Health Care

HEALTHCARE: King OBAMA'S WATERLOO
 
To quote the esteemed Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the chickens that were hatched in the stimulus package are coming home to roost in the healthcare proposal. The budget deficit King Obama racked up paying for the massive federal spending passed in January is now having a real economic and political impact, which is forcing the president and his congressional allies into hard choices as they face his healthcare legislation.

Of course, the prudent thing to do is postpone healthcare changes until the economy generates some revenues and trims the deficit. But the socialist in the White House can't do that. He's got to strike while his congressional majority is hot. So he is forcing his administration and his party to choose among unpalatable choices to finance his program. His demand may be a bridge too far, endangering his popularity with the American people.

  First of all, the very fact of a focus on healthcare reform inevitably stirs discussion of the deficit. Americans are allergic to deficit spending and worry the more the deficit grows. As interest rates rise and the government finds it more and more difficult to borrow enough to cover King Obama's massive spending, the economy is likely to show the negative effects. It is a matter of a few months, certainly no more, before voters start to realize that it is the deficit, not the pre-existing conditions King Obama inherited, which is causing the prolongation of the recession. Already the jump in mortgage rates has slowed the refinancing, which was the only aspect of the King Obama economic program that was working well.

But the foreign and domestic focus on the deficit has a harsher political impact: It forces the Democrats to come up with money to fund healthcare reform. In other words, it makes them raise taxes. The Democratic Party is good at fooling itself that tax increases don't matter and are politically palatable, but they do and they are not.

The massive spending healthcare will require dwarfs the capacity for the rich alone to pay the bill, no matter how confiscatory King Obama chooses to become. Only broader taxes will do the job. King Obama faces two practical choices: a value added tax or taxing health insurance benefits.

The political harm either way will be enormous. Not only will King Obama be breaking his pledge not to tax the middle class, but he will be doing so in a particularly pernicious way. If Obama opts for the value added tax (VAT), Democrats will hope to cloak the increase in the price of the product. They reason that the consumer won't know how much the tax is since it will be added on throughout the sale and resale of the product rather than at the cash register at the end, as the sales tax is. But it will work the other way. As inflation sets in, triggered by King Obama's deficit spending, consumers will blame the whole thing on King Obama. His VAT will be much magnified in the voters' minds to include all of the inflation going on. Just as voters blamed Clinton's gas tax increase of five cents in 1993 for the entire run-up in gasoline prices at the pump, so they will place all the blame for inflation on Obama's VAT.

Or King Obama could tax healthcare benefits, a direct reversal of his campaign pledge. He would be adopting a policy for which he overtly and loudly criticized McCain. And his popularity will wilt as taxpayers suddenly have to add onto their tax liability the money their employer has always paid for their health insurance. Obama will probably have his own separate line on the 1040 and even on the short form for his new tax. That's not the way to stay popular.

King Obama's only good option is not to move so quickly on healthcare reform, to give himself some wiggle room. But as the song says, "we're knee deep in the big muddy but the damn fool says to push on!"

 

Health Care”—a Cover for Euthanasia

Murder is acceptable if it can be made benevolent, passed off as "health care.” We have long advocated that vaccines are an assault upon the people under the pretense of health care. It is forced medication through persuasion.
"Health care" in America is a system of killing off weak infants and aging adults. This is not largely suspected because of the disassociation of cause and effect. Nobody even suspects. The mode is vaccinations and inoculations.
If there is a very rare protest, the "authorities" just say that an occasional death is unavoidable and is for the "greater good." That term the "greater good" is statist philosophy that the people are cattle and some have to be sacrificed.
But mass inoculations kill en masse. It is silent murder as "health care." This killing system is being perfected and fine-tuned without so much as a ripple of protest. Would you say the "perfect crime"? Incredible? Yes, the more incredible, the more perfect the crime.
Examples:

• Autistic children because of mercury vaccines.
• AIDS epidemic in Africa associated with the use of SIV—Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. (Monkey-human genetic virus.)
• Two experimental AIDS vaccines have just been foisted on citizens of Thailand with a propaganda appeal for patriotism and a plea for people to think of "the greater good." The drug company goal is to force mandatory AIDs vaccinations.
• Urine samples from hundreds of French children have yielded evidence for a link between autism and exposure to heavy metals.
• Anthrax vaccines were forced on U.S. soldiers which proved unsafe and unnecessary. The deaths were admitted along with a wide-range of autoimmune disorders. Government involved in cover-up.
• A new vaccine to "protect" against a common sexually transmitted disease in children ages 8 to 12. This is a vaccine against immoral behavior. What next?
• The bird flu hype has been fanned by public health officials using fear to keep the public scared.

Vaccines kill natural immunity. Natural exposure to "germs" in childhood can lead to natural immunity and long-term health. Health authorities kill infectious microorganisms with the mass use of multiple vaccines.

So-called "public health" is a cover for mass medication and selective killing, at first "voluntary" and then mandatory. To understand what this means watch the movie "Soylent Green" with Charlton Heston and Edwin G. Robinson.

What’s So Bad About Universal Health Care?
This was the question I confronted when I was interviewed by a delegation of reporters from a Danish television station’s New York bureau on May 7. But something different from the stereotypical “What’s so bad about Universal Healthcare?” question had been posed. The questioners were different from anyone I had been confronted by before. These people were themselves Europeans who actually wanted to know why America was so far behind when it came to universal health care.

The reporters I was speaking with were not the typical American agenda-driven liberals from the mainstream press engaging in “gotcha” journalism. These reporters really wanted to know.

Their want was also something personal. As Europeans, and especially as Danes, universal health care is a common, prevalent, and often seen aspect of their daily lives. These reporters honestly wanted to know why the most powerful country in the world is “behind the curve” of what seems to be the latest advancement in health care. These reporters seemed to be saying that if Europe does it, everyone should do it, and by saying this, they reflected a sentiment shared by many all over Europe.

Why, they seemed to plead, is America not accepting the advice of Europe? Why is the greatest country in the world not listening to her ally Great Britain, for example, which has enacted universal health care? The beliefs, and emotions, of these reporters reflect the thoughts of many Europeans: that America’s policies are most successful when they meet up with the policies of Europe. The question now is whether or not the policies of American and Europe should be the same on health care.

The "What’s so bad about universal health care, Europe does it, why shouldn’t we?” is intended to be leading, almost rhetorical. The mainstream press, as well as many liberal politicians, would answer that there is no reason that we should not enact universal health care, if for no other reason except that it is normal in Europe. They say that if it is good enough for a plurality of countries -- Denmark, Sweden, Great Britain, just to name a few -- then it should be good enough for America as well.

But their argument is poorly constructed. If, for example, Denmark, Sweden, Great Britain, and others instituted a law that said everyone must jump off a bridge, would we institute the law in America also? Europe is Europe; let it burn its health care system to the ground if it wants to, but as for America, let us make our own decisions.

America is constantly plagued by leaders and citizens of European countries who advocate America socializing its medical system. Europeans say that it has worked for them. The fact is many people who say this have either never experienced enough economic freedom to understand, or they have never been taught the difference between the value of a capitalist healthcare system and a governmentally-controlled socialized medical system.

When a board of government officials runs the world of medicine -- as President Obama’s proposal would have it -- how can anyone who had studied history believe it will get better rather than worse? When the government puts all other health care companies out of business, won’t there be a number of serious economic concerns, as well as a number of serious problems for the taxpayer’s pocket, not to mention the great many private sector jobs that will be lost because private health care institutions are unable to compete with the government? Just because Europeans promote it, doesn’t mean that it is in America’s best economic interest.

Moreover, which country gets more immigrating persons annually, Denmark or the United States? Hands down, the United States. Some estimate 12,000,000 people have crossed the border of the United States illegally, and the number continues to grow, because they want to experience things such as our health care system. Can Denmark say that a similar number of people choose the same desperate measures to get across their border so that they can experience European countries?

No. America is the nation people emigrate to, not from, because we have a great health care system, a great economy, and because we have a free and independent private sector. Neither Denmark nor any of the other European universal healthcare nations is as vigorously sought after because none have any of these things.

Europe’s government-dominated economies are suffering more in this recession because they choose to institute unnecessary, harmful, government programs; and America is successful, to be brutally honest, because it avoids doing almost everything that Europe wants it to.

America is a nation that has a free economy, and, in turn, a private-sector health care system. Many liberals, however, propose that we make America less unique among the nations of the world. They want to assimilate America into European styles and tone down health care. We fought a war in the 1770s and 1780s to rid ourselves of other countries determining our fate. Why should we do everything with the consultation of foreign power now? We shouldn’t. John Adams said it best, “I cannot express it better than in his [John Jay’s] own words: ‘to be honest and grateful to our allies, but to think for ourselves.’

HOW OBAMA WILL RUIN HEALTH CARE
 
Next month, Obama will begin the push for his health care "reform." It threatens our medical system and would impair the care each one of us receives.  Please watch this video where I spell out what is at stake. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qp8JdeSHlk

DEATH OF U.S. HEALTHCARE
When all of America’s top health insurers and providers met at the White House this week and pledged to save $2 trillion over the next decade in health costs, they were pledging to sabotage our medical care. The blunt truth, which everybody agreed to keep quiet, is that the only way to reduce these costs is to ration healthcare, thereby destroying our system.

Here’s why:

• Essential to any cost reduction is a cut in doctors’ fees. Congress is trying to cut Medicare fees by 21 percent. But cuts in fees and doctors’ incomes will just discourage people from entering the profession and those already in it from practicing. The limited number of doctors and nurses in the United States is the key constraint on the availability of healthcare. Our national inventory of 800,000 doctors is growing at only about 1 percent a year (18,000 med school graduates annually minus retirements), while the nurse population is stagnant at 1.4 million. To stretch these limited resources so that they can treat 50 million more people is possible only through the most severe kind of rationing.

• As in Canada, the best way to cut medical costs is to refrain from using the best drugs to treat cancer and other illnesses, thereby economizing at the expense of patients’ lives. Forty-four percent of the drugs approved by the Canadian health authorities for use in their country are not allowed by the healthcare system due to their high cost. As a result, death rates from cancer are 16 percent higher in Canada than in the United States. We will pay for the attempt to save $2 trillion with our lives. (And remember, one cannot opt out of the Canadian system and pay for the medications out of pocket.)

• The only real way to save money on the scale projected is to ration healthcare services. Optimists say that this can be achieved by increased use of preventive care. But the Canadian experience indicates that when government — or its satellite private insurance providers — ration healthcare, they cut preventive care first. In Canada, colonoscopies are so rationed that the colon cancer rate is 25 percent higher than in the U.S. (even though Canada has a much smaller proportion of poor people, whose frequently bad diets make them more prone to the disease).

Obama’s pretension that nobody will find changes in his or her current health insurance plans except for a magical reduction in their cost by $2,500 a year is a fool’s proposition. Private health insurers will be no more private than TARP-funded banks or government-subsidized car companies are in Obama’s America. They will be controlled by government healthcare planners who will approve treatments, limit drug use, hold down medical incomes and bring their cost-cutting programs to bear. Inevitably, their ax will fall on the oldest and the sickest among us, those least “deserving” of our newly limited and, under Obama’s program, diminishing healthcare resources.

The other radical changes Obama is bringing about in our nation can always be reversed. New taxes can be repealed or lowered. That which was nationalized can be privatized. Government which has grown can be cut. But once the healthcare system is extended to cover everyone, with no commensurate increase in the resources available, the change will be forever. The vicious cycle of cuts in medical resources and in the number of doctors and nurses will doom healthcare in this country. This wanton destruction will not be reversible by any bill or program. A crucial part of our quality of life — the best healthcare in the world — will be gone forever.

Politically, voters will feel the impact of these “reforms” very quickly. When they face rejection or limitation at the hands of the bureaucrats, they will quickly understand that the their options have become limited. Just as in the 1990s, when HMOs first became universal, the patient outrage will create a political force all its own and those who foisted this brave new  world on the American people will be in their crosshairs.

7 Liberal Myths About Health Care
To hear liberals in Congress tell the story, the American health care system is crumbling before our very eyes, the unwashed masses are desperate for a solution, and only the United States government can save us. But a recent poll of 1,200 registered U.S. voters provides a striking contrast between voter attitudes toward health care reform and some oft-repeated myths being pushed in media and on Capitol Hill.

