Thursday, August 27, 2009

ObamaCare - Health, Euthnasia, Life in Jeopardy! (Part 3)

Dear America, Admit That You’re Stupid! Love, Nancy
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"
By Warner Todd Huston
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The founding fathers debated bills for weeks. They then wrote them, referred them to committee’s of style and prose, brought them back to the floor, debated them again, wrote newspaper articles about them, went home to their districts to discuss them, and finally passed them — or not — after much deliberation.
Today’s Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wants us to just pass a bill so that later we can “find out what is in it.”
Here’s what the zombie from San Francisco said about Obamacare yesterday:
“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
Why can’t we know what’s in the bill before you pass it, Nancy? Or are you afraid that once people find out the horrors contained in this abortion of a bill they might not want it passed? In fact, by nearly every accounting the American people don’t want this communist take over of one-sixth of the economy to proceed.
Of course, communists and socialists don’t care what the people have to say about anything. They, after all, know best, right? That’s why Nancy and her coven in D.C. just want us to shut up and let them pass this witch’s brew.
So let this Congress lumber forward like the living dead to pass a bill that will materially alter the relationship that citizen has to government in these great United States. Let Nancy “Fright Night” Pelosi destroy the United States as we know it…
On second thought, let’s not. Call your Congressman and Senator today and tell them you do not want this destructive bill passed in your name.
Insurance exchange plan in House Reform Bill raises prices and limits choices for everyone
Czar would have absolute power in transforming today’s consumer-driven healthcare into a government-dictated system
By Online: Merrill Matthews
Friday, January 22, 2010
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Both the House and Senate health reform bills create health insurance exchanges, and both hopefully will be scrapped by Democrats who are forging the final legislation.
Of the two versions, however, the House plan is by far the worse. It is both national and more sweeping in scope, severely limiting choices and driving up premiums for everyone — especially for the young and healthy.
If the House’s nationalized exchange proposal wins out, Americans will be stuck with a costly new government bureaucracy called the Health Choices Administration run by another appointed “czar” who decides what constitutes good healthcare and who is entitled to it.
This super-bureaucrat would have absolute power in transforming today’s consumer-driven healthcare into a government-dictated system that, among other things, would:
Not be required to consult with patients or healthcare providers and would make unilateral decisions about healthcare choices.
Could impose penalties on patients, doctors, employers and insurers with no system in place to ensure such penalties are fair and justified.
Have the power to grant illegal immigrants healthcare tax credits based on a process different than that in current law.
Dramatically increase waiting times for appointments, tests and new procedures in ways that in many cases would be rationing of healthcare services.
In short, the federal exchange proposed in the House bill would be worse and far more insidious than the public option Democrats may scrap to meet Senate demands.
About 165-million Americans currently get their health coverage through an employer. They have both guaranteed access to coverage, and the employer can choose from the range of policies offered by the insurer.
Unfortunately, the House legislation limits employers’ choices to those insurers participating in the exchange and to one of only four standardized plans.
As for individuals buying their own coverage, in most states they already have access to multiple options. In most areas there will be more than a dozen health insurers offering a wide range of deductibles, co-pays and HMO products, and at a wide variety of premiums.
Since the vast majority of Americans are relatively healthy, they would have no problem choosing from one of the existing plans being offered and have coverage within a few days. So why try to manufacture a market when one already exists?
Of course, some uninsured people have a pre-existing condition and could be denied coverage or charged a lot more for it. That problem is one of the reasons that exchange supporters think the system is broken — and the exchange will fix it.
But 35 states have implemented state-run high risk pools that provide coverage to individuals who can’t get it. True, some state high risk pools work better than others and the coverage can be expensive.
Importantly, the Senate version of the reform bill includes $5 billion to subsidize the high-risk pools until the exchange begins operating in about three years, a provision President Obama supports. A better solution would be to scrap the exchange and public option completely and focus on ensuring the high-risk pools work well and are adequately funded.
Besides limiting options, the exchange will also drive up premiums. Actuaries claim that the cost variation between the younger and older people is much larger than the 2-to-1 spread in the House exchange.
That means that older middle-age workers — those who turn 65 move into Medicare — will get a great deal while younger, and usually lower income, workers will pay a lot more. Most actuaries expect premiums for the young to at least double almost immediately.
While we do need some reforms to fix the current problems, we certainly don’t need the House’s exchange. It will lead to fewer options and higher premiums — and a whole lot of promises to fix those problems next time Congress gets around to it.
"Why do, basically, people with money have good health care and why do people who live on lower salaries not have good health care?" - Barbara Bush, daughter of George W. Bush

Isn’t It Rich? 364 Days On, America Comes Roaring Back!
Obama: inexperienced Marxist whose political agenda was to dissect and destroy institutions long held near and dear to the American people
By John Lillpop Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Isn’t it rich?
Just 364 short days ago, the greatest nation in human history was turned over to an inexperienced Marxist whose political agenda was to dissect and destroy institutions long held near and dear to the American people.
Barack Obama was sufficiently naïve and narcissistic to actually believe that he could, and should, restructure American politics and culture to conform to his own peculiar far left radicalism.
His “vision” was to tear down America and her leaders at every opportunity, especially on foreign soil. He wanted the entire world to know that America was no better than any other nation, and that being a good “citizen of the world” was far more important than American preeminence.
He made a special point of rejecting the notion that America is a Christian nation, and did so on Muslim soil where anti-American terrorism is a chief export.
He decided that he knew best when it came to national security, and arrogantly set about to dismantle the safeguards installed by his Republican predecessor and which, incidentally, had kept America safe for nearly eight years.
He decided that funding liberal pet projects was more important than carrying out his fiduciary responsibility to the American people, all the while piling trillions upon trillions of dollars of debt onto the backs of unborn generations of American taxpayers.
He foolishly decided that he and the Democrat party had the moral right to ram a very flawed health care plan down the throats of the American people, even though 56 percent of the populace opposes the plan.
Now, just 364 days after Barack Obama was declared an omnipotent, all knowing, and an infallible messiah by the leftist media, the great people of Massachusetts have declared other wise.
Isn’t it rich?
Massachusetts Win: Obama Vows Retaliation Against American People
Growing revolt against the totalitarian and patently Marxist/Maoists policies of the current Obama Administration
By Sher Zieve Tuesday, January 19, 2010
First of all, on 19 January 2010 We-the-People did it! A virtually unprecedented event occurred yesterday. The almost bluest of blue states turned partially red in its senatorial election to continue the growing revolt against the totalitarian and patently Marxist/Maoists policies of the current Obama Administration in Washington D.C. The election of now-Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), the first since the reelection of Republican Senator Edward William Brooke III in 1972, was a landslide. Thank you Massachusetts and Scott Brown for a great night.
However, according to leftist leaning “news” organizations (CNN and MSNBC) covering the special election, members of the Obama Administration have said that the tyrant will NOT take this defeat lying down. The “leaked” information coming out of the White House is that Obama is now planning to (per Rachel Maddow and others) “double down” in his efforts to shove the ObamaCare Death Plan down the throats of the American people. Even Fox News’ leftist Juan Williams repeated this double-down message. Williams also said that the “majority of the American people” want health care reform.
What is it about leftists that keeps them from seeing reality?
