Democrats’ Healthcare Scheme Is Pure Insanity

Democrats’ Healthcare Scheme Is Pure Insanity

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

Whole industries and banks are biting the dust; unemployment lingers close to double-digits; government deficits rise like a mountain of nuclear waste; the communist Chinese are buying up our debt in anticipation of God knows what kind of future demands; and more soldiers die needlessly while the President dithers with his golf game. Purely mad social engineers — Obama, Pelosi, & Reid — are on a determined march toward nationalizing one sixth of the entire American economy. Their scheme will have far-reaching effects on one hundred percent of the men, women and children in this country. The whole idea is patently ridiculous, especially in light of the host of other impending disasters.
But the fact that these Democrat power-mongers are attempting to foist upon us a system already tried-and-failed so many times in so many places pushes the current national healthcare debate into the realm of pure lunacy.
As one of Einstein’s most oft-quoted bits of genius reminds us, doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results, is insanity.
In his determined efforts to persuade a resistant public, President Obama has offered exaggerated horror stories about our own healthcare system. He has cited phantom doctors amputating healthy limbs for profit, doctors unnecessarily removing children’s tonsils, as well as a few sordid stories about the failure of health insurance companies to deliver on their promises. But turning doctors into greedy villains and insurance companies into monsters has proved a bit difficult, since more than 80% of Americans consistently report satisfaction with both.

It’s much easier to find horror stories from the medical delivery systems being touted by Democrats as the far warmer and fuzzier “options.” These oft-cited models include Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. Amy Ridenour and Ryan Balis of the National Center for Public Policy Research highlighted one hundred individual nightmares rendered by these failing healthcare systems in their book, Shattered Lives.     
Babies born at home, in hospital linen closets, and in parking lots without medical assistance due to bed shortages occurs in the highly touted British system. A full six percent of Britons have engaged in do-it-yourself dentistry, including tooth extractions, due to the dentist shortage. A 54-year-old smoker was refused surgery for accidental multiple fractures to his ankle because doctors said he wouldn’t have as high a recovery rate as a non-smoker. British citizens are routinely denied expensive cancer-fighting drugs because they’re the wrong age or live in the wrong district. As if these horrors weren’t bad enough, the medical care denials are dictated by a sort of “death panel” coined by Orwellian bureaucrats to spell NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence).
The elephant in the room with these touted healthcare models, of course, is the size of population served. None of the countries studied by Ridenour and Balis comes even close to America’s 300-million-plus population. The largest of these national healthcare systems is the United Kingdom, with a little less than 62 million people served. This is the rough equivalent of the combined population of California and Texas alone. Canada has just under 34 million citizens, which is nearly 3 million less than the single state of California.
Democrats tout Medicare as the test model, but Medicare is on a financial collision course with reality. The Massachusetts model, used by Mitt Romney to boost his presidential bid, is taking the state under water so fast that the Red Cross should send the citizenry life preservers. The Democrats are trying to take an already failing business model from mom-and-pop-small-town-corner-size to national mega-franchise overnight, and they seem not to even see the nitwit nature of that.  
If anything positive can be said about the countries now experiencing the disasters and “shattered lives” rendered by full-tilt, single-payer healthcare delivery models, it is that they didn’t know any better when they started down this road. There weren’t clear failures marking every turn.
But the United States has no such excuse. Democrats are on a hell-bent tear to take American taxpayers straight off the proverbial cliff in their purely insane insistence to follow a path strewn with catastrophe. Why on earth would they expect a better result, especially when they have hundreds of millions more people to please? 

Insanity. It’s just pure insanity.

Perhaps instead of sending all those don’t-do-it petitions to the folks in charge up there in D.C., we ought to try shipping them straitjackets and Valium. That might help them get a better handle on what we think of their national healthcare schemes.
Want a real fix? Two things in less than fifty pages: tort reform and a national competitive market for insurers. I think I’ll run for President.
Copyright 2009 Creators Syndicate. Published by special arrangement.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/democrats_healthcare_scheme_is.html at October 30, 2009 – 09:29:04 AM EDT

House Leader Calls Health Bill “1,990 Pages Of Bureaucracy”

House Leader Calls Health Bill “1,990 Pages Of Bureaucracy”

Rep. John Boehner says Republicans “continue to have better solutions.”

VIDEO: Pence: Pelosi Bill The “Freight Train of Big Government”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/29/house_leader_calls_health_bill_1990_pages_of_bureaucracy.html

Obamacare: Startling New Revelations Scare Public

Obamacare: Startling New Revelations Scare Public

October 29th, 2009

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

Costs are about to TRIPLE under Obamacare

First, we learned that a $500 billion cut in Medicare will dramatically affect the quality and quantity of healthcare available to America’s senior citizens.

Grandma’s access is being slashed to add illegal immigrants and twenty-somethings into the insurance system. However, this revelation pales in relation to what we heard this week.

Here’s the latest shock: Average current health insurance premiums with likely triple under Obamacare.

The new data comes from a well regarded, state-by-state study conducted for WellPoint, Inc. The most dramatic premium boosts will hit young people. These are the actual individuals that often opt out of insurance plans now.

Reaction from the Obama White House was swift and harsh. Linda Douglass, Obama’s healthcare spokesperson, had the audacity to compare the health insurance firm with tobacco companies. Since the White House refuses to argue the facts, they instead turned to using one of their favorite tactics, which is demonizing any voices of dissent.

The reason for the dramatic insurance premium increases is the result of Obamacare regulations. First cause is the mandate that insurance companies take any customer. Insurance traditionally is an actuarial business that rates different customers based on risk factors. This is the reason a driver aged 19 with two speeding tickets pays more for auto insurance than a customer aged 35 with no speeding tickets. Nineteen-year-olds have more accidents. Therefore they pose more risk.

Traditionally, health insurance companies charged customers with risk factors and chronic illness more than young, healthy 19-year-olds. Obamacare stands the concept of insurance on its head. Since an insurance company will be forced to sell to any sick patient, the incentive to buy insurance when you are healthy decreases. Why not wait until you are sick; get cancer, diabetes or some other severe illness before you buy? To circumvent this problem, Obama is riddling the program with police-state mandates on healthy, younger citizens. Perverted, negative incentives such as threats of large fines and even prison time will hang over young people’s heads to force them to join and stay enrolled in Obama’s healthcare scheme. Does this sound like America to you?

Democratic leaders in Congress are seeing support slip through their fingers because Americans are learning that they will end up paying more for less-adequate care. The beneficiaries of this plan are still lobbying hard. Big business will likely dump most of their current employee-based plans and pay the less expensive tax. Big unions are facing the reality that they are going to be bankrupted by their generous membership health plans. Many want to dump their responsibilities on the new government option recently revived by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. AARP is salivating at the money they will make selling new, bigger Medicare-gap plans after the current program is gutted.

These powerful lobbies are the driving force for change. Individual family finances will pay the higher costs and see no benefit.

There is still time to kill this wrongheaded plan and replace it with reforms that will truly work. Selling insurance across state lines will increase competition and lower prices. Tort reform that eliminates outrageous judgments in malpractice cases will get lawyers out of medicine; this will result in eliminating billions currently being spent in the name of defensive medicine.

Insurance can work, but the costly mandates and regulations already choking the healthcare system are a big barrier to cutting costs.

Free markets deliver to Americans consumer goods, groceries, veterinary services, and even plastic surgery at affordable prices with little government meddling.

Let the free market price and correct the distortions currently in the health care system.

Government has bankrupted Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. Postal Service. Let’s not let the politicians destroy the greatest healthcare delivery system in the world.

While Obama Mulls Troop Decision, Taliban Attacks Grow Bolder

While Obama Mulls Troop Decision, Taliban Attacks Grow Bolder

October 29th, 2009

By Rahim Faiez and Amir Shah, CNS News

The Taliban is getting more aggressive

Taliban militants wearing suicide vests stormed a guest house used by U.N. staff in the heart of the Afghan capital early Wednesday, killing 12 people — including six U.N. staff — in the biggest in a series of attacks intended to undermine next month’s presidential runoff election.

