Google Custom Search

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Healthcare Rationing Hidden in Stimulus Bill

What you don't know about the details of the massive trillion dollar stimulus bill the Democratic Congress just passed can kill you...literally. Hidden in that bill is a provision for healthcare rationing.

Bloomberg provides the details of this ominous plan, which none of our illustrious political leaders, including Obama, bothered to tell us.

Further, the healthcare rationing contained in the bill is based upon a 'means testing' process whereby the cost of the care vs. the life-expectancy of the patient in question will determine whether or not medical care is provided.

For example, if you are a female 75 years of age with heart disease, it could be determined that due to the fact that your life expectancy is 81 years of age, thus meaning that you would only have roughly 6 years to benefit, an expensive heart medication that could correct your problem would be denied.

This is because under the Obama-Democrat plan, the government will make those decisions, not your doctor. And since this stimulus bill contains a provision for a 'healthcare czar' to oversee this process, all of the pieces are in place to usurp any control your doctor may have over your care, placing your 'case' under the control of government bureaucrats who will determine your fate based upon costs.

According to a special report at Atlas, many of these provisions are the ideas of Tom Daschle, who was supposed to be Obama's HHS Secretary until tax cheat issues surfaced. Here is some of what Daschle and the Democrats want:

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Are you sufficiently frightened out of your wits yet? You should be.

This is precisely what many of us predicted before the election...that under Barack Obama there would be healthcare rationing for Senior Adults.

Thus, if you are deemed too old and sick to be given care in a cost-effective manner, sorry pal, but you need to go ahead and die. This is precisely the attitude of Obama, Daschle, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, and anyone else who supports such outright murder.

These purveyors of death have already desensitized the public into believing that infanticide is not murder, and so, what's the problem with getting rid of the 'useless elderly,' huh?

Welcome to your worst nightmare--modern America under liberals. As far as I'm concerned each and every one can go straight to hell.

12 comments:

drjim said...

And as usual, the scumbag-elite who will push this through as law will be exempt, or get "special" medical care that only government employees can get.
Absolutely disgusting!

Welshman said...

Precisely. This is exactly what happened in the old Soviet Union. Communist Party leaders were afforded luxuries and privileges that the citizens were not given.

Funny how Marx's words become so expendable when there is money and privilege to be had.

And these scumbags in Congress are just as bad as the scum in the old Soviet Union.

drjim said...

I think they're WORSE because the masquarade as "Americans", which, their actions, show they are NOT.

Welshman said...

Good point. And given that they are violating the Constitution, although they know better, they are casting their lot with traitors, subversives, the forces of anti-freedom, and the powers of oppression.

Anonymous said...

"useless elderly"

Lemme guess - AARP endorsed Obama, right?

And how's that working out...?

Welshman said...

And on top of that, Jeffersonian, many Senior were 'scared' into voting for Obama because of Social Security. Imagine.

Social Security is of no use when you are DEAD due to his healthcare program!

drjim said...

Well, I suppose that's one way of stretching SS a bit further!
BTW...I'm CANCELLING my AARP membership over this....

Welshman said...

There are alternatives to AARP, which is heavily under the influence of Leftwing causes.

Anonymous said...

It seems I was first amongst all those I know and have read to predict this. I predicted euthanasia was coming to America. The impetus for that prediction? Roe v.Wade.

The first step is the hardest. Once you can gain a cultural shift that accepts the premise some lives are not as valuable or as sacred or just too damn inconvenient for others the only problem is enlarging the pool of these inconvenient lives. The premise has been established. The argument is no longer over principle, but profit and power, the principle having already been destroyed.

I made that prediction the day of the Roe v.Wade decision. I have stated so emphatically ever since then, to much verbal abuse. Nobody ever had the guts try another kind.

But, Hell, that isn't surprising is it? Look at their targets to date, the unborn but viable, the elderly and sick. These are not courageous men. They need the cooperation of us. Unfortunately they are gettin it from the majority.

Blood will run over this, if not sooner.

Welshman said...

I agree, SA. We essentially allowed the murderers to get away with Roe v. Wade. They succeeded through that ruling to desensitize the country to murdering the innocent. Now, it is much easier to get them to accept killing the sick and elderly.

But for millions of us, there is no way we are going to allow that next step to happen. If you murder our grandfathers and grandmothers just because they are deemed too expensive to care for, then you will be killed. It's called self-defense.

Anonymous said...

Although I am not Sicilian, I believe in vendetta. In this case self-defense doesn't apply because the death squads will have already killed. Revenge and retribution are then called for, and not just for the agents, but for their controllers as well.

I believe in the Leo Durocher school of disagreement. Leo never killed an umpire, but he sure made them regret a bad call, which made them more careful in future calls.

Due to seriousness of the prospect before us, getting to make the next call should be something denied to the agents and their controllers. However, their survivors might wish to be more careful in their future calls.

Welshman said...

Good point!