Million Med March Today!

Hat Tip to Right Klik

If you are looking for something to do today, how about the Million Med March? Marchs are happening all over the US to protest the Senate bill.

Find a march near you!

Reid’s health care bill CBO Scoring is good politics, but the legislation still stinks

Last night, the CBO released the scoring for Reid's health care bill.  Instantaneously, the news reports gushed over how Reid's bill would not only be deficit neutral, but would in fact reduce the deficit by nearly $130 billion in ten years.  Unfortunately, the good news is more the result of well-timed politics than actually creating good legislation.  

The real reason the news seems so positive regarding Reid's legislation is the direct result of Reid not making the legislation available to be criticized ahead of the CBO scoring.  The media, in its pliant attitude towards leftist policies are merely trumpeting the wonderful news for all to hear before anyone has a chance to tell you what policies are included in the bill.  Let me be the first to fill you in on how the CBO projected surplus gains on the legislation:

• The Doctor Fix is out; wink-wink!  You can read all about this scam in one of my more recent posts.  Without the Doctor Fix, a 23% cut in Medicare reimbursements, any of the health care legislation that has been proposed thus far would project surpluses.  I don't think a single rational human being would make the argument that cutting payments to doctors and hospitals is the best approach to tackling the deficit.  Pass the Doctor Fix separately and projected surpluses magically turn into deficits.

• If a program adds to state and local deficits, but not the federal deficits, does that really mean that the program is deficit neutral?  One of the biggest pieces of this legislation is a gigantic expansion of the Medicaid and S-Chip entitlement programs.  These won't add to the Federal Budget though, instead Uncle Sam has decided to create an Unfunded Mandate for the states so that Washington politicians can pretend that there are no budgetary effects.  How many states are going broke right now?

• What are costs of implementation and enforcing the mandates?  They don't keep score at the CBO.  Costs that are associated with enforcing mandates, such as increased oversight by the IRS, are not accounted for in CBO scoring.  If the CBO has to calculate this every time congress wanted to pass legislation, they'd never be able to find deficit neutral legislation.

• The CBO did not indicate whether the legislation actually bends the increasing costs to health care.  As I've pointed out before, this is the real issue.  I'm fine with balancing the budget.  It is a plus to legislation, but the cost crisis is in stemming the rate of health care cost increases year over year.  All the legislation being proposed by Democrats is akin to kicking Grandma to the curb and taking away the large sums of entitlement money currently allotted to a few (old people) and reallocating those entitlements to a larger number of people.  

It's a great way to buy votes, but it doesn't do anything to fix, reform, or improve health care.  I'm sick and tired of all the pretending that this legislation is anything more.

Side Note:

Backdoor single payer is also stronger in Reid's bill.  The new bill charge's only $750/year to those that refuse to purchase health care.  That's a mere $62.50/month.  I can't imagine why anyone would purchase health care insurance under this mandate, if the same legislation is going to bar insurance companies from refusing coverage based on preexisting conditions.  It creates a situation where no one will buy insurance until they need to use it, which will either make private insurance more expensive or put private companies out of business.

Another Side Note:

I was unable to determine from the report whether Reid's bill had the same revenue generating scheme as the Bacchus bill. The Bacchus bill collected 10 years of taxes to fund 7 years of costs.

Read the scoring here.

Update #1

MSNBC has the scoop on some more gimmicks in the Senate bill. The effective date for the legislation is one year later, 2014. Therefore, the effects of legislation that will occur for six of the ten years in the ten year window, will be spread out accross ten years. That's in part, how the senate bill comes in lower then the congressional bill. Also, tax start a year earlier, so we will collect taxes for 7 years to pay for 6 years of costs. Does that sound like it pays for itself?

Hungry for more news? Check out these links!

Democrats hit hardest by Obama recession and more at Left Coast Rebel. See more excellent writing on this topic at Reaganite Republican.

What about the 255 million people not in Reid's bill?

Who in the world vetted and supported Eric Holder's nomination? Track and Klik have video of Eric Holder...sounding...how can I say it?...You'd better just see for yourself.

Even more!

The Czar of the Czars!

Alas the Democratic Hodgepodgery!

Obama is thinking really really hard on Afghanistan

Recently passed, Pelosi’s health care bill was not scored deficit neutral by CBO and news of a new Congressional Confidence Scheme

My headline above is not entirely accurate, but then, few specifics regarding health care legislation is being reported accurately. Pelosi’s self proclaimed “most open and transparent” congress in over a hundred years has been nothing of the sort under Democrat leadership. So what’s the latest Democratic scam to surface from Pelosi’s grifters? Why it’s the doctor fix, resurrected from the health care chopping block and it is piggy-backing fiscal responsibility.

Let me set the stage.

Democrats received all kinds of heat over the summer for the deficit costs of HR3200. The way Democrats tried to sell HR3200 went a little like this, “Our health care reform is deficit neutral! In fact, we’ll even have a surplus. Except for the Doctor fix which is one third of the total cost of the plan. The rest is surplus Baby!” In combination with the November elections showing voters were growing weary of Big Spend Democrat policies, Pelosi’s legislation needed a deficit neutral CBO scoring to get Blue Dog support. As a result, Pelosi dropped the Doctor Fix from her bill.

The Doctor Fix is a correction to current legislation, which promises to dramatically cut the reimbursement rate that doctors receive for Medicare. Essentially, it was the carrot being used to get AMA support.

Since Pelosi fixed the Doctor Fix Bob Barker style, her health care bill got the deficit neutral thumbs up from the CBO and Democrats passed the legislation. Byron York is reporting that the Doctor Fix is back and it’s piggy-backing Pay-Go legislation.

According to the Washington Examiner:

But it just happens that the Democratic version of Pay-Go contains a specific exemption for the doctor fix. So the House could approve a measure that would cost $210 billion, have no way to pay for it and still meet the requirements it has set for itself in terms of restraining spending.

In essence, the house plans to pass a bill requiring that congress find funding for all spending with an amendment that costs $210 billion in unfunded spending.

It’s a slick gimmick so that the lapdog media can report lies of omission. Congress will say that health care legislation is fully funded by congress. The media will report this as if it were true. Congress will say that they passed Pay-Go legislation that requires congress to fund all legislation. The media will report this as if it were true. It’s a confidence game perpetrated by congress with the media as an accomplice.

In reality if the Pay-Go bill is passed, we will have the same deficit ridden health care legislation as would have occurred under HR3200 and a Pay-Go bill to curb unfunded spending that kicks in right after congress has maxed out the taxpayer's credit card.

Now I’m not saying that a Doctor Fix should not be considered and debated. I’m not saying that Pay-Go isn’t something that should be considered and debated. I’m saying that Democrats are grifting legislation to sell you an unconventional health care mortgage and hiding all the nasty details in the fine print. Those that are perpetrating this are the same that have condemned banks as bastions of greed for the same shenanigans.

Read more about leftist shenanigans:

The report the left was starving for

Your weatherman may believe in the bogeyman, but not climate change

Calling out those that don't get McCain. Not that one, The Other McCain

Obama Has A Dream and Reaganite Republican is having a little fun with them.

Has anyone noticed that the Party of “No” is accomplishing more than the Obama?

The media and Democrats might want to stop labeling the Republican Party as the “Party of No.” One the surface, the label “Party of No” seems like good political strategy. It is a creative attempt to define and brand the opposition party negatively as the party opposed to all progressive ideas of hope and change. So what’s the problem with a little strategic branding? The problem is that saying “No” to Obama policies as a platform is starting to prove successful in producing tangible benefits for Americans.

Here are just a few successes we’ve seen by simply saying “No” to the Obama agenda:

The Republican Party strongly opposed Obama’s Cap and Tax legislation in July and is currently working to hold the bill up in the Senate. Democrats contend that by holding up the bill, Republicans are harming the world’s efforts to abate global warming. However, a newly released report by NOAA regarding October’s temperatures is telling us a different story. According to the report, October 2009 was the third coldest month on record. The average temperatures in October were 4 degrees Fahrenheit below average for the last century. Of course global warming scientists cannot reasonably explain the shocking drop, but one thing is evident, not passing Cap and Tax into law seems to be having a powerful effect on lowering average temperatures at a dramatic rate.

Republican opposition held up health care legislation in August. Despite claims from Democrats that the Republicans are intentionally killing off the sick as a result of their opposition, Obama touted a dramatic decrease in the number of uninsured from 47 million to 30 million. The drop occurred in less than of month after just saying “No” was congressional drumbeat. Saying no proved cheaper for Americans and dramatically effective.

