Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Cal  Thomas :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Price is (Not) Right
by Cal Thomas
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Most inhumanities start small, like the beginning of a tsunami, but then build, as they head toward inevitable and unstoppable destruction.

It is difficult to pinpoint the precise beginning of the cultural tsunami that has devalued human life. Did it begin with the subjugation of women? Did it begin with slavery? The Nazis made their contribution with the Holocaust and Josef Mengele's hideous human experiments. Surely unrestricted abortion added to the growing list of inhumanities.

Now we have the next wave. Randy Stroup is a 53-year-old Oregon man who has prostate cancer, but no insurance to cover his medical treatment. The state pays for treatment in some cases, but it has denied help to Stroup. State officials have determined that chemotherapy would be too expensive and so they have offered him an alternative: death.

Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law allows taxpayers to pay for someone to kill Stroup, because it's cheaper than trying to heal him. How twisted is this? Some have called this a "chilling" corruption of medical ethics, but medical ethics have been in the deep freeze for some time. The American Medical Association, which once strongly opposed abortion, now buys into the "choice" argument despite Hippocrates' admonition that physicians make a habit of two things - "to help, or at least to do no harm."

How much is a human life worth? Body parts and bone marrow can fetch some pretty high prices, but a human life is more than the sum of its body parts. The reason this is important is that the federal government is now placing a price tag on individual lives and if government ever gets to run health care from Washington, bureaucrats will start making decisions similar to the one made for Randy Stroup.

Various government agencies contribute estimates for a concept known as the "Value of Statistical Life." Like housing prices, the value of life has gone down in the eyes of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA says human life this year is worth $7.22 million. That's a drop from its previous estimate of $8.04 million. The Department of Transportation calculates the value of human life at $5.8 million, an increase from $3 million. At the Consumer Product Safety Commission, human life is unchanged from the last estimate of $5 million.

According to The Washington Post, several federal agencies have come up with figures for the dollar value of a human life to analyze the costs and benefits of new programs they believe will save lives.

Saving lives is the announced intention, but if government gains the power to determine when a life is no longer "worth" saving and orders the plug to be pulled or the death pill to be administered, then what? This is the future of the socialized medicine that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party wish to impose on us.

In a culture that values all life, difficult decisions can be made about a life that is at an end and should be allowed to "go." That is a far cry from having a government bureaucrat or panel of "experts" play God and decide, based on cost alone, when your or my life no longer has value in the eyes of the state.

How we view and value ourselves affects how we view and value others. If we are mere evolutionary accidents with no moral value greater than cole slaw, then we quickly begin viewing others as part of the vegetable family. But if we are something far more special, even to the point of having a Creator who has "endowed" us with value beyond that of gold, silver and paper money, then should we not be treated as such, even by the state?

The Randy Stroup case won't be the last of its kind. Just as Jack Kevorkian's illegal assisted suicide preceded its legalization in Oregon, so, too, will Randy Stroup be the test case in what amounts to mandated medical euthanasia ordered by the state.

When pro-lifers warned about the "slippery slope" more than three decades ago, they were dismissed as alarmists. Not anymore. Their prophecy is now being fulfilled.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Cal Thomas' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Does Socialized Health Care
still sound like a viable option?
This is only a small glimpse of the rationing if the government gains control of the medical community.
Good help us all, whether we get Obama or McCain, we are screwed!

British National Health Service
I recently read an article about a study in Britain which tests a new medicine which may halt the progress of ALzheimer's Disease. However, they don't know if they can proceed to the next level of testing because the National Health Service doesn't even cover the cost of medicines like Aricept because they cost, gasp, $2-3 per day! And this is what people here think is going to solve all of their problems!? People need to wake up! "Free" health care leads to rationed health care...which leads to someone deciding who is "worth" the cost of the care and who should just be removed from the pool!

Lost in all the hooplah in the column

was one of the opening phrases, which more clearly defines the problem:

"Randy Stroup is a 53-year-old Oregon man who has prostrate cancer, but no insurance to cover his medical treatment."


So, whose fault is that? Randy Stroup's. HE is the one responsible for maintaining health insurance for himself, NOT the state of Oregon (or any other governnment entity).

If he decided not to do that, then he's the one responsible for the consequences.

By the same token, the state shouldn't be paying for his suicide, either.

Why are tax dollars involved in this issue at all?

This is the perfect embodiment of the problem with having the government involved in this at all, in any way.

Hahahaha, Roberto

Normally I just ignore you, since your posts vanish in the morning, but bubba....

YOU'RE the one with the expertise on rear ends, not me. Isn't that where you park your head?




The slippery slope
When they legalized abortion, Pat Robertson said this was the begining of the slippery slop. Life becomes convenience, do you want a child that might have a handicap, someone is old and has a terrible illness, treat or let go. This might actually work right into the environmentalist way of thinking. They will eventually want to control population growth. They can pick old, sick, handicap to get rid of to balance the population count. The Club of Rome says there are too many people and they are tilting the earth. How convenient this is all shapping up to be handled to protect Mother Earth, and the select few that will be allowed to live.

Pro-death conservatives
Daniel Callahan, a prominent bio-"ethicist", has long advocated denying lifesaving healthcare for those over age 75, claiming it should be limited to only relief of pain and suffering.

Leon Kass, another "ethicist" who is a darling of conservatives, has written (many essays) and spoken extensively in opposition to attempts to increase longevity.

Francis Fukuyama has advocated government imposed limits on human lifespan (a la "Logan's Run").

William Hurlbut opposes longer lifespans because he thinks it is a bad idea for children to have a relationship with their great, great grandparents.

