The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.

The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after it was derided by conservatives as “death panels” to encourage euthanasia.

“On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. “We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”

I don’t want anyone to get too excited about this, since what everyone has been really talking about are the provisions in the HOUSE legislation, particularly section 1233 of HR 3200.

Others: The Note, Michelle Malkin, Atlas Shrugs, Weasel Zippers, Freedom’s Lighthouse, Hot Air, Little Green Footballs (unhinged Palin Derangemt Syndrome in view), The Political Carnival and Below The Beltway (doesn’t get it, and a little PDS, as well.)

Also, Harry Reid thinks you protesters are “evil-mongers.” Hmm, since this is being cross-posted at 3 sites…..

Pirate’s Cove

Right Wing News

Stop The ACLU’s front page was so big that it couldn’t be rated, so, we’ll just go with 100% evil, OK?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Obviously ABC’s George Stephanapoulos tried to get former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to trash Sarah Palin, but the wily former Speaker wasn’t having any of that noise.

After Stephanapoulos read Governor Palin’s comments about the “evil” of a government system that would tell its patients to die instead of helping them live, Speaker Gingrich reminds us all that Obama is asking us to “trust the government” on communal standards which will set up a system where bureaucrats decide what healthcare we are “allowed” to have. The former Speaker also reminds us that these standards are a dangerous road down which to travel and that euthanasia is a likely outcome of bureaucrats deciding who is worth getting healthcare and who isn’t.

Visit ABC News to see the video.

Gingrich is right and so is Palin on this issue. Do we really want to hand this government, the one that cannot even govern a “cash for clunkers” program correctly, to make decisions on who is allowed to live and who will have to die?

I know I don’t. No matter who is in charge in Washington, I don’t want my government deciding who is worthy enough to be allowed to get healthcare.

(H/T HotAir.com)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Doctor C.L. Gray and his Physicians for Reform group tell us of the horror story of Oregon’s government run healthcare plan that offered a cancer patient named Barbara all the suicide assisted funding she wanted, but not one penny for the medical care that could save her life.

As Doctor Gray put it, Barbara was no longer thought of by government as a patient but instead had become a “negative economic unit.” Oregon’s government run healthcare system wanted Barbara dead because keeping her alive was simply too costly.

It’s bad enough that a handful of states have taken up these uncaring, cut-rate medical plans, but at least patients in Oregon or Massachusetts can go to another state to find the proper care. But once Obamacare becomes a nationwide plague, there simply won’t be any other place to go.

If you want a government that feels that assisted suicide is better because it’s cheaper, then a vote for Obamacare is just the ticket. But if you want a system that cares about patients, then keeping government out of healthcare is what you want.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Recently in the Washington Post Ceci Connolly did a wonderful job proving she is a member of the vast left wing conspiracy trying to protect Obamacare, but didn’t do such a good job proving her legitimacy as a journalist. At issue is her story about the meanies in talk radio that she is claiming is trying to “frighten seniors” about Obama’s healthcare policies.

The main problem with Connolly’s story is that she offers little proof that talk radio is trying to “scare seniors.” But she did spend an inordinate amount of space explaining away the very Obama policies that are responsible for scaring seniors, namely the end-of-life counseling and healthcare rationing in the bill.

Connolly uses an activist’s rhetoric as if she is confronting “the enemy” right at the outset of her “report.”

A campaign on conservative talk radio, fueled by President Obama’s calls to control exorbitant medical bills, has sparked fear among senior citizens that the health-care bill moving through Congress will lead to end-of-life “rationing” and even “euthanasia.”

Notice that Connolly presents talk radio as a single thing instead of the many thousands of hosts, stations, and media corporations employing them that it really is? This is an activist’s tool, using the veritable “they” to represent the enemy. Obviously, Connolly is taking the side of those opposing talk radio by employing the meme that talk radio is a single entity that has launched a “campaign to scare seniors.”

Not only does she take an activist’s tone throughout the piece by making excuses for Obamacare and declaring what a great idea it is, she also fails to prove her main contention that talk radio has launched a “campaign to scare seniors.” Connolly does give a single example of a radio show that discussed the issues at hand, but she offers that and only that.

One would think that if Connolly was trying to lay this guilt trip on all of talk radio, she’d have a few examples to buttress her claim. Of course, having examples to prove her case is something journalists do and Connolly is not interested in journalism with this piece. No, with this one she is interested in advocating for Obamacare not proving her contention that some sort of “campaign to scare seniors” is being undertaken by “talk radio.”

The dust up was caused by provisions in the House bill for the government to pay for end-of-life counseling and the cost-cutting ideas promulgated by the president. Conservatives are warning against the government having any part in such services as well as warning that cost-cutting measures must result in the rationing of healthcare. The main question with the end-of-life services is one of propriety. Does anyone want the U.S. government involving itself in telling patients how and/or when to die? It seems a dangerous road to travel to invite government to involve itself in such things and seems a step toward government sponsored euthanasia and refusal of medical care.

But, according to Connolly, such services are a great idea. After all, she spends several paragraphs quoting all sorts of lefty groups saying how wonderful it is for the government to legislate how-to-die counseling.

But in the end, here, what we have is Connolly making the claim that there is some vast “campaign” by “talk radio” to “scare seniors” yet she utterly fails at proving the case for her main contention. She just says it’s so and moves on from there. It isn’t good journalism. But it is great advocacy.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Click the more tag

• Signed executive orders to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year, ban torture and end the CIA’s secret overseas prisons and define treatment of Detainees. (but, they are nowhere close to actually closing Gitmo and are still holding all those folks)
• Reversed restrictions on stem cell research. (typical Lib talking point. It was only in allowing federal money to be used for embryonic stem cell research. All other stem cell research was going on, and providing cures, something ESCs have yet to offer)
• Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Reducing discrimination based on gender, age, religion, or race. (which will create more lawsuits, so, a sop to the lawyers)
• Signed an executive order reversing the ban that prohibits funding to international family planning groups that provide abortions. Gag rule revoked (Mexico City policy). (so, using American taxpayer money to fund abortions in other countries)
• Creates the White House Council on Women and Girls “to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls and to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families.” (It says something about a liberal controlled government, which tends to employ more liberal leaning people, that they have to protect females from their policies, eh?)
• Signed a Presidential Memorandum extending federal benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers and announced support for the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009. (Which could raise insurance rates. I should say, I personally have no problem with extending benefits, though)
• Reverses U.S. position on LGBT Issues at the UN: At the “Durban Review Conference,” U.S. supports language condemning “all forms of discrimination and all other human rights violations based on sexual orientation.” (The same UN conference which has voted to make criticism of Islam criminal)
• Signed executive order requiring federal contractors to offer jobs to current workers when contracts change. (no big deal)
• Reversed a Bush order requiring federal contractors to post notice that workers can limit financial support of unions serving as their exclusive bargaining representatives. (another sop to the unions Dems are beholden too)
• Signed executive order preventing federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses meant to influence workers deciding whether to form a union and engage in collective bargaining.
• Created a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners. (more union sops)
• Expanded eligibility for the refinancing portion of the Making Home Affordable plan to help Americans struggling with distressed mortgages refinance at lower interest rates, even if they owe up to 25 percent more than their homes are now worth. (most of those people should live in apartments)
• Established a credit card “bill of rights”. (which will make it harder to get a credit card)
• Expanded loan programs for small businesses. (but, it is damned near impossible for small businesses to actually get them)
• Extended and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch. (can’t comment, know nothing about this one)
• Expanded eligibility for State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP). (because every family making up to $85k needs someone else to pay for their health insurance for kids up to 25)
• Expanded funding to train primary care providers and public health practitioners. (but, will reduce their medicare/medicaid payments, and make it so doctors become more specialized)
• Created a new White House task force on the problems of middle-class Americans, and installed Vice President Joe Biden as its chairman. (Sheriff Joe has been doing a hell of a job, eh? Has anyone even heard of this task force?)
• Appoints Vice President Joe Biden to Oversee Stimulus Plan Payouts. (How’s that going?)
• Granted a reprieve to Liberian immigrants facing imminent expulsion. (This one is a good thing)
• Directed military leaders to end war in Iraq. (and holding to the exact same plan Bush had)
• Allowing Caskets to be photographed when the return from Iraq with family approval. (interesting that, now that Obama is President, the media is now ignoring soldiers who come home in caskets, eh?)
• Released nine previously secret internal Justice Department memos and opinions defining the legal limits of government power in combating terrorism. (which only told one side of the story, and he has blocked releasing the memo’s that support the other side)
• On Arab TV Network, Obama Urges Dialogue. (and apologized for America)
• Gave a speech in Cairo engaging the Muslim and Arab world. (and apologized for America)
• Bars independent contractors from conducting interrogations of terror suspects. (but, didn’t ban all interrogations)
