Exposing The Heinous Lies Of Comrade Obama And His Lackeys About His ‘Death Care’ Masquerading As Health Care Bill

 

Let's cut through Obama and his lackeys lies about his 'death care' masquerading as health care program. The truth of the matter is that we will have a government that will come between the doctor-patient relationship in the most critical matters involving health care. Those who can only spout the Dems talking points, courtesy of the Emanuel brothers and Axelrod, i.e., our government which has become a Chicago ward with union thugs called out by Obama to intimidate all those who dare to disagree with its heinous legislation that is taxing us all into oblivion, thereby destroying our economy and the country from within, a government that under Pelosi calls us Nazis and un-American for refusing to be lemmings falling them over a cliff into the abyss - to heck with the future of our children and granchildren, do NOT deserve the time of day and need to be exposed for the liars that they are touting a single-payer system that will, in effect, destroy the best health care that the world has ever seen, and in the process render us all serfs to a central government under der fuhrer Obama which has been his goal all along given that he was weaned on Communism!
 
If you care about a country fit to live in for your children and grandchildren, take the time to read the health care bill as opposed to believing the lies of the Obama propaganda machine, in particular, the vast majority of the MSM.  Read those questionable sections brought to your attention by people who love, not hate, this country.  If you do, you will find out that their concerns are VERY REAL, as opposed to the lies of their critics who demand that you live under their forced Obamunist utopia which is a lie directly from the father-of-lies! That's what's REALLY un-American, not those who care enough to raise the alarms like Revere did before Lexington and Concord! - Gary L. Morella
 


 

http://www.lifenews.com/bio2913.html
 
House Health Care Bill Gives Doctors Financial Incentive to Push Euthanasia

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 10, 2009

 

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- To hear backers of the government-run health care bill tell the story, pro-life advocates are making up wild-eyed claims about how the measure will push euthanasia. However, one leading bioethicist and a Washington Post Editorial Writer say the bill does give doctors financial incentive to push it.
 
At issue is Section 1233 of HR 3200, the government-run health care plan that the House will consider when it returns from its August recess.
 
The measure would pay physicians to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years or sooner if the patient has a terminal diagnosis.
 
While pro-life advocates say the section opens the door to physicians pushing euthanasia or withdrawal of lifesaving medical treatment, or even basic food and water, backers of the bill call the claims rubbish.
 
Charles Lane, an member of the editorial board of the liberal Washington Post newspaper, admits in a Saturday column that at least some of the concerns are well-founded.
 
"As I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous," Lane writes, adding that it "addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones."
 
"Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite 'purely voluntary,'" as backers of the bill assert, Lane adds. "To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.' Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.
 
"Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit 'formulation' of a plug-pulling order right then and there," Lane explains.
 
"What's more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation," Lane continues.
 
He points out the legislation says the doctor "shall" discuss "advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to"; "an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses" even though those are legal and not medical papers. The physician "shall" present "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families."
 
"Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable," Lane writes. "What are "key questions"? Who belongs on 'a list' of helpful 'resources?' The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?"
 
Ultimately, the Post editorial writer says "Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations."
 
"You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach," he concludes.
 
Bioethicist Frank Beckwith notes Lane's analysis in comments of his own that appeared on the blog of the publication First Things.
 
"Supporters of H.R. 3200 claim that its end of life counseling provision, section 1233, is merely voluntary for the patient," Beckwith explains.
 
"But a closer look shows that section 1233 includes conditions and financial incentives for physicians and other health care providers that create a setting in which an elderly patient’s decision to appropriate this option is likely to be less than voluntary," he writes.
 
Beckwith says anyone with elderly parents should be "deeply concerned" about the section.
 
"If, let’s say, H.R. 3200 or something close to it were to become law and the public option pushes private insurance into near non-existence (as would surely happen with all the incentives in place), then there will no neighboring state to which to run," he says. "You won't be able to take your business elsewhere, since there will be no elsewhere."
 
"And to whom will you issue your grievance, a special 'health court,'" Beckwith asks.
 