Callahan, Kass, Fukuyama, and Hurlbut have something else in common: they all serve or have served on President Bush's Council on Bioethics. That's right! We have an administration that believes that the right of an individual to life is conditioned on being younger than a certain chronological age.

My point is this: Aging is a DISEASE that will one day be CURED, thanks to efforts of some dedicated and brilliant scientists, not to mention organizations like The Methuselah Foundation and its founder, Aubrey de Grey.
Will conservatives stand in opposition? Everything I read about them or from them suggests they will.

Do conservatives believe in the right to life of the 1000 year old man, or just the right of the unborn? I have opposed Bush for no other reason than his pro-death bio-"ethics" policy. I will not support McCain unless he vows to abolish this council or staff it with real ethicists that truly value human life and individual rights.

Rising medical cost
Government has no business offering to pay for assisted suicide.

Back to health care cost problem. Socialized health care, like much of socialism and communism, inevitably rations health care to a lousy level affordable but with misery shared by all.

But rising health care cost for the aging population is equally painful and real. Eventhough you are working now and can afford insurance today, how about when you are 70 or 80 and on fixed income? Can you afford the rising insurance premium? Or will you need to fall back onto the Medicare/medicaid system - which is socialized medicine with the same woeful track records.

To combat the continual rise in medical cost require first tort reform and second reform of the current health insurance system.

Fear of lawsuits builds up huge insurance premiums, and also over-prescription of unnecessary procedures, tests, and medications.

Current health insurance system has become so bureaucratic that one can get 30-50% discount if he or she just pays the doctor out of pocket instead of claiming insurance through the system.

Can we ever get out of this mess?

Legal immigrant



BrianR
We seem to think alike. Boy, you must be scared to think like me. :) Why is the government involved? We are each responsible for our own actions or in this case in-actions. While I feel sorry to the man he is still responsible for his own care. Don't pass the cost onto me.

Ranger 29
Going down in flames all over TH. Posters in Ann Coulters column reminded everyone what a proven fraud this poster is. Check it out for yourselves. Ranger 29 changes life experiences to fit columns, and his post names to conceal the fact he is a militant homosexual posting as a straight man to make his arguements more believeable.

He does not debate anybody. Watch his posts. All they are is name calling and personal destruction. The man is simply a joke.

a pox on both their houses.
People on the right and the left constantly favor having government assume costs resulting from decisions Americans make.

Socalled rightwingers have no objection to endless medical procedures(including astronomical costs to the taxpayer)to save babies born of "parents" who abused drugs, for instance.

Their decision to have a baby means my taxes must be spent to wrest the infant from complications arising from premature birth and cocaine addiction, for instance.

Meantime, the parents go about their business, having more babies in a drug-induced haze.

It ain't their problem.

Rightwingers have no problem having me and fellow Americans assume the financial obligations resulting from the parents' irresponsible behavior.

Government confiscation(taxes) 1. Personal responsibility, 0.

Leftwingers are just as bad.

The destructive idea of paying mothers in minority communities each time they had a baby, and penalizing families where the adult male remained in the household, severely damaged the black family structure in America, as well as created conditions which led to later criminality.

Leftist social engineers helped to bring about the dissolution of the black family.

Cal's point is well taken
Once we oldster's who no longer work and "contribute" to the pot become a "burden" on the society the liberals want to create, we will be helped along to the grave no matter what our previous contributions were to the republic.
A gov't run healthcare system is a very dangerous thing to people my age, bureaucrats think entirely in dollars and cents job security for themselves, the quicker they can get rid of people who are taking what they think is their money as in SS so they can "redistribute it" to welfare slugs who will vote for their bosses the better.
I don't want to see any re-runs of Soylent Green instituted in this country.

Dear Whomever said . . .

. . . "with either candidate, we're screwed."

I agree!!!

However, speaking as a female, with McCain, I can be assured of a normal, "hetero" front-door assault; with O'Vomit, I'll be obliged to turn around, bend over and grab my ankles . . . and SO WILL YOU!!!

It's a sad day for America with either candidate -- but Obama is infinitely worse!

Jana Martin
Oklahoma City, OK


Here in Ontario
we are again fighting the notion that one should be assumed an organ donor unless one says NO.

In other words, Dalton McGinty and David Miller, two militant socialists, should be allowed to have me cut up for parts and parceled out to their sycophants, apparatchiks and Approved Minority Voters and incidentally, to declare me dead at their whim, for the purpose thereof.

Yeah, right.

If you want to see how this scam plays out, come up here and live under it for a few years.

setting a value
back to the core (introductory) premise: having been involved in making or recommending whether or not to proceed with a federal project, i know why we have to posit values in one form or another. it is essential in doing risk vs benefit analyses. right or wrong on the magnitude of the number, risks to human life and health must be factored into the decisions. we do (did) as best we could. real world stuff has to trump the emotional imperative when we make real world changes.

Beginnings
Slippery slope like many other things brewed up by organizations out of control - or should it have been - in control. Our political leaders are front and center.

Obama inflation
– If you think there isn't urgency to getting Congress to drop its bans on offshore drilling and development of the ANWR oil reserves, listen to what Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama had to say in Missouri yesterday.

"There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy," Obama said. "Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much!"

That's his energy plan? Inflate your tires? Get more tune-ups?

He is either a moron or he thinks we are? Which is it? Perhaps he should be doing Cartalk on NPR with Click and Clack the Tappin Brothers.

cancer death .....
first to Brian .. maybe he couldn't afford health insurance
second .. to all ..it's PROSTATE cancer .. not prostrate cancer ..

