Friday, July 24, 2009

The Upside To Obama's Presidency

"Don't be discouraged by a failure. It can be a positive experience. Failure is, in a sense, the highway to success, inasmuch as every discovery of what is false leads us to seek earnestly after what is true, and every fresh experience points out some form of error which we shall afterwards carefully avoid." ~ John Keats

Barack Hussein Obama's feverish rush to get his health care legislation passed before the August recess could turn out to be his undoing.

If the bill passes both the House and Senate before the August recess, that means, I believe, that we could see the implementation of Government run health care as early as January first of 2010.

The next Presidential election will take place in November of 2012, almost two full years after Obamacare becomes the established law of the land.

If that's the way the scenario is played out, two years may be plenty enough time for even the most avid supporters of Obama to see the folly of his over ambitious plan.

Plenty of time for Obama's followers to watch their loved ones suffer and die, while waiting for procedures and surgeries that are too little, too late.

Plenty of time for them to experience first hand the interminable waiting lines and crowded waiting rooms.

Plenty of time for his worshipers to realize that medical professionals are hopelessly undermanned and underfunded.

Plenty of time for Obama's devotees to see how Obama's grandiose plans for so-called free health care in America have withered and died.

It may not be enough time for Republicans to win enough seats in Congress to regain a majority in the 2010 elections, but the Congress will be undoubtedly already facing increased dissension over the economic recession, higher unemployment numbers, rampant inflation, little or no choice of health insurance, and inadequate health care.

Not to mention a near revolution against intrusive Government regulations regarding the first and second amendments.

In fact, Obama's big hurry to pass all sorts of legislative changes could well seal not only his fate, but the fate of the Democrat lawmakers who support him, as well. Obama's rambunctiousness may well insure no Democrats except Conservative Democrats will be elected to office for decades to come.

I met a young man a couple of days ago who confided in me that up until recently he had no interest in politics at all. But, he said, all that changed when Obama began taking over banks, auto makers, insurance companies, etc. He began to see how dangerous it would be to allow this man to grasp and hold that much power and control over Americans.

Gradually, he came to the realization that America, as he once knew it, had ceased to exist, and he fears now for the safety of his children and his children's children.

This is what he said to me:
"I guess I have to thank Obama for getting me involved in politics".
I wonder how many Conservatives Obama has created with his Marxist policies.

How many Democrats have become Republicans thanks to Obama?

How many Liberals are no longer Liberals?

I guess it's true:

Every cloud has a silver lining.


LL said...

The new ObamaNation is forcing people to wake up and take a stand, or be swept away by the rampant socialist policies and agenda of this administration.

Mark said...

As I say, he's moving much too fast, and this whole thing will end up biting him in the end.

I say, bring it on!

Lone Ranger said...

I don't think we'll have to wait until 2012 for change we can believe in. If you recall, Bill Clinton's presidency triggered the Republican Revolution, in which the GOP captured both houses of Congress just two years into Clinton's term. And Clinton wasn't NEARLY the fascist that Obama is. In about five months, we'll be into an election year and then the fun will begin. Obama's approval ratings just dipped below 50% -- the point at which a president is considered toast. The real worry is how much damage the democrats can do before the new Congress is seated in 2011. It's like being surrounded by whooping Indians and hoping the cavalry will ride to the rescue in time.

Joe said...

Mark: Just because his policies walk like a Marxist, talk like a Marxist, smell like a Marxist, and look like a marxist, doesn't mean they are Marxist policies.

Oh, wait...yes it does!

Krystal said...

I'm concerned about how the conservatives will get us OUT of the free health care mess once it's been implemented. There will be people who won't want to loose it. People who are uninsurable but have medical conditions that REQUIRED medical attention and sometimes expensive medications (like me and my son), families that are self-employed who are expected to pay twice as much for the same coverage that is provided in group policies and therefore go without (like ours), and those who are not offered insurance through their job or are offered it and still can't afford it.

