The Expendables - Seniors in America

Seniors are expendable in America today. This is according to The National Healthcare, H.R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (referred to as Obamacare), and supported by fact. If you are a senior and need expensive live saving treatment and care it will not be given to you in the very near future. This is not rumor or partisan politics...it is factual!

Let's first look at the background leading up to Obamacare, that sets the stage for this legislation. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was a chief advisor to President Obama on healthcare. Both by words and implication Dr. Emanuel indicated that expensive healthcare treatment should be given to those only most productive to society. A direct Emanuel quote: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance…” The clear implication here is that seniors are not a priority, thus discriminated against. This has been followed by President Obama, himself, in answer to questions on ABC, where he said that "maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." (In reference to the elderly). In another instance he said, "I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance".

Now that Obamacare has been passed President Obama has chosen Harvard Professor, Dr. Donald Berwick, to head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who will be overseeing implementation of America’s new government-run health care. Berwick said in the Biotechnology Journal in 2009, "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care; the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open". He stated costs must be contained, so decisions are made through a "comparative effectiveness" formula, which compares various treatments versus benefits the patient receives. If a treatment costs more than the "quality adjusted life years" merit, treatment is denied. Is there any doubt whatsoever that by designed intent that this will be extremely detrimental to seniors and their healthcare?

It is a fact that $ 717 Billion will be taken out of Medicare, essentially to fund Obamacare. What this means is that the doctor reimbursement rate will be significantly reduced. (A new Independent Payment Advisory Board will do this.) Already many doctors are refusing new Medicare patients due to the financial hardship. In addition Obamacare is designed to take on 30 million new patients not previously covered. As it is implemented this will cause a shortage of doctors. If doctors are already refusing new Medicare patients, this will cause an even further de facto rationing of healthcare that will exclude seniors, especially from expensive treatment for serious illnesses. Former AMA President Donald Palmisano has warned that the 15 member "Advisory Board" will represent an immediate danger to seniors since in order to cut costs they will refuse to provide certain effective treatments to patients who need them based on costs and patients’ remaining "quality adjusted life years", in other words cut off treatment for seniors.

The massive Obamacare bill is 2,409 pages long, with several reiterations that make it even more confusing. If we can freeze one version for a moment, Page 29, Lines 4-16 mandates the rationing of healthcare; Page 30, Section 123 states that there will be a committee that decides allowed treatments and benefits; Page 42 recognizes the power of the Health Choices Commissioner to determine your health benefits; Page 85, line 7 gives the government the right to ration benefits for Medicare basically rationing the care of every senior citizen; Page 268, Section 1141 regulates costs of power drive wheelchairs affecting many seniors; Page 272, Section 1145 regulates cancer hospitals, again rationing the care of cancer patients greatly affecting seniors; Page 335, Lines 16-25 and Pages 336-339 mandates the establishment of "outcome based healthcare". This will result in seniors being denied treatments simply because the statistics of success in their demographic category (age / seniors) is poor; Page 425 Lines 4-12 mandates "Advance Care Planning Consultation" encouraging seniors to accept death rather than expensive treatments to continue life.

How many facts and how much proof do we need? The premises of, and background planning intent of Obamacare, show a discrimination against seniors and the person responsible for implementation has clearly stated that he believes in rationing. Obamacare provides for both de facto rationing and explicit line items in the Bill support cutting costs by rationing as well as by denying expensive care to seniors.

Finally, there is no mention whatsoever that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violates the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 that dictates that no federally funded legislative program can discriminate against seniors. Obamacare clearly does.

What has happened to our country where legislation can be proposed and passed by our Congress that denies life saving treatment to one segment of our population - seniors? What kind of country have we become?

Why Is Second Amendment Under Attack?

Some of the reasons why American settlers viewed the right to bear arms as being very important were: to deter a tyrannical government; to repel an invasion; to suppress an insurrection, and to facilitate a natural right of self defense. Thus the Second Amendment to the Constitution was passed in December of 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This is very clear and unambiguous. In 2008 in order to clarify it even further, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.

Yet today there appears to be an ongoing attack on the right to bear arms. Every time that there is violence involving a gun this is thrown up as an example as to why the Second Amendment should be revised and guns either more strictly controlled, if not taken out of the hands of the people entirely. Yet at the same time everyone knows that criminals, and those who wish to do violence, can very easily obtain guns since millions of them are available (and will continue to be available) "on the street", illegally, and through underground markets. This will not stop, no matter what kind of legislation is passed in order to control guns.

In addition to attempts to control or eliminate guns in the United States, there is a similar effort going on through the United Nations, in fact our involvement with this is very worrisome to those who strongly support the Constitution of the United States, the Second Amendment, and the very sovereignty of our country. An outside entity dictating what is done in the United States, especially since it is contrary to our Constitution? This should not sit well with any American.

There is even further government hypocrisy, since while there is an ongoing effort to control or eliminate guns in the hands of the people, at the same time there are massive gun and weapon sales going on to other countries by the United States, Russia, China, Iran, and other countries. Hundreds, upon hundreds, of billion dollars worth of guns and weapons. Where do these arms selling governments think that these guns and weapons will end up?

During this time of "gun controversy" the American people are buying guns at record numbers, gun sales have skyrocketed. What is the reason for this? First and fundamentally people see a threat to their Constitutional right to bear arms and fear it will be taken away. But it is much, much deeper than that. People don't trust our government. What they see is more and more dominating federal government control over their lives. They see surveillance cameras on street corners and all over public places. They read about the governments ability to track their cell phones, to read inside their computers and other personal devices. They are aware of government ability to track their motor vehicles with some sort of mysterious implanted "black box" as well as through GPS devices. More recently our federal government is using drones to secretly surveil the American people. Even further, the federal government is attempting to exercise more control over the Internet.

Perhaps the scariest of all is the fact that by a series of acts of Congress, executive orders, and HR 645, known as the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act of 2009, a number of FEMA camps have been set up all over the United States. There over 800 camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive people. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full time guards, but they are all empty. This is factual, but if it appears to be too far out "conspiratorial" for you, it is suggested that you do your own research on this and draw your own conclusions.

Again, why are people buying guns at record rates? Yes, for self defense, but also since, for all of the reasons above, they do not trust our government. In fact, as the original American settlers, they fear a tyrannical government, and many feel that this is where we are headed. At the same time we should be asking..."Why is the federal government attempting to strictly control, or even eliminate guns in the hands of the American people?