Say it ain't true Cal
Cal, you're making a complex problem, trivial.

That is what atheists, liberals, and Democrats do.

You can't just make the gov't care for everyone's entire life.

All other things being equal, ...
...suppose it was a woman with life-threatening ovarian cancer? Would the state of Oregon reach the same conclusion it did about Stroup?

As if I didn't know the answer.

Good point, jerebaub
Jerebaub wrote, if I may paraphrase, Socalled rightwingers have no objection to endless FIREFIGHTING procedures(including astronomical costs to the taxpayer)to save babies born of "parents" who SET THEIR HOUSE ON FIRE, for instance.

Their decision to have a baby means my taxes must be spent to wrest the infant from complications arising from SMOKE INHALATION AND THIRD-DEGREE BURNS, for instance.

Actually he didn't write exactly that -- the parts in all caps are the paraphrased parts. But the logic is the same.

Jim P
I don't believe Cal Thomas was advocating insuring everyone's entire life, just that with this example, we have gone a long way towards the Kevorkian way if the state can advocate paying for assisted suicide instead of making some kind of end of life decisions. As Cal said, there is a way to deal with end of life issues without going from paying for medical care forever and the opposite extreme of paying instead for suicide. Like most liberals, you don't see the difference between making reasonaable arguments and making a complex problem trivial.

How much?
I wonder how much it cost me for these government morons to compute the $ value of a human life. Is this what these government baboons have to do all day?

Being retired I guess my life isn't worth much in a socialistic sense. I don't work, all I am is a parasite on the 'common good' and a net carbon polluter. Think of all the HIV infected Ugandans that could be helped with my Social Security check (part of which they already take!), all the Al Gore carbon credits that could be purchased and the down payment on some slavery reparations it would contribute.

Be very careful, when the government uses the words 'care, fair and share' get out the K-Y, bend over and hope you get kissed too.

Uncharlie,
Like most atheists and democrats you think the gov't has all the ans

slip-slidin' away
If euthanasia becomes part of a universal healthcare plan, I have a list of approx. 750 people to start with: our Senators, congressmen, and here in PA, our grossly inflated House of Representatives. If it's true that a recession becomes a depression when YOU lose your job, then our legislators will give serious thought to this one only when it affects their next pay raise and/or retirement benefits. Ask Arlen Sphincter, our PA Senator who is battling cancer, how he feels about this. If he can take time away from investigating Roger Clemens' girlfriends, he might give you an answer.
This subject will be the abortion debate (standoff) of the 21st century.

Don't blame liberals for this one!
Don't blame liberals for the whole idea of trying to figure out the monetary value of a human life and then putting their calculations into public policy-making. This way of thinking comes from mainstream economics. Your quarrel is with the basic economic concept that everything has a price. If you must trace this viewpoint to an ideological source, your argument is with libertarians and conservatives who are pure free-market enthusiasts.

Once benefit-cost analysis is applied across the board to health and human services (and remember, folks, it was Ronald Reagan who signed Executive Order Executive Order 12291 on Feb. 17, 1981, requiring all federal agencies to do this kind of analysis), then adding human life to the list of things to be analyzed is a no-brainer.

We liberals are the soft, mushy folks who go on and on about "human dignity" (and draw fire from the Right for being touchy-feely). Many (maybe most) liberals want decisions such as whether or not to treat someone like Randy Stroup to be made by the patient and his physicians, not bureaucrats motivated by cost containment goals. We liberals tend to think of health care as one of those things that ought to be part of the rights package that attaches to being a citizen, what are called "citizenship rights," but we know you conservatives hate that whole idea.

anderson659
"He does not debate anybody. Watch his posts. All they are is name calling and personal destruction. The man is simply a joke."

That pretty much sums up Robert.

INSURANCE #1

The data cited by the Commonwealth Fund is from the U.S. Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005.” The report says, “[T]here are 45.306 million people uninsured.” That same report reveals 9.487 million people are “not citizens.” This means 35.8 million do not have Health, Life and Dental Insurance.

Every Legal Immigrant with a Legal Workers Permit or Visa, who passes all tests for citizenship, who assimilates into and swears allegiance to the United States of America can be insured via their Social Security Number.

The parents of the American children will be taxed for all insurance according to their income until their children have graduated High School, an accredited Vocational School or College.

When they reach majority and are not gainfully employed or attending an accredited Vocational School or College they will be called for National Service or enlist in their choice of Military Service for a minimum of three (3) years. They will receive college credits and earn scholarship money for further education upon completion of active National or Military Service.

All other American citizens and immigrants with Legal Workers Permits who are gainfully employed will be taxed via their Social Security Number or Legal Workers Permit Number for their insurance and pay according to their income into the EMPLOYER INSURANCE FUND which will be managed by Insurance Underwriters.

When the American citizen or legally working immigrant become temporarily unemployed while on strike for any reason their insurance premium will be paid with funds accumulated by their EMPLOYER INSURANCE FUND until employment resumes there.

If the workers attain employment with another employer, during the strike or layoff, their insurance premium is transferred to the new EMPLOYER INSURANCE FUND for collection.

