The Logans Running of America

Way back in 1976, America was treated to a glimpse of a future with the movie "Logan's Run." Here is the film's opening preamble:

Sometime in the 23rd century...the survivors of war, overpopulation and pollution are living in a great domed city, sealed away from the forgotten world outside. Here, in an ecologically balanced world, mankind lives only for pleasure, freed by the servo-mechanisms which provide everything. There's just one catch: Life must end at thirty unless reborn in the fiery ritual of Carousel.

The main character, Logan (played by Michael York) is a Sandman, responsible for hunting down and killing Runners, people who refuse to report to Carousel when their Lifeclock (an imprint that is placed on your hand at birth that tells you when your time is up) expires.

As the film continues, we learn that Logan himself is set to turn 30 and decides to escape, rather than let the carousel kill him.

What we didn't know was how close to the our own future this movie portrays.

Thomas Sowell, in his brilliance, hit on this very concept in his article today, titled "A Duty To Die":

"One of the many fashionable notions that have caught on among some of the intelligentsia is that old people have "a duty to die," rather than become a burden to others."

Of course, no one is talking about killing people when they turn 30. However, as Sowell concludes, at what price do we place our lives? When is the right time to stop being a burden on society?

As the ObamaCare monstrosity becomes a reality, we are being told that there is a moral responsibility to keep the costs of health care down. According to their unspoken beliefs, if it's too costly to keep grandma alive, just let her die in peace (remember Obama's "blue pill" comment?). Of course, since they haven't themselves died, they have no idea how "peaceful" death really is. But that's why they are so much smarter than us, I suppose.

So we deny health care to those who are only going to increase the costs to all of us. Anyone who says that ObamaCare will do no such thing either has no idea what the bill says, or are in complete denial of reality. The ONLY way to lower costs are to either drop people or ration care. There is no other alternative, if you want universal coverage.

So what happens when you reach 75 years old and the cost to the taxpayers is too high to keep you alive? What happens if you've had an organ transplant already? While I've been tremendously blessed with good health and a full recovery, what about all of those not so lucky? I have a Facebook friend who has not been so lucky. The costs of the original transplant, plus what it costs now to keep her alive are enormous. Because so many transplant recipients need extensive followup care, would it not be prudent to disallow them from further treatment?

What I mean is, where do you draw the line? Ok, let's say anyone over 75 doesn't get care. Well, in 10 years, when costs are even higher, will that be lowered to 70? 65? Where will it end?

Obviously, there is a solution. Unfortunately, the solution is to abolish government health care. When costs are more important than human life, then human life ceases to be important. When the government decides who and what care you receive - and they are doing so under the guise of lowering costs - then government decides who lives and dies.

As Sowell remarks, there was a time when television was not a necessity. A time when computers were not a necessity. Believe it or not, there was time when even indoor plumbing wasn't a necessity. We are the richest nation in the world, yet we also spend the most money in the world. We have become so arrogant and not content. So in order to be happy we must have more. According to the Democrats, it's not enough that the Declaration of Independence offers us "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness." No, it's the governments job to not only allow you to pursue happiness, but they must make everyone equally happy (or miserable).

By nationalizing health care, Americans are no longer in a position to care for their own. Now, we must only do so as long as it doesn't impede on the financial welfare of the State, which wouldn't even be an issue if the State didn't feel the need to control everything.

So the government says that when Grandma has cost enough, she needs to take the "blue" pill. How is that different than "Logans Run"?