One of the six U.N. dead was an American, the U.S. Embassy said. A Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility for the early morning assaults, which also included rocket attacks at the presidential palace and the city’s main luxury hotel.

One rocket struck the “outer limit” of the presidential palace but caused no casualties, presidential spokesman Humayun Hamidzada said. Another slammed into the grounds of the Serena Hotel, which is favored by many foreigners.

The device failed to explode but filled the lobby with smoke, forcing guests and employees to flee to the basement, according to an Afghan witness who asked that his name not be used for security reasons.

Read More:

Obama’s FCC, liberal churches, and the “media justice” mob

Michelle Malkin 

Obama’s FCC, liberal churches, and the “media justice” mob

By Michelle Malkin  •  October 28, 2009 04:59 AM

My syndicated column today (reprinted below) probes the FCC/left-wing church alliance to silence conservative critics of illegal immigration through “hate speech” regulation. Tip of the iceberg.

Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator first broke the story of how United Church of Christ officials met with kindred spirit/FCC Commissioner Michael Copps earlier this month before launching a nationwide campaign to pressure the FCC to crack down on cable TV and talk radio figures.

The motto of the “So We Might See” anti-”hate speech” campaign is: “Without media justice, there will be no social justice!” The same Marx-loving “social justice” crowd is behind the “media justice” mob — including George Soros’s Open Society Institute, Media Democracy Fund, and Media Matters; the Ford Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; etc., etc., etc. Their goal: government redistribution of media wealth. As “The Media Justice Fund” put it: The movement “is grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies.” And there’s that phrase “transformative change” again:

* Media change of all kinds must expose and directly confront the mechanics of structural racism and systemic oppression.
* Leaders from historically marginalized communities must be developed as effective media activists and strategic movement communicators.
* Media policy advocacy and strategic communications are more effective when clearly relevant to the primary justice issues of the movement for racial justice, economic and gender equity, and youth rights.
* Compelling communications and media activism campaigns must be both rooted in critical issues and coordinated across issue, sector, and region for national impact.
* When justice sectors strengthen communications strategies, center the use of culture as a communications tool, employ winning frames and messages, and strengthen their influence over media rules and rights, the possibilities for transformative change skyrocket.

“Transformative change” = a media landscape purged of the Right’s most powerful voices.

The White House communications shop gives two thumbs up, no doubt.

***

How the FCC and liberal churches are scheming to shut you up
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

The war on conservative speech has moved from the White House to your neighborhood pews. Left-wing church leaders want the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on “hate speech” over cable TV and right-leaning talk radio airwaves. President Obama’s speech-stifling bureaucrats seem all too happy to oblige.

Over the past week, an outfit called “So We Might See” has conducted a nationwide fast to protest “media violence” – specifically, “anti-immigrant hate speech, which employs flawed arguments to appeal to fears rather than facts.” Their ire is currently aimed at Fox News and conservative talk show giants. But how long before they target ordinary citizens who call in to complain about the government’s systemic refusal to enforce federal sanctions on illegal alien employers or the bloody consequences of lax deportation policies?

The “interfaith coalition for media justice” is led by the United Church of Christ. Yes, that’s the same church of Obama’s race-baiting, Jew-bashing ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright. Other members include the Presbyterian News Service, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the National Council of Churches. (The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has denied being a part of the campaign, despite being listed as a coalition member. So has the Methodist church.) These religious liberals have partnered with the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which filed a petition in January demanding that the FCC collect data, seek public comment, and “explore options” for combating “hate speech” from staunch critics of illegal immigration.

Open-borders groups have sought to marginalize, criminalize, and demonize those of us who have raised our voices for years about lax immigration enforcement — and to impose an Orwellian Fairness Doctrine-style policy on illegal alien amnesty opponents. During the presidential campaign, the National Council of La Raza launched a “We Can Stop the Hate” project to redefine tough policy criticism from the Right as “hate.” La Raza president Janet Murguia called for TV networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves and argued that hate speech should not be tolerated, “even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights,” according to the NYTimes.

Now, the gag-wielders have a friend in the White House – and they won’t let him forget it. Their FCC petition calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration critics cites Obama’s own words in a fall 2008 speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Obama told his amnesty-supporting audience that he knew they were “counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling the airwaves.”

Unsurprisingly, far Left billionaire George Soros’s money is backing the “So We Might See”/National Hispanic Media Coalition effort. And remember that the Soros-funded Center for American Progress has provided the Obama White House with its Fairness Doctrine-embracing “diversity czar,” Mark Lloyd.

Last week, United Church of Christ officials met privately with Obama FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps in advance of the “So We Might See” campaign. Copps then delivered a lecture at the UCC’s Riverside Church in New York City, expressing solidarity with the liberal church leaders’ goals and egging the congregants to take action on “media reform: ”We are taking huge risks with our democracy. We need to change that and we need to do it now. We need to get a grip on what’s happening and we need to fix it.”

Jeffrey Lord, who happens to belong to the United Church of Christ, reported in the American Spectator that not long after that speech, the UCC sent out a mass e-mail to its millions of members urging them to join the nationwide fast and regulatory drive. The church-state alliance missive directed its followers: “As a participant, you will be asked to sign a petition to the Federal Communications Commission asking that it open a notice of inquiry into hate speech in the media.”

No word on when they’ll be launching an inquiry into the fear-based, fact-free “hate speech” from the mouth of Florida Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson, who accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to “die quickly,” likened health care problems to the “Holocaust,” and attacked an adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a “K Street whore.”

Or when they’ll be going after MSNBC and Air America radio hate-mongers who have openly wished on their airwaves for the deaths of George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck.

But I digress. In the age of Obama, the targets of left-wing hate speech don’t have a prayer.

Obama Appoints 2 Devout Muslims to Homeland Security Posts

Obama Appoints 2 Devout Muslims
to Homeland Security Posts  

(NOTE:  Has anyone ever heard a new
government official being identified as a
devout Catholic, Jew or Protestant…?
Just wondering)
Doesn’t this make you feel safer already??  
  
Obama and Janet Nappy Appoint Devout Muslim
to Homeland Security Post,
Arif Alikhan as Assistant Secretary for

Policy Development.
Source for announcement:
Homeland Security Press Room  http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1240595153301.shtm
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/06/obama-appointment-arif-ali-khan-asst-secretary-dhs.html

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/06/obama-appointment-arif-ali-khan-asst-secretary-dhs.html
 

Kareem Shora, who was born in Damascus,  Syria  
was appointed by DHS Secretary Napolitano

on Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC)
Washington, DC
June 5, 2009
www.adc.org <http://www.adc.org/>
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
(ADC) is proud to announce that earlier today
at a ceremony held in   Albuquerque ,   New Mexico ,
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in
ADC National Executive Director Kareem Shora
s a member of the Homeland Security Advisory
Council (HSAC).
**********************************************
Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions?  

That should make our homeland much safer, huh!!
Was it not men of the “Devout Muslim Faith” that flew planes into U.S. buildings not too long ago.

 

 

Michelle contradicts Obama nativity story


BORN IN THE USA?

Michelle contradicts Obama nativity story

Divulges Ann Dunham was ‘very young and very single’ at birth of U.S. president


 

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Jr.

In little noticed remarks, Michelle Obama stated at a public event that her husband’s mother, Ann Dunham, was “very young and very single” when she gave birth to the future U.S. president.

Her comments further undermine the official story as told by Barack Obama – that Dunham was married to his father, Barack Obama Sr., at the time of birth.

The remarks were made by Michelle Obama during a July 2008 round table at the University of Missouri. Obama was responding to criticism of her husband’s presidential campaign speeches about fatherhood and faith-based initiatives.

Michelle Obama explained her husband understands the struggles of low-income families.

“He understands them because he was raised by strong women. He is the product of two great women in his life. His mother and his grandmother,” she said.

“Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him, and he saw her work hard to complete her education and try to raise he and his sister,” Michelle Obama said.

Her remarks about Dunham being “very single” when she gave birth to Barack Obama were also quoted last year on a blog posted at MSNBC.com. The remarks, however, contradicted previous claims President Obama made about the circumstances of his birth.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers