Here is Peter Singer, "ethicist" of Princeton, in the NYT on Sunday. I say ethicist in quotes because he calls for the killing of innocent life, advocating the killing of babies up to one year old if it turns out something is "wrong" with them after birth. He also advocates pulling the health care rug out from under anyone who is past the age of "productivity". As far as he is concerned, life isn't really life until someone has been out of the womb for a year, and I guess life becomes less so after we stop "being productive".
This is the kind of "ethics" being touted at Princeton, and now the NYT, and the kind of thinking that not only can, but WILL inevitably infest our health care when government takes over, and we have no ability to choose anything else ( which is the inevitable result of any bill which erodes private choices)
Web Link From the NYT
If you aren't appalled by this after reading it, then you haven't understood it. Read it again, and imagine this man in charge of deciding if you, your parents or your children get health care, or don't. And you have no other choice but to accept his decision.
Given that this is now considered acceptable thinking in our nation, it behooves us to really examine what is in the actual Bill...As soon as I can find a link to an actual bill, any of them, I will post it!
Even above the details, though, is the question and debate concerning the underlying premise: How much control over your life do you want to relinquish to political control? How far are you willing to let politics decide your health insurance choices, or any other choice you make, such as the kind of auto insurance, life insurance, investments, car, house, food, jewelry, clothes or whatever you buy, ..when are you willing to say "enough control of my choices in life". I saw a bumper sticker that cracked me up the other day.."Health care is a right"..When will I see one that says "Housing is a right"? Or "Driving is a right!" Where is health care,or housing, or food even, in our Bill of Rights? At what point do choices and privileges become rights?
To label those of us who are completely opposed to political control over our health care choices as "anti-health care reform" is disengenous at best: I and many like me were appalled that the Republicans, when they had the chance, did not grab the horn of reform in health care ( and other programs that are going to sink us)in a way which applied AMERICAN (USA STYLE) ideals of respect for individuals being free and quite capable of making their own choices for how to live. There are some excellent, real, fixes we could apply that adjust our system's problems, but DON'T destroy all that makes ours the best health care system in the world, the one that people from all over the world flock to.
At the fundamental level, this is a discussion of the underlying premise which justifies throwing out the baby with the bathwater "reform", and where that premise is found in our Constitution or our Declaration of Independence or any other foundational philosophy of our great country.
I ask how we got to the point where we are trying to destroy what works for about 290 million Americans, about 30 million of whom CHOOSE to not buy health insurance though can afford it, or CHOOSE to not sign up for MedicAid or SCHIP until they land in the hospital, but who ARE covered ( and oft quoted in with the "uninsured" numbers.
Why do we want to overturn this system completely, not reform it, but destroy it, in order to help the 10, maybe 15, million uninsured CITIZENS who are earning more than qualifies them for MediCal/Aid, but truly make too little to be able to buy health insurance?
Do we keep going down that slippery slope of govt control over our choices, or do we adjust our health insurance laws so that we each have real choices in health insurance options, being able to choose amongst silver-plated, aluminum-plated, AND the currently mandated gold-plated insurances?
Do we adjust our insurance laws so that our insurance is even more portable and stable( begun under Clinton) and less open to refusing "pre-existings", or do we throw out all the good and re-create what is already failing in Canada and Europe? Yes, I say failing .. in cost, in speed and access to quality care, in death rates, in suffering. Why do we want to repeat what is dying of its own weight elsewhere? When will our pride stop getting in the way of learning from the mistakes of others?
There are some excellent, real, fixes we could apply that adjust our system's problems, but DON'T destroy all that makes ours the best health care system in the world, the one that people from all over the world flock to. (When was the last time Americans went to even Canada, let alone Europe or England, for better medical care?)