Obamacare

Will you be able to keep your doctor under Obamacare?

Over and over, as he's worked to promote his idea of healthcare "reform", Obama has stated that, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", and various other versions of the same statement.  The point being to give people the idea that, if they like what they currently have, his reforms won't impact them.

The only trouble is it's not true, for a whole host of reasons, (not the least of which is the details of the bill, or just plain old market dynamics...).

To clear up this issue, there's a neat flowchart out now which gives you a better idea of the reality of the situation.

Click the image below to download it in a pdf format.  Then pass it on...

 

Filed under: 

The vindication of Joe Wilson?

Well, well, well...

It looks like some apologies might be due in Joe Wilson's direction if certain Democrats have their way.

Why is that?  Because after months of denying there would be a move to add illegal aliens to any government subsidized health care, the mask came off this week as Democrats moved to specifically include illegal aliens in the pending health care bills.

A large group of House Democrats are working to amend the House healthcare bill to specifically include subsidized coverage for illegal aliens.  And the radical group LaRaza is calling on its members to contact Senators and "flood their voicemail" telling them to do the same - and drop any mandatory citizenship verification for coverage.

And they're in a hurry too.

They just rejected a Republican proposal to have at least three days to review a final bill - and they stopped a proposal to actually have the bill written out in legislative language BEFORE it gets voted on.

What they want is clear.  They want to ramrod an end-product that will be full-blown, government run "Obamacare" - which will include illegal aliens.

During August conservatives brought tremendous pressure on Congress.  And support for government run healthcare is at an all time low.

Quick Links: 9-29-09

A few interesting items...

US not acting like leader of the "free" world anymore

The Washington Times uses the example of speeches at the UN General Assembly last week to point out that Israel is looking more and more like the leader of the "free" world, while what it calles the "previous leader" (the US) has resigned it's role and decided to act more like a "global community organizer".  From the article:

...This was made plain by President Obama in his speech, titled "Responsibility for Our Common Future," in which he heralded "a new chapter of international cooperation." By contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a blunt and forceful call to action in the central challenge facing free people today. This is the struggle of "civilization against barbarism" being fought by "those who sanctify life against those who glorify death." ...

It would be nice to hear our own President use that kind of language.

***

New Jersey school upset of video of kids singing Obama's praises

Filed under: 

Universal Health Care

I've devoted the last several weeks to Bible study, prayer and meditation about health care reform, and I've come to the conclusion that the only Christian option is to support universal health care by a single-payer system.  I know I'm probably going to get some angry responses, but please bear with me here.

As Christians, we should take care of everyone who needs care - no matter what their lifestyle is (even if they are couch potatoes - we still need to love them), no matter what their immigration status is.  As Christians (not as Americans), why would we not care for everyone?  As Christians - why would we care about how much money it costs?

As an American - I was looking at the financial statements for some health insurance companies.  Half of their expenses are health care costs to doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, etc.  The other half is administrative and profits.  If we got rid of health insurance completely, our health care costs could be cut by at least a third (considering that some costs are now paid by government).  We don't get rid of them because many of us invest in them because they make a nice profit for us.  That's not Christian - that's capitalism.

What if doctors were just federal employees paid salaries - not on a per diem?  Then they could spend as much time as necessary to take care of each patient, and do what each patient needs, instead of being held hostage by health insurance companies?

The Baucus Plan Offers More of the Same in a New Wrapper

Democrat Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus released his committee's version of health care "reform" a few days ago, but in the end it pleases pretty much no one.

Liberals don't care for it because it doesn't openly ram a government-run system through, in the light of day.   I suppose they don't like the idea of having to try and hide what they're really up to?

As for conservatives, the reasons to oppose it are a good bit more obvious...

The WSJ does a good job of summing it up:

To sum up, the Baucus-Obama plan would increase the cost of insurance and then force people to buy it, requiring subsidies. Those subsidies would be paid for by taxes that make health care and thus insurance even more expensive, requiring even more subsidies and still higher taxes. It's a recipe to ruin health care and bankrupt the country, and that's even before liberal Democrats see Mr. Baucus and raise him, and then attempt to ram it all through the Senate.

Filed under: 

Obamacare Roundup

The latest on Obamacare...

The Associated Press took a look at some of the "math" Obama used in his speech relating to the deficit (and Obamacare's impact) and decided it was "iffy" at best.  And again, this is the "Associated Press" we're talking about... not exactly a bulwark of objectivity.

The Wall Street Journal looks at the implications of Obamacare on labor unions... as in it will amount to one great big early Christmas present with all sorts of goodies, (like forced unionization of some health care workers for example).  Just another example of the type of garbage one can usually expect to be buried in any bill that has "comprehensive" in the title.

Filed under: 

Look For the Union Label... on the Health Care Bill

As if Americans didn't have enough reasons already to oppose - or at least be suspicious of - the efforts of the far-left on the issue of healthcare, the hits just keep on coming.

The latest comes from an analysis of the pending Democrat plans by Mark Mix of the Wall Street Journal.

It turns out, the one thousand-plus pages have been hiding early Christmas presents to the Democrat's buddies in the unions, ranging from bailouts of their own health care plans to the forced unionization of American health care workers.

From the article:

Filed under: 

Blanche Lincoln announces she'll oppose the "public option"

You can always tell when a politician has an election coming up that they're a little worried about.  They start to talk like this:

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., announced Wednesday that she would not support a bill that included a public option because she believed it would be too expensive.

Lincoln told the Elder Law Task Force at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences that a public option would create another entitlement program.

"And we can't afford that right now as a nation," she said.

I guess the only surprise is that it took her this long (and a month of being back home) to come to that conclussion.  And I'm sure that the fact that she's up for re-election next year in a state the didn't go blue even with Obama at the top of the ticket has nothing to do with it.

But we'll take what we can get.

Don't get too secure though, keep speaking out.  Especially if you live in Arkansas.

Click here to contact your members of Congress on the health care issue.

 

Obama using the CIA to re-shuffle the political deck

It's time for some honesty in the current debate over the CIA's interrogation methods of terrorists. The argument isn't really over whether we were too harsh, given that even Obama has said we would continue turning terrorists over to other governments, knowing full well that those guys play rougher than we do.

It's all about politics.

Soon after his inauguration as President, Obama stated that he didn't want to re-open an investigation into CIA interrogations of terrorists because he knew that it would become a tremendous, political distraction - which is exactly why he's changed his mind.

Normally, the last thing a guy with Obama's messianic ambition would want is for all of Washington to become sidetracked with such a divisive issue, much less one that exposes the political weaknesses of his own party.

Once and For All, Obamacare Does Fund Abortions

President Barack Obama knows that if his universal health care bill - with the government option - actually does pass Congress against the wishes of a large majority of the American people, including a vast majority of senior citizens, abortion will indeed be funded with American tax dollars.

As "The Washington Times" editorial on Monday said: "President Obama isn't being straight when he says current health care proposals don't provide government funding for abortion. They do. If Democratic plans are passed, your taxes will pay for abortions." The Associated Press on August 5th had a headline "Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion." And the "Times" said in response: "There's no wiggle room in that headline."

Syndicate content