Strangling in Red Tape

True – Code of Federal Regulations governing small business

This is interesting, from Jack Doll, writing in The Federalist.

In his seminal and controversial books “The Bell Curve”and “Coming Apart,” Charles Murray makes the compelling case that differences in intelligence between groups is creating a chasm between the rich and the poor that is only widening. In the modern age, the ability to critically think, read at an advanced level, and perform complex mathematics makes the difference between working in engineering, accounting, law, or the sandwich line at Subway.

This is not to say there isn’t worth in these non-intelligence-intensive fields. My father was a firefighter and although he didn’t have to perform calculus to do his job, the people he saved were likely eternally grateful either way. And, as Uncle Eddie in the hilarious TV show “Grounded for Life” once said, “If everyone could do anything they wanted, who would make the sandwiches?”

Well, if you say so. It might be true for making sandwiches at Subway, but being a firefighter, or at least living through being a firefighter, is certainly a way of making a living that requires intelligence. Think about it, you drive up to a building engulfed in flames, you have to decide whether to enter or whether it’s going to collapse, whether the heat is too high to survive, and many other real-life decisions that must be taken right now. I do not think the author means to demean his father here, but those of us that deal with things in real-life and real-time, see things not as something interesting to write about over the next few days, but as problems that have to be solved real-quick using the knowledge that we already have. One can learn a lot from books, and I’d bet that firefighters do, but the best knowledge comes from experience. The old saying is this, “Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment, hopefully, someone else’s”.

In all seriousness, however, the “intelligence gap” is a worsening problem that partially helps explain the rise of Donald Trump. In the book “Shattered,” Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen quote Hillary Clinton aides who rave about Hillary’s policy “wonkiness” (a word only used in Washington DC). They detail how Hillary Clinton could have discussions for hours about the nuances of law and schemes to help “the children” or “women” (classic Hillary talking points). All of that sounds wonderful. Hillary acolytes who read that book I could barely get through might come out saying “she’s so smart, why on Earth isn’t she President?” They also unwittingly answer their own question.

Hillary Clinton’s plans, in reality, are Rube Goldberg machines. Rube Goldberg was a comic strip author who drew complex machines that accomplished a simple goal. For example a “self-operating napkin” (per Wikipedia) would operate as such: [Goldberg was also an engineer, UC Berkeley, ’04. Neo]

This, on the other hand, is an excellent and true point, with the extra added benefit of requiring even more bureaucrats to administer. Win, win, only the people lose, and who cares about them, other than their tax money.

Soup spoon (A) is raised to mouth, pulling string (B) and thereby jerking ladle (C), which throws cracker (D) past parrot (E). Parrot jumps after cracker and perch (F) tilts, upsetting seeds (G) into pail (H). Extra weight in pail pulls cord (I), which opens and ignites lighter (J), setting off skyrocket (K), which causes sickle (L) to cut string (M), allowing pendulum with attached napkin to swing back and forth, thereby wiping chin”

The usual definition of a Rube Goldberg contraption is a mechanism to accomplish a simple task involving a ridiculously overcomplicated series of devices. It is a perennial fun subject in engineering. When I was at Purdue, and continuing till this day, I think, the Engineering school sponsors a contest to design and make work the most ridiculous machines. It is the opposite of elegant design, which is enough to accomplish the mission and not a bit more. See the Golden Gate Bridge for an elegant example.

Enough is important though, see Galloping Gertie. And I’d bet somewhere in that organization there was an engineer, draftsman, or construction worker who knew what was going to happen to that bridge. There always is. But too much is just as bad, wasting resources, time, and money. It may not catastrophically fail, although sometimes it will, but it will never work properly.

One of the major issues with these regulatory schemes is that high-IQ people who love details (and are extraordinarily boring at parties) are too caught up with their own Rube Goldberg machines to see the obvious. It is reminiscent of the character of Lucifer in John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Lucifer (or Satan) is highly intelligent and rational (which explains why he is God’s highest angel). However, he is banished from God’s heavenly kingdom because he attempts an insurrection, as he believes himself to be as high as God. Rationality falls in love with its own creation and falls. Regulation creates unforeseen issues, which are papered over by more regulations. Eventually what we’re left with is a 20,000-page bill which is almost predestined to fail.

