From the LA Times, June 25:
President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.
Read that again. Obama was subtly promoting euthanasia...
In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."
He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.
Or maybe, President Obama, the decision should be left to the patient and patient's family?
This prime-time ratings fiasco was hosted by ABC News, with 164 invited guests, pre-screened questions, and no rebuttal time for the opposing view on Obama's rationed healthcare boondoggle. Thus, this was no surprise:
The audience - which included doctors, patients, health insurers, students and people with ailing relatives - clearly was unhappy with the current healthcare system. Gibson asked for a show of hands to see how many wanted to leave the system unchanged. No one raised a hand.
This was a set up. It was not media reporting, it was an unpaid infomercial.
Gregg Cunningham of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform blog had this to say about Obama's ominous comments during the "propaganda special extraordinaire":
Who will decide whether "you're better off" without the surgery? Not your doctor but Mr. Obama. Does Mr. Obama really know "who is about to die" and who "don't stand to gain" from extra care? And what care is "extra?" As usual, Mr. Obama illustrates his point with a very dishonest, false dilemma. Of course you don't do a hip replacement on his very elderly grandmother whose very aggressive and terminal cancer meant she might not have survived the surgery. But the type of treatment decisions often criticized by rationing radicals are seldom that obvious.
Mr. Obama is willing to interfere in the relationship between a doctor and his patient when the doctor is trying to save a life but not when the doctor is trying to take a life. Is this the most anti-life president in American history?
And this, from the Canada Free Press:
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....
... [N]o 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....
Ah, but we are told that Obama's ideas on healthcare are "evolving"... [o]riginally, he said it was "healthcare for all," but... 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....
And whatever 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.
Not only where there no opposing questions, but Obama refused to let opposing sides even get commercial time!
Anyone who thinks this isn't the start of a dictatorship is delusional.
And let's all remember Lance Armstrong who survived Stage 4 testicular cancer. Who, indeed, has the right to say that "it's not worth it."Posted by: Kristen at June 29, 2009 5:27 PM
60,000 RM. This is what the person suffering from hereditary loss costs the community of Germans in his lifetime. Fellow Citizen, that is your money too. - Nazi Propaganda PosterPosted by: bethany at June 29, 2009 5:29 PM
What I want to know is, Where is the CHOICE in "PRO-CHOICE"? Pro-abortionists are supportive of only one choice and that is death for those who do not choose it.Posted by: bethany at June 29, 2009 5:41 PM
So basically we're going to outsource TX's horrific Futile Care policy to the entire country.
Paging Jacque!Posted by: Lauren at June 29, 2009 5:47 PM
Anyone who thinks this isn't the start of a dictatorship is delusional.
Posted by: Kristen at June 29, 2009 5:08 PM
[raises hand]Posted by: Hal at June 29, 2009 6:14 PM
Hal, you really don't find anything disturbing about obama's comments?Posted by: bethany at June 29, 2009 6:18 PM
Mr. Obama possesses no respect for unborn or newborn life, no respect for those some deem as having a lesser "quality of life" (i.e. your disability makes me uncomfortable, so I'll have you executed and call it merciful!), should we be surprised he has no respect for the ill, elderly or otherwise non-contributing (read: tax dollars) members of society?
Like a frayed rope, just continue trimming off either end, betting on strength and power to silence any objections, and the fact that these weaker populations are easy prey. Use the MSM to paint you as caring and compassionate, sacrificial even (for the good of all!) Maybe even cite some cases of the over-burdened middle generation, pulled between trying to raise their children and care for their ageing or ill parents. Government-ordered killing can be sanitized quite nicely this way. Maybe he's been speaking w/these "philanthropists" ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lScMcgvoESo&feature=related
Thirteen months ago, my mother (who 4 years prior had been diagnosed w/Stage 4 metastatic cancer) was hospitalized with 2 broken legs. An EKG revealed bradycardia, which meant she needed a pacemaker before her legs could be operated on. The cardiologist tried to persuade both my parents (who'd already said yes to the pacemaker implant) to forego it, arguing that it was not a good road ahead for her anyway. My mother got her pacemaker and lived for another 12 months, a time during which our entire extended family was witness to the miraculous work of God in her and in us. My mother needed help with everything, but she could pray like nobody's business, and though I would have never wished her any suffering, that extra year was a gift to so many people. Obama's rationalization would not have even allowed the pacemaker, much less the orthopedic surgery on both legs. From the government's point of view, she was only costing money. The extra time and what happened between May 2008 and May 2009 was priceless, and not just to me.
Anyone who doesn't think this affects them should remember we are all just one accident away from being deemed "expendable". Even a medical opinion (vs. a bureaucrat's) is not trustworthy.
This woman was pronounced brain dead and recovered. Twice. http://www.stillwatergazette.com/articles/2009/01/16/news/news110.txt
Makes you think about how much we really know. It's still called practicing medicine for a reason.Posted by: klynn73 at June 29, 2009 6:19 PM
All I ever hear from liberals is "you conservatives hate health care and just want to take it away from the poor and sickly! You're heartless!"
Yet, when obama talks about taking health care away from sick people because of $$$$, not a one of them bats an eye!Posted by: bethany at June 29, 2009 6:23 PM
Klynn73, right you are.Posted by: bethany at June 29, 2009 6:41 PM
Will 'truth about Obama' be sold on eBay?
Bids soar past $15,000 for alleged proof of president's Kenyan birth
Firstly, I must say that our current system of care is horrid. I don't support rationing healthcare, but something really must change.
And I don't think that he meant killing those by giving up; I think that they meant, literally, if you don't need the medication or it won't improve anything then don't take it.
Now, if he puts into healthcare that people can kill themselves but cannot purchase the drugs that they need, I will be upset. But assisted suicide is, as far as I know, not covered in his insurance plans. Abortion, tragically, is (and, hopefully, that's going to change or I will officially begin a boycott). If I'm wrong about his policy on suicide and euthanasia, correct me, but I don't think that he's advocating it here.
Hello, Hal. I haven't seen a comment in you for awhile. How are you?Posted by: Vannah at June 29, 2009 7:34 PM
Nationalized healthcare will result in our bodies becoming property of the government as they make medical decisions for us and our loved ones.
Mark Levin (a close friend and colleague of Sean Hannity) has a lot to say about this topic if you do a search. Mark is like a modern-day John the Baptist crying in the wilderness - trying to wake up Americans who are too blind to see what nationalized healthcare would really be.Posted by: LauraLoo at June 29, 2009 7:46 PM
Vannah, sadly in areas where assisted suicide is legal, it is covered by government insurance. There was a case in Oregon where a woman was denied further cancer treatments, but was told her suicide would be covered.
If you're interested. Wesley Smith has a great site talking about medical ethics. It's www.wesleyjsmith.comPosted by: Lauren at June 29, 2009 7:50 PM
Thanks for the link, Lauren. I'll check it out. :)Posted by: Vannah at June 29, 2009 7:56 PM
Insurance companies already deny care and rescind coverage all the time, all in the name of profit.Posted by: reality at June 29, 2009 8:12 PM
Reality, your point?Posted by: bethany at June 29, 2009 8:19 PM
Insurance companies already deny care
WRONG! Insurance companies sometimes deny PAYMENT for care. And when that happens there is usually an appeals process. Denying payment for care isn't the same thing as having the government dictate policies that deny care.Posted by: Fed Up at June 29, 2009 8:39 PM
Thank you for catching that, Fed Up. I'm tired and didn't even notice the way that was worded. The two are not comparable by a long shot.Posted by: Bethany at June 29, 2009 8:40 PM
Reality, what if you are the one being decided for by someone else that you aren't worth keeping alive?
What if it was your brother or sister, being denied treatment that could save their lives, because another person decided that it was too costly to treat them and it wasn't worth trying? Would that not bother you at all?Posted by: Bethany at June 29, 2009 8:55 PM
I am so thankful that I was not denied care when I was pregnant TWICE and my husband didn't have a job and we didn't have insurance. We made payments when we could after the babes were born. Paid in full now. :)
I keep forgetting the little letter Every.Time.Posted by: carla at June 29, 2009 9:24 PM
I’m speaking in front of thousands in Tucson, Arizona on Saturday and am collecting my thoughts. Given just 15 minutes to address people about freedom, what do you say? There is so much. Despite the heaviness of the week, of this month, and of this year, I have to believe that there is an opportunity here. This is our window to remind people that they are free, and that they have to work to keep it that way.Posted by: Florida at June 29, 2009 9:38 PM
If it's any consolation, the Obama infomercial was the lowest rated show in it's time slot. Reruns on other channels beat it. So it seems most people knew they were being manipulated and therefore ignored it.Posted by: Joanne at June 29, 2009 9:40 PM
Insurance companies already deny care and rescind coverage all the time, all in the name of profit.
Posted by: reality at June 29, 2009 8:12 PM
I had a friend who was denied gallbladder surgery by her insurance. Her doc got on the phone and screamed at the rep about how he was going to do the surgery and the insurance company WOULD pay for it. (She was jaundice and had many symptoms.) The surgery WAS paid by insurance after that.
Now if that had been the situation with Obama's plan you can darn well bet that the government wouldn't have given in.Posted by: Kristen at June 29, 2009 9:48 PM
"If it's any consolation, the Obama infomercial was the lowest rated show in it's time slot. Reruns on other channels beat it. So it seems most people knew they were being manipulated and therefore ignored it."
Thats good news JoannePosted by: jasper at June 29, 2009 10:00 PM
If it's any consolation, the Obama infomercial was the lowest rated show in it's time slot. Reruns on other channels beat it. So it seems most people knew they were being manipulated and therefore ignored it.
Joanne, I DO find comfort in that.Posted by: Bethany at June 29, 2009 10:13 PM
Ahhhh..Liberals. I'd throw up, but I'm afraid if I did, Obama would want somebody to 'pull the plug' ;)Posted by: Pamela at June 29, 2009 10:52 PM
Jasper and Bethany.... maybe there is hope after all! The state run media wants everyone to believe most people support Barry's far left policies. And last Friday the house passed the largest tax grab ever without even reading the bill they were voting on!
And for the benefit of any Barry supporters who might not believe.... the infomercial got less than 5 million viewers for something that is supposed to be a national emergency according to the propaganda. Actually I was mistaken on one count... apparently NBC had new programming but CBS did not.Posted by: Joanne at June 29, 2009 11:18 PM
The problem is, it doesn't matter that nobody watched. They are pushing through this bill and now Pelosi and Reid are saying that the public doesn't need to know what is in it prior to it being voted on.... Pelosi has stated that "… this bill is something that has been unfolding before the American people for a long time now. The areas of controversy are well known"...
Then let us see it. Oh yeah, you don't want the American people knowing that members of Congress are exempt from this healthcare plan (they are only foisting it on the "mere people"... you know, because all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.)... oh, and unions are exempt from paying taxes on their health care plans.Posted by: Elisabeth at June 30, 2009 12:08 AM
I think what likely works best is something that is a bit of what Canada has and bit of what the US already has.
Canada's healthcare system has worked reasonably well for many years. The problem is that it worked at its best when medicine was a lot cheaper. Today there are very expensive diagnostic tools that are available to everyone; MRI, CAT, etc. We have the technology today to save very small babies, to help people with very severe traumas who would not have ever been treated 60 years ago when socialized medicine was first introduced. In a way, the technology has worked against us. It has made medicine so much more expensive because it has offered people alternatives.
Example: A person with a deteriorating knee joint suffered for the rest of his/her life and walked with a cane or eventually ended up in a wheelchair. Today, that same person can get a knee replacement.
In addition, a large percentage of doctors trained in Canada do not stay in Canada. This coupled with the fact that high percentage of doctors graduating from med school are women who leave the profession after 10 years compounds the doctor shortage in Canada.
Perhaps for people below a certain income cutoff, socialized medicine would be available. Those earning above that cutoff would pay for their own healthcare.
In all honesty, I'm not sure just what would work.
My belief is that no one should go without care and no family should have to make payments that are financially crushing. In other words, no one should have to choose between financial ruin and seeking proper health care.
What Obama is presenting is a healthcare system based on utilitarian ethics. Of course this sort of ethics has been around along time now in our society and is completely ingrained as a result of abortion. A woman choosing between grad school and aborting her baby is using utilitarian ethics.
I must admit that it is quite scary to see this approach being adovcated more often in medicine, especially the approaching aging of the baby boom population. But then I've always maintained that the first generation who suffered through the abortion of their siblings will exact their revenge on us in a way we could never have imagined.Posted by: angel at June 30, 2009 6:58 AM
Maybe more and more people will try PREVENTION and natural ways to boost immunity and maintain health. I have many friends who swear by most homeopathic remedies and do the best they can to avoid costly doctor visits. Eating right, getting enough sleep, taking vitamins can all help build a better immune system.
With my first child I ran to the doctor for every sniffle and fever. Not anymore. :)
My four have only been to the doctor twice in the last couple of years. Dislocated elbow(our chiropractor said he could have fixed that!)and xray and crutches for the girl who loves to climb trees and fell.
That said, I am becoming more and more frightened by the increased government control in our lives.
I didn't watch the ABC presentation, so I am judging the issue only by what Jill has presented in her post. The LA Times quote says:
"In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said FAMILIES need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care." " (Emphasis added).
I think that we often do err on the side of overmedicating patients, a practice that can be detrimental to our health. I also think we spend money on unnecessary tests.Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 7:56 AM
yes Carla I also don't go to the doctor very much anymore.
My doctor is located in another city an hour drive away. :(
This is part of the reason. However, he knows that I only call when it's something serious. Sometimes he will talk to a sick child via phone and diagnose. He trusts me to know when something is serious.
My youngest daughter was vomiting blood earlier this year. She was sick with a virus and I phoned the health helpline (it was 9pm). I spoke first with a nurse and then with a doctor. We went to emerg and they were trying to triage her - but I was adamant that she be started on an IV immediately. Tests showed she was far more dehydrated than she appeared. Once the IV was started, you could see the black around her eyes and the pallor disappear from her face within SECONDS.
However I must say that years ago, I could call my doctor's home! He once ordered antibiotics for my son who was very very ill with pneumonia at midnight. We found a pharmacy still open at 1am in the morning and were able to fill the prescriptions for antibiotics and codeine cough syrup.
For myself, our doctor sends out a notice to get a stool culture when turning 50 and also a mammogram. these are preventative measures for colon and breast cancer. However I didn't go for either since I consider my risk level to be very low. No history of either cancer on either side of the family.
The biggest problem is that somebody OTHER than your doctor will be determining what care you can have.Posted by: Elisabeth at June 30, 2009 8:40 AM
The biggest problem is that somebody OTHER than your doctor will be determining what care you can have.
Posted by: Elisabeth at June 30, 2009 8:40 AM
Not what care you can have, what care will be paid for. You can have any care you want if you pay for it yourself.Posted by: Hal at June 30, 2009 12:35 PM
Really? Are you sure? Because in Canada you can't. You aren't allowed to pay for it because it supposedly creates disparities in the system. Same in England (where most of DH's family lives).
Since we aren't allowed to see the text of this bill, how do we KNOW we will be allowed to pay for it?Posted by: Elisabeth at June 30, 2009 12:51 PM
Apalling....Obama is a sick puppy!Posted by: Robyn at June 30, 2009 1:50 PM
"And let's all remember Lance Armstrong who survived Stage 4 testicular cancer. Who, indeed, has the right to say that "it's not worth it."
Posted by: Kristen at June 29, 2009 5:27 PM"
Kristen..I believe that was Brain, Lung and testicular cancer all at the same time.Posted by: RSD at June 30, 2009 2:31 PM
The debate on nationalized health care goes right to the heart of our way of life and self-governance. Do we see ourselves as a nation of free people able to make decisions of life and death within the confines of commonly held ethical and moral beliefs, or do we hand over these decisions to the government?
It has been said that the government that is powerful enough to give us everything can also take it away. If this is what we want, God help us.
But, as with so many things that are being done right now in the halls of congress, there is the legislation as it is perceived, and the legislation as it really is. If the bill is not rushed through, so as to get it signed before the public really understands what it is, then it will go down in flames. Because once the public fully understands the true costs and limitations it will impose upon our health care, they will see through the obfuscations presented to us by the proponents of the legislation and their willing accomplices in the MSM.
Here's hoping that the hundreds of tea parties across the country during the July 4th weekend will help educate the millions of our fellow citizens about the huge power grabs our young marxist president is presiding over.Posted by: Jerry at June 30, 2009 6:37 PM
Obama and his worshipers will sneak an amendment that will legalize assisted suicide and add it as an acceptable cost effective treatment treatment option just as was done in Oregon and will soon be done in Washington state.WA approved AS in November.
Nursing homes will become obsolete because it will not meet the criteria for "cost effective treatment."
Funeral homes will see a massive increase in sales.
Think Soylant Green meets Gattica.
This is really disturbing. It sounds bad, but I think this is one way they plan to tackle the looming Social Security crisis. Deny care to seniors and you'll have less seniors receiving Soc Sec benefits.
Beyond that - what about children and adults with special needs? The libs would prefer they not be born in the first place, hence their adamant support for abortion, which just happens to target some 80-90% of babies with disabilities. Do we really think they wouldn't deny care for them on the basis of "cost"? What about preemies? NICU care is expensive, but it saves lives. Would it still be available under Obamacare? Would the answer to all these questions depend on whether one is politically connected, or what your voting record is?Posted by: lonestar at June 30, 2009 10:12 PM
Kristen..I believe that was Brain, Lung and testicular cancer all at the same time.
Posted by: RSD at June 30, 2009 2:31 PM
Posted by: Kristen
at July 1, 2009 9:38 AM
Yes, I believe that's correct but didn't it start as testicular cancer? Then matastitized to the brain and lungs?
Funeral homes will see a massive increase in sales.
Posted by: Mark at June 30, 2009 9:23 PM
maybe a blip, then things will even out. There are the same amount of people who will be dying eventually.Posted by: Hal at July 1, 2009 3:25 PM
Hal, we ALL will be dying eventually. That doesn't give anyone the right to speed up that process.
Um, okay...I don't know why but I put Hal in the "name" bar..sorry! Never done that before.Posted by: Bethany at July 1, 2009 4:06 PM
I found the following texts which claim euthanasia is euthaNAZIsm made by doctorsPosted by: krankrank at July 2, 2009 12:22 AM