Showing posts with label Nationalized healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nationalized healthcare. Show all posts
Monday, August 24, 2009
Health Care Quote Of The Day
Commenting on England's health care, Rep. Trent Franks (R) Arizona said, "If you have a cold, call a doctor; bit if you have diabetes or cancer, call a travel agency."
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Riddle Me This
Can any one who supports government health care really guarantee that citizens will enjoy the same, or better, coverage under a government plan than they enjoy now? Here's the scenario you have to work with"
White male, 81 years old. He has suffered a series of strokes that has left him paralyzed on the right side of his body. His left knee has been replaced, he has a pace-maker and cancer. His every need has been covered under his private insurance. What say you?
I think it is obvious that the man in the above example is my father. He is going to die, we all are, but in his case it is a pretty good bet his death will come sooner than later. Ten years ago when he had his strokes his doctors gave us a decision. They told us that if he lived that he would be paralyzed, he would be brain damaged. My father had (has) a Living Will and the doctors were not required to do anything. The decision belonged to my mother and I. Can anyone guarantee that if the health plan places, that other families will be given the same opportunity my Mom and I were given?
Dad had surgery Friday to remove a blood clot. His doctor was pretty pissed off with him because he had fallen more than a week ago but didn't seek medical attention because his doctor was on vacation. I told him that pretty soon he may not be eligible for medical coverage so he'd needed to quit being so stubborn and accept care now while it is still available. He countered by asking me to promise that I would have a surgery that I have put off for over a year. I haven't looked at my Dad in the eye and lied since I was sixteen years old so I told him that I would "check it out".
Some people, employing a ratio of contribution to society/cost to society would argue that treating my father simply doesn't make sense and is an inefficient use of society's health dollars. I say let society keep its health dollars, the private system is working just fine.
White male, 81 years old. He has suffered a series of strokes that has left him paralyzed on the right side of his body. His left knee has been replaced, he has a pace-maker and cancer. His every need has been covered under his private insurance. What say you?
I think it is obvious that the man in the above example is my father. He is going to die, we all are, but in his case it is a pretty good bet his death will come sooner than later. Ten years ago when he had his strokes his doctors gave us a decision. They told us that if he lived that he would be paralyzed, he would be brain damaged. My father had (has) a Living Will and the doctors were not required to do anything. The decision belonged to my mother and I. Can anyone guarantee that if the health plan places, that other families will be given the same opportunity my Mom and I were given?
Dad had surgery Friday to remove a blood clot. His doctor was pretty pissed off with him because he had fallen more than a week ago but didn't seek medical attention because his doctor was on vacation. I told him that pretty soon he may not be eligible for medical coverage so he'd needed to quit being so stubborn and accept care now while it is still available. He countered by asking me to promise that I would have a surgery that I have put off for over a year. I haven't looked at my Dad in the eye and lied since I was sixteen years old so I told him that I would "check it out".
Some people, employing a ratio of contribution to society/cost to society would argue that treating my father simply doesn't make sense and is an inefficient use of society's health dollars. I say let society keep its health dollars, the private system is working just fine.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Proposed Exceptions In The Health Care Legislation
On Friday, Pat at And So it Goes in Shreveport wrote that Rep. John Fleming (D) Louisiana has proposed a Resolution that members of Congress be covered under the same health care plan that Congress is trying to foist on the rest of us. Today, writing at RedState Moe Lane also reports on the story:
Rep. Fleming:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration’s proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
Lane’s take:
You can tell that Rep Fleming is a freshman: he’s still able to believe that Congressional Democrats can be motivated by shame.
I’m not surprised that Congress would try to protect their only extremely generous benefits. Think of the money taxpayers would save if Congressman were subject to the pension benefits, or lack thereof, the rest of us are subject to. But this isn’t the first exemption that Congress has tried to slide in to their health care plan:
June 26 (Bloomberg)-- The U.S. Senate proposal to impose taxes for the first time on “gold-plated” health plans may bypass generous employee benefits negotiated by unions.
So, the unions would keep their cushy benefits but instead of the costs being buried in the price of a GM or Chrysler vehicle, and paid for by people who choose to buy GM or Chrysler vehicles, the taxpayers would pick up the cost. Put these two exemptions together and our Congressman seem much more Politburo than representatives of the citizens of the United States.
Rep. Fleming:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration’s proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
Lane’s take:
You can tell that Rep Fleming is a freshman: he’s still able to believe that Congressional Democrats can be motivated by shame.
I’m not surprised that Congress would try to protect their only extremely generous benefits. Think of the money taxpayers would save if Congressman were subject to the pension benefits, or lack thereof, the rest of us are subject to. But this isn’t the first exemption that Congress has tried to slide in to their health care plan:
June 26 (Bloomberg)-- The U.S. Senate proposal to impose taxes for the first time on “gold-plated” health plans may bypass generous employee benefits negotiated by unions.
So, the unions would keep their cushy benefits but instead of the costs being buried in the price of a GM or Chrysler vehicle, and paid for by people who choose to buy GM or Chrysler vehicles, the taxpayers would pick up the cost. Put these two exemptions together and our Congressman seem much more Politburo than representatives of the citizens of the United States.
Monday, June 22, 2009
The Administration's Propaganda Arm
What do you get when the New York Times and CBS intentionally distort a poll in favor of the President’s healthcare plan and ABC turns an entire broadcast day over to the White House to air a healthcare marathon? Indisputable proof that much of the media in this country can no longer be trusted. So far, the Times/CBS hasn’t offered any explanation as how their “sampling” contained Obama supporters by a margin of two to one. ABC on the other hand has promised to be unbiased. I promise to forego my beloved beer for a month. Both promises are equally worthless.
From Investor's Business Daily:
This Wednesday, on every show from "Good Morning America" (kicking things off with an interview with the president) to "World News Tonight" (broadcast from the Blue Room) to a prime-time special called "Prescription for America" (and emanating from the East Room), the network will puff the Obama administration's trillion-dollar plan to nationalize U.S. health care.
The all-day, White House-based coverage itself amounts to a nationalization — this one of a major media outlet in support of an administration that will return the favor for access at the cost of objectivity and the public's right to know.
What of the public’s right to know? During the previous administration the “public’s right to know” was sacrosanct. Unfortunately, this right has joined “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” as a passé concept.
IBD continues:
Under the cover of news, ABC can present the president's side of the health reform issue as "factual" and leave out the real costs and concerns about government control and rationing of health care. Personal stories that tug at the heartstrings will be featured prominently, as will unchallenged canards about the wonders of socialized medicine.
Long and repetitive coverage will numb the public into thinking all sides have been explored. A token few seconds of time given over to a critic or two will enable ABC to call its coverage "fair." But expect the opposition to be portrayed as heartless or wacko.
So, what will the public’s reaction to ABC’s day long infomercial? I hope most Americans will refuse to watch ABC on Wednesday and going forward. The propaganda ploy will only work if people allow themselves to be sucked in. I think Americans are smarter than that.
From Investor's Business Daily:
This Wednesday, on every show from "Good Morning America" (kicking things off with an interview with the president) to "World News Tonight" (broadcast from the Blue Room) to a prime-time special called "Prescription for America" (and emanating from the East Room), the network will puff the Obama administration's trillion-dollar plan to nationalize U.S. health care.
The all-day, White House-based coverage itself amounts to a nationalization — this one of a major media outlet in support of an administration that will return the favor for access at the cost of objectivity and the public's right to know.
What of the public’s right to know? During the previous administration the “public’s right to know” was sacrosanct. Unfortunately, this right has joined “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” as a passé concept.
IBD continues:
Under the cover of news, ABC can present the president's side of the health reform issue as "factual" and leave out the real costs and concerns about government control and rationing of health care. Personal stories that tug at the heartstrings will be featured prominently, as will unchallenged canards about the wonders of socialized medicine.
Long and repetitive coverage will numb the public into thinking all sides have been explored. A token few seconds of time given over to a critic or two will enable ABC to call its coverage "fair." But expect the opposition to be portrayed as heartless or wacko.
So, what will the public’s reaction to ABC’s day long infomercial? I hope most Americans will refuse to watch ABC on Wednesday and going forward. The propaganda ploy will only work if people allow themselves to be sucked in. I think Americans are smarter than that.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Healthcare Hyperbole
Via Memeorandum
Anytime a writer feels the need to claim that he is not engaging in hyperbole it is a pretty good guess that he is. Consider this from Glenn W. Smith at FireDogLake:
The gravity of America's health care crisis is the moral equivalent of the 19th Century's bloody conflict over slavery. This is not hyperbole, though the truth of it is often lost in abstract talk of insurance company profits, treatment costs, and other cold, inhuman analyses.
Today's health system condemns 50 million Americans to ill health and death while guaranteeing health care to the economic privileged. It cannot stand.
Not only is Smith’s post grossly over-wrought, he also conveniently leaves out any fact that would lower the emotional tone of his piece. He doesn’t mention that twenty to twenty-five million of the 50 (?) million uninsured are illegal aliens. He doesn’t mention that another 8-10 million uninsured are people who earn over $75,000 a year but choose not to purchase insurance. He certainly doesn’t mention that the plan the administration has put forward would cost 1.6 TRILLION dollars and would leave 30 million people still uninsured. And he certainly doesn’t mention that the majority of that 30 million currently have insurance but would lose it under the President’s plan.
Instead of dealing with facts, Smith appeals to white guilt over slavery. That is nothing short of pathetic. I would also like to know how Smith defines “the economic privileged”. Is health insurance yet another class warfare issue?
You would think that if healthcare is so important to Smith that he would deal with it in a straight forward and honest manner
Anytime a writer feels the need to claim that he is not engaging in hyperbole it is a pretty good guess that he is. Consider this from Glenn W. Smith at FireDogLake:
The gravity of America's health care crisis is the moral equivalent of the 19th Century's bloody conflict over slavery. This is not hyperbole, though the truth of it is often lost in abstract talk of insurance company profits, treatment costs, and other cold, inhuman analyses.
