Further Evidence of Biden's Cognitive Decline -- His Public Health Advisory Committee

If you were an elderly person in a state of rapid cognitive decline, but still early in the process, you would not choose a man for your Public Health Advisory Committee who is essentially an assassin of elderly people, especially those suffering cognitive decline.  No, you would be afraid of such a person and you would certainly not promote such a person.

Joe Biden hastily assembled a Public Health Advisory Committee to provide him advice on how he would handle the Covid 19 epidemic.  One of his picks for an adviser was Ezekiel Emanuel who played a major role in developing ObamaCare with its Death Panels, which he advised should not waste limited healthcare resources on older people.  Dr. Emanuel has been especially assertive that older people who are no longer very productive should not be provided health care.  Specifically, he says people with dementia or other mental decline are simply not valuable enough to the collective to be maintained.  Not only are healthcare resources for the elderly expensive, but the world is over-populated, which is destructive of the planet, according to such leftists as Ezekiel Emanuel.

Joe Biden's mental decline has been very evident and has been frequently pointed out by many Democratic Party promoters in the media, as well as party leaders.  At least many pointed it out prior to their recently falling into lockstep behind Biden in their desperate effort to defeat Trump in November.

How far gone do you have to be to promote a man to your Public Health Advisory Committee who is advocating that elderly people such as Joe Biden, especially if they are in rapid cognitive decline, as Joe Biden is, should not receive valuable healthcare resources to deal with their decline and their subsequent health problems?  The Democrat coup to remove Trump from the presidency did not get this early a start in 2016 relative to Trump's taking office.  In effect, Joe Biden himself has started the process to remove him from office in March 2020 should he be elected!  Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is the spokesman for the Democratic Party offering us the criterion for establishing the value of elderly people with declining cognitive function, such as Joe Biden.

If Joe Biden wins the election, it may be a very easy task to remove him from office.  The Constitution has a provision for that:  Amendment 25 Section 4.  No one will have to create the kind of fraudulent attacks that have been made on President Trump.  We will all just get the message as he stumbles through stories about kids stroking his hairy legs, his dangerous encounters with Corn Pop, his thoughts about the Living Constitution that make American's rights look like roadkill, or his declaring that anyone who disagrees with him is a lying horse-faced pony soldier.  Who knows, perhaps the day will come soon when he tells us what the nuclear launch codes are because he is so proud of himself for remembering them, or maybe he doesn't remember them.  I am fully expecting to hear him offer to take Putin outside the school to the playground and beat him up.  Hopefully, Jill will step in and take on Putin for him.

Deciding Who Lives and Who Dies

Thomas Sowell has just written a column called A 'Duty to Die.'  As is always the case, he makes a good point, in this case about nationalized medical systems.  His main point is that when he grew up in poverty in the Southeast, his family took in an old aunt and cared for her for a while.  The old aunt moved from family to family so no one family was too much burdened, but they all willingly took their turns.  Now, he points out that we live in a culture in which very many of the best educated have learned that the old simply have a duty to die so they will not be a burden on the rest of us.  He points out that this harkens back to primitive societies so strained in resources and so marginal in their survival, that the old had to wander off into the wilderness alone to die.

This issue has long been bothering me.  Those who claim that they are so concerned about their fellow man and his welfare that they believe it is right to use government force to manage scarce medical services resources to provide for the poor or for those who simply do not choose to buy their own health insurance, have taken it upon themselves to make the decisions of who will live and who will die.  In the not too distant past, this decision in the United States was made by a combination of the following filters:

• A lifetime of hard work and savings by an individual provided sufficient money or a substantial part of the money needed for either adequate health insurance or savings for medical care.
• Family members volunteered to help financially or with direct care services.
• Friends did the same.
• Many physicians volunteered their services to those in medical need who could not afford to pay, as my own grandfather did for thousands of patients, especially during the Great Roosevelt Depression.
• Charities provided financial aid and medical services.

As Great Britain  is already doing and we will have to do under ObamaCare, decisions are being made more and more by medical and governmental bureaucracies about who will live or die.  The socialists who favor this approach like to say such things as:  The life and death decisions are now made scientifically by specialized panels on the basis of broad categories of cost, the likelihood of success, and the social worth of the patient based on the patient's age.  These decisions are made in the light of day and reviewed by the democratic vote of the citizens in general elections.  This, they say, is so much better than decisions made by soulless health insurers.  Now, note that they leave out the role of the individual in how he lived his life, the role of his family and his friends, and they assume that doctors do no volunteer work and that taking private charity is somehow demeaning, while taking government charity is not.

