Never have I seen American citizens so angry with their own government. Many feel that they are being betrayed, having something shoved down their throat that has a nasty taste to it, and that the federal government is sticking its nose somewhere it doesn’t belong.

And it isn’t just the government that is feeling the wrath of the people: the AARP, an organization supposedly dedicated to looking after the interests of its membership, namely people 50 years old and older, is under assault because it has taken the position of favoring Obama’s Health Care Reform initiative.

In Dallas, an AARP spokesperson, speaking on the Health Care Reform Bill, walked out of a meeting because the participants were insisting on asking questions in a confrontational manner. Her condescending manner toward the members present at the meeting did not help the AARP cause, nor was walking out of the meeting a wise response. She should have stayed and toughed it out.

Why is this older segment of the population so upset? Different viewpoints were offered by members at that meeting. One man said it was an issue of loss of liberty. The Constitution of the United States of America states that the federal government has only the powers specifically granted to it, and all other powers belong to the states. That is a valid point, but that line has already been crossed many times.

Others said they don’t want government interference on matters like “end of life” decisions, and are afraid that expensive health care would be denied to older people. It is true that most of the money spent on health care is spent toward the end of life. But hasn’t that been the goal of modern medicine — to keep people alive longer? Does the federal government have the right to say that one person’s life has more value than another’s?

I can easily think of a dozen or more people who have had life-saving medical treatment, including rather expensive diagnostic procedures and major surgery well after normal retirement age. Assuming that Obama’s plan will operate in a manner similar to those in socialist countries, decisions on major health care procedures would be made by bureaucrats, referring to actuarial tables.

Dr. Tom Wilten, DDS, a classmate of mine at TJHS, practices dentistry in Dallas. Tom remarked in an e-mail that under those guidelines, both he and his sister would likely be dead now. Tom had an abscess in his brain that burst, requiring 52 days of hospital treatment. He has fully recovered and is living a productive life. His sister, Nancy, had a cardiac arrest at age 69, requiring a coronary stent; under a nationalized health care system, they might have been “given a pain pill” instead of treatment (Obama’s words).

When I first met my late father-in-law, he was in his 40’s. We played golf together, fished, went bowling. Regarding aging, he would often say (only half-joking) that when people got to be 65, “They should go jump off the Orange Bridge.”

The older he got, the less I heard him say that. By the time he was 50 or so, I never heard him say that again. President Obama will get old also, if he is fortunate, and his life will be just as dear to him at 80 as it is now. One would think that empathy alone would convince the President and Congress to make sure the citizens (their employers) would not be subject to arbitrary decisions in matters of health care for seniors.

That will happen only when The President and members of Congress are covered by the same health care plans that we have. We should insist on that, and throw out of office anyone who opposes it.

Gene Dammon of Port Neches is a contributing writer to the Port Arthur News. His e-mail address is: rdammon@gt.rr.com.