Let’s also take a look at Obama’s stimulus. Sadly in this case, the “Yes” votes prevailed in February. However, if you look at Obama’s projections below, you will see that following the call of “No” would have put us at 9% unemployment. A dramatic improvement over the 10.2% unemployment we currently have under the stimulus. Only a fool would overlook the obvious wisdom of the “No” strategy.



All kidding aside, (I love writing about paradoxes) it is unfortunate that most liberal media and politicians push the idea that something is better than nothing. The truth is that there are good ideas and bad ideas. We can actually come out of legislation worse then when we came in. Many of Obama’s policies fall under the category of bad ideas. Nearly all of the current administrations big agenda items are crafted and rooted in accomplishing political goals as opposed to solving problems.

For example via The American Spectator:

Liberal John Cassidy explains of the progressive agenda:

"[W]e will be dealing with its consequences for decades to come, and I think it’s important to be clear about what the reform amounts to," Cassidy wrote. He goes on to confess that, "The future cost savings that the Administration and its congressional allies are promising to deliver are based on wishful thinking and sleight of hand. Over time, the reform, as proposed, would almost certainly add substantially to the budget deficit, thereby worsening the long-term fiscal crisis that the country faces."

After explaining many of the accounting tricks the Democrats have used to obtain a passing grade from the Congressional Budget Office, which I have detailed on numerous occasions, Cassidy concludes:

So what does it all add up to? The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment to help provide health coverage for the vast majority of its citizens. I support this commitment, and I think the federal government’s spending priorities should be altered to make it happen. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t.

The reason “No” has been so successful to date is that the “Yes” solutions aren’t intended to address any particular problem. It's easy to say "No" to solutions that don't fix problems. The health care bill will cut the spiraling costs of health care, the answer is no so just say "No." Cap and trade will reduce global temperatures, the answer is no so just say "No." The stimulus is jolting the economy back to life, the answer is no so just say "No" more spending. When the leaders in congress and the White House are not bringing viable options to the table, the productive response is "No."

AMA, AARP, SEIU WHAT'S IN FOR THEM

So what was so important about passage of this bill on this particular weekend? It is the one year anniversary of the election of BHO as president. I like using his initials. It reminds me of a syndrome that I do not particularly want to contract.
As BHOC (Obamacare) moves a step closer to reality despite the objections of a majority of the American public, the Washington demigod's continue their march to power and control of the United States Health Care System, they are being aided in their effort by three vary powerful lobbing groups. The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), have added their collective stamps of approval.

I see this as one of the largest games of "Texas Hold Em" ever played.
For the demigod's, a chance to consolidate their power into a one party socialist system by rendering the Republican party as impotent (sorry I digress). Fortunately there is a cure called the Independents which the BHO supporters seem to have forgotten about.

The question is what do these three lobby groups get in return?
Let me try to explain how this works since they don't teach this in public schools anymore.

I wonder why!!

Once a bill is passed by both houses of Congress and is signed into law by the President, the executive branch then kicks into gear. Remember that the Congress makes the laws and the executive branch then has the power to implement the law. That goal is accomplished through the "Code of Federal Regulations" (CFR). The CFR is broken down into 50 fifty separate Titles (possibly 51 if that portion of the House & Hose Bill survives) is published in the Federal Resister. The bill now law is administered by the Administrative Branch that is assigned to enforce it.
For example Title 26 Section 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) gives the US Secretary of Treasury the power to create the necessary rules and regulations for enforcing the IRC. These regulations, also known as the “Income Tax Regulations,” are located in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations are organized according to the IRC section that a regulation interprets. Citations to the Treasury Regulations may appear in different formats. For instance, the definition of gross income in the regulations may be cited to as “26 C.F.R. 1.61-1” or as “Treas. Reg. 1.61-1.” Both citations refer to the same regulation, which interprets the IRC Section 61, "Gross income defined."

Boiled down, Congress grants very broad authority to executive branch agencies to interpret the statutes in the US Code (and in uncodified statutes) which the agencies are entrusted with enforcing. This is where the Czars come into play their hands. They can determine who gets be heard during the public hearings and meetings with interested third parties (IE..Lobby Groups). To give you an example CFR Title 49 covers the "Transportation of Hazardous Chemical for Commerce". It was written almost entirely by input from the Chemical Manufacturer's Association which lobbied heavily. Title 49 contains one book of regulations and 3 books of exceptions to the regulations.

Point being those that support the bill can gain favorable status in writing the statutes. So you have 3 eager beavers that are vying for the power of drafting the regulations. My guess is that since BHO is partial to unions the SEIU has the inside track meaning that the AMA and the AARP are holding their cards a little bit closer to the chest in case they don't have the winning hand.

And so the game continues with the next hand will be dealt in the US Senate.

How do you kill a monster?

What’s more interesting than the passing of Saturday’s historic congressional health care legislation? How about, why is the legislation still alive? Read the monster stories and you will see that a silver bullet kills a werewolf, a wooden stake through the heart will kill a vampire, but there seems to be no stopping the government take over of health care. Here are a few things that should have killed this Obamanation and yet the beast lives on.

1. Bipartisanship

After nearly a decade of the left extolling the positive virtues of bipartisanship and its ability to solve all problems, bipartisanship proved ineffective in stopping health care unreform on Saturday. Despite the heavy bipartisan effort to kill the monster, it proved ineffective. In fact, the press has been working hard to show that bipartisanship was directly responsible for resurrecting the creature.

2. The monster’s true image

I’m reminded of the story of Dorian Grey who would have been immortal had he not looked upon the reality of his true image. That wasn’t the case with health care. Even today, the left continues to pontificate that private insurance companies are needlessly and immorally denying patient’s access to health care for money. AMA released a report showing that government run Medicare rejects more patients than private insurance, thus showing the monster the monster’s true image and yet the evidence proved unsuccessful in abating the bills passage.

3. Medical science’s magic bullet

Obama has been adamant that by releasing this monstrous bill, the monster will in turn fight off the pending health care doom on the horizon. The strategy was that the bill focused on prevention and as a result, preventative measures would lower costs of treatment. Medical research took its best shot at besting the health care menace by showing that preventative medicine does not lower health care costs. The shot was well aimed and timed, but I think it’s safe to say at this point that rational arguments will not fell this ghoul.

4. The villager’s with their fire and pitchforks

The villagers have been out in force to protest this monster’s creation. However, Dr Frankenstein congressional members seem to be reluctant to end their evil creation. There was a time where fire and pitchforks were a reality, as was the practice of tar and feathering and riding politicians on rails. Despite the claims from congress that villager violence is at an all time high in this country, so far the peasants have not progressed beyond peacefully insistent. I’m not advocating a change in strategy. Instead, I’m pointing out that the mad scientists in congress are feeling very confident that their lordly, castle walls will restrain the peasants.

5. Dr Jekyll will take the potion even if it means death

Despite the fact that congress has removed the doctor fix, both the AARP and AMA have pledged their undying support. What’s the doctor fix? According to current legislation, Medicare is set to dramatically slash the amount that the government will reimburse doctors for services. As a result, many doctors are threatening to either close up shop or flat out refuse Medicare patients. This is one of those “the government fails at everything” examples you are supposed to ignore. The doctor fix would have corrected this issue. However, the doctor fix also would have made the government monster health care bill look a little too frightening for Democrats as deficits in the 10 year window would have popped up in the CBO report, so it had to go. As a result, many Medicare users may face losing their doctors and doctors face bankruptcy. Please take note as to whom the left chooses to through under the bus first.

Congress also decided to impose a tax on health care equipment like pace makers and still no peep from AARP and AMA. When it comes to the left, ideology trumps even your constituents.

6. Don’t expect the zombies to become less zombie-like

As in all evil rituals, those that desire to summon evil must provide a sacrifice. The left chose to sacrifice human sacrifice. The house bill added a last minute amendment guaranteeing that the public option will not cover abortions. However, as is the case when you are dealing with zombies, you cannot expect zombies to start becoming less zombie-like. This health care bill was unacceptable to most zombies long before the abortion sacrifice and still they follow their master.

7. King Kong versus Godzilla or King Kong and Godzilla

We are at 10.2% unemployment and many analysts are concerned about a double dip recession. In short, Godzilla is destroying Tokyo. For some reason, many on the left believe that letting loose their King Kong health care plan will bring about Godzilla’s destruction (or was it that people would be too worried about King Kong that they wouldn’t notice Godzilla?). In watching the old Japanese horror films, have you ever wondered why King Kong and Godzilla bothered fighting each other? That’s my puzzlement with this strategy.

Today, the media is busy talking about how the health care bill is dead on arrival at the Senate. I don’t believe it for a second. If the things I listed above can’t kill this monster, I doubt that moderate senators will be up to the task. If you know how to best this beast, now’s the time to speak up before the left let’s loose this monster on the innocent.

What does unemployment data mean for health care bill?

H/T Legal Insurrection
H/T Reaganite Republican

The support has been bought, congress member’s arms twisted, and now Pelosi has declared that a health care vote will occur tomorrow. Congress works on Saturday? No, this will be a “special session.” Let’s not forget that this wouldn’t be the political left if they weren’t foremost concerned with leftist politics. Connolly, a Democrat from VA, titled the Democrats cards indicating why the vote is being pushed. He said of Tuesday’s elections:

"What I saw was a depressed Democratic base. And what that told me is, Democrats are going to have to deliver for that base if they want to excite that base…"

Somebody hand these people a pair of glasses, because clearly they are not seeing the writing on the wall. It was written on the pages of newspapers today with big print reading, “Unemployment hits 10.2%!” Yet where are the special congressional sessions to discuss the economy?

What is more interesting is the complete lack of respect from congressional democrats for their base of supporters. According to Connolly, you are to overlook their failures in dealing with the economy in exchange for a health care bill only a politician would love (here and here), but never use. I pity the sheeple on the left that are not revolting with disgust at this slight.



Since Tuesday’s exit polls showed that all voters are concerned about the economy, let me show you the way to reality (Big Hat Tip to Regeanite Republican for the amazing graph (I still love graphs)). If unemployment data mirrored the White House’s projections for the stimulus, would the left be saying the stimulus is working? Would it not be reasonable to say that the stimulus is causing the problem since we are doing worse than the “do nothing” scenario?

I am well aware that unemployment is a lagging, not leading, economic indicator. This means that the economy needs to improve before unemployment improves. However, this doesn’t mean that nothing about the future of the economy can be extrapolated from unemployment numbers. By all means, the figures we are looking at today regarding unemployment points to a very serious problem with last quarter’s GDP figures.

Over the last few months, economists had been forecasting a slowing in the recession and unemployment. Today’s numbers do not show a slowing in unemployment, but stagnation. If unemployment is stagnate and not tapering off towards positive employment growth as predicted, what does this mean about our recession assumptions? It raises the possibility that the recession is also stagnate and not easing as forecasted.

That’s not all that is stagnating. The Obama administration is dithering on all fronts be it the economy, Iran or Afghanistan. Yet this Saturday, it is absolutely imperative that we pass a health care plan that won’t be implemented until 2013.

Other related posts:




Left Coast Rebel

The joys of socialized medicine

Huge hat tip to William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection for the following ABC report on Canadian health care. Those wanting single payer, I have only one question...why?



Here is an excellent article from Canada about how the Canadian health care system is Imploding!

Please make sure to read the comments. Some of them are quite sobering, like:

Maisie42 wrote:
I, personally, have been waiting a year for a colonoscopy. After the fax was sent to the surgeon, I didn't hear anything for 4 months, then finally saw a doctor 3 months later. I will have the colonoscopy in September almost a year after my family doctor applied to see the specialist. While in hospital for another emergency, I heard of 2 other cases, where the diagnosis had been diverticulitis, but turned out to be cancer of the rectum. These people had only X-rays, which do not show the rectum. Only a surgeon can spot that with a scope-like instrument. Apparently they had not been sent to a specialist! I watch my neighbour Harry limping from his house to car. His knee surgery was cancelled last winter, when the QE2's operating budget was over the limit. He is in his mid 70's and should be enjoying a better quality of life. I believe that maybe a two-tier system is ok, but budgets of hospitals should not be limited in dollars where some people cannot get the operations they need. Instead the budget should depend on the number of patients who receive operations. Health care in Nova Scotia is badly lacking!

I love the following quote at the very end of an AP article that is defending the UK health care system:

British officials acknowledge that their system has been struggling to cope and faces a 15 billion pound ($24 billion) deficit. Hospitals are often overcrowded, dirty and understaffed, which means some patients do not get the care they are promised.

