mind your business

Monday, October 12, 2009

Obama Advisor, Robert Reich To Elderly "We're Going To Let You Die!"

Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton and an adviser to President Barack Obama, spills the beans about the Democrat's plans for your health care!

He affirms that this is what an educated, honorable, realistic, democracy should support:

-Younger people should pay more

-Healthier people should pay more

-Older people should just die- they're "too expensive"

-There should be "less innovation" in medical technology

-You should not expect to live longer than your parents.

You heard it yourself! This is what they're planning for our health care. This is what they want. Nothing about that is enlightened, liberal, compassionate, or good. This man and his boss are clearly misanthropic, cruel, and vicious.

Representative Alan Grayson of Florida stands corrected- the Democrats' plan for health care is "just die quickly" -not the Republicans.

Spread this far and wide!

H/T: To the guys that found and edited this at Verum Serum

UPDATE: Robert Reich caught in a lie.


  1. This is creepy! This is frightening! This is spoken straight from the horses mouth, so Robert Reich cannot deny it. He must be forced to resign like Van Jones. This is anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and anti-prursuit of happiness.

  2. I couldn't have said it better myself, Teresa. I really hope this story gets out there.

  3. who the hell was applauding ??

  4. "-You should not expect to live longer than your parents."

    Please note that your parents' parents' parent's parents' (give and take a couple of parents) died in their 40's (around colonial time?) By Obie's advisor's standard, you should not have been born. Oh, they kill unborn babies, and babies who survived botched abortions too. At least they are consistent.

  5. He's a tree gnome.

  6. Teresa: He must be forced to resign like Van Jones.

    Definitely not!!!
    He may be anti-human, but he is honest. Don't you think it's better for us to know what's in their minds than to be fooled by the "eloquent" teleprompt reader? Van Jones should resign because he was going to distribute billions of our tax dollars to his pet causes. Follow the money. Let them talk, the more they talk, the less people are fooled.

  7. It's pretty much about death in today's post-modernist culture; not about [happy] life. They'll torcher the young'ns, kill off the old, and permit the middle-agers to fester (not too comfortably). Isn't their altruism so g/d benevolent? These ideas need to be scrapped - at the root, not at the superficial technical detail levels.

  8. I think Theresa described the wrong end of the horse.

  9. ic- Letting them talk in order so that all these politicians and czars can reveal themselves is good in one sense, but we must have them removed before irreversible damage is done, or committed upon America and us. Plus, with that logic, that is part of the reason that we are in this blasted situation today. For way too long, too many people were not willing to stand up for principles, for what is right for America, for the constitution, and against the liberal death machine. This must be stopped!! And, this was all for the sake of compromise, or getting along. That's gotta stop! We are talking about saving the United States from tyranny, not just one drug addict from using drugs.

  10. We've been heading this way for years. Remember the speech that Agent Smith gives to Morpheus about how humans are a disease in the movie The Matrix? I remember thinking, "hey, he's a liberal!"

  11. Of course you leave out the benefits: "oh, if you get sick, you won't lose your insurance." "oh, if you are stuck at a job you hate and want to start your own business, you'll be able to -- you'll have insurance." Or with respect to the Baucus bill "oh, in the long run it will help cut the sky-high budget deficit." I thought it was a libertarian who came up with the phrase "there's no such thing as a free lunch."

  12. But, the problem is, he's calling it just about right.

    We have such an advanced medical science and technology now, we can keep life in a wrecked or corroded body far longer than we ever could before - and so, we do. We tube you up and zone you out and implant new infrastructure and stretch a three-month death from some "hey, I'm over 80, what do you expect is gonna happen to me soon anyway" dying old fart into a three million dollar fourteen-month death-in-slo-mo" - and we do it just so the relatives can feel good about themselves.

    And that's where the bulk of the big med money goes - the (seriously) multi-million dollar stretching out of the final chapter so the oldster can have more time with his crippling pain before expiring - well, half that, and half on keeping water-balloon-brained, premature deformed crack babies alive for 22 days after their birth. Those are multi-million dollar "just because we can" wastefests, too.

    So . . . what he said.

  13. Anon,
    You are correct. But, the tide must change. No compromising, or appeasing these death-loving Dems anymore. That is unacceptable!! We have let the waves turn to rapids and now the tide is coming in with a vengeance. We must stop this a tsunami from occurring. We have sat back, watched and waited for way too long while thinking that our politicians were going to stand up for citizens'. Its time for the American people to rise up and make known to Congress and President our grievances. The Tea Parties and the March in D.C. was an excellent start.

  14. Bobbie,
    You are saying you don't care about the most precious and most vulnerable life. I am glad some person in your life didn't decide that your life wasn't worth saving, feeding, clothing, etc. all in the name of saving money. Money is the root of evil, and you just exemplified that with your last statement. The government does NOT have the right to decide what is right for an elderly patient, or a baby who was just born. It is the individuals decision, and/or the parents decision to decide what is right for their life, or the baby's life. So, you are for an increase in the rationing of our health care? So, you are saying that if you were 80 years old, needed oxygen to live, maybe an extra 3 years or maybe an extra 15 years, and if the government denied you access to that care you would be alright with that? The government is trying to take away our liberty and freedom which are afforded to us in the Constitution. This must stop!! Once you go down this path, this is a very slippery slope. This sounds quite Hitleresque.

  15. This demonstrates that the developments that most harm the liberal agenda are the internet, the digital camera and the personal computer.

    With those three you can't hid this stuff.

  16. I think what he meant to say is that you should not expect to be TALLER than your parents...

  17. bobbie b,

    Just got this e-mail from Hell:

    "Please tell bobbie b that I fully agree with her.

    Very truly yours,

    Joseph Mengele"

  18. Anonymous at 6:27, true enough that TANSTAAFL. But what is Baucus's "health care reform" BUT an attempt to sell a free lunch? Per the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report found here (, the Baucus bill's silly "low to no penalty if you DON'T buy insurance" plus "no one can be denied coverage for any reason" (leading to people's not buying insurance until they're sick, and then getting coverage that brings up the cost for all in the pool) is worse and more expensive than the current system. You get no argument from me about decoupling health insurance from job - that one and allowing insurance companies to compete nationwide (heck, even worldwide if they want!) are both no-brainers... that somehow the entire Democrat party, where according to themselves all the brains reside, have missed.

    bobbie b, is the solution to the "problem" of our health care's being too good, then, heavy-handedly to deny it to all but those who can pay cash for it? (Because you know there will be those who can and do.) Or, perhaps, do we need to work on our society's attitudes about life and death? Is it, perhaps, not such a great thing to celebrate youth at the expense of age? Could we, possibly, learn to re-emphasize the gifts that come with age, and the natural course of life - return to acknowledgment of what Catholics probably still call "a happy death" for those who are prepared?

    I was against the withdrawal of food and water from Terri Sciavo because her parents were willing and happy to continue with her care - so what if her husband wanted to "move on"? He already had. And according to him, she couldn't feel or think anything anyway, so on what grounds could her "quality of life" have mattered? She was an embarrassment to him, a joy to her parents - but he won that fight. Death... on the terms of the living, not on the terms of the dying. I believe that the feelings of the dying should trump the feelings of the living, and that when the feelings of the dying cannot be determined, there should be a bias toward life. We're all going into that good night eventually; what's the rush?

    I know. Money. Money is the rush. Yet the Democrats are the party that CARES.

  19. bobbie b,

    How do you think medical advances are made? Are they made by treating the routine, curable cases or are they made by working the edge, seemingly hopeless cases? 50 years ago, someone that would require a pretty standard (in modern terms) heart operation would be one of those "end-of-lifers" trying to cling onto an additional 10 months of life at great expense.

  20. He has the concept of a president's power and a dictator's power mixed up. As a dictator, he can institute his ideas at his whim; as a president he must get Congress to do it for him. That is a distinct possibility with this Congress if Americans sit this out.
    I agree with him that there comes a time when medical intervention only prolongs life a few months and quality of life is abysmal. Unlike him, I think the individual and family should make the decision when to let go, not the government paymaster.
    Research is very expensive. But if Americans want to continue to fund it through higher insurance premiums, drug costs, and hospital bills, why should our government prohibit it? Allowing greater insurance competition would give everyone a way to find an insurance plan that fits their circumstances. Insurance is not a right. It is a responsibility for those who are willing to forego playthings for the health of loved ones.

  21. And why do they want you to die early?

    To save money on Social Security. Obviously.

