ObamaCare: Would You Buy That?

For the sake of argument, let's say that instead of buying health care reform, we were buying a new car.

Would you make payments for 6 months on a car that you've never seen, you don't know what options it comes with, and that has never been tested?

Then, after 6 months of payments, you may get to drive it, but only roads predetermined by someone else while continuing to make the payments that go up and up for 10 years. Everyone who doesn't buy a car will be fined. Finally, when everyone has the same car on fewer and fewer roads, you can't really drive it much because the car company wouldn't allow more fuel to be harvested.

That is an accurate picture of the health care bill that has been built for us by the back room bribery of the self-serving know-nothing brokers of ObamaCare.

Originally posted on 3/19/10 4:03 PM

UPDATE: I'm happy to include this news release from Senator George LeMieux's (R-FL) office as further evidence that nothing the president or the Democrats have used as a sales pitch for their health care reform (HCR) is reliable.

The day the president signed this HCR into law may well be remembered as one of the darkest days of this country, where the completion of the central government's usurping of states' power and Americans' freedom is nearly complete. Next up: Immigration, followed by Cap and Trade.

The Government Health Care Makes to the Floor

Last Saturday in a 60 (D) to 39 (R) vote, the US Senate in a rush to get a nationalized health care billed passed has moved their version of health care reform on to the floor of the US Senate for "debate", as they define it. These days debate mostly entails excluding opposing opinion. And certainly allowing no GOP amendments.

It was illuminating to see how blatant the Democrats are with their bribes and hypocracy, though. U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA) received only $300 Million for her state (being called the Louisiana Purchase) for her vote. she'll vote for anything and is not afraid to brag about it. Another senator, one who railed against the public option, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), has been rolled it on as well. She made a wonderful speech in opposition to the public option and insisted she would not vote for a bill that included it, but voted to allow the bill with a public option still in it to go forward.

I honestly do not know how these people can look at themselves in the mirror each morning.

Hypocrisy of the Left

We have been hearing the tired old tale from the left about grass roots political movements they claim are really organized the power players and pundits of the political right. So these political machinations must be a horrible thing to engage in.

Surprise! The Left, organized and led by White House insiders are now using their power for "Organizing for America". They are cruising around the country looking for and publishing stories from a few unfortunate souls they find in an effort to sell health care reform.

Isn't this a bit hypocritical? The whining and inventing of story lines claiming that the Tea Party movement and other anti-ObamaCare rallies are the product of a duped populace by high powered GOP'ers, while they flagrantly and proudly participate in that very same behavior?

And while they are at it, they (again) will not add any factual interpretation of the HR 3200, the Baucus bill or any any other iterations of there legislation's consequences. They can only use the politics of personal destruction (which the left invented) to abuse and brow beat opponents of their causes.

Moveon.org Wants the Public Option

Moveon.org wants a public health care option. They have enlisted actress Heather Graham to sell the public option (PO) to Americans. It depicts Ms. Graham as a sprinter and the private sector insurance (Big Health Care) as a bunch of fat n' happy lallygagers, filling up on donuts at our expense. The race starts and Ms. Graham pulls ahead but Big Health Care (BHC) catches up after a while. I interpret this to mean that with the the public option, BHC will adjust down to the new premium rates imposed by big government (BG).

While the PO may be preparing for a race, it will be a race to the death of private sector health insurance and a sprint to national bankruptcy.

As Dennis Miller said many years ago (paraphrasing here), "there comes a time when these countries, such as China, say 'wait a minute, what about that other $100 billion you owe us. We gotta have something, my friend."

Of course that will not happen. What will happen is BHC will die a quick death, as Moveon, Democrats in government and the legacy media want to happen in favor of a European style single payer system.

In the video they also want us to know that 70% of Americans also want to be PO'd. Of course that is misleading in a big way.

An October 23rd, 2009, Rasmussan poll shows,

"Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters nationwide say that passing no health care reform bill this year would be better than passing the plan currently working its way through Congress." (which includes being PO'd)

But lying is a trait that liberals admire. (See Clinton, William, US President)

Rasmussan also points out,

"One reason that Democrats have been careful to distinguish between their reform plan and a single-payer system is that just 32% favor single-payer health care while 57% are opposed."