Here’s a look at seven of the most common myths, versus what American voters actually think:

Myth #1: Americans are clamoring for health care reform.
They aren’t. Only 5% of voters cite health care as either the top issue facing the country, as the biggest problem facing their daily lives or even as the greatest fear they have for themselves or their families. In fact when given a specific list of issues to choose from, health care comes in far behind the top concerns of 95% of American voters.

Myth #2: The U.S. Health Care system needs a complete overhaul.
Says who? Not American voters. Slightly more voters (47%) say that our health care system can be fixed with some minor reforms versus those who say it needs a radical overhaul (44%).

Myth #3: Coverage for the uninsured is the major problem facing the U.S. Health Care system.
By nearly a 3 to 1 margin, these voters see rising health care and health insurance costs as the biggest problem over too many being without insurance coverage. While government takeover advocates are fond of talking about millions of uninsured Americans, they generally fail to mention that many of those are uninsured by choice, or only temporarily uninsured. Yet this single misleading statistic remains a favorite of Congressional liberals as they make the case for a government takeover.

Myth #4: Government, not free market competition, is the best way to reduce health care costs.
Again, false. Clear majorities say that MORE competition among health care providers will do more to lower costs than increased government involvement. Further, pluralities believe that increased government involvement will cause health care costs and insurance premiums to go up. Americans undoubtedly feel this way because there are few (if any) examples where government involvement in any endeavor, let alone health care, actually caused prices to go down.

Myth #5: Americans are more open/accepting of government-run health care solution.
A clear and strong majority of voters prefer a private run health care system over a government-run system. Fully 55% of American voters say, if given the choice, they would opt for a private health care solution over a government solution. Only 37% would opt for a government takeover of health care.

Myth #6: Americans understand we must sacrifice to ensure coverage for all.
When pitted head to head, large majorities of voters (69%) choose a private run health care system that doesn’t cover all Americans, but protects everyone’s fundamental right to make their own health care choices, over a government-run system that covers everyone but restricts certain health care options (18%).

Myth #7: Americans want a health care system more like Canada and/or Great Britain.
Voters have mixed opinions about the Canadian and British health care systems with a sizeable number not having a firm opinion on either. But, more than 3 in 4 voters say they would most prefer to get treatment or health care services here in the U.S. over either Canada or Great Britain.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom in Washington, voters are NOT willing to commit to a radical overhaul of our health care system. They are clearly suspicious of more government involvement and think it won’t drive down costs -- which is their biggest complaint about the current health care system. A clear and large majority still prefer a private-run over a government-run system. Moreover, when faced with the potential choice of giving up their fundamental health care rights to ensure universal coverage, majorities are unwilling to do so.

In sharp contrast to these myths, American voters enthusiastically rally around the basic reform principles promoted by Conservatives for Patients’ Rights -- Choice, Competition, Accountability and Personal Responsibility, by overwhelming margins. For example, 87% of voters believe individuals should receive the same tax breaks as employers when buying health insurance. An astounding 97% want the freedom to choose their own doctor without restriction from government or insurance plans. And 87% of Americans want health care providers and doctors to publicly post their prices so they can shop and compare.

As the health care debate continues, it is clear that Americans overwhelmingly demand free market health care. As others continue to push myths, Conservatives for Patients’ Rights will continue to educate Americans on the real agenda of Congressional health care reform, promote our key principles and serve as an early warning system against more government boards and power grabs.

What i dont think is fare about health care is everyone who has free medicaid health care abuses it and hard working people who have health care through their jobs pay for all the slackers and most of these abusing medicaid recipientsare abusing some sort of prescriptiondrugs or methadone because they can't work and medications and health care are "free"

#1 The Trojan Horse That's Killing Healthcare Reform
 
President Obama said something at his White House healthcare event last week that offers a disturbing hint of our future under his vision of health reform.

He suggested one way to save costs is not to spend on procedures that "evidence shows [are] not necessarily going to improve care" for the sick and the dying.

"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," the President said.

Maybe. But the question is, who decides?