Friday, June 26, 2009
The Elderly Will Be the Losers Under Obamacare
President Obama is well aware of the fact that America cannot afford universal healthcare. Well, duh! Therefore, something has to give; some individuals need to be thrown under the Obama bus because their lives aren’t as valuable as others.
And guess which group will receive the healthcare rationing that is unavoidable under the Obamacare plan? The elderly, that’s who--the same group who voted 54 percent to 44 percent for McCain. By the time Obama gets done with them, if his abominable plan gets passed, that 44% who drank the Obama Kool-Aid, including my parents--real Obama lovers, will regret the day they went to the polls and voted for “hope and change” because that hope and change may cost them their lives or that of their lifetime partners.
Read the comment that the president made regarding abandoning care for patients whose health “is not necessarily going to improve”, via Newsbusters:
Obama Says We Shouldn't Treat Old Folks to Save Money And the Media Goes Deaf
“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. Oddly, though, the Old Media have not had so much as a raised eyebrow over his statements on Wednesday.
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 homebuilder 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 died 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 Obama 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‘?
Even worse, why has the media remained mum on the possibility that President Spock, Doctor of life, just said that old folks are too expensive to treat? Hello, CNN, NBC, New York Times... anyone?”
Sounds like a tradeoff--free healthcare for illegals at the expense of the elderly.