ObamaCare

[Maximus]

After doing that contrived and bogus town hall meeting, Obama's numbers continue to tank. He's at a new low today:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports

[RanchHQ]

FROM: Hot Air Blog Archive Harry Reid: Town-hall protesters are “evil-mongers”

Harry Reid: Town-hall protesters are “evil-mongers”



It’s his own coinage, as nasty and awkward as the man himself. And like a two-year-old who’s just crapped on the carpet, he’s curiously proud of it.

Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, was having second thoughts – or was he? – about the way he had characterized people who are disrupting town halls with “lies, innuendo and rumor,” and not letting others speak. They are, he said, “evil-mongers.”
A day after tossing out the term “evil-mongers” in the closing speech of his annual clean energy conference, Reid was alternating between pride in his coinage and knowing that he probably should be trying to defuse, not escalate, the turmoil erupting at town meetings across the country on health care reform.
“It was an original with me. I maybe could have been less descriptive,” Reid said. He also said, “I doubt that you’ll hear it from me again.” But a few minutes later, he couldn’t resist a sardonic little joke. “I feel I haven’t done anything to embarrass them,” Reid said of his children. “Except maybe call somebody an evil-monger.”

Mind you, this is a guy who’s up for reelection next year and whose unfavorable rating already stands at 50 percent. I’d love to see the internal polling that’s convinced him and Baron Hill that egregiously demonizing protesters — whom more Americans are sympathetic to than not — is a sure path to victory. Consider this further proof, though, that William McGurn was right in dubbing ObamaCare the left’s new religion, with protester-heretics now officially deemed “evil” for shouting about it. Exit question: Isn’t this actually the left’s line on the right in all policy disagreements? Pick any issue you like, foreign or domestic, and liberal conventional wisdom has some nefarious explanation available for the conservative position. Warmongering, racism, exploiting the poor, “controlling women’s bodies” — you name it, they’ve got an “evil” ulterior motive to account for it. I wonder why it took Reid this long to drop the E-bomb. He must really want to win this debate.

OK, just so I have this straight, The Leaders of the Democrat Party call those attending Town Hall Meetings "Evil", "carrying Swastikas" and "dressed to well".

Now, that's no way to talk...

[Maximus]

here is a brief explanation of how Obama plans to slowly kill off private insurance.

A government-run plan would have an inherent advantage in the marketplace, because it ultimately would be subsidized by taxpayers. The government plan could keep its premiums artificially low or offer extra benefits, because it could turn to taxpayers to cover any shortfalls.

Plus, the government plan also could use its market power to impose much lower reimbursement rates on doctors and hospitals -- Medicare and Medicaid do that now, to the point where they often pay less than cost. Providers would be forced to recoup the income lost thanks to the "public option" by raising what they charge to private insurance -- driving up premiums and making private insurance even less competitive.

In the end, the private-insurance market would be eviscerated, leaving millions of Americans with no choice but the government-run program. No choice. No competition.

[RanchHQ]

"Maybe it's a doctored Video..." Democrat Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee.

YouTube - Rick Sanchez Heated Exchange With Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee Over Cell Phone

YouTube - Rick Sanchez Heated Exchange With Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee Over Cell Phone

[Maximus]

Unbelievable. She dodged the question for the first 3 minutes and then said she was calling a hotline to get an answer. Looking for a talking point?

At her townhall meeting a woman stood up and said she was a doctor - a general practitioner. She said the current system is putting general practitioners out of business. The Congresswoman had everybidy clap for her for being a doctor. But wait.........

The press (not the main stream media) later learned and reported that the woman is actually a social worker. She isn't a doctor at all. And she was an Obama delegate to boot.

They can't win the argument on the merits, so they are taking a different road.

[RanchHQ]

Originally Posted by Maximus

At her townhall meeting a woman stood up and said she was a doctor - a general practitioner. She said the current system is putting general practitioners out of business. The Congresswoman had everybidy clap for her for being a doctor. But wait.........

The press (not the main stream media) later learned and reported that the woman is actually a social worker. She isn't a doctor at all. And she was an Obama delegate to boot.

They can't win the argument on the merits, so they are taking a different road.

The Blogger who discovered that the "Doctor" is not a Doctor also discovered it is a Felony in Texas to preport yourself as a Doctor.

There is also a Tx Dept. of State Health Svcs Code of Ethics for Social Workers where complaints have been filed concerning her representing herself as a Physician.

Dumb thing to do.

[RanchHQ]

It’s come to this: Clyburn compares town hall protesters to thugs who attacked civil rights marchers

posted at 8:21 pm on August 13, 2009 by Allahpundit


The number three Democrat in the House, behind only Pelosi and Hoyer, and a longtime practitioner of toxic race-bating on behalf of his party. Unbelievable.

“I have seen this kind of hate before. I have seen this discussion before,” he said. “I have seen snarling dogs going after people who were trying to peacefully assemble. I have seen the eyes of people who were being spat upon.”

“This is all about activity trying to deny the establishment of a civil right. And I do believe that health care for all is — a civil right,” the House Majority Whip argued. “And I think that is why you see this kind of activity. This is an attempt on the part of some to deny the establishment of a civil right.”

Clyburn, a veteran of the civil rights movement, said he was particularly appalled by the use of the Swastika symbol at some of these town hall events. Noting that one had been painted on the office of Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), an African-American, Clyburn insisted that was proof enough that some of the protests were racially motivated.

“There is no question in my mind,” he said.

This is a guy who’s so intimidated by the supposed terror tactics he’s witnessing that he’s actually been known to doze off at town halls of his own. Here’s my question: At the end of the HuffPo piece, he’s quoted tsk-tsking at the House GOP for not formally denouncing the swastika aimed at David Scott — as if the Republican Party’s supposed to take collective responsibility for something done by one anonymous nut whose party affiliation we don’t even know. If the GOP’s supposed to do that, how come it’s not similarly incumbent upon our blessed savior, the avatar of Hopenchange, to say a discouraging word or two about the insane amount of demagoguery and demonization pouring out of his own party right now? And I don’t mean the stuff coming from nutroots blogs; I’m talking about the Senate majority leader mumbling about “evil-mongers” and the Speaker of the House wringing her hands about swastikas and other congressmen warning of “brown shirts” and “political terrorists” and now this from Clyburn. The rhetoric from the Democratic leadership has turned completely poisonous, yet The One won’t open his mouth to calm it down. How come, champ? Are we playing good cop/bad cop again with these cretins? Exit question: How come this didn’t earn any Bull Connor analogies back in the days when protest was still patriotic?

SOURCE: Hot Air Blog Archive It’s come to this: Clyburn compares town hall protesters to thugs who attacked civil rights marchers

[RanchHQ]

I will admit to knowing as much, if not more, about the insides of a horse than my own insides.

I know that if I wanted to check testicles on a Stallion I sure as heck wouldn't lift his tail and dig in.
Obamateurism of the Day

posted at 8:05 am on August 14, 2009 by Ed Morrissey


In yet another example of why politicians make bad doctors, Barack Obama offered the following justification for ObamaCare in his Portsmouth, NH greenhouse town-hall forum. We can prevent prostate cancer, Obama explained, by making colonoscopies more available:

Now, when we pass health insurance reform, insurance companies will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because no one in America should go broke because they get sick. (Applause.)
And finally — this is important — we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies — (applause) — because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. That makes sense, it saves lives; it also saves money — and we need to save money in this health care system.

Does that “make sense”? Only if you flunked medical school. Colonoscopies don’t detect prostate cancer; they give an early warning of colon cancer. If Obama hasn’t yet figured out the difference between a prostate exam and a colonoscopy, someone should tell him to switch doctors.

Even if one overlooks that amateurish fumble, his argument still doesn’t make sense. The current system does better at providing those screening tests than the Canadian and British systems Obama admires so much. The Hoover Institute had the numbers almost two weeks ago:

• Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
• Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.
• More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).
• Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).

Sounds like we have a much better system now, using the Obama Finger In The … Wind system.

LINK: Hot Air Blog Archive Obamateurism of the Day

[RanchHQ]

FROM: Pajamas Media Tort Reform Can Lower Costs Without Harming Health Care. So Why Isn’t It in Obama’s Plan?

OK, here is the Question that no one is asking.

And the Answer:

Tort Reform Can Lower Costs Without Harming Health Care. So Why Isn’t It in Obama’s Plan?

The possible magic bullet for improving the health care system is off the table. Why? Follow the money.

August 14, 2009 - by Sammy Benoit

Many experts have pointed to tort reform as a key element of any effort to hold down the costs of health care:

Old Democratic presidential aspirant John Edwards won $175 million in judgments over a 12-year period suing doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, everyone but the candy stripers, over infant cerebral palsy cases allegedly caused by mishandled deliveries.

As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists noted in a study in 2003, cerebral palsy could not be blamed on delivery trouble in the “vast majority” of cases.
Using bad science, Edwards enriched himself by bankrupting innocent physicians.
The effect is not restricted to insurance costs. Lawsuits cause doctors to run additional and possibly unessential procedures:

The New York Times has reported that as a result of such lawsuits, “doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate cesarean.”

Though an obvious contributor to health care problems, tort reform is not part of any of the Democratic Party bills for revising the United States health care system. Back in June, President Barack Obama said to the American Medical Association:

Now, I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they’re constantly looking over their shoulders for fear of lawsuits. I recognize that. (Applause.) Don’t get too excited yet. Now, I understand some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That’s a real issue. (Applause.) Now, just hold on to your horses here, guys. (Laughter.) I want to be honest with you. I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards — (boos from some in audience) — (laughter) — which I personally believe can be unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed.

Fairness may very well be the president’s reason for not backing tort reform, but other elements of the plan seem unfair, such as the prospect of rationing health care, and that hasn’t stopped him. It seems that the president should be desperate to find some savings in his health care plan, as the Congressional Budget Office has said almost every Democratic Party idea increases rather than decreases spending. Tort reform may very well be the ticket to heath care savings that President Obama is looking for:

The accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers says about 10 percent of the cost of medical service is attributable to medical malpractice lawsuits. Roughly 2 percent is caused by direct costs of the lawsuits; an additional 5 percent to 9 percent is due to expenses run up by defensive medicine.

So why the lack of tort reform in ObamaCare? Start with the campaign dollars the president received from the legal industry:



The latest Federal Election Commission data (released 7/13/09) reports that President Obama received the most cash of any candidate from lawyers or law firms — more than $43 million. He received almost three times more from them than Hillary Clinton ($15 million) and more than four times the amount John McCain received ($9.9 million). President Obama received almost 50 percent of all dollars from the legal industry, and two-thirds of all legal industry dollars went to Democrats Obama and Clinton.



So which is it — fairness or campaign dollars? It’s difficult to present any logical reason Obama would not include tort reform in his health care planning, yet it is quite easy to fathom $43,071,129 financial reasons.

The Democratic Party’s attack on the insurance industry is taking the public’s eye off a larger culprit — the party and the president’s relationship with the legal profession.

Sammy Benoit is the editor of the political blog The Lid.

[RanchHQ]