Claude Cartaginese

Michelle and Barack Obama’s Lies about Healthcare

Posted on June 29 2009 3:17 am
Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

During the earliest days of the scandal-ridden Bill Clinton presidency, then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton began to feel restless in her role as the President’s spouse. She yearned for an assignment that would transcend talking about her favorite chocolate-chip-cookie recipes with her worshipful lackeys in the mainstream media.

Hillary got her wish when her husband installed her at the helm of the 500-member Health Care Task Force which tried, in secret meetings and by stealth, to socialize medical care in the United States. But she was the wrong person to put in charge of that monstrously bad idea, and, fortunately for the country, it failed.

That same monstrously bad idea, however, is now being advanced by our new First Lady, Michelle Obama, who presumably would be oh-so-proud of her country—perhaps for the second time in her adult life—if a government-run healthcare system were to be implemented.

Mrs. Obama, like Hillary before her, is unfulfilled by her role as fashion icon and White House “gardening expert.” Reports surfaced last week that Michelle, suffering from a malady which the Sunday Times has dubbed “Hillary-itis,” is actively promoting her husband’s quest to socialize, overnight, one-sixth of the American economy. “More and more people are ready for this kind of reform,” she assures us.

Mrs. Obama favors the models of Canada, the United Kingdom and other countries where, all too often, the wait for an emergency medical procedure is longer than the lifespan of the patient on the waiting list. She aims to scrap the American system, which annually draws tens of thousands of foreigners seeking treatments and medications they cannot obtain in their homelands; which gives cancer patients the priceless gift of a better survival rate for 13 of the 16 most common cancers; and which produces fully 90 percent of the world’s cutting-edge, life-saving drugs.

Misinformed critics commonly charge that the infant mortality rate in America is higher than in numerous other nations. A closer inspection of the facts, however, reveals that this is only because the definition of “live births” in other nations differs markedly from the definition in the U.S.—thereby making the comparisons utterly invalid.

In Switzerland, for instance, a newborn infant must be at least 30 centimeters long in order to be classified as “living.” In France and Belgium, babies born prior to 26 weeks gestation are automatically registered as “dead”—even if they go on to survive for several hours, days, or even weeks before ultimately dying. And when they do eventually die, they do not inflate infant-mortality rates because they were never technically considered “alive.”

In the U.S., by contrast, a “live birth” is any infant that “breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles”—regardless of the infant’s size or prematurity. If such high-risk American infants ultimately die, they do inflate our country’s infant-mortality statistics.

It’s apples and oranges, get it?

But why should a pair of political hacks like Michelle and Barack Obama care about any of this? Crusaders need crusades, even if they have to justify them, ad infinitum, with half-truths, distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

Be Sociable, Share!
7 Responses leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry