A PICNIC?

What I think we have here is a PICNIC. A PICNIC complete with Kool-Aid Drinking representation who refuse to listen to the electorate. We currently are having a Problem In Congress Not In Country - and the American people realize it! A Rasmussen poll released this morning indicates that only 25% of Americans would keep their current Senator or Congressman, and 57% would like to scrap the whole bunch and start over. That was exactly what the framers of the constitution thought would happen about every other election cycle. Serving as a member of Congress was, at the time, truly public service. Members of Congress were unpaid for their service, receiving only a $6.00 per day stipend during the time the Congress was in Session. This stipend was designed to cover the cost of their travel and living expenses while the legislature was in session. It was the standard then that members of Congress were drawn to the responsibility largely by the desire to impact public policy. Washington was not a seat of power and influence until the New Deal and that sphere of influence has continued to expand right up through the late 1960s and Johnson’s Great Society legislation
The time is now to begin the process of finding viable candidates for the next election cycle. No incumbent – Republican or Democrat should stay in office. Stop the PICNIC.

STAY AWAY FROM OUR CHILDREN!

Cybersecurity Bill S. 773 will provide even more opportunity for the federal government to control and intrude on our lives. This bill currently before the Senate would strengthen powers provided by Homeland Security Legislation under the Bush Administration. Senate Bill 773 would provide the President of the United States to shut down internet traffic, and networks both private and public he decides are critical infrastructure.

But even more disturbing to me is the following language found in Section 12 of this bill:

“shall provide a procedure for identifying promising K–12 students for participation in summer work and internship programs that would lead to certification of Federal information technology workforce standards and possible future employment;”

This power would be granted to the director of the National Science Foundation – a division of the federal government headed by presidential appointees. Can you think of other another 20th century country that placed children in work and programs based on the government’s assessment of their potential?

Are you willing to allow your child or grandchild’s freedom to choose a career, a passion in life to be taken from them? For me and mine - stay away!

The entire bill can be read here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s773is.txt.pdf

The Legacy of the Lion?

See Cartoons by Cartoon by Steve Greenberg - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoon

Senator Kennedy was a man of incredible, vibrant, energy who did in fact spend his life in the service of his country. I believe that he was true to what he believed was best and right for this country. We just have a fundamental difference about what those things are. Senator Kennedy lived a life of affluence and privilege- life where a different set of rules applies. A life where he(in a somewhat larger than life fashion) could make sweeping decisions and influence the fabric of American life. Raised by a father who served as Ambassador to Nazi Germany, in a time when socialist values were held in high esteem it is not curious to me that he would believe that the government knows best for her people. Not surprising that he would believe and be able to convince others that his agenda was really best for them. His life work is said to be Health Care Reform. Democrats now have little chance of passing a Health Care Reform Bill (HR3200) with the required 2/3 majority.

Today there are 57 Democratic senators one of whom Robert Byrd of West Virginia will like not be able to vote. Current Massachusetts law requires a special election for Senator Kennedy’s seat to be filled, which will not occur for several months.

This means one of two things MUST occur in order to obtain Obamacare. A short-circuit of the traditional Senate legislative process by passing a more partisan bill through reconciliation, or the mass defection of Republican Senators so committed to honoring Senator Kennedy’s memory that they simply roll over and pass whatever comes in front of them.
Since reconciliation (a budget tactic that only requires simple majority) was designed simply for deficit reduction, not change to legislation impacting the populace, Republican’s are calling this legislative warfare and even some Dems are not very comfortable with the idea.

Every poll reflects huge anger and opposition from the American people both to public option, and to passing this bill without a 2/3s majority. According to Fox News: "So there may be a great irony here," Ornstein said. "Kennedy, by not being there, may have increased the chances of getting something closer to what he would have preferred." so if Democrats do go it alone, they may as well get as much as possible.

The bigger question is - if the will of the people is ignored by their current representation in the Senate - do we as a people have the courage to honor the memory of the Lion of the Senate, and his brothers who stood so strongly for the rights of the people and TAKE BACK EVERY SEAT IN CONGRESS from those who vote favorably on this proposal? Call your Senator today!

The Passion Gap

Senator Kennedy's passing, and the resultant outpouring of emotion -- including the venom from online commenters who accuse Kennedy of everything up to and including the faking of the moon landing -- is a reminder of the role of passion in American politics.
Something about the Kennedys always got people fired up. Teddy was a political rock star when Obama was still a little boy. Charisma alone wasn't enough to put Teddy in the White House, but it helped him become a master legislator.

You need passionate support to effect powerful change. Obama had passion on his side in overcoming the odds and winning the presidency. But there's no public passion -- or not nearly enough, as far as I can see -- behind Obama's push for sweeping health-care reform. That's why so many pundit types are sounding the death knell for the incorrectly named Obamacare (there's no such thing as Obamacare -- he just laid out some broad principles, got stakeholders to come to the table, and asked Congress to come up with a plan).

There is speculation today that, to honor Kennedy, the Democrats will find a way to gain the upper hand again in the debate. But the converse seems more likely. Kennedy was one of the last people on the Hill who could bring partisans together on a bill that could actually reach the president's desk.If the elected leaders can't or won't make it happen on their own, it'll be up to the American people to insist on a health-care bill. But it's hard to see that happening. Obama faces a Passion Gap.
The people who don't want Obama's reform don't want it more than the people who want it want it.

Nationalism?

"When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community. "Adolph Hitler
This statement is similar to that of the Jesuits - who claimed that if you gave them control of a child until the age of accountability - he or she would be theirs forever. Our children's education is definitely under government control.
Our auto industry, our banking industry are now under government control - with health care control on the horizon.
I begin to really fear for this country - watch this video http://www.braindeadrepublican.com/Wordpress/government/mandatory-child-national-service-for-dear-leader-zero/and share my fear.

The Great Divide-

Liberal bloggers(including Jane Hamsher) and commentators including the UPI are touting a new poll funded by AARP and released on Wednesday as indication that support for the public option has gained traction. Using Malcolm X’s Ballot or the Bullet Speech as a platform the call for democratic passage of health care reform as necessary to fulfill a promise to the people, and use the death of Senator Edward Kennedy as a rallying point to fulfill his lifetime crusade – they continue to challenge the democratic leadship to rush to action and pass legislation in the face of any and all opposition.

Direct quote from the Poll: “However, American support for mandates and for a single government insurance plan for all Americans tests lower. Specifically, 45% support a mandate and 44% support government-supervised health insurance. Options that mix public and private efforts, such as “Starting a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can’t afford private plans offered to them”, find broader support across party lines. The proposal with the most consistent support across all parties – about 63% - is “Keeping health insurance mainly a private industry but allowing the government to serve as an industry watchdog to help expand coverage and keep an eye on costs.””
You can view the entire poll here:
http://assets.bizjournals.com/cms_media/denver/pdf/HealthPoll082509.pdf

The poll indicates very little bipartisan agreement on anything with one important exception -mistrust of their representation in Washington. 28% trust the Democrats to do the right things about health care while 41% trusted Republicans. So you see the Ballot and the Bullet Speech can support opposition as well. As Malcolm X said:“These Northern Democrats are in cahoots with the Southern Democrats. They’re playing a giant con game, a political con game. You know how it goes. One of them -- One of them comes to you and makes believe he's for you, and he’s in cahoots with the other one that’s not for you. Why? Because neither one of them is for you, but they got to make you go with one of them or the other. So this is a con game. And this is what they’ve been doing with you and me all these years. “ We must hold our politicians accountable!

