everyone,
I had a brief but pleasant exchange with the writer of this article, Doctor (as in the medical kind) Stolinsky. He has granted permission to use his article. From what I read here he makes a lot of sense.
Godspeed,
Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit
Beware the Fury of a Patient Man
David C. Stolinsky, MD
March 22, 2010
The quotation is from John Dryden, but until recently I never thought much about it. The other night, I was surfing the Internet for the latest information on ObamaCare. The health-care bill was advertised as covering the uninsured, while leaving untouched those who are satisfied with their insurance − and saving money as well.
In fact, private health insurance will end, which is President Obama’s plan. Costs will be overwhelming, though estimates are still uncertain. In fact, no one knows what ObamaCare will cost. The bill consists of 2500 pages of dense legalese, plus thousands of pages of regulations yet to be written.
· What is certain is that if illegal immigrants are included in ObamaCare, as seems likely despite the president’s promise, costs will be even higher.
· What is certain is that much of what is said about the bill cannot be trusted.
· What is certain is that the government will seize control of another one-sixth of the economy.
· What is certain is that if the government pays for our health care, it will control our health care − and become even more intrusive.
· What is certain is that the devious means used to push ObamaCare − including the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” the “California Water Follies,” “Gator Aid” and “Deemed to Pass” − make people suspicious and resentful.
· What is certain is that those who understand that the Constitution gives the federal government only certain enumerated powers are even more suspicious and resentful.
Revealingly, members of Congress want to exempt themselves from the law and keep their current plan. Politicians don’t want their health care rationed.
If our health-care system is “broken,” why does America have the best cancer survival statistics? Britain’s National Health Service, with its waiting times and rationed care, produces lower cancer survival. And why is America responsible for the majority of advances in health care and over 60% of the Nobel Prizes in Medicine? So as I went to bed, I was troubled by the thought that instead of improving our current system, the Democrats plan to alter it drastically − based on erroneous assumptions.
I tried to sleep, but I was disturbed by Obama’s view of surgery for the elderly: “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.” I was troubled by Obama’s opinion of cardiac pacemakers for the elderly: “If we’ve got experts that are advising doctors that the pacemaker will save money...” And then, even the painkillers can be eliminated.
Of course, to save even more money, everyone should die soon after they start receiving Social Security and Medicare. So I slept fitfully, aware that under ObamaCare, my prospects for a long sleep are excellent. Mobsters call it a “hit,” while bureaucrats call it “cost-effectiveness,” but the result is similar.
But then I began to dream. People were sitting around a table.
There was a retired Army officer who had served in Desert Storm. He was told he had prostate cancer, but because of his age, “watchful waiting” would be the only treatment. He hoped to get curative treatment at a Veterans Hospital, but that system had been absorbed into the national system. As in Britain, politicians said, in effect, “Who needs separate hospitals for veterans when everyone gets government care?” He managed to control his famous temper, but he could not hide his leadership abilities.
There was a lean man with gray, crew-cut hair. He had been a Marine in Vietnam, but now he had a neurologic disease. Medication was relieving his symptoms, until bureaucrats decided that it was not “cost-effective.” The gunny now walked with a cane, but his eyes hinted that he was not a man to cross.
There was a computer expert who had a lymphoma. He hoped for a cure, but he feared that medical research would be slowed by oppressive regulations and removal of the profit motive. At least half of the increases in health-care spending results from medical innovations, so cutting spending will necessarily reduce innovation. Because of his work, he was able to hack into government computer systems.
There was a woman who was a prosecuting attorney. She worried about whether her aged father would continue to receive proper care. She did not understand how people could be so softhearted that they couldn’t bear to execute brutal murderers, yet also be so hardhearted that they remained silent when their president proposed leaving the elderly with broken hips and no pacemakers. Because of her work, she had friends in law enforcement.
There was a nurse whose mother had a stroke and required a feeding tube. The old lady enjoyed visits with her daughter, but she needed the tube to avoid choking on food. Then an anonymous committee decided that her “poor quality of life” required removal of the tube, so she would die slowly of dehydration and starvation over a week or two. Of course, the committee asked neither the patient nor her daughter their opinion of the now-standard Schiavo Treatment. Because of her work, the nurse had access to drugs.
There was a construction contractor whose older brother had broken his hip. But instead of surgery to repair it and allow him to spend his later years pain-free and walking, anonymous bureaucrats offered only pain pills. Of course, the bureaucrats asked neither the contractor nor his brother their opinion of the now-standard Obama Treatment. Because of his work, the contractor had access to heavy equipment.
There was a young woman whose grandfather had been on Social Security. He received government-mandated “counseling,” advising him of his “option” not to get medical treatment but just to die and save the government money. This made the old gentleman feel useless, so he killed himself and saved the government even more money. His granddaughter had access to no weapons − except her deep anger, which is the most dangerous weapon of all.
The retired Army officer led the discussion. Everyone contributed ideas on how to overcome the destructive effects of ObamaCare.
But no one could think of nonviolent methods to undo a system that had become entrenched. After attempts to repeal ObamaCare failed, people became addicted to it − and felt entitled to it.
No one could think of nonviolent methods to dismantle the vast bureaucracy that had grown like a cancer, infiltrating almost every aspect of society, while masking its deadly intentions in the camouflage of “health” and “fairness.”
No one could think of nonviolent methods to convince sheep-like people to give up their passivity, even when they were being led to the slaughterhouse.
No one could think of nonviolent methods to convince the “elite” to give up their privileged status, and their prompt access to first-rate medical care without waiting in line with us “common” people.
So the discussion turned to other methods. No one around the table was willing to sit idly while they and their loved ones were bureaucratized to death. But as plans were being formulated, I woke up.
Unexpectedly, I awoke with a smile on my face. There still was hope. Despite the socialist, statist daydreams of the self-anointed “elite,” most Americans are individualists.
People like that are unlikely to remain submissive as they watch the lives of their loved ones and themselves being sacrificed to the arbitrary rulings of paper-shuffling bureaucrats, penny-wise accountants and power-hungry politicians.
People like that are unlikely to remain passive as control of their health care is seized by bumbling incompetents who couldn’t even run a simple program like “cash for clunkers,” much less keep Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac from going broke.
Americans, even the disabled and the elderly, will not line up on railroad platforms to be taken away in box cars, either literally or figuratively. If politicians declare them to be “useless eaters” and “unworthy of life,” they just might return the favor. It is unwise to give people the idea that they have nothing to lose.
Lincoln said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Our politicians are failing that test shamefully, and it is up to us to send them the report card. We hope they will get the message from the 2010 and 2012 elections, so that my dream will remain only a dream, and not become a real nightmare when the patient people lose their patience.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.
First they came for the communists, but I was not a communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the socialists and the trade unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
– Pastor Martin Niemoeller.
You are welcome to post or publish these articles, in whole or in part, provided that you cite the author and website.
Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit
.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment