The Obama teleprompter lies about Obamacare

I’m not especially a fan of Dick Morris but I find I agree with him more these days since he has become a serious thorn in the sides of both Clintons. For example, here is what he said recently:

"Now that the cameras have been put away and the media is no longer watching, their (Obama and Democrats) secret emerges: They are going to cut medical costs by cutting medical care – and right now. These decisions will not be medical but financial. They will not be based on a doctor’s opinion of what his or her patient needs, but a bureaucrat’s and an accountant s opinion of what the new health care system can afford."

Morris also warns us: "But this is just the very beginning... rationing is coming, and coming soon." To paraphrase Morris; if you need a CAT scan or an MRI, forget it. If you need antibiotics, forget it. As for potentially life-saving or life-extending treatments, take a number and stand in line.

Obama describes his health care plan through his lying teleprompter and claims his plan will reduce healthcare costs and provide the same medical care we receive now. Obama has told us that if you want to keep your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor and if you want to keep your present health plan, you'll be able to keep your present health plan. Specifically, Obama said: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away." But Obama doesn’t keep his promises and everyone but the public sheep knows that; Obama can't keep that promise and he knows it.

If the Obama plan is enacted, a substantial portion of employers will cut their health subsidies by increasing employees’ share of contributions to the company plan so as to persuade some employees to take the public option of the Obama healthcare plan in exchange for the company provided insurance. The rationale is workers could buy their own coverage in the government public option plan or perhaps employers will even fund part of their workers’ participation in that plan, which will also reduce the company cost substantially.

The Obama’s takeover of health care is nothing more than an unmitigated power grab, even more than his takeover of the banks and the automobile industry. Obama’s goal is not to improve health care but to extend government control of our lives.

If Obama and his Democrat minions in congress are successful, we will lose what many believe is the finest medical care in the world, (why else are people coming to the United States for medical care?).

To reduce costs of healthcare according to the Obama plan it is necessary to reduce payments to medical care providers and/or ration medical care. One critical component is to target the elderly, the already-handicapped and the unborn. Consider Obama's own words and remarks as reprinted in the Washington Times and learn for yourself.

“Part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options. The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill.... 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."

What do you think that means? Obama’s top health advisers have emphasized that America should value the lives of young, healthy people more than those of old or sick individuals. One Obama adviser is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama’s chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel. Kevin Williamson of National Review Online describes Dr. Emanuel’s views: “He wrote in The Lancet in 2008: ‘Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination.’ We all were young once, the argument goes, and so denying the elderly and weak in order to care for the young and fit is just.”

These are scary times and if you’re over the age of 55, be very scared. If you’re chronically ill with diabetes or high blood pressure or multiple sclerosis – or have heart disease or cancer – your future doesn’t look very bright, and not only because of your disease. Do we want to give Obama the power of the federal government and bureaucratic pencil-pushers to decide how long we should live? If we are not entirely convinced of this possibility, do we really want to find out the answer the hard way?

Obama claims that his health plan won’t involve rationing or reduced care. But that’s ridiculous, because all government-run health systems suffer from those drawbacks. For a real-world example, take a look at the Canadian system.

Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian-trained physician who practices in the United States, describes his own revelation about Canada’s medical system:

“On [my way to medical school class]… I cut through a hospital emergency room and came upon dozens of people on stretchers – waiting, moaning, (and) begging for treatment. Some elderly patients had waited up to five days in corridors before being admitted to beds. They smelled of urine and sweat. As I navigated past the bodies, I began to question everything I thought I knew about health care – not only in Canada, but also in the United States. … I had begun a journey into the heart of one of the great policy disasters of modern times."

How about the similar system is France? In a French journalist’s words reprinted by the Heritage Foundation:

“The majority of France’s state-owned hospitals are managed in a way that is reminiscent of the old U.S.S.R. ... In the average French public hospital, it is not uncommon for every window to be open, even in winter, because the heating system in the building cannot be regulated. With the only options being no heat or unbearably high heat, everyone opts for the latter. Predictably, this is not very cheap.”

Germany is also no exception to the pitfalls of a universal healthcare system. The British medical journal Lancet has an article that says that system is facing bankruptcy on an unprecedented scale.

In Great Britain, one current cost-saving measure is the denial of essential medications to women in advanced stages of certain cancers. Notwithstanding these examples; on June 15th Barack Obama told the American Medical Association (AMA) that other developed countries – he meant nations like Canada, Germany, France, and Britain – pay much less per capita for health care than Americans. Even if this is true, you also get exactly what you pay for; is denying available medicine and treatment to those who need it a viable option to reduce cost? So why does Obama want to bring millions of people into the system literally overnight?

What happens when there are suddenly many more patients than there are practitioners to care for them? Will we have to wait in doctor’s offices like the wait in emergency rooms? And if you’re really sick, what are the chances that you might die in line, waiting for treatment that simply does not come in time? Remember what Dr. Gratzer told us about what’s going on in Canada, one of systems Democrats would like us to emulate?

In his talk to the AMA, Obama implied that costs were rising because patients were getting unneeded care. In fact, the opposite is true. A 2003 survey by the Rand Corporation found that only 11% of patients got treatments they didn’t need – while a whopping 46% failed to receive needed care.

There is a great irony in Obama’s rush for action toward a government-run system; in Great Britain, France, Germany, and even Canada, there’s a growing push to get people back into private insurance systems, taking the pressure off public facilities and doctors. They say it’s a move toward – hold onto your seat – government cost savings.