This video allows B.O. to speak for himself…
Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will ‘Eliminate’ Private Insurance
Click on the above link for the video which is up on Breitbart.tv
Of course, this has been vociferously denied by Obamacare supporters…but as shown, the reality of what The One has said trumps the denials IMHO.
If you’ve looked at this posting by the Chief, you can see the chart noted below that the Donk party doesn’t want you to see.
Congressional Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing
Democrats are preventing Republican House Members from sending their constituents a mailing that is critical of the majority’s health care reform plan, blocking the mailing by alleging that it is inaccurate.
House Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the Democrats are using their majority to prevent GOP Members from communicating with their constituents.
The dispute centers on a chart (view PDF) created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to illustrate the organization of the Democratic health care plan.
At first glance, Brady’s chart resembles a board game: a colorful collection of shapes and images with a web of lines connecting them, but a closer look at the image reveals a complicated menagerie of government offices and programs that Republicans say will be created if the leading Democratic health care plan becomes law.
What’s the issue?
In a memo sent Monday to Republicans on the House franking commission, Democrats argue that sending the chart to constituents as official mail would violate House rules because the information is misleading.
In other words, it illustrates the Byzantine complexity of the House plan…whatever the details are.
Sounds like something from the classic dystopian movie Soylent Green, or motion in the direction of a quasi-Nazi elimination of financially inconvenient seniors (“useless eaters”) who would only continue to consume valuable resources to live IF given necessary treatment.
Unfortunately this really IS in the bill (page numbers cited below).
Government ‘counselors’ on end of life treatment
The House version of the Health Care Bill is going to require (p 425-430) mandatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years, more often if the senior is sick or in a nursing home.
Just how many government trained counselors will that put into the work force? With an over 65 population of 38,000,000 US (Census, 2007), 4 counseling sessions daily, over 37,000, at a minimum, that’s how many. Plus their supervisors, plus the report readers, plus the oversight agency.
This is bad enough on its own (de)merits, without considering the following contrast, which makes things even worse:
Don’t even think that anyone should receive mandatory counseling regarding the end of life issues surrounding abortion; that’s a invasion of the right of privacy! “Counsel” a senior about their end of life “choices” under Obama Care? Somehow that’s not the same, so just keep your mouth shut.
This REALLY creeps me out! Who could trust the GOVERNMENT for something like this? Would you trust YOUR loved ones life and death decisions to a government bureaucracy?  If you would, I truly hope you get the government you want…just leave ME out of your National Socialistic nightmare!
PROMISES, PROMISES: Do Obama deals break pledge?
In cutting deals with hospitals and drug makers, President Barack Obama is giving a private inside track to special interests that’s at odds with his promise to make policy in the open.
Obama promised Americans he would hold special interests at arm’s length—that it would no longer be business as usual in Washington. He pledged to open government and let the public and news media hold his administration accountable.
And just over two months before the 2008 election, Obama promised before an audience in Chester, Va., to hash out a health care overhaul in public. “We’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies,” he said then.
That didn’t happen.
Instead, the administration’s multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals and pharmaceutical companies have been made in private, and the results were announced after the fact. Both industries promised Obama cost savings in return for an expanded base of insured patients; beyond that, the public is in the dark about details.
In some ways, it resembles what his party criticized President George W. Bush for doing with oil and gas companies as Vice President Dick Cheney wrote a national energy plan in the early days of the Bush administration.
As the Bush White House did, the Obama White House is refusing to release visitor logs that would let people see everyone going in and out during the thick of discussions over major national policies.
I know, I know. There was little transparency and accountability in handling TARP, the “Porkulus” bill, etc., so why be surprised at the latest example of more of the same from B.O.
A funny thing happened to Obamacare as it winds its way through the belly of the legislative beast….
Mayo Clinic calls House plan bad medicine
A world-renowned clinic that President Obama held up as an example of good medicine said Monday that the American people would be “losers” under the House’s health care proposal, joining the growing chorus of critics the Obama administration is trying to fend off as the debate intensifies from Capitol Hill to Main Street.
Minnesota’s not-for-profit Mayo Clinic, which Mr. Obama has repeatedly hailed as offering top quality care at affordable costs, blasted the House Democrats’ version of the health care plan as lawmakers continue to grapple with several bills from each chamber and multiple committees.
