Team Obama’s Healthcare Game Plan

Michael D. Shear and Ceci Connolly, Washington Post, happen upon the truth.    Albeit,  I am not sure they realize it:

Barack Obama

President Obama’s advisers acknowledged Tuesday that they were unprepared for the intraparty rift that occurred over the fate of a proposed public health insurance program, a firestorm that has left the White House searching for a way to reclaim the initiative on the president’s top legislative priority.

Administration officials insisted that they have not shied away from their support for a public option to compete with private insurance companies, an idea they said Obama still prefers to see in a final bill.

But at a time when the president had hoped to be selling middle-class voters on how insurance reforms would benefit them, the White House instead finds itself mired in a Democratic Party feud over an issue it never intended to spotlight.

In hindsight, the Obama game plan becomes clear.    The Obama administration bet the proverbial farm that they could pass healthcare reform before anybody actually read the bill, much less understood it.    Well the public has read the bill.   The President has neither read the bill nor can he undertand it.   His and administration can not defend it.   Welcome to the longest lame duck administration in the our nation’s history

Hat tip DRJ, Patterico Pontifications

Barack Obama

The one whines about healthcare in the New York Slimes:

OUR nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them.

These are people like Lori Hitchcock, whom I met in New Hampshire last week. Lori is currently self-employed and trying to start a business, but because she has hepatitis C, she cannot find an insurance company that will cover her.

Until such time as it can be shown that I infected Ms Hitchcock, her health concerns are simply not my problem.   If the President happens to feel that Ms Hitchcock is entitled to healthcare which she evidently can not afford, then he should personally pay for her medical treatment and stop whining about Ms. Hitchcock’s plight in the pages of the Slimes.

The one, and I suppose Ms. Hitchcock,  seem to think that other peoples’ money should be used to pay for her medical treatment.   Well I happen to disagree.   From where would the OPM for Ms Hitchcock’s medical come.    It can not come from the government.    For governments have not money save what they first take from the people who earned it.

Likewise, insurance companies don’t have money other than what they get from their insured.    In reality, is the insured, and not the insurance companies, which  fund insurance payments.    Any company which sold insurance to Ms Hitchcock under Obama community rates and guaranteed coverage, would surely lose money.     That money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is the insured.

In true Obamaian spirit, you could tax the rich to pay for Ms Hitchcock’s medical care.   Yet the rich has no obligation to pay for Ms.  Hitchcock’s medical care, and if Obama gets his way, they won’t have the money anyhow.

No Obama prefered way to pay for Ms. Hitchcock’s healthcare to to tax the healthy.    While Obama is willing to Ms. Hitchcock to buy subsidized insurance,  we wants the healthy to pay for Ms. Hitchcock’s healthcare.    Obama wants young healthy people who don’t need healthcare insurance to subsidize the medical treatment the Ms. Hitchcocks of the nation.

I tax on health would be regressive, imposed on the young at the stage of the lives when they earn the least money.

Hat tip,  Steve Verdon, Out Side the Beltway.

Rose Friedman has passed away, from the Friedman Foundation:

Rose Director Friedman passed away Tuesday, August 18, 2009, in her home in Davis, California, of heart failure. While the exact date of her birth is uncertain, she is believed to have been 98 years old.

She will be remembered both as a talented economist and an influential advocate of freedom. Her economic work helped to discredit the idea of government management of the economy, rolling back policies that were hindering wealth creation and thus helping extend the blessings of prosperity to millions around the world. And as a standard-bearer for human liberty, she contributed to the galvanizing of public opinion – especially in the 1980s – against the growing encroachments of intrusive government.

Two great  ones in one day.   Rest in peace Mrs. Priedman.

Welcome, one and all to the most intense nightly read anywhere on the sphere… The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble

This is the Unemployment Edition In honor of those who have lost their jobs thanks for Barry the O.

• DEATH PANEL:  If you’re harbouring any illusions  that the reports of a Death Panel being in this healthcare monster Obama;s trying so hard to ram down our throats are untrue, this will dispell them in a hurry.
• WHY IS HE FALLING LIKE THAT?  VDH examines Obama’s falling polling numbers and why they’re falling.
• NOT MUCH LONGER: I note Mark Kirkorian at  The Corner yesterday:
  

  I loved Krauthammer’s comments last week about why Hillary was on edge, given that so many of the responsibilities that would be hers as secretary of state have been given to others:

  But I think part of it is also the venue. Here you have Richard Holbrooke running Afghanistan and Pakistan — the heart of our troubles in Asia. You have George Mitchell in the Middle East. You have envoys here and there, and she is the secretary of state, and she’s sitting in the Congo, in the Congo?

