OBAMA'S 'ACADEMICALLY APPROVED' APPROACH TO HEALTH CARE

It should not be forgotten that Obama has talked about his desire to re-write our Constitution, because it "is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you; says what the federal government can't do to you; but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf". Exactly!! They knew exactly what they were doing, and it is not your place, Mr. Obama, to change it. This is the underbelly of the man we now have in our White House. It should not be a surprise. This information was out there, but America was sold on his "hopie, changie" thing.

Obamacare is not going away, no matter how unpopular, no matter how many Americans do not want it, and no matter how many elections he loses. But, he tells us he is not an ideologue, so we are sheeple who are to believe in his word, and let him reconstruct our Constitution, 'cause remember, it's 'deeply flawed".

I think not!

This tongue-in-cheek is excellent, while quite eerie, by Andy Wickersham in Pajamas Media:


Obama’s ‘Academically Approved’ Approach to Health Care
The president's Super Bowl Sunday interview provided more evidence of his disdain for the Constitution.
by Andy Wickersham, February 10, 2010

From the president’s interview with Katie Couric prior to the Super Bowl:

Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care. And didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it. And just go ahead and have that passed. But that’s not how it works in our democracy.

As you can clearly see, this man’s genius is being terribly underutilized here. All of these brilliant solutions to all of these great problems, but the delivery system is unfortunately quite antiquated. And as a result we have a terrifically wise and benevolent leader who is at the moment a bit hamstrung by a process that could certainly use some streamlining.

Sure, he’s done a pretty masterful job given the restraints that the American system of government have placed on him, but this health care thing has really highlighted the regrettable fact that the Founders really only left him with so much room to maneuver. If only someone as gifted and righteous as The One were able to work freely on behalf of the common good, all would be well. After all, how could America go wrong pinning its destiny to a man that uses the word “elegant” and the phrase “academically approved” in the same sentence? You certainly weren’t going to get that from George Bush.

So you can see where a man of Obama’s brilliance would be a bit frustrated at having to get involved in such a messy legislative process. But you do have to admire his willingness to do so. As he said in his State of the Union address, he “never suggested that change would be easy” or that he could “do it alone.” He knew full well that with the checks and balances the Framers had put in place and with America’s traditional reliance on the rule of law, it was going to take some time to remake this country. Kingdoms simply aren’t created in a day, you know.

In all seriousness, though, this is really quite a statement. First off, Obama puts his freakish arrogance on display, yet again, for those on the left and right to marvel at — albeit for very different reasons. Because, you know, if left to his own devices, our president could come up with a splendid approach to health care, it would receive that all-important academic approval, and it really wouldn’t be all that difficult.

Of course, the ridiculousness of this statement, as is the case with many of the gems that come from this president, goes beyond simply its epic grandiosity. Notice he uses the word “approach” instead of “plan.” Isn’t this precisely what he tried to do in the first place: approach Congress without an actual plan? And I don’t think you can get an “approach” passed. But then, I’m not The One. Although I do know that America is a republic, not a democracy.

But alas, the president is not left to his own devices and the good doctor is instead restrained from being able to liberally apply that miraculous Obama salve to the wound inflicted on America by those awful insurance companies. And this brings us to what I believe is the most disconcerting aspect of this statement. Yet again, Obama is making it abundantly clear that he does not hold our form of government in the highest regard.

While on the surface it may seem that this is simply a candid statement by a person who is confident that he has the best “approach” to fix America’s health care system and that he would obviously like to see his ideas enacted, there is on closer examination a whole lot more going on here than that.

There are Americans everywhere that feel they have better ideas than this president does with respect to improving America. But I doubt too many of them would “love nothing better” than for the Constitution to be discarded in order for these ideas to be implemented. I know I certainly wouldn’t. While I personally would love to see an America freed from a crushing regulatory structure, an America utilizing its natural resources to their fullest potential, an America with a much different tax code, etc., I certainly don’t want the Constitution circumvented in order to accomplish these things.

But then this statement makes perfect sense if you consider it within the context of what we know about Barack Obama. He has said the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” He has bemoaned the fact that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is that it is “generally a charter of negative liberties” that doesn’t “say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” He has talked to Joe the Plumber about the merit in spreading the wealth. And the list goes on.

Oh, if only The One could be freed from those constitutional chains that bind.


Andy Wickersham has a master's in public policy from Claremont Graduate University. He is the former producer of a prominent Southern California land development publication.

OBAMACARE'S REDISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH

This bill is so wrong on so many fronts, and everything they have told us is not in this bill -- is in the bill. It's clearly redistribution of wealth. By now, it's apparent the radicals in this administration are not concerned with their political future. Fundamentally transforming America is first and foremost.

There may be a few holdouts, but not enough to make a difference. It's frightening to see what happens when too many have too much power. In this instance, I blame Bush, whose big spending and out-of-control congress set this country up for such a radical swing to the left.

Hopefully this transformation has shaken our country. Hopefully this transformation attempt has shown us how fragile our democracy is, how precious it is, and how much it needs to be protected from big government. We can't stop now -- Yankee forebears!

