"Bending the Cost Curve" on Health Care at Both Ends

I don't know about you, but I'm about sick of the idiotic phrases liberals use to blunt the hard cold reality of their agenda items. For example, spending billions of dollars in "stimulus" to fill potholes and build bridges to nowhere -- the very definition of paying someone to dig holes and paying someone else to fill them in -- is called "shovel ready jobs". The only thing "shovel ready" about this is the BS liberals use to justify it.

Another of the little lefty phrases that has gained favor with Dear Leader Chairman Maobama (Mike Church's name for The Messiah, not mine) recently is "bending the cost curve" when it comes to cutting medical costs. Bending the cost curve! Bending the cost curve! Bending the cost curve! Bending the cost curve! Bending the cost curve!!!??? Just what the hell does this ridiculous lefty phrase mean? The answer to that can be found in pages 425-430 of the House Health Bill, the deceptively-named "Affordable Health Choices Act".

What is contained on these pages? Well, let's just call it "death counseling" for seniors -- required every five years for every senior and more often depending on how sick you are. Yes seniors, Obama and the House lefties want you to die like a man (or woman, as the case may be), to get you out of the way so the Stalinist bureaucracy can allocate the resources that might have been used to prolong your life to someone who is more worthy. Or as Zeke (love that name!) Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel's brother and an Obama health care advisor puts it in his dissertation "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions":

The complete lives system discriminates against older people.81,82 Age-based allocation is ageism.82 Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age.8,39 Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.16 Treating 65-year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.

Leaving aside the third-grade brilliance of a phrase like "even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years", it's hard to imagine this guy, 69-year-old George Amundson, who recently competed in a triathlon to honor his grandson, William Amundson, who was killed in Afghanistan in 2004, needing to have counseling in "end of life" care. Yet, if this Stalinist piece of garbage were to become law, he would be forced to sit through "an explanation by a practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services" every five years about how he could better kick the bucket to save resources for a younger person who might be more worthy.

Granted, George is the exception -- one I hope to follow. However, literally millions of people well over the age of 65 lead extremely vital lives and don't need to have some bureaucratic death counselor tell them their options for kicking the bucket.

And what of the seniors who might not be in the best of health?

My wife's grandmother lived with congestive heart failure, kidney failure and diabetes for the last six years of her life until she died last summer at the age of 86. She went to dialysis three days a week for the last five years of her life when they told her she wouldn't last on dialysis more than six months. Another 80-year-old may have chosen to not make use of such care. She did and lived to see the birth of three great-great grandchildren, saw several great-grandchildren graduate from high school and enriched the lives of her entire family for six years she wouldn't have had without modern medical care. Under the Immanuel, Obama, Pelosi "complete lives system" these resources would have been allocated to someone else. Under our current health care system it was her choice to live as it should be in a free country.

But if you think Obama just wants to "bend the cost curve" on the tail end of life (isn't that hideous enough), you'd have another think coming. Because, you see, you don't have to pay for health care for some people if you pay to have them aborted before they are born:

Washington D.C., Jul 22, 2009 / 05:48 pm (CNA).- As speculation persists about whether President Obama’s push for a health care bill has ramifications for abortion funding, the Population Research Institute is warning that the plan as “one of the clearest and most decisive attacks against the pro-life cause” since Roe v. Wade.

PRI claims the president’s favored bill, HR 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,” would include abortion in the minimum benefits of every health care plan and would require every taxpayer and insurance holder to pay for every abortion.

His healthcare plan, in PRI’s view, would discriminate against practitioners who refuse to perform abortions, possibly leading to their unemployment.

However, such claims rest on whether abortion is defined as essential health care. Amendments explicitly forbidding abortion funding have been proposed and defeated, but the status of abortion is not explicitly defined.

As far as that last paragraph goes, we know that killing babies is more that just "essential health care". For the commie lib heathens currently in power it's a religious sacrament that they aren't about the exempt from their health care plan.

Yes folks: The next time you hear The Messiah utter the words "bending the cost curve" in regards to his health plan, think about your mother in the nursing home or that unborn baby he wants to "bend the cost curve" over.