Is President Obama’s Health Care Reform about better health care for all or controlling the deficit? I’ll bet he believes it’s about both.

If you watched his press conference last night, his fifth in six months, aside from the fact he’s in our face daily, you might be confused by his generalities, obfuscations and lack of specificity.

“If we can’t control health care costs we can’t control the deficit,” he said while addressing health care reform and the cost of our present system.

He said there was a lot of waste in the current system and, “We must give up paying for things that don’t make people healthier.”

Using an inane analogy that if a child has a sore throat, a doctor today might take out the child’s tonsils, because he can make more money than if he treats the sore throat.  The sore throat, he said, might be caused by an allergy.  I have had allergies and never heard that they can cause a sore throat – perhaps it can in some cases.  But logic says you would take a child to a pediatrician for a diagnosis of the cause of a sore throat, not a surgeon.  Thank God Obama’s not a doctor even though he thinks he’s one.

“Health Care Reform is designed to lower the deficit,” Obama said.

Obama uses the classic bait and switch technique learned in his community organizing days in Chicago constantly blaming his current dilemma on the previous administration and saying that his opponents are stirring up scare tactics, while he does the same thing when selling health care.

The real scare in health care legislation is in the details and Obama doesn’t provide them.  He lectures but is not hands on.

He acknowledged that there would be changes in the health care system that could be unsettling.  This is an issue that critics often raise.

But the best Obama can serve up are generalities.  “Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system? No,” Obama said.  “The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier.”

If you haven’t recognized it by now, Obama doesn’t say what he means.  He delivers a centrist message with an underlining socialistic underpinning that is designed to take this nation in the direction of  radical fascism.

To pay for this trillion dollar health care program over the next 10 years, he now talks about taxing households making more than $1 million – a concession from the $350,000 per household in previous bills – and taxing employer-provided health benefits, as long as the tax did not fall on the middle class.

The remainder of the funding will come from doctors, and what the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry has offered to put on the table as its contribution.

However, the scary part of this reform is what it is most likely to do to the elderly by streamlining Medicare and Medicaid with the intent to make the system more efficient.  When has the government made anything more efficient?

And here is the opportunity for the government to practice economic elderly cleansing.  You might ask what is this?  Very bluntly, it’s the duty to die to help the deficit.

The majority of our health care costs come from the elderly, and because of medical advances and modern pharmaceuticals we are living longer.

In order to prevent a sore throat from progressing into a tonsillectomy, using the President’s analogy, protocols will have to be established for all medical conditions taking into account age and other existing health conditions to proceed to a course of therapy.

Now if this  is the case, envision a 75-year-old person in need of a hip replacement.  In addition to his arthritic hip he is being treated for cardiovascular disease.  His private medical record is now sent by his Doctor for review by a Federal Medical Review Board to determine whether the hip replacement will be allowed and paid for.  So much for doctor patient confidentiality.

Now an arthritic hip is not a life threatening event.  The likelihood is that the review board would approve a hip replacement in a much younger person before doing so in someone who’s life span at the age of 75 is relatively short.

How does the Federal Medical Review Board deal with an individual of the same age with a life threatening event that needs a kidney transplant, a liver replacement, cardiovascular bypass or a heart transplant?

There is an element in this bill that requires a review board to consider a cost benefit ratio – old v young, expenditure v no cost and an end result that will contribute to the national deficit by something we have never heard of before – economic elderly cleansing, or the duty to die.

Obama’s health care reform provides for the possibility of economic elderly cleansing, for after all as he said last night, the objective of this reform, “is designed to lower the deficit.”