I live in Oregon
Oregon is one of the few states that has set up a state funded Health plan for poor people who cannot afford health insurance. Its called the OREGON HEALTH PLAN. Since they are spending state tax dollars to fund this plan, Yes they have set limits on what they can afford to pay in order to have a plan that will serve as many people as possible. That health plan will not pay for expensive procedures that will extend live for only a few months or a few years. Doctors have to agree that the patient is terminal and treatment will only offer a short period of life. It was a difficult choice but one that was made to be sure that poor children and adults who need health care can have a chance to get medical care.
It has saved Oregon citizens dollars as the only way the uninsured can get health care is by going to emergency rooms or going into hospital as charity cases. Hospitals don't provide care for free, They pass along the cost to use as we pay higher medical costs when those of us can afford it use the medical system.
I can't find any information about the fellow mentioned in this article other than fox news, right to life websites and other publications that carried this article etc. if it made the news out here it was not on local news casts nor in newspapers.

Oregon has legalized suicide. If there is a terminally ill patient and he has three doctors opinions that his life will not extend for any more than a few more months, the patient is in pain and is mentally stable, doctors are allowed to write a prescription for life ending medication that the patient must administer himself. But the state DOES NOT pay for the prescription nor the doctors visits to get the prescription.

This law has been in place for many years and has seen few suicides but the people of Oregon are very grateful to have that option. If brought to a vote again it would be passed with a overwhelming majority.

The next step....
The next step is to abort those who are healthy but are economically unprofitable. Think how much can be saved by aborting everyone on welfare.

Average value is...say...$6,000,000...
Let's see. $6,000,000 x 4,000 and counting = $24 billion more the war in Iraq has cost the USA so far...

Still searching for Randy Stroup
Dexter Oregon is a small town of 1,100 people, near Eugene Oregon. I searched the Eugene paper (largest city nearby to Dexter) for an article about Randy Stroup and found nothing. Dexter doesn't seem to have a local paper. Then I searched the Oregonian the largest newspaper in the state.... nothing. We watch local Oregon news religiously every night and there was nothing in those casts. I am wonder where this information came from. Does Randy Stroup really exist? Fox seems to have information, right to life site has the information and this author Cal Thomas seems to be in the know, but Oregon has never heard of him.


How to Pay for "Not" Devaluing Human Lif
In the case mentioned, the issue is not the value of human life. It is who pays for extraordinary procedures designed to extend the life of the terminally ill. This, in turn, goes to a deeper question. The numbers on un-insured do not include the numbers of "under-insured". The fastest growing component of insurance these days relates to "major-medical". These types of programs cause the consumer to spend some set amount such as $3,000/year before some or any of the insurance pays. At the same time, many of these programs never pay 100% of hospitalization and medical bills. Rather, they pay 80%. However the costs of medical care have risen 78% in the last 8 years. At the same time, major illnesses will cost hundreds of thousands for major operations, and $5,000/day or more to remain in a hospital. Terminally ill patients often cost more. The user, as such, can be left with bills that they cannot afford. How many of you could pick up $20,000 on a $100,000 operation? How about pay $1,000 a day for hospital care. This affects 10's of millions of people. And if you think these bills are an exagerration, my last visit to an emergency room involved 30 minutes of care in one, and 2 & 1/2 hours including a hand operation in the second. The total bill was $44,000. And no, I did not stay over-night.

There are 35 or more million non-illegals with no health insurance. There are several times that number with inadequate health insurance. In the absence of universal health care, which Cal deplores, easily 1/3 or more of the population cannot afford a "serious" illness. So, what do any of you propose.

If you value life and insist that such care be extended - then you must be willing to pay for it. Because if you're not willing to pay for it, then you're in no position to critisize others who have to make the decisions that the rest are simply avoiding.


What's next?
So, what's next? How far is the jump from euthanizing someone with a terminal illness that is IN the stage where it's "too expensive" to continue treatment to calculating the projected long-term costs of an illness and treatment and deciding that a person in an early stage is too expensive to treat over the long haul?

And what about the mentally ill, those who need treatment for their lives, but are otherwise healthy and productive? Those drugs and treatments are expensive, too. How far a jump is it from "mercy killing" someone who is physically ill to someone who is mentally ill?

And how far a jump is it from "mercy killing" the mentally ill to declaring a political opponent mentally ill? (As the proponents of Global Warming theory tend to do.)

I'm not saying any of this will happen, or even that it's likely. But if we are having any (ANY) organization decide that a "mercy killing" is in order for a medical patient, we're openning doors to places we REALLY don't want to go. It's bad enough to allow euthanasia, but the positive recommendation of it by ANYONE is an unthinkable evil.

Government's hands are already in it
Medicare determines the payment by insurance companies for every diagnosis. Even if the only one making payment to the provider is private pay, the treatment is either approved or rejected by Medicare. So if you have a diagnosis of prostate cancer, the treatment plans available depend greatly on government approval of the specific treatment recommended by the doctor. What may be appropriate for a 50-year-old may not for a 75-year-old, and vice-versa. There are also variables in the type of prostate cancer, its aggressiveness and its stage at diagnosis that determine the advisability of treatment. Those conditions were not revealed in Cal's article, so it's really unknown why the treatment was declined.

I agree that giving the government even more control over our health care is asking for a socialist disaster from which we may never recover.

I recently visited some European countries where socialized medicine is law. Their income tax rates start at 45% and go up to 89% (this is in Sweden), and medical care is rationed. We don't need that here.

Redlac
But, we ARE willing to pay for it. When we pay our insurance premiums we are paying for EVERYONE in that company, not just ourselves. The issue is not whether or not we should pay for other people's healthcare, but whether ANY provider, and ESPECIALLY, the state should EVER make a recomendation for a "mercy killing." Even if you accept that "mercy killing" is a good, ethical and moral thing to do (which is incorrect, but that's another issue entirely), the imposition of it upon someone who does not want it, for ANY reason, is absolutely, 100%, and in all other ways, murder.

