I've suggested making this a weekly occurrence. So far, it seems pretty easy to come up with these moonbats. This week we are dealing with Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. First of all ... notice that she is a hyphenated American. Right off the bat, we know that we are dealing with a person who cannot make a decision. But that is for another rant. For today we will stick to a quote from Shea-Porter about health insurance. She is one of these Americans who believes that you come about health insurance because you are "fortunate." Here's the quote ...
"I think when you can pay for insurance, you must ... For those who are blessed to have insurance through their companies, they should keep it."
There are two parts to this mindless quote from Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. I'm a little unclear on this. By "can pay" does our hyphenated congresswoman mean people who have the money left after their cell phones, PlayStations, beer, SUV payments and dinners at fancy restaurants? Or does she mean people who might have enough for a health insurance policy of they only spend for the basic necessities. Just looking for clarification. And why we're all being clarified ... what's the deal with this word "must"? Is the good congresswoman telling us that she is the one who tells us what we "must" spend our money for? She is assuming control over that portion of our life we expended to earn that money? Nice.
The second part of this quote implies that people who pay for health insurance or obtain health insurance as a benefit from their employer are "blessed." Some may also say "lucky" or "fortunate." The point is that these people did not have to work to obtain these benefits, nor do they have to work to keep these benefits. Nope. According to Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, you are merely blessed." Typical fare for the left. Work hard, make good choices, get the right job .. and you're just one lucky stiff.
Why would they be? After all, wealth envy is such an easy card to use on the American public. Most Americans will buy into the demonization of other's success, particularly if it is an evil corporation or business!
So Congressional Democrats are back to their same old tricks: breathing down the necks of the health insurance industry. Their tactic is to regulate the industry into oblivion. The way that you gain support for that regulation is to portray the health insurance industry as the bad guys who need of some serious government intervention.
Chuck Schumer is on a mission to amend the healthcare reform bill to remove antitrust exemptions for insurers. Schumer believes that this law, dating back to the 1960s I believe, is largely to blame for increased medical costs.
What exactly is he referring to? Politico explains: The exemption, known as McCarran-Ferguson, cedes regulatory control of the industry, on the business side, to individual states. But repealing the antitrust exemption would give the federal government more authority to oversee the business side of health insurance companies -- something states now have the sole authority to monitor.
Harry Reid also decided to weigh in on the subject. He says ... and you'll love this quote ... "There isn't anything we could do to satisfy them in this health care bill. Nothing ... They are so anti-competitive. Why? Because they make more money than any other business in America today. . . .What a sweet deal they have."
Oh, so now all of the sudden it is the private businesses that are anti-competitive and the government that is in favor of competition. Amazing how that turned around so quickly. Pardon me if I have this wrong, but isn't it the government that refuses to allow health insurance companies to engage in interstate competition? Isn't it government that tells insurance companies what they must cover? Isn't it the government that prevents a health insurance company from offering a bare-bones policy to those who cannot afford a more comprehensive plan? All this --- and it's the health insurance industry that wants to kill competition?
Even Politico points out that this latest push from the Democrats indicates "that Democrats are planning to intensify their efforts to paint insurance companies as the villains in the health reform fight, something that could prove useful as President Barack Obama and others try to rally a skeptical public around a sweeping health reform measure."
Throughout this debate over healthcare, many Americans have argued that a mandate to purchase health insurance in unconstitutional. It looks like somebody in Washington finally woke up and took the message to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Senator John Ensign (a Republican from Nevada) asked the Committee's Chief of Staff, Thomas Barthold, about the penalty for not obtaining health insurance. Barthold came back with the following response:
People who fail to pay the $1,900 fee for not purchasing coverage under Obamacare would be charged with a misdemeanor, charged a penalty of up to $25,000 or face up to a year in jail.
Now remember, Barack Obama does NOT consider this mandate a tax. Just last weekend with George Stephanopoulos, Obama said, "The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase." Now we have already been through this asinine argument about auto insurance versus health insurance. It's a crock. But if the government has the ability to through you in jail over failure to purchase health insurance, that is a tax.
Even knowing this, Republican (RINO) Senator Olympia Snowe crossed the isle last week and voted with the Democrats to reject an amendment that would have eliminated this individual mandate.
Please ... you're not still driving around with an Obama-Biden bumper sticker on your car, are you? Have you no pride?
President Obama and the Democrats truly seem dumbfounded by America's response to their healthcare reform plans. Maybe this has something to do with it. Polling, studies and focus groups have been working for years to come up with precise language that would win over voters on the issue of healthcare. We are talking as far back as 2005, the Herndon Alliance met with the AARP, Service Employees International Union, the American Cancer Society and the liberal health-policy group Families USA in order to figure out how liberals could change the language of the healthcare debate.
This is why Barack Obama changed his rhetoric to "health insurance reform" rather than "healthcare reform." This is why he says phrases like " the mandatory purchase of health insurance would 'be affordable, based on a sliding scale.'" This phrasing "precisely mirrored language that had been poll-tested and put before batteries of focus groups by Democratic consultants over the past few years," according to the Wall Street Journal. "The words had been carefully chosen in an effort to take away the rhetorical targets of health-overhaul foes and replace them with terminology that would bring ordinary Americans on board."
So what happened? You happened. You, the American people, decided to wake up see right through the focus group rhetoric and transparent phrases. The Democrats have been working on this moment for years ... and they are losing the battle. I love it.
Last week sometime I told you about Henry Waxman's little letter that he sent to the nation's largest insurance companies demanding to see their financial records. Well now we have come to find that this investigation into the insurance companies started a month ago ... probably around the same time the Obama administration decided it was going to change this to health insurance reform rather than healthcare reform. But that is beside the point. The reason I bring this up is because a spokeswoman for Waxman's House Energy and Commerce committee tried to defend these probes, and here's what she had to say:
" ... lawmakers need to know that private insurance money is being spent effectively as part of the effort to control costs."
There is NO obligation whatsoever for the insurance companies to cough up this material. The people of this country are making a stand ... with the insurance companies do likewise?
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
What's the number we hear tossed around? Let's settle on 47 million. OK, a few questions:
How many of the uninsured are illegal aliens. Answer ... about 25% of them. They came here illegally, they stay here illegally, they work here illegally ... and we're supposed to be upset that they can't afford health insurance? If they get hurt patch them up and send them home.
How many of the uninsured are young and just not buying health insurance because they think they're pretty much bulletproof right now? I've seen estimates as high as 20 million .. almost one-half of the uninsured. Hey, they made their choice ... let them suffer the consequences. Why do I have to sacrifice my health care freedom because some nimrods decide it is more important to pay for that new BMW and the flat screen TV than it is to take care of their health needs.
How many of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid or Medicare and just haven't signed up for it? Millions. So ... sign them up? Instead of taking over our health care, get these people signed up and take care of them under the programs we already have.
And how many of the uninsured are in a transitional state ... moving from one job to another and waiting for the new policy to kick in. Millions more. We're going to turn out health care system over the government because of people changing jobs? How about just passing some laws that make health care insurance more portable?
Remember .. there are solutions out there. The only solution acceptable to the Democrats is one that makes government more powerful.
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.
Here's a little cheat sheet for you .. a Boortz cheat sheet on the latest facts about this government healthcare scheme that you need to know! Don't think for a second that these Democrats actually care about your health or your access to clinics or your freedom to choose doctors. They don't. They care about one thing, and that is power. I know, we've covered that before. There is, though, only one real way these people stay in power: you vote for them and keep them there. So the only way these people are going to vote against this healthcare boondoggle is if you tell them that you don't support it. So here are just a few reasons to ponder ...
- Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said "The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government,"
-"According to that assessment [from the CBO], enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period."
-"A new report by the Lewin Group (commissioned by the Heritage Foundation) finds that the House Democrats' health care bill would shift more than 83.4 million Americans from private health care coverage to the government plan. To put that in perspective, that would mean that nearly half (48.4 percent) would lose their private health coverage."
