In other words, the “compromise” that Democrats have supposedly agreed to is actually a gateway for a socialist healthcare system, one in which private insurance companies are driven out and the government rations care.

Which is, er, exactly what conservatives have been warning of for months. All while being maligned by the Obama Administration and his media apologists as scare-mongers.

Now, once again, we have prominent House Democrats openly admitting the gateway.

Obama hailed “a creative new framework that I believe will help pave the way for final passage of legislation and a historic achievement for the American people.” He said, “I support this effort, especially since it’s aimed at increasing choice and competition and lowering cost.”

A provision opening Medicare to uninsured Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 drew praise from some liberals.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., called it “an unvarnished, complete victory for people like me who have been arguing for a single-payer system.”

Via Allahpundit, Phillip Klein explains why Weiner — a reliable liberal vote — is absolutely correct in his assessment.

[E]xpanding Medicare would go further to advance the original aims of liberals than the watered down version of the public option. By definition, the Medicare option (which would eventually be offered on the exchange to those over 55) would set reimbursement rates at Medicare levels, thus putting the squeeze on doctors and offering lower premiums that would make it more difficult for private insurers to compete. As with the public option, liberals will try to argue that the Medicare expansion will be funded by the premiums it collects, but it will benefit from the taxpayer-funded infastructure that is already in place to support Medicare — not to mention potential subsidies down the road…

For liberals who view a single-payer, or government-run, health care system as ideal (and that list begins with President Obama), the goal of health care legislation was to move the nation as far as they could in that direction, knowing that the best way to achieve their goal over time was by building on the current system with which people are familiar.

If Democrats unite behind this “compromise” and the broader legislation becomes law, liberals will have largely succeeded. The legislation already expands Medicaid and S-CHIP by 15 million people and coupled with the Medicare expansion, most newly covered Americans would simply be added to the rolls of existing government-run programs. Millions more would be using government subsidies to purchase government-designed insurance policies on a government-run exchange. And the rest of the system would be subject to so many taxes, penalties, and mandates that it wouldn’t resemble a private market in any meaningful sense of the word.

Basically, say hello to a government-run healthcare system. The government would decide when you get an appointment, which procedures you undergo, which doctor you use, which treatments and tests are “necessary” (read: cost effective), and if giving you medicine is really worth the money. All while running up the deficit and driving the wider private sector out of existence.

Incidentally, the Mayo Clinic has lodged its opposition to this “compromise”. Why is that relevant? Earlier this year Barack Obama touted the organization as a model for healthcare. It would appear that the model doesn’t approve of the Congressional Democratic proposal.