I'm so excited to see government trying to bring us closer to these kinds of health care system. Finally, someone's going to start a line for us to stand in, I was getting tired of just walking in and getting access

Obama goes to NH to sell suckers and health care Part 2

Since my post yesterday, I’ve since had a chance to read the transcript from the NH town hall. You can read it here. I wish I could say that I was surprised by the lies the silvertongue was peddling, but every single broken promise, every half-truth and every slanted syllable that I debunked yesterday was incorporated into his siren's call. I can see why many, disarmed and poorly informed, would have defended every word of the propagandist and chief. What was being told sounded far better than what was being sold; suckers and health care.

Today, I pick up where I left off and will continue to give you an honest perspective on HR3200. Today, we look at Obama’s contemptuous statements regarding taxes, death panels and the AARP.

Obama says: “Health care legislation will be paid for by taxing Americans making more than $250,000 and by creating savings from reforming Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP.”

THIS IS AN EMPTY PROMISE, A LIE, AND A HALF TRUTH ALL IN ONE. As I pointed out yesterday, the bill is not deficit neutral. To say that the bill is being paid for and not mention that there is a large unfunded portion is a lie by omission. Since Obama has already signed legislation that would remove the health bill from Pay-Go, I think it’s clear Obama will sign the bill even if it should appear on his desk with a large deficit in tow.

To believe that the White House can and will create the amount of savings they project requires a leap of faith. Recently, the director of the CBO has stated his skepticism regarding the amount of savings that the White House is projecting.

Obama has also promised that health care reform will be paid for by taxing those that make $250,000 or more. Of course, this is not the whole story regarding these taxes. Obama’s promise on the campaign trail was that he would simply repeal the Bush tax cuts. Fast forward to today and the top bracket is not paying 39.5% in income taxes, which was what they were under Clinton, but 45%. The “soak the rich” taxes are not the only taxes in HR3200. There’s an 8% tax on employers who drop or don’t offer insurance (that means the labor will be getting pinched). There is a tax on those that use tax free health care accounts to buy medication and a 2.5% tax on those that have the old, non-government sanctioned plans. These new taxes are a far cry from simply repealing Bush tax cuts. Yes, many of these taxes will be felt by those making less than $250,000.

If Obama was going to be honest, he should have said “I know I said that the bill would be paid for, but I lied. I know I promised that the bill would be paid for by creating savings from current government programs, this isn’t likely to happen. I know I promised that I would only repeal the Bush tax cuts on the rich, but I’m going to do twice that and more.”

Obama says: “The idea that my plan will install death panels is simply not true.”

MOSTLY, TRUE. The assertion that the government will create death panels comes from section 1233 of the bill in congress and the comparative effectiveness board established in the stimulus bill and expanded in HR3200. The bill describes a provision that would have people consult a health care practitioner regarding end of life planning. I do want to point out that one reaps what one sows. If you write a 1,000 page bill chalked full of programs that are invasive to one’s personal decisions (like provisions related to parenting, Chuck Norris to fill you in) you are likely to be alarmed.

Obama stated in the town hall meeting that the purpose of this section is to inform people about health care proxies, advance directives and living wills. However, this is not all the section talks about. Interestingly, health care proxies, advance directives and living wills are covered in two lines of the section. The rest was devoted almost entirely to end-of-life planning and does in fact contain specifics such as whether you will authorize the use of antibiotics, artificially administered nutrition and hydration when at the end of life.

Please keep in mind, the bill does specify that the conversation occurs between your doctor, nurse, or nurse practitioner and not some government bureaucrat.

The simple fact is that the bill doesn’t spell out exactly how these provisions will work. They are up to Obama to run. However, I do not believe section 1233 is setting up a "death panel." Primarily because the sessions are to be carried out by your doctor, nurse, etc. If your doctor is pushing euthanasia, you should find a new doctor.

However and I'll cover this in another post, there is also nothing in the health bill that guards against health care rationing. Implementation of programs will be up to the President, his Czars, and cabinet members.

What we do know is that there will be a board doing research to determine best medical practices and a health commissioner and panel that decides benefits. It is not out of the realm to think that this board will be hands off, but it may also be very imposing. This speaks to the crux of the matter. A simple question really, do you want to give the government the potential power of tyranny? Do you trust the government that much?

This will split down ideological lines. For most on the left, Obama is their Platonian philosopher-king who thinks only for his subjects and never his own interests. For us on the right it doesn’t matter, it’s none of Obama’s business. When, what, and why we want health care is none of the governments business. Leave research to the academics. We should be free to do what we want even if it is a low-percentage treatment.

If Obama was going to be honest, he should have said “You have no reason to believe anything I have to say regarding how I will run the provisions in the bill. They are intrusive.”

Obama says: “AARP supports my plan.”

THIS IS A LIE. The AARP has not endorsed any health legislation as of yet.

If Obama was going to be honest, he should have said “The AARP is so confident in how I’m going to run health care, they haven’t endorsed my plan yet.”

I have given you three more truths as I expose the sea of lies. I plan on continuing these types of posts until I have exposed all the misinformation from White House. With that said, I will be at this for a long time. I still plan on talking about health care rationing, government competition with the private sector and WHO 2000 report. Please let me know if there is anything else I should cover.

Related Articles:

Obama goes to NH to sell suckers and health care

Heritage Foundation debunks Obama lies (H/T to Lonely Conservative)

Robert Verdi at the 46 posts on Death Panel

Obama goes to NH to sell suckers and health care

Even as I write this, Obama is spinning, lying, half-truthing, and manufacturing his bumper sticker arguments for his suckers and his health plan. He’s set into motion the machinery that will either doom or actuate movement on his health care initiatives. Behold the silvertongue and his platitudes, his handshake promises without a handshake, his blurry and opaque “let me be clears”, and his mistaken “make no mistakes.” The right has their information and disinformation, some of which I agree and some that I do not. Deflate the emotions, restrain the outrage, and put aside the partisan and the only thing that is left is what is being asked on the right, “Dear God, let’s not move forward on this legislation.”

So here am I, with my own “Let me be clear.” I assure you that you will not get a more fair assessment on HR3200, certainly not from the state-run media and more certainly not from the propagandist-in-chief. This is sucker health care revealed.

Obama says: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

THIS IS A LIE. The CBO shows that an estimated 23 million will lose their private insurance and will be forced on the public option. I believe that the Heritage Foundation estimates higher (around 85 million), but they are partisan so I’ll place them in the worst case scenario. Even if you have a private provider, those private insurance companies will need to have conforming plans that meet government standards. Therefore, you might still have private insurance but a government sanctioned plan. As I understand it, there is a grandfather clause, but in effect the legislation phases out non-government conforming plans.

If Obama was going to be honest, he should have said, “If you like your private health insurance provider, you have a one in ten chance of keeping them, but your plan is simply not going to be available for much longer.”

Obama says: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

THIS IS AN EMPTY PROMISE. I may be misinformed and please correct me if I am, but there is nothing in HR3200 that mandates health providers to accept the government plan. This means, if you are forced onto the plan, you like your doctor, and your doctor will not accept the government option, then you will lose your doctor.

If Obama was going to be honest, he should have said, “If your doctor does not accept the public plan and you were forced onto the public plan because of the legislation I support, then you will lose your doctor.”

Obama says: “The rate of health care spending is unsustainable and this health care reform is needed to curb rising costs.”

THIS IS A HALF-TRUTH. The truth is that well thought out health care reform is needed to answer skyrocketing health care costs. Experts expect health care costs to out pace GDP growth for the next few decades. This means that as things currently stand in the do-nothing scenario, more and more of your income will need to be used to pay for your health insurance. Although the need to curb costs is real, HR3200 does nothing to curtail this problem. In fact, it makes the problem worse. This immutable truth has been voiced by the director of the CBO and the author of this blog.

The future cost crisis in health care is very real. Obama continually reminds us of this reality. The problem is that he is ignoring the issue, like he did the recession, in order to pass legislation that agrees with his ideology instead of his rhetoric.

If Obama was going to be honest, he should have said “The rate of health care spending is unsustainable and well thought-out reform is needed, but I’m not going to fix it. I have ideologies and special interests that are far too important for me and since I am President, I am entitled to have you pay for them, even if it costs you more money.”

Obama says: “I will not sign legislation that adds to the deficit”

THIS IS AN EMPTY PROMISE. As it stands, HR3200 is still adding to the deficit to the tune of about $239 billion according to the CBO. This is nearly 25% of the bill! The fact that congressional democrats have falsely claimed that the bill is deficit neutral speaks to their poor credibility.

If Obama was going to be honest, he should have said “I know I promised not to sign any health care bill that would add to the deficit. However, like my promise to refuse earmark laden legislation, I refuse to be bound by my promises.”

I have only covered four of the silvertongues forked statements and already my post is getting long. Tomorrow I will cover more. I intend to expose his promises on taxes, his untruths on WHO and the US health system, deaths panels, rationing health care, and more. More important than the truths exposed from the lies emerges a larger question that must be asked. If we can’t trust Obama to represent the truth in the health care debate, how can he expect Americans to trust his administration with the nation’s health care?

Philosophy 101 and Why the left does not talk about Obamacare when they are talking about Obamacare.

I’m back from vacation, I’m well rested, I’m eager to begin posting, and I’m overwhelmed with points I want to make on health care. Today, I’ve decided to step onto a left-wing soap box and reach out to the political left and explain to them why they are losing Obama’s Health Care Bill debate. My lefty blogging colleges, this post is for you.

Your political representatives have pinned their August strategy on the blame game. The Politico reports that the Dems have decided to make the debate about getting even with the health insurance companies:

“…Democratic aides insist their instructions to members aren’t merely defensive —that they’re are also telling members wage an all-out assault on the insurance industry and to paint Republicans as its pawns.”

The heart of the matter is that the left is losing the debate over Obama’s plan, not because the right is playing dirty tricks, but because the arguments you are making are extremely weak. The tactic described above and touted by Obama and Pelosi, though an excellent strategy when campaigning for political office, because it pits one politician against another, is toothless and a loosing strategy for passing legislation. It highlights all that is defunct about the left side of the argument at the moment.

During my days as a philosophy student, I learned the importance of making a valid argument. Arguments are formed when premises offer support for a conclusion. For example:

I think. – premise
Therefore, I am. – conclusion

Cigito, Ergo Sum for those familiar with Latin

The problem with the arguments being made by the left is that they leave out Obama’s Health Bill when talking about Obama’s Health Bill.

The premise “Insurance companies are ripping off the American people” makes a far stronger argument for the conclusion that “we need health care reform.” In a campaign, you want to show that you understand the problem related to a particular issue. However, we have a specific bill in congress that has definable outcomes and that bill does not equal “the elimination of abuse from insurance companies,” but hopefully (I like to add in the word hope every now and then to get support from the left) increase the total number of those with health insurance. Otherwise, the bill would be about creating regulators to ensure fair billing. You see, the bill’s outcome is completely unrelated to the premise of the arguments being made.

In fact, you can stop wasting your time making any argument where you are trying to make the case for health care reform. You’ve won the argument and I’m on board! A poll in the Times shows a large majority of the nation agrees that we need health care reform. Who’s against bending the cost curve? Who’s against increasing access to health care? Who’s against making health care more efficient? Dear readers on the left, why are you still trying to make arguments that we need reform?

Your problem is not convincing people that health care reform is something that should be done, but that Obama’s plan will achieve the goal. This is where you are failing. It’s not your fault. It’s difficult to make an argument for Obama’s plan when Obama’s plan does nothing to help reform health care. It’s not your fault that Obama is busy talking about how we need to curb unsustainable spending on health care when his bill will make the problem worse. When you have the mouthpiece of the legislation, Obama, who keeps talking about the need for reform, but not how the plan in congress achieves the goal.

I applaud the Law from The L Comment and Ezra Klein (the only time I will ever applaud Ezra Klein). They are two lefties who get it. There is only one premise that is in alignment with the stated objective of Obama’s plan and that is health care entitlement. Then again, wouldn’t a single payer system be better for achieving equal access for everyone? I’m sure my far left readers are cheering me on now, but isn’t this also a losing argument? After all, you are having trouble convincing the American people of government health plans (far from single payer) or does this explain why the bobblehead politicians aren’t really bringing it up.

To sum it all up, I’m tired of the pointless, irrelevant arguments from the left regarding the need for health care reform. We’re far beyond it. Let’s call a spade a spade. You want a health care entitlement. Now start owning up to it and making an argument for it! So long as you keep trying to make this about cost, getting even with insurance companies, or some other issue that remains unaddressed by Obama's bill, I’ll be here to shoot you down.