Eternal Vigilance

Let your voice be heard

2009-11-03T21:17:00.001-05:00

Quit making things up

2009-11-02T22:48:00.001-05:00

"We're going to let you die"

2009-10-16T08:06:00.005-04:00

H/T: Gateway Pundit and Verum Serum

Here is Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Clinton and more recently an Obama economic adviser having a moment of brutal honesty about healthcare "reform." This was a speech he gave at UC Berkeley in 2007, in which he shares what a candidate for president would say, if that candidate were being honest and not worried about getting elected:

You can here the full audio clip here. The Wall Street Journal has the full transcript here.

On care for seniors:

"And by the way, we are going to have to--if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die."

On who's going to pay for it all:

"I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you--particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people--you're going to have to pay more."

And on the effects of gov't forcing drug companies, medical suppliers, and insurance companies to reduce costs:

"But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents."

Which by the way, isn't saying much - your parents won't be living that long either based on the first quote.

No surprise, the MSM has yet to report on this...

Imagine going to the doctor... DMV-style!

2009-10-07T08:32:00.003-04:00

H/T Alexa Shrugged

Healthcare Ad Parody

2009-10-07T08:18:00.005-04:00

H/T Alexa Shrugged

For all the celebrity "experts" (too funny)

Blood Money Trailer

2009-09-05T18:04:00.004-04:00

From Jill Stanek:

"I normally like to preview pro-life movies before publicizing them, but the director of Blood Money has made a special request that makes sense. He wrote me:
If abortion is the front line of the healthcare plan, we need to get people to see the trailer, where Dr. Clowes talks about the giant facilities being built by Planned Parenthood.

[Also], we already have 3 distributors interested in seeing it once it is complete. So if we can show there is an interest in the public seeing it in theaters we will have a stronger case to present to them for doing so."

Here's the trailer:

I knew Planned Parenthood was corrupt and lacking a moral compass of any kind, but I had no idea just how insidious this organization is... please take a moment to watch this and share it with others.

You can also click here to show your support for the film.

The ad the state-run media doesn't want you to see

2009-09-05T17:44:00.005-04:00

From Gateway Pundit:

ABC had no problem showing Obama's infomercial on socialized medicine, broadcast directly from the White House. They refused to air any opposing views at the time to present a balanced view. And now both ABC and NBC are refusing paid advertising that is critical of Congress' proposed healthcare plan.

I've seen the networks airing ads in favor of gov't-run healthcare, so the claim that they don't air "partisan" ads doesn't hold water. Thank goodness the state-run media is not the only source of information in this country (at least for now).

Here's the ad:

Reagan on socialized medicine

2009-08-23T07:21:00.000-04:00

Insightful.

Health Reform & Wait Times - Lego illustration

2009-08-18T00:19:00.002-04:00

From 10000Pennies

"In 2006, Massachusetts passed health care reform that implemented a number of policies that are now being mirrored in the Obama health reform plan. The president has repeatedly claimed that his plan will lower health care costs but not decrease health care quality. This visualization looks at how the Massachusetts plan has panned out in terms of cost and wait times."

Disproportionate Response

2009-08-15T14:13:00.016-04:00

"un-American"

"angry mobs" of "right-wing extremists"

"brown-shirts" ... "carrying swastikas" (aka Nazi's)

"KKK"

"political terrorists"

"reminiscent of... Timothy McVeigh"

and when the existing lexicon just wasn't enough to convey their contempt, they made up a new term: "evil-mongers"

Wow. These mobsters that members of the United States House and Senate, along with the Obama administration, and the MSM keep warning us about sound truly terrifying don't they?

Dana Loesch shared some pictures of them on her blog.

*** Warning - GRAPHIC photos ***
You've been warned. I am not responsible for any nightmares that result from witnessing these frightening photos of mobs in action.

You can see more photos here.

It's more than a little ridiculous, isn't it? The disproportionate response from the left only underscores how desperate they must be to ram this monstrosity of Obamacare down our throats. But now that people have seen what is in the bill they aren't happy with it, and are being denigrated and maligned for nothing more - and nothing less - than exercising their right of free speech under the Constitution.

And as much as they'd like us to believe this is a "fringe" response, not indicative of the country at large - the polls say otherwise. The latest Rasmussen polls show that 53% of Americans are opposed to the healthcare bill. And really, this is about a lot more than healthcare - it's about freedom. It's about not having to worry about a government-induced scarcity of care in which the opinions of Ezekiel Emanuel or John Holdren may influence decisions on whether our families are "worth" getting medical care.

Interestingly enough (though hardly surprising), the response of the left to Americans voicing concerns about healthcare is fraught with blatant hypocrisy.

For example, Nancy Pelosi only thinks you're "un-American" if you disagree with her. She's "a fan of disruptors" if she agrees with them:

More here, here, and here. (Warning - for real this time - some of the pictures in that last link contain offensive language and nudity but hopefully won't give you nightmares).

Opposing views and free speech

2009-08-07T06:30:00.001-04:00

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." -- William F. Buckley, Jr.

The left can't get their heads around the concept that Americans all over the country oppose their plans for a government takeover of healthcare, so they respond with name-calling and ridicule while the Obama administration goes further and asks supporters to report any "fishy" emails or even casual conversation opposing the president's healthcare reform to the White House. Spy on your friends and neighbors and report anyone who isn't falling in line behind the president's plans to implement a plan that would limit choices, reduce quality, significantly increase debt and healthcare costs, and necessarily result in rationing by a central governmental board.

What exactly does the White House plan to do with all these reports? If they're putting together some kind of "enemies list," it's going to be a very, very long list considering that 53% of Americans oppose the health care bill.

~~~~~~~~

If I can add one more thought:

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." ~Hillary Clinton

I agreed with Hillary then, and I agree with her now. Unfortunately, those of us opposed to Obama's policies are being called much worse than "unpatriotic," we are being called extremists and dangerous. We are maligned as "angry mobs" simply for asking questions and wanting to have our voices heard. And these things aren't coming from just people on the left who disagree with us, which would be fine. These misrepresentations and attempts at intimidation are coming from the president and his administration, as well as our elected representatives in Congress, and they are attempting to shut down our voices through intimidation. Personally, I don't think it's going to work (thank goodness).

Folks, we have a president who goes out of his way to support and engage with terrorists and tyrants, enemies of our nation, and yet his administration is actively attacking everyday Americans simply for exercising their 1st amendment rights of free speech to question and debate his policies.

Keep standing up, America.

And if your elected officials are planning to oppose the healthcare bill, don't think you're off the hook! Attend their town halls to express your support. They need to know that we are behind them, because they will be under tremendous pressure to change their votes.

Healthcare Plan B: Next worst thing

2009-08-04T21:29:00.003-04:00

Earlier I wrote about the dangers of the "public option" in Obama's plan. Even without a so-called "public option," Obama's Plan B isn't much better, as it would still bring about massive government control - essentially still a gov't takeover of the health insurance industry but with the facade of a free-market system.

From The Weekly Standard:

Plan B is no day at the beach for health insurers. By imposing an exhaustive array of regulations and installing a powerful national health commissioner, it would turn health insurers into public utilities. They'd be assured a small profit, but competition among insurers would be gone and bureaucrats would be in charge.

...

As you might expect, there are many, many problems with Plan B. Its first impact would be on health insurers. All but the largest five or six of 1,300 insurers across the country would be out of luck. Since Plan B would reduce the profits for insurance companies, and those with smaller margins--namely, regional, state, and local insurers--probably wouldn't be able to compete.

"It's another chapter in the book on crony capitalism," says Republican representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who first described Obamacare 2.0 as "Plan B." "The government erects barriers to entry against the smaller and most innovative insurance companies and leaves the big, established firms in place."

Insurers would be allowed to offer new policies after 2013 only if they joined a government-operated "exchange." And the policies would have to include a minimum--and more extensive and expensive--set of benefits. This would deny smaller firms their competitive advantage of offering insurance packages with fewer benefits, specially tailored for a client's needs.

Ryan raised this point recently during a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee, asking about a small Milwaukee insurer. The answer he got was unequivocal. The firm couldn't offer new policies outside the exchange.

The biggest impact of Plan B would be on all of us, assuming it retains most or all of the regulatory requirements and details of Obamacare. There would be victims and beneficiaries. As insurers go out of business, people would lose the coverage they've chosen. Young people, the healthy ones, would suffer even more. They'd have to pay far more for their coverage. Cheap catastrophic plans and cost-saving health savings accounts would be unavailable. By paying more, those in their 20s and 30s would subsidize the old and sick.

With all the new benefits--for mental health treatment and "professional services" and "well baby/child" services--the total cost of health insurance is bound to soar. The poor and uninsured will need a subsidy. Caps on out-of-pocket expenses will increase the cost of insurance. And so on. The price will have to be paid through higher premiums and tax hikes.

Read the whole article here.

John Stossel on healthcare reform

2009-08-04T02:22:00.001-04:00

One of the saddest parts is at the end when they reveal who does have access to top-notch medical care in Canada...

Obama in his own words: his plan will eliminate private insurance

2009-08-03T21:39:00.003-04:00

"I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process." - Barack Obama, 2007

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare plan... That's what I'd like to see." - Barack Obama, 2003

"If we get a good public option, it could lead to single-payer and that's the best way to reach single-payer." - Barney Frank, 7/27/09

"... a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn't let private insurance compete, that a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single payer... He was right. The man was right." - Jan Schakowsky, 4/18/09

And yet Obama has the audacity to say:

"Let me also address an illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a trojan horse for a single-payer system." - Barack Obama, 6/15/09

"Illegitimate" concern? Seems pretty clear to me that the so-called "public option" is, in fact, intended to be a gateway to a single-payer system.

Although I suppose based on the video below, perhaps the term "trojan horse" is inaccurate, since the intention is not exactly hidden, but out in plain sight for anyone who cares to see it:

"Someone once said to me this is a trojan horse for single-payer and I said, 'well, it's not a 'trojan horse,' right? It's just right there! I'm telling you. We're going to get there, over time, slowly, but we'll move away from reliance on employer-based health insurance, as we should. But we'll do it in a way that we're not going to frighten people into thinking they're going to lose their private insurance. We're going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they're in the pool and we're going to let them keep their private employment-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it. - Dr. Jacob Hacker, 7/21/08 (emphasis added)

Obama advisor: care should be reserved for non-disabled "participating" citizens

2009-08-01T09:59:00.004-04:00

More on rationing from the ever-creepy Ezekiel Emanuel (BO health policy advisor). H/T Gateway Pundit

The New York Post writes:

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

And who decides what constitutes a "participating" citizen? People like Emanuel? Scary, scary thought.

Read the whole NYP article here

Related post: Obama health policy advisor on rationing

UPDATE (7/7/09)

More on this in the following speech from Rep. Michele Bachmann:

Obama health policy advisor on rationing

2009-07-21T18:41:00.001-04:00

If Obamacare is implemented, it stands to reason that demand for care will go up while supply of care will go down. On the one hand, I believe that some doctors will choose to leave practice (and students will opt to avoid medical school) rather than work under even more government control than already exists. Aside from that, the government is fixated on "cutting costs" with regard to healthcare despite it's free-spending ways when it comes to everything else.

Such an environment will create a scarcity of care, much like what has already happened in countries with socialized medicine like Canada and Britain, which invariably leads to government rationing of care. Given that, it's worth asking how will care be rationed?

For some insight into that, we can look to the recommendations of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, NIH bioethicist (an ironic title IMO), Rahm Emanuel's brother, and most importantly, Barack Obama's "Special Advisor for Health Policy."

So, what are Dr. Emanuel's views on rationing of care? He recently coauthored an article on the topic, "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions," in the Lancet. While the article references specific care like organ transplants, kidney dialysis, and vaccines in the event of a pandemic, it is also clearly meant to apply any time there is a "scarcity" of care (which Obamacare would undoubtedly create).

After considering a number of possible rationing methods that could be used, Dr. Emanuel and his colleagues recommend a combination of criteria which they call the "complete lives system":

"It prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. ... also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants (figure)."

While I was disgusted to see the curve take a nose-dive around age 50, I can't say I was surprised, based on Obama's recent statement regarding the elderly, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," (translation, go home and die?). However, I admit I was surprised (and appalled) to see babies and young children also targetted to be denied care. What would this mean for preemies? Would life-saving NICU care be deemed "too expensive" by the bureacrats?

It gets even worse when you see his justification for such discrimination against the "very young."

"Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfilment requires a complete life. As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does'; this argument is supported by empirical surveys. Importantly, the prioritisation of adolescents and young adults considers the social and personal investment that people are morally entitled to have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the results of an unjust status quo."

That paragraph is just wrong and abhorrent on so many levels. What parent considers their love and time spent parenting as an "investment"? What parent would consider the loss of a baby less tragic than the loss of an older child? What parent would agree that it is acceptable to let a baby or young child die on the grounds that they haven't "invested" much time in that child yet (or worse, that the state hasn't "invested" in their education yet)? And to say, "this argument is supported by empirical surveys"?! WHO THINKS LIKE THAT?!? It makes me physically ill. No wonder these people don't care to protect the unborn or even newborns. If babies, toddlers, and even children who haven't yet reached adolescence mean so little to them, surely an unborn child would be worth even less in their eyes. I guess that answers my question about preemies...

Here's more:

"A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses."

And who determines prognoses? Something tells me it won't be doctors and families.

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated (figure)."

Attenuated. Good luck with that. How's that "hope and change" working out for ya?

As to potential objections that such a policy discriminates against the elderly, the authors have this to say:

"Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

Sure, ok. Well, I feel better now. It's not like we'd be discriminating against anyone on the basis of age or anything. :rolls eyes:

On the need to influence public attitudes to accept such a system:

"the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a complete life, however defined, as an important good, and accept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources."

In other words, the belief in the sanctity of life in general must go, and be replaced by the notion that a "complete life" is more important than just any life, that some lives are more worthy of saving than others. If you're over 40, just accept that you need to step aside and not expect much care, someone younger has a "stronger claim" to that care. And if your child is not yet 15 or determined to have a lower "prognosis," accept that someone older or healthier has a "stronger claim" to care. Anyone else feeling outraged yet, or is it just me?

But, let's not be too hasty. They're not quite advocating this system be applied to the entire health care system, at least not until we take some other steps first:

"Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending."

Huh? I thought we were supposed to be making healthcare more affordable, not increasing spending... won't that just increase the cost to taxpayers under a government-controlled system?

Dr. Emanuel and his colleagues are careful to distance themselves from so-called "objective" methods of discounting the value of life on the basis of disability or "quality of life," but their objection is to the attempt to quantify it. They have no problem with more qualitative methods of taking "instrumental value" into account. The fact that they advocate only resorting to that in the event of an "emergency" might be intended to reassure us, except that our current government is in a constant state of "crisis."

So what do they mean by "instrumental value"?

"Instrumental value allocation prioritises specific individuals to enable or encourage future usefulness. ... Responsibility-based allocation—eg, allocation to people who agree to improve their health and thus use fewer resources—also represents instrumental value allocation."

What exactly does "usefulness" mean? While they claim their system doesn't discriminate on the basis of disability, does anyone reading this really think that such language won't be used to discriminate against those with special needs if some bureacrat decides their "future usefulness" is less than someone else's? And how about anyone deemed "inconvenient" to society? What is the criteria for "usefulness," who decides, and why should it even matter? Can you imagine going to the doctor and being asked questions to determine your "usefulness" to society before being offered any care? The idea is unconscionable, and the sanctity of all life would be meaningless under such a system.

Where have we heard such notions before? I hate to bring up Nazi references but the similarities in thought are there. The Nazis also believed in "life unworthy of life" and saw the elimination of such people as a "healing" process for society as a whole. To be clear, Dr. Emanuel and his colleagues are NOT advocating killing anyone as the Nazis did, but denial of care via rationing would ultimately result in needless loss of life. Most importantly, it would result in loss of life that would not occur under our current system. Emanuel & friends obviously saw the potential for readers to see such parallels because they addressed it:

"Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create 'classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on', but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible."

Whew... I feel better now. Well, not exactly. Obamacare will CREATE "genuine scarcity" in many, many areas where it does not exist today, making such decisions more and more "necessary." And in reality, denying or limiting care is no less than a death sentence in many cases.

Lastly:

"To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo."

Interestingly, Obama tends to favor that term "status quo" also, and he uses it in a similarly derisive tone. Heaven forbid we hold onto a system that doesn't require rationing, especially centralized rationing, for the vast majority of care.

We keep hearing about how our current healthcare system is in a state of crisis. It's not. Are there some things that need to be improved? Of course, it's not perfect. But let's not burn down the whole town just to fix a few potholes in the road.

Gov't-controlled healthcare is not the answer

2009-06-03T06:55:00.005-04:00

Do we really want government bureacracy to come between our families and our doctors? I know I don't.

The Obama administration is bent on shoving government-run healthcare down the throats of the American people, whether we like it or not. People need to understand that "universal healthcare" does not mean "free healthcare." It doesn't even mean "accessible healthcare." What it means is government-controlled healthcare. Each and every American will pay for it with significantly higher taxes, and many will pay with their lives as a result of delayed / denied care.

If you believe the claims that those with private insurance will be able to keep it with no change, you need to see this:

The goal will be to drive private insurance out of the market. One way to do that is by making it cost-prohibitive. Obama is open to proposals to tax employer-provided health insurance benefits for the first time ever. Government-run healthcare would, of course, not have such a tax. This will effectively tax the private health insurance industry out of business in my opinion, because most families will not be able to take on the additional tax burden of maintaining their private health insurance, on top of their premiums and the already increased tax burden that's coming in order to pay for the government's out-of-control spending.

Obama keeps talking about healthcare reform in terms of "cutting costs" and yet, clearly by the way he and Congress are struggling to come up with the funding for this, it's going to significantly increase costs to the American taxpayers, not decrease them.

One proposal to cover the added cost is to impose a VAT tax, or national sales tax. It is worth noting that (1) this would signifantly increase the cost of literally everything, (2) it would be a tax increase on every American, and (2) every other nation that has a VAT tax does not also have a national income tax - it's either / or, not both. And yet, our government would impose both on us, which would cripple our already struggling economy.