(Note: executions, lethal force in self defense, and war deaths are NOT "mercy killings" under any definition of the term)

BrianR/Happy Jake
Insurance works if you have it. And the only way to make sure everyone has it is to backstop existing insurance companies - with your dollars. If we don't do that, then this issue will never go away.

And Happy Jake. Just what business is it of yours, or Cal's, for that matter, as to how I choose to die?

Frankly, it's none of your business. Or, at least, it didn't used to be. This is simply one more example of the state's intrusion into what at one time was an individual decision not placed under the control of government. Prior to the early 20th century, this also applied to abortion.

The sole reason we discuss these issues is because the state decided that the individual could not make these decisions. Instead - it substituted its own. And now, it becomes a public debate - rather than a private one. As far as I'm concerned, you, the ethicists, and the government, need to butt out. If I'm ill, and if I have no hope of recovery, then you have no business forcing me to undergo extraordinary procedures, nor to stay alive any longer than I feel I should stay alive given the alternatives.

Gestell
OK, fine, it's conservatives who came up with the idea of setting a value on a human life.

But it's liberals who came up with the idea that human life is essentially worthless by itself and can be dispensed with while that life is a burden to society. (The arguments for abortion and "mercy killings" always include the "burden on society" argument.)

INSURANCE #2
During unemployment the American citizens insurance premiums will be paid by the EMPLOYERS INSURANCE FUND at the lowest APR interest loans to the American citizen until employment is attained. When the American citizen is gainfully employed insurance premium payments will resume and loans will be collected by monthly installments from their checks until the loan is paid in full.

To expedite citizenship for legal immigrants between ages 18 to 28 who speak and understand the English language, pass a security background check, High School graduate or GED, pass the medical and mental test they will be offered an opportunity for military service.

Some of these individuals have attended and graduated our high schools and colleges even though they were not born in America. Special attention would be given to expedite these applications during the legal process for citizenship and military service.

Illegal immigrants must return to their country of origin and apply for a Workers Permit or Visa and work toward citizenship legally as millions of other applicants do. Their crime for illegal entry will be forgiven upon their legal entry into the United States.

In the event the illegal immigrants do NOT comply and are apprehended, deportation will begin and these illegal immigrants will never be allowed entrance into the United States of America.

THE ANCHOR BABY CLAUSE IN OUR U. S. CONSTITUTION MUST BE REPEALED.



Happy Jack
Your insurance premiums do not "cover" everyone else. Only those in that particular company and only according to the plan they have. 1/3 of Americans have no insurance or are underinsured when it comes to major illnesses. And nothing you pay affects this because the rising costs of medical care have gone beyond the ability of many Americans to actually "afford" the full coverage that would be required.

Redlac
As I stated, my general opposition to "mercy killing" is a separate topic from this one. For the purposes of this exercise, I do NOT care how you choose to die.

What I care about is any organization (private or public) making that decision for you, me, or anyone else without our expressed desire and consent. It's like the Pro-"Choice"rs favoring China's one-child and forced-abortion policies. There's no choice involved. Death is imposed INVOLUNTARILY upon someone for the SOLE and EXPRESSED reason that they are considered nothing more than a burden to society.

It's bad enough that it's legal in some places, but for the state to recomend it to any one, for any reason, at all, ever, is absolutely wrong.

Redlac
Since you didn't read my post on insurance premiums, here's the pertinant part, again:

"When we pay our insurance premiums we are paying for EVERYONE in that company, not just ourselves."

The money that any insurance company gets is put in a pool intended to be paid out to those who file claims. Under normal circumstances, so small a percentage of customers file large claims that those who do are covered by the funds garnered by everyone's premiums. That's why major disasters threaten to bankrupt insurance companies, because the widespread destruction results in far more claims than would normally have to be paid out.

holtonfb and Redlac: wrong

Both of you take the position that somehow or another there's a "right" to a person to have insurance, holtonfb talking about how Stroup may not have been able to afford it and Redlac talking about "backstopping" insurance companies with tax dollars.

Wrong!

First of all, there's no "right" to insurance at all. If you can afford it, you buy it, but you'd be amazed at how many people simply don't do so. They don't want to spend the money; they might have to sacrifice that big-screen HDTV, or sports car or whatever.

Secondly, even insurance doesn't cover every single eventuality; it all depends on what coverage you get.

Thirdly... who says that you're supposed to be indemnified against all the bad things that might happen to you? Life's tough, and then you die. None of us get out of here alive.

Fourth, whre's the authority for government to step in and make up for any shortfalls in your life? Especially with MY tax dollars?


Madison: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger
on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."


I'm sure that Bill Gates gets better health care than I can ever hope for, and I'm pretty well off. That's reality.


Rights, generally
Rights are something to be protected. They are things that the government shall not infringe or restrict.

They are NOT, and never have been, something that must be PROVIDED by the Government.

This goes for:
Housing
Food
Clothing
Standard of Living
Education
Health Care
A Job

You have the right to all of those only so far as it concerns government interference. The government cannot positively deny you a home, but it is in no way an infringement of your rights if you are denied something because you cannot afford it.

For example: I have the expressed right to own and carry a firearm (as stated explicitly in the Constitution). However, if I cannot afford one, I cannot go and ask the government to simply give one to me. My lack of ability to afford a firearm is not an infringement on my right to them. I must make decisions on what to give up to own that firearm.

And so it goes for anything else we must pay for.

INSURANCE COMPANIES NEED A PROFIT

.....TO STAY IN BUSINESS ....

.....They are not, as many people seem to believe, social service agencies that can opperate at a loss, the way our Government can.....
COLOSSUS


Marginal individuals are sacrificed...
Cal thomas I think you are a great guy! I always look forward to your columns in the paper and find something worthy in every one! I've even saved quite a few to refer back to.

This article about Randy Stroup is a sad one. He is looking for mercy in the wrong place! Especially when the bottom line is money--- that seems to be the clincher when you have no money and someone else is deciding issues for you.

If you think about it, we are still "sacrificing" people as they did in ancient times. Marginal individuals, the ones least powerful in a society (unwanted babies, children, the young, women, the elderly, the ill, and the mentally and physically challenged), are the first ones to be sacrificed. I think we have gone downhill since Roe vs Wade. All that has to happen for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing!

The Price is (not) Right
The one thing missing from the article was a clear statement that Randy Stroup's prostate cancer was curable if treatment was initiated immediately. If that is the case, then the state's response is despicable. If, however, his cancer is terminal and treatment would only prolong the process to a delayed, but inevitable, death, then I have a real problem with the article.

47 million people with no health care
There are 47 millions american without health care. Randy Croup will have do what the rest of the uninsured must do if they need expensive medical care. Rally their friends and community to conduct fundraiser to help pay for his medical expenses.

And get it through your heads. The state of Oregon does not cover the cost of the assisted suicide. A patient can visit three doctors to confirm you are terminally ill and are mentally stable. They can prescribe medications that will end life for the patient and the state will not prosecute them for doing so.

Lonestar
You have a problem with the idea that the state recommending death for someone without their expressed consent is a reprehensible act?

This isn't a case of a person requesting a "mercy killing." This is the state trying to impose one.

Chicaree
"There are 47 millions american without health care."
Another liberal lie. Ever been to an emergency room?

Kevorkian Airline

How do you describe living? Is living a synonym for breathing. I don’t think so.

My Sweetie and I never got to visit the Earthly Holy Land together. But we will be in the Heavenly Holy Land together, in the very near future.

Recently I had a pain in my chest. At first I thought Hooray, I’m going to be with my Sweetie in a few moments. But the pain increased, and not wanting to be disabled, I asked my daughter to call 911. They arrived, soon said it was not my heart, did this and that, and in the ambulance, before I reached the hospital, all sign of pain was gone.

When one nurse was finished punching holes in me, filling me with awful tasting stuff, I said, “If this is the most fun you can be, no wonder you're never asked for a second date.”

Kevorkian is a national hero. I have suggested the Kevorkian Airline. Get in a plane, fly a mile high, when you are over the 3 mile limit, push the needle, when you are a hundred miles out in the ocean, kick open the door. I bet I could sell a million tickets on day one.


Redlac
How many of those uninsured or "underinsured" have 52 inch HDTV sets? How many of them pay more than $1400 per month in car payments, car insurance and gas? How many of them smoke?

In other words, how many of these people COULD have full coverage IF they structured their priorities correctly?

What? You have no answer?

chicaree repeats oft-quoted fib
"4.7 crore Americans have no health care".

That oft-quoted figure includes:
(1) 2 crore illegal aliens -- last I checked, not US citizens and not lumpable as "American"
(2) 25 lakh legal immigrants between jobs, or "on probation" who will soon be under insurance coverage--double error in including this category, as these are not US citizens and are only temporarily in the category
(3) 45 lakh US citizens between jobs or on probation -- again, only temporarily without insurance

Rightaway, 2.7 crores have been removed from the figure.

AudiR10
The median income in the US per household in 2006 was $48,000. 60% of the households brought home only $34,000. Now, work it out. What do you pay for health insurance? By that, I mean the cheaper major medical kind? For one adult and one child, or two adults, it runs in the range of $800. Now, lets do a little math. So, you have health insurance. That's $9,600 a year. Subtract that from $34,000, and you have $24,400. This 60% cannot by definition pay $1400 per month in car payments, car insurance, and gas. After all, that's $16,800, which would leave them $7,600 for food, clothing, telephones and the mortgage, property taxes and the like (or the rent)- and, I guess some form of entertainment. Or, $640 per month. Your assertion is simply absurd on the face of it and demonstrates why people either don't have health insurance, don't remotely have enough, or can't afford anything remotely related to a major illness. We can all sit here and close our eyes to the reality, but this is what 60% of the people confront. It also demonstrates your own selective bias. You have created a vision in your head of the proverbial welfare queens - but most of those 60% do not live in that world - and never have.

Now, Brian R is precisely correct that no one is entitled to anything. And, if the state took that attitude to all things, then, we might conceivably return to the way things were. But keep in mind, that if the state did this, then it would also get out of the abortion and euthanasia argument. After all, when it did not participate in insuring people against their own judgement or failure or disease, it also left it up to them to decide whether or not they had children, how many they could afford, and whether or not they could have medical care. And if they got pregnant and couldn't feed the child - they aborted. If they couldn't pay for medical care - even if they had a "curable" disease - then they would die.

Which is exactly why, Redlac,

the state should get back out of the business of being everyone's nanny.

People should rise and fall on the basis of their own decisions.

Even if this type of thing were constitutional -- and it's not -- it's simply unaffordable on any practical level. Once you start, where do you stop? Is everyone "entitled" to Bill Gates- level health care? A sure recipe for ultimate societal bankruptcy, as Europe is learning and why they're revamping their own prgrams.