He’s speaking here of the Obamacare, which not only failed quicker than Galloping Gertie but was basically impossible to build, these designed pieces could not be made to fit. In my world, there is a chasm between the engineers, who can design the most amazing things, and the people who have to build them and make them work. Over 90% of the time, if built as designed, it won’t work, and can’t be made to. But good practical people can modify it, dink around and make it work, often better than the original design called for. It takes both.

The problem with people like Hillary, Obama, and a bunch of others, especially in Washington, is that they have no real world experience, they’ve lived their entire life off the government’s teat. The government produces nothing, and neither do the people who work for it (other, perhaps, than red tape and trouble) which they far too often use to hamstring the productive people who make a good life possible. Nothing new there, really, its always been that way.

Read his article, it’s a good one.

 

Advertisements

Conspicuous Consumption: The American Healthcare Boondoggle

We’ve often said, even before Obamacare really screwed it up, that one of the major problems in American health care is the disconnect between who receives it, and who pays for it. Since we pay for our insurance and our insurance pays for our healthcare, we are pretty much removed from the equation as to what we get for our money. The chart at the right indicates, if nothing else, that we spend an inordinate, not to say, ridiculously excessive amount on health care administration. This is an overhead cost, that essentially provides no value at all to the consumer. It happens because it is in no one’s interest (except the consumer, who isn’t in the loop) to reduce it. For instance, Daniel Flynn in The American Spectator tells us.

At St. Vincent’s Hospital in Worcester, Massachusetts, visitors immediately encounter a waterfall, trees, massive rocks, and a pathway for hospital-goers interested in a stroll all located underneath a glass atrium. The massive indoor nature preserve of sorts appears about half the size of a football field. It provides peace and tranquility in a place in need of such comforts.

Once one gets past the beauty and grandeur of it, thoughts run to the expense. Americans spend $3.5 trillion on healthcare annually. The lavish look of so many hospitals reminds that these institutions bankrolled in part by third parties — taxdollars and insurance companies — do not cut corners. The sheer majesty of so many big-city hospitals — and even, as this one shows, medium-sized city hospitals — acts as metaphor for the entire healthcare system. We waste a lot of money.

IU Health in Indianapolis boasts a monorail-like People Mover that shuttles patients, families, employees, and anybody else who cares to ride between hospitals for free. Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles offers deluxe maternity suites featuring such perks as access to a “personal doula,” “soft colors and recessed lighting to offer a soothing environment for laboring women,” and an “in-room refrigerator stocked with complimentary chilled juices and bottled water.” Even hospitals labeled “struggling” struggle to avoid lavish spending. The New York Postreported in 2016 that Brooklyn’s SUNY Downstate Medical Center paid consultants $83,000 for such frills as “pricey rooms at the Carlyle Hotel on the Upper East Side, a booze-infused ‘team dinner’ at the Docks Oyster Bar in Midtown, and sticker-shock limo bills.”

None of that is bad stuff, intrinsically. But at what cost, and how much of it is subsidized by those who would rather spend less, still receiving excellent care but without the fripperies. I don’t know about you, but if I’m sick enough to be in the hospital, I care quite a lot about the quality of the medical staff, and yes, the janitorial staff as well. I’m not particularly interested in a half a football field of tropical rainforest at the front door. My priorities just don’t extend to that.

Nor do I really wish my hard earned dollars be spent on lavish care without cost in the maternity ward, I’m fine with providing it, assuming the users want it and are paying for it. Same goes for my money paying for stays at hotels where I can’t afford a cup of coffee, most likely. These are consulting doctors, send them to Motel 6, if they want better, let them pay for it. I don’t blame them, but why am I (and you) paying for it, on top of what are most likely very high consultancy rates.

Here’s a different model.

Dignity Health St. Rose-Dominican Neighborhood Hospitals increasingly specializes in opening micro hospitals. Rather than 1,000 beds, they may contain a dozen. Some average 11-minute wait times for care. They deliver babies, replace knees, respond to heart attacks, and treat gunshot wounds. For care requiring more specialization and expense, such as cancer treatment, they might refer patients to larger institutions.

“We only transfer 5 percent, or sometimes in other locations, 4 percent of our patients,” Laura Hennum of Dignity Health St. Rose-Dominican Neighborhood Hospitals told CNBC. “We treat or discharge the vast majority of patients we see.”

The convenience and cost of such an institution appeals. Obviously, the basic idea appealed to Apple, which launches a series of well-publicized AC Wellness clinics to serve employees. Apple, like Amazon, Berskshire Hathaway, and JP Morgan Chase, thinks that a better, cheaper way exists to provide quality healthcare.

Micro hospitals appear as a small piece of this puzzle. Americans spend an average of over $10,000 per person on healthcare annually. The $3.5 trillion we now collectively spend looks to approach $6 trillion by 2026.

That sounds like a good model to me, at least for most of us. No frills, but prices we can afford, likely. I’ve said before that we will never solve our healthcare payment problem (our healthcare system has some problems, but they are a somewhat different set, and I don’t think solvable on the local level) until once again we are paying out of pocket for at least routine care, and routine can include more than we expect. There is no structural reason why we should need insurance for anything under about ten thousand dollars, and for many people considerably higher than that. We don’t use insurance to replace our car after all except after a catastrophic accident, yeah, too often we finance it, but that is a choice we make.

What we are beginning to see are private companies such as Amazon and Apple, moving into the field. Why? because it is a field rife with useless overhead, which might be fairly easy to cut, leaving a better financial experience for the customer (I mean us, not our insurance company) while being a pretty profitable venture, given some real management. It can go too far the other way, of course, cutting not only into the meat but the bone, but if we don’t do something health care is going to eat the economy.

Giving Thanks, National Review Style

Reuters photo: Carlos Barria

Interesting article the other day from the ‘Never Trumpers’ at National Review. Apparently, they managed a dose of reality! Enjoy!

This Thanksgiving, Americans in general — and free-market conservatives in particular — have plenty for which to be grateful. And much of it would be absent had the White House’s current occupant not become president on November 8, 2016.

The day after Donald J. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, Princeton University economist Paul Krugman called Trump’s victory “the mother of all adverse effects.” He predicted “very probably . . . a global recession, with no end in sight.”

• The Dow Jones Industrial Average, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 all hit record highs on Tuesday. The Wilshire 5000 Index calculates that some $3.4 trillion in new wealth has been created since President Trump’s inauguration and $5.4 trillion since his election. Fueled by the reality of deregulation, expectations of lower taxes, and a new tone in Washington that applauds free enterprise rather than excoriate it, the economy is on fire.

• Atop the second quarter’s 3.1 percent increase in real GDP, and 3.0 in 3Q, the New York Federal Reserve Bank predicts that 4Q output will expand by 3.8 percent. This far outpaces the feeble average-annual GDP growth rate of 1.5 percent on President Obama’s watch. Meanwhile, the IMF expects global GDP to rise by 3.5 percent this year. So much for a Trump-inspired “global recession.”

• Unemployment is at 4.1 percent, a 17-year low. New unemployment claims in September were at their most modest since 1974. Goldman Sachs on November 20 “lowered our unemployment rate forecast to 3.7 percent by end-2018 and 3.5 percent by end-2019.” According to the Wall Street powerhouse’s chief economist Jan Hatzius, “Such a scenario would take the U.S. labor market into territory almost never seen outside of a major wartime mobilization.”

• American companies have been expanding operations here rather than shipping jobs overseas. Corning, for instance, announced a $500 million investment in new U.S. production, launching 1,000 positions.

• Foreign firms have been unveiling facilities and creating jobs in America. Insourcing is now a thing. Taiwan’s Foxconn will spend $10 billion on a new Wisconsin electronics plant with 3,000 new employees. During Trump’s recent visit to China, Beijing agreed to invest $84 billionin new energy projects in West Virginia.

• If the Senate cooperates, Santa Claus will deliver $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, including a dream-come-true 43 percent reduction in corporate taxes, from a 35 percent rate to 20 percent, well below the global average of 22.5 percent. This major blow for international competitiveness should turbocharge the economy even further.

• Obamacare remains alive, alas, largely due to the flaccid leadership of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R., Ky.) and his inability to control a handful of Republican prima donnas. (As of November 2, the House had passed 394 bills; 308 of them — 78 percent — are moldering in McConnell’s inbox.) However, the GOP may make Obamacare voluntary. Junking the individual mandate will emancipate Americans from this unprecedented attack on our freedom and, as an added bonus, make $318 billion available for deeper tax cuts.

• U.S. energy production is on the upswing. After languishing under Obama, the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines are under construction. Jobs to be created: 42,000.

• Obama’s War on Coal is gone with the wind.

• Trump wisely extricated America from the bogus Paris “global-warming” deal.

• Obama’s “Clean Power Plan,” a $993 billion act of economic self-sabotage, now rots — with Communism — atop the ash heap of history.

• For every new regulation that Trump has imposed, 16 have been erased.

• The FCC has begun to dismantle Obama’s “Net Neutrality” takeover of the Internet, which functioned marvelously, thank you, before his needless e-power-grab.

• Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is on the bench, along with 13 constitutionalist lower-court judges. At this stage in Obama’s presidency, the Senate had confirmed just seven of his district- and circuit-court nominees.

And more, much more. Nice to see it put together, and even nicer to see it in NR, which has spent most of the last year denying reality. There are going to be problems, but these kinds of problems, well, I’d always preferred dealing with problems caused by success rather than those that one gets when one shoots himself in the foot.

Have a Good Sunday!

Week in Review

Well, another week has passed, so let’s review. Most from Powerline.

Republicans, too!

You almost got this yesterday, but I decided to save it for today.

Your challenge this week is to discover where she carries her holster.

Lowering NEO’s Swamp Level

Well, we made it to August. Shall we pop our heads up and see what is going on? Stuff you should know.

Federalist publisher Ben Domenech joined CBS’s “Face The Nation” Sunday morning to explain why Republicans’ lies are to blame for their failure to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Hammer, meet nail.

Milton Friedman on Mineral Resource Theory

A sample of why this is important.

[An email from Milton Friedman to Rob Brdley:]

FRIEDMAN TO BRADLEY, 9-8-03
Dear Mr. Bradley:

The basic point I believe in your natural resource discussion is that the economic product in question is not coal or oil or natural gas but energy.

The question is, what is the supply curve of energy? The use of coal or oil is a simply a means of producing energy. The stock of coal, of oil, etc., is certainly in some sense finite, but that doesn’t mean that the potential amount of energy capable of being produced by whatever source is to be considered finite.

Energy will be produced in whatever way is cheapest at the time and as new means of producing energy are discovered the particular mode of producing energy will change from coal to oil to natural gas to atomic sources. That is the view expressed in the statement of mine that you quote.

Worth remembering, always

Is Putin panicking? Maybe he should be.

First, everyone in Washington assumes the Russian hacking operation was a brilliant success. Was it? Here’s what Putin’s spooks actually accomplished: They hacked into Hillary Clinton’s email server, then got two shady characters with known ties to the Kremlin into a meeting with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort. That’s it.

For the second reason Putin is panicked, let’s turn our attention away from this phony scandal to focus on something that actually matters: The first ever tanker with liquefied natural gas from the United States just docked in Poland.

This a global game-changer. For decades, going back to the Cold War days of the Soviet Union, exports of natural gas from Russia to Europe have been among the Kremlin’s most vital levers of power. These exports provided hard currency the Soviet Union needed to enable its pathetically weak economy to compete globally against the United States, not just economically and politically, but militarily.

You, like me, being sensible people, remember that back in the 80s, that rising tide, lifting all boats, that Reagan spoke of, killed the Soviet Union. Yes, the US military held the line, but the victory was won on the home front. We’re doing it again, with Russia, and also with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. It’s the American way, send a tanker, make people’s lives better, and watch what happens.

The Imran Awan IT Case Isn’t About Bank Fraud, It’s About National Security

Six months late, but better than never.

State Department officials quitting over “complete and utter disdain for our expertise”

More good news

Why this Matters so much.

In recent years, one catastrophe has followed upon another in the Middle East. In a bracing essay authored for Power Line, David Horowitz lays blame where it belongs, at the feet of the Obama administration:

During the eight years of the Obama administration, half a million Christians, Yazidis and Muslims were slaughtered in the Middle East by ISIS and other Islamic jihadists, in a genocidal campaign waged in the name of Islam and its God. Twenty million others were driven into exile by these same jihadist forces. Libya and Yemen became terrorist states. America – once the dominant foreign power and anti-jihadist presence in the region – was replaced by Russia, an ally of the monster regimes in Syria and Iran, and their terrorist proxies. Under the patronage of the Obama administration, Iran – the largest and most dangerous terrorist state, with the blood of thousands of Americans on its hands – emerged from its isolation as a pariah state to re-enter the community of nations and become the region’s dominant power, arming and directing its terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and Yemen.

These disasters are a direct consequence of the policies of appeasement and retreat of the Obama administration.

Heh! ‘Collusion’ Collapses: Dem Congressional Espionage Ring Takes Center Ring

What made America great? According to de Tocqueville, our women. Which makes all the sense in the world to me.

Alexis de Tocqueville came to America in 1831 to study its prisons, but ended up documenting nearly every facet of American life. With journalistic curiosity, the French aristocrat scrutinized America’s religion and government, its society and industry. He wanted to know what allowed the United States to surpass Europe as the world’s political and economic superpower.

His conclusion? Women.

The women Tocqueville saw were not CEOs or celebrities, politicians or professional athletes. They were largely confined to the home: cleaning, cooking, taking care of children. But to the young political historian, no position seemed more important. “There have never been free societies without morals, and…it is the woman that molds the morals,” he wrote. Tocqueville saw American women as the keystone of the family, the ones who held everyone else together.

By taking primary responsibility for the home, American women allowed their husbands to fulfill their roles as providers and protectors, and they both worked toward a common goal: strengthening the family. These traditional roles of men and women, maligned today as harmful “gender stereotypes,” are precisely what helped to make America exceptional in Tocqueville’s eyes.

Some things actually are true, everywhere, always. This is one of them.

Wesley J. Smith tells us there may be another Charlie Gard case, coming up.

The treatment is unwanted by doctors because it is working. Hence, it isn’t the treatment but Alfie’s life that would be declared futile if the courts pulled another “Charlie Gard.”

Half a dozen US hospitals may be willing to offer alternative care for the Alfie:

Well, the customer is the one who pays the bill. In the UK that is HMG, and they don’t want to spend the money. It’s more important to turn boys into pseudo girls, or something.

In spite of the London bubble, Brexit is working out quite well for Britain, not that you’ll hear much of that news from their very own FSM.

LONDON — On July 24, trade talks began between Britain and America. All right, they weren’t formally called trade talks: As long as Britain is still in the European Union, it is supposed to contract out all its commercial decisions to Brussels. Officially, the United States trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, and the British trade secretary, Liam Fox, met for broad discussions about what might happen when Brexit takes effect in 2019.

Still, both sides can see the prize. For decades, there have been fitful negotiations between Washington and Brussels on trade liberalization, but they have always run up against the protectionism of France and some southern European states.

Between Britain and America, there are few such problems. Each country is the other’s biggest investor: About a million Americans work for British-owned companies, and a similar number of Britons work for American-owned companies. A liberal trade deal, based on mutual recognition of standards and qualifications, will bolster both economies.


Well, as we start a new month, that brings the water level down a bit in my part of the swamp. Enjoy the links, they’re all good ones.

 

Charlie Gard; the Fundamental Divide

The Charlie Gard affair became quite a divisive thing. (But also brought some people together, like Senator Cruz, President Trump, and Pope Francis, a trio that seems rather unlikely, but who all agreed here.) Particularly between the American Right to Life movement and some of our friends. One of the people in Britain whom I respect a good deal is Melanie Phillips, I’ve read and listened to her for years, and she is a spokesman for common sense and yes conservatism. But on this issue something strange happened. Watch.

The problem is fundamental, in our view of who owns a baby. Let’s let Lady Penguin of Unified Patriots spell it out.

Recently, William McGurn of the WSJ, wrote a thoughtful and compassionate article regarding the situation of Charlie Gard. WSJ has a paywall, here is another source:
I agreed 100% with Mr. McGurn’s perspective, and had some additional thoughts/perspective to add regarding this tragic story.

Let’s go back to 1930’s Germany. Hitler went through the hospitals and killed the old, the sick, the infirm, and the disabled. Family and friends of loved ones who they expected to return home or at least be cared for in the health institutions of that era, never saw them again. Essentially, the “undesirables” of society ended up as part of the millions killed in the Holocaust. Too few people study Germany and the changes in her cultural institutions before World War II, but that’s critical to ultimately understanding the onset of that war. Germany had to be groomed by Hitler in the 1930’s to pave the way for his plans of taking over Europe and initiating/completing his “Final Solution.” Those plans included not only Jews, but the weak, disabled, elderly and his political opponents.

Charlie Gard’s story gives us a glimpse of this same pathway. Britain’s National Health Service has been set up to “own” the individual – whether child or adult. When Charlie was born and had to be placed in neonatal intensive care, the NHS terminated the parental rights of Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard. The parents have spent precious months fighting for the right to take the baby out of the NHS and come to America where a physician was willing to try an experimental treatment. In baby Charlie’s case, it wasn’t even about money because the parents had independently raised the necessary funds, but it is/was about who has the RIGHT to determine what was best for Charlie.

The parents wanted to try anything possible to save his life – the State decided nothing was possible and took all control of Charlie away from Connie and Chris. This is what happens in a State controlled health service. The parents appealed to the European Union’s High Court, and the decision of the UK Court AND the National Health Service was upheld. Considering what is happening in the Netherlands – their open and almost gleeful embrace of euthanasia, assisted suicide – the EU Court siding with Britain’s NHS is no surprise. Read another WSJ article, “In the Netherlands, the Doctor Will Kill You Now” by Kees van der Staaij.

And that is what set us off, the presumption by the State, for the NHS is nothing but an arm of the state, that it owned little Charlie and that his parents should sit down and shut up, because he was too far gone to live. Probably by the time we got involved he actually was, but that is because the NHS stalled since January. Was that true then? I don’t know, but it’s a troubling question. And that is also why, when the parents said enough is enough, it’s too late, we all simply offered our sympathy, it was their call, with medical advice they trusted, to make. Not the hospital’s cost driven choice. That the hospital felt the need to continue abusing them is unfortunate but unsurprising.  It strikes many of us as a return to pre-Christian paganism, where unwanted children were simply left to die of exposure. Same thing, but hidden in buildings, and by unformed consciences.

And, if we are honest, for whatever cause, that is the difference between America and Europe, including the UK. Americans are, by training and instinct, distrustful of, and suspicious of, anything connected with the government, with overwhelming cause, going back to not only George III, but to the Stuarts, whose views on religion caused a good many of our founders, the Dissenters, to come here, to found that “cittie on the hille” that has come to symbolize so much of America to the world. Only an American would have said, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” And I suspect only Americans understand just how terrifying those words can and should, be.

Daily, thousands of life and death decisions are made in a family regarding life support issues for a loved one. It’s made between the physician, family members, and the patients themselves if they are able to participate. I don’t need to go into the medical details of these types of situations; suffice it to say, it happens, but it is in the hands of the patient, family and physician. Not the State.

The Affordable Care Act had a hidden nugget, outed by Sarah Palin, known as “Death Panels.” This is a fact, and as long as the ACA remains on the books, a non-medical bureaucrat is going to make a decision on whether one gets treatment and lives or gets a pill for pain, and simply dies. Barack Obama once gave the ludicrous example of a 90 year old woman needing a pacemaker…a woman who was alert, functioning and enjoying life, he said maybe they “should just give her a pill (not sure if it was ‘red’ or ‘blue’) for pain instead of a pacemaker…” I’m in the medical field, pacemakers are an everyday, reasonable option. Millions of people have them – rare for a person not to be able to get one. But in Obama’s worldview, and others who think like him, a 90 year grandmother has no meaning or relevancy to society. That’s where he is not only wrong, but it shows the moral decline of a society. It’s our humanity and respect for life – imperfect as it is – which keeps us on a moral path. Once we lose that compass, we lose everything else.

And that is why, beyond our moral revulsion at the actions of the NHS, which is very real, the whole issue is very important to Americans. And there is this.

The Charlie Gards of the world are important, just as the Down Syndrome infants are, or the disabled or the elderly – it keeps our humanity, our Soul. If we deliberately kill – when alternative resources or experimental treatments are available, we’re on our way to the same kind of thinking and mindset which engulfed the Third Reich. No difference.

Update: I want to add two perceptive remarks from the comment thread.

1) Kenny Solomon used the phrase: “genocidal theocracy” – which brings to mind the abortion industry and their rabid supporters.

2) Vassar Bushmills noted: “Never forget, that murder by indifference is the greatest sin before God.

Emphasis mine and a huge tip of the Stetson to PUMABydesign001.

%d bloggers like this: