Concerned Women For America should be concerned that they are a group of liars and fear mongers who will do and say anything for their corporate masters.  Once again, they are providing misinformation and lies about health care reform, basically claiming that the government will give health care to those 15-40 and screw everyone else.

Why are "conservatives" so stupid to believe that if there is a public option, the government will become your doctor, but health insurance companies, under their reasoning, are not doctors now (or the fact that the government is now the doctor of Seniors and Veterans):

First:  The government will become your doctor.

Here's how it will work:

You go to your doctor with symptoms a, b, and c.

After tests, your doctor or a specialist makes a diagnosis which determine what medical treatments are necessary.

The government is paying for your treatment, so the government decides which treatment you should get - if any at all.

If the insurer is the one making the decision, then I guess it is okay for insurance companies to make such decisions.  Is that what the Concerned Women for America is saying, and why does it not concern them that some bureaucrat at Aetna, who is only accountable to shareholders, is making such decisions?  Why do us thinking people have to constantly point this out to these people?  Maybe if someone paid be tens of thousands of dollars to spread lies, I would do so to. 

But, even the more egriogous lie is the claim that the government would only provide health care to those aged 15-40.  I guess that means Medicare has been this horrible joke all these years.  One of Obama's advisors co-authored a journal article on how best scarce medical interventions should be distributed.  We are talking about organ transplants and vaccines here.  The article, which you can read here, discusses the ethics of various distribution methods (lottery, first come first serve, wealth, and the like) and they come up with, what I believe to be a common sense approach.  Services should go to those likely to survive the longest from the service.  If you had one liver and two patients, an 89 year old individual who is suffering from Alzheimer's or an otherwise healthy 21 year old, who would you give the liver to?  Would you give it to the person is likely to die in 5 years or the person likely to die in 70 years?  C'mon it is a no brainer.

What is wrong with discussing the reality, which goes on now, that some medical services are scarce and not available to all who need it?  What is wrong with discussing the ethics of how best to distribute these services?  What is wrong, is lying and mischaracterizing such a discussion to make outrageous and disgusting claims:

Living, or have great potential for a “complete” life? Between 15 and 40? The Government will likely OK necessary medical treatment (unless, of course, what should have been coming to you needs to be “justly" given to someone else).

Living, but don’t have such a great potential to get to a “complete” life? Younger than 15? Older than 40?

You are judged incomplete. You are damaged. You have little potential for attaining completeness.

Complete, you live.

Incomplete, you die.

 

This has nothing to do with any medical procedure, only those where demand far exceeds supply.  So, Concerned Women for America, what would you do in such a situation instead of sticking your heads in the sand and act like it does not exist?  I guess they prefer the current system where those who can afford it win.  And these people claim to be on the pulse of the moral compass in our society?  How pathetic!