• Granted Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba. (Great. Sending more money out of our economy)
• Ordered the release of nearly a quarter of a million pages of records from the Reagan White House that were kept from the public during a lengthy review by President George W. Bush. (hey, where are Carter’s and Clinton’s papers?)
• Restored funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne/JAG) program. (and guess where the funding is coming from? If you guessed Porkulus, have a cigar)
• Released presidential records. (but not his own. I’m still trying to get the records of who was on the flight that scared the bejesus out of Manhattan. Keeps getting shuffled to different divisions)
• Required new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions. (more frigging paperwork for business)
• Pushed for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors. (gives yet another group more rights over others)
• Invites gay families to the Easter Egg Roll as part of the Obama administration’s outreach to diverse communities. (and blew off those who weren’t gay)
• Created a White House Office on Urban Policy. (how to create more grasshoppers in the hood)
• Increased funding for the NEA. (because we all need more crosses in jars filled with urine and paintings made of elephant poop)
• Appointed an assistant to the president for science and technology policy. (John Holdren thinks that population should be held in check, through forced abortions and other means)
• Funded a major expansion of AmeriCorps. (creating more Obamazombies)
• Banned lobbyist gifts to executive employees. (then he went and hired a bunch of lobbyists. I should point out, I do not think that most lobbyists are the problem. The politicians are the problem)
• Investment in all types of alternative energy. (none of which are even within decades of being viable and deployable)
• Enacted tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid cars. (meaning more problems with the energy grid)
• Support for high-speed rail. (in the middle of the New Mexico desert, as a sop to Harry Reid)
• Provided grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes. (I hope he has encouraged Al Gore, John Edwards, and John Kerry to make their homes more energy efficient)
• Extended unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits. (apparently, he knew his Porkulus plan would never really create jobs)
• Created the White House Council on Automotive Communities and Workers to help auto industry workers transition to new manufacturing opportunities, including jobs in alternative energy. (in other words, how to put the UAW in charge of GM and do away with the profitable car lines)
• Stopped raids on medical marijuana dispensers. (eh. On this, I could care less. If smoking pot makes a terminally ill person feel OK, fine. However, if ObamaCare passes, pot may be all those folks have left to ease their pain)
• Nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States. If confirmed, Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic to ever serve on the Supreme Court. (interesting how when it was Bush nominating and appointing minorities and women to first time ever positions, it was “yawn” from the left)
• Appointed more than 60 openly LGBT persons to positions in the executive branch. (but is still against gay marriage)
• Issues Presidential Proclamation for Pride, proclaiming June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. (Obama’s still against gay marriage)
• Signed a mercury reduction pact with 140 other nations. (mercury reduction is a good thing. However, funny how he pushes the use of CFLs, which contain, yup, mercury!)
• Signed the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act to curb wasteful spending by the Pentagon. Intended to price contracts and budgets lower; may potentially save billions of dollars in defense. (getting rid of waste is a good thing, but, notice this is only done for the military, and not agencies and programs Democrats actually like?)
• Signed the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, which serves to protect two million acres of land and creates a new system of land conservation for the Bureau of Land Management. (but, is allowing logging in the Tongass National Forest)
• Phase out government payments to crop producers making more than $500,000 a year and eliminates subsidies for cotton storage to help trim the U.S. budget deficit. (I guess we are all supposed to wear hemp)
• Cut funding for a proposed U.S. nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain. (where are we supposed to store nuclear waste? Oh, I forgot, he wants to do away with nuclear plants, too)
• Restored Endangered Species Act Provision requiring U.S. agencies consult with independent federal experts to determine if their actions might harm threatened and endangered species. (This was done with an anthropogenic global warming bent)
• Orders The Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration “to protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources, and social and economic value of the Nation’s largest estuarine ecosystem and the natural sustainability of its watershed.” (I like this one)
• Signed the 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act designating two million additional acres of public wilderness areas the highest level of government protection from logging and other forms of commercial use and development. (back to that Tongass National Forest logging issue)
• Signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act which will expedite the search for cures and treatments for millions of Americans living with paralysis caused by spinal cord injury, stroke, MS, Parkinson’s and many other diseases and disorders. (a sop to those embryonic stem cell researchers who couldn’t get by without federal funds)
• Established The Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record, a new system for updating medical records of servicemen and women both during and after their military careers. (On the surface, I would say this is good)
• Established the White House Office of Health Reform (how to hose the nations health care system in 3 easy steps)
• Created new and stronger safety standards to safeguard the country’s food supply. (increases the cost of food)and
• Got his daughters a new puppy! (which gave the MSM a month long orgasm)

