Universal care is going to be rationed care. One of the rations is going to be forcing folks more quickly towards death. Here is one of the examples of that already happening in a form of socialized health care through the military. Wonder if the same thing happens in congressional health care? For example do you think Ted Kennedy received a pamphlet like that? I'm thinking probably not.
Jim Towey wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal that Obama's Veterans' Affairs department had revived a controversial and previously discontinued 53-page pamphlet on end-of-life issues for wounded soldiers. The debate over what Towey calls the "Death Book" bodes so poorly for the president's position in the health care debate that, after two segments on Fox News discussing the pamphlet this morning, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has apparently pulled the booklet from one part of its website where it had been linked by several bloggers. (UPDATE: The document still exists in another spot on the site, as NRO's Jonah Goldberg informs me.)
We were supposed to be beyond any debate over "death panels" when it comes to health care reform. But now the administration is scrambling to explain whether and why it has been referring physicians to use a document for end-of-life planning that strongly hints at the worthlessness of life when its quality is diminished by even relatively minor injuries and health problems, such as being wheelchair-bound.
Over the weekend, VA Assistant Secretary Tammy Duckworth denied this, but no one in the administration has explained why it was re-posted to the Internet at some point prior to July 2, and why the VA specifically links to it as a resource for practitioners.
The booklet was co-authored by Dr. Robert Pearlman, who was among several physicians and scholars who argued in a 1996 Supreme Court amicus brief that the high court "should recognize a right to physician assisted suicide for dying patients."
cienceDaily (Aug. 21, 2009) — The lowly appendix, long-regarded as a useless evolutionary artifact, won newfound respect two years ago when researchers at Duke University Medical Center proposed that it actually serves a critical function. The appendix, they said, is a safe haven where good bacteria could hang out until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea, for example.
I didn’t vote for Kennedy in 1982 or any other year, and I have certainly never thought of him as a saint, plaster or otherwise. Play-to-win politics, not piety, has been the essence of his long career in the Senate. He has a gift for the poignant gesture; there is no denying he is a deft hand at evoking the affection of his many admirers. But beneath the tug at the heartstrings, there is always shrewd political calculation.
Kennedy wants the Legislature to upend the succession law it passed in 2004, when - at his urging - it stripped away the governor’s longstanding power to temporarily fill a Senate vacancy. Back then, John Kerry was a presidential candidate and Republican Mitt Romney was governor; Kennedy lobbied state Democrats to change the law so that Romney couldn’t name Kerry’s successor.
Now that Massachusetts has a Democratic governor, Kennedy is lobbying to restore the gubernatorial power to name an interim appointee. That would guarantee Democrats in Washington two reliable Senate votes from Massachusetts, even if Kennedy isn’t there to cast one of them.
If Kennedy is sincere - if his chief concern is that Massachusetts not be left for months without the services of a full-time senator - then he should do the right thing right now: He should resign