Further, if the state gets out of this issue, health care will become more affordable to all as it becomes more competitive as a business, and providers have to earn your trade.


Oh, and PS, Redlac

You wrote: "If they couldn't pay for medical care - even if they had a 'curable' disease - then they would die."


Everyone dies. Life has a 100% mortality rate.


Jerebaub
I don't think most conservatives support taxpayers paying for medical problems caused by the decisions of a baby's parents. The social side of conservatism says the life is valuable enough to be worth saving, the fiscal side of conservatism says the biological parents should be held liable for the cost. However, conservatives don't advocate for no government, only limited government.

For me, the limit of government should be when the decisions of others encroach on any individual's rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, and there is nothing that individual could have reasonably foreseen and done to mitigate that encroachment. The circumstance you described certainly fits within that limit. The difference is liberals seek to protect people who are (or were) able but not willing to protect themselves, and conservatives seek to protect those who are willing but not able to protect themselves.

There are practical problems with holding the parents financially liable in that circumstance, such as incentivizing abortion and child abandoment, and introducing a bias towards children of poor parents leaving the system as soon as possible and other children staying in the system as long as possible, creating a huge governmental conflict of interest towards seizing more children. I don't know about you, but to me that is a scary thought and definitely not in line with a conservative idea of government.

It is unfortunate

we still have poor among us who cannot afford health care. That being said, it is not a constitutional function of government to do charity work.

Many of us have this misconception that government intrusion in this area is a good thing. The truth is anything subsidized by government goes up in cost simply because it artificially increases demand.

If this story and others like it sadden you, then I suggest you give to the charity of your choice. Put your money where your mouth is, instead of putting everyone else's money where your mouth is.

I find it ironic that those who whine about separation of church and state demand government become our church. Tithes and offerings demanded at the point of a gun.

If we could get the government and lawyers out of the health care business, we would all benefit from lower health care cost. Maybe then our working poor would stand a chance.

End pipe dream...

BrianR/Jerabaub
The systematic expansion of the nanny state has replaced individual responsibility - and is not sustainable, and no, we cannot afford a national health system. However, it's not difficult to see why 65% of the people, having adopted the mentality of the nanny state, routinely say they support some form of government insured health care - given that 60% of households take home only $34,000 per year, and health care costs have been steadily ramping up for the last two decades - far outstripping their income. In the last 8 years, they've risen 78%.

My points all along have been little more than the fact that people can talk about ethics as it pertains to euthanasia or abortion, but only if they are willing to pay the cost of not having to confront these decisions by providing all the medical care necessary to salve one's conscious.

Much of the cost of medical care is related to the last few years of life - not all the preceding years. Extraordinay procedures extend it - and are extraordinarily expensive. We cannot, it seems, die normally. Dialysis, heart transplants, liver transplants, by-pass surgery, lung transplants, heart machines, long and expensive cancer treatment, and all the rest, are most ofen used towards the end of life. Indeed, life would end without them - and did for all of history. And no one had any ethical qualms at all. It is in the order of things.


Cont'd.
Today, of course, in this entitlement society, all people, whether they can afford it or not, seem to believe that it is their natural right to have these procedures performed. And, one of the truly pernicious arguments that arises to support this is "ethics".

In a very real sense, we have what some believe to be the worlds "best" health care. However, just as most people cannot buy a Ferrari - even though it might be the best, neither can many people afford the cost of health care as it has evolved in this country.

If we separated out these extra-ordinary procedures, then the cost of the health care would fall dramatically. This would be the Ford. You're average lifespan might fall by 3 or 4 years, but if you want the Ferrarri, and those extra years, then the individual should pay for a separate policy - and no one else.


AMEN to Reply 57
Government not only does not have any business in health care, but it also has no constitutional mandate to be involved in education, abortion, welfare, or a host of other issues. The reason we have no money to build and repair roads, defend our country, or do the other things government is SUPPOSED to do is that we spend all of our money trying to socially engineer a brave new world. To further confuse the issue, the money used for social purposes is taken from funds originally designated for other legitimate purposes. How many times have we paid to have the same roads fixed?

How about this one


The way to reduce Health Care costs is simple. Just eliminate all insurance companies, their buildings, computers, and employees, and get rid of all Government health care employees.

Give every qualified doctor, hospital, and pharmacy a blank checkbook so they could write a check each evening for all the services they had provided that day.

Just hire a bunch of auditors to randomly check and made sure they aren’t stealing any more than is being stolen today. And on and on.

And I bet the cost would be cut in half.

I remember when I was a kid, we paid the doctor a dollar, every few years, no one had insurance.

Human Life Is Immeasurably Sacrosanct
"You can't just make the gov't care for everyone's entire life," wrote a Floridian above.
WRONG AND IMMORAL POSITION. All human life is immeasurably sacrosanct and worthy of saving and providing for. Who among any of us is so arrogant to assume the role of God when it comes to allocating money to save a life? We have so many people nowadays bragging about being "fiscally conservative, but socially liberal," but have so many of these folks ever given thought to what one of the greatest conservatives had to say about this monstrous mentality? "Tight fists/loose morals" crowd.

A wise man said once, "Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel in order to be tough ... The ancient injunction to love thy neighbor as thyself is still the force that animates our fa ith--a faith that we are determined shall live and conquer in a world poisoned by hatred and ravaged by war." Or, pushing "fiscal conservatism" to its extreme limits of national stinginess and social indifference. Who's the "wise man"? Look him up.

Redlac, you put your finger on it

It is PRECISELY the "entitlement mentality" that's becoming so prevalent, and which has to be STOPPED. Or this country is just plain doomed, and there's no way around it.

