Home / The Kill the Elderly Stimulus Plan

The Kill the Elderly Stimulus Plan

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

My mother is very upset.

She called this evening telling me every time she hears anything about this "Kill the Elderly Stimulus Plan" she starts having a-fibs. She is very fragile. In other words, once this new medical program is put into place, she will be one of the first "they" will decide not to bother saving.

What gives a government official the right to decide who lives and who is to die?

One wonders what thoughts must be going on in the minds of people like Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, Barack Obama, and even our three treacherous Republicans who voted for the Kill the Elderly Stimulus Bill. How can a decent human being even conceptualize something like what just passed in the United States Senate?

There is nothing wrong with updating the way medical records are transferred and maintained. In fact, it is something that truly needs to be done. Trust me, I know. With my mother's cardiac condition, we end up in the ER at least once every three or four months. Every time we go to the ER, we end up doing the same paperwork over and over and over and over (you get the picture) again. Using some modern technology just makes sense. We could probably save enough to give a few million senior citizens some life-saving technology.

The whole thing reeks of “communism." In other words, according to the Daschle version, from each to each. The elderly have already lived long enough to pay their taxes, many of them having been forced to hand over several million dollars over a lifetime, if they are even moderately successful in life.

I keep going back to the questions: Why destroy one of the best medical systems the world has ever known? Why doom Americans to mediocre care? Why curtail medical research? And most importantly, what gives the Democrats the audacity to think they now have the power to decide who lives and who is to die?

There are no logical answers other than that Democrats want everyone to have not much of anything. They want to perpetrate their hold on everything and keep people almost enslaved in entitlements and perpetuate a Democratic majority forever.

Currently there are about 45 million Americans who are uninsured. The CBO estimates there will be approximately 54 million in 2019. While there are a majority of people in that number who are begging for insurance, there are a goodly number of young adults who simply do not see the need for insurance yet. They are immortal. Many also do not see the need to fork over the money for something they see as a total waste.

I was like that.

I was at least 35 before I had any form of health insurance. Yes, I could afford it, but I did not want to waste the money. I was and still am as “healthy as an ox.” I have a feeling if those 45 million uninsured souls could be polled, many if not most would come up with the same answer as I had at a younger age. Why bother throwing all that money away on nothing?

It was only after my parents managed to convince me I needed catastrophic health and accident that I relented and had a bare-bones policy written. I only took antihistamines, so why bother with prescription drugs? I had (and still have) a dentist phobia, so why bother with dental? Cancer did not run in the family.

I ended up having an in situ melanoma removed, but spent less on that than my deductible allowed. I always went for the high dollar deductibles. The only time I ever tried filing was when I broke my ankle while in Chicago. The claim was denied because by then I’d broken so many bones they were not going to cover anything orthopedic. (The reason I’ve broken so many bones is because I’m a total and complete klutz!)

My mother is a different story. She has been in and out of various hospitals with miscellaneous “female” and cardiac problems since I was in the sixth grade. Over the years she has been dropped by a number of carriers because it became to expensive to cover her. This past cardiac incident, where her heart literally stopped twice, ended up costing over a million bucks. Her AARP supplement covered everything but about $5000 at the most.

Simply because my mother had the misfortune to have an ovarian cyst rupture and nearly die of peritonitis and require over a dozen subsequent surgeries is no reason to put her on a proscribed, "just let her die" list. Her cardiac problems are hereditary. But I’m not sure if that was the cause of the latest problems. In fact, I have reason to suspect some osteoporosis medication was responsible for the fact that her heart stopped, but that’s another article.

She has a pacemaker. She will be 78 in a few weeks. She has 15 percent bone density. Does this give the Democrats the right to declare that she simply needs to roll over and die?

My father is 84. He’s in decent enough health. Genetically both parents have longevity on their side. Will this help the Democrats’ bean counters decide that they may live longer than most senior citizens and give ‘em life-sustaining medication?

Or, will they be allowed to purchase health insurance and pay for their own care? If so, there goes the new house. If the new house goes, then our Democratic contractor (who voted for Obama) will lose the contract. Then, a half dozen of his employees will be needing to seek other jobs. Oh, wait, Obama will provide for them.