Everyone agrees some change needs to occur and no one can agree on how. Until agreement and consensus can be reached by the PEOPLE there must be NO change. That is the cornerstone, the very foundation of our government. To pass legislation that so radically changes a private industry with less than the required 2/3 majority smacks of nationalization.

Wow - Something Smells Bad in D.C.

Nationalization, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state. Nationalization usually refers to private assets. The motives for nationalization are political as well as economic. It is a central theme of certain brands of 'state socialist' policy that the means of production, distribution and exchange, should be owned by the state on behalf of the people to allow for rational allocation and operation, and rational planning or control of the economy. Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by free and equal access for all individuals with a fair method of compensation.Socialism is NOT a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism. Many socialists believe that public ownership enables people to exercise full democratic control over the means whereby they earn their living and provides an effective means of redistributing wealth and income more equitably.

Nationalized industries, charged with operating in the public interest, may be under strong political and social pressures to give much more attention to externalities. They may be obliged to operate some loss making activities where social benefits are clearly greater than social costs - for example, rural, postal and transport services. As an example, the United States Postal Service is guaranteed its nationalized status by the Constitution. The government has recognized these social obligations and, in some cases, provides subsidies for such non-commercial operations.

Enter the Obama administration, money in the banking industry and a special advisor (czar);money into the auto industry and a special advisor (czar); money into some banks, and a czar and now the prospect of intrusion into yet another private industry health insurance. In each and every case just as in the past, government has placed its own parameters shaped by those influential in government around the provision of services.

Since the nationalized industries are state owned, the government is responsible for meeting any debts incurred by these industries. The nationalized industries do not normally borrow from the domestic market other than for short-term borrowing. However, if profitable, the profit is often used as a means to finance other state services such as social programs and government research which can help lower the tax burden.

One of the most famous examples of nationalization was in post WWI Germany. In the early twentieth century they attempted to recover from a severe recession by way of social spending. Germany began creating transportation projects, modernization of power plants and gas works,and insurance companies(beginning to sound familiar?) These were all used to battle the increasing unemployment rate. Social spending was rising at an unbelievable rate and deficits skyrocketed.

All of us must learn from history, and not repeat failed experiments of the past. Many individuals will press for the passing of increasingly liberal legislation with the passing of the “Lion of the Senate”. While he did in fact have huge impact on legislation for generations to come, his death CANNOT become a rallying point for programs and policy that cannot sustain the ideals of our country, our people and our founders. Democracy, and those charged with the representation of the populace such as the Democratic and Republican Parties must not permit this to happen.

Consequences? The Polls Say YES!

Representative Raul Grijalva D-Ariz., is co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and writes an opinion column for USA Today. He spoke out against a bipartisan effort saying that Republicans don’t want to kill a public option they want to kill reform. He backed up this argument with rather lame examples of conflicting statements he claims were made by Republicans. “For example, this month the Republican attacks on the public option have been rife with doublespeak. In one breath, we hear that "the government can't do anything right" while, in the next breath, we hear that "the government would run a public option so well and so inexpensively that it would knock out competition." Which is it?” Well it really is both. The government overburdens with paperwork, and regulation – as in a 13 page form to be completed for Reimbursement for Cash for Clunkers? 13 pages????? Get real. As to the second statement, the context is that the government has access to our tax dollars to fund whatever inefficient system they build, the ability to continue to increase the deficit, no tort liability and no property or other tax to build into their cost structure. It is not that government management of the program would be efficient, it is that the government has no accountability to her people for how money is spent.

The Obama administration uses an Urban Institute report to support the public option:”Right now, there's no incentive for insurers or big hospital groups to negotiate with each other, because they can pass higher payments on through premiums," said economist Linda Blumberg, co-author of the report. "A public plan would have the leverage to set lower payment rates and get providers to participate at those rates." "The private plans would come back to the providers and say, 'If you don't negotiate with me, you're going to be left with only the public plan,'" Blumberg continued. "Suddenly, you have a very strong economic incentive for them to negotiate." Today our health care system is already dependent on government spending. More than 46% of all medical service in the USA, about $1 trillion annually, is paid for directly by taxpayers – through Medicaid and Medicare. In addition to what government pays directly, it pumps in more than $200 billion a year in tax subsidies to Medicare Advantage and Medicaid HMOs designed to address both member and provider concerns with traditional Medicaid and Medicare levels of care and reimbursement.

In any case the wheels seem to be falling off the public option unless jammed through by the process of reconciliation. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would consider the voting tactic, known as reconciliation (which requires only 51 votes instead of the normal 60), if necessary to pass a bill by year's end if Republicans won't work toward a bipartisan solution. Talk about resorting to this maneuver comes as Republicans dig in against the idea of a government-run insurance program as an option for consumers and a requirement that employers provide health insurance to their workers. "I think it's a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform, health care reform plan that the public is either opposed to or of very, very passionate mixed minds about," Lieberman said. Even Sen. Kent Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman, acknowledged that "it's an option, but it's not a very good one." He has warned that nonbudget items in health care legislation would be challenged under the rules allowing reconciliation Republicans including Senate Republican leader would like to start over "with a genuine bipartisan approach."
"The American people will be very troubled by a single political party's 'my way or the highway' attitude to overhauling their health care, especially when it means government-run health care, new taxes on small businesses, and Medicare cuts for seniors," McConnell, R-Ky., said in an e-mail to The Associated Press . To Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, "that would be an abuse of the process.". Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., also suggested that a fresh start was needed."Bringing up of the health care situation in the midst of recession, the unemployment problems ... was a mistake," Lugar said. "For the moment, let's clear the deck and try it again next year or in subsequent times."

If the Democrats jam through this bill in the face of all of the documented opposition of the American people - they should be VERY WORRIED about the 2010 elections. As one North Carolina Democratic Senator said at his town hall when asked about the potential for a single payer system: ”of course it’s a possibility – don’t you people get it? There are consequences to elections”.

To the victor go the spoils?

During the last presidential election the message was one of hope and change. It is not clear that the change people were looking for was a shift to more socialist and less free market policy driven decisions. From the language used for his appointees (czars) to the appointees themselves, like Van Johnson, this President seems to have purposefully aligned himself with at best socialist and at worst communist ideology and individuals. For more on STORM and Van Jones see: Reclaiming Revolution: History, Summation, and Lessons from the Work of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM)“ (PDF File) a 2004 document by former members reflecting on their work, politics and pitfall.

The more liberal Democrats continue to insist public option must not be dropped from the health care reform plan. At a town hall meeting over the weekend, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, implored the president not to drop the public option plan and said his efforts to be bipartisan are futile.

"Yes, we know that you are a nice man, that you want to work with the opposite side of the aisle. But there comes a time when you need to drop that and move forward," she said. "We're saying to you, Mr. President, 'Be tough. Use everything that you've got. Do what you have to do. And we have your back.' "

I think that perhaps President Obama will push through a bill on health care reform simply because he can - abusing the process for reconciliation.

We have all had faith that our government would never abuse its power. I am not sure that this faith can be upheld.

Are health care cooperatives the right medicine for health care reform?

Who is prescribing?