I agree; everyone wants a Ferrari for the price of a Ford.

Well, America, wake up and listen up!

If you can afford only a Ford, then you'd damned well better settle for the Ford, and quit your squalling about not having the Ferrari!

And every single one of you is going to DIE!

And I've never heard anyone say that dying's a pleasant experience!

And some are going to die earlier than others!

That's the name of that tune.

Good, Steven!

You: "All human life is immeasurably sacrosanct and worthy of saving and providing for."

Really? Hitler? Idi Amin? Saddam Hussein? Pol Pot?



"Who among any of us is so arrogant to assume the role of God when it comes to allocating money to save a life?"

Well, apparently YOU feel Godlike enough to want to allocate MY tax dollars.


Dude, you want to allocate your own money? Knock yourself out.

But keep your mitts off of mine.

Analogy
Some people say that no one can take, or help take a life, leave it to God to determine when they die.

I agree, leave it to God, and God does not use pills, wires, tubes, and knives. It is OK to use pills or shots to keep a person conformable, but as I have told the Doctor, “If you hook me up to one of those machines, you better hope it doesn't work. Cause if it does, I’m coming after you.”

ANALOGY
We go to a fine restaurant, the atmosphere is wonderful, the building is beautiful, the salad and appetizers are excellent, the food is all we could ask for. Now here comes the waiter with dessert, his dirty thumb is in a dish of melted ice cream, with a piece of rotten fruit. We don’t need that, we want to leave right now, and go HOME.

We had a wonderful life, our work was a lot of fun, our marriage is all anyone could hope for, we were able to travel for 25 years, and enjoy everything we could want. Now here comes a man in a white coat with a bunch of wires and tubes, with a knife in his hand. We don’t need that, we want to leave right now, and go HOME.



Obviously


That word should be comfortable. I am not the perfect typist, and my spell checker is not a mind reader.

A little math
65% of the people support some form of government insured (read "controlled") health care.

91% of the people think Congress is doing a crummy job.

Ergo... Most of those who want UHC have no faith in the people who will create and regulate it.

I wish the stupid people would stop voting.

And breeding.

Soylent Green
after a glass of wine...

MY DOG HAS SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE
He never worries about paying the vet. I try to see that he has the best care available and he repays me with trust and love. But the day will come when he is seriously ill, and his chances are bleak. At that time I will have him put down to save him, and me, suffering. Maybe if he paid his own medical bills, he would make a different decision. We'll never know, since he doesn't pay his medical bills.

Do you really want someone else to pay yours?

brian r...howdy partner! HUMANITY
lONG TIME NO CHAT!I can't remember a post of yours I didn't like..! You do well..but I thought you and ROBBIE had become buddies!?
Just kidding..forgive me? Once in a while he makes sense..once he said 2+2= 4 !smile.
Talking about humanity: 22,000 were laid off today in Calif.,thousands being cut back in pay
and yet ARNIE(EL JERKO) is okay w/8-12 billion
dollars being spent on Illegal Immigration!How is that for a THE PRICE IS NOT RIGHT!?
We all are responsible for out lives...period!
This country is headed for a financial he**!
And then will the dumb-dumbs still be saying
we dont want that proven problem solver Mitt
because he's mormon! Probably...duh!
Take care...Brian R.--always a pleasure to read your posts!
elvis

Ask my sister

BrianR Location: CA
Reply # 63
Date: Jul 31, 2008 - 6:26 PM EST

And I've never heard anyone say that dying's a pleasant experience!
==========

And how do you know? I suppose someone came back to tell you.

My Sister finished wallpapering the room, fixed and ate dinner, went to bed, then went to Heaven during the night.

Do you think she did not enjoy no more pain, and seeing her friends for eternity?



The Price is (Not) Right
The problem is government enslaving taxpayers and medical personnel to care for others thru threat of imprisonment. That is true devaluation of human life. That people become sick and die is the human condition. Jonah Goldberg points out in his column on 8/1 that capitalism has brought wealth and people asking the government to do something for them is the "patient leaping to embrace the disease and reject the cure." Is Cal Thomas is asking the government to take care of the patient rather than the patient to take care of himself, or is he asking what's lead to devaluation of human life? If the later (and I hope so), people asking government to take care of them has lead to the devaluation of human life. In other words, the desire of Peters to enslave Pauls for the benefit of Peters has lead to the devaluation of human life. Or in simpler terms, human greed (via government force) devalues human life. I hope we can get government out of health care so we can to some extent, reduce slavery and devaluation of human life.

Christian Hypocrisy in America
Dear Brother Cal: I agree with your article about how man has made life cheap or tried to anyway. I have to ask you what you being a Christian think about America bombing about 600,000 or more persons out of existence in Iraq and the Middle East? I am aborn- again Christian and I am an Amillenial Preterist! I don't use the Holy Bible to go to war with a country I disagree with religiously! I have a problem with most American pre-millenial, pre-tribulational, dispensionalist Christians who believe that anything that modern- day Israel does is absolutely fine against the Arab nations! I have a big problem with Christians who think that America can start a war in the Middle East and that when the bombs start falling that the Christians will just be Raptured away!! I hate to disappoint all of these modern- day Christians, but it is not going to work out that way!!! Jesus said that He would raise all of us up on the 'last day'. The wicked and the righteous will be raised at the same time! (John 5:25-29). Daniel said in the same hour, not 1003 and 1/2 years, not 1007 years, and not 1000 years and 45 days! Jesus can tell time even if modern Christians cannot tell time!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.