Playing the 'Murder Card'

An excellent piece from Michelle Malkin.

I am more convinced that the unintended consequences on passing Obamacare are much worse than not having any government involvement in health care. How? Very simple.

The idea of government health care for all is a noble fantasy. In the real world, government must budget for the expenses and the budget places a finite limit on the amount of health care available. This inevitably leads to rationing. To ensure that rationed medical care is expended in the most efficient manner possible, certain judgements have to be made in an unfeeling, academic manner. Inputs to these judgements include cost vs. benefit to both the provider and the recipient of the health care. This leads to benefit limitations to certain classes of people based not on their need but on the potential returns to society overall.

This is what gives spawn to the term "death panels." Decisions made in a purely academic environment by a controlling government body are unfeeling and set limits that may or may not benefit certain sectors, as in the elderly for instance, of the population. Those decisions may mean the withholding of care that will extend life. The death of the individual due to the decision of a government body as to the "appropriate treatment" is an unintended consequence of rationed health care.

Liberal-progressive-socialists will commiserate with you if the loss is someone you love but they won't do anything to help you. That's the government's responsibility. And as they are the ruling class, it doesn't apply to them anyway.

And they say that not having a socialist government-provided health care is murder? Of course! Because if the government is responsible then they don't have to be concerned. They are the elite.

Follow the link for more.