WHY I’M AGAINST THE OBAMA CARE BILL (H.R. 3200) AKA News From the Dis-disinformation CZAR

I have gladly accepted the position of dis-disinformation Czar. Actually, we Americans must all accept this responsibility or the Obama Administration will continue to tell the lies about healthcare that might just lead to these morons passing the plan. So, I am just doing my part to keep our President honest. I have never before seen the dishonesty and misinformation come from those in government. Now, I am not naive or blind. I know that politicians lie. They all bend the truth to suit their purposes. This is a Washington tradition that dates back to the Louisiana Purchase and before. But this is over the top; out of control; in your face crazy. How stupid do they think we are? Well, let’s see:

The president has stated over and over that he does NOT support, nor has he ever supported single payer national health care. The following link will suggest otherwise: ?: http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/ . At an AFL-CIO event in 2003 he clearly said he is a proponent of “single payer”. Again in 2007 while speaking to the SEIU, he said it again. He went further this time and outlined his strategy to get to single payer via a less obtrusive government option. Now, he may not be lying. I mean, he could have been lying back then. Of course, it all depends on what your definition of “proponent” is. You might also say that he was for it, but that was before he was against it.*.-*#

Mr. Obama has also stated as ridiculous that there might be “death panels” that will deny lifesaving medical care because they are at the extremes of life either old or young. Well, that’s exactly what the death panels in a similar system currently in place in Oregon. Just ask Barbara Wagner. Oh wait, she’s dead. Yes, Barbara’s doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved. Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including “physician aid in dying,” better known as assisted suicide. http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/5755842/ .

Although most of the details of the health care plan won’t be known until after it passes, some very clear ideas are put forth in the text of HR3200. I have placed just a few of the sections from the bill below for your review. Clearly, this is pretty scary stuff. As you read the text below, keep in mind that the blanks will be filled in by the likes of Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel. Dr. Emanuel is a health policy advisor to President Obama and brother of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, so what he thinks may impact all of us. Dr. Emanuel has some very radical views regarding the rationing of health care. Take for example Emanuel’s comments in a 2008 article in which he says cutting costs won’t be easy:

“Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.”

In other words, these procedural changes aren’t really change at all. Instead, he thinks we need change in how we apply health care coverage. Dr. Emanuel believes doctors try too hard to apply the Hippocratic Oath to everyone as equally as possible, which is what drives up costs. Instead Emanuel thinks we need to ration basic, guaranteed care to only those who can fully participate in society.

According to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health care adviser to President Obama, the elderly with dementia and the young who have neurological disorders should be sacrificed for the common good. I can tell you that as a parent of a special needs child with severe, multiple disabilities, this scares the living hell out of me. If you have a child with autism, cerebral palsy, Downs syndrome, or any other neurological disorder or chromosomal defect that prevents him or her from participating in society in the manner Dr. Emanuel or the government thinks they should, that neurological care would not be guaranteed as basic and would, therefore, not be covered in a government takeover of health care.

Now, let me state that I do believe we need to make sure that every LEGAL American citizen has access to the best healthcare system in the world and that it is affordable for everyone. Let me also state that, after reading the bills that are being considered, if the healthcare plan was a good plan, I would let you know that. That being said, the proposals set forth in the house (H.R. 3200) and in the senate are very bad for America for the following reasons:

1. We simply cannot afford it. The Congressional Budget Office states that even with higher taxes on high income earners and penalties on employers who don’t provide coverage, the plan will fall $239 billion short of covering its cost of over $1 trillion. That is their best case scenario without the bill being completely scored.

2. It will not cover everyone. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over 17 million people would remain uninsured AFTER this plan is implemented.

3. You will not be able to shop for or obtain private insurance if you do not have private insurance prior to the bill being passed. This is somewhat clearly stated on pgs. 16 and 17 in section 102(a)(1)(A).

4. After a 5 year grace period, all private insurers that are still in business will be required to offer a “qualified health benefits” plan based on government standards. The problem is whether or not the “government standards” will exclude private insurers. This on page 17, section 102(b)(1)(A).
5. No new policies will be allowed to be written by a private insurer after the public option becomes law. Also page 17.

6. Every five years, the elderly will have to attend a mandatory “advanced care planning consultation” for an “explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end of life services.” The consultation will be conducted more frequently if a significant change in health condition; including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life limiting disease, terminal diagnosis, life threatening injury or upon admission to a skilled nursing or long term care facility. In other words, if you are old, you will be consulted about what your options will be if you get sick, if healthcare would not be an option (see #7). This starts on page 425.

7. Page 501 of the bill starts a section that indicates that $1 billion will be spent on “comparative effectiveness research” which is how the government evaluates relative merits of various treatments. In other words, rationing. This is tantamount to the government determining whether or not you are worth getting a particular treatment depending on your prognosis or age. Sec. 1401 Part D

8. This plan would allow for government funded abortions. Since this bill would cover all procedures, abortion is included. There is no exception for abortion.

9. Members of congress and unions would be exempt from this plan and not have to be a part of the healthcare plan. Recently, John Fleming, introduced H.R. 615 that stated that members that vote in favor of a government run healthcare must enroll under the public option. It was quickly voted down.

Gary D. Helmbrecht, M.D.

Advertisements

Tags:

46 Responses to “WHY I’M AGAINST THE OBAMA CARE BILL (H.R. 3200) AKA News From the Dis-disinformation CZAR”

  1. Sandy Says:

    Dr. Helmbrecht- Thank you for your wonderful analysis of H.R. 3200. Thank you for making specific points about items that some commentors here just seem to refuse to believe. Of course there are other valid concerns in the language of the bill, such as taking over your parental rights with your own children. That has already been happening in our public school system since the 1960’s at least. The Teachers Union has worked hard and diligently to insure that the children are indoctrinated into believing that Socialism is the only form of government that is “fair” and “equal.” Children don’t understand that “fair” and “equal” are two conflicting words. You cannot have them both at the same time. Conservatives understand that everyone should have a “fair” shot in life. Provide the best educational platform, and, each will develope his/her own skills. Not everyone has the IQ or determination to become Doctors, Lawyers, or Scientists. Some are perfectly happy to become Plumbers, Electricians, Beauticians and etc. The Liberals believe that everyone should be equal. In other words they take all of the challenge out of our children to be the best they can be. Why would anyone go through expensive years of schooling and training only to know that they will only have the ability to earn what a Plumber earns. To be fair is to not be equal, to be equal is not to be fair.

    It is becoming apparent to me that in all of the healthcare debate, the ones in support of what truly equates to Socialized medicine, with all it’s inherent government bureacracy ills, are in support of something they believe will be if not free, much cheaper. I see it as being the complete disaster that is our current Medicare federal system. If the Federal Government cannot run a healthcare system for only those over 65, how ever could they run a healcare system for the entire US population? The Government has already meet it’s Peter Principle, yet they still want more control.

  2. Gary Helmbrecht Says:

    Sandy,
    Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree that most of those people in favor of ObamaCare are basically freeloaders looking for yet another government handout. From the government perspective however, I am concerned this debate is about something much more nefarious. It is about control of the masses. It is about the government telling us what is good for us and ultimately redistribution of health and wealth. All we can do is continue to fight this debacle. If you think there is a physician shortage now, wait until this bill is passed and 50% of the docs in this country walk away from the profession.

  3. Alex Janssen Says:

    Doc, you’re right on the mark, but I would like to add that this bill is only part of creeping socialism. This is being presented as humanitarian and that is a lie. It is just another step for the socialists in a complete take-over of the United States and we must all be vigilant and watchful of all socialist activity to stop it. Listen to their language and you can pick them out. They always speak of things the government can do to benefit all of society. They will not go away, therefore all freedom lovers must always be on the look out and call attention to it when they see it.
    Thanks for your analysis of the reality of this bill.
    Alex P. Janssen Jr., Citizen

  4. ReturntoSanity Says:

    Get the Facts, not Distortions:

    http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8306761

    • Sandy Says:

      It all depends on who you “want” to listen to. If you are a big government supporter, you will obviously support the Obama plan, and, you will always find some Liberal talking points somewhere that will support your bought into view. Rather than using a MSM link, tell us here, in your own words, not D talking points, why you favor the plan. You will gain much more respect if you tell us in your own words why you think this is a good plan. The biggest problem most opposers have is that Perriello can’t seem to answer any direct and hard questions. If you have no words of support of your own, then you are nothing more than a Liberal troll, with no better ideas than repeating the Liberal talking points. Gee, I’ve seen alot of that here. No backup to their own comments/arguments.

  5. Gary Helmbrecht Says:

    Return to sanity,

    Oh the naive and the trusting. Read the bill and you will find that ABC is nothing more than a PR firm for Obama. The insurance companies will have 5 years to come into compliance with “federal standards”. These standards will include coverage for all screening tests, all preventive care and other costs that will make any policy so expansive it will be unaffordable. The only player on the field that will have an affordable premium will be the government plan because a)the government reimbursements to doctors and hospitals are less than half the private insurance payments and b)the government doesn’t have to be budget neutral. The taxpayers will be subsidizing the government plan to the tune of $1 Trillion. Until the consumers of health care have some investment into the cost of health care, the system will continue to fail. Socialism is the wrong course. It has failed every time it has been tried. The definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior expecting different results. This is insanity.