In a column in the Canadian Free Press, Sher Zieve brings up another chilling aspect of the new Kill the Elderly Stimulus Bill. Because a political appointee who will have the “administrative” position of determining who will and will not be treated, medically, will they use it to officially “silence” the opposition? It is far-fetched and slightly paranoid, bur right now I’m starting to feel a little paranoid.

My mother is on the phone again, telling me that she had to make my father turn the news off. Just watching it was causing her to have some serious problems with her heart. She said she is terrified if they put this Kill the Elderly Stimulus Bill into law, she will be one of the first people the Democrats basically “murder”.

I could get a little hot under the collar about this one. I hope you will do the same.

They also want to limit critical care and experimental medicine. I guess that puts me on the “let ‘em die” list. I’m overweight, no longer “young”, and have had one melanoma incident. Statistics say I will have another. We are on the brink of a cure for melanoma. I gather the Kill the Elderly Stimulus Bill will put an end to that and to me.

Then there’s my mother’s younger sister. She has a very rare cancer, and is doing experimental meds. They basically now have a "cure" for her cancer. When diagnosed five years ago, she was given three years to live. They now say she will not die — of cancer. But she must continue with her medication. Will that now be withheld and will she be allowed to die?

My “sister” Alicia has lupus. What will her quality of life be? My cousin Jim has had a bone marrow transplant for his leukemia. So far so good. But, under the Kill the Elderly Stimulus Bill he would be dead by now.

My cousin Julia was in a freak accident last summer. She was left partially paralyzed. What will happen to her? Will Raymona be allowed to go blind because she is doing experimental treatment for her macular degeneration?

If Kill the Elderly were the law of the land 10 years ago, my father would now be dead. So would my mother. As a matter of fact, so, probably, would I.

You know, it is a great way to control the population of the United States, just deny life-giving medical treatment to almost everyone. One of these days we will be down to negative population growth – just like the environmental freaks want.

God save us all from liberals and Democrats!

Powered by

About SJ Reidhead



    And so on….


  • How did that happen? heehee. hoho. hoohoo. haha.
    Perhaps like Luke, I was able to “use the force.”


  • Kathy

    Typical of what America and Americans are becoming-just let the generation that fought for us and others die off when no longer productive. I get the feeling from alot of blogs that younger people could care less as this doesn’t involve them….yet. You can bet that plenty of the elderly will go offshore for their medical needs and plenty of their kids will miss the money Mummy and Daddy spend to extend their lives.

  • So it’s a good thing that SJ’s mother has nothing to worry about, then, isn’t it?

  • What’s the connection, Doc?

  • Right-wing scaremongers’ claimed motive: the government wants to kill off old people to save money.

    Actual motive: The government wants to better track healthcare expenditures to save money.

    The Media Matters link at the bottom of the article I linked to goes into it in more detail.

  • Yes, I did look at it. Just the usual scare tactics – only to be expected.

  • The entire basis for SJs article is specious owing to an error of interpretation picked up by the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity. No one beyond the patient, his or her family in consultation with their physician(s) will be making any decisions regarding how and whether to administer care.

    The whole article is baloney.


  • But whatever Limbaugh says is gospel truth to some. Hence the attenuating circumstance.

  • Cindy

    Right-wing scaremongers’ claimed motive: the government wants to kill off old people to save money.

    You have to know it’s not true. Because if it was many of them would be supporting the idea.

  • Apparently, the original source of this crap is New York’s former Lt. Governor Betsy McCaughey who mis-read the health care portion of the bill and reported pretty much what SJ ranted on about above. This was immediately picked up by Rush and Sean among others and bandied about with no one actually picking up the bill to do ANY fact checking before aping her mistake. Par for the course.


  • Baritone says,

    This was immediately picked up by Rush and Sean among others and bandied about with no one actually picking up the bill to do ANY fact checking before aping her mistake. Par for the course. (Emphasis added)

    The Bill, 1,071 pages in length as of 8:20 this morning when what might or might not have been the final text appeared, was approved by the House of Representatives this afternoon, even though not even one member of that august deliberative body had read it. It would, of course, have been impossible for any of them (or anyone else) to read or even skim it before the vote was taken. Now, it goes to the Senate which will quite likely vote without any more information on what the bill actually says.

    The devil is in the details, and with 1,071 pages the bill doubtless has lots of details.

    Occasionally, “Rush and Sean” get things right, and the Democratic party leadership gets things wrong. We will, eventually, learn what the bill actually says. Then, it may be too late.

