You know .. this could be a regular feature on Nealz Nuze .. the Government Moonbat of the Week.  Shooting ducks in a pond!  The hard part would be choosing just one. 

Today's choice would Rhode Island Democrat Senator Jack Reed.  Like many of his colleagues, Reed was asked the following question: Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can force individuals buy health insurance?

This question has caught a lot of politicians off-guard.  Princess Nancy, for instance. Her response was .. "Are you serious?  Is that a real question?"  Nancy, you see, didn't know the answer.  Strap that twit up to a lie detector and you would discover that she has never even read the Constitution, much less dedicate herself to honoring it.  Actually, let me back up for a minute.  Princess Nancy knows the answer but she just doesn't want to say it. 

So the latest victim of this question was Sen. Jack Reed.  First he says that he would have to "get back to you on the specific sections."  Yeah; I'll just bet. Well, I'm here to help, so I'll make his research a little bit easier.

There is no point is perusing the Constitution looking for sections to justify the government takeover and mandate of healthcare.  It isn't there.   Senator Roland Burris could also use a little refresher on this one.  When asked the same question, Burris sighted the Constitution's line about providing for the "general welfare and health" of the public.  The only problem is that it doesn't exist.  Nowhere in the Constitution does the word "health" appear.  Burris would be a past Moonbat of the Week winner. 

But Senator Reed wasn't through:  He went on to say, "But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don't think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution].  It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn't say you can take people and draft them."  Okay ... let's stop right there. 

What is Reed saying here?  Basically .. that the Congress doesn't need Constitutional authority to act.  The political class just does what it wants, and makes excuses later.  There are absolutely NO citizen mandates outlined in the Constitution.  The Constitution was written to control government, not the people.  This is a simple concept lost to most politicians. 

Senator Jack Reed didn't stop there (though he probably should have).  He went on to say, "[The Constitution] gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn't say you can take people and draft them.  But since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it's been recognized, the authority to do that."  Do you see what Senator Reed is saying?  He's telling us that, in his view, the people exist for the purpose of facilitating the functioning of the government.  The government isn't there to serve us .. we are here to serve government.  This is precisely the response you would expect from a member of the Party of Government .. .the Democrat Party.   

Princess Nancy is trying hard to convince you that government knows what is best.  So far, I haven't seen ANY evidence that would lead me to believe that this is true.  But she continues to believe that the government is perfectly justified in forcing you, at the point of a gun, to purchase health insurance.  She was asked by a reporter whether or not she thinks it is fair to send people to jail who don't buy health insurance.  And her response was that she believes "the legislation is very fair in this respect."

Care to guess who the pundits are calling the most powerful politician in Washington?  That would be Nancy Pelosi ... the woman who thinks it's just fine for the government to slam you into a jail cell if you don't buy stuff the government wants you to buy ... is the most powerful person in this country.

It's too early for a drink ... but what the hell. 

...I will hand our health care system over to the government. 

This is the story of Congressman Jim Costo. He's a Democrat (big surprise there) from California (another big surprise).   Costo decided that it could help the government seize control of our health care system, but there was a price.  Some big bucks would have to be spent in his district.  So ... here come the big dollars in the form of $120 million dollars for a medical school ... and there goes his vote in favor of PelosiCare. 

Don't you love the way congress works?  There are probably dozens of stories just like this one. 

The looters must have hated this. Right there on your very own television screen you could see people - hundreds of people - lined up to receive their Swine Flu shots. Particularly poignant were the pictures of young women carrying infants waiting hours in these lines for their shots.

You do know, don't you, that the manufacture of this Swine Flu vaccine was essentially a government operation. To be sure, private manufacturers were producing the vaccine; but they were doing so under government contracts following government rules and regulations and with no small amount of control and interference from government bureaucrats. There is no doubt that if the private drug manufacturers had been turned loose to produce this vaccine and to sell it on the open marketplace there would have been no shortages. The shortages were caused by government. This is your future when the looters manage to take over one-sixth of our economy --- when the government controls your health care. Oh ... you're going to love this stuff.

Maybe the Democrats are hoping that third time is a charm?  What I mean by that is that the Democrats are trying anything and everything they can to make you people like their plans to take over our healthcare system.  In the past, they have relied on simple tricks to sway public option ... like buzz words and focus groups.  But something has gone awry lately.  No matter what the Democrats call their government takeover of healthcare, people aren't liking it. 

Oh, no!  What is a Democrat to do?

So first we had "public healthcare reform."  Then it was "insurance reform."  There was also the "public option."  Some say that the original name for the "public option" was the "government option."  I can't verify that, and it seems unlikely our political class would be that honest.  Well ... it's time to rename "the public option" and  Princess Nancy has come up with a new moniker .... "the consumer option."  If you don't like that one, she suggests another name:  "the competitive option."  This is how Nancy Pelosi would like to refer to the government takeover of healthcare.  Now you good Democrat myrmidons remember -- if you are unfortunate enough to get into a conversation with a liberal today, remember to use the new phrase "competitive option" so as to not offend him or her.

You will love this explanation from Princess Nancy as to why the name needs to be changed.  Listen to this: "You'll hear everyone say, 'There's got to be a better name for this ... When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars."  Oh right, Nancy.  No taxpayer dollars involved, right?  And by the way ... the proper phrase is "taxpayer dollars," not "public dollars."  Do we see another change in terminology coming here?

Here's the story of a doctor who had a general surgery practice in a rural California town. She outlines her experience of dealing with patients who were receiving healthcare on the taxpayer dime all the while spending their money on luxury items.

According to Dr. Linda Halderman, the following items were commonly seen on patients or carried by their dependent children who's medical coverage was being covered by subsidized programs:

• Cell phones and "BlackBerry" PDAs, including just-released models with a price tag of $400, plus an ongoing monthly service fee of $65-$150
• iPods and portable DVD players
• GameBoys and handheld electronic games
• Artificial fingernails requiring maintenance every two weeks at a cost of $40-$60 per salon visit
• Elaborate braided hair weaves, $300 per session plus frequent maintenance
• Custom-designed body art, including tattoos covering the entire torso, neck and arms, as well as body jewelry piercing every skin surface imaginable-and a few unimaginable ones.
• Custom tattoo work, particularly the "portrait-type" and "half sleeve" art popular in this area, runs from $100-$300 per hour and can require up to 20 hours of work, depending on the complexity of the design.

These people have all of this money to spend on non-essentials, but not enough money to provide for their own basic healthcare, or their children's.

Looks like it. I heard McCaskill yesterday speaking out about these advertisements on cable television for scooters. She says many of these scooters are for people who don't need them. She's right. They're just fatasses who don't want to walk. You folks would be shocked to know how much our government spends on these things. Hint ... look way past hundreds of millions.

Besides .. they really can clog up a walking path.

Barack Obama and the Democrats are starting to get the picture. And why? Because of all those KKK, Brooks Brothers-wearing, Nazi evil-mongers were making their feelings known at rallies and town hall meetings around the country. The message seems to have been heard, and the looters are starting to realize that their plans for a government-run health insurance option are not what the American people want. Well ... maybe they don't understand that it isn't what the people want, but maybe they understand that they won't be re-elected if they support it.

Well guess what happened over the weekend while you were enjoying a few days off? The so-called "public option" is now on life support. This from Senator Kent Conrad "...there are not the votes in the United States Senate for a public option. There never have been." Conrad also says that it is futile to continue to "chase the rabbit." Why do we really care what Kent Conrad thinks? Well, he is one of the six members of the Senate Finance Committee who are negotiating a healthcare compromise bill. For now, he matters.

Well .. there must be something up the Democrat sleeves, right? You're right. The idea now is for the creation of creating non-profit insurance cooperatives. These co-ops would sell insurance in competition with the private sector. Level playing field? Hardly. These co-ops will have $4 billion in initial support from the government. Conrad's plan would place the co-ops under a national structure with state affiliates, however they would be independent of the government. They would also be required to have the same financial reserves as private companies.

Well, this certainly beats the snot out of government-owned health insurance companies ... but the devil is going to be in the details here. Just what degree of government control will there be? Will there be continuing subsidies? Non-profit means that they can't end the year with an operating profit. How about a loss? How will losses be funded?

Maybe the real story here is that, no matter how much the Democrats hated it, the people who showed up at the rallies and town hall meetings appear to have had an effect. These politicians are wondering if they can still count on the notoriously short memories of voters. Efforts like this are generally passed in off-years, and that would be because the politicians think you will have forgotten all about it by the next year when the election hits. Maybe that's changing.

Another thing about the public option: Is it possible that the voters have finally figured out that this is nothing more than a way to run the private insurance companies out of business? Are voters becoming educated? For now I'm going to think that's the case. Hope I'm not disappointed.

Our friend Herman Cain gets the crowd going at America's Health Care Town Hall in Atlanta Saturday, August 15th. Since this is such a hot topic, we are going to bring you a Health Care Reform Special on Monday, August 24th noon-1pm ET. Clark Howard will join us with WSB's Scott Slade moderating. If you have a question you'd like covered, submit it here.

Barack Obama has said that the Canadian healthcare system is not an option for Americans. That's probably for the best considering that the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says that their healthcare system is about to "implode." The new president, Dr. Anne Doig admits that patients are getting "less than optimal care" and that changes must be made to the system. She says, "We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize."

But ... saying that the Canadian system is not an option for Americans doesn't mean it ain't so. All nationalized health care systems seem to eventually develop the same very bad traits, and that would include rationing and hideous costs.

If, in fact, the public option is on the way out, we can't let our guard down. Rationing, sub-standard care, long waits and high costs are not limited to systems with government health insurance ... they show up in systems run by government, period. Government-run health care is still very much on the table.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius appeared on CNN over the weekend. In describing Obama's plan for a government option, here's what Sebelius had to say:

"There will be a competition to private insurers ... You don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices and we need some competition."

Oh yeah ... we all know that it's the private sector that destroys choice and competition; certainly not the government.

For all of my listeners at WDBO in the Orlando area, listen up. You elected this pathetic excuse for a Congressman, Alan Grayson. Here's your chance to have some face-time. Now today is Monday August 17th and the health care town hall is tonight. But Jamie Dupree points out the fact that Alan Grayson set this town hall meeting yesterday. Yep, you have approximately one day's notice to show up at this event. Do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that Grayson knows what would happen if he gave you people even more time to plan to attend? The guy is a lot of things, but he definitely isn't an idiot ... he knows that there are a lot of you who do not support the Democrat plan for healthcare reform. But that's not really what he cares about, is it? Nope. Alan Grayson has one solitary goal in mind: stay in power. Get re-elected. Don't goof up enough for the great people of Orlando to notice. So here's your chance to tell him exactly what you think.

WHAT: Health Care Town Hall

WHEN: Monday, August 17, 2009, 7:45 p.m.

WHERE: IBEW Local 606 Union Hall, 820 Virginia Drive, Orlando, FL

DETAILS: Congressman Alan Grayson will host a town hall meeting to discuss the need for health care reform, listen to concerns or answer questions from the constituents he serves, and debunk the many myths being circulated about the current proposals. The Congressman intends for and expects this event to be a respectful and productive discussion. This is the second public health care meeting the Congressman has held during the summer district work period. On July 27th, he met with about fifty members of his Health Care Advisory Board. The meeting was announced 72 hours in advance, open to the public, and promoted and covered by multiple media outlets. The Congressman also will conduct a health care telephone town hall on Thursday, August 20th at 7 p.m. People interested in being a part of that event can sign up on the Congressman's website.

Grayson is a one-term looter. Remind him of that if you should get the opportunity.

In spite of the name-calling from the looters and moochers, I have no desire to drown out the voices in support of government-run healthcare. I truly believe that those who support what I see as a Democrat effort to secure control of vast numbers of Americans by controlling their health care need to be heard. Our ability to fight this seizure of power is only enhanced by listening respectfully to what the proponents have to say and formulating a logical and reasoned response. In the talk radio station where I began my career as a big mouth there was a sign: "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." You can see the poster here. The words are from an English member of parliament named John Viscount Morley. It is absolutely the best possible poster you could find to hang in a talk radio studio. Wish I could find one.

Anyway ... there most certainly have been instances where opponents of ObamaCare have shouted down proponents in town hall meetings. This needs to stop. Our recent history has been one of liberal crowds shouting down conservative speakers on college campuses. Somehow the media and Democrat politicians never seemed to notice. Ditto for the crowds of protesters who would continually shout down President Bush and administration officials over the Iraq war. Again, the media didn't seem to notice. Now, however, things are different. We have a president who was essentially installed in office by a fawning media. He is there creation, and their creation must be protected if for no reason other than to assuage their same at what was an obvious mistake. OK ... let them play their game. We're on to them ... we know the score. What is good for liberals protesting evil conservatives is not necessarily good for conservatives protesting the actions of well-meaning, compassionate, genuine, loving liberals.

So ... yesterday on my show I repeatedly begged listeners to make a call. Call the show and convince me that Obama and the Democrats are sincerely concerned about our health care. Show me that they really stay awake nights worrying that somewhere there is an American in need of health care yet going untreated. Not one call. Not one solitary, stinking call. Not one caller out of millions would call in to try to make the case that the issue here is health care, not control over the people.

Thus ... the name calling .....

... and I've been doing this for awhile, so that's saying something.

Try looking at this health care debate from the Democrat perspective. It has been a Democrat dream for decades to control the nation's health care delivery system. They thought they had it made in 1993 after Clinton's defeat of George H.W. Bush. Hillary got to work and created a monstrosity of a plan for government control of our health care, and it died a well-deserved and rather painful death. Within a year the Republicans had control of the House and the Senate.

For the following 15 years the Democrats wandered in the wilderness ... just waiting for their next opportunity to seize control of the American health care system. In 2003 Obama was making speeches telling of his support for a single-payer (government) health care system. He would tell the crowds that first "we have to take back the House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the White House." That magic day arrived on February 20, 2009. For the past 15 years I have been telling my listeners that if and when the Democrats once again control in Washington they would begin working immediately to make sure that they NEVER lost that control again, and they would do that by insuring that Americans became so dependent on government and Democrat policies that reelections were assured. So .. here we are, and here they go ... again.

Do you really understand how important this is to the looters? First, they have a president who has foolishly overreached. We're facing an economic crisis and, under the mantra of never letting a good crisis go to waste, Obama puts his chips wholly into ObamaCare .. a government takeover of American health care. Democrats feel that their failure to get ObamaCare passed will destroy Obama's presidency. They're willing to destroy American health care to save their leader. No surprise. Secondly .. Democrats earnestly feel that they may be looking at this as their last great chance. Perhaps they think that it's now or never. If they don't put our health care under their vast umbrella of government protectionism and coercion .. they may never get another shot.

Democrats are looking forward to elections in the years to come where they can tell the American dumb mass voter "If you vote for the Republican, he's going to take your health care away." They can't do this if government doesn't control health care. You starting to get the picture here? If not .. you had better clean your lens. This is a major threat to our republic and your future, not to mention the future of your children. Stay awake. Become involved. Be relentless.

Are there any names left that the left hasn't thought to call these town hall protestors? I mean, for the sake of argument, let's run through the list one more time.

Un-American.
Terrorists.
Nazis.
Brownshirts.
KKK.

Right-wing mobsters.

Now we have yet another one to add to the list. This comes from none other than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Are you ready for this?

"Evil mongers."

Got it? He says that people who are disrupting these healthcare town hall meetings with "lies, innuendo and rumor" are "evil mongers." And he is proud of coining the term! As if this is really going to help his fellow Democrats get ANYWHERE in terms of healthcare reform. It's funny that Democrats say we should focus on the issue of healthcare rather than these protestors but then they themselves play the game and call the protestors names. This is the level of brain-dead, power-hungry politics that we have allowed to maintain power in Washington. We are to blame, folks. We vote these people into power.

Speaking of protestors ...

GO FLAG YOURSELF!

Another Democrat attack on those who value private sector health care has come to light.

Remember the cute little girl who was "randomly" selected to ask PrezBO a question at his town hall meeting earlier this week? She asked Obama about all of those signs outside saying "mean things" about Obama's health care plan. Well Michelle Malkin did a superb job of getting to the truth here. The little girl, one Julia Hall, was none other than the daughter of an Obama campaign worker and donor Kathleen Manning Hall. Julia's mother even has pictures of her arm-in-arm with Obama on her web page.

OK ... so the evil right points out that this girl is obviously a plant, and how do the Democrats respond? They're OUTRAGED, I tell you, OUTRAGED ... because evil conservatives are ATTACKING this cute little girl! How DARE they?

So .. here's how it works. This woman uses her daughter as a prop for ObamaCare. She's exposed by that evil Michelle Malkin. Other evil mongers spread the word ... and suddenly we're attacking a cute little girl.

Desperation isn't attractive.

For weeks now, but particularly this week, we have heard cries about these end-of-life provisions included in the healthcare bill. These are the provisions that call for counselors to visit homes every five years and advise the elderly on their end-of-life options. It also turned into a debate over whether this would lead to "death panels" and euthanasia for seniors.

Well it seems as though enough of a stink has been made. The provision has been dropped from the bill. According to Senator Chuck Grassley, "the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly."

Let's be clear on something here. "Dropped from the bill" does not necessarily mean "off the table." All the Democrats need to do is get their basic framework passed. Then they're home free to push the full package on us later.

Sheila Jackson Lee, the incredibly dense congresswoman from Houston, has managed to out-do herself. At a time when the Democrats are really fighting a disastrous PR image because of the town hall response to healthcare reform ... Sheila Jackson Lee definitely didn't help her cause with this arrogant stunt.

Here's what happened. Jackson-Lee decided to actually hold a town hall meeting in her district, which is more than a lot of her fellow Democrats can say. But during her town hall meeting a woman stands up and starts to explain why she is opposed to the Democrat healthcare plan. While the woman is speaking, Sheila Jackson Lee actually answers her cell phone. Yes, she gets out her cell phone while a constituent is making a statement during this town hall. Unbelievable. Even the crowd thinks it is unbelievably rude. This is like saying to the constituent "Blab all you want. I'm not interested in your opinion, I have a call to take here.' But what more did they expect from this woman. This is the same "public servant" who just used their tax dollars to appear at Michael Jackson's funeral. You people in Texas should be ashamed that you keep electing this twit into office. She actually thinks that our astronauts have planted an American flag on Mars, for goodness' sake. This is exactly the entitlement mentality that prevails in Washington these days. These politicians only care about one thing and that is maintaining power. Many of them simply do not have the job skills to earn in the private sector what they do in Congress. They are in love with the perks and the prestige and they sure as hell aren't there to represent the people of their district.

Looks like Senator Brown tried to hide a town hall meeting from the public. The goal here was to make sure the unions knew when and where the meeting would be, but to misdirect anyone who might oppose government-run health care. Details on the Boortz show today.

There are two schools of thought out there right now when it comes to healthcare reform. The first is that of Rahm Emanuel: Never let a good crisis go to waste. With the economy slowly starting to get better, some analysts in Washington are really worried that they will lose their edge on healthcare reform. Why is that? Well because Barack Obama has been trying for months to pin the turn-around of our economy to healthcare reform. Example .. statement's like this one, "Make no mistake: The cost of our health care is a threat to our economy. It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It is a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America." Sound familiar?

The other school of thought is that the better the economy gets, the less angry people will be about healthcare. Why is that? Because as more people become unemployed, the more people gain health insurance and therefore aren't as emotional on the issue.

Naturally there is a third school of thought, thanks to evil, brown-shirted, white sheet-wearing, swastika toting people like me. The fact is that the people of this country never really bought into this idea that healthcare reform was going to make or break our economy. Sorry, President Obama but you did a lousy job of convincing America. And whether or not the economy gets better, healthcare is always going to be a hot-button issue because it hits close to home for everyone.

I am proud of what we are currently seeing in this country. People are actually getting up and becoming involved. They're engaged. Sure, they get rude every once in a while. That seems to be a problem now. Never was a problem when the rudeness was directed at George Bush.

While healthcare may be the initial topic that got you into a town hall meeting or a protest or rally, there really is something larger at stake. From tea parties to healthcare, we are seeing a backlash against big government. It's about freakin' time. People see a government takeover of healthcare as a huge government takeover of a large segment of our economy and a good portion of our very lives. Somehow people are starting to relate to that. Both parties need to wake up and realize what is going on. Democrats need to realize that these are "real Americans" with "real reservations" and "real votes." Republicans need to realize that these are the people they have abandoned for so many years. If they were smart, they would take that and run with it.

You know, folks, I am sick of this argument. We saw it coming, we knew it would get here, and we know it's never going to go away .. but it's tiring nonetheless.

Yesterday on the show I had a caller, Charles, tell me that the only reason we are seeing these protests against healthcare is because we have a black president. How typical. Another chip-on-the-shoulder moonbat heard from. But Charles was only reciting his liberal talking points that he learned from the lamestream media. Like Chris Matthews, for example. Chris said on his program the other day, "Are you telling me that these guys were created by this new president? That the people we're watching on television with their guns and their attitudes about the republic weren't around before January 20th?!...Okay I think, I think some of the people are upset because we have a black president."

This is nothing new. For decades the left has pulled out the race card whenever things start going the other way. The race card is so deeply ingrained in so many of these people that there is no way in the world they can keep from playing it. The social equation is so profoundly easy with them.

People are opposed to a policy objective.
The policy objective is being proposed by a black person
People are racists

These are the thought patterns that power the left ... that power so many in Washington, and that power Chris Matthews. And so it shall ever be.

This will give you a good chuckle. Watch this ad from MoveOn.org. If you can't watch it right now because your workplace is plagued by the monster that is Sarbanes Oxley, here is a transcript:

They are enormous and powerful. They prey on our weaknesses, trying to separate the healthy from the sick. Their strategy is to confuse and exhaust their victims. And they kill people each year by denying coverage while profiting billions. During shark week, let's take on the real predators: health insurance companies. Call Congress, tell them: don't put insurance profits before health care. Support a real public option.

Yeah ... all those evil health insurance companies making their profits ... and killing people!

Just another wonderful example of the anti-free market liberal mind at work. We all know the government could do a much better job, don't we?

Obama had his healthcare town hall yesterday in New Hampshire. What a bore. I guess the reason it was such a bore was that so many of the questions were offered by Obama campaign workers and Democrat operatives. But what else did we really expect? Do you actually think that Barack Obama's staff would get away with filling an auditorium with anything other than a carefully controlled crowd? No way. That's the last image that America needs to see - Barack Obama being chewed out by angry Americans.

So the event turned out to be pretty dull. He told people not to listen to us hate-mongers. People who "scare or mislead the American people." Obama says that the truly scary thing would be if we did nothing about our healthcare system. He gave us the typical rhetoric: "For all the chatter and the yelling and the shouting and the noise, what you need to know is this ... if you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need." But perhaps the most ironic line of the whole event came when he was trying to describe government competing with the private sector. Obama said, "They do it all the time ... UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

Just what in the world was Obama trying to say with that line about the post office? Was he kidding? How in the world do you promote the cause of government health care by citing an example of how absolutely horrible the government is at doing things? And here's something else to keep in mind: UPS and FedEx are not allowed to compete with the post office in the delivery of first class mail. They aren't allowed to leave packages in mail boxes. And so it will be with government health care. You are delusional if you really think that the Democrats will ever give the private sector to compete against government health care after the government system is fully in place.

And you do realize that many of the questions asked by those folks at the ObamaEvent were plants, don't you? That's Obama's style. Michelle Malkin has been doing a wonderful job keeping up with Obama's planned encounters with people at his various town hall meetings. You can read her full report right here. But let's take a look at one particular moment from yesterday's Obama town hall meeting

Remember the cute little girl who asked Obama how do kids know what is true and why do people want a new health care system? Her name is Julia Hall and she's 11 years old. Her mother is an attorney, Kathleen Manning Hall. On Kathleen Hall's Facebook page there's a picture of her with Barack Obama. She has contributed thousands of dollars to Obama, and her law firm has contributed thousands more. Now you tell me what the chances are that she was randomly called on at the ObamaEvent.

Look ... it 's the president. The organizers of that event could absolutely be expected to do everything they could to avoid an embarrassing moment for Obama. If you think that what you saw was really an open forum on health care ... well ... what can I say. You're an ... um ... and Obama voter. Simple as that.

Honestly the most entertaining thing that happened yesterday was not Barack Obama's townhall but Arlen Specter. Whew .. boy did he get his behind handed to him.

Okay so let's recap. All of you who are attending these healthcare town hall events and voicing your concerns, you are ..

Un-American.
Brownshirts.
Terrorists.
Right-wing mobsters.
Nazis.

And now let's add a comparison to the KKK into the mix. Rep. John Dingell appeared on MSNBC yesterday. He compared the current atmosphere to the one he experienced when he voted for the civil rights bill. He says, "At that time we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble."

So there you go. All of you folks who are running around town to attend these healthcare town halls, in the eyes of this Congressman you are no different than the opposition he saw during the civil rights movement.

And once again it is going to take an informed, aware minority to get this done. Generations of government educated Americans have, sadly, produced a population largely composed of government drones who believe that government has been, is, and always shall be the answer to life's greatest problems. These people simply are not aware enough to recognized the failures of government (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, The USPS, etc) and the successes of the private market.

Democrats are the party of control. They are manipulators of the mob. Democrats know that their key to power is control. The more control they exercise over the voters, the easier it is for them to manipulate those voters into keeping them in power. Right now Democrats know that they cannot realistically control your access to food, transportation or shelter. To be sure, there are elements of our society that depend on the government for those needs, and for them the government has food stamps, public transportation and welfare housing. Still the majority of people are self-sufficient in these areas and aren't going to stand by and watch the government take over these segments of our economy ... at least not yet.

Then there's health care. After World War II the Democrats set their sights on controlling health care. They knew it would be a long process, but they began immediately to set the stage. They adopted a general goal of making it difficult for people to obtain bona-fide health insurance policies on their own. An employer could buy the policy for you and take a tax deduction. You buy the insurance for yourself and NO tax deduction. This, of course, made insurance more expensive when bought individually. Various states started adding mandates to policies. You were denied to chose what areas of medical care you wished to insure .. the state made that decision for you. Maternity benefits became pretty much standard. When health insurance has to cover the ordinary costs of childbirth ... and insure everybody against that cost ... well, add up the bucks. In Connecticut health insurance is required to cover hair transplants. Do the math. This, of course, made insurance all that much more expensive.

OK .. I need to cut to the chase here. Over generations the Democrats have been working their magic ... making it more and more difficult and expensive for you to get health care and health insurance on your own ... all the while touting health care as a "right." Democrats have never bothered to explain how one person can have this "right" to a portion of another person's (the health care provider's) life or property ... but they've made it stick. Now most Americans buy this "right to health care" absurdity.

Democrats thought the time was ripe in 1993 after Bill Clinton won the election. They put his wife, the charming Hillary, to work developing a plan. The public hated it so much that it never even came up for a vote. Golly! What's to hate? Well, how about the fact that if you were to take your own dollars and pay a doctor for a visit out of your own pocket, both you and the doctor could go to jail? The beans got spilled and HillaryCare was dead.

Enter ObamaCare.

Democrats have been plotting this ever since the voter revolution of 1994. When they lost control of the House and the Senate to the evil, greedy Republicans they vowed that once they regained that control they would never again be placed back into the minority. They are trying to fulfill that vow with ObamaCare. You cannot believe these people when they tell you that they just want to set up a "public option" that will compete with private health insurance companies to keep costs down. The insurance companies have to make money, or at least break even, to stay in the game. The government doesn't. It can operate at a loss. How long do you think private insurance companies can stand up to that?

Well ... since Democrats are comparing the protestors at health care town hall meetings to terrorists, let me present this scenario. Let's talk the real terrorists .. the Islamic ones. It has been said that they only have to be lucky once. We have to be on guard constantly. And so it is with the Democrat takeover of health care. They only have to be lucky once. Just once if they can get some version of government health care passed, they'll be able to use that program -- as weak or strong as it may be - to chip away at the private sector year after year until control is complete. Those who believe in freedom - those who believe that the private sector can do the best job of delivering health care to the people (if the government would just get out of the way) are going to have to fight this battle time and time again. The last battle was 1993. It's now 16 years later and the Democrats smell victory. To Democrats government health care is the sweet smell of control. To us it's the stench of tyranny.

You must educate yourselves and fight. And in a decade or so you're going to have to educate yourselves and fight again. Maybe sooner. Freedom needs protecting. Tyranny does not.

On Monday we had Rep. David Scott of Georgia's 13th district on the show. Last week we saw a side of David Scott during a town hall event that I did not recognize. So he came on the show to 'splain what in the heck happened. Then the next morning we wake up to the news that someone painted a swastika on the sign outside Rep. Scott's office in Smyrna, Georgia.

Now webguy and Cristina tell me that we have gotten several emails from people who are convinced that this was an inside job .. meaning that David Scott's office hired someone to paint that swastika in order to take some of the heat off of him and paint him as a victim.

Get a life, would you? I've known David Scott for about 34 years right now, and there is no way in the world that he would ever stoop that low. Now I'm not saying that someone friendly to government health care didn't paint that swastika there ... it's a common tactic ... but there's no way Scott was involved.

