The Wall Street Journal printed part of an April 14, 2009 New York Times interview of President Obama. The topic was end of life care.
The President: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right? I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
Mr. Leonhardt: So how do you—how do we deal with it?
The President: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
Sure sounds kind of fishy to me.
“And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place.”
Liberalism in a nutshell. A “democratic conversation” among people you do not know, about the most intimate details of your life or the involuntary ending of same.
Someone needs to educate these folks and explain the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. Apparently the “Constitutional scholar” hangin’ in the Oval Office didn’t get that bit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Very strange that they said there was no death business in the bill, but any they took it out. How does one remove something that isn’t there. “You don’t have an appendix, Mr. Smith, but I’ll remove it” How does that sound?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0