Today's health system condemns 50 million Americans to ill health and death while guaranteeing health care to the economic privileged. It cannot stand.
Not only is Smith’s post grossly over-wrought, he also conveniently leaves out any fact that would lower the emotional tone of his piece. He doesn’t mention that twenty to twenty-five million of the 50 (?) million uninsured are illegal aliens. He doesn’t mention that another 8-10 million uninsured are people who earn over $75,000 a year but choose not to purchase insurance. He certainly doesn’t mention that the plan the administration has put forward would cost 1.6 TRILLION dollars and would leave 30 million people still uninsured. And he certainly doesn’t mention that the majority of that 30 million currently have insurance but would lose it under the President’s plan.
Instead of dealing with facts, Smith appeals to white guilt over slavery. That is nothing short of pathetic. I would also like to know how Smith defines “the economic privileged”. Is health insurance yet another class warfare issue?
You would think that if healthcare is so important to Smith that he would deal with it in a straight forward and honest manner
Today's Ugly Lapdog Award Goes To...
NY TIMES + Ginned Up Poll Data =
The President's healthcare plan has been treading water of late so Obama's faithful lapdog, The New York Times, leapt into action! The result was a poll that showed that 72% of Americans love the President's health and can't wait to pay for. Pretty impressive. Except...
The Times basically faked the poll. They chose respondents who by an aoverwhelming majority voted for Obama. In fact, they chose Obama supporters almost two to one.
As they said over at Maggie's Farm, “The New York Times, otherwise known as the Grey Lady, might more appropriately be known as Obama’s Shady Lady. Believe its poll and get a Times Square disease."
Here are the numbers as reported by NewsBusters:
[A]ccording to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama.
As can be plainly seen on page 7 of the poll's data, only 73 percent of respondents divulged who they voted for last November. 48 percent said Obama, 25 percent McCain.
What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain.
It's a shame really. The Times makes one scroungy lapdog.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The National Healthcare 'Outline'
We all knew Nationalized Healthcare was coming, deficit be damned, and now the ‘outline’ has been released. Take a moment to savor this tidbit from Bloomberg:
House Democrats are weighing health care overhaul legislation that would require Americans to have health insurance, with some exceptions, according to an outline circulating in Washington.
The exceptions will likely include those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy, and there could be a tax penalty for those with adequate financial resources who don’t elect to get insurance, according to the outline. (the emphasis is mine)
So, if some healthy twenty-five year old decides he would rather spend his discretionary income chasing skirts rather than insurance premiums, the Government is going to step in and foist tax penalties on the him. Nothing over-reaching about that. Well not if you accept that the Government has the right to tell individuals how to behave and thus, punish individuals when they misbehave. Perhaps we should throw health insurance in with seatbelt laws and other nonsense that really isn’t any Government’s business but they get away with anyway. It is not as if individual liberty, including the liberty to be stupid or irresponsible, has been cherished and upheld in this country for over two hundred years.
I also find it interesting that the Government would make an exception for “those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy.” Um, aren’t they the majority of people who make that ‘46 million’ uninsured we keep hearing about? Since the whole point of this over-haul is to ensure that we insure every man, woman and child within our borders does anyone believe that “those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy” will be exempt? No, that would be pointless. They will be covered under this Administrations “what is in your wallet” policy. Namely, bend over taxpayer, your government is about to make an entrance.
The Republicans in Congress, along with any reputable Blue Dogs, need to fight this craziness tooth and nail. This Administration is copycatting Castro and there is no reason to believe that the end results will be any prettier.
h/t NTC News
House Democrats are weighing health care overhaul legislation that would require Americans to have health insurance, with some exceptions, according to an outline circulating in Washington.
The exceptions will likely include those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy, and there could be a tax penalty for those with adequate financial resources who don’t elect to get insurance, according to the outline. (the emphasis is mine)
So, if some healthy twenty-five year old decides he would rather spend his discretionary income chasing skirts rather than insurance premiums, the Government is going to step in and foist tax penalties on the him. Nothing over-reaching about that. Well not if you accept that the Government has the right to tell individuals how to behave and thus, punish individuals when they misbehave. Perhaps we should throw health insurance in with seatbelt laws and other nonsense that really isn’t any Government’s business but they get away with anyway. It is not as if individual liberty, including the liberty to be stupid or irresponsible, has been cherished and upheld in this country for over two hundred years.
I also find it interesting that the Government would make an exception for “those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy.” Um, aren’t they the majority of people who make that ‘46 million’ uninsured we keep hearing about? Since the whole point of this over-haul is to ensure that we insure every man, woman and child within our borders does anyone believe that “those who can prove they can’t find an affordable policy” will be exempt? No, that would be pointless. They will be covered under this Administrations “what is in your wallet” policy. Namely, bend over taxpayer, your government is about to make an entrance.
The Republicans in Congress, along with any reputable Blue Dogs, need to fight this craziness tooth and nail. This Administration is copycatting Castro and there is no reason to believe that the end results will be any prettier.
h/t NTC News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)