Do You want to live forever?

 

Post by Mustang

What’s your thought?

I enjoy the United Kingdom.  My wife is British, and I have not met anyone here who I regard as curiously strange —even though I know they exist.  That said, I think the political structure here is about three bubbles off plumb.  For the Daily Mail on 26 September 2018, writer Steve Doughty warned the Brits, “We’re not living longer anymore.”

Doughty wrote, “The lifespans of men and women in the UK have stopped getting longer —halting a century of improvements, official evidence showed yesterday.”  What then follows is a regurgitation of demographic data compiled since 2015 and in an inset, “how other nations do better” in terms of life expectancy.

Naturally, there are two sides to this issue: British communists think that people are not living longer because of government cuts to social services; conservatives point to a return of diseases which were thought to be conquered —perhaps a more rational approach.  Side note: not living longer doesn’t necessarily suggest living fewer numbers of years.  And then there was the argument about life-style choices … as if any investigation since 2015 could be a significant indicator.  Finally, Doughty reported people living in Scotland and Wales are living 0.1 years less than those in England.  Gasp!

The bottom line here?  People in the UK live an average of 79.2 years.  In the USA, the average life expectancy (for men and women) is 78.8 years.  Is this at all significant?

As one of the world’s elderly, I don’t think that a difference in six months merits a full page spread in any newspaper —no, not even in HuffPo.  What younger people (in this case, the writer and the so-called medical and social services experts) fail to consider is quality of life—which, in my view, is more important than longevity.

Who wants to be an older person in the UK (or anywhere else, for that matter) and be subjected to forced incarceration within elder-care facilities that implement programs that, among other things, reduce daily nutritional intake so that one is literally starved to death —thus saving government the money paid out in pensions, social security, or medical benefits?

Hint: not me.

How strange western society has become.  Do we actually imagine that living longer is necessarily a good thing?  I think not … especially considering the indignities that we heap upon our elder generations.  Does anyone think that having to wear protective undergarments is a geriatric perk, or having to take medications several times a day, or having to rely on someone else to help us find our way to the toilet … or take a bath, or wash our hair, or cut our toe-nails?

In our quest for increased life expectancy we may have forgotten the most important thing: human dignity.

It is my opinion that here in the UK, such articles are designed to cause older people to worry about their golden years.  What is happening here is strangely similar to strategies used by progressive Americans, who continually remind the elderly during election years that the opposite party wants to cut off their social security benefits.

We have arrived at a strange place in our development as human beings.  We have created a people today who actually think that they are entitled to live forever, or that they have a constitutional right to expect others to pay their medical bills —even when for the past 60 years they’ve smoked two packs of cigarettes every day.

It is an undeniable fact that people die and there is very little any of us can do about it.  We can’t promise eternal life, no matter how well communist governments work, so I think we ought to stop trying to scare the hell out of people who have reached an age where they are easily frightened.  Hell, maybe if the government and medical associations refrained from causing older people stress, they’d live longer.

Advertisements

Enter SCOTUS Brett Kavanaugh – The positives and concerns

 

Daniel Horowitz wrote an excellent piece at the Conservative Review that Mark Levin suggested reading. I made a special effort to catch Levin’s program as I was curious as to Mark’s take on the SCOTUS pick. The big concern was Kavanaugh starting the ball rolling with the Obamacare as a tax. I suggest wandering over to the Conservative Review for a balanced view and thoughts on the judiciary.

The full podcast is out there at Levin’s website and on YouTube if you want the full thing. I agree with Mark. Let’s ask some questions. Must we follow and support blindly? Or can we raise questions without feeling disloyal to Trump?

 

 

Below are some points:

Here are several concerns that conservatives should research thoroughly throughout the confirmation process and Kavanaugh’s meetings with senators:

  • Obamacare regulation as a tax: In Seven-Sky v. Holder (2011), Kavanaugh wrote a dissent opining that the individual mandate of Obamacare could not be challenged in court because, under the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867, no lawsuit can be brought until the plaintiff actually was forced to pay the tax, which in this case wasn’t for another few years. I’m a big stickler for courts staying in their lane and properly abiding by rules of standing, but in this case his entire rationale was built upon a dangerous premise that a government mandate/penalty was really a tax. This served as the basis for John Roberts’ infamous opinion upholding Obamacare.

 

  • Endless standing to rip God out of the public square: In Newdow v. Roberts, an infamous atheist sued to take the words “so help me God” out of the presidential oath of office. Aside from it being insane to suggest this violates the Establishment Clause, the notion that a random person could get standing to sue and that this is even a justiciable case violates the very essence of what distinguishes a court from a legislature. It lies at the core of what is allowing the ACLU to shut down our civilization for years with radical forum-shopped lower courts. While, in his separate opinion, Kavanaugh ruled the right way on the Establishment Clause, he held that the plaintiff indeed had valid standing to sue as “offended observers.” This is the type of nonsense that is plaguing public prayer and display of the Ten Commandments across the country. It is simply astounding for any originalist to disagree with other justices in granting such standing and is very consequential for cases that will reach the Supreme Court soon. Kavanaugh hid behind Supreme Court precedent, but admitted that the high court never directly addressed the issue of this type of standing.

These rulings taken together, Kavanaugh is essentially saying that a random atheist with an obscure and abstract claim against a presidential oath can get standing, but individuals directly forced to purchase a private product and engage in commerce couldn’t get standing.

  • Contraception as a “compelling government interest”: Almost every circuit upheld Obamacare’s contraception mandate. Like most of the originalist judges, Kavanaugh dissented from these opinions and sided with plaintiffs in Priests for Life, which is good. But what is still puzzling is that he gratuitously and explicitly conceded that the government has “a compelling interest in facilitating women’s access to contraception.” While the Supreme Court did assume that the government might have a general interest in promoting contraception, the court never assumed, much less ruled, that such an interest would apply to the narrow subset of employees at religious institutions. The fact that he didn’t join the stronger dissent from Judges Brown and Henderson – built upon the premise that the government must find a compelling interest specifically in mandating “seamless” coverage – raises concerns that we won’t see him categorically opposing the Left on these issues and joining Thomas on the court.

 

  • Immigration: Immigration is perhaps the most important issue winding through the courts now, and most of the nominees had thin records on the issue. I haven’t seen anything big on the fundamental issues of the plenary power doctrine, for better or worse. However, as we reported last year, the D.C. Circuit absurdly granted an illegal alien the right to demand access to an abortion. While Kavanaugh rightly dissented on the grounds that the opinion drastically expanded abortion jurisprudence, he declined to sign on to Judge Karen Henderson’s indispensable dissent, finally laying down the law on sovereignty and the plenary power doctrine. That was a much-needed dissent, given what is going on throughout the circuits on immigration, and it is a bit peculiar that he didn’t sign on to that dissent, while Henderson signed onto Kavanaugh’s dissent tackling the abortion angle.

Snip…

“At least he’s a lot better than the other side” is no longer good enough. If we are going to accept the premise, as the president himself did last night, that “The Supreme Court is entrusted with the safeguarding of the crown jewel of our Republic, the Constitution of the United States,” we can’t afford to settle for anything less than the best. The aforementioned concerns notwithstanding, conservatives should be happy with much of Kavanaugh’s record but should look a little deeper before jumping in with both feet.

Full thing at Conservative Review 

Trump gives a win to ‘Little Sisters of the Poor’, Others, negates birth control, sterilization mandate

How easy it is to forget what an out of control administration we had with Obama. Even though The Little Sisters of the Poor appeared to have won the battle in the Supreme Court, Obama had his pen and overrode it. So here is a reminder with the clip of the Nuns. Let us hope Trump finds his pen and this is the beginning of his attack on Obamacare.

Am I the only one who recalls all of the thousands of waivers that were handed out in the beginning of the implementation of Obamacare? If you had the right connections for your business, no problem. We thought we had a win with Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court. And we did . But guess what Obama did with that damnable pen of his? Hobby Lobby Employees Will Get Birth Control Under A New Rule That Sidesteps Supreme Court’s Decision. Obama overrides the Supreme Court. Apparently, the “Little Sisters of the Poor” did not escape the wrath either, and lost another round with the Tenth Circuit, deeming them not religious enough. Take a look at this moving clip and you tell me if they are not religious enough.

President Donald Trump’s administration announced Friday that it will provide employers with religious or moral objections to providing birth control in their employee health insurance plans an exemption.

The administration’s exemption includes “any non-profit organization that have a religious or moral objection to providing contraception,” a senior Health and Human Services (HHS) official told reporters Friday. The new rule takes effect immediately. In addition to non-profits, the rule applies to “for-profit entities that are publicly traded,” colleges, universities and health insurance companies. The new rule takes effect immediately.

Starting in 2012, Obamacare required employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception at no cost to women. The rule did provide a caveat for churches and even tried to extend that to religiously-oriented groups. Religious groups rejected the offer and filed a number of lawsuits, which led to 2 Supreme Court cases. SCOTUS ordered that the Obama administration and religious organizations come to an agreement as to how to provide contraceptive coverage at no cost to women, but such an agreement never materialized. More at Obama overrides Hobby Lobby Supreme win, Little Sisters of the Poor lose

Daily Caller

In 24 States, 50 percent or more of babies are born on Medicaid

(CNSNews.com) – In 24 of the nation’s 50 states at least half of the babies born during the latest year on record had their births paid for by Medicaid, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

New Mexico led all states with 72 percent of the babies born there in 2015 having their births covered by Medicaid.

Arkansas ranked second with 67 percent; Louisiana ranked third with 65 percent; and three states—Mississippi, Nevada and Wisconsin—tied for fourth place with 64 percent of babies born there covered by Medicaid.

New Hampshire earned the distinction of having the smallest percentage of babies born on Medicaid. In that state, Medicaid paid for the births of only 27 percent of the babies born in 2015.

Virginia and Utah tied for the next to last position, with 31 percent of the babies born on Medicaid.

More at CNS

British star faces jail for eugenics comment, Obamacare supports it

Juxtapose these two stories. The first being that of a British TV star who could be jailed because a “Down” baby squeaked by and was born, thus avoiding abortion, and should be “put down” against a Jonathan Gruber clip who testifies in support of the Obamacare “Death Panels” and abortion. He terms it “positive selection.” Here we go:

A BBC reality TV star could be jailed for posting on Facebook that children born with Down’s Syndrome should be ‘put down’.

Ursula Presgrave – who appeared on BBC3’s The Call Centre – was taken to court after saying disabled children should be killed instead of living the ‘pointless life of a vegetable’.

The 23-year-old pleaded guilty to an offence under the Malicious Communications act and now faces a maximum sentence of six months in jail or a £5,000 fine.

Presgrave, who was known on the BBC show for her tattoos, piercings and foul language, told Facebook followers: ‘Anyone born with down syndrome should be put down, it’s just cruel to let them lead a pointless life of a vegetable.’

The call centre worker, who appeared alongside Nev Wilshire in the BBC Three fly-on-the-wall series, was arrested after police also found photos joking about the disabled on her phone, Swansea Magistrates’ Court heard. Keep Reading…

Here is a previous post Obamacare Gruber: ‘Abortion of marginal children’ a ‘social good’ UPDATE 

Embattled MIT professor Jonathan Gruber has not only gotten in trouble for bragging about helping President Obama put one over on the American people with Obamacare, he’s also been uncovered as an abortion advocate—but not a run-of-the-mill advocate of “women’s rights.”

No, Gruber’s abortion advocacy is of a particularly pungent eugenics variety. He’s on record repeatedly making the case from social science that abortion is a “social good” because it reduces the number of “marginal children,” by which he means urban poor—those he says can be counted on to commit crimes if they were ever born.

Gruber co-authored a paper during the Clinton years which argued that legal abortion had saved the U.S. taxpayer upwards of $14 billion in welfare benefits and that it also lowered crime.

Keep reading…

Obama overrides Hobby Lobby Supreme win, Little Sisters of the Poor lose

Am I the only one who recalls all of the thousands of waivers that were handed out in the beginning of the implementation of Obamacare? If you had the right connections for your business, no problem. We thought we had a win with Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court. And we did .But guess what Obama just did with that damnable pen of his? Hobby Lobby Employees Will Get Birth Control Under A New Rule That Sidesteps Supreme Court’s Decision. Obama overrides the Supreme Court this past Friday. More on that after I get done with the Sisters and their sad plight. Apparently, the “Little Sisters of the Poor” did not escape the wrath either, and just lost another round with the Tenth Circuit, deeming them not religious enough. Take a look at this moving clip and you tell me if they are not religious enough.

The Little Sisters of the Poor have reiterated their commitment to following their conscience as they care for the poor and dying, following a federal appeals court ruling that they must obey the federal contraception mandate.

“As Little Sisters of the Poor, we simply cannot choose between our care for the elderly poor and our faith,” said Mother Provincial Sr. Loraine Marie Maguire.

“And we should not have to make that choice, because it violates our nation’s commitment to ensuring that people from diverse faiths can freely follow God’s calling in their lives. For over 175 years, we have served the neediest in society with love and dignity. All we ask is to be able to continue our religious vocation free from government intrusion.

Employers who fail to comply with the mandate face crippling penalties. In the case of the Little Sisters, the fines could amount to around $2.5 million a year, or about 40 percent of the $6 million the Sisters beg for annually to run their ministry.

Updated news story at Catholic News agency

The Little Sisters of the Poor are an international Roman Catholic Congregation of women Religious founded in 1839 by St. Jeanne Jugan. They operate homes in 31 countries, where they provide loving care for over 13,000 needy elderly persons.

Although the Little Sisters’ homes perform a religious ministry of caring for the elderly poor, they do not fall within the government’s narrow exemption for “religious employers.” Accordingly, beginning on January 1, the Little Sisters will face IRS fines unless they violate their religion by hiring an insurer to provide their employees with contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

For more information, visit http://www.becketfund.org/littlesisters

Obama overrides Supreme Court decision.

On Friday, the Obama administration made its final ruling on how employers will handle birth control in their health insurance plans — they’ll provide it regardless of their moral beliefs. Birth control methods will be covered at no cost to employees, even if their employer objects.

With respect to women, preventive care and screenings provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by HRSA (not otherwise addressed by the recommendations of the Task Force), including all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity, as prescribed by a health care provider (collectively, contraceptive services).1

For-profit companies have the option of writing a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) if they wish to object to coverage. Under the new rules, the HHS will notify a third-party insurance company, which will then provide the birth control coverage to the company’s female employee without infringing any additional cost onto the company itself.

The program was running smoothly until the Evangelical Christian owners of craft chain store Hobby Lobby famously objected to the mandate, claiming it violated their right to religious beliefs. On June 30, 2014 the Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby in an unprecedented decision, but the Obama administration put a conclusive response to the court’s ruling by overriding it.

Medical Daily

Medicare physicians could be paid for ‘End of Life’ chats

This may seem an unimportant topic. But it is. The death panels rise again. Even though Congress pushed back against it. Time and again. But this administration will not be dissuaded. First let me remind you of an earlier post:

From: Kidney Patients being told to accept death and forgo dialysis

As they calmly say:

“It was meant to keep young and middle-aged people alive and productive”.

So of course if you are no longer productive, you are really of no use to the Progressive Society. So here tis a piece from the NY Times including the header.

Asking Kidney Patients to Forgo a Free Lifeline

Kidney specialists are pushing doctors to be more forthright with elderly people who have other serious medical conditions, to tell the patients that even though they are entitled to dialysis, they may want to decline such treatment and enter a hospice instead. In the end, it is always the patient’s choice. But for how much longer?

One idea, promoted by leading specialists, is to change the way doctors refer to the decision to forgo dialysis. Instead of saying that a patient is withdrawing from dialysis or agreeing not to start it, these specialists say the patient has chosen “medical management without dialysis.”“That is the preferred term,” said Nancy Armistead, executive director of theMid-Atlantic Renal Coalition, a Medicare contractor that collects data and patient grievances.

Of all the terrible chronic diseases, only one —end-stage kidney disease — gets special treatment by the federal government. A law passed by Congress 39 years ago provides nearly free care to almost all patients whose kidneys have failed, regardless of their age or ability to pay.

But the law has had unintended consequences, kidney experts say. It was meant to keep young and middle-aged people alive and productive. Instead, many of the patients who take advantage of the law are old and have other medical problems, often suffering through dialysis as a replacement for their failed kidneys but not living long because the other chronic diseases kill them. Full story:New York Times

Now that Obama is in his waning days, it is full throttle ahead.

The Obama administration is considering new rules that would pay Medicare doctors to discuss end-of-life options for their patients, reviving an issue that has historically caused an uproar from the GOP.

A provision to compensate doctors for these consultations was included in early versions of ObamaCare but had been withheld after then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) claimed that “death panels” would deprive seniors of healthcare.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) tried again in 2010, but was forced to roll back its plans because of political pressure. tHE hILL

Recall this little number from the architect of Obamacare?

Embattled MIT professor Jonathan Gruber has not only gotten in trouble for bragging about helping President Obama put one over on the American people with Obamacare, he’s also been uncovered as an abortion advocate—but not a run-of-the-mill advocate of “women’s rights.”

No, Gruber’s abortion advocacy is of a particularly pungent eugenics variety. He’s on record repeatedly making the case from social science that abortion is a “social good” because it reduces the number of “marginal children,” by which he means urban poor—those he says can be counted on to commit crimes if they were ever born.

Gruber co-authored a paper during the Clinton years which argued that legal abortion had saved the U.S. taxpayer upwards of $14 billion in welfare benefits and that it also lowered crime.

Keep reading…

Here in the clip, Gruber is questioned as to whether older folks as similar to abortion candidates.

%d bloggers like this: