Bill the Barbarian

I’ve never been a huge fan of Bill Maher. Conversely, I’ve never truly disliked him, either. Until now.

Maher is the host of a weekly talk-show that airs on HBO called Real Time with Bill Maher. In each episode, Maher makes commentary of the news of the day and has a panel of guests who are given the opportunity to add their two cents to the discussion. As far as format is concerned, it’s atypical and certainly interesting.

On his July 24, 2009 episode of Real Time, Maher hosted political candidate, Anthony Woods; security consultant, Susan Eisenhower; writer, John Heileman and columnist, Matt Taibbi.

After chewing over the Gates v Cambridge Police Department fray and the topic of political division in the United States, Maher’s fancy turned to health care and, in particular, the now hotly debated legislation championed by President Barack Obama.

Eisenhower took a moment to express her concerns over the aging population and the very real dangers of a health care system breakdown when (what she called) an already distorted system becomes ever more distorted.

After considering her remarks, Maher offered up the suggestion that people on their “last leg” might not be the people we should be taking care of.

Maher asserted that some of us may wish to refuse care (or, perhaps, “take one for the team” is what he meant) so that financial ruin doesn’t befall the United States.

An extremely uncomfortable groan could be heard, rising from a few of his audience members and his panel of guests appeared clearly dumbstruck for at least a moment.

Did he just say what I think he just said?

What Maher’s comments toy with is precisely what opponents of a government-sanctioned health care delivery system are fearing and warning against. Care rationing on a large-scale, pick-and-choose methodology.

Firstly, let’s try to define that last leg of Maher’s.

Does Maher speak of people in the throes of a terminal illness who have been given less than a year to live? That wouldn’t be very good thinking. I know a woman who was given less than three months to live and didn’t lose her battle until more than six years later. Terminal diagnoses don’t always equal a good reason to give up the fight and they’re certainly no reason to deny someone a therapy that might help them get a little more time out of living.

Perhaps, Maher is speaking about people who have lost their cognitive capacity and will never again regain the ability to work, pay taxes or contribute to the local community as they did previously. Should we abandon total-care patients? What if that’s not what they want? What have they done to anyone?

Did Maher mean the elderly? If so, this hardly seems fair to me. Our elders have paid far more, and for far longer, into this broken system of entitlement we live with. The prospects of having to take a little back from what you’ve put in might be a bit unattractive to most. Yet, I’ve always been told it was the reason I put in in the first place. Shouldn’t our elders expect to be treated as full persons and full citizens even if they’ve become dependent on others for help in living? Isn’t anything less a bit barbaric and a bit unbecoming of a free society?

To be fair, Maher did toss a number out there. Six months.

Before you go telling yourself that this is a fair and considerate amount of time, let me tell why I think it is not.

Someone rather close to me lost his wife to ovarian cancer after a battle that went on nearly three years. And, as he describes it, cancer kicked her around like a ragdoll in a hurricane. She suffered tremendous physical limitations and pain. But, they didn’t give up. They didn’t abandon her.

Her doctors took an aggressive clinical track and he took a homeopathic one – both intended to allow her to get as far into life as she could possibly get. After all, it’s what you do.

And, after all the struggle and carry-on, after all the work and stress of caring for someone in her circumstances, he wouldn’t have stolen so much as a second away from her. In fact, he says her last months were important and quite meaningful to her.

Meaningful. To her.

So, I ask you. Who are Maher, the government, you, I or anyone else to rob someone of their ability to live? Who are we to decide who is or is not fit to receive needed therapies or intervention? If it’s the terminally ill today, will it be the chronically ill tomorrow? And really, whose judgment is better than your own for determining what types of medical assistance are appropriate for you?

Maher also fancied that “spiritual” types should be happy to take the plunge. After all, it will get them to God a little sooner.

I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked at such a vulgar remark. Indeed, Maher lost his contract with the producers of Politically Incorrect for saying (less than a week after September 11, 2001) that terrorist hijackers were not “cowardly”. He later “clarified” his comments and declared his support of the United States military.

I’m certain there are plenty of people who find Maher’s brand of intellect engaging. I, on the other hand, do not. Had he ever known what it was like to be discriminated against, such barbaric and misguided things would never come out of his mouth.

Maher can tell me what to do with my life when he allows me to tell him what he can do with his opinions.