The American Spectator

Darin| 6.17.09 @ 7:05AM

Best of all, we have the joy of knowing that the people imposing this on us will not live under it. Congress has it's own health care (and retirement) systems immune to changes they inflict on the masses.

Kitty| 6.17.09 @ 7:06AM

This is probably a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway. Will Obamacare affect the congressmen and senators like the rest of us, or will they retain their sweetheart plans?
...

Rocco| 6.17.09 @ 7:17AM

Kitty, looks like Darin answered your question right when you asked. Of course, they will retain their sweetheart plans.

Denver Todd| 6.17.09 @ 7:20AM

With access restricted, do you think there will be new insurance products and private care provider organizations that will pop up as an overlay to Obamacare that will allow those who wish to have greater access to care to still get it? Or will Obama restrict doctors from treating patients outside of state insurance like they do in Canada?

Isabelle | 6.17.09 @ 7:34AM

"Overtreating" is frequently mentioned in Obama's list of places to cut healthcare costs. At the same time, he's stated that he's against tort reform (and got booed for it at AMA). I'm waiting for these two stances to collide. Who gets sued when wait times or treatment restrictions cause bad outcomes? Will physicians just have to double down on malpractice insurance, or is there some loophole in the government plan?

Phil Hoey| 6.17.09 @ 7:51AM

I am glad I believe in alternative care methods. Just take a trip to Canada and see what they have. I guess most of us will be traveling to Mexico if we need serious work done. Let's see - is my passport up to date?

Robert Rosencrans| 6.17.09 @ 7:53AM

A Gallup poll in November 1997 showed that the overwhelming majority of Americans were satisfied with their health care. So what's this all about? Most politicians stay away from areas where people are satisfied because if the plan fails, they get the blame.

Contrary to what most of the public believes, one of the biggest sponsors behind health care is corporate America. Health care costs are a large part of their expense ledger and this would immediately get the cost of health care off their ledger and onto yours.

Someone mentioned the politicians and their health care. There are several incidents where politicians from Canada have flown to the United States and paid for treatment at their expense (Link 2.)

That's because the U.S. has the best cancer survivor rates in the world. So again, why is change needed?

The first thing many politicians will tell you is that Canada has the highest rate of satisfaction from the public on their health care system. It could be a fluke because England consumers of nationalized health care have the same level of satisfaction as the American consumers in the private system. People who don't pay for health care would seem to have a tendency to rate their systems higher.

The most ironic aspect of the proposed health care system is that costs will go up and health care will be rationed, despite statements by many prominent proponents that rationing won't happen. Rationing is a certainty.

The irony here is that the majority of the public who receives gets good health care access now will lose it, so that a small minority will get a free health card. They won't get health care.

Another issue not mentioned is that although private health care plans are permitted in Canada, few can afford them. This will also happen in America.

Another byproduct of this plan is that millions will become unemployed within the first 12 months of passage. All those who currently work in the private systems in varying capacities better learn a new trade because the private plans will be gone like the wind.

The uber wealthy and the politically connected will soon be included in a health care system you will only dream about. A new private system that will provide clean hospitals and efficient delivery will remain for those who can afford it and that won't be you.

The rest of the public will be herded like so many cattle through one maze after another as some die in the quiet stampede. Perhaps that's the reward for citizens who voted like sheeple.

Link 1-Gallup Poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102934/majority-americans-satisfied-their-own-healthcare.aspx
Link 2-The rich can afford it!

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/256600
Link 3

Overall Cancer Survival Rates. According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology : 1

* American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [See Figure I.] U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One. fig1
* American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.
* Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
* For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.

These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.

Survival Rates for Specific Cancers. U.S. survival rates are higher than the average in Europe for 13 of 16 types of cancer reported in Lancet Oncology , confirming the results of previous studies. As Figure II shows:

* Of cancers that affect primarily men, the survival rate among Americans for bladder cancer is 15 percentage points higher than the European average; for prostate cancer, it is 28 percentage points higher. 2
* Of cancers that affect women only, the survival rate among Americans for uterine cancer is about 5 percentage points higher than the European average; for breast cancer, it is 14 percentage points higher.
* The United States has survival rates of 90 percent or higher for five cancers (skin melanoma, breast, prostate, thyroid and testicular), but there is only one cancer for which the European survival rate reaches 90 percent (testicular).

Link 4-Medical monopolies can lead to fascist states
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23410977-details/'NHS+should+not+treat+those+with+unhealthy+lifestyles'+say+Tories/article.do
Failing to follow a healthy lifestyle could lead to free NHS treatment being denied under the Tory plans.

Patients would be handed "NHS Health Miles Cards" allowing them to earn reward points for losing weight, giving up smoking, receiving immunisations or attending regular health screenings.

Like a supermarket loyalty card, the points could be redeemed as discounts on gym membership and fresh fruit and vegetables, or even give priority for other public services - such as jumping the queue for council housing.

But heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could be denied some routine treatments such as hip replacements until they cleaned up their act.

Link 5-Bureaucracies can't cope and this proves it!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/16/nhs.health
A £12.7bn upgrade of IT systems throughout the NHS in England will not be completed for at least another six years, four years behind schedule, parliament's spending watchdog disclosed today.

Revealing that the scale of the delay to the system was worse than previously thought, the National Audit Office said plans for a national electronic record of the medical files of 50 million patients might not come to fruition until 2014-15.

Suppliers were still wrestling with technical difficulties over setting up a secure network which would allow medical staff to access patients' confidential notes. The NHS upgrade is the biggest non-military IT development in the world.

The NAO's report said: "The scale of the challenge in developing and deploying these systems in the NHS has proved far greater than expected."

Mike| 6.17.09 @ 7:58AM

As with the "Public Education" issue ...The Messiah and his stooges eliminate the voucher system for John Q Public but... we are happy knowing that he and the political elite send their brats to "private schools".

Indiana Alex| 6.17.09 @ 8:05AM

Or, we could all join a Union. They are, like congress, exempt from the program under the Senate bill.

Robert Rosencrans| 6.17.09 @ 8:39AM

Here's an update of some recent developments. Look at the numbers. This plan is falling apart as fast as they try to cobble it back together. The cost would be 1 trillion over 10 years to insure about 12 millions citizens, and you can bet they are illegal immigrants.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

Negotiations were roiled Monday by an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office that said Kennedy's bill would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years but leave 37 million people uninsured, compared with 50 million who are uninsured now.

And on Tuesday a cost estimate for the Finance Committee bill became public: $1.6 trillion. Senators quickly huddled on ways to bring down costs, with Baucus insisting the final price tag on his committee's bill would be around $1 trillion.

At Kennedy's committee, officials said that after penciling in subsidies for families with incomes as high as $110,000, or 500 percent of the federal poverty level, they would limit the help to families up to $88,000 in income, or 400 percent of the poverty level.

The emerging Finance Committee bill also cuts off subsidies to help people buy insurance at 400 percent of the poverty level, but Baucus told reporters a reduction was "a live option." There were indications the final cutoff would be closer to 300 percent of poverty — $66,000 for a four-person family.

Major cuts in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for some of the new costs but senators disagreed among themselves over whether to tax employer-provided health benefits — something Obama campaigned against. Also elusive was a compromise with Republicans on a new public insurance plan, which the GOP opposes.

The emerging bills envision a new insurance market "exchange" where people could go to shop for insurance coverage, helped by federal subsidies. Individuals will almost certainly be required to obtain coverage.

Business groups were working overtime to soften any requirement for employers to provide coverage for their employees or face fines. Most large employers already offer health care, but senators are looking at requiring certain levels of care, so businesses fear a scenario in which the government would force them to offer more or different coverage than they already do.

"We're concerned that the plan requirements will be so robust that our members' plans won't meet those requirements," said Jeri Kubicki, the National Association of Manufacturers' vice president for human resources policy.

Also Wednesday, four former Senate leaders — Democrats Tom Daschle and George Mitchell and Republicans Bob Dole and Howard Baker — were releasing a $1.2 trillion proposal that would cover everyone and be fully paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

___

Mattled| 6.17.09 @ 8:40AM

Listen people, you've got to get to your local ABC affiliate and start calling. Have your friends and family call and say they will be boycotting the entire station---local news is 40% of ad revenue.

ABC has already put out a statement that they are not going to change the Obama's Healthcare Donation Broadcast from ABC.

The Letterman thing worked because I'm sure, I'm positive, local affiliates didn't want their Late News numbers to suffer (lead in for Letterman). The GM's who pay to be an affiliate picked up the phone as well as advertisers. These people have clout---ABC Network sitting in Manhattan could care less about us "rubes" and "blah, blah" (insert your stereotype here____)

Get your friends and family to call. General Managers at the local level will not be happy to hear that they, and their local advertisers will be boycotted.

Local affiliates have a duty to provide a service, information, to ALL their viewers, not a political party.

Obviously networks feel they have a duty to Obama.

Do it now----and let's use this model/momentum and get to NBC before they fill GE's coffers for the AGW swindle.

Roscoe| 6.17.09 @ 8:56AM

David Catron; thanks for such a succinct, plain-language, comprehensive wrap-up of this issue. I've been longing for someone to put it so clearly, jargon-free, that a greater proportion of the populace can see the plain truth staring them in the face. Now, what are the chances of anyone who voted for Dope and Chains:
1. actually reading this article
2. actually ditching their denial, and facing the fact that this is the direction this statist always had in mind, not only for healthcare, but every program he could get his inept hands on in the limited time he'd be around
3. With such a bleak outlook, actually feeling sufficient regret & remorse about their 2008 vote, to resolve that in 2010 & '12 they'd better do something different at the poll to mitigate their huge '08 screw up?

