As Barak Obama continues his assault on the American People regarding health care, he is beginning to show his true side, and it is desperately pathetic. So used to the unending adulation of his public, he has regressed to a whining and complaining little boy who sputters half truths in order to get his way.
In the last few days he has emphatically stated that Republicans will not go along with him because this will be his "Waterloo." He accuses them of trying to "torpedo" his plan in order to gain politically. Obama claims the Republicans want no change to health care in the country. I've heard Republicans and others suggest for years that tort reform would work on the problem of malpractice lawsuits and all the accompanying costs involved in doctors and hospitals protecting themselves. That was a big part of President George W. Bush's plan to work on health care--a plan firmly trounced by the Democats in Congress.
This issue does not appear to be addressed in the new bill. To see who stands to gain, look at people like John Edwards for whom medical malpractice was his road to millionairedom.
Additionally, Obama has totally disregarded the 57 blue dog Democrats who realize this health care plan is, at the very least, fiscally irresponsible. He never mentions dissension within his own party. The truth is there are doubters on both sides of the aisle; he tells us half the story.
Obviously, President Obama, the man who was going to bring transparency to the presidency, doesn't even want to tell us the truth.
Let's deal with the bill itself--a bill presented in such a hazy way that one would expect it will fix every problem in health care without taking away our choices, freedoms, or money (except for the rich who won't miss it anyway). Here perhaps we should be grateful for half truths because most of what we are hearing are out and out lies!
Rahm Emmanuel is still pushing for a vote before the recess, but members of Congress have not read read the bill. That's exactly what happened with the stimulus package. How can one vote intelligently without having read and digested the information? How do I know they haven't read the bill--aside from the obvious that the President wants the vote before the recess but the bill is not yet completed?
On page 389 of the proposed legislation, there are references to the "mentally retarded." Agree or not, this is now considered a politically incorrect term bringing all kinds of criticism when used in movies, etc. Yet Congress allows this wording in its bill and NO ONE has objected to the term. I guess no one read as far as page 389.
The age where there must be a determination about using aggressive procedures to fight illness is 65. You read that right. Yet the claim is that AARP supports the legislation. Why would they want to hurt their membership? Do the older supporters of Obama and his plan realize that their lives may be sacrificed in order to save younger people? Shall we call Obama the Soylent Green President?
Who makes the determination concerning aggressive care? The person suggested is the Surgeon General. Who is the Surgeon General? The President has nominated a doctor whose practice has done wonderful things for poor people. She runs clinics. She is well respected and is obviously a good woman and hopefully an excellent physician. BUT she is not associated with teaching or research hospitals. Her experience is not with the cutting edge techniques consistently being developed, and there is no way that she can be up to speed in these areas. Yet she and her staff (who selects them?) will make health care decisions for the entire country--health care decisions that should be made by the patient and his/her physician. When President Obama says CHOICE, he obviously is not talking about choice of the individual; he is talking about choice of the government. ANOTHER TWISTING OF THE TRUTH.
Speaking about sacrifice, let's look at how this kind of health care works in other areas.
Massachusetts with Mitt Romney's health care design is going broke due to the exhorbitant costs. The projected cost and the real cost had nothing in common. Waits to see doctors are long, and tests are scheduled weeks down the road.
The cancer death rates in Canada are 17% higher than in the U.S. despite a smaller population. Long wait times for tests mean long wait times for treatment. The same cancer death rate difference exists in England. Canadians who are able come to the U.S. for improved treatment.
Canadians also come here for certain appliances such as hearing aids. At a dinner in Montreal, I was discussing my digital hearing aids which are more sensitive and versatile. Canadians are offered old fashioned analog hearing aids. The ability to pay for the more expensive and more sensitive digital aids does not factor into any decision. Analog is cheaper and the government needs to take away choice in order to supply everyone equally.
When we were in Ireland in the fall of '07, we read of two health scandals in government-run health care United Kingdom. A hospital in England, in order to cut laundry costs, simply flipped the sheets when one patient left and before the next arrived. The result was a staph infection epidemic! The second scandal concerned Ireland's return to do-it-yourself dentistry by people with toothache pain so severe they couldn't suffer through the long waits to see the dentist. They resorted to many ways of removing their teeth including the old string on the doorknob game. If you find this hard to believe, don't. It is the whole truth.
The President talks about taxing only the rich to pay for this plan. He neglected to add that he is considering an excise tax on plans that go above and beyond the government sponsored plan. Here he will tax the insurance companies that offer "gold-plated" plans. That means if you or I are paying more for better coverage, our audacity will be punished. If we feel insurance is the way we wish to spend our money, we will be punished in order to pay for people who choose to spend their money in other ways--a large percentage of the uninsured are young people who do not see health insurance as a personal necessity. They will lose their right to choose as well. Do you see your liberty being threatened little by little? You should. Bye Bye "gold-plated" plans. If you were an insurance company paying extra taxes, would you continue to offer them?
In the last few days he has emphatically stated that Republicans will not go along with him because this will be his "Waterloo." He accuses them of trying to "torpedo" his plan in order to gain politically. Obama claims the Republicans want no change to health care in the country. I've heard Republicans and others suggest for years that tort reform would work on the problem of malpractice lawsuits and all the accompanying costs involved in doctors and hospitals protecting themselves. That was a big part of President George W. Bush's plan to work on health care--a plan firmly trounced by the Democats in Congress.
This issue does not appear to be addressed in the new bill. To see who stands to gain, look at people like John Edwards for whom medical malpractice was his road to millionairedom.
Additionally, Obama has totally disregarded the 57 blue dog Democrats who realize this health care plan is, at the very least, fiscally irresponsible. He never mentions dissension within his own party. The truth is there are doubters on both sides of the aisle; he tells us half the story.
Obviously, President Obama, the man who was going to bring transparency to the presidency, doesn't even want to tell us the truth.
Let's deal with the bill itself--a bill presented in such a hazy way that one would expect it will fix every problem in health care without taking away our choices, freedoms, or money (except for the rich who won't miss it anyway). Here perhaps we should be grateful for half truths because most of what we are hearing are out and out lies!
Rahm Emmanuel is still pushing for a vote before the recess, but members of Congress have not read read the bill. That's exactly what happened with the stimulus package. How can one vote intelligently without having read and digested the information? How do I know they haven't read the bill--aside from the obvious that the President wants the vote before the recess but the bill is not yet completed?
On page 389 of the proposed legislation, there are references to the "mentally retarded." Agree or not, this is now considered a politically incorrect term bringing all kinds of criticism when used in movies, etc. Yet Congress allows this wording in its bill and NO ONE has objected to the term. I guess no one read as far as page 389.
The age where there must be a determination about using aggressive procedures to fight illness is 65. You read that right. Yet the claim is that AARP supports the legislation. Why would they want to hurt their membership? Do the older supporters of Obama and his plan realize that their lives may be sacrificed in order to save younger people? Shall we call Obama the Soylent Green President?
Who makes the determination concerning aggressive care? The person suggested is the Surgeon General. Who is the Surgeon General? The President has nominated a doctor whose practice has done wonderful things for poor people. She runs clinics. She is well respected and is obviously a good woman and hopefully an excellent physician. BUT she is not associated with teaching or research hospitals. Her experience is not with the cutting edge techniques consistently being developed, and there is no way that she can be up to speed in these areas. Yet she and her staff (who selects them?) will make health care decisions for the entire country--health care decisions that should be made by the patient and his/her physician. When President Obama says CHOICE, he obviously is not talking about choice of the individual; he is talking about choice of the government. ANOTHER TWISTING OF THE TRUTH.
Speaking about sacrifice, let's look at how this kind of health care works in other areas.
Massachusetts with Mitt Romney's health care design is going broke due to the exhorbitant costs. The projected cost and the real cost had nothing in common. Waits to see doctors are long, and tests are scheduled weeks down the road.
The cancer death rates in Canada are 17% higher than in the U.S. despite a smaller population. Long wait times for tests mean long wait times for treatment. The same cancer death rate difference exists in England. Canadians who are able come to the U.S. for improved treatment.
Canadians also come here for certain appliances such as hearing aids. At a dinner in Montreal, I was discussing my digital hearing aids which are more sensitive and versatile. Canadians are offered old fashioned analog hearing aids. The ability to pay for the more expensive and more sensitive digital aids does not factor into any decision. Analog is cheaper and the government needs to take away choice in order to supply everyone equally.
When we were in Ireland in the fall of '07, we read of two health scandals in government-run health care United Kingdom. A hospital in England, in order to cut laundry costs, simply flipped the sheets when one patient left and before the next arrived. The result was a staph infection epidemic! The second scandal concerned Ireland's return to do-it-yourself dentistry by people with toothache pain so severe they couldn't suffer through the long waits to see the dentist. They resorted to many ways of removing their teeth including the old string on the doorknob game. If you find this hard to believe, don't. It is the whole truth.
The President talks about taxing only the rich to pay for this plan. He neglected to add that he is considering an excise tax on plans that go above and beyond the government sponsored plan. Here he will tax the insurance companies that offer "gold-plated" plans. That means if you or I are paying more for better coverage, our audacity will be punished. If we feel insurance is the way we wish to spend our money, we will be punished in order to pay for people who choose to spend their money in other ways--a large percentage of the uninsured are young people who do not see health insurance as a personal necessity. They will lose their right to choose as well. Do you see your liberty being threatened little by little? You should. Bye Bye "gold-plated" plans. If you were an insurance company paying extra taxes, would you continue to offer them?
As a matter of fact, bye bye insurance companies. Not today, but down the road. They will be unable to compete with government sponsored plans.
Let's deal with another problem with truth. The Franking Commission which decides when Congress-sponsored mail to constituents travels postage free, has decided that the term "government-sponsored health care" is a partisan term and disqualifies for free postage any Congressman or Senator who employs that term. The appropriate term, "public option," is to be used instead. How's that for Freedom of Speech?! How's that for issuing half truths or lies (you make the call) to the public. Keep 'em ignorant and you'll keep 'em under your thumb.
Here's an interesting lack of truthfulness. This health plan is supposedly designed to give all Americans the best of care. When an amendment was offered to insist that the President and members of Congress sign on to this plan, the amendment was not even included in the bill. The people crafting this wonderous plan all know the truth, and they are not going for it any more than we should go for it.
One last point (although I can go on) before this post gets any longer (and it could). Obama's people keep talking about 47 million uninsured. There is a saying, "Figures never lie but liers figure."
That statistic includes people who can afford insurance but choose not to have it (primarily younger people). They will be forced by law to buy insurance.
That number includes illegal immigrants in this country. Do you want your tax money to make sure the people who are here by breaking the law are supported by law to have health care while yours may very well be compromised in order to do that?
That statistic, a yearly statistic, includes anyone who does not have insurance for even one day--a person who changes jobs, for instance, or a person who opts for different coverage and there is a lag between the time when one ends and another begins.
The whole truth is that we are not getting the whole truth. But if these proposals become law, we will be giving up choices about our health, end-of-life issues, and our money. To me this means giving up freedom to which our Federal Government has no right. Technorati Tags:
politics, commentary, health care, Obama, President, taxes, Rahm Emmanuel, Congress, legislation, AARP, Canada, socialized medicine, public option, Franking Commission, England, Ireland, UK, cancer, death rates, MA, health plans, Not With a Whimper, political blogs
