When seeking advice in any area of our private life, we normally start by considering the credentials of our source. What movie should we see? We ask someone who shares our taste in movies. If we like comedies, we don't ask our friend the horror fan for recommendations; we ask a comedy fan, and vice versa. Which new book to read? Again, it's all about the genre. The mystery fan seeks advice from a fellow mystery fan; the history fan seeks recommendations from a fellow history fan.
Now, today's Democratic Party-- run by the far left, by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid -- tells us we should trust their recommendations on how to improve America's healthcare system.
This is a massive undertaking. It's multiple industries, really, since their final solution will encompass everything from insurance companies to pharmaceuticals, from hospitals and doctors' offices to the manufacture of medical equipment.
If they say they're the ones we should trust on this count, then even before we consider their proposal, we should first consider whether we're interested in the same outcome they are.
Because we might not be.
Most American voters are interested in getting at least decent medical coverage for as many Americans as possible, at as low a price as possible. Our desire is for good, unprejudiced care; we would like people of all ages, skin tone, religion, and location to have a shot at good care. But is that the goal of the left?
Consider euthanasia, the "mercy killing" of the very sick or very sad. The left favors it (and legalizes it in Europe, to reduce the cost of care of the aged and infirm); the right is horrified by the prospect.
Or the next step beyond that: suicide and assisted suicide. To the left, Dr. Kevorkian was a hero, while the right viewed him as a serial killer, preying on people robbed of judgment by their illness or age, gaming the system as he hooked people to his fatal contraptions.
Or we can look at the beginning of life. The left has made the support of "abortion rights" their litmus test for every elective office and most appointed ones; support of the unassailability of Roe v. Wade is a more important credential for a Supreme Court justice than his law degree. There have been some 40 million abortions in the 35 years since the Court legalized the practice. Of course, the left will say they don't like individual abortions, and wish there weren't so many... they just don't want any legal restrictions on them at all, and they want an abortuary in close reach of every girl from age 10 to 50... and they don't want the poor young mothers to have the chance to decide against it by such confusing alternatives as marriage or putting the child up for adoption.
And where does the left stand on embryonic stem cell research, or the harvesting of young clones for any other kind of medical experiments or organs? While the right is horrified by the very idea of such experiments on human fetuses, the left derides us for this antiquated devotion to the sanctity of human life.
The left supports working moms, of course... as long as the mom sends her children to their (government funded) daycare centers. But dare she have a child who might have Downs Syndrome, as Governor Palin did, she'll be attacked for her choice, and driven from office if possible.
Where does the left stand on automobiles? Their global warming cult has forced them to support dangerous little cars in order to improve fuel economy. Every study on the matter can be read only one way: that the left is comfortable with more traffic injuries, more of them fatal, if it saves a little energy -- energy that's plentiful here in our own country, if only they'd let us get at it.
This disregard for human life is even more pronounced in foreign policy. To us on the right, Hitler and Stalin were both terrors. To the left, well, Hitler killed based on ethnicity, which is bad, but Stalin killed everybody in sight, which was at least egalitarian. So the left has spent 60 years in rightly denouncing Hitler, but only a fraction of that in even mentioning his rival, their Uncle Joe.
The left attacks Israel for not allowing foreign, non-citizen Arabs to vote for members of parliament, but they are silent on the slavers of Africa, the child-abandonment and child-killing policies of Mainland China, the sharia law stonings and honor killings of the muslim communities spreading across Britain and Europe.
And for forty years now, they would rather see millions of people die of malaria than use DDT to kill the mosquitos that spread it.
The left has a world view, that's all -- the view from our crowded downtowns, a view of overpopulation and overwhelming congestion, implying that we are crowding our very planet and must resist population growth by whatever means necessary.
The right has the broader view -- the recognition of plentiful open land, available to easily house millions more. The right sees the world as it is, and respects human life from conception to natural death. The right believes that government and society owe our allegiance to God and country and to law-abiding citizens of every age and condition.
The hard left, however -- Obama, Pelosi, and Reid -- sees the world as Paul Ehrlich saw it: as a world of limits, a planet, flora and fauna superior to humanity and perpetually abused by it. The left believes that government and society owe our allegiance to the planet, to the animals and plants, with God and country and mankind as the least consequential, to be sacrificed if necessary on the altar of an unmolested, unexploited, uncrowded world.
And now they want to control our healthcare. The left is proposing controls -- government programs and government bureaucrats, rationing of service and of servants, reduction of cost by any means necessary, ending with, or perhaps even beginning with, refusal of care on a grand scale.
Unfathomable? One would wish. But Lenin and Stalin starved the kulaks to death for the greater good of the state... Hitler gassed Jews and those who helped them for the greater good of the state... Mao slaughtered millions for the greater good of the state.
Is it beyond the members of ACORN and NARAL to just refuse care to the aged, the sick, the young, if it will save a system of their making that gives government the power they crave -- the very power to decide who lives and who dies?
Only a certain type of politician craves such power, but it wouldn't be the first time that such politicians appeared.
I'm obviously not proposing that most of the Democrats behind this alleged healthcare reform are cold-blooded killers. Many certainly do want to improve healthcare in general, and just mistakenly think their plan is the right way. But we must consider their worldview, consider the fact that they have different goals, and measures of success, than we do. We must remember that they have a history of considering certain things as "acceptable" which the rest of us would not.
Our job today is to recognize this risk -- this threat -- and stop it cold. Before it stops us.
How ignorant it is to think Obama and his administration can run something so important honestly.
Remember, also that this bill does NOT include members of the Senate or Congress or the President. They have their OWN healthcare plan.
- 360
Message Friend Invite