RSS Feed for health careCategory: health care

As a multi-Millionaore, Nancy Pelosi can’t identify with the average American

In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,”Nancy Polosi is at it again. Saying stupid statements that can only come from a multi-millionaire who does nothing for a living other than being one of the most out of touch Democratic Senators is her one clain to fame.

Never mind that most Americans need a 40 hour work week to subsist. Never mind that most Americans can’t afford less than 40 hours a week in order to pay their new Obamacare health care bill. Pelosi said, “Overwhelmingly, for the American people, this is a liberation,” “It’s about wellness, it’s about prevention, it’s about a healthy America,” she said.

Yeah a broke American. See the interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,”INTERVIEW

AARP IS LOSING PLENTY OF SENIORS – VERY IMPORTANT

This is a letter to AARP in 2009 as confirmed by www.snopes.com

AARP’s Fall from Grace

It only takes a few days on the Internet and this will have reached 75% of the public in the USA .
This letter was sent to Mr. Rand who is the Executive Director of AARP.
THIS LADY NOT ONLY HAS A GRASP OF ‘THE SITUATION’ BUT AN INCREDIBLE COMMAND OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!
Dear Mr. Rand,
Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. This isn’t what you were looking for, but it’s is the most honest response I can give you. Our coverage gap is a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith. While we have proudly maintained our membership for years and long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse its abdication of our values. Your letter stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours.
Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.
Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP once gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama Regime and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there! We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities and values.
This Obama Regime scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don’t have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist Mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities.
Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? The illegal perpetrators have broken into our ‘house’, invaded our home without invitation or consent. The President insists we keep these illegal perpetrators in comfort and learn the perpetrator’s language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them. I DON’T choose to welcome them, to support them, to educate them, to medicate them, or to pay for their food or clothing. American home invaders get arrested. Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that
Americans do not get? Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break and enter to be welcomed?
We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current Regime. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America . Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than ones that are driven by a need to yield AMNESTY (aka-make voters out of the foreign lawbreakers so they can vote to continue the government’s free handouts). This addition of 10 to 20 million voters who then will vote to continue Socialism will OVERWHELM our votes to control the government’s free handouts. It is a "slippery slope" we must not embark on!
As Margret Thatcher (former Prime Minister of Great Britain ) once said "Socialism is GREAT – UNTIL you run out of other people’s money".
We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential
factor will make a credible statement to you. I am disappointed as all get out! I am more scared than I have ever been in my entire life! I am ANGRY! I am MAD as hell, and I’m NOT gonna take it anymore!
Walt & Cyndy Miller,
Miller Farms Equine Transport


KEEP THIS MOVING FORWARD.
….In internet lingo: If enough people pass this on, it will go viral.

Obamacare A good illustration…

This is long but worth reading

Passed on by my friend Flint

Subject: I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is
what ensued:

They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard the young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” The young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. They are all crooks and thieves and don’t deserve all of that money.” Another said, “The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.” At this, I had heard enough.

I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.
“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?”

They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. “I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding
“Hell Yeah!” fills the room. “Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money free bargain.”

I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.” Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said,I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.” They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home.
Go take your meds, old man.”

I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.” They gaped at me for a moment. “Hell, I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them. “Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from
the privacy of their table. “Oh hell yeah! Where do I sign up?” I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. “Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.

“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumb founded. “Are you out of your freaking mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated.

“You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement,” was all I said. The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain herself. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. “You can shove that stupid deal up; you’re a ** old man, I want no part of it.” exclaimed the now infuriated young man.

“You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.” At this, the table of
celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal. After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent.

“What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it unto you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.” With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”

I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pick up the tab.” I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.
Use reason; it is the closest you are going to get to Godly conduct.

Clifford A. Wright

God Loves You Just the Way You Are but He Loves You too Much to Leave You That Way.
Rest in God alone, my soul, for my hope comes from Him. He alone is my rock and my salvation, my stronghold; I will not be shaken. My salvation and glory depend on God; my strong rock, my refuge is in God. Trust in Him at all times, you people; pour out your hearts before Him. God is our refuge.
Selah Psalm 62:5-8 HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible®) -VIA- Jean Schriever

Injunction sought to halt ‘Obamacare’

‘The term ‘nanny state’ does not even begin to describe what we will have wrought’


Posted: April 06, 2010
8:47 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

HOPEFULLY WE CAN SEE THIS SHAM OVER WITH SOON!

Freedom Finder

A legal team of experts on civil liberties and human rights is asking a federal court in Michigan to grant a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the “individual mandate” in “Obamacare,” warning that if imposed, it effectively will destroy the nation.

“The term ‘nanny state’ does not even begin to describe what we will have wrought,” argues the brief filed by the Thomas More Law Center.

The organization previously filed a lawsuit on behalf of four Michigan residents who object to the government’s plan to force them to buy health-care insurance and pay for abortions – or be penalized.

The case was brought to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking a halt to the legislation.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Now the law firm has filed a request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the imposition of the financial demands on private citizens.

“If Congress can use the Commerce Clause to force people to purchase insurance based on the mere fact that they exist or face federal penalties, then there is no limit to the power of Congress. Our case is about the constitutional limits of our federal government. Everyone agrees the health care system needs reform. But that doesn’t mean Congress is allowed to violate the Constitution in the process,” said Thomas More Law Center President Richard Thompson.

The brief cited a 1994 Congressional Budget Office report stating, “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

The brief also cites previous court opinions in which alarms have been raised over such a sweeping action.

“There is no enumerated power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to mandate that plaintiffs and other American ‘residents’ purchase health-care coverage or face a penalty. No matter how convinced defendants – or even the American public in general – may be that the Health Care Reform Act is in the public interest, their political objectives can only be accomplished in accord with the Constitution,” the brief states.

Besides a clear problem with the Commerce Clause if the government is allowed to demand residents purchase health insurance, “Obamacare” also conflicts with the First Amendment’s conscience and free expression of religion provisions as well as the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection provisions, the brief explains.

But the courts, the brief explains, are “a guardian of those fundamental liberties, and it possess the constitutional authority to enjoin government acts that tread upon them.”

The case is a dispute over fundamental liberties, the brief said.

“The act forces uninsured persons, such as plaintiffs, to purchase private health-care coverage not because they are even tangentially engaged in the production, distribution or consumption of goods or commodities or any other commercial activity, but for no other reason than they, the uninsured residents, exist,” the brief argues.

“The federal government has never in the history of the United States attempted to stretch the Commerce Clause to include the regulation of inactivity,” the brief argues.

“For the first time in our history, Congress has cited the Commerce Clause as authority to regulate a man or woman sitting in the privacy of his or her own home doing absolutely nothing but breathing.”

The demise of the nation could not be far behind, the brief warns.

“If this is what the Commerce Clause has come to mean, it means the Commerce Clause is the enumerated power of the federal government without the need for any other enumerations because it would permit absolute power. …”

It would, in fact, be the “single omnipresent national polity with absolute power to regulate all spheres of human existence.”

Under this concept, “Liberty is no longer an unalienable right possessed by the individual, but a political privilege or license granted by the state – that being the federal government. This state of affairs effectively reverses the American Revolution and terminates the great experiment founded in the constitutional republic begun by our Founding Fathers.”

If such a provision is allowed, then the government would face no obstacles in ordering private citizens “to engage in affirmative acts, under penalty of law, such as taking vitamins, losing weight, joining health clubs, buying a GMC truck, or purchasing an AIG insurance policy, among others.”

The case was launched by the Thomas More Law Center and attorney David Yerushalmi as soon as Obama signed the legislation March 23.

None of the four Michigan plaintiffs has private health care insurance, and they assert supporting abortion is contrary to their religious beliefs.

Robert Muise, Thomas More’s senior trial counsel, and Yerushalmi prepared the lawsuit.