Barack Obama is trying to dispel more of the hideous rumors being spread by all of you right-wing mobsters. Yesterday he tried to convince Americans that he did not support a Canadian-like healthcare system for the United States. He called this debate a "bogeyman" saying, "I don't find Canadians particularly scary, but I guess some of the opponents of reform think that they make a good bogeyman."

We're not saying Canadians are scary ... we're saying their healthcare system is. Then there's Pamela Anderson, but that's another story.

Just last week I posted an article by Scott W. Atlas, "Ten reasons why America's health care system is in better condition than you might suppose." In that article he gives several "scary" statistics on the Canadian healthcare system compared to the United States.

- Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.

- Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:

* Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).

* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.

* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).

* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).

- Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."

- Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long--sometimes more than a year--to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

- People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."

- Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).

- Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade--even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.

Fear not, though. Your Dear Leaser says that a Canadian model won't work in the US because our system has already been built around a private-based system. What the hell difference does that make when he has every intention of destroying free-market healthcare in this country? Look .... Understand this now when you can do something about it, or discover it later when you cannot. This is NOT about providing better health care to all Americans. This is NOT about saving money on health care. This is about CONTROL! Nothing less. Obama has been making it perfectly clear as far back as 2003 that he favors a single-payer system. Single-payer is simply a code word for "government."

For those of you who still have doubts ... try to wrap your government-educated minds around this. Single-payer means that there is one entity paying the bills. When all the bills are paid by one entity it is easy to figure out that it will be that entity that will ultimately make the decisions on who will and who will not be paid and what they will and will not be paid for. This isn't rocket surgery.

Sure .. Obama is trying to back off his "single-payer" obsession right now by pushing something called the "public option." This public option will be a government health services payment plan (we really should stop calling this insurance) that will compete directly with all employer and private plans out there. Well ... we can call it competition, but it will be a massacre. How in the world does a private business compete with a government program that can operate from here to the end of time at a loss? Obama and the looters know full well that their "public option" will drive employer-provided and private insurance plans out of business. As Obama his own self has said many times, "It make take time .... Five years, ten years ..." But he knows the goal, and you should pull the blinders off and see what's coming as well.

In the meantime, the looters will continue with their newest tactic of demonizing the insurance companies; trying to paint them as the source of all that is evil in the universe. Many Americans, having been conditioned to do so, will buy right in.

We've got another Democrat upset with the angry, right-wing mob when it comes to these healthcare protests. Rep. Brian Baird of Washington said that "a 'coordinated national effort' to disrupt public meetings with shouts and demonstrations, which he said Republican leaders were 'egging on,' was reminiscent of the kinds of things that drove Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. 'He believed himself to be a patriot fighting against an oppressive government,' Baird said of McVeigh, whose act killed 168.'"

I've searched the news archives to see if I could find any stories where this moonbat congressman made similar comments about Code Pink, MoveOn.Org and other leftist groups who protested President Bush at every turn. Guess what? Couldn't

Nazis. Brown shirts. Un-American. Right-wing mob. And now we have a comparison to a terrorist. Brian Baird is today's poster boy for a panicked Democrat Party. They fear they're losing their grip. Maybe name-calling will turn the tide.

Democrats are shell-shocked. They truly cannot believe that this is happening to them. Just last February they were participating in a coronation that was to usher in a new age of Government Cool. Now people are starting to realize that there is nothing all that cool about the government taking over almost 20 percent of our economy. The polls are clear ... almost 7 out of 10 people are satisfied with the health care they're receiving right now. They've seen the mess that government has made out of Social Security. Recently they saw that the government couldn't even do the work that thousands of used-car salesmen handle every week with no problems. These people wonder why Obama is so hell-bent on getting this done NOW, and they suspect that's because the more they learn about the plan the less they're going to like it.

Actually ... last week was rather fun! I say that because it is so fun to watch these Democrats squirm when the people of this country give them the metaphorical one-finger salute. We can probably expect more of it this week ... although things promise to be more violent now that the union enforcers are showing up at these townhalls. I've brought to your attention many of these events over the last week of these healthcare townhalls turning sour. But none may be able to top this one from right here in my hometown of Atlanta, Georgia. It made national news after Rep. David Scott of Georgia's 13th district shouts at a constituent who dared to ask him if he was going to vote for the healthcare bill.

This one bothered me because I've known David Scott personally for over 25 years. David Scott is a Democrat congressman representing Georgia's 13th Congressional District. He served in the Georgia legislature for years before going to Washington. He and I have had disagreements on many issues, particularly gun control, but over the years he has been unfailingly polite and even-tempered.

Apparently that was then. Now things are different. I would guess that, considering his district, Scott is under tremendous pressure to toe the Obama party line. He knew his job at that townhall meeting was to defend Obama's policies. Perhaps his irritation came from having to defend the indefensible. Or ... Maybe he was mad that there were no union goons at the meeting to deal with this doctor. As we've discussed ... the unions are offering themselves up to be Democrat enforcers. This morning on Fox News Channel they showed some video of encounters at health care demonstrations. In one video a member of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was heard calling an ObamaCare opponent a "punk" and a "Nazi." Another SEIU union goon ends up jamming a video camera into the face of some woman. In another video we see a SEIU goon deliver a knockout punch to a protestor. Remember, please .. the Democrats sent out the call for these union goons, and the unions are eager to please their masters. What was it Obama's deputy chief of staff said? Oh, I remember ... hit them back twice as hard.

Here's some definitions for you. If you show up at a townhall meeting and you support ObamaCare, you're a "citizen." If you oppose government-run health care, you're a "heckler." Or worse.

By the way ... my guess is that for the remainder of the month you're going to see more and more Democrat office-holders canceling their townhall meetings. They'll claim that the cancellations are for security reasons ... and the blame will be placed on those evil people who don't want government-run health care. In a sense they may be pleased with this turn of events. They'll be able to avoid the protestors by canceling their townhall meetings .. then they can continue with the bogus claim that Americans are solidly behind them.

Princess Nancy Pelosi and one of her Knights, Sir Steny Hoyer, have written an opinion piece for today's USA Today. Guess what? Thanks to Pelosi and Hoyer we now know that the protestors that are showing up at these townhall meetings are "un-American." Their angle is that these people are showing up at the meetings not to express their concerns, but to "drown out" opposing views. They're not concerned with crushing debt and horrifying budget deficits. They're not concerned with the inaccessibility or possible rationing of healthcare. They just don't like Barack Obama or his health care plan, so this makes them "un-American." I guess Democrats feel that to be an American you have to timidly accept any controls your government wishes to inflict on you. To protest government is, to Pelosi et al, is to be "un-American." This pretty much goes along with what I've been saying about Democrats for quite a while. These people think that America's greatness comes from government; certainly not from the dynamic of free people working together under the rule of law in an economy based on liberty. So ... to protest government is to protest America. This makes you "un-American." Oh yeah ... makes perfect sense to me.

I love some of the comments that appeared in USA Today after the Pelosi/Hoyer column:

• "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American" As any conservative who has ever tried to give a speech on an American university campus could attest.
• The obvious thing for Pelosi to do is to create a committee to investigate the protestors--call it the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
• Oh contrare Oh mighty Democratic leaders. It's un-American not to allow a proper debate. It's also irresponsible and a dereliction of your duties to attempt to ram through (and not read) these bills.
• This is precious. Dissent isn't the highest form of patriotism after all. It's unamerican!

This is what is bothers Democrats so ... the people are standing up to them. This shouldn't happen in their version of a democrat society.

We've put our economy, our security ... our very lives ... into the hands of a group of men and women who have shown no particular skill beyond their ability to please their constituents through the expenditure of money seized from the private sector. They produce nothing of value, nor do they demonstrate any particular skill other than pandering to voters. They loot from the productive to buy votes from the moocher class. If you had your entire financial future invested in stock in one business, how well would sleep at night knowing that Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters were running that business? Their very survivability depends on their ability to use force to achieve their goals.

These are the people we are going to allow to completely change the nature of health care in America. Amazingly, some Americans still think that these people are actually working hard to figure out a way to deliver better health care to the American people at a lower cost. They're wrong. These DC political hacks are simply trying to control, not improve health care. Control means power, and power is the currency of Washington. If we expect anything but a complete disaster, we deserve what's coming.

Something entertaining actually happened on CSPAN. Yes, folks ... I know. But over the weekend a woman by the name of Leah called in to a show called "Washington's Journal." Leah wanted to comment on the media's coverage of these healthcare townhalls. Here's just a taste of what she had to say.

Hi, yeah, I just wanted to clarify a few things about these "manufactured, angered crowds." I've never been politically active in my life. I've never done anything like go to a protest ever. I started going to protests, these Tea Parties back on the Fourth of July, and the reason that you're seeing the numbers grow and swell and become bigger and bigger is not only because of the healthcare legislation, but like you said earlier, all these massive bills, thousands of pages long that are passed with almost no debate, no time for us to see what's in it, in direct contravention of what was promised about transparency and a near era and we're going to know what we're doing in advance. I see, I see politicians admit on TV that they can't read it, that they can't understand it because of its complexity. Lawyers who are writing these bills say they need lawyers to tell them what's in the bill.

Now, when I watch the news people stand here and tell me that I am a member of a hired mob, that I've been called up by the Republican Party, they only wish they could have done something like this. I've never been contacted by any organized group. This is an organic movement, and when people stand there, and lie to me about what I know is going on, how can I trust them when they tell me it's going to save money when the Congressional Budget Office says it isn't? That it's going to cover everybody when the Congressional Budget Office says it isn't? That it's going to let me keep my, my healthcare when common sense tells you that's not what's going to be the end result of this when the government ends up providing all the healthcare which the man who wrote the bill in the beginning says. Go watch it, Jacob Hacker who wrote this says that in time, and President Obama said it, we will all be swallowed up in this government plan.

When people lie to us, we don't trust them when they give us platitudes about what's in the bill.

If you read or listened closely to Leah's comments, you notice she mentions the name Jacob Hacker. So this immediately sparked my interest .. who is this Jacob Hacker character and why haven't we heard more about him? Turns out that Jacob Hacker is a political science professor at Berkeley, previously at Yale. According to his bio, "He is the author of a 2007 proposal for universal health care, 'Health Care for America,' that became a template for several presidential aspirants' plans, as well as of two recent briefs on how and why to encourage private health insurance to compete with a new public health plan for the nonelderly."

Hmmm sounds a bit familiar. Michael Barone wrote a column comparing Hacker's plans for healthcare reform into the plans we are now seeing take shape in Washington. Barone points to these particular quotes from Hacker:

"With a government-option plan, he says in 2007, 'You can at least make the claim that there's a competitive system between the public and the private sector,' but he predicts that the government option 'would eliminate the small group insurance.'"

"Speaking of the government option in 2008, he says, 'Someone told me this was a Trojan horse for single-payer. Well, it's not a Trojan horse, right? It's just right there. I'm telling you. We're going to get there, over time, slowly, but we'll move away from reliance on employer-based health insurance as we should, but we'll do it in a way that we're not going to frighten people into thinking they're going to lose their private insurance. We're going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they're in the pool, and we're going to let them keep their private employer-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it.'"

Just as recently as July 28, 2009 Hacker wrote a column for the Washington Post trying to convince the Blue Dog Democrats to support the healthcare bill. Is this guy indicative of the same mentality that went into the shaping of this healthcare bill? If so, it is obvious that a single-payer system is inevitable.

I think the amazing story of the week is the panicked reaction of the looters to the way their representatives have been treated at town hall meetings around the country. I mean, how DARE these people question the ruling class? Don't they realize they lost the election? The Democrats will remind them of that at any opportunity. The theory is that if you lose the election you are supposed to shut the hell up, sit back and let the victors do pretty much anything they want to you.

Let's draw a parallel. A man attacks a woman. She fights back like hell. Finally the man subdues her and starts pulling off her clothes. As he tries to rape her she starts fighting again. "Hold on there," the rapist yells. "I won ... you lost. Now you're supposed to let me do anything I want to you and you can't do a damned thing about it."

The Democrats - Pelosi, Boxer, et all - have been calling the people who show up at the town hall meetings to protest ObamaCare "thugs." Well, I guess they've decided it's time to thrown in some thugs of their own. Now if you're a Democrat - a looter - and you need some thugs, where are you going to go? You got it! There, that wasn't all that hard, was it? You go to the unions? What better place to find some thugs than a union hall?

And so ... what do we have now? We have violence breaking out at these town hall meetings. And trust me on this one .. the Democrats and most of the media is going to make sure that the people protesting ObamaCare take the blame for the disruptions. Certainly not the unions.

Believe this .. unions are more than a little pissed right now. When their hero was inaugurated on January 20th they thought it would just be a matter of weeks ... a few months at most ... and they would have their forced unionization bill. Yeah - the so-called "card check" bill. The thugs couldn't wait to whisper sweet nothings into the ears of workers faced with the decision of whether or not to sign that union card.

"Pssst. Buddy. No, don't look at me, just listen. That card you have? You really do need to sign it and turn it in. That's a mighty nice new car you have parked outside. New tires are expensive, you know. And it would really be a shame if your wife had any problems the next time she went to the Safeway for some groceries. You know what to do."

Well, the union's big summer didn't happen, and they're itching for some action. They know that they won't get any action on card check as long as the Democrats are tied up trying to take over our health care system. So maybe, just maybe, if the unions would help out the looters, the looters will return the favor. So if you are planning on attending a town hall meeting on healthcare any time soon, be on the lookout for union thugs. It's always nice to have something to look forward to you .. and coming soon to a town hall meeting near you, your favorite local union sweethearts! John Sweeney, the president of the AFL-CIO has issued his call to arms. He wants union members to attend healthcare town hall meetings in order to counteract the "right-wing 'Tea Party Patriots.'" These are all of you evil, well-dressed protestors who believe in smaller government or the freedom to choose your own doctors. Oh .. and just what do you think that Sweeney means by "counteract?"

Sweeney wrote a memo to his minions saying, "The principal battleground in the campaign will be town hall meetings and other gatherings with members of Congress in their home districts ... We want your help to organize major union participation to counter the right-wing 'Tea-Party Patriots' who will try to disrupt those meetings, as they've been trying to do to meetings for the last month."

Yeah .. it's the ugly "Tea Party Patriots" that are going to try to disrupt the meetings, certainly not the unions, right? Perhaps you might like to look at this item from Michelle Malkin's blog. It would appear that a St. Louis town hall meeting yesterday the union members showed up ... the union members were allowed in ... but those who weren't exactly friendly to the Democrats takeover of almost 20% of our economy were left out. My guess is that if you were to check local coverage you might see that it was all the protestor's fault. I understand that we can't know for certain just what happened in these meetings ... but based on past experience, what would you guess? Would you believe that the ObamaCare protestors caused the violence, or union members?

Here's something else for you to think about: We have one Jim Messina, the deputy chief of staff to President Obama. Talking to Democrats yesterday said "if you get hit, we will hit back twice as heard." Well, the Democrats have been taking a hit at their own hall meetings. Are they now hitting back twice as hard?

It doesn't help that the Secretary Treasurer of the AFL-CIO issued the following statement about the town hall meetings. You'll love this.

Every American has the inalienable right to participate in our democratic process. Our politics is passionate, heartfelt and often loud -- as was the founding of our nation. But that is not what the corporate-funded mobs are engaging in when they show up to disrupt town halls held by members of Congress.

Major health care reform is closer than ever to passage and it is no secret that special interests want to weaken or block it. These mobs are not there to participate. As their own strategy memo states, they have been sent by their corporate and lobbyist bankrollers to disrupt, heckle and block meaningful debate. This is a desperation move, meant to slow the momentum for change.

Mob rule is not democracy. People have a democratic right to express themselves and our elected leaders have a right to hear from their constituents -- not organized thugs whose sole purpose is to shut down the conversation and attempt to scare our leaders into inaction.

We call on the insurance companies, the lobbyists and the Republican leaders who are cheering them on to halt these 'Brooks Brothers Riot' tactics. Health care is a crucial issue and everyone - on all sides of the issue - deserves to be heard.

These are the tactics of despots. They'll pay grand lip service to the idea of free speech .. but there's always a "but" thrown in. The looters have no real answers for the people who are protesting ObamaCare, so they start making references to mob rule. We're nothing but "organized thugs" who want to shut down conversation? Are they kidding? Shut down conversation? In a few paragraphs you're going to have the opportunity to click on a link to watch a video of a recent AARP meeting. As soon as the people in the audience try to have a conversation with the meeting organizer, she packs up and leaves! Just WHO is trying to shut down conversation?

Oh ... and before we move on: Isn't it just precious to hear a union leader talking about "organized thugs?" The history of unionism in this country is a history of organized thuggery. Then he says that "mob rule is not democracy." Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what democracy is. Why do you think they call themselves Democrats? A lynch mob is mob rule. Right? Well, a lynch mob is also a prime example of democratic action. One man wants to live to see his day in court. Thirty men want him hung ... NOW. OK, let's have a vote! Wow! Imagine that! The vote was 30 to1. Get the rope! There's your democracy in action. In a democracy the rule of law means zip. That's also what it meant to Obama when he was manhandling the GM bankruptcy. Hope your memories are that long.

But it's not just the AFL-CIO. The Service Employees International Union is also summoning the troops. A spokeswoman for the unions says that it is "unleashing the purple people" in order to "challenge the radical fringe" that is disrupting these town hall meetings. The spokeswoman also says union members are not there to "talk to the crazies." We need to "reclaim our democracy!" and blah, blah, blah, blah.

I could rant on this for hours. The looters are in panic mode. The people are learning more and more about their takeover of health care. The people saw right through that attempt to change the topic from health CARE reform to health INSURANCE reform. The people in this country see the huge deficits coming. They know instinctively that Barack Obama cannot promise more and more health care to more and more people with fewer doctors and nurses and NOT resort to rationing and higher taxes. We don't like it ... and we're speaking out.

OK .. here's that first video I promised you. This video takes on even more importance in light of the violence at recent town hall meetings

The Democrats and now union officials are up in arms over these organized corporate thugs who are ruining their precious town hall meetings. Take a look at this video of an AARP meeting about healthcare. I love it. The AARP crowd actually thought they were going to going to walk into a room full of people who wanted nothing more than for the government to take complete charge of their healthcare. That's not the way it turned out. The AARP meeting organizer starts out by saying "I think we can all agree that our present health care system is not sustainable .... And I think we can all agree that ... blah blah blah." She starts out the meeting telling the audience what they think. As soon as the AARP lady hears the first dissenting word she starts to loose it. In short order she actually walks out and cancels her own meeting because the audience (with an average age of at least 65) insists on asking questions and voicing their opposing opinions to the Democrat healthcare plan. You can watch this snotty woman unplugging the microphone and taking it with her as she leaves. Watch the video... and then tell me .... are these organized corporate insurance thugs? Do these look like Brooks Brothers protestors? Or is there some slim chance that what you're seeing here are Americans who are genuinely concerned about the future of their country and their healthcare?

Yup .... Another video for you. This is just priceless. You gotta love YouTube. I can see why someone paid a whole pantload of money to buy this site. Now .. this is insensitive. Oh yeah ... deliciously insensitive. And I'm almost certainly going to catch hell for posting a link to this video. Fine. I'll gladly take the heat. I'm preparing these program notes on Thursday night .. Frankly I'll be surprised if YouTube hasn't been seized by the federal government before you have a chance to click on this link. The title is "Hitler Rants About Obama Healthcare and Right Wingers. Make sure you aren't being watched ... and then click play. You might want to go relieve yourself first. Don't want any accidents you know.

The Democrats have really taken this healthcare reform argument to a new level. First we had the switch from healthcare reform to health insurance reform. That one happened in a matter of one day. One press conference. The talking points went out and the Democrats received their new marching orders .. this is no longer a battle over healthcare. We now have a new enemy to contend with: the insurance industry. Easy to figure out why ... Obama's behavioral scientists told him that people liked their doctors. It was the insurance companies they hated ... so shift the focus and demonize insurance.

Then the Democrats returned home to their districts for the August recess. They expected parades. They expected praise and accolades from their constituents, thanking them for working to make healthcare reform a reality. But what did they really get? A bunch of angry citizens who are starting to wake up and smell the koolaid. They realize that this healthcare reform debate isn't about their healthcare at all. They don't have faith in their government officials to reform the system for the better. Heck, maybe some of these constituents realize that the government isn't always the solution to every problem.

So now we pull out the big guns. Waging war against the insurance company hasn't hit deep enough with voters. So now, we put it all on Barack Obama's shoulders. Yep. Anyone who opposes this healthcare reform is only doing it because they want to hurt Barack Obama. That is according to Barbara "Call me Senator" Boxer. She told MSNBC's "Hardball," "All of this is a diversion by the people who, frankly, want to hurt President Obama." Then we have Princess Pelosi telling the media that these people are showing up to protest government health care "carrying swastikas." Yup! We learning form the Democrats that all of these people showing up at the Townhall meetings are "thugs" paid by insurance companies and other special interest groups. Their true goal is to "hurt" Obama.

So now we're supposed to sit back and quietly accept a government takeover of almost 20% of our economy in order to avoid hurting Barack Obama? We're supposed to accept the idea of rationing healthcare so Barack Obama won't be damaged? You're going to accept the news that you can't get a hip replacement with "Well, at least Barack Obama wasn't hurt." Yeah .. that would be the thought going through my mind if I had to wait four or five months for an MRI. "You know, I can go ahead and wait for this MRI. We won't find out what's wrong for a couple of months, but at least I won't be hurting Barack Obama.

Isn't that just dandy? Right now the Democrats are pinning their takeover of health care on the need to avoid hurting their president. Yeah ... works for me.

Senator Barbara Boxer on "Hardball" also expressed her shock at how nicely dressed the protesters have been at these town hall meetings. Her next goal, besides linking healthcare to Barack Obama, is to compare these protesters to those back in 2000 during the presidential recount. She said, "By the way, I saw the clips of people storming these town hall meetings. The last time I saw well-dressed people doing this was when Al Gore asked me to go down to Florida, when they were recounting the ballots. I was confronted by the same type of people. They were there screaming and yelling 'Go back to California.'"

Just can't let this go. It's funny, really, that the Democrats are so scared. They're shell-shocked. How DARE these people show up to protest the Democrat's biggest power grab since FDR? The ungrateful scumbags! The looters know they have to come up with a story, and the best they can do is to demonize the protestors. They insist on pinning any opposition to healthcare reform as a "mob." If you don't believe me, you have to watch the latest commercial from the Democrat National Committee. They want to convince the American public that the only people who are opposing their plans for reform are those infamous "right-wing extremists!" (Weren't they supposed to insert "bigoted" and "mean-spirited" in there somewhere? Remember those people? Those are the people whom Janet Napolitano warned us about many months ago. The commercial says, "Desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs just like they did during the election. Their goal? Destroy President Obama and stop the change Americans voted for overwhelmingly in November."

I wonder when they're going to get around to calling the opponents "terrorists."

So are the Democrats right? Is it only these fringe Republican "mobs" that oppose their healthcare reform. It is safe to say that the answer is no. The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute released some figures yesterday showing that support for healthcare reform among independent voters is down. We aren't talking "right-wing extremists." We are talking about moderate, independent voters who arguably gave Barack Obama the edge in the election.

The Quinnipiac poll found that:

Independent voters, perhaps the key voting group, are more worried about the deficit rising than congressional inaction, 54 - 37 percent. These voters say 59 - 36 percent that overhaul should not occur if it would "significantly" increase the deficit.

Independents oppose 63 - 33 percent passing a bill with only Democratic votes.

Independent voters also don't think Obama can keep his promise to avoid increasing the deficit and pass health care by an overwhelming 77 - 17 percent.

Ok, so just to get this straight .. I wanted to make sure that we are all on the same page. If you oppose Barack Obama's healthcare plan, you can consider yourself the following:

-A right-right extremist

-An unruly member of a mob

-A person who is not expected to dress respectably

-Desperate to destroy Barack Obama

-Unwilling to change

-Unwilling to "seize the moment"

-And you don't like change. In fact, you probably don't even change your underwear.

This is so completely lame. Just another indication of how stupid the politicians in Washington think you are. I'm talking about the White House response to those video clips that evil, mean, racist, bigoted, ugly, hairless (speak for yourself, Boortz) radio talk show hosts have been playing on the air.

OK ... definition first. We have to be clear on the definition of the term "single payer." This means that there's one entity that writes the checks for all health care services. Prescription drugs, doctor visits, hospital stays ... one person writes the checks. Now of course that one person will be the government. Now I suppose you could have a situation where that one person would be one insurance company ... but it would be an insurance company selected by the government and, of course, controlled by the government. Hopefully you can see if the "single payer" is the government, then the government decides what gets paid for and what does not. This means the government gets to determine the extent of your access to health care, prescription drugs, etc. "Single payer" sounds innocuous enough, but it is merely a euphemism for "government."

Now the current debate is whether or not Obama and the looters are taking us to a single payer plan .. a plan where government makes all the decisions as to who gets paid how much for what medical-related service. Those video clips you heard on the show earlier this week were pretty plain. We had Obama speaking to the AFL-CIO in 2003 saying "Single payer health care plan - universal health care -- that is what I would like to see." He also says "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care plan." He follows up with "but first we gotta take back the White House, we gotta take back the Senate, and we gotta take back the House of Representatives." The language is pretty clear. There's no "taking out of context" stuff here. Listen to the clip and see for yourself. We also played clips from such luminaries as Slobbering Barney Frank making it absolutely clear that single payer - government payer - government control is what we are after here. Remember .. if all payments for health care come from the government ... the single payer ... where are the private health insurance companies? Gone! That's where.

So .. the people don't like what they're hearing, and the White House reacts. They pull out ABC retread Linda Douglass ... now in charge of White House propaganda for health care ... to do a little three-minute video trying to convince us that Barack Obama is not for a single payer plan. He's actually in favor of health insurance reform! You can watch Linda Douglass' White House video here or right below. She plays a couple of clips - recent clips - from Obama where he promises that you can keep your health insurance if you like it. Nowhere does she address Obama's previous dedication to a single payer plan. Nowhere does she mention that once there is any change, no matter how minute, in your private plan you must drop that plan and head to the government plan. This is a lady who has sold her soul to the cause of socialized medicine. Pretty much what you would expect from a network news hack.

This is kind of related to the health care/insurance discussion, right? Think of this next time you're in a public place. You might never leave the house again.

The Democrats and looters want you to believe that they're just going to set up a "public option," a government health care plan that will "compete" with the private insurance plans and keep them honest.

OK .. let's build a little scenario here. You're in business for yourself. You own a restaurant. You find out the government is going to open a restaurant right next door to you. The government says that they're not trying to run you out of business .. they just want to give you a little competition so that you will improve your product. You find out, though, that while your restaurant will have to operate at a profit to survive, the government restaurant can operate at a loss ... for ever. If the government restaurant needs money all it has to do is go out into the community and seize it. If you tried to do that you would be arrested and charged with robbery. You also learn that the government restaurant is going to be able to set all the rules about how you operate: How you cook and serve your food, what kind of menu you will have, the hours you will be open ... everything. Those same rules will not necessarily apply to the government restaurant.

Yeah .. that's some fair competition, isn't it? Can you tell me how you are possibly going to stay in business? The answer is, you won't. Sooner or later you close your doors, and if your customers want to eat ... they head to the government restaurant.

That's the story of the "public option" health insurance Obama and the looters want. The goal is to run private insurance out of business. That way, by default, the government becomes the single payer. Absolute government control, the dream of every Democrat politician.

Watch what you say around people, folks. The White House may track you down. Does that sound over the top and big brother-like? Well that's because it is. The Democrats seem to getting really frustrated over the fact that Americans aren't down on their knees begging them for healthcare reform. So now, the White House wants to know if you talk to anyone or read anything about healthcare reform that seems "fishy".

From the White House website:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

I invite ... no, I URGE you to refer the White House to today's Nealz Nuze. In fact, do it every single day.

Another idea. Take the web address for Linda Douglass' little speech and send IT to the White House. You can hardly sound more fishy than that.

We've talked before on Nealz Nuze about the "Rahm Emanuel Factor." This is the notion that you are willing to make a deal on ANYTHING in order to maintain power. Rep. John Conyers (a Democrat from Michigan) says that Barack Obama has changed his position on healthcare because of this "Rahm Emanuel Factor." There is no doubt that according to Conyers, Obama did in fact believe in a single-payer healthcare system. But as we are now told, Obama has since changed his mind. Conyers says, "I'm just guessing now, because we haven't talked about it, but he wants it because of the Rahm Emanuel factor. Okay. I'm glad you asked me. The Rahm Emanuel factor, to quote him, is that, look, we want success, and we're willing to make a deal about anything. Does that make you feel pretty comfortable about health care?"

Conyers also believes that the current healthcare legislation in Washington will not keep costs down nor cover all Americans. Isn't that kind of the point for these Democrats? Oh wait, I forgot. It isn't. The point is to maintain power. Rahm Emanuel has figured that one out real well.

... about American healthcare. An interesting report was prepared by a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical School by the name of Scott W. Atlas. He has prepared ten reasons why America's health care system is in better condition than you might suppose. Here's an overview, but the whole thing is worth a read. This is for all of your liberal friends who are convinced that a single-payer, government healthcare system is going to "save" our healthcare system.

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.

2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.

3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.

4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.

5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.

6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.

8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.

9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.

10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

Well .. remember. No matter how good our medical care is today, it simply doesn't empower politicians enough. That's the goal of ObamaCare, and the sooner you realize that the better prepared you are to fight for your freedom. ObamaCare is not about improving health care in the United States. It is ALL about increasing the power that political hacks have over your life and your bank accounts.

The Congress is on a little recess right now, which means that many of them are back home in their districts. Many Democrats have one goal in mind: convince their constituents that they need government-run healthcare. Oh wait, I'm sorry .. that's no longer the Democrat talking point. (Someone slap me.) I meant to say that we need to reform the health insurance industry. It's all about health insurance now because Obama's behavioral scientists have convinced him that is the insurance companies the people hate, not their health care. You gotta go with the flow when you're trying to seize almost 20% of the American economy. Anyway, a lot of Democrats have scheduled Townhall meetings with constituents to talk about these health insurance reforms. So far some of the meetings aren't going all that well.

Not sure if you heard what happened to Arlen Spector and Kathleen Sebelius over the weekend. They met a not-so-happy crowd at a townhall meeting in Philadelphia. This wasn't the best PR for the Democrat cause. So now Senator Dick Durbin wants to make sure that other Democrats aren't "sucker punched" like Specter and Sebelius were at their townhall. He blames any outrage at these meetings on interest groups that are funded by the big, bad, evil insurance industry. He says, "I hope my colleagues won't fall for a sucker punch like this ... These health insurance companies and people like them are trying to load these town meetings for visual impact on television."

There you go! You couldn't possibly be upset about the government's plan to take over your health care. If you're at a Townhall meeting and you aren't looking forward to depending on the federal government for your health care .. you're a stooge for the evil insurance companies.

Listen to that language: these insurance companies "and people like them." Hey, Dick .. have you ever considered the fact that there really are people out there who value a free market system over your government option? That idea hasn't crossed your mind, has it? Nope. Because to a Democrat, they can't even imagine what it would be like to be in love with government. They can't fathom the idea that people want to rely on themselves for healthcare, rather than turn to the government.

Yesterday I compared the Democrat's use of the insurance companies as a boogieman to the way Hitler demonized the Jews. Sounding more and more familiar, isn't it?

You do know that Barack Obama and the Democrats have changed the game on us, don't you? We are no longer debating about healthcare reform. We are now talking about health INSURANCE reform. Why is that? Well it is simple .. it is a lot easier to demonize the big, bad insurance industry. People generally like their doctors. It's the insurance companies they hate. They want every penny they spend on health care covered by insurance, and the insurance companies don't go along. Evidently the Obama crowd consulted their focus groups and behavioral experts .. and they've been reminded that playing off of people's fears and wealth envy is a great way to gain support for your political causes.

So Nancy Pelosi has taken her marching orders to heart. She has officially declared that, "The glory days are coming to an end for the health insurance industry in our country." Isn't that nice of Nancy Pelosi to decide? She also says, "We all want bipartisanship...but you're either with the insurance companies or you're for something new." This is the same type of "either you are with us, or against us" comments that the Democrats used to complain about with George W. Bush. When a looter uses that phraseology, it's OK. The point to be made here is that the insurance companies are evil and making profit off of your misfortune. They must be stopped.

Remember, these are the same insurance companies that Princess Nancy already declared to be "immoral." Last week she accused them of unethical behavior and working to try and kill a government-run healthcare plan. She said, "It's almost immoral what they are doing ... Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure ... They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening." Villains? Immoral? Gee, Nancy, don't you think you are coming on a bit strong?

But she wasn't the only one. Senator Harry Reid did his part to ramp up the wealth envy side of the argument against the evil insurance companies. He says, "I don't think we should be crying great big tears about the insurance industry ... There is no business in America that makes more money than the insurance industry--over the last 10 years their profits have been increased by 450 percent ... So I'm not really in very much of a mood to worry about the insurance industry."

This is as old as civilization: You have a despot who wants to expand his power, and he finds someone or something to demonize. Here it's the insurance companies. Make them the focus of all that is evil in the world. You get the people so worked up about the evil insurance companies, you don't even see the greater evil of government health care sneaking up on you.

Is there any real difference between Hitler's treatment of Jews and Pelosi's treatment of insurance companies? For Hitler, the Jews were the focus of all evil in Germany. Now it's the insurance companies in the United States. What's next? Concentration camps for insurance executives? Maybe Princess Nancy building ovens somewhere.

(Ohhhhh ... I'm going to pay for that one.)

Our Washington correspondent Jamie Dupree is going through the health care bill page by page and bringing you information you won't get anywhere else.

• "Limitations on Review" is popping up all over the bill. What does it mean?
• What is this "magical expenditure" in Section 2002?
• Republicans and Democrats interpret the Medicare wording differently
• Hear Jamie live on the Neal Boortz show weekdays at 12:06pm ET

This is just too good. Seriously, folks. These people make it so easy to continue doing what I do. Try this one on for size ..

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (a moonbat Democrat) is going to introduce a constitutional amendment that would establish healthcare as a "right" for all Americans.

See what I mean?

He says, "We need a real serious bill and, by the way, the fundamental question, 'Is health care a constitutional right? I mean, do you have a right to health care in the American system of government or not?" He goes on to say, "Well, we believe that people do and we're introducing a constitutional amendment just to make it real clear so that you don't have to infer or assume that that's a given and all that."

This is par for the course for Conyers. He's a fool .. a big government fool. You, however, probably see through this.

Look ... it's this simple. In order for you to receive health care someone else has to either expend time or property. To claim a "right" to health care is to claim a "right" to someone else's time .. that is, a right to a portion of their life: whatever portion of their life it takes for them to either render the health service or produce the medical implement or drug that is being used. Hate to break this to you ... but who in the hell do you think you are to claim a portion of someone else's life as YOURS?

There ... that should settle this "healthcare is a right" thing. Would love to hear Conyer's response.

The media is starting to catch on to Barack Obama's latest sales pitch when it comes to government healthcare: ensure stability and demonize the insurance industry.

Pretty clever, eh?

The Politico writes, "Adding a populist punch to the pitch he first took on the road last week in Cleveland - that for the insured, reform means 'more stability and security' - the president detailed a list of consumer protections that he promised would be in any bill that reaches his desk. In so doing, he cast insurance industry as public enemy-in-chief." There are those words again: stability and security. Americans love the idea of security. They think that they love the idea of freedom. That's a bunch of horsesqueeze. What they really want is for the evil rich to pay their "fair share" so that they can enjoy the "freedom" of "free" government healthcare. That's another one of Obama's buzz words: fairness. At a recent healthcare townhall meeting Obama said, "So what we need, and what we will have when we pass these reforms, are health insurance consumer protections to make sure that those who have insurance are treated fairly and insurance companies are held accountable ... Whether or not you have health insurance right now, the reforms we seek will bring stability and security that you don't have today."

Maybe, just maybe, the people of this country are starting to figure this guy out. They are starting to realize that his administration is dictated more by focus groups and buzz words than actual sound policy.

We have heard a lot about obesity this week, thanks to the revelation that almost 10% of Americans' healthcare spending is due to blubberbutts. Then the Democrats promise that their healthcare bill will fund "the fight" against obesity. Then I read a story like this, from the UK, and I can't help but think, "Coming soon to the United States."

A 25-year-old woman by the name of Laura Ripley was such a lardass that the government considered her disabled. So the taxpayers fork over $15,000 so she can have a weight loss surgery. She loses enough weight to the point where the government no longer considers her disabled. Now Laura Ripley is throwing a fit. Do you know why? Because the government reduced her welfare checks because she is no longer disabled. Now she says that she can't afford healthy food and she is starting to gain weight.

Consider this ... this woman has never held a job in her life. She is a mooch. She is a looter. She is a welfare broodmare. She gets paid by the taxpayers to sit on her fat ass and contribute NOTHING to society. With that, she goes to the National Health Service to get this weight loss surgery. Then after she loses the weight, she complains because now she has less moocher money to pay for her bon bons and tea biscuits. She says, 'I can't afford to buy Weight Watchers crisps and cereal bars any more so I eat Tesco's chocolate bars and packets of Space Invaders crisps, sometimes four of each a day ... People ask why I don't snack on an apple - they're cheap, but emotionally I don't always feel like an apple.'

Not only that, but she blames the government for treating her unfairly and causing her to gain weight again. 'It's heartbreaking that after all my hard work losing this weight someone's come along and ruined it.' That's right. It's not her personal responsibility. It is the government's fault.

A blogger by the name of Keith Hennessey has done a great analysis of how the Congressional Budget Office has virtually destroyed the House Democrat healthcare plan. Take a look at the first conclusion and then explain to me why there are still people in this country who buy into this government healthcare scam.

Conclusion: CBO says that because the proposed new health spending would grow faster than the proposed new income tax increases, the House health bill would increase the long-term deficit. Since the President has said he would not sign a bill that increases the long-term deficit, the bill is dead in its current form. Any tax increase that would grow more slowly than the proposed new spending faces the same irreconcilable problem. The only way to solve this problem and meet the President's long-term goal is to cut health spending or tax employer-provided health insurance.

The whole thing is worth a read.

There's no other way to say this, and it's not as if you haven't already noticed. American is becoming a nation of fat, disgusting lardasses. We are a nation of overindulgent blubberbutts. One third of American adults are obese. Visual observations would point you to a higher number.

But it didn't always used to be this way. The obesity rate in America has risen 37% from 1998 to 2006, this according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs. Along with expanding waste lines comes .. you guessed it .. expanded healthcare costs. Obesity-related health spending has doubled in one decade to $147 billion. That's because being a lardass has its consequences: diabetes, heart disease, scooters. All of these things cost money. In fact, obese people can expect to pay an average of $1,400 more every year than a normal person on medical expenses. I don't have a problem with that. They chose to gorge and live an unhealthy lifestyle, and they should be made to pay for the consequences.

Now the Democrats have whined and moaned about the increased cost of healthcare. This is one of the main reasons why they say they want healthcare reform - to control the 'sky-rocketing' costs of healthcare. Even though their plans will not lower or control the price of healthcare one bit. But that is beside the point. Why they've also failed to tell you in that 9.1% of medical spending in this country is spent on obesity-related conditions. Just one decade ago, that number was only 6.5%.

OK ... so here's a suggestion. Senator Looser (John Kerry) is proposing a tax on what he calls "gold-plated" health care plans. Well, these plans aren't the problem. If some people work harder than others and can thereby afford more comprehensive healthcare plans ... why should they be punished? If Kerry and the rest of his Democrat sycophants think they can lower healthcare costs through taxation, how about a fat tax? The VAT seems popular with these people .. why not a FAT? The Fat Accumulation Tax. The heavier you are the more taxes you pay to cover the cost of your extra medical care.

You get more of the behavior you reward. Lower taxes on the productive Americans who are powering our economy. You get less of the behavior you punish .. a FAT tax. Make these people pay for their slovenly habits and watch them thin down. And don't give me this poverty nonsense either ... if you can afford the FAT, don't eat the fat.

The Democrats are still scrounging to figure out more ways to tax the tar out of Americans in order to fund their government healthcare scheme. The latest idea they are said to be considering is a 10% excise tax on cosmetic surgery .. face-lifts, tummy tucks, hair transplants, etc. It would use the tax code as a means of enforcement. Not only would procedures prohibited under Section 213 of the tax code not be deductible, but they would be subject to a new tax.

Well .. here we go again. This is more of the same from the Democrats - go after those evil, disgusting high-achieving rich people by taxing the stuff that they do with their money. That ought to bring them down to size. The middle class isn't out there getting face lifts ... so they won't complain about the new tax.

I told you yesterday that sooner or later the Democrats will find a way to tax pretty much anything that high-achievers can do by virtue of their higher earnings. That will include special taxes on nicer homes, better cars and more exciting vacations. Think I'm kidding? Just wait ... and you have a chance to put more of these dangerous people in office next year, go for it.

Yesterday I told you about the Congressional Budget Office estimate that said the House Democrat healthcare plan would save virtually nothing in terms of healthcare costs over the next ten years, yet it would cost about $1 trillion. Now that's some serious money. The Democrats have finally figure out how they are going to spin this one. The Hill writes, "Following a blow from the Congressional Budget Office, Democratic leaders in Congress likely will make the case this week that the healthcare reform plan has multiple benefits and cost savings that cannot be scored by independent congressional accountants."

Did you get that? So now the Democrats are relying on you to trust them and believe that somehow their bill will save money that just can't currently be predicted. Savings out of the blue ... how convenient.

Downplaying the CBO's estimates will be another tactic used by Democrats. For example, a leadership aide says, "At CBO, they are accountants, but we still have our case to make." Oh, so now I get it. The CBO is just filled with a bunch of pencil-pushing accountants ... but the almighty politicians have yet to have their say! Politicians are elected by the people! Accountants are not! Besides, accountants are boring.. so just ignore them.

Don't remember where this came from ... possibly from Twitter, maybe from an email. But someone has come up with a name. This is a new name for the people who think that they have a right to make someone else pay for their health care - and the politicians who support them. This name is for the people who think that it is the government's role to take care of their basic needs - and the politicians who pander for their votes. Ready? Here you go ....

Entitlement Mobsters

Gotta love it.

Barack Obama has much of the country convinced right now that the only way we are going to turn our economy around is if we get the price of healthcare under control. Right? Was that not his message the other night during his presser? This all comes under the "never let a good crisis go to waste" dogma. Government spending is in crisis; so, whether it's valid or not, just tell the dumb masses that all we need to do in order to get government spending under control is to nationalize health care.

The Congressional Budget Office says that the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would actually save almost no money over 10 years. Let's compare. The total cost of this healthcare package is $1 trillion. That's according to the White House, but of course you know that is just the beginning. No government program since WWII has cost what original estimates predict. So the price tag is $1 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office says that this Medicare panel will save a whopping $2 billion over the next 10 years. Folks, that is a 0.2% savings.

But that's okay. Just continue thinking that the Democrats are doing this in order to cut your costs and provide you better care. The truth is that they are doing it in order to make you more dependent on government and to gain more power over you.

So how does the White House react to this news? The White House Budget Director Peter Orszag gets on one of the Sunday talk shows and says that this analysis "could feed the perception of the office's bias toward 'exaggerating costs and underestimating savings.'" Oh, so now the CBO suddenly has a bias. Then he goes on to say that, "The point of the proposal ... was never to generate savings over the next decade ... Instead the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term." Are you buying this, folks?

