Michelle and Barack Obama's Lies about Healthcare

2009 June 29
by Claude Cartaginese

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.

  • Share/Bookmark

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

6 Responses leave one →
  1. Elaine permalink
    June 29, 2009

    With ultra-left liberals such as BO and MO, it matters not how much people are hurt or die when their dastardly ideology is made into law. It’s the idea that matters.

    Why should they care that they are bankrupting the country when they know they and their friends will have access to every loophole imaginable to protect themselves and their assets?

    Liberals don’t care about health or care. If they did they would protect and try to preserve human life but rather hope more babies are killed through abortion and more of the chronically ill die because preserving their lives will not be “cost effective”.

    Getting rid of the unproductive is always the mantra of meglomaniacs such as BO who believe only those he considers worthy of life should live. All others should check out in the interest of the state.

  2. Ginny permalink
    June 29, 2009

    I think we need, somehow, to educated the liberal population. I do not understand their ideology. I don’t think they have a set of core values on which to draw upon. They all use their feelings rather than thinking these issues through. It is amazing to me that the people of the United States have become so entrenched in socialistic belief.

    Michell Obama is a pseudo intellect. What she does best is blabber. She, too, has no core values. Anyone who spews the rhetoric she does is a very lost soul. They speak only to hear themselves. Unfortunately, they appeal to the greater population of dummies and lazy people.

  3. David Cohen permalink
    June 30, 2009

    By rationing care, government funded medical practice may reduce the burden on the public purse but pure economics suggests that cost will invariably trump benefit when the treatment is ‘new’ and ‘expensive’ such as recent advances in oncology and geriatric medicine. The consequence is patients being denied ‘best care’ and inhumanely condemned to a quicker, often more uncomfortable, demise or an unnecessary prolongation of treatable conditions.

  4. Leonard permalink
    June 30, 2009

    People who use the British NHS to attack any sort of healthcare proposal really do not know what they are talking about. There are bad and good things about the NHS. However, when it comes to emergency care it is really very good. It is non-emergencies that are part of the problem. There is much to learn from the NHS, both positive and negative. The NHS is nowhere as awful as proponents of America’s current “system” would have you believe, nor a medical paradise as Michael Moore would have you believe.

  5. Howard permalink
    September 21, 2009

    Some employees are simply irreplaceable. Take Michelle Obama: The University of Chicago Medical center hired her in 2002 to run “programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity and minority contracting”.

    In 2005, the hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317, 000 nearly twice what her husband made as a Senator.

    Oh, did we mention that her husband had just become a U.S. Senator? He sure had. And that he immediately requested a $1 million earmark for the UC Medical Center, in fact?… You betcha by golly… He surely did. Way to network Michelle!

    But now that Mrs. Obama has resigned, the hospital says her position will remain unfilled. How can that possibly be??? Especially if the work she did was vital enough to be worth $317,000?

    Oh, by the way, let me add that Michelle’s position was a part time, 20 hour week job at $317,000.00 per year !!

    “IN GOD WE TRUST!!”–we better because you sure can’t trust your elected officials.

    The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

    Thomas Jefferson

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. My News Summary, 6/30/2009 « Mr. Smith Goes Conservative Blogging

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