In a nationalized health care system, all those who either love the patient or who are voluntarily disposed to help the patient are removed from the decision-making process.  A "scientific" decision of how to spend the limited funds of the government medical program takes the place of all these people who may actually know the patient or who may evaluate the patient as an individual to determine if he or she is worthy of their voluntary help.  The government must make some kind of pretense of providing medical aid equally, so it must do so with no regard to individual character.  One of the easiest ways to do this is with the now inevitable rule of the form:  You are older than 70 years old and you have cancer which is expensive to treat, so you will not be treated.  Is this a more moral system for determining who gets medical treatment and who does not?  To me, it is clear that this system is designed in Hell.  The people who choose this system have no heart and are disloyal to every person of good character that they know.  They are betrayers of those they claim to love.  They are supporters of government-run death panels.

Krugman: Advisory Panels will Reduce Costs with Rationing

Paul Krugman, the Progressive economist writing for the New York Times and a major spokesman for the Progressive viewpoint, said on ABC News Sunday during the show "This Week" that

The People on the right, they're simultaneously screaming, 'They're going to send all the old people to death panels,' and 'It's not going to save any money.

The advisory panel which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we are not going to pay for it. That is actually going to save quite a lot of money. We don't know how much yet. The CBO gives it very little credit but, but most, most of the health care economists I talk to think that's going be a really, uh a really major cost saving.

Krugman is saying that the ObamaCare program will have to ration medical care more than it presently is rationed in order to save money.  It will do so with advisory panels whose decision is close to that of the Grim Reaper in finality.  The patient and the doctor and the patient's family will have little to no say.  The advisory panel's decision is "more or less binding."  It is dictated.

Note the sleight-of-hand in his first statement in which he concatenates the critic's statement that rationing will occur and it will result in more deaths with their statement that ObamaCare will cost a lot more money and raise premium prices in such a straw-man way as to make the statements appear to be contradictory.  Yet, it is elementary, my dear Krugman, to note that the latter statement of ObamaCare raising net costs does not mean that ObamaCare will not take desperate measures to ration really important care in life and death situations in order to free up money to pay for the much added costs of people seeing a care provider for their many sniffles.

So, as I have noted many times, ObamaCare must ration medical services.  Of course medical services are always rationed.  They used to be rationed by a combination of the ability to pay and the willingness of doctors to provide the truly needy with free or greatly reduced cost care.  Now they will be rationed by an Obama advisory panel of government bureaucrats, who will come between the patient and his family and the patient's doctor, who will not really be the patient's doctor at all, because the doctors will all be owned by the government.  Now, how many times did Obama and his horde of allies tell us that "No one will come between you and your doctor."?????

While it is true that medical care is and always must be rationed, there are very important further differences in which care will be rationed.  ObamaCare will measure its success in the number of doctor visits made to address the sniffles.  There will be many more such visits to the doctor than now because people will not have to pay out of their own pockets for those visits.  They have also committed ObamaCare to much more preventive medicine, even though this also drives cost up, contrary to their claims.  The extra sniffles visits and the preventive medical care will drive the total cost of medical care sharply upward.  At least partially compensating savings will have to be made.  Now, where can savings be made?  Given the ObamaCare commitments, the only time to save lots of money is when most medical expenditure has occurred in the past.  Very rationally, this has been when the care was most needed to extend life and is usually encountered with older people or babies.  Obama and his friends have made it very clear in unguarded moments in the past, that they do not like the fact that so much medical money is spent on babies and the elderly.  They have argued that babies and the elderly have little social value.  They have complained very bitterly about this, but by hiding it in general statements such as Americans spend too much on health care during the recent debates.

