On "Death Panels," Health Care Reform, Obama's Town Hall Lies, and Senator Johnny Isakson

Will Malven
8/13/2009

In the continuing debate on "health care reform," much is being made of the so called "death panels" mandated in the bill coming out of Rep. Henry Waxman's House committee. While I do believe that such rhetoric is over the top and not constructive to the overall debate, much of the blame for the hyperbolizing belongs to the President himself.

It was he who first brought up the specter of taking a pain pill rather than having the surgery. His exact words were:

"...we as a culture and a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves...but what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system, that's not making anybodies mom better...that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care...that 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 not having the surgery but taking the pain killer."

While I agree that sometimes the treatment is ineffective and in that sense wasteful, that and all decisions should be left up to the doctor and the patient. It certainly isn't the business of the government.

So the whole subject of death as an option to treatment was first broached by the President when answering this woman's question concerning her 105 year old mother who had a pacemaker installed at age 100 - after the first surgeon said she was too old.

Even worse, now the Democrats and Obama are attempting to claim that the whole idea for these "end of life" consultations that are in the bill came from a Republican, Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia...another lie that the Senator addresses himself on his web page. Senator Isakson says:

“This is what happens when the President and members of Congress don’t read the bills. The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies. I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats’ bill. I categorically oppose the House bill and find it incredulous that the White House and others would use my amendment as a scapegoat for their misguided policies.

My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney. The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion, and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice.”

Well senator, as you were justifiably upset at the President abusing your good name, I'm going to let your poor grammar slide (you don't find it "incredulous," you find it "incredible"). The point is that what Senator Isakson proposed was entirely different from the government mandated actions that are in the Congressional bill.

Democrats and the President know that their whole nefarious scheme of destroying our current private health care system and replacing it with a state run plan is in dire jeopardy. As the facts become known to those of us outside of Washington D.C., opposition continues to grow.

The fact that Democrats, their allies in the mainstream media and President Obama are heaping abuse on those dissenters, calling them names like "brown shirts" and claiming that they are carrying swastikas or dismissing them as orchestrated demonstrations paid for by "those who profit from the status quo" hasn't been helping their cause. The American people know when protesters are legitimate as these folks are and when they are staged by groups like ACORN.

Now the whole strategy of the Democrats and Obama...with the assistance of the MSM...is to claim that those of the public who are so outraged are "misinformed by evil talk radio" and "fishy" blogs like mine, or that their words are being taken out of context (which we have shown they are not), or that we have misread the bill, or last (and even worse) that there is no one bill in Congress so we can't know what we are protesting...How can you defend something if you claim not to have that something to defend?

Senator Claire McCaskill defended herself at a town hall meeting by claiming that she was only familiar with the Senate version of health care reform, not the House version (a convenient if disingenuous ploy considering that we in the public don't have access to the Senate's version of health care reform) and that she had read the bill, a claim which cannot be verified since we don't have access to it.

We already know that most of these guys haven't read the bill (which ever one they choose to defend) as an oblivious Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) admitted just a short while ago when he said:

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Right Congressman, why bother to read the bill, it might lead to embarrassing questions and, heaven forbid, they might have to take responsibility for provisions in the bill that might later prove to have very negative consequences for their constituents...in the movies, they call this intentional ignorance "plausible deniability."

There is nothing funny about this move by Democrats to take over 16% of our economy and replace our health care system with a government run system, but there is great humor in the efforts of our congress members to defend bills about which they know nothing. The accusations of ignorance which they are using to dismiss we who oppose this government debacle are absurd. Anyone who listens to the questions and comments of those who are attending these town hall meeting (I mean the real ones, not the staged ones like the President is putting on) can clearly see that these protesters have read the bill and know why it is such a bad idea.

The other ploy Democrats are using is to ask those elderly if they are happy with their Medicare, using it as an example of a government run health care program...problem is, Medicare operates through private insurance policies, not government run insurance. The other problem is that Medicare, like all government mandated programs is very inefficient when compared to the private options...and remember it is government mandated...when you reach 65 you have to use Medicare or suffer a huge financial penalty and finally, Medicare is going broke...not a very compelling reason to expand government run health care.

Last I want to ask, after this latest "town hall meeting" that President Obama held in which he could not even find a dissenting voice, what do you think the odds are that there will be a dissenting voice or two in the next one (he plans to hold two more, I think) and that it will probably be some Obama-bot attempting to sound like a real dissenter? Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "spontaneous" demonstration inside the arena (again dissenters being portrayed by Obama-bots) that will get a little rowdy, only to be quelled by the masterful efforts of President Messiah Obama.

If you think that my suggestion that Obama's people would stage a protest just to get sympathy then you are pathetically naive. I would be surprised if there wasn't at least a small contingent of dissenting voices at the next Obama Town Hall...all carefully vetted by his people.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below