Obama: tonsillectomies vs. abortions

Obama made a very strange comment last night while trying to bolster support for socialized healthcare.

Transcript...

Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if they're looking, and you come in, and you've got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat, or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, "You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out."

Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change; maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference.

"Forced"? Please. What an incredible statement. I couldn't believe it. Obama was making one appalling point to support another appalling point.

Obama was saying there are sheikster doctors out there who decide patient treatments based on the amount of money they'll make, not on what is best for the patient. Thus, government intervention is needed between doctor and patient.

doctor 7.jpgWhere is the AMA protecting its own against impunity from the president?

And where are the women's groups up in arms about the unconstitutionality of this proposed healthcare legislation, which would potentially defy Roe v. Wade by interjecting the government between a woman and her doctor on the abortion decision?

More than that I was reminded of Obama's opposition as state senator to a Born Alive companion bill requiring abortionists to get a 2nd opinion after aborting viable babies who survive. In that case Obama was incredulous to think abortionists couldn't be trusted. Recall Obama was the only senator who ever argued against the Born Alive bills on the Senate floor. From pages 33-34 of the Senate transcript:

... [t]he only plausible explanation, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician... (a) is going to make the wrong assessment, and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus, but, in fact, a live child, that the physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical practices and measures that would be involved in saving that child....

But I think it's important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after.

So back in the day Obama opposed legislation attempting to protect children from the doctors trying to kill them and these days is pushing legislation he says would protect children from doctors trying to make a fast buck. This man is so bizarre.


Comments:

Does Obama even know how healthcare works? I have never had the same doctor recommend a surgery and then perform the surgery. How would that doctor get paid more for doing the surgery?

My GP or pediatrician tries different things first and when options are exhausted he would recommend surgery. He would give me a list of two or three specialists he felt comfortable with but left it up to me who I wanted to go to.

Does he even know what he is saying?

Posted by: Kristen at July 23, 2009 5:34 PM


PBHO's pediatrician scenario just goes to show that he's either very uninformed about the issues or trying to mislead the public on the issues.

The pediatrician stands to make more money NOT referring the kid to an ENT. He makes more money by continuing to see the kid in the office every other week because he isn't getting better. If he refers the kid to an ENT and the ENT yanks out the tonsils, the kid gets better and stops coming in to the ped's office for repeated visits.

Posted by: Fed Up at July 23, 2009 5:41 PM


Posted by: Fed Up at July 23, 2009 5:41 PM


Does he think the pediatrician performs the surgery? He makes no sense...

Posted by: Kristen at July 23, 2009 5:43 PM


Yeah, this one really left me scratching my head.

My son had several hernias when he was very young. The NICU doctors told us to "wait and see."

In Obama's world they would have pushed him into surgery right then and there. The hospital would have made a pretty penny, right?

As it was, we decided to have the surgery after more hernias presented themselves and looked to be worsening. Even then, the doctors were very conservative in their approach.

Where are these doctors that cut into kids at the slightest provocation? I've never met them and my son has 5 specialists. He has surgery when it's necessary.

He has had 3 surgeries to correct a birth defect. The last one wasn't perfect, but we all decided it was good enough. The urologist wasn't pressuring us into another surgery, and the NP almost cried at the thought of him possibly having to go under again. I guess in Obama's world those money hungry doctors would have been putting him under again so they could buy a new car.

Posted by: Lauren at July 23, 2009 5:57 PM


Nobama also called the Cambridge police stupid for arresting his buddy, race baiter Louis Gates. If fact, the police did nothing wrong.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/23/how-not-to-win-support-from-police-unions/

Posted by: Jasper at July 23, 2009 6:01 PM


Hi Kristen. I think PBHO doesn't want the public to understand that the government plans to take control over what can and can't be offered to patients as treatment options. This goes for patients on the government health plan and for privately insured patients.

He'd rather suggest that docs are money grubbers who don't care about a patient's best interest than to admit that the feds want to override a physician's clinical judgment. He just picked a poor example to try to get his point across.

Don't forget that the last stimulus provided for all medical records to be uploaded into government databases. This isn't non-identifiable statistical data for comparative effectiveness research. This is your complete medical record traceable to you personally. This way the feds can monitor how well docs comply with government-mandated treatment protocols. It's more politically expedient if PBHO portrays docs as money hungry than to say that the feds want to limit what a doc can and can't offer to the parents as treatment options for their child.

JYW, doesn't matter which medical specialty PBHO is speaking of. He wants to limit what docs can offer to patients based on what the government thinks is best and not what the doc judges as best with the patient right in front of him.

Posted by: Fed Up at July 23, 2009 6:02 PM


Obama is a moral illusionist saying only what is necessary to promote his power agenda at any moment, and relying upon the people to forgive and forget - continuously.

This is a sure sign of a cult of personality.

Obama's arguments are very troubling, because he's shifting towards more economic perspectives, and as Jill points out, such viewpoints were never considered during the IL BAIPA as being a serious conflict of interest, even though it was much more prominent.

With this kind of thinking, in the future, it's possible abortions wouldn't be allowed because the tax-revenue of the future citizen would outweigh the costs incurred during pregnancy and birth. This would be consistent with the Roe ruling as the state would have a "legitimate interest" in the child through all phases of life.

Hitler held similar ideas - abortions by Aryan women were outlawed, while abortions of inferior races were encouraged.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 23, 2009 6:17 PM


He is not knowledgeable about health care. He's making mistakes because he doesn't really know much at all about the issue.

Posted by: Valerie at July 23, 2009 7:46 PM


interjecting the government between a woman and her doctor

The entire right to "privacy" in the "abortion decision" could, in fact, be abrogated by ObamaCare. Once the government is in on the decision, the whole "privacy" argument of Roe v Wade is gone and then goes Roe completely.
On the other hand, it is quite possible that since Roe had been placed into "settled law" that it could in fact be used to fight the government intruding into not just the "abortion decision" but all medical decisions.

Posted by: Neo at July 23, 2009 9:05 PM


Eh, I see both arguments. While I disagree that having the tonsils removed would benefit the doctor, I can confidently say that we've gone through unnecessary testing and treatments with my son simply because our insurance covered it completely. And with this pregnancy, as well, my doctor has encouraged a number of unnecessary tests simply because they won't cost me anything and they'll bring revenue to her clinic. So yeah, sometimes, doctors perform unnecessary tests and treatments in order to bring in money. Of course, doctors and hospitals also provide free treatments at times. And honestly, I don't mind the reality that occasionally, my insurance is going to get billed for something I didn't exactly *need* done. Oh, well. It happens.

But Obama's solution (let the government take care of the stupid people who can't take care of themselves) is totally asinine. So now we're not supposed to learn anything about these treatments? We're not supposed to ask questions? Because the federal government is going to be looking out for OUR well-being?

Realistically, the federal government is going to be doing exactly what the federal government does: keep itself in business and 'take care' of people in a utilitarian manner. Thanks, but I'd rather be able to work with my doctor to make those decisions, personally. Rather than being 'saved' from the difficult decisions (or opportunities, as the case may be) by the feds.

Posted by: MaryRose at July 23, 2009 9:59 PM


Mostly the "unnecessary" tests are made necessary as doctors practice defensive medicine to ward off lawsuits.

If they're cheap to the patient, the doc feels comfortable loading up in order to protect himself from lawyers saying he didn't do enough.

Posted by: Pharmer at July 23, 2009 10:19 PM


Pharmer,

True... although, I know that certain treatments wouldn't have been suggested to us if our insurance hadn't covered them, so I'm pretty sure that what is necessary or unnecessary varies from patient to patient in the details. Obviously, certain things are just plain necessary, but others are, I believe, determined on a more insurance-based case-by-case basis.

Regardless, I've always been okay with the occasional extra treatment or screening, at least within reason. What bothers me is the concept that any treatment or procedure would be denied me by a government agency intervening.

Posted by: MaryRose at July 23, 2009 10:27 PM


Yep, Mary Rose. And just think of what the government will deny to us active pro lifers. We
Are Screwed.
I pretty much don't expect to survive any major disease under 'Obama health kill".

Posted by: Pharmer at July 23, 2009 10:57 PM


No, he does not know how health care works, nor does he know how insurance works. Every time I hear him talking about his mother toward the end of her life having to fill out forms for her insurance company, I have to wonder, what the heck kind of insurance did she have? I have had major illnesses that I've been hospitalized for and surgery, and had no paperwork to do whatsoever in any case. The only forms I had to complete were to get and/or continue my medical leave from my employer, which were given to my doctors and taken care of by them.

Posted by: Luana at July 23, 2009 11:09 PM


Pharmer, there is no doubt that health care will be politicized after the government takes it over. I don't begrudge Ted Kennedy any of the treatment he's received. But am I supposed to believe that the average American the same age with the same diagnosis will get that kind of state-of-the-art care? Won't happen.

And what about privacy? The feds will have access to sensitive data on their adversaries. Should someone like Sarah Palin trust the government with her family's health care records after the way she's been demonized? I wouldn't!

This isn't about making sure everyone has access to quality health care. It's about the government determining who among us is entitled to quality health care.

Posted by: Fed Up at July 23, 2009 11:11 PM


This isn't about making sure everyone has access to quality health care. It's about the government determining who among us is entitled to quality health care.
Posted by: Fed Up at July 23, 2009 11:11 PM

BINGO!

Posted by: MaryRose at July 24, 2009 12:19 AM


You are one of the few who expose the liberal lie of "privacy" - a woman's right to decide with her doctor over what's right for "her" body.

Why don't the feminists complain? The pope identifies it correctly as realtive morality (truth)Under this construct of convenience, it is not hypocrisy, as conservatives foolishly like to say. Hypocrisy is a badge of honor to those who believe in any means to an end today and tommorrow it is moral to claim the exact opposite.

Right or wrong is whatever I say it is, at the moment.... The very same sin of Adam and Eve, anyone?

Posted by: Don :L at July 24, 2009 4:57 AM


Its really just a form of projection. We see the venality of ourselves in the other people.

He sees everyone in it for the buck.

You want to see what its like for a doctor to get some return on that expensive education?

Thank that doctor for saving your life. That's money in the life bank for a doctor.

Posted by: lonetown at July 24, 2009 5:51 AM


Don L,

Speaking of privacy, abortion records are private under the law, but abortion is an important part of a woman's health history that should be disclosed to the government's data-based medical records, like any other medical procedures, in Obama's health care plan. Why should "privacy" of abortion "care" trump any other? It's all "healthcare", right?

Posted by: Janet at July 24, 2009 5:59 AM


Here's a better argument about doctors acting in their own self-interest:

A doctor prescribes a woman a drug which could be dangerous to her unborn child. He may or may not tell her not to get pregnant while on the drug. She gets pregnant anyway. He strongly recommends an abortion because the baby could have problems. Why? If the baby were born, and had defects, he could be sued. But he can't be sued for recommending or even pushing abortion.

Posted by: YCW at July 24, 2009 7:03 AM


O.K. so PBHO is concerned that a doctor might hastily remove the tonsils because there's more money for him.
So why is he not concerned that a woman goes to a clinic as a pregnant woman and the provider hastily suggests an abortion? Oh yeah, the fetus is more dangerous than a tonsil in his world of thinking....ummm

Posted by: muriel at July 24, 2009 9:48 AM


Obama thinks ever doc has the same greedy world view his crime syndicate pals from Chicago have.

I know hundreds of docs. I also do not know a single doc that in his own patient care has made as much money as he made on his books. And the crazy guy had them written by Ayers. Lazy and greedy. Sure there are practices and groups that have good earnings. Independent surgery centers. Do a lot of volume. I also except for abortion can't name a single specialty that has a strong net profit percentage. Abortion is many times more lucrative than ENT especially


Posted by: xppc at July 24, 2009 11:13 AM


Here's a better argument about doctors acting in their own self-interest:

"A doctor prescribes a woman a drug which could be dangerous to her unborn child. He may or may not tell her not to get pregnant while on the drug. She gets pregnant anyway. He strongly recommends an abortion because the baby could have problems. Why? If the baby were born, and had defects, he could be sued. But he can't be sued for recommending or even pushing abortion."

Posted by: YCW at July 24, 2009 7:03 AM

Malpractice law reform would allow doctors to base their care on what's best for their patient without the added burden of worrying about a potential lawsuit.

Posted by: Janet at July 24, 2009 12:08 PM


I have a story about a "greedy" doctor...

During my first pregnancy, I had basically the crappiest healthcare plan in the world and pretty much the lowest income on the planet. But went to the OB/GYN as soon as I found out I was expecting, planned to pay that huge deductible out of pocket and I talked with the billing department about setting up a payment plan. Fast forward about a month. After receiving the confirmation of an impending miscarriage, I was waiting for the doctor to come into the room to advise me of my options. He saw that I was crying when he entered, even though I tried to hide it. He included a D&C in my list of options, and I told him that I really couldn't afford surgery.

Anyway, the point is this: I was never billed for any services related to my first pregnancy. This included 4 office visits, 3 blood tests, 3 other lab tests, 2 ultrasound screenings, and 1 pap smear. I didn't pay a dime.

I realize my story does not prove that doctors never perform unnecessary tests or opt for more expensive treatments (however, there are often rather practical reasons for that, such as covering their butts against frivolous malpracice suits and seizing oportunities to bring in revenue to cover costs of other patients' services who's government plans inadequately reimburse). But I'm bothered by sketchy anecdotes that villify doctors in general in order to push an agenda. I'm not impressed by the horror stories when there are just as many stories of charity.

Posted by: Janette at July 24, 2009 12:20 PM


I'm so sorry about your miscarriage. What a heart-warming story about your doctor! I'm sure there are many more good stories out there than bad.

Posted by: Janet at July 24, 2009 12:41 PM


Thank you, Janet.

I think that Americans in general trust their doctors and have had many positive experiences.

Posted by: Janette at July 25, 2009 6:59 PM


Someone pointed to Saul Alinsky to understand Barach Obama. I had to look him up, but what I found confirms Chris Arsenault's comment, "saying only what is necessary to promote his power agenda at any moment". Saul Alinsky was one of ("The"?) original community organizers, who influenced Barach Obama. Saul Alinsky believed, "that the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends". Saul Alinsky's final work, published the year before he died, begins with the following tribute, "From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer." Rebellion for rebellion's sake.

Posted by: David Volk at July 25, 2009 10:52 PM


David Volk,

Quite telling....

I'm sure somewhere in Alinsky's book there is the assertion that profits are BAD. BAD, BAD, BAD. I don't know where all the taxes to pay for big government are going to come from if the incentive for corporate America to make profits is taken away. That's where we are headed. The libs are trying their best to re-write the Declaration of Independence and the economic system which has provided a higher standard of living for over two hundred years than in most any other country in the world. Gotta wonder where common sense has gone.

Posted by: Janet at July 28, 2009 3:20 PM


I was talking to a fellow who is the president of the owners association at some condos on Turtle Creek in Dallas.

He was lamenting the fact that many of the residents who are in their golden years have lost half of their wealth in the recent downturn in the economy and now some of them are anxious about whether they will have enough money to keep them living in the life style to which they have become accustomed.

In a moment of 'candor' I may regret, I reminded the fellow that the definition of successful estate planning is for the end of your resources to be conincidental with the end of your life.

pbho's health care plan will ensure that happens one way or another. Either you die and your money runs out or your money runs out and you die. But whatever the case the government will take as much of your money as it can in the process.

Better get those living wills in order and make your end of life decisions now.

Obamacare is coming and your 'end' may be sooner than you think!

"They shoot horses, don't they?"

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at August 1, 2009 5:56 PM