The original complaint asserts the health-care reform law imposes unprecedented governmental mandates that trample on the personal and economic freedoms of Americans in violation of their constitutional rights.

It also alleges Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause to pass the law and that by usurping the power reserved for the states and the people, Congress violated the Tenth Amendment.

The lawsuit also contends that by forcing private citizens to fund abortion, contrary to their rights of conscience and the free exercise of religion, Congress violated the First Amendment.

Thompson acknowledged Americans agree the health care system needs reform, but “they don’t want a federal takeover of the system in the process. And they don’t want reform by trampling on our Constitution.”

Fact-checking Obamacare Summit

Yesterday at 12:01pm

We should be thankful for yesterday’s 7-hour health care summit – it was helpful in that it allowed Americans to hear the fundamental differences in approaches to meeting health care challenges. On one side, commonsense conservatives laid out fiscally-sound, free market-based, patient-centered solutions; and on the left’s side we heard about the Democrat’s belief that growing government is the only way to meet challenges.
As the saying goes, “Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not his own facts.” When these “facts” concern one-sixth of our economy and something as important to our personal wellbeing as health care, we’d better make sure they are the real deal.
Please take a look at the compilation below from GOP.com correcting the top five falsehoods from yesterday’s summit. I appreciate their research and revelations compiled here.

– Sarah Palin

TOP FIVE FALSEHOODS
If Democrats Would Start Listening To The American People, They’d Stop Telling Falsehoods

NO ONE’S TALKING ABOUT RECONCILIATION?

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Claims “No One Has Talked About Reconciliation.” “No one has said — I read what the President has online — no one has talked about reconciliation but that’s what you folks have talked about ever since that came out, as if it’s something that has never been done before.” (“Transcript: White House Health Summit, Morning Session,” Kaiser Health News, 2/25/10)
But Reid Himself Is Talking About Reconciliation. “Harry Reid’s got a gift for hyperbole – and it keeps on giving. The Senate majority leader’s latest gem came in response to hints that Democrats might try to use the fast-track budget ‘reconciliation’ to bypass a Republican filibuster of President Obama’s health care plan. After advising Republicans on Tuesday to ‘stop crying over reconciliation as if it’s never been done before,’ he ticked off a list of legislative feats he contends were accomplished through the filibuster-busting process: ‘Contract [with] America was done with reconciliation. Tax cuts, done with reconciliation. Medicare, done with reconciliation.’” (Jonathan Allen, “Hyperbolic Harry,” Politico’s “Live Pulse” Blog, 2/24/10)
“For Some Bizarre Reason, During His Initial Presentation, Sen. Reid Said That ‘No One Has Talked About Reconciliation,’ … But That’s Obviously Not True. Everybody’s Talking About It. And A Lot Of Dems Would Be Pretty Upset If They Weren’t Talking About It.” (Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo’s “Editors Blog” Blog, 2/25/10)

  • “A Number Of Democratic Senators Have Signed A Letter Urging Reid To Use Reconciliation To Pass The Public Option.” (Eric Zimmermann, “Reid: ‘No One Has Talked About Reconciliation,’” The Hill’s “Briefing Room” Blog, 2/25/10)

Obama Health Reform Advisor Says The Door Is Open For Reconciliation. “Linda Douglass, the communications director of the White House Office of Health Reform, left reconciliation on the table as an option for passing a health care bill if Democrats and Republicans don’t reach consensus during Thursday’s summit. … ‘Certainly if that were not to be the case, he would be asking for a simple up or down majority vote and would certainly hope that the Republicans would not try to block that simple up or down majority vote.’” (Carol Lee & Patrick O’Connor, “Douglass Open To Reconciliation,” Politico’s “44” Blog, 2/25/10)

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AREN’T INTERESTED IN RECONCILIATION?

Obama Claims Americans Don’t Care About Reconciliation. “You know, this issue of reconciliation has been brought up. Again I think the American people aren’t always all that interested in procedures inside the Senate. I do think they want a vote on how we’re going to move this forward.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)
But 52% Of Americans Don’t Want The Democrats To Use Reconciliation To Pass Their Government-Run Health Care Experiment. “In the survey, Americans by 52%-39% oppose Senate Democrats using the procedure, which allows a bill to pass with a 51-vote majority rather than the 60 votes needed to end debate.” (Susan Page, “Poll: Expectations Low On Health Summit,” USA Today, 2/25/10)

DEM PROPOSALS WILL LOWER PREMIUMS?

President Obama Claimed CBO Determined His Plan Would Lower Premiums. PRESIDENT OBAMA: “It’s not factually accurate. Here’s what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they’re currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.” SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN): “The Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market as a result of the Senate bill.” PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No, no, no, no. Let me — and this is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight.” ALEXANDER: “That’s my point.” OBAMA: “Well, exactly, so let me — let me respond to what you just said, Lamar, because it’s not factually accurate. Here’s what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they’re currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)
But Actually, CBO Determined The Bill Would Raise Premiums For Americans Purchasing Insurance Individually. “CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.” (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), 11/30/09)

INCREMENTAL PLANS ARE UNACCEPTABLE?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “[I]naction And Incrementalism Are Simply Unacceptable.” (Mike Allen, “Will Dr. Obama Go For Plan B-1, Or Plan B-2? — Dems’ Post-Summit Message: POTUS Was ‘Thoughtful, Comprehensive,’ Rs ‘Insulted The Summit’ — New NYT Expose May Finish Gov. Paterson,” Politico’s “Playbook,” 2/25/10)
But 56.4 Percent Of Americans Prefer An Incremental Approach. “Moreover, 56.4 percent of people indicated they would prefer Congress to tackle healthcare reform on a step-by-step basis, not take the comprehensive approach as embodied in the legislation that passed the House and Senate last year but has stalled for the past month.” (Jeffrey Young, “Poll: Most Americans Think Congress Should Start Over On Healthcare,” The Hill’s “Briefing Room” Blog, 2/16/10)

PUBLIC FUNDS WOULDN’T GO TO ABORTION?

Pelosi Said Abortion Wouldn’t Be Funded Under The Plan. “The law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these bills and I don’t want our listeners or viewers to get the wrong impression from what you said.” (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)
But The Bill Allows Federally Funded Abortions. “Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the insurance exchanges the bill would set up. The exchanges are designed to serve individuals who lack coverage through their jobs, with most receiving federal subsidies to buy insurance. Enrollees in plans that cover abortion procedures would pay with separate checks — one for abortion, one for any other health-care services.” (Paul Kane, “To Sway Nelson, A Hard-Won Compromise On Abortion Issue,” The Washington Post, 12/20/10)
Pro-Life Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) Calls Obama’s Abortion Language “Unacceptable.” “Unfortunately, the president’s proposal encompasses the senate language allowing public funding of abortion. The senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable.” (Ben Smith,” Stupak: “Unacceptable,” Politico’s “Live Pulse” Blog, 2/23/10)
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) Says 15 To 20 House Dems Who Can’t Support Obama’s Proposal. “Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who led efforts to tighten abortion language in the House health care bill, said Wednesday morning there are 15 to 20 House Democrats who cannot support President Barack Obama’s effort to bridge the gap between the House and Senate health plans. … He said well over a dozen House members will likely balk, not just on abortion but on the residual tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which he said the House had already rejected.” (“Stupak: 15-20 Dems Can’t Back Obama Health Plan,” The Wall Street Journal’s “Washington Wire” Blog, 2/24/10)

More of the Same, Only More Expensive

The President has wrestled control of the health care debate away from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid by finally introducing his own plan. Unfortunately, the White House’s proposal includes everything we found untenable about the old Senate bill – only this one is even more expensive! This is what you might call putting “perfume on a pig.”
What’s in this “new” proposal? It has the unpopular (and arguably unconstitutional) individual mandate that forces people and employers to purchase health insurance – only this time with much harsher fines on employers who choose not to go along with another expensive government mandate. It has provisions that will make employers think twice before expanding their workforce. It has cuts to Medicare Advantage, a popular program which allows seniors to pay a little more money out of pocket for better coverage. And, of course, it still has sweetheart deals – only this time they’ve been extended even more.
We don’t know what the final long-term cost of this will be because the Congressional Budget Office hasn’t had a chance to calculate costs. We do know that the White House recognizes that its proposal will cost tens of billions more over the next ten years than the already-expensive $2.5 trillion Senate bill. The President promised last July that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.” But he’s now proposing a health care bill with uncertain fiscal repercussions that could lead to endless deficits.
The rising cost of care has driven the entire health care reform debate. So how does the President’s proposal address this central issue? Price controls. That’s right: Washington, D.C. wants to give a panel of bureaucrats the power to cap insurance premiums and prices. As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute notes, “artificially limiting premium growth allows the government to curtail spending while leaving the dirty work of withholding medical care to private insurers.” This leads to rationing. Any economist worth his salt – including the White House’s own Larry Summers – will tell you that price controls lead to all sorts of negative unintended consequences. It’s another step towards government controlled health care and away from the real solution: free market, patient-centered reform.
With a government-growing proposal this bad, it’s no wonder the President wants bipartisan cover for it in an election year. Thursday’s health care summit is already being revealed as little more than a photo-op. The Obama administration still denies the existence of the House Republicans’ health care plan that offers alternative solutions to health care challenges – even though the White House website links right to it.
The President’s proposal doesn’t include pro-free market ideas like allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, giving individual buyers the same tax benefits as those who get insurance through their employers, or instituting real medical liability reform. Despite the “kumbaya” rhetoric, Democrats are making plans to ram this bill through the Senate using a partisan procedural maneuver that will bypass the normal bipartisan debate process.
In the meantime, the White House will continue to ignore Republican reform ideas and cast the GOP as the party of no. That’s a hard sell considering that Democrats still hold the majority in the House and Senate. The only real “gridlock” preventing Democrats from doing what they want is the very real threat of America’s voice being heard at the ballot box.
The public is clearly opposed to the Democrats’ health care bills. Americans want to scrap these big-government plans and start over with common-sense, incremental reform. Some on the left have urged Democrats to vote for Obamacare because it’s a foot in the door for universal health care. They understand what’s at stake; so should the rest of us.
The President can perfume this proposal however he wants, but it still doesn’t pass the smell test. Washington should listen to Americans now, or Washington will hear us in November.

 

– Sarah Palin

The Way Things Really Are 10/29/09

This came from a financial blog. The guy hits the nail right on the head.

The speaker of the house today gleefully announced as only she can do that a sweeping new bill has worked its way through the house chamber and once enacted, will provide affordable health INSURANCE for nearly every American.

To do this, the new bill will create a public health INSURANCE company to compete with private insurance companies, require everyone to have insurance, subsidize low income workers by taking from others (again) and require large businesses to cover their employees. Large businesses will presumably (the bill did not seem to consider what large businesses will do to make up the added cost) either pass the cost on to the consumer (another hidden tax further eroding discretionary income) or if competing with foreign manufacturers will probably just go out of business, but heck, congress has been doing that to our workers for a long time so that is nothing new. We will just keep extending unemployment benefits and stick the bill to the next several generations.

The stated price tag for this insurance coverage is estimated at only $894 billion. This $894 billion dollar boondoggle is the result of trying to cover 25 million un-insured with health INSURANCE. Do the math. That is $35,760 for each un-insured. Hey, it’s a government program so what did you expect? A bargain? Consider this. The ancestors of today’s demo goons thought social security would only require $30 per worker per year. Today, the payroll tax bite for that little gem and its offspring Medicare is up to $15,300 per worker per year which is I guess just a Washington style rounding error from the original $30 per year estimate.

So don’t be surprised if the $894 billion swells to the stratosphere just as every other government program has done. The insanity in all this is Obama actually praised Medicare many times as being a good example of what can be done in having the government provide this sort of program. I guess he does not realize that Medicare is now under funded by nearly $40 Trillion. But hey, there is no accountability if they are wrong and the future will get the bill, not you and me, so why even care?

We are still in a deep recession, yet here we go again, being led by Obama, down another path of treating the recession with higher taxes, higher costs, and more government spending. And in this case, the government has done absolutely nothing to reign in the originally stated problem of the cost of health CARE itself. This is because the original goal of making health CARE more affordable was very quickly shown to be a difficult goal, so Obama and his spin-minions changed course in March and began marching toward the revised goal of making health INSURANCE more affordable, thus creating a “crisis” in health INSURANCE. Government just loves a “crisis”.

Question. How many long distance passenger rail lines of significance do we have in this country? Other than Amtrak? None that I know of. Keep that thought in mind, because the government has been subsidizing Amtrak and Amtrak in turn has charged less for a ticket than its costs would otherwise indicate. Hence, there are no other long distance passenger rail lines because the private sector is not allowed to just print money. It has to earn it. So private enterprise can not compete with government.

Apply this Amtrak analogy to the fact that the government is going to sell health INSURANCE and compete against the private health INSURANCE companies. The only reason to buy the government’s insurance would be that it is cheaper, that is a given. So, if it too is subsidized just like Amtrak (remember the $894 billion estimate – that is the estimated cost of subsidy at this point), how then is there to be a different result? How are we to avoid wiping out most private sector health INSURANCE companies? This is a very real possibility, but we should not question Obama as that is un American.

These same goons in government garb recently tried to provide housing for nearly everyone in America by creating two public GSE’s (Fannie and Freddie) that were to help lower the cost of a MORTGAGES instead of increasing discretionary incomes (cutting taxes) or making the cost of HOUSING itself more affordable. Do you remember what happened? The cost of HOUSING increased due to the bubble demand created by the government assisted mortgage programs. The result, HOUSING costs for everyone went up, and then the MORTGAGES failed and many more people than were originally helped saw their life savings wiped out as the stock market failed, as the value of their real estate declined, and as the round of foreclosures still working its way through our economy put people in the streets, literally, after losing their jobs and their houses. In the end, the government’s attempt to provide a government assist to home ownership actually deprived millions of their homes, and many more millions of their livelihood. Did socialism work? No. So heck, let’s try it again anyway.

So we are now going to spend $35,000 per uninsured, raise the cost of doing business, become even less competitive with overseas suppliers, and hope the taxpayer is still too dumb to see the real cost of doing this. So I say yippee. We have now “fixed” the health INSURANCE “crisis”. In Washington speak, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste”.

What have we done to make health CARE more affordable? Nothing. We gave up on that “crisis” in March because changing that paradigm would have stepped on too many toes belonging to too many special interests that donate too many funds to Political Action Committees just as did the GSE’s and the banking Industry in the last debacle. So with health CARE costs continuing to climb, and health INSURANCE costs capped at will by the government (we will probably have another Czar, yippee again), the health INSURANCE industry is going to be in for a rough ride, just as a passenger rail line would be in if it tried to compete with Amtrak. We are not supposed to think of these things. Instead, just trust Pelosi. After all, she is from a state that is now broke. So let’s be more like California.

The bottom line is simply this. In Washington, one “crisis” is as good as another, because a “crisis” is a blank check to expand the role of government. So, if you don’t have a crisis, you can just create one. Housing, global warming, health INSURANCE, etc., etc. See what I mean. With every crisis, you lose more of your freedoms and government gets even bigger, employing more and more people that do nothing of value at great cost, pushing the deficits higher in the process.

America, I am convinced, will fail from the enemy within.

Same Thing – Again, But Now Its New

Pelosi Prepares Release of Public Option Bill

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:52 PM
Article Font Size

WASHINGTON � House Democrats are poised to unveil health care legislation that would vastly alter America’s medical landscape, requiring virtually universal sign-ups and offering a new government-run plan for people without affordable coverage.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was making plans to release the bill Thursday morning, contingent on the outcome of a meeting of House leaders Wednesday afternoon, according to lawmakers and aides.

