Mike Huckabee tossed a hand grenade into the debate over who's politicizing Ted Kennedy's death Thursday morning when he told his radio audience that under Obamacare, Kennedy would be told to "go home to take pain pills and die."What Republican is going to jump on that statement? They all agree with it, at least the ones that have shown any interest in 2012.
Which Democrat will toss it back first?
Will any Republicans jump on it by challenging Huckabee head-on?
Just the other day I told the radio audience I talk to every week that if Kennedy had been on Obamacare he would have likely died months ago, because expensive and experimental treatments that he was able to get under the congressional plan or with his own money would not have been approved for a person of his age and health history.
If Stephy thinks that Huckabee's statement will generate an internal GOP war, he clearly doesn't understand the GOP opposition to Obamacare.
Posts
9 comments:
I was thinking the same thing about care for someone over 70 years of age. By his own bill's definitions Senator Kennedy should have been left to die; no surgery, no chemo, just palliative care.
The Wall Street Journal had an article this week entitled, "Obamacare's Rationer-in-Chief" which showed a graph that illustrates the underlying utilitarian mentality of this health care bill. Children under 10 years of age shouldn't get too much care because society hasn't yet invested too much money in their development. And people over 70 years of age shouldn't be a priority because they don't have much time left to contribute to the same society.
And this is what the "progressive" party has to offer us? Disgusting. In fact the article quoted Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm) as saying the problem with spiraling health care costs can be traced to the Hippocratic Oath, and that doctors should be trained in medical school "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." If you cost more than you contribute, you're toast.
if kennedy didn't have insurance before he died, he couldn't have gotten it. No health care provider would have given him coverage, they would have noticed his cancer when they reivewed it during their 'death panel' discussion and review of his insurance application and he would have been out of luck. I notice you didn't mention this when your posted your myth about obamas health care, perhaps in your next blog.
Anonymous-I don't think there are too many people who don't think there should be some reforms in the current health care system. But the wholesale utilitarian model that is being espoused through Obamacare is just swapping one "death panel" for another. How is that a good thing?
Do you think the "death panel" idea is a myth? Did you read the WSJ article I cited? Have you read HR 3200? You're right, insurance companies do ration care, and people go to the news media to complain about it. But how is one going to argue with the government when they tell you your death will be for the common good? Who do you appeal to then?
I just got a letter from an elderly aunt in England who is on the National Health Service. She has had leg ulcers for not for one year, not two years, but 13 years! That would be unacceptable in this country. Now she can't even get an appointment to see the doctor, and hasn't been treated in 2 months. I am sure the NHS is just hoping she'll do the right thing and die already.
Is that the reform you've been waiting for? Good luck with that.
Nightingale, there are plenty of people like your aunt here in America, living on social security or just too poor to be able to get health care insurance. No Health care provider would touch them, they would deny their applications. So you have to ask yourself, is having any type of insurance, even rationed, better than having none at all and suffering? Don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for Obama, I though he was underqualified. But seeing 50 million of your fellow americans suffering and you doing your best to deny them health care is a pretty poor showing of patriotism. And yes, i did read the WSJ article and it was a good read. If I had the choice I'd take free health care, even with its drawbacks, then going without.
Nightingale, there are plenty of people like your aunt here in America, living on social security or just too poor to be able to get health care insurance. No Health care provider would touch them, they would deny their applications. So you have to ask yourself, is having any type of insurance, even rationed, better than having none at all and suffering? Don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for Obama, I though he was underqualified. But seeing 50 million of your fellow americans suffering and you doing your best to deny them health care is a pretty poor showing of patriotism. And yes, i did read the WSJ article and it was a good read. If I had the choice I'd take free health care, even with its drawbacks, then going without.
With all due respect, Anon, you just blew your own argument. England has the health care system that Obama is pushing for, and it isn't solving the problem.
And now the number of "uninsured" is up to 50 million? Let's look at that. That number counts people who are not even citizens; those between jobs & temporarily out of insurance; and those who can afford, but just don't want to buy it. I personally know some of the latter, and they make $100,000 annually, but would rather spend their money on other things.
As for the "poor," there are low-cost clinics available to them. I know this for a fact, as I work in health care and make referrals to these clinics often. The biggest complaint from these "poor" people? They don't want to wait several hours in a waiting room. They might want to get used to the wait, because in England you wait months for basic care.
The biggest complaint from these "poor" people? They don't want to wait several hours in a waiting room.
For hourly wage earner, they're not getting paid.
So sitting in a waiting room they pay twice.
Cost of care (inc taxes, cost passed on in purchased goods and services) and lost wages.
That may be true Lew, but it's not going to get better under Obamacare; in fact it will get worse.
Oh, and I forgot Lew, these patients don't pay twice. The places I send low-income folks to don't charge them; it's covered by county health services...by the tax payers of California.
Post a Comment