Make no mistake: Team Obama isn’t granting the waivers out of bleeding-heart compassion for the affected workers, but out of a panicked urgency to avoid a public relations disaster.
Back in January 2008, Mr. AOW lost his full-time job after nearly twelve years of working for that particular employer. In part, Mr. AOW's job loss was due to the economic slowdown. But something else played a larger part in the job loss, namely, the company's policy about employees carrying employer-based health insurance: enrolling in the health-insurance plan was optional. The result: only those employees with significant pre-existing conditions enrolled in the health plan, thereby making the plan more and more expensive.
As most of my readers must know, I do not support ObamaKare. That said, the realities of insurance involve having both low risk and high risk insureds in the same pool. Indeed, that very concept of a diversified-risks pool is the basis of all insurance.
So, just how is ObamaKare going to function with only higher risk insureds in the plan?
Please see this editorial from the Washington Examiner before reading any further in this post.
More information about the consequences of ObamaKare HERE.
And note this little gem about ObamaKare's abolishing lifetime limits on benefits from the Washington Post:
A plan can still put a lifetime dollar limit on spending for health services that the government does not deem essential.
This kind of debacle is what happens when Congress passes a bill into law and lets us find out later what's in it.
If ObamaKare remains in force, America will learn a very expensive lesson. At least, one HOPES [cough] that America will learn a lesson without millions of lives being upended, both literally and financially.
In Congressman Phil Hare's own words, when it comes to ObamaKare “I don’t worry about the Constitution...":
Democratic Congressman Phil Hare represents Illinois's 17th congressional district. He took office in January 2007 and at that point took the following oath:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Obviously, Hare doesn't give a hoot about the oath he took. Did he have his fingers crossed behind his back, or what?
This off hand comment is not some GOOF. This is the offhand, unguarded REAL OPERATING FEELING OF RIGHTNESS AND ENTITLEMENT these utter morons work with, and are elected to do.
This guy is not from some downtown, left wing district ...this is farm country and FOLKS WILL DRIVE THIS MORON OUT,,,
IF THEY CARE
Do they?
In my view, now that Hare has decided to disregard the Constitution, he should be drummed out of office and into court for oath breaking and, possibly, treason. Now.
In the meantime, as we await the November 2010 elections, each and all the member of Congress as well as the White House need this reminder drummed into their thick skulls:
"Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 34
According to a March 23 publication on an authoritative Islamic Web site managed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, various fatwas (religious decrees) absolutely forbid Muslim participation in any sort of health care or other risk insurance.
Health insurance is going to be compulsory for all companies and associations in our country. The insurance company will not have direct relationship with companies or associations, as there will be brokers in between, this is also compulsory. The question is: What is the ruling on working for these brokers? Its role is basically introducing offers to companies and individuals and dealing with claims.
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Health insurance is haraam like other types of commercial insurance, because it is based on ambiguity, gambling and riba (usury)....
Read the rest HERE. Be sure to note the conclusion of the fatwa:
Firstly: Commercial insurance of all types is haraam because it involves ambiguity, riba, uncertainty, gambling and consuming people’s wealth unlawfully, and other shar’i reservations.
Secondly:It is not permissible for the Muslim to get involved with insurance companies by working in administration or otherwise, because working in them comes under the heading of cooperating in sin and transgression, and Allaah forbids that as He says: “but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Severe in punishment”
Does "otherwise" mean that Moslem doctors cannot work under the ObamaKare system? Hmmmm.....
Related topic: And what about car insurance? Do Moslems carry auto insurance?
...[A]s we all know, the devil is always in the details. And on page 879 is one detail that few know about.
[...]
In an article written for the American Thinker...the bill specifies that the secretary of Health and Human Services, “in awarding grants or contracts under this section … shall give preferences to entities that have a demonstrated record of … training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
The bill doesn’t say what would qualify as a “demonstrated record,” so if ObamaCare passes you can expect that medical schools and other training institutions will do whatever they can to get away with training as many people as possible from so-called “disadvantaged backgrounds.”
By the way, if you’re poor and white, or Asian, or Jewish, don’t expect any advantage under this plan. The word “underrepresented” is inserted into the bill’s language to make it clear the preferences are aimed at giving a leg up to black and Hispanic students. According to the soft bigotry of the left, “underrepresented” is always meant to be read as “black” and “Latino.”
IT DOESN'T END WELL FOR THE DEMOCRATS, BUT IT HAS A HAPPY ENDING FOR THE NATION.
This past week has indeed seen three Dems fleeing a sinking ship. Just the beginning? We'll see. The 2010 mid-term elections will tell the tale.
With a less joyous point of view on the fleeing Dems and the 2010 elections, WC recently wrote "Don't Pop the Champagne Corks Yet," an essay on the topic. Please read the essay below the fold and weigh in with your opinion:
Fox News reports:
As top Dems abandon their posts, Republicans are cautiously upbeat about chances of taking Senate seats. Sen. Chris Dodd, who has represented Connecticut for more than three decades in Congress, announced Wednesday that he will not run for re-election in November.
Dodd joined two other prominent Democrats Wednesday in ditching plans to run for office in the fall.
So – should we be cheering?
Not necessarily. This news worries me.
The Democrats today are a new political beast willing to commit political suicide over the last year to jam their Progressive agenda down America’s throats - consequences to the Party be damned. Democratic Senators and Congressmen and Governors are seeing the hand writing on the wall and are dropping out of races in their States and Districts.
This is not necessarily good news for Republicans.
I would rather face a dangerous WOUNDED beast than a healthy unknown one - one that will try to spoof Independents again with words like moderate or conservative Democrat. And that’s what Republican contenders could very well be facing in November.
We know now, watching the arrogance of ALL Democrats in Congress, that there is no such thing as a moderate or conservative Democrat. But the new beasts running in 2010 will try to pull the wool over the voter’s eyes once again.
I hate to be a party pooper but don't pop the Champagne Corks Yet on the news that prominent Democrats are dropping like flies.
In his essay "Obamacare Will Save Me a Ton of Money," satirist supreme Snarky Basterd of Feed Your ADHDmakes a personal observation about ObamaKare, particularly for those of us who have private health-insurance policies:
I pay about $350 a month for a “low premium” plan, or in essence I pay for the right to have a high in-network deductible, $3,500 per individual and $7,000 per family. In other words, aside from getting free oxygen and often free germs when one of us visits the doctor, I pay ALL of my healthcare costs … in addition to the right to have insurance if I have a heart attack or one of my kids falls out of a tree (which is why I’ve sold all the ladders and sheared all of the low-hanging limbs from the trees around the homestead and threatened to sell my children to the King of the Moonbat Zombies — their term for Obama — if they ever break a bone).
[...]
I also put away about $200 a month in a health savings account to cover normal medical expenses like trips to the doctor for colds and for purchasing medicine and for buying lottery tickets, and then rollover what we don’t spend annually, earning something like .0000000002 percent interest, a Ben Bernanke special.
So, all told, my happy little family, during a given year, spends about $8,100 on healthcare, when you add up the premiums (or the right to a high deductible) and health savings account deductions from my earnings and actual healthcare expense payouts. That’s about four times more than we spend on, say, actually taking time to have a nice vacation and relax and forget for 17 seconds that we’re slaves to just about everything except the pursuit of our own life, liberty, and happiness.
Now.
Under Obamacare (or, at least, under the Senate version that will pass on Christmas Eve) I’ll be paying $13,100 come the year 2016 just for family health insurance....
Read the whole thing to see how Obamacare will save Snarky Basterd, and possibly you, big bucks. Heh.
The most revelatory passage in the so-called “plain English” version of the health care bill that the Senate Finance Committee approved on Tuesday (without ever drafting the actual legislative language) says that in the future Americans will be offered the convenience of getting their health insurance at the Department of Motor Vehicles.
MyBarackObama.com: Dissenters To BHO's Plans Are "Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists"
Much of the following video is about BHO's upcoming national address to schoolchildren. But there is another element too. Listen and watch, particularly at time marker :55-1:10. Also note that right-wingers have been deemed "the heirs of Bin Laden," at time marker 1:40-1:43.
Not a surprise that the right is being demonized. Didn't I post this less than a month ago?
It looks like the Demokrat MSM are preparing for what might be the inevitable failure of their Messiah's health care plan. Some amazing damage control memes are beginning to emerge:
1. Failure is good!
[...]
2. Obama's failure is really a failure of the national press corps, the left wing and the Demokratic party.
[...]
3. Obama is bogged down because he has been working so hard to accommodate Republicans.
[...]
4. Obama is failing because he's too nice.
To support those four points, Right Klik cites various sources. For example, Slate states as follows with regard to Point One above:
It's easy to forget that, even if Obama's health care effort is bogging down, the effort itself still serves his presidency as a crucial time-waster, tying up Congress and giving him a reason to postpone (or the public a reason to ignore) those other divisive, presidency-killers. If he keeps failing to pass health care until spring, that might not be such a bad outcome. In fact, even quick passage was maybe never in his interest. There are things more unpopular than struggling...