As a final thought, I refer you to one of many articles about what's being called "Dealergate," controversy over how decisions were made regarding which Chrysler dealers would be closed and which would remain open. The questions surround whether politics played a role in making those decisions, and neither the White House or Chrysler has responded to requests to explain how they selected which dealers would be closed.

Do we really want to even open ourselves up to the possibility of life-and-death medical decisions regarding who gets care (and when) and who doesn't in the hands of the government? Do we want to take a chance on those decisions potentially being influenced by politics? If we move to a single-payer system, as Obama and others would like to, where is the choice for the American people? Where are the options? What alternative would you or your family have if denied care by the government?

Consider this - people in countries with socialized medicine such as Canada and Britain have one last resort when their government-controlled healthcare fails to provide adequate care, or even denies life-saving treatment. They turn to the United States. Our healthcare system as it stands today is the best in the world. It is by no means perfect, and certainly some aspects are in need of reform. But even those without medical insurance or the ability to pay are not turned away - ER's will treat them in an emergency, and there are many charitable foundations set up to help families in need. Everyone will benefit if we focus healthcare reform on targeting specific areas that need improvement rather than destroying the entire system and replacing it with a government-controlled bureaucracy that offers no options.

For more information, visit Patients United Now and Faces of Government Healthcare.

Do no harm petition

2009-04-04T22:38:00.003-04:00

From the Galen Institute:

The Hippocratic Oath Taken by All Doctors: "First, do no harm"

Politicians, policymakers and public officials should take the same oath:
DO NO HARM TO AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

To learn more and sign the petition if you agree, visit www.donoharmpetition.org.

H/T Notoriously Conservative

Embryonic stem cell research: unintended reversal?

2009-03-14T05:44:00.009-04:00

It looks like Obama has managed to reverse himself again, only this time in a good way if you're opposed to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

You may recall that on Monday, Obama signed an order to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Although he made it sound like embryonic stem cell research itself had previously been banned, it hadn't. It simply required private funding since federal funding was restricted. He also neglected to mention that in the years since the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was put into place, promising advances have been made in the area of adult stem cell research, which does not require the destruction of human embryos.

Two days later, he signed the $410 billion omnibus porkfest, complete with 8,000 earmarks. Yes, after he campaigned on "no earmarks". But don't worry, he's going to make sure they do something about earmarks next year.

Apparently, he didn't bother to read it (anyone surprised?), because the omnibus budget bill included a provision that bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." Which basically undoes what he did on Monday, does it not?

Thoughts on Pelosi's comments

2009-01-26T08:46:00.009-05:00

Just when I thought I might be a little overly paranoid about what happens when the government has too much control over the healthcare system, I saw this on the news this morning. It's been played over and over throughout the day, and this evening I saw that this has actually been removed from the stimulus bill. That's great, but I think it's still worth looking closer at this in the context of the implications of socialized medicine (aka universal healthcare).

Here's the video clip:

Transcript:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

This is really disturbing to me. It sounds great on paper to talk about everyone having "free" healthcare, but the reality is that it would be a disaster not only from a medical care standpoint, but just from the perspective of allowing the government increasing levels of control over our lives.

Over the years we as a country have often complained about the risks of having insurance companies making decisions about what kind of medical care their customers can have access to. Now imagine a government bureaucrat with that power. Scary thought, IMO.

Aside from the usual worries about what it would mean for waiting times to receive treatment, quality of care, and accessibility vs. rationing of care, as a mother of special needs children, I am particularly concerned about what the implications of socialized medicine would be for those with special needs.

Once the entire country depends on the government for medical coverage, how long will it be before the government starts discriminating against those with disabilities with regard to decisions on medical care because the cost is deemed "too high"?

Worse still, if the Speaker of the House can sit there and say with a straight face that family planning equates to reducing cost and is therefore a good thing for the government to be focused on, then how long before someone in the government decides to start forcing "family planning" on American citizens?

It may sound crazy, but it already happens in other countries. China enforces a "one-child" law, and in Belgium, the government can and has forced the killing of children with disabilities up to one year old in their efforts to "build a better society." In our own country, children who are found during pregnancy to have disabilities are routinely aborted.

Is it really such a stretch to fear that, if given control over and responsibility for the healthcare of all Americans, the government may one day decide that they have a right to make life and death decisions in the name of the "greater good"?