An excellent piece in PajamasMedia writes:


ObamaCare’s Redistribution of Health
Of course the president and Congress are after money, but they really want control over your life.
by Tom Blumer, November 7, 2009

The House’s latest iteration of ObamaCare now weighs in at 1,990 pages. That’s hundreds of pages longer than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s summer rendition. At the rate these people are churning out thousand-plus pagers (stimulus, cap and trade, health care, etc.), they’re going to have to build a separate wing of the Library of Congress just to hold this year’s production.

After sifting through the bill’s deliberately obfuscatory, favor-laden language, it is clear that the Democratic leadership wants to pretend that last August’s town hall meetings, congressional budget watchers’ most recent cost estimates of up to $1.2 trillion (not “only” $894 billion), and Tuesday’s key gubernatorial race results never happened. The elections of Chris Christie in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell in Virginia were as much a rejection of establishment politics as usual and the specific policies and proposals of President Barack Obama and Congress as they were affirmations of the positive qualities of the victors. The establishment newspapers that obsessed over defeating Christie and McDonnell also extended the cycle of rejection they continue to experience in the form of reduced circulation. The Internet is certainly not the primary reason why the Washington Post’s and Newark Star-Ledger’s circulations are down 6% and 23%, respectively, in the past year.

As to the House bill, everything the populace has been loudly rejecting remains firmly in place.

Abortion? It’s still there; Planned Parenthood has in essence admitted it. Provisions Sarah Palin courageously and accurately characterized as de facto “death panels”? You betcha. Rules that force the termination of any private plan if it tries to change even minor provisions, effectively spelling what Investor’s Business Daily has called “the end of the private medical insurance market” a few months ago? Yes, according to Betsy McCaughey on Sean Hannity’s radio show last week.

Beyond that, as I have previously shown, ObamaCare is still a moral clunker. As has happened in statist health care systems elsewhere, it will inevitably lead to rationed care. That rationing will inevitably favor the currently healthy with longer lives ahead of them over the aged and seriously infirm. Finally, ObamaCare’s operations will be managed and/or heavily influenced by people who, as I said in August, “have frighteningly ghoulish outlooks on life and humanity.” To name just one example of many, there’s Zeke the Bleak Emanuel, who believes that “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” That’s not “obvious” to me or to the vast majority of others, pal.

Of course, the latest House bill has the requisite tax increases on “the rich,” which really means “high income-earners” (politicians and the press really don’t seem to understand the difference). Employing what I consider to be the correct language of taxation, the bill, in combination with other increases that will occur next year unless proactively stopped, will increase the amount of federal income taxes paid by the highest income-earners by as much as 30%-50%. In a worst case scenario, it will reduce the effective take-home pay of some by as much as 30%-35%.

Taking a cue from the Massachusetts state-run disaster known as RomneyCare, the bill imposes penalties on individuals and families who don’t purchase mandated health insurance. As the Associated Press reports, these penalties “are described as taxes in the legislation.” That these penalties make mincemeat of Obama’s core 2008 campaign promise not to increase taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year seems not to matter. Thus, there is plenty of what Barack Obama in his more honest moments likes to call “redistributive change.”

But ObamaCare is not simply or even primarily about the redistribution of wealth. It’s about the redistribution of health.

That is why the “public option” remains in the House bill. That polls supposedly tell us that this “public option” remains popular is a testament only to the utter failure of ObamaCare’s opponents to describe and explain its true nature.

The “public option” is not about “competition.” It is about elimination. That “the uninsured” receive “coverage” is only incidental.

The newly conceived entity will more than likely not have to pay federal, state, or local income taxes, and may not have to pay a myriad of other taxes private companies must pay unless they wish to go out of business. This entity will often be in a position to use existing government-owned facilities instead of having to pay for its own. Some of its employees, overhead, and outside services may be charged to other sectors of the government. It may, because of sovereign immunity, be exempt from crippling lawsuits and related legal costs. This stack of playing field de-levelers constitutes what the bill’s sponsors call “competition.” It’s really a sick (pun intended) joke.

Thanks to these self-evident advantages and the restrictions the bill imposes on private plans, the “public option” will inevitably corral tens of millions of American individuals and families into its one-size-fits-all plan design, which will be the standard against which all surviving plans are judged. If a private plan is too generous, ObamaCare will either tax and penalize it until its sponsors bring it down to the same level, or kill it. If a private plan is too restrictive, regulations and penalties will force it up to the “public option” level or terminate it. Terminations will be rampant. If you dare try to step outside the box yourself and privately arrange for superior medical care for yourself or your family, even with your own resources or funds from charity, you can expect the full force of the “public option” and its friends at the IRS to come after you, your medical providers, and perhaps even those who provided financial kindness.

This is “redistributive health care justice.” Nobody will be able to get health care that is better than anyone else’s. Some of us may somehow still have a bit more money and wealth, but, with the exception of the elite, who always figure out a way around the peons’ restrictions, we’ll all be subject to one health care system.

That’s the openly stated goal. When rationing and other more serious side effects inevitably intrude, we will see that ObamaCare’s “fairness” will be in how it makes us all equally miserable.


Tom Blumer owns a training and development company based in Mason, Ohio, outside of Cincinnati. He presents personal finance-related workshops and speeches at companies, and runs BizzyBlog.com.