Rationed Health Care Under Stimulus?

Included within the recent stimulus bill signed into law by Obama several weeks ago were monies earmarked for the creation of a National Health Care Database which is to be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services.

This database is to be created in partnership with Microsoft in grant monies which are to be awarded to several colleges and universities which will receive the software and other technology necessary under the grants, and be charged with inputting the data under fellowships which will be given to students at these universities to essentially work for the government as part of their education.

This tremendous Bill of Rights infringement and privacy invasion was the brainchild of Tom Daschle from published reports, who was to head up the program until his recent difficulties in the confirmation process.

There is no "opt out" provisions for this program for the American citizens. While many health care organizations have been objecting to the plan without simply "informed consent" provisions advising the citizens of the public nature such a system engenders regarding their private medical information, not a single Senator or Congressman objected on the grounds of the clearly Constitutional abridgment which it clearly is.  The inclusion for the most part has also been minimized by the mainstream media.

Mr. Obama was a major player  in slipping this provision into the final stimulus package – another massive piece of legislation that was rushed through Congress before the American people could become the wiser and over which there has been a continuing storm of controversy on many of its provisions as not a "stimulus" but actually a misnamed federal budget bill with all the public sector job creation and primarily sums for federal government operations included within it.

Apparently the battery of taxpayer paid legal counsels also missed it who are at both the President and Congress’s disposal. This is violation is  so great that Constitutional Law 101 classes at major American law schools would catch.

As with the original "Patriot Act" already the excuses are being made by some in Congress that there wasn’t enough time to read thoroughly this piece of legislation. That statement in and of itself is frightening in a representative government. The fact is, absention on voting on those grounds is clearly what would have been called for in such an instance.

As reported by WorldNet Daily and the Institute for Health Freedom, one of the many groups which discovered the provision hidden within all the provisions, the administration of this database will be overseen by an ominous sounding new bureaucratic agency, the "Federal Coordinating Counsel for Comparative Effectiveness Research."

So far it is anticipated that over 600,000 medical providers will have access to this database, including the public employees at the Department of Health and Human Services. With the ongoing abridgements of citizen’s Bill of Rights protections, how soon will it be before employers, private insurers, and even lawyers in litigation will be granted access to these public records?

The Institute reports that the function of this agency will be to evaluate prospective medical treatments for the citzens according to "actuarial" cost/benefit ratios. In other words, as a CEO or insurer would for a life insurance policy with respect to the costs vs. benefits and projected life expectancy given weight prior to approval of any treatment or coverage under this proposed governmental plan.

Daschle is quoted as stating that any planned health care reform "will not be pain free." Also that "seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."

Defenders of the plan state that individuals will benefit while young while sacrificing later. 

It seems to me that on balance children and young adults health care costs are normally less than the elderly. It would appear this doublespeak simply means that the young will be supplementing the care for the elderly, or truthfully for the bureaucrats in Washington as another source of unaccountable revenue just as Social Security has become.

"Spreading the risk" in the insurance industry is one thing, but when the government does that it is clearly socialism. And so far Americans have the right to choose just who that provider will be, or whether they want insurance at all.

Many have religious beliefs also that would force them to pay for treatments of which they might not approve. Are any and all abortions, for instance, to be covered? There are some whose religious beliefs discourage major interventions, immunizations or invasive medical treatments.

For others, that means by inference that so long as you are capable of being productive, the U.S.A. Inc. Healthcare Plan will invest in you, but when you are not providing that tax revenue or are more of a tax burden and drain than a contributor in your elder years, the CEO of this new agency will evaluate the costs vs. effectiveness of treatment based on life expectancy as the ultimate criteria.

Isn’t this hauntingly similar to what the Nazi’s did during World War II in determining just who had the right to live or die based on a selective criteria in their fascist government? Someone who has HIV, or a chronic condition may not be physically wearing a patch, but with free access in the shear number who will initially have access, this database is a patch all the same.

With the amount of time it now takes for the FDA to approve experimental treatments for diseases now in this country, also look for red tape and possible deaths while waiting for approvals, as has occurred quite frequently in Canada and Great Britain with their socialized health care program.

In fact, Great Britain – the country we fought against "sovereign intrusion – until recently had a system wherein for one particular progressive disease which involved blindness, the cost effectiveness scale utilized would not authorize needed surgery until the second eye was affected for the medications, until public outrage caused a reversal there in that policy.

It appears President Obama, as with his predecessor, views his role as that of a CEO for U.S.A. Inc., and not in any way conversant or familiar with the actual limitations on his office accorded him in our Constitution with respect to the citizenry. He did swear an oath, twice actually, but seems to have the same interpretations of "executive privilege" and "executive powers" as his predecessor and quite a few before him. With 535 other "representatives" you would at least think one of them had read the document upon which they, too, swore and oath.

This health care agenda definitely does not bode well for the baby boomer generation, which will be the largest segment of the population affected by these measures under the Obama regime. This is nothing short of "Soylent Green" come to life, and would appear Mr. Daschle must have written the script.

It will be interesting to see if the federal public employees including Mr. Obama and those Congressional members will keep their health care plans as with their private pension plans, and be exempted from the taxes and costs associated with this program and their records deemed "privileged."

If past history with respect to claimed "Executive Privileges" which have increased in leaps and bounds, although nothing more than the British equivalent of "sovereign immunity" unafforded those holding the highest office in this country by our intended form of government, how much would you like to wager that Mr. Obama’s personal health care records will not make it into that public database? 

Or those of the other 535 "misrepresentatives",  the ones who stood by silently again with nary an objection other than political posturing while a match was lit yet again to the Bill of Rights contained within our Constitution in its clear provisions and protected under glass less than a mile or two away.

It seems Mr. Obama’s understanding and comprehension of "preserving" the Constitution needs a little work.  Not merely physically, but in carrying out all the functions of the office of which he now holds, and which he would not have were it not for those that fought and died before to guarantee, provide and protect those "inalienable" rights.

More of the details of this heinous legislation can be found at: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88457