Liberals want to create an insurance plan that keeps down costs, plays fair with Americans with pre-existing conditions and doesn’t leave anyone out in the cold. The problem? Fiscal conservatives, not just Republicans, aren’t playing ball. Not a single Republican, or fiscal conservative, has expressed support for a public plan.

Some Democrats led by North Dakota’s Kent Conrad have proposed a middle-way solution: instead of a public plan, create government-supported cooperatives. Cooperatives are non-profits owned and operated by their members, in this case patients who would buy into the program. With no need to turn a profit, and operated by patients themselves, fans think cooperatives could remedy the problem of nasty insurance companies that refuse to treat patients like people.

Progressives are not sold. They argue that cooperatives have been tried before, and failed. Or they became eaten up by a drive for profits and evolved into the kinds of insurance companies they tried to challenge.

Have co-ops worked? We have tried cooperatives before. During the 1930s and 1940s,the heyday of the cooperative(socialist) movement in the United States, the Farm Security Administration encouraged the development of health cooperatives. At one point, 600,000 mainly low-income rural Americans belonged to health cooperatives. The movement failed. Although had it not been for the advent of WWII to stimulate the economy of the times - it is difficult to say whether capitalism would have survived. At the time the cooperatives were small and undercapitalized. Physicians opposed the cooperative movement and boycotted cooperatives. When the FSA removed support in 1947, the movement collapsed.

So far, not so good. It seems that the consensus is that cooperatives just face too much pressure to be like for-profit insurance companies. Even the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, an example that supporters of the co-op option have pointed to, has faced some criticism, according to The New York Times: “Group Health is a rare survivor among the hundreds of rural health insurance cooperatives that formed in the 1930s and 1940s in the face of fierce resistance from organized medicine.” In the 1980s, it ended the practice of charging all enrollees the same premiums, regardless of their health status, and it has since introduced deductibles, co-payments and out-of-network benefits. Only seven-tenths of 1 percent of enrollees voted in the last board election. Group Health’s 2007 informational tax filing lists tens of millions in government grants and double that in government revenues from programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Additionally this coop owns an insurance company affiliate that sells - guess what, the much vilified Medicare Advantage products.

However you package it: the history is bleak. Either cooperatives fold, or they sell-out.

But if history says that health co-ops fail, can’t we learn from those mistakes and find a way for them to succeed? Many skeptics think if cooperatives got strong government backing—and went national, instead of regional—they might have a fighting shot. That will take tens of trillions of dollars over the next 10-15 years. And likely drive private completion out of the market.

My bet: Democrats will cave on the public option and accept the co-op approach. And I don’t think they’ve read their history. They will not remember that if they give in to co-ops like the ones we’ve seen in the past, we’ll get the same result failure.

So in exchange for the monster concession on a public option, they will create a tightly regulated, national co-op that has so many government controls it’ll be a private solution in name only. We know what happens when government controls anything. We lose!

Health Public? NASA Private?

This administration can't seem to make up its mind. Even as they tout a public option as the only way to save health care, lower cost and improve choice and competition - NASA is looking to out source the space program. For the first time the decades old Space Program is considering outsourcing everything from transporting astronauts to ferrying cargo into orbit.

The administration is looking at proposals for private industry to "build and run competing systems under commercial contracts, according to federal officials, aerospace-industry officials and others familiar with the discussion" U.S News reported today.

The Obama administration is still considering this private option for the space program which would replace the public option. Fans of this option
cite the following as a result of privatizing: More competition, Cost Savings to the government, and a faster, more nimble and less bureaucratic program.Well I am certainly confused -- I thought those were all the benefits of government run programs.
Not surprisingly there has been no comment yet from the White House on this story.

I am not sure what planet this administration has been living on for the last several years(to borrow Barney Frank's words} but I wish they would go back. They might be able to travel on a health food store sponsored shuttle. (I would have said Wendy's or McDonalds but under public option health care those will likely be taxed out of business)

Just like a petty third world dictator this administration is grabbing every bit of power and control over our lives they can - auto industry, banking, now health care? All of this is happening under the guise of social conscience, care for the common man, and improving the lives of all Americans- whataloadacrap
Get Angry and Speak Out.

In God We Trust

Obama on Thursday held a conference call with 140,000 as a result of a coalition of more than 30 organzations. These organizations have been characterized as faith based- but at least 2 of the larger organizations Sojourners and PICO had their roots in the Vietnam War Protests of the early 1970s. This conference call was a masterful attempt by a successful community organizer (President Obama) to call to arms foot soldiers to spread the message he supports from his bully pulpit, to community pulpits across the country.
"I need you to knock on doors, talk to neighbors, spread the facts and speak the truth,” he told religious leaders and reporters on a conference call that was streamed over the Web at faithforhealth.org.

“This debate over health care goes to the heart of who we are as a people,” he said. “I believe that nobody in America should be denied basic health care because he or she lacks health insurance.”

Obama urged the listeners to reject misinformation about his plans, noting, “There are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness.”
He referred to some assertions as “ludicrous,” and cited as an example rumors that the government is planning to set up “death panels” to determine the fate of the nation’s elderly.

“That is just an extraordinary lie,” he said, adding that it was based on a provision in the House legislation that would allow Medicare to reimburse someone who voluntarily sought counseling on how to set up a living will for the end of life. “It gives an option that people who can afford fancy lawyers already experience,” the Harvard-trained lawyer said. Another lie - Physicians today may be reimbursed for counseling provided to patients, and a living will does not require an attorney for its preparation.


In addition, the plan "does not provide health insurance to illegal aliens, it does not represent a government takeover of health care and it would not lead to government funding of abortion", he said. Since government funding already covers abortion in California, Hawaii, Alaska, Minnesota,Massachusetts,New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,Oregon, West Virginia, Washington, and Vermont for ANY reason Mr Obama's statement is the lie.

“These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation: that is, that we look out for one another; that is, I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper. And in the wealthiest nation in the world right now we are neglecting to live up to that call.” It is not the role of the presidency to establish or direct the moral tone of the country.

Obama, who took no questions, said the opposition was no surprise. “Throughout history, whenever we have sought to change this country for the better, there have always been those who wanted to preserve the status quo,” he said. “These always boil down to a contest between hope and fear.”

The fabrications, lies and misinformation put out there by this President are incredible. An army of Christian Soldiers can not be raised with half truths, and pseudo beliefs in the principles of Christianity.

In God WE trust - I am not sure about Obama.

UnAmerican to Disagree?

Floridians say no!

Pollsters indicate that Floridians overwhelmingly dispute that statement! Florida polls released today prove that Floridians believe 4 to 1 it is AMERICAN to disagree.

These same polls indicate for the first time that President Obama has a negative approval rating by Floridians. 47% - the lowest mark he's received in any state or nationwide polling by Quinnipiac, while 48% disapprove of his job performance. This includes a drop among Democrats, from 91% to 83%. This is the first time his approval rating has been negative and the first time that President Obama's approval rating has fallen below the 51 percent of the popular vote that he won in Florida, according to Peter Brown.

It is not surprising that the highest concern revealed by the polls is Government Spending not Health Care Reform. 60% oppose enacting reform if it "significantly" increases the federal budget deficit, and more than 70% doubt Obama can reform health care without doing so.

Let Florida (home of the earliest settlement in America)lead the way. Oppose Reform Today!

Hijacked!

The will of the American people may be hijacked again.

The Wall Street Journal today is reporting that there may be a new strategy underway to get health care reform passed. By splitting the current HR3200 bill into 2 pieces they hope to speed up a vote and help President Barack Obama meet his goal of getting a final measure by year's end. Senate Democrats are considering a radical approach to passing the health-care bill by splitting it into two parts.

Guess who the major decision maker is?, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. According to Reid’s spokesman "..., patience is not unlimited, and we are determined to get something done this year by any legislative means necessary.” Dingy Harry will make the decision on whether to ignore the will of the American people. Dingy Harry will make a decision to FORCE the CHANGE promised by this Administration and place the multi trillion dollar debt associated with it on our backs and the backs of our children.

Democrats, realizing they may not be able to get the required 60 votes to pass a filibuster are hoping to use the parliamentary process known as reconciliation to ram most of their health care overhaul plans through with just 51 votes .
The reconciliation process was designed as a narrow procedure to bring revenue and direct spending under existing laws into conformity with the levels set in the annual budget resolution. Twenty-two reconciliation bills were passed between 1980 and 2008, although three (written by Republican majorities in Congress) were vetoed by President Clinton and never became law. Whether reducing or increasing deficits, many of the reconciliation bills made major changes in policy.

According to congressional aides, Democratic leaders believe they can get more of their health overhaul plans passed under this procedure. Included among these plans the public insurance plan to compete with private insurers, a key demand of the party's liberal wing.

Other parts of the Democratic plan would be put to a separate vote in the Senate, including most of the insurance regulations that have been central to Mr. Obama's health-care message including some of the new rules for insurers, such as requiring they accept anyone, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions. This portion of the health-care overhaul has already drawn some Republican support and wouldn't involve new spending, leading Democratic leaders to believe they could clear the 60-vote hurdle.
ANY POLITICIAN WHO SUPPORTS THIS HIJACKING MUST NOT SERVE ANOTHER TERM!

We care about what you have to say --NOT!

Many senators and representatives are not planning any town halls, and instead will spend the August recess on photo ops, meeting with health care workers and talking to constituents during open-door meetings.
''It's a better format for productive discussion,'' Hagan spokeswoman Stephanie Allen said.
Those limited speaking engagements didn't matter to Republican activists. Hundreds came to Hagan's office last week with signs deploring the health care bill.
The summer has proven to be a resurgence for conservative political organizing after a lackluster performance during the 2008 election. Activists have flooded the Internet with rally plans, talking points and YouTube videos. Now they're planning a massive march on Washington next month.
''I always thought protests were kind of ignorant, thinking, 'What are these guys accomplishing?''' said Rick Smith, 38, a self-employed store owner who recently began attending rallies and picketed Hagan's office. He's now helping to spearhead protests of his own and is hoping to take his family to Capitol Hill next month.
Unfortunately it seems that many of our elected officials Like Eric Massa seen in this video - heard here at a town hall admitting that he will vote for a single payer bill no matter what his constituents want or support .

The only difference between the health care coops and a public option under this administration is the name. "The fact that not many exist now shows us there's not a viable model to compete with private insurers," said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who has written on health care policy. "It's effectively a diversion, as far as I'm concerned."
Health policy experts say the cost of joining a cooperative may be no cheaper than private insurance plans like Blue Cross Blue Shield or United Health Care. A central aim of the co-op, they say, is to create a competitive market that will offer better quality care at a lower cost -- and force private insurers to be more efficient and fair.This is really an effort to make the private market work more efficiently and to change the rules of the private market so that insurance serves people's needs better," said Elliot Wicks, a health economist with Health Management Associates in Washington, D.C. "Insurers compete on the basis of price, and so if a health cooperative lowers its price, it will bring down the prices for everyone in the market."
Still, Wicks said, the term cooperative is a "vague notion" and the success rate among them has not been high.
Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, said the alternative being thrown out by the administration raises many questions.
"How is it going to be structured? What are the rules? And will there by competition?" he asked. "Would this entity have the full backing of the U.S. government? If so, then you're not going to have an equal playing field. There won't be fair competition.
"And would the government ever allow this entity to fail? If so, then you'd have the health care version of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Zirkelbach said.
If the government refuses to allow a co-op to fail does it not then become a public option?

Co-Opted? What do you Think?

Co-Opted
Lawmakers are exploring the creation of a national nonprofit health care cooperative as an alternative to the government-run plan being pushed by President Obama.
The senator behind the idea, Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), says a nonprofit cooperative would compete with private insurers to drive down costs, while keeping the government out of the health care business. According to Conrad 500,000 members are needed to help the coop be successful. The exact details of the proposal remain hazy, but the idea is gaining some traction in Washington. Here's a quick look at the issue:
What is the co-op model?
It's a nonprofit, nongovernmental firm run by its members, the consumers. The details of how it will be set up have yet to be determined. But in addition to insurance, successful existing co-ops actually provide care, own their own hospitals and have dedicated multispecialty physician groups. The goal is to restrain costs and cover more of the uninsured.
Where are existing co-ops?
HealthPartners, a successful coop is based in Minnesota, and Group Health Cooperative, another successful coop headquartered in Seattle. Each of these coops serve more than 500,000 members.
What are the benefits of a co-op?
In the current model, unlike a public plan, government bureaucracy wouldn't be a factor, satisfying critics who want to keep Uncle Sam out of the health business. It remains to be seen if that would be the case if the government coughs up the expected 6 billion dollars needed to start up each coop. If you do the math on 500,000 members per coop and 6 billion per start up that could get pretty expensive for the taxpayer. Successful co-ops provide excellent health care while keeping administrative costs down. Depending on how it's set up, a national cooperative organization could also negotiate doctor and drug prices for its members. Critics say co-ops won't have the leverage of the government to drive costs down.
What are the drawbacks of the co-op model?
One fear, as voiced by the White House, is that it would take too long for these new organizations to become established and compete with private insurers. The model would most likely require an undetermined allocation of federal startup dollars. Co-ops aren't free for consumers, and it's unclear how lawmakers intend to establish rates to make them affordable for the 46 million Americans who are currently uninsured – but you can bet legislators will be involved.

Yesterday Katherine Sebelius had 2 different responses to the same question:
To CNN: On Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CNN's "State of the Union" that a final health care bill will meet Obama's requirements of affordable, accessible health coverage for all."There will be a competitor to private insurers," she said. "You don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices and we need some competition."
To Fox News: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said providing citizens with the option of government-run insurance isn’t essential to the Obama administration’s proposed overhaul of U.S. health care.
So – the question we asked her office was - Explain to us who manages a plan which is neither government or private. I am honestly confused. Not surprisingly - we have not received a response. I expect the answer will be “a totally new and vibrant hybrid entity - which is a cooperative effort between government and private industry.” My question still is - so what does that mean and who if anyone is accountable.

Mandated Fat Camps?

That’s the question you could be asking if these guys get their way.
An idea that seems to be gaining traction in the discussion on reducing the cost of health care is the notion of increasing taxes on foods that contribute to obesity. High calorie, high in fat products would simply cost more.. The idea being that you would be discouraged from buying those items just as smokers are discouraged from smoking, and pushed toward healthier eating habits.
Cal Thomas in USA today said: “Here's an idea you should like. We impose high taxes on cigarettes in part to discourage smoking, but also for the stated purpose of paying for some of the health costs associated with the habit. I might support a tax on sugary soft drinks, quarter-pounders with cheese and other high calorie, high in fat products — if the money would be reserved for subsidizing poor people and their insurance needs. And how about a reward for good behavior: a tax credit for those who work out, buy exercise equipment, join gyms, lose weight and eat right? A doctor's note could serve as proof for the IRS!”
Bob Beckel responded: “Cal Thomas for a tax increase? Be still my heart! It is a solid idea, as are tax credits for the working poor to purchase health plans and credits for getting healthy — especially at a young age. According to a report last week, the country spent $147 billion on weight-related medical bills last year. An obese patient averaged $4,871 in such bills compared with $3,442 for a patient at a healthy weight. There is common ground all over that.”
Where planet are they on? This is an example of policy design by people who have no idea how the average person lives. This concept would place a much larger burden on the poor and the working poor than anyone else. Maybe we could have government run fat camps to get the weight off - they could be free! After all the government would just be looking after you. How about that!

Single Payer - Yes We can

IF the public option comes off the table as is being reported by Kathleen Sibelius today - make no mistake. It will be back. Obama has been committed to this since 2003. Watch the video clip below and learn more.



Today’s update marks the highest level of Strong Disapproval for President Obama. Previously, the number who Strongly Disapprove had reached 40% three times in late July. Most Americans would prefer no health care reform this year rather than passage of the legislation currently working its way through Congress. Fifty-two percent (52%) of Americans disapprove of the President's performance."Could these poll numbers out yesterday from Rasmussen have anything to do with a change in policy? Of course not. The President is only guided by what is BEST for us!

The Other Side - Get it out there

In every debate there are two sides- and both need to be heard and evaluated by thinking people. Below follows a direct quote from a memo submitted to Republican senators and congressmen in July. The message is on point and seems to me to be one that could form a cohesive "front" - one that people could get behind. Why am I not hearing this message? Please help get it out!

Americans believe they have choice; so much so that it makes health care anarchic, confusing, and chaotic. Choice confusion, they tell us, allows the system to take advantage of them. If anything, they perceive the abundance of choice as a problem.
Choice is not driving this debate.
Cost is driving this debate.
We cannot compete with their cause v. our policies. We must compete with their cause v. our cause.
Our cause must be about what is driving this debate as well. Our cause must also be bringing down health care costs.
The good news is that reducing costs consistent with free-market principles is not only the GOP mission, it is also a different and better way of doing it than the Administration is proposing. We only need to congeal what have become our talking points into a cause. This cup needs a handle.
Language
We need to bring new language to this debate. If we paint the house the same color, no one will notice anything has changed:
We will still be the same, outdated Republicans who have no new ideas and oppose everything. We have to bring something new to the game.
We tested new language on the survey.
The GOP Cause
"Republicans are here today for a cause: We want to help families and businesses get a hold of health care costs and bring them down. Health care costs every family and every business too much. We all know that and we have to fix that. Republicans see a new and better way of doing it.
"That's why we are excited to join the growing number of Americans supporting the patient-centered health care reform movement.
"We believe the patient-centered health care movement offers the best way to reduce health care costs, bottom-up, with patients and doctors in control.
"The old, top-down Washington-centered system the Democrats propose will empower Washington to restrict the cures and treatments your doctor can prescribe for you.
"Their Washington-centered system will end up costing trillions more, not less, and bankrupting the country. This is what they do - a trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon, our country ends up owing real money.
"It's time to look at health care reform in a new way.
"The President sees the problem. So do we. He talks of making health care more affordable. So do we. But we
have a completely different vision of how to fix it.
• "They want a Washington-centered plan.
• "We support Americans believe they have choice; so much so that it makes health care anarchic, confusing, and chaotic. Choice confusion, they tell us, allows the system to take advantage of them.in If anything, they perceive the abundance of choice as a problem. Choice is not driving this debate. reforms.
• "They want a big Washington Experiment with our health.
• "We want common-sense simple fixes that will yield real results.
• "They want to start building a closed health care system where Washington decides how much money will be saved on health care by controlling the doctors you can see and limiting the treatments and cures your doctor can prescribe.
• "The patient-centered health care movement supports an open health-care system where patients and doctors make those decisions.
• "They want a top-down system where bureaucrats far away end up deciding what health care is worth paying for and what isn't, and for whom.
• "We want a bottom-up, patient-centered system where control remains with your doctor and with you.
• "They want political and artificial cost-reductions from Washington.
• "We want to get politics out of health care not put more politics in. We want common sense fixes not politically driven experiments.
• "They want to empower a big Washington-run monopoly to control your health care.
• "We say monopolies are just not natural. Big monopolies are bad no matter who runs them, whether it is big government or big insurance businesses.
"Ulimately, with their Washington-centered plan, you won't be able to keep the things you like about your health care:
• "Obama's plan will put government in charge of the doctors you can see and the types of treatment you can receive.
• "Obama's plan will cut hundreds of millions of dollars from seniors on Medicare.
• "Obama's plan will further bankrupt the country with trillions more in deficit spending.
• "Obama's plan will raise a lot of taxes on middle class families and businesses. Taxing insurance, taxing sodas, even taxing health care benefits. It doesn't matter if your insurance charges you more through the front door in higher premiums or President Obama charges you more through the back door in higher taxes. It's the same thing. You are going to pay a lot more.
• "Obama's plan will tempt your employer to dump you into a cheaper, government-run health care program. End of the day, it doesn't matter who takes your private coverage away, whether it's your insurance company, the government or your employer: When it's gone it's gone. You are going to lose your health coverage, and then you will see a reduction in the quality of your health care.
"In a nutshell, getting government more involved is not going to reduce costs. It will extend wait times, limit what you can get, cost you coverage; raise your taxes and the deficit.
"They tell us more Washington will make health care cost less. Really? Can we stop for a second and ask when Washington has made anything cost less?
"The truth is the Obama-Pelosi plan doesn't save money. Their Washington-centered plan, from Day One, costs a trillion more dollars.
"Common sense tells us, something is wrong here: Saving money on health care shouldn't be more expensive."
Slow Down, Mr. President
"The Obama Experiment with our health could change everything we like about our health care -- and our economy.
"This big a risk, that risky an experiment is not something leaders on either side should rush through Congress in a few days or weeks.
"This is 20% of our economy. This is our health care and our future. If we screw this up, it could last for generations. And Congress is trying to do this in two months! This should scare the living daylights out of all of us.
"Slow down, Mr. President. We can't afford to get health care wrong.
"President Obama is experimenting with America, too much, too soon, and too fast."
Key Message Point:
Even voters who support a "public plan" think Obama and Congress are moving too fast, with reckless speed, risking a huge part of our economy and our health care, when they don't know what reform would really bring.
If we slow this sausage-making process down, we can defeat it, and advance real reform that will actually help.
Key Message Point: We've got to "SLOW DOWN the OBAMA EXPERIMENT WITH OUR HEALTH."
Reforms
The following is a menu of other bottom-up, common sense fixes (policy ideas) and new language that the patient-centered health care reform movement might support:
• We support requiring/incentivizing doctors and hospitals to post pricing and outcomes. In this day and age, why aren't the cost of all tests, treatments, procedures and office visits -- as well as effectiveness of treatments posted openly on the Internet?
• We believe health insurance companies should compete with each other with simple, one-page contracts/summaries so insurance is simpler, cheaper, and fairer. (Like many banks are doing w/ car or home loans). And how about incentivizing insurance companies to have simple, one page reimbursement forms?
• We believe doctors should be protected from frivolous, expensive lawsuits so they can work together with other doctors and patients in their communities to reduce unnecessary and expensive tests and procedures.
• We want to change the law so you can take your health insurance with you if you have to change jobs (eliminating expensive and unnecessary insurance turnover).
• We want to change the law so insurance companies can't deny you coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
• We want to cut out the "Washington health care middle-man," reducing expensive bureaucracy to produce big health care savings.
• We support (tax incentives?) new paperless, computer-age health care IT systems to reduce the cost of health care management as well as reduce medical mistakes.
• Every American should have equal opportunity to get the best value and buy the cheapest insurance no matter where he lives or whom he works for. We want to change the law so any American can buy the lowest cost insurance available nationwide, not just in their states -- whether from insurance companies, businesses, church groups, college alumni associations, or groups like the AARP, who often provide it less expensively.
• The Wal-Mart way to bring costs down is better than the Washington way. So we want to use consumer-buying power, also called "group buying power," not Washington price-controls, to bring health care costs down.
• We support effective prevention, wellness, and disease management programs because they will improve our health and save money.
• We support bold new tax deductions for companies that develop new treatments and cures because that is smarter than paying for chronic long-term illnesses we can't cure today.
• We believe in bottom-up health care savings: every American should get a tax deduction for their health insurance premiums.
• We believe the working poor should get a refundable, advanceable tax credit to help them get health insurance.
• We want to incentivize and expand practical, down-to-earth reforms that are already working and reducing health care costs all across America. Safeway's plan, which gives employees a stake in holding down health care costs, is a model. Instead of cutting care or shifting costs to employees, Safeway has held health care costs flat the last 4 years, while it's up 40% for the rest of corporate America.
• We support special "too much paperwork" tax credits for small businesses, so they don't have to bear the intolerable costs of filling out insurance forms or meeting government mandates and regulations.
• We want to give small businesses the same cost-saving breaks big businesses get by helping them form small business health plans and small business health co-ops.
• And no lifetime health care benefits and insurance for Congressmen who leave their jobs -- unless and until everybody else in America has the same.
And From Here...
"... and as I said throughout the campaign, change never begins from the top down. It begins from the bottom up." President Obama, Feb. 9, 2009
Unfortunately, what President Obama promised during the campaign, he has abandoned as President. Instead of putting his faith in the American people and bringing change from the bottom up, he has put his trust in Washington and given us more, old, trickle-down big government. In health care and everywhere else, our President has given us nothing new. It's the same old thing, just bigger and more expensive: One federal pill for every ill.
Such old thinking from such a young President is a disappointment and it is time to put it behind us. The future belongs to those who really believe change comes from the bottom up -- from the American people and not Washington, DC. "

