Posts Tagged ‘government takeover of health care’
The Supreme Court of the United States will release its decision on Obama’s health care law tomorrow. This will likely be the most consequential decision of 2012.
Most court observers predict that the court will throw out the individual mandate, but no one seems to know whether they will overturn the entire law as well.
Concerned Women for America is running this ad as a reminder of what this law means, and why it still needs to be repealed if the court doesn’t overturn the entire law.
The American people can’t say that they weren’t warned about the misinformation that Obama and the Democrats continued to push during the debate over their health care bill.
One warning was that the bill would essentially lead to a government take-over of health care because the government would force employers to change coverage plans they currently provide to their employees.
Obama and the Democrats knew that if the American people thought the government could force coverage changes, they would oppose the bill even more. That is why one of the most repeated claims by Obama was the line, “if you like your current coverage, you can keep it.”
Well, now Obama’s own administration is projecting that a majority of workers will have a change in coverage within the next three years.
This is just one of the big lies about the health care bill that will be exposed in the months and years to come.
It would be useful for us to remember this pattern in future debates – if something is being repeated so often, it must be a lie.
Already there are consequences of the passage Obama’s government takeover of health care.
Dr. Joseph Scherzer is informing patients that he will close his practice by 2014 – when the bill goes into full effect – if it hasn’t been repealed or struck down by the courts.
While it may be years before most Americans feel the impact of President Obama’s health-care bill, a few patients in Scottsdale, Ariz., got a small taste of life under Obamacare last week when they arrived at their Dermatologist’s office only to see a sign with the following taped to the front door:
“If you voted for Obamacare, be aware these doors will close before it goes into effect.” The note is signed Joseph M. Scherzer M.D. and includes the following addendum: “****Unless Congress or the Courts repeal the BILL.”
Scherzer, who attended Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, has been a practicing Dermatologist in Scottsdale, Ariz., since 1976. Reached yesterday at his office, Dr. Scherzer, 63, said he plans to stop practicing before 2014 when the bill’s full impact will be felt because he refuses to deal with the headache of increased government involvement in health care.
“I’m absolutely serious [about stopping practicing] and it’s not just because I’ll be nearing 65,” Scherzer said. “The stress is what would push me out the door. From what I’ve gathered hearing from my friends and peers, most physicians I’ve heard from feel the same way.”
Scherzer said the bill’s emphasis on punitive measures for physicians not following government-prescribed treatment methods under Medicare would increase his anxiety level to the point he would no longer be able to practice medicine. The maximum fine was previously $10,000; under the bill it will now be capped at $50,000. Scherzer said the fine system makes seeing a Medicare patients a difficult and stressful exercise.
This is just the beginning of what is to come as the bill is fully implemented. It wasn’t just rhetoric during the debate when there were warnings of fewer doctors, longer wait times and the rationing of care. That is coming, and the proponents of government-run health care know it. Watch how they spin in the months to come.
Bart Stupak will announce today that he will not seek reelection in November. After this so-called pro-life Democrat pulled a Judas on the issue of life, and providing the final votes needed to pass Obama’s government takeover of health care. This is what defines cowardice: selling out your principle, and then running away from defending yourself.
His seat is likely to go Republican, increasing the chances of a GOP majority in the House after the November election.
All I can say is good riddance. One less unprincipled Member of Congress to worry about.
Opposed to Obamacare? Then You Must Be a Racist03/29/2010
Welcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing “Cats”. (He liked it, by the way.) This was a particularly shameful column, and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology. Are they right? Are they wrong? Let’s discuss it. Let’s debate it. Let’s yell and scream if we want to. But would it be too much to ask that we approach the matter based on its merits and leave the psychobabble to Dr. Phil?
Frank Rich spent many years as the theater critic for the New York Times, where, at worst, his venom could cause a Broadway production or two to close down.
Now, however, Mr. Rich opines on political and social issues for the Times, and, while the results are usually mildly amusing (even if unintentionally so), his reach has grown a bit, so the damage he causes can travel beyond the footlights. I’m not sure why anyone turns to Rich for political analysis—heck, you might as well read the rantings of a TV game show host—but the Gray Lady continues to pay him for his weekly column, and, at the rate she’s bleeding money, that’s no small sacrifice.
Anyway, Mr. Rich has apparently been able to get to the bottom of the vocal opposition to the “healthcare reform” bill that was recently gently shepherded through Congress.It turns out, according to his well-crafted analysis, that it’s not the bill that’s got people in an uproar; rather, what we’re facing is the death rattle of a dwindling cadre of white, racist, sexist, homophobic males terrified by the ascent of people of color, women and gays.
As the ever-tolerant Rich reasons: “The conjunction of a black President and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.”
So that’s it. It’s just a bunch of scared, white males who would yelp about anything this gang came up with. As Rich makes clear, this is merely a replay of the opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1964. You get it? If you express opposition to the bill, you’re a racist, sexist homophobe.
Mr. Rich is shocked by the level of anger in the land, and he fears for the safety of our elected officials, much as I’m sure he did during the George W. Bush administration. He calls on Republican leaders to distance themselves from the more radical voices among them, echoing the demands I’m sure he made of the Democrats during the last campaign.
Mr. Sajak is the host of “Wheel of Fortune” and PatSajak.com.
Now that the health care “reform” bill has been signed into law, details that should have been disclosed and debated before the vote are starting to emerge. Obviously, Nancy Pelosi meant it when she said they’d have to “pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
Amid the flurry speculation and assertions about the bill is to when and if the pre-existing conditions of children will be covered. Such uncertainty is yet another reason why a bill with major implications for everyone in America should never have been drafted in secrecy or have been exempted from standard procedure.
One of the most outrageous revelations is that staffers who work for Members in Leadership or for Committees, the primary authors of the bill itself, may not be required to purchase insurance through the state-run exchanges.
If it’s not good enough for the authors of the bill, why should the American people be stuck with it?
Speaker Pelosi muscled the Democrat health care bill through to passage Sunday night on a 219-212 vote giving President Obama a major legislative victory and very likely sacrificing the political careers of at least 30 House Members and maybe even the Democrat House majority.
While Democrats say the American people are the winners, the real winners are the big insurance and the big drug companies. This bill is yet another big bailout of corporate America.
The insurance companies will receive subsidies to the tune of $400 billion and guaranteed customers because the government will now force nearly every American to buy their product. Drug companies will continue to make record profits because they were given a sweetheart deal that prevents generic drugs from coming to market.
This Wall Street Journal editorial lays out what is in store. It’s not pretty.
This week’s votes don’t end our health-care debates. By making medical care a subsidiary of Washington, they guarantee such debates will never end. And by ramming the vote through Congress on a narrow partisan majority, and against so much popular opposition, Democrats have taken responsibility for what comes next—to insurance premiums, government spending, doctor shortages and the quality of care. They are now the rulers of American medicine.
The process to passage wasn’t pretty either.
While liberal Democrats are fulfilling their dream of a cradle-to-grave entitlement, their swing-district colleagues will pay the electoral price. Those on the fence fell in line out of party loyalty or in response to some bribe, and to show the party could govern. But even then Speaker Nancy Pelosi could only get 85% of her caucus and had to make promises that are sure to prove ephemeral.
Most prominently, she won over Michigan’s Bart Stupak and other anti-abortion Democrats with an executive order from Mr. Obama that will supposedly prevent public funds from subsidizing abortions. The wording of the order seems to do nothing more than the language of the Senate bill that Mr. Stupak had previously said he couldn’t support, and of course such an order can be revoked whenever it is politically convenient to do so.
We have never understood why pro-lifers consider abortion funding more morally significant than the rationing of care for cancer patients or at the end of life that will inevitably result from this bill. But in any case Democratic pro-lifers sold themselves for a song, as they usually do
We also can’t mark this day without noting that it couldn’t have happened without the complicity of America’s biggest health-care lobbies, including Big Pharma, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the Business Roundtable and such individual companies as Wal-Mart. They hope to get more customers, or to reduce their own costs, but in the end they have merely made themselves more vulnerable to the gilded clutches of the political class.
While the passage of ObamaCare marks a liberal triumph, its impact will play out over many years. We fought this bill so vigorously because we have studied government health care in other countries, and the results include much higher taxes, slower economic growth and worse medical care. As for the politics, the first verdict arrives in November.
One of Obama’s main arguments for passing his health care proposal is that it will reduce the deficit and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Pelosi has even made the claim that the bill would create 400,000 jobs “almost immediately” (really, immediately?)
Beacon’s study shows that rather than creating jobs, the Democrat health care bill will cost more than 700,000 jobs.
Ron Bonjean, communicator extraordinaire, takes the bark of this tree in this piece.
The national unemployment rate is fluctuating from double digit figures to the current rate of 9.7 percent. Millions of Americans haven’t had a job in more than a year and still receive unemployment benefits from the federal government. And now our nation’s debt is threatening our worldwide credit rating due to the trillions of dollars in runaway spending.
So given this drastic situation, why has the Democratic leadership tackled this fundamental problem of economic growth by proposing a massive government takeover of healthcare? It will threaten to place our country further in debt with billions in government subsidies to cover unfunded mandates and the federalization of the healthcare insurance industry. Businesses will be forced to pay major fines for not covering employees. Translation: The healthcare proposal will be a mammoth job killing terminator with a federal license to destroy American small business.
Every day that the White House spends on other issues besides working to create the right conditions for positive job growth is another day that millions of unemployed American voters grow angrier. A better idea would be for the majority to just call in sick to work since they aren’t doing the job voters want them to perform. Faking a head cold might be a better approach because if they pass this healthcare bill, many Democrats who vote for it will probably be looking for work after November.
The Boston Herald reports that Massachusetts Democrat Treasurer Tim Cahill predicted that Obama’s health care plan would bankrupt the country within four years.
“If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistakes of the health insurance mandate on a national level, they will bankrupt this country within four years,” Cahill said. “It is time for the President and the Democratic leadership to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan that does not threaten to wipe out the American economy.”
This is the DEMOCRAT treasurer of one of the most liberal states in the union taking a broadside at the Democrat national health care plan.
That’s gonna leave a mark.
UPDATE: Yes, he is a life-long Democrat, just not liberal enough for some Democrats, so he’s running for Governor as an Independent.
Cahill, saying he was barred from the 2008 Democratic National Convention because he wouldn’t endorse either Obama or Hillary Clinton, said, “My own party basically voted me out.”
First Things has an excellent piece about the Senate health care bill that the House is trying to pass later this week written by Charles Chaput, the Archbishop of Denver. As an outspoken voice for the Catholic Church, Archbishop Chaput is, to use evangelical vernacular, preachin’ the truth. And, to use Baptist vernacular, damning the Catholic posers to hell.
The Senate version of health care reform currently being forced ahead by congressional leaders and the White House is a bad bill that will result in bad law. It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops of our country. Nor does the American public want it. As I write this column on March 14, the Senate bill remains gravely flawed. It does not meet minimum moral standards in at least three important areas: the exclusion of abortion funding and services; adequate conscience protections for health care professionals and institutions; and the inclusion of immigrants.
Groups, trade associations, and publications describing themselves as “Catholic” or “prolife” that endorse the Senate version—whatever their intentions—are doing a serious disservice to the nation and to the Church, undermining the witness of the Catholic community and ensuring the failure of genuine, ethical health care reform. By their public actions, they create confusion at exactly the moment Catholics need to think clearly about the remaining issues in the health care debate. They also provide the illusion of moral cover for an unethical piece of legislation…
The long, unpleasant and too often dishonest national health care debate is now in its last days. Its most painful feature has been those “Catholic” groups that by their eagerness for some kind of deal undercut the witness of the Catholic community and help advance a bad bill into a bad law. Their flawed judgment could now have damaging consequences for all of us.
Do not be misled. The Senate version of health care reform currently being pushed ahead by congressional leaders and the White House—despite public resistance and numerous moral concerns—is bad law; and not simply bad, but dangerous. It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops in our country, who speak for the believing Catholic community. In its current content, the Senate version of health care legislation is not “reform.” Catholics and other persons of good will concerned about the foundations of human dignity should oppose it.