Grandma Is Scared Now

Healthcare "reform" is being rammed through at breakneck speed with the (realistic) hope that no one will have time to actually read the many competing bills, numbering thousands of pages.

But Redstate and the Anchoress have caught on to a small section in one House bill that is a must-read for anyone is older than 55 -- or who loves anyone older than 55.

Go to sec. 1233 of House Bill 3200 and see how senior citizens are required to have a consultation with their physicians -- not their lawyers -- every five years on such topics as living wills and hospice, all in the name of dying with dignity.

Subsection 1233 (a) (E) provides that Medicare recipients will get Advance Care Planning Consultations,

an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

(The section does not copy and paste so I have retyped it; it appears at 425-6 of the legislation.)

This is what Democrats mean when they talk about making hard choices: a cost-benefit calculation in the name of "quality of life."

Anyone who actually reads the section will be struck by its complexity -- the interlocking statutory references to existing laws that the new legislation would repeal or modify make this a legislative labyrinth. For any member of Congress to actually read and digest this legislation would take way more than the two weeks the Administration has alloted.

The Anchoress calls this attempt to mandate "dying with dignity" what it is:

This mindset is evil, by the way. If you’re not sure, if you’re wondering about it, let’s be clear: assigning monetary value to life based on budgets and arbitrary assessments that disregard humanity’s (and life’s) “intangible assets” such as, you know…loving, being loved and oh yes, the basic human desire to continue living, is evil.

Deciding that some people have a greater effect on society than others, and therefore are more worthy of treatment than anothers? That’s evil, too.

Read it before your vote.

Republican Response on Healthcare

Senate Republican Whip John Kyl gave this week's Republican address on the topic of healthcare reform. Here's the video.

Kyl emphasized that Republicans have proposed:

common-sense ideas, including rooting out Medicare and Medicaid fraud, reforming medical liability laws to discourage frivolous lawsuits, strengthening wellness and prevention programs that encourage healthy living, and allowing small businesses to band together and purchase health insurance like large corporations do.

These changes do not require government takeover of the healthcare system, or massive new spending, job-killing taxes, or rationing of care.

The Democrats, in contrast,

would increase spending by more than two trillion dollars when fully implemented, and would, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, add additional costs onto an already unsustainable system.

Note in particular what Democrats would do to Medicare. Why isn't the AARP and the like objecting to this? Their constituents are about to lose a benefit that can literally mean the difference between life and death. As Kyl put it,

The President and Congressional Democrats have even proposed cutting Medicare to pay for their plan.

How can we justify dipping into funds for seniors’ care to pay for a new government plan, especially since Medicare is already in financial trouble? This would ultimately lead to shortages, rationing, and the elimination of private-plan choices—something our seniors rightly fear.

And then there is the effect on small businesses, the backbone of our economy:

They propose to pay for this new Washington-run health care system by dramatically raising taxes on small business owners. Small businesses create jobs -- approximately two-thirds of new jobs in the last decade.

With a shaky economy and the need for new jobs, the last thing the President and the Congress should do is impose new taxes on America’s small businesses. New taxes on small business would cripple job creation, especially jobs for low-wage earners.

This is just too important to rush through before the August recess -- and before Americans have an opportunity to become informed on Democratic plans.

And So It Begins

It is inevitable that the health care "reform" being kicked about in Congress will result in tax increases for many Americans. President Barack Obama's top political advisor David Axelrod "declined yesterday to rule out the possibility that the White House would agree to a tax hike on health insurance plans that would hit middle-income Americans," according to the Washington Post.

Of course, those Americans who still have enough money to buy anything or employ anyone will get socked worst -- at a time when the economy needs these people to spend, invest and hire. According to Bloomberg, "House Ways and Means Committee members are likely to propose a surtax on high-income Americans to help pay for an overhaul of the health-care system, according to people familiar with the plan."

Look for Democrats to seek a four percent surtax on anyone who makes more than $250,000.

Save Us From Canada-care

Many of us know Canadians who have chosen to come to the U.S. for health procedures. And no wonder. Canwest News Service notes that a report from the a group of organizations including Canadian Medical Association, found:

• nine hour average waits to be seen in an Emergency Room;
• 24 hour waits to be admitted to the hospital; and
• “For cancer patients, the study found that the median wait time for radiation therapy was almost seven weeks, exceeding the benchmark of four weeks.” (Emphasis added.)

If seven weeks was the median wait time for radiation therapy, that means half the cancer patients had to wait even longer than seven weeks. These are people who are fighting for their lives. This is not a system that we want to import here.

What Was She Thinking?

Hillary Clinton has explained how she would get everyone to sign up for universal healthcare: she'd garnish their wages.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

It's not so surprising that Hillary would use the Nanny State to garnish wages; she assumes that her constituents aren't very smart and she has little regard for personal liberty. What is surprising is her timing -- that Hillary would admit that she would have to garnish wages on the eve of Super Tuesday. I can't wait to see what Barack Obama does with that gem.