Obama outlines health care plan for all

Reality is that Obama took more time to pick his dog, than he is with our healthcare. I personally think we should get to vote on major items, like healthcare,tax hikes and amnesty. We do in our own states. Why can't we when it comes to major goverment discisions. I know many will say waste money. I disagree. I think it would make it more accountable. They would have to actually show us what they are trying to pass. If we decided against something, they would have to pay attention to why ect. It would just put the power back where it belongs.. with the people.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/0...igured-him-out
Print Email Breaking News
We've Figured Him Out
By Ben Stein on 7.24.09 @ 9:45AM

Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?

Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:

The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.

They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.

They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.

The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.

Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.

The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.

Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.

The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.

These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.

Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms.

There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.

I still don't see how people can call him anti-white when his own momma's white?!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasmine

I still don't see how people can call him anti-white when his own momma's white?!!!

---

Have you ever heard him refer to himself as anything other than a "black man" ?

Have you read any of his" books ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeanea33

Reality is that Obama took more time to pick his dog, than he is with our healthcare.

I personally think we should get to vote on major items, like healthcare,tax hikes and amnesty. We do in our own states. Why can't we when it comes to major goverment discisions. I know many will say waste money. I disagree. I think it would make it more accountable.

They would have to actually show us what they are trying to pass.

If we decided against something, they would have to pay attention to why ect. It would just put the power back where it belongs.. with the people.

---

:yeah: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Quote:

---

Dr. Emanuel suggested that health services should not be guaranteed to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." He said "an obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

---

:eek:

[quote]On Monday, President Obama said that "the single biggest threat to our fiscal stability" and "the single thing that could drive us into long-term staggering and difficult debt" is Medicare and Medicaid. [quote]

:rules

The 47 Million Uninsured

These are the folks who Obama wants to give force to accept the government option, as done by Michael Ramirez http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/...toon072409.gif

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/...toon072409.gif


Great reason to fundamentally change the way health care is delivered in America, giving us the same, um, ah, oh, heck, put it bluntly, crappy socialistic health care that Canadians and the British get. But, the Democrats are hell bent on passing this bill, much like the Waxman-Markey climate change idiocy, because it gives the federal government more control over your life, along with commerce and the economy. If you think they are doing this out of the goodness of their lives, then you’ve lost the ability for rational thought.


Ed also points to an article by The American which breaks it down. http://www.american.com/archive/2008...-the-uninsured

http://www.american.com/graphics/200...0Uninsured.jpg

http://www.american.com/graphics/200...%20Payment.jpg


Meanwhile, there is trouble in paradise http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-07-24.html

Quote:

---

House healthcare negotiations dissolved in acrimony on Friday, with Blue Dog Democrats saying they were “lied” to by their Democratic leaders.

---

Democrat leaders lying? The h'll you say!


http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/2...ion-uninsured/

I like these too : http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/...toon072209.gif

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/...toon072209.gif

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/...toon072109.gif

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/...toon072109.gif

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/...toon071309.gif

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/...toon071309.gif

Waxman may let health bill skip committee
By Ian Swanson and Mike Soraghan
Posted: 07/24/09 11:51 AM [ET]

Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) says there is "no alternative" but to have healthcare legislation bypass his Energy and Commerce Committee if Blue Dog Democrats don't accept a deal worked out Friday.

Waxman is now playing a game of legislative chicken with the Blue Dogs. He's hoping the inclusion of a study on Medicare reimbursement rates in the healthcare overhaul will be enough to placate the centrist Democrats, who say the government program short-changes hospitals and physicians in their rural districts.

If that’s not, the seven Blue Dogs could join with the committee's Republicans to "eviscerate" healthcare reform, and that’s something Waxman will not tolerate.

"I won't allow them to hand over control of our committee to Republicans," Waxman told reporters. "I don’t see what other alternative we have, because we're not going to let them empower Republicans on the committee."

The reimbursement rates are important to the healthcare bill, because the government-run "public option" would be based on Medicare.

The study would produce recommendations that Congress could vote up or down, in a manner comparable to the military base-closure process.

The "rural disparity" issue is one of the main issues raised by the seven Blue Dogs blocking consideration in the Energy and Commerce Committee. But it's not the only one. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the point man for the seven, has often said there's a list of at least 10 issues. Another problem is that they feel the employer mandate puts too much a burden on small business.

Energy and Commerce Democrats are expected to meet privately at 2 p.m. to discuss the next steps for the bill. Waxman has also said he expects to meet with Blue Dogs today.

Waxman's committee skipped its "markup" drafting sessions again Friday. Waxman said the committee will not meet Saturday, an option some committee members said was being contemplated.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said she doesn't "want" to skip the markup. But she has also repeatedly said the bill is on schedule.

Democratic critics of the bill have warned that the bill doesn't have enough votes to pass on the floor, and say an end-run around the committee would galvanize opposition among centrists. "That would clearly ruffle some feathers," said an aide to a Blue Dog lawmaker.

Waxman has been meeting for days with a group of seven Energy and Commerce Blue Dogs who have vowed to block the bill from passing their committee. Those Blue Dogs still have disagreements over regional Medicare reimbursement disparities and insufficient health care savings.

At the same time, Pelosi has been adamant, even as recently as Thursday morning, that she has the votes to pass the bill on the floor.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-07-24.html


Waxman will let panel be bypassed on health care
Fri Jul 24, 2009

WASHINGTON, July 24 (Reuters) - The chairman of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Henry Waxman, said on Friday he would let the full House by pass his committee on healthcare reform if the panel could not reach agreement on its version of the legislation.

Fiscally conservative Democrats on that committee have refused to go along with the proposal over its high cost of $1 trillion over 10 years and that has stalled the process of getting a bill to a vote in the full House before it begins a monthlong recess on July 31.

Waxman told reporters that he was going to meet the conservative Democrats on the panel shortly to discuss another proposal to try to meet their concerns. But if they do not agree, "we going to have to look at perhaps bypassing the committee," he told reporters. This would allow a health care reform bill go to the House floor without a vote of his panel.

http://www.reuters.com/article/funds...24183920090724

Three cheers for deliberative democracy.

:party:

:party:

:party:

:rolleyes:

Ghoulish science + Obamacare = health hazard
July 24, 2009 06:27 AM

My syndicated column today presses again on the freaky-deaky science czar John Holdren and the implications for Obamacare. Related read: Stacy McCain sheds light on Big Money and the Culture of Death http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/07...-of-death.html And Matt Barber wonders: Will there be a co-pay for forced abortion under Obamacare? http://www.lifenews.com/nat5268.html


Ghoulish science + Obamacare = health hazard

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to reassure citizens in New Orleans this week that Obamacare bureaucrats will make sound medical decisions for all Americans. She failed. Under the government-run plan, she promised, a team of health care experts will recommend what should be covered: “I think it would be wise to let science guide what the best health care package is.”

Gulp. It’s precisely the Obama administration’s view of sound “science” that should send chills down patients’ spines. Case in point: The president’s prestigious science czar John Holdren refuses to answer questions about his radical, published work on population control over the last 30 years.

Last week, I called the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to press Holdren on his views about forced abortions and mass sterilizations; his purported disavowal of Ecoscience, the 1977 book he co-authored with population control zealots Paul and Anne Ehrlich; and his continued embrace of forced-abortion advocate and eugenics guru Harrison Brown, whom he credits with inspiring him to become a scientist.

After investigative bloggers and this column reprinted extensive excerpts from Ecoscience, which mused openly about putting sterilants in the water supply to make women infertile and engineering society by taking away babies from undesirables and subjecting them to government-mandated abortions, the White House issued a statement from Holdren last week denying he embraced those proposals. The Ehrlichs challenged critics to read their and Holdren’s more recent research and works.

Well, I did indeed read one of Holdren’s recent works that reveals his clingy reverence for, and allegiance to, the gurus of population control authoritarianism. He’s just gotten smarter about cloaking it behind global warming hysteria. In 2007, he addressed the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference. Holdren served as AAAS president; the organization posted his full slide presentation on its website.

In the opening slide, Holdren admitted that his “preoccupation” with apocalyptic matters such as “the rates at which people breed” was a lifelong obsession spurred by scientist Harrison Brown’s work. Holdren heaped praise on Brown’s half-century-old book, “The Challenge to Man’s Future,” then proceeded to paint doom-and-gloom scenarios requiring drastic government interventions to control climate change.

Who is Holdren’s intellectual mentor, Harrison Brown? He was a “distinguished member” of the International Eugenics Society whom Holdren later worked with on a book about – you guessed it – world population and fertility. Brown advocated the same population control-freak measures Holdren put forth in Ecoscience. In “The Challenge to Man’s Future,” Brown envisioned a regime in which the “number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.”

Brown exhorted readers to accept that “we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that artifical means must be applied to limit birth rates.” If we don’t, Brown warned, we faced a planet “with a writhing mass of human beings.” He likened the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.”

When I pressed Holdren’s office specifically about Holdren’s relationship with Harrison Brown, press spokesman Rick Weiss told me he didn’t know who Brown was and balked at drawing any conclusions about Holdren’s views based on his homage to lifelong intellectual mentor, colleague and continued inspiration Brown just two years ago.

Weiss lectured me rather snippily about the need for responsible journalism (he was a Washington Post reporter for 15 years). He then me not to expect any response from Holdren’s office to my question on whether Holdren disavows his relationship with a eugenics enthusiast who referred to the world population as a “pulsating mass of maggots” and championed a scheme of abortion and artificial insemination quotas.