-"Currently, the top rate is 35 percent. But in his budget President Obama proposed raising the top two income tax rates from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent. Families in the top 20 percent of income earners already pay 94% percent more income taxes than middle-income families. The new surtaxes would extend progressivity at the top of the income spectrum and raise the disparity in taxes paid between middle- and low-income families and high-earning families."
-"In the six highest-taxed states, Oregon (11 percent top income tax rate), Hawaii (11 percent), New Jersey (10.75 percent), New York (8.97 percent), California (10.55 percent), and Rhode Island (9.9 percent), the top rates would be higher than all but Denmark among OECD countries if the Obama plan and surtax become law."
-"Under these higher taxes, families and small businesses making over $350,000 in every state would face higher top rates than 21 OECD countries--including France, Italy, and Spain. Even the nine states with no state income tax at all would have higher rates than these social democracies that are typically regarded as countries with punitively high taxes. Taxpayers in all 41 states that do levy an income tax would pay a top rate that is higher than all but seven of the 30 OECD countries."
-"The Senate version of President Obama's government health care overhaul contains a mandate that all businesses provide their employees with health insurance or pay a fine, unless the business employs fewer than 25 people. Critics say the 25-employee benchmark could stifle small business growth by prompting companies to limit themselves to 24 employees."
-"The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee's health care legislation will give the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop "standards of measuring gender" -- as opposed tousing the traditional "male" and "female" categories -- ina database of allwho apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans."
-"More than a million small business owners and about two-thirds of the profits earned byU.S. small businesses would behitbythe income taxincrease onthe "rich"that House Democratic leaders want to enact to pay for the health-care reform plan President Obama wants passed this summer, a taxpayer watchdog says."
-"A survey by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) found that 20 percent of its respondents would simply shut down if they were faced with this choice of being forced to offer health insurance. They couldn't afford it. One out of four said they would replace full-time workers with part-time workers in order to avoid having to pay anything."
-"According to the National Tax Foundation, the top total tax rate on Americans -- that is, state, local and federal taxes -- will top 50% in 39 states" if the Democrats pass their healthcare legislation.
-"So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised -- with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."
-"A quick review of the legislation shows that it calls for two new government agencies, three trust funds, three advisory panels, two task forces, a research center, a medical device registry, an ombudsman and many pilot and demonstration programs."
All this sounds so wonderful, doesn't it? The same political party that brought us Social Security and Medicare is on the march again. Watch the carnage.
Well, let's call it slightly promising. It seems that with every day that passes more and more people start to express doubts over the Democrat's plan for a nationalization of our health care system. Now some of the nation's governors are weighing in with their concerns over the possibility of increased Medicaid costs.
Is it possible that the people of this country are going to catch on? A huge portion of American citizens - perhaps a majority - care about only one thing; shedding yet another personal responsibility. They don't care who runs our health care system as long as they don't have to take personal responsibility for their own health needs. Just look around you at the ever-increasing proportion of lardasses in our society. These people don't care enough about their own health to push back from the table or to drive by a fast food joint without turning in. Do you think they have one desire in the world to take responsibility for their own health needs? If someone else wants to do it, that's just fine with them ... especially if the evil rich can be forced to foot the bill. That just leaves these gargantuan hulks more money for Whoppers and Quarter Pounders.
Perhaps, though, the people who will end up paying the bills - the achievers - are starting to take note of the terrible costs to be paid for what will surely be a sub-standard health care system. Who knows? Maybe the slovenly caucus will actually start wondering just how they're going to like it when the government tells them they can't have a particular medical procedure because they're too old ... or too fat.
No Private Sector Options on the table
There has never, in the history of civilization, been an economic system devised by man that did a better and more efficient job of delivering need and desired goods to the population than our system of free enterprise. How many of you think that you would have those iPhones in your pockets if the government was still closely regulating the phone companies? Yet the Democrats' plans for health care completely ignore the private sector. It's all government. There are some very easy private sector options that could be tried before the government takes the whole ball of wax over ... and if you want just a few easy examples, here you go:
Allow insurance companies to tailor health care policies to the specific needs of the customers. I, for instance, do not need maternity protection or coverage for alcohol rehab.
Allow consumers to purchase health insurance companies across state lines.
Widen the availability of medical savings accounts.
Allow consumers to deduct the cost of insurance from their taxable income.
Allow doctors, nurses and medical suppliers to take a credit against any income taxes due for the market value of services provided free to those living at or below the poverty level.
There .. that took about 30 seconds. All viable private-sector options, yet none are on the table for the Democrats in Washington.
This isn't about improving our health care. This is all about taking OVER your health care and making you that much more dependent on government.
There is no way that Democrats could be ignorant enough not to understand that their proposed tax increases are going to hit businesses. Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a 5.4% surtax on income over $1 million along with other smaller surtaxes on the evil, filthy, disgusting rich people earning more than $250,000.
- 70.1% of returns facing a tax increase have some form of business income.
- 26.0% of all income earned by those returns facing a tax increase is business income.
- The total tax increase on business income would be $51.3 billion, a 24.5% increase, assuming business income is the last dollar of income earned.
- 36.7% of the total tax increase is attributable to tax increases on business income, assuming business income is the last dollar of income earned.
- The average return with business income would face a total tax increase of $3,246.
- The average return facing a tax increase would face a total tax increase of $54,716.
- The average return with business income that is facing a tax increase would pay an extra $66,979.
There's a lot more .. and it will be easier to understand if you read the chart.
And speaking of businesses .. the House Democrat plan also plans to impose a penalty of 8% of payroll if employers do not offer health insurance. This will be the case for all but the smallest of businesses. According to this editorial in the Miami Herald, a survey by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) found that 20 percent of its respondents would simply shut down if they were faced with this choice. They couldn't afford it. One out of four said they would replace full-time workers with part-time workers in order to avoid having to pay anything.
Now this is change you can believe in! Remember, folks. Elections have consequences.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Allow individuals to deduct the cost of their health insurance from their taxable income, just like their employers can right now.
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.
Allow people to shop across state lines for their medical insurance.
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.
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.
Require only life-saving medical care to those who are in this country illegally.
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.
If the government passed a law requiring employers to provide health insurance policies to employees, what would that do to our employment figures?
And can someone please --- after all of these years --- please explain to me the logic behind the conventional wisdom that when you hire someone you are supposed to provide them with health insurance? Why not life insurance? After all, if they die they can't come to work, can they? Why not auto insurance? They have to drive to get to work, don't they?
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Max Baucus is determined to have his hands all over this government healthcare plan. And here is his latest brilliant plan: tax workers on their employer-sponsored health insurance in order to pay for government healthcare for the currently uninsured.
Unbelievable.
As of right now, 160 million workers get their health insurance through their employer. It is not taxed as income, and a lot of people say that this leads to workers seeking a more generous benefits package than they might want if it was taxed.
As you know, under Democrat rule you aren't allowed to get any benefit from anywhere unless it is taxed. Now its your health care plan. Next will be your parking space and that free coffee in the break room. Come on! Think about it! If you're taxed on the health insurance coverage provided you by your employer .. why not that coffee? Why not the value of those do-nuts your boss brings in every Friday?
How far can these tax and spend Democrats go, folks?
One step at a time, in the days leading up to an Obama presidency .. we are getting closer and closer to government healthcare in this country. The latest step is the House passage of the Children's Health Insurance Plan bill (SCHIP). Now it's off to the Senate for approval. Then it is off to Obama's desk for him to sign once he is sworn in.
Don't forget that this is the bill Henry Waxman says, "This bill is a down payment, a down payment on health care for all Americans." Healthcare for all Americans is just another way of saying "healthcare that is run by the government."
Forty Republicans in the House said yes to the bill, despite some of the following criticisms ..