Are they crazy or just hoping if the repeat their lies often enough people will actually begin to believe them?
Obama appears to hope that if he keeps telling us we really want his Death Plan, we’ll buy it. After all, the constant repetition of the “big lie” worked for Adolph Hitler & Co, didn’t it?
But, tonight’s election in very liberal Massachusetts proved Obama wrong. So, he is now bent upon retaliating against the Massachusetts’ voters for not voting in an Obama and totalitarianism-supporting Democrat and against the rest of us who woke up this morning feeling just a little bit better about our country, ourselves and our future. Obama and the Marxist-Democrat-run Congress are furiously and furtively working to find another clandestine way in which to shove the Obama/Democrat Death Plan down the throats of the American people; not because it’s ’good for them even if they don’t want it’ as The ObamaTyrant suggests but, because it’s the only real and viable way that Obama and his minions can establish a truly tyrannical form of government and once and for all suppress the American people.
Obama & Co will now work even harder to destroy us and our country, folks. He is intensely angry with us for daring to vote into office someone who wants to preserve—not destroy—our worship of God, freedoms and liberties and not replace them with himself. Obama is openly on the opposite aside of the American people and he will continue to fight us with his entire arsenal. To Obama, WE are the terrorists and he has told us that multiple times. The real terrorists are protected by The Obama.
Our fight to take back our country is firmly underway and—including the gubernatorial elections in both New Jersey and Virginia—we are winning. But, Obama’s “Plan B’s” include bypassing us—the electorate. He has already announced his intent to pull in the EPA to implement—via his dictatorial fiat—Cap & Tax if We-the-People balk too loudly at its congressional passage. And Obama and his adherents (Pelosi comes readily to mind) have told us that they will pass the Obama Death Plan “one way or another.” We MUST keep fighting them, with every legal means possible until these means no longer work.
Remember that the American people do NOT want the ObamaCare horror; only Obama and his Marxist-ruling class do. The bottom line is Obama and his adherents want to completely and irrevocably control the American people in everything they say and do. And We-the-People refuse to be controlled. It’s just that simple.
Let’s take a little time to enjoy our victory in Massachusetts with the “Scott heard ‘round the world.” But, then it’s on to the next battle of this—at least—2-3 more years war that ends up with the ousting of Obama, his czars and all of the rest of the anti-American and anti-human hordes. In the meantime, thanks again Massachusetts. The rest of We-the-People needed you and you came through!
Saying No to Emperor Obama
Obama’s narcissism and arrogance will blind him to the message of the Massachusetts victory
By Alan Caruba Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Yes, it’s true. The emperor has no clothes. Even in a State where you cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a dozen Democrats, the voters said “No.”
"We don’t want your odious Medicare ‘reform’. We don’t want to be forced to buy insurance. We don’t want a bill that exists only because every sweetheart deal and other form of bribery was used to get it to this point in the Senate." And, ignored by the media, it was no to amnesty for illegal aliens as well, another issue of Scott Brown’s race.
The significance of the Massachusetts victory for Scott Brown is the repudiation of Barack Hussein Obama, his policies, and his performance in office.
It wasn’t the first time the voters sent the White House this message. They told him to buzz off in Virginia and they told him to get lost in New Jersey. This is a tangible voter backlash against profligate spending and excessive taxation.
Come November, the voters, Democrats, Republicans, and independents will come together to clean house in Washington, D.C. It takes no great punditry to see that coming. If the midterms were held tomorrow, the result would be the same.
It is almost beyond comprehension how Obama could have engineered a failed presidency within the space of just one year. He got a lot of help from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as mendacious and imperious an individual to have ever held that office. He got a lot of help from Majority Leader Harry Reid, a scowling, malicious cockroach whom the voters of Nevada will remove in November.
Obama’s narcissism and arrogance will blind him to the message of the Massachusetts victory. He and his press secretary, Robert “Glib” Gibbs, will put out a statement that will dismiss the historic event as just an aberration, but the aberration is Obama!
So, stand up and take a bow, Massachusetts!
Home to the Pilgrims;
home to the Boston massacre when British troops fired on protesters in 1770;
home to the 1773 tea party to protest taxes; and
birthplace of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Sam Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Josiah Bartlett, Roger Sherman, and John Hancock, signers of the Declaration of Independence!
Those first Americans led the resistance to the greatest power of their day, Great Britain, and its king.
For all the years Obama taught the U.S. Constitution at the University of Chicago Law School, he either never really understood it or never believed it means what it says.
He never understood that real Americans will not be pushed around, cheated of their Constitutional birthright, or be lied to.
They will push back.
A former emperor, Napoleon of France, spent his last days as an exile on St. Helena. It would not surprise me if Emperor Obama spends his on one of Hawaii’s islands.
Health care horror show voted through in Senate…on Christmas Eve
Shame on All Senators Who Voted Yes on this Bill and Betrayed Their Country!
By Dr. Laurie Roth Thursday, December 24, 2009
The last time the US Senate voted on anything on Christmas Eve was in 1895 regarding the military.
Shame on All Senators Who Voted Yes on this Bill and Betrayed Their Country!
Now this bill will bounce back to the House after the Holiday break for the final series of discussions, slicing and dicing, then on to the teleprompter President for a signature. The constitutional betrayal is almost official, just in time for Obama’s speech coming soon to a theatre near you.
Don’t give up. Scream at your political leaders. Make sure your Senators and congressmen hear from all of you over this break in town halls, faxes, emails and phone calls. THIS BILL IS NOT HEALTH CARE REFORM, BUT IN TRUTH:
They can call it what they want, hiding behind emotional and special words but I and tons of Americans get it! I have a Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology, so I get the President’s emotional, reform words and it is nothing but LIES, CONTROL AND BETRAYAL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Here is what is coming on this trail of reform folks. Here is what will really happen, NOT, what they say!
Seniors will die in droves due to long lines and rationed health care. This is a smooth way of getting rid of the growing masses of seniors we have that cost money. SHAME!
This is a way of killing more babies and forcing Doctors and Hospitals to join in on the murders. SHAME!
This is a way of controlling your bank accounts and forcing you into health care, ultimately decided by this warped Government in place. SHAME! Welcome IRS as the head controller of this program from hell. SHAME!
This administration and majority in congress believe in deciding your care through control panels that dictate decisions, rules and guidelines to your ‘puppet’ Doctor based on cost effective treatment, NOT, safe and effective treatment. Do you all get it yet in between the warm, teleprompter moments from this President?
People will die prematurely. People will be controlled. People will lose their freedoms and the best health care system in the world WILL BECOME A FOSSIL AND MUSEUM EXHIBIT.
The Senate has only continued the bold steps of betrayal to our constitution, God and the people. We will have the last laugh.
Whores…I mean Senators march the Health Bill forward
Draconian, unconstitutional health nightmare
By Dr. Laurie Roth Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The Health care bill arrogantly moves along dreaming for the day it can be in Obama’s next speech. It has its designer, socialist clothes ironed and glowing red, ready to shine off the Obama teleprompter. This health care bill has moved half way home and is primed for the Christmas eve vote in the middle of the night while we are all sleeping or dreaming of wassail and gifts. So far it seems the waffling Senators have been offered the world for their vote. It has been a week in Vegas for many Senators….excuse me whores. Just to name a few pay offs we see Senator Nelson from Nebraska getting 100 million for his state; Florida got their Medicare program frozen so they wouldn’t get Medicare cuts that the other states would get. That was a 25-30 billion dollar pay off. Senator Dodd got 100 million for a hospital in his state, on and on. The pay offs were everywhere and the whores gave up their meat. Reid got the 60 votes he needed to shut down debate and move things forward. Obama’s negative ratings have never been higher and poll after poll show the vast majority of the American people don’t want this Health Care bill crammed down their throat but who cares what we think? Obama needs the Health bill, not the American people. Obama Obama’s negative ratings needs cap and trade, not the American people. Obama needs another cigarette.
Regardless of the last minute tricks and changes, we can pretty well count on the fact that abortions will be paid for; health care rationing will occur, targeting our seniors; Doctors will be paid whatever the Government says they will be paid; Insurance companies will be forced to raise their rates and will increasingly not be able to compete against the rigged and controlled prices; and my personal favorite: We will all be forced by the Federal Government to have health care or be fined and sent to prison.
They will have the power as well to determine what the right health care will look like so don’t think you can hide behind your private plan.
Understand that this Government, the one that wants health rationing for seniors and to kill babies, will decide how your health care looks…..that is the health care you are allowed to get. If America is to allow this draconian, unconstitutional health nightmare to land, people of all ages will die prematurely, real health care will have to submit to financially contrived budgets decided by bureaucrats and we will have no privacy left.
I have talked with several attorneys who have studied the health care bill and are currently analyzing the constitutional betrayal of this bill. Among these include Michael Connelly and Steve Eichler They all have told me on air and off air that should this pass, legal actions, addressing the constitutional breach of forcing health care on the people will go all the way to the Supreme Court. We think we see clogged courts now, just wait. The American people won’t take this ethical, legal and constitutional betrayal and violation.
Perhaps one of the many formal responses to the Government should be a class action suit from the American people. While we are pursuing legal responses we must make sure and vote our brains out in 2010 and send most of congress home to pursue other careers. If we can’t impeach this President (which he deserves) we must and can vote him out at year four. Once he is out and a real patriot is in the White House we must cut off all funding for unconstitutional health bills and neuter them. We must explore ways to repeal, unfund, challenge with other legislation and demand that un-American bills not stand against the American people.
Polls show dim support for health care bill
'Public option' fails to win over voters
By Stephen Dinan and Jennifer Haberkorn THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Polls show Americans aren't buying into the health care reform bill being crafted by Democrats as doubts surfaced Wednesday on Capitol Hill over the "public option" deal that President Obama said cleared the way for passage of his top agenda item.
Democrats are plowing ahead with hopes of passing the bill by Christmas and to change the public's attitude. They said inaction would be far worse, but voters are unconvinced.
A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday found that 52 percent of voters oppose the health care reform bill that Congress is considering, while 38 percent support it. The findings, similar to those of other polls, reflect the largest margin so far.
"It's a good thing for those pushing the health care overhaul in Congress that the American people don't get a vote," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
The Quinnipiac poll also found sliding support for the government-run public option, though with 56 percent in favor, it's still a clear majority.
The public insurance plan's future in the Senate is in doubt. Several liberal and moderate Democrats negotiating a compromise said they did not sign on to a "broad agreement" to eliminate the public option and enact alternatives, as Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters Tuesday night.
"There was no compromise," said Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas Democrat. "There were a lot of ideas where there was consensus that we needed more information to move forward."
The deal was to send a series of ideas to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for an analysis of its cost and impact, Ms. Lincoln said.
The outlines of a proposal to remove the public insurance plan include an expansion of the Medicare program to allow people ages 55 to 64 to "buy in"; authorizing the Office of Personnel Management - which runs the federal employees' health care program - to set up an insurance program; an expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides coverage to children from low-income families; and "triggering" a government-run insurance plan if insurance criteria involving price and competition aren't met.
Until the ideas are scored by the CBO, "we really don't even know what's in [the deal]," said Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat and one of the moderates in the negotiating room.
Ms. Landrieu and Ms. Lincoln are skeptical of the public insurance plan and were among the last senators to agree to allow formal debate on the legislation to begin. Ms. Lincoln is in a tough re-election fight in a state where the public option hasn't been popular in recent polls.
But David Kendall, senior fellow for health policy at Third Way, a progressive think tank, predicted that the poll numbers would rebound. He said poll numbers have fallen because Republicans have been attacking the bill while Democrats have focused on the writing the details.
"Once people see that there is something in it for them, that it's not just a debate about an abstract public plan which nobody understands; that will be the moment," he said.
Mr. Obama came out in support of what he called a "creative new framework."
"I support this effort, especially since it's aimed at increasing choice and competition and lowering cost. So I want to thank all of you for sticking with it, for all those late nights, all the long weekends that you guys have put in," Mr. Obama said at an event on community health centers that was attended by a handful of lawmakers. "With so much at stake, this is well worth all of our efforts."
Mr. Reid told reporters late Tuesday night that the five moderates and five liberals who had been trying for days to reach a compromise had a "broad consensus," but he declined to provide any substantive details until he had a cost analysis.
A deal among the most conservative and most liberal ends of the Democratic caucus on the public insurance plan would go a long way toward sealing 60 votes on one of the most controversial elements of the health care overhaul.
The Medicare expansion is likely to win the support from liberals who had wanted the public insurance plan in the health care bill. Rep. Anthony Weiner, a New York Democrat and one of the strongest supporters of establishing a single-payer health care system, said the Medicare expansion would "perhaps get us on the path to a single-payer model."
Republicans immediately blasted the idea of expanding Medicare, which is expected to be insolvent in 2017. Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa compared the idea to adding more people to the sinking Titanic. Sen. John McCain of Arizona said it was a "Hail Mary" as Democrats close in on a Christmas Day deadline to pass the bill.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who caucuses with Democrats and threatened to filibuster a bill with a public option, said he would be looking for the CBO solvency figures. "We must remain vigilant about protecting and extending the solvency of the program, which is now in a perilous financial condition," he said.
Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, is skeptical of expanding Medicare because of its low reimbursement rate in rural states. He said that the new enrollees, if they have to cover their own premiums entirely, may help stretch the system's solvency but that he would wait for the CBO analysis.
The CBO's analysis of the plans will play a major role in determining support, many of the lawmakers said.
"The public option under the majority leader's bill saved $25 billion. Are we going to lose those savings?" said Sen. Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat. "That's an example of the kind of question I'd like to have answered before I feel confident that this will work."
Health care backers have been on a major roller coaster ride since the summer. The heated rhetoric from the August town-hall meetings has cooled, allowing Democrats to continue to work on a proposal.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland called the August recess a "low point" for House Democrats but said they rebounded.
"Frankly, I think our members have re-energized in September and October, which is why we were successful on our health care vote. There were some doubts on whether we were going to be able to pass that bill," he told reporters last week.
Brendan Steinhauser, director of federal and state campaigns for FreedomWorks, one of the groups that helped organize the rallies this summer and fall, rejected the idea that the anger has subsided.
"There is a lot of energy still," he said. "Yeah, people are a little fatigued in some ways and in a way tired of battling this battle, but they are not slowing down. I think the polls are showing our effect on public opinion is significant."