The Mayo Clinic said there are some positive elements of the bill, but overall “the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher quality, more affordable health care for patients.”
“In fact, it will do the opposite,” clinic officials said, because the proposals aren’t patient-focused or results-oriented. “The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.” [emphasis added]
Ooops.
Hopefully another nail in the coffin of “Obamacare.”
First something new! This will help you to understand how Obamacare has great potential to simplify, improve the system, and reduce costs. Right?
It didn’t help? Oh, darn!
To a different aspect of this topic: The Chief received flaming replies and was the subject of heartfelt postings (comparing him to Rush Limbaugh!) to his previous posting concerning Obamacare, DEMANDING abject apology on the part of yours truly for having the nerve to question the plans of The One and His Disciples in the Halls of Congress.
Apparently the posting has tripped the trigger over in Madison and has the Madville Times living up to it’s name on this one. Sorry about that Mr. Heidelberger, but can’t we just disagree? No? Oh well…I’m grief stricken. Â If you don’t agree with my conclusions, that’s YOUR business: time will ultimately tell who’s really right on hese, and other issues.
I WILL concede that the below cited provision is not an outright ban on private insurance, but…the devil’s in the details, as is usually the case when dealing with Byzantine proposals for massive new tax-and-entitlement centralized programs, and further apology will be eschewed based on the EFFECT of said program which IMHO results in the eventual end of private insurance. To go back to the piece that originally caught my attention…at risk of possible repetition:
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee. It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states: “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
Based on my understanding of English language, tat seems to be fairly clear.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
If the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington’s coverage.
Tell me this WON’t happen…if you REALLY believe it won’t, please contact me for some tropical beachfront in NW Moody County, SD – do I have a DEAL for you! So, where does the end of private health programs come in? Attrition, for sure, and small (and large) businesses bailing out of private coverage like mad…let Uncle Sam do it, and figure out the financing too…result, IMHO the attritional death of private coverage. (By the way, this already happened in the UK contributing to the rationing and maltreatment that is far too common over there.)
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, “fizzle out altogether.”What wasn’t known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
The final result will ultimately be the end of private health care and insurance as we know it, not by direct execution, but by an inevitable exercise of a sort of Gresham’s Law applied to health care…bad care drives out good care (unless you are REALLY rich in a way I can’t even begin to imagine, as a semi-retired teacher).
If you, as Mr. Heidelberger is, (and to some extent I also am) are disturbed by the like of the Stanford-MeritCare merger, this too is an inevitable result of the movement towards Obamacare…as these organizations attempt to render themselves “too big to fail” by the standards of even bigger government. (They just want their place at the health care table…no big deal, right, and if Goldman-Sach’s money talks in the halls of Washington, then why not Sanford’s?)
Now, one can decide that this is a positive change in things or not. No problemo, but I continue to call the shots as I see them, whether or not Mr. Heidelberger likes what I say, or agrees with it or whatever…that’s HIS call.
My choice is to reply to specific issues…NOT to get into the gratuitous exchange of invective and personalities in keeping with the counsel of a man much wiser than me: “Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.”
By the way C.H. – I am honored to be attacked in the same sentence as Rush Limbaugh! It makes me thing I must be doing something RIGHT!
What was that bit that B.O. was saying about choice still being a part of healthcare reform?
It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
Will we the sheeple swallow this poison pill?
The public option won’t be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny. Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn’t be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans’ lives.
Oh, joy. What ELSE is buried in this 1000+ page monstrosity? The Chief shudders to imagine the possibilites…
So, what does anyone care about Daschle’s plans for anything any more?
Well, he night be gone, but his ideas for health care are part of the aforementioned B.O. B.S. B.O. Bill.
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan
Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy. Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States†(445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors
“So far, everything’s OK”. (in the words of a man falling from the Empire State Building, as he passed the 50th floor.) Then it gets really messy:
One (emphasis added) new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide†your doctor’s decisions (442, 446).
NOTE: “…what the government deems appropriate and cost effective.” Not you and your doctor…THE GOVERNMENT. So much for any remnant of medical independence, but wait! It doesn’t stop there:
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users†of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user†isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time†(511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough†decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal…is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He [Daschle] praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses†and “forgo experimental treatments,†and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
And the practical effect: Welcome to the U.K.! (or worse.)
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.†Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
Like Hitler did with Mein Kampf, Daschle has published his own vision vision of this brave new world.
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly…
In other words, once your usefulness to society is done, then you should welcome this 21st century version of the tribal elderly being cast out into the blizzard when their day is done. So much for compassionate care.
Herr Himmler, and his pet Dr. Mengele would have heartily approved of this scheme to cut out support of such “useless eaters” as the infirm elderly.
The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined(90-92, 174-177, 181).
!!!?
Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,†he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.â€
Right to life? What’s that any more? Nothing…that question was settled by Roe v. Wade. This is merely an all too logical extension of that attitude. The Chief isn’t a Catholic, but Pope John Paul was spot on when he warned against a culture of death.
As the cartoon character “Pogo” observed: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Democratic Congressional Candidate’s Ties to Bizarre AIDS Research
YIKES!
Injecting PEOPLE with MALARIA on the totally insane moonbat theory that this will “cure” AIDS?! Well, maybe, I mean death from malaria WOULD “eliminate” an AIDS case, wouldn’t it?
Not only this, but a Donk candidate doing this…a taste of “change” to come under a Donk health plan?
The Democratic congressional candidate in Ohio, Dr. Victoria Wulsin, is being attacked by her Republican opponent for her work looking into a widely debunked theory that AIDS can be cured with malaria. The controversial treatment, known as “malariotherapy”, has been denounced by leading AIDS researchers as dangerous, scientifically unfounded and unethical.
U.S. Representative Jean Schmidt (R-OH), locked in a tight race with Wulsin for an Ohio congressional seat, recently sent out a fund-raising letter sharply denouncing Wulsin for her work on a malariotherapy project. The letter states that “Wulsin’s contempt for the culture of life has even led her to participate in grotesque medical experiments. Wulsin was paid for her work in medical “studies” where victims of AIDS in Africa and China were…injected with the malaria virus, all in the name of “scientific inquiry.”
Dr. Mengele would have approved no doubt…using African untermenschen as human guinea pigs like this, while Dr. Wulsin would have qualified for a hot-seat at Nuremberg in 1946.
Wulsin was paid to review data from these studies conducted in China (of course!) and Africa. It’s worth noting, that previous use of data from Nazi sources has been widely criticized as being unethical…how much more so to be involved with projects generating MORE data under similarly unethical conditions?
And this is the party the Blacks overwhelmingly favor? Sheeesh!
Patients pull own teeth as dental contract falters
This sounds like fun!
Large numbers of people are going without dental treatment and some even report extracting their own teeth because they cannot find an NHS dentist in their area, a survey reveals today.
The Dentistry Watch survey of more than 5,000 people, from the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, found widespread unhappiness among both patients and dentists despite government reforms to increase the availability of NHS dentistry.
So what does one do with such a WONDERFUL system provided by the EngSoc regime?
Just over 10% were not registered with a dentist at all. A third of those (35%) said there were no NHS dentists nearby, 22% said they did not know how to find one, 13% said they were on a waiting list and 30% said there were other reasons.
But 6% of the respondents said they were self-treating, which often included pulling out their own troublesome teeth. “Fourteen teeth have had to be removed by myself using pliers,” said one Lancashire respondent. “Have pulled teeth out before, easier than finding a dentist,” said one in Hull. “Because I could not afford the treatment cost, I had to extract my own tooth on one occasion,” said one in Harrow. “I took most of my teeth out in the shed with pliers. I have one to go,” said another in Wiltshire.
Some of the respondents show considerable ingenuity. “Filled own teeth – clove oil and Polyfilla,” said one in Essex. Another fixed a crown with Superglue and a third used a screwdriver to scrape off plaque.
Sort of gives a new twist to the British traditional “stiff upper lip”, eh, what?
Just wait and see how well WE have it if “Hillarycare” becomes our system. Maybe Lowe’s will have a new section for do-it-yourself dental tools – no doubt imported from the ChiComs.