  

  Doctor Charles Krauthammer

  You’ve got Petraeus running Afghanistan. You’ve got Odierno running Iraq. She is totally marginalized, sitting in Kinshasa. I’m sure it is a great city — in fact, it’s not —but the Congo? Africa is very low on the scale of important interests of the United States.

  

  Mark Kirkorian

  It’s kind of like in Japan, where problem workers with lifetime employment are just put into an empty office for eight hours a day with nothing to do. Well, now add another thing she no longer runs: The White House has now taken away chief responsibility for the resettlement of Iraqi refugees from Hillary’s purview and given it to — it’s almost too good to be true — Samantha “She is a monster” Powers.

  Well, look… When she was appointed to that position, I told you that she was being shuffled off to a devalued position. She was given that job to keep her out of the way. This stuff confirms totally what I’ve been seeing since the appointment was made. The question is, how much longer she’s going to play the party line, here. My guess is “not long”.

•  A WAR UNDER ANY PRESIDENT BUT BUSH ISN’T A WAR AT ALL: Byron York, today:
  

  

  Byron York

  Remember the anti-war movement? Not too long ago, the Democratic party’s most loyal voters passionately opposed the war in Iraq. Democratic presidential candidates argued over who would withdraw American troops the quickest. Netroots activists regularly denounced President George W. Bush, and sometimes the U.S. military (“General Betray Us”). Cindy Sheehan, the woman whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, became a heroine when she led protests at Bush’s Texas ranch.That was then. Now, even though the United States still has roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq, and is quickly escalating the war in Afghanistan — 68,000 troops there by the end of this year, and possibly more in 2010 — anti-war voices on the Left have fallen silent.

  You know what?  There is absolutely nothing about this that should suprise anyone.  the anti-war stand was a pose, a sham, a guise, with nothing but pure political motivation behind it.  It wasnt about stopping the war, or that they thought the war was particularly unjust… it was about power.  (Later…I note with interest Glenn coming to the same conclusion. Not like it was all that hard a conclusion to come to… )

• SAME THING HERE:  I say, the same thing applies to healthcare, and the current proposals of government takeover.  Certainly, they’re not interested in what the voters have to say. (Along those same lines… Would someone stuff Eric Massa out a recycle chute someplace, please? )
• SPEAKING OF THAT…. I said last night that the balloon floating about how the “Public Co-Option was dead” was so much balloon juice, you’ll recall. Seems Cato agrees.  This is a ruse, people. They’re trying to put us off the scent.

We lost a great one this morning, from Sun-Times (Chicago):

Most people know the late Sun-Times columnist Robert D. Novak, who died this morning [Tuesday] from complications of a brain tumor, as a journalist. And indeed he was among the best this country has produced. Simply stated, Bob was a relentless reporter. His political columns were marked by his determination to dig out new information, behind-the-scenes anecdotes and Washington secrets to tell us something we didn’t know. He combined that with sharp analysis, insightful commentary and passion about the issues facing the nation to emerge as a brawling contestant in the great national debates of his era.

More Lynn Sweet.

Rest in peace, Bob.

Back when President Obama was merely candidate Obama, we were told how his presidency would bring America together.  As Glenn Reynolds keeps telling us, “they were right”.

Arguably, the most significant change that the President and his party in the House and Senate have attempted thus far is a government takeover of the Healthcare system in this country, under the guise of “health care reform”.  Whatever else might be said about Obamacare, it has certainly managed to bring the country together in a way that few people have managed to do over the course of our country’s history.  Of course, the results are not quite what the Democrats expected.

According to recent Rasmussen polling, 53 percent of Americans oppose President Obama’s health care vision, with 42 percent supporting it.  Not only is this diametrically opposed to the Democrats’ intended result, it is enough of a shift of numbers from the figures back on election night, to suggest that there is a large group of people who voted for Obama who are strongly opposed to his actual policies. One can only conclude that those voters who have shifted their positions subsequent to Election Day, were not paying attention during the election season, since the Democrats gave us every indication they were going to do precisely what they’re trying to do now.  This Healthcare takeover attempt was not a surprise.  Perhaps they thought he wouldn’t really do it, I don’t know.

