Obama Says We Shouldn't Treat Some Old Folks to Save Money

It sure seemed to me, and please tell me I'm wrong, as if the most caring, most civil, most intelligent president ever just said that health care 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 it may not be worth the extra effort or expense to allow them to live out their life comfortably. Oddly, though, the 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 health care 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 health care 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.

President Obama struggled to explain whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people — like the president himself — wouldn’t face.

A very probing question came from a skeptical doctor during ABC News’ special on health care reform, Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it’s not provided by insurance.

Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care."

Oopsie! So ObamaCare for thee, but not for me? Hope and change, baby!


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 Baucuc has his way.

Ah, but we are told that Obama's ideas on health care 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 health care benefits from work. He even ridiculed McCain for proposing such a plan, but lately has changed his tune saying that such a new tax is on the table. And what about his stance against fining people and businesses that don't join his UberPlan? He was against that sort of coerciveness before.

Originally, he said it was "health care for all," but as of Wednesday night, it seems he's "evolved" to say that only those worth the bother should get health care. 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. And why has the media remained mum on the possibility that the President just said that some old folks might just be expensive to treat? Hello, CNN, NBC, New York Times... anyone?
Somehow I'd guess that a few of you reading this 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.
_________________________________________________________________________
The Hippocratic Oath is an oath traditionally taken by physicians pertaining to the ethical practice of medicine, although mostly of historical and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine for over 2300 years.
For those who have never read it, please do:

"The Hippocratic Oath"

I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

Climate bill would be biggest tax in American history

From the "we only want to save you from yourself" file.

She's at it again! After helping ram through the largest spending bill in the country's history, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House of Representatives, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done. Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's arm twisting of House Members , rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

The Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill.

The CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. To put it simply, under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2, (i.e. you got the cash, you get to pollute) . The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.(here is where we get screwed).

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. (here is where we really get screwed). Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four.

But from a bunch that just ran the national debt from 1 trillion to 3 trillion in two months, what's $1,870 bucks anyway, huh?

And an interesting fact is the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families. (this is where the same party that caused the mess comes to the rescue with more government fixes)

But with all that said, an important fact Congressional leaders and environmentalists rarely ever mention outside of a losing debate (every wonder why they won't debate their critics?): America, who has taken dramatic steps to clean up our air and water over the last 40 years won't have much impact on global conditions if China, India and other major polluters don't follow suit and dramatically reduce their own pollutants. And don't give me "The Kyoto Protocol", it's a utopian sham, read it for yourself.

So, until Congressional leaders pass wide sweeping tax breaks to encourage the manufacture and use of cheap non-polluting solar panels for homes and businesses, and quit playing footsy with the extreme environmentalists by allowing them to block where energy producing wind mill farms can be placed (they're big on that "not in my backyard thing " ya know) I will continue to criticize and ride the whole bunch for trying to get into my pockets again rather than do something sensible......and I Want My Country Back!

D.S.

Update: Over the weekend, the cap-and-trade bill grew from 946 pages to 1,201 pages, according to the Sunlight Foundation. I'm sure they are all busy reading over it right now before they vote.

Update: Fri. 6/26: The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives narrowly passed by a 219-212 vote the sweeping legislation, most without even reading it. Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill, while just eight Republicans crossed the aisle to back it.

The legislation now goes to a more sensible Senate Chamber where the bills future becomes less certain.