Campaign 2012 – What’s REALLY at Stake?
English: Protesters standing near the United States Capitol during the Taxpayer March on Washington. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I was honored to be invited to attend the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, Colorado a few months ago. One of the many great speakers was political consultant and commentator Dick Morris, a former Democrat and atheist who saw the light a few years ago and embraced Christianity and political conservatism as his life choices. A major portion of Mr. Morris’ presentation was a reminder of what he believes to be the major issue in the upcoming presidential election.
In light of recent events in North Africa and the Middle East, tragic events that have distracted the national debate from other issues, I think it is important to emphasize Mr. Morris’ thoughts, and to remind voters of what is doubtless the most important issue on the ballot. Life. That’s right, when you pull the lever or mark your ballot, you are voting for or against life itself. The crisis in the Middle East and North Africa is certainly important, as is our mushrooming national debt, unemployment, and our view of presidential leadership, but all of those issues pale into insignificance if we collectively vote against life.
“What are you talking about?” I can hear you ask. “I’m not going to vote for anyone to die!”
Maybe…maybe not. Consider it this way: As is the case for many social issues, Americans have widely divergent opinions on when life begins. Is it at conception? Is it at the moment the heart begins to beat? Or does life not truly begin until the time of actual birth into this world? We will continue to debate the beginning of life for the foreseeable future, and may never reach an agreement.
But none of us really debates death. Without delving into scientific nuances, virtually all of us agree that death is death, and we don’t tend to quibble about when, exactly, that moment happens. Consider that within the looming shadow of Obamacare and the necessary health care rationing it will include. I could give you many examples and remind you that government never…make that NEVER…delivers all it promises to those of us down in the trenches, but I will restrain my exuberance and provide only two examples for you to ponder before casting your vote.
In late 2009, before passage of the Obamacare bill, President Obama’s health care advisory board recommended that the government stop paying for annual mammograms for women between 40 and 50 because the test for that age group only saved 13,000 lives per year, and the cost to the government was just not worth the small number of lives affected. So, in simplest terms, the recommendation was that the government write off 13,000 lives as not worth the expense. Keep in mind that this recommendation from Obama’s committee came BEFORE the passage of Obamacare, a bill that would add millions of patients to the government roles and would necessarily mean even less money will be available per patient. What if one of those 13,000 was your wife or mother or daughter? Would it be worth the expense? That is the negative side of Obamacare…the side you don’t see reported on television or other national media outlets. A vote for Obama in the next election is a vote for Obamacare is a vote for the unnecessary death of 13,000 women and much, much more.
Our neighbors to the north are often held up as the perfect example of government run health care. According to Mr. Morris, and I have no reason to question his veracity, the Canadian government does wrestle constantly with dollars available versus the need for medical care, and often comes to questionable conclusions. One very plain example has to do with colon cancer. Canadians have a 10% higher incidence of the life-threatening disease than do residents of the U.S. This is primarily because the Canadian government-run health care system does not allow (because they can’t afford it) colon cancer screenings as often as do our own private insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid. For those Canadians who are unfortunate enough to develop colon cancer, they suffer 15% more deaths than do their United States counterparts because Canadian health care does not cover the cutting edge drug Avastin for treatment of the disease. It’s too expensive, they say. Tens of thousands of Canadians die needlessly every year because their government refuses to pay for life-saving cutting edge treatment. The Canadian model of bureaucratic decision making will be a necessary part of rationing under Obamacare. Don’t fool yourself into believing otherwise.
Think you are voting for a president or a particular approach to foreign policy? To put it bluntly, neither of those will mean much to you if you are dead! I’ll applaud the pro-abortion folks for one thing…they figured out if they use the term “pro-choice” to describe themselves rather than “abortionists” or “baby killers,” their cause will sound more palatable to the average American citizen. Don’t be surprised if Obamacare advocates come up with something like “compassionate permanent sleep facilitators” to describe their agenda of rationed health treatment. (I can’t bring myself to call it health care.).
With this incredibly negative message in mind, I suggest you take a long, hard look at your family, friends, and neighbors before you cast that vote in November. Dick Morris was right. There are many issues, but only one is important.
Related articles
