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.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: June 29, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
