Facts unravel reform push

Well, there they go again. Purveyors of fear and hate and other really nasty stuff are persisting in clogging the heads of grannies and grandpas with tales of health care reform doom. Look at this: “Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly.” And this: “I am finally scared of a White House administration ... [R]ationing is a basic part of Obama’s eventual master health care plan.” Pass the tea party placard and pack the concealed heat.

But first a bit on sources. Who is responsible for peddling this anti-reform drivel? Well, that would be in case the first, The New York Times, that mother of all liberal bastions, in an Aug. 21 story headlined, “A Basis is Seen for Some Health Plan Fears Among the Elderly.” In case the second, former Village Voice columnist and First Amendment sage Nat Hentoff, an endorser of Obama in last fall’s election.

Here’s what they say:

The Times points out first that Obama has placed a premium on cutting cost, a thing he says can be accomplished by appointing “a new federal panel of medical experts on ‘what treatments work best.’ ” Best for what? Well, that’s the rub isn’t it? He wants to slash “unwarranted subsidies” to private Medicare Advantage plans. Some of that money, The Times explains, goes to providing extra benefits, like, say, biopsies for prostate cancer or some other such frivolities.

Hentoff elaborates on the dread federal panel. “President Obama’s desired health care reform intends that a federal board ... decides whether your quality of life ... merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It’s already in the stimulus bill signed into law.”

Then Hentoff cites a report filed by Obama advisor Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff and strongman Rahm Emanuel. Dr. Zeke refers to what he calls “the complete lives system,” which translated means that at age 65, one has had a more complete life, in terms of the raw years, than a 25-year-old. So who gets the nod if it’s a choice between caring for Gramps, whose usefulness is almost used up, or the young fella with a good 40 years of government-revenue generating capacity ahead of him? Hey, Granny, yank that plug out of the wall.

Notice that enemies of Obamacare are increasing in number and scope to include some of those who once believed in his special, and hollow, brand of hope and change. His contention that opponents have fabricated reform’s hazards has splintered against the rock-hard reality of what proposed legislation actually says and means. Americans, especially the elderly, feel a tightening grip around their throats and are slapping away the choking hand of government. Reform is needed but not this kind.

One of the central Shenandoah Valley’s representatives in Congress, Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke, knows this and can be counted upon to vote against Obama’s version of reform. The other, Tom Perriello, D-Ivy, was coy when confronted last week with the question of which side he will take. He cited litmus tests that include abortion funding, which he opposes, and questions of cost. In this, Perriello appears to tread perilously close to missing the point. Reducing costs, naturally, is important, but it’s an exceedingly expensive proposition if it means bureaucrats will make treatment decisions.

Voters should demand precision on this from the freshman lawmaker, and, in fact, they should demand more. They should demand that he join the swelling ranks of Democrats likely to oppose the reform bill.

Perriello, perhaps, will do this as he sees what’s becoming plain to others. Obamacare is plunging toward a fiery crash. As this happens, it is steadily more evident that what The Times referred to as “myths and falsehoods” indeed have been spread about the president’s health care revolution. Obama and his pals, not their opponents, have been the tellers of untruths. No longer are they universally believed.