Old Soldier| 6.17.09 @ 9:06AM

"How Obamacare Will Change Your Life"?

The same way every other Obama program will change my life. Since I work and save and raise my children, it will make me and my family poorer. It will take the wealth of our labor and give it to the politically connected undeserving lazy and bureaucrats (redundant).

JP| 6.17.09 @ 10:04AM

Favid Catron,
I wouldn't give up just yet. There are 5 Democratic Senators who may not toe the line. We are still in the middle of a recession, and elections are only 18 months off. Universal Health Care is financially unsustainable no matter how you juggle it. The massive new taxes that will suposedly cover the costs are in addition to the expiration of the Bush43 tax cuts, which kick in 2010. It won't take much to eliminate whatever recovery we do have, and $1.6 trillion in new taxes will be sufficient to put us back into a recession within a year.

The changes are enough to anger most voters, and the voters aren't stupid. Once the beomouth of Universal Health Care hits the streets and the financial markets, three things are likely to occur: 1)A sell-off on Wall St, 2)an even weaker dollar, and 3)a surge in commodities and gold as investors flock to safer habors. Businesses will begin another round of lay-offs and the already very high defecit will get even worse. The dollar will be imperilled, and a financial crisis a la 1932-33 will occur.

One cannot remove 15% of the GDP (via taxes) and borrow trillions without adverse effects.

bill carson| 6.17.09 @ 10:39AM

You know what? This writer can say anything he wants but the American people have already decided that all the red flags and cautions on handing over the health care, financial, automotive and who knows what others industries over to Obama mean NOTHING to them. A decision strongly appears to have been made to give socialism one heck of a big try even if we've decided we want to call it "fairness" instead of socialism.

Isn't that frustrating? We've all read dozens of articles like this, laying out pretty darn good logic on why a government run system won't run the dream way people expect, yet they seem to have little to no impact on the public so used to wallowing in its love for everything Obama.

bill carson| 6.17.09 @ 10:48AM

Isabelle above asked the conflict between tort reform and cost control. Actually, this is a pretty easy issue to figure out. In the beginning, Obama will talk like he does now, to retain the support of major financial backers. Over time, this will change quite dramatically. When all physicians are forced to effectively work for the government, I'd expect Obama to ruthless impose tort reform. As long as the losses are coming out of doctor's pockets, he's all for lawsuits. But when the government is being sued, that will be another story. How could a doctor pay a multi-million dollar judgment when they being paid $83, 456 by Obama? He or she couldn't afford current premium levels so the government would stop the claims in order to help itself.

dagny taggart| 6.17.09 @ 11:08AM

Some predictions for health care if the Trojan horse of the "private option is implemented"

1. Many primary care physicians will opt out if allowed-going Galt. They can avoid the electronic records hassle, billing personnel and billing delays as well as government insurance audits. Some patients will also like the real privacy from the government.
2. Older secure physicians will retire early if they have an adequate nest egg. There will be also be fewer physicians entering the system. Younger aspiring physicians may choose vet medicine, cosmetic surgery to avoid the system.
3. Poor working conditions will likely result in the unionization of employed physicians. If they cannot receive better wages, they will petition for better working conditions which will mean reduced hours and lower productivity, reduced access for patients.
4. Self and group employed physicians will continue to increase volume and reduce quality as long as it is feasible. Increased overhead and reduce reimbursement will cause some to go out of business.
5. Other solo and group practices will try to adopt strategies such as offering more uncovered self pay services. Examples include acupuncture, massage, non invasive disc decompression, weight loss techniques, selling vitamins. Patients that pay for these uncovered services will likely get preference over those that do not participate. Additional charge boutique services (scheduling priorities, doctor phone calls, limited house visits, hospital visits) will also become more common if not outlawed.
6. Offshore medical care will proliferate. Many Europeans currently take advantage of India, Caribbean for high quality surgical services.
7. Pols will continue to have excellent access and high quality. This may impede government attempts at clamping down on additional charges.

Dr. Chemical| 6.17.09 @ 11:37AM

The new healthcare plan should be called the Mary Jo Kopecky HC Plan in honor of Senator Kennedy. After all it will soon be under water.

Oldefarte| 6.17.09 @ 11:43AM

The main aspect of this is the TAX INCREASES which Obama will have to initiate in order to pay for, not only his healthcare program, but his previousl stimulus program as well!!!!

Kathryn (no RINOs PETITION)| 6.17.09 @ 2:55PM

Bottom line:
We will have less money, less freedom, and worse healthcare.

Mattled| 6.17.09 @ 3:03PM

Oldefarte,

You're right----massive tax increases that will be disguised as going towards healthcare but in all likelihood will go to special interest groups associated with the "healthcare" debacle.

Genyusha| 6.17.09 @ 3:04PM

All will be excellent as always at us

Lisa| 6.17.09 @ 3:45PM

I'm very concerned about the meddling of The Messiah in our health care system. I am suffering from metastatic cancer. There is no cure for my kind of cancer, but I do receive chemotherapy and CT scans to monitor the progress of the cancer. I pay this through the COBRA plan of my prior employer. I can't see getting the level of care that I am used to under the Messiah's plan. This literally could shorten my life even more. I'm scared.

I suppose I could be the poster child for the One's plan. I'm a single mother, had to quit my job due to my ill health, and now have to pony up huge COBRA payments. Although it is very hard to afford the payments on my disability income, the alternative of rationed state-run health care is very troubling.

CS Lewis| 6.17.09 @ 6:48PM

You know what the whole Obamanation reminds me of. It's like the TV Evangelist's scams. To get more money and grow their organization they came up with some new idea/thing/plan/come to Jesus project to which you gave money(because you were going to get something back from Jesus/God) and that money was to fund the previous scam all in Jesus's name.
This never stopped in order for them to get bigger to create their Utopia where they could rule like a God. What stopped it was the media!

Obama is doing the same thing using his power as the most powerful man in the world.
Taking over everything in our country until we see that country being destroyed, our freedoms gone.
But unlike the TV evangelists who just begged Obama has power unchecked... for the present.
The media is not going to stop him, it will take the people as Glenn Beck says to throw out/vote out every God damned politician.
Which means, unless some event occurs (like politicians standing up for the country and saying no) nothing will change until 2010 elections.

Jim O'Brien| 6.17.09 @ 9:20PM

Where in the Constitution are the president and Congress authorized to: 1) require everyone to have medical insurance; 2) dictate the medical procedures and drugs we are allowed to have; 3) dictate how much doctors and hospitals can charge; and 4) delay treatment even if it causes a person to die while waiting?

If the National Socialist Party (formerly known as "Democratic Party") can control our health, then we no longer have individual freedom. If we allow the Socialists to control our heart, lungs, kidneys, and intestines, I guess there isn't much point in worrying about the government controlling the internet, seizing our homes for "public" use, infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, or taxing us to death. If we are going to stand for all this tyranny, why bother to vote? Was the entire Constitution repealed, or is it just not being used anymore?

Think_about_it| 6.17.09 @ 9:44PM

David Catron wrote:
"This is already happening to patients covered by the government's existing health coverage programs. Government price controls have, for instance, created a primary care shortage for seniors. Medicare patients are having increasing difficulty getting appointments with primary care physicians because the program's Soviet-style payment system doesn't cover the cost of an office visit."

...this is heresay evidence, but I can confirm this report from the article author, by my own listening to multiple patient comments over the past 10 years when I see them during a therapy session, with several MD's who specialize in gerontology. Invariably the patients will tell me they had to schedule weeks (or even months) in advance, and encountered waiting rooms full of dozens (if not >100) others who also were waiting to see that one MD. My understanding is the MD had to compact their office hours to 1 or 2 days per week to make it cost effective. From the patient's perspective, this created the impression they were a 'number' only, and part of the cattle herd that was being moved through the 'system' that day.
If Obummer's ideas get pushed through, I am convinced this is what we can all look forward to, and mediocre quality care (and fromt the provider's standpoint higher liability) care. ...and I suppose if that happens we can put it as "care" because it really won't be.

Marcell| 6.18.09 @ 6:53AM

Wow, Old Texican I am good ha=)

What I am going to do is champion 1 more issue for the Republicans just to show that I at least know what it takes to win.

P.S. I love the Democratic party, but I have a kids that need new sneakers as Hunky would say.

Health reform hits Senate speed bumps
By: Carrie Budoff Brown and Alex Isenstadt
June 17, 2009 07:56 PM EST

Health care reform hit a serious setback Wednesday, with the Senate Finance Committee blowing its own deadline for a bill and the Health Committee breaking sharply along partisan lines — developments that place President Barack Obama’s August deadline for passing a bill in doubt.

After weeks of relative calm on the issue, over the last 72 hours, the process hit its roughest stretch all year.

It started Monday when the Congressional Budget Office returned a $1.3 trillion pricetag on Sen. Ted Kennedy’s bill – a number that far exceeds what most lawmakers are willing to pay.

And it continued Wednesday, when the Senate Finance Committee – long viewed as the best hope for producing a bill that could draw bipartisan support – signaled it was unable to produce a package in the coming days. The committee said it might put off its markup of the bill until after the July 4 recess, almost a month from Chairman Max Baucus’ original start date.

“We will have a mark when we are ready and we are not yet ready,” Baucus (D-Mont.) said.

At the same time Finance Committee members were meeting behind closed doors, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee opened its mark-up on Kennedy’s bill – only to see Republicans turning increasingly feisty.

“The bill we have been presented with is so flawed that it cannot be fixed and we need to start over,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said.

And the trouble spilled over to powerful interest groups that have been muting their concern in hopes of keeping a seat at the table. Now they’re no longer staying quiet, issuing critical public statements and strategizing privately with allies.

The series of problems served as a reminder of the difficulty of passing legislation overhauling the American health care system in record time, as Obama proposed. He had set a goal of getting a bill passed in both houses before the August recess – a goal that is now seen as slipping.

The Politico 44 Story Widget Requires Adobe Flash Player.

For months, the unusual harmony among interest groups, lawmakers and the White House made the task seem almost easy. But in last few days, the cold reality of piecing together the most complex bill in decades has begun to sink in.

“We have tried to say let’s slow the process down,” said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a Finance Committee member. “One of the things you are dealing with is, you were just sort of out there and now the CBO has come in and of sort reined us in, saying ‘Here is the real world, here is the reality.’ ”

To be sure, people involved in the negotiations say the potential to deliver a bill at some point this year remains a realistic goal. And the White House also expressed confidence in the process Wednesday.

“The President, I think, has laid out a timeline to get this done this year, and thinks that we're on course to do it,” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.

Unlike in the Senate HELP Committee, where Republicans and Democrats have been sniping at each other for days, the Finance Committee negotiations remain productive, according to staff and lawmakers. Baucus still anticipates authoring a bipartisan bill with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican.

Senate sources said the Finance Committee delay was the right thing to do because if Baucus pushed ahead with an incomplete and expensive bill – as the Senate HELP committee has done – they would get mired in the same partisan sniping.

But they still have a far way to go on three major issues: the public insurance option, the employer mandate and the financing for the $1 trillion, 10-year plan.

Their job has been complicated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which evaluates the costs of proposed legislation. It emerged this week as the kind of legislative kingmaker that Baucus and others had feared.

On Monday, the congressional budget analysts released a report on an incomplete bill from Kennedy’s HELP committee, saying it would cost more than $1 trillion and still leave 37 million people uninsured. Health care insiders have been wringing their hands over the committee’s handling of its bill. Republicans have used it in repeated attacks against Democrats, and interest groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are becoming increasingly outspoken.

On Tuesday, the CBO issued an analysis of the mega-hyped $2 trillion in industry savings offered to Obama by six major health care groups. The CBO’s bottom line: The proposals were too vague to make a comprehensive judgment.

Also on Tuesday, the CBO told Senate budget leaders in a letter that the president’s plan to expand coverage would add to the federal deficit unless lawmakers can muster the political will to enact meaningful controls on health spending, such as cutting payments to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers.

The Finance Committee also received a cost estimate on its bill this week – and the bottom line was shocking to members, topping $1.5 trillion.

“On all sides, there was an understanding yesterday that we’ve got to slow down,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a Finance Committee member and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. “Given the score from CBO, we need more time to evaluate options and alternatives.”

Conrad said the committee is looking at reducing the amount of federal subsidies for lower-income individuals to purchase insurance, but other Democrats are pressing for different cost-cutting alternatives and finding revenue sources outside of the health care arena, as Obama has proposed.

Amid the recriminations, humor hasn’t been completely lost.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who is shepherding the HELP committee legislation in Kennedy’s absence, started the afternoon markup with a history lesson. The committee was working in a room that hosted some of the most important hearings in American history, include those on Watergate, he said.

“I was going to mention the Titanic,” Dodd said, “but I thought that would be a bad analogy.”

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

marcell | 6.18.09 @ 7:06AM

With all do respect to both political Parties; I believe there is a market for no name bloggers who are political strategist.

I am not trying to be a poster boy for any of the Parties like Joe the Plumber, I like flying below the radar, & I know that I have what it takes to really fire up a base without all the emotional rhetoric.

A lot of powerful Democrats know it too that is why I am asking for a lots of money.

P.S. Hey Old Texican, is this how you enterperneurs do it when you are trying to get paid.

Tell me what I am doing wrong?

$600,000,00

john| 6.18.09 @ 8:09AM

It is likely that what we will be forced to pay into Obamacare, like we pay into social security, will not go into a lockbox for healthcare. It will instead, go into the general treasury...congress spends it on other things like congressional pay raises, personal retirement plans and Obamas marxist redistibution ideas of welfare for the world, unlimited healthcare for illegal aliens and all the ways the congress wastes our money, then... we will be told there is another healthcare crisis and the only solution to save it will be even higher taxes.

Marcell| 6.18.09 @ 8:36AM

We still have a long way to go, but there is lots of money invested in stopping government run health care.

It's as if the Repubs will have to go to the verbal mattresses ( The God Father) & focus on house Democrats from red states.

*************
Lets take a look at the math of health care in the Senate
by UpstateDem

Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 03:11:45 PM PDT

I have been doing a lot of thinking over the past couple days about how we will get health care with a public option through the Senate. Before October, we are going to need 60 votes to pass it and it appears to be a very uphill battle. It appears that every Republican but Olympia Snowe will not vote for healthcare reform with the public option. That leaves us with a solid 39 NO votes. It looks like Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, and likely Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson will oppose the plan. That puts the NO votes at a certain 43, more than enough to kill the plan without reconciliation.

In October, reconcilation kicks in and Democrats will only need 50 votes plus Biden to pass the plan. This seems like a more reachable goal. Lets for all intents and purposes say that in the end Olympia Snowe, Blanche Lincoln, and Evan Bayh also decide to oppose the bill. That brings the NO votes up to 46. Assuming Democrats can get everyone seated(including Franken), they can lose up to four more Democratic votes and pass the plan with 50 votes with Vice President Joe Biden breaking the tie.

I dont think people realize how difficult this is going to be. We could not get this in the 1940's under Truman and were unable to get it under Clinton in 1993 with a Democratic majority almost as big. I feel that if we cannot get this done this time, we wont even be talking about universal healthcare again for another 15 or 20 years. I dont think we will ever see circumstances this favorable for many years.

Bonnie Blue| 6.18.09 @ 1:57PM

You're dreaming if you think doctors, hospitals and other health care providers will simply be allowed to refuse service to anyone on the basis of cost under ObamaCare. Socialism only works if everyone is forced to play, and the laws of the free market (or what remains of it) will be used to destroy the free market. It will work like this: Private health care providers will be required to provide care to anyone covered by ObamaCare regardless of cost, under penalty of law (fines, imprisonment, etc.). The reasoning will be that health care is a "right" that cannot be denied to "the people" simply because there is no profit in it. When private health care providers start closing their doors because they can't afford to stay open, the government will declare a "failure of the free market" to provide for the public health. They will then require doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to work directly for the state under a new division of the Department of Health and Human Services, essentially making them civil servants. If the private sector files a lawsuit disputing the legality of requiring it to operate at a loss under penalty of law, Justice Sotomayor will help the Supreme Court find "umbras and penumbras" in the Constitution that make publicly funded health care an inalienable "right". The implication will be that if the private sector cannot provide this public good, then the government is required to do so. Voila! Fait accompli.

Worry about you| 6.18.09 @ 3:46PM

The only person who can change your life is you, Obama was not President Last year or the year before. Obama Changed his life, how are you going to change yours?

What are you going to do if you or a member of your family gets Swine fle? that is worth more of a thought.

Catia| 6.18.09 @ 4:54PM

Kitty & Darin, I read through the bill. Page 111-114. Those enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (which means Congress & their dependents & staff, the President, his dependents & staff, the VP, his dependents & staff, federal retirees, cabinet secretaries, federal judges, & about 9 million other federal employees) are exempt. But of course, instead of using the word exempt, they say "do not qualify" as though healthcare rationing is some sort of privilege. And before they get to that part (p. 39), they go on about how the public should all have competitive plans like those under the FEHBP that Congress enjoys. If what they want to force onto us was anything like the FEHBP, they wouldn't need to exempt themselves. They figured I'd read that part & stop reading through to the rest , I guess.

Jonathan Blaze| 6.18.09 @ 5:42PM

I support Obamacare. Hopefully this will bring an end to doctors financially raping their patients to support the lifestyles they feel they so deserve.

Dave Lincoln| 6.18.09 @ 5:58PM

The only good news I can see if this crap gets enacted is at least, if you have a critical health problem or need some medicine for cheap we can go across the border to ..... wait! damn! This sucks!

JerseyJ| 6.18.09 @ 8:05PM

Worry about you ... "What are you going to do if you or a member of your family gets Swine fle? that is worth more of a thought. "

Actually, the current law states that no one can be denied treatment based on their ability to pay or whether or not they carry insurance. So in your example, I'd pop on by the hospital, which utilizes advanced medical procedures and techniques thanks to the current quasi-free market system (despite current over-regulation), and take my treatment thank you very much.

Jonathan ... "I support Obamacare. Hopefully this will bring an end to doctors financially raping their patients to support the lifestyles they feel they so deserve."

and you think that they don't deserve the fruits of their education and hard work expended becoming a doctor? You don't think that a large portion of what they get paid goes to subsidize the paltry payments made to them by medicaid and medicare or to settling allegations of malpractice or paying malpractice insurance premiums because there is no thought of reforming tort laws? You don't believe in allowing someone to better themselves and be rewarded for doing so? You undoubtably have a place in Cuba where you'd fit right in.

