Ethics Professor: ‘Reasonable’ To Deny Babies Care Under Obamacare

During a radio interview over the weekend, a Princeton University professor asserted it is “reasonable for governments” to deny infants benefits based on costs.

Ethics professor Peter Singer appeared on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” Sunday, a program simulcast on AM 970 The Answer in New York and NewsTalk 990 AM in Philadelphia. Singer was on the program to promote his new book, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.

Hailed by The New Yorker as the planet’s “most influential living philosopher,” the Australian says his work “is based on the assumption that clarity and consistency in our moral thinking is likely, in the long run, to lead us to hold better views on ethical issues.”

When asked by Klein if health care rationing will become more commonplace under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), known as Obamacare, Singer said rationing is already underway.

“If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother, it won’t be able to interact with any other human being, it will just lie there in the bed and you could feed it but that’s all that will happen, doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive,” Singer said.

I don’t know whether they are influenced by reducing costs. Probably they are just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after, and there will be no quality of life for the child. So we are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants.

“And I think we ought to be more open in recognizing that this happens,” added Singer.

During the interview, the Australian professor consistently referred to a baby as “it” rather than “him” or “her.” When Klein asked if Singer thought treatment could be denied to infants in the future for reasons other than costs, the professor answered in the affirmative.

“I think if you had a health-care system in which governments were trying to say, ‘Look, there are some things that don’t provide enough benefits given the costs of those treatments. And if we didn’t do them we would be able to do a lot more good for other people who have better prospects,’ then yes,” answered Singer.

I think it would be reasonable for governments to say, ‘This treatment is not going to be provided on the national health service if it’s a country with a national health service. Or in the United States on Medicare or Medicaid.’

And I think it will be reasonable for insurance companies also to say, ‘You know, we won’t insure you for this or we won’t insure you for this unless you are prepared to pay an extra premium, or perhaps they have a fund with lower premiums for people who don’t want to insure against that.’

“Because I think most people, when they think about that, would say that’s quite reasonable. You know, I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments,” Singer concluded.

h/t: WND

Do you think we will see care rationed for babies soon? Share your thoughts in the comments section!

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

WATCH: This Angry Governor Has Just Taken A Bold, Defiant Stand Over ObamaCare ‘Extortion’

Decrying the Obama administration for using strong-arm, “coercion tactics” in an effort to force his state to expand ObamaCare coverage, Florida Governor Rick Scott says he’s suing the president.

In an interview Thursday night with Fox News’ Kimberly Guilfoyle, the Republican governor of the Sunshine State lashed out at the administration for threatening to cut back funding on an assistance program for low-income families unless Florida officials comply with Washington’s demands. Guilfoyle, substituting for Greta Van Susteren in On the Record, said, “That sounds like extortion.” Gov. Scott replied, “Oh, absolutely.”

By clicking on the video above, you can watch the interview in which a defiant Gov. Rick Scott vowed to take the administration to court, saying, “We’re going to stand up for all 20 million people in our state.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Is The Liberal Media Forcing An Ignorant Populace To Debate What Is Illegal?

Facebook/Jeb Bush

“How is it America that these criminals in government know how to lie better than most in this country know how to tell the truth?”-Bradlee Dean (1 Kings 18:21)

I have to ask the American people a question: Do you really want Jeb Bush as president? Really? Have the American people not judged the corrupt tree for what it is and the fruit it has borne (Luke 6:44)? Is it that Americans cannot see the Bush family for who they are after years of corruption?

Now, the state-controlled media, namely the conservative outlets, are trying to convince us that Jeb Bush is the number one pick through polls that are clearly skewed, as well as fraudulent.

President Hilary Clinton? Really? Who is attempting to legitimize this criminal? Do I need to say anything about Hilary and her crime-strewn past? To latch on to the fact that she is a legitimate pick for the presidency of the United States is far beyond comprehension.

Isn’t everyone across the board (and I mean everyone) talking about how sick and tired they are of the establishment?  Yes, they are! Yet, this exhibits the media’s willingness to stay persistent regardless of what the American people are really calling for. In other words, shove it down their throats until they accept that we (the establishment) are the ruling class, like it or not! This is becoming more apparent every day in this country.

When did this all go wrong?

“Kings become tyrants through policy when subjects have become rebels from principles.” (Psalm 18:21, Exodus 20)

There is no doubt that the state-controlled media are pushing the talking points of the day, which get the American people to ask the wrong questions in order to create debate in an attempt to implement illegal legislation through their propaganda. And propaganda it is. Yet, it does not go forward without the ignorance of the people who have allowed it to go on.

For example, the American people are led to believe that the Supreme Court can redefine God’s definition of marriage (Genesis 2:24).

Americans are now waiting for a very radical and corrupt court to make a decision on the definition of marriage. Let me tell you plainly that government did not create marriage and, therefore, has no business redefining it. So, why are Americans awaiting a decision from the high court? They are to discover God’s Law and apply God’s Law. Who gave the Supreme Court permission to redefine anything? The ignorance of the American people has done this (Hosea 4:6).