    In the meantime, I guess we, along with our elected representatives, will just have to go on faith in their leadership.

    Some leadership. Some faith.


  • Lee Richards

    Rush and Sean would jump up and down on Jesus, Gandhi, Lincoln, or Mom if it would gain them ratings or $$$. That’s how they “get things right” for their faithful.
    They ARE NOT real, nor serious. They are actors playing characters–and their gullible audiences can’t tell the difference.

  • bliffle

    So, what’s the problem here that SJ is concerned about? Is there a chance that her mom will be sentenced to death by an uncaring public official instead of an uncaring health insurance official?

    Not much to choose among, as far as I can see.

  • Ms. McCaughey refered to a specific section of the bill relating to changes in national health care. It wouldn’t have been that difficult for Rush and Sean – or at least someone on their respective staffs to check out what she was refering to prior to repeating the error on their programs.

    The bulk of this bill has been in the hands of the members of Congress for several days. Any and all changes were submitted as they were made.

    I personally don’t see any compelling reason to force a vote today either. But neither do I believe that Congress should even think about taking a break prior to getting this legislation or something similar passed and on Obama’s desk.

    Republicans claim that the bill is filled with nothing but old Democratic spending. Dems claim that the Reps offered ONLY the same old, same old of tax cuts and deregulation. I suspect both claims are right.


  • Another point. It should be remembered that it is far from uncommon for members of Congress to vote for or against legislation that they haven’t read. Considering that much of what is considered in both houses often run to hundreds or perhaps even a couple of thousand pages, the Sens and Reps would be doing nothing but reading every waking hour and still not put much of a dent in all that paper.

    Each member of Congress presumably has people who DO read much of that stuff and it is then their job to distill the various bills down to perhaps bullet points or a summary to give their boss at least the gist of what it is he or she will be casting a vote for or against.

    I agree it is a lousy system, but I don’t really know what can be done about it.

    What I want to know – who are the crazy bastards who write all that stuff?


  • Probably ex-BC writers who moved on to bigger and better things.

  • Baritone,

    As you say, it is far from uncommon for members of Congress to vote for or against legislation that they haven’t read. I agree that much legislation is far too prolix and that very often legislators rely on others to provide executive summaries for them.

    The “Stimulus” bill was not legislation of the garden variety; it was far more important — and certainly far more expensive — than most other legislation and, if we are to believe our masters, even critical to the survival of life as we know it; without prompt approval, a catastrophe was said to be in the offing. In the few hours allowed, it was impossible for any member to read the legislation before voting. Time should have been made available, even at the expense of Speaker Pelosi’s trip to Rome and the other all-too-frequent Congressional junkets.

    Even had a mere forty-eight hours been provided for review, few legislators could or would have studied or even read the thing. Perhaps, however, members and their respective staffs could have been assigned portions to review and at least some of the substantial problems might have been detected and even fixed before the vote. I am certain that there are such problems, because any hastily cobbled together document of over one thousand pages has them. I assume that the legislation was crafted with the best of good will and honesty. It is possible, however, that some tricky stuff may have been included intentionally. Be that as it may, I can promise you that over the next several weeks inconsistencies, loopholes, “Oh Shits!” and other problems will be found and that advantage will be taken. Lawyers know how and are paid big bucks to do just that.

    You ask, probably rhetorically, What I want to know – who are the crazy bastards who write all that stuff? Since no single human could possibly cobble together something like the “Stimulus” bill in the time permitted, it was obviously done by large numbers of “crazy bastards,” working under great stress and doubtless quite fatigued, while pursuing different agendas.

    The good news, I suppose, is that the “Stimulus” bill will provide badly needed financial help to otherwise impoverished lawyers, lobbyists and their families.


  • Clavos

    impoverished lawyers [and] lobbyists

    I believe that’s known as an oxymoron?

  • That’s Dan’s usual dig.

  • It’s so much easier when the lobbyists just write the bills and give them to their pet congressmen to pass.


  • Dan,

    As I noted, it is likely that the bulk of the bill has been in the hands of legislators for some time. Otherwise, how is it that so many Reps stood up and complained of its contents?

    Only changes hammered out by the joint committee would be new.

    It was more or less a rhetorical question. I wonder, though, what kind of money those people make? Probably not enough.


  • Baritone,

    I understand that the “bulk of the bill” has been available. However, neither the “bulk,” nor even the spirit, of the bill as earlier revealed will be dispositive when it comes to implementation of the legislation. A bunch of commas and howevers sprinkled here and there, a “notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 204(b) – 207(c),” or even an innocent typographical error can make a big difference.

    There are other matters of perhaps greater and immediately obvious substance. Here is one small example: the bill as passed apparently provides

    $8 billion for high-speed rail. What makes this appropriation special is that there was no money for high-speed rail in the original House legislation. The Senate bill had $2 billion. The legislation coming out of conference “compromised” on $8 billion.

    I don’t know, personally, whether this is true. I have had neither the time nor the resources nor even the motivation to do my own analysis of the legislative history and of the legislation as passed. Were I a bright young associate in a major law firm given a week or so of fourteen hour days for the task, I would probably find a bunch of stuff. The partners in the firm would probably use that stuff to the substantial advantage of the firm’s clients. I would be willing to bet a substantial amount of money (if I had a substantial amount of money to bet) that this is going on in quite a few law firms and lobbyist offices right now.

    This happens all the time, of course. However, the length and probable complexity of the legislation, coupled with the tremendous amounts of money involved, are nearly certain to make this task far more rewarding than is customary.

    Writing legislation is not like writing a blog article or comment, where it is always possible for the author to say, “Whoops, I expressed myself poorly. What I really meant to say was . . . .” It is for real and a mistake once made is “The law.” Legislative errors and oversights can obviously be rectified, but the process is tedious; even more so when the errors and oversights are found by others and advantage is taken of them.

    I would like to have seen a brief period, perhaps a week or two, for the proposed text of the bill, as revised in the Conference Report, to be studied and for any egregious goofs to be found and fixed. That would not have made the legislation perfect, but it might well have kept it from being the mess which I fear it is. Candidly, I must admit that I probably would not have liked it any better. But at least my lawyer’s soul would not have unpleasant tingles going up and down its extremities.


  • bliffle

    Dans citation is to an advocacy periodical, not near a primary source in:

    #23 — February 14, 2009 @ 16:22PM — Dan(Miller) [URL]

  • Bliffle,

    That’s why I used the word “apparently” and expressly disclaimed any personal knowledge of the accuracy of the statement. As I also pointed out, getting to the bottom of what the legislative history shows and what the 1,071 page legislative enactment actually says is beyond my capabilities. I thought I had made that clear.


  • When I first read the bill two weeks ago it was only 258 pages. A week later it was 550. Late last week it was up to 770. It’s now pushing 1100 pages. What the HELL did they add to it? And why did it take so many pages while adding relatively little money. I see massive unfunded mandates and irrelevant and instrusive legislation that has nothing to do with stimulus coming.


  • Bliffle, #24 Here is further information (from the sainted Washington Post) on the train going off the track:

    In rushing to pull together a landmark economic stimulus package last week, Democratic lawmakers and the White House added billions in new spending and tax breaks that will benefit a handful of specific companies and industries.

    The original House stimulus package, drafted with the guidance of the White House, had less than $10 billion for mass-transit systems — a third as much as for roads and highways — and about $1 billion for Amtrak upkeep, with no money for new high-speed rail. Pressed on this, White House advisers said major rail projects would take too long to get underway to justify them as short-term stimulus.

    Then the $8 billion line materialized in conference committee negotiations. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told reporters Friday that the item was added at the president’s request because it met his criteria for stimulus spending. Emanuel did not explain why the item would now meet those criteria when it did not before.

    “There was a decision to introduce it there in the conference,” Emanuel said, adding: “It was an idea we thought of after the fact.”

    Meanwhile, the legislation — rushed through on Friday without an opportunity for those voting on it even to know what they were voting on — will sit around until Tuesday waiting for President Obama to return from a trip home to Chicago, when he will presumably sign it.

    The rush, of course, was to force a quick vote on an unread piece of legislation and then to get the thing out of the Congress to the President’s desk, where it could not be changed.

    The scheme worked. The Congress acted in haste and now the Country can repent at leisure.


  • Clavos

    The Congress acted in haste and now the Country can repent at leisure.

    Quoted for the sad Truth.

  • Jet

    Dave, they never would’ve had to add anything to it if they weren’t stupid enough to try to court the Republicans in congress, trying to give them a say and win their support… even though it wasn’t needed. A hand was extended across the aisle, and it was slapped and then bitten.

    Maybe financial conservatives should take note of the biggest tax cut in American history, passed without GOP support?

    Now if we can only keep GOP fatcat corporate owners from pocketing the cash instead of spending it where it’s meant in order to try to help.

    Where was all the whining about national debt when Wall Street crashed, while CEOs pocketed millions in bonuses for putting this country in the place it is now, leaving “Barry” to clean up their mess?

  • Clavos


    Excellent point about the unseemly haste and its attendant pressure wielded by the administration, which now, has suddenly lost urgency, and sits on Barack’s desk until Tuesday — interesting.

    Interesting too, that he delegated the the most important project to date in his new administration, leaving the crafting of the “Stimulus” Plan to Pelosi and Reid and their respective cohorts in both houses, while he continued on the campaign trail, making speeches on the road in Ft. Myers and Elkhart.

    Someone needs to tell him the campaign’s over.

  • bliffle

    Politics as usual. What did you expect, Dan?

    Personally, I don’t care about Amtrak, although I know that My Fellow Americans on the East Coast like it and use it so I tend to support it somewhat. And I’ve enjoyed the Light Rail systems in various cities on occasion, so I tend to support them.

    It’s a trade-off. It’s the kind of measured goodwill that is required for a modern concensual representative society.

    Get it?

    It won’t do that every single person in the USA devote every single thought and every single decision to advancing his own position and getting absolutely what is best for himself in every single thing that he does. that way lies chaos and anarchy.

  • Cindy

    …that way lies chaos and anarchy.

  • Bliffle was right in #31 in conjoining the two – sorry to disappoint you.

  • Cindy


    You say that with the force of someone who is unmistaken.

    I have to admire that. But, I also have to disagree since you fail to consider the information I have offered. Therefore, I consider you to be blindly marching on.

    Perhaps if Mark or Les or Pablo or Descartes should offer it it could be at least considered seriously before being dismissed.

  • No, you’re the one who is ignoring the past 2500 years. All you’re doing is trying to reinvent the wheel. And Descartes or Pablo have nothing to do with that argument. As to Mark or Les, it’s the least of my worries.

  • Cindy

    You need to come into the present Roger.

    I have offered you information that accounts for people in the present. You know people who are alive and breathing.

    All you have is the arguments of dead people. Not all bad, but not all there is.

    And of course you aren’t worried about what Mark and Les will say. They aren’t dead!

  • Cindy

    But, you still can’t dismiss them either. As they also aren’t women.

  • Think what you want. I’ve told you I don’t care anymore.

  • Jet

    Suddenly 20-year-old soap opera organ music is blaring from one of my speakers???????

  • Cindy

    I wouldn’t want you to tell me I might be wrong about you. That I am mistaken. Or even that perhaps I am in part right, and maybe there is something to what I am saying.

    It might ruin your fun being manipulative like in #38.

  • There was nothing manipulative abut #38. Just a statement of fact.

  • Cindy

    lol Jet…

    Okay, I am giving up. (hopefully Roger won’t hate me forever…again…)

  • Jet

    Broght to you by Geritol, one of America’s best home remedies, available at your local grocery!

  • There’s no hate in there at all, just acceptance of facts.

  • Robin

    I have a question… Why is everyone confusing the book Tom Daschle wrote with the stimulus plan? Daschle stepped down, remember? From I can see of the plan, it is to give people Medicaid who are currently unemployed through no fault of their own because of the financial crisis. The other part is to fund research to test drugs efficacy (that’s thanks to the Senate) rather than what it was originally suppose to be, which was test the drugs to see how many of them do the same thing and which ones are cheaper in price (like generics). But this whole business of “we are going to deny the elderly healthcare” comes from a book, not the Stimulus Plan. You really think the government is going to do that? Come on people.

  • judy morris

    I am 70 years old and from what I have seen I do not believe that anyone over 85 should go on suffering, going into nursing homes where they are mistreated and believe it or not medicade they are. medicade does not check their patients out and the doctors simply don’t care anymore. Just send them on to hospice. They will fill them full of morphine and they will go out gracefully and pain free. No I don’t want to be there.
    I don’t want to be around causing all of my family troubles and impatients. I do not want to live over the age of 85.