Obama Admits To Health Care Rationing During ABC Infomercial

First, I want to apologize to Billy Mays. In a Thursday post, I compared Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama's ABC infomercial to a Billy Mays commercial. That was insensitive. Obama was more like the creepy guy who does the Sham-Wow spots. Sorry, Billy.

Second, the more I have gone back and re-watched clips of ABC's production of "Invasion of the Government Body Snatchers" the worse the whole production appears. That is true of Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer's abandonment of journalistic principles and it is even more true of the suave-one's ability to answer the most innocuous questions with anything resembling a cogent response. Forget the ratings, which were abysmal. Obama came unglued. TOTUS couldn't save him. When a doctor asked if he would submit his own family to ObamaCare or would he seek the best options for them, he had to tell the truth (I think he even surprised himself by being honest). That should be the question we all ask of our Senators and Representatives: will you give up your current health care benefits and be part of Obama Care for the Dumb Masses?

One particular element of Dr. Barack Mengele's unholy experiment is the inevitable rationing of health care. In other words, at a certain age whether or not one receives care will be based on risk and investment. Is a 60 year-old with a difficult cancer treatment ahead worth the fiscal outlay? Will one receive surgery to relieve a painful affliction or will you be given a lifetime supply of pain killers? These will be decisions made by a Federal Health Board for everyone stuck in the government system.

This Newsbusters item examined Obama's answer to a question about rationing:

Obama said during the ABC Special on Wednesday night that a way to save healthcare 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 healthcare future? If he is trying to make that claim it is a flat out untruth and he knows it.

All of the government health care plans offered, including the one by self-appointed medical guru Tom Daschle, involve government establishing what procedures will be covered, in what manner they will be covered, and how much they will pay. Medicare is already suffering from this as the government increasingly refuses to pay for necessary care for Seniors. How does it make sense to spread that same misery to all Americans?

Single-payer, nationalized health care will be a disaster for all Americans. Right now, if you need treatment you will get treatment. There are avenues in and out of the insurance system. Nationalized health care will cut off those paths by making it illegal to provide treatment outside of a state-mandated program.

Our health care system has problems and there are solutions, but Democrats have fought every reform short of a government takeover. Obama has repeatedly stated that tort reform is off the table. Ridiculous financial judgments against hospitals and doctors have driven malpractice insurance costs through the roof and have also resulted in "defensive medicine" where over-testing is often done with CYA being the primary goal. Small businesses are not allowed to participate in insurance pools to gain access to less expensive premiums. This would allow a group of smaller firms to negotiate as a larger one would do with different insurance companies to find lower rates. Nope, Dems won't allow that. Many states have one-size-fits-all requirements that allow no flexibility in insurance plans. So, a 22 year-old has to be covered for Alzheimer's and a 62 year-old must carry protection for HIV-AIDS. Why not allow insurance companies flexibility to sell more diverse policies?

Ultimately, this is about liberty. The government, led by a smoker, wants to tell you whether or not you can smoke. The government will tell you what and how much you can drink. The government will tell you what and how much you can eat. The government will tell you how much you must exercise. An overreaction? Listen to what is said during these discussions. Obama has all but admitted these things will come to pass. When he read "1984" in high school, he didn't get that the novel was a warning about the horrors of totalitarianism. Young Barry thought "this just might work!"