Cash for senior citizen clunkers

by Carder

Cash_for_Clankers_Medicare.jpg

Meet your competition, you fetuses you. Your grandparents are actually worth something!

Satire from The People's Cube via Michelle Malkin...

As part of a new incentive tied to Obama's upcoming healthcare reform, the network of Planned Grandparenthood Centers are to begin running ads, themed "Double Cash for Your Old Coot." The push offers a cash incentive or zero-percent financing on top of free government plans for all families whose trade-in old-timers qualify for the government's program known as "Cash for Clunkers," up to a maximum of four grandparents over 70 years of age.

Latest opinion polls show that seniors steal billions of dollars out the federal budget each year just by staying alive. This new bold initiative is calculated to save us all money by gently recycling high-maintenance old coots, thus taking them off the list of potential beneficiaries of the impeccable government health coverage.

"Everyone who signs up for our plan will get a cash incentive even if they don't turn in a qualifying old fogey," says White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. "But families who trade in their useless members will also get a free premium plan and - for a limited time only - a rationing coupon for an extra unaborted baby!"


Comments:

Yeah and they've already got the White House website where you can turn them in.. and snitch on your neighbors who speak out against ObamaCare at the same time!

How convenient would that be?

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at August 13, 2009 2:06 PM


This article reminds me of when I read and analyzed "A Modest Proposal." What's hilarious and depressing is that it's relevent enough to incite laughter nowadays--something that I didn't think was possible in America. I remember one time, talking to my father about the devistation in that square in China, and commenting that it would never happen in America. He turned to me, eyebrows raised, and said quite bluntly, "It does."
I've tended to look at this country differently since then. I think the worst thing we can do is assume that the government will always recognize and stop injustice, and fall into the false blanket of belief that America is flawless. It's a wonderful place to live--but let's keep it that way, shall we?

Posted by: Abel at August 13, 2009 2:41 PM


I joined Des Moines Right to Life in the summer of 1972. When the Supreme Court handed down the devastating Roe vs. Wade abortion decision in January 1973 it was a very dark day for me. I wondered why so few at that time and later spoke out against what was happening. Later when some of us in the Right-to-Life movement said that abortion, if not checked, would eventually lead to infanticide for the newly born and euthanasia for the elderly and infirm, we were usually mocked or ignored. Over the years the death culture has taken stronger root and now their representatives are in places of great power.
We are in an ongoing spiritual battle as well as a political and cultural battle. The forces of tyranny and death have gained control in different nations throughout history. Reading and studying some of that history (such as the German Euthanasia Program of Socialist Nazi Germany and the death pogroms of Communist societies) can give us a better understanding of how a tyrannical death culture emerges. Some of the features that I have especially observed are the rejection or perversion of Biblical and traditional Christianity, moral decline, cultural, economic and political upheaval. The transfer of power into the hands of a few ideologues and their fanatical followers along with endless propaganda techniques are other features that usher in the early stages of the death culture tyranny.

Posted by: Raymond V Banner at August 13, 2009 3:25 PM


Posted by: Raymond V Banner at August 13, 2009 3:25 PM

God bless you for your long commitment to the pro-life movement. I wish I'd been more active back then. We need to continue to engage the next generation in the fight against abortion.

* * *

Hey, with all of the senior citizens out of the way, there will be no "good 'ole days" for us to look back on. Perfect for the "new guard" to take hold.

Posted by: Janet at August 13, 2009 4:42 PM


Though this bit of satire may seem funny, the Oregon plan already comes close to that in reality. I believe most people here have heard or read about Barbara Wagner. I'm sure that many supporters of socialist medicine wish they never heard of her. I am also sure the Dr. Eze heard about that case and thought it should go national.
I'd be very concerned that Dems will try to sneak an amendment onto a "must have" bill that legalizes assisted suicide and adds it as a "treatment option" as they did in Oregon and probably have in Washington state since they legalized is last November.

Posted by: Mark at August 14, 2009 2:18 PM


What is it about you (conservative) Christians? On one hand, you want to tell others about morality and Jesus but, then on the other hand (especially, when it comes to politics), you don't mind literally LYING in order to make some a political point.
Euthanasia is not in the bill and the conservative argument that it COULD lead to this does not justify scaring the "bejesus" out of seniors just to score some "sour grape" political victory. I think it's sad that you guys stoop to this level.

Here's some reality for ya Jill and others:
Insureres make decisions that deny coverage for thousands (if not tens of thousands of people everyday). That is not a lie. That is fact! Some of those people do die from these lack of medical services. By definition, that is a "DEath Panel" and rationing. And, it's biggest defenders are.....surprisingly, you guys. Pro-life my rump....

I wish progressives would get in the mud with you guys. There's so much information to knock your heroes upside the head with.

Like the fact that Grassely voted for a similar measure (i.e. "Death Panels") in the 2003 medicare bill.

theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/multiple-republican-leaders-voted-in-2003-for-measure-they-now-decry-as-government-euthanasia/

Oh,and Sara Palin. Do a little net search for Alaska's Healthcare Decisions Day.
Sounds to me like Sara was for "Death Panels" before she was against them...you bet'cha.

Here in the GREAT state of Oklahoma, the PRO-LIFE, REPUBLICAN legistlature refused to include Autism in the childrens insurance program.

Oh, the hypocrisy and lies. It's sad that you can hear just as much of it from "Church" folks than you hear from guys @ a bar.

Soonerman

Posted by: soonerman at August 14, 2009 7:27 PM


Soonerman, that's probably b/c the insurance for austistic children was being indirectly levied on small businesses via their insurance coverage, devastating what's left of the vigor remaining in that market. Libs are trying the same stunt here in Ohio...it is failing miserably.

The problem with DeathCare Deform is that libs are [still] not completing a single thought. Work on that and you'll see exactly where this monster leads...to a single-payer, system of death that will transform this country into the very antithesis of why it was founded.

I don't care if you hate this country, but I do care that you try to turn it into something it was never meant to be. As such, we have wide-open borders out of which you can march your big patoot.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." ~Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Rosie at August 16, 2009 9:42 AM


Soonerman,


On another thread, Lauren recently quoted from Neal Stephenson in The Diamond Age. His thoughts on hypocrisy might interest you. If I can find her post, I'll reference it for you.

Posted by: Janet at August 16, 2009 11:00 AM


Here are Lauren's comments (two posts) at Jill's: "Catholic School Official...." from August 13,2009:
(Forgive me for posting it again, but it's so good, I think it's worth it.)

Posted by: Lauren at August 14, 2009 3:13 PM

Here's a great exploration of liberal thought by Neal Stephenson in The Diamond Age.

"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices. It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticize others - after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds are there for criticism? Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticize one another's shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour - you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy. "


Posted by: Lauren at August 14, 2009 4:28 PM

"Because they were hypocrites the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefandous conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves — they took no moral stances and lived by none. We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy. In the late twentieth century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception — he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing. "

and

"No one ever said it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved — the missteps we make along the way — are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power"


Posted by: Janet at August 16, 2009 11:35 AM


Posted by: soonerman at August 14, 2009 7:27 PM

"What is it about you (conservative) Christians? On one hand, you want to tell others about morality and Jesus but, then on the other hand (especially, when it comes to politics), you don't mind literally LYING in order to make some a political point."

"Euthanasia is not in the bill and the conservative argument that it COULD lead to this does not justify scaring the "bejesus" out of seniors just to score some "sour grape" political victory. I think it's sad that you guys stoop to this level."

--------------------------------------------------

sooooooooooooonermam/man (sooner what than what?)

wants us to believe that 'seniors' are as stupid and gullible as he/she is.

Most people who are senile or suffering from dementia would lack the ability and the resources to get t hemselves to these 'town halls'.

The people who are petitioning their elected representatives do not appear to be addled, senile, confused, scared. The one common denominator is they are angry.

The reason for this might be that they have actually read the house bill.

Have you soonermam/man?

When the federal government wants access to my bank accounts so it can steal my money electronically if I refuse to comply with it's illicit mandates, I get a little bit annoyed.

Whent the federal government wants access to my private personal medical records, I get a little bit more annoyed.

It is my life and my body and my money, none of which the federal government had any part in producing.

The right of the people to be secure in their papers.....

Does that ring any bells in your confused state of mind soonermam/man?

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at August 17, 2009 10:52 PM