So, the advisory panel will look at cost to life extension and future life quality and decide what procedures are worth it, given the budgetary constraints of ObamaCare.  Procedures that were worth the effort to doctors, their patients, and their insurance companies will now be deemed not worth it.  There must be added savings to compensate for the sniffles and the preventive medicine.  The advisory panel will have to decide that grannies and babies who used to be worth the medical effort to save are not now worth the medical effort to save.  However much, the Progressives do not want these panels to be called Death Panels, they are tasked with the necessary job of pulling the plug on granny or your newborn baby.  The plug will have to be pulled much more frequently than we as free people ever allowed it to be pulled.  Now that all value decisions are to be made on a collective basis, your granny and your baby are worth much less in the future than they were in the past.

So, the reality is that just as the Progressive tries to hide the fact he is a Socialist behind a deceiving name implying he is the Angel of the Future Better Society, his Advisory Panel is exactly what Sarah Palin called the Death Panel.  The Advisory Panel serves the purpose of the Grim Reaper, who must cull society of its weak members.  The Weak are Expensive and not Worth it to the Collective.  And on and on, they will insist that we are not fair in identifying them as Socialists.

Our granny may be weak, but when she was our granny, she was loved and she was valuable.  Under ObamaCare, our granny is just a nationalized wee little bit of the Collective.  She is no longer your granny.  She is old and weak and not much regarded by the Collective.  Granny is now very expendable.  So is your newborn baby, if your baby has a serious health problem.  Get used to it.  Or, man the barricades and fight as you have never fought before to save your granny and your future babies!

This is not the time for Summer Soldiers, this is the crisis that can only be met by Winter Soldiers!  We must stand for the equal, sovereign rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  We must realize that our individual rights and our individual values mean nothing to any too powerful government.  They never have in all of history.  Our Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution knew this very well.  They gave us a Constitution which tightly constrained the federal government with very limited powers in order to protect our individual rights and values.  Our federal government has pushed and pushed to expand its powers far, far beyond those given to it in this wonderful Constitution.  The People have not stopped them in this expansion of government power to this time.  Will you finally become the Winter Soldier for Freedom to save your granny and your future baby?  If you will not, you consent to their being expendable.

Should We Allow Granny to Die?

Stories are now widespread in the newspapers in Great Britain about people, usually elderly, being put on the Liverpool Care Pathway.  The plan is intended for people very close to death, or at least it was originally claimed that that was its purpose.  More and more stories are emerging about people who are not so close to death being put on this euthanasia plan.  Here is another such story.

At around 4am on Monday, a friend of mine was woken by a call from the private care home in south-west London where her 98-year-old grandmother is resident.
"Mrs ------- has breathing difficulties," the night manager told her. "She needs oxygen. Shall we call an ambulance?"
"What do you mean?" my friend responded. "What's the matter with her?"
"She needs to go to hospital. Do you want that? Or would you prefer that we make her comfortable?"
Then, the chilling implication of the phone call filtered through – she was being asked whether her grandmother should be allowed to die.
"Call an ambulance now," my friend demanded.
The person at the other end persisted. "Are you sure that's what you want? For her to go to hospital."
"Yes, absolutely. Get her to hospital."
Three hours later, her grandmother was sitting up in A&E, smiling. She had a mild chest infection, was extremely dehydrated, but was responding to oxygen treatment.

Her granddaughter was wondering how her grandmother, whose major health problem is a badly calcified knee, had been allowed to become dehydrated in the first place.  Dehydration is one of the steps in the Liverpool Care Pathway when the NHS decides that an elderly patient will be allowed to die.  Now the granddaughter is worried about the care her grandmother is getting in the private care home.

As costs rise in a nationalized health care system, the average taxpayer inevitably does not have the same incentive the loving family members have for the preservation of grandma's and grandpa's lives.  Naturally, they are going to refuse the higher taxes to support the health care system and that system will have to respond with bureaucrats creating rules that will ration health care.  Generally, the value of your grandmother to society is weighed against her value, not to you, but to society.  When that happens, your rather expensive grandmother is going to receive less care than a younger person and less care than you want for her.  There is every incentive to put your grandmother on the Liverpool Care Pathway, or in America on the Chicago Care Pathway a few years down the pike after we adopt ObamaCare.  Some death panel of bureaucrats will promulgate the rules that save the system money.

Darwall - Government Medicine vs. the Elderly

Rupert Darwall, a London-based strategist currently writing a book on the history of global warming, wrote an interesting Opinion in the Wall Street Journal on 14 September 2009. He noted that the Patients Association, an independent charity, had examined many end-of-life care cases of the British National Health Service (NHS) and had found "a consistent pattern of shocking standards of care." It gave examples across the NHS of "appalling treatment."