What is the author, who probably stole it without citation, missing? I notice he or she forgets to mention that fabulous Porkulus. Oh, and the capture of Osama Bin Laden. Didn’t Obama say he would make it a priority to capture him? And, oh, hey, nothing about jobs actually being created, the economy being stimulated, and New Orleans being rebuilt, all as he promised.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

He says it can’t wait! He promises not to sign any healthcare bill that will add to the national deficit, but the small print lets you know he actually means if it adds to the deficit over the next decade. I guess the House should scratch their $239 billion bill. Listen to him below, but keep in mind he is lying. When he tells you that you can keep your own healthcare insurance, know he is lying. The fine print says if you have no insurance you have to go with the government plan. If your insurance company drops you, you can’t shop around and choose your doctor…you have to go with the government plan. The “period, end of story” crap is a bald faced lie. You can sum up Obama’s plan when he says he doesn’t believe insurance companies should be allowed to do as they please. Last I checked we were a capitalist nation, and if an insurance company did anything outside the realm of its competitors they wouldn’t last. Now, they will have to compete against a system backed by the treasury. It won’t take long before rationing comes into play, and the concept of the “duty to die”. When a 25 year old has the same ailment that costs a fortune that a 72 year old has, the 25 year old will gain priority and the 72 year old will have a “duty to die”. After that, forced euthanasia and abortion of the “undesirables” is just around the corner. Yes, there is a slippery slope here and it is very important. Our Republican representatives need to make a stand as much as possible against this Pandora’s box being opened. Democrats are no longer trying to sneak socialism into America, they are doing it right out in the open. Why are we doomed to repeat history in all its mistakes?

Seniors, take a look at the House version.

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and “the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.”

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Here is a little more you should take note of:

Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to “community transformation grants,” home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers — and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

Obama’s political capital may run out sooner than expected:

Some centrist House Democrats have reached out to Republicans to explore breaking with their party leadership on healthcare and crafting a reform bill with the rival GOP, one congressman claimed Saturday.

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) asserted that an “interesting development” is taking place underway that, if true, could effectively remove Democratic leadership from the driver’s seat on healthcare reform legislation in the House.

“There’s an interesting development occurring behind the scenes, wherein moderate Democrats — so-called “Blue Dog” Democrats — and business-friendly new Democrats are actually starting to have conversations with us to build a coalition from the center outward, to actually really come up with substantive and well-founded healthcare reform,” Boustany said during an appearance on Fox News. “And that’s the only way to do this.”

Here is Reagan’s advice to Obama:

Uh oh! Democrats are in panic mode as Americans protest! Is it possible Obama is not god?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On forced abortions:

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

On government confiscation of babies:

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption — especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. … It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

On targeted involuntary sterilization:

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

On mass involuntary sterilization:

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

We wouldn’t want livestock to be affected while we’re snuffing out the human race. What would PETA say?

On government dictating family size:

In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Don’t want to kill your baby? Then you’re a racist:

Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. … Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all.

On the ultimate liberal dream — a planetary totalitarian state:

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime — sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable…

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits.

On surrendering national sovereignty to the international Gestapo:

If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.

Other progressives brought hell to earth in Germany, Russia, and China. But radical environmentalism has laid the groundwork for nightmarish extremes of totalitarianism undreamt of by Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

Satanic freaks like Holdren are now running the USA. It would be impossible to overstate the danger we face.

On tips from V the K, Smokey, BURNING HOT, J, Kayt, and Hope. Hat tip: The Blogprof. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Hey, grandma, hurry up and die so that Obamacare can pay for healthcare for more worthy, younger folks. That seems to be the message that The New York Times is selling in order to smooth the waters for the nationalized healthcare system that president Obama is trying to peddle to us all.

The Times is running a series titled “Months to Live” in order to help spread the sort of end of life issues that are helpful to Obama’s healthcare agenda, one of which seems to be the idea, the elderly should forgo any sort of heroic measures to keep themselves alive so as not to waste those resources that might be able to go to younger, more vital patients.

In a July 8 article reporting on the end of life care afforded Catholic Nuns in Pittsford, New York, the Times hailed the “dignified” way that nuns end life there with particular emphasis on how many of them refuse extraordinary efforts to keep themselves alive. Apparently, the Times thinks we should emulate the nuns and just let ourselves die without trying too hard to keep on living.

But, even in its first few paragraphs the Times displayed several conflicting talking points, one being that the nun that serves as the article’s initial subject may be uninterested in life saving procedures, but her sister is definitely not of that same opinion. This tends to show that not everyone wants to just wither away and die without fighting to stay alive as the Times seems to be suggesting we should be.

The Times also tries to make a point on how many elderly people “are often overmedicated” and showcases how this nun refused most of the “23 medications not essential for her heart condition,” but then adds that these medications were winnowed by a geriatrician. So, was she prescribed these medications or not? It isn’t quite clear. This makes a poor case for the claim of overmedication and seems more like an assertion by the writer that is not germane to the case.

The Times goes on to describe how the sisters and several priests along with the church pay for this hospice-like care of those at the end of their lives, the story making it all seem like the perfect system. But one cannot help but realize that we are talking about a system built to serve a small handful of people with the support of the church behind them. How this financial burden can be translated to 300 million citizens is never addressed.

Misleadingly, the Times also tries to make it seem as if the church system being described quells any talk of both rationing of care and euthanasia of the elderly.

Laura L. Carstensen, the director of the Center on Longevity at Stanford University, says the convent setting calms the tendency for public policy discussion about end-of-life treatment “to devolve into a debate about euthanasia or rationing health care based on age.”

“Every time I speak to a group about the need to improve the dying process, somebody raises their hand and says, ‘You’re talking about killing old people,’ ” Dr. Carstensen said. “But nobody would accuse Roman Catholic sisters of that. They could be a beacon in talking about this without it turning into that American black-and-white way of thinking: Either we have to throw everything we’ve got at keeping people alive or leave them on the sidewalk to die.”

The problem with this rhetoric is that it denies the simple fact that should these concepts become federalized in a national healthcare system, then the patient’s choice in the matter will be summarily dispensed with as rules and regulations prescribing procedures will take over.

In short, the second these ideas become the norm, government MUST by necessity of control begin to determine which citizens are “worth” saving and which aren’t worth the efforts and should be denied services. And from there it won’t be long before prescriptions of euthanasia for those “not worth” the costs of government largess will become de rigueur everywhere.

So, while the process of dying practiced by these nuns described in the Times might have something going for it, translating it to a nationalized healthcare system is fraught with eugenics styled evils.

But, if it soothes suspicions about Obamacare, why, the Times is happy to oblige.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

I am wondering when the euthanasia folks are going to start touting this one? I mean, it sure seemed to me as if the most caring, most civil, most intelligent president evah just said that healthcare could be cheaper if we don’t give old folks and the infirm the full measure of care they now get. It appeared that Obama said we should just let them die or suffer because they aren’t worth the effort. Imagine if Bush had said something like this? The left wouldn’t have hesitated to call him any manner of names.

Obama said during the ABC Special on Wednesday night that a way to save healthcare costs is to abandon the sort of care that “evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve” the patient’s health. He went on to say that he had personal familiarity with such a situation when his grandmother broke her hip after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Obama offered a question on the efficacy of further care for his grandmother saying, “and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?”

But who is it that will present the “evidence” that will “show” that further care is futile? Are we to believe that Obama expects individual doctors will make that decision in his bold new government controlled healthcare future? If he is trying to make that claim it is a flat out untruth and he knows it.