    • Sandy Says:

      Dr. Helmbrecht- It is my understanding that the CBO estimated the costs , which did not include wellness exams and checkups. Am I wrong in thinking that when you start covering wellness benefits it will increase the plan cost greatly?

  6. Gary Helmbrecht Says:

    Sandy,
    Yes, absolutely. By requiring “insurance reform” by in effect requiring all insurance companies cover all services the same as the government plan will at a loss. That means that when you buy a policy it will be a “one size fits all” plan. You will get coverage for maternity care even if you are a single male. You will have all “pre-existing conditions” covered even if you are healthy. The premiums will by its very nature have to go up to unaffordable levels. This will result in a natural shift to the government plan. Philosophically, this is consistent with the “social justice” concept that Obama believes so strongly in. Redistribution of health and wealth.

  7. Steve Says:

    Where to start…
    “I have never before seen the dishonesty and misinformation come from those in government.” I assume what you mean to say is that until now you have never before seen such dishonesty and misinformation from government?” Were you not following the the government at all closely between 2000 and 2008?
    “The president has stated over and over that he does NOT support, nor has he ever supported single payer national health care.” How about providing the links to back up this statement. The fact that single payer is off the table now is due to compromise (misguided in my mind), not some change in Obama’s belief.
    “Yes, Barbara’s doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.” My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer in September 2008 (as an aside, she had lost her job in April 2008 but fortunately was still eligible for COBRA coverage through her old insurer). She was offered the opportunity of participating in a clinical trial, but her private insurer refused to pay for the medicines and procedures, which in their minds, were unproven. A friend who is struggling with lung cancer is spending more than $2,000 a month on unapproved medicines which clearly her cancer is responding to but which her private insurance company will not pay. Let’s not kind ourselves that the very same problems you identify with the Oregon plan aren’t happening everyday among those insured by private companies. Offering to compensate medical professionals for their time and expertise in counseling patients who freely want (and choose) such counseling is the equivalent of a “death panel” nor physician-assisted suicide. To even suggest this is evidence either of profound ignorance or a willful desire to mislead.
    “According to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health care adviser to President Obama, the elderly with dementia and the young who have neurological disorders should be sacrificed for the common good.” Two words – prove it.
    In any and all of your arguments regarding health care and the government’s potential role and that contain a statement to the effect of “…the goverment will have the power…” try substituting “…the private for-profit insurance company will have the power…”

    Let’s face it people, there are already countless bureaucrats standing between us and our doctors, and they work for the government. In my town, there is no true choice – it’s Anthem or its nothing – and I don’t believe for a minute that anything other than the bottom line is driving their healthcare decisions. I’ve experienced the current batch of bureaucrats for long enough and quite frankly will gladly try the government-run option.

  8. Gary Says:

    Steve,
    First of all, thank you for posting an opposing view. It takes courage to cross the line and engage the other side. I respect you for doing it in a civil way. Now, lets have a discussion.

    I said that all politicians lie. We know this however, the president is trying to deceive the American people into believing that a government option will not lead to single payer. We all know this is not true. There is no way private insurance can successfully compete with the government. The latter has no credit costs, no tax liability, no need to balance the books. They can undercut the private payer all day long. Even you must admit this.

    I did provide the link to prove Obama’s strategy. Here it is again:

    http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/

    Copy and paste it in your browsers window and you can see for yourself. Oh, by the way, single payer is NOT off the table. The administration floated the idea on the Sunday talk shows but the far left went nuts and yesterday evening the White House denies any such thing. This poses a real problem for Obama because a government option won’t fly. 70% of Americans oppose it so to vote for it would be political suicide for any Senator or Congressman unless you represent San Francisco or some other left leaning district. As far a Dr. Emmanuel’s comments, below is an exerpt from a policy paper he wrote a few years ago:

    “This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensurehealthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. 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.”

    What do you think. He has written much more about the issue that says essentially the same thing. I find this particularly offensive since I have a seven year old with a rare genetic syndrome and multiple, severe disabilities. In my opinion he does contribute to society but not in the way Dr. Emmanuel feels is important. Do you agree he should be denies health care services? Do you want to put him in the position where the government could deny them? I don’t.

    Your last point is well taken. The insurance companies do have too much power. See my op ed at the following link:

    http://blog.schillingshow.com/category/guest-editorial/

    I talk about the excessive executive salaries, the non productive preauthorization process and much more. It was a mistake to allow the insurance companies to become publicly traded entities to begin with. I personally believe that introducing a true coop without government involvement will change the landscape forever. With a non profit coop, the insured become members and have an interest in the company’s success. the premium payers would be rewarded with rebates if health care costs were kept down. I also believe that health care professionals need to be much more transparent regarding cost. That way, the patient can decide on a treatment plan that factors in efficacy of the treatment with cost of the treatment. The same way you can figure out the a first class ticket to Honolulu gets you to the same place just as fast as a coach ticket will but for a lot more money. Maybe patients won’t choose the first class ticket if a) they know how much it cost and b) they would have consequences (eg lower end of year rebate) if they chose the more expensive therapy. Either way, the money saved would be more than enough to cover the cost of insuring those without insurance. More importantly, it would force the private insurers to change the way they do business.

    The bottom line Steve, is that too few people trust the government to competently manage anything. Further, the “progressives” currently in power do not reflect the values of mainstream America. While Obama ran as a moderate, he is governing from the far left. Most folks that voted for him are now suffering from buyers remorse. The polls indicate that independents are running from him faster than they ran from Jimmy Carter. Only 36% of Americans even consider themselves Democrats. This is the lowest since Reagan was president. I will agree that the Bush years were not good years for many reasons. He was not transparent, he spent too much money that added to the deficit. Obama got elected on a platform of transparency and fiscal responsibility. He has not been open with the Americans. He has broken all spending records. He has done exactly what the American people disapproved of Bush.

    • Sandy Says:

      Gary- I read this article at American Thinker today, and could not help but think it surely explains why some would support Obamacare.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/wanted_american_intellectuals.html

      “One of the tragedies, and paradoxes, of our post modernist age is the dominance of the sympathetic “intellectual” as opposed to the hardheaded “thinker” in Western culture. Everyone is a kindly intellectual and almost no one is an objective thinker.”

      I’ve read your above linked article at the schilling website, and found it to be deeply informative, as well as your well thought out article above. Thank you for taking the role of a rational, objective harheaded thinker. I appreciate your experienced and informed views.

      I would agree with you that coop’s can be a good thing, and a very workable solution to the healthcare problems. My only fear is that they will most assuredly be government controlled. I think the Liberals should take the advice of Howard Dean and James Carville, two very vocal Liberals- Shelve the Obamacare plan, and bring it back another day, such as after November 2010. We do need medical insurance reform, but, the government should be the last ones in control of it.

  9. Steve Says:

    Thanks for your response. Many good points made and I stand corrected/clarified on a number of them – particularly Emmanuel Rahm, though I don’t know that he has the power you give him to influence public policy. Also, there is a difference that seems to get lost in all the shouting between a single payer plan or even government option among private plans that denies care (for what ever reason) and the case of an individual who simply is denied coverage from all sources. Private health insurance exists in the UK, though you wouldn’t know it to listen to the debate on this side of the ocean, and plenty of people supplement their government run plan with private coverage. Let’s be clear, so-called ObamaCare isn’t outlawing private industry, and I’m sure with the extreme levels of wealth in this country there will always be a market for designer healthcare packages. I just find it so disturbing and distasteful that those with a far broader political and ideo-sociological agenda should be allowed to pick at the fringes of the various plans currently under debate, as if problems with what truly are exceptional cases should damn the entire package. We are a compassionate people and the idea (championed increasingly by gun-toting anti-reformists) that we will somehow come to let “non-contributors” and seniors die through denial of health care are simply deluded or are knowingly inciting fear. And while we’re on the topic (and please don’t take this as an anti-gun critique), what does the public display of deadly force have to do with the public healthcare debate and why haven’t the “hard thinkers” stepped in to soundly and roundly denounce this? I’m not trying to step on anyone’s rights here, but I do firmly believe that with rights come responsibilities and if you can’t shoulder the later you shouldn’t be able to shoulderholster the former.
    Again, my own position regarding health care is that our country desperately needs a single payer system. The fact is that it works in all the places it’s so strongly maligned here, producing and promoting quantitatively healthier populations at lower cost than our own outlandish system. I’ve worked in both government and private industry, and from my experience it is the private side that is by far the more extravagent and wasteful. The notion of coops is appealing and perhaps this is the compromise we will have, but not if the radical right continues its path of obfuscation and negation soley as a political tactic as it trys to claw its way back to some semblance of political relevance. Can’t we at least agree that the system is sorely broken rather than countering every proposal for reform with the argument that it’s not perfect? Like it or not, the human species is a social species. The notion of the go-it-alone individual is a myth, a profound and profoundly influential myth, but a myth nonetheless. The fact is that as social beings, we have responsibilities to one another. Health care for all is not a right, at least from my perspective. It is a responsibility that we all need to accept. And if we don’t, we fail.

  10. Gary Helmbrecht Says:

    Steve, See where we can get with a civil discussion devoid of personal attacks and name calling. I have to tell you that, I had never before had an interest in anything political. I thought that if I just “took good care of the folks” that came in my office, I could slide through life happy and content. Forgive my selfishness but I disagree with the premise that the fruits of my labor are anybodies right to have for free. Like you, I have a family to feed. Like my colleagues, I struggled and starved through 16 years of undergrad, grad and post grad education. There has to be a reward at the end or it’s not worth the sacrifice. Now, I do over $100k in free care every year (none of which is tax deductible) and I accept medicaid because I feel the social responsibility to do so. I resent the premise however that the government has the right to order me to do it just as you would if you were in my shoes. Lastly, I really do feel the right answer will ultimately be the coops but only if the government stays out of the business and allows the coop to self govern. Time will tell.

  11. Steve Says:

    Gary,
    I hope you’re not suggesting that I’m to blame for the disturbing incivility that’s been sweeping our nation. And please don’t blame our President or the other like-minded politicians who share and support his desire to reform our nation’s health care system. Incivility has been deliberately introduced, cultivated, and used against them by a largely unseen force apparently incapable of expressing their position in any other way than through intimidation, insinuation, and inuendo.
    Who’s asking you to give anything away for free? While you may feel underpaid by Medicare, and “ordered” by the government to accept it, certainly you were aware of this program before you began your quest? And if not, who’s to blame?
    How will you know when you’ve been rewarded enough?
    Coops be allowed to self-govern? Odd, I thought our national democracy was also a form of self-governance. Would you be okay being “ordered” by a self-governing coop to provide this service or that. See, this is the thing, try as we might, as social beings we’ll never be able to do away with government. Nor should we. And rather than explicitly equating our current President with Adolph Hitler and his wholly fascist form of governance, the healthcare dissenters should wake the hell up and be glad they aren’t living in that world. Ask someone who lived through Hitler’s reign. I think they will pretty quickly clear up any misconceptions about the equivalency of what they endured then and there and what we have here, at least for now.

    • blueridgeguy Says:

      I have been watching and enjoying the lively discourse between Gary and Steve and appreciate both points of view. But I have to respond to one of Steve’s remarks.

      Steve said: “And please don’t blame our President or the other like-minded politicians who share and support his desire to reform our nation’s health care system. Incivility has been deliberately introduced, cultivated, and used against them by a largely unseen force apparently incapable of expressing their position in any other way than through intimidation, insinuation, and inuendo.”

      It appears that much of the incivility has come from the President’s supporters. The people at the town halls opposing government run health care have been called, Nazis, Brown Shirts, Timothy McVeigh wannabes, evil, racists, and un-American. Granted at some of the town halls there have been incidents of individuals being over zealous in their opposition to government run health care. But these people do not have the national spotlight like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid and Arlen Spector have. So Steve when you refer to incivility you better include all sides in your comments because from what I have seen the worst is coming from the left.

      Just a couple of final points before I let you to gentlemen (and I mean that with the utmost respect) get back to the pertinent discussion at hand. In the several town halls that I have attended, I have been verbally attacked and insulted because of my opposition to government run health care. Fortunately for me I have yet to be physically assaulted unlike that gentleman in St. Louis who was attacked for his opposition to this bill.

      P.S. Steve we are not a “national” democracy we are a Republic.

  12. Gary Says:

    Steve, My father lived through Hitler’s reign. He hated Hitler and all he stood for and trust me, there are parallels. But it is not productive to get into that. I never suggested you were to blame for the incivility. I commended you for your diplomacy. However, and I am sure you are unaware of the phone calls I get from left wing nut cases threatening me with harm if I don’t shut up. This only motivates me to speak louder.

    The government is asking me, no, telling me to do this for free. You see, if successful and we get to a single payer system, all reimbursements will be at medicaid and medicare rates. I was well aware of the payment rates before I got into the business and, unlike many physicians, I chose to accept those rates out of a feeling of civic responsibility. If government takes it all over, physicians in private practice will face bankruptcy as the payments are well below overhead. The math doesn’t add up. See, those mean insurance companies subsidize the government payments and allow us to stay in business. Meanwhile, the Democrats climb in bed with the trial attorneys and protect them from tort reform. My malpractice premium is the single largest overhead expense I have. It’s a crazy world isn’t it?

    Coops MUST be self governing and they must negotiate rates with physicians. If they are government controlled and rates are dictated as medicaid and medicare are, we fail. Also, if the government continues to subsidize the coops to keep premiums low, they undercut the insurance industry and we get to single payer via that route. If you think there is a physician shortage now, just wait until the private practice physicians are all gone and you have to go to an institution and “take a number”.

    I don’t know when I will be rewarded enough. The free market should determine that, not a government bureaucrat. I do know that we physicians will not continue to work the 70 to 80 hour weeks we do and accept the ridiculous liability we do if we can make a better living as a plumber.

    Just yesterday, the president of the Canadian Medical Society declared the socialized medicine system in Canada a “complete dismal failure”. Why are people in this country are trying to emulate a system that has failed every time it has been tried, I do not know. It has failed in Canada, in every US state (eg Mass, Maine, Hawaii), and in Europe. This is America. We can do better than this.

  13. Steve Says:

    Gary and BRG,
    Interesting. I too have a parent who lived through Nazi-run Germany and WWII. Whatever “parallels” you may see are dwarfed by the contrasts. No one will convince me otherwise.
    As for town hall incivility, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the entire tactic of attending in mass and agressively speaking out a deliberate strategy adopted before the August recess and the town hall season by those opposed to the plan. I’m sure we get our news from different places so what we “see” will vary, and I’m sure there was an all-to-predicable response to the opposition’s strategy that you are now characterizing as aggressive and uncivil. But let’s please remember who started this mess and acknowledge that the opposition clearly wanted to provoke this type of response.
    I for one am sorry that you’ve been attacked, verbally or otherwise. But I have to say that the whole tea party thing, as I have observed it from the outside, is inviting this type of response. In saying this, I’m not questioning only its methods. The movement draws explicit parallels between our government and its supporters with that of late 18th-century England, by implication casts non-tea partiers as unpatriotic/unAmerican, and implicitly endorses violent overthrow (the original tea party not a non-violent protest) of our government. All this on top of the fact that during the 8-year reign of our own “King George,” who did more than anyone to regally usurp power to the President’s office, violate basic human rights, lie to his country’s citizenry, and run-up our country’s debt their was not a peep from the tea partiers. And the whole mantra of ‘taxed enough already’ introduced on tax day 2009 as if Obama had any thing to do with tax rates we were being asked to pay. I’m as American as any tea partier and if you don’t understand why being accused of being otherwise might invoke a strong response you need to study the issue.
    As for healthcare, why people in this country are insisting on the perpetuation of a system that already is a clear failure eludes me. For all the energy expended by the Right over the past 60 days, there has been precious little in the way of alternatives proposed. The goal has been ‘to take down Obama’ plain and simple and the means chosen have been deliberate distortion, obfuscation, and sidetracking. It’s a goal rooted in political survival and in which the ends justify the means, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with helping our country “do better than this.”
    And Stephen Hawkins attributes the British system with having saved his life…
    Who are we going to believe?

    • Sandy Says:

      Steve-

      The 7 Marxist Communist Policies Being Implemented by Obama Today
      By- Hal Licino

      Throughout history Communist leaders have seized power by promoting themselves as populists, and often completely hiding their own ideology. Indeed in a poll taken after Communist Hugo Chavez’ first election victory in Venezuela, only 3% of the electors believed Chavez to be a Socialist, let alone a Communist. Currently 32% of Americans believe Obama to be a Socialist.

      The initial stages of Communization of a country invariably begin with seven basic steps:

      Seizing Control Over The Free Flow Of The Nation’s Money

      Obama has stated that he wants to convert the stock the US government now owns in the nation’s banks from preferred stock, which is the case currently, to common stock. This modification in type of stock may seem irrelevant at first glance, but under further analysis it is the single greatest communist policy the US government has ever adopted: It means that the federal government will control all of the currently publicly traded major banks and financial institutions in the nation which are currently in the hands of individual shareholders. Not only will the current shareholders’ rights be trampled, but the control of the nation’s flow of money is the first keystone of communism.

      Stripping Capitalists Of Their Assets

      According to US bankruptcy code, secured creditors such as the ones who have outstanding debt against Chrysler and GM, have to be paid before unsecured creditors. That is the law. Obama has ignored this law, and seized the vast majority (89% in GM’s case) of all “asset value” of the automakers and taken direct control or given it away for free to the unions. Karl Marx’s theses were all based on the workers owning the means of production, and thus communism takes hold in America.

      Changing The Structures Of Government To Suit

      Obama has given the GOP until October to approve his health care plan which many experts have shown, would be as socialized as Cuba’s. If the Republican Party does not meet his demands, the Democratic Party will simply change the very rules of the United States Senate to pass their legislation through simple majority, instead of the 60% which has been required by the Senate through history. Changing legislation to suit the leader is another common tactic of communist leaders from Chavez to Castro.

      Taking Advantage Of A Crisis To Impose Communism

      Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel published a book entitled The Plan which would require (yes, require) young Americans regardless of their political stripe to serve in a direct copy of Hugo Chavez’ red-beret local militias. The Plan also promotes massive taxpayer funded programs as universally free university tuition and health care as well as a tax reform to ensure that the middle and upper classes are crushed by the enormous new government expenditures. Obama has already admitted such a “soak anyone making over $250,000/year” punitive tax policy. Emanuel is famous for his quote “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste…(it’s) an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before,” which is the prototypical process whereby communists seize power, witness Lenin, Mao, Castro, Tito, et al.

      Controlling Higher Education

      Obama has already launched legislation to remove private lenders from student loans which would now all be provided by the federal government directly, so that it could choose in a totalitarian manner who receives the loans and who doesn’t. Many educational institutions are up in arms over this legislation as it essentially shifts admissions policy from the colleges and universities to the federal government. Control of higher education as in Obama’s Pell Grant entitlement is an universal characteristic of communism to ensure that the young are properly ideologically indoctrinated.

      Punishing Residential Property Owners

      Obama’s enormous mortgage bailout legislation is little more than a full blown entitlement program. The plan forces the 92 percent of responsible home owners to heavily subsidize the irresponsible “ARM-ATM” mortgage holders who didn’t read their ARM mortgages and used their home equity like ATMs. These taxes would be so overwhelming that many of the “responsible” majority of mortgage holders could lose their homes. The punishment leading to the elimination of property owners in favor of the state is a fundamental tenet of Marxism, as Karl wrote “the middle-class owner of property: This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”

      Demolishing The Economy To Replace It With State Control

      Obama has:

      Handicapped American multinationals by denying them tax deferral, placing them at an enormous competitive disadvantage against corporations based anywhere else.
      Launched entitlement programs which punish innovation and dry up funds for entrepreneurial start ups.
      Stopped the Treasury from implementing any real recovery plans, discouraging private capital flow into the financial sector.
      Stated “we have to spread the wealth around, we have to redistribute the wealth of this country through taxation,” which is a paraphrasing of Marx’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
      Declared a “War On Business” as shown by his legislation that pharmaceutical corporations pay high rebate fees to Medicaid and promoting the importation of foreign drugs which could include low potency or outright counterfeit drugs into the nation. The financial outlook for US pharmaceutical companies has been decimated.
      Placed nearly two thirds of a trillion dollars into a health reform reserve fund, which is the tip of the iceberg in the expectations of the cost of fully socialized medicine in America. USA Today has stated that every household in the United States would be on the hook for over half a million dollars.
      All of these policies represent time-honored Communist policies specifically designed to devastate the free market economy as well as impoverish and punish the upper and middle classes leading to their elimination so that the Communist “Dictatorship Of The Proletariat” can be introduced. It is important to note that in each and every historical instance Communism has been introduced into democratic countries and they were all swiftly changed to totalitarian dictatorships of a single leader benefiting from a “Cult Of Personality.”

      Policies virtually identical to these were implemented by:

      Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in 1917 Russia
      Josip Broz Tito in 1945 Yugoslavia
      Mao Zedong (Tse-tung) in 1949 China
      Fidel Castro in 1959 Cuba
      Hugo Chavez in 1999 Venezuela

      and now they are being implemented by

      Barack Hussein Obama in 2009
      ___________________________________________________

      I agree Steve that this country is not yet as bad as Hitler’s Germany, but, with the power grabs by Obama and the Liberals, we are incrementally getting there. If we don’t stop Obama now with his government takeover of Healthcare, there won’t be anything left that he doesn’t have complete control over.

      The Tea Party movement is the grassroots effort to stop the march into Socialism, which is the precursor to Marxism and worse. You make it sound as though the attendees are being coersed into attending, making and carrying signs, and asking tough questions of our representatives in government. I am not aware that anyone at any time ever said that those that do not attend Tea Parties are unamerican or unpatriotic. That is a line right off the MSM. It is very telling when you refer to the former president as “King George” and list his atrocities. Are you aware that your party called Bush every name in the book, and Nazi was mild compared to what he was called? Were you aware that Bush’s picture was also defiled and circulated as the Devil and Hitler? Hey remember Bush lied, people died, even though we have a current Obama War going on in Afghanistan, where we have lost over 700 American soldiers lives, and, no plan or strategy to win out of the Obama administration. By your above statements, you prove that you still have not been cured of your Bush Derangement Syndrom.

      Obama promised us that if the Stimulus was passed unemployment wouldn’t go above 8%, yet we are now nearing 10%. There have been no jobs created other than a few 40 hour total jobs. Most of the funds are not spent, and will not be spent for years. How does that stimulate the economy? Look at the “Cash for Clunkers” program that has been a government disaster. Most dealers won’t even participate in the program any longer because the government can’t figure out how to pay them, and they are out the much needed cash.

      As to Obamacare, the Liberals can’t get their message out, because they don’t have one. If there were no such thing as Death Panels, why would the kindly Senators make a statement that they were removed from the language of the bill? One day their is a “public option” the next day it’s not necessary, then the next day it’s back in. The far left liberals won’t vote for anything that doesn’t include the public option, while the more moderate Democrats won’t vote for the bill if it’s included. The bill forces every taxpayer to pay for Abortions, even those of us that find it immoral and repugnant. The government has no business or right to go into homes with children born and unborn and demand that parents raise their children by government edict. If you think that there won’t be rationing, what happens to the supposed 47 million uninsured when we don’t have enough doctors and medical personnel now? Gary was so correct when he said that the shortage of doctors will increase, as why would anyone spend the years for education and training only to earn the same rates as a Plumber.

      My grandparents risked their lives to escape an Eastern Eurpean communist ruled country. There are generations of people who came to the most free land in the world, in order to earn a decent living, only limited by their own ambition. I love the way you refer to the extremely wealthy in your comments above. Apparently you are not one of them, but will engage in class warfare because you are not among the top, but want to take from them what they have worked hard for. When that dollar is in your pocket rather than someone else’s, will you be happy then? Jealousy and envy are very unbecoming characteristics.

      I am a very proud, gun totting, God fearing member of the Far Right Extreme believers in the Constitution of the US, freedom and prosperity through Capitalism, and I will never sit quietly by and allow those that support the fundamental transformation of my country into something I would never have believed could happen in this great country.

  14. Gary Says:

    The tone of this conversation is getting a little heated. Steve, I respect your position and beliefs. I would suggest you sample some other news outlets besides MSNBC though. The truth is being told in other places. I disagree with you and MSNBC that the town hall meetings are organized by conservatives. Those are lies propagated by Nancy Pelosi and the left wing media. These are regular folks outraged by Obama’s political agenda. I don’t believe anybody is out to see an American president fail. I do think most Americans do want Obama’s social engineering projects to fail. You see, he holds a strong belief in th econcept of social justice. Many Americans vehemently disagree with this redistributive philosophy. This is reflected in the most recent Gallop poll indicating that 73% of Americans would rather see no health care bill over the one in Congress. This is also the point where conservative and liberals depart and will never come to agreement. Conservatives feel that everyone should be afforded the same opportunities to succeed. What an individual does with that opportunity is up to them. If you choose to do nothing, then you go hungry. The Liberal’s view of social justice is to distribute the wealth evenly across all sectors of the population. I personally subscribe to the former. As I was going through my training and education, I made many, many sacrifices. Upon completion of undergraduate education, my weight had declined to just 130 pounds because I didn’t have money for food quite often. It never occurred to me to expect a government handout however. I knew what I was doing and I knew there would be a reward for enduring the sacrifice and I appreciated the opportunity to pursue my dreams. I resent the notion that I should now be ordered by the government to give up even more of my hard earned money for the sake of “social justice”. It is in fact an injustice – to me for being forced to pay and to the person with his/her hand out because it destroys motivation and work ethic. I also know we will never come to agreement on this issue. Unfortunately for the folks on the left, this is a center-RIGHT country that believes an honest days work deserves an honest days pay. With some social “safety net” services in place, for the most part, you reap what you sew. I am happy with that. I don’t hate the rich and I don’t pity the poor.

  15. Steve Says:

    Communism? Please. This type of hyperbole goes nowhere fast, at least with me. Let’s paint Obama as the existential enemy, that ought to work…
    I wish from the bottom of my heart the above-referenced “hard” “objective” thinkers could get past the facile belief that while it is easy/gratifying to think of the world in terms of mutually exclusive oppositions such as Communism/Capitalism, the real world is something else altogether.
    And the power you give Obama…. He’s been in office for 8 months and you would think he were the anti-Christ.
    “It is very telling when you refer to the former president as “King George” and list his atrocities. Are you aware that your party called Bush every name in the book, and Nazi was mild compared to what he was called? Were you aware that Bush’s picture was also defiled and circulated as the Devil and Hitler? ” By whom? Certainly not me. And are you defending him?
    “… the march into Socialism, which is the precursor to Marxism and worse.” – give me one historical example of this supposed natural progression. I dare say that over the past 70 years there has been more progress in the other direction.
    “Hey remember Bush lied, people died, even though we have a current Obama War going on in Afghanistan, where we have lost over 700 American soldiers lives, and, no plan or strategy to win out of the Obama administration.” So now he owns that too?
    “If there were no such thing as Death Panels, why would the kindly Senators make a statement that they were removed from the language of the bill?” Show me the version that actually contained the phrase, much less anything even remotely resembling this characterization.
    “bill forces every taxpayer to pay for Abortions, even those of us that find it immoral and repugnant.” We in this country have about as much of a chance of outlawing abortions as we do of outlawing guns. Live your own life, and allow fellow citizens to do the same.
    “The government has no business or right to go into homes with children born and unborn and demand that parents raise their children by government edict.” Well, not unless it’s an anti-abortionist government. And not to stray too far off topic, what was the whole Terri Schiavo thing about anyway?
    “If you think that there won’t be rationing, what happens to the supposed 47 million uninsured when we don’t have enough doctors and medical personnel now?” Why don’t we cross that bridge when (and if) we get to it? Right now, the insurance giants are salivating over the possibility that our government will yet pass a mandate requiring health insurance for all with no public option. We’ll see who will win this battle. It won’t be the “socialists” and it won’t be the doctors.
    “I love the way you refer to the extremely wealthy in your comments above.” Where exactly and in what way did I refer to the extremely wealthy? You too obviously are not one of them. As for my jealously and envy… Projection overruled. Analyze yourself.
    “why would anyone spend the years for education and training only to earn the same rates as a Plumber.” Read some Jefferson or any of the other Founders you hold in such high esteem. If education is about teaching us to earn as much as possible, then I would like to withhold my tax dollars from supporting that.

    “I don’t believe anybody is out to see an American president fail.” I’ve had the sentiment said directly to me, completely a propos of nothing, by a neighbor. Limbaugh has repeatedly said it publicly on his MSM outlet.
    “…the most recent Gallop poll indicating that 73% of Americans would rather see no health care bill over the one in Congress.” I support healthcare reform and would rather not support the one in Congress. Let’s be sure we know why those 73% are opposed and not assume all for the same reasons.
    “Conservatives feel that everyone should be afforded the same opportunities to succeed.” Well, for God’s sake why don’t they make an effort to give everyone the same opportunties? The self-made millionare, from something to nothing – we could all be that if we just sucked it up and worked hard enough? Another great myth of our age. The idea has its merits to be sure, but it’s not a panacea nor is “survival of the fittest” a natural law. This sort of thinking too is “social engineering,” you just don’t see it.
    “The Liberal’s view of social justice is to distribute the wealth evenly across all sectors of the population.” Again, I think you are vastly overstating the case. While increasing numbers of our citizenry use philanthropy as a cynical way to protect their own wealth, there still are those, some of whom are very wealthy, that continue to recognize that their outward trappings of success are possible, indeed meaningful, only within the social context in which they occur.
    “an honest days work deserves an honest days pay” The center-right has no monopoly on this thought. I would describe myself as center-left (apparently that’s “communist” to some of you out there, or at least too far along the road to ever turn back) and it’s a belief I whole heartedly subscribe to. Let’s just be sure that we recognize “hard work” when we see it and not make the mistake of assuming that high wealth is necessarily a sign of hard work, at least of the “honest” variety. I’m not trying to pillory the “extremely wealthy” as Sandy imagines, just pointing out that wealth can and does come through other means.
    I too don’t hate the rich (as a rule though there are people who are rich that I don’t like, but for other reasons), I do admit to sympathy for the poor (at least in certain cases), but above all else I dispise the dishonest and as well as those who give too little thought as to how their actions may impinge upon the rights of others.

    If any of you want to continue a discussion about healthcare reform that isn’t premised upon notions of communism, socialism, government takeovers, freeloading slackers, and the like I’ll stay at it. Otherwise, I’ve got better things to do with my time. Isn’t a tea party really just a bunch of people who dress alike, think alike, and sip from identically patterned cups?

  16. Gary Helmbrecht Says:

    This is as far as I care to go with this discussion. Clearly some people live on one side of the bridge and others live on the other. Warren Buffet said to President Obama yesterday the following:

    “We do not want our country to evolve into the banana-republic economy…. Congress must end the rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio and keep our growth in obligations in line with our growth in resources.” NYT Op. Ed. 8/18/2009

    Now, Buffett supported Obama in the campaign. Now even he is having buyers remorse. Obama has broken all spending records. He has spent more than all presidents combined. He is already committed to cash for clunkers, Non stimulus spending bill, Omnibus pork belly bill, record breaking deficit budget. If health care and cap and tax pass, we will be more than broke. When even the most ardent Obama supporters like Buffett turn against this president, the game is over. FDR caused a “double dip” recession or depression in the 30’s and Obama will cause the same thing now.

    • Sandy Says:

      Gary- I don’t know if you caught Judge Napolitano on the Glenn Beck show last night, but he had 2 Constitutional experts on, one was an Atty that has fought cases in front of the Supreme Court. First Napolitano read the 17 ennumerated powers given to the Congress in the Constitution. The question was “Does Congress have the power to enact nationalized healthcare.” The only remote possiblity would be in the Commerce Clause, but it was agreed that that wasn’t even appropriate, and no Commerce wording has been in any of the bills so far proposed. The guy from the Cato Institute had said if Congress wanted to really improve healthcare, they would work to break the monopolies of state health insurance companies, and promote Commerce across state borders. Atty Sekolow (sp) said that what is currently in Congress is nothing more than Social Engineering, which I believe you have said above.

      Then Beck interviewed Daniel Hannon, a UK Parliment member. He said that you are not even allowed to pay for any healthcare or medicines in the UK. He showed a list of wait times for procedures, and for example you must wait 5 months for a Hernia operation. He told the story of a friend that broke his leg, went to the hospital, and was told he would have to go home and wait his turn to get the leg taken care of. He offered to pay out of his pocket for pain medication, and was refused. He said that if you are in bad enough condition, and you can’t work, you also lose out on your pay while you wait months for your turn. He said that the Healthcare system in the UK employs 1.4 million people, mostly administrative personnel, and is the 3rd largest employer in the “world.” He said the elderly suffer the most from their system.

      There was also a section where it was shown that J. P, Morgan, who got 2.5 billion in bail out funds, turned around and gave ACORN 5 million dollars. Jamie Dimon, the CEO and Obama are great friends.

    • Sandy Says:

      Canada Health Plan May Deny 6,000 Surgeries

      Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:56 PM

      By: Dave Eberhart Article Font Size

      Vancouver, Canada’s health authority is mulling skipping over more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to close a $200 million budget shortfall, according to a report in the Vancouver Sun.

      The excised procedures would include a host of neurosurgeries, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures — leaving patients waiting long periods of time for their backordered operations, said Canadian health critic Adrian Dix.

      Dix pointed to a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document he said outlined the cuts.

      “This hasn’t been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are coming,” Dix said, citing figures he gleaned from an unpublished executive summary of “proposed VCH surgical reductions.”

      The health authority confirmed the document is genuine, but said it represents ideas only. It is a planning document. It has not been approved or implemented,” said spokeswoman Anna Marie D’Angelo.

      Canada’s national health insurance program, often referred to as “Medicare,” is theoretically designed to ensure that all residents have reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services — on a prepaid basis.

      Instead of having a single national plan, Canada has a national program that is composed of 13 interlocking provincial and territorial health insurance plans, all framed by the Canada Health Act (CHA).

      Roles and responsibilities for Canada’s health care system are shared between the federal and provincial-territorial governments. Under CHA, criteria and conditions are specified that must be satisfied by the provincial and territorial health care insurance plans in order for them to qualify for their full share of the federal cash contribution.

      Recently, the new president of the Canadian Medical Association said Canada’s health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

      Dr. Anne Doig argued that patients are getting less than optimal care.

      “We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize,” she told The Canadian Press.

      On the Vancouver front, Dr. Brian Brodie, president of the BC Medical Association, called the proposed surgical cuts “a nightmare,” according to the Vancouver Sun. “Why would you begin your cost-cutting measures on medically necessary surgery? I just can’t think of a worse place,” he said.

      According to the leaked document, Vancouver Coastal wants to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries. As many of 112 full-time jobs — including 13 anesthesiologist positions — would be affected by the reductions, the document indicates.

      “Clearly this will impact the capacity of the health-care system to provide care, not just now but in the future,” Dix said.

      —————————————————————–

      Why ever would any American citizen want this?

    • Sandy Says:

      Health care reform that actually works!
      By William Tate
      “Where’s the Republican plan?”

      It’s one of the red herrings that apologists for Obamacare pull out of their bag of cliched talking points when pressed to justify Democrats’ attempt to grab control of 18% of the nation’s economy.

      Well, here’s a modest proposal. Rather than looking to Massachusetts or Tennessee for examples of healthcare reform, why not look to Texas?

      The Lone Stare state has its problems, but in recent years it has made major progress in improving health care availability, especially in predominantly poor and minority regions. Being Texas, the solution wasn’t budget-busting, either.

      Their answer? They got rid of the lawyers.

      Not literally. But they did take on that perennial pillar of the Democrat Party, the trial lawyers.

      In an Op-Ed published in the San Francisco Examiner earlier this month, Texas Governor Perry points out that in 2003 the state implemented laws that shielded health care providers from trial lawyers “anxious to make a quick buck.”

      “We capped noneconomic damages at $250,000 per defendant, or up to $750,000 per incident, while placing no cap on more easily determined economic damages, such as lost wages or costs of medical care due to injury.

