Monday, August 10, 2009

ObamaCare - Health, Euthanasia, Life in Jeopardy! (Part 2)

******* *******
Five steps for a better National-Socialist Health careBeat up the opposition
call the other side Fascists
Whip up Hysteria
Criminalize difference of opinion
Report dissenters to
Thanks to Alan Caruba
Social Utility: How Much Are Grandpa and Grandma Worth?Posted on 21 August 2009
By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
In a previous essay, I discussed a concept that is always on the mind of the socialist planner and that is “social utility”. To fully understand this concept one has to understand the socialist philosophy, if it can indeed be called a philosophy — in general, philosophies are analytical. In their world view, which is basically a gnostic one, the world is occupied by two basic forms of human life — those who are wise and chosen and those who make up the common rabble — the masses.
The wise, in an older gnostic view, are anointed by the divine force to lead mankind and mold his nature based on an understanding derived from arcane knowledge carefully guarded by mystics of the ancient world. This idea, that certain men are chosen to rule mankind has permeated many governments of the world since and in modern times has attained a less metaphysical tint, but which is still divided between those who cling to the ancient notions of gnosticism, such as the theosophists (Alice Bailey), and the modern view of the New World Order Movement. Of course, they intermingle quite often. We are witnessing an exploding interest in wisdom derived from the gnostic gospels, as taught by its chief disciple Elaine Pagels. Many intellectuals, highranking policymakers and even clergy have accepted gnostic beliefs.
When it is accepted that certain men are chosen to rule purely based on their divine anointment and that they rule not based on raw power, but by the fact that they possess a wisdom far beyond the common man, it becomes accepted that the masses (ordinary people) must obey — it is their duty.
In the view of the gnostic, society is chaotic, poorly planned and unjust. Therefore, through a series of carefully thought out plans, in their view, society can be molded or engineered to create a more free, just and happier society than would otherwise occur. This requires that the masses, the people, be convinced to adhere to the “plan” and if they are not convinced they must be tricked into accepting the plan. As Edmund Burke said, -“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion”. The last resort is outright force.
The wise ones see society as a parent views their small children, they must be made to take their medicine because only the wisdom of the parents can know that in the long run it will be good for them — the idea of the paternalistic society. Likewise, they are assured that the common rabble will never have the vision and intellectual capacity to understand the plan in its entirety. We see this level of arrogance in all their writings.
Armed with this world view, the self-appointed elite have concluded that since they must engineer the perfect society, they alone must gauge a person’s worth in terms of social utility — what does the individual or group have to offer to the New World Order. In this view, social utility is based on one’s contribution to the plan. The socialist only deals in terms of society as a whole or to the economy in general.
One who works, pays taxes and is not a burden on the state is of higher social utility than is a retired or dis­abled person, who not only does not contribute skills (work) or pay taxes, but more likely is a burden on the state. In the collectivist way of thinking (seeing society as a whole and having no concern for the individual) the latter person should be removed from the society, either by positive or negative euthanasia. It is positive if one actively kills a person and negative if they just deny those persons access to life sustaining care — in both cases they are just as dead.
The American gnostic elite have chosen negative euthanasia as the system that will be most accepted by the people, the masses. The mechanism for this mode of killing is rationing of health care. It is ironic that during this debate on national socialist health care many vocal defenders deny that the administration wants to kill anyone, yet if we read the words of those who designed this plan, that is exactly what they say. More on that later.
Historian Paul Johnson wrote in his book, Intellectuals, that “social engineering is the creation of millenarian intellectuals who believe that they can refashion the universe by the light of their unaided reason. It is the birthright of the totalitarian tradition.” These intellectuals are the chosen wise ones of modern times. Socialist Edward Alsworth Ross in his book Social Control, makes plain that some, the wise, must create a plan that establishes control over the society and that it is these leaders who must control the behavior and actions of the people. This book, which was highly influential among policymakers, was written in 1910. In the chapter on The Need for Social Control he explains:
“Although the social fabric is at first held together by sheer force of arms, time gradually masks naked might, and moral and spiritual influences partly replace brute force. It is in the composite society, then, where the need of control is most imperative and unremitting, that the various instruments of regulation receive their highest forms and finish. Here has been perfected the technique of almost every kind of control.”
He then goes on to say:
“The only thing that can enable a society to dispense with control is some sort of favorable selection. The way to produce a short-clawed feline is not to trim the claws of successive generations of kittens, but to pick out the shortest clawed cats and breed from them.
This, of course is a call for eugenic engineering of society to breed for desirable people and rid society of the unfit and undesirable. It is important to keep in mind that those supporting these draconian eugenic programs were not disgruntled dreamers cogitating in some New York coffee house, they were men and women of high social rank, intellectuals, presidents of major universities, policy­makers, corporate heads and even presidents of the United States. These were people in positions of power and influence who could enforce these dreams of a Utopian society and that made them very dangerous.
Lily Kay, in her book, The Molecular Vision of Life, a history of molecular biology, she states:
“By the time of the launching of the molecular biology program, the Rockefeller philanthropies had considerable experience with eugenics. … they did support eugenics projects, such as the sterilization campaign of the National Committee for Mental Hygiene to restrict the breeding of the feeble-minded, The Rockefeller philanthropies also acted in the area of eugenics through the Bureau of Social Hygiene (BSH) and the Laura Spellman Rockefeller Memorial (LSRM).”
Enthusiasm for social engineering and eliminating the “unfit” reached beyond our shores with links being made to the German eugenics movement, a favorite topic of Hitler and the National Socialist. Edwin Black in his history of the eugenic movement, War on the Weak, says:
“The third International Congress of Eugenics was held in New York City in August of 1932, once again at the American Museum of Natural History. Although organization such as the Rockefeller Foundation were donating vast sums to German eugenics for research and travel, the grants were frequently limited to specific activities within Germany or neighboring countries.”
The reason for quoting this material is to show how even in a country such as ours the brightest and most educated class can sometimes be obsessed with dangerous ideas that can harm individuals. These individuals become especially dangerous when they control the reins of education, dissemination of news and government policy-making. As the title of Richard Weaver’s book says—Ideas Have Consequences.
The Modern Social Engineers
Unknown to many, once again a group of our most politically-connected intellectuals are pursuing an idea that can harm a great many people in our society. Much of the funding for these ideas once again flows from the major foundations in our country, especially the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and affiliates and the Carnegie Foundation. These major foundations are net­worked with hundreds of other foundations and research study groups, giving them enormous influence in society and among politicians who can carry out these ideas by specific legislation.
I have chosen the Hastings Center for my source of writings on the new understandings on health care as being promoted by this administration. I say this administration, but I am certain this bill was not drafted in any congressional office, but rather had been prepared long ago by one of the foundation think tanks. I base this on my knowledge of the foundations’ obsession with health care planning and socialized medicine and the complexity of this bill.
The Hastings Center, as some will remember, was involved in much controversy many years ago as the group promoting the idea of negative euthanasia to establish more equity in health care distribution. They were not as openly radical as the Hemlock Society, which felt it their duty to eliminate those considered unfit for life and for promoting the idea of having panels of experts decide to decide who shall live and who shall die in nursing homes.
One of the fellows of the Hastings Center is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama’s health care czar and a source of constant input on health care “reform”. His scholarly paper is included in a package of articles expressing the Hastings Centers position on health care reform and life in general.
On this website they make the following statement:
“Death may not have changed, but dying is quite different from what it used to be, thanks to medical technologies that have extended life and made dying frequently a lingering process rather than a sudden event. People with failing kidneys can survive on dialysis for 20 or more years. People with incurable cancer can live for months or years with chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Victims of car accidents who would once have died of head trauma can now be kept alive by ventilators and feeding tubes. Meantime, lifesaving therapies for what were once sudden killers, like heart attack, mean that increasing numbers of us end up with chronic complications or decline into dementia.”
In other word, because of advances in medicine we can now give people longer lives, even though they have presently incurable diseases and in their view this is wrong. Why?, because it just means they may end up with something worse years later — such as dementia. That is much like saying it would be a waste to fix the fence because eventually it will wear out anyway.
A paper from this Hast­ings Center collection is one by a senior consultant for the Center, Bruce Jennings, titled—Liberty: Free and Equal. In essence, it is a discussion of how liberty is to be redefined in light of the “new thinking”. Socialists have redefined most words dealing with their assaults on free societies. For example, Lenin defined a moral act as one that further the socialist revolution. Thus, killing millions in gulags is moral because it promoted the communist revolution.
On the first page he resorts to the mercantilist idea that a country has a fixed amount of wealth and that it is the job of the social planner to make sure there is a “just” distribution of this wealth. We can think of the economy as a pie of a fixed size in this view. He says:
“Such a conflict is thought to arise, for example, when allowing all individuals the freedom to accumulate as much as they can undermines the capacity of the entire society to ensure that each individual receives a fair share.”
In other words, the economic pie is only so large and if some take a larger slice, others get a smaller slice. Adam Smith, in the Wealth of Nations and many economists since that time, have shown that this is not true – the size of the pie is ever-growing in a free market society and is determined by the creativity and genius of those operating in a free society in which private property is protected. These socialist planners do not understand this because they are socialist and socialism can never create anything in terms of economic growth — it can only redistribute by force what the free market has produced.
We also find that socialist often redefine certain words that they use to deceive the public. For example, as stated above Lenin taught that an act was moral if it promoted the revolution. This justified the mass killing of tens of millions of Russians because it furthered the communist revolution. In his essay Liberty: Free and Equal, Bruce Jennings, a senior consultant for the Hastings Center says:
“The health reform conversation has to be reframed at the grass roots level so that a new way of seeing what liberty is and what it requires will grow out of that conversation. One tenet of this movement should be that equity in access to health care, reduction of group disparities in health status, and greater attention to the social determinants of the health of populations and individuals are all polity goals through which liberty will be enhanced, not diminished.”
So, we see that the definition of liberty is now turned on its head and we are told to view this assault on liberty as enhancing liberty. He means that when looking at the larger picture and when wearing the special goggles of socialism, forceful redistribution of your earnings will appear as greater liberty. This is because in the socialist view, engineering of humanity will make health care more just.
Again, that depends on one’s understanding of economics — if you accept the mercantilist view of a nation’s wealth, that there is a pie to be divided, yes it is true justice demands that access be redistributed, but in a truly free society where wealth creation arises from individuals and groups of free individuals participating in free market operations, it is not true. In a free society we are not dividing up a fix amount of resources, we are allowing people to decide what is the best way for them, using their own money, to individually satisfy their health care needs and desires.
When the socialists say that they are dividing “scarce resources” one needs to ask — What are the resources in question? In a free market resource availability depends on demand and creativity of the entrepreneur. In fact, in many of their publications they complain that consumer demand is driving the development of more technology and advances in medicine. They cannot have it both ways.
One must understand that socialism is about compulsion. The socialists believes that their view of society is the only correct one, since they are the chosen wise of gnosticism, and therefore people must be made to follow their plans. As I stated in my previous paper on National Health Insurance: The Socialist Nightmare, when the legislator encounters resistance to the plan they become more frantic and dictatorial.
Jennings concludes:
“Liberty rethought can then be one of the touch­stones for a democratic, grass roots movement for health reform that will demand health justice in a nation of free and equal persons.”
In the paper he rejects the wisdom of many of the philosophers of freedom that one cannot have absolute enforced equality and personal liberty. Using a perverse logic he somehow twist the principle of using compulsion by the government, that is, to take from some (deny access to mainly the elderly, the chronically ill and the presently incurable) and give to the ones anointed by those in power.
Equality as a principle in a free country means that the government will not make laws that denies access to the benefits of freedom, which are directed at a select group or individual. For example, both segregation laws and racial quotas specifically target certain groups to be denied certain freedoms or as being anointed. What is being discussed by the socialist is that access should be guaranteed to the “poor”, a rather broad term, and selectively denied to those with the highest health care cost (the elderly and the chronically ill), which is mostly through no fault of their own.
Another paper of the series of Hastings Center publications is by Paul T. Menzel, a professor of philosophy at Pacific Lutheran University titled—Justice and Fairness: Mandating Universal Participation. I found this paper to be especially enlightening. He opens by stating that it is unjust that one person is cured of their illness and left unscathed by the cost and another dies or is left financially ruined. This health care plan, as with all such socialist health care plans, reverses the situation and says, in essence, it is they, the elite, who should choose who lives and who dies, usually meaning that the elderly, the chronically ill and the presently incurable are in the latter category.
To attain “justice” he says, mandatory health care must be legislated. Any time something is mandated, someone must be denied their liberties. For instance, mandated vaccines means you will be forcibly vaccinated, as in the case of the thousand children and teenagers in Maryland who were forcibly vaccinated in the courtroom by the judge’s order. To mandate universal health care, under their definition, means everyone will be forced into the system even against their will. This is the antithesis of freedom, despite their attempt to redefine freedom.
He says:
“We have already collectively decided to prevent hospitals from turning away the uninsured. In such a context, allowing insurance to remain voluntary is unfair to many of the uninsured. The obvious way to alleviate this unfairness is to mandate insurance.”
Like the ACORN intimidation of banks, forcing them to give loans to people who were bad financial risk, forcing hospitals to take non-pay patients in mass numbers, especially illegal aliens, has led to bankruptcy of many smaller hospitals and serious financial strain on many others. It also means, because of cost shifting, the insured and self-pay patient will pay more than just for their services. But then, that pushes more to accept the idea of socialized medicine.
One of the most controversial issues is the new system of analysis called Quality Adjusted Life Years — which divides cost with how long one would expect the person to live. For example, fixing an 85 year-old person’s cataracts just so they could see well, only to have them die a year later, seem unjust and foolish to a social planner. To the person and their loved ones, it is humane and rational.
If you treat people like a statistic, as do social planners, many inhumane things can be justified. We also see that a policy that won approval when the above example is used, soon expands to reclassify a person age 55 as “too old” for a health care service, as happens in both the UK and Canada.
Effi­ciency, Quality Care and MoneyIn general, the old adage — you get what you pay for — is true. If you have bare-bones health care, you get marginal care and if you pay more, you can get the best medical science has to offer. Most of the planners for national health care plans intended for the public to get bare bones care, but they sold them on accepting the care by telling them it would offer unlimited service and quality.
Now we are hearing a different story from the planners. Suddenly, we are hearing major players in health care suggest that we should “turn back the clock” on health technology and top dollar care. In other words, people should settle for care at a 1960 level rather than a 2009 level. Pro­fessor Callahan states it this way:
“Serious progress would mean turning back the clock; learning to take care of ourselves, to tolerate some degree of discomfort, to accept the reality of aging and death.”
Further he says:
“One could make a good case that improvements in education and job creation could be a better use of limited funds than better medical care. Social and economic progress would have double and even triple benefits beyond improved health.”
Thomas Murray, the president of the Hastings center agrees. He says that, “At times the best investment for health may be in education, job creation, or environmental protections, not in health care.”
Daniel Callahan notes that the carrot and stick approach may have to be used to guide people to accept changes in health care. As for the sticks he says:
“The stick will be the message that you should take care of yourself and not expect medicine to save you when your time runs out — that is no longer an option.”
Already, government funded medical care provides less medical care than privately insured patients, especially those with expensive plans. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s health czar, wrote an article for the Hastings Center in 1996 in which he said;
“Medicare beneficiaries receive fewer services with some discretionary services covered and some services that intuitively seem basic covered; Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured persons receive far fewer services.”
Dr. Emanuel goes on to suggest that:
“Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.”
Does Doctor Emanuel suggest that the Alzheimer patients should receive no care? What about the early Alzheimer patients, should they be seen for a bladder infection, a degenerative hip or diarrhea? Or should we just let the family deal with it so we can use that money for other social engineering project, perhaps a new projector to show sex-education propaganda to grade-school children. It is obvious that under such a system, we must measure a person’s “social utility” to determine if they are worth the expenditure.
Who Are the Elderly?From a series of statements by Doctor Emanuel it is apparent that he, and many others in positions of power, conclude that the elderly have lived their lives and it is time for them to move on, especially if they are costing the state money. This is not a new theme among the elitists of society, as we went through this with Social Security as well.
One must then ask-Who are the elderly and why do they deserve to live? This question poised by the socialists, assumes that one must give a justification to the federal government for existing in this society. This is the social utility argument. If you serve no useful purpose in the society, as far as some social usefulness, then you have no social utility and are no longer welcome. This is not really that far away from the German National Socialist Party’s thinking, which referred to those with no social utility as “useless eaters” and the disabled, chronically ill and incurables as “life unworthy of life”.
I remember when I was a boy my dad introducing me to this very old fellow. We got to talking and I learned that the old gentleman had fought in the Spanish American War. He told me things that I could never learn from a history book and it stuck with me all my life. My dad later told me that there were older people all over who had interesting stories to tell, people who had done amazing things and accomplished much in life. They were a storehouse of his­tory, wisdom and interesting stories of life during America’s greatest moments.
I have gotten to know many who survived the Great Depression, World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam. I even met a fellow once who saw the Hindenburg burn. My mom used to tell me stories of listening to FDR on the radio and my Aunt Ann was working as a telephone operator when it was announced that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. These things are invaluable.
To have the older generation around as long as possible is a great value to us all. There was a time when we honored our parents and grandparents as sources of great wisdom, yet in modern times we just see them as old fogies that have no idea how to send emails or program a DVD. We are now being taught by our “elite leaders” and intellectuals that we would all be better off if the elderly would just accept death and that denying them health care can speed the process.
There is a polarization between the young and old, which can only be worsened by the present debate on the elderly’s “social utility”. With so many divorcees, a growing number of youth often feel little real attachment, appreciation or abiding love for their parents or grandparents. One can make a strong case for the present destruction of families and marriages being the result of a series of earlier social engineering plans and schemes.
We also need to appreciate that because of the great number of children born out of wedlock, Grandmothers are often raising these children for their daughters, so many have “social utility” not recognized by the elite planners and social engineers. Yet, even beyond this, we should appreciate that the elderly have lived good lives, worked hard, paid their taxes, obeyed the laws and many have made significant contributions during their lives that have made life better for others.
A great number have served nobly during America’s wars – lost limbs and suffered from the stress of war. Are we to dishonor them now for their sacrifice by telling them they are a liability? Others gave their sons and daughters during wars and lived with the anguish of the loss. Is this how we honor that sacrifice — to tell them that they are of no use? When I read the stories of the young men and women who have sacrificed their lives in battle in today’s wars I wonder will they be dishonored in such a way when they get old or sick?
We can honestly say that it was the labor of our seniors that built this great country, so how can be betray them now? Even worse is that we are telling them that we don’t even care that they are suffering during their last days and that they are aware that relief of their suffering exist, but they cannot have it — the money, they are told, would be better spent on educational pro­grams, studies of global climate change and a plethora of other socialist dreams.
If we let this happen, we should hold our heads in shame.
Dems Now to Go it Alone on Healthcare, Dumping Bi-Partisanship?
Health insurance reform
By Warner Todd Huston
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The New York Times is reporting that Congressional Democrats and the White House are now completely abandoning the claim that they want a bi-partisan healthcare “reform” bill thereby confirming conservative claims that no compromise is coming from the left with healthcare policies.
The spin from Democrats is that Republicans are at fault for the lack of bi-partisanship because if their “strident” stance against Obamacare.
Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional
recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.
Of course, the truth is that the GOP has not been included in any meaningful way since the beginning. Democrats have reached out to just the few Republicans that they think they can cajole to join their ideas, but there has been no effort at all to include GOP leaders in the healthcare debate.
Naturally, the so-called paper of record approaches the story as if “reform” is a must. Another fact of this debate is that most Republicans don’t want the government involved in healthcare at all, so it is natural that the GOP would resist Democrat’s efforts to take over the nation’s healthcare system.
White House arm twister Rahm Emanuel is also trying to spin this debate as that of a GOP resistant to the goodness of change.
“The Republican leadership,” Mr. Emanuel said, “has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama’s health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day.”
Notice how the debate is now all of a sudden about “health insurance reform” when that was not how the debate was initially sold. The truth is that Democrats have made a “strategic decision” to recast the debate as one from healthcare to “insurance reform.”
From this change in the rhetoric of the debate, we can see that the White House knows that it is losing and that they now feel that they need to hide behind new language to sell what Americans do not want.
Of course, the reality is that Democrats were never interested in any bi-partisan bill. It was always to be the Democrat’s way or the highway.
Senior Citizen’s “Death” Warrant
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
By Ian Jay Germaine
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Talk of the day is “Healthcare” or in today’s vernacular “Obamacare”. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, along with their like-minded cadre, have pledged a one payer system we all can dub Socialization. (Government operated healthcare) A complete dismantling of current medical care, known as the finest and most innovative in the world, it would become only Part II of the destruction of our Constitutional Republic.
During the past several weeks since their August recess, Congress has been besieged by the vocalization of varied constituency. Some very vocal for a one payer system and many against changes in what has been working for 80% of us. But obviously there can and should be expansion of HealthCare allowing greater utilization for those that want coverage of insurance, and those citizens and residents that need it but can’t afford it.
One of the most vocal groups has been the Senior Citizens that in the later years of life are afraid losing what they have contributed to and forced to utilize upon retiring or reaching the age of 65. Hearing rumors, (which have more strength than weakness) about death committees and rationing, pushed more at seniors than any other segmented part of society, scares the Hell out of them as it should (including me).
Not surprising though all political and economic groups have shown concern and even the media has been voicing a little more than a biased opinion, and for once have been more objective. Reports are coming in from all directions, contrary to many, the public or government option may be off the table. Said also, non-profit co-operatives allowing for more competitive insurance might be the answer. It looks like they would be subject to fulfilling ongoing Government mandates. (Like going into court and having your name changed? You are who you are.)
To Seniors, whether recognized or not, none of this means anything to us, other than general rationing and the inflation to our fixed income as everyone knows there will be a tax component. After all, we have plenty of time and money only having to take from the pool of credits we contributed to. Just like Congress who spends it daily. Well, that isn’t quite true. Even if those that have grown up and thrived on the system currently have wish to destroy it and fail, on this Obamacare Bill, it doesn’t make a difference.
The Bill through the Congress and the Obama Administration has already been passed and funded. It was in the Stimulus Bill known as ‘‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009’’. I am aware that many, at this time of life, can take the time out to enjoy the fruits of their labors. We enjoy the beginning of our children and grandchildren’s lives, but as seasons and the “Almighty” will have it, fade away to better pastures. Some look forward to those times to come more rapidly than others as the years have not been as kind, or possibly as fair for varied reasons. But the above mentioned type of warrant for passing is for our Maker”, and not a man made phenomenon.
Within a quietly inserted piece of Legislation which was touted a needing immediate passage, (remember, the one of many that no one read) lured an addition that also was formed and funded called in the Bill “TITLE XIII—HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY” which creates the “AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY”. The purpose of this inclusion (from the Bill)” That the funding appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies, through efforts that: (1) conduct, support, or synthesize research that compares the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions; and (2) encourage the development and use of clinical registries, clinical data networks, and other forms of electronic health data that can be used to generate or obtain outcomes data:”
This is the beginning of our execution warrants. The Government still says that they plan to cut $500,000,000 + from Medicare and Medicaid. Where will the adjustments be made, with the senior population increasing around 30%(baby boomers)?
It is a forgone conclusion that with a radical reduction in services available, what providers get paid, and less people to be a drain on the proposed system, they can balance their budget. Remember, they are exempt. And if by chance we don’t make it through the waiting list, or the service isn’t authorized any more due to the “AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY” recommendations, it will speed up the balancing of the budget. Since the decisions are based in the arena of politics the results should go as smoothly.
Yes, Grandma, There is a Death Panel
Lauds European systems for their willingness to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments"
By Jerry A. Kane Thursday, August 20, 2009
Brother O and the Democrat Party’s media propagandists and Internet lackeys are promoting disinformation and parroting half-truths concerning the Obamacare “death panel”—an overseers board of bureaucrats that determines the value of a person’s continued existence and whether treatment will be cost-effective.
Brother O and the New York Times accuse Republicans and conservatives of spreading “false rumors;” and AP Fact Check, and reject “death panel” claims as “twisted,” “ridiculous,” “lies.”
Obfuscation is a hallmark of Democrat disinformation; therefore, when Brother O and his kindred spirits in the mainstream media and on the Internet insist with dogmatic certainty that the health care bill passed by the House does not include a literal provision to establish a “death panel,” they know they’re right; however, they’re right only in the limited sense of the health care bill itself.
If the “death panel” specter were raised above the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a.k.a., the Stimulus Bill, which was signed into law February 17, their dogmatic assertions would disappear. In other words, the panel of overseers does not appear in the healthcare bill because it was created in that monstrous $1.1 billion, portentous piece of porkulus spending that lawmakers passed without reading,
Had America’s lawmakers demanded the time necessary to read the Stimulus Bill, they could have uncovered the slipped-in healthcare provisions and the appropriations for the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, known by the Sarah Palin catchphrase “death panel.”
The Council is the handiwork of Tom Daschle, who had been Brother O’s first choice to head the Health and Human Services Department. Daschle’s Council, which is modeled after a board in the United Kingdom and discussed in his book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis,would make the “tough” decisions regarding medical treatments and monitor doctors to make sure they are following government dictates for appropriate and cost-effective treatments. Doctors who are not “meaningful users” of Obamacare would be penalized. What defines a “meaningful user” is left to the private interpretation of the Health and Human Services secretary.
According to Daschle’s book, the Council’s goal is to reduce healthcare costs by slowing the advancement in medical technologies and the development of pharmaceuticals. Daschle lauds European systems for their willingness to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments.”
Daschle’s Council would approve or reject treatments based on a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is expected to benefit. Treatments for younger patients would be approved more often than those for the elderly; consequently, Daschle advises the elderly to be more like the Europeans who passively accept their conditions and don’t treat them.
Daschle’s prescient comment that Brother O’s health-care reform “will not be pain free” also serves as a dire warning regarding the medical ethics of the members appointed to the Council. One prominent member of the Council is Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Special Advisor on Health Policy to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and brother of Raum Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff.
To suggest that Dr. Emanuel’s views on withholding healthcare from the elderly and disabled are alarming is an understatement. In a 1996 journal article, Emanuel explores whether medical services should be guaranteed to all Americans and provides an example of an approach that favors active people and “not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”
In a January 2009 article, Emanuel looks at who should receive organs or vaccines and suggests that age could be considered as one of the factors. He writes, “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. Every person lives through different life stages.”
The vague language used to outline the healthcare provisions in the Stimulus Bill gives the Council the power to implement Emanuel’s “Complete Lives System” principles to reduce healthcare costs by simply refusing to pay for the services. Palin’s “death panel” catchphrase is a dead-on accurate description of Daschle’s monstrous creation. She was also right to label any system as evil that bases its medical decisions on the perceived societal worth of the person.
Without question, Brother O wants appointed bureaucrats to decide who does and does not get medical care. In legislation currently before Congress, he proposes an Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) that would have the power to deny care to the elderly and disabled based on the decisions of five bureaucrats appointed by the Executive Branch.
At the end of June, ABC ran Brother O’s healthcare infomercial, and a member of the audience asked him whether end-of-life decisions would be made by the quality of the patient’s life or by some arbitrary medical cut-off. Brother O responded:
“I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules…”
Based on the existence of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research and the proposed creation of the Independent Medicare Advisory Council, it is obvious Brother O intends to appoint ruling bureaucrats to guide subjective decisions.
Palin entered the healthcare fracas once she realized what was about to happen to personal freedom in matters involving life and death decisions. She felt obligated by her oath to the Constitution and compelled by her humanity to sound the alarm so Americans would know what was happening. And for her warning, Americans who love liberty and cherish freedom owe her a debt of thanks.
U.K. on ObamaCare: Been there, done thatU.K.'s version of Obamacare, National Health ServiceBy Matt Barber
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address comes to mind. In the art of persuasion, it’s often most effective to paint in brief, colorful strokes.
A savvy reader with the handle “Jerseyvet” made an incisive observation after perusing my latest column concerning Obamacare:
“Start out with the premise that the demand for health care is infinite, but the supply is finite,” he wrote. “So health care has to be rationed. I trust the market, unfettered by governmental restrictions, more than the government. The Canadian and British systems of health care reinforce my belief.”
Jerseyvet—clearly one of those acerbate, “un-American” town hall “astroturfers”—has slung an arrow precisely through the heart of the matter.
Even Obama famously gaffed upon this weighty truth with his ill-advised postal services analogy on the free market vs. government care: “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine,” he noted, “It’s the post office that’s always having problems.” (Isn’t that precious? Seriously—did Joe Biden write that line?)
The president could have saved us all the trouble and just admitted: “Blue Cross and Blue Shield are doing just fine (with room for true free-market reform). It’s government health care that’s always having problems.”
Fittingly, it was British statesman Edmund Burke who observed, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”
Regrettably, unless “we the people” defeat liberals’ radical experiment in British-style health care, we’re destined to repeat the very dark history under which they (the Brits) presently live and needlessly die.
President Obama is on record: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan,” he assured the AFL-CIO in 2003.
But Daniel Hannan—a popular British member of the European Parliament—recently warned us of what to expect should Obama’s vision come to fruition:
“If you want to see what a government-run health care system looks like, you need not look any further than the countries like Canada or Great Britain. They already have in place so-called universal health care, and the results, well, they’re not pretty.”
And, as you’re about to see, with the words “not pretty” Mr. Hannan has secured his spot in the “morose understatement hall of fame.”
The following headlines from Britain’s three leading newspapers, the Times, the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, bear out Mr. Hannan’s ominous warning. Most of these stories are from 2009 and address the U.K.‘s version of Obamacare (Britain’s “National Health Service,” or “NHS”.)
For a sobering exercise in reality, simply replace “NHS” with “Obamacare” everywhere it appears:
These headlines are the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds more just like them with very real people and very real lives behind each.
Make no mistake: If we don’t sink this Obamacare Titanic before it sets sail, we become the headline.
We needn’t speculate. History is our crystal ball.
Weariness and Desperation in Health Care Debate
Welcome to Waterloo. Not enough votes for a public option, not enough votes without a public optionBy Roger Aronoff
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The health care debate has descended into a fiasco, draining President Obama of his high approval ratings, angering his base, polarizing the country, damaging his credibility, along with that of the Democratic-led Congress. South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint’s characterization of this turning out to be Obama’s Waterloo is looking more and more prescient.
Obama’s push for health care reform is on life support, along with a cap-and-trade bill unlikely to pass in the Senate, and a deal between Israel and the Palestinians that seems farther away from reality than even in recent years. And despite Obama’s attempt to change their behavior by treating them differently, there is no indication that Iran or N. Korea has any intentions of giving up their nuclear weapons programs, nor Iran’s support for terrorist organizations to recede.
President Obama and his pals in the media are growing ever more desperate. The MSNBC line-up is doing its best to discredit the opposition to the Democrats’ ideas for health care reform, but even they may have their limits to their obsequiousness to Obama. Clearly congressional members of his own party are tiring of playing along with the idea that Obama has delivered a consistent message. They have grown weary of trying to keep up with Obama’s shifting policy standards, while claiming they haven’t shifted at all.
On June 15 he told the American Medical Association (AMA) that “This gives you some new options. And I believe one of these options needs to be the public option.” Then in July he said: “That’s why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange-a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest, and choose what’s best for your family.”
This past weekend: “The public option, whether we have or we don’t have it is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it.”
Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that Mr. Obama still believes there should be choice and competition in the health insurance market-but that a public option is “not the essential element.”
In an article in Tuesday’s Washington Post, it was clear that this had crossed a line one too many times:
“In the Senate, where negotiations are now focused, John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said that a public option, as the plan has become known, is ‘a must.’ Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) said that ‘without a public option, I don’t see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it.’
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that the plan will be included in whatever bill is voted on in the House. ‘There is strong support in the House for a public option,’ she said, though she did not demand that the administration express support for the idea.
“One Democrat predicted that without the provision, the bill could lose as many as 100 votes in the chamber.”
Obama was possibly floating a trial balloon. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) said on Fox News Sunday: “Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the U.S. Senate for the public option, there never have been.”
Welcome to Waterloo. Not enough votes for a public option, not enough votes without a public option.
Obama goes around acting as if his past comments were not on tape, and being shown across the country. He continues to assure us that he hasn’t changed his position when clearly he has. He has done that often, but during the campaign, he was given a pass by the media. Now, it is so obvious, they are unable to ignore it.
Here was White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at Tuesday’s White House briefing: “Well, as I’ve said, now, yesterday and earlier today, the President-his position, the administration’s position is unchanged; that we have a goal of fostering choice and competition in a private health insurance market. The President prefers the public option as a way of doing that. If others have ideas, we’re open to those ideas and willing to listen to those details. That’s what the President has said for months.”
The dirty little secret is that Obama doesn’t care what is in the bill. He just wants to pass anything that will allow him to claim a victory on health care reform, or as it’s currently being called, health insurance reform. He’ll take it from there. The nose will be under the tent, and vast new bureaucracies and regulation will be created by the executive branch that will have no bearing, nor be remotely influenced by the words in the legislation. The more blank pages in the legislation the better.
The fact is, most of Obama’s base really prefers an overt government takeover of the system, through the so-called single payer system. Obama clearly stated in 2003 that that is his preference while speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.”...But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
And some of them don’t care what it costs. That is certainly the sentiment of MSNBC’s Ed Schultz. He said so back in April. “I want to tell you one thing about health care when it comes to money. Personally, this is where I stand: I don’t care how much it costs.”
Camille Paglia had an article in Salon last week. She opened by expressing her past and continuing support for Obama, and her disdain for former President Bush. She then took Obama to task for his and the Democrats’ handling of the health care issue:
“Having said that, I must confess my dismay bordering on horror at the amateurism of the White House apparatus for domestic policy. When will heads start to roll? I was glad to see the White House counsel booted, as well as Michelle Obama’s chief of staff, and hope it’s a harbinger of things to come. Except for that wily fox, David Axelrod, who could charm gold threads out of moonbeams, Obama seems to be surrounded by juvenile tinhorns, bumbling mediocrities and crass bully boys.
“Case in point: the administration’s grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform, one of the most vital issues facing the nation. Ever since Hillary Clinton’s megalomaniacal annihilation of our last best chance at reform in 1993 (all of which was suppressed by the mainstream media when she was running for president), Democrats have been longing for that happy day when this issue would once again be front and center.
“But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises-or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.
“There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama’s aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.
“You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you’re happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.”
With friends like Camille, who needs enemies?
And just to touch on a few other points. There is much consternation on the left about groups like Freedom Works spending money and organizing people to oppose this so-called health care reform. But according to this New York Times article, “The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.” This was basically a deal cut between the Obama administration and the drug industry that has upset some on the left, and on which Obama again may be ready to flip flop.
Obama claimed an endorsement by the AARP, which they distanced themselves from. Yes, they support reform, but want to first see the bill.
Last week The American College of Surgeons stated that they are “deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States.
“When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.”
They gave several examples, including these:
“Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.
“Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.”
And finally, there is the constant claim that Republicans offer no ideas of their own to fix the health care system. In fact, there have been a number of plans put forth by Republicans. Besides tort reform, which is part of almost all Republican plans but which is a non-starter for the Democrats, who are beholden to the trial lawyers lobby, the editors at Family Security Matters have documented the Empowering Patients First Act, a proposal by Georgia Representative Tom Price, a medical doctor.
The key points, as they describe it, include: 1) Access to coverage for all Americans; 2) Coverage truly owned by the patient; 3) Improving the health care delivery structure; and 4) reining in out-of-control costs.
Health care reform is on life support, and not very likely to succeed. The question is how much time, effort and political capital Obama is prepared to spend, and how much longer his allies in the media will be with him.
Back to the moral imperative talk about health care…slight of hand #792
Obama going back to his old tag lines on the “moral” need for health care reformBy Dr. Laurie Roth
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Anyone want to ski down a slippery, steep slope with lots of bumps? Granted there is a growing mind field just beneath the snow but with a little luck you can ski to the bottom of the hill. Just in case you break your leg or are blown up on the way down, Obama health care will take care of you……eventually……once the illegal aliens are treated…..when you are finally to the front of the line……if you are young enough…..if you have your “card”.
The Presidential approval rating continues to drop to record lows. Now we see it dipping to 49% according to Gallup. Even in Jimmy Carter’s first year it took until August for him to drop to 60%.
The American people are finally starting to unplug life support, look around the cold room and realize they are missing a lot of “somethings” with this administration and President! Liberals be very concerned. Conservatives be very concerned. AMERICANS BE VERY CONCERNED.
In reviewing a few of the “changes” and words of this President the first 6 months of this glowing administration we see endless talk, shifts, blaming and slight of hand!
“It will take time to repair all that Bush did and created.” “We inherited all these problems and the economic melt down from Bush.” Bush did this….Bush did that…..It was simply a “Bush nightmare” the Democrats inherited. Regarding nightmares, my Mom always told me never to have a ton of sugar before bedtime because that led to bad dreams. She almost had it right but in this situation, Obama and the Dems are drunk on sugar and endless spending while we all get the nightmares!
Now with all the heat being flung back at members of congress in the town hall meetings, we see the rhetoric change yet again. Now we see the spin on health care suddenly and magically drifting away from a nationalized health care option, to cooperative, one of many choices…..bla bla bla. We also see Obama going back to his old tag lines on the “moral” need for health care reform. You see it was and is the moral high ground to seize, manipulate, rewrite and control our health care for us. Moral this, cooperative that……believe NOTHING. Nationalized and controlled health care will continue to be manipulated into place IF WE DON’T FIGHT IT EVERY INCH OF THE WAY!
Regarding the moral high ground with all this, which is the most moral part? There is so much inspirational ground to choose from where do I begin?
Page 42: The Health Choices Commissioner deciding health benefits for you? You get no choice.
Page 58: All people would be issued a National ID Health card. (Linking to what other control and intrusion?)
Page59: The government would have direct, immediate access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. (Control of my banking…isn’t that comforting and precious?)
Page 272: Cancer patients: wait in line, welcome to rationing. (Forget the lines and rationing….just set up your funeral?
Page 170: Any Non-Resident alien doesn’t have to pay individual taxes (Americans will pay for them) So far the moral high ground is just blowing my mind. Let’s have a moment of silence!Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll. (Just think of the moral revival that will happen! Businesses tilting even further, then going bankrupt with their fines.)
Page 425: Here we see the Mecca of morality….forced end of life services counseling for anyone taking social security. This “moral” session will happen every 5 years. Of course, the Government and death panels can only hope that the endless guilt, relativism and suggestions hurled on our parents and grandparents will cause many to kill themselves. Do us all a favor, take the moral high ground, don’t cause your family and country to suffer….kill yourself.
You know, I’m so glad that Obama is taking advise from his advisors and going back to the moral high ground of his original arguments and provisions put in this bill. I’m certain once America continues to read the details of the intended bill, they will stop being so rude and turning away from the Democrats and Obama.
To any sane person and simple review of the health bill, energy bill, stimulus bill and other overreaches we see morality all right! This morality reflects the exact worldview of Stalin, Hitler, Castro and Mussolini. It turns people into numbers, worth into a mobile twirling in the wind and changed at will. It flattens individual achievement, enterprise, freedom and capitalism. It creates robotic surfs who rely on and support Big Mamma Government.
Conservatives we MUST master the upcoming mid term elections, continue finding our voices. Create more T parties, town halls, marches on Washington and loud, legal dialogue. Vote this President out in 4 years and pray for Impeachment before.
I don’t think as a national radio talk show host who is very shy about my country, Obama and right and wrong I’m on enough lists. I hope I was just added to another and called another name. I have a lovely collection of them now.
A third of nurses will refuse to have the swine flu jabBy Daniel Martin
18th August 2009
Up to a third of nurses will say no to the swine flu jab because of concerns over its safety, a poll has found.
NHS workers are first in line for the vaccine, but a survey of 1,500 nurses found many will reject it.
Last night a Government scientist condemned the results saying nurses who do not have the jab are putting patients at risk.
Up to a third of nurses will say no to the swine flu jab because of concerns over its safety, a poll has found
Nevertheless the poll, by Nursing Times magazine, will raise questions over the Government's planned mass vaccination programme.
Of 1,500 readers, 30 per cent would not say yes to the vaccine, while 33 per cent said maybe. Just 37 per cent said they would definitely have the jab.
Of those who said they would refuse the jab, 60 per cent said their main reason was concern about the safety of the vaccine.
A further 31 per cent said they did not consider the risks to their health from swine flu to be great enough, while 9 per cent thought they would not be able to take time off work to get immunised.
Some 91 per cent described themselves as frontline nurses.
One told the magazine: 'I would not be willing to put myself at risk of unknown long-term effects to facilitate a short-term solution.'
Another added: 'I have yet to be convinced there is a genuine health risk and it's not just Government propaganda.'
But Professor David Salisbury, the Department of Health's director of immunisation, reckoned it was unfortunate nurses would 'knowingly leave themselves at risk'.
He added: 'They have a duty to their patients and they have a duty to their families. I think you solve those responsibilities by being vaccinated.'
And Chief Nursing Officer Christine Beasley insisted: 'Frontline nurses will be absolutely crucial in the height of a pandemic without them, patient care will suffer and the NHS will be stretched.
'Getting the vaccine will protect nurses and their patients. That's why we're offering frontline nurses the vaccine as a top priority.'
The jab, currently being fast tracked, will not be fully tested before it is administered.
There will be no tests at all carried out on children under three, even though babies and children at high risk will be among the first to get the vaccine.
There are also concerns the jab can cause Guillain Barre Syndrome, which can lead to paralysis and even death.
A mass swine flu vaccination in the U.S. in 1976 caused far more deaths than the disease it was designed to combat and the Health Protection Agency watchdog has asked doctors to be on the lookout for cases of GBS.
Last week Chief Medical Officer Sir announced the jab will be given to high-risk groups with asthma or diabetes, as well as health workers.
Some 14million will be covered by the first wave of the vaccination programme.
Obama Care Passed in Stimulus Bill; More Treachery in Sept.By: Devvy Kidd
August 17, 2009
"The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical assistance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? It is not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power”. - Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co, 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 1935)
In my last column, I explained why Marxist Hillary Clinton's attempt to take over of another sector of private industry (health care) failed. It wasn't just a massive back lash from we the people, but because she was advised it would not pass a constitutional challenge. Now that the American people are beaten down with massive government regulations that ruined the finest health care system in this world and a population that is sick and dying, the shadow government is making another attempt to take over another private sector, even though the U.S. Constitution forbids such legislation.
If you are not aware of it yet, ObamaCare as it's being called - Part One was actually buried in the phony stimulus bill. That massive rape was signed into law by the usurper president in February. As Dr. Dave Janda writes, what is being debated now is Part Two. What, you say? Yes, your member of Congress (and mine) pulled another fast one and deceived all of us. Again.
Here is the link to the draconian 'American Investment and Recovery Act of 2009; the same failure as all the wasteful government programs implemented by FDR that prolonged the "Great Depression."
The creation of more worthless federal boards and councils were in the stimulus bill and are now in place. According to Dr. Dave Janda:
"The first part of The Obama Health Care Plan was buried in The Stimulus Bill which was signed into law by the President in February. It is the second part of The Health Care Plan which is now being debated in Congress."
"The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care, not preventing health care need. The plan's method is the most inhumane and unethical approach in cutting costs. The rationing of care is implemented through a Council, equivalent to the National Health Care Board in the British Health Care System. The name given to this panel is The Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research (“Federal Council”). (Section 9201 H.R. 1 Version of the Stimulus Bill.)
"President Obama has already appointed the fifteen member Federal Council. According to the Stimulus Bill, p.152, all members of the Council must be “senior federal officers or employees.” Thus, medical treatment will be dispensed by a group of bureaucrats from their ivory towers, not by the hands-on practitioners in the presence of the patients. The council was funded with $1.1 BILLION from The Stimulus Bill."
"According to former New York Lieutenant Governor and Health Policy Analyst Dr. Betsy McCaughey, the Federal Council will set a cost effectiveness standard for treatment. (Stimulus Bill p. 464) Translation.....if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer, dream on if you think you will get treated.....pick out your box..."
You can go to those pages in the bill linked above and verify that Dr. Janda is accurate in his assessment. One of the members of this worthless and totally unnecessary "Federal Council" is Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, brother of America hater, Rahm Emanuel, Comrade Obama/Soetoro's Chief of Staff.
What this means is that the phony stimulus recovery act set up part of the foundation for implementing the unconstitutional provisions in ObamaCare Two. If you read the sections above, all of them are clearly unconstitutional because the courts have ruled that Congress has no authority to legislate medical practice or direct medical practice within the states of the Union:
In Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S. Ct. 446 (1925), The court ruled: "Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the of states is beyond the power the federal government."
In U.S. v. Anthony, 15 Supp. 553, 555, (S.D. Ca., 1936) and U.S. v. Evers, 453 F. Supp. 1141, 1150 (M.D. Ala., 1978), the court ruled: "...The direct control of medical practice has been left to the states."
And, in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., above, the United States Supreme Court said, "These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power.”
There are hundreds of provisions of ObamaCare Two that are simply and without question unconstitutional. That means your member of Congress (house or senate) has no legal authority to vote for any such legislation. We must continue pounding on these craven scoundrels in Congress (both parties) to defeat Part Two. Let your congress critter and senator know that we the people now know about Part One being deceptively shoved down our throats. We now know the urgency to get Part Two passed: This vile "Federal Council" is now set up and just needs the rest of the treachery to get underway. I say fire them by defeating Part Two. Get rid of these useless paychecks feeding off the fruits of our labor.
Let your U.S. Senator know that any enforcement attempts will be met with lawsuits from individuals, businesses and organizations who are directly impacted by these unconstitutional laws. This monstrous piece of legislation is going to force coverage on nearly all Americans by subsidizing the poor. And, of course, it will penalize individuals and employers who don't purchase health insurance. (Remember those factual links at the bottom of my last column - the numbers and failures don't lie.) Hopefully, more states of the Union will pass emergency legislation to opt out of any legislation signed into law so their citizens don't have to file the lawsuits. They won't do it unless you contract your state rep and senator and tell them this is urgent - even if they are out of session; call their offices. Let's stop future grief before it becomes a nightmare.
Don't fall for the big, splashy headlines from yesterday: White House appears ready to drop 'public option' WASHINGTON – "Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system." These poltroons have always known the U.S. Constitution does not authorize ANY form of government run insurance for health care, period. Junk the whole bill and take one reform at a time that is within the jurisdiction of the feds, i.e., get this bill passed as soon as they get back:
H.R. 2117, the Health Freedom Protection Act, will end FDA and FTC censorship. Public support for the bill is critical. We the people have the right to seek prevention in our efforts to stay healthy even if it cuts into the profits of the big pharmaceutical companies that buy the favors of Congress.
Pre-existing conditions is one of the biggest cons run by HMOs. I know. My daughter was hit twice by illegal aliens who skipped away scott free thanks to Congress and Bush. She will be on medication for the rest of her life. No HMO would take her when she was self employed if she left her current insurer. That insurance was obtained before the accidents when she worked for a company that had health insurance. She was automatically extended coverage as long as I could pay the premiums every month on time.
How did Health Net in California deal with it once she lost her job because she couldn't work for seven months because of those accidents? By law they had to pick her up. But, in five years her premiums went from $127.50 per month to $600/mo. What they did was try to force her out by continuing to raise the monthly premium. Now, had she married a fellow who was already employed for say, the local school district who has health care coverage, she would automatically be picked up even with her pre-existing conditions which requires medication, not massive hospital bills. These HMOs discriminate against single, self employed men or women. She now works full time in a field where there is automatic coverage as part of the employee benefit package. She is now fully insured even with the same pre-existing condition. This is the kind of imbalance that needs to be corrected at the state level where these corporations do business. That is real health coverage reform.
The other side of the coin no one wants to talk about regarding health care is the refusal by the American people to reform their eating habits and the astronomical cost of obesity in America:
The cost of being a fat American: $147 billion to treat obesity in 2008 - "Obese people spent 42% more than people of normal weight on medical costs in 2006, a difference of $1,429, the study found. Prescription drugs accounted for much of the increase."
Obese Americans now outweigh the merely overweight. Current studies show that just in the past year alone, adult obesity rates grew in 23 states; there was no reduction in any state of the Union. Do you know that 2/3rds of adult Americans are now fat or obese? Roughly 72 million. That is staggering. Equally horrible is that childhood obesity is skyrocketing with almost 1/3rd of America's children and teens are now fat or obese. Why, even Comrade Obama/Soetoro's new "Surgeon General" (one of the biggest waste of taxpayer money) is fat. What kind of example is she setting?
If Americans want to take a big bite out of health care costs, they need to look in the mirror.
We don't need any taxpayer funded programs to do this, just common sense. You stop eating ALL processed foods and junk food from fast "food" joints. Read the labels. Eat fresh fruits and vegetables and get exercise every single day even if you just walk. America didn't start getting fat until massive consumption of fast foods and poor eating habits and took over. These liars, crooks and thieves are scheduled back to session on September 8, 2009. We must keep the heat on to stop a final "cap and trade" bill from passing. We have pounded on these lawbreakers and are close to defeating "cap and trade." We must not let up until we win: Climate Change Measure Should Be Set Aside, U.S. Senators Say. The Federal Department of Energy was created on August 4, 1977. The goal was to provide lots of things; the reality is just one more huge failure sucking up hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. We don't need more of the same with this "cap and trade" that will further steal the fruits of our labor and bring us nothing but more grief, laws, regulations and unemployment.
While this massive resistance is going on to fight this bogus health care reform, there are other bills Congress wants passed and signed into law by the usurper: Cap and Trade is one. Second is the complete take over of all our food and right to grow it.
These insane lunatics in the House of Representatives have passed H.R. 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. This is one of THE most dangerous pieces of legislation next to the take over of health care and "cap and trade." The complete take over of our food supply must be stopped. This unconstitutional legislation will make criminals of anyone who dares to grow food in their own yard. That bill has NOTHING to do with food safety. It has everything to do with total control by a totalitarian government apparatus. Stay in the face of your federal senator during this recess and tell them to throw out H.R. 2749 and leave us alone.
That bill is also all about the Tenth Amendment and let me quote from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund:
"S.510 calls for federal regulation of how farmers grow and harvest product. Farmers selling food directly to local markets are inherently transparent and accountable to their customers, and there is no reason to impose these regulations on them."
If you study all these bills in depth, there is no question this is the final thrust to Sovietize these united States of America. Those who don't do a single minute of research or who want mother government to run their health care lash out at anyone who opposes such draconian laws. Millions of desperate Americans attack those of us who believe the Constitution matters and holding his/her member of Congress accountable for destroying this country. The U.S. Constitution means nothing to them. They do not understand that only a free market will create affordable health care and coverage like we used to have before Congress began passing laws that have made an absolute mess of the system. These are the voices of America's destruction.
Please, if you don't know about those bills, read the material in the links section and get on the phone to your member of Congress. Get to those town hall meetings. Spread the word to family, friends, business colleagues and people at your church. We the people demand these bills get killed once and for all. They are unconstitutional and there's no money to pay for them. The American people are being driven into poverty while Congress continues to write hot checks. We know the agenda is world government and that means full and complete control over every aspect of our lives.
Pathological liar, Obama/Soetoro, will do and say anything to get these bills to his desk. With the truth and our voices we can defeat them. Then we must go after the states of the Union in January to stop all of this through the power of the purse and the power of the sword. State legislators: I wrote about this a year ago. Here is the truth about what will happen if you don't implement these measures in your state as quickly as humanly possible; click here.
Swine flu jab link to killer nerve disease: Leaked letter reveals concern of neurologists over 25 deaths in AmericaBy Jo Macfarlane
15th August 2009
A warning that the new swine flu jab is linked to a deadly nerve disease has been sent by the Government to senior neurologists in a confidential letter.
The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official body that oversees public health, has been leaked to The Mail on Sunday, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins.
It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine.
GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and can be fatal.
The letter, sent to about 600 neurologists on July 29, is the first sign that there is concern at the highest levels that the vaccine itself could cause serious complications.
It refers to the use of a similar swine flu vaccine in the United States in 1976 when:
* More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu.
* 500 cases of GBS were detected.
* The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times.
* The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became clear.
* The US Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected.
Concerns have already been raised that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently tested and that the effects, especially on children, are unknown.
It is being developed by pharmaceutical companies and will be given to about 13million people during the first wave of immunisation, expected to start in October.
Top priority will be given to everyone aged six months to 65 with an underlying health problem, pregnant women and health professionals.
The British Neurological Surveillance Unit (BNSU), part of the British Association of Neurologists, has been asked to monitor closely any cases of GBS as the vaccine is rolled out.
One senior neurologist said last night: ‘I would not have the swineflu jab because of the GBS risk.’
There are concerns that there could be a repeat of what became known as the ‘1976 debacle’ in the US, where a swine flu vaccine killed 25 people – more than the virus itself.
A mass vaccination was given the go-ahead by President Gerald Ford because scientists believed that the swine flu strain was similar to the one responsible for the 1918-19 pandemic, which killed half a million Americans and 20million people worldwide.
The swine flu vaccine being offered to children has not been tested on infants
Within days, symptoms of GBS were reported among those who had been immunised and 25 people died from respiratory failure after severe paralysis. One in 80,000 people came down with the condition. In contrast, just one person died of swine flu.
More than 40million Americans had received the vaccine by the time the programme was stopped after ten weeks. The US Government paid out millions of dollars in compensation to those affected.
The swine flu virus in the new vaccine is a slightly different strain from the 1976 virus, but the possibility of an increased incidence of GBS remains a concern.
Shadow health spokesman Mike Penning said last night: ‘The last thing we want is secret letters handed around experts within the NHS. We need a vaccine but we also need to know about potential risks.
‘Our job is to make sure that the public knows what’s going on. Whyis the Government not being open about this? It’s also very worrying if GPs, who will be administering the vaccine, aren’t being warned.’
Two letters were posted together to neurologists advising them of the concerns. The first, dated July 29, was written by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the HPA’s Immunisation Department.
It says: ‘The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use.
‘GBS has been identified as a condition needing enhanced surveillance when the swine flu vaccines are rolled out.
‘Reporting every case of GBS irrespective of vaccination or disease history is essential for conducting robust epidemiological analyses capable of identifying whether there is an increased risk of GBS in defined time periods after vaccination, or after influenza itself, compared with the background risk.’
The second letter, dated July 27, is from the Association of British Neurologists and is written by Dr Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, chair of its surveillance unit, and Professor Patrick Chinnery, chair of its clinical research committee.
Halted: The 1976 US swine flu campaignIt says: ‘Traditionally, the BNSU has monitored rare diseases for long periods of time. However, the swine influenza (H1N1) pandemic has overtaken us and we need every member’s involvement with a new BNSU survey of Guillain-Barre Syndrome that will start on August 1 and run for approximately nine months.
‘Following the 1976 programme of vaccination against swine influenza in the US, a retrospective study found a possible eight-fold increase in the incidence of GBS.
‘Active prospective ascertainment of every case of GBS in the UK is required. Please tell BNSU about every case.
‘You will have seen Press coverage describing the Government’s concern about releasing a vaccine of unknown safety.’
If there are signs of a rise in GBS after the vaccination programme begins, the Government could decide to halt it.
GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, leaving them unable to transmit signals to muscles effectively.
It can cause partial paralysis and mostly affects the hands and feet. In serious cases, patients need to be kept on a ventilator, but it can be fatal.
Death is caused by paralysis of the respiratory system, causing the victim to suffocate.It is not known exactly what causes GBS and research on the subject has been inconclusive.
However, it is thought that one in a million people who have a seasonal flu vaccination could be at risk and it has also been linked to people recovering from a bout of flu of any sort.
The HPA said it was part of the Government’s pandemic plan to monitor GBS cases in the event of a mass vaccination campaign, regardless of the strain of flu involved.But vaccine experts warned that the letters proved the programme was a ‘guinea-pig trial’.
Dr Tom Jefferson, co-ordinator of the vaccines section of the influential Cochrane Collaboration, an independent group that reviews research, said: ‘New vaccines never behave in the way you expect them to. It may be that there is a link to GBS, which is certainly not something I would wish on anybody.
‘But it could end up being anything because one of the additives in one of the vaccines is a substance called squalene, and none of the studies we’ve extracted have any research on it at all.’
He said squalene, a naturally occurring enzyme, could potentially cause so-far-undiscovered side effects.
