The American Spectator : Obama's Senior Moment

Text Size

Obama's Senior Moment

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 6.18.09 @ 6:08AM

He is determined to restrict health services for older people.

WASHINGTON -- If you have any sense that you may be getting sick in the years ahead, I suggest you get sick immediately. If you will be in need of surgery or any other medical procedure, do it now! If not immediately, be certain that you hand yourself over to the healthcare professionals before October 15 of this year. That is the date on which President Barack Obama hopes to sign his healthcare bill once it has gone through the congressional baloney grinder.

At the heart of President Obama's plan is his stated goal to cut medical costs. That might sound good to you, but it means cutting services, nurses, technicians, medical tests, and most prominently the use of expensive technology. The President's top medical advisers are quite frank about this. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel and a health policy adviser in the Office of Management and Budget, has chided Americans for the expense of their "being enamored with technology." Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, charges medical innovations as being responsible for fully two-thirds of the annual increase in healthcare spending. Their solution is to limit expensive innovations. A 2008 Congressional Budget Office report agrees with their cost analysis but concludes happily that such innovations "permit the treatment of previously untreatable conditions." As I shall show, there are more humane ways to cut healthcare costs.

Also at the heart of President Obama's plan is the restriction of services for older people, people 65 and older who by virtue of modern medicine may actually be ten and fifteen years younger in terms of good health than they would have been a generation ago. Alas, they still have higher health risks and costs than younger people. Thus they are going to bear the brunt of the Obama Administration's cost cuts, for 27-30% of Medicaid spending is spent for caring for people at the end of their lives. With the government taking over more of the nation's healthcare costs under the Obama regime, it has already been decided that government monies are more economically spent on younger people than on older people. If a 65-year-old needs a hip replacement, the government will better spend that money on a younger person whose hip will last longer. Or perhaps the government will decide the money is better spent on preventive medicine for younger people.

In the federal stimulus legislation that the president signed February 17, we find funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. "Comparative effectiveness research" is a term used by economists in healthcare for making health comparisons based often on age and for limiting care based on a patient's age. In Great Britain comparative effectiveness research is actually used to deny patients treatment for age-related diseases such as heart disease and macular degeneration. When the federal stimulus bill was going through Congress there were warnings regarding the consequences of comparative effectiveness research. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a heart surgeon, warned that it would lead to "denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care."

Yet the policy remained in the bill along with requirements for doctors' offices and hospitals to maintain data banks on patients while creating a national network to monitor patients' care. The good side of that is that a central data base can send out the latest information on treatments, though doctors who keep up with their medical journals already know about these treatments. The dark side is that it will allow the federal government to control how our doctors treat us. The bill speaks of "appropriate" and "cost-effective" care and provides penalties against doctors beginning in 2014. Now there is an Orwellian twist to the Obama promise of "hope" and "change."

As Betsy McCaughey has written in a groundbreaking analysis of the Obama healthcare proposals, draconian cost-control measures are not the answer to healthcare reform and they are based on erroneous data. Healthcare's spending increases over the past five years have been about half what they were in the recent period before that. Average family spending on food, energy, and healthcare have remained the same for decades. Moreover, contrary to myth, there are not 47 million uninsured Americans but actually about 22 million. Rather than pass a healthcare reform that will mercilessly limit healthcare to older citizens (and to chronically ill citizens) while still increasing federal expenditures by at least a trillion dollars, she suggests a modest reform, to wit, debit cards for the uninsured and the needy.

Appearing in a recent installment of Spectator.org, McCaughey wrote, "Providing sliding scale assistance, based on household income, to families to purchase…coverage would cost $20 to $25 billion a year." That is one reform that will deal with our present problems. There are others, which I shall take up in later columns. What we do not need is Orwell's Big Brother overseeing the rationing of healthcare to senior citizens, particularly senior citizens with years of life ahead of them.

topics:
Health Care, Barack Obama, Seniors

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of the forthcoming The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn't Work: Social Democracy's Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (77) | Leave a comment

James| 6.18.09 @ 7:04AM

By controlling Medicare "cost" Obama gets a "Twofer" as the old folks die sooner he can claim credit for bringing Social Security under control.

Melvin| 6.18.09 @ 7:20AM

I'm just being politically sarcastic here in a macabre sort of way, but here is another opinion on Obama's health care.
Every time we go to the doctor or hospital for the first time we always have to fill out these long medical forms that have tons of questions about our current and past health.
What would happen if the last question on the form would be, "What political party are you affiliated with and do you belong to a union?"
And down the road if you should need life saving medical treatment, would the prescribed course of treatment be denied because we were a Republican?
Republican Chrysler dealerships are being forcibly closed based on political affiliation, so makes health care any different, when you have a non medical bureaucratic political hack deciding thumbs up the old bugger lives and thumbs down they expire?
The automotive industry is being run by thirty something that hasn't even built so much as a mode car, so I guess could be said the the health care industry could be run by a mortician.

Peter Skurkiss| 6.18.09 @ 7:28AM

Emmett Tyrrell is right in predicting a rationing of health care to the elderly if OmbamaCare becomes law. And this problem will be especially acute as the demographics of the baby boom generation make its effects felt starting in the near future. Then, health care rationing will be all but irresistable to government administrators.

And there is a cruel irony at play here. Society will have been conditioned for this soft form of euthanasia by its over a generation now acceptance of abortion. It will almost be as if ObamaCare is the revenge of aborted unborn?

Appleby| 6.18.09 @ 7:31AM

It is interesting that examples of this are available to anyone right up north across the border, and nobody comes up to see how this stuff works out in practice.

Sweden had -- and may still have -- government policy of seizing the assets of old people at a certain age and forcing them to move into nursing homes, tall rabbit-warren buildings in featureless downtown areas mainly, where they are expected to quietly go about dying as soon as possible, and which they do.

I anticipate this will be Obamas next bright idea. Until he himself begins to feel the aches and pains of old age, of course.

The good thing is that this policy would rid us of the vast majority of Congressmen sooner rather than later.

Galen| 6.18.09 @ 7:31AM

At least they could give us seniors free cigarettes?

Mike| 6.18.09 @ 7:37AM

I'm....I.....what the f**k are these people thinking?
Are they really this insanely stupid?
If this passes, then we deserve it cause we let this
screwball get elected. You older people better get your act together before you're too dead to do it....

Andrew B| 6.18.09 @ 8:00AM

It seems that one of the best ways to curtail costs would be to stop funding treatment for high-risk patients. Smokers, the elderly, the obese, all should be cut off at once.

Oh, and I nearly forgot one of the highest-risk groups--male homosexuals. Yep, they'll have to go if we hope to rein in healthcare costs.

I know from personal experience how pricey it can be to care for gay patients. A close relative of mine contracted HIV some years back. He is currently in perfect health, but that is due to an antiviral cocktail he must use for the rest of his life. It is wickedly expensive, so much so that he had to become a ward of the state so that it (and his other living expenses) could all be underwritten by the state.

So, before we cast the elderly adrift, let us see if there are any other groups we can sacrifice first. I am sure the liberals in Washington will agree.

Curly Smith| 6.18.09 @ 8:08AM

During the campaign Obama figuratively threw his Grandmother under the bus... now he's doing it for real. But, it's also jobs program as all of those ACORN workers and club-wielding Black Panthers have to do something between elections.

Howard| 6.18.09 @ 8:13AM

Any positive changes (doubtful) will be the result of The Great Leader. Any flaws in the system are the result of "The failed Bush Administration". Heads he wins, tails we lose.

bobc| 6.18.09 @ 8:51AM

Used to be, the elderly were respected, now they are part of a throw-away society. What Obama is really doing is cutting care for the elderly in order to give more to illegal aliens...like he did with SCHIP for illegal's kids.
Perhaps if we weren't forced to fund the entire world's people, our elderly would get the care and respect they deserve.

c. vail| 6.18.09 @ 9:02AM

Of course it's right, or at least sane, to take steps to stop spending tens and even hundreds of thousands of Medicare dollars in the last few months of a person's life, only to prolong it for a few months more. What's wrong with that? We simply can't afford to keep doing what we've been doing.

CS| 6.18.09 @ 9:10AM

Where is the AARP? Why aren't the grey panthers fired up about this?

Indiana Alex| 6.18.09 @ 9:14AM

Just join a union. They are exempt from the plan under the current Senate version.

Indiana Alex| 6.18.09 @ 9:41AM

I have a question. Is abortion the only elective medical procedure to which we have a constitutional right under the 5th amendment, or are there other procedures that may be restricted at first that we may claim a right to through the courts?

KyMouse| 6.18.09 @ 9:45AM

This has been circulating, but I'll add it here in case any commentors haven't seen it: In a recent column, Cal Thomas warned that Obama's newly created National Coordinator of Health Information Technology will make it easy for "the government [to] decide who gets life-saving treatment and who doesn't...Euthanasia will not originate with your beloved grandparents or parents. It will start in a public hospital with a 100-year-old woman who has multiple health problems and 'wants' to die so as not to 'burden' anyone. Public opinion polls will determine that a majority favor letting -- even helping -- the old girl die.

"Yes, there are times when a patient and his family may decide to forego treatment and allow death to occur, but that decision should not be made by a government official," he added. "Once that door is opened (as it was with abortion) there will be no closing it, and dying will become a patriotic duty when the patient's balance sheet shows a deficit."

Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D., contracted an illness in 1988 that left him quadriplegic at age 72. An operation restored the use of his limbs. He told Cal Thomas, "If I'd have lived in England, I would have been nine years too old to have the surgery...."

KyMouse| 6.18.09 @ 9:53AM

We should all take a long, hard look at the "Living Will" that we or our loved ones have signed. Originally designed with input from euthanasia advocates, Living Wills serve primarily to give hospitals and insurance companies the right to provide as little care for patients as they can get away with.

The National Right to Life Committee web site, www.nrlc.org, has a good alternative: In the lefthand column, scroll down to "The Will to Live Project" and check it out for yourself.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.18.09 @ 10:11AM

How soon will we hear an Obama administration official or Obama propogandist in the MSM talking about people not being "worthy of life?"

After they winnow out the ranks of the elderly the proponents of national socialist healthcare will target the handicapped and mentally challenged for "costs savings." Then it will be some other despised group that's facing the "gas chamber" of "cost savings" under Obamacare.

Could it be the high cost of American health care is the price for being healthy?

Mattled| 6.18.09 @ 10:54AM

Little notice has been given to Daschle's book on Socialist Health(no)care.
In it, he lays out an actuaries numbers that will save Social Security by ....Eugenics. Progressives loved eugenics back in the 20's and 30's. That darn Hitler started practicing it and the plan was foiled. It got so bad for Progressives, they changed to "liberals".

Now they're back to Progressives. How about calling them Regresssives? All they want are FDR and LBJ and JEC style programs.

Anyhow, when people retire they start collecting Social Security. Well who the hell needs them? They're not contributing anymore, so let's put them at the bottom of the list for XYZ procedure and get that 45 year old instead. He can contribute thousands and thousands of dollars in taxes for another twenty years.

The old person, not so much. Voila! Social Security is now saved when you have tens of millions less people collecting thanks Obama-no-care.

Wouldn't it be just righteous if history judged Obama on how cruel his healthcare plan treated the elderly?

Andrew B.---What about African Americans? It has been said for a long time that Social Security is worse for an African American male because their life expectancy is so much shorter than any other race. They die early and don't get to enjoy their SS withholding.

True story; A friend of mine told me about an Afrcian American woman who makes around 50k a year and was offered health insurance for a small premium. Her job didn't "pay" for health insurance (no one's does, every employee pays their own, but that argument I'll leave for now) .

She said she didn't want to spend $110/month because she could go to the city hospital and wait a couple of hours and get "free" healthcare. BTW, she went to see a doctor because of a lump in her breast.

Fast Forward to Obama-doesn't-Care: She will now have to wait months, not a couple of hours. She has/had a lump in her breast and it's on record. She is in her late fifties. What are her chances of getting treatment going to be? Just because she voted for Obama, she is now going to the head of the line? No---she had/has cancer and is old. Too expensive to treat--.

No, just like the Silicon Valley fools who put an Obam yard sign up or an Obama bumper sticker on their car thought they were immune to his policies.

People will die and that is what they want.

Phil Hoey| 6.18.09 @ 11:25AM

What is wrong with this proposal? It does not apply to Congress. They the best of the best. Why do you think Teddy is still alive? The rest of use will be given drugs to ease the pain and allowed to slip away unless we follow the Dutch model of health care and give the patient a 'micky' to stop the heart. And so - no more expence. Hey they murder the unborn - why not the old - they just get in the way.

megapotamus| 6.18.09 @ 11:25AM

Another criterion for "standardization" of care is geographical. Listen to the advocates of this leveling complain that a coronary bypass costs three times in New York than it does in Wisconsin. Gee, doesn't a Big Mac cost more in Manhattan than Milwaukee? Why would that be? Also the cities hold the elite of surgeons and facilities drawing a mix of the most wealthy and the most afflicted. Their "fix" promises to destroy charity along with the hellish capitalist system and of course BOTH must be destroyed to prepare the field for socialized medicine.

It seemed for a good while that the reflexive Lefty response to all the socializing of this nation was simply to scoff at the very notion. Yeah, all you guys have to say is that Obama is a big commie. Oh, that's absurd, right? One of the problems is that the Right, such as it is, does not make a principled argument against these things because principles would demand an end to ALL of these unconstitutional and anti-American entitlements. Even Bob Tyrell does not say to eradicate Commie-Care and Commie-Aid, to my dissappointment. Republican bigs like Romney and McCain claim to tinker with the details to make this all functional or at least pallatable. These are disgraceful actions according to their own stated principles which would inform these gents, if they cared to know, that it is all a fraud, nose to tip. Welfare, Social Security along with farm subsidies, industrial policies and a host of perversions of our political system to promote or discourage this or that. Tobacco one day, black coffee the next. The principle must ALWAYS be, that which governs least governs best. Even the hard Left of the commune and classroom blink at that one. It also means an end to sumptuary laws, at least federal ones. No more War on Drugs. No impending War on Fat. The Fed should not concern itself with anything except the currency and that must be backed materially. Full Faith and Credit? Well, today that would mean the Full Faith and Credit of Barack Obama. This is a wasting asset, to say the least.

The answers are indeed simple. Do nothing unconstitutional. Destroy that which exists that is unconstitutional. Do not defend your own fief when the music stops whether it pays for Bossies feed or gives you a private train to work. It all amounts to a coercive credit-defalut swap scheme enforced with a PC hammer in the day and the backroom deal stilleto in the night. We all know when we have received something we have not earned and when something we have earned has been taken from us. We salve the sting of the latter with the former. Disgusting. Be neither a pirate nor a pirate's treasure. At least to the extent one may in our degraded age. Of course this will not stop what is already in train but I have to believe that when reality dawns, even among the so-called People of Color who stand to receive the largess the rest of us supply, that there is more desire for one's own freedom than for the patent to saddle up another citizen. We shall see.

Anthony| 6.18.09 @ 12:06PM

Andrew B and Mattled have it exactly right about something that has bothered me for some time about this entire concept. Not only is the left's push for elderly eugenics frightening enough, but the entire concept of health care rationed by "acceptable behaviors," determined by leftist bureaucrats, is the ultimate leftist's dream of political control. Smoking, transfats, red meat, being overweight, are all behaviors not deemed acceptable, hence, to be punished by denial of care and treatment. Yet "acceptable behaviors" such as unprotected homosexual anal sex and intravenous drug use, perfectly fine.
Gee, I seem to remember, during the Reagan administration, how the gay community was bemoaning the horrible costs, in the billions, for aids and the cures associated with the disease. Funny, you don't hear much of those complaints anymore. Of course, the fact that this disease was and still remains totally preventable, by refraining and abstaining from unprotected risky sex and intravenous drug useage, remains a big taboo, not to be discusssed in enlightened company. The totalitarian left is on the verge of ultimate control and is willing and eager to pit one group of Americans against another, all based on political correctness.
Will the coming revolution be led by the grey brigade? Hand guns mounted on wheelchairs, who would have thunk it?

Roy| 6.18.09 @ 12:19PM

Re: megapotamus: If a coronary bypass costs three times as much in NY, then why not get on a plane to WI? A plane ticket costs about $2-300, pennies compared to the cost of triple bypass surgery..oh wait, you pay for the plane ticket and Santa Claus pays for the surgery. "Rising healthcare costs" in a nutshell.

Brian B| 6.18.09 @ 12:25PM

--Of course it's right, or at least sane, to take steps to stop spending tens and even hundreds of thousands of Medicare dollars in the last few months of a person's life, only to prolong it for a few months more.--

True. And why limit it to the last few months? If we required them to go down to the local intake center at 65 we could eliminate that medicare problem in its entirety.
And since Michelle O seems intent on fixing our diets for us, perhaps we could recycle the geezers, ala Edward G. Robinson. After all "green" is all the rage.
Seniors: the other white meat.

Peace is cheaper than WAR| 6.18.09 @ 12:27PM

How about stop funding Israel, stop giving them WMD, stop the wars protecting Israel, and have free health care instead.

It's called doing something for your own people.
Supporting your own.

As long as dumb down Americans keeps giving these ASS-holes money to kill one another. why should they want to live in peace, all they do is find excuses not to live in peace.

Let AIPAC give them money, not American Tax dollars.

Frank| 6.18.09 @ 12:27PM

As I read the preceeding posts I get the feeling that there is a deep feeling of dispare in Obama 's Health Care . As a senior, I too feel that there is no one serving as an advocate to represent my concerns. AARP will not do it as they are in the hip pocket of DNC. That leaves us only oureslves who can watch out for us. We are a major voting block in this country and our numbers will be growing by leaps and bounds as the baby boomers start to swell our ranks.