Darwall notes that the usual justification for socialized medicine is to provide access to care for the poor and disadvantaged. But this is best done by a benefits system and refundable tax credits. In reality, it is assumed that health care resources are fixed and it is necessary to prioritize their use for those who can benefit the most from them. So, Britain's NHS is the "national triage service." He notes:

It should come as no surprise that the NHS is institutionally ageist. The elderly have fewer years left to them; why then should they get health-care resources that would benefit a younger person more? An analysis by a senior U.K.-based health-care expert earlier this decade found that in the U.S. health-care spending per capita goes up steeply for the elderly, while the U.K. didn't show the same pattern. The U.K.'s pattern of health-care spending by age had more in common with the former Soviet bloc.

He notes that this assumption of limited resources lies behind Obama's claim that "We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it." Obama claims this threatens our economic competitiveness.

In my opinion, we would not be so tempted to view it from that angle at all except that we only offer tax breaks to companies for the purchase of employee health insurance. If we separated this cost from companies, then it would not affect their competitiveness and it would solve the problem of people losing their insurance when they lose a job or switch jobs. If the tax break for the purchase of health insurance went only to individuals, as it should, then their spending on health insurance would be viewed just like that on any other consumer spending, except that they would get a tax deduction for it. If Americans wanted to spend 1.5 times what other nations do and if they want to spend more specifically to keep granny alive another year or two or five, that would be viewed as entirely their prerogative.

Darwall questions what makes it bad to spend so much on health care? He does say that distortions such as malpractice suits and the absence of consumer price consciousness should be addressed. Putting insurance in the hands of the individual, rather than his company, and allowing high deductible plans with Health Savings Accounts is an effective answer to the issue of consumer price consciousness. Darwall observes that our greater spending on health care "incentivizes new drugs, new therapies and better ways of delivering health care. Government-administered systems are so slow and clumsy that they turn the lump of health-care fallacy into reality."

A 2002 Wanless report, which Blair's government used to justify a large tax increase to fund more NHS spending, found the NHS to be late to adopt and slow to diffuse new technology. The NHS more than doubled its spending from 1999-2000 to 2009-2010, an increase of more than 7% a year [according to Darwall, but I calculate that to be more than 10% a year], and still remains medically backward. This Wanless report examined five country's health care systems and found that only the U.S. was both an early adopter and rapid diffuser of new medical techniques. The U.S. is the world's "principal engine driving medical advance."

Indeed, which nation's scientists and doctors win almost all of the Nobel Prizes in Medicine? Those working in the U.S., of course. And it does not end with the fundamental scientific advances either, as the Wanless report confirms. Yet, Obama wants us to have the backward equivalent of the British NHS simply because he objects to the way we spend so much on granny to give her a year or two or five more years of life!

No wonder he is so sensitive on the death panel issue. It is because this really is one of the main issues, as recognized earlier by the professional publications of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, an adviser to Obama on health care issues and brother of Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. The recent cover story in Newsweek also trod this path. As I have noted before, this path is inevitable once health care becomes a government service, rather than a personal consumer choice. This is so no many how many lies are told by socialist politicians to deceive the People, even if some of those politicians believe the lies.

Government Health Care Death Panels

Obama and the Democrats are fond of saying there are no death panels in their health insurance reform bills now in Congress. Of course, there is no entity called "Death Panel" in those bills. Neither is there a panel whose stated purpose is to kill patients or to assist patients in suicide. But, the government does intend to dictate the kind of care to be paid for by acceptable insurance plans with a mind to reduce costs. With an aging population, they are specifically complaining that the costs of patients in their last year of life is especially high and the expense of such people is going to continue to drive medical costs upward. The two stated reasons for passing their bills are to bring down costs and to insure the few Americans who are not insured, though they love to greatly inflate that number.