Last week I heard about a bill introduced here in Jersey which attacked Verizon for charging $0.20 per text message for people not on an unlimited plan. This particular government stooge thought this amount "unreasonable" so he was introducing legislation to limit what Verizon could charge. So somehow the government should have the right to force Verizon to "sell" text messages at-cost or at least at a price that the government deems reasonable? Now I think text messages are a neat little item, and I think that if the market bears the charge of $0.20 each, they should have every right to charge it. If an individual doesn't like it, they should move to T-mobile or Sprint or whoever gives them a better deal. My point to this little tale is how and when did we allow government to so overreach it's authority in the name of perceived equity? What right does the government have to mandate the price of a text? The answer is, they don't have the right, yet they do it anyway because we allow it ... I mourn for my Republic.

Healthcare is not a right any more than text messaging. Sorry folks, but that's the reality. On the other hand, I've asked my representative to introduce a bill which states high-speed internet access is a right and I should get it for free. Please ask your representative to co-sponsor.

Marcell | 6.18.09 @ 8:29PM

Guys like Rush Limbaugh claim that Democrats can't win a debate with them on the issues, but their whining about news bias & all sorts of other reasons for losing the debate proves them to be totally wrong.

Hey, Rush I thought that you could win with half your brain tied behind your back... "Stop dreaming." Don't be afraid to challenge your leaders to live up to what their claimes.

Here is the RNC Chairman making a fool out of himself.

**************
Steele to GOP: 'Fight' ABC
By: Andy Barr
June 18, 2009 11:50 AM EST

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele urged supporters Thursday to “fight” ABC News over the network’s planned televised town hall on health care that is set to air directly from the White House.

“It seems that the mainstream media has finally decided to dispense with the pointless denials of favorable coverage of the Obama administration. Now one network, ABC News, has actually turned its entire programming over to President Obama and his big-government agenda,” Steele wrote in a fundraising email under the subject line “URGENT!!! Help the RNC fight Obama & ABC News!”

The Politico 44 Story Widget Requires Adobe Flash Player.

“The liberal special interests have clearly learned from their missteps the last time they tried to force Americans into a socialized health care system — the abysmal failure of the Clinton Administration's ‘HillaryCare,’” Steele wrote. “That's why their friends at ABC News will be promoting Obamacare at virtually every opportunity, from ‘Good Morning America’ to ‘Nightline,’ and reach from ABC News' websites all the way to the White House's East Room.”

ABC has been under attack from the RNC since the committee learned of the hour-long town hall, which is scheduled to air June 24.

In a letter leaked to the Drudge Report, RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay wrote ABC to express that he was “deeply concerned and disappointed” with the network.

Senior Vice President Kerry Smith responded that the criticism is based on “false premises.”
“No one watching, listening to, or reading ABC News will lack for an understanding of all sides of these important questions,” Smith wrote in a letter to McKay. “We've already had many critics of the President's health care proposals on the air — and that’s before a real plan has even been put before the country.”
Steele, as part of an effort to solicit funds to run ads opposing the president during the televised event, claimed in his email Thursday that ABC has “flatly rejected” the RNC’s request to “add our views along side those of the Obama Democrats.”

“What are the Democrats and their media allies afraid of? The truth?” Steele wrote. “That is outrageous! And we will not take it!”

Robert Clitherow| 6.20.09 @ 4:39PM

If Barack gets his way, where will Canadians go to get fast reliable health care?

Tony| 6.21.09 @ 4:01AM

Okay I hear the arguments against heathcare reform. Now what about the people that do not have health insurance, or the ones that cannot afford treatment even with insurance. What about the hundreds of thousands of requests for treatment that insurance companies deny. I am not great fan of any politicians, but I am even less a fan of corporate drug companies that overcharge for their products. So all you complainers of change....what is your answer? Or is it that you just like to complain?

Cynthia| 6.24.09 @ 6:32PM

This is so depressing. Since Obama has been elected, my anxiety levels have gone way up, and I honestly feel like I am having panic attacks when I read things like this. I just cannot take much more of his "change."

He is bulldozing his way through this nation... every day it's something new, and I feel so helpless and even hopeless in a way. I am so SAD at how he is remaking America.

I am 40 and DREAD the next 8 years of him and the years after that in which I probably will be someday denied health care because of my age. My parents are in their mid 60's and I am so concerned about their health care and Obama. I seriously despise this man!

What do we do????? It seems like there is no way to stop him and his cohorts! I just want to cry. I seriously just want to cry and wring my hands because I truly feel anguished over what he is doing to our nation... all his liberal policies and his untouchableness and the media's disgusting worship of him. I can hardly take it anymore!!!!

Oh, and by the way... I lost a job a couple of years ago and am working at a in-between job. My pay is very low ($15/hr) and yet I have literally paid $200/mo. for my own private health care!!! It makes me so angry and sick that there are people getting free services ('cause of welfare, etc) while meanwhile I am paying my hard-earned money for a healthcare plan that is not even that great.

But despite that, there is NO WAY I want govt. healthcare. But it makes me so mad that I pay all my bills on time, I have very little debt, and I even have health ins. and I only make $15/hr, and yet I have not gotten any govt. assistance to help me (and I don't want it). In other words, I really resent all these people who use and abuse the govt programs while meanwhile hardworking people like myself get punished through taxes, etc.

I hope people do NOT watch the ABC special tonight. I will not be. I cannot even stand to hear that man speak... or to watch his self-adoration.

Cynthia| 6.24.09 @ 6:37PM

Oh, and by the way, paying for health ins. for me has been a sacrifice. I drive an older car that is paid off, I don't go out alot to things that cost a lot of money (movies, etc), I don't buy alot of things that I don't need, I always use coupons and shop sales, and I also have no debt other than a student loan.

Alot of people are uninsured simply because they aren't willing to make the sacrifice to pay for health ins. They may say they can't afford it, and sometimes that's true, but I bet if they sold their expensive car and bought a cheaper one and paid it off, they could afford health care. Or if they ate out less, stopped using credit cards to where they end up paying tons of money in interest, stop buying things, etc... they could afford it.

It makes me angry that alot of people claim to be finanacially struggling when they spend money on stuff so that they then don't have money for bills, insurance, home, etc. That's called irresponsiblility and greed.

And Obama doesn't care that many of the people he wants to help are struggling because of their irresponsibility and greed.

Cynthia| 6.24.09 @ 6:42PM

Tony,

You know, there is not an "answer" for everything in life. There is ALWAYS going to be crime, pollution, difficulty, poverty, etc. The Democrats, and Obama, act as if they are seriously going to solve all these things. They won't and they can't.

I agree that health care system is messed up when it comes to things likedenying access due to pre-existing conditions, the cost of premiums when you don't have ins. through a employer, etc. But there is NO easy fix or solution. This is a health care system for a nation with billions of people, many of whom are illegal immigrants.

But Obama's plan certainly isn't going to make it better. It will only make it worse because it will end up rationing health care, and so many other things.

Yes, the health care system needs help. So do the schools and cities and economy and global poverty and environment, etc. But there is no easy answers to any of these, and beleive me, even when someone does try to "fix" these things, there will still be problems. Like the schools. They will NEVER be perfect. Well, neither will the health care system. But surely there are better solutions to help it than Obama's.

Cynthia| 6.24.09 @ 6:45PM

You know what, Jonathan, doctors work very hard and make a lot of sacrificies. Many of them are straddled with HUMUNGOUS debt due to all the many, many years of expensive schooling and internships they have to do.

But even despite that, your comments are purely envious. So what if doctors make a lot of money? They also have to deal with alot of cr*p like constant lawsuits and demanding/cranky patients and overcrowded cities and hospitals and crazy hours and on and on and on.

But you know what? They SAVE lives. They help people in ways I cannot help someone. I think they are worth the money. I bet if you suddenly are struck by a heart attack in the middle of the night too and some doctor saves your butt and life, you might think he's worth the money also.

cheap handbags| 7.27.09 @ 5:22AM

We only sell the top grade replica cheap handbags, some of them are genuine leather handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest brands you can find like replica  Louis Vuitton handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags, Replica Prada handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry, Dior,replica  Chanel handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce & Gabbana,Replica Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we guarantee the toppest  Replica Hermes handbags   at low price you'll find anywhere.

george| 7.29.09 @ 4:19AM

Louis Vuitton Agendas , commonly referred to as

Louis Vuitton Antigua bags, or sometimes shortened to

Louis Vuitton Antigua has become one of the most

Louis Vuitton Bequia Leather bags luxury brands.

lv salelove

sale lvnice

louis vuitton outlet

vuitton outlet good

s| 8.20.09 @ 3:38AM

Cheap Jordan,Cheap Jordan shoes,Retro Jordan,Air Yeezy Shoes,Supra shoes,Kanye West ShoesJordan shoes,New Jordans,Air Yeezy,Air Force Ones,Nike Dunks,Retro Jordan, Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Dunk High,True Religion Jeans,New Air Force OnesAir Yeezy Shoe,Supra Shoes,Retro Jordan,Creative Recreation,Nike DunksNike Air YeezyTrue Religion,Air Jordan Shoes,Air Shox,Air Max,Dunk Shoes.Air Jordan,Cheap Jordans,Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Jordans,Air Jordan Shoes

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 3:08AM

This handbag is so unique,Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
and I never see it’s sold in the stores, where did you get this one please?

mindy| 11.17.09 @ 3:44PM

well, Americans, wake up! obamacare is not finalized with a final vote and they already are at step #2 of rationing! if you want to save yourself you all better get ready to march!

obamacare step#1 get rid of seniors by cutting 1/2 Trillion dollars from Medicare!
obamacare step#2 get rid of women by a task force (not your doctor) announced today that women should not have a mammogram until they are 50 and only every other year (the Cancer Society says 40 years old and annually).

This is the beginning if you all do not get off your bottoms and march!