The rollout would cap months of arduous negotiations to bridge differences between liberal and moderate Democrats and blend health care overhaul bills passed by three separate committees over the summer. The developments in the House came as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to round up support among moderate Democrats for his bill, which includes a modified government insurance option that states could opt out of.

The final product in the House, reflecting many of President Barack Obama’s priorities, includes new requirements for employers to offer insurance to their workers or face penalties, fines on Americans who don’t purchase coverage and subsidies to help lower-income people do so. Insurance companies would face new prohibitions against charging much more to older people or denying coverage to people with health conditions.

The price tag, topping $1 trillion over 10 years, would be paid for by taxing high-income people and cutting some $500 billion in payments to Medicare providers.

"I’m pretty confident that we’ve got the right pieces in place," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, one of the three panels involved in writing the bill. "We can quibble over parts of it, but the fact is when you’re taking a 60-year-old system that grew up in a rather haphazard fashion and you’re trying to bring some coherence to it, these are sort of the things you have to do at the beginning of that process."

In the end, Pelosi, D-Calif., and other House leaders were unable to round up the necessary votes for their preferred version of the government insurance plan � one that would base payment rates to providers on rates paid by Medicare. Instead, the health and human services secretary would be allowed to negotiate rates with providers and the program would be optional for states, the approach preferred by moderates and the one that will be featured in the Senate’s version.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Emphasis added by Freedom Finder

Political Power at the Heart of the Democrat’s Proposed Health Care Legislation

BYLINE: THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Political power, rather than substance, is at the heart of the Democrats’ proposed health care legislation. Admission of that power-politics reality was the most significant occurrence in a very odd town-hall meeting Tuesday night held by Virginia Democratic Rep. James P. Moran. It is now clearer than ever that plaintiffs’ lawyers collectively are the political powerhouse running the health care show.
A constituent at the meeting, quite reasonably, asked Mr. Moran the following question: "There is $200 billion of savings over 10 years if you have [lawsuit] reform, and nobody loses but the lawyers. Why isn’t [lawsuit] reform in the bill?"
On this question, as on more than half of those asked by the audience, Mr. Moran deferred to his guest, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, to provide a response. Mr. Dean’s answer was candid: "When you go to pass an enormous bill like that, the more stuff you put in it, the more enemies you make. The reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth…. This bill has enough enemies. The more groups you take on, the more enemies you make."
When Mr. Moran retook the microphone, he praised the constituent for "a very good question" and added, "that’s your answer … a good answer."
Of course, the answer was good only in that it accurately described the political situation. On substance, the answer was terrible. Neither Mr. Moran nor Mr. Dean could defend the lack of tort reform in the bill because there is no good, substantive reason for refusing to rein in the wealthy plaintiffs’ bar. There is no good, substantive reason for refusing to protect doctors from ridiculous jackpot justice while the rest of us pay through the nose for the cost of additional malpractice insurance.

The only reason the lawyers escape scot-free is that they give so much money – 95 percent of their federal campaign donations in virtually every election cycle – to the Democrats who are writing the bills.
To be blunt, this mollycoddling of lawyers is legislative malpractice. In state after state that has tried medical malpractice reform – there are 25 in all – costs have gone down, the number of doctors settling in the state has gone up, and patient services have improved. As far back as 2003, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that high litigation costs contributed to declines in health care quality. In 2007, researchers Jonathan Klick of Florida State University and Thomas Stratmann of George Mason University reported that malpractice reforms also appear to have a substantial, beneficial effect on historically underserved populations – for instance, by cutting black infant mortality rates by 6 percent.
Would-be reformers who refuse to stop lawsuit abuse give lie to their claims to be putting patients first. Mr. Dean’s candor should awaken congressional Democrats. The public won’t trust them to reform health care until they stop kowtowing to the plaintiffs’ lawyers who treat them as political chattel.

Wordpress SEO Plugin by SEOPressor