Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Long-Legged Mac Daddy City Planner in Chief

First, Obamacare is going to reduce the deficit. Did anyone really believe that could happen? Anyone? Really. I think The Chosen One really thought us peons were really that stupid. How many gajillion times did he say it? But he also said that if that weren't true, he wouldn't support Obamacare. How about that one? Did anyone really swallow that pill, either?

Richard Foster, the chief actuary (bean counter) for Medicare conducted a study resulting in a verdict that Obamacare's accounting was flawed and that the Medicare cuts which fund half of the new law are "unrealistic and unsustainable". Oops. Sorry Barry. I didn't believe you to begin with but now that your numbers are seeing the light of day, they don't add up and you don't have to be smarter than a fifth grader to see it.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has also changed their tune, stating that there will be no deficit reduction after all. How about that. I am just shocked.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is quite concerned as well, stating that, "the substantial decrease in Medicare payment rates [called for by the Affordable Care Act] to health care providers may prove difficult to implement."

Oh BamBam. We all knew the truth about this all along. Sure you fooled about 30% of the population with your lies, but the rest of us see you. We see you dancing around and playing the fool. We see you avoiding questions from the press, we see you telling our seniors and our handicapped that they don't have a moral obligation to just die for the good of society, we see you Mr Obamalama. Mr Long-legged Mac Daddy (I Love Dr. James David Manning), the City Planner In Chief, is a liar and is not doing a very good job selling this thing now that it has passed and we can see what is in it. We're all tired of getting lied to, Barry. Stop it and fix this mess or we will boot you all out and fix it for you. Oh wait. Maybe we'll boot you and all your friends out anyway. Buh bye.

5 comments:

  1. "...we see you telling our seniors and our handicapped that they don't have a moral obligation to just die for the good of society..."

    Who says the elderly and handicapped people have a moral obligation to die for the good of society?

    ReplyDelete
  2. See http://www.springerlink.com/content/w28513247321r84t/

    or you can read what John Hardwig (http://web.utk.edu/~jhardwig/dutydie.htm) wrote:

    I cannot say when someone has a duty to die. Still, I can suggest a few features of one's illness, history, and circumstances that make it more likely that one has a duty to die. I present them here without much elaboration or explanation.


    1) A duty to die is more likely when continuing to live will impose significant burdens -- emotional burdens, extensive caregiving, destruction of life plans, and, yes, financial hardship -- on your family and loved ones. This is the fundamental insight underlying a duty to die.

    2) A duty to die becomes greater as you grow older. As we age, we will be giving up less by giving up our lives, if only because we will sacrifice fewer remaining years of life and a smaller portion of our life plans. After all, it's not as if we would be immortal and live forever if we could just manage to avoid a duty to die. To have reached the age of, say, seventy-five or eighty years without being ready to die is itself a moral failing, the sign of a life out of touch with life's basic realities.

    3) A duty to die is more likely when you have already lived a full and rich life. You have already had a full share of thegood things life offers.

    4) There is greater duty to die if your loved ones' lives have already been difficult or impoverished, if they have had only a small share of the good things that life has to offer (especially if through no fault of their own).

    5) A duty to die is more likely when your loved ones have already made great contributions -- perhaps even sacrifices -- to make your life a good one. Especially if you have not made similar sacrifices for their well-being or for the well-being of other members of your family.

    6) To the extent that you can make a good adjustment to your illness or handicapping condition, there is less likely to be a duty to die. A good adjustment means that smaller sacrifices will be required of loved ones and there is more compensatinginteraction for them. Still, we must also recognize that some diseases -- Alzheimer's or Huntington's chorea -- will eventually take their toll on your loved ones no matter how courageously,resolutely, even cheerfully you manage to face that illness.

    7) There is less likely to be a duty to die if you can still make significant contributions to the lives of others, especially your family. The burdens to family members are not only or even primarily financial, neither are the contributions to them. However, the old and those who have terminal illnesses must also bear in mind that the loss their family members will feel when they die cannot be avoided, only postponed.

    8) A duty to die is more likely when the part of you that is loved will soon be gone or seriously compromised. Or when you soon will no longer be capable of giving love. Part of the horror of dementing disease is that it destroys the capacity to nurture and sustain relationships, taking away a person's agency and the emotions that bind her to others.

    9) There is a greater duty to die to the extent that you have lived a relatively lavish lifestyle instead of saving for illness or old age. Like most upper middle-class Americans, I could easily have saved more. It is a greater wrong to come to your family for assistance if your need is the result of having chosen leisure or a spendthrift lifestyle. I may eventually have to face the moral consequences of decisions I am now making.

    These, then, are some of the considerations that give shape and definition to the duty to die. If we can agree that these considerations are all relevant, we can see that the correct course of action will often be difficult to discern. A decision about WHEN I should end my life will sometimes prove to be every bit as difficult as the decision about whether I want treatment for myself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's a bit sickening to me to suggest you have some right to my life. That I have, by virtue of existing, some debt that I owe others (society) to the extent that I owe it to them to die.

    I don't demand others live their lives to support mine--I can do that fine myself. By the same token, I will not demand others die to support me. I do not own anyone, I have no claim to their life. The two concepts are inseparable. If we have a moral obligation to die for the good of society then we have a moral obligation to live, not for ourselves, but for the good of the collective.

    Socialism demands that we live and die for the common good. Capitalism tells us to live and die for ourselves and our own freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree that socialism demands that we live and die for the common good. Capitalism, whatever it may "say," has to be tempered by all sorts of things or it becomes just as evil as socialism. Living and dying for ourselves alone, with no regard for anyone else, is not admirable, laudable, or Christian.

    Having said that, though, I find the notion of a "duty to die" to be profoundly anti-Christian (actually anti-Judeo-Christian because the idea predates Christ).

    Here is Thomas Sowell on the idea: http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/a-quot-duty-to-die-quot.html

    My pastor said this morning that God is more concerned with purifying us than he is with our peace and comfort. I don't think God cares whether or not taking care of my mother will eat away my savings or damage my career. I think He cares whether or not I honor her, though.

    Most people of faith who have taken the time to seriously consider end-of-life issues see a huge difference between refusing life-prolonging treatments and actively killing oneself. In other words, if I have been diagnosed with terminal cancer I can refuse chemotherapy treatments and not feel that one is violating the sixth commandment. If, however, I save all of my pain medications and take a handful of them in order to fulfill my duty to die, I am violating that commandment as it has been understood for centuries. My fervent prayer is that my last act on this side of heaven is not a violation of God's laws.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One more thing that I thought of while I was folding laundry. I Corinthians 6:19, 20 says, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

    Christians need to stop thinking along the lines of "it's my body, my life, to do with what I please." It's not my life. It's not even my body. God made them and bought them. This is just one of the reasons why the sixth commandment has always been viewed as applying to suicide as well as murder.

    ReplyDelete