The United Kingdom has had a National Health Service since 1948. They also have a desire to contain costs. In 2004, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the government's health overlook agency adopted the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) as the protocol to reduce patient suffering in their final hours. This was developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, but is now used for patients who have lost consciousness or are having difficulty swallowing medication. Patients are denied sustaining fluids and put under deep sedation using automated sedation syringe drivers, if a panel of the doctors treating them, including a senior doctor, recommends this. The procedure is used in more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices, 560 care homes, and in 800 other instances, such as in patient's homes. In 2007-2008, 16.5% of deaths in Britain followed continuous deep sedation, which is twice the percentage in the Netherlands and Belgium.

According to a letter signed by Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London; Dr. Peter Hargreaves, Palliative Medicine Consultant at St. Luke's Cancer Centre in Guildford; Dr. Anthony Cole, Chairman of the Medical Ethics Alliance; Dr. David Hill, anaesthetist; Dowager Lady Salisbury, Chairman of the Choose Life Campaign; and Dr. Elizabeth Negus, Lecturer in English at Barking University, some patients have been wrongly put on the Liverpool Care Pathway. Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated can become confused, especially when on pain-killing drugs, and be wrongly put on the LCP. They are concerned that tick box medicine is replacing real thinking for those following this procedure. Many doctors are not checking patients often enough for progress and the sedation makes it more difficult to see if any progress is occurring. Dr. Hargreaves says he has taken patients off the LCP and seen them live for significant time after wards.

So, Death Panels do exist in the U.K.'s National Health Service. For the same reasons that they exist in Britain, they will also come to exist in the U.S. under a government-run health care system. Under such a system, they are inevitable, no matter how much politicians may wish to deny them now.

Of course, end of life decisions do have to be made. In a private health care system, they are made by the patient, the family, and the doctors treating the patient. But, after the government takes over the delivery of health care, as with all government activities, a bureaucracy takes over. One of the primary purposes of all the Democrat bills is to set up a huge structure of such agencies and advisory panels to grow into the controlling bodies for the takeover of all medical care in the United States. They have set up panels and groups to recommend effective treatments. They will deal with end of life issues and set up procedures similar to the LCP in Britain. In time, they will minimize the consultation with patient wishes and patient's families, as all government bureaucracies do. They will deal with patients and families as though one size fits all. This is the nature of the beast.

We will definitely find that we will also develop Death Panels if we go down this road. It is inevitable! And when these bureaucracies decide whether your mother will live or die, she will surely be thought to be of much less value than you think she is. This is also inevitable.

The Mass Destruction of Health Care

Obama and the Democrat Congress have two main purposes they are trying to accomplish with a health care bill. The very widespread public opposition to aspects of the many health bills which have been discussed, will keep the socialists from getting some of the things they want, but they may very well still accomplish their two principal purposes. These are:

• To establish the principle that the federal government has the power to regulate all aspects of our health care because current costs seem high and some people do not have health insurance. This will not be spelled out in the legislation itself.
  
• To set up the bureaucracy which will give the politicians cover from the severely hard choices of rationing health care which will have to be made as the costs of health care escalate beyond everyone's imagination. An extensive and convoluted bureaucracy will also take some of the responsibility for the high costs off the backs of the politicians.

Whether the public option, or co-ops, or only private companies provide the insurance are very secondary issues, which may affect the length of time it takes to complete the takeover of the entire health care industry, but they are of no fundamental comfort to anyone who believes they have the right to manage and control their own health care choices.

No matter what, the government will require everyone to be covered by a government approved health cost payments policy. Government requirements will be inconsistent with the nature of insurance and will be patterned after the underfunded Medicare and Social Security programs in that young and healthy people are expected to subsidize the older and less healthy people. No longer will it be acceptable for young people to buy insurance which recognizes their actual likely needs and allows those needs to be distinguished from those who are older or who practice lifestyles known to be unhealthy. The essence of the Obama/Democrat plan is to put in place the mechanisms to create a giant further transfer of wealth from the young and the healthy to the older and the less healthy. This is to be added to the already huge similar transfer from the young and the healthy to Social Security and Medicaid recipients.

Now whether these purposes are accomplished with a government option, co-ops, or private insurers matters little. If the government tells a health cost payment entity that it must offer cost payments to everyone requesting it, no matter what pre-existing health problem they may have, no matter that they smoke like fiends, no matter that they weigh 400 pounds, and no matter that they have not exercised since they were young children, the cost of health care for the young and for the healthy will certainly skyrocket. This is because it obviously would do those who argue that government must make health care reforms because people have no insurance because they cannot afford it no good unless they bring down the costs of health care for those people who cannot afford it. The only way to do this is to require a transfer of costs to others. In this case, those others are the young and the healthy, the general taxpayer, and those on Medicare in some combination. Probably in the end, it will be all, but mostly it will always be the young and the healthy.

Of course, there will be some pressure then to pressure those with unhealthy lifestyles to give them up in order to save money. This will be called preventive health care, which it is, but it is also very intrusive into the private lives of people. General rules, which will not recognize the individuality of each person, will be applied to everyone and no one will be allowed to believe that they own their own life. They will not be allowed to exercise freedom in any action which may affect their health. All dangerous activities will have to be suppressed. Skydiving, scuba diving, hang gliding, rock climbing, knee-destroying soccer, and football will be considered too dangerous. Of course smoking, drinking, drug use, and sugar and fat intake will also be prohibited on health care cost grounds. If you do any of these things, you will cost the collective money. No personal choice that results in the collective bearing more costs can be allowed. These programs will not start out being very rigorous about such things, but they will evolve strongly along these lines as the bureaucracy sets up the many tens of thousands of pages of regulations which will tell everyone their mandated duties to the collective health care of all.

Of necessity, since all are bearing the responsibility for paying the health care costs of all, since there will have to be more demand for health care, since doctors and other health care workers are going to be taken advantage of and will leave their professions, and because our population is aging, health care costs will go up ever faster. The system which will be evolving couches all issues in terms of the collective's needs, not those of individuals. As a result, each individual will be judged, of necessity, only in terms of his or her perceived value to the collective. In other words, the government-controlled health care system will have to establish criteria for rationing care which consider that young children with disabilities and old people with expensive health problems should get less care, because they are of less value to the collective. Ezekiel Emanuel, the older brother of Rahm Emanuel, the "Never let a good crisis go unused." chief of staff for Obama, is also a top health care adviser to Obama and has considered such issues already in his publications. He claims to have changed his mind in the firestorm that erupted when his articles were read by those concerned with death panels.

While Obama and the Democrats are saying there are no death panels in the legislation, that is true only if the required end-of-life consultations do not put undue pressure on older people with expensive medical problems simply to give up treatments. It is also only true if the system is not so constrained for income that it has options to pay for expensive late life cures if people want them or it at least allows people to pay for their own health care if they want to. The long lived health care system in Great Britain has committees called NICE which make the decisions on when to cut-off medical care as too expensive given the age of the person in question and statistics on average quality of life after procedures are performed. A human life has a value put on it in Great Britain, it is $45,000 per year. Oregon, Tennessee, and Massachusetts already make decisions to cut off medical care based on such considerations. Consequently, it should not matter that Obama and various Democrats claim that no death panels are set up by the legislation they are considering, because such panels are implicit in the assumptions of any such collective health care scheme. They must come in time.

In the name of equality and so-called social justice, all government controlled health care systems deny individuals to pay for medical care which is not offered by the government system to all. This has also happened in Great Britain and in many provinces in Canada.

All economic goods and services are rationed. They are rationed by supply and demand. Advocates of the government option and generally of a government-controlled health care system use this as an argument. They just want to change the terms of the rationing. But it is exactly the terms that are of critical concern. In the Democrat scheme, rationing must be done by political means, while in a free market scheme, limits on medical care are established by the voluntary actions of individuals. Individuals can take care of their health, they can save money to pay for their increased needs for health care in their older age, and they can love and care for their family so well that their family wants to help them when it is needed. All of these options are always denied by the government controlled health care systems. In addition, if doctors are not treated as slaves in the health care system, as they are not in the free market, many of them are likely to give generously of their own time and services. My grandfather did this always, especially during the Great Depression. In government run health care, doctors are not allowed to donate their services, since they are supposed to give all their service to the government-run system. Finally, peoples who are allowed to be productive and to enjoy their lives, always share their good fortune with others both by making everyone more wealthy and through their charity.

Do not allow the Democrats to get away with the claim that their system will not produce death panels. It will and it must. Such panels are a necessary consequence of any government-run plan to provide health care to everyone while trying to hold down costs. Of course they will fail to hold down costs and they will fail to deliver quality health care to everyone. They will have death panels. They will also drain the People of their productivity and their charitableness.