THE PRESIDENT (continuing) “Now, I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care — it’s a related one — is what you do around things like end-of-life care.”

NYT: “Yes, where it’s $20,000 for an extra week of life.”

THE PRESIDENT: “Exactly. And I just recently went through this. I mean, I’ve told this story, maybe not publicly, but when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip. It was determined that she might have had a mild stroke, which is what had precipitated the fall.

So now she’s in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you’ve got about — maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that — you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible.

And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly just — you know, things fell apart.

I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.”

NYT: “And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.”

THE PRESIDENT: “So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.”

NYT: “So how do you — how do we deal with it?”

THE PRESIDENT: “Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors (E. Emanuel, Complete Lives System), scientists (J. Holdren, population control), ethicists (et al). And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place (town hall meetings). It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels (clear & concise legislation, Cass Sunstein). And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance (HR3200, Sec. 1233, Advance Care Planning). It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now (yep).”

Admittedly, the President never suggested unplugging grandma but he admits openness to “society making those decisions.” He has appointed advisors sympathetic to cost-benefit planning and attempted to railroad a bill through congress for his signature three weeks ago. HR3200 and the appointee charged with its execution, Cass Sunstein, hardly ride the cusp of constitutional prudence.

On 30 October 2008, Obama said “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Just flip two words…”transforming fundamentals” is really what he told you.

Today I read a headline suggesting a consulting firm hired to conduct a multi-million dollar campaign for health reform may be linked to David Axelrod. I’m not thrilled with the allegation of a conflict of interest involving Obama’s chief political advisor but what really ticks me off is that the White House hired a consulting firm to campaign for health reform! What’s that all about? 

Not only is this a gross misuse of tax dollars but moreover it signals the frailty of the proposed overhaul of our health insurance, care, market, etc. With poll after poll indicating the People not “on-board” with this “change,” the left marches on the campaign trail using money from the People. We’re funding the government to change our mind! You’ve got to be kidding me. 

Why is a public insurance option for all of us so important to the left? Only 5-10 million citizens are truly without coverage but not by individual choice. Yet this is so important that Rep. Massa (D-NY) said “I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.” How elitist! The Senate leadership has threatened to pass on a 51-vote budget reconciliation procedure if the 60 votes are not available or to split the bill into more digestible pieces of legislation and only pass portions through the stealth procedure. Why the tricks guys? Of course, we’ve all also heard of the Blue Dog growls from within their own party.

The slightest off-message comment from Kathleen Sebelius suggesting a public option is not an essential element of reform led the left to reassure all of us that, oh yes, make no mistake, a public option will be in the bill. The left isn’t even interested in compromising to a co-op arrangement which is nothing but a public option in disguise. I guess they have compromised enough when convinced that a single-payer system can be achieved through a public option. That’s the intent; a single-payer system which will ultimately include government provided healthcare, not just insurance. They are on record!

Just yesterday our president said “We are God’s partner in matters of life and death.” That’s a joke, right? He didn’t really say that, did he?

So, with all the political power wielded by the left, they are still having enormous difficulty getting the People on-board. Can they not get it through their thick skulls that the People don’t want their brand of health reform? Do they care what the People want? No. 

Remember, this bill was to be rushed into law by the August recess and the current debate was never supposed to occur.  So when Obama suggests there is a Republican conspiracy to kill healthcare reform, he should bare one thing in mind…it’s not Republican and hardly a conspiracy. 

The prohibition of liquor led to crime, abuse, tax evasion and concerns of unsafe black-market products. It was just a bad idea (not to mention an intrusion of our pursuits of happiness). But the fact remains our leadership saw fit to amend the Constitution to provide a centralized mandate because the power to issue such a mandate was not otherwise expressly provided to the federal government.

I have conducted a word search of the US Constitution including its amendments. Many words one would think present are simply not there such as: health, healthcare, care, medicine, medical, doctor, nurse, hospital, clinic, insurance, prescription, and pharmacy.

This can mean only one thing, the States, through the People, can mandate healthcare programs as provided by Amendment X. Is it ok to add another federal program because we’ve grown up with Medicare and Social Security? Somehow this elementary argument has gotten lost in the race for “change;” another word not in the Constitution.

Drafts of various bills have circulated among the half dozen committees with oversight. Geez. Debate and discussion has occurred in each of these committees. Republicans have offered amendment after amendment with free market solutions, tax credits to offset premiums, tort reform, etc. These amendments have failed largely by party lines. Current bill drafts from the Democrats include a potpourri of poisons if ever remotely combined into a single bill. All of the talk about in home parenting training, rationing of procedures, increased taxes with still increasing debt, a squeeze on private insurers and employer based programs, blah, blah…it’s all true. Use your head, man.

The Dems prefer to have power over healthcare than to compromise and govern within an acceptable spectrum of our nation’s political personality. Where is the bipartisanship? Where are concessions to protect the patients and businesses? Why the bureaucratic mess? Why do they keep spending money on wild horses, otters and turtles? Or three private jets? And from where are you getting the money?

This is what real Americans are mad about. What else need be debated? 

This brings us to today. As a reminder, Obama won about 52% of popular vote and most Dems won by a relatively close percentage as well. The Republicans aren’t without sin but were hardly man-handled in 2008. One could surmise that about 50% of voters, or real Americans, might have actually been opposed to the crap this coup was shoveling. Of course to gage current voter, or real American, sentiment you need to adjust for inflation.  Hence, outrage at town hall meetings. 

Several Democrats are suddenly not planning town halls, well, some are doing a teleconference. If I were a betting man, I suspect they’ll run back to their beltway fortress and try to convince themselves this is nothing but a dream; never to bare witness of their tyranny. See you in 2010.