FRC ad hits liberal nerve; conservatives sway public against Obamacare
Last week FRC Action unveiled a new ad, initially running in 5 states that are key in the healthcare debate: AR, AK, LA, NE, and PA:
Well, this hard-hitting, absolutely true ad has hit a royal liberal nerve. For example, from Salon today…
Turning America socialist apparently wasn’t enough for him – now President Obama is trying to make old people kill themselves, callously deny important medical procedures, funnel tax dollars to abortion clinics and wiggle the government’s way into every doctor’s office in America.
At least, that’s the sense you might have about the healthcare reform proposals Congress is considering from listening to opponents describe them….
The White House finally seems to have realized that the administration can’t win the policy debate without addressing some of the attacks from the right….
But the administration might already be behind the curve. Over the last few weeks, opponents have managed to get out their spin on the bill through talk radio, blogs, chain e-mails and other channels….
Myth 1: Democrats want to kill your grandmother. This claim seems too outlandish on its face to get much traction, but Republicans actually made some headway on it recently….
Proof of how far this attack has spread came last week, when a caller to an AARP forum asked Obama about it directly. (Probably unwisely, the president tried to make light of the question, saying there weren’t enough government employees to go meet with old people to talk about end-of-life care.)…
Myth 2: The government – i.e., you – will have to pay for abortions. This is another way the GOP is stirring up antiabortion activists against healthcare reform – by warning that your tax dollars will be used to pay for someone else’s abortion. An ad by the Family Research Council dramatizes the issue about as creepily as possible.…
There was also this story in the Washington Post August 4…
If Obama loses senior support of his healthcare plan, game over. And he’s losing it. Here are a couple more headlines in protest from the Left. But the more they protest, the more they raise suspicions.
[Graphic Obamcare attribution: Photobucket]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I have to say I wasn’t particularly impressed with that video. They should have enlisted the folks from catholicvote.com
Myth 1: Democrats want to kill your grandmother. This claim seems too outlandish on its face to get much traction
Not when you consider that Dr Ezekiel Emanuel is helping to shape policy. Here’s an article he coauthored earlier this year.
Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf
Scroll to page 6 to read about the “complete lives system” of just and ethical allocation of health care resources. Prioritization goes like this:
-youngest first (except infants)
-prognosis
-save the most lives
-lottery
-instrumental value
I agree, Carder. I think they missed an opportunity. They could have included a graphic citing specific sections of the bill. They could have quoted from the writings of Daschle, Emanuel and other radicals behind the bill instead of playing on emotion. If they had provided a bit more substance, interested viewers could have researched it further.
Excerpt from article in July 14, 1949 issue of New England Journal of Medicine written by Massachussetts psychiatrist, Leo Alexander who had served as a consultant to State Department legal counsel at the Nuremburg Tribunals.
—————————————————-
Preparatory Propaganda
Even before the Nazis took open charge in Germany, a propaganda barrage was directed against the traditional compassionate nineteenth-century attitudes toward the chronically ill, and for the adoption of a utilitarian, Hegelian point of view. Sterilization and euthanasia of persons with chronic mental illnesses was discussed at a meeting of Bavarian psychiatrists in 1931.[1] By 1936 extermination of the physically or socially unfit was so openly accepted that its practice was mentioned incidentally in an article published in an official German medical journal [2]
Lay opinion was not neglected in this campaign. Adults were propagandized by motion pictures, one of which, entitled “I Accuse,” deals entirely with euthanasia. This film depicts the life history of a woman suffering from multiple sclerosis; in it her husband, a doctor, finally kills her to the accompaniment of soft piano music rendered by a sympathetic colleague in an adjoining room. Acceptance of this ideology was implanted even in the children. A widely used high-school mathematics text, “Mathematics in the Service of National Political Education,”[3] includes problems stated in distorted terms of the cost of caring for and rehabilitating the chronically sick and crippled, the criminal and the insane.”
Euthanasia
The first direct order for euthanasia was issued by Hitler on September 1, 1939, and an organization was set up to execute the program. Dr. Karl Brandt headed the medical section, and Phillip Bouhler the administrative section. All state institutions were required to report on patients who had been ill five years or more and who were unable to work, by filling out questionnaires giving name, race, marital status, nationality, next of kin, whether regularly visited and by whom, who bore financial responsibility and so forth. The decision regarding which patients should be killed was made entirely on the basis of this brief information by expert consultants, most of whom were professors of psychiatry in the key universities. These consultants never saw the patients themselves. The thoroughness of their scrutiny can be appraised by the work of on expert, who between November 14 and December 1, 1940, evaluated 2109 questionnaires.
These questionnaires were collected by a “Realm’s Work Committee of Institutions for Cure and Care.”[4] A parallel organization devoted exclusively to the killing of children was known by the similarly euphemistic name of “Realm’s Committee for Scientific Approach to Severe Illness Due to Heredity and Constitution.” The “Charitable Transport Company for the Sick” transported patients to the killing centers, and the “Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care” was in charge of collecting the cost of the killings from the relatives, without, however, informing them what the charges were for; in the death certificates the cause of death was falsified.
——————————————————–
yor bro ken
I think they should have stated what was denied. It would be a little speculative but they could use Canada for the research. He is older so there is a multitude of things that could have been denied.
I think they should have stated what was denied. It would be a little speculative but they could use Canada for the research. He is older so there is a multitude of things that could have been denied.
Posted by: Kristen at August 6, 2009 5:37 PM
it may come as a bit of a shock, but elderly Canadians are not euthanized in Canada.
They do receive treatment at any hospital of their choice.
They get heart surgery, hip replacements, CAT scans and transplants even into their 70’s and 80’s.
It’s true one must be very vigilant about the care received but it’s been like that for many years and goes without saying for all ages.
My mother received excellent health care after a debilitating stroke and my elderly father was treated immediately at a hospital (recently) and seen on a Sunday afternoon at the private office of a gerontologist. He was given the life saving steroids he needed to recover from a serious auto immune disease he has developed.
Posted by: a at August 6, 2009 5:52 PM
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
I guess things like this never happen then.
BTW – I didnt say they were euthanized….
The whole reason that the reform plan will not completely outlaw the “private option” is so that Obama will never have to wait in line behind his maid to see a doctor.
No, Mark, the elites are exempted. In Cuba, Castro flies in doctors from Spain to attend him & his cronies. What Cubans get is a far cry from that kind of personalized care. Was anyone else aware of Obama’s Houston campaign office’s choice of decor?
“michellemalkin.com/2008/02/12/where-to-buy-a-che-cuba-flag/” Unbelievable.
the elites are exempted.
Posted by: klynn73 at August 6, 2009 10:48 PM
Page 114 of the senate bill exempts federal employees. We, the taxpayers, who are financing their health care cannot buy into the same plans they have. Nor do they have to drop their current coverage for an exchange (government) approved plan after the grace period like the rest of us are required to do.
Remember that the next time you hear the Washington rhetoric that this legislation is necessary to stop insurance companies from cherry picking. If it’s such a bad thing, shouldn’t they set the example and subject their own plans to the same rules they are forcing our plans to play by? If they’re for fair market competition, why are their plans allowed to limit enrollment but our plans must accept all applicants?
That’s exactly right, Fed Up. I read an analysis last night that clarified that anyone currently without insurance would not have the opportunity to purchase private insurance instead of the public “option” (prohibition on writing any new policies if this becomes law on p.16-17, ironically entitled ‘Protecting the choice to keep current coverage’). If there are ANY private insurers still in business after the grace period, their plans must match coverage the public “option” has:
(1) GRACE PERIOD.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner
shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan
years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based
health plan in operation as of the day before
the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.”
Obamacare proponents are in a tizzy because people are READING the bill. Many whose JOBS it is to do so claim they haven’t the time. For anyone who has not read it, here’s a little light reading:
“//energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf”
If you’re looking for the parts pertaining to abortion, search “family planning”. “Family planning setting” = Planned Parenthood or other abortuary. Search “interval” to learn about government intervention in planning your family. I’ve got to wonder what qualifies as “evidence”? Your neighbor reporting that you’re expecting your 4th child in 6 years?
Health care rationing? Search “Comparative Effectiveness” (sounds so much better that way, doesn’t it?) The first entry comes under the heading “Subtitle A– Comparative Effectiveness Reasearch” followed by Subtitle B–“Nursing Home Transparency.” Too bad we know only too well what transparency means to this administration.
If any have not yet signed the Stop the Abortion Mandate petition, you can do so at www dot aclj.org.
Obamacare proponents are in a tizzy because people are READING the bill. Many whose JOBS it is to do so claim they haven’t the time. For anyone who has not read it, here’s a little light reading:
“energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf”
If you’re looking for the parts pertaining to abortion, search “family planning”. “Family planning setting” = Planned Parenthood or other abortuary. Search “interval” to learn about government intervention in planning your family. I’ve got to wonder what qualifies as “evidence”? Your neighbor reporting that you’re expecting your 4th child in 6 years?
Health care rationing? Search “Comparative Effectiveness” (sounds so much better that way, doesn’t it?) The first entry comes under the heading “Subtitle A– Comparative Effectiveness Reasearch” followed by Subtitle B–“Nursing Home Transparency.” Too bad we know only too well what transparency means to this administration.
If any have not yet signed the Stop the Abortion Mandate petition, you can do so at www dot aclj.org.
I read an analysis last night that clarified that anyone currently without insurance would not have the opportunity to purchase private insurance instead of the public “option” (prohibition on writing any new policies if this becomes law on p.16-17, ironically entitled ‘Protecting the choice to keep current coverage’)
Posted by: klynn73 at August 7, 2009 12:57 PM
Hi Klynn. The way I understand it, anyone can purchase private insurance, but only private plans that have been approved by the feds to participate in the health insurance exchange. The feds set the benefits in the package and essentially dictate the premiums.
Everyone on a private plan will be switched to an exchange participating plan at some time during the grace period. If you want to stay on a plan that’s not in the exchange, that plan will eventually go extinct through attrition due to the inability to enroll new subscribers. Plus I think there are additional fines or taxes to the insurance company that offers plans not in the exchange, but sorry, don’t have time to look it up right now.
What the feds aren’t telling people is that they can only keep their current insurance during the grace period. After that everyone is required to be on a plan under strict government control.
Posted by: a at August 6, 2009 5:52 PM
I guess stories like the ones in the link below are just made up. BTW – I didn’t say they were euthanized, just that they couldn’t get the care they needed, which looks to be very true…
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
Withdrawing nutrition and hydration happens every day in this country as part of “hospice care”. I personally know of 5 individuals this either happened to, or had it recommended. The hospice worker attending a co-worker’s sister-in-law (w/cancer) told the family they were allowed to dampen her lips, but no fluids or food. My friend saw through this and kicked the angel of death out, tending her dying SIL herself, preparing her what she asked for, when she asked for it. She lived for another two and a half months. If this health care bill goes through, I’m imagining the scenario like we saw at Terri Schiavo’s bedside: guards ensuring no one offers hydration or administers communion, but multiplied by the thousands with our parents and eventually, us.