Obama’s Health Care Reform Will Decimate Our Population
Sep 2nd, 2009 | 110 responses
No wonder Americans are increasingly opposed to Obama’s socialist, radical vision of a nationalized health care system.
Just look at what Obama will do to you, to me and to our loved ones if we allow him to succeed with his downright evil plan.
In the first place, Obama’s diabolical health care plan would kill many of our children even before they are born, because Obama will force pro-life doctors, nurses, and other professionals to perform abortions using our federal tax dollars.
Should our babies escape the abortionist’s knife, they still face a bleak future as, under Obama’s plan, our babies suffering from an illness, disorder or disability will have to stand in front of Obama’s death panel so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their level of productivity in society, whether they are worthy of health care.
Should they be fortunate enough to pass this Obama “test,” they will face many more obstacles through the rest of their lives.
For example, they will have to beg for health care under an Obama plan where bureaucrats have the power to ration treatment and medicine, where government bureaucrats and panels will come between you and your children’s doctors, where health choices commissioners will decide what care our children get.
As they continue to struggle to get essential medical care, our children and others will be forced to compete for scarce, rationed medical care with millions of illegal aliens, as our taxes are raised, trillions are wasted and our health care gets worse or non-existent.
Even those families who have some funds left will not be able to obtain health care as Obama’s plan will make private insurance, private plans, illegal.
Obama’s nationalized healthcare will not let doctors and their patients decide what’s best. Nationalized health care will mean fewer treatment options, and it will mean that real people might not make it if Obama is allowed to inflict his nationalized health care on America.
Particularly cruel is the fact that more American women are going to die of breast cancer if you and I surrender to President Obama’s nationalized health care onslaught. That’s at least 300,000 women who, facing cancer in the future, are likely to suffer under Obama’s health care plan.
Some of our young people may escape the clutches of Obama’s killing machine by joining our armed forces, where our troops and their dependents traditionally have had excellent medical care. But even this last, sacred bastion of decent medical care may be compromised.
First, because of how this socialized health plan costing over $10 trillion every year will probably bankrupt our nation in just a few years.
Second, an effort to reduce the veterans’ population may have already started. The Department of Veterans Affairs has a manual out there, a “Death Book for Veterans,” through which the Obama administration is pressuring veterans to end their lives prematurely, telling our veterans stuff like, “Are you really a value to your community?” and, you know, encouraging them to commit suicide. So, even our brave veterans may not make it.
As if matters weren’t tragic enough, Obama might use his overhaul of our present health system as a tool to deny medical treatment to Republicans. Obama could check voting registration records, possibly resulting in GOP voters being discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system.
The grim reality is that roughly 120 million Americans will be deprived of their current health care coverage.
Why? Because nationalized healthcare does not let doctors and their patients decide what’s best. Because nationalized health care means fewer treatment options under faceless government bureaucrats. Because nationalized healthcare means huge costs and higher mortality.
The rest of us—those who survive the early stages of the Obama plan—will have to fight for our health care from doctors working for the government at measly wages and where the government will decide what treatment we can have or can’t have.
Those of us who make it till Medicare can take care of us; don’t bank on it. Because in order to pay for his excuse of a health plan, Obama plans to slash benefits by cutting $500 billion from Medicare, which will mean long waits for care, cuts to MRIs and other imaging services, and will result in the government, not doctors, deciding if our seniors are worth the cost and effort.
Under Obama’s Medicare, cancer patients over 70 will only get end-of-life counseling and not chemotherapy.
There is, however, one glimmer of hope in Obama’s plan: The suffering of our seniors will not be protracted.
You see, Obama’s plan will make it mandatory that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care in order to cut their lives short.
Even for those who want to continue life, it will be difficult, as Obama’s plan will start us down a treacherous path to government-sponsored euthanasia—a plan where government will tell us when to pull the plug on Grandma.
So you see, we are talking infanticide even before birth and euthanasia during our golden years. During the in-between years, government will be making life and death decisions; government will be making decisions about whether or not you get health care or don’t receive health care—government will decide who lives and who dies.
No wonder more and more Americans oppose Obama’s plans.
“Decimate” may be too kind a word.
Note: Most of the language used in this post has been taken verbatim or with minor modifications from statements made by GOP officials, personalities and organizations and by individuals and organizations opposed to health care reform.
The author does not subscribe to those perceptions.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
110 Responses to “Obama’s Health Care Reform Will Decimate Our Population”
Some good articles to read.
August 30, 2009 – Former U.S. president Bill Clinton swooped into Toronto yesterday, praising Canadian health care during an hour-long speech to just under 12,000 people.
Although Clinton's talk focused on the growing divide between the world's cities and its rural areas, he acknowledged Kennedy's passing.
“I hope that his lifetime dream, that America will finally follow Canada and every other advanced nation in the world in providing affordable health care to all of our people, will pass.”
Source: http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/canada/2009/08/…
“Among the OECD's 30 members — which include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom — there are only three lacking universal health coverage. The other two happen to be Mexico and Turkey, which have the excuse of being poorer than the rest (and until the onset of the world economic crisis, Mexico was on the way to providing healthcare to all of its citizens). The third, of course, is us.
As the study suggests, our grossly inflated and poorly managed health budget results from a variety of pathologies, including a greater prevalence of obesity and other chronic illness, a powerful pharmaceutical lobby that keeps prices high, and the profit-making imperative of the private insurance companies that still dominate American health policy, more than four decades after we established universal coverage for the elderly and the poor. Looking forward, the OECD advocates many of the same incremental reforms contemplated by the Obama administration.”
Source: http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/9/18277/26800
“A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork. Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.”
Source: ^ Public Citizen. “Study Shows National Health Insurance Could Save $286 Billion on Health Care Paperwork:” http://www.citizen.org.
^ Reinhardt UE, Hussey PS, Anderson GF (2004). “U.S. health care spending in an international context”. Health Aff (Millwood) 23 (3): 10–25. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.23.3.10. PMID 15160799. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/fu….
I think the issue though, mikkel, is what is effective and what is not. It doesn't matter if people 'deserve' to have their concerns answered. What matters is that if you really believe that reform is important, and that it's being blocked by varying degrees of misinformation from both sides (perhaps worse on one side or the other but even that doesn't really matter) then you still have to look at efficacy when deciding whether or not to engage people's arguments. And while I agree that it's more egregious when people who know better use the dishonest arguments, by engaging them you still are able to help persuade all of the people who've been misinformed (well, not necessarily you, or I- but if one of us were a public official who could go on the cable shows and choose whether to ridicule the townhall protesters or engage the arguments that they're using, for example.)
Sorry???? I am very new to this and did not find any links….
Please understand, I am NOT contending that these things were not said…..what I'd like to know is are any of them TRUE or close to TRUE (no parsing of words allowed here…right?)
JustMy02Cents
Hmm…I'm not sure whether you addressed that to me because you understood my point about political clout or if you misread me. I think it's wrong for allocation of resources to be done according to political clout, and I think that's one of the main dangers of govt power over the resources to begin with.
I do think though that to some degree, healthcare resources have already been misallocated to senior citizens and end of life care. The problem is though that there is naturally going to be some skewing toward that end of the spectrum when care is most needed- but somehow we need to come to terms with the fact that none of us are immortal and the finite worldly resources can't keep every individual alive as long as we'd necessarily like. I'd rather have the power of govt left out of the calculus for that as much as possible, but the fact is they're already in it because of Medicare and the current cost trajectory is already unsustainable.
Thank You…I will read each
Can we assume that President Clinton will be opting into the public option?
sorry in advance, but please stop throwing marshmellows….lol
justmy02cents
Please see my post re: Chicago politics….Yes I agree…get the government out of my life…except for security and disaster relief….
anything else is unconstitutional
“Still there is a fundamental difference between that and acting like the government is goign to going to kill grandma.”
Agreed. I admitted that the rhetoric from the right is more inflammatory. That seems to be a pattern with the party that is out of power (see the 911 conspiracy theorists on the left when Bush was in power which have similar poll number to the current Birther's movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls…) The party in power wants to look calm and calculating, to give the impression of control and confidence (hows that for some alliteration). The party out of power wants to make it seem like the world is going to end tomorrow (but if it doesn't, vote us into office as soon as possible so we can fix it). So yes, we can expect a different type of rhetoric from both sides, but beneath the rhetoric are the same distortions.
Westbeach80:
Thanks for the links and for the other constructive and helpful comments you have made.
Dorian
Definitely, there are weaknesses to the universal health care system like
longer wait times; losing talented doctors to private sector (a number of
Canadian doctors are heading to the US because of better wages); not enough
beds; and less equipment available like MRIs. The great thing about
privatized health care is that if Americans have the money, they will get
the best treatment. The problem is those who cannot afford insurance and who
don't get treatment. I hear stories in the US where patients are denied
service at one hospital because they won't accept their insurance and they
have to drive to another hospital. That to me is just crazy.
“Despite these stories emanating from the press and pressure groups (mostly
from the US) about the weakness of the universal health care, the fact
remains that most Canadians are satisfied with the health care system. 85.2%
of Canadians reported that they were “satisified” or “very satisfied” with
the way health care services are provided in their country and an even
higher number (89.8%) rated their physician in the same way though slightly
lower ratings were awarded to hospitals (79.9% being “satisified” or “very
satisfied”).” (Source: “Healthy Canadians: Canadian government report on
comparable health care indicators<http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf>
“. http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf.)
I believe the benefits of having universal health care outweigh the costs.
Universal health care is socialized health care and to many Americans that
scares them that the government would be in control. Socialism just does not
go right with the Republicans, but the Democrats lean to the left and are
open to ideas. Obama's plan scares Americans because they feel he will
cripple America's health care when in fact the system is already crippled in
not being able to provide health care to all citizens regardless of one's
income.
Many Americans are buying prescription drugs from Canadian distributors,
either over the Internet or traveling there to buy them in person, because
cost is substantially lower than they would pay in the US. Cross-border
purchasing has been estimated at $1 billion annually.
I believe some government control is better for a country in certain sectors
and not just free enterprise. All you need to look at is what happened with
America's banks (mortgages handed out like free candy). There are thousands
of banks in the US with little to no regulation, and now look at where the
current state of the US economy is in. I'm not being biased about how great
Canada is, but I do believe in some form of socialism. Canada has less than
100 banks that are fully regulated and have been a model to countries around
the world. Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, was asked by
journalists from other countries how did Canada's banks stay healthy and
make profits. He responded that government regulation was key to making sure
banks don't take major risks. Canada is in a recession, but not as badly as
many countries around the world.
Westbeach80:
“…the fact remains that most Canadians are satisfied with the health care system. 85.2%
of Canadians reported that they were “satisified” or “very satisfied” with
the way health care services are provided in their country and an even
higher number (89.8%) rated their physician in the same way though slightly
lower ratings were awarded to hospitals (79.9% being “satisified” or “very
satisfied”).”
I have seen similar figures elsewhere. They are also pretty good in England and other European countries. And, guess, what, they are lower in the US
Thanks