Barack Obama says he’s trying to push his government health-care bill through Congress because of people like Ohio resident Natoma Canfield.

She’s a victim of breast cancer whose insurance premiums soared as a result of her condition. She decided not to renew her policy because it might mean losing her home.

Using this woman’s plight as an example of why the government should take over health care in America, Obama’s White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, explained: “The president believes, and I think members of Congress believe, that in a country as strong as the United States of America you shouldn’t have to decide between keeping your house or keeping your health care.”

Of course, her insurance company didn’t present that choice to Natoma Canfield. They just gave her a price tag of $6,000 a year for health insurance. She was free to pay it or not pay it. She chose not to pay it.

Don’t miss the Whistleblower magazine edition entitled: “Medical Murder: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers”

Yet, this is exactly the choice the federally designed Medicaid program gives Americans now.

If you want the service, you have to sell off your assets. Period. End of story.

We can all identify with the tough choices people have to make because of scarce resources. Most of us make tough choices every day. But do we really believe no one should ever be forced to decide whether to keep your house or keep your health-care insurance? Do we really believe government is ever going to make those choices better than we can?

Think about this.

Does the government ever give you a choice between paying your income taxes or your health-care insurance?


Does the government ever give you a choice between paying your property tax or your health-care insurance?


Government will seize your assets a lot faster than any private insurance company ever would or could.

So why do people still believe in government “compassion” and “benevolence”?

This is sheer demagoguery by Obama and his mouthpieces.

But what about Natoma Canfield?

Where should people facing tough times and grave illnesses turn?

This lady does own a home, one that has been in her family for 50 years. Under the circumstances, would her family not understand if she borrowed equity out of the house to pay her health insurance premium? Why should the responsibility for her care be spread involuntarily to people who don’t know her – many of whom have equally tough choices in their own lives?

I would also like to point out that Canfield made a choice – not to sell or mortgage the house and to forgo payment of her insurance policy.

What was the outcome?

She’s in the hospital today receiving treatment anyway.

It would seem to me her example is an illustration of why today’s health-care system, with all of its flaws – most of which are government-caused – is light years better than what Obama has in mind.

His system calls for government rationing of health care. Natoma Canfield might not be treated at all under his system.

It’s amazing to me that Obama would have the audacity to highlight a case like this. This woman is gravely ill. Under Obama’s plan, she could very well be denied treatment altogether.

Still, sob stories are bound to persuade some Americans to support legislation that is a total violation of the Constitution – treading in yet another area wholly off-limits to federal intervention.

That’s what Obama is counting on.

He wants to transform America into a socialist system where the government holds virtual monopoly power over life-and-death matters.

Natoma Canfield would not fare well under such a system – whether she knows it or not.

She may be his poster girl of the moment in his quest for more state power, but people like her will be forgotten if they place their chips on the government taking care of them.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.