Health ...what?? Care?? sure ....

AgainstTheMachine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
236
Location
NC
Obama describes his health care scheme with the usual pie-in-the-sky rhetoric, claiming - with fingers crossed behind his back - that his approach will heal the sick, miraculously reduce costs, and resurrect a moribund health system.
Obama has already told you that if you want to keep your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor and if you want to keep your present health plan, you'll be able to keep your present health plan.
Specifically, Obama said:
"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away."
But Obama can't keep that promise and he knows it.
Jim Lindgren writing for the Internet blog the Volokh Conspiracy:
"But if the Obama plan is enacted, a substantial portion of employers will cut their health subsidies - raising their employees' share of contributions to the company plan - in order to drive some of the employees into the government exchange and the public option. Other employers may drop their plans altogether - after all, workers could buy their own coverage in the government exchange - or simply fund part of their workers' participation in the exchange. These changes, which would be the direct results of the implementation of the Obama plan, would make it virtually impossible for Obama to keep these promises...."
But will keeping your doctor or your health care provider really matter when government bureaucrats start calling the shots and telling your doctor and provider exactly what they can and cannot do... what they are allowed to treat... what they're allowed to pay.
Make no mistake, Obama's takeover of health care will be nothing more than a raw power grab, more cutting than his takeover of the banks and the automobile industry. Its goal will not be to improve health care but, to reward political allies - and punish people like you.

Let's examine the real repercussions of health care rationing?
Think of it this way, to Obama (and other Statists), people represent health costs. The fewer people, the lower the costs.
Are we saying that Obama will target the elderly, the handicapped and the unborn to reduce costs?
Consider Obama's own words remarks as reprinted in the Washington Times and make that call yourself.
"Part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options."
Obama also said:
"The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill...."
Regarding those in the last phases of life, Obama specifically says:
"There is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels."
Obama's top health advisers have emphasized that America should value the lives of young, healthy people more than those of old, sick individuals.
One such adviser is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama's chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel.
Kevin Williamson of National Review Online describes Dr. Emanuel's views:
"He wrote in The Lancet in 2008: 'Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination.' We all were young once, the argument goes, and so denying the elderly and weak in order to care for the young and fit is just."
Just what do you think Obama's talking about here? Trust me, these are scary times and if you're over the age of 55, be very scared. If you're chronically ill with diabetes or high blood pressure or multiple sclerosis - or dying with heart disease or cancer - your future doesn't look very bright.
Would Obama empower the federal government and bureaucratic pencil-pushers to decide exactly when your presence on earth is no longer feasible, viable or sustainable?
Do we really want to find out the answer the hard way?

Let's examine the real repercussions of health care rationing?
Think of it this way, to Obama (and other Statists), people represent health costs. The fewer people, the lower the costs.
Are we saying that Obama will target the elderly, the handicapped and the unborn to reduce costs?
Consider Obama's own words remarks as reprinted in the Washington Times and make that call yourself.
"Part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options."
Obama also said:
"The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill...."
Regarding those in the last phases of life, Obama specifically says:
"There is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels."
Obama's top health advisers have emphasized that America should value the lives of young, healthy people more than those of old, sick individuals.
One such adviser is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama's chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel.
Kevin Williamson of National Review Online describes Dr. Emanuel's views:
"He wrote in The Lancet in 2008: 'Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination.' We all were young once, the argument goes, and so denying the elderly and weak in order to care for the young and fit is just."
Just what do you think Obama's talking about here? Trust me, these are scary times and if you're over the age of 55, be very scared. If you're chronically ill with diabetes or high blood pressure or multiple sclerosis - or dying with heart disease or cancer - your future doesn't look very bright.
Would Obama empower the federal government and bureaucratic pencil-pushers to decide exactly when your presence on earth is no longer feasible, viable or sustainable?
Do we really want to find out the answer the hard way?


And if you're really sick, what are the chances that you might die in line, waiting for treatment that simply does not come in time?
Dr. Gratzer tells us what's going on in Canada:
"I trained in emergency rooms that were chronically, chaotically, dangerously overcrowded... all across Canada. I met a middle-aged man with sleep problems who was booked for an appointment with a specialist three years later; a man with pain... who was referred to a pain clinic with a two-year wait list; a woman with breast cancer who was asked to wait for four months before starting the life-saving radiation therapy."
When you consider the evils of health care rationing, consider the following.
Addressing the AMA, Obama implied that costs were rising because patients were getting unneeded care. In fact, the opposite is true.
A 2003 survey by the Rand Corporation found that only 11% of patients got treatments they didn't need - while a whopping 46% failed to receive needed care.
And strangely, there's tremendous irony in Obama's mindless drive toward a government-run system.
In Great Britain, France, Germany - and even Canada - there's a growing push to get people back into private insurance systems, taking the pressure off public facilities and doctors. It's a move toward - you guessed it - government cost savings.
It's time to tell Congress - loudly and clearly - that falling off a cliff is hazardous to our health, as individuals and as a nation.

if that bothers you ... this following link is behind the text which is posted here ... https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form698921112/secure_index.html
 
Werbung:
Back
Top