, healthcare

No Death Panel?

There is no death panel in HR3200? Well that's not exactly true.
The death panel has nothing to do with the coverage of end of life counseling. The death panel comes in when government employees evaluate treatment. The death panel comes in when government employees set criteria for when treatment is appropriate or not appropriate. Obama said I am not for pulling the plug on Grandma - On the other hand if Grandma is 85 and has bad kidneys - well she probably won't meet the criteria for cancer treatment. That is NOT patient centered medicine. That is COST centered medicine. This is the wrong prescription for America.

Oregon Medicaid Covers Euthanasia Instead of Care

An Oregon Bus Driver is a chilling example to all of us of the humanity of government run health care. Diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005, the former bus driver vowed to fight the disease so she could spend as long as possible with her family.

Even after her doctor warned last year that she had less than six months left, she refused to give up, pinning all her hopes on a new life-prolonging treatment.
But her request, at the beginning of last year, for the $2,500-a-month drug was refused by Oregon's state-run health plan as being too expensive. Instead, she was offered lethal medication to end her life.
'It was horrible,' Barbara told reporters. 'I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills we will help you get them from a doctor and we will stand there and watch you die - but we won't give you the medicine to live.
'I told them: "Who do you think you are to say that you will pay for my dying, but you won't pay for me to possibly live longer?"
'I am opposed to the assisted suicide law. I haven't considered it, even at my lowest ebb.'

Hearing of her plight, pharmaceutical company Genentech decided to give her the drug, Tarceva, free for one year. Barbara died in October last year and her family believes the added stress of her brush with the state hastened her end.
'She felt totally betrayed,' her ex-husband Dennis, 65, said this week. 'It comes down to the buck. It's not about compassion and understanding. The bottom line is that it is all about money and Barbara fell into the middle of it.'

So interesting nugget: The big bad for profit drug company came through, the compassionate reliable state run program which cares for us didn't.

whataloadacrap

So - according to the administration they want to hear what our concerns are. Thats why the current ratios look like this for the town halls?

Here's the scorecard.

Obama: 8,619 words.

Audience: 1,186 words.

whataloadacrap

Cash for clunkers turns into Cash for Guzzlers
Transportation secretary LaHood reported on the purchase of new more fuel efficient vehicle today - but what went unmentioned is that some trucks and sport-utility vehicles that get less than 20 miles per gallon, like the Ford F-150 truck and one version of the Cadillac SRX Crossover, also are being purchased with the new government subsidies. Both are bulky vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds when loaded that boast at least 248 horsepower.But the program, now expanded to $3 billion and offering rebates of up to $4,500, isn't limited to the best gas savers on the market. And according to MSNBC that's good news to Beny Ledesma, general sales manager at Williamson Cadillac-Hummer in Miami. The dealership has sold three 2009 Cadillac SRXs — the six-cylinder engine model — through the clunkers program, he said, and is finishing paperwork on two more. Ledesma hopes to sell the other 14 at the dealership, along with some of the Hummer H3Ts on the lot that are eligible for clunker rebates.They can also buy versions of the 2009 Lexus RX 350 or 2009 Lincoln MKX, both pricey five-passenger utility vehicles that get about 19 mpg and are capable of towing a small boat.

The complete list of eligible vehicles is available at: http://www.cars.gov

Whataloadacrap!

Whataloadacrap!
The Lie
PRESIDENT OBAMA: "All I'm saying is let's take the example of something like diabetes, one of a disease that's skyrocketing partly because of obesity. Partly because it's not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they are taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same doctor….. (turns them over to a surgeon and the patient) Ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000-Immediately the surgeon is reimbursed."

The Fact
Payment for foot amputation ranges from just under $500.00 to just under $800.00. You can check MY facts here:

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/pfslookup/02_PFSsearch.asp

Do you really see a lot of feet getting whacked off for no reason for that amount of money? How can you believe anything this man says?

Minority? Not According to the polls!

The politicians running town hall meetings continue to insist that the opposition to the overhaul of the US Health Care system currently being proposed is a very loud and well orchestrated minority. That allegation is not being born out by the pollsters.