In any event, because of this support fall-off,  the President has returned to campaign mode.  It’s something the Democrats have a history of doing when they find themselves in a situation of lack of popular support.  For example, Bill Clinton never quite made it out of campaign mode. The very reason the JFK was in Dallas that morning he was killed was because he, too, was in campaign mode, trying to drum up support.

But as usual, there seems some truth stretching going on.  As an example in Portsmouth, New Hampshire at a town hall conducted in front of a tightly controlled …(and therefore,  friendly)… crowd Mr. Obama told us that the AARP supports his health reform plans.  Trouble is, it’s not true… a point that AARP itself was quick to point out in a press release even before the President had left the building. Forgive me the observation, but it doesn’t strike me as being overly trustworthy, when you resort to flat out lies to support your position.

It gets better. At that same gathering, one of the people asking the president questions about his health care plan, and what we’re supposed to think about it, came from eleven year old girl. It was certainly a photogenic moment, and one that reinforced how much the president “cares about the children”.  With her question, she gave him a beautiful point to leap off from into the land of campaign rhetoric, in support of his proposed government takeover of health care.

But, of course, there was a problem with this too. It seems that the girl in question is the daughter of Kathleen Manning Hall, who among her many other activities, was running “Massachusetts Women for Obama” during the original campaign. After calling anyone not supporting his government health care takeover, as being disingenuous, Astroturf, and so on, what it not make sense for the White House to avoid using planted questions and questioners?  Is there anyone who does not understand that the President is being disingenuous in these preplanned affairs?

There are some who will say that the White House is badly mishandling these affairs. But frankly, I wonder if given the circumstances it could possibly be handled any better than they have been doing. They didn’t get themselves elected because they mishandle campaigns. They’re smart enough campaigners to use the best tools possible for any given task.  I suspect these campaigners are using these planted questions, and flat out lies, because they are simply the best tools in their kit bag, right now.

That, perhaps, is the most damning argument against government health care of all.

There is talk these days, that the Democrats will try to ram this monstrosity through and into law in a non- bipartisan fashion.  This is to say, without the cover of a paltry few leftist Republicans supporting their position, so they can call it a ‘bipartisan plan’.  Certainly, that’s always been an option given the supermajority that they have in both houses.  At the end of the day, it comes down to which they want more; their own power retained, or socialist medicine in place.  Given the way the polling data is lining up, just now, I tend to think they will not.  2010 and 2012 are looming on the horizon, ever larger and the Democrats know very well that they’re in trouble, here.

Welcome one and all to the most intense nightly read anywhere on the sphere… The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble

This is the Slippery Edition

• ANOTHER FAKE:  Billy Beck points to yet another fake from the Democrats. You know.. the ones saying that the movement against Obama and his government takeover of healthcare is all “Astroturfing”. Billy, I love ya man, and your comments are spot on…. but you’ve gotta understand that these people are beyond shame and have been for generations, now. We should be pointing this stuff up when it happens. Just don’t be too shocked when it all rolls off them like so much duck back water.By the way… isn’t that Chelsea Clinton in that pic?
• THE CANADIAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS ABOUT TO IMPLODE. Don’t say we didn’t tell you.
• DON’T UNINTENTIONAL CONSEQUENCES COUNT? Apparently not.
  

  Frustrated with steep budget deficits, unprecedented spending, and chronic government dysfunction, citizens in a growing number of states are calling for constitutional conventions. In recent weeks, both former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and former New York governor Mario Cuomo have authored op-eds in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, respectively, arguing that the political circus in Albany compels a constitutional convention. Such efforts are already well underway in California, alongside burgeoning drives in Alabama, Arizona, and Michigan. Altogether, 25 percent of the U.S. population lives in these five states. These growing grassroots movements are a sign of the times.

  While I understand the motivation, are such efforts really going to make things better, or just more governmental? The people in government are already not following the constitutions as laid out. Go ahead.. prove to me this can be changed by changing the constitution, rather than changing the people.

• HEY BALKO:   You ask:
  

  Is this really the state of debate on the left, now? ‘Agree with us, or we’ll crush you?’ These people don’t want a discussion. They don’t want to hear ideas. They want you to shut up and do what they say, or they’re going to punish you.”

