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,"

Don't believe me? Here's the link.

-"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."

Don't believe me? Here's the link.

-"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."

Don't believe me? Here's the link.

-"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."

Don't believe me? Here's the link.

-"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."

Don't believe me? Here's the link.

-"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."

Don't believe me? Here's the link.

-"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."

Don't believe me? Here's the link.

-"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."

Don't believe me? Here's the link.

-"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."

Don't believe me? Here's the link.

-"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."

Don't believe me? Here's the link.

-"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.

Don't believe me? Here's the link.

-"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."

Don't believe me? Here's the link.

-"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."

Don't believe me? Here's the link.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just so you know, if you are opposed to Barack Obama's healthcare reform scam you may be using "scare tactics and fear-mongering." Yep. Obama says that "because these fear tactics have worked, things have kept getting worse."

So not wanting the government to be involved in my healthcare decisions suddenly makes me a fear-monger. Pointing out the absurd costs to the tax payers and the redistribution of wealth that is necessary to fund Obama's plan ... that makes me a fear-monger. Daring to suggest that healthcare is not a right, it is a privilege. Fear monger. Oh .. and warning people that Obama's massive government plan must, of necessity, result in the rationing of health care? That's fear mongering as well.

I have long thought that socialized medicine was inevitable in this country. What government wouldn't like to have this power over its people? You control someone's health care, you control that person. Now I'm wondering .. because of Obama's overreaching and haste, is it at all possible that the people of this country might actually wake up and turn against this life-destroying plan before its too late?

Barbara Bush had open-heart surgery. She's fine. This should be of interest to you however. As soon as we get the Democrat's nationalized medicine your chances of getting open-heart surgery at her age will be somewhat similar to my chances of waking up tomorrow with a full head of hair.

Commissar Obama is really pushing this nationalized medicine thing. Remember .. in Obama's mind America's greatness comes from government - on only government can provide us with a great health care system. Private sector? Forget it. If there are any certainties in our life - one would be the certainty of rationed health care in our future.

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.

Wait until plastic surgery gets on the list.

Am I beating a dead donkey here? When it comes to universal healthcare, where better to look for a shining example than Great Britain. The National Health Service of Great Britain costs the taxpayers about $200 billion per year. And by the way, that is more than double what it cost ten years ago ... but that is beside the point. The NHS is getting to the point where it must choose between buying expensive drugs for terminally ill patients or providing more care to more people.

Is that really a choice that you want anyone to make about your healthcare? Even worse, why should the government be the one making that choice for you? Well I can answer that ... because you've virtually begged for it. Americans now think that their health care is someone else's responsibility: either their employer or the government. The very idea that we should be responsible for anything more than a Q-tip or a bottle of aspirin brings howls of outrage. We're asking for it ... begging for it ... and we're not going to be pleased with it at all. Politicians will live it though. Ohhhhh .... Just think of the power! How powerful you must feel when you tell an elderly American that they can't have a specific drug or medical procedure because someone younger needs it more.

In Great Britain, 800 out of every 3,000 cancer patients lose their chance at getting life-saving drugs because it would cost too much for the NHS budget. And that number is only going to get bigger and bigger. In fact, the UK is now considering making a permanent ruling that certain medications that are "too expensive" should be excluded from government-funded treatment. So even if there are better treatments out there, you can't have them because the government doesn't want to pay for it.

And you people in American actually want this. You have the ability to stop it, but you won't because you've been taught all your life that government is the answer. That government can go it better. That government is there to solve your problems. You are setting up your children for a rude awakening.