Does your home builder negotiate with your city hall over whether you get a building permit, or does the permit get levied no matter what? Does a cop decide if you really broke the law, or does he simply arrest you and let the courts hash it out? Does your tax preparer negotiate with the IRS or is he supposed to just calculate your tax bill on their terms and have you pay the required amount?

Government does not work by negotiation. Government does not work from the bottom up. It works from the top down. This singular fact means that no doctor will be deciding if you are too old or infirm to get medical care. It will be a medically untrained bureaucrat that sets a national rule that everyone will have to obey. There won’t be any room for your grandma to have a different outcome than anyone else’s.

So, what will it be then? Who will decide when medical care is just too expensive to bother with? Who will be left to perish because they just aren’t worth the lifesaving effort? Well, for sure it won’t be any members of Congress or anyone that works for the federal government because they won’t be expected to suffer under the nationally socialized plan. It also won’t be Obama’s buddies in the unions who are about to be similarly exempted from the national plan, at least if Senator Max Baucus has his way.

Ah, but we are told that Obama’s ideas on healthcare are “evolving,” dontcha know? During the recent campaign for president (that was only 7 months ago, if you’ll recall) Obama insisted that he would never tax your healthcare benefits from work. He even ridiculed McCain for proposing such a plan. Lately, however, he’s “evolved” toward saying that such a new tax is on the table. What about his stance against fining people and businesses that don’t join his UberPlan? He was against that sort of coerciveness before. Now he’s “evolved.”

Originally, he said it was “healthcare for all,” but as of Wednesday night, it seems he’s “evolved” to say that only those worth the bother should get healthcare. The rest should be left to die and/or suffer. If he does any more “evolving” we’ll all be finding just who is “worth” what as far as he and his Democrats are concerned. Somehow I’d guess that many of you reading this today won’t quite be worth as much as certain others!

Let’s hope none of us are ever in a position to find out if Obamacare deems our grandmothers worth saving.

And what ever happened to the left’s mantra that healthcare is a “right” and that money should never enter into a life or death decision? Now The One is saying it’s just too darn expensive to save the old and infirm? Will our friends on the left now disown Obama the “murderer”?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system.

The opposition, which comes as Mr. Obama prepares to address the powerful doctors’ group on Monday in Chicago, could be a major hurdle for advocates of a public insurance plan. The A.M.A., with about 250,000 members, is America’s largest physician organization.

But in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”

If private insurers are pushed out of the market, the group said, “the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”

Not the best of arguments, since that is exactly what Obama and the Democrats are aiming for.

If the doctors are too aggressive in fighting the public plan, they risk alienating Democrats whose support they need for legislation to increase their Medicare fees.

Right there is a huge difference in the belief systems between liberals/progressives and Republicans/Conservatives: those of us on the Right believe that government is supposed to be responsive to the People, and should listen to the People, vis a vis the 1st Amendment. The Left believes that Government is there to dictate to the People, so, better be careful in your protests and criticisms!

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said that in his address to the group next week, Mr. Obama would “outline the case for health care reform and make clear why we can’t afford to wait another year, or another administration, to bring down costs that are crushing families, businesses and government.”

Will Secretary Teleprompter give President Obama the words that tell us HOW this will bring down costs? So far, I have yet to see an argument on the how’s, even a lame one.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, a lobby for insurers, said Tuesday that the government plan proposed by some Senate Democrats could “dismantle employer-based coverage and significantly increase costs for those who remain in private coverage.”

OK, we can see the cost going up if ObamaCare passes, unless you let the inefficiency of government cover you.

Under a proposal favored by many Democrats, doctors who take Medicare patients would also have to participate in the new public plan. Democrats say that requirement is needed to make sure the public plan can go into business right away with a large network of doctors.

And right there is a good argument. Doctors are already streaming away from Medicare and Medicaid, due to the pitiful payouts and enormous government red tape. It is exceedingly becoming more and more difficult for doctors to get paid, and, often, they lose money. Many of them provide the service because they want to help those who cannot afford the services, very noble. But, if they are going to be forced to deal with more and more government, having them dictate patients and practices, guess what? A good chunk of qualified and competent doctors will drop Medicaid altogether, and the lower quality ones, looking simply to gain government $$$, will be left in the program.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post