  Question, ol’ buddy… When in the blinking hell has it ever been any different with that crowd?

• IT AIN”T OVER YET:  So, Obama has supposedly decided the “Public Co-option” isn’t a requirement anymore?  Trust me on this one. It’s not off the table, yet.  They’re simply shuffling the deck chairs.  The idea now is create  “non-profit insurance cooperatives”. If it sounds rather like the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run, you’re onto something that the Democrats rather hoped you wouldn’t be.

[M]ost Americans not only do not know what the administration [health care] plan is, but sense that their president does not either.

Health care is stalled and insidiously undermining the presidency of Obama precisely because the public senses he has not leveled with the American people

Victor Davis Hanson, National Review.

Michael Brenner, Puffington Post,  has lost faith in the one:

Serious health care reform is gone with the wind. It cannot be retrieved. All other domestic issues pale in importance by comparison — except for the financial crisis. On that front, Obama has behaved exactly as he now has done on the health care front. That is to say, viewing the world from the prejudicial perspective of the high and mighty while neglecting his duty to the citizenry and those who put their trust in him. The question: ‘who really is Barack Obama?’ is more compelling than ever. The answer looks to be more and more disheartening

Leaders, lead and Barack Obama has no record of over leading anyone, anywhere.   I remind Mr. Brenner of the words of Kyle-Anne Shiver, American Thinker:

Kyle-Anne Shiver

Leaders don’t fall from the sky without proof they ever made friends and dated girlfriends and earned grades and had businesses and wrote papers, folks. Leaders have visible trails; they have made a record of their successes and proudly show them whenever asked. Barack Obama resides in the White House without ever showing a shred of genuine evidence that he is the greatly-gifted man he and his media sycophants say he is. And 52% of the American electorate has bought this faster than they would buy a used car from a slick-suited salesman on a shady lot.

Leaders do not get airdropped by David Axelrod from Chicatgo, devoid of resume.    Barack Obama will be the last unvetted President.

Over at Pajamas Media, Bernard Chapin raises an obvious and axiomatic point:

In the end, government “reform” is no reform at all. They’ve made a labyrinth of everything we’ve asked them to “solve” in the past. If anything, let’s learn from our mistakes and slash government’s role in the health care sector further.

The lesson is being learned well, everwhere but among congressional types, and currently the White House. The reason the Democrats aren’t leaning this message is fairly widely understood.  That wide understanding  would be a boon to the party opposite.  I say would be, not is, because at the moment it’s clear the Republicans as a whole, haven’t learned that lesson either. After the bath they took from their own rank and file in the  most recent election this strikes me as nigh comical.

Look, gang… if limiting government is the stated goal, how is it we have so many Republicans still trying to fight the All Powerful State being erected by Democrats with half hearted measures, with no real direction of their own? Even the brightest, best and most honorable among us cannot fight such a fight without a plan and without principles to base that plan on… and what I’m seeing, even among the brightest stars the Republicans have to offer, lack both.

I’ve said for years, people, that the best electoral advantage the Republicans have is the history of Democrats in power.  Problem is, the reverse is also true. And that situation will stay the same, until such time as Republicans grow principles of freedom and limited government,  principles beyond attaining and maintaining power. Absent such values driving the party members, We’ll end up with Democrat Lite… which helps nobody but the left. It certainly doesn’t help the country.

Reynolds notes today:

THIS ROBERT REICH COLUMN ON THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE is supposed to make you feel bad about the “right wing hate machine,” but instead it’s a stunning admission of incompetence:

Why are these meetings brimming with so much anger? Because Republican Astroturfers have joined the same old right-wing broadcast demagogues that have been spewing hate and fear for years, to create a tempest.

But why are they getting away with it? Why aren’t progressives—indeed, why aren’t ordinary citizens—taking the meetings back?

Mainly because there’s still no healthcare plan. All we have are some initial markups from several congressional committees, which differ from one another in significant ways. The White House’s is waiting to see what emerges from the House and Senate before insisting on what it wants, maybe in conference committee.

But that’s the problem: It’s always easier to stir up fear and anger against something that’s amorphous than to stir up enthusiasm for it.

Hmm.  So it’s like this:

Obama: I’m going to turn healthcare upside down.  Not sure how.

People: I don’t think I’ll like this.

Obama: Haters!

Remember how Bush was supposed to be the idiot who went into Iraq without a plan, while Obama was supposed to be the cool methodical one? But Reich is admitting that despite all the Administration hoopla, there’s still no plan

Well, precisely.  Thing is, if there hasn’t been a plan all along, doesn’t that inject a little uncertainty as to whether or not the intentions of those pushing the non- plan are the stated ones?  Oh, wait, that only works when Republicans are in power, huh?

Look, gang, here it is; the reason that Obama as numbers are going down almost in Unison with the support for the Healthcare non-plans themselves are one in the same; the American voter doesn’t trust either one of them.  In my view, justifiably so.

The reason that I find the standard objections coming from the left on this thing to be so amusing is what I said a few days ago; the apparent objection is that they’re having the same tactics that they themselves perfected and have used for so long ago and stood the right, used against them now. Look again at some of the hate the left was tossing out, and tell me they have a leg to stand on, today.

Welcome, one and all to the most Intense nightly read anywhere on the sphere…The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble

This is the “It Takes Balls” Edition

• FUNNY HOW THIS DOESN’T QUALIFY as Astroturfing. For for that matter, this.
• Victory in 2010? Well, maybe.  I’ve always said that the Democrats being in power is a help to Republicans. But there has to be more than that, or they’re going to lose it again.
• THE SERVER MELTED: E-mails from public overload House Web site. They’ll ignore it of course.
• THE MEASURE OF A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION:  How many get raped and murdered.
• NOTE TO STEVE BENEN: Hey, idiot… Just so you know there is a thin line between “forced euthanasia.” and withholding treatment based on cost effectivness concerns. I note with interest that it’s a thing you don’t make mention of at all.  Now, who is it telling lies, again? Same question goes to the DNC’s House Organ, the New York Times.
• MEANWHILE BACK AT THE SENATE: The “end of life” provision has been quietly dropped from the Senate Bill. Go ahead, tell me the resistance to this isn’t the reason.
• PELOSI TELLS PROTESTERS ‘I’m a Fan of Disruptors’… Oh, wait. That was back in ’06. I guess that changed once Dems got into power, huh?
• MORE PORK:  We find spending on pork barrel stuff is going up under the Democrats. Gee, big shock.

Kyle-Anne Shiver

Barry’s favorite honey is now syndicated.    Kyle-Anne Shiver ponders about the massive gaps in Barack Obama’s resume:

To whit, what is in the following documents that might diminish the Obama “narrative,” as sold to the public by marketing guru, David Axelrod, and a strangely incurious media?

• Panahou Academy school records, 5th through 12th grades
• Occidental College records, including financial aid information.
• Columbia University records, including the missing senior thesis and financial aid information.
• Harvard University records, including information on how a student who never wrote anything (that can be found) was elected president of the prestigious law review, and including information on how Harvard Law School was afforded by humble community agitator, Barack Obama.
• Obama’s Illinois state senate records and papers, mysteriously lost

The one’s stonewalling can’t last forever.

Obama’s not leading. He’s campaigning, and doing that on a float of ignorance about the very bill he touts. Giuliani has it right — this is the President with no leadership clothes at all

Ed Morrissey, Hot Air.

Ed echos a theme Kyle-Anne touched on the other day:

Leaders don’t fall from the sky without proof they ever made friends and dated girlfriends and earned grades and had businesses and wrote papers, folks.  Leaders have visible trails; they have made a record of their successes and proudly show them whenever asked.  Barack Obama resides in the White House without ever showing a shred of genuine evidence that he is the greatly-gifted man he and his media sycophants say he is.  And 52% of the American electorate has bought this faster than they would buy a used car from a slick-suited salesman on a shady lot.

Ed’s point is that the one ssn’t leading.   Kyle-Anne argues that the one has never demonstrated leaderhip.    I say, Obama has the perpetual campaign, because that is all that he knows.

The Retard in Chief trying to dispell the rumors of  death panels:

Well, I think that 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. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now

Via James Tarato, Best of the Web,

Note while Obama does not calll these boards “death panels” ,  according to Obama it is the last months of life where disportionate share of medical expences accured and Obama’s  boards are tasked with saving money.    You figure it out.

Sarah’s Twitter response:

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore….It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.[7]

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic.

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

I wonder if Obama is even aware or, much less read, Section 1233?   I think not.  Maybe Dr. Emanuel should explain it to the one?