While the White House is not so crazy about the idea of taxing employee benefits, what it now considering is a plan to tax "gold-plated, Cadillac" insurance policies. A top White House official told the POLITICO, "A premium charge on top of the most expensive packages is one of the ways to ensure that there's a lid on health-care costs ... The president believes this is an intriguing idea."

Even Barack Obama himself says, "What's being talked about now, I understand, is the possibility of penalizing insurance companies who are offering super, gold-plated Cadillac plans."

What an idea here! Once they get this in place they why not spread it to other areas of the market place? I have one great idea already! How about taxing "gold-plated" housing! Now there's an idea that any Democrat could fall in love with in a heartbeat. Here's how it would work. While there are so many Americans who cannot afford a basic one bedroom, one bath house of their own, how can it be fair that some Americans can go out there and buy a five-bedroom, five-bath mansion? The obvious solution here would be to pass a special tax on "gold-plated" mansions and then use the money to help the poor, poor, pitiful poor buy a home of their own! Hey! And once we get this in place for homes we can go after expensive automobiles! Yeah! I can see it now! A tax on "gold-plated" automobiles to help the great unwashed be able to afford transportation.

What a wonderful new Democrat idea we have here. I just can't wait to see it expanded.

Last week we got some news about the federal Franking Commission. Basically this is a Congressional entity that regulates official Congressional mailings. The news from last week was that the Franking Commission was blocking the Republicans from sending a flier about the Democrats' healthcare plan. That was bad enough. But this could possibly be even worse.

Rep. John Carter, a Republican from Texas, says that the Franking Commission is censuring the messages that Congressmen are allowed to send to their constituents. In this case, the Republicans wanted to use the phrase "government run health care" in order to describe the Democrat healthcare plan. But the Franking Commission took a look at this and said, "No way." They aren't dumb. They know that the people of this country have a growing mistrust in the government so any attempts to link more government to this healthcare plan could be bad news for the Democrats. So the solution is for the Franking Commission to change the language to something a bit more appropriate. Rather than "government run health care" you must use "public option health care plan."

Today comes news that said Franking Commission will not be allowing Republicans to refer to the Obama/Democrat plans for a government-run health care plan as a government-run health care plan. Instead, they must use the Democrat euphemism for their government-run health care plan.

Did you get that? Let's keep the whole "government" thing to a minimum and push the false notion that the great unwashed will have "options" under this plan! Looks like someone in the Franking Commission is sticking pretty darn close to the Democrat talking points.

As this debate over the nationalization of health care grows more intense you can expect the Democrats to turn to their usual tactic of demonizing the opposition. This will not be a normal argument over whether or not our system of health care should be run by the private sector or by government. It will turn into a debate over who wants folks to get medical care, and who doesn't. I'm told that Obama sycophant Montel Williams has weighed in now with his theories on Republican health care. He says that Republicans would "just shoot" people who need emergency room care.

So .. that's how the left wants to argue this? Instead of a debate over the benefits and efficiency of private vs. public sector health care initiatives, let's just say that Republicans want poor people to be shot when they need emergency medical care. Before too long you'll be hearing this from more and more statists. They'll be telling you that conservatives don't want poor people to get medical care so that they'll just die and go away. Watch. Let's see if I'm right.

First of all, there is a little debate brewing right now over Barack Obama's pick for surgeon general. The woman is Regina Benjamin, and Dr. Benjamin is not what you would describe as a "flatbelly." In fact, some people are choosing to describe her as a blubberbutt ... which is a big deal only because she is supposed to be the "public face" of healthcare initiatives in this country. Well .. they have a point. Obesity is a huge problem in this country. I wonder how many Medicare and Medicaid dollars are spent every year to handle obesity-related diseases. Now we have a fat Surgeon General? There is a way through this one. Dr. Benjamin should immediately go on a diet. She should make a public show of admitting her slovenly and self-indulgent eating habits, and pledge to drop about 50 or so big ones. Then she could invite the fleshier part of America to join in. Could turn a negative into a plus and do something about the lardassification of America.

Also, one other little goodie. Looks like some Democrats are feeling the heat for their support of this government-run healthcare scheme. Maryland Senator Ben Cardin hosted a townhall meeting the other night on healthcare. When one particular audience member got upset about this healthcare bill stepping on our ... freedoms ... Senator Cardin's response was, "I just think the overriding public interest is to require you and everyone in this country to have health insurance." So there you go. Now our Senator's are voting based on what they believe would be best for the "public's interest."

Don't you just love it when some political hack uses the word "require?" I'll tell you what the federal government ought to require. It ought to require that every person respect the rights of every other person, and to desist from the use of force or fraud in any attempt to violate another person's right to life, liberty or property. Beyond that, butt out.

Truthers take over Congressman Castle's town hall on heath care.

How hard is this to understand? Barack Obama and the Democrats don't care about your health. They don't care about your access to health insurance. All they care about is expanding the size of government making sure that you are dependent on it.

Take this short, seemingly innocuous article from the Associate Press.

The White House is asking Congress to give the executive branch more power to limit Medicare's rising costs.

A White House letter to top lawmakers on Friday said the move would be "a critical step forward" in controlling health care costs and providing better care.

This type of language should scare you, folks ... "give the executive branch more power" or the government "controlling healthcare costs." I want to know where in the Constitution these powers and duties are written.

We've known for a while that Democrats love to appeal to emotion, rather than logic. This would be because liberalism is a philosophy based on emotion rather than fact rationality. We particularly discovered this during the last presidential campaign. That's why they have developed a particular fondness for focus groups ... and they are ecstatic when they discover words like "change" that can fit brilliantly on campaign signs.

So now the Democrats are trying to use the same tactic to pass their precious healthcare reform. Their goal: to dupe middle-class Americans into believing it will help them achieve a better level of healthcare then they presently receive.

Third Way, a think tank, is circulating a memo on Capitol Hill and through the administration explaining how Americans "need to be convinced of the value of what they are buying." Now here is the dangerous line, folks. The memo says, "Stability can offer that."

Now haven't I been saying this for years? The American people are no longer in love with freedom. What the American people want is security ... another way of saying "stability" ... and that is exactly what the current Democrat Party plans to give 'em.

Now, back to this memo. Jim Kessler, who co-authored this memo, says "Most of the current words used to describe and sell reform are computational words -- cost, access, quality ... They are Mr. Spock words, not Dr. Spock words. ... You need to use terms that are warm, evocative and emotional." Here we go with this "emotional" versus "logical" argument again. Yeah ... terms like "change you can believe in."

The memo also offers Obama some suggestions on how to frame his message: "Stable coverage that cannot be taken away from you through life's ups and downs. Stable costs that won't eat away an increasing share of your paycheck. Stable quality so you can get the treatment you need, when you need it, and from the doctor you choose."

Apparently Democrats are catching on to this idea of stability. According to a June 23rd memo distributed to House Democrat Caucus members, "stability and peace of mind" are to be included its daily talking points. So there are now four buzz words for Obama's healthcare plan: cost, choice, quality -- and stability.

OK ... so let me play with this idea of a "stable" lifestyle for a moment. How would one define a stable lifestyle? Let's see ... you are guaranteed a place to live. That's stability, right? So, you have a place to live, what more could you want? How about a guarantee of three meals a day! Getting more stable all the time. Now let's throw in a guaranteed job, and just to top things off we'll include health care! Sound good? Well .. this wonderful "stable" lifestyle is available to you right now! Just commit a crime heinous enough to get you sent to prison.

That's what we're building for ourselves in America, folks. We're all going to have a life of security and stability in a gilded prison.

So you want to know the truth about Barack Obama's healthcare plan? How about 118 million people switching their healthcare from the private sector to the "free" government option? Does that sound like it is going to provide much in the way of competition? No. But that's what the politicians keep claiming. Look no further than Great Britain to see what will happen when the government gets involved in healthcare. This is from the Washington Examiner.

This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved.

The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent.

One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients.

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death.

Not enough for you? Continue reading. You can hear about the wonders of government regulation in France. The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama's healthcare reforms are just the beginning. Like France, it will be a slow decline into a system of government controls, regulation and bureaucracy. A system that is not about your healthcare but about power.

By the way ... if you want the government to take over responsibility for your health care you have no business waving little American flags this Saturday.

Just the other day we had a story about how the government in Great Britain was going to start paying cancer patients to seek treatment in the private sector. Now we have this story out of Canada where private for-profit (the horror!) clinics are becoming a booming business. While Barack Obama seeks to implement a universal healthcare system like Canada, the Canadians are trying to emulate a system closer to the United States.

This article says, "Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment." Yep, that's the future of the United States. In fact, under the Canada Health Act, private facilities are not allowed to charge citizens for services that are covered by government insurance. That was until 2005, when a Supreme Court ruling in Quebec ruled that patients facing unreasonable wait times could pay out of pocket for private treatment.

Now you are going to love this. Here is the explanation from the Ontario Health Coalition as to why private clinics are bad for Canadians: "Private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services."

This, my friends, is why the left is eventually going to have to forbid you from seeking your own doctor with your own funds. That was Hillary's plan .. it will soon be Obama's.

The House and the Senate are working on their versions of the healthcare bill after they return from the Fourth of July holiday. But we are starting to get a better idea of what to expect from the House. Especially considering the advice doled out yesterday by Tom Daschle and John Podesta. They support the idea of taxing some employer-provided health benefits. This seems to be the direction we are heading in.

The healthcare bill currently being considered by the House would include the following, according to the Charlotte Business Journal:

-Employers would have to pay at least 72.5% of the cost of insurance premiums for full-time employees

-Employers would be required to pick up at least some of the tab for insuring part-time employees

-Businesses that don't provide that minimum level of coverage would be required to pay the federal government a fee based on 8% of their payroll

-Small businesses would be exempted from that "play or pay" requirement

Now we know just how ignorant Obama thinks the American people are. Answer: Dumb as rocks.

All the president's men (and women) are out selling the asinine idea that Obama's government health insurance idea is going to put competition into the marketplace. This is an idea that one could only sell to a fool. Thanks to our system of government education, we are not suffering any shortage of fools.

Here's what Obama wants us to think. If the government gets into the health insurance business it will create such a fine and wonderful health insurance product that all other health insurance companies out there will have to tweak their products and prices in order to compete. This competition will, if you believe Obama and his sycophants, make health insurance more effective and more available across the board.

Like I said .. there's certainly no shortage of fools out there. Someone is buying this load of horse squeeze.

Sure, the government may very well come up with a health insurance product that is cheaper (to the consumer) and more effective than those offered in the private sector. Think about this though ... Could that possibly be because the government will be under no pressure whatsoever to make a profit on its health insurance? When you can operate at a loss indefinitely you have no problem undercutting your competitors. When you can call on endless government subsidies you can run anyone you chose out of business.

Let's say I open a grocery store. My stated goal is to give the other grocery stores in town some competition so we can provide a better product to the poor hungry consumers and help them save money at the same time. The other grocery stores will have to make a profit or close their doors. Not me! I'm the government, and I can operate at a loss. I have endless government subsidies and infusions of cash at my disposal. What will happen? No secret: When I move into the marketplace with a below-cost product the other grocery stores will shut down and I'll have your business locked up. Then I can do whatever I want with the choice, quality and price of my groceries and there really isn't a thing you'll be able to do about it.

There, my friends, is Obama's goal. He knows very well that his government-run insurance option is going to run private sector insurance companies out of business. Then the only game in town will be the government. This "competition" nonsense is just a talking point created to placate the dumb masses. The average 12-year-old home schooled child could dissect this game plan in a heartbeat. The same fools who thought Obama was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in their cars will now think that PrezBO is bring good old free market competition to the health insurance marketplace. All hail Obama, the sort-of God.

Now if the competition line doesn't work there's always a little class warfare that can be played. Sorry ... didn't get the name ... but I saw some ObamaBot on Fox News last night trying to sell Obama's health insurance takeover on a wealth envy basis. He referred to health insurance companies being engaged in "Sweetheart Deals that makes its executives very very rich," and referred to the private sector health insurance companies as a "cartel." On the one hand he plays directly to wealth envy and the hatred that the Obama crowd has been generating toward high-paid executives; on the other he conjures images of health insurers operating like the Mexican or Columbian drug cartels. That's the Obama concept of open discussion.

This is about control. Nothing more, nothing less. Obama wants control. Control over every aspect of your life. He's well on his way to complete success.

Wednesday, the president will hold another online town hall about heath care. They're taking your video questions via YouTube. You can try asking your questions. We'll see if they actually get answered or if they just cherry pick the easy ones.

Just when Barack Obama and the Democrats are on the verge of erecting a government-run healthcare system in this country, other counties are reverting to private options. Take this latest news from Great Britain, which is being called a "radical shift in government policy." Cancer patients who are facing long waits in the National Health Service will be given cash to go seek private treatment.

I'm not kidding, folks. The government is going to pay people to opt out of its government-run system and seek treatment from private providers. Basically the legislation would ensure that cancer patients who cannot get an appointment with a specialist within two weeks after being referred from a GP would be provided funding for a private consultation.

Ironically enough, this plan is being included in Gordon Brown's "Building Britain's Future." Meanwhile, the United States is attempting to build the entirely opposite future - going in the opposite direction.

The Obama administration has gotten itself into a little pickle. You see, on the campaign trail, Barack Obama made the mistake of promising that he would not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year. But now reality has hit. He really wants to get this healthcare reform passed and he needs to find the money to do it. One option that has been on the table is taxing healthcare benefits as income. Anyone who isn't government educated might immediately understand that this would clearly constitute a tax increase for a lot of Americans, including a lot of 'em making less than $250,000 a year.

So over the weekend, George Stephanopoulos asked Obama's senior advisor David Axelrod about this option. Axelrod did not say what the people wanted to hear: Axelrod said that taxing healthcare benefits would not be an option because that would clearly constitute an increase in taxes for the middle class. Instead. Then, having said that, he immediately reversed course and "left open" the possibility that Obama would still sign legislation calling for taxing health care benefits if such a bill were passed.

Axelrod avoided answering the question directly by saying, "The president had said in the past that he doesn't believe taxing health care benefits at any level is necessarily the best way to go here. He still believes that, but there are a number of formulations and we'll wait and see ... The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going. We've gotten a long way down the road and we want to finish that journey."

Throughout the questioning Axelrod refused to re-state Obama's promise to not raise taxes on the middle class. Are you starting to get the picture here?

So ... tax increases for the middle class if that's what's needed to "keep the process moving." Now I get it.

I mentioned this one on the air last week, but it is so outrageous that it is worth repeating. When it comes to healthcare reform, the Senate is considering the idea of allowing union-negotiated benefit packages go un-taxed. Yep, as I just talked about in the Nuze item above, there is still an option on the table that would tax employee healthcare benefits. However, if that plan makes it into the bill, union-negotiated contracts would be exempt from paying these taxes.

You can thank Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus for this one. He's the one that believes that any major changes to the US healthcare system should exempt perks secured by existing collective bargaining agreements. In other words ... they would be grandfathered in. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute makes a good point. He says that this "smacks of political favoritism ... "I can't think of any other aspect of the individual income tax that treats benefits of different people differently because of who they work for."

So this would be a way to still tax benefits, but magically exclude 12.4% of American workers who happen to be union members. In the end, who is going to have more of a say come election time?

The magic number for this healthcare bill seems to be $1 trillion. The Democrats are convinced that if they get the cost of healthcare below $1 trillion, that the government educated dumb-masses will suddenly believe it to be manageable.

Whatever.

So top Democrat senators say that they have found $400 billion in savings by reducing the amount of subsidies for the poor, poor pitiful poor to buy insurance. The other $200 billion in savings will come from "further adjusting the level of subsidies."

Are you buying this? Does this make sense to you? When have you ever know the government to cut subsidies? They fertilize these subsidies every day of their lives. They WANT them to grow. Subsidies lead to dependency, and dependency is the tonic on which big government thrives.

There has never been a government health care proposal that didn't end up costing many times more than the original estimates. Medicare is a good example. According to estimates at the time it was passed Medicare should be priced about one-sixth of what it is actually costing us today.

The game here is to get the law passed. Get the people under the government's thumb when it comes to health care. Then suddenly Washington won't be interested in how much it costs. They have what they want. YOU, by the short hairs.

Did you catch this part of PrezBO's presser earlier this week? Some reporter asked him about his government health insurance pushing private health insurers out of business. Obama responds "If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical."

OK .. one of two things about Obama's "not logical" statement is true:

(a) Obama actually believes what he said; or,

(b) Obama thinks that we are too stupid to realize how completely inane his statement was.

Sorry ... but I'm going with (a). Obama's love of all-things-government is so strong that he just cannot see the inherent problems with private-sector insurance competing with a government plan.

First of all .. it is the very nature of competing businesses to try to run each other out of the marketplace. Government health care will be no different. The bureaucrats and politicians behind the government health plan, recognizing that every switch from private sector to government insurance increases government dependency, will fight to destroy the private market. This won't be hard to do, after all the private insurance market will have to earn a profit. The government insurance scheme will not.

Another point .. this from the Cato Institute .. did Obama happen to notice that Medicare completely wiped out health insurance plans for the elderly? To ignore that little fact is simply not logical.

Seriously, folks; did Obama put any real thought into his statement? How can any private sector insurance company compete against a government plan that does not even want to earn a profit and can, in fact, operate at a huge loss year after year? Maybe Obama picked up on that Atlanta college professor who, years ago, announced that the use of linear logic is racist.

Now ... if you don't' think Obama can do all of this ... if you're a doubter. Just click here. You'll feel so much better.

Barack Obama says that his thoughts on healthcare are "evolving." Oh really? Well what are they "evolving" toward? It seems as though Obama is okay with the idea of mandating that individuals purchase health insurance. Of course, there would be a waiver for the poor, poor, pitiful poor. Where in our Constitution does it give the federal government the authority that private citizens buy anything, let alone health insurance? I've tried, but I just can't find it there. Then I suddenly realized what an idiot I was for trying to find a Constitutional justification for an Obama plan.

Now get this ... this is his explanation as to why he thinks that mandates for all people are a good thing: "People have made some pretty compelling arguments to me that if we want to have a system that drives down costs for everybody, then we've got to have healthier people not opt out of the system." Ohhhhh ... that's ObamaLogic for you.

So, in the World According to Obama, even if you are healthy and/or could afford to pay for your own healthcare costs as they arise, the government still wants to force you into its system. Why is that? Not because you need their health insurance, but because they need your money. Duh. If you are a healthier person that is forced into paying for health insurance, naturally you are going to choose the least expensive option, which in this case may be the government option. Now you know you aren't really going to use the services, but hey .. at least you are avoiding that pesky government fine. So now, your payments can be used to subsidize the healthcare of some government leach.

Also, here's the latest line from the Obama administration. Listen to the difference this makes. Obama was preaching the fact that people who liked their healthcare plans and their doctors would be able to keep them under his healthcare reforms. Well, he knows that this isn't true. So he has developed a new line. He says that "the government" will not take away your current healthcare plan. What changed? Well, Obama recognizes what will happen once his reforms go into place ... private employers would probably change their healthcare benefits on their own. They'll simply announce that the employee health plan is going to be terminated, and that all employees should take steps to apply for alternate insurance or move over to the government plan. The employer will probably placate the workers by saying that their paychecks are going to be increased by some fraction of the amount the company was paying for health care. So ... off you go to the government health plan, but the government didn't make you do it. Your employer did. So Obama's "the government won't take away your current healthcare plan" holds true. Obama says "I can guarantee you that there's the possibility for a whole lot of Americans out there that they're not going to end up having the same health care they have ... Because what's going to happen is, as costs keep on going up, employers are going to start making decisions: 'We've got to raise premiums on our employees. In some cases, we can't provide health insurance at all.'" See? He knows the game he's playing here.

So what did you think of Obama's press conference yesterday? Maybe you were more struck by what Obama DIDN'T say compared to what he read from the teleprompter. For example, the Politico points out that his 55-minute news conference failed to include the words "Iraq" or "Afghanistan." That's not all, try the words "Korea," "Pakistan," "soldiers," "surge" and "war." No mention of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine. None of 'em. A stark difference from our previous president ... but I guess this is what Obama meant by "change you can believe in."

Anyway, I'll have my own shot at the questions. Yep, another Boortz Press Conference tomorrow at 11:05AM EST. And no ... I won't be using a teleprompter.

If there is one thing that Barack Obama can do really well it is campaign. I really hoped that this guy would make just as good a president as he was a candidate, but sadly that doesn't seem to be the case. But that's another story. Now that he is in the White House, he is going to use his excellent campaign techniques to get legislation passed. In this case, it would be government-run healthcare. Yep. He is going to use his campaign slogan of "yes we can" to con the government-educated Americans into believing that government healthcare is exactly what they need in their lives.

He said that those "here in Washington who've grown accustomed to sky-is-falling prognoses and the certainties that we cannot get this done, I have to repeat and revive an old saying we had from the campaign: 'Yes, we can.'"

• "Yes we can" make the dumb masses react positively to another focus-group based sloganeering campaign.
• "Yes we can" take control of another 20% of the American economy.
• "Yes we can" gain even more control over you by controlling your access to health care.
• "Yes we can" ration health care.
• "Yes we can" make the necessary excuses when this whole thing turns into dog squeeze. We'll blame what's left of the private sector.
• "Yes we can" stifle innovation in health care for the rest of time.
• "Yes we can" create long waiting lines for seeing a specialist.
• "Yes we can" make it seem as if there are only two MRI units in the entire nation
• "Yes we can" make the Canadians feel better knowing that misery loves company
• "Yes we can" successfully ignore the private sector's role in health care.
• "Yes we can" help to bury the people the people who die because their access to health care was limited due to their age.
• "Yes we can" run your health care like we've run Social Security and Medicaid.
• "Yes we can" fool most of the people in this country ... most of the time.

Gag me. The only thing that is missing is the "change we can believe in" banner underneath. I'm sure that one is coming. After all, "change" is such a hot buzz word with voters.

Investor's Business Daily published some research on government-run healthcare. The Pacific Research Institute did a study on healthcare spending in order to compare the cost of private versus government healthcare. I'm sure that you know what is coming, but here are the details. Don't mention these statistics to a Democrat.

The results are clear: Since 1970 -- even without the prescription drug benefit -- Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.

Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare's per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare's costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.

Just remember that healthcare isn't really about your health or making it more affordable ... it is all about power.

While the Democrats battle within their own party to come up with a healthcare bill that they think can pass, the Republicans have decided to come up with a bill of their own. Does it have any legs to stand on? Not a chance. But here are some of the details according to CNN Money ......

• "Pools" of insurance. It would let states, small businesses and others group together to offer lower-cost, health care plans. Such pools would have to offer, at a minimum, any coverage that is provided in a majority of states.
• Medicaid transfer. It would allow Medicaid users to take the value of their Medicaid benefits and transfer/apply those to a private health care plan instead.
• Boosting of health care savings accounts. It would increase incentives for people, especially those in lower income brackets or over 55, to build up HSAs. OK .. this idea has merit.
• Automatic insurance. It would encourage employers to sign up their workers for health insurance automatically, so that employees would have to "opt out" of coverage if they didn't want it. This is reform? How about moving more health insurance policies to private ownership, instead of corporate.
• Longer coverage for youths. It would allow dependent children to stay on their parents' policies until they are 25.
• Promotion of wellness at the workplace. It would encourage employers to reward employees for improved health.
• Expansion of community health centers.
• Mobile health care. It would allow Americans to maintain their specific health insurance policies when they lose or leave jobs.
• In-home care. It would provide financial help and encourage more in-home care over institutions.
• Limitations on malpractice lawsuits. There is general agreement over limiting such lawsuits, but a deep divide exists over exactly how much.

This is weak. Very weak. There is only a minimal promotion of the private sector here. Let me give you just a few ideas of things they missed:

1. Allow individuals to deduct the cost of their health insurance from their taxable income, just like their employers can right now.
2. End all state insurance mandates. If some insurance company wants to market an insurance policy that doesn't cover for the normal costs of childbirth, drug abuse treatments, mental health treatments, obesity treatments, alcohol-related treatments and the like ... then let them.
3. Allow people to shop across state lines for their medical insurance.
4. Expand the privileges of nurse practitioners. I don't need someone with seven years of medical school and residency to prescribe an antibiotic for a sore throat.
5. Charge a minimum of $5.00 per visit to any public health facility ... regardless of income. This will weed out the people for whom a visit to the doctor is more of a weekly social event.
6. Require only life-saving medical care to those who are in this country illegally.
7. Allow employers to shut out smokers from any company-provided health insurance benefits.

That too me all of 90 seconds .. .and there's not one idea there that expands the size or scope of government.

The Congressional Budget Office released its estimates on the cost of Obama's healthcare plan. Just as expected, it wasn't pretty. Just as expected, the White House immediately backed away from the report. Now all of the sudden, this Dodd-Kennedy healthcare bill "is not the administration's bill," according to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Ok, so technically he is right. That's because the president does not propose legislation. But anyone that doesn't believe Obama's ideas and desires aren't reflected in this bill is full of horsesqueeze. So that's the latest excuse from the White House, the CBO figures don't really count because they calculated it based on a bill that was not Barack Obama's. Got it?

So what DID the CBO report show? Well for one, it estimated that this bill would cost over $1 trillion over the next ten years. The kicker is that this estimate doesn't even take into account the president's government-run health insurance plan. Not to mention the fact that the said goal of this bill is to provide health insurance to all Americans. The reality is that this Senate bill would only increase coverage for 16 million Americans. On top of that, the CBO estimates that millions of Americans would lose their current employer-provided health insurance.

The director of the CBO says, "...When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million."

I wonder if that information will be covered on ABC's coverage of Obama's healthcare Townhall meeting?

The latest from Washington on the healthcare reform scheme.  Republican Senator Chuck Grassley says that Congress will more likely support the idea of requiring individuals to buy healthcare insurance rather than mandating that businesses provide health insurance for employees.  So there's a little bit of shift in the debate ... are Republicans willing to submit to the idea that government can require every individual to buy health insurance?  If that is the case, then the logical follow-up would be to provide a government option, especially for the poor who can't afford it.   But that is precisely what Republicans are against at this time.  Hey, by the way, has anyone heard of a plan proposed by Republicans to reform the healthcare industry?  Just curious ....

Meanwhile, over at the White House, Obama has proposed $313 billion in health cut costs.  These cuts include things like decreasing payments to hospitals and that provide Medicare services.  That's on top of the $400 billion in cuts that have been proposed for Medicare and Medicaid.  Oh and we can't forget the $600 billion that has been proposed in the way of tax increases.  We are talking about a necessary "down payment" for healthcare reform anywhere from $1 trillion to more than $1.5 trillion.

It's a scam, folks, and Obama knows that he has to get it done quickly because Americans are sick of outrageous government spending. 

Last week Obama urges Congress to adopt a government option for healthcare .. a plan that will cost over $1.3 trillion. On Monday Barack Obama announced to the nation that he was going to ramp up stimulus spending.

Now, all of the sudden, Barack Obama is worried about spending. Yesterday he urged Congress to reinstitute Paygo. That would require Congress to finance the cost of any spending initiatives by either increasing taxes or cutting something from the budget. Based on the Democrats lofty schemes -- universal healthcare, increased spending on education, energy legislation, bailouts, stimulus spending - it doesn't seem like much is going to be cut from the budget. In fact, we are talking about the largest expansion of government in history, and that is on top of our $1.8 trillion federal deficit. Oh and somehow Obama also plans on cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term.

So how is all of this going to happen? Well it sure isn't going to happen with economic growth, not with this economic fascist running the show. So the answer is ... tax increases. That's the only way.

We have three basics economic classifications in this country. Producers, moochers and looters. The moochers are licking their chops, the looters are putting on their ski masks and the producers are looking for cover.

You can rest assured that there won't be any direct new taxes or increases on the moochers; after all, those are Democrat voters. Obama's plan is simple. All he has to do is tax the wealth. Seize the money from the evil rich, the job providers, the corporations, the small businesses. We already know that this is the plan to pay for healthcare .. Obama said so earlier this week. Listen to how he says this, "Entitlement increases and tax cuts need to be paid for ... They are not free, and borrowing to finance them is not a sustainable long-term policy." When Obama says "tax cuts" he is actually referring to government handouts. You would know that if the media was treating this honestly. Someone has yet to explain to me how it is possible for Obama to give tax cuts to people who don't pay income taxes. But then again, he is like God (sort of) ... right?

Apparently some items would be exempted from Paygo: Medicare payments to physicians, the estate and gift tax, the Alternative Minimum Tax and tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.

But here is how it really works. This paygo thing is nothing but a gimmick. At least that is what Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, believes. He explains that "the Paygo law required Congress to make across-the-board cuts in entitlement spending at the end of any year in which the Congressional Budget Office found that Paygo requirements had not been met. He said lawmakers responded each time by passing another bill, waiving the Paygo requirements." In other words, it is nothing but a talking point. It's a charade to make you believe that these politicians actually care about spending when in fact they don't. All they care about is making you, the ignorant voters, more dependent on government.

While we are at it, the Congressional Black Caucus has decided to make healthcare reform also an issue of race. No surprise there. To the CBC everything is an issue of race. Without race issues these people would perish of boredom. Now that Obama has thrown himself back into the healthcare debate, the caucus is urging him to focus more on racial disparities in medical treatment when he creates his government healthcare system. You do know where that leads, don't you? We already know that there is going to have to be rationing of health care services when the government starts running the show. Well, if there's going to be rationing, the CBC wants to make sure that race is a consideration. You can rest assured that when the rationing gets underway the race pimps will be watching very carefully to see that the numbers add up. This is going to get very tricky when it comes to issues like hypertension. Blacks suffer from hypertension to a greater degree than whites. Perhaps we'll have to assign quotas based on the occurrence of particular diseases among different races. Bottom line: rationing is a certainty, and the CBC is there to make sure the racial element is acknowledged.

The CBC also plans to introduce an alternative healthcare proposal. This version would seek to improve services in low-income areas (more entitlement programs), eliminate language barriers (more entitlement programs) and improve the collection of data to detect gaps in care for racial minorities (more government bureaucrats).

Trust me, you folks are going to LOVE government healthcare.

It is our goal here at the Neal Boortz Show to keep you informed on the ongoing debate over universal healthcare. Basically, here is where we are. The people of this country are starting to get the picture. They are starting to figure out that their politicians are a little bit too in love with power. It took a while, but some of our brighter citizens are starting to rebel against this idea that America is great because of government. Considering the government takeovers and outrageous spending, Americans are realizing that maybe this idea of "big government" isn't all it's cracked up to be.

So the people are getting antsy, and this is happening before the looters can even really get going on their plan for ultimate power, government healthcare. The left knows they need to work quickly before the great unwashed mess things up. There's another problem: Congressional approval ratings are in the tank. Dick Cheney is more popular than Nancy Pelosi in the latest polls. What to do? How do you save the left's number one priority? You call on God, that's what you do. In the case of the Democrats, that means you get Barack Obama involved.

Yep, the president initially said that he was going to leave the healthcare debate up to Congress. That was then. This is now; and now the people are wary of a government takeover. Riding the coattails of Obama's popularity will be a government healthcare scheme they say will cost this country over $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years. They're wrong. Look for twice that amount. White House budget director Peter Orszag says, "Ultimately, as happened with the recovery act, it will become President Obama's plan." Even Rahm Emanuel says, "Obviously ... the president's adoption of something makes it easier to vote for, because he's -- let's be honest -- popular, and the public trusts him." No, Rham. He's sort of a God.

These people aren't stupid. They know how to dupe the government-educated into believing that this is what they want - more government. 

So what plans are the Democrats hashing out, waiting for Obama to approve and deliver the news to the masses? An outline of the "American Health Choices Act" comes from Ted Kennedy's committee. Now get this ... in this bill, employers would be required to offer healthcare to its employees or pay a penalty to the government. We are talking ALL employers - private businesses - will be forced, by the government, to pay for health insurance for ALL employees; including part time workers.

I know you get hearing this ... but I just can't find anything in the Constitution that permits the government to force private individuals to buy health insurance for other private individuals. That's what going on here. The government is saying "So and so needs health insurance, so YOU go buy it for him. How do you think our founding fathers would feel about this? But who cares, right? They're just a bunch of dead white men anyway.

Also in this bill, all Americans would be guaranteed health insurance. But don't you worry, if poor people can't pay for it, this bill would provide subsidies for them to buy their policy. That's another entitlement program to add to the list. Oh and in case you didn't figure this out by now ..... everyone will be required to purchase health insurance. There could be a tax penalty for people who have "adequate financial resources" (as defined by the government) but do not freely choose to get insurance. You will not be allowed to self-insure. What do you think this is? A free country?

For the insurance side of things, there will be a government option. According to AP, "Insurance companies' profits would be limited, and private companies would have to compete with a new public 'affordable access' plan that would for the first time offer government-sponsored health care to Americans not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid or other programs." Private companies have to make a profit. Government does not. Look for the private sector to be crowded out in the end. Government rules.

So now the real question when it comes to these healthcare schemes is how to pay for it. Well, it didn't take long for the Democrats to come up with a plan: tax the rich. What other way is there?

President Obama wants Congress to consider the idea of taxing the wealthy instead of his supporters. Remember that there is a plan floating around out there, initially proposed by John McCain during the campaign, to tax employee healthcare benefits. The Obama administration had been considering the idea, but it seems as though Obama is going to go the easy route of demagoging the evil rich.

Specifics? Well he wants Congress to consider "limited tax deductions for Americans in the highest tax brackets." Now notice the language ... Obama and the Democrats will never, ever call this a tax increase. Nope. They will stick with the line that they want to limit tax deductions. PrezBO's plan is to attack the two highest tax brackets (36% and 39.6%): He wants to set a 28% cap on tax deductions. This would include mortgage interest, investment expenses and charitable donations. Once your deductions amount to 28% of your taxable income, the deductions end. Obama may not believe in a war on terror, but he sure believes in waging war on private charities! And why not? After all, these private charities are competing with government. That just can't be allowed to happen.

For months, Barack Obama has pushed the issue of healthcare reform on the Congress. Yesterday he cranked up the rhetoric a bit. He sent a letter to Max Baucus and others involved in the creation of this behemoth of a government growth bill. Here are a few things that he wants to see done.

First, he wants at least $200 billion cut from Medicare and Medicaid spending in order to pay for the changes in the healthcare system. Ok, that is definitely a lot of money. However, is it going to cover the costs of creating a government healthcare system? Absolutely not. Economists believe that the true tab for Obama's healthcare scheme is over $1 trillion. But I guess it is the thought that counts.

Obama also said that if ... and that is a big if ... Congress ends up "requiring individuals to purchase health insurance," Obama would make sure to exempt "people who can't afford it." This "hardship waiver" would be a new government entitlement program. Also exempt would be small businesses. He says that small businesses should be exempt from any mandate that employers offer health benefits or pay a tax to finance government subsidies. Oh, so now we are talking about the government MANDATING that private businesses offer employees medical benefits. Can someone please point out the clause in our Constitution that gives the imperial federal government the authority to compel businesses of any size to cover the health care costs of their employees? I've looked ... and I can't find it.

That leads to the next point - tax increases. Obama did not address the issue of taxing healthcare benefits to pay for the poor, poor pitiful poor to have health insurance. He did, however, remind Congress of his tax proposal to "limit itemized deductions for upper-income earners." That's another way of saying that he wants to increase taxes on the rich. But the point is ...... he's gonna spend the money somehow, and cutting Medicare spending isn't going to do it. Your children are going to pay for this folly, and your grandchildren.

Note, please, that there is nothing in Obama's letter, or in his rhetoric, that speaks to any enhanced role for the private sector in our health care future. The goal here has long been to put government in complete control of each and every American's health care. It's about power. In Washington it is always about power. Legislation and ideas that enhance the power of Washington over the people of this country are celebrated, while legislation and idea that transfer power from Washington to the people are denigrated and fought. The FairTax comes to mind. Washington is having a rather easy time taking full control over our health care system because Americans welcome it. One month from today is July 4th, America's most hypocritical holiday. Americans who today are clamoring for the government to take responsibility for their healthcare will, in one month, be singing the praises of freedom. Give me a break.

On Monday it was General Motors. On Tuesday, the Senate advanced a bill giving the government some controls over the tobacco industry. Let's see what our imperial federal government can come up with today! Oh wait! Almost forgot. There's Citigroup too. And our health care industry. Are you keeping a list out there? Just how much of our economy is going to be under government control, if not ownership, by the end of Obama's first year. The question now is whether to call this guy a fascist or a socialist. He's certainly not a capitalist.

Well ... it's going to be OK, isn't it? After all, we all recognize that the government does a much better job of running businesses and enterprises than the private sector does. Right?

Let's use the insurance industry as an example here. How would things be different if the government were running our life insurance companies? As things stand the life insurance companies have to take premiums and invest them. The object is to obtain a decent return on those investments so that the company will not only be able to make money for its shareholders, but also have enough assets to pay death benefits as they come due. Now ... if the government was running a life insurance company it would set enough money aside in any given year to cover expected claims, and then spend the rest. There would be no investment accounts. An inability to sell new policies and collect new premiums to cover current claims would lead to failure. Sounds good, doesn't it?

I know you're tired of hearing this, but elections have consequences ... as does allowing ignoranuses to vote

It's not health "insurance" we're talking about here; it's a health care payment plan.

Insurance is something you purchase to partially reimburse you for UNEXPECTED expenses related to home or auto ownership, or your health. Your auto insurance policy will step in with some cash for a crash, but not for an oil change or new tires. Your homeowner's insurance will come up with some money for repairs to fire damage, but not to replace your water heater or that 20-year-old roof. There are certain budgetary requirements that come into play when you own a house or a car, and your insurance company would laugh you out of the county if you went to them to be reimbursed for an oil change or having your carpets cleaned.

Why, then, do you think that your health "insurance" should pay for ordinary and expected healthcare expenses? It shouldn't. These are things that you should budget for. But the American people have a different idea. They believe that their health care is someone else's responsibility - either their employer's or the governments. Power-mad politicians are only too glad to pander to that idiotic expectation.

You think the government has control over vast amounts of your life now? Wait until the government controls your health care.

This one should have been a no-brainer.  Didn't turn out that way. Democrat Senator Max Baucus is making a big deal over the fact that our government's brilliant healthcare reforms will not cover illegal aliens.  So if the government won't cover the healthcare costs of illegal aliens, that leaves the burden entirely on the private sector.  The government already knows that it can't afford this government healthcare scheme, so this doesn't really make a big difference anyway.

So, why the fuss?  Votes.  The longer this idea of government healthcare lingers out there for the public to digest, the more people will begin to realize that we are making a gigantic mistake.  Government is incapable of providing a service better than any private business.  If you think I'm wrong here .. cite an example.  That being the case, why on earth would we want to hand over our own health, not to mention the health of our loved ones, to a bunch of incompetent government bureaucrats?  Democrats know they have to act fast to get this incredible power wrapped up ... fast enough to stay ahead of the wave of public opinion that is turning against a government health care system.

The looters also know how the voters feel about their tax dollars covering for the costs of illegals in this country.  So this is what the Democrats are willing to "give up."  This is their idea of compromise.  "Look, aren't we doing so well?  We are doing exactly what you want .. we aren't going to cover the medical costs for illegal aliens!"  Then you are supposed to get little tingles up your legs and praise the Lord that you have government in your life.

Trust me ... they drop illegals from coverage now to get your support, then add them right back after the legislation is passed to get Hispanic support.  They think you're too stupid to see what they're up to.  With so many Americans, they're exactly right. 

This shouldn't come as a shock to you. Barack Obama and the Democrats are insistent on making you more dependent on the government. Their current plan on how to make this happen is to convince you that you need the government to provide you healthcare. But reality is starting to set in and guess what? Obama's grand plans are going to be a LOT more expensive than originally anticipated. The original estimate from the Obama administration was $634 billion, but that may pay for only half the cost. We are now talking an upfront tab of up to $1.5 trillion over a 10 year period.

As of right now, the Obama administration is sticking with its figure of $634 billion. What they've realized is that they didn't raise enough taxes to pay for it. They need more tax dollars. Obama's original spending cuts will only actually save about $309 billion and tax increases will only raise about $267 billion. That's leaves a gap of about $60 billion that the administration has to take from your wallet at the point of a gun.

Today the administration will reveal the details of plan B ... a revamp of its tax objectives in order to make-up the difference for this healthcare scam.

We know that Obama will propose $60 billion in new tax increases over 10 years on wealthy estates, businesses and others. So the evil rich, the corporations and business owners will shoulder the burden of payment in order to fund the dreams and schemes of Barack Obama's great government expansion and dependency. More specifically, Obama would tighten estate-tax rules that would give taxpayers less flexibility to minimize liabilities on inherited goods. Another part of the plan would require businesses that make payments to corporations to report these payments to the IRS. The goal is to make sure that evil corporations are reporting all their taxable income.

Another way Obama may try to raise extra cash to pay for this plan is to tax health insurance benefits provided by private employers. This may sound familiar to you ... it was John McCain's plan during the presidential campaign. If health insurance was taxed as regular income, the government could potentially collect another $250 billion each year.

Another way to get more money to pay for this scheme is to do it the Hillary Clinton way: require that every US citizen has medical insurance. Or to put it another way ... make it illegal to be without health insurance.

The House has adopted the Looter in Chief's budget. The cost: $3.4 trillion. There is nothing sophisticated about this budget. The only thought process that went into this mess is "what can we spend and who gets to spend it." One rule ... spending must increase the dominance of government in our lives. Hang on, folks. This is just the beginning, based on the expansion of government that will necessarily happen because of the policies included in this budget.

What kind of policies? I'm talking about Obama's agenda to ensure that Americans look to the government for their healthcare needs. Making Americans dependent on the government for their healthcare will be an incredibly expensive task, thanks to the taxpayers. It will not make our healthcare system in this country any more efficient or cost-effective. In truth, it isn't supposed to. The goal here is not cost effectiveness. The goal is to make people dependent on government. The goal is enslavement.

What does this mean for your grandchildren? Well, deficits under Barack Obama, thanks to budgets like this, will rise to as much as $17 trillion by the end of 2014. Read that again, folks. We are talking $17 trillion. Just last year, the Democrats were whining about a $455 billion deficit.

Beyond healthcare, the budget also includes funding for green energy and tax increases for the filthy, evil rich making more than $200,000 a year. There is absolutely nothing to celebrate here. The parasite class may feel good about the government lifting even more responsibility off their shoulders ... but future generations of Americans are going to read about the freedom and opportunity that used to be ... and wonder what went wrong. Truth be told ... Obama, that's what.

Colorado is considering a bill that would create a single-payer healthcare plan. The bill would establish a 23-member commission that would design a universal health insurance system.

So this government-run system would replace the current private system but ... the bill itself does not include funding for the authority, which means that it would have to rely on private donations in order to function.

Private donations? Are you kidding me?

This whole idea of a state-run system of medical care comes, of course, from the mind of a Democrat. There is absolutely no room for any private sector involvement in this plan. This commission will decide who gets health care, and what type of health care they will receive. There will eventually be onerous taxes levied against the people of Colorado. But wait .. there's more! Deadbeats will start moving to Colorado just to take care of their guaranteed health care system. They won't have jobs or a place to live. Crime will increase. The burden on Colorado residents will increase. Health care will be rationed. But through this all the government will be strengthened ... because the government will control access to health care for the people of Colorado. Government and politicians love this stuff.