First of all, Republicans had little to no input into the bill. There's something they are going to have to get used to. Republicans claim that the bill would allow states to enroll families with incomes upwards of $80,000. Another reason they opposed the bill was because of "a provision in the measure that would lift a ban on providing the benefit to legal immigrants who have resided in the United States for less than five years." And finally, they were upset with a provision that would prohibit doctors from referring patients to hospitals that they (the doctors) have an ownership interest in. So we are talking about physician-owned hospitals. The private sector shall have a limited role in health care - how dare these providers of medical care actually own a facility for providing medical care? This makes about as much sense as forbidding a mechanic from owning the garage where he works.
As Waxman says, this bill is a down payment. This gets the foot in the door. And it is all happening without many Americans even batting an eye or picking up a phone to call their Senators.
The Democrats are getting straight to work on passing their agendas for Obama to approve once sworn in. And as soon as next week, the Congress will be debating a children's healthcare bill. Otherwise known as SCHIP. You'll remember that SCHIP passed the Congress twice in 2007 and it was vetoed twice. Now, we are playing a different ball game.
Next Tuesday or Wednesday, expect a vote for the program, which is described by democrat lawmakers as "providing health insurance for children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford coverage." Why can't they just call it what it is, folks? It's welfare. And many of these people who cannot afford coverage .. how many of you want to bet that they have big flat-screen televisions, cell phones and a brand new car with huge payments ... plus other assorted luxury items. Remember that our definition of "poverty" in this country is becoming synonymous with the size of your flat screen TV, not your ability to obtain food and shelter.
I've said this before and I will say it again, this SCHIP nonsense is just a Trojan Horse .. what these politicians are really after is establishing universal healthcare in this country. And this isn't just me being all "glass half empty." This is straight from the mouth of Henry Waxman. He says that passing the SCHIP bill next week is a "down payment on national health insurance."
Did you get that? This is just the beginning. I hope you are ready to get back into the thick of things. These politicians have a goal .. and that goal is to make you dependent on the government for health care. Once they have control of your health care, they have control of you.
In case Obama is seriously toying with the idea of requiring every American to have some form of health insurance ... he might wanna listen up. According to a poll commissioned by Consumer Watchdog, less than 15% of Americans support the idea of requiring every Americans to provide proof of private health insurance or face tax penalties or other fines. And 53% of voters were opposed to the idea altogether.
Here's something interesting to note ... Opposition is also strongest in the West (61% oppose; 16% favor), North Central states (54% oppose; 16% favor), the South (51% oppose; 13% favor) and in the Northeast (45% oppose; 18% favor).
There's also this little problem: Where in our Constitution does the Imperial Federal Government of the United States derive the power to force one single American citizen to BUY ANYTHING? Oh ... almost forgot. The Constitution really doesn't count any more.
You'll get a kick out of this. Oklahoma is really taking to heart the idea of universal health insurance coverage. Oklahoma State Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland has proposed a plan to make sure that all Oklahomans have medical coverage - make it mandatory. And if you fail to comply, the government will take away your driver's licenses, take away your state income tax deductions, and (hold your breath) take away college football season tickets.
Naturally, people are immediately upset because it "unfairly targets" the poor people who can't afford medical coverage. Don't worry, I'm sure that a tax on the evil rich to pay for the poor people to have medical coverage is part 2 of this story.
How are your preparing for life under nationalized healthcare? It is coming quicker than you think, folks. I'm talking within the first 100 days of a Barack Obama administration ... you will get exactly what you voted for. Obama has tapped former Senator Tom Daschle to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Beyond that, Daschle will also serve as the White House "health czar." He will be the key in healthcare legislation.
The announcement couldn't come at a more perfect time. Last week, Senator Max Baucus introduced his plan for healthcare reform - similar to Obama's but making it illegal for you to be without health insurance. Somewhere in the Constitution Baucus has found a clause which states that the Imperial Federal Government can order citizens to buy things. If this is OK for health insurance, why not just solve this whole automobile mess right now by requiring every citizen to buy a Ford, Chevy or Chrysler?
