As you probably know, Senator Ted Kennedy is fighting Brain Cancer. We also know that he is 77 years old. The is also a rumor (wink wink) that he has been know to have a drink or twenty at times.
This is a question I would like to see posed to Obama:
Mr. President - Imagine a 77 year old man, live long alcoholic - who develops brain cancer. He is vibrant and vital and has a great spirit. Under your program, would he get treatment? Or would you offer him the pain pills?
In my fantasy world - he would actually respond. Probably with 'end of life decisions are the most difficult. We can't really account for a persons spirit, because the is subjective. We need rules. Sometimes, if the research shows that the operation is not likely to be effective - we may say taking the pain pills is better.'
THEN - ask him if his name being Ted Kennedy would change his answer.
Oh - just in case you think I am off the wall with my 'imagined' answer - have a read below. It is a transcript from a town mall meeting about a month ago:
Obama: “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s ’spirit.’ Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people.
... 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, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”
And all the 'uhh' are actually in the audio - not just added in the transcript.
2 comments:
and r u saying that this is in the health bill? let me ask a question of you- r u for any type of universal coverage so that all americans get coverage, or are you fine with allowing millions to go without any health insurance.?
i think those out there that are beating the "death plan" drum are not being honest about the debate. there is nothing in the bill that states that you will be denied coverage, etc because your ill, old, poor, or whatever.
Well, let's see. They are going to cut 500 billion out of Medicare at the same time the baby boomers are coming on. So, logic dictates there will be fewer dollars to go around. This MUST lead to rationing-which is someone getting denied care. I never made a mention of death panels. In the UK you have criteria based on age, cost, and cost per quality years left to determine who gets what treatment.
So basically, you will take care away from the elderly in order to cover illegal immigrants (the courts will force that, no matter what a bill might say) and young people to currently choose not to spend the money on insurance.
My question to your comment: why do you feel compelled to up-end the entire system to cover an addition 5% of the population? And please don't insult my intelligence by using the bogus 47 million-we both know that is bullshit.
Reforms I would support now; tort reform, insurance rules to cover pre-existings (a lot of companies do this already), allow insurance to be sold across state lines, friendly tax treatment for insurance buyers, medical savings accounts, building free clinics as an alternative to hospitals for non-emergencies.
But, u would not accept these, even as a first step. My contention as to why? Because the health debate is not about health. It is about control-central control. It is the holy grail to establishing a european style, left of center society. And I want no part of it.
And to directly answer your universal question. I would support it ONLY if there were a way to do it such that the Fed truly had no control over it. Since I doubt this is possible-then no, I would not.
The Fed is already WAY to big and intrusive. I will fight any attempt that would make it bigger-no matter the reason.
Post a Comment