On August 25, 2009, the Washington Post ran this lead editorial, which basically advocates dumping ObamaKare:
NO ONE LIKES to be the bearer of bad news -- especially when it could threaten your multibillion-dollar health-care reform bill. And so the Obama administration did not exactly rush to publish yesterday's required mid-session update to its federal budget estimates of last February. Still, once the numbers finally emerged in the dog days of August, they retained the power to stun: Instead of a cumulative $7.1 trillion deficit over the next decade, the White House now projects a $9 trillion deficit. These figures imply average annual budget deficits greater than 4 percent of gross domestic product through fiscal 2019, a rate of debt accumulation faster than projected GDP growth. This is not a sustainable fiscal path.
[...]
[T]he Bush administration's irresponsibility notwithstanding, it is time to stop crying "we inherited it." The Obama administration needs its own clear, credible plan for restoring fiscal sustainability once the worst of the recession has run its course.
[...]
The new deficit numbers make it even more urgent that any health-care reform not only be fully paid for and certifiably budget-neutral in the eyes of independent analysts such as the CBO but also promise meaningful reductions in the cost growth of health care. So far, none of the plans under discussion measure up....
Another Washington Postcommentary, this one by Richard Cohen, also indicates a failed Obama administration:
...More and more Obama is being likened to Lyndon Johnson, with Afghanistan becoming his Vietnam. Maybe. But the better analogy is to Jimmy Carter, particularly the president analyzed by James Fallows in a 1979 Atlantic magazine article, "The Passionless Presidency." "The central idea of the Carter administration is Jimmy Carter himself," Fallows wrote. And what is the central idea of the Obama presidency? It is change. And what is that? It is Obama himself.
...[H]e seems lost. The country needs health-care reform and success in Afghanistan, and both efforts are going in the wrong direction....
[...]
This is because of an insufficiency I have noted previously -- his distinct coolness, an above-the-fray mien that does not communicate empathy.
Thus, we see that even some BHO supporters realize that this administration is a failure. Consequently, that failure must be (1) success and (2) not BHO's fault. Don't you just love the logic?
In my view, the reality of BHO's failure will not set in for a long time yet. And watch for the Orwellian spin! Giving up on the Obama Church will be difficult for the members thereof.
Short video of particular interest to me (hat tip to Hard To Swallow):
As of this past spring, after long months of searching options and filing applications, this household of two has two individual, high-deductible policies.
Indeed, such catastrophic-coverage policies are the only kinds of policies that Mr. AOW and I can afford. Specifically, the monthly premium for Mr. AOW is nearly $500, mine nearly $200. Mr. AOW and I are close in age. Why the difference in premiums?
Mr. AOW has the dreaded pre-existing conditions, all under control and being treated successfully for well over ten years; he has never been hospitalized for any of his pre-existing conditions. Furthermore, because of the economy and Mr. AOW's age, he is unable to work enough to pay the monthly premium for his policy right now.
ObamaCare would force us into a higher priced policy! UNACCEPTABLE!
Mr. AOW lost his job of some twelve years in January 2008 because the employer-based policy was costing a business suffering a downturn which required cutting back on expenses. Said employer, therefore, laid off Mr. AOW and several others. The company then hired younger workers who opted out of the health insurance plan offered by the company.
My income and assets, pitiful as they are, precludes my husband's option of going onto Medicaid. We are faced with the situation that a divorce would solve the health-insurance problem for Mr. AOW and our financial future. Disclaimer: no divorce proceedings have been investigated or initiated.
Should ObamaCare as outlined in the above short video become law, I wonder how many others will face a situation similar to this household's.
Palin's comments, posted on her Facebook page, come after weeks of raucous town halls in which conservatives have shouted down members of Congress.
"There are many disturbing details in the current bill that Washington is trying to rush through Congress, but we must stick to a discussion of the issues and not get sidetracked by tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment," Palin wrote. "Such tactics diminish our nation’s civil discourse which we need now more than ever because the fine print in this outrageous health care proposal must be understood clearly and not get lost in conscientious voters’ passion to want to make elected officials hear what we are saying. Let’s not give the proponents of nationalized health care any reason to criticize us."
Let's think about Palin's statement for a minute. Common folk are going to town halls and have one chance to have a face-to-face with their so-called "elected public servants." And those public servants are lying to and dissing the very people who pay their salaries after voting these "public servants" into office. These common folk, many of them looking to the so-called "experts" for answers, come, for the most part, respectful of the office and perhaps even a bit intimidated by the "experts," many of whom are lawyers or, at the least, have many years in public office. Then the common folk learn that these relied-upon "experts" don't have answers and/or are spouting the BHO party line.
Analogy: I recently bought a new car. The first dealer I visited for over three hours lied to me as to the trade-in amount for my clunker (the manager saying "$3500" when the government web site clearly stated $4500). We cut a tentative deal at $11,000, and when I returned to that car dealer later in the day with my checkbook in hand and the printout from the government web site, I got all sorts of run-around and a new price of $14,000.
So what did I do? Kick the furniture around? Start yelling? No. I went to another car dealer and yet another until I found one willing to strike a deal with me. I wasn't trapped, I had options.
But what if there had been no other car dealer to go to? I think that my reaction would have been much like the common folk at the town halls. I certainly wouldn't have left quietly as I really needed a new car.
In a sense, these common folk at the town halls are trapped. They have only one dealer with which to strike a deal, that dealer being their so-called "public servant" of the moment. And the common folk are seeing so-called "public servant" after so-called "public servant" acting the assand lying.
These so-called "public servants" deserve to be hooted at, yelled at, and laughed at. They've earned such reactions. They also need to be voted out of office - perhaps even recalled from office before their current term has ended.
In my view, Sarah Palin is coming off like some kind of elitist with her statement about telling the common folk to tone down their anger. Furthermore, the people - the common folk, untrained in public relations and policy debate, which training all these politicians have - are showing anger in the face of disdain and lies, and are responding in the tradition of the Spirit of 1776.
It is the so-called "public servants" who have turned public discourse into a farce. They deserve the reaction they are getting from the people.
Click directly on the image to your left to enlarge it and to see what these so-called "public servants" actually deserve!
This is one of my longer posts, so settle in for a lengthy read as I connect the dots. This post will stay here several days as I have a busy week ahead.
(graphic courtesy of GM's Place - disseminate freely)
Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform
As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don't agree. Today, I'm going to step over that line.
The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.
[...]
Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.
If health reform is to be anyone's Waterloo, let it be theirs.
As one who always reads Pearlstein's columns, which typically often sound financial advice, I have to say that I'm astounded as the position he has taken in this essay.
Those with concerns about ObamaCare are "political terrorists"? Perhaps Pearlstein is a covert disciple of Cass Suntein and Zephyr Teachout. --------- On July 12, 2009, I posted the following about Cass Sunstein:
Based on his own words and statements of intent, Cass Sunstein, appointed to the shadowy post of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, will likely have his eye on the Internet, particularly on us bloggers:
When it comes to the First Amendment, Team Obama believes in Global Chilling.
Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.
[...]
Sunstein questions the current libel standard - which requires proving "actual malice" against those who write about public figures, including celebrities. Mere "negligence" isn't libelous, but Sunstein wonders, "Is it so important to provide breathing space for damaging falsehoods about entertainers?" Celeb rags, get ready to hire more lawyers.
Sunstein also believes that - whether you're a blogger, The New York Times or a Web hosting service - you should be held responsible even for what your commenters say. Currently you're immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "Reasonable people," he says, "might object that this is not the right rule," though he admits that imposing liability for commenters on service providers would be "a considerable burden."
[...]
"As we have seen," Sunstein writes, having shown us no such thing, "falsehoods can undermine democracy itself." What Sunstein means by that sentence is pretty clear: He doesn't like so-called false rumors about his longtime University of Chicago friend and colleague, Barack Obama.
He alludes on page 3 (and on page 13, and 14, and 45, and 54 - the book is only 87 pages) to the supposedly insidious lie that "Barack Obama pals around with terrorists." Since Sunstein intends to impose his Big Chill on such talk, I'd better get this in while I can. The "rumor," i.e., "fact," about the palsy-walsiness of Obama and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (Ayers referred to Obama as a "family friend" in a memoir) did not "undermine democracy," i.e., prevent Obama's election. The facts got out, voters weighed them and ruled that they weren't disqualifying.
Sunstein calls for a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commenters - but without apparent penalty.
Consider how well this nudge would work. You blog about Obama-Ayers. You get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post.
Such suppression of First Amendment rights would be challenged in courts of law, of course. However, the article points out the following disturbing reality:
How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court....
