Don’t ever get old!
One of the scariest things about the Healthcare Reform bill that Obama and the Democrats in congress are pushing is the effect that this despicable bill would have on senior citizens. It would surely bring about some form of healthcare rationing similar to what is currently going on in Canada and Great Britain. The elderly would bear the brunt of this evil rationing.
I remember my late grandfather often telling me “Peter, don’t ever get old.” If Obama’s socialized healthcare is ever passed into law, the whole country had better follow my grandfather’s advice because the “golden years” won’t be so golden anymore.
It’s always been the standard MO for the left-wing to lie about their intentions and about who they really are. However, they do occasionally slip up and let some truth trickle out.
Obama let slip his attitude towards healthcare for the elderly when he answered a question from a woman during ABC’s healthcare propaganda special from the White House on June the 24th. The question was asked by Jane Strum about the effects of Obama’s plan on senior citizens like her 105 year old mother. Many of you have probably seen this video, but it’s worth watching again.
What can you say about that attitude except that it should scare the bejesus out of every senior citizen in the country? If Obama were in charge of healthcare when this woman was 100, she would most probably not be alive today!
If that’s not bad enough, the Democrat House of Representatives healthcare bill (HR 3200) calls for “end of life counseling” for people beginning at age 65 and then every five years after that until you finally get out of the way and die. The way I see it, some federal government bureaucrat would visit you and try to “counsel” you into signing a (DNR) do not resuscitate order so the government won’t have to spend precious resources in order to keep you alive if and when you become very sick at the “end of your life.” It has been established that most of the healthcare money spent on seniors is spent during the last two years of their lives.
There is no mystery in regards to the effects of nationalized or socialized medicine on the personal healthcare of senior citizens. The history is all there; in Great Britain and Canada people of a certain age have long been denied certain medical procedures. Many of these seniors who have the financial wherewithal, come to the United States to receive life-saving treatment denied to them by their benevolent governments.
Watch this horrific video about a senior in Great Britain; it says it all about socialized medicine.
I wonder if American seniors will finally wake up to realize what’s going on, and take notice of who is proposing all of these sick plans. For many years, senior citizens have been useful idiots for the statists in the Democrat Party. Whenever an election is too close for comfort, the Democrats start running commercials claiming that the Republicans want to abolish Social Security and Medicare. Obama even used the scare tactic late in his campaign against senior citizen John McCain. Up until now, most senior citizens have fallen for this lie hook, line, and sinker. It’s time for senior citizens to step up to the plate and stop being lackeys for the Democrat Party. It’s time for the liberal AARP to put politics and ideology aside and start telling seniors the truth about who wants to ration their healthcare.
I guess it’s probably hard for many seniors to fathom that to Obama and many Democrats, they are nothing but a financial liability. The quicker they kick the bucket, the more resources it frees up for all of the other expensive social programs they want to fund.
It’s unfortunate that many Americans still don’t understand the simple fact that when Big Government gives you everything, they can take away anything.
Reader Comments
The government would love nothing more for us to drop dead the day before we retire. That way, they would get a bunch in tax revenue (estate taxes).
The AARP had better wake up – saw a clip that AARP is supporting the Health Care Plan, but the AARP representative was denying that health care was going to be rationed because the President promised it wouldn’t be. Obviously, he hasn’t read what Congress is trying to do.
This is such sad trash. What exactly is the difference between ‘rationing health care’ and what private insurance companies are doing right now? Canadians get cheaper, better coverage and laugh at our barbaric for profit system.
Hey Budd,
For arguments sake, let’s just say that you’re right about the private insurance companies. Why not pass legislation regulating the private insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions and from raising premiums after a major illness? Why destroy a whole system because socialist losers like you are envious of people with good coverage, and don’t like the free market. As for Canadians laughing at us; you must be freakin joking! Canadians who have the means have long been coming into the United States to get treatment. Anyway, fool – my post dealt with care for senior citizens, and under our current Medicare system, I personally know several people who received knee and hip replacements in their 70′ and 80′s. Medicare definitely needs to be fine tuned to cut waste and fraud, but there is no rationing of healthcare for seniors in the present system.
Please read the full context of the exchange, and not this edited version. The point is not that Big Scary Government is going to take over control of your life. Rather the goal is to provide infrastructure via funding, standards, and regulation, to ensure that doctors and insurers and even patients all have the same FACT-BASED evidence when making these difficult decisions.
Here is the full transcript, from abcnews.com:
STURM: She’s 105 now. Over 105. But at 100 the doctor had said to her, I can’t do anything more unless you have a pacemaker. I said, go for it. She said, go for it. But the arrhythmia specialist said, no, it’s too old.
Her doctor said, I’m going to make an appointment, because a picture
is worth a thousand words. And when the other arrhythmia specialist saw
her, saw her joy of life and so on, he said, I’m going for it.
So that was over five years ago. My question to you is, outside the
medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any
consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of
living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I want to meet your mom.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: And I want to find out what’s she’s eating.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: But, look, the first thing for all of us to understand is
that we actually have some — some choices to make about how we want to
deal with our own end-of-life care.
And that’s one of the things I think that we can all promote, and
this is not a big government program. This is something that each of us
individually can do, is to draft and sign a living will so that we’re
very clear with our doctors about how we want to approach the end of life.
I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit.
That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we
have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality
care for all people.
GIBSON: But the money may not have been there for her pacemaker or
for your grandmother’s hip replacement.
OBAMA: Well, and — and that’s absolutely true. And end-of-life
care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re going to
have to make.
I don’t want bureaucracies making those decisions, but understand
that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If
they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made
by private insurers.
We don’t always make those decisions explicitly. We often make
those decisions by just letting people run out of money or making the
deductibles so high or the out-of-pocket expenses so onerous that they
just can’t afford the care.
And all we’re suggesting — and we’re not going to solve every
difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going
to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better
decisions within our own families and for ourselves.
But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that
exists in the system that’s not making anybody’s mom better, that is
loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence
shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let
doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t
going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but
taking the painkiller.
And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and
making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision,
and that — that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care,
that’s something we can achieve.
Actually, the president didn’t say that the woman should just take a pain pill, you’re twisting his words. He said that decisions have to be made by physicians IN CONSULTATION WITH THE FAMILIES of the elderly and that sometimes it will just be take a pain killer, but he didn’t say that procedures shouldn’t happen. He’s saying it’s not the gov’t decision. If you listen to what he’s saying, you might hear him.