On Monday we have Ted Kennedy coming back to Washington and vowing to make healthcare legislation his priority. On Tuesday Kennedy asked Hillary Clinton to be a key player in drafting healthcare legislation. Yeah .. that really worked out for us before, didn't it? And yesterday we have a meeting of the minds in Washington to begin drawing up official plans. Not to mention Daschle's selection.
Max Baucus says, "I think we have to move very quickly ... We have to seize the opportunity, build momentum, because it's difficult to anticipate what else is going to come up next year." I'll tell you what is coming next year, a country that is in no way ready to pay for the costs of a government healthcare system. Remember that Obama's healthcare plan is estimated to cost $75 billion in the first year alone.
There is one industry that has jumped on the bandwagon. The health insurance industry. They say they will support a requirement to accept all customers, despite any pre-existing medical conditions, if lawmakers mandate that everyone buy healthcare coverage. Everyone buys into the system. Prices go up because health insurance is forced to cover chronic medical conditions. Government sets price limits on the insurance industry because it would be unfair to charge more. The evil rich are denied any tax breaks for medical coverage, perhaps even taxed, in order to pay for the medical coverage of the many. Do you see how this is working out, folks?
Just remember this ... all of this ... all of this nationalized health care talk ... is about one thing. Gaining more control over you. Nothing more. When politicians control your health care they have you by the short hairs. Get the picture?
Teddy Kennedy returned to Capitol Hill yesterday. Glad he is able to do so. But it is no secret that he has one big fish to fry: socialized medicine. Teddy is already meeting with Senator Max Baucus, who just last week outlined his plan for universal health insurance. His plan is pretty similar to the one Barack Obama campaigned with, only Baucus' plan would mandate that every American have health insurance. Don't you just love the word "mandate?" That means the government ... the taxpayers ... are going to be stepping up in a big way to fund the dreams and schemes of Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy, and Barack Obama. How much are we talking? Try $75 billion in the first year alone. Within ten years, the tax payers will have forked over more than $1 trillion to follow through with a government mandate that all Americans be insured.
Question: Just where in our Constitution does the Imperial Federal Government get the right to mandate that any American buy anything? Let alone health insurance. But then what good is the Constitution when politicians want to flex their muscles. Answer: Less and less.
Today in Washington, Senators will be sitting down and figuring out their game plan for how to get this legislation passed. What they are relying on here, folks, is your government education. What is happening today in Washington is a handful of politicians are figuring out how they are going to divvy up the power between them ... they are planning a war against a dying cause: self reliance.
Just yesterday, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decided that it does not plan to make the taxpayers pay for weight loss surgery for diabetic patients who are not dangerously overweight. Did you know they were even considering this? What would stop these back-room Senators from determining that weight loss surgeries should be included in their efforts to provide "adequate" healthcare? You may think it's a stretch, folks, but it is only a matter of time once the government gets more of its hands on the healthcare industry in this country.
Search Boortz.com
I've suggested making this a weekly occurrence. So far, it seems pretty easy to come up with these moonbats. This week we are dealing with Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. First of all ... notice that she is a hyphenated American. Right off the bat, we know that we are dealing with a person who cannot make a decision. But that is for another rant. For today we will stick to a quote from Shea-Porter about health insurance. She is one of these Americans who believes that you come about health insurance because you are "fortunate." 
Why would they be? After all, wealth envy is such an easy card to use on the American public. Most Americans will buy into the demonization of other's success, particularly if it is an evil corporation or business!
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 
What's the number we hear tossed around? Let's settle on 47 million. OK, a few questions:
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, 
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.
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. 
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."
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. 
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, 
While we are at it, 
So what plans are the Democrats hashing out, waiting for Obama to approve and deliver the news to the masses? 
In case Obama is seriously toying with the idea of requiring every American to have some form of health insurance ... he might wanna listen up. 
You'll get a kick out of this. Oklahoma is really taking to heart the idea of universal health insurance coverage. Oklahoma State Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland has 