Conservative political and social commentary
Conservative
political and social commentary
| Contact us: 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.
| Oppose ObamaCare = Mass Murder? - Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 00:03 |
Signs of the Times: A mosque is being built just two blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan. New York City authorities favor the project. But a New Yorker observed, “You’ve got to be kidding me. If this is true, our beloved country is already gone. We no longer have the America I know and love.” Amen. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was nominated by President Obama for a second term. But is he trying to tell us something about the economy?
David C. Stolinsky, MD A Washington Post blogger charges that by opposing ObamaCare, Sen. Joe Lieberman “…seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.” Typically, the liberal blogger claims to see no possible motive for Lieberman’s actions other than revenge. Fear of government-run health care denying needed treatments to save money? Destroying the health insurance with which most citizens are satisfied? No, Lieberman couldn’t be worried about those very real possibilities. His motives couldn’t possibly be decent. Conservatives tend to see liberals as mistaken, ill-informed and even foolish. But liberals tend to see conservatives as selfish, immoral and even evil. This liberal blogger is a perfect example. Perhaps he is referring to the study that estimates that about 22,000 people annually die prematurely because of lack of health insurance. Clearly, health insurance is an important aid in obtaining optimum care. Those lacking insurance tend to have diseases diagnosed later, in less curable stages. But in considering this problem, there are other factors to take into account: ● Lack of health insurance is not the same as lack of health care. I spent my professional life working in public hospitals, providing care to patients who were largely uninsured and often indigent. To equate lack of insurance with lack of care is to insult the work of thousands of doctors, nurses, technicians and others. ● Lack of health insurance is often temporary, when people are between jobs, or have moved to another state. ● Lack of health insurance is often voluntary, when young people assume they will remain healthy and prefer to spend their money elsewhere, or when recent immigrants prefer to send their money back home to relatives. ● Lack of health insurance may be associated with unhealthful lifestyles, including extreme poverty, poor diet, alcoholism, drug abuse or criminality − all of which can contribute to poor health and premature death, but none of which are related to insurance. Health insurance is only one aspect of health care, and health care is only one aspect of health − together with lifestyle and heredity. I become angry when I hear politicians claim that 40 million Americans lack health care, and even angrier when I hear politicians claim that they intend to provide everyone with health. Listen closely − some actually say it. Besides, even if we accept that lack of health insurance causes deaths, we must also consider that single-payer insurance, which is President Obama’s goal, also causes deaths. Recently a government panel recommended that mammograms be routine only between the ages of 50 and 74. It also recommended against breast self-examination. The recommendations are already being implemented. How many deaths will result if government-run health care makes the recommendations universal? How many women under 50 and over 74 will die of breast cancer that could have been cured if it had been discovered earlier? How many women will die if they stop breast self-examination? And how many men will die of prostate cancer if PSA screening, especially of younger men, is discouraged? The sad fact is that a great deal of money will be saved by Social Security if people do die years before their time. How many deaths and how much suffering will result if we all are forced to take Dr. Obama’s prescription of “take the pain pill instead of the hip replacement,” and “get the cardiac pacemaker only if ‘experts’ tell doctors that it saves money”? When did placing money above prolonging lives and relieving suffering become a “liberal” position? Imagine the uproar if President Bush had said something like that. He would have been excoriated as a heartless beast and a Nazi. But when President Obama says it, it goes virtually unnoticed. If you need further proof of the bias of the mainstream media, there it is. The current system of health care in America is hardly ideal. But in our quest for the ideal, we risk destroying what is good. A reasonable person asks about the possible harmful effects of proposed changes. A reasonable person notes that America, which has a supposedly “broken” system of health care, also has the best cancer survival statistics in the world, while Britain, with “universal” health care, has much worse results. Why? Perhaps these results are inevitable when physicians are replaced by paper shufflers and pencil pushers. Perhaps these results are inevitable when the people elect a president who, when a state senator, demonstrated his disregard for human life by three times voting against a “born alive” bill, which would have required medical care for babies born alive after botched abortions. In doing so, Obama proved himself to be even more pro-abortion than NARAL, which is no small accomplishment. A similar bill passed the U.S. House with only 15 “no” votes, and passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. Obama is far from the mainstream on the issue of the sanctity of human life. To me, this is extremely troubling. But to the liberal media and most liberal politicians, it is insignificant. It ill behooves a liberal blogger to cry crocodile tears about the supposed future deaths that Joe Lieberman is prepared to ignore, when his idol, Barack Obama, has demonstrated that he ignores current deaths − and hardly anyone seems to care. In short, if Lieberman’s opposition to government-run health care makes him a mass murderer, are those who favor government-run health care also mass murderers? If not, why not? Are liberals “compassionate” just because they say they are? Are conservatives “heartless” just because liberals say they are? Are deaths terrible if they are ignored by conservatives − or by independents like Lieberman − but deaths are insignificant if they are ignored by liberals? Who, precisely, is heartless now? Under our current system, if you have no insurance, you can go to any emergency room. If your insurance won’t pay for a needed treatment, you can go to a public hospital. You can complain to your state insurance commissioner. You can apply to a charity for help. But under a government-run system, where do you go if the single payer won’t pay? President Obama has demonstrated his lack of respect for young life by his votes against “born alive” bills, as well as by his statement that if one of his daughters became pregnant as a teenager, he would not want her “punished with a baby…or an STD.” I have many faults, but at least I do not regard an unplanned baby as a “punishment” equivalent to syphilis or gonorrhea. In fact, my medical training, and my religious outlook, both prevent me from viewing disease as a punishment, so the thought that a baby is a punishment is even more foreign to my belief system. And Obama has demonstrated his lack of respect for older or disabled life by his statements regarding hip replacement and pacemakers, as well as by his claim that a procedure should be done not if it prolongs life or relieves suffering, but only if it “saves money.” This lack of respect is further shown by his notion of funding ObamaCare by “saving” $500 billion from Medicare, as well as by the seemingly coincidental recommendations of “experts” to restrict mammograms. For all these reasons, I do not favor government-run health care. This is especially true when the prime mover behind it is someone who lacks respect for the vulnerable among us. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller. If we’ve got experts that are advising doctors that the pacemaker will save money… The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net. www.stolinsky.com |