Such a court, he says, would be "one likely informed by a youth-worshipping culture and a utilitarian bioethics philosophy that sees the elderly (not to mention, handicapped infants) as burdens that are siphoning away valuable resources that could be put to better use in support of society’s “real persons” and more productive contributors."

 

 

 


The Dems have gone out of their way to ensure the baby killing lobby that abortion as needed health care will be included in Obama's draconian bill.  Here's proof that it's death care!

 

So the next time someone tells you that what Obama is proposing is health care, ask them, "Are these links indicative of health care?" – Gary L. Morella


http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html
 
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures_2.html
 
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures_3.html
 

 

 

Obama "Reality Check" Web Site Doesn't Dispute Abortion in Health Care Plan


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- President Barack Obama's administration has released a new web site to supposedly debunk the myths opponents are using to criticize the Congressional health care proposals he supports. Notably absent, however, is any mention of the biggest criticism -- that the plans will lead to abortion funding. The web site, a page on the White House web site dubbed "Reality Check," features Obama staffers and administration officials rebutting some of the criticism of the government-run health care plan. The White House web site, released today, follows Obama's weekend radio address in which he sought to dispel "the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia or cut Medicaid or bring about a government takeover of health care." The new web site, as it says, takes on "wild rumors and scare tactics" -- but the notion that the bills will result in taxpayer funded abortions and insurance mandates requiring abortion coverage don't appear to be among them. Douglas Johnson, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative director, told the Baptist Press that Obama doesn't want to focus the public's attention on the pro-abortion components of the House and Senate health care bills. "The president is evading questions on the issue because he does not want to draw public attention to the sweeping pro-abortion provisions that are in the bills," he said. Full story at LifeNews.com

 

 

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi Calls Opponents of Pro-Abortion Health Care "Un-American"


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has subjected herself to criticism for authoring an editorial in USA Today in which she calls Americans who oppose the pro-abortion health care plan before Congress "un-American." Pelosi complains about the Americans who have voiced their opinions in town halls and forums. Pelosi complains about what she calls "an ugly campaign" by people opposed to the bills. She claims people opposed to the government plan, which has been criticized for promoting health care rationing and euthanasia, are scheming to "disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue." "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American," Pelosi writes. Full story at LifeNews.com

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi Calls Opponents of Pro-Abortion Health Care "Un-American"

by Steven Ertelt

LifeNews.com Editor
August 10, 2009


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has subjected herself to criticism for authoring an editorial in USA Today in which she calls Americans who oppose the pro-abortion health care plan before Congress "un-American." Pelosi complains about the Americans who have voiced their opinions in town halls and forums.

 

Pelosi, who writes along with pro-abortion Democratic leader Steny Hoyer, complains about what she calls "an ugly campaign" by people opposed to the bills.

 

She claims people opposed to the government plan, which has been criticized for promoting health care rationing and euthanasia, are scheming to "disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue."

 

"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American," Pelosi and Hoyer write.

 

House Republican Leader John Boehner, who is pro-life, quickly condemned Pelosi on the comments in a Monday statement sent to LifeNews.com.

 

"Each public forum should give every participant the opportunity to express their views, but to label Americans who are expressing vocal opposition to the Democrats’ plan 'un-American' is outrageous and reprehensible," he said.

 

He added: “The American people deserve answers to basic questions about whether the Democrats’ plan will" do such things as "put government between doctors and patients," or "force anyone to lose their current health coverage," or "promote taxpayer-funded abortion."

 

"The fact is Democrats have not been able to address the very real concerns the American people have," Boehner said.

 

Congressman Mike Pence, a leading pro-life advocate in the House, also condemned Pelosi's comments.

 

He said most Americans "would find that kind of characterization of citizens exercising their First Amendment rights to be offensive. There is nothing more American than letting your elected representatives know how you feel about important issues facing the nation."

 

"The American people are rejecting a government takeover of health care and I think Democrats from the White House to the Congress are desperate. They are trying to change the subject," Pence continued.

 

"I do believe that at the end of the day, it is going to become very obvious, even to many Democrats in Congress, that this is not some campaign, it is not some 'un-American' effort," he said of those opposing the pro-abortion plans.

 

 

Poll: Americans Fear Govt-Run Health Care More Than Insurance Companies


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The problems with the Congressional health care bills have become so pervasive that Americans have gotten to the point that they don't believe the federal government can be trusted on the issue. A new Rasmussen poll released today shows 51 percent of Americans now fear the federal government more than private insurance companies. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% hold the opposite view and fear the insurance companies more. Seven percent are unsure which they fear the most. Among those who have health insurance, 53% fear the government more than insurance companies while 39% take the opposite view. Those without insurance fear the insurance companies more. Adults under 30 fear the insurance companies more while those in their 40s are evenly divided. However, a solid majority of those over 40 fear the government more. Full story at LifeNews.com
 
Poll: Americans Fear Govt-Run Health Care More Than Insurance Companies

by Steven Ertelt


LifeNews.com Editor
August 10, 2009


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The problems with the Congressional health care bills have become so pervasive that Americans have gotten to the point that they don't believe the federal government can be trusted on the issue. A new Rasmussen poll released today shows 51 percent of Americans now fear the federal government more than private insurance companies.


The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% hold the opposite view and fear the insurance companies more.

 

Seven percent are unsure which they fear the most.


Among those who have health insurance, 53% fear the government more than insurance companies while 39% take the opposite view. Those without insurance fear the insurance companies more.

Adults under 30 fear the insurance companies more while those in their 40s are evenly divided. However, a solid majority of those over 40 fear the government more.


That result trends with other polls and surveys showing older Americans becoming increasingly more skeptical of the federal government as fears mount that the current health care "reform" plans will result in rationing or encouraging euthanasia.


"These findings help explain fears by some of a government 'takeover' of health care under the reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats," pollster Scott Rasmussen wrote in his analysis.


Not surprisingly, there is a huge partisan divide on this question.


Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Democrats fear private insurance companies more than government while 82% of Republicans hold the opposite view. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 53% fear government more.


Most of those who attend church at least once a month fear the government more. Those who rarely or never attend church or religious services fear private insurance companies more.

 
As Congress has debated potential reforms, confidence in U.S. health care system has increased. Just 19% of Americans now rate the overall system as poor while 48% say it’s good or excellent.


Voters are fairly evenly divided in their views of the protesters at town hall meetings, but 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors. Thirty-seven percent (37%) believe the protests are phony.

 

 

 

Former Democratic Party Leader: Palin Invented Health Care-Euthanasia Claims


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic party, went after Sarah Palin over the weekend in saying that she made up concerns about euthanasia in the national government-run health care bills. Palin said recently that the bills would target the disabled and elderly. Dean told CNN Sunday that Palin, the former Alaska governor, deliberately made up what he called bogus charges against the bills pending in Congress. “About euthanasia, they're just totally erroneous. She just made that up,” he said. “There's nothing like euthanasia in the bill. I practiced medicine for a long time, and of course you have to have end of life discussions — the patients want that. There's nothing… euthanasia's not in this bill," Dean claimed. Palin released a statement on Friday saying she opposes the government-run health care bills pending in Congress and cited its pro-abortion and euthanasia components.

Palin said she worries the health care bill will be paid for on the backs of the elderly and disabled, who could be pushed into euthanasia and assisted suicide via rationing of medical treatment. Full story at LifeNews.com
 
Former Democratic Party Leader: Palin Invented Health Care-Euthanasia Claims

by Steven Ertelt


LifeNews.com Editor
August 10, 2009


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic party, went after Sarah Palin over the weekend in saying that she made up concerns about euthanasia in the national government-run health care bills. Palin said recently that the bills would target the disabled and elderly.


Dean told CNN Sunday that Palin, the former Alaska governor, deliberately made up what he called bogus charges against the bills pending in Congress.


“About euthanasia, they're just totally erroneous. She just made that up,” he said.


“There's nothing like euthanasia in the bill. I practiced medicine for a long time, and of course you have to have end of life discussions — the patients want that. There's nothing… euthanasia's not in this bill," Dean claimed.


Palin released a statement on Friday saying she opposes the government-run health care bills pending in Congress and cited its pro-abortion and euthanasia components.

Palin said she worries the health care bill will be paid for on the backs of the elderly and disabled, who could be pushed into euthanasia and assisted suicide via rationing of medical treatment.


"And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course," she said.


"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society' whether they are worthy of health care," Palin says. "Such a system is downright evil."


"Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion," she continued.


While the mainstream media has bashed Palin, others point to similar concerns.


In a recent New York Post column, Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York and health care expert, wrote:


“One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’ This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care.”

In section 1233 of the tri-committee health care bill, a government-run "Advance Care Planning Consultation" is created.


McCaughey, in an interview with former presidential candidate Fred Thompson on his radio show warned people to "protect their parents" from the measure and said the consultation is essentially an attempt to kill off elderly Americans.

 

 

EEOC Forces Catholic Belmont Abbey College to Fund Contraception in Insurance


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Obama administration has ruled that a small Catholic college must provide coverage for contraception in its insurance plans for employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that Belmont Abbey College must provide the coverage, even though it violates Catholic teachings. In December 2007, Belmont Abbey College removed coverage for abortion, contraception and voluntary sterilization after learning that its plan had accidentally included them. “As a Roman Catholic institution, Belmont Abbey College is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church,” Belmont Abbey president William Thierfelder said at the time. “There was no other course of action possible if we were to operate in fidelity to our mission and to our identity as a Catholic college.” Responding to the decision, eight faculty members filed complaints with the EEOC and the North Carolina Department of Insurance. The EEOC determined that Belmont Abbey discriminated against women by denying coverage of contraception. Full story at LifeNews.com

 

EEOC Forces Catholic Belmont Abbey College to Fund Contraception in Insurance

 

by Steven Ertelt


LifeNews.com Editor
August 10, 2009


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Obama administration has ruled that a small Catholic college must provide coverage for contraception in its insurance plans for employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that Belmont Abbey College must provide the coverage, even though it violates Catholic teachings.

 

In December 2007, Belmont Abbey College removed coverage for abortion, contraception and voluntary sterilization after learning that its plan had accidentally included them.

 

“As a Roman Catholic institution, Belmont Abbey College is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church,” Belmont Abbey president William Thierfelder said at the time. “There was no other course of action possible if we were to operate in fidelity to our mission and to our identity as a Catholic college.”

 

Responding to the decision, eight faculty members filed complaints with the EEOC and the North Carolina Department of Insurance.

 

The EEOC determined that Belmont Abbey discriminated against women by denying coverage of contraception.

 

“By denying prescription contraception drugs, [Belmont Abbey College] is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives," Reuben Daniels Jr, the EEOC Charlotte District Office Director, wrote in his decision. "By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women."

 

The EEOC has director Belmont Abbey College to reach an agreeable resolution with the objecting faculty and warned of possible litigation if that did not occur.

 

The Cardinal Newman Society informed LifeNews.com of the letter and said it is concerned that other Catholic colleges will be forced to cover contraception or abortion.

 

CNS sent a letter sent a letter to EEOC acting chairman Stuart Ishimaru saying "it is ironic that the federal agency responsible for protecting against discrimination has so blatantly engaged in an inexcusable violation of religious liberty in its Belmont Abbey ruling.”

 

CNS also is sending a letter to all Catholic bishops in the United States, informing them of the EEOC action against Belmont Abbey College.

 

The letter highlights the dangerous precedent this ruling sets to force Catholic employers to included contraceptive coverage in employee health plans.

 

“No Catholic college or other institution should be required by government to violate the Catholic Church’s clear moral teachings,” Patrick J. Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society, told LifeNews.com. “The apparently increasing insensitivity to religious beliefs should frighten all employers and employees. We urge religious leaders to stand in defense of Belmont Abbey College.”

 

Related web sites:
Cardinal Newman Society -
http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org