Many seniors rely on social security to support themselves, in whole or in part. When social security was enacted into law during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a number of promises were made.
For example Democrat FDR promised:
1.) That participation in the Social Security Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) that the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Social Security as promised by President Roosevelt does not exist and you may be interested in knowing why.
In 1958, a Democrat controlled congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove some funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for congress to spend. From what I understand, congress’ logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out or be used up for the purpose it was intended and set aside for.
During the administration of Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson and with a Democrat controlled House and Senate, the entire Social Security Trust Fund was placed in the general fund so congress could spend it on the failed “War Against Poverty.”
The presidency of Democrat James Earl Carter, Jr. was a dismal failure and a catastrophe for the United States on many levels but under President Carter and a Democrat controlled congress, immigrants, including illegal immigrants, were given the right to receive Social Security payments at age 65 even though they never paid anything into Social Security.
When Democrat William Jefferson Clinton was president, the income tax deduction for Social Security was eliminated. The Democrat Party with Democrat Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. as Vice president was able to accomplish this because a tie vote in the Senate was broken by Democrat Vice President Gore in his role as President of the Senate.
Despite the fact that Democrats in congress and Democrat Presidents violated every one of the promises made by President Roosevelt at the inception of Social Security, we are told over and over that Republicans want to take Social Security away from seniors. By the way, did you know that congress gives themselves 100% retirement for serving only one term?
Now President Obama wants to reduce benefits to seniors even more. All the health care bills in congress as prescribed by President Obama provide paying for universal health care by reducing the amount spent on Medicare for seniors. These bills would also establish a government board that will dictate the medical care which can be provided on a “cost effective” basis such that older people will be deprived of needed life-extending medical care because it is not cost effective to spend money on those with comparatively shorter life spans. Furthermore, with more people having health insurance, and no increase in the number of health care providers, rationing of health care is assured.
Obama and Democrats say that it is “scare tactics” to tell people what actually is in the Democrat Obamacare bills wending their way through congress but I believe telling the truth is what Americans expect and unfortunately do not get from Democrats; the history of Social Security is an example.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Thomas Jefferson
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Another government intrusion of Obamacare revealed
Much has been written about H.R. 3200, the bill to nationalize health care, but most of the truth about it has only appeared on the internet and by some political commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck. As time goes on we find out more and more hidden in this House bill that boggles the mind.
We know about the creation of a panel of Washington bureaucrats to be formed to apply “cost effectiveness” when deciding what medical care may or may not be approved for individual patients but whose real purpose is to deny medical treatment to elderly to reduce costs. We also know about mandated health insurance coverage for all Americans while not increasing the supply of medical providers. But particularly insidious provisions have only now come to light.
Declan McCullagh (AP) has revealed that one of the problems with the proposed 1,000 page law to destroy health care for Americans is in Section 431(a) which says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose purportedly is to verify "affordability credits."
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank) asked "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."
But the Obamacare bill is not the only intrusion on privacy; we already have something in place that came in under the radar with the stealth Stimulus bill. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections.
This is more of the “hope and change” Americans voted for; but I wonder if ceding their privacy for all eternity is what they had in mind.
We know about the creation of a panel of Washington bureaucrats to be formed to apply “cost effectiveness” when deciding what medical care may or may not be approved for individual patients but whose real purpose is to deny medical treatment to elderly to reduce costs. We also know about mandated health insurance coverage for all Americans while not increasing the supply of medical providers. But particularly insidious provisions have only now come to light.
Declan McCullagh (AP) has revealed that one of the problems with the proposed 1,000 page law to destroy health care for Americans is in Section 431(a) which says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose purportedly is to verify "affordability credits."
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank) asked "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."
But the Obamacare bill is not the only intrusion on privacy; we already have something in place that came in under the radar with the stealth Stimulus bill. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections.
This is more of the “hope and change” Americans voted for; but I wonder if ceding their privacy for all eternity is what they had in mind.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The law of supply and demand applies to health care too
What happens when the supply of widgets needed to sustain life is less than the demand or said another way, the supply of widgets is far less than the number of widgets people need to stay alive? Based on current evidence, everyone but Democrats would understand that the cost of widgets will go up in a free market and distribution of available widgets would have to be limited in some way, in other words, rationed. If the free market is eliminated by government control, the price of widgets may not increase but there still would not be enough to satisfy the demand; the only result would be that widget suppliers would not gain from the shortage but there would be fewer people interested in becoming widget suppliers.
If a widget is health care, then when more people are added to the reservoir of people entitled to health care by including them in health insurance programs and the supply of health care providers and the cost remains the same, just like the example above health care must be rationed. Rationing health care under any circumstance is evil but if you inject the element of rationing according to cost effectiveness, then the result is fatal to older people.
Applying the principal of “cost effectiveness” in health care rationing decisions obviously suggests that younger people with more years of life statistically remaining are favored over older people with fewer statistical years of life left. If you are an older person you will lose life’s lottery.
But as bad as that is, it’s not the only consequence of health care supply and demand. Analyzing what happens when more people are placed under health insurance in a static situation is made easier by looking at what happened in the laboratory of Massachusetts where universal health care was put into effect by law in 2006.
If Massachusetts is any guide, the passage of Obamacare is almost certain to increase demand and worsen the shortage of doctors. Access to health care doesn't mean much if there's no doctor to provide it. If the Massachusetts paradigm becomes law as Obamacare, the United States will be short 124,400 physicians by 2025, according to the Association of Medical Colleges, and that does not include the 15,585 new primary-care providers Obamacare is estimated to require.
Kevin Pho, a primary care physician in Portsmouth, N.H., wrote on CNN.com that while Massachusetts is often held up as a model for national health reform, the reality is different. About 97% of Massachusetts citizens have health insurance, which is the highest percentage in the country. The state also has the highest concentration of doctors in the country. Although this seems ideal, Pho says that "less publicized are the unintended consequences that the influx of half a million newly insured patients has had on an unprepared primary care system."
The Massachusetts Medical Society reported that the time for a new patient to find a primary care doctor now ranges from 36 to 50 days. Half of all internal medicine physicians have closed their practice to new patients.
Another consequence of Massachusetts’ mandated health insurance for every citizen, is that visits to the state's emergency rooms jumped 7% in two years because many people did not have access to a primary care physician. This increases costs since emergency room care can be up to 10 times more expensive than an office visit for the same condition.
Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, told the Washington Examiner. "Promised coverage is not the same thing as care. All you're getting is a place in the waiting lines."
Those lines get even longer as overburdened physicians cut their workload or retire altogether. A survey last fall of 270,000 primary care physicians by the Physicians Foundation found that 30% expected to see fewer patients, 13% would find something that did not involve patient care, and 11% planned to retire.
Dick Morris, the well known former Clinton advisor, asks "How is Obama going to cover 50 million new people without any more doctors or nurses? The answer is he is not. What that's going to mean is rationing."
There is another serious problem. According to FactCheck.org, abortion will be a covered service under the House bill (H.R. 3200). Without the conscience clause allowing medical care providers to decline to provide abortions on moral grounds, and the Freedom of Choice Act still looming, what will Catholic physicians do?
According to the Catholic Health Association, Catholic hospitals make up 13% of the nation's nearly 5,000 hospitals and employ more than 600,000 people. CHA says one of every six Americans hospitalized in the U.S. is cared for in a Catholic hospital. Obamacare will likely deny health care to millions if Catholic Hospitals are forced to close to avoid breaking the law.
All of you out there who wanted “hope and change,” how is that working for you?
If a widget is health care, then when more people are added to the reservoir of people entitled to health care by including them in health insurance programs and the supply of health care providers and the cost remains the same, just like the example above health care must be rationed. Rationing health care under any circumstance is evil but if you inject the element of rationing according to cost effectiveness, then the result is fatal to older people.
Applying the principal of “cost effectiveness” in health care rationing decisions obviously suggests that younger people with more years of life statistically remaining are favored over older people with fewer statistical years of life left. If you are an older person you will lose life’s lottery.
But as bad as that is, it’s not the only consequence of health care supply and demand. Analyzing what happens when more people are placed under health insurance in a static situation is made easier by looking at what happened in the laboratory of Massachusetts where universal health care was put into effect by law in 2006.
If Massachusetts is any guide, the passage of Obamacare is almost certain to increase demand and worsen the shortage of doctors. Access to health care doesn't mean much if there's no doctor to provide it. If the Massachusetts paradigm becomes law as Obamacare, the United States will be short 124,400 physicians by 2025, according to the Association of Medical Colleges, and that does not include the 15,585 new primary-care providers Obamacare is estimated to require.
Kevin Pho, a primary care physician in Portsmouth, N.H., wrote on CNN.com that while Massachusetts is often held up as a model for national health reform, the reality is different. About 97% of Massachusetts citizens have health insurance, which is the highest percentage in the country. The state also has the highest concentration of doctors in the country. Although this seems ideal, Pho says that "less publicized are the unintended consequences that the influx of half a million newly insured patients has had on an unprepared primary care system."
The Massachusetts Medical Society reported that the time for a new patient to find a primary care doctor now ranges from 36 to 50 days. Half of all internal medicine physicians have closed their practice to new patients.
Another consequence of Massachusetts’ mandated health insurance for every citizen, is that visits to the state's emergency rooms jumped 7% in two years because many people did not have access to a primary care physician. This increases costs since emergency room care can be up to 10 times more expensive than an office visit for the same condition.
Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, told the Washington Examiner. "Promised coverage is not the same thing as care. All you're getting is a place in the waiting lines."
Those lines get even longer as overburdened physicians cut their workload or retire altogether. A survey last fall of 270,000 primary care physicians by the Physicians Foundation found that 30% expected to see fewer patients, 13% would find something that did not involve patient care, and 11% planned to retire.
Dick Morris, the well known former Clinton advisor, asks "How is Obama going to cover 50 million new people without any more doctors or nurses? The answer is he is not. What that's going to mean is rationing."
There is another serious problem. According to FactCheck.org, abortion will be a covered service under the House bill (H.R. 3200). Without the conscience clause allowing medical care providers to decline to provide abortions on moral grounds, and the Freedom of Choice Act still looming, what will Catholic physicians do?
According to the Catholic Health Association, Catholic hospitals make up 13% of the nation's nearly 5,000 hospitals and employ more than 600,000 people. CHA says one of every six Americans hospitalized in the U.S. is cared for in a Catholic hospital. Obamacare will likely deny health care to millions if Catholic Hospitals are forced to close to avoid breaking the law.
All of you out there who wanted “hope and change,” how is that working for you?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Political correctness run amok
Let’s hope Democrats don’t read the London Times. If they do they might learn that the English language is being censored in the rush to be politically correct. Under this philosophy we must be careful to not offend anybody no matter how ridiculous the effort is in practice.
Dozens of taxpayer-funded organizations have ordered a purge of common words and phrases so as not to cause offence. Among the everyday sayings that have been quietly dropped in a bid to stamp out racism and sexism are “whiter than white”, “gentleman’s agreement”, “black mark” and “right-hand man”.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has advised their staff to replace the phrase “black day” with “miserable day”, according to documents released under freedom of information rules. The commission even urges employees to be mindful of the term “ethnic minority” because it can imply “something smaller and less important”.
The National Gallery in London believes that the phrase “gentleman’s agreement” is potentially offensive to women and suggests that their staff should replace it with “unwritten agreement” or “an agreement based on trust” instead. The term “right-hand man” is also considered taboo by the gallery, with “second in command” being deemed more suitable; after all they wouldn’t want to offend left-handed people, which in the United States include a number of US presidents, including Barack Obama.
Many institutions have urged their workforce to be mindful of “gender bias” in language. The Learning and Skills Council wants staff to “perfect” their brief rather than “master” it, while the Newcastle University has singled out the phrase “master bedroom” as being problematic.
“Terms such as ‘black sheep of the family’, ‘black looks’ and ‘black mark’ have no direct link to skin color but potentially serve to reinforce a negative view of all things black. Equally, certain terms imply a negative image of ‘black’ by reinforcing the positive aspects of white,” according to the South West Regional Development Agency.
“For example, in the context of being above suspicion, the phrase ‘whiter than white’ is often used. Purer than pure or cleaner than clean are alternatives which do not infer that anything other than white should be regarded with suspicion.”
But not everyone in England is on board with the extension of political correctness. Anthony Horowitz, author of the Alex Rider children’s spy books, said: “A great deal of our modern language is based on traditions which have now gone but it would be silly — and extremely inconvenient — to replace them all. A ‘white collar worker’, for example, probably doesn’t wear one. An ‘able seaman’, under new regulations, could well be neither. ‘Spanish practices’ can happen all over Europe. We know what these phrases mean and we can find out from where they were derived. Banning them is just unnecessary.”
I have a suggestion; maybe the Navy should stop calling their non commissioned officers Petty officers, how demeaning is that? They also overlooked Bing Crosby dreaming of a White Christmas, and how about “green with envy?”
Marie Clair, spokeswoman for the Plain English Campaign, said: “Political correctness has good intentions but things can be taken to an extreme. What is really needed is a bit of common sense.”
Oh really, we certainly can’t expect that from our government?
Dozens of taxpayer-funded organizations have ordered a purge of common words and phrases so as not to cause offence. Among the everyday sayings that have been quietly dropped in a bid to stamp out racism and sexism are “whiter than white”, “gentleman’s agreement”, “black mark” and “right-hand man”.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has advised their staff to replace the phrase “black day” with “miserable day”, according to documents released under freedom of information rules. The commission even urges employees to be mindful of the term “ethnic minority” because it can imply “something smaller and less important”.
The National Gallery in London believes that the phrase “gentleman’s agreement” is potentially offensive to women and suggests that their staff should replace it with “unwritten agreement” or “an agreement based on trust” instead. The term “right-hand man” is also considered taboo by the gallery, with “second in command” being deemed more suitable; after all they wouldn’t want to offend left-handed people, which in the United States include a number of US presidents, including Barack Obama.
Many institutions have urged their workforce to be mindful of “gender bias” in language. The Learning and Skills Council wants staff to “perfect” their brief rather than “master” it, while the Newcastle University has singled out the phrase “master bedroom” as being problematic.
“Terms such as ‘black sheep of the family’, ‘black looks’ and ‘black mark’ have no direct link to skin color but potentially serve to reinforce a negative view of all things black. Equally, certain terms imply a negative image of ‘black’ by reinforcing the positive aspects of white,” according to the South West Regional Development Agency.
“For example, in the context of being above suspicion, the phrase ‘whiter than white’ is often used. Purer than pure or cleaner than clean are alternatives which do not infer that anything other than white should be regarded with suspicion.”
But not everyone in England is on board with the extension of political correctness. Anthony Horowitz, author of the Alex Rider children’s spy books, said: “A great deal of our modern language is based on traditions which have now gone but it would be silly — and extremely inconvenient — to replace them all. A ‘white collar worker’, for example, probably doesn’t wear one. An ‘able seaman’, under new regulations, could well be neither. ‘Spanish practices’ can happen all over Europe. We know what these phrases mean and we can find out from where they were derived. Banning them is just unnecessary.”
I have a suggestion; maybe the Navy should stop calling their non commissioned officers Petty officers, how demeaning is that? They also overlooked Bing Crosby dreaming of a White Christmas, and how about “green with envy?”
Marie Clair, spokeswoman for the Plain English Campaign, said: “Political correctness has good intentions but things can be taken to an extreme. What is really needed is a bit of common sense.”
Oh really, we certainly can’t expect that from our government?
Friday, August 21, 2009
Obama wants the government to decide about your health care
Those who were not overcome by the Barack Obama mystique recognized Barack Obama as not the Messiah that his wide-eyed followers thought him to be. We saw an extreme liberal with no real world experience other than as a rabble rouser masquerading as a “community organizer," someone with no experience running anything of importance even so much as a Dairy Queen. For this we were accused of everything from being racists to being right wing extremists. Unfortunately for our country, we were correct and over 52% of Americans were wrong.
Obama implemented what his Chicago thug of an office manager, Rahm “dead fish” Emanuel, proclaimed that never let a crisis go to waste, whether the crisis is real or manufactured. Democrats in congress finely had a Socialist/Marxist they could work with and finally achieve programs rejected over the years by the public and more sensible representatives and senators with Republican presidents in office. For them this is a crucial time when the public can be ignored because they have a large majority in the House led by the Queen of Arrogance, Nancy Pelosi, and the bland but highly partisan Harry Reid leading a veto-proof Senate (thanks to the election stole by ridiculously incompetent Al Franken).
Obama was successful early in his presidency to get congress to allocate billions, without any congressional supervision, to solve the housing, banking, and “toxic mortgage” crises (has anyone heard anything about “toxic mortgages” lately?). He also succeeded in getting through Congress the non-stimulating Stimulus bill which made billions of dollars available to fellow travelers in the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department to reward Obama supporters and favored Wall Street tycoons and to begin the process of nationalizing important industries. Using tax payer grants to businesses gave Obama the power to dictate new rules and regulations by which these hapless businesses must operate and going so far as to dictate salaries and pay checks that their employees should or should not get, and who should run these formerly private enterprises.
But the greatest prize for socialists in the “change” Obama promised was “healthcare reform.” The far left have long sought government control of the health care system which amounts to one-sixth of the US economy to convert America from capitalism to socialism. All dictatorships of the past have used socialized medicine as a vehicle to cement control over the masses (along with gun control, another shibboleth of leftists). A compliant public enamored with the Messiah in the oval office could be counted on, or so they thought, to ignore the scheming in Washington to achieve this end. But unfortunately for them, the not-yet silenced alternative media made the diabolical plans known to the public and once actually informed, Americans rose up and rebelled against this government takeover. The result is that overwhelming majorities are against the Democrats plan to usurp individual control of their health care decisions.
Resorting to what Democrats always do when faced with opposition based on reality about their schemes, they mobilized their news media house organs to rail against the opponents and deliberately lie and mislead the public about the truth of what they want to inflict on the country (Obama being the master liar of all). As the leader of this effort, President Obama plied his charm, his teleprompter and his best “trust me” mode to fool the public into believing the unbelievable. Of course, one of the tools of his trade is to identify demons that would thwart his plans to the alleged detriment of the public.
Rather than listen to the concerns of the people who elected them about the Obama and Democrat health care bills, Democrats want to ram the total revision of health care in the country down the throats of Americans and through Congress without bipartisan input. The Obama administration is playing the blame game labeling opponents as alleged obstructionists. As usual the list of those they blame is just plain ridiculous.
1. Conservative groups
The news media, trade unions, Acorn and MoveOn.org, labeled protests of everything George Bush said or did as “grassroots democracy.” But when conservative groups encourage supporters to attend town hall meetings and make their sentiments about Obamacare known to their congressmen, it’s called un-American, disruptive and the work of right-wing extremists.
2. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the hypocrite
Liberals conveniently forget when Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a supporter of protests when President George W. Bush was being compared to Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. She even praised violent anti-war protesters at a January 2006 town hall meeting in San Francisco as democracy in action. Now that Pelosi and Democrats control the house the protests by opponents are not to be tolerated even though, unlike the bussed-in and often paid Democrat protesters, opponents of Obamacare are ordinary Americans energized by the debate, frustrated at not having a voice and motivated to exercise their right of free speech. Democrats attempt to smear opponents and shut down debate and label them un-American.