“If the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says, then we have ceased to be our own rulers (Under God), and the Supreme Court is our ruler.” -President Andrew Jackson

Americans have been, for years, talking about Obamacare. Yet, Obamacare is unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal, according to Article 1, Section 8 of The United States Constitution. Instead of the state-controlled media doing their job, by exposing its unconstitutionality and putting the question to this administration as to where they derived their authority to enact an unconstitutional agenda, they divide the people into opposing groups to debate what is illegal. Who gave corrupt government permission to violate constitutional law? Ignorance has (Hosea 4:6)!

These useful idiots lead Americans on with a cycle of rhetorical talk day after day with the same backward flow of information through a system that corruption means to destroy. It is like giving bad medicine to a healthy body. But rest assured – the body can only take so much before it will fail.

The good news is that it all stops when the American people have had enough!

The American People and the AK-47

Freedom to Break the Law?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Top Doctor: Death Spirals Already Happening In Healthcare System

Twitter/Daniel Hannan

While the United States Supreme Court decides whether or not federal health care subsidies can be used for both federal and state exchanges, proponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), colloquially known as Obamacare, caution this could cause a “death spiral” in the health care system. One respected physician contends this is already happening, however.

Last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in King v. Burwell, in which the plaintiff argued that a six-word phrase in the Obamacare law – ‘an Exchange established by the state’ – means tax credits can only be offered to those states that set up their own exchanges.

While those who advocate for the status quo believe overturning the law would result in a “death spiral,” Dr. Lee Hieb, former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, contends a death spiral is already happening.

“There’s a death spiral in medicine already because it’s creating shortages of doctors and hospital closures, and that’s a business death spiral the medical community’s already starting to be in,” Lee told reporter Paul Bremmer in a piece published on WND Sunday.

A November 2013 article from The Atlantic describes what a “death spiral” in the traditional sense is:

Suppose some healthy people decide to wait till they need insurance to buy it. Then the overall insurance pool would have a higher percentage of sick people in it, and premiums might rise.

Those higher premiums might make more healthy people decide to drop their insurance until they need it—which would make the insurance pool sicker still. Premiums would rise again, and more healthy people would drop their coverage again, until eventually only sick people had insurance.

“[I]t’s a classic business death spiral where there’s too much work for too few people. No matter what you do, you can’t recruit new people because it’s too unpleasant a work situation, and so people keep leaving, and that’s a death spiral,” Lee added.

A decision on King v. Burwell is expected in June.

h/t: WND

Share this if you support the full repeal and ultimate replacement of Obamacare.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

ObamaCare’s Fate? Here’s What A Key Supreme Court Justice Just Said That Could Be A Huge Clue

Image Credit: Wiki Commons

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case whose outcome could prove to be a death blow to Obamacare — a case challenging whether enrollees through the federal signup site, healthcare.gov, are entitled to premium-reducing subsidies — one key justice has casually dropped what could be a huge clue to his thinking.

The Daily Caller reports that Justice Anthony Kennedy — who often casts the high court’s swing vote — said something intriguing in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee.

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s comments in a run-of-the-mill budget meeting Monday may have signaled how he intends to vote in this year’s biggest Obamacare lawsuit over the legality of federal premium subsidies.

Kennedy…made comments that could suggest he’s leaning in favor of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell. The question in the pivotal case is whether the text of Obamacare restricts the law’s popular premium subsidies to state-run exchanges….

Kennedy’s remarks to the committee related to the Obama administration’s argument that all ObamaCare subsidies must be maintained because to declare the federal marketplace customers ineligible would be disastrous for the law’s future.

The Daily Caller article notes that the administration “seems to be trying to convince the Court that ruling otherwise would be catastrophic for the health-care law, and therefore for the Court’s image.”

In other words, Obama, his legal team, and his liberal allies want the high court to go beyond considering what the law actually says and to give weight to what impact striking down the controversial provision would have on the millions of people who would be affected.

Responding to a question during Monday’s hearing, Justice Kennedy seemed to say that’s a faulty and largely irrelevant argument, that the Supreme Court should not be concerned with the impact of a decision or with the ability of Congress to “fix” a flawed law.

“We have to assume that we have three fully functioning branches of the government that are committed to proceed in good faith and with good will toward one another to resolve the problems of this republic,” Kennedy argued.

In fact, the head of the agency responsible for implementing Obama’s healthcare takeover scheme, HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell, has said there is no backup plan for fixing the law should the Supreme Court rule against it in the subsidies case.

The justices are expected to issue their ruling in the latest challenge to ObamaCare in June. That’s when we will learn if what Anthony Kennedy said to lawmakers in the hearing on the Supreme Court’s budget was, in fact, a clue to how he will vote.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom