“[L]et’s repeal this failure [Obamacare] before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens. . . .” —Michele Bachmann
I woke up to a headline at UniversalFreePress.Com: “Elderly Face Discrimination under UN Death Targets.” The United Nations wants young people to receive medical care before old people.
The socialist majority at the UN counts on the inexperience of youth to sustain socialist programs that destroy freedom and create poverty, drying up the wealth that is needed as a source of taxation for funding infrastructure development and national defense.
Freedom Depends on an Educated Electorate
For socialists to maintain power, they require less wisdom among the people. Making it illegal to treat those over 60 for certain conditions is a way to shorten life-expectancy, thereby increasing the percentage of ill-educated and inexperienced people in the populace.
Meet Mister Death Wish
When Obamacare passed, conservatives feared it would bring healthcare rationing and death panels. This is now occurring. (See here: http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamacare-death-panels-are-here/.) So, is it a surprise that Obamacare Framer Ezekiel Emanuel has a death wish? Quoth Zeke Emanuel: “By the time I reach 75, I will have lived a complete life. . . . Dying at 75 will not be a tragedy.” (For the full quote, click here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/241407/obamacare-architect-wants-die-75-and-thinks-you-daniel-greenfield.)
When I was a teenager, many of my peers did not care to live beyond 35. Many later changed their minds. Emanuel, born in 1957, is under sixty. By his 75th birthday, he may feel differently. Old people are more youthful nowadays than a generation ago. If Emanuel, at 75, still harbors a death wish, he can move to Oregon, the Assisted-Suicide State. But, within the architecture of Obamacare, how dare he deign to choose for others!
Hurting People, the Progressive Way
Killing off national treasures—when they possess wisdom no one can achieve without years of experience—is a sin. It means wasting the country’s wealth. Aside from the immorality of the government’s playing God, based on political expediency, the waste of human capital cannot be readily remedied. But statist policies always squander wealth, even when that wealth is counted in human lives.
Statist Policies Never Apply to the Statists Themselves
So, who believes, for an instant, that a 25-year-old laborer would have her life spared by government above the life of a 78- or 79-year-old politician, such as John McCain? By the way, McCain’s mother is 103 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberta_McCain). Do you think the government would deny her care, in order to give a 25-year-old preference? Or do you think connection to a US Senator might bring privileges? Helping friends of the politically-connected will never end. Medical treatments, in a socialist system, will always privilege the politically connected and those who hold preferred political views.
The Great Prevaricators
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama all supported non-transparent government-managed care. Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it. . . .” (Read more about it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html.) Once people started getting kicked off insurance plans, losing their ability to procure care—from knee replacements to cancer treatments—Harry Reid opined, “Despite all that good news [about Obamacare], there’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue, but they’re being told all over America.” (Read more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/26/harry-reid-all-obamacare-horror-stories-are-untrue/.) This statement was deeply dishonest. And then there was Obama, who repeated dozens of times some version of this: “And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/). But is that not exactly what happened?
United Nations Justifications
Under proposed guidelines, UN member states will receive targets for reducing deaths from cancer, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, etc. One way of doing this is to have people die sooner. In opposition to Professor Peter Lloyd-Sherlock, who said, “This premature mortality target is highly unethical, since it unjustifiably discriminates against older people” (http://universalfreepress.com/must-read-elderly-face-discrimination-under-un-death-targets/), the UN counterclaims that it is wrong to discriminate against young people by diverting resources to the old.
The problem with the UN’s false choice between helping the young versus helping the old is that the UN is controlled by socialist countries with no free-market system for providing healthcare. Since free markets always provide an abundance of what is needed, the correct moral position to take would be that countries with limited healthcare resources should convert to free markets in order to incentivize increased development of medical resources.
Free Markets and Moral Healthcare
In a free market, all resources are developed for which there is a demand. More demand for cancer care means more cancer doctors appear. This occurs because people—or insurance companies wishing to stay competitive—will pay for necessary care. This means people’s healthcare needs can be plentifully provided, for less cost and higher quality.
Why Socialized Medicine Costs Lives
Under socialism, there is no profit motive—thus no motivation for bureaucrats to hold down costs. Rather than becoming more efficient, government raises taxes or cuts budgets. Both measures hurt people, the former with respect to finances and the latter with regard to healthcare. Cuts to care can cost patients their lives.
Eventually, price controls are instituted, but this kills the incentive for talented people to enter medicine. Also, when medicine pays less, many doctors retire. Shortages develop. This makes it harder to gain access to care.
Re-growing the Medical Pie
A highly moral goal would be to re-establish the free market in healthcare, to grow the medical pie into what America had before Obamacare. Americans all had access to the care. The trade-off was that some did not have insurance, so they incurred high bills. I would argue, however, that this is a better trade-off than doing away with financial concerns at the cost of human lives.
Free Markets Choose Life
The progressive worldview propagandizes that socialism is preferable, because it eliminates income disparities. However, the more socialism a country has, the poorer everybody becomes—even among the poor! In a free-market economy, there is extreme wealth, but there is also more opportunity for all—including poor people, who, in America, are materially better off than their middle-class counterparts in most countries. Only in a free market can a free people provide for themselves what government can never provide, medically or otherwise: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com