OUR RIGHT NOT TO CHOOSE - AT 10:23 A.M. ET:  President Obama appeared on ABC yesterday, in what Republicans have charged was an infomercial for his health-care "reform" plan.  What the president said was chilling to anyone who could read between the lines, and anyone who's ever been to a doctor can easily do so:

Reporting from Washington -- President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.

In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."

There you have it.  We need "better information."  From whom?  We get our information now from the physicians we choose.  Who will be this new educator that we need so much?

And those dumb families out there had better stop "unthinkingly" approve procedures that may "not necessarily" improve care.  Stupid, unthinking families, trying to do the best for their relatives.  How unintellectual is that?

"Not necessarily" improve care?  What does that mean?  Who decides? 

Oh sure, there are unnecessary tests, often ordered by doctors to cover themselves and avoid malpractice suits.  But reform the scandalous malpractice lawsuit business?  Nothing doing, according to this administration.  Trial lawyers are among the largest contributors to the Democratic Party.

Doctor Obama, showing the same human feeling he displayed toward the Iranian freedom fighters, added:

"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

Obama said he has personal familiarity with such a dilemma. His grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given less than nine months to live, he said.

She fell and broke her hip, "and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?"

Who decides that, Mr. President?  The physician treating her, or a government bureaucrat with a chart listing alternatives?

COMMENT:  Now, consider this:  Are you familiar with the abortion debates?  This has nothing to do with your position on abortion - our readers are all over the lot on this one - but with the logic of the arguments.  One of the key arguments made by pro-choice forces is that "a woman's right to choose" involves a decision between her and her doctor, with no one else intervening.  Am I right in describing that?  In other words, it is a private decision.

Now, though, the president is changing the standard.  In his world, our right to make medical decisions will not be based on private deliberations.  A third party will be present, providing different information, different suggestions, and giving different orders.  That party will, of course, be the government, as in socialist countries. 

Question:  Why should the standard for life-and-death family matters be different from the standard for abortion?

Yes, our system needs improvement.  And yes, I do believe that, under our moral codes as a Judeo-Christian country, everyone should receive quality health care.  And yes, insurance companies can be both good and bad, and I've been \ with both.  But the solutions to our problems do not lie in systems that have failed elsewhere and will reduce the quality of care to one mediocre level. 

As with most things, President Obama has not thought through his proposals.  He sees things intellectually, not related to the real world.  There is a catastrophe in the making here unless we stop and look at exactly what's being proposed, then modify it, or stop it entirely if it does more harm than good.

June 25, 2009