The biggest stick we have is our vote. Next year is the mid term elections and we should start today be letting each of our representatives in both the House and the Senate know our concerns of what the Obama Plan means to us. and how their vote on this plan will effect our vote next year. As they say all politices are local and a little fear goes a long way.

We can start today to deluge their Washington offices and local offices with emails, phone calls, fax messages, regular mails telling them of our distrust in this Washington plan to control our free choice in health care and end of life decisions.

I have been looking for a web site that perhaps is already established that can help me to coordinate my attack on Washington. If anyone knows of a site that addresses my concerns let me know. If a site does not exist maybe it should. Your ideas please.

Pete| 6.18.09 @ 12:28PM

The plan is to outsource treatment to the Eskimo's to provide ancient medical treatment for older citizens. Anyone over 65 in need of medical treatment will be given a free trip to Alaska to be left on the ice.

dagny taggart| 6.18.09 @ 1:35PM

James

Obama could get a three-fur if he goes the Soylent Green route.

Angel| 6.18.09 @ 1:37PM

Well, hell, we've been looking the other way for 35 years as 51 million babies have been destroyed by abortion; what's a few million more, right? Slippery slope and all--Bishop Fulton Sheen warned about this many years ago.

Next, the elderly and chronically ill will go quietly, why would anyone stand up for them?

I always go back to Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I believe the tipping point is coming very soon.

ferguson braithwaite| 6.18.09 @ 1:44PM

The elitists want control over every part of our lives. Check out regularfolksunited.com

M. T. Wallitt| 6.18.09 @ 2:01PM

Peace is Cheaper than War,
The U.S. has given the soi-disant "Palestinians" well over $2 billion in financial aid. Since 1937, they have had many chances to have their own state (besides Jordan, that is), but they have refused. In 2000 alone, Ehud Barak offered to give them virtually everything they asked, but Arafat saw that as a sign of weakness and ordered more attacks on Israel. As has often been pointed out, the Pals "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." They produce nothing but death and misery for their own people, as well as for Israelis (about one in five of whom are Arab). Let's save some money by cutting off aid to Arafat's successors.

Don L| 6.18.09 @ 3:00PM

I'm in a medical care family and I can assure you that much of the expense of medical care has more to do with lawyercare. The forests that have to be cut down to provide the required wasted paperwork, the time for the more expensive professionals to fill out bureacratic trash and more importantly, healthcare has become the prototype for accountability, requiring accountability related processes and time to push aside patient care in favor of good old fashioned cover your butt bureaucratic style.

Obama has to decide whether he wishes to control the doctors or their adversaries, the lawyers. We know what's in stock for we old folks -we've seen it fail everywhere it's been tried. Like the paper that been so wasted with government medical care -we'll be tossed in the circular file.

Khazars are not JEWS| 6.18.09 @ 3:21PM

M. T. Wallitt| 6.18.09 @ 2:01PM
Peace is Cheaper than War,
The U.S. has given the soi-disant "Palestinians" well over $2 billion in financial aid. Since 1937,

America gives more than that to Israel to keep the fire of war burning. As long as it's stupid Americans who are fighting and losing their lives to protect a bunch of Khazars, looking for a cheap way of lifed funded by Americans. Costing over 2 Billion per year, fooling the American public who lack an education in History.

Richard Baker| 6.18.09 @ 4:05PM

At age 56, the part of the " Seniors" which amazes me is that so many of the Old Geezers vote for these clowns. Social security IS busted (the trust fund is EMPTY) and Medicare/Medicaid ARE broke and these loons keep voting for the same people, year after year, who have bankrupted all of it. It's as if the "Seniors" have a death wish.

M. T. Wallitt| 6.18.09 @ 4:15PM

"Khazars are not JEWS," I notice that you did not deny what I said about the Pals' having turned down every offer for their own state (in addition to Jordan, that is). Let's see...1937, the Peel Commission; 1939, the British White Paper; 1979, the Egypt-Israel negotiations, and of course, the 1993 Oslo Accords. Ehud Barak, in the Oslo agreement, offered to have Israel pull back from 97% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip (the latter has proven to be a disaster for the Pal people ever since it was achieved several years ago). Barak also offered to dismantle 63 settlements. As I pointed out before, Arafat's answer was to launch a new intifada in response to what he saw as Israel's weakness.

Between 1948 and 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. I wonder why the Pals didn't demand that Jordan turn it into an independent state for them?

I support Israel primarily because it offers people of all backgrounds and religions -- yes, even the people you claim are nothing but Khazars -- a range of freedoms that are only dreamed of in most, if not all, Muslim-dominated countries. How many churches and synagogues are there in Saudi Arabia? There are many mosques and churches in Israel. I've seen them in person.

Israel is our best ally in that region. I'm for cutting aid to the Pals long before cutting aid to Israel. Billions and billions of financial aid to the Pals seem to have bought nothing but homicide bombs and high living for terrorist leaders (remember Arafat's fancy home in France?).

jr| 6.18.09 @ 5:33PM

Good "Twofer" James. My recollection is that the old people didn't vote for him as much as the illegals, Mexicans (instant replay), Jews, young, women. That leaves a bunch of old people who can still remember some of the better days, e.g., 50s. Do not get in his way or else, and he has said as much. Whoever voted for him -- dimwit -- didn't you know about him before he was elected?

stmichrick| 6.18.09 @ 7:06PM

Does anyone here think care will be rationed for Teddy, Hillary or Barack, let alone Rahm, Ezekiel or Obamacare spokesmodel Dr. Tim Johnson?

Somehow, even if the most chilling plan takes effect, I think not.

Marcell| 6.18.09 @ 9:36PM

Great article

It stresses on restriction of services for elderly, & I believe if the Repubs could convince the elderly to be against government ran health care, the Health care titanic will begin its sinking process.

Maybe RNC Chairman, Michael Steel should create a list of major issues that could be argued instead of complaining about ABC's town hall meeting at the Whitehouse.

I also believe that a list of major issues concerning government ran health care should be used like the way a poker game is played, “don’t show all your cards until right before & after the town hall to ad fresh ideas to your argument.

I believe winning the health care debate is extremely important for Republicans, because Obama has pitched a no hitter in the first three inning of the World Series.

**********

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Your idea sucks| 6.18.09 @ 9:58PM

Well Dr. Tyrrell,
You've diagnosed the disease but you've prescribed poison. For those of us in the real world, health insurance continues to accelerate while wages stagnate, many thousands die, many more go untreated.

Yes, Obama's (rather, Emanuel's) plan is a rationing system. Your plan is "hey you – shut up and pay your bill."

Dear republicans, STOP SAYING "HEALTHCARE". Insurance is THE problem. Doctors charge through the roof because the private insurers don't pay in full. So insurance premiums and delivery costs keep escalating in a vicious circle.

The only solution is SINGLE PAYER. Yes, get government out of "health care." But get Wall Street out of health insurance. Private health insurance is no better than the private federal reserve system. Government can do the same thing at 1/3 – 1/2 the current cost. Time to join the industrialized world!!

Wilfred| 6.18.09 @ 10:16PM

A major component of high health-care costs are mega-awards in malpractice cases. Every time somebody like John Edwards scams a jury into granting his plaintiff a multi-million dollar judgment, the insurance companies quite rationally raise doctors' malpractice premiums. And the doctors simply pass this cost on to you, dear patient.

Daisy| 6.18.09 @ 10:24PM

Yeah, join the industrialized world like England where women can't get medication for breast cancer until their cancer has progressed to terminal status. Thanks a lot.

That's what I want!! Die waiting for medications and services because of rationing.

Stupid fascist liberals--wish we could put your idiot butts on a boat and push you all out to sea.

I can only dream.

PCP Smoker| 6.18.09 @ 10:32PM

I don't see it mentioned in the article or the comments, but don't forget about the lines. The endless lines in a urine-smelly and dingy hallway. Not so much waiting your turn to see the doctor, but hoping that you will get to see him before the receptionist calls out :"We are done for the day. Comeback tomorrow".

Richard Baker| 6.18.09 @ 11:13PM

Daisy:
What will be a scream is when so many of the self-obsessed Baby Boomers get what they want and realize that it's Hell on Earth! They'll say "You can't refuse me!". When I was a schoolteacher, I told my students that all this government spending would eventually leave them with 70-80% tax rates. They said that wasn't fair. I said WATCH.

ben dover n grabim| 6.18.09 @ 11:16PM

BO's plan has striking similarities to that of the National Socialist party in Germany in the 1930's where the infirm and weak were allowed to die or put to death in order to make a race of supermen. What kind of cold, ruthless SOB is it that will not protect the weakest among us; the unborn / newborn, and the elderly, who, by the way, have paid their taxes for their entire lives and now are expecting to receive the benefit of what they paid for. This is how we will avoid the bankruptcy of Medicaid and Medicare, on the backs of the elderly. Where are you AARP?

Richard Baker| 6.18.09 @ 11:41PM

AARP wants to be invited to the White House or is it now the Brown House? Hope and Change, remember?

Veronica| 6.19.09 @ 12:14AM

Baker--you're a Boomer! Quit your bitchin' about our generation, stand up and do something! Damn it! Most of us Boomers are good people and we didn't make this mess by ourselves. Everybody is responsible.

Besides, Obama ISN'T really a Boomer--so no one can blame him on us. Thank God.

mike g| 6.19.09 @ 8:49AM

All of our elected poopiticians will ONLY use Omamacare, right? They will eliminate their over-the-top healthcare they now enjoy, right? They would agree that they shouldn't have better medical care than ALL other Americans (legal or illegal), right?
Yeah, right. You can be sure that they will not change their medical coverage.

Serah| 6.19.09 @ 11:22AM

Where is the AARP ? Have they decided to hop in bed with Obama, and desert the elderly? If so, I say lets desert them.

Richard Baker| 6.19.09 @ 4:50PM

Veronica:
Our generation, by and large, comes as advertised. As a group, we don't do reality well. In this event, it takes one to know one. I've been watching our generational foolishness for a long time and shaking my head at the absurdity of it all. I used to be a teacher and when I'd ask my students how many of their Baby Boomer parents reflect the following expression "Take care of my responsibilities, raise my kids, so I can go play" most of my kids raised their hands. Yes, there are many good in our generation but the majority are as I stated earlier. Sorry the truth offends.

brutus| 6.19.09 @ 5:23PM

'Your Idea Sucks' is an idiot.

Obviously this he/she/it/libtard has never seen a doctor/hospital bill paid by the US government. Medicare/Medicaid pays a smaller portion of the bill than the private insurers do.

If you think your private insurance policy rates are getting too high, shop around. You can usually find another policy for less.... unless you have pre-existing conditions. Now there's a problem that needs to be tackled. And how about tort reform that would help keep doctors from having to "charge through the roof" in the first place?

Meanwhile, don't let Obummer and the libtards in Congress passively exterminate our parents, grandparents, and, depending on our age and health, maybe even ourselves, when tort reform and a safety net for the uninsurable would take care of most of the problems.

Here's a message for Obummer and liberal Dummocrats:

"YOU FIRST!"

Any "hope" or "change" they may be trying to ram down our throats, like this health(no)care debacle, must apply to them first. Ted Kennedy would be dead by the legislation he's trying to force onto the rest of us.

denise| 6.19.09 @ 5:44PM

OBAMA,PELOSI,REED ALL OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO GO, THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY AT ALL. I LEAVE ABOUT TWO MILES FROM THE MEXICAN BORDER, AND I GUESS WE ARE GOING TO ACT LIKE THERE IS NO PROBLEM, BECAUSE MILLIONS OF MEXICANS COME OVER ON A DAILY PATTERN TO GET FREE HEALTH CARE FROM OUR WONDERFUL SYSTEM, HOWEVER OBAMA DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THAT BECAUSE HE WANTS THEIR VOTE, NEXT TIME AROUND, HE WANTS TO LEGALIZE THEM. SO TELL ME THIS IF SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE IS BROKE THEN WHY DO I PAY INTO IT EVERY TIME I GET PAID? THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY THEY GET THEIR MONEY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SPEND IT HOWEVER THEY DECIDE, AND NOW ALL THIS SPENDING THE IDIOT IS DOING NO ONE WILL HAVE ANY MONEY, I THINK THATS WHAT HE WANTS. HE NEEDS TO RESIGN

gene hauber| 6.20.09 @ 10:21PM

Of all of the leaders in the world, none appear to be cowards....they might be stupid or they might be megalomaniacs that think their little shithole countries could survive a major conflict with the USA, but only in their little minds would that be true.

However, in this world there is only ONE COWARD- in- charge , and wouldn't you know it........of the MOST POWERFUL NATION that the world has ever known.

This EFFFING cowards name is barack HUSSEIN obama, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA ........THE WORLD'S ONLY COWARD-IN-CHIEF. Kim jong il and aaccchmajinidad [sic], two cockroaches in this world make him look small and useless.....which he is.
His only policy is to make this great country, America, look small and vulnerable to all of our pissant enemies around the world and at the same time make THUGS like ACORN and WELFARE RECIPIENTS his beloved constituents, while soaking the rest of us for the funds to support them.
FUCK YOU MR. president
you have a nice day spending OUR money
Gene Hauber
BRICK, NJ

Veronica| 6.21.09 @ 12:07AM

Baker, I disagree--MOST of our Boomer generation is good and decent. Regardless, my assertion stands, quit your bitchin', stand up and help us fight Obama.

We are not the only ones who are at fault here and your blaming and whining are annoying.

Ben| 6.21.09 @ 4:44PM

If we do nothing we DECIDED TO QUIT. We lose. If we do what we have done in the past, WE LOSE AGAIN. We can do two things NOW.
1 Write to your congressmen and Senators and let them know we want to change the path OBAMA is on or we will not support them and we will do #2--
2 Organise a grass root movement of republicans
AND liberals to elect new people who reflect our views in 2010 AND 2012

Country Boy| 6.21.09 @ 5:16PM

Everyone here pretty much has it nailed. Health care rationing is just a "color by numbers" way for ruthless libs to stay in power. Give health care to an elderly, possibly a productive taxpayer, that person may vote in a few elections at most. But give health care to a young person, especially non-taxpaying, and you may garner dem votes for several decades.

Richard Baker| 6.21.09 @ 5:44PM

Veronica:
I am fighting against Obama. Our generation is the worst in our country's history. That's why so many condemn the Baby Boomers and why my students were so disappointed in their parents. Our group pre-occupation with narcissism is the reason. Again, sorry the truth offends. Hope the US survives this generation and it's obsession with depravity.

JB1000| 6.21.09 @ 8:42PM

Rationing? Never happen. If you think you can NOT treat someone who is a minority of any sort, you are dreaming. ACLU and every lawyer in sight will be suing before the admitting nurse puts the "Denied" stamp back on the rack. If you are poor or from a racial minority, they will not dare deny care. The coming government insurance option will wreck private insurance for all but the rich and then the middle class will be handed the burden of paying for the entire health care system. There will be no rationing, there will only be escalating premiums. You know how 50% of the country does not pay any federal income tax? They will be not be paying anything but a trivial part of their health care. They are "Paul" and the middle class will be the "Peter" that gets robbed.

Heather| 6.22.09 @ 3:48AM

I am a RN in the Intensive Care Nursery...after the elderly, Obama will come after the premature babies. Maybe all the women who wait until their late 30's and early 40's to have babies, end up having IVF and delivering prematurely [check the statistical relationship between IVF and premature birth] better think twice about voting for "universal health care." A 28 week baby can easily cost over $1,000,000 before being discharged. A 24-week baby has a 21% chance of having a normal cognitive outcome...how much do you think they cost? My heart and soul goes into these babies every day...but this president would sooner eliminate the "cost" for the "good of society." So, all you women who want to be mothers...you'd better consider that before believing the utopian lie that universal (government controlled) health care would solve all of our problems.

Veronica| 6.22.09 @ 5:35AM

You're not offending me with your counter-productive assertion, Baker. True, Boomers have screwed up a lot, but so have many others. Get over it--no one cares. It's ridiculous to keep pointing your finger; it just looks like self-hatred, dude. I'm embarrassed for you.

N. Siegal| 6.22.09 @ 1:59PM

Don't just post on blogs (keep doing so). But get in liberal faces. Every time you hear an idiot liberal or Obama supporter say something. Jump on them with facts and well reasoned opinions. Eventually, they will shut-up and go away.

Facts are to liberals like crosses to vampires.

Osamas Pajamas| 6.22.09 @ 3:55PM

As much as I'd like to just join in the attack on OhBummer and his lunatic healthcare ideas, I really must protect. I would "never" call a Democrat a "liberal." That is a great word! Why waste it on skunks? The only reason my lads are calling themselves "libertarians" is because the danged Democrats and sociliasts hujacked the word "liberal" ---- and, regrettably, the conservatives went along with the deal.

It was a bad deal. Liberal government ----- in the classical sense ----- is something the Democrats and socialists and fascists and Nazis and commies despise. One and all, these thugs are "statists" and they subscribe to the program of statism, i.e.: government domination of all things in society.

Under the classical liberal regime, the citizen reigns supreme, possessing as he does the perfectly natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and pursuit of personal happiness. Clearly, these are rights which the statists would prefer to severely limit or extinguish altogether.

The next time some Demo skunk calls himself a liberal, challenge him to support each and every one of the above rights ----- and watch him try to weasel out of THAT trap!

Osamas Pajamas| 6.22.09 @ 3:55PM

The next time some Demo skunk calls himself a liberal, challenge him to support each and every one of the above rights ----- and watch him try to weasel out of THAT trap!

Patriot| 6.22.09 @ 7:57PM

JB1000, there will be rationing for sure. Just like those in the middle class were lied to about tax increases before the election, everybody who believes Socialized health care is better is in for a rude awakening when the system falls apart.

People will not want to become doctors and nurses, would you? Rationing is inevitable.

kakiple| 6.23.09 @ 8:02AM

well obama may as well get it over with and put everyone he doesnt like into death camps. its probably going to happen anyways. first he steals our money because he thinks he knows how to spend it better, then he gets to decide who lives and dies, who gets healthcare or no healthcare, then he gets to decide who gets to live in their own house or get stuck in a nursing home, or better yet put all the conservatives into hospitals because he has deemed that we all have a "mental illness," then hell dictate who can have children and how many they can produce, pretty soon were all going to be in camps under the obama/black panther regime because he will get to decide what is "best" for all of us. i wanna know what the kkk has been up to for this whole thing. why hasnt anyone been rioting like the iranians? is everyone really that satisfied?

Tom Eubanks| 6.23.09 @ 3:43PM

I'm fired up to fight the liberty-hating policies of the Obama adminstration. All of our bantering and rhetoric is empty if we don't DO something. We need to write letters to our legislators and talk to our liberal friends and family in an even-measured, respectful way to convince them that we care more about keeping Obama from creating another entitlement monster than hitting them over the head with an "I-told-you-so" that will likely be devastating to our healthcare system. We need to use our own brand of stealth-influence. Liberals love to divide and conquer; we conservatives should bring liberals to our side with facts not factions.

Stu| 6.23.09 @ 6:35PM

To Frank: 6.18.09 @ 12:27PM
Looking for a website to express views on Washington:
That website is newsblarg.com. The Voice of the People.
Well worth a look

Jeff| 6.24.09 @ 2:14PM

The usual nonsense by you conservatives along with the screaming anti-Obama anti Israel , quasi-anti -Semetic, and homophobic comments. I'm 67 years old, have Medicare, Medicare part B - which I pay for by the way in case you've forgotten - and the best supplemental plan I can find which alone costs me about $2,000 a year. I also have a Part D drug plan that costs about $500 a year. The supplemental plans are through a major company (BC/BS).
In the past few years since I turned 65 I have been: denied two drugs my doctor prescribed (costs about $8 a pill); physical therapy which my doctor prescribed; and thrown out of a hospital earlier than my doctor wanted.
But I guess Mr. Tyrrell has a really good plan - something along the lines of who pays for his lawn care and one third of his house.
You conservative idiots who complain Obama will ration health care fail to realize it is already rationed. Only the ration basis is money, not need.
And for all you anti-abortion fanatics why aren't you anti IVF also? The Catholic church is - at least in Italy. But here I guess there are too many rich Catholic doctors who would complain if the Bishops started enforcing discipline on those who perform IVF.
Just a thought.

bob crossett| 6.25.09 @ 12:16AM

It would be easy to reduce the cost of health care by at least fifty percent. Very briefly, the federal government cannot manage even their own business efficiently and without waste and corruption.
Health care should be administered at the state level by regional non-profit co-ops or HMO's. A group of envoys would be needed (like those Charlemagne had) who would go about seeing that patients were treated right and to check on waste and corruption.
This is ,of course, is a phantasy. The federal politicians and bureaucrats would never give up such a lucrative thing as control of this giant source of money
and power. (This is a very brief note--you can fill in the blanks)

Rick| 6.25.09 @ 11:57AM

Help ! I am a 40 yr old man trapped in a 70 yr old body. How did I get so freaking old ?? The last time I checked I was 35 and it was 1975. Age sneaks up on you when you are not looking.

Any way, I worked for 50 years with the same co.
I paid approx. $200 a month for a private health plan. Over the course of 50 yrs , I probaly put $ 60 k +/- into the plan. With two daughers, other odds and ends, probaly pulled out about $ 30 k out of the plan. The plan was pretty good, covered practiclly everything, even dental . Now the plan is gone. I am on medicare. We pay $ 200. a month, and since medicare does not cover everything, we have a medigap plan for approx. $ 400.a month. So we pay approx. $600, a month............ for nothing. My doctor , who I have been going to for 30 yrs charges $100. for a visit. Anytime there was any kind of a problem I could get to see her within 24 hrs. Medicare says that is too much and will only cover $48. Turned over the balance to our medigap plan, and they (according to the fine print) have a $ 250 deductable and won,t pay. Now when I need to see my Dr., I might be able to get an appointment in 3/4 weeks. Recently needed some blood work.... test cost $300. Medicare refused to pay, saying I really did not need the test ( Even though my Dr. said I did ). Turned it over to medigap plan, they said they only cover costs approved by medicare. Since medicare disapproved the test, medigap was not obliged to pay. So much for Gov. sponsered medicare/healthcare !! Give me my old plan back.

One further note. I was employed by a retail outlet center in the Phila. market area. We had a tremendous number of Canadians visiting our center. I found out that many of them were in the Phila. area because of the great health
care facilities available in the vicinity. One of them told me that there are more MRI,s in Phila. then there are in all of Canada, and that there was a several month waiting list for service ????? Again so much for national health care.

Obsta| 6.29.09 @ 1:25AM

I have to say I'm sick and damn tired of cowardly fools promoting unconstitutional slavery schemes which are "less bad" than the criminal ideas the uneducated Third World anti-American in the White House desires or the corrupt moron Speaker of the House running the show in Washington is writing.

We had ZERO health inflation until Medicare and Medicaid. ZERO. Repeal the unconstitutional laws, and tell charities to fund the poor in the U.S. who need it. Problem solved. Even in 1963, fewer than 8% of seniors were in supposed need of "help".

I tire of mental patient politicians like LBJ pushing their own mental illnesses, like his shame over his poverty, upon the nation. He should have been hanged as the seditious rapist that he was.

The time for 1861 is drawing very close, now.

Truthfairy| 7.1.09 @ 4:29AM

DEBATE ABOUT FUNDING COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH
Jerry Avorn, M.D.,
New England Journal of Medecine, May 2009

The proposal to include $1.1 billion for comparative-effectiveness research (CER) in the federal stimulus package encountered a vigorous and well-coordinated backlash. The campaign to gut this funding ultimately failed, but the debate it engendered and the resonance of the opposition's arguments in both lay and policy circles reveal much about the issues that will surround such research and its application in the coming years.

The contested provisions were designed to support studies comparing the efficacy and safety (and, by extension, the cost-effectiveness) of alternative ways of addressing common clinical problems. Interventions to be evaluated will include pharmaceuticals, devices, procedures, and diagnostic approaches, such as imaging studies. This research will fill important information gaps facing clinicians, patients, and payers concerning what works best. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) often approves new medications on the basis of modest-sized studies involving patients with relatively few coexisting conditions who are followed for brief periods. Sometimes the only efficacy requirement is a demonstration that a new product works better than placebo in improving a surrogate outcome measure, such as a laboratory-test result, rather than achievement of an actual clinical benefit. The bar is set even lower for medical devices such as pacemakers and implantable defibrillators, which may only have to be shown to be similar to previously approved products or simply not to be dangerous.

CER represents one of the best investments we can make to edge the health care system away from the fiscal catastrophe it faces, since such studies will help to reduce spending on poorer clinical decisions and to spare resources for expenditures that will help patients most (and most affordably). This research is a public good, like highways and clean air. The private sector is no more likely to identify badly mispriced or potentially toxic treatments than it was to spot badly mispriced or potentially toxic products of the banking industry"

As the stimulus bill was being debated in January and February, the opposition to CER found its voice in commentators who claimed that these studies will inevitably lead to government domination of the doctor–patient relationship, "cookbook medicine," and rationing... The assault took on a more Orwellian tone 10 days later when Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York, linked funding for CER with the stimulus bill's provisions supporting the use of electronic medical records. She warned that the inclusion of both initiatives was designed to enable electronic monitoring of individual patient-care decisions by the federal government and punishment of clinicians who fail to comply with imminent rationing guidelines.

This avalanche of nonfacts did not succeed in derailing the stimulus bill or its CER funding. Although these commentaries painted caricatures of new federal powers that were not in the bill.....As the debate continues, we are likely to see more diatribes designed to further an ideological or commercial agenda. Fortunately, Congress did not let warnings of a dystopian scientific police state undercut the nation's need to learn what works best in medicine. Given the quality and cost crises we face, preserving ignorance would have been a poor strategy for improving the effectiveness, safety, and affordability of health care.

(Dr. Avorn is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, chief of the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women's Hospital, director of the Harvard Interfaculty Initiative on Medications and Society)

Dear American Spectator Editor,

If you are going to publish Betsy McCaughey, please fact check her content first. So far, both Factcheck.org and Truth-O-Meter have busted her hallucinatory conclusions, what you choose to call "groundbreaking analysis", wide open.

Core to McCaughey's deviant interpretation of Obamacare is the idea of Obama's "one new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology", Tom Daschle's handiwork, and "Daschle's proposed appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make. ...The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research." You may be amused to know that the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology was appointed in April 2004 by George W Bush, and Comparative Effectiveness Research was introduced into the health care debate in 1989 by Dr. Willensky, a Republican, during the Administration of George HW Bush.

Respectfully,
Truthfairy

cliffyworld| 7.11.09 @ 1:22AM

For more on healthcare and other Obama lunacies, read the article "Obama Manifesto" at http://www.cliffyworld.com

On Healthcare and Government| 7.21.09 @ 2:41PM

People will believe what they want to believe. A conservative finds research to back his ideas, while a liberal does the same, and they both think they're right. People are stupid, that's the bottom line.

I, for one, am not against Obama's health care plan because of any imagined (or real) outcome. I'm against his plan because big government is a terrible disease that corrupts this nation more and more every year.

Why don't you people get it? The question is not whether the plan is good or bad. The question is should the government be doing this in the first place. Should they even be *able* to do it.

My answer to both of those questions is a resounding "No!". I think any politician who proposes such a thing should be impeached immediately, if not hanged for treason.

The Federal government should be in charge of backing the nations currency with something physical, and enforcing constitutional rights. End of story.

This nation was founded on principals that should have explicitly prevented the federal government from becoming the hulking, corrupt, wasteful behemoth that it is today. States were supposed to be sovereign. Whatever happened to that?

The federal government today is a travesty, and completely opposite of the founding fathers ideals. I say we fight the battles that we have to fight now to stop the corruption, but go forward with this idea in mind.

Change we need, yeah, whatever Obama. The only change we need is politicians willing to dismantle the federal government and hand rights back to the states where they belong.

On Healthcare and Government| 7.21.09 @ 2:41PM

Why don't you people get it? The question is not whether the plan is good or bad. The question is should the government be doing this in the first place. Should they even be *able* to do it.

My answer to both of those questions is a resounding "No!". I think any politician who proposes such a thing should be impeached immediately, if not hanged for treason.

The Federal government should be in charge of backing the nations currency with something physical, and enforcing constitutional rights. End of story.

Change we need, yeah, whatever Obama. The only change we need is politicians willing to dismantle the federal government and hand rights back to the states where they belong.

domino| 8.3.09 @ 11:39AM

Seniors are viewed by the Obama administration to be old clunkers, In protest I will not be donating any of my organs upon death.

domino| 8.3.09 @ 6:26PM

AARP is not for Seniors they let the Seniors down some time ago many Seniors are not informed about AARP and thier real postion on Obamas healthcare reform which is not in the Seniors best interest I can tell you that.. .

Wes| 8.7.09 @ 10:38PM

Doesn't the Obama Health Care plan allow them to target groups for extra care?

So would the democrats be allowed xyz treatments and the republicans be forced to take abc treatments as long as they claim the democrats are special needs.