Are Pro-Choice Democrats Ready to Turn Over Control of Their Bodies to a Political ‘Health Choices Commissioner’?
posted at 8:33 pm on December 7, 2009 by directorblue
Democrats want control over you. That used to mean control over your material wealth — the manifestation of your labor — through oppressive taxation and regulation.
Now it means they will decide your fate. The fate of your body.
A maze of bureaucracies — including 111 new boards, commissions, regulators and programs will govern your treatment.
Whether the term ‘death panel’ is overblown or not, this maze of red tape and regulation will absolutely decide what kind of medical treatment you will receive.
Of that, there is no debate.
They can’t. You’re about to turn these decisions over to a handful of politicians and bureaucrats, who will be called “experts.”
These political hacks — not you — will decide the medical fate of your children and your parents. You won’t. They will.
As for affordability, they’ll take care of that too. There will be less new technology, fewer breakthrough drugs, less hospitals, less doctors and less nurses. It will become much more affordable, because you will be waiting in line. And who will pay the price? You will… through lower-quality health care and treatments approved by central planners.
How do we know this? Because we have examples in the UK and Canada, where waits for MRI scans can be six months long and many children never see a dentist.
Welcome to Socialism! Welcome to Barack Obama’s America!
Call Harry Reid’s offices (DC: 202-224-3542, Reno: 775-686-5750 and Carson City: 775-882-7343) — and your own Senator’s office as well — and tell them how pleased you are that the government will be making all of your health care decisions.
Recently in the Green Room:
- Sunday reflection: Matthew 4:1-11
- Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll
- Real question: Does Obama’s budget fund overseas abortions to protect endangered animals?
- Photo of the day: Crimea now belongs to Russia, at least on Russian propaganda TV
- Vatican: Pope Francis wasn’t talking about same-sex relationships; Update: “Civil unions” explained