To those who neglected to vote last year, or just didn’t bother getting informed, instead just voting for “the cool candidate”:

Behold: one of those you've handed America over to.

Megyn Kelly, leading reporter on the outrages of ObamaCare, broke the stories of 5 million people losing their insurance, with a hundred million more cancellations to come. Twice she’s interviewed Ezekiel Emanuel, whom she identified as the Architect of ObamaCare, an epithet he seemed to accept.

Her interview with Emanuel centered on the cancellations, which were plainly hardwired into the law and subsequent regulations. His demeanor was that of a controlling bureaucrat who had little patience with Megyn, who refused to recognize his right to control.

Her interviews were spot-on in revealing the type of person who is now on the bridge of the SS America—clearly steaming full speed into iceberg-studded waters—not the captain, but surely one of the senior officers.

What she did not touch on is the philosophy driving the radical law now spreading its dark shadow over our lives.

I contend that if revealed, that philosophy would be utterly alien to human sensibilities prevailing since man first stood erect. Even Neanderthals (who were not actually human) are known to have taken care of their elderly and sick.

Dr. Emanuel is an oncologist, a professor and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. From January 2009 to January 2011, he served as special advisor for health policy to the White House. Thus the epithet: Architect of ObamaCare.

Just what is his philosophy, the apparent underpinning of ObamaCare?

In 2009, he was the principle author of a paper entitled “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions.” Notice the word “scarce.” That should set off alarm bells in the savvy, because scarce is what they intend to make medical care—at least for, um, certain groups.

This will likely be our Brave New World’s method of keeping down health care expenses.

The paper compares ways to allocate this soon-to-be scarce commodity.

One point it makes is that the usual rule of thumb has been “Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.”

But the paper counters with “However, other things are rarely equal. Some lives have

been shorter than others; 20-year-olds have lived less than 70-year-olds. Similarly, some lives can be extended longer than others.”

What then should we do?

The paper concludes: “Rather than saving the most lives, prognosis allocation aims to save the most life-years.” It says that, when choosing among sick people, “the complete lives system … “prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid.”

The theory proposes that “age-based priority for receiving scarce medical interventions” must give most of the available medical care to those between the ages of about 15 and 54.

The rest should presumably do without. Or, just take a painkiller.

Just thought you might want a hint of where those we’ve elected mean to bring us, once minutiae like “The Website” have been corrected.

For your own edification, I advise you to read the entire paper and reflect on three things. First, those in control—Orwell’s pigs—will not be subjected to this kind of calculation. Emanuel himself was born in 1957. Second: this chilling methodology completely ignores the concept of precious human life.

Finally, think how much simpler it would be to simply do our best to save everyone and let God make the decisions on human life.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf