Obamacare to elderly: so die already

  Well, here's another affirmation that the Obamacare Death Panel is here to stay. You think you'll like what they have to say? Sure, if you fit a certain demographic. 
  If you're under 5 or over 60, you're not likely to like what's coming, just as Obama, in a moment of honesty, recommended to an audience member that, in the future, he'd advise her mother receive pain meds rather than a hip replacement because of her age, even though the elderly woman had lived ten successful years with the replacement.
  As if the elderly population isn't drugged enough.
  That Death Panel is now in place and it's called the Obamacare Mandate Panel; they have independent legal authority and no commitment to transparency. That secrecy is the hallmark of the Obama administration.
  Do you think Mandate Panel is committed to health?
  No. The first commitment is to cost. And, of course, the very young and the elderly are the most needy of health care.
  With an aging baby boomer population, the urgency for health care will increase.
  From the WSJ:

The task force is also the only federal health agency to have the explicit legal authority to consider cost as one criterion in recommending whether patients should use a medical test or treatment. 

Over time, the task force will surely recommend against many services that patients now take for granted, while mandating full insurance coverage for things that they'd be just as happy paying for. Among the interventions that it plans to consider in 2012 are screening for hepatitis C in adults, for osteoporosis in men and for depression in children; counseling for obesity in adults and for alcohol use in adolescents; and daily aspirin for heart-attack and stroke prevention in people over 80.

  Yet in left wing media resources (aren't just about all of them left wing?), none have publicly refuted the Death Panel accusation that Sarah Palin (and Betsy McCaughey) so presciently foresaw. 
  Don Surber protests the Poltifact accusation that the Death Panel accusation was labeled "lie of the year.""

In March 2010, we made saving money the purpose of America’s medical system instead of saving lives. Premature babies and old people will be the first to be denied medical services. I have heard proponents of government-run medicine complain for too long about how 90% of the money (they never cite a source, why should I?) of our medical dollars are wasted on the first week of life and the last. The rationing of health dollars will continue. 

It is funny, no liberal complains about the runaway costs of public education, and the 45% increase in just 3 years in the cost of food stamps, too, is given little bad press. But heart surgery is someohow too expensive, as are treatments for cancer.

  How ironic it is that the original visionary for Obamacare is "in love" with the British health care system, the NHS.
  And that NHS is so bankrupt, uncaring and inefficient that Cameron is now trying to convert that government system back to a competitive and private, healthy functioning entity that will actually treat the needs of the sick.
  Trying to do that after 60 years of "free" health care is an uphill, and possibly hopeless, definitely unpopular task. Though people may know they need reform, actually reforming it will be difficult.
  Such is the destiny of Obamacare here. 
  I heard a supposedly intelligent, "informed," left wing teenager once say matter of factly and without shame that he thought it was quite appropriate that health care be denied to the elderly. They should just die already, he told a group of his peers who gasped in horror (thank God), rather than waste what will soon be government money when they're so old and done for anyway.
  That teenager's attitude will only increase with time, particularly as they are forced to pay more for health care as the elderly population increases and the government adapts by creating more and more bureaucracy to decide who gets care and who doesn't. We've already heard left wingers encourage this attitude by admitting that costs won't be cut or health care improved and who've introduced the idea that "it's too expensive [to treat the elderly] so we're going to have to let you die."
  So this is what we've traded.
  Instead of a commitment to compassionate care for the sick and needy, we've decided we aren't going to screen for cancer and other diseases as often because the government says it's not necessary, odd timing considering the goal is to take over private health care and push private insurers out of business.
  We can soak trillions of dollars into foolish projects, too numerous to be named here, but we aren't going to help the sick.