Obamacare: when growing old becomes a "crime"

By Chris Adamo

Immediately following the passage in the Declaration of Independence avowing the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is the phrase, "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Clearly, in the minds of the founders, the purpose of government should only be to uphold a just and defensible societal structure within which the people can maximize their freedoms and interests. Throughout the formative years of America, government of the people and by the people was widely understood to exist for the people.

The America of 2009 no longer resembles those lofty ideals in any respect. Admittedly, the insipient encroachments on it have been occurring for many decades. But with the advent of the Obama Administration, the efforts to forcefully implement them have gone into overdrive. And in the process, the very nature of the debate over the future of the country has taken on an ominous and threatening tone. The mere fact that such a debate is even taking place in America indicates that the threat is very real.

"Obamacare," the moniker given to the potential government takeover of the entire medical industry, is hardly characteristic of "healthcare" at all. Indeed, it would be far better termed as "health control." The regular mention of it as a benign "alternative" means of delivering medical services, ostensibly for those who have no other avenue for treatment, is a flagrant example of "sheep's clothing," behind which a wolf awaits.

To properly grasp the sinister ramifications of the situation, the somewhat recent reversal in the understood purposes and roles of government and "the people" need to be fully recognized. In the minds of the founders, government was truly the servant of the people. But in the murky world of the modern statist, the people are a "resource" to be utilized for the "good" of the state as a whole, which means to the benefit of those in power.

This increasingly arrogant presumption of self-importance among the "ruling class" explains such outrages as the Congress, in the depths of a national recession, attempting to buy a fleet of private jets, while its leadership regularly excoriates the citizenry for excessive spending, use of resources and the like.

As the balance of power tips to an ever greater degree away from the people and towards the state, the mutual regard that once existed between the two, shifts in a likewise manner. Whereas the original concept of America was established on the premise that those in power were "servants" of a populace that resides on an equal social station, the current situation is more reflective of a caste system in which the prevailing political class occupies the highest tier, and looks on the common man strictly as a subordinate and subservient class.

Each inhabitant is assessed as having a "value" to the generality of the state, or being a liability to it. By such thinking, it suddenly becomes obvious why the government is no longer willing to enforce America's borders, and will even persecute those private citizens who attempt to do so on their own. It is immaterial that the influx of illegals will erode the standard of living for the lawful and loyal citizens of the nation, while obliterating its cultural cohesiveness. That flow of traffic represents a burgeoning "resource" which can benefit unscrupulous operatives in both the public and private sectors.

In contrast, the elderly are increasingly viewed as strictly a liability to the state. As a "resource," they have outlived their usefulness, and now are only a drain on its assets. They represent an expensive luxury, the maintenance of which does little to advance the "greater good." Former America, with its affinity for Judeo-Christian values, largely viewed them as honored members of its society, but the new order increasingly characterizes them as a burden that needs to be supplanted as rapidly as possible with more productive assets.

So while every attempt to include the twelve to twenty million illegal aliens in any version of Obama care will be strenuously pursued (either in the bill itself, or as a result of "amnesty" that is promised to follow closely on its heels), a concurrent effort will be made to marginalize any population subset, whether the elderly or the chronically infirmed, that is not deemed beneficial to society as a whole. This is no mere accusation. Statements from Obama Administration officials, and even from Barack Obama himself, bear grim witness.

Perhaps the most illuminating spokesman, though hardly a lone voice on the topic, is White House "Health Policy Adviser" Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. Through his ample commentary, Dr. Emmanuel offers an Orwellian worldview in which he classes citizens as something akin to national "commodities," the value of which is determined by their ability to contribute back to the state. He regularly assesses the "worth" of "25 year olds" over that of someone aged 65 or older, and contends that the state medical treatment each might receive should be likewise dispensed.

According to Dr. Emmanuel, "Unlike allocation [of medical resources] based on sex or race, allocation by age is not discrimination." Translation: Older people are not necessarily worth further government "investment" since it is doubtful they will be able to pay back such expenditures.

As government expansion and bloat continues, the requirement for citizens to "contribute" to its operation will likewise increase. Consequently, the dehumanization of ever-larger segments of the population will inevitably follow, beginning with the elderly and infirmed, but certainly not remaining limited to those groups.

Clearly, it is imperative to immediately turn the tide on this monster, not only with respect to health care, but in every facet of its scheme to subdue and control the people. This manner of "change" holds the potential to destroy the soul of America.

© Chris Adamo