If this is the kind of ghoulish “science” that guides the White House, we can only hope that Obamacare is dead on arrival.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/24...health-hazard/



Obamacare Team Visits Reserve, Louisiana

"It will be a cold day in hell before he socializes my country," so said one spectator in Reserve, Louisiana yesterday.

http://soitgoesinshreveport.blogspot...louisiana.html

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2...rural_hea.html
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2...rural_hea.html

http://www.americandailyreview.com/u...able-acts.html
Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 5:00 PM
5:00PM
The Obama Intolerable Acts
Thu, July 23, 2009 at 5:00 PM
by Timothy Birdnow

Writing in Human Events (1), Patrick J. Buchanan touches on something that has been preying on my mind for some time; the similarities between George III, despot king who triggered the American Revolution, and Barack I, despot president who may yet trigger another. In particular, he mentions this quote from Thomas Jefferson from the Declaration of Independence:

“erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

Pat mentions some of the taxation that drove the Colonials to armed rebellion.

Perhaps a review is in order?

After the French and Indian War, His Majesty`s government was strapped for cash, and, since British troops had to be garrisoned in North America to defend the colonies, the notion of taxing the colonials to help defray the cost came into the heads of both monarch and parliament. The colonies had largely been exempt from taxation, since they pretty much maintained their own services and took care of themselves. The old British policy was one of salutary neglect; the colonies weren`t that important to the mother country, and in return for that a little peace and quiet the peacocks in London left the colonials to manage their own affairs.

But the war changed all that; the public back home was complaining about paying taxes to defend the colonials from the French, and there was anger at the lack of proper respect paid to the British military by the colonial militias, who did not want permanent troops stationed in their front yards and in their homes. The colonies had no right to vote for representatives to Parliament, and so had no means of redress of their grievences.

So it was decided to impose taxation on the colonies.

Here is the list of the incendiary acts:

1.The Navigation Acts-These bits of protectionist legislation required that all trade in many goods such as cotton, sugar, etc. be conducted only directly through Britain or other British colonies. This hurt the New England rum industry, which needed a large supply of cheap West Indian sugar to thrive. Good to be ultimately shipped to America had to be unloaded at a customs port, inspected, taxed, and then reshipped, driving up the prices. These import duties were difficult for the colonials who had a much more meagre economic base than did England.

2.The Molasses Act-In 1733 the government banned the purchase of molasses from any but British colonies, driving the price up. Again, it was very damaging to the New England rum industry (and rum was the primary alcoholic beverage of all of the colonies, and a very lucrative industry at that time.)

3.The Proclamation of 1763-Restricted the right to settle west of the Appalachians (the whole point of the French and Indian War to the colonies) so as to maintain the west as Indian land. Prevented the development of virgin territory.

4.The Sugar Act-an update of the Molasses Act, the Sugar Act of 1764 actually cut the tax rate, but demanded stricter enforcement. John Hancock`s family had made their fortune smuggling molasses under the old regime, but the Sugar Act made it far more difficult to evade paying this tax.

5.The Currency Act-Another 1764 act which prohibited the colonies from minting their own currency, requiring them to use the British money. Due to a shortage of British currency this triggered a credit crisis.

6.The Quartering Act-Allowed British troops to invade private homes to quarter their own soldiers.

7.The Stamp Act-The first direct tax levied on the colonies, the Stamp Act required the colonists to purchase tax stamps to be applied to many common goods, including newspapers, official documents, even playing cards.

8.The Townshend Act-This 1767 Act taxed many common goods directly, including paper, tea, glass, metals.

9.The Tea Act-needs no explanation.

10. The Intolerable Acts-These were actually designed to punish the rebellious Americans after the Boston Tea Party. They included:

a.The Boston Port Act-Closed Boston Harbor until the East India
Company was paid back for their tea.

b.The Administration of Justice Act-Allowed royal governors to move
trials of officials accused of misdeads to outside locations.

c.The Massachusetts Government Act-Placed the government of Massachusetts under direct control of His Majesty`s governor. It ended any pretext of home rule.

d.The Quebec Act-Enlarged the French-Catholic colony of Quebec, giving it many of the western lands coveted for settlement by New England.

Now, these efforts enraged the colonists, who would eventually take up arms (against all reason; the British army was the best and most deadly in the world) and fight for their freedom.

Fast-forward to 2009.

What do we witness in this the Year of Our Lord 2009?

1.The United States government has, through bailout money, taken control of the automobile industry, thus forcing consumers to buy directly from the U.S. government or purchase abroad. Obama and the Democrats are attempting to impose the TRADE act, which would renegotiate all trade agreements to impose environmental and labor “standards”. In short, we will not be able to buy or sell without the government imprimatur-and at increased costs. Cap and Trade legislation would do likewise.

2.The Stimulus package had a “buy American” provision that is strikingly similar to the Molasses Act.

3.In the interest of “greening” America Obamahas suspended drilling in the recently opened offshore sites, and intends on locking up more land under government control. Increasingly, Americans cannot develop land that is theirs, in the interest of protecting the environment. How is that different from the Proclamation of 1763? In both instances, government has stopped development and settlement.

4.Obama has many plans for strict governmental enforcement-such as Cap-N-Trade and his government health care plan. Both will encourage lawbreaking as businesses will be forced into much tighter regulatory nooses, just as the Sugar Act strangled the rum market in America.

5.TARP has placed the banking industry under the government thumb, with the result being a tightening of credit. There is now a “Banking Czar” who controls how money is used. Also, the Fed is running the printing presses to pay for Obama`s profligate spending-something guaranteed to cause inflation. We have a credit crunch reminiscent of the one caused by the Currency Act.

6.We may not have a modern Quartering Act, but just wait around; Alcee Hastings has introduced H.R. 645 (3) which ostensibly authorized the establishment of “emergency refugee centers” on military bases but which could be used to quarter citizens against their will.

7.The Stamp Act isn`t needed; we pay taxes, taxes, and more taxes on everything and anything. The Stamp Act taxed newspapers and pamphlets; the Obama Administration has set up an Internet Czar, and seeks to impose taxes on the internet.

8.Ditto number 7.

9.Obama is more ambitious than to just tax tea; he wants to tax Texas Tea! (2)

According to Real Clear Markets;

“Yet in the 2010 Budget that he sent to Congress earlier this month, Mr. Obama specifically seeks to raise taxes on domestic oil exploration by $31 billion over 10 years, a larger tax increase than on any other industry. In addition, oil and gas producers would bear a disproportionately heavy share of other tax increases on business, more than $320 billion.”

Notice the similarity to numbers 2,3,4,7,8, and 9.

And then there is Cap-N-Trade, which would limit the ability to pass carbon. This is a massive Texas Tea tax.

1.It can be argued that the whole Obama Administration and his lackeys in Congress are one long Intolerable Act. It is certainly true that

a.The Detroit automobile harbor has been closed, and is under direct control of the Obama Administration.

b.The government is trying to give the Attorney General-an appointee of Barack Obama-the power to define who is and is not a terrorist. In other words, government will be able to use the law at their own discretion-which is exactly what the Administration of Justice Act did. Also, Obama wants these new Hate Crimes legislation in place, giving special legal protections to some groups he likes-such as pedophiles, and criminalizing speech he doesn`t like. The British were amateurs here.

c.The stimulus plan has de-facto removed any authority state governors had over their own jurisdiction. One governor-Mark Sanford of South Carolina-was even told he could not use stimulus money to pay down his state`s debt. The ObamaAdministration now has control of state governments through the money he is forcing them to take. It wouldn`t require much to simply impose Federal control; he could do it with FEMA, if some sort of emergency should crop up.

d.Under Obama, America has become one giant Quebec, with the Canadianization of our entire way of life. Government health care, government environmental regulations, multicultural ism, hate crimes legislation, the whole gamut. Again, Obama is locking up land-and other resources-to benefit the environmentalists.

Obama is doing many things that make the Intolerable Acts seem like nuisance laws. Americans fought a revolution for far less.

Americans fought a revolution for far less.

Taxation without representation? Obama`s base group ACORN is a Marxist entity that is dedicated to stealing as many votes as possible, and with the authority of the U.S. government backing them they are diligently removing any representation we actually have. Just look at Minnesota, where that humorless “comedian” Franken openly stole the Senate seat from the re-elected Norm Coleman. The U.S. census is riddled with ACORN volunteers, so we will have huge numbers of “phantom Americans” to allow the Left to gerrymander congressional districts. Shoot, this president isn`t even required to prove his is a native-born citizen!

What has happened to the spirit of the American People? Before the 20th century Americans would have run this bunch out of the country with chicken feathers stuck to their tarred flesh. Now, the jaded post-modern Americans largely yawn, or complain and do little. We are not our father`s generation, much less our Founding Father`s. Where has the American spirit fled?

Not that there aren`t many Americans with plenty of spunk, but the old style Americans are clearly in the minority. That must change, or the American experiment is doomed.

We must remind this nation that these truly ARE intolerable acts, and that Barack I is just as tyrannical-if not more-than George III.

Thank you for reading American Daily Review, conservative commentary without compromise.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009...ors_180941.htm

DEADLY DOCTORS

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Emanuel: Believes in withholding care from elderly for greater good.

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

Quote:

---

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

---

:confused: He said this 13 years ago??? In what context?

Although it seems disturbing in any......but what is that about?