Many of you have gotten this email.

B-note: This is a partial quote from the email. He cites several dozen more, but these are the “horrifying, shocker” lines referred to and originally printed by the author in red.

=======

I URGE YOU TO READ THIS ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT IS THERE TO PLEASE CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS TO OBJECT BECAUSE IF WE DON’T OBJECT THIS WILL BECOME THE LAW.

Subject: If you don’t want to even think about this, but surely you must oppose i…

If you have been in favor of any of the healthcare plan, you better think again. It will be tyranny for us. Let your congressman and senator know how you feel.

All of this is more than HORRIFYING, but for the biggest shocker look at page 425.

Peter Fleckstein has looked at Obama’s Healthcare Bill and if his comments are accurate this bill would be the most encompassing act of tyranny ever in the history of these United States. Here is what he says the bill says:

At the end of his comments there is a link to the actual bill itself so that you may check the accuracy of his comments.

PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consultation. Euthanasia and Doctor-Assisted Suicide.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct consult regarding living wills, and assume power of attorney of all enrollees. Mandatory!

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death decisions to end your life.

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program to mandatory end of life programs. The Govt will mandate how your life ends.

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “advance care planning consultant” will be used frequently as a patient’s health deteriorates

PG 429 Lines 10-12 “advance care consultation” may include an ORDER to initiate end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV to terminate a life.

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life

=======
 

---

 

 

Oh my God!!!!!
Government mandated suicide!!!
Just like that Star Trek episode with the guy from MASH committing suicide at age 60 by law. How horrific!!!!!!

I don’t want anyone to think I’m for bill HR 3200 in any way. It’s garbage for 32,000 reasons including the euthanasia scare.

But not the way you think.

We’ve all gotten the horror email about killing old people. It says the bill mandates this outright in black and white.

The concern is real, though the bill doesn’t say that.

HR 3200 doesn’t give the government the powers of euthanasia that the emails describe.

It does guarantee the medical community, especially insurers like Blue Cross, that they can charge Uncle Sam once every 5 years for a “consultation” for every patient that qualifies for Medicare. More often than that if there’s a change in the person’s health.

These provisions are supposed to be about making sure people plan ahead for future care and have their wishes honored. The section lays out all the reasons you might need it: long-term care, life-sustaining care, decisions to be made if you can’t, and, yes, hospice.

No government agent is supposed to sit in on this consultation. You and your doctor, nurse, or – here’s the dangerous part – your proxy. Which can be your provider’s medical administrator.

According to the bill, this is a choice for the patient that the government must pay for. To insurers, doctors and health care providers, it’s a goldmine of guaranteed fees from the US coffers with no treatment or service expense. All providers will make this consultation mandatory by policy so they won’t miss out on any cash. Then, doctors will start telling all their patients of age, but not covered, that it’s mandatory but free, and everybody will get in on it.

Then, the providers and certain doctors will use the consultations as an excuse to suggest or deny treatments, minimize expenses, or, yes, convince folks to give up and let their illness win to maximize profit.

Facilities and providers under the current system can’t wait to bury patients who are terminal and no longer generating income through treatments and procedures.

They practically killed my dad with horrendous care and practices after botching his surgery. He couldn’t die soon enough. The nursing home doped him up and gave him pneumonia. Then the ER was going to deny him the antibiotics because he was going to die anyway. I almost hit the doctor. I demanded my dad get them, and he was eating a steak the next day. We set him up to do home hospice with me and my brothers. He left this world at his time, in his own home, watching his TV.

This bill will empower providers to lie about the law at will, applying it as they see fit to maximize their cash flow from the government. Every healthy person over 65 would be encouraged to test for some possible ailment at every consultation. Anyone with a problem would find themselves taking numerous tests, procedures, and drugs unrelated to the illness. God forbid you be terminally ill. They’ll send you down the hospice chute faster than you can wink. On life support? Not anymore. Cutting costs mean cutting your life.

So, yes, these fears are justified, but not because the government is going to suddenly become fascist, commie Nazis.

