Obama Seeks To Cover His True Intentions Regarding Health Care

I honestly don’t know what is more infuriating. The fact that Obama is lying about how he wants this health care package to play out, or the fact that so many people in Old Media are willing to do or say anything to make him sound legit.

Mike Allen at the Politico has this story about Obama’s response to a video that clearly shows him saying that he will eliminate private health insurance:

The White House response features Linda Douglass, formerly an ABC News correspondent and now a White House official, showing Drudge’s homepage on the screen of her office computer. … The video begins: “Hi. I’m Linda Douglass. I’m the communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform, and one of my jobs is to keep track of all the disinformation that’s out there about health-insurance reform. And there are a lot of very deceiving headlines out there right now, such as this one — take a look at this one. This one says, ‘Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will Eliminate PRIVATE Insurance.’”

Now, Linda never once says that anything in the uncovered video was untrue or made up. She can’t. Because in that video, Barack Obama said everything by himself. You can access that video on-line here:

SEIU Health Care Forum 3/24/07
Breitbart.tv
August 3, 2009

And you will see and hear Barack Obama speak the following words:

“I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.”

Note that Obama used the words: “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate …” Clearly, one of Obama’s goals is to completely get rid of private coverage through employers. Otherwise, there was absolutely no need whatsoever for him to say what he said.

And let’s not forget what Obama said back in 2003:

Obama In ‘03 (Uncut)
Breitbart.tv
August 4, 2009

You will hear and see Obama say:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Obama clearly and unambiguously says: “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.”

Although he claims people will be able to keep priavate coverage, he gives no explanation whatsoever as to how private insurance companies are going to be able to compete against the taxpayer-subsidized “public option.”

Obama is playing a game of smoke and mirrors here. It is the White House putting out misinformation about the health care bill and Obama’s true intentions with the program, not the people investigating it. We need to get as much information as possible out to the public about what is in this disastrous health care takeover bill and make sure that it dies the death it deserves.

You can access the orginal article on-line here:

Barack Obama vs. Drudge Report
Mike Allen
The Politico
August 4, 2009

10 Questions For Supporters Of ObamaCare

I am actually going to write these into a letter and send them to my two Senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner.

From Dennis Prager at Town Hall:

1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason national health care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent and gradually bankrupting our society, why is a government takeover of medical care for the rest of society a good idea? 2. President Obama reiterated this past week that “no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition.” This is an oft-repeated goal of the president’s and the Democrats’ health care plan. But if any individual can buy health insurance at any time, why would anyone buy health insurance while healthy? Why would I not simply wait until I got sick or injured to buy the insurance? 3. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the word “care” for the word “insurance?” 4. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its budget health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of having the state decide what medical care to ration? 5. According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the Manhattan Institute, “While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed in Europe, European price controls made drug development an American enterprise. Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed in the United States.” Given how many lives — in America and throughout the world – American pharmaceutical companies save, and given how expensive it is to develop any new drug, will the price controls on drugs envisaged in the Democrats’ bill improve or impair Americans’ health? 6. Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a “public option”? Or is this really a cover for the ideal of single-payer medical care? How could a private insurance company survive a “public option” given that private companies have to show a profit and government agencies do not have to – and given that a private enterprise must raise its own money to be solvent and a government option has access to others’ money — i.e., taxes? 7. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly as superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government will be severely cut? 8. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical lawsuits and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance, shouldn’t any meaningful “reform” of health care provide some remedy for frivolous malpractice lawsuits? 9. Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar is, and given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have the U.S. spend another trillion dollars? 10. Contrary to the assertion of President Obama — “we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren’t any healthier for it” — we are healthier. We wait far less time for procedures and surgeries. Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy. Do you think a government takeover of American medicine will enable this medical excellence to continue?

Question #2 is a great one.

I would ask one further question: If this socialized medicine package is so great, then why is Congress exempting itself from it? Shouldn’t Congress limit itself to only those choices that Joe and Jane Average American will have?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

10 Questions For Supporters Of ‘ObamaCare’
Dennis Prager
TownHall.com
July 28, 2009

Health Care Lies From The Obama White House

It’s no secret that Barack Obama is getting desperate to pass a nationalized health care bill. With many Blue-Dog Democrats lining up against the measure, time is clearly running out for Obama, Pelosi and Reid. But what time-frame are we talking about?

We are talking about the time-frame in which Congress and the President can pass this disastrous bill before too many more Americans read what is in it and discover what it is really all about.

Writing for Town Hall, David Limbaugh notes several inaccuracies and outright lies in the arguments made for this socialized medicine package:

–Despite White House-generated hysteria about the urgency of reform, the only urgency is in preventing this fiasco because it would destroy America’s economy and liberty. Doing nothing — even given the many problems that exist under the present system — is far preferable to adopting this monster. –Proponents claim the present system leaves 47 million people without insurance and unable to get it. Bull. Almost half of these uninsured could afford coverage but choose not to obtain it; almost half only remain uninsured for four months; and millions are noncitizens. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 17 million would remain uninsured after the plan is implemented. –Obama says his plan is not socialized medicine because he’s just providing a “public option” to make the private insurers more competitive. Well, he’s stacking the deck with mandated coverage — which, by definition, reduces competition — and subsidizing the public option. He would provide incentives to businesses to move employees to the public plan. Also, once you lose your insurance, your coverage choices would no longer be grandfathered, and you’d be forced to buy a plan that includes Big Brother’s mandates — meaning most would gravitate toward the government plan. A single-payer system is virtually inevitable. –The plan is being sold as a necessary element of reviving the economy. No one, including the Congressional Budget Office, believes this bill would improve our economy, and most believe it would exacerbate our problems. The bill, with its taxes on successful small businesses and its Draconian regulations, would destroy job creation, as would increases to the deficit and debt the bill would cause. –Health care costs would not be reduced, but increased — and shifted. Studies show that preventive care measures would not reduce costs. More importantly, the CBO says that even with the planned confiscatory taxes on higher-income earners (which no one can deny constitute real costs to them) and the penalties on employers who don’t provide coverage, the plan would fall $239 billion short of covering its initial cost estimates of $1 trillion. And that’s assuming everything goes well. But cost estimates for government programs are always understated. The actual costs for Medicare Part A were $67 billion, seven times higher than the government’s 1965 projections of $9 billion. Even worse, the Medicaid special hospitals subsidy was $11 billion, more than 100 times the government’s projection of $100 million in 1987, just years earlier. The only efforts at cost containment would come from artificial price controls, which would result in rationing — most likely for the elderly. –The quality of socialized health care would not be improved as promised, but would necessarily deteriorate, as it has in all countries that have tried it and in our own government-run experiments of veterans care, Medicaid and Medicare. It’s inescapably true — as noted by Dr. Thomas Sowell — that price controls would reduce quality care because they would reduce the incentive to provide quality. –Health care choices would not be expanded, but essentially eliminated, by government mandate. The White House isn’t even denying it would force taxpayer-subsidized abortions.

The longer it takes to get this abomination through Congress, the more time people have to study it and learn about the points Limbaugh made in the above excerpt.

Socialized health care has been a disaster in every single country it has ever been tried in. So much so that countries like Great Britain and Switzerland had to bring back privatized care in order to achieve the universal coverage that was so woefully missing from their nationalized systems.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

More Health Care Lies
David Limbaugh
TownHall.com
July 21, 2009