I'm not for obamacare, but my family does fall into two of those catagories. If I have a stroke, which I'm at risk for, we would not be able to pay for my medical care. And I can't get insurance because I'm at risk for stroke, heart attack, heart disease, leaky heart valve, kidney failure, thrombosis, just to name a few. And for the recoed, I'm 38. My son is autistic. He'll be covered through the state's children's plan until he graduates high long as my husband doesn't make much more money. Then he gets kicked to the curb as well.

We need to have a plan that people like us can buy into that is affordable. I know it's said that people only need insurance for the catastrophic, but if you're at high risk for catastrophic, you can't get health insurance.

BTDT, got the t-shirt and it's ugly.

Lone Ranger, the problem with the Republicans that got voted in is that they didn't DO anything. Their lack of action did a lot of damage to the party.

Quite frankly, the politicians on both sides look out for themselves more than they do the American people! They vote themselves pay raises, opt out of social security, get their own lifetime health insurance, and are guranteed lifetime salaries for being elected...just once.

While there are a FEW politicians who see themselves as "public servants", like they all should, the major of them are selfish, self serving jackasses. They all cry out against pork, but they ALL throw it in whenever they have the chance. I can't remember the last time a bill was passed that WASN'T full of pork, even when the Republicans WERE in charge.

They all say we need to lower the welfare rolls, but not one has the stamina to really stand up and DO anything about it. They all say we need to do something about illegal immigration, but none of take the measures needed to make it less desirable to come here illegally (no free healthcare for illegals, babies of illegals NOT U.S. citizens, public education ONLY for the children who are here LEGALLY, etc).

Our government continues to grow out of control no matter who's in charge. It just grows slower when it's Republicans. And that still isn't saying much.

Rebulicans are too afraid to make the major changes that need to be made. They are afraid they won't be re-elected.

And that is why I left the Republican party. I've lost all faith in them as well.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Well if it opens people's eyes, then it has been worth it.

Mike's America said...

They are going to pass some form of health care "reform" this year. But I doubt it will be anything like the bills currently before Congress.

Watch out as they dump all the scary stuff they are currently talking about and we are so relieved that we reluctantly agree to a massive expansion of medicaid instead.

Obama will claim victory and another huge segment of the American population will become permanment welfare depenedents.

Jim said...

What is this "free" health care you are talking about?

Mark said...

Well, Jim, isn't that Obama's whole reason for taking over private health care in the first place? He's the one that insists that all Americans should have access to health care, isn't he?

Doesn't all Americans include even those Americans who have no visible means of support? The ones who have no money or assets of any kind?

How can they get health care if it isn't free? Isn't free health care the point in the first place?

Why bother to introduce legislation if free health care isn't part of the plan? He might as well leave things as they are.

Z said...

KRYSTAL, I"m so sorry for your problems and am glad you wrote that here. THERE IS a need for less expensive healthcare but we must not sacrifice the care, as we'll HAVE TO with obama.

I never liked McCain's "Give everyone $5,000 toward their health insurance payments" but I LOVE it now. It would still be cheaper than what THE ONE's going to spend and it would sure help MY family, trust me. I hope something helps you, too...

Mark, I used part of your post to my hideous leftist troll "psi bond"..thanks; I didn't want to respond at all because there's really no point, he's so nasty and demeaning but then I came to your blog and saw this and thought "PERFECT!"

Well done. xxx

Jim said...

"Well, Jim, isn't that Obama's whole reason for taking over private health care in the first place?"

Umm, no. The whole reason for health insurance reform (which is not "taking over private insurance") is:

1) Stop the unsustainable growth of health care cost in America before it becomes more expensive than national defense.

2) Make sure that nobody can be denied health care insurance because they have a pre-existing condition or because an insurance company refuses to pay for reasonable and normal care and procedures.

3) Make sure that everyone is insured so that people don't go to emergency rooms for colds and rashes. Not all people who are uninsured are poor. Many have been denied coverage or are temporarily out of a job and can't afford to buy insurance individually.

"He's the one that insists that all Americans should have access to health care, isn't he?"

You got a problem with all American's having access to health care? Having access doesn't mean it's free.

Obama isn't trying to take over private health insurance. He only wants them to provide fair and effective coverage for everyone. If they won't do it, there should be a public alternative. Nobody is suggesting that a public plan is free to everyone. People will pay premiums just like every other health insurance plan. It may be subsidized for the poorest, but that is already done in emergency rooms anyway. Subsidizing their health care cost and channeling them to clinics instead will likely pay for itself.

Joe said...

Jim: In the same way President BO did not want to take over GM.

Always On Watch said...

The next Presidential election will take place in November of 2012, almost two full years after Obamacare becomes the established law of the land.

If that's the way the scenario is played out, two years may be plenty enough time for even the most avid supporters of Obama to see the folly of his over ambitious plan.

I've been thinking the same thing. Sort of like how Metrorail turned out for my neighbor who kept wanting public transportation here but, once that transportation arrived, couldn't stand to use it -- way too expensive!

I love the story about the young man in this posting! Maybe BHO is creating some conservatives. I hope so.

Krystal said...

"THERE IS a need for less expensive healthcare but we must not sacrifice the care, as we'll HAVE TO with obama."

Z, I totally agree. There IS a need, but not the way Obama wants to do it.

Jim, from everything I've read and have heard, there will be a date after which you MUST sign with the public plan. If you have a private plan and have a child, the child will not be able to be added to the private insurance.

If I'm wrong, please point me to a source addressing it.

If this were truly reform to do the things you mentioned (cover the uninsurable, available insurance for self-employed, unemployed, those unable to afford it, enforce coverage, etc), I'd have no problem with. However, that's not what I'm getting.

I'd love to have a state group policy I could buy into that wouldn't double due to pre-existing conditions or refuse to cover pre-existing conditions.

Jim said...

"Jim, from everything I've read and have heard, there will be a date after which you MUST sign with the public plan. If you have a private plan and have a child, the child will not be able to be added to the private insurance."

Krystal, what in the world are you reading? No such plan exists or has been proposed. I can't prove a negative.

Joe, Obama hasn't taken over GM. GM is in bankruptcy. GM is a private company, managed by private individuals, and is using borrowed money which has covenants and conditions like any other loan. In bankruptcy it is bound by conditions set by the bankruptcy court (the government). Obama will be very happy when GM has paid back it's loans to the government and the bankruptcy court can release GM from its conditions and terms.

Again, Obama has nothing to do with GM.

"That's not what I'm getting". Krystal, apparently what you are getting is the baloney that the Republicans are using to scare the heck out of you. The Republicans are doing everything they can to stop health insurance reform because they know if they don't, Obama and the Democrats will get credit for solving something that Americans have wanted solved for 60 years. It's all politics for the Republicans. How can we scare the public? How can we defeat Obama? How can we keep from being a nothing party if health care and health insurance reform succeeds.

Mark said...

Yeah, Jim, go ahead and keep believing those Daily Kos talking points...right up until Obama takes away your rights. But don't come crying to me. You've been warned.

Mark said...

Jim, you request proof, but when you are confronted with truth, you deny it.

Here's an article by Dick Morris, former advisor to Bill Clinton:

President Obama’s rhetoric last night summoned the memory of “1984,” George Orwell’s novel of a nightmarish future — where the slogan of the rulers is “War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.”

The president assures us that he will cut health-care spending . . . by adding $1 trillion to health-care spending.

He says that “health-care decisions will not be made by government” . . . while he sets up a new Federal Health Board to tell doctors what treatments they can offer and to whom and under what circumstances.

Obama told the media, “I will free doctors to make good health-care decisions” . . . by telling the physicians what to do.

When the president says he guarantees the “same coverage” to people who like their current health-insurance policies, he means that their current HMOs, insurers and doctors will be the ones to implement the protocols and instructions the government hands down to them — not that we’ll have our current freedom of decision-making.

When he blandly assures us that we will “stop paying for things that don’t make us healthier,” he really means that his Federal Health Board will overrule your doctor and stop him from using his own best judgment in your treatment.

The president will “get the politics out of health care” by putting it under government control.

Obama says that he will not “add to the deficit” to fund health care. But the bill reported out by Rep. Charlie Rangel’s Ways and Means Committee leaves $550 billion unfunded.

The president says that he’ll identify savings that will reduce the need for more taxes — even though the Congressional Budget Office refuses to say that his “savings” will actually work and warns that the bill will really be added to the deficit.

He repeatedly tells us that he’ll cut health-care spending. What he means is that he will cut doctors’ incomes and will turn down patients — particularly the elderly — when they seek medical care that his bureaucrats disapprove of.

And he ignores that cutting incomes in the medical field will reduce the number of doctors and force further rationing of care.

The president opines that he will replace the most “expensive care” with the “best care” by empowering government officials who have never met you to substitute their judgment for that of your doctor, who has examined you thoroughly.

When Obama laments that “14,000 people lose their insurance every day,” he is referring to the job losses that his own failed efforts to end the recession have permitted.

He warns that health-care costs are gobbling up money that employers should use to raise wages and worker pay — yet the plans he backs would require employers to pay 8 percent of their payroll as a tax or provide insurance to their workers.

The Obama plan highlights greater preventive care — but, at the same time, cuts medical incomes and so will cut the number of doctors who might provide it.

In summary, Obama’s health program will promote “lower cost and more choice” by increasing spending by $1 trillion, telling patients what care they’re permitted to have, and limiting their access to quality care.

Orwell’s heirs should sue for violation of copyright.

Jim said...

I wouldn't believe anything Dick Morris has to say. I watch him on O'Reilly several nights a week. Watched him all through the 2008 election. Nearly every prediction he made turned out to be wrong. He's so sleazy, he makes me cringe every time I hear him speak.

There have been no truths here for me to deny. Only the predictions of the likes of Morris and the scare tactics of the people bought off by the insurance and pharma companies.

Mark said...

Jim, Democrats are changing their party affiliation to Republican or at least Independent in droves since Obama was elected. That's because they are losing their jobs, and seeing America being driven to the brink of bankruptcy, and are anticipating the advent of a Canadian or British type health care system that has been proven to be a failure everywhere it's tried.

All thanks to Obama, and his Marxist policies.

You think these are scare tactics?

What about, "Stop Global Warming now or the world is going to be destroyed tomorrow!"

What about, "Pass my stimulus bill now (without even reading it) or we will immediately go into the biggest depression in the history of the world!"

Think of any policy Obama wants to make and it is always accompanied by do it immediately or horrible things will happen!

If Conservatives are fear mongering, it is only because we've been taught well by the master.

Mark said...

Jim, On page 425 of the Obama Nationalized Healthcare Bill it says
in black and white that EVERYONE on Social Security, (which
will include all Senior Citizens and all SSI people) will go
to MANDATORY counseling every 5 years to learn and to choose
from ways to end your suffering (and your life).
Health care will be denied based on age. In addition,
$500 Billion will be cut from Senior’s healthcare
(Medicare). The only way for that to happen is
to drastically cut health care, and the oldest and the
sickest will be cut first. And paying for
your own care will not be an option so you will totally be
at the mercy of bureaucrats.

Krystal said...

Jim, I think Mark pretty much answered you for me. Thanks, Mark.

Jim said...

"Jim, On page 425 of the Obama Nationalized Healthcare Bill"

What Obama Nationalized Healthcare Bill? No such thing exists. Show me and show me page 425.

You either have a healthy imagination or a large butt to pull this one out of. That entire last comment is pure delusion. And you are claiming these things aren't scare tactics?

"Jim, Democrats are changing their party affiliation to Republican or at least Independent in droves since Obama was elected." Going to have to cite some sort of actual facts on this one. In fact here is a July 2009 article from Rasmussen that easily refutes this:

"Over the past four months, the partisan alignments have all stayed with a range of a single percentage point or less.

"The number of Democrats has stayed between 38.7% and 39.4%. The number of Republicans has stayed between 32.2% and 33.2%. As for unaffiliateds, they have ranged from 28.0% to 28.9%.

"The partisan identification numbers shift little from month-to-month, but they document just how dramatically the political environment has changed over the past four years. In January 2005, as President Bush was inaugurated for his second term in office, the Democrats enjoyed just a one-percentage-point advantage over the GOP."

So you are truly pulling that "droves" bit out of your ass. Makes everything else you claim pretty suspect.

Krystal, if Mark is answering for you, you're both in trouble.

Krystal said...

Jim, he answered you by giving you FACTS and saying EXACTLY where it is found in OBAMA's own plan.

You've never done that. You sit there and say can't be true, but you have yet to cite even ONE thing from Obama's National Health Care Plan.

And no, he's not calling it that. But if you truly read it, it is! Even many Democrats are saying, that from what they've read, this is national health care and it's not good.

Come on! Get off your party line. CANADIAN and EUROPEAN leaders are saying it's national health care AND it's an abomination!!! They have nothing to gain or loose. They are just speaking the voices of experience.

Think Mark is wrong? Go read the bill yourself. Cite things from it. Give us an actual page number you found it on.

There are over 1,000 pages. And you have to be extremely thorough and take your time because some of these items are extremely obscure and the exceptions aren't even listed next to the item they are the exception for.

It was written in a way to make sure that things are missed. Why do you think Obama wants to push this through? Because everyone who's read it and studied and HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN OR LOOSE oppose it.

There are only a handful of people who fall into that catagory. Guess what, they all say it's national health care, that people will be denied medical care based upon age and/or their other health issue (ie, the mentally handicapped is more likely to be denied than someone who isn't mentally handicapped...that's Hitler kind of thinking). They say it will lower the number of medical professions in our country, our health care will decline, and it will bankrupt us (although all the spending lately is sure to do it anyway).

And I'll remind you, I'm a Libertarian, so I'm not towing party lines. I think they're pretty much ALL full of bovine scat!!

Jim said...

Mark and Krystal:

First of all, the page 425 mandatory end of life counseling is FALSE. Which is to say, it is untrue. Which means, the people you are getting this from are making it up to scare people.

You will find an excellent debunking of this myth at Politico.

The gist of it is this proposal will require Medicare to COVER expenses for voluntary counseling offered to seniors for making choices and decisions like when to elect to go into a hospice, how to create living wills, etc. This counseling is done now but is not covered by Medicare.

There it is your big scare lie put to rest.

Krystal said: "Go read the bill yourself." There is no bill. There are proposals being considered by at least 3 committees in both houses of Congress.

Krystal said: "He answered you by giving you facts and saying EXACTLY where it is found in OBAMA's own plan."

As I have demonstrated, these are actually NOT facts; they are lies. So you are wrong. And that makes the rest of your comment pretty much meaningless. You may not be towing a party line, but unfortunately you are relying on lies and scare tactics provided by people who are scared to death, not of the provisions of any plan, but that Obama and the Democrats might succeed in providing Americans with health care security for their lifetimes.

Cameron said...


Your reason #1 above (lower health care costs) will not be achieved by the proposals meandering through Congress. Despite what President Obama has said. According to the CBO, it will substantially increase federal deficits.

When President Obama looks at the camera and promises that the plan will not add to the deficits, he is lying. Though perhaps it is more fair to say he's using different assumptions in his analysis.

I understand discontent with the current private insurance system. Costs are very high, and there are loopholes that leave some without coverage. But simply making the government pay for it all won't solve those problems. The government can't even pay for its current health care program, Medicare, let alone assume the costs of paying for everyone.

Jim said...

"But simply making the government pay for it all won't solve those problems."

Cameron, this statement proves that you don't know what you are talking about. There is no such plan to make the government pay for everyone's health care. The public option would be a government administered health care plan funded by contributions from people who opt for the plan and employers who would contribute just as they do now to private insurance plans. Obama is calling for a revenue neutral plan and the congress is trying very hard to make it so. While there will be some net cost to budget at first the proposals are expected to halt the growth of health care costs over time.

As to the CBO citation you have offered, I point you to 2 things:

1) The first page includes the following: "our analysis to date does not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation."

2) The "substantially increas[ed] federal deficits" you claim amount to $239 billion over 10 years. That's LESS THAN HALF of a Bush ONE YEAR deficit during the last eight years.

Cameron said...

How is the plan going to both not cost anything yet substantially increase the deficit at the same time?

Krystal said...

Oh, good heavens, Jim. You're mincing words and you know it. "Proposal" FOR a bill.

I guess I didn't "calibrate" my wording correctly.

You still haven't given any page numbers, sections. You've only said, "Hey these people say it isn't true." Well, I could post a littany of links that say, "Hey, it's all true because 400 pages later it says...."

Know who I trust the most? The lawmakers and EXPERIENCED politicians from Canada and Europe. They have NO vested interest in this.

And they all say we're in a LOT of trouble if this thing passes.

And to be honest, you aren't up here to discuss. You're up here to be "in your face." I'm very open. I was a PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHER and continue to do it now for my own purposes. I've worked with elected government officials for both major players as well as federal judges. Added to the mix is that I'm uninsurable with an uninsurable son, so I SHOULD be supporting this PROPOSAL.

But I'm not because I have researched it from BOTH sides and have found it convuloted and full of governmental red tape that will end up costing people their very lives (think the world's worst HMO but without a real appeals process).

You're only here to bark out what your party tells you to bark. I know that because in all the times I've seen you post here you have NEVER given a concession or admited that maybe your party was wrong.

Added to it is that I jumped in here with a long post pretty much laying out the medical situation of myself and my son.

Not ONCE have you addressed how either PROPOSAL would help not only our situation, but the situation of a million others.

So, either you know or you don't know what is in this bill. If you don't know, then you can't possilby support it intelligently.

So unless you're post addressing me has pages numbers and sections dealing directly with my type of situation, I won't be interested in reading it. It will be a waste of my time. And you'll have to do a LOT more than just post a link. I've researched my situation and this PROPOSAL on a personal basis. You'll have to be iron clad. And you simply cannot do that with this bill since there are SEVERAL sections that specifically discuss LIMITING healthcare, long processes, and caps on medication for people like my son and I.

Jim said...

Krystal, I can't give you a page number for something that is NOT IN THE BILL. And again, there are at least three versions of health care reform being negotiated in the Congress, so I think it would be pretty hard to say there is a specific provision on a specific page of THE BILL.

Having said that, I listened to one of the sponsors of this particular provision on TV tonight, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D. Oregon). By the way, his co-sponsor for THIS provision is a republican congressman who is also a doctor. All the provision does is pay for a consultation that is normal and regular process that happens every day in doctors offices and hospitals. When I took my father to the hospital in the months before he died, a member of the doctors staff consulted with us on creating a living will, durable powers of attorney, and an Advanced Health Care Directive. I helped my brother do one too. All this proposal does is cover the cost of this consultation at least once every five years. It is not currently covered by Medicare. That's it. Period. The whole thing.

I'm sorry to hear that you are unisurable with an uninsurable son. I don't know why that is, but all proposals now on the table guarantee that you can not be turned down for insurance because of a pre-existing condition. So the first thing it would do for you is get you health care coverage.

I'll just pass on the BS about barking orders and whose face I'm trying to be in. I'm here to express opinions and refute what I consider to be untruths. I'm not here to carry anyone's water.

And for every English or Canadian "expert" who wants to scare folks about single payer health care, I can probably find a patient who loves it. And for everyone of those horror stories you all come up with, I can probably find 3 in our own "greatest health care system in the world."

Jim said...

The myths and truths about Canadian health care.

Cameron said...

More costs, reported by the AP:

"But even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that none of the health plans pending on Capitol Hill would control long-term spending, and that ones with the elements Obama wants would add around $1 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years."