      “We ended the practice of allowing baseless but expensive lawsuits to drag on indefinitely, requiring plaintiffs to provide expert witness reports to support their claims within four months of filing suit or drop the case…

      “Changes were seen immediately, and continue to be felt. All major liability insurers cut their rates upon passage of our reforms, with most of those cuts ranging in the double-digits. More than 10 new insurance carriers entered the Texas market, increasing competition and further lowering costs.

      “As a result, Texas doctors have seen their insurance rates decline by an average of 27 percent.

      “The number of doctors applying to practice medicine in Texas has skyrocketed by 57 percent.”

      At a time when a debate rages over whether the U.S. has enough doctors, Texas has seen its number of doctors leap by about 15,000. And Perry points out that tort reform has brought service to critically underserved, predominantly minority and poor communities.

      “The number of obstetricians practicing in rural Texas is up by 27 percent, and 12 counties that previously had no obstetricians now have at least one. The statistics show major gains in fields like orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, neurosurgery and emergency medicine.

      The Rio Grande Valley has seen an 18 percent growth in applications to practice medicine, adding about 200 doctors to this critically underserved area.”

      According to state Representative Joe Nixon, many of Texas’ news physicians have moved to rural or underserved areas, and “Texas, once listed as 47th worst state in the ratio of doctors per citizen, will soon be in the lower 30s and improving.”

      Perry says Texas tort reform has had other benefits to patients:

      “And what about the money that used to go to defending all those frivolous lawsuits? You can find it in budgets for upgraded equipment, expanded emergency rooms, patient safety programs and improved primary and charity care.”

      Further, according to the Texas Academy of Family Physicians, tort reform has resulted in an improvement in the quality of health care in Texas, with the percentage of complaints about medical care actually going down.

      Yet, despite the striking evidence of tort reform benefits in the nation’s second most populous state, this simple, basic and essential component of health care reform is completely missing from all Democrat proposals.

      According to opensecrets.org, Democrats received over $178,000,000 from lawyers’ donations during the 2008 election cycle — three times what they donated to Republicans. Over $43,000,000 of that went to the Obama campaign.

      Forty-three million reasons why Obamacare doesn’t include the one component of health care reform that has been proven to work: tort reform.

      William Tate is an award-winning journalist and author
      5 Comments on “Health care reform that actually works!”

  17. Steve Says:

    I read the whole Buffett piece. A rational, reasoned warning but not the wholesale withdrawal of support you suggest.
    Since we are able to cite the NY Times, try David Leonhardt, June 9, 2009, except follows… (read the whole article as it holds also that Obama has no real plan to solve the problem. But first, let’s understand where the problem came from)

    The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

    You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

    The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

    About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

    Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

    About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

    If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

  18. Gary Helmbrecht Says:

    It makes no sense that a $787 billion (1.5 trillion after accounting for interest) program only accounts for 7% of the deficit unless you are using accountants from General Electric or Enron. Secondly, Clinton never really balanced the budget. He did balance PROJECTED budgets all based on proposed cuts in medicare reimbursements. All such cuts were reversed at the 11th hour by congress. If not reversed, hospitals all over the country would have closed after becoming insolvent. Therefore, the budget was NEVER balanced to begin with. The Bush tax cuts actually resulted in INCREASED tax revenue. The problem is that Bush spent too much. The medicare drug entitlement was way out of line and if enacted, should have been paid for. Other “compassionate” programs including AIDS in Africa, No Child Left Behind, and others also added to the deficit. Finally, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan did and will continue to cost a lot of money. Doesn’t matter who is at fault for the deficit or exactly where it came from. The point is that we have what we have and can’t afford any more entitlement programs especially something as expensive as national health care. Anyone who has a pulse knows that even if congress can manipulate the numbers to claim that all costs will be paid, cost overruns are typical and will happen with this bill. Case in point is how the CBO scored HR3200. They used medicaid reimbursement rates among their assumptions. The cost here will have to at least double in reality or medicine will become bankrupt. So a 2 trillion bill becomes a 4 trillion bill as soon as medical practices begin to fail. Just look at the car dealers being devastated by the cash for clunkers program. The government has not made the payments to dealers because of “paperwork problems”. An inconvenience for a bureaucrat becomes a financial devastation for the dealers some of whom have several million dollars out and can’t float the incompetent government machine. How would you like to have your livelihood dependent on these incompetent idiots? Not me. No thanks. I will fight this to the end and if enacted I will not play. I will refuse to send my patients private medical information in to the government servers. If sanctioned, i will just retire to another career. I estimate about 25% of the American physicians would do the same. More would if they could. As the democrat leaders in the House continue to delude themselves into thinking those protesters at town hall meetings are a minority or just manufactured from K Street lobbyists, they underestimate the resolve of the majority. If they choose the “nuclear option” we will see some major chaos erupt in this country. Totalitarianism doesn’t work. We won’t stand for it.

  19. Steve Says:

    Gary,
    Federal tax revenues from individual and corporate sources reached lows in 2001 and ’02, respectively. Between ’01 and ’05, individual tax revenues rose steadily to return to where they had been in 2000. Corporate tax revenues rose steeply between ’01 and ’05, reaching an all-time high. From ’05 until now, corporate tax revenues have been declining steeply with the rate of decline accelerating in ’08. Individual tax revenues since ’05 declined less steeply through ’07, when this source of federal revenue also began declining more rapidly. Bush tax cuts MAY “have resulted in increased tax revenue.” The causes of the increase actually remain a point of considerable debate. What is clear however, is that the increase, especially in corporate tax revenue, pronounced as it was, was TEMPORARY and short-lived – lasting only through 2004 – as was the less impressive increase in revenues from individual tax payers.
    I agree that we need to contend with where we are now fiscally as regards healthcare reform. Currently, the US collectively spends on average twice as much per capita on health care as our main competitors. Efforts to oppose reform on political-ideological grounds are fine and proper and should be discussed, however we all need to be very, very careful that our accounting isn’t skewed by these same political-ideological agendas.
    I will continue to take issue with opposition positions that want to cast healthcare reform as an attempt to foist yet another “entitlement” program upon us – the notion of “entitlement” being used to mean the redistribution of wealth from society’s hardworkers to its slackers. If viewed solely in these terms, vehement antagonism towards it is understandable. As I said previously, I don’t regard universal health care as an individual right, I consider it a collective responsibility much as national defense. I also do not consider it a form of one-way wealth redistribution but rather of two-way reciprocation.
    “major chaos,” “won’t stand for it.” We are all equally Americans and I strongly feel we all need to draw back from the increasingly less veiled threats of physical violence to one another. This country is NOT the exclusive property of one side or the other to “take back.”

  20. Gary Says:

    Two way reciprocation meaning we give and they take? You’ve got to be kidding. I reiterate my previous statement. I will not stand for the government artificially setting the standards for health care. The free market can do it and should do it. When George Clooney’s salary is set by Obama is when I will allow him to set mine.

  21. Steve Says:

    “The free market can do it and should do it.”
    Yeah, it certainly did a great job with real estate values. I trust you’re not underwater?

  22. Gary Says:

    Welfare just ain’t what it used to be!

    Sharon Jasper has been victimized. Poor thing … she has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 care case — the victim of ever changing public housing policies.
    Sharon Jasper has spent 57 of her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude. She has lived in Section 8 housing all but 1 of her 58 years. It was a legacy passed down from her parents who moved into Section 8 housing in 1949 when she was six months old. She has passed the legacy down to her children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits.

    She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana, “I tried it for a year — you know, working and all. It’s not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year.”

    Sharon was moved out of her St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina and into a new, yet albeit, substandard quarterage. As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper’s seniority status in the system. “Don’t be fooled by them hardwood floors,” says Sharon. “They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool — that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black. The 60 inch HD TV? It may look nice but it is not a plasma. It’s not a plasma because I’m black. Now they want me to pay a deposit and utilities on this dump. Do you know why?”

    She has held her tongue in silence through the years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orleans’ city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects. When a near riotous exchange between groups opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard and groups wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue. The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance. The context of her scathing rebuke was, “Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!” and “Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!”

    Recapping from the mental log of the city council minutes in her head, Sharon repines, “Our families have been displaced all over the United States. They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they are unfamiliar with. It is a very uncomfortable situation for them… Bring them back, then let’s talk about redevelopment.” Sharon directs the reporter’s attention across the street to Duncan Plaza where homeless people are living in tents and states that, “I might do better out there with one of these tents.” She further lamented her sentiments about her situation, “I might be poor, but I don’t have to live poor.”
    =============================================================================
    Any wonder why this country is in the shape it is? Maybe we should all just chip in and get her the plasma TV she so richly deserves!
    Remember to pay your taxes – Sharon needs your help!
    Spread the wealth.

  23. Steve Says:

    Think for just a moment of what the effects of 200 years of forced servitude followed by another century of forced segregation and pronounced discrimination might have had upon your own family.
    Is it worth countering with a reminder to you of Bernie Madoff (just to pick the first example that comes to mind) and the implicit (though clearly wrong-headed) belief that all rich people must be just like him. Again, the longer we insist on framing every debate in terms of such sharp contrasts between polar opposites the longer we’ll stay stuck with the status quo, which, if I’ve learned anything from this discussion, is the one place we both would like to move away from.
    And by the way, I meant reciprocal as in the principal of economic reciprocity as in “you give something, they give something back.” (Marcel Mauss, “The Gift”, he was French but you’ll just have to deal with that). Reconceptualizing the very nature of our relationships with one another might just be a way to avoid the sort of “class warfare” mentioned earlier.

  24. Gary Helmbrecht Says:

    Funny, the lady didn’t look 200 years old. I never owned a slave and i don’t believe there is a person alive who has been a slave. Get over it. No more redistribution. period. The country is bankrupt. It has to stop.

  25. Steve Says:

    I’m not a squirrel. Squirrels are not social animals. Read something about bees if you want to use the natural work to develop meaningful analogies.
    And speaking of “laziness syndrome” Sandy, instead of your incessant cutting and pasting and linking, why don’t you do your own work/thinking instead of just mindlessly taking such squirrel-brained hand-outs from others?

    • Sandy Says:

      I hate to dissapoint you Steve, but I don’t post what I do for your benefit. To believe otherwise is to be narcistic. If you do not like what I post, don’t read it, it’s that simple. All of your most recent comments have become more and more like lectures, rather than discussion, but, that’s what liberals are like. To be a Liberal one must buy the notion that “only I know everything, including what is best for you.”

      You erroneously claim above that squirrels are not social animals, but there is research to prove that they are, but I won’t bore you with that research. I really don’t need to read anything about Bees, as I am familiar with their heirarchy- The Queen Bee (Government) has all of the “worker” and “drone” bees (all of us that work for a living) doing all of the work in order to insure that the Queen is well taken care of, and that she has a safe and warm hive in the winter, and there is enough honey only for the few in the hive (Inside the Beltway). The Beekeepers (Congress) then take the fruit of the workers labors, honey (Taxes). The “worker” bees are then blocked out from the hive come cold weather, and freeze to death (they have a lifespan of 90 days) because there is not enough room in the hive, and space must be rationed to only those that are strong enough to serve the Queen (Marxism).

      Yes Steve, Bees do make a better analogy to our current Liberal administration in Washington. The “bad” squirrels in the fable are like those of us that will never accept Socialism, but, will leave all you “good” squirrels to your own annihilation.

  26. Steve Says:

    In response to Dr. Helmbrecht’s original post:

    “1. We simply cannot afford it. The Congressional Budget Office states that even with higher taxes on high income earners and penalties on employers who don’t provide coverage, the plan will fall $239 billion short of covering its cost of over $1 trillion. That is their best case scenario without the bill being completely scored.”

    RESPONSE: The cost of the bill, should it go into effect, is of course a huge concern. We need true and honest accounting of both projected increases in costs and projected overall savings. Remember, a big point is that our country absolutely needs to lower the per capita cost of health care. Currently we pay nearly twice as much per capita as any of our major economic competitors. If this bill will raise our costs even further, it will only further erode our global competitiveness. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.

    “2. It will not cover everyone. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over 17 million people would remain uninsured AFTER this plan is implemented.”

    RESPONSE: A other big goal of this bill is to ensure universal coverage. To the extent that it does not do this, we should all be concerned. There is still time to tweak the bill to respond to these concerns, and it can certainly be modified in the future to further address gaps in coverage.

    “3. You will not be able to shop for or obtain private insurance if you do not have private insurance prior to the bill being passed. This is somewhat clearly stated on pgs. 16 and 17 in section 102(a)(1)(A).”

    RESPONSE:
    What the bill actually says:
    Section 102(c)(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
    In other words, you can most certainly shop for and purchase private health insurance SO LONG AS the provider’s plan is included in the so-called Exchange. The “public option” will be only one among many possible plans to choose from on the Exchange. “Grandfathered” coverage means that you can, if you wish, keep any plan that you already have in place as of the law’s (presuming it passes) effective date (2013 according to the bill, typically referred to as “Y1” in the bill). If you keep a grandfathered plan but later decide you want to change plans, your choice will be limited to those on the Exchange.

    4. After a 5 year grace period, all private insurers that are still in business will be required to offer a “qualified health benefits” plan based on government standards. The problem is whether or not the “government standards” will exclude private insurers. This on page 17, section 102(b)(1)(A).

    RESPONSE:
    What the Bill actually says:
    Section 102(b)(1)(A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

    In other words, any employment-based health care plan that is still in effect five years after the law’s effective start date (so, Jan. 1, 2018) and that went into effect at least one day before the law’s effective start dat (so, Dec. 31, 2012) must meet the requirements of a “qualified health benefits plan” as defined in Section 101. Section 101(b) says, “health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved: (1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage). (2) Subtitle C (relating to essential benefits). (3) Subtitle D (relating to consumer protection).
    Further, “qualified” plans are intended to “meet standards guaranteeing access to affordable coverage, essential benefits, and other consumer protections” (Section 101(a). So, if you are covered under an employment-based health plan that plan can stay exactly has it is (or change in any way either you, your employer, or the insurer desires) until Dec. 31, 2017. As of Jan. 1, 2018, all employment-based health plans must conform to requirements imposed upon all “qualified health benefits plans.” If you are in this situation, by Jan. 1, 2018 you must be enrolled in a “qualified” health plan either through your employer, some other group, or individually. This can be any “qualified” plan offered through the Exchange by any private insurer or the “qualified” public option plan. Certain exceptions to this rule apply.

    “5. No new policies will be allowed to be written by a private insurer after the public option becomes law. Also page 17.”

    RESPONSE:
    No. See responses to #3 and #4, above. No private insurer will be able to offer a plan that is not a “qualified” plan after Jan. 1, 2013 (except those employment based plans already in effect, though on Jan. 1, 2018 these to will have to be “qualified.”

    “6. Every five years, the elderly will have to attend a mandatory “advanced care planning consultation” for an “explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end of life services.” The consultation will be conducted more frequently if a significant change in health condition; including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life limiting disease, terminal diagnosis, life threatening injury or upon admission to a skilled nursing or long term care facility. In other words, if you are old, you will be consulted about what your options will be imeet standards guaranteeing access to affordable coverage, essential benefits, and other consumer protectionsf you get sick, if healthcare would not be an option (see #7). This starts on page 425.”

    RESPONSE:
    This is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. This section of the bill (Section 1233) amends Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x), which is already in effect, by adding an “improvement” that allows for the reimbursement of doctor’s who provide “advanced care consultation.” That is, all “qualified” plans will have to pay for “advanced care planning consultation,” which under current law they do not have to pay for. (Both John McCain and Sarah Palin in the based have supported identical legislation in more defined contexts). However, these “advanced care planning consultation” services will be considered reimbursable only if the patient has not received this service within the past five years. If however there has been a serious change in the patient’s medical condition since his/her last consultation the one reimbursable consulation per five-year period limit may be waived, allowing physician’s to be reimbursed for providing such consultation (taking into account the new medical information) to the patient. NOWHERE in HR 3200 is “advanced care consultation” required of anyone. If you choose to have this service, however your health plan MUST PAY FOR IT. If you never want to talk about your own death with your doctor no one will make you (except maybe your own concerned family members).

    “7. Page 501 of the bill starts a section that indicates that $1 billion will be spent on “comparative effectiveness research” which is how the government evaluates relative merits of various treatments. In other words, rationing. This is tantamount to the government determining whether or not you are worth getting a particular treatment depending on your prognosis or age. Sec. 1401 Part D”

    RESPONSE:
    A RESOUNDING NO, again.
    Section 1401, Part D, Sec. 1181(a)(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the `Center’) to conduct, support, and synthesize research (including research conducted or supported under section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically.
    A primary duty of the Center shall be to “conduct, support, and synthesize research relevant to the comparative effectiveness of the full spectrum of health care items, services and systems, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, medical and surgical procedures, and other medical interventions; (Section 1401, Part D, Sec. 1181(a)(2)(A)). The Center will be the FINAL authority on whether any treatment, drug, surgery, etc. should be considered effective (and these decisions will be made by a constantly revolved review panel). The BIG point here is that if the Center considers a procedure, treatment, etc. “effective” than they must be covered/paid for by all “qualifying” plans. Presumably, “ineffective” or unproven treatments will not have to be covered. However, as long as you have a qualified health plan, you are free to pay out of pocket for such “ineffective” treatments. The point is not to deny you care, it is to make sure that everyone has equal access to the best and most effective care.

    “8. This plan would allow for government funded abortions. Since this bill would cover all procedures, abortion is included. There is no exception for abortion.”

    RESPONSE:
    Nowhere in the bill have I seen any indication that all “qualified” plans must pay for abortion. That said, it may well be the case that some plans will, and this includes the public option included. And to the extent that you think that a portion of the health care premiums you are paying for your plan are being skimmed to cover someone else’s abortion than you are right. However, you might want to check with your current private insurer to make sure you aren’t already paying for procedures for others that you don’t approve of, like abortion or how about the treatment of lung cancer or heart disease caused by smoking, or one of the many incredibly expensive diseases caused by obesity and poor diet. The whole point about “pools” is by spreading the risks and costs of individual health across a larger population, the per capita cost is reduced for all. Thus, were you to suffer some massively expensive illness, premiums from the rest of the pool (the vast majority of whom don’t suffer from the same condition) would be paying for your treatment. If you would rather not have that happen, then why do you (and I assume you do) have health insurance now?

