In one video Melody Barnes, the President's Director of the Domestic Policy Council, "debunks the malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors." I don't think anyone was arguing against the health care bill on the grounds that it permits government-sanctioned murder; afterall, we all know that abortion is already legal.
But in this case, the term "euthanasia" also encompasses "permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals." Logic would suggest that the goal of any government program, especially this "public option," would be to reduce costs. We've seen in countries like Canada and the U.K. where many prescription drugs are denied to the public because "they cost too much," and that medical treatment is often reserved for younger, healthier patients, not for the elderly or chronically ill. The assumption that a government-run health industry would neglect the needs of aging seniors is not just a logical assumption, but in many parts of the world employing similar "public options," it's a reality.
If the White House needed more evidence that a government-run health care option would result in forms of euthanasia, they should look no further than the President's advisor on health policy: Dr. Ezekial Emanuel. Emanuel claims that "doctors take the Hippocratic oath too seriously," and argues, "Even if a twenty-five year old receives priority over sixty-five year olds, everyone who is sixty-five now was previously twenty-five."
With all this in mind, how can anyone buy what the White House is trying to sell? Personally, I'm planning to do my civic duty and report Ms. Barnes' misinformation to email@example.com.