Honesty can't win it for them.

Once again, Moveon.org is barking up the socialist tree and using lies and distractions to move their agenda on. Another reason to oppose being PO'd and another reason to disregard this commercial.

The video...

Public Option Oregon Style: We'll Gladly Help You Die

The term "Death Panels" has been used by conservative talk radio and other conservatives, and most famously by former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Many leftists are giving the Governor credit for coining the term, but it was actually Betsy McCaughey (former Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York) who coined the term. I wonder how far off the mark they are when I see stories like this one from Oregon.

"Health plan covers assisted suicide but not new cancer treatment"

The article shows that government run health care does make life and death decisions. In this article we learn that Oregon has a "death Panel" and they are using it.

"Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva*, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.

Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide."

The story goes on to state that a evil big pharmaceutical is helping her with the medication. Makes wonder who has any empathy, big pharma or elected government officials.

The term "Death Panels" used in association with ObamaCare has even gotten the President's attention and he and his minions are insulting opponents and saying,

"We are closer to achieving that reform than we have ever been and that's why we're seeing some of the divisive and deceptive attacks. You've heard some of them. Ludicrous ideas. Let me give you just one example, this notion that somehow we are setting up death panels that would decide whether elderly people would live or die. That is just an extraordinary lie. This is based on a provision in the House legislation that would allow Medicare to reimburse you if you wanted counseling on how to set up a living will or other end-of-life decisions. Entirely voluntary. It gives you an option that people who can afford fancy lawyers can already exercise." - Mr. Obama

HR 3200, Section 1233, has provisions requiring government certified health care personnel visit the elderly every five years and counsel them on how to prepare in the event they are unable to communicate their end of life issues. Death panels? Maybe, maybe not. But since no one in the US Congress, the press or the president himself, can say that it is not going to be the ultimate purpose of these counselors.

It is especially questionable in light of this administration's re-posting of the end of life and disability advice for veterans pamphlet, "Your Life Your Choices". An atrocious document reportedly created by that famous supporter of the military, President Clinton. It was removed from the VA web site by the Bush administration. Now it's back. This pamphlet is a self study guide to allow you to determine how much of a burden you are to your family and the taxpayers and what you can do about it. Who needs death panels, eh?

Look, President Obama says that he will reduce the cost of health care. But he demands that any plan congress comes up with includes a 'no rescission' and 'no denials due to preexisting conditions'. These will balloon the cost of healthcare insurance.

So where is his savings coming from? He says reducing fraud, waste and abuse, but that is small change compared to entire Medicare/Medicaid system. We don't know if he means cutting all fees and services, but we do know he intends to cut some. Already in the works: An Obama administration plan to cut Medicare payments to heart and cancer doctors by $1.4 billion next year.

What effect do you think that will have? Will more cardiologists and oncologists be poring out of med school? That along with his recent insults to all doctors everywhere. More likely it will mean fewer doctors to service the (revised number) 30 million new patients.

Can you say "rationing"?

I believe it's important to look at government sponsored programs with a very critical eye. Those who have been paying attention know that most "do good" legislation has its unintended consequences and end up hurting more than it helps. Just look at welfare that makes dad unnecessary. That has led to a 70% out of wedlock birth rate in the inner cities.

I believe the President does not know anything about free markets, capitalism, competition, or health care, as he has no experience in any of those areas. He must rely on what he is told by his advisers, who also have no experience in these areas.

President Obama's health care reform ideas, if passed are going to lead to more unintended consequences that he is unable to see. It will mean higher taxes, higher health care costs, and if it's managed by government, it will bankrupt the country. Then again, most of the cost of health care comes later in life and dead people cost nothing. Hmm... Death panels???

*Tarceva, an FDA approved drug, is used for cancer treatment.

Facts Are Stubborn Things, You Snitch

The White House gets that right, it's too bad the facts go against what they want you to know. So now, they are demonizing average Americans and calling for American "snitches" to tell them when someone disagrees with them. I just keep thinking that it's a sad time for this country as they are carry on with their Orwellian business model.

This time, they are trying to revise history by responding to a You Tube video that shows the president, in his own words, supporting a government take over of the health insurance industry. (Just as they've taken over banks and automobile manufacturers.)

The White House says,

"In this video, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office, addresses one example that makes it look like the President intends to "eliminate" private coverage, when the reality couldn’t be further from the truth."

In a lame attempt to counter the opposition video, she points out that the president claims that his reform plan will allow Americans to keep their insurance plan and doctor, if they want to.


In a White house Blog she writes,

"For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them. He has even proposed eight consumer protections relating specifically to the health insurance industry."

The opposition video

So what is going on?

The people who are satisfied with their insurance (80% of private sector policy holders) do not want to have their insurance become so expensive that they will be forced to sign on the Obama plan. The White House and their surrogates are desperately trying to convince Americans that no such thing will happen.

But the people know that the Obama plan leads directly to government run single payer program that will dramatically increase the cost of health care in America and government bureaucrats would be deciding what doctors, labs, specialists, procedures and hospitals the public plan will allow, and to whom they will allow it. This government has a history of choosing the winners, such as Goldman-Sachs, and deciding who will lose, such as Lehman Bros.

In their efforts to keep the public from turning against their plan (too late), they have requested that if you hear anyone talking down their reform plans you should report them to the White House. This is sort of like the legions of informants some 80 years go in Europe.

From the White House.

"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."

Who wants to be a loyal lap dog to the government's disinformation machine?

The blatant Orwellian business model that the administration is employing should be a warning to everyone.

Healthcare Reform: Ban rescissions

While at a left wing blog site, I was reminded of the premise that private sector insurance companies employ a profit protecting methodology called "rescission". A link to an article saying as much was his proof.

I just have to ask Democratic Party supporters; Why is there no law banning rescissions?

Consider this: The Democratic Party have set themselves up as the protector of the little guy in America, the "blue collar" party whose members "feel your pain" and are only in government to look after your best interests have allowed this practice to go on while they were and are in a position to stop it. The US Congress, House and Senate, have been under Democratic Party control for almost all of the last 6 decades. Additionally, they had Democratic presidents for 20 of those years.

Is this how they show their selfless service? Could they have done something about it?

I'm going to say yes, this is how they show their service and that they could have banned this practice. But they didn't.

Next question: Why not?

My first guess would be lobbyists. Our politicians live and breath for lobbyists. Lobbyists have access to real money that their representatives need to maintain their elected offices. You know, so they can help you.

If that sounds cynical, how about this: The US Congress passed a law in 2008 to try to prevent insurance companies (AIG), banks and other Wall Street investors from filing for bankruptcy, while telling you that they were going to save the mortgage industry so you could continue to own your home. They passed out hundreds of billions of federal tax dollars to these companies with no strings attached. Did it stop any foreclosures? (no.)

I wonder how much of that they expected to get back in the form of campaign contributions or maybe special treatment on home or business financing at some time in the future?

Going back a few years to 2001, I wonder if there was some relation between the fact that we taxpayer gave tens of billions of dollars to the airline industry and the fact that Senator Tom Daschle's wife was a high paid lobbyist for the airline industry?
Note: Senator Tom Daschle 22nd United States Senate Majority Leader June 6, 2001 – January 3, 2003

So again, why haven't our representatives banned the egregious practice of rescission?

Oh, I don't know. Why don't you ask their lobbyists?

Government Mandated Health Care Passes the Senate Health Committee

It's not too late to call or write your senators to register your opposition to this country killer.

Reuters is reporting that the Senate Health Committee passed their version of the the Obama health care plan in a party-line 13-10 vote. The albatross is to be combined with the Senate Finance Committee's input, which they have not written yet. Then it will be passed through 4 more senate committees before it comes to the florr.

The bill ostensibly will insure the 46 million people in America that do not have health care insurance. Of course, opponents say that it will insure only about one quarter of that 46M at a cost of $1.5 Trillion.

Additionally, it will add:
- A government-run health care program (will destroy competition and nationalize health care)

- Require most Americans to obtain health insurance (who are they leaving out? Whose insurance plan? ANS: The government's plan)

- Mandate most employers to provide it to their workers. (to reduce job opportunities for middle America, after piling on income and other tax increases on them)

- The legislation also would seek to reduce costs in the $2.5 trillion U.S. health care industry. (by lowering doctors' and hospital fees, thus reducing the number of doctors and hospitals and other emergency services and by cutting Medicare and Medicaid)

Translated this all means the government is going to further tell individual Americans what is best for us and make you pay extra to for arousing their attention.

President Obama has promised to reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending by over $500 Billion to make it whither on the vine.

I this what you want?

Sign the petition at www.freeourhealthcarenow.com

Healthcare Reform: The Public Option w/A View From the Huff

Bob Cesca, A Huffington Post Blogger, opines that the opposition to the Obama healthcare insurance reform is from the "crazy wing nuts" who are lying and exaggerating the situation. He had no real defense for the public option plan. Just your typical leftist insults on subjects he does not understand.

Insults:

"Political race-baiter (and, somehow, CNN contributor) Alex Castellanos"

"random "Republican analyst" on MSNBC: But this DMV crap on a stick is only one of many crazy attacks against the president's healthcare reform agenda and the public option."

"Predictably, as healthcare reform grows larger in the window, the claims from the far-right are becoming increasingly bizarre and ridiculous, topping, in some cases, the psychotic claims of, say, the Obama birthers."

He includes Sean Hannity, Representative Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck in his citing of "crazy wing nuts".

Then there is his absurd claims, while never once backing up anything he writes. (I've just read "True Patriot" by Eric Liu & Nick Hanauer. It has about the same in the lack of any evidence. So, this seems to be the way of the left.)

He states,

"First, no one in the government would mandate this switch."

(to the public option in lieu of their private sector plans)

What he simply doesn't know is the fact that there is no need to mandate it. The public option would put private sector providers out of business. Just as it almost did in Hawaii (an emergency session repealed the "public option" within 7 months of its creation to undo the damage)

"In non-wingnut reality, of course, the public option would function similarly to Medicare, which is hardly a spooky or unfamiliar program, and I challenge anyone to produce a single human being who would willingly give up his or her Medicare coverage."

Of course, this challenge is ridiculous as, except for the the very wealthy, no senior could afford the cost of private sector insurance. And there are reasons for that.

1. There aren't enough customers to spread the risk due to the government's unfair business tactics, which drives up the costs for everyone.

2. Seventy five percent (75%) of all Medicare part B payouts come from the federal government's general revenue. A small percentage comes from the participant's monthly payments (currently $96.40), their co-pays and payroll (FICA) taxes.

As for being reliable, the Trustees Summary Report for 2009 also says Medicare is unsustainable. Besides, President Obama is calling for reducing Medicare and Medicaid spending by $509 Billion annually. So, where is the money coming from?

He continues with,

"Hannity deliberately inflated the number to 20 million and overlooked how and why people would leave their private plans. But I don't think he expected Tom Arnold to be the one to call him on his lies."

Well, all I have to say is, 'Hannity is a piker in the exaggeration department.

President Obama and all of his foot soldiers in the legacy media are claiming that they will cover 47,000,000 uninsured Americans. This is a huge exaggeration of the facts. According to the US Census Bureau the total of 45.65 million uninsured in 2007 included 9.73 million foreigners, bringing the total down to 35.92 million. Of those there were about 9 million who made over $75K per year and chose not to buy insurance, bringing the total down to 27 million Americans who were uninsured in 2007. Moreover, those numbers of uninsured was down in each category.

47 million vs. 27 million

Tell me again, Mr. Cesca, who is exaggerating?

Then, flailing about at Rep. Bachmann, he misconstrues this way...

"As I was researching the topic of crazy wingnut healthcare arguments, I thought perhaps Michele Bachmann would have an insane healthcare quote on the record for me to exploit and debunk. I was wrong. It turns out that Bachmann's most recent healthcare reform attack accidentally underscored the leading argument in favor of the public option."

And what caused that unfortunate circumstance for him? Rep. Bachmann had said,

"Approximately 114 million Americans are expected to leave private health insurance. Why? Their employers will drop the insurance because the taxpayer-subsidized plan will be 30 to 40 percent cheaper."

To which he responds...

"Up to 40 percent cheaper? That's amazing. I've heard estimates of around 30 percent, but 40 percent is even better. Make sure to tell your Republican friends that The Michele Bachmann Unit says that the public option will be 40 percent less expensive than private health insurance."

On the very thin surface, it may look like an endorsement of the public option. When you know a little more, you realize that, once again, this will usurp the private sector's customer base and move huge numbers of Americans to the only plan available, the public option.

And will it cost less overall? Will it be better for individuals needing health care?

According to the CBO, probably not.



But, this is typical of your self-centered leftist blogger. He is way too busy raking the muck looking for insults rather than spending some time trying to dig out the truth. The president has also spent too much time on, well, I don't know what, because he simply has no idea of what is in this healthcare reform that he wants, he just wants it. And this example is typical of his supporters. They also have no clue of the consequences of too much government intruding into private sector free market economies (this explains, in part, how they can support Mr. Obama's policies.

ObamaCare or DemoCare is going to break the bank, if it isn't already beyond repair.

Public Health Care: A Letter To My Representative

A letter to my representative, sent June 25th, 2009.

Dear Representative Buchanan,

I have been watching the current health care debate and I have to say that the Kennedy plan is the wrong plan for our country and its future as the land of the free in a world where freedom is the exception.

While the president assured everyone that the public plan will be competitive and lower costs, we only have to look to the great state of Hawaii to know the outcome. Their program lasted 7 months before they decided to repeal it due to a massive shift in private sector insured to the state plan. They nearly bankrupted the private sector insurers and ran into the red in the state budget almost immediately.

I realize that the federal government can simply print more money when it runs out, but that solution is extraordinarily inflationary and will come back to haunt us when the real costs start settling in. Besides, the president and congress have already spent us into a hole that will take decades climb out of. We simply do not have the funding for a massive health care takeover by the federal government.

The president's claim of competitiveness is false. When employers see that the government will provide insurance, they will drop their employee coverage, just as happened in Hawaii. Private sector insurance companies cannot print their own money to make up for lost customers, so they will have to price themselves out of business. Additionally, how can he claim to be competitive when the Kennedy bill calls for taxing health care benefits, but excuses union members from paying it? In addition it is violation of equal protection under the 14th Amendment and will coerce middle and lower income families to join a union to be able to have insurance.

I have a better idea. Though I'm sure some or all of this has been passed around before, I need to know that it is known to my representative.

First, change the income tax law to allow at a direct 10% or more deduction for all medical expenditures. Currently only the amount over 7% of one's gross income can be deducted on a 1040, and only when itemizing. Make it part of the 1040EZ form. It has been this way for many decades and tells a sad story about American politics. I believe this helps force people into government sponsored programs, such as Medicare.

Two: An additional dollar for dollar deduction for insurance premiums paid out of one's income. This will encourage many to purchase their own coverage instead of relying on Rep. Barney Frank for our insurance needs.

Three: Allow insurance companies to compete for customers across states. Interstate competition will lower costs by expanding the customer base. There are around 1300 health care insurance companies around this country. Let's get them all competing with each other.

Four: Phase out Medicaid and Medicare. The president has already said he will cut Medicare and Medicaid by $509 billion and no one squawked about it. This opens the door to move away from the government solution to a regulated private solution. It is a well-known fact that government insurance programs leads to much fraud and waste (around $60 Billion last year). Additionally, the people who watch their own hard earned money very closely are not so careful with free money from (what seems like) someone else. However, we all know, or should know, that that money to cover the doctor and hospital visits come out of our own pockets when the government is picking up the tab.

Five: Tort reform. The Democrat pundits are claiming it is a non-issue as the lawsuit judgments are relatively small when compared to the total cost of health care. But what is not said is that the malpractice insurance industry has not lowered their premiums. Doctors and hospitals still pay outrageous rates for malpractice insurance and this is passed along to the patients.

Modern society has Americans on-the-go all of the time to earn a living, raise children, maintain homes and personal budgets. I can see how there may not be much concern over having too many labs at the doctor's office when the bill is something they do not have to think about.

The answer to health care reform is for Americans to get involved in our own health care, reduce insurance costs through fair competition and tort reform. Please remember that there can be no competition between the government, with virtually unlimited assets, and private sector insurance companies, who depend on a large customer base.

I understand that changing health care from government issue to personal responsibility is a big job that may ultimately be impossible. Nevertheless, it is important to prevent this country from failing due to a lack of responsibility on the part of its citizens and a need for ever more and more power by some members of the federal government.

Thank you for your support.