    I saw my mother get a pacemaker after years of bad health, and it improved her health in surprising ways. She lived 4-5 more years of very productive life.

    They just don't want to repay Social Security for those years.

  22. If it wasn't already obvious, this is further proof that the liberal (i.e., socialist) agenda has nothing to do with improving anybody's life. It is about making us all equally miserable and impoverished--our glorious leaders being the exceptions.

  23. Us old folks know we're going to die, Mr. Reich. The question is whether we take your lot down a peg or two on our way out.

  24. he'd left out the last part..


    - but of course the political class will have access to end of life care, and medical innovations, and longer lifespans, because we have our own medical system with none of the restrictions that I'm advocating be placed on you - and you pay for it! HA!

  25. This is why we need to preserve the right to bear arms. The people will have to rise up against idiots like this and take our country back.

  26. This is an emotional issue for many Americans. This so-called “public option” in Government run health care presents serious challenges for us. As Consumers we should be able to compare the cost and quality of health care services. How much is a specific surgery at one hospital, as compared with another?

  27. Anon,
    I agree. I don't own a gun but the direction that this country's headed is extremely worrisome, and now am thinking owning a gun might come in very handy and be necessary.

  28. I dare Matt Lousy or Diane Sorry to have this on the morning shows

  29. Re: "Spread this far and wide"

    Ok W.E., I'm doing my part.

  30. Those liberals and our wonderful president may think they have all the answers for all American's health care, but they will have to face God someday to, and He will say "Depart from me I never knew you." And they will be cast into everlasting fire! Read the bible, it's in there!

  31. After reading your blog here I keep wondering if you understand the definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Im insured and my health care premiums keep going up. Ive also had a relative removed from the insurance rolls once she got sick, by the provider. To ignore the fact that the current system is broken, yet rant about tyranny, freedom and liberty serves no purpose whatsoever. When conservatives come up with concrete solutions and ideas on how to fix problems they may get elected again. Im not holding my breath as they seem more interested in worthless demonstrations than any meaningful dialogue.

  32. Conservative ideas already put forth in this congress: Tort reform, a fancy sounding word that would reduce costs by an estimated 500 billion per year by capping the "pain and suffering" aspect to 250,000 and lower malpractice insurance burden, allow purchase of premiums across state lines which would inject competition and lower costs through normal market forces, as has been seen with elective surgeries like lasik and cosmetic, there is more to this but socialists are tone deaf to any practical solution and only believe in growing government under the guise of "helping the people." We have seen this movie, starring Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Pol Pot, Mao, and on. It is correct to say the definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting a different result...

  33. Anon,
    Government-run health care is not the answer. There are many people from other countries that come specifically to the United States because of our exceptional health care who could not get either the type of care that the U.S. offers and in a timely needed manner in order to save their lives. The Republicans have offered many solutions to the problem of rising health care costs, its just they have been steamrolled over by the Dems plans. Dems do not need a 1200 page bill to lower costs etc., but instead they have included items in there that have nothing to do with health care at all, but rather more power and control over our lives. ALL of the government social programs are either bankrupt or will be banckrupt with 10-20 yrs, and has cost way more than expected. There is so much abuse within government programs that that alone could save us a huge chunk of money.
    The GOP has offered solutions that would lower costs such as: more competitive health insurance system where you can cross state lines to buy insurance, torte reform, have a clause or mandate saying insurance companies can't refuse to insure the person on the basis of preexisting conditions, and give tax credits or even like a stipend for your family to buy health insurance.

  34. you guys realize this comment was made in 2007 and was a tongue-in-cheek look at how republicans were handling health care, right?

  35. If anyone wants an unbiased view, they should watch a video/listen to an audio clip that ISN'T chopped and spun.

    Get the real story, this guy supports the public OPTION.

    To the author of this blog: You need to look a little farther before you jump into deep pools of ignorance without your floaties.

  36. Reich is the kind of garbage little bastard munchkin that Obama is sidling up to. But you know what Reich you little progressive hippie? You are very close to getting old yourself. You could be in the hospital soon and maybe you won't be demmed worthy of keeping you alive you little bastard. You have always let your mouth overload your ass because the exposure you fed of off. Call us when your shuttle lands Reich OK?


Ledger Nano S - The secure hardware wallet