Thursday, August 13, 2009

Got An Hour Or So? Read This

"Preserving health by too severe a rule is a worrisome malady" ~ Francois de La Rochefoucauld

Betsy McCaughey is the founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, a health care patient advocate, and a former Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York.

She has read every version of the proposed health care reform bill now being debated four times, so she could be absolutely sure she understands exactly what they propose. She knows what it says, and consequently, what Barack Hussein Obama is trying to do to Americans.

She also knows why Obama's so-called health care reform is a very bad idea.

She knows Obama is lying.

The video is 40 minutes long, but it is vitally important to watch it in order to understand the Marxist agenda of Obama and his cohorts in the Congress.

Click here.

Click here to hear more.

More information on Obama's lies here:

Obama says: "But keep in mind - I mean this is something that I can't emphasize enough - you don't have to participate. If you are happy with the health care that you've got, then keep it."

THE TRUTH: The health bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract - such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year - you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars - as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size - and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Obama says: "I want to start by taking a new approach that emphasizes prevention and wellness so that instead of just spending billions of dollars on costly treatments when people get sick, we're spending some of those dollars on the care they need to stay well, things like mammograms and cancer screenings and immunizations, common-sense measures that will save us billions of dollars in future medical costs."

THE TRUTH: The truth is that the second most prevalent disease of aging -- cancer -- is largely linked to genetics and unknown causes. It's occurrence increases with age. Your risk of being diagnosed with cancer doubles from age 50 to 60 according to the National Cancer Institute.

The risk of some forms of heart disease can be reduced through healthy living. But other forms are linked to genetics. Shifting resources from treatment to prevention will leave patients who become sick inadequately cared for. In addition, virtually all studies show that prevention saves lives but not money. Eighty percent of preventive interventions add to medical costs. The reason is simple. Most people who take cholesterol lowering drugs or get mammograms wouldn't get sick anyway. Louise Russell, an economist at Rutgers University, concludes that "hundreds of studies have shown that prevention usually adds to medical costs." (Health Affairs, March-April 2009). The evidence is so conclusive that the only people who claim prevention saves money are politicians.

Obama says: "Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits. Medicare benefits are there because people contributed into a system. It works. We don't want to change it."

THE TRUTH: The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion health bills with a $500+ billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as Medicare enrollment increases by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing.

The assault against seniors began in February with the stimulus package, which slipped in comparative effectiveness research, generally a code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.

In a 7/17 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, White House budget chief Peter Orszag urged Congress to delegate its authority over Medicare to a newly created body within the executive branch. This measure is designed to circumvent the democratic process and avoid accountability to the public for cuts in benefits.

But all this is a moot point.

The fact is, Government has no right---NONE---to intrude into private enterprise in America.

A government takeover of the health care industry, no matter how altruistic, is unconstitutional.

27 comments:

LL said...

Are you calling President Barack Hussein Obama (or Barry Soetoro - whichever) a LIAR?

If so, I may need to report you to the White House yet again.

Joe said...

LL: Whether Mark is calling him a liar or not (and I think he made it clear that he is), I am calling him a liar. So report ME...please!

I have reported myself numerous times and have begun a campaign to report every liberal piece of misinformation I find to flag@whitehouse.gov, hoping that they become overwhelmed with stuff.

I also got the dreaded email from Axelrod, that tries to gloss over all of the errors in the bill(s).

Mark said...

It's OK, Joe. LL is a friend, not an enemy. He is being sarcastic.

And yes, I am calling Obama a liar. I think he has made himself as clear as mud.

Joe said...

Mark: You have just caused me to spend over an hour watching and taking notes on that McCaughy video. Was it worth it? You bet!!
Thanks.

Z said...

The White House is busy spinning that McCaughy doesn't know what she's talking about...several blogs are on her case, too.

See...if you disagree, you're STUPID, RACIST and ...(worse) REPUBLICAN! ugh.

Great post, Mark....keep it coming; maybe enough Americans will finally learn how bad this plan is and make sure they get their reps to vote it DOWN!

EL said...

Yes, Obama is a liar... and a murderer.

Great post, Mark, and moot as you say. I do, however, take issue with one statement...

"The truth is that the second most prevalent disease of aging -- cancer -- is largely linked to genetics and unknown causes."

FALSE! HUGELY FALSE! This is one of the biggest lies Big Pharma and the AMA tell us. They tell us every day there's no cure [to be fair, in their own lexicon this is true-- a cure being 'any patentable substance (read: "Drug") that will, without fail, kill any and every form of cancer], but this is simply not true. Almost ANYONE can rid themselves of Cancer without the benefit of pharmaceuticals and doctors... Anyone. There ARE remedies for cancer, but because these "cures" can't be patented, Pharma and the Medical Association won't even look at them, let alone suggest such treatments to their patients. It's all about the money.

Same as with this so-call "health CARE" overhaul being pushed by Obama.

Jim said...

"And as soon as anything changes in your contract - such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year - you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17)."

OK, this is not true. I've read p. 16-17. It's about grandfathering existing health insurance plans. It says that you can keep your health care plan AS IS as long as the insurer makes no significant changes to the plan. It also says you can keep that plan with that insurer if it does make changes, but those changes must comply with the requirements of a qualified health care plan. In other words, no discrimination, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. No life-time cap on benefits.

I see the part where families are taxed if they don't have insurance (P 167-168), but I can't find the part about them being randomly assigned to a qualified plan. Can you show me that?

"your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan."

Nope, it says your employer-based plan must meet the requirements of a qualified plan within five years. If it does, you keep it. If it doesn't, it has to bring itself into compliance (see above requirements) or you need to find a plan that does.

"The evidence is so conclusive that the only people who claim prevention saves money are politicians."

What an ignorant assertion! Any doctor, study, man on the street even, will tell you that regular check ups will diagnose life-threatening and debilitating illnesses early enough so that treatment can be done to cure or prevent these conditions.

"a $500+ billion cut to Medicare."

This is a cut to expenses and insurance company subsidies, NOT a cut to patient services.

"The fact is, Government has no right---NONE---to intrude into private enterprise in America."

This is a fine argument, but the US Constitution, Article I Section 8 says that the Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare. After the bill passes, why don't you take it to the supreme court and see what they say about it?

EL said...

General Welfare? Did our founders envision congress providing daycare? abortions? social security? medicare? medicaid? and now national healthcare?

No they didn't.

What they did envision, AND PEN, was the 10th Amendment...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Ergo, Obamacare is UNConstitutional.

Jim said...

"No they didn't."

No, perhaps they didn't. They probably didn't envision Fords and telephones, women and blacks voting, flying machines, attacking other countries, bytes, AIDS, and a lot of other things either.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Agreed. However the power to provide for the general welfare IS "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" in Article I, Section 8, also penned by our founders.

Mark said...

Right, Jim. You know more than a professional patient advocate and Lieutenant Governor.

I know what your problem is. You are jealous that some people have more money than you. You selfish bastard!

If you want more money, stop whining about unfairness and go out and earn more money just like those you envy so much.

I've got news for you. Despite all Obama's promises, and the Democrat party's promises, you will never see a utopia. It isn't possible. People are just too different, and Obama and his cronies will never ever change that fact. So, get over your petty jealousy and learn to live with the fact that some people will always have more and some will always have less.

The sooner you realize the Liberal agenda will never create a utpoia the sooner you can move on and create a reality based life for yourself.

And, since you have revealed that the only problem you have with Obama is that he's not Marxist enough, your opinion has no validity here, anyway.

Run along now and find yourself a nice subversive group to join. Like the DNC.

EL said...

"...General Welfare..."

And that's the rub, isn't it? What, exactly, did the founders mean by "general welfare"?

I'll tell you what CERTAINLY wasn't meant was the federal government paying for the average citizen's doctor bill.

Something else that wasn't meant... the federal government taking "mandatory contributions" into a fund that they would rape at will and dole out as needed to retirees for their monthly sustenance. The federal government has taken TOO MUCH power not expressly granted to them. It has usurped state's rights, and has set itself up as a permanent ruling class.... kings.

How can you deny this? How can anyone pretending to intellectualism insist that the government, under EITHER party, is right to force its whims upon the very people who vote its officers into office?

I have to agree with Mark. All this smacks of jealousy... class and wealth-envy.

Jim said...

"Right, Jim. You know more than a professional patient advocate and Lieutenant Governor. "

WFT?

"I know what your problem is. You are jealous that some people have more money than you. You selfish bastard!"

WTF?

"And that's the rub, isn't it? What, exactly, did the founders mean by "general welfare"?"

It means what the Supreme Court says it means. And nobody has successfully challenged Social Security or Medicare or any number of other government measures that promote the general welfare.

"How can you deny this? How can anyone pretending to intellectualism insist that the government, under EITHER party, is right to force its whims upon the very people who vote its officers into office?"

Where was this crap the last 8 years?

Mark said...

WTF indeed. The video is a speech by Betsy McCaughey. The quotes (in Red)are by Betsy McCaughey. She is a professional patients advocate and a former Lieutenant Governor of New York.

Yes, Jim. WTF, You are jealous of anyone who earns more money than you. You have demonstrated that more times than you say you've demonstrated I am wrong. Perhaps not selfish, though. A more accurate description of you would be a greedy bastard.

Oh, and I know you read too much Daily Kos etc... otherwise you would know that the Supreme Court doesn't make the laws. The Legislature does. You Libtards only think the Supreme court mkes laws. Thats how we end up with the likes of Sonia Sotomayor who thinks "the court makes policy". (her own words)

Jim said...

Mark, are you having a weird night? You appear to be off your meds.

I know who Betsy McCaughey is. She's not a patient's advocate. She's a shill for the insurance industry. She promotes the death panel lie which everyone who has read the consultation section, proposed by a Republican and supported by the Republican majority in the 2003 Medicare bill, knows is a lie.

So don't give me Betsy McCaughey.

Where in any of this have I said anything about how much money I have or anybody else has? You have no idea how much I have, what I make, what I covet.

I'm citing provisions of the bill, by the page numbers you have presented, which refute yours and Betsy McCaughey's allegations, in black and white, and then your argument becomes I'm jealous and greedy?

WTF?

I didn't say the Supreme Court makes laws. Again you are pulling stuff out of your butt. I said the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and decides which laws "provide for the general welfare" and which don't.

Man, this place is getting really weird.

Jim said...

Question for Joe, Mark, EL, Z: Do you have private health insurance today?

EL said...

Yes, but what bearing does that have on what Obama wants to do to our healthcare system? Enlighten us.

Jim said...

OK EL, have you looked at your policy?

83+ percent of US health insurance policies pay for abortions. Aetna pays for any abortion for any reason at any time.

Unless your carrier is among the 17%, you are paying for other people's abortions. Imagine that!

Cameron said...

Any doctor, study, man on the street even, will tell you that regular check ups will diagnose life-threatening and debilitating illnesses early enough so that treatment can be done to cure or prevent these conditions.


That's not the same as saving money. The president is arguing that prevention will save money, and it's simply not true.

Jim said...

So your saying that finding illness and treating it early will not lessen the cost of more radical treatments later and of long stays in ICUs?

Remarkable!

Mark said...

"So your saying that finding illness and treating it early will not lessen the cost of more radical treatments later and of long stays in ICUs?"

Not if Obama gets his hands on the health care industry.

You just don't get it, Jim. This is all about power and control. It has nothing to do with health care.

Jim said...

Again, a point or question has been raised, I've answered it, and then rather than counterpoint,the subject is changed.

How does this work?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

You seem to contradict yourself and give evidence in favor of your opponent:

"It also says you can keep that plan with that insurer if it does make changes, but those changes must comply with the requirements of a qualified health care plan."

Who decides the what the requirements are? You? Your insurer? Apparently that would be some gov't hack. If you're happy with your plan, even with the changes the insurer makes to it, you could lose it if the changes don't comply with the gov't's idea of proper requirements. But let's look at some of them. You write:

"In other words, no discrimination, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. No life-time cap on benefits."

It sounds as if it is expected that once insured, there is not reason by which an insurer can decline coverage. How can any of them stay in business if they are expected to simply pay for anything at any time, or rather, pay for everything every time? This WILL cause many to go out of business, and will cause the gov't plan to balloon to a point where taxes must go up or rationing will occur.

It is unfortunate that insurance plans have caps and restrictions. But one cannot expect others to simply pay for everything. You already know what YOUR financial limitations are. How can you expect that even an insurance company has NO financial limitations? Real, common sense changes to the health care industry, that is, those that result in a natural lowering of costs, rather than an artificial gov't forced lowering, is the only thing that will allow more people to find a plan they can afford, because then health care will BE more affordable. That means REAL competition between insurers nationwide, caps or limitations on frivolous lawsuits, a lifting of mandates of coverage so that elective procedures aren't forced upon insurers.

You mention Aetna and abortion coverage. Did they choose to cover abortion, or were they made to, either by gov't mandate or lobbying pressures? Certainly if they want to cover it, they can. It's certainly up to them. But they shouldn't be made to if they don't want to and thus drive up costs for those who don't want to pay for what they consider to be a heinous procedure.

Jim said...

"You mention Aetna and abortion coverage. Did they choose to cover abortion, or were they made to,"

They chose to because that's what their customers want. There is no mandate for them to do so. Abortion is a normal medical procedure, common and legal. Why wouldn't they cover it?

Marshall Art said...

"They chose to because that's what their customers want."

Really. How did they come to know this? Did they poll them all? At this point I'd have to doubt it very strongly that their customers pushed for it.

"Abortion is a normal medical procedure, common and legal. Why wouldn't they cover it?"

We can debate later whether it's a "normal" procedure, if you consider crushing and dismembering innocents to be normal. But it's common because it is an elective procedure. There is rarely any lives hanging in the balance that aren't the children being put to death. So insurers won't cover such procedures without a rider to pay for it UNLESS they were pressured to do so.

Jim said...

Pressured by whom?

Marshall Art said...

"Pressured by whom?"

Who would you think? I'd put my money on any of the following:

Planned Parenthood
NARAL
NOW
Members of state, local or federal gov'ts.
Likely a combination of all the above and few I haven't thought of.

The more an insurer will cover, the more it will cost for the consumer to carry a policy from that insurer. This is elementary. It has to happen in order for the insurers to maintain their profits. When you begin to add elective procedures, then people will have procedures that they wouldn't normally obtain because they really don't need it. The most obvious example is plastic surgery. Maybe really ugly people "need" cosmetic surgery, but most people who get cosmetic surgery don't "need" it to live or live well. That's not what insurance is supposed to be for, nor are abortions.

bookkook said...

If I may adress an earlier comment about what exactly the founders meant by "general welfare":

WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

This Definition was taken from an 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language.

The founder were obviously referring to the welfare of the STATE so the 2nd definition shoud apply. The argument arises when people tend to apply the 1st definition, which applies to people.

I find it hard to believe that the founders thought the STATE was responsible for the welfare of the INDIVIDUAL when the purpose of the constitution was to limit government interference in peoples lives, assuming individuals would see to their own welfare.