Republicans on Capitol Hill are taking a fresh look at one of the seedier Chicago stories from Barack and Michelle Obama’s past in ratcheting up the debate on Obamacare: the University of Chicago Hospital’s “Urban Health Initiative,” which Michelle Obama ran prior to her taking a leave of absence to campaign with her husband in 2007.
Because of the medical center’s location on the South Side of Chicago, a large number of indigent patients, without health insurance, were using the hospital’s emergency room for care. The nonprofit hospital, which in 2007 made more than $100 million in profits, largely because its beds and facilities were used by paying patients and those fully insured, paid Mrs. Obama to oversee the Urban Health Initiative program that identified indigent patients and then steered them to other area medical facilities. In fact, some of those profits came from Canadian citizens who traveled to the U.S. for medical procedures they could not get due to Canada’s restrictive national health care programs.
It wasn’t just Obama’s wife who was involved in creating the program. Senior White House adviser and political strategist, David Axelrod, and his PR firm in Chicago were retained to develop a media campaign to encourage area residents not to use University of Chicago as a medical facility. Senior White House official, and Obama friend, Valerie Jarrett served on the board of directors of the hospital and approved the plan for the Urban Health Initiative, and the hiring of Axelrod. And on the recommendation of then Senator Obama, Dr. Eric Whitaker, was named director of the Initiative in late 2007, after serving as the director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, a job he got after Obama recommended him to then Gov. Rod Blagojevich via another Obama crony, Tony Rezko, a fund-raiser for Obama and now a convicted felon on federal corruption charges.
Candidate Obama thought enough of the program to tout it as an example of how health care reform should be done. When asked about the program during the 2008 presidential campaign, Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman, said, “Senator Obama sees community health centers as a vital part of efforts to invest in prevention and reduce costs.”
But as more reporters focused on Mrs. Obama’s health care initiative, the campaign started to backtrack, particularly when local Chicago ward bosses started making claims that Mrs. Obama’s program was nothing more than “patient dumping.”
In February 2009, the program took another hit, when the president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Dr. Nick Jouriles, said, “The medical center is reducing emergency care access to its local community, while at the same time, opening a ‘side door’ to a ‘specialty intake area’ to provide emergency care to medical center private patients. This is a dangerous precedent that could have catastrophic effects in poor neighborhoods across the country.” (Read the whole thing…)
Earlier/Related: BARACK OBAMA’S PRO-ABORTION RECORD
To anyone whose position on life is, where abortion is concerned, “I won’t but others have a right to do so” (in other words, a position that is permissive of abortion), consider the issue of THE VALUE OF LIFE.
Look closely at just how the denigration of the value of life is developing in the Obama/Democrats’ Health Care legislation: deprivation of medical care for the “mentally retarded” (so it’s stated in their legislation, without regard for any greater specificity such as disorders in which the brain is affected but the intellect is not), deprivation of medical care for the elderly (but there’s “counselling” for the elderly if they want to consider euthanasia, get a “helpful” sounding board to discuss the options of euthanasia — in other words, there’s service to assist euthanasia if you’re “old”) and much more.
Deprivation of life affirming services and assists is, indeed, a process by which life is discouraged and eventually, denied. Whether the process is immediate, a jolt-experience, or a slow slide into one’s demise, the issue here is EUGENICS.
It’s not heroic to approach a child in the womb and take their life, it doesn’t require exceptional courage or heroics: the child can’t yell at you, it can’t pick up a weapon and use it against you, it won’t get buddies to come to it’s rescue when you agress upon it, it can’t stand up and bop you in the nose, it can’t run away from you, it does not yet have a language it can use to try to reason with you, to defend it’s own life.
So there’s little to stop “the bleed” or migration of that level of denigration of human life upon others of equal defenselessness: an elderly person who is lonely (who isn’t, most of us are at some time in our life, being elderly is no different than being a child and being alone as to the desire for companionship), someone with chronic pain who can’t speak well if at all, a blind person who is also deaf and perhaps more isolated in social situations than most…the list goes on and on and it represents our general human condition: each of us is at some point in our lives vulnerable and in need of medical care that includes SAVING GRACES, opportunities that seek solutions to affirm life, not encouragement to dismiss our value and opting that the life we live isn’t worth living; the latter is the euthanasia approach and that is that possibilities of continued life are not affirmed. It’s just a case then of determing who or what isn’t worth living for those involved in such denigration of life.
There is a mass of history already exposed that Barack Obama and wife, Michelle Obama, have waged efforts to encourage and establish euthanasia (and abortion) for most of their political lives. There is little difference between taking the life of the unborn and taking the life of the “elderly” born. Or the “inconvenient” among us.
Related: Democrat John Kerry’s Euthanasia Plan – Kerry, involved demonstratively, as also Ted Kennedy, in writing the “Health care legislation” the Democrats want to pass now…