It’s because our medical providers will instantly abuse it completely and leave us worse off no matter what it says.

My brother pointed out to me that Nazi Germany had similar legislation, that had a distinction, read between the lines, that allowed for the elimination of “useless eaters” – euthanasia of those too old or infirm to contribute to society. Although the law didn’t say that, it could be interpreted by the Nazis intentionally to use it this way without the public’s awareness, most believing the law was fair.

This is exactly like that. The pages just say a Medicare patient can have this every 5 years or more often if their health changes.

Providers will say it’s mandatory. Even though they don’t provide that consultation at all now unless it’s demanded by the patient’s advocates and approved by the provider, however useful it might be.

A counseling session like this may have allowed me to get my dad into home hospice much earlier. Even to have planned for it when his cancer metastasized. We only got him home after 3 near-death experiences exposing horrendous negligence. And begrudgingly. They fought us over it until we exhausted them. This is with full BlueCross/BlueShield and supplemental up the wazoo. They couldn’t wait to put him in a black gurney.

Imagine what they’ll do when they can charge the government full rate, say it’s mandatory, and dictate patient care from then on.

The bill doesn’t say that, but we’re already being told it does just to hide the fact that it’s already status quo.

They want more. This is a license to print money from Medicare patients and discard them when they don’t bring a profit.

The whole thing is written like this – vague, technical, and ripe for abuse by the current system.

I hate this bill, but I also hate to see all this larceny continue unabated because of some semantic sleight of hand.

The providers need to change to accommodate the market. No government-anything past fixing Medicare for now.

This bill will make everything worse.

Even worse yet, no bill will be any good until we start using the actual language against them instead of taking interpretations as fact.

This is the info I wish was going around the internet. The bill can’t be trusted because it gives free reign to all the morons and profiteers already ruining our system for most folks.

Obama is not out to kill our elderly, he just doesn’t know the medical insurance industry already is.

I hope you’ll pass this on. I hate to see this bill go through because this “euthanasia” point is too easy to dismiss.

It’s already happening now, and it will grow unchecked if this bill is passed.

Please send the real page 425 to everyone and your congress-morons.

Now, those actual pages from the house bill, accessed via the link in the email (you actually have to start at page 424 to get the entire section):

---

---

I simply did as the email suggested: I followed the link to verify his comments.

To make it even simpler, I chose to first investigate his “horrifying” mandates on pages 425-430.

As you’ve read, there is no way to confuse this section as “mandatory euthanasia at the government’s discretion”. It merely demands counseling and knowledge of all aspects of care and assistance available, spelling them out by application – critical care, long term care, life-sustaining, and hospice.

This kind of misquote is rampant on both sides. Read the bill yourself. Don’t take someone’s word for what’s in it. There’s surely plenty wrong and right in the same pages, and much to be discussed. This is, however, a blatant attempt to frighten people into
fearing any health care bill, outright. We aren’t living in Logan’s Run unless we allow this to continue.

But, as my brother wryly observed, “objects in mirror are closer than they appear”.

All this nonsense has to stop.

And we’re just the hairpins to do it.
 
⇑ top ↑

---

References:
 
Full text of HR 3200 IH on gpo.gov
Government Printing Office (GPO)
 
Related Media:
 
Star Trek: TNG episode “Half a Life” – Wikipedia entry
Star Trek store

---

 

The Lunatic Fringe in the Middle

§ 1    So You Call It ….Freedom? Did It Come With A Manual?

Everybody in America knows the word.

Everybody in America knows for sure that they deserve it.

They know they must protect it. They must fight for it.
They even know that they must defend everybody’s right to have it.

A great many of them just don’t know what the heck it REALLY is.

I, mean, what is freedom, really?

Without flying into existentialism, dogma, or spiritualism, I’m just going to go out on a limb here and say that it all starts with our understanding of the word ‘free’.

Regardless of what a dictionary might say (I won’t bother to quote one, so look it up yourself!!), there are three colloquial uses or understandings of the same word here.

What “free” means depends on what’s going on with someone at the time. If you are oriented towards money or possessions, “free” means something for nothing. If you’re feeling oppressed, “free” means the lack of restrictions or barriers. If you are the type of person that cherishes creativity and accomplishment or ambition, “free” likely means an open field of opportunity.

I’m going to shake that tiny branch I’m hanging from and say that the monetary use of the word is one of our many English conundrums. I have no desire to count how many words we use to mean several things. So let’s forget about this version of the word. Likewise, the idea that one requires freedom to create implies that there is some restriction present already, meaning the artist feels creatively oppressed. So really, I believe, only the oppressive definition of the word “free” actually applies.

That, I fear, is where all the arguments start. (And the wars!)

Freedom, as a concept, is not quite as simple and one-sided as people would like to think. The idea that freedom is it’s own separate thing to covet and win has caused more death and destruction than anything our technology or pollution could ever do. The very idea that freedom is a philosophical opinion, to be applied as we see fit, is, by itself, so bogus it has to be the most embarrassing axiom in all of creation.

The TRUTH about “freedom” (the state of being free), is that it is not a belief – IT IS A LAW OF PHYSICS. It is, in fact, no more variable than the Laws of Gravity and Action/Reaction. Something must give in every case, or disaster will occur.

Consider this, if you will:

Let’s say I walked up to you, out of nowhere, a total stranger, and hit you over the head with a baseball bat.

Now, I think we both agree that’s a rotten thing to do, but why?

You, see, if I walk up with the idea that I’m free to swing my bat anywhere I darn well please, this impacts greatly on your right to live a baseball-bat impairment-free life. This also means that you would have the similar right to drop a grand piano on my head. These expressions of freedom all dance around the same issue – what rights we believe we have.

Logic alone dictates that one cannot be free from injury, and yet, free to do harm. If you feel you have the right to kill, then you surrender the right to live. You are only free to live as long as all agree they have no right to kill. To harm someone intentionally is to deny the other side of the “freedom” coin:

Responsibility.

Without responsibility, freedom does not work at all. To be truly free from being hurt, everyone must believe that they have no right to injure. The two ideas are as simple and permanently connected as they could possibly be.

You cannot separate freedom from responsibility. If you do so for the sake of an endeavor, you have left no choice for those whose freedom you have abridged. They must conclude that, if they are not free from your abuse, they must be free to abuse you in return. If they cannot have safety from you, you cannot have safety from them. This is the most basic level of human survivalism. This is also, historically, humanity’s biggest stumbling block.

This is the Paradox of “Freedom”.

Knowledge, ethics, and self-discipline are the tools that enable the Paradox to work.
To wit:

• To study and learn to understand the past of your art or skill will give you more freedom to create and improve, having the vocabulary to use and create with, in addition to your own imagination and perspective.
• To refrain from embellishing a business deal unfairly will inevitably protect you from an angry client suing you over a lie.
• To curtail a voluntary freedom, such as turning your cell-phone off in a theater, will guarantee that you will not be ushered out for disturbing the audience during the show.

So if you’re concerned about a particular “freedom”, ask yourself if you’d like that done to you. If you wouldn’t, then give it a miss. Then you will unravel the paradox of freedom and be given the greatest power that humanity has to wield honorably in the name of justice.

Respect.

 
©2000 Pegwood Arts. All Rights Reserved.
 

<<–prev   top    next–>>

Return to the beginning of the book

---

The Lunatic Fringe in the Middle

ii.:   Forward

I should note, for the record, that I am an average person, with dreams and aspirations as lofty as any, and immediate needs as meager as all. I can identify with all humans on one level – the right to exist, free of abuse, containment, and undue seizures or bias. These are the foundations, (albeit re-phrased) of the basic rights set forth in all the documents drafted by America’s founders. The wording of these documents is, in most cases, general enough as to be applied in greater scope as people become more enlightened. Some issues, such as slavery, were initially allowed in, and had to be amended when the nation, as a whole figured out what was wrong. (Too bad it took several generations and a civil war to just fix the paper on that one!) Similarly, including women’s participation in the voting process was a detail not stated expressly in the Constitution, but one which the language does not in any way deny. The absolute sexism of the day had to be overcome.

Even now, we have yet to see, as a nation, the true, boundless aspect of those words penned on hemp, and finally parchment, over 200 years ago. Merely substitute “human beings”, for “man”, and the words, as if magically, apply to everyone. There’s no need to state any further definition or interpretation. Perceiving the main body of works from this point of view instantly points out the contradictions that may occur, such as the issue of slavery, (which should never have been there) and omissions in common practice, such as women’s right to vote, (which should never have been in question, and should not have required a constitutional amendment). These antiquated notions are but clinging vestiges of the politics of the past, of dollars invested. It was men with power, putting off “just this little bit” of humanity so as to protect their investments. (Nuclear weapons ring any bells,here?) They are, more importantly, proof that our government has always been vulnerable to special interests, fear of invasion, and unscrupulous behavior on the part of it’s members. All of this has occurred here, in spite of the fact that ours is the first nation on earth founded on the premise that the citizens are in control of the whole process.

This is not like 600 years ago, when a Lord or landowner could butter up the king, or all the dukes on the way up if he had to, and end up “owning” your land, now suddenly demanding taxes or your life. We were set up specifically to avoid that problem. Today, the problem exists as much as ever, with political and corporate groups constantly dogging the government for favors at every level, throwing barrels of money at every congressman they can, hoping one of them will bite, and using their influence to write, change or “get around” a law that affects their business. There is one very important difference.

This time we have let this happen.

Henry David Thoreau’s “Essay on Civil Disobedience” was, at the time, a call to honor for all Americans. It dealt mainly with the issues of slavery and taxes. He was really big on the whole tax thing. It took up a major part of the essay. The only other big problem he mentions at any length is slavery. He was vehemently against it as a concept, and he saw inclusion of it in the Constitution as an absolute outrage,in every way. When it came to taxes, though, Thoreau had mixed feelings. He pretty much objected to owing taxes to the state just because you are alive and you live here. He persistently avoided and outright refused to pay most taxes on many occasions (and if not for generous friends, would have spent more than one night in jail for it), but curiously, he had no problem paying the highway tax. The logic binding is the idea that a government should only tax for what they need to do for the citizens, as decided by the citizens themselves. He saw no problem with supporting education, but he preferred to help in that area with his expertise rather than his pocketbook. In any case, freedom from unfair taxation was one of the basic reasons for the inception of this country, and Thoreau was proper to point out the inequities of the government in that area. His work still stands today, merely inserting “racism” or “bias” for “slavery”, “U.S.A.” for “Massachusetts” and the politician of your choice for “Daniel Webster”. You can leave the rest pretty much intact, and you will be amazed to discover how relevant it still is in today’s society. There is a catch, though.

Thoreau wrote at a time when the nation was new and still getting its legs. The spirit of the revolution was still alive, as evidenced by the war with Mexico (which Thoreau was completely against). The danger of the new government falling into old feudal ways had a foreboding nearness to it. This is what caused Thoreau to write his call to civil defiance. His views mirror the protesters’ cries against the Vietnam war, the anguish of the Civil Rights Movement, and – unheard in most of society (ignored today as well) – the tax burden on the low income citizen. His plea for integrity and law-breaking was meant in only that way. Fight the bad laws by breaking them. This idea, sadly, has taken on a vastly different meaning.

Americans nowadays are cynically resigned to the concept that they cannot win, politically, in any way, and must live with whatever the “fat cats” in the government want to do to them. Since they think the fight is unwinnable, they take out their frustration on each other, exercising their right to “Civil Disobedience” in such patriotic ways as parking in handicapped spaces, weaving in and out of traffic at will, writing checks in the cash only line, and calling 911 for directions.

What follows is a series of essays on modern times. I hope you agree.

If not, at least you’re thinking, for Pete’s sake!!!

 
©2000 Pegwood Arts. All Rights Reserved.
 

<<–prev   top    next–>>

Return to the beginning of the book

---