The most recent public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans - do not back Obama's call for a government-run plan. And political analysts say polling - not town hall meetings -- is the most accurate way to measure public sentiment.
"Polling information measures public opinion on a much broader scale -- it includes everyone," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.
"Most people don't have the ability to go to town hall meetings -- they have to work. If anyone does take a day off, it tells you they're not the norm," he said. Polling measures public opinion on a broader scale, giving a more accurate random sample.
While Sabato added that one way of gauging public opinion at town halls is to ask for a "show of hands" in response to questions, he said short of the ballot box, polling is the most efficient method of measuring the so-called "majority."

The most accurate way to determine the majority would be a referendum - a national vote. But there would be nothing "simple" about it. The country has never held a national referendum.
The idea was raised during Specter's town hall meeting when a participant suggested that the issue be decided by a majority rule. A national referendum would also require everyone with a horse in the race - to actually get out and vote.

"That's a fascinating idea, to have a referendum," Specter replied. "That's one of the ideas I'm going to take back to Washington," he added, though he noted that the federal government lacks any mechanism to hold a referendum. Note that Specter said he would take the idea back to Washington, not that he would get behind it and actually do anything.

In the meantime if you are not able to get to a town hall meeting flood the inbox, and mailbox of your Senators and Representatives with your opinion. While opponents of reform may be corralled into the same small corner that lawmakers like McCaskill and Specter say contains a minority, it is another way to be heard. Stay engaged in this process - they work for us - we hired them we can fire them.

The Green Job's Czar - Wow!

Wow - My mom said a long time ago that you know a man by the people he surrounds himself with. Barack Obama said the same thing on the campaign trail.

Here is the truth about an appointee to an extremely influential position, in that appointee's own words (From Wikipedia and attributed to the individual): Speaking to the East Bay Express, Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots.
"I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist."

Absolutely Incredible!

Truth In Lending?

The White House and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) prepare to release new deficit estimates this month, and even USA today reports that several economists say the news is likely to be as bad as or worse than forecasts. The New York Times (make that the New Pork Times) blamed the record smashing deficit on the Bush Administration.

It is beyond me how this is something "inherited by this Administration" when Democrats basically ramrodded the original budget through Congress with virtually no Republican approval -- save Bush's signature, of course -- and the highest members of the Obama White House -- including the president himself -- supported it when they were either in the Senate or the House? This means the 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with "Yeas" coming from current President then Sen. Obama, his current Vice President then Sen. Joe Biden, his current Chief of Staff then Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and his current Secretary of State then Sen. Hillary Clinton.
These same individuals voted yeas for the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program designed to "rescue" some of the nation's largest financial institutions from destroying the economy. And to top of the out of control spending the $787 billion stimulus bill that passed in February with just three Republican votes followed closely by the $410 billion of additional spending Congress sent to his desk three weeks later.
Even with all this stimulation -"This is going to be a very depressing outlook," predicts former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a top Rpublican Candidate adviser to in last year's presidential election is quoted as saying. "They have just a nightmare in terms of these health care bills, which do nothing but make things worse."
A fiscal year 2009 deficit of $1.8 trillion was anticipated by the White House with Congress forecasting $1.7 trillion. Reaching that level would produce a deficit four times last year's $459 billion deficit, just as Congress is considering health care overhaul plans that could cost an additional $1billion a year. Increasing the current deficit by 10% a year will increase dependence on loans from foreign countries (namely China)trillion over 10 years.
Lawmakers are struggling to pay for a plan with a mix of tax increases on upper-income people (translate that to small business owners) and Medicare spending reductions aimed at doctors, hospitals, drugmakers and insurers. Town-hall forums all across the U.S. this month have been disrupted by protests for and against proposals.
I say show me the money - we are borrowing from the futures of our children and trading our way of life for what? We may have stimulated our economy right out of existence.

AARP Endorses Health Care Bill?

Rachel Martin and Jake Tapper reported on Obama's attempts to debunk "misinformation" and "myths" out there on Health Care reform as he continues his push to cram a hugely expensive misguided attempt at reform down the throats of the American people.
During yesterday's town hall meeting in New Hampshire President Obama said that the health care reform legislation for which he’s pushing has been endorsed by the American Association of Retired Person.
“We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors,” the president said.
At another point he said: “Well, first of all, another myth that we've been hearing about is this notion that somehow we're going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not. AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?”
Sounds great right? What's wrong with it? AARP hasn't endorsed any plan yet.
This is AARP's response issued right after the town hall meeting:

"While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

Who's spreading the misinformation now?

Truth for Today

“Health Insurance Reform will end current forms of rationing, not expand it.” – Let’s pay particular attention to “end current forms of rationing”. The government will end current forms of rationing…. and replace it with their own rationing. They will accomplish this through mandating the types of health care plans delivered in the Government Health Insurance Exchange and the Government Public Option Plan. You can see for yourself right in the House HC Bill starting on page 84 Section 203.
Obama also talks about insurance companies denying coverage. You can find how Obama plans to deny coverage by reading many places in the bill about how the Government will deny coverage. One place in the Health Care bill starts on page 801 Section 1751. Starting to get the picture of how Obama and Company use the Three Ds of Deception, Distortion and Distraction?
“Burdening Government” This is quite amusing. The President and Company seem to believe that the Government is burdened. Prez – don’t tell anyone but it is the government that always burdens the people. The President goes on to cite a report from the Council of Economic Advisors that shows what happens if we don’t do anything. First, Mr. President, no one has suggested we do nothing. This is just a distraction and a straw man of yours that is frankly, worn out and overused. Do you also expect us to believe something from the Council of Economic Advisors? The very ones who misread our economy? Really?
Let’s go to Mr. Elmendorf, Director of CBO, for some actual reality:
“Cost” – The President again uses his straw man of “if we do nothing”. As you can see from the Director of CBO the Government will expand spending and will not reduce spending to a corresponding degree. Additionally the Government tries the old misdirection of only using a 10 year projection.
Let’s take a look beyond 10 years shall we? If this HC Monstrosity Bill is passed then we can be assured it will be around a lot longer than 10 years. It turns out that the Joint Economic Committee found that the President’s Health Care Obamanation will be insufficient in funds to the tune of $9.2 Trillion. You can read all about that here – House Health Care Bill yields $9.2 trillion in New Debt.
As for the Government being accurate in any of their projections you merely look at how many times they’ve failed miserably and came way under what it actually did cost. Don’t take my word though, see for yourself – Health Care Reform Cost Estimates: What is the Track Record?
When CBO director Doug Elmendorf has said the House health plan will increase the budget deficit by $239 billion over ten years, and “generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.” , it’s no wonder that 72% of Americans believe that Obama’s Health Care plan will add to the deficit of this country exponentially.
“Uninsured vs. Costs” - Let’s look at the deceptive words that the President wants you to believe:
“American families with insurance pay a hidden tax of roughly $1000 for the cost of caring for people without insurance. As more Americans become insured, that hidden tax will begin to disappear. In addition, covering everyone will put downward pressure on costs. Bringing younger, healthier people into the system will spread the risk.
So Prez, the American people are not going to be paying a hidden tax anymore, you just bring the hidden tax out into the open. Additionally as your government HC plan insures more Americans, the open tax is now going to become much larger. Again, we can see how much downward pressure will be brought on costs from the above section on costs. You’re also telling the younger generation, who is typically healthier, that by making them pay for health insurance they might not want, it will spread the risk which is code for cost. So younger Americans, thanks for paying the high oppressive debt of the Obama Administration for the rest of us.
Mr. President – a little education on the uninsured:“Medicare for Seniors” – Mr. President, the Medicare Trust Fund is currently $38 TRILLION in the hole. The only thing your health care bill does for Medicare is kick the can down the road so that someone else can deal with it. Your only goal for Medicare is to use it for political purposes – Medicare Payment Rules: Looking Behind the Curtain.
Additionally, when Government starts to cut the Medicare Advantage Program that a lot of Seniors enjoy, they will have to go and seek additional supplemental insurance thus increasing their out of pocket expenses. Perhaps that’s why AARP is behind the President’s Health Care Monstrosity. They stand to gain on the backs of Senior Citizens. Nice huh?
“End of Life Counseling” – Mr. President, I guess you think Americans are too stupid to do this on their own. Why, after all these years that Americans have been able to do these very things without your assistance, you decide that you just know better. Shhh- Mr. President, the Government can NEVER do better that which an individual can do for himself. You’re not empowering anyone. Your guiding them to how you see fit according to your selfish needs.
The President again deceives by saying it is not mandatory. It seems, Mr. President that you have not read the bill. You merely have to read pages 425-429 of the House Health Care bill to see that the Government mandates the counseling every 5 years or even more frequently should the patient have a significant change in their health condition. The Government dictates what is an order in end of life counseling, what treatments are made available, how the treatments are limited, who gets to decide what those treatments are (it’s not just the patient and doctor), and the Government standardizes all orders, treatments and guidance how they want it and when they want it.
Mr. President, perhaps we should just ask Dr. Zeke Emmanuel, your Health Care Policy Advisor, what he thinks of Seniors – Complete Lives System. OOPs!! As we can see from the good doctor, he really thinks that Seniors are a waste of time. He thinks that Seniors count less than other citizens. Nice person to have around Mr. President. Isn’t it great that AARP endorses End of Life Counseling too!
“The Health Insurance Exchange” – The President and his buddies would like you to believe that they are creating an Exchange that has never been there and to “Come on in! It’s so warm and fuzzy here!” Well, it’s simple folks, the Health Insurance Exchange is a Government run exchange that corrals all the private insurance plans into the ranch of Government control. It’s a take over of market based solutions by Obama. You can read all about it starting on page 72 of the House Health Care Bill
“The Public Option” – Folks, plain and simple, the public option is President Obama’s and his cronies’ way of getting to the Single Payer Government Takeover of your health and lives. Don’t take my word though – The President and his cronies will tell you straight up -
So, Mr. President, you and your cronies have repeatedly tried the Three Ds, Deception, Distortion, and Distraction. They are not working. They haven’t been working. They will fail repeatedly if you continue to use them.
If you want more information about single payer systems and how they have performed please go to www.drgov.com for stories from real people. Not politicians. Real People.