The Gallup Poll released a survey at the end of November that found opposition to congressional Democrats' health care plans at 49 percent and support at 45 percent. A Public Policy Polling survey released Wednesday found that 39 percent of voters said they approved of Mr. Obama's health care plans.
Mr. Steinhauser said some Democrats appear to be ignoring the opposition and will face the consequences in the next election.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, offered the same warning to his Democratic colleagues on the chamber floor.
"What I hear the American people saying to us, 'Vote for this bill and you'll be history,' " Mr. McConnell said. "This is not in the gray area. The American people are asking us to stop this bill and start over."
Polling support for Democrats' health care plans dropped in August, recovered slightly in September and early October after Mr. Obama's address to the nation urging action, then dropped again.
Mr. Kendall said that midfall bump shows the window of opportunity for Democrats and that Mr. Obama's voice will be the key going forward.
"What really made a difference was the president's speech in September in which he presented a theme of stability for people who already have coverage, that appealed to the middle class," Mr. Kendall said.
Do I hear $400,000,000.00?
Congress has moved our entire country one step closer to the national nightmare of government-controlled health care
By Jayme Evans Monday, November 30, 2009
Now that the US Senate has voted to begin debate on their vision of a health scare bill, Congress has moved our entire country one step closer to the national nightmare of government-controlled health care that millions of people strenuously reject and simultaneously fear. If Nancy Pelosi’s bill placed one of the nation’s feet in the grave, then Harry Reid’s bill placed the other squarely in the path of the banana peel. All the while, Barack Obama has stood ready with the first shovel full of dirt. A couple more steps, and in we go.
Many people are left wondering how something as frightening as the Democrat Party’s idea of so-called health care reform could ever become law, considering the unwavering, vocal opposition to the astronomical financial burden this legislation would place on the backs of all Americans. The answer is quite simple, really. Health care reform, while rejected by the voters, has advanced through the legislative process through the use of a scurrilous practice that legislators and pundits call “horse trading” or “sausage making”, otherwise known to the American public as prostitution, extortion or bribery.
This type of institutional corruption can only exist in an atmosphere devoid of principle. For years, politicians of both parties have completely abandoned principles in favor of career aspirations, unchecked power or cold, hard cash, which they are ironically devaluing at breakneck speed, but I digress. During the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Lindsey Graham (RiNO-SC) voiced serious concerns over Sotomayor’s writings, speeches and ideological stances on a variety of issues, yet voted to confirm her as the next US Supreme Court justice, in spite of those concerns. The same process has played out several times, with Republicans simply acquiescing to Barack Obama’s penchant for employing tax-cheating minions and liberal, activist federal judges.
During the August congressional recess which saw the birth of the Tea Party movement, my own Congressman, Brian Baird (D-WA) publicly and condescendingly accused those who opposed Democrat’s health care takeover, including myself—a Navy veteran who proudly served with honor—of using “Brown Shirt tactics”, adding “...And I mean that seriously”. In the end, lacking the substance to back up his verbal diarrhea and worried about re-election, Baird hypocritically did an about-face and, after his attack, had the nerve to vote against Nancy Pelosi’s HR 3962.
But, perhaps the most stunning, recent example of the institutionalized corruption infecting Washington came during last week’s Senate cloture vote over their version of health care legislation, and the shameful performance put on by so-called “moderates”, such as Ben Nelson (D-NE), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Mary “The Money Launderer” Landrieu (D-LA).
Although each and every one of these corrupt moderates indicated they had reservations over specific legislative language, each and every one of them eventually caved. Initially, all of them staunchly opposed a public option, yet all of them voted to begin debate on a Senate bill that contained just that. Then they all sought immediate political cover, cautioning that if the final bill didn’t undergo substantial changes, their support wasn’t guaranteed. These people know full well, that the public option is part and parcel of progressive health care reform and that amendments to abolish or dilute it would never see the light of day.
Landrieu was the last to cave. Although she presented the appearance of being torn between both sides of a thoughtful debate, she relented only after Harry Reid coughed up $300,000,000.00 in state Medicaid subsidies for Louisiana. I don’t know about you, but I find this type of political chicanery quite repulsive. The US treasury belongs to the taxpayers whose toil and sweat fill its coffers. It isn’t Harry Reid’s personal slush fund to be used for doling out financial favors in exchange for votes.
With the country so divided by Democrats’ legislative jihad, just a handful of moderates now have the power to tip the balance in favor of job-killing, sovereignty-sapping, trillion dollar pieces of legislation that just keep coming. They know it and they thrive on the attention. They talk fiscally tough on camera to their constituents, yet capitulate to political pressure or negotiate back-room deals behind closed doors.
In corporate America or any other segment of American society out of range of the stench emanating from Washington DC, the very act of taxpayer money changing hands between the Senate Majority leader and his knock-kneed cohort in exchange for her vote would be considered prostitution or bribery, depending on your perspective. And if anyone was seeking this kind of payoff in exchange for their vote, it would be considered extortion. Thanks to Landrieu’s trick, the going price for votes in the US Senate is now $300,000,000.00. Do I hear $400,000,000.00?


Health care: Tell the Senate no, we will sue
By: Devvy Kidd
November 12, 2009
Past and present members of Congress and cabinet members, have made it perfectly clear the U.S. Constitution means nothing. It is merely a prop and no longer of any concern to them. Here are but a few examples:
"The dirty little secret is that both houses of Congress are irrelevant...America's domestic policy is now being run by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve and America's foreign policy is now being run by the International Monetary Fund [IMF]." And, "...when the president decides to go to war, he no longer needs a declaration of war from Congress." Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Marxist Bill Clinton, January 7, 1999, USA Today
At the time of Bush's invasion of Iraq, CFR point dog in the House, Rep. Henry Hyde, [R-Il] stated that "declaring war is anachronistic, it isn't done anymore..." During the same time period, darling of the deaf, dumb and blind "liberals," Ranking Minority Member Tom Lantos, [D-Ca] called the declaration of war "frivolous and mischievous."
Judge Andrew Napolitano, November 6, 2009 : "When I recently asked Congressman James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, to tell me "Where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to regulate everyone's health care--, he replied that most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway. There you have it. Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes."
Marxist Pelosi's office actually issued a press release that compares this illegal, grotesque no 'reform' health care as comparable to automobile insurance - which of course, is the domain of the states: "On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers) – or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans – but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation. There is no constitutional problem with these provisions."
I've got news for Nancy Pelosi: There is a BIG constitutional problem. You people have crossed over to what can only be defined as treason. Open and in our face treason.
The outlaws in the House of Representatives who voted for the monstrous, grotesque no reform health care taxing scheme last week, just automatically assume (including Republicans) that we the people will do nothing except wring our hands and weep. That after the Senate passes some form of another junk bill, we the people will hold our nose and eat it.
Wrong. Just because the Outlaw Congress passes a bill and the usurper in the White House signs it, doesn't mean it is constitutional:
"The highest law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue must be in agreement with it to be valid. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail over the other. The Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, (2nd ed., Section 256), states:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statue, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby." Stephen K. Huber, Professor of Law, University of Houston
Sen. Reid and his co conspirators will try to shove some version of health care tyranny forward. The Republicans will play along with it by trotting out some form of 'compromise' instead of standing up and saying we have no legal authority to enact any of this legislation. If they did so, it would really shut down the process and force a show down -- a constitutional show down. But, no, the Republicans are gutless and instead, will go along with crafting their version of unconstitutional. Ron Paul does have a few bills that are meant to 'help' out the situation; I'll send those out in an email alert in the next few days.
While the bills are being cooked up in the Senate, now is the time to take this by the legal horns or some version of the junk will end up on the usurper's desk. In other words, not just holding signs or sending emails. These socialists, communists and political whores in Congress need to be told that we the people will bury the government in lawsuits if any of these bills pass and are signed into "law."
The only reason this disaster continues to roll forward is because Reid, Pelosi - the whole bunch of them are so arrogant, they believe we will simply roll over. Just like Americans have been doing for decades. The defeatist attitude. In columns and on radio shows, I cite court cases that are victories for freedom and liberty and the email pours in: The courts are corrupt. Why bother with these bad judges?
Well, yeah, we have activist judges who should have been booted from the bench. But, we also have case law on the books that favors the Constitution and know what? Those cases didn't get won by themselves. There had to be plaintiffs willing to take on the corrupt government. That's how you win, not more complaining.
Who knows what the senate's version of the Bill from Hell will look like, but now is the time for individuals, health care providers and businesses let their U.S. Senator know we will not comply. How hard is that?
I have cited these cases over the years and this goes to health care providers. Probably not Kaiser, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and the other big HMOs. It appears they have cut deals with the devil and care nothing about the U.S. Constitution. However, all other health care providers: Congress has ZERO authority to dictate how you practice medicine and deal with your patients:
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."
I can tell you the bill passed by the outlaws in the House has dozens and dozens of sections that are clearly in violation of what the courts have already struck down.
For employers: It isn't your legal obligation to provide health care to employees. Stand up and fight this Fascism:
Railroad Retirement Board, supra, 295 U.S., at 368, that Congress had no authority to establish a retirement scheme through its most tremendous power, its control over interstate commerce:
"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 attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the 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? Is it 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."
Got that, Congress?
The nonsense that continues to be regurgitated by the lazy media that if you don't purchase health insurance the federal government somehow has the authority to fine and/or jail you -- I say BULL. I believe this individual "mandate" would be struck down by the courts if properly challenged. Neither the commerce or taxing clause would rescue this bill from being struck down by the courts:
"The other obvious alternative is to use Congress's power to tax and spend. In an effort, perhaps, to anchor this mandate in that power, the Senate version of the individual mandate envisions that failure to comply would be met with a penalty, to be collected by the IRS. This arrangement, however, is not constitutional either." In that column, these lawyers touch on exactly what Comrade Pelosi thinks she can get away with and that's tying health insurance to commerce and trying to extort the money from we the people using IRS thugs and jail to scare everyone. Is it any wonder Pelosi is despised by millions of Americans?
Comrade Obama/Soetoro also thinks that's a great plan. Fine my subjects!!!.
Really, Barry? In over 230 years, the federal government has never forced Americans to buy any product or service and now, not only does the Outlaw Congress want to do so, we will be raped in taxes to pay for this monstrous failure in the making.
Are we going to take this or fight back? Are we doing to stop this so that no bill ever gets to the usurper's desk?
Don't wait and don't use the holidays for an excuse not to act. Time is of the essence.
Employers: If you are a target of this legislation, now is the time to speak with others, join together and retain a good constitutional law firm that will file a lawsuit should a final bill become junk law. Multiple plaintiffs can really reduce the burden of legal costs.
Health care providers - corporations - you must do the same thing. I've read those sections of the House bill that set up more worthless paychecks to literally run medical practice inside the states of the Union. All of those health care providers out there that are against this massive take over and eventual collapse and destruction of health care - tell these arrogant power mad Senators that you will file lawsuits and will NOT comply with this unconstitutional shake down.
Individuals do the same: Hard copy letters to the U.S. Senate and tell them you will NOT comply. Send a very clear, very loud statement that no matter how many "versions" of this effort to hijack our health care system, Republican or Democrat, doesn't matter: we will NOT allow this power grab and new taxing scheme. If it happens, every facet of the private sector will be opened up and targeted for destruction by Congress -- mark my words. This will be just the beginning.
Tell them you will join with others (hopefully thousands) in filing lawsuits (using experienced, qualified law firms) to just say NO. We can defeat this once and for all. Not with holding signs or signing petitions, but telling these outlaws in the Senate that we will tie this "law" up in court for years. That we will not roll over any longer. We will fight in the courts and we will win.
Congress has NO authority whatsoever in any shape, form or clause to sell health insurance (just as unconstitutional as FEMA doing it for decades and getting away with it) and attempt to force individuals against their will to purchase it or extort money from them using threats of IRS thugs and jail time.
Burying Senators with snail mail letters will tell them that we the people, business and individuals, are willing to put our money towards hiring qualified legal teams to fight this disaster before it becomes another massive, entrenched failure like social security and Medicare. Before our rights are stripped away.
Threatening 1/3 of the senate with bouncing them out of office in November 2010 sounds nice, but that is a year from now. We must stop this from ever becoming "law" or we'll have to aggressively go for the courts to gut as much as we can.
Besides, they don't care any longer. These lawbreakers believe they are untouchable; crooks like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, who have sold out this country to every special interest group including ILLEGAL aliens.
Don't forget those criminals by the tens of millions. The House version of the bill requires only a picture and social security number which can be bought off the street corner for about $20 bux in most cities. This will open the flood gates for TENS MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS to get in on the government scheme cooked up in that House bill. Does anyone see the reality of what we're looking at? The Democrats will push hard to keep the language vague enough to allow tens of millions of illegals to lock into this massive rip off and simply suck us dry.
The Brady gun "law" was taken taken to court by two dedicated Americans at huge personal cost. They won. Had Richard and Jay not become the aggressors, there would be no Printz, Mack v. U.S. The same applies to U.S. v Lopez and other decisions in favor of the U.S. Constitution.
All these wins had plaintiffs or defendants that were willing to fight, not surrender.
This allegedly, supposedly is the version voted on by the House of Outlaws. Of course, Pelsoi and her comrades lie every time they open their mouth, so who knows what final text was voted on last Saturday night. Allegedly, supposedly, there isn't any bill yet from the Senate. But since they're all professional liars, I have no doubt their high paid lawyers are busy right this minute. What -- you think mush heads like Max Baucus, Carl Levin, Maria Cantwell, or Patty Pancake Murray write these bills? Please.
The important thing now is action by the three groups: Individuals, health care providers no matter your specialty and employers. We the people must make the Senate understand we mean business. So much pressure that in the end, they make up some political excuse and no bill will surface that "reconciles" with the mess passed by the House. Kill it once and for all. Otherwise, it's the hard route and off to court.
Obama Healthcare Reform is (Almost) Dead
Between the inability of Democrats to negotiate amongst themselves, and the fear of reprisals from the American people, the healthcare reform house of cards is poised to fall.
By Fred Dardick Thursday, November 5, 2009
10 months, 5+ versions, thousands of pages, hundreds of thousands of words and millions of headaches later … and the freakin’ bill just won’t die.
Jon Corzine just got trounced in New Jersey (so how’d those Obama visits work out for you?) and Virginia firmly rejected the Obama message of change (let’s face it, change is all we’re gonna have left in our pockets if Obama gets his way) and yet Democrat lawmakers in Congress remain committed to government takeover of the crown jewel of the U.S. economy, the American healthcare system.
Deaf to the wishes of the American people, Nancy Pelosi insists on bringing her economy killing healthcare bill to a vote in the House this week. Though Pelosi is working all out to crush dissent in her party - after all she represents the uber-liberal San Francisco district, so it’s not like she’ll have to answer to any angry voters - cracks are starting to appear in the all is hunky dory Democrat facade.
For one thing, pushing back the vote again and again is definitely a sign of weakness. The overthrow of the U.S. healthcare industry originally scheduled for August has been postponed … first till Thanksgiving, then Christmas … now it won’t take place until at least early next year according to Harry Reid himself.
Reid doesn’t want a repeat of the first healthcare reform bill that made it to the Senate floor a couple weeks ago - the doctor reimbursement scheme designed to hide $250 billion in healthcare costs from the American people. It was soundly defeated 47 to 53. Amazingly Reid expected the American Medical Association to deliver him 27 Republican votes! He wasn’t even close.
Reid’s flawed reading of the tea leaves makes me wonder, what else did Harry get wrong regarding healthcare reform?
The delay in moving forward has everything to do with the inability of Democrats to compromise with one another. The House insists on a strong public option, while the Senate is dead set against it. Liberal Democrats want federal dollars to pay for abortions, while conservative Democrats will not allow it. Progressives look forward to taxing the middle class which fiscal moderates are certain to oppose.
Can Democrats lay down their differences to get something passed? I seriously doubt it. I just don’t see how the huge divides in the Democrat party can be resolved. Pelosi and her socialist cronies in the House will only vote for a bill that fundamentally changes healthcare, while the Senate is certain to reject legislation that goes too far.
The American people made it clear in Virginia and New Jersey that the issue that concerns them most isn’t healthcare reform, or global warming, or same sex marriage … it’s the economy (stupid). Unless they have their heads buried in the sand, Democrats from moderate leaning districts had to have gotten the message. They have been put on notice that any attempt to ram healthcare reform through Congress will mean their butts come Election Day.
Between the inability of Democrats to negotiate amongst themselves, and the fear of reprisals from the American people, the healthcare reform house of cards is poised to fall. It’s not quite time to declare “gave over” just yet, but we’re getting there.
Fred Dardick is the owner and operator of a medical staffing company based in Chicago. Prior to the business world, he worked as a biological researcher at various highly regarded universities in the United States. Fred can be reached at:
Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care
Republicans see a backdoor move toward 'amnesty'
By Stephen Dinan
Friday, September 18, 2009
President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.
He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered - a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.
"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.
Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."
Republicans said that amounts to an amnesty, calling it a backdoor effort to make sure current illegal immigrants get health care.
"It is ironic that the president told the American people that illegal immigrants should not be covered by the health care bill, but now just days later he's talking about letting them in the back door," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
"If the American people do not want to provide government health care for illegal immigrants, why would they support giving them citizenship, the highest honor America can bestow?" Mr. Smith said.
But immigrant rights groups see the speech as a signal that Mr. Obama is committed to providing health care coverage for anyone in the United States legally, regardless of their citizenship status.
"It's the first time I've certainly heard, publicly, him talking more about legal immigrants," said Eric Rodriguez, vice president for research and advocacy at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). "I think that was certainly positive progress. We were absolutely concerned about not hearing that."
On Wednesday, hours before Mr. Obama's speech, the NCLR had given the administration a public scolding, demanding that Mr. Obama needed to make "a public commitment ... to ensure that those who are here legally are covered."
A White House spokesman did not respond to questions about where the White House would make the cutoff for eligibility, and Mr. Rodriguez said he's still waiting for an answer from the administration.
"We don't know where they mean to draw the line," he said. "Our biggest concern is that most people don't realize legal immigrants are currently barred from receiving health care benefits for the first five years in the country."
Under the 1996 welfare overhaul, most federal aid programs are restricted to citizens and legal immigrants who have been in the country for at least five years. Democrats have tried this year to chip away at that rule.
Immigration has dogged Mr. Obama in the health care debate. Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, shouted, "You lie," when the president, in an address to Congress last week, said his plans wouldn't cover illegal immigrants.
Lawmakers - who got an earful from constituents back home during August - have insisted on extra checks to make sure illegal immigrants do not have access to taxpayer-funded programs.
Senators have worked on language that would prevent illegal immigrants from buying insurance through a proposed insurance exchange envisioned in the health care reform package.
But the NCLR said that could lead to situations where some members of a family would be covered and others, including children of illegal immigrants, wouldn't be.
Mr. Obama said legalizing illegal immigrants is a way to take the sting out of the entire issue.
But Republicans said by pushing to legalize illegal immigrants, Mr. Obama is signaling that those here illegally eventually will get access to taxpayer-funded benefits.
Still, the push to pass a legalization bill is beginning to gain steam, even as advocates fret that the White House is moving too slowly.
On Thursday, Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat and an outspoken advocate for legalization, agreed to take leadership in writing a new, more generous bill.
"We simply cannot wait any longer for a bill that keeps our families together, protects our workers and allows a pathway to legalization for those who have earned it," Mr. Gutierrez said. "Saying immigration is a priority for this administration or this Congress is not the same as seeing tangible action, and the longer we wait, the more every single piece of legislation we debate will be obstructed by our failure to pass comprehensive reform."
Health care reform means more power for the IRS
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 2, 2009
There's been a lot of discussion about the new and powerful federal agencies that would be created by the passage of a national health care bill. The Health Choices Administration, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, the Health Insurance Exchange — there are dozens in all.
But if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats' health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers.
In short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more intrusive IRS.
Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an "acceptable" health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don't have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.
The Democrats' plan would require all Americans to have "acceptable" insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of "acceptable") and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have "acceptable" coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.
If it all matches up, you're fine. If it doesn't, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don't have "acceptable" coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.
Under some versions of health reform now circulating on Capitol Hill, the IRS would also be intimately involved in how you pay for insurance. Everyone would be required to buy coverage. The millions of Americans who can't afford it would receive a subsidy to pay for it. Under the version of the plan currently under negotiation in the Senate Finance Committee, that subsidy would come through the IRS in the form of a refundable tax credit. Under the House plan, the subsidy would come directly from the Health Choices Administration.
In either scenario, the IRS would be the key to making the system work. Before you could receive any subsidy, whether through the IRS or not, the Health Choices Administration would have to determine whether you are eligible for it. To do so, the bills under consideration would give the Health Choices Commissioner the authority to demand sensitive, confidential information from the IRS about individual taxpayers. The IRS would have to provide it.
Under current law, it is a felony for a government official to release taxpayer information in all but the most limited of circumstances. One such exception is for law enforcement; the IRS is allowed to give taxpayer information to prosecutors in criminal cases. The information can also, in some instances, be released to the Social Security Administration and the Veterans' Administration for the determination of benefits. The health care bills would change the Internal Revenue Code to permit the IRS to give similar information to the vast, new health care bureaucracy.
That means the personal tax information of millions of Americans would enter the system whether they want it to or not. "There's a mandate to buy insurance," says one Republican House aide. "You have to buy it. You have millions of people who can't buy it without a subsidy, so they will have no choice but to accept the subsidy in order to buy insurance, and then the Health Choices Commissioner will have access to their tax records."
"How many hands would this information go through?" asks a GOP source in the Senate. "What are the quality controls? This increases the risk of misusing this information."
Some versions of the bill even permit the release of confidential taxpayer information for decidedly less pressing reasons. In H.R. 3200, the IRS would be required to provide taxpayer information to the Social Security Administration for the purpose of helping Social Security officials find qualifying seniors who can then be encouraged to enroll in the prescription drug program. "There is no precedent for using taxpayer information for the purpose of identifying people to go out and advertise to them," says the House expert.
So far, there has been little substantive public debate about the integral role of the IRS in nearly every aspect of the various national health care proposals. But people who are closely involved with the process are deeply concerned about what they view as a massive, and in some senses unprecedented, expansion of the Internal Revenue Service.
First, they wonder whether the IRS can handle the new demands. "There is a sense at the IRS that their purpose is to collect revenue and not to implement all sorts of other programs," says a second Senate GOP aide. "Also, the IRS isn't necessarily great at doing what it does already. How is it going to determine whether 300 million people have health insurance?"
Second, they are concerned about anticipated abuse of the system. "You're going to have lots of fraud," says the House source. "People claiming lots of affordability credits or refundable tax credits. The IRS is not going to have the resources and expertise to police this stuff."
Finally, there is a third concern, more fundamental than questions of whether the IRS can handle the job: Should the IRS be involved in health care enforcement in the first place? As seen in the town halls across the country in August, many Americans are concerned about the coercive nature of the proposed national health care system. Handing the IRS the power to monitor every American's place in the system worries them even more.
Backers of the Democratic bills are betting that the handouts involved — giving people money to buy health insurance — will outweigh concerns about privacy and coercive government. Perhaps. But before Congress makes any decision on national health care, voters should know just what it will involve.
The US Health Insurance Assault on Canadian Medicare
Canada’s Response
by Elizabeth Woodworth
Global Research, August 28, 2009
There’s nothing new about the US health insurance industry attacking Canadian Medicare. Back in the eighties, Burson Marsteller, PR front for the US industry, worked from its Toronto offices to publicly undermine the confidence of Canadians in their treasured Medicare program – a program which, according to the US industry, was “the largest unopened oyster in Canada”.
Now, two decades later, as President Obama seeks to bring a universal single-payer system to the United States, the inevitable response is in full swing. Back in the sixties, when first Saskatchewan, and then Canada, were precariously inching their way towards universal single-payer health care, there were two extremes of doctors: the ones who fled to the United States to maximize their income under a profit-based system, and the ones who arrived from Britain to break the Canadian doctors’ strike, and who worked for nothing to support the fledgling humanitarian principle: universal health care coverage affordable by all. (See Malcolm Taylor’s dramatic history of the struggle to bring Medicare to Canada.[1])
The resulting Medicare system is Canada’s most treasured social program, and has become a “defining national characteristic”.
Canada’s response to the current battle waging in the US can perhaps best be summed up in a recent eight-minute video[2] of a celebration of Canadian Medicare, featuring, among others, former Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow, and Commissioner of the Romanow Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada (2003).
It would greatly help to clarify US options if every American would watch this video.
If the US is ever to have a decent health care system (its infant mortality rate, a primary indicator of health status for countries worldwide, is higher than those of Cuba, Greece, Portugal, Macau, Slovenia, South Korea and Taiwan[3]), now is the time for its citizenry to sit up and take notice of successes elsewhere.
For example, 16 % of GDP the US pays on health care, with one-seventh of its people completely uninsured, is staggeringly high compared to 30 OECD countries, mostly in Europe, whose average health insurance cost is 8.9% of GDP[4]. No wonder the US health industry is employing attack ads against other systems: it stands to lose 7% of GDP.
If Americans believe the grossly misleading advertisements about Canada, they deserve no better than what they are presently getting: 16% of GDP spent on a system with hospitals half-full, and over 45 million people completely uninsured.
The unfortunate tragedy is, that instead of viewing other models and expecting its government to provide a universal social safety net against illness, the US people allows its corporations to run an unfettered, profit-driven “devil take the hindmost” catastrophe.
At least that’s how some other countries see it.
Time for the Elderly to Check Out?
By Betty Freauf
August 25, 2009
Many years ago I ran into this TV program I believed to be for children. I remember watching this young dinosaur pushing his elderly grandma in a wheel chair. It seems the old grandma’s time had come for her to check in at the tar pit and apparently it was his duty to dump her. I never watched it again and I only saw it for a short segment. I never forgot that scenario but it came to my mind when I read about the portion of Obama’s health plan including “end of life” voluntary death counseling and Obama himself recommending maybe grandma should take a pain pill rather than have expensive surgery. Or did Obama see the movie on Family T.V. that I saw in 2001 about how the Eskimo elderly when they get to old to be productive, the whole family escorts them to an iceberg where they float out to sea and have “death with dignity?” He is happy to set sail before he starts embarrassing himself. The old man says as he floats off, “If there is a change in policy in the next couple of weeks, be sure to track me down.”
British psychologist John Rawlings Rees, head of the Tavistock Institute in the 1930s and 40s once bragged he could create a psychological environment that forced people to let go of even firmly entrenched beliefs using “controlled stress” experiments. [1] The “doctors” Hitler used for Eugenics were brought to the U.S. by universities to perfect their methods and marketing schemes. In November 2002 Oregon’s then Governor John Kitzhaber declared a Human Rights day acknowledging and apologizing to the 2,600 Oregonians who were sterilized by the state between 1917 – 1981. The German people were like we are today – Constitutional illiterates unfamiliar with the laws and our God-given rights. Hitler could only dream of TV marketing, spy websites and national DNA databases kick started by the feds revealing facts that make some individuals less useful to society.
I recognize now the dinosaur TV flick was a type of desensitizing of our young people making it easier for them to pull the plug on the elderly – all part of the United Nations population reduction plan by whatever means necessary. Kitzhaber apologized for sterilization but is pro-abort on the infanticide movement and has been silent on the death education classes in some public schools since the early 80s and now being taught to children in kindergarten. After the April 20, 1999 Columbine High massacre in Littleton, Colorado it was discovered the school taught the classes. The Department of Defense considers young people who have been on anti-depressant mind-altering drugs such as Ritalin, Luvox, Prozac, and Zoloft are ”damaged goods” and cannot enlist in the military.
Erik Harris, 18, was on some of these drugs. He was told shortly before the massacre he could not join the military. Dyland Keibold, 17, was the other shooter. More copycat school shootings followed and no one seemed able to uncover a meaning or solution for the Columbine massacre so marking the first anniversary of the shooting President Bill Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems. Finally, in 2003 the Child Medication Safety Act was passed preventing school personnel from forcing children to take mind -altering medication that caused these suicidal tendencies.
In the Old Testament, Jeremiah 32:35 tells about their sons and their daughters passing through the fire into Molech. This culture of death seemed to begin in New Testament times in the U.S. with Roe vs Wade in the 1973 Supreme Court decision. Since that decision, advocates of traditional family values that were once mainstream are now the extremists. The world’s leading advocates of family planning are the Rockefellers. The Rockefeller Foundation gave $500,000 to the Population Council and $25,000 to the Population Crisis committee and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund donated $250,000 to the Population Council and $25,000 to the Population Institute in 1973 – the year of Roe vs. Wade. [2]
The human heart is capable of doing ugly things beyond all human comprehension. As an Illinois senator, Obama voted against the “Born Alive Protection Act” but now he is invoking religion and asking “What Would Jesus Do?” when it comes to his health care plan. Suddenly he believes we have a moral and ethical obligation to promote his health care plan claiming we are God’s partner in matters of life and death and that there are those (who actually read the 600+ Senate version and the 1000+ House plan) who are “bearing false witness” about his health care plan.
Infanticide advocate Peter Singer made the case for rationing health care recently in the New York Times, writing, “The task of health care bureaucracies is to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated.” Singer believes a baby in the first year of life has no self -awareness; therefore, if a child is born with “special needs”, the mother can choose to kill it. [3] Obama supporters have voted down every anti-rationing amendment proposed and he plans to expand coverage for the young and illegal immigrants (future Democrat voters) by denying treatments to the elderly and “special needs” people.
Thank God my husband and I are in good health but when he received advertisements in the mail for adult diapers and I received an invitation to join the socialist AARP, we decided it was time to think about burial plots. The future seems uncertain. We hear the President’s garrulous comments about health care saying one thing one day and something else another day. James 1:8 in the Bible says a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways which makes Obama very unreliable as a leader. We agree reform is needed but should we be throwing the baby out with the bath water? Many states have already addressed health care. Does Obamacare address tort reform and corruption? We must remain vigilant. If the Obama administration doesn’t get a health care bill passed by hook or by crook, expect legislation to be passed that will implement it piece meal.
Oregon’s former Senate president and later governor, John Kitzhaber, an emergency room physician, helped create the Oregon Health Plan in 1994. He said the “incremental health care will ultimately allow everyone access to health care.” (Don’t overlook that word “incremental”). By 1999 the Human Resources funding had increased primarily due to the phase-in costs of the Oregon Health Plan. By January 2000 fewer smokers who were being taxed for each pack of cigarettes meant $8 million less for the Oregon Health Plan and Oregon’s health care plan struggled financially but then miraculously the Democrat-controlled 2009 Oregon legislature expanded the health care plan.
Oregon has one of the highest unemployment rates but Democrat Governor Ted Kulonski defied both the recession and national trends and signed it adding the first of 80,000 children and 35,000 adults onto coverage starting October 1. New taxes on hospitals and health insurance premiums, matched with federal money, they claim will bring in an estimated $1.1 billion in the current two-year budget to pay for the expansion. Of 13 states that have proceeded this year to expand coverage, Oregon will be adding the most people so why the rush to Universal Health care? In addition, the 8/16/2009 Statesman Journal reported that federal matches through Medicaid and the state Children’s Health Insurance Program, which Congress recently expanded, will put up $2 or more for every dollar raised by the state. But beware of that federal money. What the federal government “giveth”, it can also “taketh” leaving the state taxpayers holding the bag.
Kathy Brown in a guest opinion in the 8/21/2009 Statesman Journal wrote she is the wife of a retired military man with “government insurance.” She needed repair to her bladder. After two years of trying to find a doctor who would honor her “government insurance” (many won’t take military health care patients because government insurance pays less than Medicare), in July she finally had the five-hour laparoscopic procedure using a robot which required use of a surgery room, anesthesiologist and the expertise of her doctor and staff and she was sent home with a catheter just 24 hours following the surgery. The total for her hospital stay was $42,347.10. Her insurance paid $8,495.71. More and more doctors are turning down Medicare patients and with Universal Health care we’ll have a doctor shortage. So the only way the Obamacare can expand coverage to more people is by rationing health care for the elderly and others who are no longer “producers” but “consumers.”
Many people opposing this Obamacare are Great Depression babies and have parents who told them of the shortages and the misery they endured under this social engineering plan by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Their parents had no credit cards. They saved their money and didn’t squander it on materialistic things and I believe most of their children followed in their footsteps. Some parents may still be alive but it is their children who turn out by the droves to vote. They remember Democrat president FDR’s Social Security was initially “voluntary” until it became compulsory which brings us to the dilemma we now find with a bankrupt system.
The elderly did not ask for Social Security. It was forced upon them. It was Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Democratically controlled House and Senate who later took the “trust fund” and transferred those funds to the general fund and Congress spent it leaving the elderly with worthless IOUs. In addition, when a young parent dies, the children are each given a monthly Social Security check until they are 18 based on the earnings of the deceased parent. Initially it was 21. One widow mother told me in 2003 she got $900 a month for each of her four daughters. She can remarry but so long as the new husband doesn’t adopt the children, they still get their checks. People who become disabled without disability insurance, often due to their own dangerous choice of lifestyles, receive disability checks from S.S. The “Octomon” Nadya Suleman is receiving S.S disability payments to help pay for her children’s care.
And then LBJ created Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 with his “Great Society.” Seniors were forced into Medicare and deductions were taken from paychecks before the worker was even eligible for it. And then Republican President George W. Bush not wanting to be outdone by the Democrats who proposed all these unconstitutional entitlements, gave us the prescription drug program and now the Beltway Democrat elected officials who have their own premium health insurance plans want to reform the health care crisis on the backs of the seniors.
Liberal Oregon has often been chosen for experimental cases and the culture of death continued when in 1994 Oregon became the first state to approve “death with dignity” (aka Euthanasia). Oregon Democrat Congressman Earl Blumenauer is one of the authors of Section 1233 (death panels) in the House health care bill and a major proponent of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The state of Washington approved it in November 2008. I believe most voters thought this legislation would mean they wouldn’t have to be hooked up to humiliating tubes comatose at the end of their lives.
It was the 1973 Roe –vs- Wade case approving abortions that began a slippery slope about which pro-lifers tried to warn. What started with first trimester abortions was soon extended for any excuse including partial birth abortions. Subsequently Oregon was in the spotlight. A series of newspaper interviews with Dr. Jack Kevorkian about his homemade suicide device caught the attention of Janet Adkins from Portland who, according to a 6/6/1990 New York Times article, contacted him. They met at a restaurant near his home in Holly, Mich. He explained the procedure to her at dinner and later, the victim of Alzheimer’s pressed the button and died.
Kevorkian, a longtime advocate of euthanasia and other unconventional views figured he might eventually be arrested and he was. He went to jail for going further and actively performing the killing himself on others. During the press conference Kevorkian advocated legalizing such active killing in order to assure patients “freedom of choice” and some people wondered how long it would be before it would be a duty to die? Oregon now has a “Hospice shoot” similar to the tar pit noted in the story above and a precursor to the Clinton and now Obamacare. Is it possible many of those same voters who voted for “death with dignity” and may also believe a woman has “freedom of choice” to abort her unborn baby are now protesting Obamacare’s “duty to die” because it is their mortality they are facing? What goes around comes around!