2. Insurance Companies
Obama is seeking support for Obamacare now by labeling it health-insurance reform. This is done by demonizing insurance companies despite the fact that insurance companies like Obamacare and spend millions in propaganda to support it, but critizing insurance companies resonates with the public who all have had a problem with their insurance company at one time or another. After all, insurance companies work through faceless employees who deny or pay claims in a seemingly arbitrary manner and refuse or cancel coverage sometimes.
But the facts simply don’t support Obama’s rants. “If insurance companies were gouging the public, the evidence would show up in one of two places, according to Graef Crystal, a compensation expert in Santa Rosa, California, and occasional Bloomberg News columnist: excessive executive pay or excessive returns to shareholders.” His analysis of five major health insurers shows just the opposite: below-market pay and below-market shareholder returns. “There’s no case here for undue enrichment of shareholders” or over-compensating CEOs, Crystal says.
Health care does not need to be overhauled; if there are things that should be corrected, like coverage for pre-existing ailments, they could be addressed without destroying the whole health care system.
3. Sarah Palin – the scapegoat once again
There is a school of thought that the reason the left in the media and in those in office continue to attack Sarah Palin is because they fear her. The reasoning goes that Sarah receives such vituperation because the Left actually fears her because she is one of the people and a large segment of the electorate relates to her.
Sarah Palin tells the truth and truth is an anathema to the Left. She tells it like it is about Obamacare and people listen; therefore, Sarah must be destroyed. Democrats don’t like it when Sarah says the obvious that in order to cut health costs medical care must be rationed because it will be an even scarcer resource. The only question is how: by the market (price) or by government mandate. If government is doing the rationing, what exactly will bureaucrats use to determine who gets what care and who doesn’t?
4. Democrat’s confusion is a good thing
Opposition to fast-track health-insurance reform is coming from Obama’s own party. Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and one of six Finance Committee members involved in bipartisan negotiations, said on Fox News Sunday that the goal is to “get this right,” not meet some “specific timetable.” He said the Senate lacks enough votes to pass a bill with a public option. “To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort.” Nonetheless the real Leftists who have been waiting decades for governmental control of health care and Socialism don’t want any softening of government control. The fact is though these Lefties may squawk, there’s no way they won’t vote for whatever passes that can be labeled “Health Care Reform.”
Obama implemented what his Chicago thug of an office manager, Rahm “dead fish” Emanuel, proclaimed that never let a crisis go to waste, whether the crisis is real or manufactured. Democrats in congress finely had a Socialist/Marxist they could work with and finally achieve programs rejected over the years by the public and more sensible representatives and senators with Republican presidents in office. For them this is a crucial time when the public can be ignored because they have a large majority in the House led by the Queen of Arrogance, Nancy Pelosi, and the bland but highly partisan Harry Reid leading a veto-proof Senate (thanks to the election stole by ridiculously incompetent Al Franken).
Obama was successful early in his presidency to get congress to allocate billions, without any congressional supervision, to solve the housing, banking, and “toxic mortgage” crises (has anyone heard anything about “toxic mortgages” lately?). He also succeeded in getting through Congress the non-stimulating Stimulus bill which made billions of dollars available to fellow travelers in the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department to reward Obama supporters and favored Wall Street tycoons and to begin the process of nationalizing important industries. Using tax payer grants to businesses gave Obama the power to dictate new rules and regulations by which these hapless businesses must operate and going so far as to dictate salaries and pay checks that their employees should or should not get, and who should run these formerly private enterprises.
But the greatest prize for socialists in the “change” Obama promised was “healthcare reform.” The far left have long sought government control of the health care system which amounts to one-sixth of the US economy to convert America from capitalism to socialism. All dictatorships of the past have used socialized medicine as a vehicle to cement control over the masses (along with gun control, another shibboleth of leftists). A compliant public enamored with the Messiah in the oval office could be counted on, or so they thought, to ignore the scheming in Washington to achieve this end. But unfortunately for them, the not-yet silenced alternative media made the diabolical plans known to the public and once actually informed, Americans rose up and rebelled against this government takeover. The result is that overwhelming majorities are against the Democrats plan to usurp individual control of their health care decisions.
Resorting to what Democrats always do when faced with opposition based on reality about their schemes, they mobilized their news media house organs to rail against the opponents and deliberately lie and mislead the public about the truth of what they want to inflict on the country (Obama being the master liar of all). As the leader of this effort, President Obama plied his charm, his teleprompter and his best “trust me” mode to fool the public into believing the unbelievable. Of course, one of the tools of his trade is to identify demons that would thwart his plans to the alleged detriment of the public.
Rather than listen to the concerns of the people who elected them about the Obama and Democrat health care bills, Democrats want to ram the total revision of health care in the country down the throats of Americans and through Congress without bipartisan input. The Obama administration is playing the blame game labeling opponents as alleged obstructionists. As usual the list of those they blame is just plain ridiculous.
1. Conservative groups
The news media, trade unions, Acorn and MoveOn.org, labeled protests of everything George Bush said or did as “grassroots democracy.” But when conservative groups encourage supporters to attend town hall meetings and make their sentiments about Obamacare known to their congressmen, it’s called un-American, disruptive and the work of right-wing extremists.
2. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the hypocrite
Liberals conveniently forget when Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a supporter of protests when President George W. Bush was being compared to Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. She even praised violent anti-war protesters at a January 2006 town hall meeting in San Francisco as democracy in action. Now that Pelosi and Democrats control the house the protests by opponents are not to be tolerated even though, unlike the bussed-in and often paid Democrat protesters, opponents of Obamacare are ordinary Americans energized by the debate, frustrated at not having a voice and motivated to exercise their right of free speech. Democrats attempt to smear opponents and shut down debate and label them un-American.
2. Insurance Companies
Obama is seeking support for Obamacare now by labeling it health-insurance reform. This is done by demonizing insurance companies despite the fact that insurance companies like Obamacare and spend millions in propaganda to support it, but critizing insurance companies resonates with the public who all have had a problem with their insurance company at one time or another. After all, insurance companies work through faceless employees who deny or pay claims in a seemingly arbitrary manner and refuse or cancel coverage sometimes.
But the facts simply don’t support Obama’s rants. “If insurance companies were gouging the public, the evidence would show up in one of two places, according to Graef Crystal, a compensation expert in Santa Rosa, California, and occasional Bloomberg News columnist: excessive executive pay or excessive returns to shareholders.” His analysis of five major health insurers shows just the opposite: below-market pay and below-market shareholder returns. “There’s no case here for undue enrichment of shareholders” or over-compensating CEOs, Crystal says.
Health care does not need to be overhauled; if there are things that should be corrected, like coverage for pre-existing ailments, they could be addressed without destroying the whole health care system.