Jackie Fletcher, founder of vaccine support group Jabs, said: ‘The Government would not be anticipating this if they didn’t think there was a connection. What we’ve got is a massive guinea-pig trial.’
Professor Chinnery said: ‘During the last swine flu pandemic, it was observed that there was an increased frequency of cases of GBS. No one knows whether it was the virus or the vaccine that caused this.
‘The purpose of the survey is for us to assess rapidly whether there is an increase in the frequency of GBS when the vaccine is released in the UK. It also increases consultants’ awareness of the condition.
Panic over? The number of swine flu cases has fallen sharply in the past few weeks
‘This is a belt-and-braces approach to safety and is not something people should be substantially worried about as it’s a rare condition.’
If neurologists do identify a case of GBS, it will be logged on a central database.
Details about patients, including blood samples, will be collected and monitored by the HPA.
It is hoped this will help scientists establish why some people develop the condition and whether it is directly related to the vaccine.
But some question why there needs to be a vaccine, given the risks. Dr Richard Halvorsen, author of The Truth About Vaccines, said: ‘For people with serious underlying health problems, the risk of dying from swine flu is probably greater than the risk of side effects from the vaccine.
‘But it would be tragic if we repeated the US example and ended up with more casualties from the jabs.
‘I applaud the Government for recognising the risk but in most cases this is a mild virus which needs a few days in bed. I’d question why we need a vaccine at all.’
Professor Miller at the HPA said: ‘This monitoring system activates pandemic plans that have been in place for a number of years. We’ll be able to get information on whether a patient has had a prior influenza illness and will look at whether influenza itself is linked to GBS.
‘We are not expecting a link to the vaccine but a link to disease, which would make having the vaccine even more important.’
The UK’s medicines watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, is already monitoring reported side effects from Tamiflu and Relenza and it is set to extend that surveillance to the vaccine.
A Department of Health spokesperson said: ‘The European Medicines Agency has strict processes in place for licensing pandemic vaccines.
‘In preparing for a pandemic, appropriate trials to assess safety and the immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
‘It is extremely irresponsible to suggest that the UK would use a vaccine without careful consideration of safety issues. The UK has one of the most successful immunisation programmes in the world.’
I Couldn't Eat or Speak ... It was Horrendous
Victim: Hilary Wilkinson spent three months in hospital after she was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
When Hilary Wilkinson woke up with muscle weakness in her left arm and difficulty breathing, doctors initially put it down to a stroke.
But within hours, she was on a ventilator in intensive care after being diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
She spent three months in hospital and had to learn how to talk and walk again. But at times, when she was being fed through a drip and needed a tracheotomy just to breathe, she doubted whether she would survive.
The mother of two, 57, from Maryport, Cumbria, had been in good health until she developed a chest infection in March 2006. She gradually became so weak she could not walk downstairs.
Doctors did not diagnose Guillain-Barre until her condition worsened in hospital and tests showed her reflexes slowing down. It is impossible for doctors to know how she contracted the disorder, although it is thought to be linked to some infections.
Mrs Wilkinson said: ‘It was very scary. I couldn’t eat and I couldn’t speak. My arms and feet had no strength and breathing was hard.
I was treated with immunoglobulin, which are proteins found in blood, to stop damage to my nerves. After ten days, I still couldn’t speak and had to mime to nurses or my family.
‘It was absolutely horrendous and I had no idea whether I would get through it. You reach very dark moments at such times and wonder how long it can last.
But I’m a very determined person and I had lots of support.’
After three weeks, she was transferred to a neurological ward, where she had an MRI scan and nerve tests to assess the extent of the damage.
Still unable to speak and in a wheelchair, Mrs Wilkinson eventually began gruelling physiotherapy to improve her muscle strength and movement but it was exhausting and painful.
Three years later, she is almost fully recovered. She can now walk for several miles at a time, has been abroad and carries out voluntary work for a GBS Support Group helpline.
She said: ‘It makes me feel wary that the Government is rolling out this vaccine without any clear idea of the GBS risk, if any. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone and it certainly changed my life.
‘I’m frightened to have the swine flu vaccine if this might happen again – it’s a frightening illness and I think more research needs to be done on the effect of the vaccine.’Hotline staff given access to confidential recordsConfidential NHS staff records and disciplinary complaints could be accessed by hundreds of workers manning the Government’s special swine flu hotline.
They were able to browse through a database of emails containing doctors’ and nurses’ National Insurance numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, mobile phone numbers and scanned passport pages – all details that could be used fraudulently.
And private and confidential complaints sent by hospitals about temporary medical staff – some of whom were named – were also made available to the call-centre workers, who were given a special password to log in to an internal NHS website.
It could be a breach of the Data Protection Act.
The hotline staff work for NHS Professionals, which was set up using taxpayers’ money to employ temporary medical and administrative staff for the health service.
The not-for-profit company runs two of the Government’s swine flu call centres – with 300 staff in Farnborough, Hampshire, and 900 in Watford, Hertfordshire.
Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley described the revelations as ‘disturbing’.
Anne Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Unison, said: ‘There’s no excuse for such a fundamental breach of personal security. Action needs to be taken as soon as possible to make sure this does not happen again.’
A spokeswoman for NHS Professionals would not confirm whether access to the confidential files had been granted.
Massive campaign for Obama hits air
By MIKE ALLEN 13 August 2009
A new coalition on Thursday launched $12 million in television ads to support President Barack Obama’s health reform plan, in the opening wave of a planned tens of millions of dollars this fall.
The new group, funded largely by the pharmaceutical industry, is called Americans for Stable Quality Care. It includes some odd bedfellows: the American Medical Association, FamiliesUSA, the Federation of American Hospitals, PhRMA and SEIU, the service employees’ union.
The decision of labor and progressive groups to join with industry groups could draw new heat about the president's package from the left.
The ads began airing at about 11 a.m. ET Thursday.
The group is likely to be the biggest spender in support of health reform. The campaign will serve as a counterweight to the critics at town meetings, which are getting saturation news coverage while Congress is out of town.
In a reversal from former President Bill Clinton’s 1993-94 health care debacle, the group’s campaign is likely to mean that White House supporters keep the upper hand on the airwaves.
PhRMA’s participation is key, because the group has promised to kick in as much as $150 million for advertising and grass-roots activity to help pass the president’s plan.
The debut ad is meant to shore up support among the conservative House Blue Dog Democrats and to target swing senators. So it’s airing in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia. The first buy is expected to run for two weeks, with a weekly spend of around $3 million.
“This group has joined forces to communicate the specific benefits of reform at a time when there is a lot of misinformation about what health care reform actually means,” an official of the group said.
The first ad is called, “Mean for You,” as in, “What Reforms Means for You.”
The 30-second script, with a soothing male narrator: “What does health insurance reform mean for you? It means you can’t be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition or dropped if you get sick. It means putting health care decisions in the hands of you and your doctor. It means lower costs, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, tough new rules to cut waste and red tape and a focus on preventing illness before it strikes. So what does health insurance reform really mean? Quality, affordable care you can count on.”
The official provides a little more back story: “These groups were part of a looser coalition that started back in January that focused on the links between health reform and the economy. Now that the debate is turning on what health reform means for the individual, they felt the need to launch a new front that addresses some of those particulars while debunking some of the myths that are floating around. Plus, these groups recognize that their collective voice packs more punch than if they were to just speak out individually.”
The ad was made by GMMB, which was a lead agency for Obama for America. Partners include Frank Greer and Jim Margolis.
E-mails from public overload House Web site
Aug 13, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid a boisterous debate on health care reform, people flooded members of Congress on Thursday with so many e-mails that they overloaded the House's primary Web site.
Technical support issued a warning to congressional staff that the site - - may be slow or unresponsive because of the large volume of e-mail being sent to members.
Jeff Ventura, a spokesman for the House's chief administrative officer, which maintains the Web site, said traffic data was not available and could not be released without the lawmakers' consent.
But anecdotally, he said, the spike in e-mail volume was widely believed to be a result of the health care debate.
"It is clearly health care reform," Ventura said. "There's no doubt about it."
Lawmakers are in their home districts this month for the August recess, where a populist backlash has emerged in some quarters against President Barack Obama's plan to reform the nation's health care system.
Democrats are trying desperately to regain control of the debate, with the White House posting a new Web site designed to dispel what it called "the misinformation and baseless smears that are cropping up daily." House Democratic aides have set up a health care war room out of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office. It is designed to help lawmakers answer questions about the legislation.
Ventura said the last time he saw such a significant slow-down in the system was in January, shortly before the House passed an $819 billion bill to stimulate the economy.
Ventura said new technology called "load balancing" is in place to try to handle spikes in volume. So far, the House Web site remains available to the public.
In particular, people are heavily using a link on the site called "Write Your Representative," which helps a voter track down their representative by plugging in their zip code.
Something “fishy” when Obama’s Organizing for America plays doctor
OFA's "Cooked Up" responseBy Judi McLeod
Thursday, August 13, 2009
When he speaks from his ever-present TelePrompter or appears on the stage of a town hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, a grinning President Barack Obama dismisses health care protesters as cranks.
Hearing a question from a worried woman called Mary at an AARP-sponsored health care “tele-town hall: “I have been told that under a new health care plan, Medicare recipients would be visited and told to decide how they wish to die,” Obama piled on reassurance with slick and charm.
With a grin, Obama’s response to `Mary’ was: “I guarantee you, first of all we just don’t have enough government workers to talk to everybody to find out how they want to die.”
That’s the Obamacare Obama on stage as presented by a fawning mainstream media.
Behind the public stage is the staging of Obamacare that really matters. It’s called Organizing for America (OFA), and its main hallmark is deceit.
In their own words, this is how OFA is fighting “insurance companies” and “partisan attack groups” they accuse of “stirring up fear with false rumors about the President’s plan”.
“So we’ve cooked up an easy, powerful way for you to make a big impression: Office Visits for Health Reform.”
That’s right. The OFA comes right out an admits to their activists that their Office Visits for Health Reform are “cooked up”.
“All this week, OFA members like you will be stopping by local congressional offices to show our support for insurance reform. You can have a quick conversation with the local staff, tell your personal story, or even just drop off a customized flyer and say that reform matters to you.”
And check out this line about how to fool the masses which appears under the official Obama logo: “As you’ve probably seen in the news, special interest attack groups are stirring up partisan mobs with lies about health reform, and it’s getting ugly. Across the country, members of Congress who support reform are being shouted down, physically assaulted, hung in effigy, and receiving death threats. We can’t let extremists hijack this debate, or confuse Congress about where the people stand.” (Emphasis CFP’s).
This is how Obama and the Obamabots play doctor with the lives of Americans. You can read it below, word for word, minus the TelePrompter and the on-stage grin. (copied from original)
All throughout August, our members of Congress are back in town. Insurance companies and partisan attack groups are stirring up fear with false rumours about the President's plan, and it's extremely important that folks like you speak up now.
So we've cooked up an easy, powerful way for you to make a big impression: Office Visits for Health Reform.All this week, OFA members like you will be stopping by local congressional offices to show our support for insurance reform. You can have a quick conversation with the local staff, tell your personal story, or even just drop off a customized flyer and say that reform matters to you.
We'll provide everything you need: the address, phone number, and open hours for the office, information about how the health care crisis afects your state for you to drop off (with the option of adding your personal story), and a step-by-step guide for your visit.
According to our records, you live near Sen. Dick Durbin's office in Springfield, IL.
Sign up now to visit Sen. Dick Durbin's office in Springfield this week.
(Not your representative, or think there might be another office that's easier for you to get to? Click here to find a different office.)
As you've probably seen in the news, special interest attack groups are stirring up partisan mobs with lies about health reform, and it's getting ugly. Across the country, members of Congress who support reform are being shouted down, physically assaulted, hung in effigy, and receiving death threats. We can't let extremists hijack this debate, or confuse Congress about where the people stand.
Office Visits for Health Reform are our chance to show that the vast majority of American voters know that the cost of inaction is too high to bear, and strongly support passing health reform in 2009.
Don't worry if you've never done anything like this before. The congressional staff is there to listen, and your opinion as a constituent matters a lot. And if you bring a friend, you'll have more fun and make an even greater impact.
Click below to sign up for an Office Visit for Health Reform:
Wherever you live, these visits matter: Many representatives are pushing hard toward reform, and they are taking a lot of heat from special interests. They deserve our thanks and need our support to continue the fight. But those who are still putting insurance companies and partisan point-scoring ahead of their constituents must know that voters are watching - and that we expect better.
Earlier this week, the President wrote that "this is the moment our movement was built for" and asked us all to commit to join at least one event this month. This is the way to answer that call, and rise to the challenge of this moment together.
Thank you for going the extra mile when it matters the most.
Mitch Stewart
Organizing for America
Democratic Socialists of Congress: Meet the MembersWho is directly responsible for the biggest assault on American freedom and liberty in US historyBy JB Williams
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Now that Americans are awake and confronting their tyrannical employees in the federal government, who are clearly hell-bent upon forcing a Marxist agenda, it’s time to name names so that the people easily identify who is directly responsible for the biggest assault on American freedom and liberty in US history., Thugs, Obama’s citizen army.
After decades of failed attempts to take over America via their third party initiatives that couldn’t break America’s two party system, leaders of both the Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA chose a new strategy.
Both being the ultimate “party of the working class stiff,” they joined forces in a new venture that would work within the US two party system, by hijacking control of one of the two primary parties. As the Democrat Party had already spent years identifying itself as the “party of the working class,” engaging in socio-economic class warfare as its primary method for expanding its political power, it was ripe for the hijacking.
Together, Communist Party and Socialist Party leaders established the Democratic Socialists of America, and they share a common ideology which is now the platform and mantra of today’s DNC - CPUSA
Insert the word “Democrats” where “Communists” appears in this statement, and you have the central message of today’s Democrat leadership.
To gain full control of the Democrat Party, DSA leadership established two congressional legislative bodies, headed by DSA/CPUSA/SPUSA members. Today, these are the two congressional bodies in control of congress.
They are the Congressional Progressive Caucus established by Socialist Party member Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and the Congressional Black Caucus established by Communist Party member John Conyers of Michigan.
ALL members of these two congressional committees represent the Democratic Socialists of America, as both committees are the creation of, and operate under the control of DSAUSA.
If you want to know who is behind the full-court press to nationalize or socialize health care, the auto industry, banking and insurance, here they are.... Is YOUR congress member on these lists?
Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus
Every member of these two congressional committees is a problem for every American. To fully understand the related facts, please take the time to study this DSAUSA document - What is Democratic Socialism. Then take a moment to review their current newsletter, The Red Letter to DSA members - ***HERE***
If you still have no clue what we are up against, go one step further and take a look at their designed to attract and indoctrinate the youth of America.
To be sure, they are not the only problem is congress or Washington DC today, but every anti-American policy initiative coming out of Washington DC today, is rooted in this organization and proposed by their members of congress, the members of their two committees.
As American citizens wake up to the reality that their nation, their personal freedom and liberty are under attack on many fronts today, they must focus on the root of that evil, Americans who have lost their faith in freedom and liberty, and bought the false promise of secular socialism and the right of the Fed to confiscate the freedom of one, to purchase the voting power of another.
Ten minutes of history research will quickly confirm that communism, socialism, Marxism, totalitarianism, are all systems by which the governing few are empowered, not the masses. Even though many Americans have been tricked into thinking that their lives are better off in the hands of Washington DC elitists, the vast majority of Americans inherently know better!
If your members of congress appear on either of the two member lists above, they ARE part of the “conspiracy” to destroy everything America has ever been, or was ever intended to be. They are opponents of freedom, plain and simple.
Being “democrat” or “black” is not their unforgivable offense. Being black or democrat does not make one un-American or a threat to American freedom. But being a communist or socialists in a position of power, or today, a position of unbridled power, is indeed both un-American and a threat to every American citizen.
Even Liberals are Waking up to this Reality!
Its common knowledge that Americans are showing up at congressional town hall meetings across the country today, and are on the verge of turning them into public lynching of their overtly arrogant legislative tyrants.
What’s NOT common knowledge is that many of these citizens are Democrats. DSA secular socialists in government and the press are working around the clock to paint all patriotic dissent as some act of “extremism” or “organized mob thuggery” and when all else fails, “racism.”
- “who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises—or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.”
This sounds like something I would write, not to mention a lot like what thousands of citizens are trying to tell legislators at town hall meetings across the country. But this was written by liberal Obama supporter Camille Paglia in her opinion piece titled Obama’s healthcare horror.
On the heels of Obama’s town hall pep rally in New Hampshire, Paglia writes—“You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you’re happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.”
Now here’s an American liberal who demonstrates the true art of critical thinking. Unlike most American liberals who still haven’t put the Communist Party Manifesto along side of the current DNC talking points and made the obvious connections, Paglia gets it!
Which explains the Need for his Citizen Army...“What looked like smooth coasting to the 2010 election has now become a nail-biter. Both major parties have become a rats’ nest of hypocrisy and incompetence.”—said Paglia
Even MSNBC and CNN reporters were forced to note that despite video footage of angry citizens confronting members of congress about Obama’s Health Scare Scam in every city where a member of congress is brave enough to step into a town hall - Obama’s New Hampshire dog-n-pony show was glaringly void of any opposition. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the tickets to the event were distributed by Democrat members of congress, via their local union offices???
Now that even liberals who voted for leftist leaders in the last two election cycles are being shaken from their blind DNC loyalty by the overt extreme left insanity that defines just how bad life can be the leadership of the Democratic Socialists of America, desperate times call for despotic measures…
Who thought that Paglia and I would ever see eye to eye? - “And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob"—a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure.”
“Obama’s aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land.” - Paglia
I’m a sucker for such a fact-based common sense approach to opinion writing, even if it does come from a liberal. I just can’t help but agree with her here. I never saw that coming! I bet Salon editors didn’t either… Better read the column before they issue a retraction after a phone call from Obama’s Department of Homeland Security who undoubtedly considers Paglia to be a “potential domestic terrorist” now…
So, here come the Thugs!
In a sad but true commentary titled Obama Rent-A-Thug Program moves into High Gear from conservative writer Sher Zieve at Canada Free Press, the Obama propaganda machine is now deeply engaged in the very activity they falsely accuse their dissenters of…
As Zieve chronicles, Team Obama is engaged in hiring PAID counter-protesters via ACORN,, the labor unions and many other leftist front groups, offering up to $500 per week on a CraigsList ad looking for people willing to confront little old lady’s angry with Obama and AARP for trying to shove them into an early grave.
A Cameraman Caught in Middle When Town Hall Erupts Into Violence in Tampa Florida, tapes Obama union thuggery taking place all across America, as Obama hosts a well controlled pep rally in New Hampshire. Make sure to watch the video…
Where are we Headed Here?The American people opposed Obama spending the nation to more than $12 TRILLION in debt in his first year in office, but Obama did it anyway.
The American people opposed government confiscation of the auto industry, and Obama’s “cash for clunkers” scam which is being used to create false auto sales propped up by more taxpayer funds, while gaining federal control of every computer that logs into the federal website. But Obama did it anyway.
The people oppose federal control of the banking and insurance industries and violently oppose government control of individual health care. But Obama intends to do it anyway, even if he has to send ACORN and SEIU union thugs out to town hall meetings across the country in order to create a TV appearance that everyone in America is for his plan.
Where are we headed here?We are headed towards a second American revolution, in which real American patriots will have to put tyrants out of business, or give up their freedom and liberty, for a temporary false sense of peace.
Once Obama and the Democratic Socialists of America gained control of all three branches of the Fed, they are NOT going to turn loose of that power without a fight. They will use every tool available to retain their long awaited new-found power. They have the numbers in congress to ram through anything they want and bi-partisanship is an unnecessary restraint on their anti-American agenda.
So, where do we go from here?The American people were robbed at the ballot box. They have been turned away by the courts, as “not having proper standing” to ask who this person is in the White House, or what he is up to. They are being beaten into submission at town all meetings and crucified by the leftist press for daring to speak out against the media supported march to Marxism. What options are left?
Another leftist front organization calling itself the Southern Poverty Law Center has just released a research paper on “right-wing militia groups” on the rise across the country.
Working with Obama’s Department of Homeland Security and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the organization seeks to further label all dissenting voices as “potential domestic terrorists”—likening all dissenting Americans to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, Ruby Ridge militant Randall Weaver and the Branch Dividian Cult murdered by Clinton AG Janet Reno in Waco Texas.
If you think push hasn’t already come to shove in America, you must be deaf, dumb and blind.
The leftists in control of Washington DC can not make it any clearer… They have an agenda and they don’t care how many American citizens, Republicans, Democrats or Independents, are opposed to that agenda - nor do they care what they have to do to advance that agenda.
They are prepared to rob you of assets, earnings, health care, and even life itself if need be, to push through their anti-American global agenda.
But the good news is - the American people are finally awake and taking note. Despite Obama’s repeated claims that he is not hawking socialized death care, the people are reading the congressional proposals themselves and are able to quote chapter and verse of their proposals better than they can.
Still, the bold faced lies continue and the heavy handed rush to Marxism is on track, no matter how much shouting is taking place across the nation.
Now you know why… The people behind it all are in fact Communist and Socialists. It’s not some silly crackpot “theory,” it’s a fact. It’s not a figment of your imagination it’s actually happening.
Now that you know where we’re headed, find a way to do something about it. The future of this nation is only in the hands of elected officials if the American citizens leave it in their hands.
Senators exclude endoflife provision from billAP - Thu Aug 13, 2009
WASHINGTON – Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.
A health care bill passed by three House committees allows Medicare to reimburse doctors for voluntary counseling sessions about end-of-life decisions. But critics have claimed the provision could lead to death panels and euthanasia for seniors.
The Senate Finance Committee is still working to complete a bill.
This is a Breaking News Update. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) — For more than a decade in Congress, Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer has been known for his ever-present bow-tie and tireless advocacy of bikes.
So it is something of a surprise to the Portland Democrat that he has earned a new measure of fame in recent days — as author of a health-care provision that some critics say would set up a "death panel."
In a widely quoted Facebook posting, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin charged that federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors or children with Down syndrome — such as Palin's son Trig — are worthy of health care. Palin called the proposal "downright evil."
Many news organizations — including The Associated Press — debunked Palin's claim. The provision that caused the uproar would authorize Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling about end-of-life care.
But Blumenauer says he is astounded that Palin and other critics have not tempered their bleak descriptions of the health care bill.
"It's deliberate at this point," Blumenauer said of Palin's failure to correct her Aug. 7 Facebook posting. "If she wasn't deliberately lying at the beginning, she is deliberately allowing a terrible falsehood to be spread with her name."
Blumenauer singled out another prominent Republican, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, saying he has "linked arms with Sarah Palin and death panels." While Gingrich has not used the term death panel, he has declined several opportunities to denounce Palin's claim.
"You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards," Gingrich said Sunday on the ABC's "This Week."
Blumenauer called the comments despicable and part of an orchestrated effort by Republicans to discredit the health care overhaul and scare seniors.
In nearly four decades of public life, "this is the starkest example I've ever seen of how, if we're not careful, political discourse dissolves into some type of partisan cage-fighting, where there are no rules and anything goes," said Blumenauer, 60.
Palin did not respond to requests for comment. But in a Facebook posting late Wednesday night, Palin defended her original claim, which President Barack Obama and other Democrats have criticized.
"With all due respect, it's misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients," she said, noting that the provision authorizes consultations whenever a Medicare recipient's health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home.
Since the bill's intent is to reduce overall health care costs, it's logical to assume that care for seniors may be curtailed, Palin said.
"It's all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform," she wrote.
Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Gingrich, said Blumenauer was following a Democratic tactic of linking all Republicans to Palin.
"Obviously Newt didn't embrace her euphemism of death panels. But he said to the larger point, there is a concern that people have about allowing government to be involved in these decisions," Tyler said. "She's raising a point we should discuss."
Blumenauer said the measure he supports would merely allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. Topics include living wills, designating a close relative or a trusted friend as a health care proxy and information about pain medications for chronic discomfort.
The measure would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option, Blumenauer said, calling references to death panels or euthanasia "mind-numbing."
"It's a blatant lie, and everybody who has checked it agrees," he said.
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said this week that Palin and other critics were not helping the GOP by throwing out false claims.
"Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology, because it absolutely isn't" in the bill, Murkowski said. "There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill."
Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Republican who co-sponsored a similar measure in the Senate, said it was "nuts" to claim the bill encourages euthanasia.
"You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government," Isakson said. "I don't know how that got so mixed up."
Blumenauer said the controversy was helping Democrats in a "perverse way."
By continuing to spread a widely refuted claim, Republican critics are undercutting their own credibility, he said. The controversy has drawn more attention to the original proposal, which passed largely unnoticed when a health overhaul was approved by three House committees.
"This has taken on an outsized significance and so more people are paying attention to it than ever before," Blumenauer said. "I think you will see more people use this to say, 'What will happen to me if I am in an accident? Here's what I want.' More people are going to take matters into their own hands."
Obamacare Will Take Away Your ChildrenBy Warner Todd Huston
Posted on August 12, 2009
Do you want government healthcare? OK, then you shouldn’t mind if the government comes knocking at your door to see if you are raising your child in the government approved manner, right? Well that is just another of the authoritarian provisions of Obamacare.
Former Hollywood tough guy and current conservative columnist Chuck Norris found another one of Obama’s little Chicago styled, thuggish provisions tucked into the House healthcare bill that should make everyone worry about government overreach.
In sections 440 and 1904 on page 838 of the House bill, government aggregates unto itself the right to invade the home of any citizen with minor children in order to institute “home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.” The supposed goal is to “help” train parents in the government approved style of child rearing. Now, you do understand what this means, don’t you? This means that if the government perfunctory that enters the home decides in her wisdom that the children in the home are not being raised in the government approved way, why then the Department of Children and Family Services will be called in to remove the children from the home. (Side note: I say “her” above because it will likely never be a male government employee in such a position. I am not violating the standard practice of using the male pronoun.)
With this “visitation” provision, we are setting up a situation where Obama will be invading parent’s homes and taking away their children.
Does it seem over-the-top of me to say that government intruders will fan out across the country, removing children from homes thanks to Obamacare? Are you rolling your eyes at what you consider my hyperbole?
Well, don’t.
Let us consider the facts here. If government employees charged with the health and welfare of children begin to “visit” homes across America and these government thugs see situations of which they do not approve, such as home schooling or religious practices they disagree with, then they will be obligated by law to inform on these recalcitrant parents.
Think about this. Wouldn’t a government employee be strung up by her neck should she ignore what could potentially be child abuse? Wouldn’t the Old Media go crazy if a child was found abused and it later came out that an Obamacare “visitation” service was performed at the home yet the abuse was ignored?
You bet it would. Such a government employee would find her face and name all over the media in a feeding frenzy of condemnation.
Of course, I am not talking here about great railroad cars loaded full of the nation’s children that have been ripped from their parent’s bosoms sent off to be warehoused in government camps. It will be nothing so blatant as that. But what will result is that parents will be fearful for their family every time an Obamacare operative comes knocking at the door for another government approved “help” session to begin. That will be nearly as bad. Parents will tremble at the fear that a government perfunctory will determine that they spy “abuse” when that front door opens.
The problem here is, who determines what “abuse” means? Well, the government thug sent into your home will, naturally. Real abuse need never have occurred for the full force of Obama’s jack-booted government officials to come down on a parent. Children will be summarily removed from the home on even the slightest suspicion that “abuse” has occurred.
And YOU will have voted for this to happen with your support of Obamacare.
Obama's healthcare horrorHeads should roll -- beginning with Nancy Pelosi's!By Camille Paglia
12 August 2009
Editor's note: This story has been corrected since it was originally published.
Buyer's remorse? Not me. At the North American summit in Guadalajara this week, President Obama resumed the role he is best at -- representing the U.S. with dignity and authority abroad. This is why I, for one, voted for Obama and continue to support him. The damage done to U.S. prestige by the feckless, buffoonish George W. Bush will take years to repair. Obama has barely begun the crucial mission that he was elected to do.
Having said that, I must confess my dismay bordering on horror at the amateurism of the White House apparatus for domestic policy. When will heads start to roll? It's rumored that the White House counsel may be booted, following Michelle Obama's chief of staff, and I hope it's a harbinger of things to come. Except for that wily fox, David Axelrod, who could charm gold threads out of moonbeams, Obama seems to be surrounded by juvenile tinhorns, bumbling mediocrities and crass bully boys.
Case in point: the administration's grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform, one of the most vital issues facing the nation. Ever since Hillary Clinton's megalomaniacal annihilation of our last best chance at reform in 1993 (all of which was suppressed by the mainstream media when she was running for president), Democrats have been longing for that happy day when this issue would once again be front and center.
But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.
There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.
You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.
I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.
As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical, because Democrats control the White House and both Houses of Congress. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.
With the Republican party leaderless and in backbiting disarray following its destruction by the ideologically incoherent George W. Bush, Democrats are apparently eager to join the hara-kiri brigade. What looked like smooth coasting to the 2010 election has now become a nail-biter. Both major parties have become a rats' nest of hypocrisy and incompetence. That, combined with our stratospheric, near-criminal indebtedness to China (which could destroy the dollar overnight), should raise signal flags. Are we like late Rome, infatuated with past glories, ruled by a complacent, greedy elite, and hopelessly powerless to respond to changing conditions?
What does either party stand for these days? Republican politicians, with their endless scandals, are hardly exemplars of traditional moral values. Nor have they generated new ideas for healthcare, except for medical savings accounts, which would be pathetically inadequate in a major crisis for anyone earning at or below a median income.
And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.
But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.
As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a "death panel" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished.
Surely, the basic rule in comprehensive legislation should be: First, do no harm. The present proposals are full of noble aims, but the biggest danger always comes from unforeseen and unintended consequences. Example: the American incursion into Iraq, which destabilized the region by neutralizing Iran's rival and thus enormously enhancing Iran's power and nuclear ambitions.
What was needed for reform was an in-depth analysis, buttressed by documentary evidence, of waste, fraud and profiteering in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Instead what we've gotten is a series of facile, vulgar innuendos about how doctors conduct their practice, as if their primary motive is money. Quite frankly, the president gives little sense of direct knowledge of medical protocols; it's as if his views are a tissue of hearsay and scattershot worst-case scenarios.
Of course, it didn't help matters that, just when he needed maximum momentum on healthcare, Obama made the terrible gaffe of declaring that, even without his knowing the full facts, Cambridge, Mass., police had acted "stupidly" in arresting a friend of his, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. Obama's automatic identification with the pampered Harvard elite (wildly unpopular with most sensible people), as well as his insulting condescension toward an officer doing his often dangerous duty, did serious and perhaps irreparable damage to the president's standing. The strained, prissy beer summit in the White House garden afterward didn't help. Is that the Obama notion of hospitality? Another staff breakdown.
Both Gates and Obama mistakenly assumed that the original incident at Gates' house was about race, when it was about class. It was the wealthy, lordly Gates who committed the first offense by instantly and evidently hysterically defaming the character of the officer who arrived at his door to investigate the report of a break-in. There was no excuse for Gates' loud and cheap charges of racism, which he should have immediately apologized for the next day, instead of threatening lawsuits and self-aggrandizing television exposés. On the other hand, given that Cambridge is virtually a company town, perhaps police headquarters should have dispatched a moderator to the tumultuous scene before a small, disabled Harvard professor was clapped in handcuffs and marched off to jail. But why should an Ivy League panjandrum be treated any differently from the rest of us hoi polloi?
Class rarely receives honest attention in the American media, as demonstrated by the reporting on a June incident at a swimming pool in the Philadelphia suburbs. When the director of the Valley Swim Club in Montgomery County cancelled its agreement with several urban day camps to use its private pool, the controversy was portrayed entirely in racial terms. There were uninvestigated allegations of remarks about "black kids" made by white mothers who ordered their children out of the pool, and the racial theme was intensified by the director's inept description of the "complexion" of the pool having been changed -- which may simply have been a whopper of a Freudian slip.
Having followed the coverage in the Philadelphia media, I have lingering questions about how much of that incident was race and how much was social class. Urban working-class and suburban middle-class children often have quite different styles of play -- as I know from present observation as well as from my Syracuse youth, when I regularly biked to the public pool in Thornden Park. Kids of all races from downtown Syracuse neighborhoods were much rougher and tougher, and for self-preservation you had to stay out of their way! Otherwise, you'd get knocked to the concrete or dunked when they heedlessly jumped off the diving board onto our heads in the crowded pool.
In general, middle-class children today are more closely supervised at pools because the family can afford to have a non-working parent at home -- a luxury that working-class kids rarely have. What happened at the Valley Swim Club, whose safety infrastructure was evidently also overwhelmed by too many visiting kids who were non-swimmers, may have been a clash of classes rather than races. Were the mothers who pulled their kids out of the pool that day really reacting to skin color or what they, accurately or not, perceived to be an overcrowded, dangerous disorder? The incontrovertible offense in all this, which went unmentioned in the national media, was the closure for budgetary reasons by the city of Philadelphia this summer of 27 of its 73 public pools. There is no excuse for that kind of draconian curtailment of basic recreational facilities for working-class families, sweltering in the urban summer heat.
Now on to art and pop. Highlight of the month for me was definitely a recent performance by Alo Brasil, a local Brazilian music and dance ensemble, at Philadelphia's World Cafe Live. I positioned myself smack in front of the stage to bathe in the magnificent, hypnotic drumming, a Bahian style with West African roots that takes one into another reality -- sublime and trans-historical. Of course, then there was the sensory overload of the beautiful, nimble, long-legged samba dancers in their jeweled bikinis and high heels! But all the dancers of Alo Brasil, male and female, are absolutely brilliant -- it was mind-blowing. Anyone born and raised in Bahia (such as Daniela Mercury) has obviously been immersed in these rhythms from earliest childhood. They are surely profoundly transformative, reshaping the neural synapses and opening the mind toward ecstatic group communication. To be continued!
Our pop medley for this column begins with the Algeria-born Etienne Daho, whose three-disc set, "Dans la Peau de Daho" (2002), I have been working my way through. Last year, I posted two other videos featuring Daho -- his quietly compelling duet with Charlotte Gainsbourg and his moving tribute to Warhol superstar Edie Sedgwick. This song, "Paris le Flore," is a hauntingly atmospheric ode to random encounters in the streets and cafés of Paris. In the narrative superimposed by the video, two notable French performers do their thing -- Virginie Ledoyen (who appeared with Catherine Deneuve in "8 Women" and with Leonardo DiCaprio in "The Beach") and singer/actor Benjamin Biolay, ex-husband of Chiara Mastroianni, the daughter of Deneuve and Marcello Mastroianni. I love the way Daho's shimmery song re-creates the meditative mystique of French eroticism, shown in a thousand films. And that liquid, stuttering bass line -- divine! (Hey, Salon readers, if you don't have good speakers on your computer, you're missing the cultural riches of the Web.)
Next on the docket is Sharon Stone, exploding in all her topless glory on the cover of Paris Match. Now there's a gal who knows how to work the gym while still keeping the sacred flame of sexiness alive! Yes, you know who the Big Bad Example is of obsessive gym culture gone to seed -- that increasingly artificial construction of paraffin and chicken wire, our Madonna of the Shallows. Jesus Luz must be blessedly myopic. (Cue the Contours' 1965 R&B hit, "First I Look at the Purse.")
Caught HBO's 1998 movie "Gia" for the umpteenth time on cable the other day. My admiration remains boundless for the 22-year-old Angelina Jolie's bravura performance as the Philadelphia-born fashion model Gia Carangi, a heroin addict who died of AIDS in 1986. I've often recommended Stephen Fried's excellent 1993 biography, "Thing of Beauty: The Tragedy of Supermodel Gia," but this time I hit the Web to see what else I could dig up.
Mother lode! I found Gia's original nude fence photos, shown in the movie being shot by the perverse fashionista Chris von Wangenheim. I was startled to learn that Wangenheim was killed in a car accident in 1981, another blow for Gia. In trying to find his obit, I discovered that New York Times files of the World War One era are filled with references to his noble German ancestors, many of whom were barons killed in battle. Another German decadent artiste, like the incomparable Helmut Newton.
Here are some wonderful photos of Wilhelmina (stylishly played in the movie by Faye Dunaway), the Dutch fashion model veteran of 300 covers who founded an agency that hired the scrappy Gia but who then tragically died of cancer at age 40 in 1980, leaving Gia bereft. And here's Gia's ever-patient, real-life girlfriend, Sandy Linter, who turns out to be a more in-your-face urban type of the Deborah Harry school than she was portrayed in the movie.
Interested parties should check out this pastiche of clips, with a great song, which ingeniously conflate Gia with Patricia Charbonneau in that lesbo classic "Desert Hearts" (1985). This is a good chance to appreciate anew the charming eroticism of the car-in-the-rain first kiss between Charbonneau and Helen Shaver, which proves the point I made in my last column about the best lesbian scenes on film having ironically been performed by straight women. Finally, here is Gia herself -- a late clip showing her in surly, rambling butch mode, with druggy speech and tics, and then a dazzling collection of her peak high fashion images, which whiz by too fast but still reveal what an astonishing, almost supernormal presence she was.
Oh, one last note. Gay trivia: The 17-year-old hustler who in 1975 murdered the gay film director Pier Paolo Pasolini by repeatedly running him over with his own car on an Italian beach was named Giuseppe Pelosi. Hmm ... Hustling must run in the family.
Obama answer to staged Townhall question: I won’t “pull the plug on grandma”
Obama answering a question written by a campaign worker
By Andrew Walden Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Obama answering a question written by a campaign worker and given to her daughter to read from a card. Today at the New Hampshire Town Hall meeting, Boston Globe:
Responding to Julia—an honors student entering grade 6 at the Cheverus School—Obama said:
“Well . . . I’ve seen some of those signs,’’ prompting laughter. “Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for “death panels” that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t—it’s too expensive to let her live anymore. And there are various—there are some variations on this theme.’’
According to a White House transcript, Obama continued:
“It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready, on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from.’‘
Compare this to June 24th, ABC National Town Hall on Health Care:
WSJ: At one point in the town hall, broadcast from the East Room by ABC news, a woman named Jane Sturm told the story of her 105-year-old mother, who, at 100, was told by an arrhythmia specialist that she was too old for a pacemaker. She ended up getting a second option, and the operation, for which Ms. Sturm credits her survival.
OBAMA: I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s spirit. Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that we are gonna provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know—and your mom know—that you know what? Maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uh, not having the surgery but taking, uhhh, the painkiller.
And the question was staged by an Obama Campaign worker….
From Boston Globe article: Julia’s mother was an early Obama supporter in Massachusetts during the presidential election, so she had previously met First Lady Michelle Obama, the Obama daughters Sasha and Malia, and Vice President Joe Biden.
Kathleen Manning Hall, Julia’s mother, was shocked when her daughter said she wanted to ask a question. They wrote it down beforehand, and Julia didn’t miss a beat when Obama called on her.
“It was surreal,” said Manning Hall, a coordinator of Massachusetts Women for Obama during the election.
Staged by Obama Campaign Worker—and the best Obama could do is: Trust me, I won’t “pull the plug on grandma”.
Obama Rent-A-Thug Program moves into High Gear
Government Domination Bills--ObamaCare and Cap ’N Tax
By Sher Zieve Tuesday, August 11, 2009
As Obama already had SEIU (Service Employees International Union) in his back pocket, it was easy for him to have his union management friends pay overtime to SEIU rent-a-thugs at several recent Democrat Town Hall meetings. Interestingly, as appears on one of the videos of the ObamaThugs referenced below, after one of the SEIU purple-shirted thugs beats Ned Gladney the thug pretends he has been injured. Note: This is part of the Obama and Alinsky Chicago Way—attack another unmercifully then claim to be the real victim.
Obama has his union Rent-A-Thug program in place to attack and silence We-the-People who do not want the slavery, loss of freedoms and liberty and the increasingly likely imprisonment (GoArmy Internment/Resettlement Specialist Ads are still running) Obama is attempting to force upon us. Note: For those of you who were not aware, Tyranny is now the form of government in our land.
Therefore, in order to further suppress and oppress the American people, Obama is now advertising nationally on Craig’s List for paid pro-ObamaCare protesters. The payment portion of the Ad (see link below) states: “Earn $350-500 per week. To apply for a job, visit our website or call Chris at (916) 455-5000.” Obama has now thrown down the gauntlet at the feet of the American people and is telling us, in extraordinarily certain terms, ’My police force is coming to get you! Comply—or else’!
We-the-People who do NOT want to be forced to plan our own deaths (see HR 3200 Section 1233) by having to comply with Mandatory End of Life Consultation (for the “elderly” and the disabled) are now targeted as “terrorists” and “Nazis” by Obama and his minions. We-the-People who do not want to be forced to give the government access to our private bank accounts (see Page 59 “electronic finds transfers”) are labeled “right-wing extremists’ by Obama and his growing group of paid Czar-thugs. We-the-People who do NOT want a forced single-payer plan (see Page 16—after ObamaCare is passed private insurance is outlawed) are told to SHUT UP! And we who do not want to have the government to bleed us dry and take over the raising of our children (see Page 838) are to be silenced by Obama and his thugs at any and all costs.
Obama has already shown that he have his “Brown and now Purple shirts” beat us up if we dare to voice our opposition to destroying us. His new scapegoat du jour is the Health Insurance companies. And now the tyrant has also included us—the American people. Note: Pharmaceutical companies are—for the moment—safe as they made a back-door deal with Obama.
But, there may be some hope on the horizon. Now, whenever and wherever Obama speaks, ONLY those who support him (apparently most or all of these are paid—our tax dollars at work!) are allowed. That’s desperation, folks. But, with intense desperation comes equally intense desperate measures. There are growing rumors that ’something big’ is being planned by Obama adherents to blame and, therefore, shut the American people up—once and for all—so that the dictator will be able to fully implement his Socio-fascist government.
However, We-the-People have become more and more well-read and articulate on the Government Domination Bills—ObamaCare and Cap ’N Tax. We are challenging the progressively more and more corrupt and power-mad overseers—with intelligence and logic. What a tragedy that the ones we elected to govern (NOT to rule) are not equally well-informed.
Every time one of the elected officials lies (including dear Dictator-in-Chief Obama), we will counter them with facts—page number and line—and the truth! With God’s blessing and through our continued efforts we will win and oust the tyrant—and ALL of the tyrants—from office. After decades of increasing progressivism and creeping tyranny—that is now manifesting itself in almost total power over We-the-People—the time has finally come for Americans to take their country back. And a growing number of us are actually doing it! Keep it up and remember Ghandi’s famous statement: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Socialized Medicine’s Logic of Killing the Elderly
Reducing the care given to senior citizens, the disabled, infants with birth defects, the mentally retarded
By Daniel Greenfield
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
It’s hard not to notice that many of the most vocal ObamaCare protesters are senior citizens. And senior citizens remain the largest challenge for ObamaCare. Not in political terms, but in terms of resource management. Senior citizens are likelier to require medical care than younger workers, and contribute little or nothing to the system. From the perspective of socialized medicine it becomes all too easy to contemplate “cutting the waste” by reducing the care given to senior citizens, the disabled, infants with birth defects, the mentally retarded and anyone else who fails the system’s “Productivity in Practice or Potential” test.
Most people have not considered the fundamental change that comes in the transition to socialized medicine. But it is part of a larger social transition, one that moves the cost and decision making process from families and religious organizations, into the bowels of a “big picture” government planning system.
Let’s stop for a moment to ask why we don’t simply euthanize the elderly or anyone who in the words of White House Health Care advisor Ezekiel Emanuel is “irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens”. The answer would seem obvious to most of us, but the question is a vitally important one.
The key phrase here is “Citizens”. Since the state is doing the planning and deciding who gets medical care and who doesn’t, it is the state’s perspectives that defines socialized medicine. Once health care is shoved into one giant system chock full of resource shortages that can’t be met, the resources will have to be allocated one way or another. From the state’s perspective, it makes a certain utilitarian sense to give life to productive citizens, while denying it to non-productive citizens.
The reason we don’t do things like this is that for us morality is individual, not collective. We don’t think in terms of a system, we think in terms of individual people. And from a utilitarian standpoint, we exist on a familial level. The care we give to our children, is a return on the care that we ourselves were given by parents. And the care we give to our elderly parents is meant to be returned by our children. If we were to begin sticking the elderly on ice floes, we know in the back of our minds that our children are likely to do the same to us. Or as one bumper sticker witticism goes, “Be nice to your children, they’ll choose your nursing home.”
The family as the basis of society however has crumbled in favor of the state. As people increasingly turn over the care of their children and their parents to the state, the social investment becomes not in the family, but in the state. As the moral power of the family is transferred to the social service bureaucracies of the state, the investment that people have in their children and their elders diminishes, their investment in the social services bureaucracy grows. Birth rates drop, inheritance levels drop and the elderly begin dropping too as each generation tries to game the system in order to maximize the resources available to it at a given time.
Euthanasia of the elderly, the disabled and infants is morally wrong on an individual level, but when one begins playing with hundreds of millions of lives, morality quickly becomes hazy. That is the danger of playing god, when you sit on a high enough throne looking down at all the ant people with their ant problems, individuals cease to matter, only the welfare of the system does. That is why large centralized systems quickly become oppressive, because they become detached from the wishes and wills of individuals. At the system level, only the system itself matters.
When individuals gain the power of life and death over hundreds of millions, individual welfare gives way to the welfare of the state. Once the state has been defined as the sole source of life for everyone living under it, the state then gains the right to sacrifice the lives of any number of individuals for its own self-preservation. With ObamaCare, with socialized medicine, the state becomes the unquestioned source of life for those living under it. The individual becomes nothing more than a cog within a machine, a tiny spinning wheel marked “Citizen 5435534” whose destiny will be decided based on how well he functions within the system.
That leaves out anyone whose life does not contribute to the system, or as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel put it, “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens” thereby failing the Productivity in Practice or Potential test. Such people draw more from the system while giving back very little. The Nazis considered them to be “Life Unworthy of Life”. The modern formulation designates them as suffering a “Poor Quality of Life”, which is a fancy way of saying that people like Dr. Zeke have decided that their lives aren’t worth living. A problem that can be decided in an oven or a needle, or if those aren’t painful enough, by starving them to death on public view.
This is not a theoretical discussion. Hospital staff already quietly kills patients they decide are just taking up space. I know an elderly woman who spent the better part of several months staying in her husband’s room because the hospital staff kept “accidentally” unplugging him. Eventually they got their way. But while such tactics have to be covert at the present, a “Gentleman’s Agreement” cloaked in the sanctity of the white robe and the moist needle, under socialized medicine they will begin coming out of the closet more and more, as medical resource shortages turn what was once a crime into government policy.
Imagine that instead of ObamaCare, we were discussing ObamaFood, as the government decided that it would end hunger in America permanently by confiscating everyone’s food and placing it in a big pile and then giving everyone an equal amount of food. The plan seems noble enough, but when all the food is gathered together, it turns out there isn’t enough for everyone. The government will have to ration the food. Some must get less. And some perhaps nothing at all.
There will of course be lifestyle penalizations. ObamaCare puts the government in a position of judging every single individual’s lifestyle and punishing “sin” by withdrawing medical resources. Do you drink more than the prescribed limit? Do you smoke? Do you drive, a notoriously accident prone activity, instead of taking public transportation? Are you above the government’s weight limit? ObamaCare puts the government in the godlike position of judging everyone and creating a health care “Water Empire” to discourage behaviors it dislikes.
But such measures will be unpopular, and will make the public more willing to shove those who consume “more than their fair share” overboard.
Euthanizing the elderly will begin by defining “End of Life” down, more and more. DNR’s will move from voluntary to mandatory. The quality of the care will drop. Wards will be grim and awful places, poorly maintained by staff that sees the elderly as disposable. Depression in the elderly will be enabled, instead of treated. Wanting to die will be seen as a rational response, rather than a suicidal one. Decreasing medical procedures will be available to the elderly, and will instead be supplemented with empty group therapy sessions. Dying will be treated as a public good, a final chance to give back to society by ceasing to be a burden on it.
The treatment of the disabled will follow suit. Comatose patients, the severely physically disabled and mentally disabled will have their humanity degraded by being called, “Vegetables”, before being euthanized, a little preview of which we got in the Terri Schiavo case. The media at the time deliberately ignored disabled protesters, focusing instead on the antics of the religious protesters, because it understood that the public would not be ready to accept the real agenda behind the case.
Screenings will help insure that defective children are never born. And if they are, hospitals will not provide any care for them. Parents attempting to provide care, rather than euthanasia, will paradoxically be charged with child abuse. Anyone who thinks this kind of legal paradox is farfetched, should remember that we currently live under the legal fiction that an unborn child can be murdered by a third party and aborted as a constitutional right by the mother. Of course the individual’s sovereign right over her body will itself become a legal fiction, when the supremacy of the state in medical matters gives it superior rights to everyone’s body.
Of course such things will not happen overnight. Most systems don’t turn monstrous over the weekend. Even Nazi Germany took nearly a decade to follow through on the logical conclusion of National Socialist philosophy regarding the Jews, going from repression to expulsion to extermination. It took nearly twice as long for the USSR to follow through on Marxism’s view of the Jews, but made up for it by skipping from repression to planned extermination. The United States has strong and deep moral roots, despite a vast amount of cultural degradation, a transition to euthanasia will not happen overnight. But the logical conclusion of the system dictates it. And those who run the system have already begun to treat it as a given.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely by granting godlike power, without godlike wisdom. And any horror quickly becomes tenable in the name of the system, which itself becomes the god. For the liberal theology of social justice, the great dream has been of Government as God, to create a vast bureaucratic machine that will feed and clothe the poor, provide mandated equality to all and create the utopian kingdom of heaven on earth. And if Government is God—then those who run government become viceroys or avatars of the godhead of social justice. Or messiahs.
Socialist tyrants from Lenin to Stalin, to Hitler and Mussolini, and down to Castro and Saddam were praised for their supposed ability to make the chaotic tide of human affairs work through central planning. They made the trains run on time, provided health care, education and a social safety net to all, eliminated crime and insured public order. In short they created the perfect state machine, a utopian system in which everything works controlled by one godlike figure at the center of it all.
Americans were not immune from that same dream, springing from mingled awe at the recent accomplishments of technology and outrage over muckraker’s revelations about the way the other half lived. FDR was the embodiment of the great American socialist dream. It was a dream that failed, over and over again. American government is not a polished machine, it is a great creaky engine that leaks water and blows steam everywhere. It is incredibly inefficient and rarely gets anything done right. But despite everything liberals have not lost faith that the right man can make it all work, destroy the reactionary forces of capitalism and the family, to make way for Holy Liberal Empire in which no one will ever be oppressed, except those who deserve to be.
When you pull back the curtain on a Utopian dreamland, the horror behind it is a pre nightmare of death camps and firing squads, misery, oppression and brutality. A million awful things that those at the top did not care about, because all that mattered to them was the beautiful system they were building. A system that would be perfect, once all the imperfect people in its way were taken care of.
The elderly, the disabled, children struggling for life, dying people fighting to live—are all in the way of socialized medicine, which must do horrible things in the name of the larger dream of free medical care for everyone. The problem of resource consumption makes it all too easy for the dictators of health to look down from their ivory tower and decide that these people are a drain on the system and that they must go.
Obama to Free Market Healthcare: “Get out of the way”He hides his true intent - single payer healthcare - with excuses, obfuscations and outright liesBy Fred Dardick
Monday, August 10, 2009
President Obama is pulling out all the stops to stuff his socialist ideas for change down the nation’s throat. He hides his true intent - single payer healthcare - with excuses, obfuscations and outright lies (the government option is only meant to “keep insurers honest”). He has tasked his minions to report dissenters to the White House and threatened his fellow Americans to “get out of the way” if they don’t support his radical agenda.
As only a community organizer can, the President does not view the $2.4 trillion U.S. healthcare industry as the great engine of well-being and prosperity that it has been for the last 50 years, but as some sort of money hungry devil that must be subjugated and coerced into submission. Obama sees evil in the removal of a child’s tonsil and greed with every MRI … and he wants to control it all. Because of his socialist sympathies and lack of real world life experience, Comrade Obama is unable to appreciate the extraordinary benefits we receive as a nation as a direct result of our free market healthcare system. Treatment of chronic disease in the U.S. is among the best in the world. Germany, with single payer healthcare, has breast cancer mortality rates an astonishing 88% higher than the U.S. They have similarly inexcusably poor survival rates for other chronic conditions including prostate cancer, Alzheimer’s, and kidney disease. Germany may have universal healthcare, but U.S. has much shorter waiting times for hospital admissions and far greater access to preventative medicine like mammograms and colonoscopies. In situations where a single day can mean the difference between life and death, Germans are forced to wait months to see an Oncologist.
No centralized healthcare system can match free markets when it comes to rapid implementation of critical new technologies
In true Marxist fashion, government run healthcare often sacrifices individuals to benefit the collective. In the UK the life saving kidney cancer drug Sutent is not covered because of its high cost; as a consequence, UK kidney cancer patients die 50% faster than those in the U.S. Other effective, but expensive medications including Lucentis, Tyverb, and Aricept are also not available in the UK leading to appalling health outcomes for affected patients. No centralized healthcare system can match free markets when it comes to rapid implementation of critical new technologies. In the U.S. we have 27 MRI machines per million people compared to only 6 in Canada. While the Canadian healthcare oligarchy was busy debating how few MRIs to provide their fellow countrymen, entrepreneurial physicians and healthcare groups throughout the U.S. purchased the machines as they saw fit and established hundreds of businesses to profit from its use (Ayn Rand would be proud). As a result, most Americans can get an MRI within a few days while the average wait time in Canada exceeds 4 months. Obama’s intention to divert hundreds of millions of dollars from Medicare to pay for the public option will have devastating consequences for the elderly. He has offered no explanation on how the system can provide the same level of services to ever increasing numbers of seniors with a lot less money. Obama uses the less is more argument when he opines on Medicare, which is disgraceful - How exactly does Granny benefit by not getting the hip replacement surgery she desperately needs?
Health care innovations, Drug research, Strength of the U.S. healthcare-industrial complex
The strength of the U.S. healthcare-industrial complex is without equal: 8 of the world’s top 10 best selling drugs are produced by American companies, the top 5 U.S. hospitals alone handle more clinical drug trials than any other single nation and, of the 10 most important healthcare innovations over the past 30 years, 8 were developed right here in the U.S. All of these accomplishments were possible because we don’t let government bureaucrats tell us how to run our medical system. Every member of society receives tremendous benefits from our free market collection of hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies and millions of individuals making their own decisions every day regarding the future of healthcare. It is patently absurd to think that arrogant Obama and his self-serving socialist agenda could do any better.
Obama Trains Minions How to Silence and Destroy the American PeopleObama full attack mode against We-the-PeopleBy Sher Zieve
Monday, August 10, 2009
Prior to Congress taking one of its myriad vacations--this one entitled the “August Recess”--Dictator-in-Chief Obama held both an email campaign and conference calls to train his (paid?) Obama supporters and his willing Democrat Congressional sycophants on how to smother opposition to ObamaCare and other ObamaPrograms designed to destroy We-the-People.
Currently, as Obama and members of his administration cannot argue the merits of ObamaCare--due to the fact that that there are no virtues for humans contained within the bill--the now inarguably tyrannical and totalitarian leader of the USA has sicced his SEIU and others on any Americans who protest against his faux healthcare program. And those he has instructed are now beginning to exhibit an Obama full attack mode against We-the-People who object to Obama owning our bodies and deciding whether we will be allowed to live or die.
Note: If you don’t believe me, read the bill (link below). Or, is actually reading the bill now considered by Obama to be opposition that must be crushed--and crushed completely? It appears that is. ObamaThugs (aka the New Brownshirts) are making it clear that dissent and opposition to any and all of the dictator’s plans and actions will not be tolerated.
ObamaCare provides Americans healthcare in the same way that Hitler’s ovens provided the German people fresh bread. And where are those who after World War II screamed and shouted “Never again!”? Where are the people who lost entire families to Hitler’s Holocaust? Can you not see the inevitable correlations of plan and purpose between then and now? If you cannot, then please actually LOOK at what is occurring.
Labor unions and leftwing organizations will spend between $10 million and $20 million this month to twist lawmakers’ armsThe Hill newspaper reports that “…labor unions and leftwing organizations will spend between $10 million and $20 million this month to twist lawmakers’ arms over the stalled healthcare reform effort in Congress” and the Assistant to the President for Governmental Affairs at the AFL-CIO Gerald Shea said that the union’s pro-ObamaCare activities would reach the same level of intensity as July of last year when it escalated its efforts to support then-candidate Barack Obama. Shea said “This is expensive stuff!” However, no opposition to any of this is being allowed by Obama. In fact, he tells us repeatedly to Shut Up! While in Virginia recently, he blamed everyone but himself for the Us’ problems and told the American people who oppose him “Don’t do a lot of talking!” Obama adherents Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said that it is “un-American” to protest--especially, it seems, to specifically protest the will of Obama and the Democrat Party.
Question: It’s un-American to protest our impending slavery, imprisonment and/or euthanasia under ObamaCare and other ObamaPlans? Is the new definition of American now “supporting the Dictator Obama and his favored ones in everything they do and say--no matter how detrimental it is to human life and all things surrounding human life?”
Obama and his unions certainly seem to be gearing up for a full frontal assault on the American people. The tyrant continues to run his Snitch-on-your-neighbors-friends-and-family website. The Army National Guard is still advertising nationally for “Internment/Resettlement Specialists” and, thus far has not answered as to the purpose of said internment camps. Who out there is still saying “Never again!?” The truth is Here we are--again!
Drug Industry to Run Ads Favoring White House Plan
August 9, 2009
WASHINGTON — The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.
The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.
With House Democrats moving to extract more than that just as the drug makers finalized their advertising plans, the industry lobbyists pressed the Obama administration for public reassurances that it had agreed to cap the industry’s additional costs at $80 billion. The White House, meanwhile, has struggled to mollify its most pivotal health industry ally without alienating Congressional Democrats who want to demand far more of the drug makers. White House officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
Many Democratic lawmakers have railed for years against what they consider the industry’s excessive profits and pointedly insisted in recent days that they do not feel bound by the White House’s commitments.
Sources briefed on the drug industry’s plans, speaking on condition of anonymity because the details remain confidential, say top officials of the industry’s trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, are scheduled to meet next week to finalize its fall plans. The final budget could be less or more than what was authorized, the sources said.
By comparison, President Obama’s presidential campaign spent about $236 million on television commercials while the campaign of the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona, spent about $126 million. Few expect the opponents of the health care overhaul to muster as much advertising muscle as its backers, including sympathetic business groups, labor unions and ideological allies. The drug makers stand to gain millions of new customers from the expansion of health care coverage.
Ken Johnson, a spokesman for PhRMA, declined to discuss the specific sums. “Our board has agreed to make a significant investment in support of comprehensive reform,” he said. “Our August plan is pretty much in place, but we have not finalized all the details of the fall campaign.” He said it would include grassroots outreach as well. The scale of the drug industry’s plans was first reported Saturday by The Associated Press.
The drug industry has already contributed millions of dollars to advertising campaigns for the health care overhaul through the advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA. It has spent about $1 million on similar advertisements under its own name.
All of the commercials closely echo common Democratic themes about medical care for all, consumer protection and “health insurance reform.” Some supporters of the overhaul have hired public affairs and advertising firms with close ties to the White House and Senate Democrats, including GMMB, which worked on the Obama campaign, and AKPD, which previously included David Axelrod, who is now the president’s top political adviser.
Progressives Think the Protests are ManufacturedBy Jon Christian Ryter
August 9, 2009
Wall Street Journal writer John Fund wrote an piece the other day noting that the "...White House is clearly worried about the opponents of its health care plan who are showing up at town-hall meetings with members of Congress. It took an extraordinary step of issuing a three-minute video rebuttal to a Drudge Report item that featured a 2007 clip of Barack Obama supporting the 'elimination' of private health insurance over time after a government plan is introduced. Later in the day, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called the health care protesters a form of 'manufactured' anger. Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse went further and called them 'angry mobs of rabid rightwing extremists.'"
Let's face it. This is one time the media spinmeisters can't win the public relations debate. Why? Because those agitated rightwing extremists in "...limes and pinks and Brooks Brothers suits" who showed up at the health care town halls wearing Dockers and short sleeve sport shirts; or dresses, shorts and tank tops and flip-flops represent about 80% of the People of the United States. The protesters, in this instance, were not the minority voices of the voting public, they were the voting public. (And, the White House can't steal enough ACORN votes next year to overrule the will of the People who clearly intend to fire a bunch of Congressmen and Senators.) Let's hope they remember they are voting out the idiots who voted for the stimulus bills, and the idiots who nationalized the auto industry, and the idiots who voted for a socialist healthcare bill. Sadly, the arrogant fools on Capitol Hill who see themselves as demigods haven't yet disambiguated the message from the Tea Parites or the message from the healthcare town halls. Maybe it will translate better when the voters say, "You're fired!" Isn't that nice...everyone gets to play Donald Trump next November.
When the political issues are not so clearly defined, the politicians and their partners in the mainstream media can play the smoke and mirrors shell game and fool the weak-minded people that fiction is truth and truth is whatever they say it is. But, with the whole country vehemently opposed to the theft of the healthcare industry by greedy, corrupt politicians in bed with America's Marxists and healthcare lobbyists who come to dinner with pockets full of money, the American people are fed up.
Far left Californian Sen. Barbara Boxer, whose re-election campaign war chest will be filled by lobbyists who want to make sure their clients are sitting at the feast-laden universal healthcare table when the gratuities are doled out, told MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews that the media needed to "...take a look at what's going on here." Boxer apparently believes that the American people won't mind if their health care is doled out in dribbles while their children wait weeks or months to visit to the pediatrician when they get sick; or that the elderly won't object to being denied healthcare because old age is eventually terminal anyway.
Even though the Tea Party protests earlier this year were spontaneous, Boxer insisted that the healthcare protests were "...all planned. It's to hurt our president," she said, "and it's to change the Congress." For once a liberal may have actually got something right. The American people are boiling mad. They fully intend to change Congress in 2010. Boxer was right. For a liberal Senator, being right once in 18 years is better than average for the left. The American people intend to change Congress in 2010, and even more in 2012. The people of the United States do not intend to become the Soviet Union of the West. And, they do not intend to let Barack Obama become the Marxist dictator he sees when he looks in the mirror every morning.
The White House joined the fray once they saw that, universally, the American people were opposed to the government's single payer healthcare plan (that is now referred to simply as the "public option.") The White House and the far left House and Senate leadership—and the mainstream media—are using Obama's talking points "manufactured protest" to characterize the reaction of the American people from Florida to Washington State, and from Bangor, Maine to San Diego, California as being fabricated by the Republican Party and/or lobbyists for the healthcare industry who want to continue gouging policyholders with escalating insurance premiums and partially paid claims.
Gibbs, like Chris Matthews, referred to the healthcare protesters as the "Brooks Brother brigade," making it obvious where the talking points originated. When Sen. Arlen Specter [D-PA] together with Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, held a health care town hall in Philadelphia on August 3, they were booed by a bipartisan audience. One woman in the audience told Specter and Sebelius: "I look at this healthcare plan and I see nothing that is about health or care..." (the audience starts applauding.) "...What I see is a bureaucratic nightmare, Senator. Medicaid is broke. Medicare is broke. Social Security is broke. And you want us to believe that a government that can't even run a cash for clunkers program is going to run one-seventh of our US economy? No, sir! No.!" So, let me ask—now, does this sound like a woman who was paid by the healthcare industry as their shill? Or, that's she's a "rented" protester? No, sir! No! She's nobody's shill. She's an angry American. And, by God, before November, 2010, every liberal politician in America is going to know what an angry American looks like and sounds like...and just how much damage they can do to a worthless, graft-sucking politician!
Congressman Lloyd Doggett [D-TX] encountered the same reaction to the "public option" when he tried to sell government healthcare to his constituents. Congressman Frank Kratovil [D-MD] was hung in effigy by his constituents. Fourth term Congressman Tim Bishop [D-NY] was harassed so badly that he had to be escorted from the town hall site by the police.
The liberal website, Think Progress wrote a blog-post accusing the conservative advocacy groups, Americans For Prosperity and Freedom Works of organizing the "right wing harassment strategy, which they added was "..often marked by violence and absurdity." White House press secretary Gibbs suggested that protesters may have come via AFP's 13-state bus tour. Think Progress said that the DNC had a 10-page memo from a Connecticut activist that was evidence that there was a well-coordinated national campaign by the Republicans to protest healthcare. That, of course, is not true since, at the highest levels of politics, the money Mafia that fund both parties are in bed with each other. And, finally, former Gore-Lieberman 2000 campaign manager Donna Brazile said that the Dockers' crowd that shows up on all of the videos (instead of the Brooks Brothers crowd that simply does not exist in any of the videos) were "rented" organizers. Brazile told the media that the town hall protests were the result of "...a well-organized group of lobbyists who are paying people to go out. They're renting organizers," she said adding, as if to -self confirm the validity of her statement, "The left has done it. Now, they're doing it. This little band of protesters are trying to stop [Congress] from doing [its] job. They know they can't win the debate, so they want to shut down the conversation." Asked by the media for proof, Brazile admitted she had none, adding, "I've seen this dance before." Of course she has. She's helped choreograph it in every Democratic political photo op for at least two decades where the boys in Washington needed interested spectators that simply didn't exist..
Almost every member of Congress has faced angry crowds in town hall settings when they attempted to convince their constituents that rationed healthcare for all Americans is not as bad as the Canadians make it sound.
In Tampa, Florida Congresswoman Kathy Castor [D-FL] and African American Florida State Representative Betty Reed held a health care town hall at the Children's Board of Hillsborough County. Eight hundred Tampa residents showed up, but only 200 were admitted. Many of them were members of SEIU who actually sponsored the town hall. The rest were senior citizens or those who were not carrying signs and placards opposing Obama's healthcare "reform." Four union goons sent to help the Congresswoman by frightening the opposition to silence by sheer brawn, attempted to exclude anyone opposed to universal healthcare from their meeting.
Halfway through Castor's unsuccessful attempt to convince her constituents that Obama's socialized medicine would be good for America, a fight broke out. One audience member said to Castor, "you won't let the people speak." Someone in the audience shouted, "Why won't you let the people speak?" Castor ignored those who disagreed with her, talking over them when they spoke. Union members pushed those with opposing views away from the doors, closing them. As the doors closed, someone inside the room said: "Tyranny!" Others shouted: "Read the bill! Read the bill!" Others began shouting, "Hold it outside! Hold it outside!" since 75% of those who came to voice their views were now locked out.
Many of those in the room were senior citizens. Most were typical middle class people, the type of person standing in front or behind you when you go to vote. The air suddenly turned ugly, like a violent, dark thunder storm where ground-strike lightning precedes the rain. A man shouted: "Bulls**t!" Others began chanting "You work for us!" and "Hear our voice!" It was at that point that the union goons began to push the protesters out of the room, closing the door. In the scuffle, one man in a short sleeve green shirt was accosted by three union thugs. His shirt was literally torn from his body. Tampa police, with orders to do so from Castor, locked the doors so the protesters could not enter. Castor took that opportunity to skip out of the building without fielding the questions of those to came to aire their grievances with their Congresswoman.
This is not how a Republic woks. This is how a communist state operates. The voters in the 11th Congressional District of Florida elected Castor in 2006 with 70% of the vote. They re-elected her in 2008 with 72%. With that vote, they surrendered their right to free speech in the 11th Congressional District. Hopefully the voters will correct that oversight in Nov., 2010.
Across the nation Democrats who had scheduled healthcare town halls to give their constituents the "good news" that they were going to get the public option (i.e., anal roto-rootering) that would theoretically allow them to keep what they have if they want to keep their private insurance plan, or switch to the government's universal healthcare plan, either staged "Congressman friendly" town halls by hand-picking the attendees from local labor unions friendly with the White House, or simply canceling them. The protests are genuine. They are not "Republican." They are nonpartisan. And, most of all, they didn't begin with Obama's healthcare reform program. Nor did they start with "cash for clunkers," which has angers millions of Americans. It began with the President George W. Bush's $700 billion bailout for banks when all that was needed to solve the financial crisis in 2008 was to change the Fed's "mark to market" rule that would free up local banks to loan money. It was that simple to solve. And, it still is. But the longer Obama tinkers with the economy, the harder the problem is going to be to fix. But, as history has proven over and over again, you can't fix the economy by robbing the taxpayers and recycling their money to the welfare crowd—whether those receiving the grand gratuities are poor or rich.
America's politicians should have paid attention when the first spontaneous Tea Parties were held across the country on April 15. And, if not then, on Memorial Day or on Independence Day because on July 4, the dye was cast. On Nov. 2, 2010, the non-partisan People intend to fire every Congressman and Senator who [a] personally failed to read the legislation they voted to enact, [b] voted for any of the stimulus bills, [c] voted to seize control of any car company or bank, or [d], voted to seize the American healthcare industry and convert the United States into a communist nation.
The Obama Administration is so desperate to steal control of your healthcare that the White House website issued this statement: "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there...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"
The last leader that took used approach to limit free speech thorugh intimidation in the privacy of the homes of the citizens was Adolph Hitler. In a Republic, we have a right to free thought, free speech, and the right to discuss our ideas, our dislikes and our fears in the public square. And, government, according to the 1st Amendment of the Constituion is obligated to listen to our complaints—and properly address them. And, not by using Gestapo tactics designed to intimidate people into silence. The White House's attempt to stifle free speech is not only a violation of the Constitution, it's an impeachable offense.
Health CONTROL…It’s for your own GoodThe Left refuses to entertain suggestions and hear dissenting viewpoints
By Howard W. Houchen
Sunday, August 9, 2009
The logic of this argument, on the surface, is noble and sound. It is, however, after viewing it through the lens constitutionality and what is considered to be historically “American”, nothing more than an avenue for CONTROL. What is required is the proper context in which to debate this issue, the correct framework…not the deceptive framework…from which to view what is actually being asked of the citizens of this great nation to accept and undertake.
At the core of the Left’s Health Control Proposal is nationalized health care, this fact is inarguable and has been the case from day one. The Left refuses to entertain suggestions and hear dissenting viewpoints that are not amenable to the foundation of their plan: Central planning and control of health care. While dissecting and bringing to light the individual points of the Health Control Proposal are valid endeavors, the foundation upon which they are derived does not begin to approach an American ideal.
The history of federal government actions put forth espousing the argument of “our own good” tells us the current central-planning philosophy regime intends an even greater level of control than they are publicly acknowledging. A cursory examination of past programs and policies tells us this Health Control Proposal is intended to exact a level of control over the lives and decisions of American citizens never before dreamed of in American society.
The Social Security System is unsustainable and will be proved a failure. Medicare and Medicaid have been expanded to such a degree that they are approaching unsustainable status. The U.S. Department of Education, despite throwing more and more money into a central-planning styled system of education, constantly receives a failing grade when educating the youth of America. The U.S. Department of Energy, instituted under the pretense of ending America’s dependence on foreign oil, does virtually nothing to seriously address this issue. The U.S. House recently passed the now infamous Cap and Trade legislation that will, if allowed to become law, seriously hamper and permanently harm American business and stifle American ingenuity. Examples of federal government controlled programs and their abject failures to address the issues at hand are mind-boggling.
To allow federal government intervention into the Rights of individuals based on the “for their own good” argument goes against the grain of the intents and purpose of the Founding principles. The American people have been warned time and again, these arguments only serve to bolster the intolerant nature and intrusive capabilities of government itself. By refusing to accept the Health Control Proposal for what it is, a centrally-planned government bureaucracy with the tools to control every facet of the most important aspect of an individuals well-being (as defined by that bureaucracy), we risk losing site of an integral part of the American character.
By surrendering control of OUR health care to an entity with, at best, a dubious track record, we surrender a better part of what it means to be “America” itself. America is not a place where government controls the people. We are what we are because of the Founding principles our fore-fathers set in place and the generations of great Americans after them struggled to keep. Every single step of the way was met with opposition and political battles ensued to maintain the integrity of this American experiment in self-government. Today’s battle against the Health Control Proposal is slightly different, the stakes are much higher.
Similar to the Left’s repeated attempts, some with a great deal of success, at Gun Control, State Control, Tax Control, Banking Control, Wage Control, Industrial Control, Personal Privacy Control, Education Control, Retirement Control, Energy Control, Housing Control and even their recent testing of the waters concerning Speech Control (, the Health Control Proposal is a tool designed for one thing and one thing only; CONTROL. At stake is history’s judgment of our success as a viable form of governance. At stake are the ideals, values, and principles that put America on the pinnacle of history’s greatest achievements. To cede control of OUR health care is nothing more than the abandonment of control of our lives, our personal decisions, and the lives of generations that follow to the control of a central-planning entity. Gone are free will and the guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We, the people will have failed.
The ObamaCare Revolution Wages War on American Democracy
The Obama administration has cynically tried to hijack the Town HallBy Daniel Greenfield
Sunday, August 9, 2009

The Town Hall meeting has long been a hallowed symbol of American democracy, as embodied in the famous Norman Rockwell painting, “Freedom of Speech” that shows a man, surrounded by his neighbors, rising to speak his mind. It is an image and idea that states forthrightly that government belongs to the people, and that it is governed by the people, not simply in some abstract national vote, but at the local level. That is why the Town Hall is a far more sacred and enduring definition of American democracy than the White House, the Capitol Building, and even perhaps the Constitution, because it defines the American system of government as based on public participation from the bottom up.
The Obama administration has cynically tried to hijack the Town Hall by transforming into a one way series of meetings, in which enthusiastic carefully chosen citizens voice their approval of his proposed policies. That is not an American Town Hall, it is a Soviet party meeting. In a Town Hall meeting, citizens question their elected representatives. At a party meeting, they give them their wholehearted approval. But it is a part of a pattern for the Obama administration, which works to put an All-American stamp on its un-American program.
Obama began the process with a one hour ABC network special “Town Hall” with no Republican opposition allowed. Naturally enough the Obama Administration’s Director of Communications for the White House Office of Health Reform (a position that never existed before) is herself a former ABC news correspondent. Meanwhile to close the circle, ABC’s own new Senior Medical Editor was an Obama donor.
Then the AARP, which had replaced its CEO with Barry Rand, a staunch Obama supporter, who had donated over 10,000 dollars to Obama, replacing Bill Novelli, who as a former McCain donor would have been considered unreliable. Unsurprisingly the AARP leadership, beginning with Barry Rand, came out for ObamaCare. By contrast many of the AARP’s core membership were unhappy with the organization’s sellout.
The real trouble came with the regional Town Hall meetings, where citizens oddly enough showed up to question their elected representatives. And they didn’t want to “do this thing fast”, as Senator Specter proposed. Instead of the manufactured consensus they had been counting on, e Democratic congressmen were suddenly facing real opposition from the public. And the acrimonious Town Hall meetings in which politicians tried unsuccessfully to silence voters, were a reflection of the American public’s negative reaction to ObamaCare.
Jon Stewart: “Wow. That Communist sounded a lot like our President”
When the Drudge Report ran a video of Obama at an SEIU union meeting talking about phasing out employee health care coverage entirely, the White House fired back by putting out its former ABC News correspondent to claim that it was taken out of context.
SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance
The White House however had no rebuttal video to offer when Jon Stewart, usually a reliable ally of the administration on anything progressive, played Obama’s own statements, and said, “Wow. That Communist sounded a lot like our President.”
Instead the White House focused on the regional Town Halls. The multilevel strategy was to denounce anyone who dissented from the Obama administration’s line as either planted Republican lobbyists, or violent mobs of racists. On the one hand you had House Majority leader Nancy Pelosi claiming that Town Hall the protesters were carrying Swastikas, a blatantly false charge. On the other hand you had Senator Barbara Boxer claiming that the protesters were obviously high level Republican plants because they were too well dressed to be real. The bizarre image this conjures up of men and women in suits forming angry swastika wielding mobs would be bizarre to anyone but the most die hard Obama kool aid drinkers.
Unlike the Tea Party protests, the media had trouble ignoring the dissent anymore. Instead they followed the White House line by describing them as “mobs”, “extremists” and suggesting they were racist based on the flimsiest of pretexts, including posters of Obama done in the style of the Joker. Washington Post columnists began channeling the ghost of Joe McCarthy when he denounced the ”Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers” who “by poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists.” Well clearly if you’re not loyal to Obama “and the Obama for which he stands, one nation under Obama”, and all that… you must be a political terrorists.
The same Democrats who had been hypersensitive about any perceived statement by Bush critical of their loyalty, shrieking repeatedly, “Don’t question our patriotism”, at the drop of a hat jumped into line to denounce anyone questioning their leadership as mobs of extremists and political terrorists. The next stage wasn’t far behind. The beat down.
Obama’s comments about the end of employer based health insurance was at an SEIU meeting. That of course was no coincidence. The SEIU is America’s biggest health care union and its most radical union as well. The SEIU left behind the AFL-CIO. They’re considered extremist even by union standards. And they’re considered thuggish. How thuggish? So thuggish that their violence was actually condemned by the President of the AFL-CIO. After the violence at the Detroit Labor Notes conference last year, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said, “There is no justification—none—for the violent attack orchestrated by SEIU at the Labor Notes conference.”
AFL-CIO is no shrinking violet union. It has a storied history of mobsters, ugly mugs and thugs. And to boot, John Sweeney himself was a former SEIU President who had tried to moderate the extreme path on which Andy Stern had taken the SEIU. That was because the SEIU was not simply thuggish and corrupt toward its members and businesses. It was that of course, but it was also remorselessly aggressive toward other unions as well. Stern had led the SEIU walkout of the AFL-CIO, finding it not aggressive enough for his taste. The SEIU’s own feuds with UNITE and CNA, the California Nurses Union.
The CNA is itself no shrinking violet, a solidly left wing organization with a taste for election tampering. The SEIU however had become the dominant American health care union by focusing its unionizing further down the ladder, and then working their way up to the nurses. While the CNA fought for an individual nurses union, the CEIU wanted one union to rule them all. The resulting battle saw regular SEIU violence, so much so that CNA actually applied for a restraining order against Andy Stern and SEIU union members, to “cease and desist the stalking of, use of violence against, and harassment of officers, directors, and staff of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.”
Under the restraining order, “SEIU and Stern are prohibited from stalking, threatening, or following CNA/NNOC leaders staff at work, in hospitals, clinics, and offices, at their homes. They are also barred from following their cars or harassing them with mail or phone calls… The order was prompted by a campaign of stalking and harassment by Stern’s SEIU over the past week in which SEIU teams have targeted CNA/NNOC leaders in nursing stations, harassed them at home, and followed cars.”
This was preceded by a covert campaign by the SEIU to take over the CNA with a front organization, as well as a frontal assault at the Detroit Labor Notes conference, in which 800 SEIU members charged the stage, resulting in injuries and possibly one death outside. The CNA and SEIU have since then come together on their support for Single Payer healthcare, which is essentially a euphemism for health care nationalization.
So there could have been no surprise at the White House, when the first wave of SEIU assaults on Town Hall meetings resulted in arrests. Obama’s email dispatch followed by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney’s dispatch targeting 50 high priority districts, were window dressing on the real dirty work that would be done by the SEIU union thugs.
The SEIU had been Obama’s major backers, kicking in 61 million dollars, and getting two cabinet appointments of their choice, the Health Secretary and the Labor Secretary. They were tied to Obama as power brokers even back in the Blagojevich era. Their appearance at the Town Halls quickly turned ugly, with barred doors, violence and arrests. Side doors were set up to pack the Town Halls with union members.
Dems sneak Union thugs into Carnahan Town Hall - Tea Party Taxpayers Locked Out!!
Fight at Russ Carnahan Town Hall Event
SEIU Attacks citizensThe following is a description of one SEIU attack,
“Kenneth was approached by an SEIU representative as Kenneth was handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags to other conservatives. The SEIU representative demanded to know why a black man was handing out these flags. The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman. The three men were clearly SEIU members, as they were wearing T-shirts with the SEIU logo. Kenneth was beaten badly. One assailant fled on foot; three others were arrested. Kenneth was admitted to St. John’s Mercy Medical Center emergency room, where he was treated for his numerous injuries.”
The media is naturally spinning this story as violence that people at the Town Halls critical of Obama’s program are responsible for. Just as they covered for the SEIU during its attacks on CAN. But the facts are there for everyone to see. The SEIU has a well known history of thuggery and intimidation. Congressmen like Carnahan who provided a special section for them and packed his meetings with SEIU members, had every reason to expect exactly this sort of outcome. And Obama cannot claim to be uninvolved with the SEIU either.
The Town Hall dissenters have often been elderly people, and therefore more vulnerable to SEIU thuggery. Obama made his own anti-democratic agenda quite clear when he stated that, “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess,” Obama said to loud cheers. Well his SEIU goons have been getting people who disagree with him out of the way. And then beating and kicking while they’re lying on the sidewalk, because theyr’e still not out of the way enough.
Packing Town Halls with members of a violent left wing union, in order to keep dissenting views out, and engaging in violent attacks against against them if they don’t keep out, is an assault on the most sacred symbol of American democracy. It’s a tactic gleaned from a Bolshevik playbook, with violence used to suppress dissent in the name of the organized “working class”. The violence of Obama’s SEIU goons in the name of the ObamaCare revolution is nothing more and nothing less than the Obama Administration showing its real face.
From calling for people to pass along any emails critical of ObamaCare to the White House, that is reminiscent of Soviet era informants programs (note that Democrats post 9/11 hysterically denounced a Bush White House plan to have postal workers and other local employees pass along tips about anyone suspected of planning terrorism as Orwellian, to hijacking Town Hall meetings to turn them into a bullhorn for Obama’s agenda-- it has become increasingly obvious that when democracy isn’t going Obama’s way, then rather than listen and go along, he’s chosen to try and suppress it instead. If Obama and the Democrats have to choose between Democracy and ObamaCare, they’ve made their choice clear. Meanwhile the American people have made their choice clear as well in polls and town hall meetings. Which side will win, will determine whether America will be a free nation or not.
Obama's Health Care PlanBy Charlotte Iserbyt
August 8, 2009
This writer was surprised to hear on the nightly TV news startling information regarding Obama's health care plan (HR3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009). Internet link. Unfortunately, I did not get the name of the person citing statistics related to coverage, but, if I recall correctly, he was an apolitical type out of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget or the Congressional Budget Office. The statistics he cites follow:
15% of Americans are uninsured. He went on to break down that 15% as follows::
5% are illegal aliens.
5% can afford coverage but prefer to spend their money in other ways.
5% are legitimately uninsured.
So, if the figures are correct, Obama's health care plan (the complete trillion + dollar restructuring of our private health care system) will take place due to this uncovered 5%. I have no problem with that 5% being covered; in fact, I believe those individuals should be covered.
What I have a problem with is the radical socialist/fascist restructuring of our health care system, which a majority of Americans (60%) find acceptable or better, in order to take care of the legitimate 5% who should be covered.
If you need a new bathroom, do you tear down your whole house and build a new one in order to have that new bathroom?
Since I unfortunately cannot attribute the above information to any one individual...I couldn't grab a pen in time to get the name...I decided to try to verify the information by calling Senator Olympia Snowe's office in Washington, D.C. Perhaps the response from her office tells us more about what is wrong in our country than the fact that we are going to overhaul our entire private health care system in order to deal with 5% of the population who are legitimately uninsured and about whom something relatively inexpensive, in comparison, should be done.
Phone call went like this: I asked to speak to a staff member regarding some questions I had related to the health care legislation. I was told that all staff members were in meetings. I asked if one of them familiar with the legislation could call me back. I was told no one could discuss the bill since it is a work in process. She told me that Senator Snowe could respond to my concerns by letter, that no one is able or willing to discuss the issue over the phone. From past experience I know that whatever response I receive by mail will arrive long after the August recess...not in time to affect the vote which will probably come sometime in September, and that I have often received letters from my elected officials which do not even relate to the question asked in my original letter to them. I pointed out to her that although Congress does not always read the legislation upon which they vote, this time a few UNPAID Americans have voluntarily gone through the 1,017 pages of draft legislation, line by line, and have some very legitimate concerns. I said I felt it important to call and to discuss and/or confirm some of the most controversial provisions of the legislation before I write an article or send information out on the Internet. I simply wanted to verify the breakdown of the 15% in order not to be providing incorrect information to the public.
The futility of my effort to carry out the responsibility of a good citizen became apparent when she again said there was no way any staff member was going to call me back since they are constantly in meetings. My interesting that Congressional staff members are all in meetings during the August recess, or could they be kayaking on the Potomac? And even if they are not kayaking and are in meetings, do they not have lunch break , or some reason to leave their meetings, in order to respond to the people who pay their salaries?
Although I feel that verification of the above 15% breakdown is of utmost importance, there are several other very controversial provisions in the 1,017-page draft legislation. Some of these provisions were discussed during an interview by former U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate Fred Thompson, TN, with Betsy McCaughey, New York State's Former Lt. Governor, Chairman Committee to Reduce Infectious Deaths, who had just finished reading the new House bill for Health Care Reform:
Betsy McCaughey:
"As a patient advocate I am shocked. I hope people listening will protect their parents from what is intended under this bill. Half of it paid for with a $500 billion dollar cut in health care benefits for seniors. This is a vicious assault on older people and the boomer generation. Seniors will bear one-half the cost themselves. Some will say this is to cut waste, fraud and abuse, although the Congressional Budget Office says only 1% will be used to attack waste, fraud and abuse issues. They are really cutting patient care.
"One of the most shocking parts of bill is on page 425 which says:
"Congress would make it mandatory every five years for people on Medicare to have a required consultation during which they will be told how to end their lives sooner. You will be told how to decline nutrition, decline hydration, how to go into hospice. If you get sick during that 5-year period (cancer, whatever), you have to go through that session again. All will be geared to society's or the family's best interest, not the best interest of the patient. These are sacred issues of life and death with which government should have nothing to do!
"This is just the latest very dangerous assault on the elderly. Back in February when stimulus passed, something was slipped in regarding 'comparative effectiveness research', which sounds good, but isn't. This is code language for denying care based on person's birth date. Treatments for Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, macular degeneration, etc. turned down since patient has too few years to live to make treatment worth it.
Page 16 and 17 says 'You can't keep your health insurance, will be forced to switch to low-grade HMO plan. Will pay a lot more for that plan you don't want."
Fred Thompson said: "Can you imagine the response of the American people when they find this out?"
Betsy: "Well, I hope they do find out."
So, the reason for this rather lengthy letter to the editor is to make sure the people DO find out and let their Senators (such as Senator Snowe) know that "they" are "our" servants, not the other way around. When those who elected them have questions, they (who we elected) are obligated to discuss our concerns, regardless of their involvement in staff meetings or paddling on the Potomac during August recess.
If the above information does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that has a very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives -- and are not subject to this new law if it passes. Don't you think the language in this legislation should be amended to include a provision for Senators and Congressmen to give up their present "cushy" health care system in order to be covered by the fascist system they are foisting onto their constituents? Debate on such an amendment would really slow down this socialist/fascist train wreck and very possibly keep it from happening.
We should all be marching on D.C. carrying placards which say:
The story of backlash to Congress
Protests, arrests, shouts, tempers …Posted: August 07, 2009
By Drew Zahn© 2009 WorldNetDaily
At town halls around the country, many flooded by more protesters than event organizers anticipated, lawmakers returning from Washington are finding constituents don't want to listen; they want to be heard.
"Why won't you let the people speak?" shouted one protester in Tampa, Fla., at a public forum where Rep. Cathy Castor, D-Fla., attempted to pitch Obama's health care reform plan to her constituency.
The Tampa protest made national headlines afterward, as dozens of protesters were pushed out the door in a scuffle, some claiming to have received injuries, and the doors were locked to bar their chanting protest: "You work for us!"
But even inside the locked doors, many in the crowd didn't want to listen to their legislator's reasons for advocating a federal health care plan.
When Castor tried to tell the crowd that those who currently pay for their own health insurance, either privately or through their employer, would benefit the most from legislation being considered in Washington, she was drowned out by disbelieving citizens.
"Bull----!" shouted protesters inside the room. "No we're not!"
Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Wis., got a raucous earful as well, when hundreds of people inside and outside the Green Bay town hall demanded their representative read thoroughly the health care reform bill, which many people believe is being pushed too quickly through Congress.
On the Fox News Channel, a Wisconsin man who attended the town hall meeting explained he wanted to express the message, "We don't feel that Washington is listening to us."
He told host Bill Hemmer, "The way the Congress has been acting in general lately is in my mind totally unconstitutional. They want to take one of the most important issues in my life, which is health care, they want to say that they are going to reform it but they haven't even read the bill."
"I will continue to exercise my First Amendment rights until this government exhibits some form of willingness to communicate with the people," the guest explained.
As WND has reported, incumbent Democrats returning from Washington across the country are being forced to suspend meetings with their constituents, screaming protesters are being dragged out of events by police and officials are being greeted by protest signs and chants.
Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have noticed the firestorm over the past few months, and both have released comments to explain the phenomenon.
"These are nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate that we should have, and are having," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the Associated Press. "They are doing this because they don't have any better ideas. They have no interest in letting the negotiators, even though few in number, negotiate. It's really simple: they're taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongerers ... and insurance rackets."
Atonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, however, had a different take.
"All the polls show there is serious concern, if not outright opposition, to the president's health care plan," she told the Associated Press.
The volatile situation has resulted in a new tactic from the White House.
"If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard," said deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, according to a report in Politico.
The comments came as senators in support of Obama's health care plan were told to do more preparation than usual for their public meetings expected during the coming recess time.
All across the country, legislators coming to their home districts in attempt to sell the health care plan to constituents are being met with fierce opposition and huge crowds:
· Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., was confronted by self-described Democrats who accused their representative of lying about health reform and protested, "Why would you try to stuff a health care plan down our throats in a couple days when the president took six months to pick a dog for his kids?"
Also in Maryland, Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., admitted to receiving nearly 1,600 RSVP's for a town hall meeting at a concert hall that only seated only 500. When and estimated 1,500 showed up for the meeting, protesters lined the streets outside with signs and shouts.
In Mehlville, Mo., protesters lined up around the block of the Bernard Middle School gym where Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo., had planned a public forum. When hundreds were left standing on the street, they remained outside into the evening. Eventually, a union representative reportedly assaulted one of the protesters, Kenneth Gladney, which lead to six arrests, including a St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter. Gladney later appeared in an interview on the Fox News Channel explaining the attack, which drew national attention.
A video posted on YouTube, one of many from around the country, reportedly shows several hundreds standing outside in a stunningly long line, waiting to get into a packed town hall meeting on health care with Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga.
Rep. Tim Bishop, D-N.Y., has called off further events after a June 22 event he held in Setauket, N.Y., in which protesters dominated the meeting by shouting criticisms at the congressman for his positions on energy policy, health care and the bailout of the auto industry.
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., got an earful, too – especially on the health-care issue.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., heard from a very well-informed veteran – to the enthusiastic applause of those gathered.
Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., also heard from the crowd when he made a gaffe by saying the work needs to be done "fast."
The Pittsburgh Tribune review captured video of a town hall with Specter in Kittanning, Pa., reporting that 1,500 showed up to voice their concerns over health care. "I've never seen anything like this," Specter told reporters afterward.
U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., tried to explain at a town hall that people "don't know" how much they're already paying to cover the uninsured, but his reasoning was drowned out by protesters.
WND reported the story of Mike Sola, a Michigan father who confronted Dingell in a separate meeting over what he feared Obamacare would do to his handicapped adult son. Sola later reported he was threatened at his home, at night, by supporters of the government health care plan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., visited a Denver, Colo., clinic for the homeless to raise support for Obama's health care plan, only to be met by streets lined with protesters opposed to the measure.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-TX, went out to meet constituents, only to be met with protesters shouting in opposition to the health care bill, "Just say no!"
At a health care town hall event in Syracuse, N.Y., in July, police were called in to restore order, and at least one heckler was taken away by local police.
Close to 100 sign-carrying protesters greeted Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla., at a late June community college small-business development forum in Panama City, Fla.
Danville, Va., anti-tax tea party activists claimed they were "refused an opportunity" to ask Rep. Thomas Perriello, D-Va., a question at a town hall event and instructed by a plainclothes police officer to leave the property after they attempted to hold up protest signs.
In the wake of vocal town hall protests covered by the press, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., attempted to ban news cameras from his public forum on health care reform, but eventually relented and allowed the coverage.
A handful of New York's congressmen, including Democrats Brian Higgins and Louise Slaughter and Republican Chris Lee, have shunned the town hall meetings altogether, opting instead for telephone meetings or no meetings at all.
Rep. Mark Schauer, D-Mich., also sought to dodge boisterous health care reform critics by holding a teleconference forum, rather than a public town hall meeting. The decision didn't stop protesters on both sides of the debate rallying outside the lawmaker's office.
The constituents of Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., unable to access their representative through a town hall meeting, created a video charging that Tanner has met with Michael Moore and Fidel Castro, "But he won't meet his constituents in the 8th District to talk about health care."
Meanwhile, as WND reported, pre-written questions from participants with track records of campaigning and organizing for Obama have led some to believe the president has been stacking his own town halls with "plants." The practice, some allege, may also be in use at other, purportedly open public forums.
The biggest source of protests are the health-care bill, the $787 billion economic stimulus package and the cap-and-trade legislation. They're also angry about Barack Obama's refusal to release his birth certificate to prove he is a "natural born citizen" and constitutionally eligible to serve in the White House.
According to an Associated Press report, Obama's top political adviser, David Axelrod, showed Senators in D.C. video of some of the boisterous town-hall meetings and discussed how to respond to disruptions.
"It's a challenge, no question about it, and you've got to get out there and make the case," Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said afterward. "This is not the time for the faint-hearted."