Posts Tagged ‘Health Care’
When Donald Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time,” he was roundly criticized. But it was true.
In war, life, and good governance, you must recognize reality and act within those conditions. You can’t sit around, twiddling your thumbs and wishing it were different.
An even larger mistake is the current liberal method of governance: reject reality and take action with the assumption that conditions will change because you reeeeaaally want them to and think they should.
Like, for example, launching a massive new entitlement that restructures almost 20% of the US economy based entirely on the premise that young, healthy, “invincibles” who chose not to buy health insurance in the past will buy it now…because you’ve launched a massive new program that depends on them to buy health insurance.
In the wisdom of Maya Angelou, “when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” These young invincibles showed us they wouldn’t buy insurance before and they’re not buying it now (though the White House assures us, the young are just procrastinating—they do that you know, silly young people).
The White House seems surprised by this fact. Are they, really?? If so, Barack Obama’s Administration is even more incompetent than we thought, actually believing Obama’s alternate reality on healthcare. Good grief, didn’t think that was possible!
When my kids were small, they’d cover their eyes and think that because they couldn’t see the world, the world couldn’t see them. It was cute. It’s not so cute when the President of the United States does it though.
President Obama told Americans repeatedly that al Qaeda was “on the run.” Even the day after four Americans were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Obama told supporters in Las Vegas, “a day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead.” On September 18 and numerous other occasions, Obama said al Qaeda had been “decimated.” He continued the War-on-Terror-is-so-over-I-won’t-even-use-the-word-terror theme throughout his campaign.
Unfortunately, as many of us knew at the time, and as the Boston Marathon bombings made clear, that’s not true. No matter how gifted a speaker Barack Obama believes himself to be, he cannot will something to be true simply by saying it out loud.
It appears that the Obama Administration’s strict denial of reality is also partly to blame for the FBI and intelligence failures surrounding the Boston bombings. Following a September 2011 story in Wired Magazine, “FBI Teaches Agents: ‘Mainstream’ Muslims are ‘Violent, Radical,’” 57 Muslim advocacy groups wrote a letter to Obama Administration officials complaining about “the federal government’s use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims.” Instead of asking why these groups weren’t directing their energy towards the jihadists around the world who use the Quran to incite violence and murder thousands of innocent people, Obama’s people promptly “pulled more than 700 documents and 300 presentations,” scrubbing from its counterterrorism training mentions of Islam, Muslim, Hamas, and jihad—which is now referred to as “violent extremism.” Sebastian Gorka, a counterterrorism specialist with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies tells the Washington Times, “the fact is, religion has been expunged from counterterrorism training. The FBI can’t talk about Islam and can’t talk about jihad.”
Well, if the Commander-in-Chief is claiming the War on Terror is over and you remove Muslim extremism as a red flag then it’s no wonder the FBI missed the fact that jihadist Tamerlan Tsarnaev posed a threat to America. Obama wants Islam and terrorism not to be connected, so he ties the hands of our intelligence community and forces them to operate as if they aren’t. Does this make you feel safer?
The same disregard for reality can be found in his approach to domestic issues. As predicted by its opponents, the health care law has been disastrous. Even the author of the Affordable Care Act, Sen. Max Baucus, sees “a huge train wreck coming down” with the law’s implementation. In a press conference yesterday however, an extraordinarily out-of-touch Obama said, “and there will be stories that can be written that say, oh, look, this thing is not working the way it’s supposed to, and this happened and that happened. And that’s pretty much true of every government program that’s ever been set up…But if we stay with it and we understand what our long-term objective is…if we keep that in mind, then we’re going to be able to drive down costs; we’re going to be able to improve efficiencies in the system; we’re going to be able to see people benefit from better health care. And that will save the country money as a whole over the long term.” No acknowledgement of the concerns expressed by small business people, no answers to questions raised by Senator Baucus and others. “Everything is fine because I say that it is fine. My presidency has been a roaring success because I want it to be.”
America is not safer, our economy is worse and the man charged with protecting us and leading our recovery says things like, “it’s not optimal,” and “glitches and bumps.”
My kids figured out that we could see them by the time they reached their 3rd birthday. It’s time for Barack Obama to uncover his eyes and see the world for what it is. Before he hurts our country even more.
In a decision that no one expected, the Supreme Court has upheld Obama’s health care law, but with a twist.
It was clear from the questioning during the oral arguments that the Court didn’t like the individual mandate – at least in the context of the Commerce Clause.
So, Chief Justice Roberts saved the Commerce Clause from Congress, while calling the mandate a tax. This is not welcome news to President Obama and the Democrats running for re-election. With the mandate considered a tax, it makes the bill one of the largest tax increases in history. This is going to make for an interesting fall.
I’m sure many will criticize Chief Justice Roberts, but he has managed to keep the court above the politics of this issue, and that’s probably smart.
Republicans should be plenty comfortable knowing that this health care law will be the focal point between now and November. It could be 2010 all over again.
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.
Obama’s health care law may be on life support. After three days of oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the challenge to the health care bill signed into law two years ago, the future of the law is very uncertain.
It’s clear that supporters of the law were rocked by how aggressive the questioning was by Justices Kennedy and Breyer – two justices that are key to which way the decision goes. The Left is also very unhappy with Obama’s Solicitor General. Mother Jones wrote, “If the law is upheld, it will be in spite of Verrilli’s performance, not because of it.”
I was struck my Kennedy’s first question right out of the box, “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” That is how a Supreme Court Justice “gets up in your grill.”
Justices Scalia, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts also asked withering questions. Justice Thomas was typically silent – he hasn’t asked a question in the last six years. It is assumed that those four are near-certain to support striking down the individual mandate and based on Kennedy’s questioning, he could be the fifth vote.
What has alarmed the Left more than anything is the discussion in the final day of arguments when the Court discussed whether it was more reasonable to overturn the entire law if they agree that the individual mandate is struck down.
While I strongly believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and have been cautiously optimistic that the Court would so rule, I have been very pessimistic about the Court overturning the entire law. That would be a nice gift to the American people if it were to happen.
Transcripts of the three days of arguments are here:
Democrat Senator Ben Nelson is retiring, making it almost a sure bet that his Senate seat will switch to Republican in the 2012 election.
National Democrats (particularly Harry Reid) were desperate to keep Nelson in the race (and his $3 million bank account) because if he were running for re-election, they had at least a fighting chance to keep the seat.
Ben Nelson is not dumb, and he calculated that Nebraskans have tired of his claims to be a conservative Democrat, but siding with his liberal colleagues on the big votes (Stimulus and Health care being two biggies).
I suspect recent ads run by American Crossroads (see ad here) and Americans for Prosperity Nebraska (see ad here) had an impact on Nelson’s thinking and whether he wanted to spend the next year being thrashed with his own record.
This news reminded me of a web video I came across a while ago and blogged about here. It’s really funny.
Ben Nelson may not be laughing today, but most Nebraskans are cheering.
Republican House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan has released a new proposal with Democrat Senator Ron Wyden that would reform Medicare in a way that will ensure that seniors have real choices when it comes to their health care.
The genius of this plan is that it would allow seniors to stick with traditional fee-for-service Medicare – thus undercutting Democrat claims that Republicans are “ending Medicare as we know it.”
The irony in the Democrat’s claim is what they did to Medicare through the passage of their health care bill in 2010. They cut $500 billion over ten years in order to fund new government programs and the created a 15-member board to make decisions about what procedures and prescriptions would be covered by Medicare – essentially standing between doctors and their patients.
Given the ever-increasing opposition to the health care law, Democrats might want to be careful about how they play this card in 2012.
This is the kind of headline that makes Obama campaign staffers queasy: AP-GfK Poll: More than half say Obama should lose
AP writes the story laying out the challenges that Obama faces going into next year’s election. These three paragraphs are particularly poignant:
For the first time, the poll found that a majority of adults, 52 percent, said Obama should be voted out of office while 43 percent said he deserves a second term. The numbers represent a clear reversal since last May, when 53 percent said Obama should be re-elected while 43 percent said he didn’t deserve four more years.
Separately, 49 percent expected Obama to win re-election while 48 percent think he will be voted out of office.
Obama’s overall job approval stands at a new low: 44 percent approve while 54 percent disapprove. The president’s standing among independents is worse: 38 percent approve while 59 percent disapprove. Among Democrats, the president holds steady with an approval rating of 78 percent while only 12 percent of Republicans approve of the job he’s doing.
Buried deep in the story is this nugget:
The poll found unpopularity for last year’s health care reform bill, one of Obama’s major accomplishments. About half of the respondents oppose the health care law and support for it dipped to 29 percent from 36 percent in June.
Just 15 percent said the federal government should have the power to require all Americans to buy health insurance.
Even among Democrats, the health care law has tepid support. Fifty percent of Democrats supported the health care law, compared with 59 percent of Democrats last June. Only about a quarter of independents back the law.
When your signature piece of legislation – what was supposed to become wildly popular after the Democrats passed it – is becoming a bigger and bigger millstone around Obama’s reelection hopes. And that’s not likely to change.
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.