3. Sarah Palin – the scapegoat once again
There is a school of thought that the reason the left in the media and in those in office continue to attack Sarah Palin is because they fear her. The reasoning goes that Sarah receives such vituperation because the Left actually fears her because she is one of the people and a large segment of the electorate relates to her.
Sarah Palin tells the truth and truth is an anathema to the Left. She tells it like it is about Obamacare and people listen; therefore, Sarah must be destroyed. Democrats don’t like it when Sarah says the obvious that in order to cut health costs medical care must be rationed because it will be an even scarcer resource. The only question is how: by the market (price) or by government mandate. If government is doing the rationing, what exactly will bureaucrats use to determine who gets what care and who doesn’t?
4. Democrat’s confusion is a good thing
Opposition to fast-track health-insurance reform is coming from Obama’s own party. Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and one of six Finance Committee members involved in bipartisan negotiations, said on Fox News Sunday that the goal is to “get this right,” not meet some “specific timetable.” He said the Senate lacks enough votes to pass a bill with a public option. “To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort.” Nonetheless the real Leftists who have been waiting decades for governmental control of health care and Socialism don’t want any softening of government control. The fact is though these Lefties may squawk, there’s no way they won’t vote for whatever passes that can be labeled “Health Care Reform.”
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Don’t be fooled by the co-op option of healthcare
Obama and his Democrat minions in congress are a shifty bunch. First we are told that the death option is or will be taken off the healthcare bill (whichever of the three that will be passed) and then Obama says the “government option” may also be stricken to be replaced by something called “co-op” plans. But the truth is that they have no intention of letting go of their master plan; government control of health care available to Americans. Most successful dictatorships in history have started with or included a form of government controlled medical care and our would-be socialist/Marxist leaders are no exception.
First of all, whatever way they go, the outright “public option” or “co-op plans”, the basic premise is that health care costs will be controlled by reducing availability of medical care. This can only be done by limiting health care in some way and by reducing payments to health care providers.
Obama has gone on record as favoring depriving older people of medical care in order to extend life and by appointing Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Dr. Ezikiel Emanuel, in effect as healthcare Czar, the philosophy of end of life medical deprivation is assured if the president is successful with Obamacare. (See article “God does not endorse Obamacare” on this blog). This is done by establishing a Federal Board independent of congress that will dictate what medical treatment and medication can be given to people taking into consideration cost effectiveness. Therefore since older people with a shorter remaining life span will not benefit as much as younger people with similar needs, precluding the senior from needed medical care will keep medical costs down and be more "cost effective."
The second way medical costs will be contained is by limiting payment to healthcare providers and by providing incentive to them to minimize prescribing what could be life-saving tests and treatments.
Any method of reducing healthcare cost will necessarily involve some form of rationing. The proclaimed intention of Obamacare is to provide health insurance to those who have none now. Whether this number is the 47 or 50 million Democrats allege or an actual much smaller number, adding to the rolls of those entitled to health insurance without increasing the number of medical care providers will obviously reduce the “supply” while increasing the “demand” and cause everyone (other than the legislators and Executive Department) to wait a long time for diagnostic tests needed and ultimate treatment. It should be noted that Obama speaks about providing health insurance not medical care. The reason is that under our present system no one is deprived of medical care whether or not they have health insurance.
It is important to realize that regardless what version of healthcare Democrats come up with; there will be creation of a government-run healthcare system. Even non profit co-op plans will be controlled by the government. Furthermore the remaining parts of the proposals in Congress would leave us with a system in which government mandates that individuals buy insurance or pay a tax and that employers must offer insurance or pay a tax and the government would define what constitutes insurance. Medicaid would be expanded dramatically to cover illegal aliens.
Under the House bill (H.R. 3200), people would be forced to purchase their insurance from a government-run exchange. And though the policies offered at this exchange would be nominally "private" they would be designed by government bureaucrats. In the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions bill, a new Medical Advisory Council would be tasked with defining “qualifying” coverage; in the House bill, all Americans are required to have coverage that is deemed “acceptable” by a Health Choices Commissioner. Regardless whether there is a “public option” or a “co-op” system, there is no doubt that the creation of a new government-run plan will evolve into a pure single-payer system, which is what Obama has said he wants in any case.
Americans must not be fooled by any “compromise.” Some compromisers say that that these co-ops would be nonprofits, but many insurers are already classified as “nonprofit” companies–including “mutual” insurance companies and groups like Blue Cross. In addition, states already have the power to set up their own health care co-ops and a number already exist. So, if the “new co-ops” are to operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother?
Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op and congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” If a “co-op” is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, that is government-run health insurance by another name.
The most important part of the Obama administration sales pitch on their “public option” has been if we increase competition, prices would come down. That’s what they tell us. Yet if that were really the aim of Democrats, they would break down the barriers that would allow the purchase of heath insurance across state lines, like your car insurance options.
Democrats are only interested in having the government control the national healthcare system and all of the controls over the public that go along with that. As part of this control, Democrats want to control every health care dollar spent in this country. Instead of offering tax credits to the poor to purchase their own health insurance and making health insurance tax deductible for workers, Democrats have been demanding a “public option” that facilitates a government takeover of the entire heath care economy. Furthermore Democrats say their public option plan would do away with exclusion of pre-existing conditions but this could be accomplished by simply saying so without changing the health care system in the country.
Replacing the public option with co-ops is a Trojan horse. It is vital to understand what the role of these co-ops will be. Democrats are merely changing terminology yet again in their attempt to cloak their plans for a government takeover of health care. These “exchanges” aren’t just places to buy insurance. They will have regulatory authority over what you can buy.
In H.R. 3200, the government would have the authority through these exchanges to approve the benefit levels and content of all health insurance plans in the country. If you like the insurance that you have and would like to keep it (as Obama famously says), you will be taxed 2.5% of your annual income if that plan is not approved as part of the exchange by government bureaucrats.
If you keep your private insurance, it would not be allowed to change at all. For instance, if a newly-discovered cure for cancer becomes available, your insurance would not be allowed to cover it. So if you were initially lucky enough to have a private insurance plan that these bureaucrats deigned to approve, and something were to change, your insurance plan would be null and void.
Your insurance company would not be allowed to cover this new cancer treatment. If you needed it, you would be forced into the government exchange. So your private insurance that you liked so much before the bureaucrats got a hold of it would not be able to improve with medical advances and technology. Again, keep in mind that after 2013, all new health insurance policies would have to be purchased through this government exchange. It’s all about control.
The so-called co-op compromise that Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee are now proposing is a government-chartered exchange funded by federal taxpayer dollars. It’s being pitched as a solution to offer more competition, yet a series of quotes from prominent Democrats reveal that they view the co-op concept as merely another way to enact the “exchange” to facilitate a government takeover of health care:
“I think in theory you can imagine a co-operative meeting that definition [of a ‘public option’].” -- President Obama, July 29, Time Magazine
“We’re going to have some type of public option, call it ‘co-op,’ call it what you want.” -- Senate Majority Leader Reid, July 10, Washington Post
“You could theoretically design a co-op plan that had the same attributes as a public plan.” -- Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius, June 27, Bloomberg
“Chairman Baucus has asked me to sit down with [Sen.] Kent Conrad to see if we can use the co-op model to achieve the same goals as a public plan.” -- Sen. Chuck Schumer, June 15, Roll Call
“We don’t care what it’s called. We need something that’s going to keep the insurance companies honest.” -- Sen. Chuck Schumer, July 9, Fox News
“It will have, coming out of the House, a public option. The only debate on that is what it will be called.” -- Speaker Pelosi, July 13, Reuters
Remember what Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said – quoted earlier:
“The [co-op has] to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” – Senator Max Baucus, June 12, Politico.
The objectives of the “public option” are exactly what the American people overwhelmingly object to: the government takeover of health care. The objectives have been exposed over the August break at one town hall meeting after another through the reading aloud of H.R. 3200. Since their elected Democrat representatives aren’t reading the bill, their constituents are reading it to them.
As formulated by Democrats, the “public option” is designed to force private insurance out of existence leaving in its place the single-payer system created and controlled by federal government bureaucrats. As with every government-run health care system ever done throughout history, rationing and “pulling the plug on grandma” become a vital part as costs spin higher and out of control.
Artificial government competition resulting in a takeover through coercion is not the answer. Dropping government barriers to the purchase of health insurance across state lines would actually increase competition without a government takeover, co-op or otherwise.
America don’t be fooled; any health care system approved by a Democrat House and Senate and signed by President Obama will destroy medical care in the United States forever; we must do all that we can to see NO healthcare plan becomes law.
.
First of all, whatever way they go, the outright “public option” or “co-op plans”, the basic premise is that health care costs will be controlled by reducing availability of medical care. This can only be done by limiting health care in some way and by reducing payments to health care providers.
Obama has gone on record as favoring depriving older people of medical care in order to extend life and by appointing Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Dr. Ezikiel Emanuel, in effect as healthcare Czar, the philosophy of end of life medical deprivation is assured if the president is successful with Obamacare. (See article “God does not endorse Obamacare” on this blog). This is done by establishing a Federal Board independent of congress that will dictate what medical treatment and medication can be given to people taking into consideration cost effectiveness. Therefore since older people with a shorter remaining life span will not benefit as much as younger people with similar needs, precluding the senior from needed medical care will keep medical costs down and be more "cost effective."
The second way medical costs will be contained is by limiting payment to healthcare providers and by providing incentive to them to minimize prescribing what could be life-saving tests and treatments.
Any method of reducing healthcare cost will necessarily involve some form of rationing. The proclaimed intention of Obamacare is to provide health insurance to those who have none now. Whether this number is the 47 or 50 million Democrats allege or an actual much smaller number, adding to the rolls of those entitled to health insurance without increasing the number of medical care providers will obviously reduce the “supply” while increasing the “demand” and cause everyone (other than the legislators and Executive Department) to wait a long time for diagnostic tests needed and ultimate treatment. It should be noted that Obama speaks about providing health insurance not medical care. The reason is that under our present system no one is deprived of medical care whether or not they have health insurance.
It is important to realize that regardless what version of healthcare Democrats come up with; there will be creation of a government-run healthcare system. Even non profit co-op plans will be controlled by the government. Furthermore the remaining parts of the proposals in Congress would leave us with a system in which government mandates that individuals buy insurance or pay a tax and that employers must offer insurance or pay a tax and the government would define what constitutes insurance. Medicaid would be expanded dramatically to cover illegal aliens.
Under the House bill (H.R. 3200), people would be forced to purchase their insurance from a government-run exchange. And though the policies offered at this exchange would be nominally "private" they would be designed by government bureaucrats. In the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions bill, a new Medical Advisory Council would be tasked with defining “qualifying” coverage; in the House bill, all Americans are required to have coverage that is deemed “acceptable” by a Health Choices Commissioner. Regardless whether there is a “public option” or a “co-op” system, there is no doubt that the creation of a new government-run plan will evolve into a pure single-payer system, which is what Obama has said he wants in any case.
Americans must not be fooled by any “compromise.” Some compromisers say that that these co-ops would be nonprofits, but many insurers are already classified as “nonprofit” companies–including “mutual” insurance companies and groups like Blue Cross. In addition, states already have the power to set up their own health care co-ops and a number already exist. So, if the “new co-ops” are to operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother?
Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op and congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” If a “co-op” is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, that is government-run health insurance by another name.
The most important part of the Obama administration sales pitch on their “public option” has been if we increase competition, prices would come down. That’s what they tell us. Yet if that were really the aim of Democrats, they would break down the barriers that would allow the purchase of heath insurance across state lines, like your car insurance options.
Democrats are only interested in having the government control the national healthcare system and all of the controls over the public that go along with that. As part of this control, Democrats want to control every health care dollar spent in this country. Instead of offering tax credits to the poor to purchase their own health insurance and making health insurance tax deductible for workers, Democrats have been demanding a “public option” that facilitates a government takeover of the entire heath care economy. Furthermore Democrats say their public option plan would do away with exclusion of pre-existing conditions but this could be accomplished by simply saying so without changing the health care system in the country.
Replacing the public option with co-ops is a Trojan horse. It is vital to understand what the role of these co-ops will be. Democrats are merely changing terminology yet again in their attempt to cloak their plans for a government takeover of health care. These “exchanges” aren’t just places to buy insurance. They will have regulatory authority over what you can buy.
In H.R. 3200, the government would have the authority through these exchanges to approve the benefit levels and content of all health insurance plans in the country. If you like the insurance that you have and would like to keep it (as Obama famously says), you will be taxed 2.5% of your annual income if that plan is not approved as part of the exchange by government bureaucrats.
If you keep your private insurance, it would not be allowed to change at all. For instance, if a newly-discovered cure for cancer becomes available, your insurance would not be allowed to cover it. So if you were initially lucky enough to have a private insurance plan that these bureaucrats deigned to approve, and something were to change, your insurance plan would be null and void.
Your insurance company would not be allowed to cover this new cancer treatment. If you needed it, you would be forced into the government exchange. So your private insurance that you liked so much before the bureaucrats got a hold of it would not be able to improve with medical advances and technology. Again, keep in mind that after 2013, all new health insurance policies would have to be purchased through this government exchange. It’s all about control.
The so-called co-op compromise that Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee are now proposing is a government-chartered exchange funded by federal taxpayer dollars. It’s being pitched as a solution to offer more competition, yet a series of quotes from prominent Democrats reveal that they view the co-op concept as merely another way to enact the “exchange” to facilitate a government takeover of health care:
“I think in theory you can imagine a co-operative meeting that definition [of a ‘public option’].” -- President Obama, July 29, Time Magazine
“We’re going to have some type of public option, call it ‘co-op,’ call it what you want.” -- Senate Majority Leader Reid, July 10, Washington Post
“You could theoretically design a co-op plan that had the same attributes as a public plan.” -- Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius, June 27, Bloomberg
“Chairman Baucus has asked me to sit down with [Sen.] Kent Conrad to see if we can use the co-op model to achieve the same goals as a public plan.” -- Sen. Chuck Schumer, June 15, Roll Call
“We don’t care what it’s called. We need something that’s going to keep the insurance companies honest.” -- Sen. Chuck Schumer, July 9, Fox News
“It will have, coming out of the House, a public option. The only debate on that is what it will be called.” -- Speaker Pelosi, July 13, Reuters
Remember what Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said – quoted earlier:
“The [co-op has] to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” – Senator Max Baucus, June 12, Politico.
The objectives of the “public option” are exactly what the American people overwhelmingly object to: the government takeover of health care. The objectives have been exposed over the August break at one town hall meeting after another through the reading aloud of H.R. 3200. Since their elected Democrat representatives aren’t reading the bill, their constituents are reading it to them.
As formulated by Democrats, the “public option” is designed to force private insurance out of existence leaving in its place the single-payer system created and controlled by federal government bureaucrats. As with every government-run health care system ever done throughout history, rationing and “pulling the plug on grandma” become a vital part as costs spin higher and out of control.
Artificial government competition resulting in a takeover through coercion is not the answer. Dropping government barriers to the purchase of health insurance across state lines would actually increase competition without a government takeover, co-op or otherwise.
America don’t be fooled; any health care system approved by a Democrat House and Senate and signed by President Obama will destroy medical care in the United States forever; we must do all that we can to see NO healthcare plan becomes law.
.
Friday, August 14, 2009
God would not endorse Obamacare
When one consider the decline in the number of people going to church regularly or being a member of an organized religion, it is not surprising that Barack Obama is as successful as he is in reforming the United States into a Marxist image. Communism is the antithesis of religion and regards religion as the "opiate of the masses." Socialism is not too far behind Communism in the condemnation of God and religion in the lives of the masses. If you keep this in mind you can understand why a program such as socialized medicine is advocated by leftists in the pursuit of expansion of government control, just as in dictatorships whether under Nazism or Communism; i.e. the devaluation of human life.
The "universal healthcare" program advocated by today’s version of "liberals" (who now choose to call themselves "progressives") as embodied by the H.R.3200, the house bill, epitomizes all that is wrong with socialism and the departure from religious values that hold all human life to be sacred and worthy of protection.
The basic premise of Obama healthcare as represented by the House bill is that not all human life should be protected; only that which the government regards as productive. Thus those under two and over sixty five should not expect to receive the same degree of healthcare as those in the productive age group. If you don’t believe this, consider that Obamacare features government-paid (tax payer paid) abortions and rationed care for the elderly. Under the system being advocated a government board will pass upon what medical care should or should not be administered taking into account the cost effectiveness of such care. In other words, if a senior citizen needs chemotherapy or a hip operation, money spent for these purposes is not as cost effective as if such treatment is given to someone in the "productive years" of life.
Consider what the new Obama appointed health-policy advisor at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Research, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, had to say on the subject of health care delivery. Incidentally, Dr. Emanuel is the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Obama’s health policy advisor propounds discrimination against the elderly and other less than productive patients. In the medical journal Lancet he wrote in January:
"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious [an irrelevancy] discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years."
As for the less than productive, in a Hastings Center Report Dr. Emanuel has written, that medical care be withheld from those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." Thus the state should decide when and if you get treatment. Does that not have a Nazi-like ring to it? President Ronald Reagan wouldn't pass muster for Obamacare since he suffered from Alzheimer's late in life.
Surely reflecting Obama’s healthcare philosophy as manifested in the House bill, Dr. Emanuel suggests how to cut costs of healthcare: (from the Journal of the American Medical Association in May of 2007):
"Too much money spent on health care reduced [sic] the ability to obtain other essentials of human life as well as some goods and services not essential to life but still of great value, such as education, vacations, and the arts."
He actually said "vacations and the arts." Therefore once we have Obamacare, and one of us is waiting for a hip replacement or some life-saving cancer treatment or a CAT scan, remember that tax payer money is being better spent on vacations or perhaps the performance art of that "artist" who immerses a cross in urine rather than on the elderly.
Those of us who believe in God and the teachings in the bible about the sanctity of life quickly realize that saving life is not the objective of Obamacare; government control is and cost containment is just a vehicle to achieve this result. Sure more money is spent on healthcare for the elderly because they need more care; does that make it wrong to provide what is needed to prolong life? Healthcare is provided to the ill; what a surprise! If we were only worried about cost, then why provide healthcare to ill people? Let’s just give health insurance to the young and those less likely to need healthcare.
Since Obama only went to Reverend Wright’s church, it is no wonder he has no appreciation of God’s teachings and of the bible; if he did, he wouldn’t be demanding a healthcare system that denies life instead of protecting it.
The "universal healthcare" program advocated by today’s version of "liberals" (who now choose to call themselves "progressives") as embodied by the H.R.3200, the house bill, epitomizes all that is wrong with socialism and the departure from religious values that hold all human life to be sacred and worthy of protection.
The basic premise of Obama healthcare as represented by the House bill is that not all human life should be protected; only that which the government regards as productive. Thus those under two and over sixty five should not expect to receive the same degree of healthcare as those in the productive age group. If you don’t believe this, consider that Obamacare features government-paid (tax payer paid) abortions and rationed care for the elderly. Under the system being advocated a government board will pass upon what medical care should or should not be administered taking into account the cost effectiveness of such care. In other words, if a senior citizen needs chemotherapy or a hip operation, money spent for these purposes is not as cost effective as if such treatment is given to someone in the "productive years" of life.
Consider what the new Obama appointed health-policy advisor at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Research, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, had to say on the subject of health care delivery. Incidentally, Dr. Emanuel is the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Obama’s health policy advisor propounds discrimination against the elderly and other less than productive patients. In the medical journal Lancet he wrote in January:
"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious [an irrelevancy] discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years."
As for the less than productive, in a Hastings Center Report Dr. Emanuel has written, that medical care be withheld from those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." Thus the state should decide when and if you get treatment. Does that not have a Nazi-like ring to it? President Ronald Reagan wouldn't pass muster for Obamacare since he suffered from Alzheimer's late in life.
Surely reflecting Obama’s healthcare philosophy as manifested in the House bill, Dr. Emanuel suggests how to cut costs of healthcare: (from the Journal of the American Medical Association in May of 2007):
"Too much money spent on health care reduced [sic] the ability to obtain other essentials of human life as well as some goods and services not essential to life but still of great value, such as education, vacations, and the arts."
He actually said "vacations and the arts." Therefore once we have Obamacare, and one of us is waiting for a hip replacement or some life-saving cancer treatment or a CAT scan, remember that tax payer money is being better spent on vacations or perhaps the performance art of that "artist" who immerses a cross in urine rather than on the elderly.
Those of us who believe in God and the teachings in the bible about the sanctity of life quickly realize that saving life is not the objective of Obamacare; government control is and cost containment is just a vehicle to achieve this result. Sure more money is spent on healthcare for the elderly because they need more care; does that make it wrong to provide what is needed to prolong life? Healthcare is provided to the ill; what a surprise! If we were only worried about cost, then why provide healthcare to ill people? Let’s just give health insurance to the young and those less likely to need healthcare.
Since Obama only went to Reverend Wright’s church, it is no wonder he has no appreciation of God’s teachings and of the bible; if he did, he wouldn’t be demanding a healthcare system that denies life instead of protecting it.
The fight against government controlled healthcare is a struggle for survival of freedom
There is little doubt we are in a struggle for the American way of life that has endured for centuries. Although individual freedom and liberty have been under attack since the FDR days, President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrat controlled federal legislature is accelerating the decline. Democrats in Congress have long-held intentions to remake our country which were restrained by some Republican presidents and a combination of past sensible Democrats and more traditional Republicans in the House and Senate, however those restraints are no more. With leftists Democrats and RINO Republicans and Obama in office, the danger is greater than ever.
It seems like a long while ago now but Obama, the most dangerous person ever to reside in the White House, has succeeded in pushing through Congress and enact into law substantial expansion of government control starting with "emergency" allocation of billions of dollars to fix the "toxic mortgage problem" but which was diverted to control the banking industry. Similarly, a huge "stimulus" bill of over $700 billion was quickly passed and turned out to be as many feared not an economic stimulus at all but monetary rewards for Obama and Democrat supporters. The economy, behind a somewhat improved stock market (it’s forgotten how far down the market is from before the OBama, and yes, George Bush, spending sprees last Fall and Winter) the Democrat news media and the president proclaim economic recovery is underway. Of course this is nonsense; just ask the millions of Americans out of work.
Statistics may never lie but liars can manipulate statistics. The government says unemployment is 9.4%, purportedly down from 9.5%, but neither number is an accurate reflection of reality. Many people who have given up looking for a job and those whose unemployment insurance has run out are excluded from the count. According to truthful economists unemployment is over 16% and growing.
Now that the banking and auto industries are firmly under government control, nothing can better illustrate the real agenda of remaking the country under socialist/Marxist principles than the attempt by Obama and Democrats to control the health industry which accounts for one-sixth of the total economy. But the danger to Americans is not only government expansion but what will be done to our healthcare system in terms of destruction of the best medical care in the world, notwithstanding the negative propaganda about our medical system promulgated by Democrats and echoed by the Democrat house organs in the news media.
Democrats and their sympathizers squeal when comparisons are made with the National Socialist Party (NAZI) in Germany. However the comparison as far as government growth and control are concerned is quit legitimate. By imposing a national health program, socialized medicine, the government not only takes over a large proportion of the economy but is able to appropriate all manner of private information which in the computer age is easily maintained in a data base. For example, all information about an individual’s health is recorded, all medical service needs are available for government healthcare decision makers and data maintained by the government is either publicly available or easily hacked (remember even critical secret military data has been accessed by hackers).
Barack Obama is not an Adolph Hitler but the attempt to control the economy and the people’s lives is eerily similar. If Obama and Democrats are successful, Americans will be susceptible to any imposition the government chooses to exert, just as in NAZI Germany.
It seems like a long while ago now but Obama, the most dangerous person ever to reside in the White House, has succeeded in pushing through Congress and enact into law substantial expansion of government control starting with "emergency" allocation of billions of dollars to fix the "toxic mortgage problem" but which was diverted to control the banking industry. Similarly, a huge "stimulus" bill of over $700 billion was quickly passed and turned out to be as many feared not an economic stimulus at all but monetary rewards for Obama and Democrat supporters. The economy, behind a somewhat improved stock market (it’s forgotten how far down the market is from before the OBama, and yes, George Bush, spending sprees last Fall and Winter) the Democrat news media and the president proclaim economic recovery is underway. Of course this is nonsense; just ask the millions of Americans out of work.
Statistics may never lie but liars can manipulate statistics. The government says unemployment is 9.4%, purportedly down from 9.5%, but neither number is an accurate reflection of reality. Many people who have given up looking for a job and those whose unemployment insurance has run out are excluded from the count. According to truthful economists unemployment is over 16% and growing.
Now that the banking and auto industries are firmly under government control, nothing can better illustrate the real agenda of remaking the country under socialist/Marxist principles than the attempt by Obama and Democrats to control the health industry which accounts for one-sixth of the total economy. But the danger to Americans is not only government expansion but what will be done to our healthcare system in terms of destruction of the best medical care in the world, notwithstanding the negative propaganda about our medical system promulgated by Democrats and echoed by the Democrat house organs in the news media.
Democrats and their sympathizers squeal when comparisons are made with the National Socialist Party (NAZI) in Germany. However the comparison as far as government growth and control are concerned is quit legitimate. By imposing a national health program, socialized medicine, the government not only takes over a large proportion of the economy but is able to appropriate all manner of private information which in the computer age is easily maintained in a data base. For example, all information about an individual’s health is recorded, all medical service needs are available for government healthcare decision makers and data maintained by the government is either publicly available or easily hacked (remember even critical secret military data has been accessed by hackers).
Barack Obama is not an Adolph Hitler but the attempt to control the economy and the people’s lives is eerily similar. If Obama and Democrats are successful, Americans will be susceptible to any imposition the government chooses to exert, just as in NAZI Germany.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