    “9. Members of congress and unions would be exempt from this plan and not have to be a part of the healthcare plan. Recently, John Fleming, introduced H.R. 615 that stated that members that vote in favor of a government run healthcare must enroll under the public option. It was quickly voted down.”

    RESPONSE:
    NO ONE HAS TO ENROLL IN THE PUBLIC OPTION IF THEY DON”T WANT TO. You (and everyone else, including elected officials) will be perfectly free to choose from among any of the plans, private and public, on the Exchange.

    Now, let’s talk about cost and your concern that everyone won’t be covered.

    • Sandy Says:

      I’m going to begin this comment with what you started your original comment with- where to start? You have so completely spun your position into the vortex of the hole of Obamacare, you are laughable.

      There really is no need for anyone to continue to respond to you, though the good doctor has tried. You are drunk on the Jim Jones Kool-Aide. I am convinced that you are either a Perriello hack, or staff member, but you are not doing a good job of convincing anyone with your comments that you are left of center, you are absolutely far to the left, where the best Marxists live. You are a “drone bee” who gets a place in the hive, as long as he works hard for the benefit of the Queen, or in this case King Bee.

    • Sandy Says:

      Steve- You are nothing more than a tool of the Socialist administration, and a troll to this site. Why do you even post here when you so disagree with the sites purpose. From my understanding, the Tea Parties are encompassing people from all parties who are not only disgusted with the direction this country is headed in (Socialism) but have recognized the dire need to keep us from losing all of our freedoms and prosperity forever if the current legislation is passed. Your support of Obama and his policies actually scares the crap out of me, as you are obviously on the government payroll, or you are hoping to be there. That is if you have enough energy to get off the computer, and get a job in the private sector, where most of us workers live. Before twlling us once again how you worked in both sectors, please read Fred Thompson’s well researched work in Government at the Brink.

  27. Discourse Says:

    Steve,
    Nice try at civil discourse! As you can see they’ll talk you around in circles because they’re not open to “thinking”.
    This is a monopoly of 3 people and lock-step thinking. You’re analogy of the Tea Party goers was perfect. Sip away gentlemen and lady! We’ve got better things to do with our time.

  28. Alex Janssen Says:

    All this discussion of what’s in the bill is a moot point in my opinion because the bill is socialistic in nature and socialism always breeds tyranny. This type of power over the people does not belong in the hands of the government. I’ll take my individual freedom over the bureaucratic tyranny of a big government health care program any day.

    I’m sure there is a lot that could be done to make the current system what we want and keep it under private control.

    Why don’t we discuss that?

  29. Gary Says:

    Alex,
    You are correct. There are lots of measures we can take to improve on the current system (Which happens to be the best system in the world despite its flaws). Look up HR3400. This is the Republican health legislation sponsored by Tom Price (R-GA). It contains free market solutions that provide for coverage for those who are uninsured currently and increases competition between the insurance companies which will bring prices down.

    Right now, HR3200 is before congress however. This legislation is a disaster and has to be stopped. That is the priority right now at least how I see it.

    Some of the provisions of HR 3400 include:
    1. Tort reform. Specifically, do away with the current system and allow patients to purchase no-fault medical accident insurance when they come in contact with the health care system. At lease then they will be reimbursed for actual losses incurred when complications occur. Currently, most plaintiffs lose at trial and never get compensated at all. Only a very few “win big” which is bankrupting the system. The lawyers walk away the only winners in the current system.
    2. Non profit, member run regional health care coops. This transfers a part of the fiduciary responsibility for health care to the patient.
    3. Require more cost transparency of the hospitals and physicians. Patients should know how much they are consuming before they consent to any procedure.
    4. Give patients the same tax breaks that business gets. Tax deductible premiums and health care spending with no minimum.
    5. Allow patients to avoid bankruptcy if they pay a minimum amount monthly on their medical bills. When I was in medical school, my wife had an emergency surgery and we had no health insurance. I was allowed by the hospital to pay $25 per month and they promised not to push me if I maintained those payments. Eventually, I was able to pay the entire bill and avoided any bankruptcy proceedings.
    6. Require illegal immigrants seeking “Z Visas” to maintain a minimum level of health coverage.
    7. Require individuals who are eligible for SCHIP and employer-sponsored coverage to use the employer-sponsored coverage instead of SCHIP.
    8. Allow for the expansion of health care access and reduced costs through the creation of small business health plans and through modernization of the health insurance marketplace. This would be extremely powerful as small business could then “pool” to larger, more powerful negotiating position.
    9. Allow Americans to purchase individual health insurance across state lines. This would immediately increase competition and bring prices down. There would need to be some standardization requirements but this could happen easily.
    10. Allow for an above-the-line federal income tax deduction for individuals who do not receive health insurance through their employers.
    11. Don’t wait to clean up Medicare. If the administration and Nancy Pelosi are being truthful about the waste and fraud in Medicare, I find it unconscionable that they are just allowing this to go on while the health care debate rages. They could gain a lot of credibility with the American people if they removed the $550 Billion in waste now, while the debate continues. Of course, if the $550 Billion in savings is really from reductions in payments to doctors and hospitals and limits on benefits, then I understand why they are doing nothing now.

    So, you see there are a lot of solutions out there that do not turn this country in to a socialist democracy with all citizens dependent on the federal government. Bottom line: if HR3200 passes, and a similar bill passes in the Senate, we are finished as a free, capitalist country. There will be so many people dependent on the government that the democrats will enjoy single party rule for years to come. Who would vote for a republican that is only going to cut the apron strings to the federal breadline? That is why this socialist agenda MUST BE STOPPED.

  30. Steve Says:

    U.S. Health Care Best in the World? Really Doctor? Who are you shilling for exactly? Pharmaceuticals? Insurance companies? Before trotting out yet more totally unsubstantiated claims, why don’t you take the time to admit to and explain why in your post originating this thread you told so many blatant lies. Could it be that any means justify your ends?
    In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the U.S. health care system #37 internationally, just ahead of the world-reknowned systems of Slovenia, Cuba, and Brunei. Wait a minute, let me guess, the WHO is just another chink in the global conspiracy to socialize everyone and everything. Get a clue. You people are totally out to lunch. You should fear totalitarianism as you all are already walking lock-step out in front of enormously powerful special interest forces that are going to steamroll you as soon as they get their way.
    Just in case there is anyone out there who cares anymore about facts, here’s the WHO top 40 list:
    1 France
    2 Italy
    3 San Marino
    4 Andorra
    5 Malta
    6 Singapore
    7 Spain
    8 Oman
    9 Austria
    10 Japan
    11 Norway
    12 Portugal
    13 Monaco
    14 Greece
    15 Iceland
    16 Luxembourg
    17 Netherlands
    18 United Kingdom
    19 Ireland
    20 Switzerland
    21 Belgium
    22 Colombia
    23 Sweden
    24 Cyprus
    25 Germany
    26 Saudi Arabia
    27 United Arab Emirates
    28 Israel
    29 Morocco
    30 Canada
    31 Finland
    32 Australia
    33 Chile
    34 Denmark
    35 Dominica
    36 Costa Rica
    37 United States of America
    38 Slovenia
    39 Cuba
    40 Brunei

    Have a nice day,
    Steve

  31. Gary Helmbrecht Says:

    Steve, I was beginning to believe you might of had a brain but now I know that you just drink the Kool-Aid like all the liberals do. The UN rankings are a farce. Take infant mortality for example. In France, all infant deaths below 28 weeks of gestation are not counted. In the US, all infant deaths at 24 weeks and above ARE counted. The same goes for just about every parameter measured by this ridiculous organization. The bottom line: cancer survival is the best in the world, infant survival is the best in the world. If you are going to believe the crap put out by the left wing crazy’s then stop bothering me. I don’t have time for this.

    Respectfully,

  32. Steve Says:

    If the international data on infant mortality are not comparable, how can you claim the US is best?
    As for cancer survival rates, http://factcheck.org/2009/08/cancer-rates-and-unjustified-conclusions/
    Once again, please explain the inclusion of seven out-right lies in your list of nine reasons why you oppose the current House bill that started this thread?

    Sincerely,

    • Sandy Says:

      Steve- You have now mentioned “7 lies” in Dr. Helmbrecht’s original article, more than once. Rather than just make such a blatant statement, unsubstantiated, why don’t you list, in detail, just what you believe are “lies”? From the list of 9 items, most are wording taken right from one of the bills being proposed by the Democrats.

      Also, to use the WHO information to back up your arguments shows your absolute by-in to big government Marxism. All of the Tea Party organizations, including this one, do not support your liberal ideas, and, in fact are as anti-your views as one can get. Why do you insist on getting your propaganda on this site? Do you really think that anyone here is willing to be dumb enough to drink your flavor of kool-aide?

  33. Alex Says:

    Steve,
    My main beef with this bill is that it gives the federal government more power over the citizens and sets up a breeding ground for bureaucratic tyranny. This bill is nothing but creeping socialism and is part of an overall plan to turn this country completely socialist by the president and his appointees and followers. It’s intention is to crush the individual and promote the state. “To each according to his abilities, from each according to their needs” – Karl Marx. This is perverted in that it allows for man to judge man, not nature. Socialism is a fallacy and we cannot allow it a greater foothold in the United States. Running health insurance is not a right issued by the people in the constitution to the federal government. The constitution is still the law of the land here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: