OBAMA WILL OVERRULE DOCS TRYING TO HEAL BUT GREENLIGHT DOCS TRYING TO KILL.
The Hill, “Abortion foes target..,” Feb. 15, 2007, reported that Mr. Obama’s opposition to “born alive infant” legislation was concerned that protections for babies born alive after botched abortions “… might compromise the relationship between a woman and her doctor.”
TheCaucus.blogs.nytimes.com, “2008 Candidates on the [Partial-Birth] Abortion Ruling,” April 18, 2007, reported that during the Democrat Presidential Primary campaign, Mr. Obama criticized a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on partial-birth abortions as displaying “’… an alarming willingness … to disregard … a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient’.”
But the Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2009, “Obama discusses deathbed measures,” quotes President Obama at a town hall meeting on health care as proposing that “… one way to shave medical costs it to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don’t stand to gain from the extra care.” He added “’Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller’.”
Who will decide whether “you’re better off” without the surgery? Not your doctor but Mr. Obama. Does Mr. Obama really know “who is about to die” and who “don’t stand to gain” from extra care? And what care is “extra?” As usual, Mr. Obama illustrates his point with a very dishonest, false dilemma. Of course you don’t do a hip replacement on his very elderly grandmother whose very aggressive and terminal cancer meant she might not have survived the surgery. But the type of treatment decisions often criticized by rationing radicals are seldom that obvious.
Mr. Obama is willing to interfere in the relationship between a doctor and his patient when the doctor is trying to save a life but not when the doctor is trying to take a life. Is this the most anti-life president in American history?
The American Pet Products Association says that for calendar year 2009, Americans will spend $45.4 billion on pet acquisition and care. And if those numbers don’t impress you, consider that the American Brewers Association says beer has become “more than a $100 billion industry” in this country (with another $50 billion on other alcoholic beverages). The Consumer Electronics Association says we spent $170 billion on gadgets and gizmos in 2008. We spent $2.2 trillion on health care in 2007 (one trillion is a thousand billion) but if we can find hundreds of billions of dollars to lavish on dogs and drinks and flat-panel televisions and countless other discretionary expenditures, do we really need to ration tests and treatment for our parents’ illnesses?
And speaking of health issues, Bloomberg.com reported a story headlined “Obama Invokes His Personal Struggle as He Signs Tobacco Bill,” June 22, 2009, which says “Except for the smoking vice, Obama adheres to a healthy diet and workout regimen….” Then, as though that isn’t enough of a disconnect, the article adds that “He isn’t shy about encouraging staff to live more healthily ….” Health advice from a smoker. But hey, liberals euphemize their own hypocracy as mere “complexity.” And the state-run media are too committed to protecting their investment in the “historic outcome of this presidential election” to point out the gaping inconsistencies in the rhetoric of this president, whose incumbency is going to end up being “historic” but not in the ways his journalistic fan club imagines.