Obama's Health Care Rationer-in-Chief

My posting on Tuesday August 11, 2009, discussed the plan from Obama's Health-Care Rationer-in-Chief, Dr. Zeke Emanuel (brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) for who will get health care and who will not under ObamaCare. A full article on this same subject, showing Zeke's actual curve for who will get how much health care, was published in the Wall Street Journal, on Thursday August 27,2009 page A15. The discussion in the WSJ is naturally much more extensive than in my posting, but it makes many of the same points. However, three important new points are revealed in the WSJ article:
1. Zeke wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association in February, 2008: "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic records are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change". AT THE TIME, ZEKE DIDN'T KNOW THAT OBAMA'S SPEECHES IN 2009 WOULD EMPHASIZE THESE 'LIPSTICK' PROMISES. Even Obama's top advisor on a new health care system recognized that Obama's promises were phony.
2. Zeke has been fighting for a GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE and for HEALTH CARE RATIONING for over a decade. Clearly, OBAMA KNEW this background on Zeke and yet he appoints Zeke as his top advisor on the overall philosophy of a health care system. Thus can be NO DOUBT THAT ZEKE IS IN LOCK STEP WITH OBAMA on the end game for health care, sneaking up to it through the "public option" or "government supported cooperatives". As in my earlier posting, the WSJ article shows that the ZEKE-OBAMA PLAN will call for RATIONING FOR ALL, but the worst hit will be the very young (under 10 years of age) and those over about 50 to 55 years of age.
3. Zeke's has written that medical school education is on the wrong track; Doctors are trained to "emphasize thoroughness" and in the Doctor's Hippocratic Oath they are trained to use their power to heal the sick to the best of their ability and judgment. Instead, Zeke thinks that doctors should be trained to control cost even if it means withholding certain drugs, tests and procedures and to consider the age and health condition of a patient before providing health care to the best of their ability. If you have been a patient for any serious illness or injury, or are related to some one who has, then I think you would prefer the approach that doctors are now trained to take rather than the Zeke-Obama philosophy of rationed health care.

ObamaSpeak

When Obama says "I just want to be clear about...." or "let me be clear about..." or "I just want everybody to be clear", then you can be sure that you are going to get some convoluted explanation that makes no sense and is just meant to distract from giving a "clear" answer to a question or a "clear" position on an issue.
When Obama says "we would be willing to consider ....", you can be sure that he has no intention of considering an alternative proposal but is trying to sell his image of being open-minded and bipartisan.
When Obama says he "misspoke" or he needs to " reset" or "calibrate his words" you can be sure he got caught either totally lying or distorting the truth or contradicting one of his previous statements. He is trying to get you to remember the "recalibrated" words rather than the original words.
When Obama refers to a "teachable moment" you can be sure that he got caught speaking without the facts and was wrong. Rather than admit he was wrong, he wants you to believe that there is an academic issue at hand whereby we all have the opportunity to learn.
When Obama gets a question he doesn't want to answer, he might use the term "brief" or "briefly" in prefacing his remarks, then you can be sure that you will get a long-winded speech that never answers the question but which goes off on various tangents to repeat a standard set of talking points that he has memorized.

What Happened to the Cry of "Eight Years of Failed Economic Policies?"

Remember the campaign slogan of " eight years of failed economic policies" (of the Bush administration) which was repeated hundreds of times by Obama and every Liberal Democrat. this same slogan also was used to stampede Congress and the public into accepting the $787 billion Stimulus bill which isn't stimulating anything according to every economist. Ben Bernanke was one of the key architects of the Bush economic policy.
Bush appointed Bernanke in 2002 as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.
Bush appointed Bernanke in 2005 as Chairman of his council of Economic Advisors.
Bush appointed Bernanke in 2006 as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Now, two-faced Obama reappoints Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve for 4 more years.
What happened to all of those "eight years of failed economic policies"?
Those eight years under Bush look pretty good compared to the first eight months of Obama's and the Democratic Congress' disastrous economic policies.

Afghanistan and Iraq Numbers

In the final month of the Bush administration (December 2008), the United States had about 160,000 military and 220,000 contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. The surge had worked in Iraq and we were making great progress in Afghanistan although more troops were needed.
In June 2009 (the most recent month for which numbers are available), the Obama administration had 185,000 military and 195,000 contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are now losing ground in both wars.
This is the "change you can believe in".

Just Hope He Never Pledges To Protect Your Interests.

Obama to CIA in April 2009: "so I need everybody to be clear: we will protect your identities and your security as you vigorously pursue your missions".
Now in August 2009, the Attorney General Eric Holder, who was appointed by and serves at the pleasure of Obama, decides to renege on his and Obama's previous decision to close the files on CIA operatives and others who were involved in enhanced interrogation of Islamic Terrorists. Obama tries to make this sound like an independent decision by Holder; this is a fake, Holder will do what Obama wants him to do.
At the same time, documents have been released that prove that the enhanced interrogation techniques, including water boarding, clearly obtained information on terrorist plans for future bombings and other activities, not just information on past actions as the far left would have us believe.
So, why is Obama and Holder doing this? The best guess is that there are two reasons: first to appease Obama's base, the left wing of the Democratic Party, and second, to divert some attention from Obama's slide in the public's confidence and popularity due to the huge deficit spending that keeps piling up and the revolt against ObamaCare with its single-payer public option.
Bush-Cheney bashing worked so well in the campaign, that Obama is trying to revive it when other things are not going so well.
Let's not forget that the Obama-Holder team that now wants to prosecute some in CIA are the ones who recently dropped all charges against members of the Black Panther Party for intimidating and threatening voters in Philadelphia this past November.
The Obama-Holder vindictive pursuit of CIA rather than of terrorists is making this country less safe to future attacks.

Warren Buffett Warns of Huge Inflation From Excessive Deficit Spending

Warren Buffett, using a play on words from the carbon-dioxide global warming debate, noted “unchecked greenback emissions will certainly cause the purchasing power of currency to melt” (inflation). Buffet also noted the record deficits being created (by Obama and the leftist Democrats), unlike anything except for the war years of 1942-1945. Speaking about Obama's huge deficit spending plans, Buffett said: “their threat may be as ominous as that posed by the financial crisis itself.” Buffett said: Congress must end the rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio and bring U.S. growth in obligations back in line with U.S. growth in resources. “We don’t want our country to evolve into the banana-republic economy." (Several countries in South and Central America have at times incurred years of double-digit inflation by spending money they actually didn't have; these were labeled 'banana republics').

Where Are All The Obama-ites Now?

A column in the Washington Post this week lamented about where are all those Obama supporters who showed up at campaign rallies with signs saying "change" and chanting "yes we can"? Well, some of them are wising up to what Obama really represents.
The vast majority of these Obama-ites didn't know what the word "change" would actually involve; it just seemed like fun to wave one word signs and chant at rallies with all your buddies, and Bush-bashing was a cool thing to do particularly if you:
were on a college campus (and had leftist professors filling your head with socialist ideas) or
were a minority of any kind (and could get a minority elected it didn't matter what he really represented) or
were already dependent on governemnt for your living (and believed that the bigger Obama government would give you even more of other people's money) or
were a union member (and had the promise of a "card-check" voting system to pressure non-union members to join a union)
They didn't know why they were screaming "yes we can".
"Can" what?
"Change" to what?
Most didn't have a clue as to what socialism would actually mean to their lives!
It just seemed "cool" to fawn over the American Idol-like candidate because he was so young, so handsome, so articulate (at reading speeches off teleprompters) and he was a master at talking a lot and saying little.
The Obama-ites had no clue about huge deficit spending by Obama because Obama promised otherwise; to cut the Bush deficits. Inflation was an abstract concept or maybe not something they could even define.
They had no clue about a future $787 billion Stimulus Bill which Obama would say was "critical" to cap unemployment at 8%, but failed as unemployment rose to 9.5% and only about 10% of that "critical" money would be spent after 7 months.
They had no clue about taxpayer money being used for a $60 billion bailout and takeover of GM, or continuing bailouts up to $170 billion for AIG and hundreds of billions for various banks. Who is eventually going to pay for these bailouts? The clueless Obama-ites through taxes or inflation!
They were generally all bubbly and self-righteous about saving the environment but had no clue that Obama's "Cap and Trade" plan that would cost American manufacturing jobs and raise the price on just about everything due to huge increases in energy costs, while cronies like Al Gore get rich by betting on carbon credit trading. The clueless unions, poor and middle class will be hit he hardest by Cap and Trade. could any Obama-ites explain "Cap and Trade". Very few!
They had no clue that the vague campaign promise of covering all Americans with health insurance would include covering 9 million non-American illegal aliens and covering those 21 million that could afford insurance but just wanted to gamble and not buy it or that ObamaCare would involve rationing of their own health care through a total government takeover of the health care system with even more trillions in deficit spending. The tens of millions of Obama-ites with health insurance will all see their health care go down.
They had no clue that Obama was lying about closing GITMO; that he had no plan on how to do it. Whose town in the U.S. will the new GITMO be located?
They had no clue that at this time last year, when they were chanting "change", that under Bush the U.S. was winning two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while now under Obama we are losing ground in both wars with the same total number of U.S. troops and contractors.
They really thought, or just chose to ignore, that Obama's lack of experience, total lack of accomplishments and inner circle of criminals, tax cheats, socialists and bigots would not matter when he was in office.
Except these sleazy associates shaped his thinking and he even appointed many to high office.
But, never fear, Obama forces are mobilizing and giving instructions to SEIU, ACORN and AFL-CIO members for "spontaneous" counter protests at town hall meetings about health care.
Now let's all chant: "change you can believe in".

Health Insurance Co-op: Don't Be Fooled

Sen. Chucky Schumer (Dem.-NY), a powerful voice on health care reform in the Democrat left-wing, lists three conditions that need to be met for health insurance "co-operatives":
1. it has to be large (small co-ops spread around the country are not acceptable)
2. it has to be very influential ( national "model" is proposed)
3. it has to be set up with a LARGE INFUSION OF FEDERAL MONEY.
This is a back door, or some call it a "Trojan Horse", to ObamaCare, driving private insurers out of the market who cannot compete with this "large infusion of federal dollars" and who will be further hampered by new "mandates" to further increase their costs relative to the federally funded co-op. The result will be the same as the "public option" or "government option" in ObamaCare, but just under another name and by a slightly different path. The co-op(s) will evolve to a single-payer government-run health care system with all of the negatives discussed in previous postings. Meanwhile, the posting on August 13th which describes health care reform proposed by the CEO of Whole Foods, appears to be the most sensible proposal around, but the Democrats want no part of it because it doesn't give them power and control over jobs, money and votes.
As for the co-op idea, when you dress up a pig, underneath it's still a pig.

The Results Are In: Government Spending Makes Recession Worse

The higher the percent of government spending as part of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for various countries, the worse the recession has been over the past one year.
Here are the facts for leading industrialized nations:
1. Sweden, France, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom are countries where government spending is over 41% of GDP and each of these 5 countries had a decline in GDP; the average decline in GDP in these countries was -5.3% in the latest 4 quarters.
2. Canada, Spain, United States, Japan and Switzerland are countries where government spending is less than 40% but more than 35% of GDP and each of these 5 countries had a decline in GDP; the average decline in GDP in these countries was -3.6% in the latest 4 quarters.
3. Australia, China and India are countries where the government spending is less than 35% but more than 20% of GDP and each of these 3 countries had an increase in GDP; the average increase in GDP in these countries was +4.7% in the last 4 quarters.
What does Obama and the leftist Democrats want to do?
They want to greatly increase the percent of GDP spent by the government with measures such as huge deficit budgets (with pork spending), the Stimulus Bill (with more pork spending), various bank and industry bailouts (from Bank of America to AIG to General Motors and much more), and with the biggest economic fiasco of all, ObamaCare.
This is the "Change You Can Believe In".

One Simple Question for Town Hall Meetings

Nobody can track all of the implications and conditions in an 1100 page health care bill written by lawyers with the intent to keep things vague and open for future manipulation and interpretation.
So, the simple question is this.
"Is there clear SPECIFIC LANGUAGE in the bill that PROHIBITS DENYING FULL ACCESS, with NO RATIONING, to all health care services without any restrictions on age, existing health condition or any other categorization?"
You can bet your last dollar that the answer is NO!!!
This doesn't fit with the Zeke Emanuel model for a health care system, or the Obama philosophy, which calls for rationing.
Of course, you can also bet your last dollar that you would never get a straight answer to that question from Obama or any proponent of ObamaCare.
You would get an answer that dodges the question and goes off on a philosophical tangent.

In The United Kingdom It's Better To Be a Dog

1.In the UK, Dogs get to choose their veterinarian through their owner while people don't get to choose their doctor
2. Vets will see a dog the same day that they are called, while people have often have to wait weeks to months.
3. Dogs can have medical tests and surgeries performed within a couple of days if not the same day as the first visit while people have long delays often stretching from months to years.
4. There is no rationing of surgeries or medications based upon age of the dog while a bureaucracy decides which people are allowed to have certain surgeries or medications.
5. The family of a dog can be assured that the dog is getting the best treatment available while the families of sick or injured people can feel that the system is cheating them for cost reasons or showing favor to some other group of patients.
The big catch is that dogs get treated in a competitive private health care system, which even includes insurance for those that wish to but it, while the people are treated in a government-run, single-payer system that appears to be free at the point of service. (The preceding was brought to my attention in a full article in the WSJ, August 8-9,2009.)
It is naive to believe that the health care system for people is free; people pay for it in taxes of various sorts, some not even appearing as directly related to health care. If the government uses 'borrowed money", that is deficit spending, then people also pay for health care through inflation which decreases the overall purchasing power of their money. So, free health care at the time of service is an allusion; it's not real, but some fall for this government marketing ploy.
This is what we are in store for with ObamaCare. This is the "Change you Can Believe In" although Obama neglected to explain all of this to you as a candidate and now as President. Instead, he lies about what is in store for you with ObamaCare.

What Grade Would You Give The Government Over Decades Of Managing Various Programs?

It is a myth that the United States government fixes a problem when it is a crisis. The government has a terrible record on "fixes" unless the solution calls for a military fix; like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Even then, since WW2 Presidents and Congress have more often than not undermined the fixes.
When it comes to non-military crises, the government has an almost perfect record of FAILURE:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fix the mortgage loan problem and brought about the banking crisis last year,
the Department of Energy which cost a couple of hundred billion since it was formed to fix the imported petroleum crisis and the percent imports has increased since it was formed,
the War on Drugs which cost hundreds of billions and only filled our prisons to overload but not prevented a multibillion dollars per year illegal drug business from thriving,
Medicare which now costs over ten times per year what it was projected to cost (this is the model for ObamaCare cost), Medicaid same failure as Medicare,
American Indian Reservations which keeps those people in poverty with a bad government -run health system,
the Social Security system which has increased FICA taxes on employers and employees from an initial 1% each to 8% each today and is broke (it's too late for those in retirement or close to retirement but for younger generations imagine what one could accrue with the 16% FICA tax in stocks and bonds over a 30 to 40 year working career),
Then think of the U.S. Postal Service or Pentagon run procurement contracts with Congressmen interfering for their states and districts.
Unbelievable, there are those who now want the government to take over all health care with a government-run single-payer system with the promise that it will cut costs and improve health care. This is insanity!

A Sensible Health Care Reform Proposal from CEO of Whole Foods

The CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, Wednesday August 12, 2009, Section A, page 15, an eight point proposal for health care reform which is a sensible alternative to ObamaCare. There is no "public option", government option", "states cooperatives", "single payer system" or rationing. His proposal cleans up a lot of the mess that exists in the current health care system due to federal and state government regulations, laws and tax policies.Here is a summary of the eight point proposal by Mackey. His ideas don't require 11000 pages to hide and confuse what is being proposed:
1. Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts.
2. Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individual owned health insurance both have the same tax benefits.
3. Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
4. Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
5. Enact tort reform to end ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
6. Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what healthcare treatment costs.
7. Enact Medicare reform... that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
8. Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make voluntary, tax-deductible donations to the millions who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
This proposal does not cost the taxpayer anything, fixes most of the big problems and keeps health care out of the control of the government. For future generations, it might even replace Medicare. For this generation, the government can do two useful things in addition to Mackey's proposal: (1) vigorously uncover and prosecute Medicare and Medicaid fraud and (2) fund the development of medical care records system, but leave the implementation to the private sector on a voluntary basis.

Misconceptions, Lies and Softball Questions

1. THE BIG LIE (or, say it often enough and it becomes the truth!)
For a week or more before Obama's New Hampshire town hall meeting, various radio stations and some news channels played the audio or video or Obama saying very clearly "I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal health care" (his exact words). In New Hampshire, Obama looked the audience in the eye and blatantly LIED by claiming " I have NOT SAID I am favor of a single-payer system". Of course, those that have followed his campaign and actions as a Senator and now as President, know he has lied on many issues, about his associations, his beliefs and his campaign promises. The elitist Obama works from the assumption that the public is stupid and uninformed, so he will not be caught.
2. THE "MISCONCEPTIONS" (or, all of you who oppose me are just too stupid!)Obama, press secretary Robert Gibbs and others in the ObamaCare camp are now defining people who oppose ObamaCare as having "MISCONCEPTIONS" about their plan. In other words, if you oppose ObamaCare with its "public option" or "government option", ultimately a "single-payer system" where the government is the single-payer and rationing of health services in ObamaCare, it is because you are too stupid to understand the plan. In their criterion, only the intelligent can grasp the concepts of ObamaCare. Unfortunately for Obama and his sheep, it is the fact that many Americans do understand ObamaCare despite the attempts to hide the details in 1100 page bills and leaving many items open for future definition. Obama must be referring to the members of Congress who have not even read the bill, to the members of AFL-CIO, SEIU, ACORN and his chanting dancing bumper sticker throngs when he infers that only the intelligent can grasp the concepts while others have misconceptions. The elitist Obama works from the assumption that the public is stupid and uniformed, so he will not be caught.
3. THE SOFTBALL SETUP (or, do you really think I will expose myself to real questions?)
The New Hampshire town hall meeting was supposed to have an audience and questions both randomly selected and representative of a cross section of ideas. The first question was read by a young girl and was phrased so that Obama could smoothly and convincingly deny that ObamaCare will ration or withhold care from the elderly. It turns out that this " "RANDOM SOFTBALL QUESTION" was a set-up; it came from the daughter of the Chairwoman of the New Hampshire Women for Obama Committee. Again, the elitist Obama works from the assumption that the public is stupid and uninformed so he will not be caught.

"If You Like Your Current Plan you Can Keep It" Is a Phony Promise

Obama's claim that if you like your current health insurance (through your employer) then you can keep it, is misleading. As in many things,"the devil is in the details". Here are details that make Obama's claim disingenuous. First, the "government option" plan,or the equivalent "states cooperatives" plan, will make all private plans non-competetitive in cost. After all, the government doesn't have to make a profit and can subsidize its cost through a wide variety of income, sales, and value-added taxes or by deficit spending, with associated inflation, that the average insured employee will not directly attribute to their health care cost but nonetheless will lower their standard of living. This will drive private insurance companies out of business. Second, employers will compare the cost to their corporation of providing health insurance to their employees versus the possible fines for not offering private health insurance to their employees. The government can control these fines and set them so as to induce corporations to drop their health plans and tell employees to sign up with the government option. This is easy for the government to manipulate. In this case, it doesn't matter if you are happy with your current plan; your employer will have an incentive to shift you to the government option. Third, the government can impose strangling restrictions on keeping private plans such as not allowing you to add new family members to your private plan, not requiring, or even allowing, employers to take on new employees to existing plans so if you change jobs you are driven into the government option and not allowing you to change the coverage options you have in an existing plan. Those that have studied the various House versions of the ObamaCare bill say that all of these possibilities are allowed within the language.
Canada started with a government option and wound up with a government-run single-payer plan.
Obama's intent is there in his own words from the past: 1. Obama to AFL-CIO in 2003" " I happen to believe in a single payer universal health care program. .... But as you all know we may not get there immediately".
2. Obama to Service Employees International Union in 2007: "My commitment is to make sure we have universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as President. ... I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. I don't think we are going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There is going to be potentially some transition process." Do either of these statements sound like Obama intends for you to keep your private health insurance?

Below You Can Check Your Chance For Getting Health Services In The COMPLETE LIVES SYSTEM Proposed by Obama's Advisor

Dr. Ezekiel (Zeke) Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is one of Obama's three closest advisors on the overall structure of a health care system. Zeke is a specialist in medical ethics at the National Institute of Health. Many past comments by Obama and recent comments by Barney Frank, Pelosi, Waxman and the Liberal Democrats about the direction of health care are in line with Zeke's thinking and proposals. Obama has gotten too slick to make these comments since taking the White House, but in the past he has openly favored a single-payer government-run health care system but has noted that it will take some time to get there. Obama's "government option" or "multistate cooperatives" are code words for driving private health insurers out of business and creating a government run system as in Canada and the United Kingdom.
Below is Zeke Emanuel's "age based priority for receiving scarce medical interventions under the Complete Lives System" Zeke shows this as a graph in a paper he authored, but I have taken the points from the graph and made a table which might be easier to understand. Zeke proposes the "probability (chance) of receiving a medical intervention" at different ages, compared to the maximum chance which occurs at age 25 years. Caution: this doesn't mean that you automatically get required medical intervention at age 25; it simply means that at age 25 you have the best chance in Zeke's Complete Lives System and on either side of age 25 your chances are not as good.
The first number in each brackets is your age in years and the second number is your probability (chance) of receiving a medical intervention compared to the best chance which occurs at age 25 (so this chance is set at 1.0).
In other words, if you are a certain age, let's say 55 years old, then you are only 60% as likely to receive the necessary medical intervention you need compared to someone who is 25 years old. Here is Zeke's the probability (chance) proposal,
FIND OUT WHERE YOU FIT IN:
(0 years, a newborn: P=0.10), (5 yrs:P=0.35), (10 yrs:P=0.70), (15 yrs:P=0.85),
(20 yrs:P=0.95), (25 yrs:P=1.0), (30 yrs:P=0.98), (35 yrs:P=0.95), (40 yrs: P=0.90),
(45 yrs, P=0.80), (50 yrs: P=0.72), (55 yrs:P=0.60), (60 yrs: P=0.30),
(65 yrs: P=0.25), (70 yrs: P=0.20), (75 yrs: P=0.18).
Zeke doesn't show any probability after age 75, so I suppose you get end of life counseling rather than medical care.
[If you think this is made-up, you can read it for yourself in a paper authored by Zeke Emanuel and two others, published in a journal called Lancet, volume 373, January 31, 2009, page 423.]
Newborns and the very young better not have any significant medical problems because ObamaCare cannot afford to invest in your health. Evidently, very sick children are not a good investment because they may not turn out to be productive members of society. But, for those that make it into the teen years they can get relatively good care until they are in their 50s. After age 50, one is no longer a good investment and so medical resources should not be wasted upon them under Zeke's proposal. Of course the important word is "relative".Even at the optimum age of 25, services and high cost medicines will be limited and some will not be available due to cost and waiting periods for many tests and surgeries can be extensive. This is the case in Canada and in the United Kingdom with government-run single-payer health care systems. Zeke states that the Complete Lives System isn't perfect but it's the best of various choices that he considers. of course, he doesn't consider just leaving the current system in place and fixing a few things like tort reform, computerizing medical records and vouchers for the 15 million or so citizens who truly cannot afford health insurance.

Once Again Democrats Change The Boogeyman and Victim

Liberals always need a boogeyman and a victim because they can never convince others to follow their path based upon merits of their cause. In the posting of August 4th, I commented on the tactic of Obama, Pelosi and the liberal Democrats in changing the "boogeyman" and the "victim" while trying to stampede Congress and the public into accepting ObamaCare.
The FIRST BOOGEYMAN, in the attempt to evolve to a government-run single-payer health care system, was the current system cost and quality of health care. It turns out that most people, 68% by recent poll, rate their current health care as good to excellent. The FIRST VICTIM was the 47 million uninsured. Information started to come out that many of the 47 million were either: illegal aliens, or already qualified for Medicaid, Medicare or SCHIP, or could afford health insurance but had made the choice to not purchase insurance. The remaining 15 million or so legitimately uninsured who needed help cold get it with a less disruptive solution, such as vouchers to be used for private health insurance.
The Liberals then concocted a SECOND BOOGEYMAN, this time the big bad private health insurance companies who were supposed to be taking advantage of the SECOND VICTIM, everyone who has private health insurance. Around this time, some health experts, a few media people and, surprisingly, even a few Congressman actually read the various House versions of the complex 1100 page proposed health care bill. The facts started to come out that the bill indeed involved huge deficit spending (confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office), contained a "government option" which would drive private insurers out of business over time and lead to a single-payer government-run system and would promote rationing of health care or even permanent withholding of certain health care for those on Medicare or approaching Medicare age. Spontaneous protests were sparked at town hall meetings and elsewhere, perhaps some organization was involved, but this appears to be minor, and Democrat Congressman who supported the ObamaCare bill were getting angry feedback from their constituents.
The Liberals switched to a THIRD BOOGEYMAN, the protesting citizens themselves, who were labeled as "Nazis", "un-American", "organized trouble-makers", "unruly mobs", "rich capitalists in Brooks Brothers suits" and so on. And we had a new THIRD VICTIM, the liberal Democrat Congressmen and those citizens who were pro-ObamaCare. The new class of victims were just being terrorized and shouted down by these Nazis, etc. Obama, The Great Community Organizer from Chicago, wanted these organized critics to shut up and "just get out of the way". Obama only likes organized groups if they help get him elected and support his socialist agenda, like the AFL-CIO , SEIU, ACORN and the Black Panther Party.
Right around the corner and coming next is the FOURTH VICTIM, that will be Obama himself . Watch for the FOURTH BOOGEYMAN, it will be a majority of those who opposes ObamaCare, not because ObamaCare will be a disaster for America but, because they are racists and cannot accept a Black president.
DON'T BE DIVERTED BY THESE BOOGEYMAN AND VICTIM TACTICS. STAY FOCUSED ON THE FACTS ABOUT OBAMACARE AND WHAT IT WILL MEAN TO YOU. There are a dozen or so postings on this blog that comment on the health care issue itself; if you haven't seen them, then check them out going back to June 2nd.

Department of Energy - Typical Government Incompetence To Run Anything

Do you recall when the Department of Energy was created and why?
The Department of Energy (DOE) was created by Jimmy Carter in 1977, 32 years ago, to reduce our dependence on foreign petroleum. At that time, petroleum imports had risen to about 54% of the total used in the United States. All of the usual reasons were given for creating the DOE: to bring focus to the problem, industry wasn't cooperating so the government needed to take over, too many dollars were flowing out of our country, petroleum supplies were not in the hands of countries that are friendly to the U.S. and so on.
The DOE has grown to 16,000 employees and tens of thousands of contract employees with a annual budget of $24 billion, hundreds of billions have been spent in the 32 years on the DOE. Complete figures for 2007 are available in the EIA Annual Energy Review Table 5.1 June 2008.
THE RESULT: BY 2007 OUR DEPENDENCE ON PETROLEUM IMPORTS GREW TO ABOUT 60%. GOOD JOB DOE!!
And now, there are those who want to turn health care over to the government.

Wisdom and Humor For the Ages: Particularly Relevent Today

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. -- Voltaire (1764)
No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. -- Thomas Jefferson
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -- Thomas Jefferson
There is no distinct American criminal class, except Congress. --Mark Twain
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. -- George Bernard Shaw
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. -- G. Gordon Liddy
If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed. -- Mark Twain
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -- Ronald Reagan (1986)
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke

Timely Medical Alternatives for Canadians

The Canadian health care system started out as a "government option" to private health care. Over time, private health care could not compete with the government subsidized "option" and so they now have a government-run single-payer health care system in Canada. Does this plan sound familiar? There are currently over 800,000 Canadians on waiting lists for medical services in Canada. Fortunately, for those who can afford it, Canadians can seek private health care in the United States (it may be news to Michael Moore but none go to Cuba for health care). There is even a company called Timely Medical Alternatives, Inc that will arrange for Canadians to get medical services in the United States.

Why the word "Timely" in their name? Well here are some comparisons of waiting times for the Canadian Public System and the U.S. private system for Clients of TMA Inc.
-Knee Replacement: up to 2 years vs. 3 weeks
-Gall Bladder Removal: up to 3 years vs. 3 weeks
-Angioplasty: up to 12 months vs. 48 hours
-Cardiac Bypass: up to 12 months vs. 48 hours
-Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: up to 2 years vs. 3 weeks
-Spinal Discectomy: up to 3 years vs. 3 weeks
-MRI: up to 6 months vs. 3 days
-CT Scan: up to 4 months vs. 3 days
-Ultrasound Scan: up to 4 months vs. 3 days
-Weight Loss Surgery: up to 5 years vs. 2 months
-Hip Replacement: up to 3 years vs. 3 weeks
-Cardiac Ablation: up to 3 years vs. 1 week.
If you are a U.S. citizen, you can often get the above services even more quickly than TMA Inc can arrange it for Canadian citizens.
Have you personally needed any of these services or have relatives or friends who needed these services? Imagine a system in the United States where the waiting times are as in Canada.
The government bureaucrats in Canada actually allocate some of these services based upon the province in which you live, whether you are a urban or rural resident, the urgency of your condition (cancer is not immediately life threatening, so it is considered "elective" and you wait for services such as surgery), and your age. In fact, many elderly patients cannot get some services at all, such as hip replacements, because these surgeries are rationed.
ObamaCare wants to move us to a government-run single-payer system, pushing our private health suppliers who will not be able to compete with the government plan. Of course, the "free" health care of ObamaCare is a myth; everyone will pay through direct or hidden taxes and inflation, both of which will lower the standard of living.

If you have personally had any of the services listed above, or have relatives or friends who had to access such services, you know what a scary option ObamaCare will be. Imagine waiting months for an MRI or a CAT scan, or years for cardiac ablation or not being able to get some surgery for cancer. "THIS IS CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!"

White House Calls for Snitching on Opponents of ObamaCare

From the American Center for law and Justice:
"The White House blog written by Macon Phillips, the White House Director of New Media, had a post which says: 'there is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there both on the web and floating around in chain emails'. Obama's Media Director states that '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. In a nutshell, the WHITE HOUSE IS ASKING YOU TO REPORT ON YOUR NEIGHBORS, FAMILY AND FRIENDS WHO DISAGREE WITH THE PRESIDENTS POLICY CHOICES ON HEALTH CARE. The White House is also implying that you should think twice before sending an email disagreeing with the President, since it might end up being forwarded to them. The White House email address says it all – let’s 'flag' those who disagree with us. For what purpose are these individuals being flagged?"

The labels of "Nazi" and "racist" have been thrown around all too easily for a three decades, usually by Liberals, in order to stall discussion and throw opponents off track by having to deny those labels. But, this call to "flag" opponents (snitch on friends, relatives, coworkers) of ObamaCare is truly all to reminiscent of what took place in Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany and in the "Cultural Revolution" in China; it is clearly meant to intimidate opponents. This is a dangerous track and treads on the First Amendment rights. A letter has been written to the White House by the ACLJ protesting the call for "flagging" opponents. It is Obama building a dissidents list. By the way, don't hold your breath waiting for the ACLU to speak out on this case.

Trust Us, The Government Has Been So Successful in Controlling Spending on Entitlement Programs

We are asked by the Democrat politicians to believe that ObamaCare will be paid for by cost cutting while the Congressional Budget Office, even under pressure from Obama, stands by its figure of a $1 trillion deficit over ten years. What gets less attention is the projected deficit beyond ten years and the track record of government programs that always exceed forecasts by huge amounts.
Example 1: Medicare started in 1965 and the forecast for cost for 1970 (just five years forward) was $3.1 billion. Would you be surprised that the actual cost was more than double at $6.8 billion? The forecast for 1990 was a mere $12 billion. Would you be surprised that the actual cost was more than a factor of ten higher at $110 billion? And in current 2009 fiscal year, the cost for Medicare is heading toward $460 billion. Who is willing to trust Obama, or the CBO, on ObamaCare cost forecasts? Higher taxes and health care rationing are inevitable, and even with that there will be huge deficit spending in the trillions of dollars.
Example 2: Cash for Clunkers was budgeted at $1 billion for 14 weeks. The $1 billion was spent in one week. A universal government run health care system is orders of magnitude more complicated than Cash for Clunkers.
Example 3: The 16th Amendment to the Constitution allowing an income tax was passed because it was promised that only the top 1% of income earners would be taxed. This promise quickly got out of hand and toady 60% of income earners pay income taxes.
Example 4: Social Security was to be funded by a 1% (FICA) tax each on employees and employers. Today, the tax is nearly 8% each.
Everyone could add examples to this list with details about the U.S. Postal Service, cost overruns in the Defense Department, Medicaid and more.
NO CHANCE that ObamaCare will not involve huge deficit spending and higher taxes!
And in the words of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's advisor on medical ethics, " health services should NOT be guaranteed to those who are irreversible prevented from becoming participating citizens". This probably applies to anyone on Medicare and many others with serious illnesses who cannot fully recover. You shouldn't need a dictionary to figure out that this is only one aspect of health care rationing.

When You're Losing, Call It A Conspiracy

The Liberals are running scared about the grass roots protests that are building up opposing ObamaCare. So, they are turning to their usual dirty trick of labeling the opposition as "a right-wing or big business conspiracy". Any thinking person who watches news clips from the town hall meetings or looks at the independent poll numbers knows that the opposition to a government-run health care system involving huge deficit spending and ultimately rationing of health care is not selling to most Americans. But the Democrats, up to Pelosi and Obama's press secretary Gibbs, are spouting the "conspiracy" line. We should all remember that the Left-wing Democrats contain just about 100% of the people who at one time believed, or still believe, that:
-Bush and the CIA blew up the levies in New Orleans during Katrina to kill poor people or drive them out of the city
-Bush knew about the 9/11 attack well in advance and did nothing about it
-Bush invaded Iraq to help Cheney's old company Halliburton get control of the oil.
-John Edwards didn't have an affair with Rielle Hunter and her child was fathered by Edwards campaign aide
-O.J. Simpson was actually innocent and the L.A. police tried to frame him for murder
-the Duke lacrosse team actually beat up and raped the stripper, but this was covered up by the rich Duke students
-the Cambridge Police department and Sergeant Crowley used racial profiling to arrest Professor Gates, and that Gates was not actually disorderly and unco-operative
-Diebold Corp rigged voting machines to take votes away from Kerry so that Bush could win in 2004
-Sarah Palin's infant child was actually the child of her daughter but Palin's campaign covered that up
-the World Trade Center was actually brought down by explosives and not by terrorists in airplanes

The next ploy will be to accuse everyone who opposes ObamaCare as being a racist; the mobs aren't against ObamaCare itself, they are against it because Obama is Black.

Change The Boogeyman and The Victim

The Liberal Democrats have figured out that they have had the wrong boogeyman and the wrong victim in their attempt to cram a government-run health care system down our throats.
THE ORIGINAL BOOGEYMAN was the health care system with the Liberals claiming: too many tests, too much cost, no universal electronic records, expensive drugs, and so on. But, they found that most people trust their doctors, are thankful for the advances in technology and drugs that can relieve their pain, cure their diseases, extend their lives and improve their lifestyle. So, most people don't want the government to get between them and their health care providers, as Obamacare aims to do. The general sentiment became that the deficiencies in the health care system can be fixed without a government takeover. One of the biggest deficiencies is Medicare and Medicaid fraud which are already government run health care programs.
THE ORIGINAL VICTIM was the supposed 47 million uninsured. But, the truth started to come out that the large majority of the 47 million were either illegal residents, or those making $75,000 per year and choosing not to pay for health insurance or those who already qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or SCHIP but have not signed up for coverage, leaving about 10 to 15 million people who need temporary coverage while unemployed or who fall between the cracks of the categories mentioned. So, the public concern grew and most Americans decided they don't want Obamacare, with more huge deficit spending and health care rationing as found in Canada or England, just to provide for the 10 to 15 million uninsured.
With all of that backlash about Obamacare, the Liberals have come up with a new boogeyman and a new victim to try and sell us a "government option" (which means a path to a single-payer government run health care system). THE NEW BOOGEYMAN IS THE BIG BAD INSURANCE COMPANIES (not the health care system) and THE NEW VICITM IS EVERYONE WITH PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE who has to pay premiums and has a deductible and co-pays in their plan.

Can You Spot The Liar? It is #1, #2 or #3?

1. Obama to AFL-CIO in 2003 " I happen to believe in a single payer universal health care program. .... But as you all know we may not get there immediately".
2. Obama to Service Employees International Union in 2007: "My commitment is to make sure we have universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as President. ... I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. I don't think we are going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There is going to be potentially some transition process."
3. Obama to AMA in 2009 “...let me also address a illegitimate concern that’s being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan Horse for a single-payer system. I’ll be honest; there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe—and I’ve taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief—that it’s important for our efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They’re not telling the truth.”

In case you need some hints:
Later, Obama's Press Secretary Gibbs could not name a single country where a single-payer system is working well.
And from the esteemed Rep Barney Frank (D-MA), (the man more responsible than any other for creating the subprime mortgage crisis,) in 2009: "I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to a single payer, and that's the best way to reach a single payer"