Here is a some additional information about Cass Sunstein:
At the time of my July 2009 posting about Cass Suntein's plans, RaDena commented as follows:
They won't be able to do it, Always, because it will backfire on the far left. They spew more vitriol than anyone...They can't suppress only conservatives and as they can't do anything else except throw around insults they'd be affected by this much worse than you or I would. Americans are not going to tolerate that much of a double standard... at least I hope not!
Hmmmm.... And now we have the White House snitch program and all sorts of trouble at town halls (See recent posts at Gateway Pundit). How things have changed in less than a month from that posting about Sunstein! We shouldn't be surprised at change, of course: the Whitehouse.gov video, which supposedly "debunked" the idea that Obama is pro single-payer, came of out the White House Office of Information, headed by Cass Sunstein. How many of the other videos and documents coming out of the White House bear the mark of Sunstein? A lot of them, I'm sure.
Now, about Zephyr Teachout.
Back on May 31, 2009, I published a post entitled "Are BHO and Company Keeping a List?" at Infidel Bloggers Alliance:
How long do we have before we lose the Internet?
I direct you to this column by George F. Will. Complete essay, which is quite long but important for us to discuss, I think:
For several decades, most of the ingenuity that liberal academics have invested in First Amendment analysis has aimed to justify limiting the core activity that the amendment was written to protect -- political speech. These analyses treat free speech as not an inherent good but as a merely instrumental good, something justified by serving other ends -- therefore something to be balanced against, and abridged to advance, other goods.
The good for which Zephyr Teachout would regulate speech is combating corruption, which, as she understands it, encompasses most of contemporary politics. A visiting law professor at Duke, writing in the Cornell Law Review ("The Anti-Corruption Principle"), she makesan astonishingly far-reaching argument for emancipating government from First Amendment restrictions on its powers to regulate political speech -- speech about the government's composition and conduct.
Hitherto, most arguments for such emancipation -- for McCain-Feingold and other measures regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech -- have rested on the supposed need to curb corruption or the "appearance" thereof, with corruption understood as quid pro quo transactions, political favors exchanged for financial favors. But bribery has long been criminalized, and courts are wary about allowing the criminalizing of the constant transactions of mutual support between politicians and factions.
Teachout's capacious definition of corruption includes even an unseemly "attitude" of citizens as well as officeholders "toward public service." She says that the Framers thought limiting corruption was their "primary task." Therefore the "anti-corruption principle" should have "as much weight" as the First Amendment, giving Congress considerable "leeway" to regulate the political "process," which is mostly speech. What Teachout disparagingly calls "the apotheosis of speech" and "the sanctified meme of 'free speech' " is, she says, "a serious problem" requiring a rethinking of "the proper relationship of speech to self-serving public actors."
She advocates, as proponents of an elastic Constitution often do, an "evolving standard," this time a standard about how we define, measure and condemn "self-serving" behavior, aka corruption. This standard might license Congress to restrict speech in order to combat:
"Unequal access" to the political process; "unfair deployment of wealth"; "undue influence" by this or that group; speech that is "distorting" or lacks "proportionality" or results in "drowned voices" or a "passive" or "dispirited" public or that causes a "loss of political integrity" or creates "moral failings for members of Congress." Such speech might not be constitutionally protected if we properly "refine the meaning of the privilege of political speech."
So, political speech is not a right but a privilege, something granted by governmentwhen government deems it consistent with what Teachout calls the "equally important" anti-corruption principle. Imagine the "self-serving" uses incumbent legislators might have for the terms in the paragraph above as reasons for restricting political speech.
The word "corruption" or some permutation of it occurs 58 times in the 85 essays that are the Federalist Papers. James Madison wrote not only many of the papers but also this: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." He saw no conflict between that proscription and efforts to minimize corruption. He and other Framers considered corruption a vice requiring constant vigilance precisely because it is inextricably entwined with a virtue, America's vast scope -- constitutionally protected scope -- for self-interested behavior, including political speech.
Congressional Democrats want to kill a small voucher program that gave some mostly poor and minority students alternatives to the District of Columbia's failing public schools, and the Obama administration spent additional billions to avoid a declaration of bankruptcy by General Motors. Some people think both decisions represented disinterested assessments of the public good. Others think the decisions represented obeisance by Democrats to the teachers and autoworkers unions, respectively. If the decisions were such obeisance, they were, by Teachout's standards, corrupt.
If corruption is as ubiquitous as Teachout's standard ("self-serving" behavior) says, then reasons for restricting political speech also are ubiquitous. Under today's regulatory and redistributionist government, which is busily allocating wealth and opportunity, politics frequently "appears" to many people "self-serving." It will not, however, be prettified by regulating speech.
If Teachout considers the politics produced by today's gargantuan government unlovely, she should not try to further enlarge the government by empowering it to comprehensively regulate speech about government. Instead, she should join the movement to restrain government's incessant regulating and redistributing transactions on behalf of myriad factions -- transactions that create more and more clamorous factions. The movement is called conservatism.
If political speech becomes a privilege, we are doomed!
Are you connecting the dots in the same way that I am?
Right now, with union thugs moving in on town hall meetings, we are seeing political speech becoming a privilege.
Right now, the Democratic Party and the mainstream media are painting constituents voicing questions and dissent as "extremists." Watch a few broadcasts on MSNBC to get the drift, but be sure to take your antacids or a stiff drink first. We even have Nancy Pelosi saying that dissenters to ObamaCare are carrying swastikas and deceptive photos circulating. How long before we hear that portrayal as "Angry town hall attendees are political terrorists"? And remember the ideology which drives this administration; Sunstein and Teachout make that ideology clear even though we don't hear their names front and center.
Losing our freedom of speech and even our ability to freely communicate with our elected public servants can't happen in America? Think again.
After all, who would have said a year ago that we'd be seeing these town halls, overt and covert, erupting as they have?
And could you get away with putting this sign in your yard and have your home still remain safe? Could you put this bumper-sticker version on your car and not have your car vandalized? I think that we've already lost those freedoms.
I submit that WE THE PEOPLE are being terrorized by this arrogant, power-grabbing administration and its maniacal devotees, who want us to become WE THE SHEEPLE:
Of course, not all the people are willing to be sheeple (hat tip to Reliapundit of THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS):
Text about ObamaKare below the fold: Via this posting citing the Associated Press at Infidel Bloggers Alliance:
FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's assertion Wednesday that government will stay out of health care decisions in an overhauled system is hard to square with the proposals coming out of Congress and with his own rhetoric.
Even now, nearly half the costs of health care in the U.S. are paid for by government at all levels. Federal authority would only grow under any proposal in play.
A look at some of Obama's claims in his prime-time news conference:
OBAMA: "We already have rough agreement" on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: "It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it."
THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.
Indeed, Obama went on to lay out other principles of reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care. He said insurance companies would be barred from dropping coverage when someone gets too sick, limits would be set on out-of-pocket expenses, and preventive care such as checkups and mammograms would be covered.
It's true that people would not be forced to give up a private plan and go with a public one. The question is whether all of those private plans would still be in place if the government entered the marketplace in a bigger way.
He addressed some of the nuances under questioning. "Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system?" he said. "No. The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier."
He acknowledged then that the "government already is making some of these decisions." ___ OBAMA: "I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."
THE FACTS: The president has said repeatedly that he wants "deficit-neutral" health care legislation, meaning that every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy, with or without a health care overhaul.
Beyond that, budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.
I watched BHO's speech last night and found him quite convincing. For one thing, he cited some real problems those of us searching for affordable health insurance experience once we're out there searching for private coverage, particularly those of us with pre-existing conditions, never mind that Mr. AOW and I have been enrolled in health insurance plans and getting prompt and proper care for those pre-existing conditions for over thirty years. I tell you right now that our rates, even for catastrophic coverage, are extortionary! But going without coverage is unthinkable as there is no way to shield one's assets from medical bankruptcy.
Advisory: My above statements are not an endorsement of ObamaKare but rather my quick personal observations before I head out to work, then on to the car dealers to see what kinds of deals I can obtain. I have at least one clunker to turn in. For the first time in our lives, Mr. AOW and I may buy a new car and at a used-car price!
And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).
When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).
It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.
Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.
The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199).
One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."
Think about the above points. Is this the kind of health care you would choose in a free society?
If you have a health-insurance policy, you already know how often copays change. And the change is just one loophole to force you into ObamaKare.
"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people," Obama said addressing the American Medical Association. "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." He didn't let up."If you like what you're getting, keep it," Obama said. "Nobody is forcing you to shift."
And now, for your viewing nightmare and framed in Communist red, is the video Yid With Lid used to conclude his post:
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Patrons of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible
for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or
harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP.
Patrons are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links
to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a
criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate
any applicable local, state, national or international law or
regulation. Comments here are typically unmoderated and unedited.
The fact that particular comments remain on the site
in no way constitutes the site owner's endorsement of commenters' views.
