Nobody ever said anything about death panels. Did they?

     Sarah Palin took a lot of heat for suggesting that death panels would be the end result of government health care. Absurd, the talking heads said. She's a dolt, liberals scoffed. There will be no such thing, others asserted. Yet all along citizens and commentators, particularly senior citizens, have been concerned that this is exactly what is about to happen, regardless what AARP, who was bought off by the Obama administration and benefits financially from the new legislation, says.

The Senate Finance Committee health bill released last week controls doctors by cutting their pay if they give older patients more care than the government deems appropriate. Section 3003(b) (p. 683) punishes doctors who land in the 90th percentile or above on what they provide for seniors on Medicare by withholding 5 percent of their compensation. 

     So logically, without links, let's think about this. The government has just established 150 new bureaucracies to deal with health care. It is about to hire millions of people to man these new bureaucracies. Untold new laws are hidden away in the bill, many of which are only now being discovered. And yet we are told that this bill saves money--that health care will be opened up to some 20 million more people (that is a floating number) who have no insurance and that no one will lose their current health care, if they like it (even though insurance companies are already going out of business and major companies are saying they cannot maintain their benefits because of what the government has just done with health care). 
     How do you think the government is going to save money on health care, hiring all those people, taking over health care and establishing these numerous bureaucracies, which will only grow, be unionized and probably pay more in pension and benefits than private sector jobs? 
     The answer to that question is easy. It won't save money. Government health care will go broke, just like it is in Britain and Canada. 
     In a controlled townhall meeting, one woman asked The One if he would cut medical care to her elderly mother rather than replace her hip (as had been done many years ago) and, yes, Obama answered that it would probably be better if the woman's mother were just to go on pain meds. Dope her up, he said. 

     So here we go. Another Senate candidate says we shouldn't waste money on end of life care.
Here's what the president's advisors think of health care:

True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."

And here is the graph presented to determine who gets the real $$ for health care: we focus on 15-40 year olds for the majority of the money because they have the most to offer. The elderly and young do not.

So let's talk about death panels again. 

     Do you really trust the government to determine when and if you get treatment? Do you really trust the government to control doctors' decisions on who gets treatment, on penalty of loss to themselves? 

     And remember when the government took over education loans, which means if you want to become a doctor--an expensive process that most people can't afford without loans--you'll have to go through the government's direction on what specialty you'll go into, where you'll serve in the country and how you'll pay back that loan once you're actually practicing.

    So it all depends on who you listen to, doesn't it? I certainly trust the government that runs the post office, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, the BMV.....the government that is really on top of that oil spill?

    Don't you?