Mobsters - in the closet?

SEIU Recruits Obamacare Supporters to 'Drown Out Voices' in Conn. (Pelosi Will Be Appalled at the 'Un-Americanness')
Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer decided to double down on some pretty distasteful messaging today, calling some of the opposition to health care reform, "un-American" in a USA Today op-ed. Specifically, this is what the Speaker finds so unpatriotic:
These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.
Town halls have indeed been rowdy (although instances of documented aggression have all gone one way: Obamacare supporter to protester), and sometimes not ideal for discussion of the ins and outs of health care reform. But Democrats and liberals have largely used one memo from a libertarian activist in Connecticut to claim a national, nefarious campaign of conservative disruption by mischaracterizing the memo and fibbing about its provenance and distribution.
On the other hand, a memo from SEIU Local 2001 (the same Conn. district where the original MacGuffie memo originated),is being circulated which cannot be misunderstood. It was issued this week in preparation for Rep. Jim Himes' town hall in Stamford, Conn.
It's still up, but the informer did a screen shot, in case it disappears. Here's the announcement:
Action: Opponents of reform are organizing counter-demonstrators to speak at this and several congressional town halls on the issue to defend the status quo. It is critical that individuals with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices.
Perhaps Pelosi should check with her allies about their tactics before labeling them "un-American" in the future.
The SEIU has taken center-stage in the Left's push-back on health care reform. They co-sponsored a rally in Tampa that featured fisticuffs. SEIU also had a large presence at a St. Louis rally where at last three of the group's volunteers were arrested in connection with an assault on Kenneth Gladney, who was selling flags and buttons outside the venue. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius held a conference call with SEIU members last week, in which she called them "brothers and sisters," and SEIU representatives compared Obama critics at town halls to "terrorists." Dissent is integral to the American process - and the right to speak and speak with passion is a long standing and honored part of that process. Over the last several years the "Pelo-chios" have indicated that anyone who stood in the way of dissent, no matter the source - was wrong and Un-American - which could be respected except that today those who dissent are characterized as mobsters. I do not think I can remember a single instance when an individual at an anti war or other anti administration rally was beaten and hospitalized - since the VietNam war protests at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968. Obama's political home. Coincidence? I don't know. Who is attempting intimidation and fear tactics now?View image

Stop Scaring America!

Lies are lies no matter who is speaking. In the great health care debates/town hall meetings there seems to be little regard for truth, and much concern about supporting the agenda of the current administration. Scare tactic number one: The President has said repeatedly that this is "about making sure that your insurance cannot be cancelled when you get sick" . Mr President please read the legislation passed by a Republican congress 13 years ago- the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

HIPAA’s Title I primarily addresses group insurance plans and their access to you. First, HIPAA ensures that a group health plan can't deny coverage or establish the amount of your monthly premium based on your health status, which includes your medical history, genetic information or any disability you may have. This means, for example, that you and your older, diabetic co-worker must both be offered, at the same premium amount the same coverage.



Secondly, Title I establishes rules on how a group plan handles a pre-existing condition. Before HIPAA, there were many people who were completely denied health insurance based on chronic medical conditions, regardless of how well the condition was controlled. Today, thanks to HIPAA, group health insurance plans must follow rules regarding what's considered a pre-existing condition. To prove it - here follows an excerpt and a link to the DOL website:

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_hipaa.html

From the Freuently Asked Questions on the DOL website.

What is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)?



HIPAA is a federal law that:

Limits the ability of a new employer plan to exclude coverage for preexisting conditions;

Provides additional opportunities to enroll in a group health plan if you lose other coverage or experience certain life events;

Prohibits discrimination against employees and their dependent family members based on any health factors they may have, including prior medical conditions, previous claims experience, and genetic information;



Tell me again why we should give up control of our health care optionsand create a multi billion dollar government department?



Oh Riiiiigghhht - because the government cares about me. Tell me again just how much preventative medicine is covered under Medicare?

Er Um I mean the government can do it cheaper. Show me the numbers.

Er Um I mean its the drug companies fault. Who took what campaign contributions from drug companies?

ER Um its the malpractice attorney's fault? How many attorneys are there in Congress, and how many times have they declined to discuss tort reform?



Do not allow our thoughts, protest and disagreement to be marginalized and discredited. This administration appears to have learned activism in Chicago - home of the wise guys. I say bring it - we learned activism in the days of the civil rights movement and the anti Vietnam war movement. We do not scare easily.



On April 28 2003 Hilary Clinton said "I am sick and tired of saying that if you disagree with this administration somehow you are not patriotic". I never thought I would say this - but I agree.



Check out lie number 2 to be debunked tomorrow:http://pol.moveon.org/sharkweek/