Shut the hell up!!! Well, not exactly, but pretty close.
Unsurprising: Trump Surprises Congress
13 hours ago
Friday, August 7, 2009
A little more on the health care debate
I am troubled by the Democratic Party's response to people who are expressing their concerns about the nature and pace of the proposed health care reform legislation. Instead of listening to people who simply want to express their concerns and get answers to their questions or trying to persuade these people about the merits of health care reform, the Democratic Party has decided to demonize them by claiming that those who do not agree with the proposed reforms are merely right-wing extremists in the employ of the Republican Party.
While I believe in less government, I also believe that most drugs should be legalized and that gay couples should be allowed to engage in civil unions so that they can have the same rights of inheritance and adoption that heterosexual couples (I say civil unions because I view "marriage" as a religious matter). So I am neither a member of the Republic Party nor in its employ. I am guessing that most of those who want to meet with their representatives in Congress to express their concerns about health care are also not in the Republican Party or its employ.
Consequently, the Democrat's response to the concerns of ordinary citizens will only serve to weaken respect for governmental institutions and lead to a greater sense of disenfranchisement. Peggy Noonan has a great column on this subject today in the Wall Street Journal. Some highlights:
Here is a copy of the Democratic Party ad that Peggy Noonan mentions in her column:
BTW, here is a video of an angry, right-wing mob. I think that Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) was lucky to come out unscathed:
John Whitehead, a constitutional lawyer who blogs on the liberal-leaning Huffington Post, also expressed his concerns about President Obama and the Democratic Party's position on those seeking to have their voices heard on health care reform. Here are some of the highlights from Mr. Whitehead's column:
While I believe in less government, I also believe that most drugs should be legalized and that gay couples should be allowed to engage in civil unions so that they can have the same rights of inheritance and adoption that heterosexual couples (I say civil unions because I view "marriage" as a religious matter). So I am neither a member of the Republic Party nor in its employ. I am guessing that most of those who want to meet with their representatives in Congress to express their concerns about health care are also not in the Republican Party or its employ.
Consequently, the Democrat's response to the concerns of ordinary citizens will only serve to weaken respect for governmental institutions and lead to a greater sense of disenfranchisement. Peggy Noonan has a great column on this subject today in the Wall Street Journal. Some highlights:
The leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town hall meetings
weren’t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can’t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss—loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don’t.People are not automatons. They show up only if they care.
What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United
States House of Representatives, accused the people at the meetings of “carrying swastikas and symbols like that.” (Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered
sign with a “no” slash over a swastika.) But they are not Nazis, they’re Americans. Some of them looked like they’d actually spent some time fighting Nazis.Then came the Democratic Party charge that the people at the meetings were suspiciously well-dressed, in jackets and ties from Brooks Brothers. They must be Republican rent-a-mobs. Sen. Barbara Boxer said on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that people are “storming these town hall meetings,” that they were “well dressed”, that “this is all organized,” “all planned,” to “hurt our president.” Here she was projecting. For normal people, it’s not all about Barack Obama.
The Democratic National Committee chimed in with an incendiary Web video whose script reads, “The right wing extremist Republican base is back.” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse issued a statement that said the Republicans “are inciting angry mobs of . . . right wing extremists” who are “not reflective of where the American people are.”
But most damagingly to political civility, and even our political tradition, was the new White House email address to which citizens are asked to report instances of “disinformation” in the health-care debate: If you receive an email or see something on the Web about health-care reform that seems “fishy,” you can send it to flag@whitehouse.gov. The White House said it was merely trying to fight "intentionally misleading” information.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas on Wednesday wrote to the president saying he feared that citizens’ engagement could be “chilled” by the effort. He’s right, it could. He also accused the White House of compiling an “enemies list.” If so, they’re being awfully public about it, but as Byron York at the Washington Examiner pointed, the emails
collected could become a “dissident database.”All of this is unnecessarily and unhelpfully divisive and provocative. They are mocking and menacing concerned citizens. This only makes a hot situation hotter. Is this what the president wants? It couldn’t be. But then in an odd way he sometimes seems not to have fully absorbed the awesome stature of his office. You really, if you’re president, can’t call an individual American stupid, if for no other reason than
that you’re too big. You cannot allow your allies to call people protesting a health-care plan “extremists” and “right wing,” or bought, or Nazi-like, either. They’re citizens. They’re concerned. They deserve respect.The Democrats should not be attacking, they should be attempting to persuade, to argue for their case. After all, they have the big mic. Which is what the presidency is,
the big mic.And frankly they ought to think about backing off. The president should call in his troops and his Congress and announce a rethinking. There are too many different bills, they’re all a thousand pages long, no one has time to read them, no one knows what’s going to be in the final one, the public is agitated, the nation’s in crisis, the timing is wrong, we’ll turn to it again—but not now. We’ll take a little longer, ponder every aspect, and make clear every complication.
You know what would happen if he did this? His numbers would go up. Even Congress’s would. Because they’d look responsive, deliberative and even wise. Discretion is the better part of valor.
Absent that, and let’s assume that won’t happen, the health-care protesters have to
make sure they don’t get too hot, or get out of hand. They haven’t so far, they’ve been burly and full of debate, with plenty of booing. This is democracy’s great barbaric yawp. But every day the meetings seem just a little angrier, and people who are afraid—who have been made afraid, and left to be afraid—can get swept up. As this column is written, there comes word that John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO has announced he’ll be sending in union members to the meetings to counter health care’s critics.Somehow that doesn’t sound like a peace initiative.
It’s going to be a long August, isn’t it? Let’s hope the uncharted territory we’re in doesn’t turn dark.
Here is a copy of the Democratic Party ad that Peggy Noonan mentions in her column:
BTW, here is a video of an angry, right-wing mob. I think that Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) was lucky to come out unscathed:
John Whitehead, a constitutional lawyer who blogs on the liberal-leaning Huffington Post, also expressed his concerns about President Obama and the Democratic Party's position on those seeking to have their voices heard on health care reform. Here are some of the highlights from Mr. Whitehead's column:
Responding to the increasingly vocal protests of Americans who are concerned about the Obama administration's plans to overhaul health care, the DNC has released "Enough of the Mob," a web ad that attacks the constitutionally protected right to protest. "The Right-wing extremist Republican base is back," proclaims the ad. "Desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs... This mob activity is straight from the playbook of high level Republican political operatives. They have no plan for moving our country forward, so they've called out the mob. Call the Republican Party. Tell them you've had enough of the mob."
President Obama has taken this chilling message one step further, actually encouraging Americans to report on those who are spreading "disinformation about health insurance reform." As the White House blog states, "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov." This is the official message coming out of the White House.
…
Months ago, I warned that the government would be targeting for surveillance those who disagree with the administration politically. Now we see it unfolding before our very eyes. The Obama administration is trying, none too subtly, to put down a resistance movement.
Thomas Jefferson, that revolutionary patriot who advocated rebellion every 20 years or so in order to remind the government that a spirit of resistance flourished among the people, must be turning over in his grave.
After all, the people who fomented the American Revolution did so using the same tactics as those protesting Obama's health care plan and the nation's mounting debt. They spoke out at rallies, distributed critical pamphlets, wrote scathing editorials and took to the streets in protest. They were rebelling against a government they saw as being excessive in its taxation and spending. For their efforts, they, too, were demonized and painted as an angry mob, extremists akin to terrorists, by the
ruler of the day, King George III.It's a sad statement on the political bias of many within the civil liberties arena that few outside conservative circles have spoken out against these overt attempts to quell constitutionally protected speech. Had it been George Bush attempting something similar, the outcry among liberals would have been tremendous.
So where is the outrage?
No matter what your political persuasion may be, every American has a First Amendment right to speak their mind, gather together and protest against government programs with which they disagree. And there's a lot to be concerned about. For example, the secretive nature of Obama's administration and his seeming
disregard for civil liberties has some on both sides of the aisle asking what happened to the change they were promised. Congressional corruption is rampant: 17 lawmakers are currently under investigation for allegedly breaking ethical standards. Government spending is out of control: the House of Representatives actually approved nearly $200 million to buy themselves three deluxe jets. This list goes on and on.It should be noted that much of the so-called mob's ire is being directed at lawmakers who are back home during Congress' summer recess. As one newspaper reported, "Concerns over the pace and breadth of health care reform have birthed a fiery wave of activism during the congressional recess as fearful citizens make their voices heard with resounding vigor."
Finally, Americans are taking the time to voice their concerns at town hall meetings and elsewhere, and that's as it should be.
This is democracy in action, and it's about time.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
A video clip that pretty much somes up how I feel on health care reform
Neil Cavuto gave a rant today that pretty much sums up how I feel on health care reform and the Democratic Party's response to criticism of their proposed plan, namely their endless demogaging of anyone who dare object to the plan or offer other policy alternatives. I could go on, but as I have said previously, I am lazy. So without further ado, here is Mr. Cavuto's rant:
Reminder- The White House wants patriotic citizens to snitch on health care reform dissidents
I just finished my lunch break at work and wanted to remind everyone that the White House has asked that you snitch on people, like me, who disagree with President Obama and the Democratic party on health care reform. I wrote about this issue yesterday as an update to my post entitled "President Obama doesn't want government-run health care ... immediately" but fear the update may have gotten lost in the shuffle. So I am republishing the update below with various revisions and additions:
The White House has released a video concerning the clips of President Obama expressing his desire for a single payer system and stating that this system will require a transition period of 10 - 15 years [that I published in "President Obama doesn't want government-run health care ... immediately]. The White House video is embedded below in its entirety. In it, the White House makes two claims: 1) bloggers, such as myself, are dweebs with too much time on their hands who are "cherry picking" the President's words and taking "sentences and phrases out-of-context;" and 2) the President has repeatedly made clear that if you like your health insurance coverage you'll be able to keep it.
Yes, I will admit that I may have too much time on my hands. Luckily for the Obama administration, this will change on approximately January 12 when Mrs. Bru gives birth to our first child. But on the out-of-context claim, I think it is important to note what the White House does not do. It does not show the clips that dweebs like me are cherry-picking and then offer the full clips to demonstrate how President Obama's cherry-picked statements were manipulated. Perhaps, the White House does not do this because President Obama's statements were not taken out-of-context. Here is one of the President's complete statements on his desire for a single payer system:
h/t http://www.breibart.tv/.
Second, after having read the first 40-some pages of H.R. 3200, the White House is lying at worst and being disingenuous at best about his claim that, yeah, you'll be able to keep your current coverage. Initially, yes, you could probably keep your current health insurance coverage because: (1) the requirements set forth in the current legislation do not become effective until 2013 (See H.R. 3200, § 100(c)(25)); and (2) employer-sponsored health insurance plans, which are how most of us obtain our medical coverage, have a 5-year "grace period" before they have to meet the definition of a "qualified health benefits plan" and provide an "essential benefits package." (See H.R. 3200, §§ 102(b)(1)(A), 122).
The problem, of course, is after this transition period your employer's group health insurance plan will probably be canceled because it does not meet the requirements of a "qualified health benefits plan"or provide an "essential benefits package." And at that point? Well, this is just an educated guess (because I am not so much of a dweeb that I have had time to read all 1017 pages of H.R. 3200), but you'll likely have to transition to the public option because your employer will find that it is too expensive to offer a health plan that meets the requirements of H.R. 3200 and there will not be any private insurers who offer individual coverage. Oddly, this would occur in about 9 years, which coincidentally mirrors the 10 to 15-year transition period candidate Obama advocated.
In addition to calling people such as myself liars, the White House has asked that you snitch, er, report on our actions against health care reform:
(Emphasis added). I remember a time, years ago, when dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now, not so much.
Answering the White House's call, the good folks at http://www.reason.tv/, a libertarian website co-founded by Drew Carey, have performed their patriotic duty and ratted out one of their own:
Finally, Jack Tapper of ABC reports that White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs believes that my anger may be manufactured and that I may be one of those who just wants to maintain the "status quo." Trust me, my anger is real, and as I explained in another post, I believe that there do exist sensible reforms that can reduce health care costs, but the current proposals will significantly increase federal control of the health care system without lowering costs.
Nevertheless, the assertion that the anger on health care reform is "manufactured" has apparently become the new mantra of the Democratic Party. Here is Calif. Senator Barbara Box with a nice non-sequiter on how she knows the protesters are fake because they are all well-dressed:
To which, I can only respond, "huh?" (h/t Ed Morrissey of hotair.com). Not only does Senator Box not make any sense, I think she wrong about who is actually "manufacturing" anger on health care.
In actuality, it appears that a community organizer from the south side of Chicago, named Barack Obama, is the principle agitator on health care. You may also know this man as President Obama. In addition, to being the the leader of the Free World, Mr. Obama heads an advocacy group called Organizing for America. Here is the link to Organizing for America's "Health Care Action Center" website. On it, you can do some pretty neat things, such as: sending form emails to your friends and colleagues about your support for real health care reform; sending a form letter to the editor of your local newspaper about your support for real health care reform; and tweeting your senators about your support for real health care reform.
The Organizing for America website even includes a video of Mr. Obama in which he rails against naysayers like me who simply want to maintain the status quo on health care:
The White House has released a video concerning the clips of President Obama expressing his desire for a single payer system and stating that this system will require a transition period of 10 - 15 years [that I published in "President Obama doesn't want government-run health care ... immediately]. The White House video is embedded below in its entirety. In it, the White House makes two claims: 1) bloggers, such as myself, are dweebs with too much time on their hands who are "cherry picking" the President's words and taking "sentences and phrases out-of-context;" and 2) the President has repeatedly made clear that if you like your health insurance coverage you'll be able to keep it.
Yes, I will admit that I may have too much time on my hands. Luckily for the Obama administration, this will change on approximately January 12 when Mrs. Bru gives birth to our first child. But on the out-of-context claim, I think it is important to note what the White House does not do. It does not show the clips that dweebs like me are cherry-picking and then offer the full clips to demonstrate how President Obama's cherry-picked statements were manipulated. Perhaps, the White House does not do this because President Obama's statements were not taken out-of-context. Here is one of the President's complete statements on his desire for a single payer system:
h/t http://www.breibart.tv/.
Second, after having read the first 40-some pages of H.R. 3200, the White House is lying at worst and being disingenuous at best about his claim that, yeah, you'll be able to keep your current coverage. Initially, yes, you could probably keep your current health insurance coverage because: (1) the requirements set forth in the current legislation do not become effective until 2013 (See H.R. 3200, § 100(c)(25)); and (2) employer-sponsored health insurance plans, which are how most of us obtain our medical coverage, have a 5-year "grace period" before they have to meet the definition of a "qualified health benefits plan" and provide an "essential benefits package." (See H.R. 3200, §§ 102(b)(1)(A), 122).
The problem, of course, is after this transition period your employer's group health insurance plan will probably be canceled because it does not meet the requirements of a "qualified health benefits plan"or provide an "essential benefits package." And at that point? Well, this is just an educated guess (because I am not so much of a dweeb that I have had time to read all 1017 pages of H.R. 3200), but you'll likely have to transition to the public option because your employer will find that it is too expensive to offer a health plan that meets the requirements of H.R. 3200 and there will not be any private insurers who offer individual coverage. Oddly, this would occur in about 9 years, which coincidentally mirrors the 10 to 15-year transition period candidate Obama advocated.
In addition to calling people such as myself liars, the White House has asked that you snitch, er, report on our actions against health care reform:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
(Emphasis added). I remember a time, years ago, when dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now, not so much.
Answering the White House's call, the good folks at http://www.reason.tv/, a libertarian website co-founded by Drew Carey, have performed their patriotic duty and ratted out one of their own:
Finally, Jack Tapper of ABC reports that White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs believes that my anger may be manufactured and that I may be one of those who just wants to maintain the "status quo." Trust me, my anger is real, and as I explained in another post, I believe that there do exist sensible reforms that can reduce health care costs, but the current proposals will significantly increase federal control of the health care system without lowering costs.
Nevertheless, the assertion that the anger on health care reform is "manufactured" has apparently become the new mantra of the Democratic Party. Here is Calif. Senator Barbara Box with a nice non-sequiter on how she knows the protesters are fake because they are all well-dressed:
To which, I can only respond, "huh?" (h/t Ed Morrissey of hotair.com). Not only does Senator Box not make any sense, I think she wrong about who is actually "manufacturing" anger on health care.
In actuality, it appears that a community organizer from the south side of Chicago, named Barack Obama, is the principle agitator on health care. You may also know this man as President Obama. In addition, to being the the leader of the Free World, Mr. Obama heads an advocacy group called Organizing for America. Here is the link to Organizing for America's "Health Care Action Center" website. On it, you can do some pretty neat things, such as: sending form emails to your friends and colleagues about your support for real health care reform; sending a form letter to the editor of your local newspaper about your support for real health care reform; and tweeting your senators about your support for real health care reform.
The Organizing for America website even includes a video of Mr. Obama in which he rails against naysayers like me who simply want to maintain the status quo on health care:
And now for something really important...
Sadly, Paula Abdul has announced that she will not be returning for the 9th season of American Idol. According to eonline, Paula made the announcement last night on Twitter:
I will miss Paula deeply this upcoming season, in part, because I knew that there was always a chance that she could have a "moment" on live television. Here is one of my favorite "moments" from Idol's 7th season:
Of course, as a teenager, I was a fan of Paula because of her musical talents:
"With sadness in my heart, I've decided not to return to #IDOL. I'll miss nurturing all the new talent, but most of all...being a part of a show that I helped from day1become an international phenomenon," read two tweets posted shortly after 7:30 p.m.
I will miss Paula deeply this upcoming season, in part, because I knew that there was always a chance that she could have a "moment" on live television. Here is one of my favorite "moments" from Idol's 7th season:
Of course, as a teenager, I was a fan of Paula because of her musical talents:
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The current health care "reform" legislation
When it returns in August, the House of Representatives will be considering this health care "reform" turd, er, legislation, which is 1017 pages long. Supposedly, it is designed to lower our health insurance costs. I am admittedly no expert, but my general rule of thumb is that any turds, er, legislation over 1000 pages in length normally increase costs, not lower them.
Indeed, while I have only made it through the first 40-some pages of this turd, er, legislation, I have uncovered several provisions that will increase the costs of health insurance coverage. The provisions I have seen so far require community rating (i.e., the insurer must determine its risks based upon the community in which you live rather than your actual health condition or the health condition of your employer's group), mandate that every health insurance policy provide certain types of coverage, place limits on deductibles, out-of-pocket expenses, and co-pays, prohibit cost-sharing for preventative care, and prohibit annual or lifetime caps on coverage. Except for the community rating requirement, all of these provisions will necessarily increase the costs of health insurance coverage, and if you are young and healthy, the community rating provision will increase your costs as well.
If the goal is to actually reduce the costs of health care, Keith Hennessey, the former Director of the National Economic Council under President George W. Bush, has some proposed reforms that would actually work. In part, Mr. Hennessey would make the following changes:
1. Repeal the current law tax exclusion for employer provided health insurance, and replace it with a $7,500 (single) / $15K (family) flat deduction for buying health insurance.
2. Index the thresholds to inflation (CPI).
3. Allow the purchase of health insurance sold anywhere in the U.S., which would force States to compete for the right regulatory balance of consumer protection and premium cost.
4. Make health insurance portable.
5. Expand Health Savings Accounts.
6. Continue to mandate an initial deductible and catastrophic protection.
7. Aggressively reform medical liability aka “medical tort reform.”
8. Aggressively slow Medicare and Medicaid spending growth, and use the savings
for long-term deficit reduction.
Indeed, while I have only made it through the first 40-some pages of this turd, er, legislation, I have uncovered several provisions that will increase the costs of health insurance coverage. The provisions I have seen so far require community rating (i.e., the insurer must determine its risks based upon the community in which you live rather than your actual health condition or the health condition of your employer's group), mandate that every health insurance policy provide certain types of coverage, place limits on deductibles, out-of-pocket expenses, and co-pays, prohibit cost-sharing for preventative care, and prohibit annual or lifetime caps on coverage. Except for the community rating requirement, all of these provisions will necessarily increase the costs of health insurance coverage, and if you are young and healthy, the community rating provision will increase your costs as well.
If the goal is to actually reduce the costs of health care, Keith Hennessey, the former Director of the National Economic Council under President George W. Bush, has some proposed reforms that would actually work. In part, Mr. Hennessey would make the following changes:
1. Repeal the current law tax exclusion for employer provided health insurance, and replace it with a $7,500 (single) / $15K (family) flat deduction for buying health insurance.
2. Index the thresholds to inflation (CPI).
3. Allow the purchase of health insurance sold anywhere in the U.S., which would force States to compete for the right regulatory balance of consumer protection and premium cost.
4. Make health insurance portable.
5. Expand Health Savings Accounts.
6. Continue to mandate an initial deductible and catastrophic protection.
7. Aggressively reform medical liability aka “medical tort reform.”
8. Aggressively slow Medicare and Medicaid spending growth, and use the savings
for long-term deficit reduction.
Everything is amazing; nobody is happy
This is a clip of Louis CK's great rant on the Conan O'Brien about today's society, and how people don't appreciate how good things actually are. The clip is old and has been posted everywhere, but I am posting it here because the points that Louis CK makes are so valid. And it makes me laugh every time I watch it:
Monday, August 3, 2009
President Obama doesn't want government-run health care ... immediately.
But, eventually, say in the next 10 years or so? Yes, that would work:
Remember, the government can't even run Cash for Clunkers. How well do you think it's going to run your colonoscopy?
Update: The White House has now released a video concerning the above clips of President Obama expressing his desire for a single payer system and stating that this system will require a transition period of 10 - 15 years. The video is embedded below in its entirety. In it, the White House makes two claims: 1) bloggers, such as myself, are dweebs with too much time on their hands who are "cherry picking" the President's words and taking "sentences and phrases out-of-context;" and 2) the President has repeatedly made clear that if you like your health insurance coverage you'll be able to keep it.
Yes, I will admit that I may have too much time on my hands. Luckily for the Obama administration, this will change on approximately January 12 when Mrs. Bru gives birth to our first child. But on the out-of-context claim, I think it is important to note what the White House does not do. It does not show the clips that dweebs like me are cherry-picking and then offer the full clips to demonstrate how President Obama's cherry-picked statements were manipulated. Perhaps, the White House does not do this because President Obama's statements were not taken out-of-context. Here is one of the President's complete statements on his desire for a single payer system:
h/t http://www.breibart.tv/.
Second, after having read the first 40-some pages of H.R. 3200, the White House is lying at worst and being disingenuous at best about his claim that, yeah, you'll be able to keep your current coverage. Initially, yes, you could probably keep your current health insurance coverage because: (1) the requirements set forth in the current legislation do not become effective until 2013 (See H.R. 3200, § 100(c)(25)); and (2) employer-sponsored health insurance plans, which are how most of us obtain our medical coverage, have a 5-year "grace period" before they have to meet the definition of a "qualified health benefits plan" and provide an "essential benefits package." (See H.R. 3200, §§ 102(b)(1)(A), 122).
The problem, of course, is after this transition period your employer's group health insurance plan will probably be canceled because it does not meet the requirements of a "qualified health benefits plan"or provide an "essential benefits package." And at that point? Well, this is just an educated guess (because I am not so much of a dweeb that I have had time to read all 1017 pages of H.R. 3200), but you'll likely have to transition to the public option because your employer will find that it is too expensive to offer a health plan that meets the requirements of H.R. 3200 and there will not be any private insurers who offer individual coverage. Oddly, this would occur in about 9 years, which coincidentally mirrors the 10 to 15-year transition period candidate Obama advocated.
Oh, and by the way, the White House asks that you please snitch on me if you think I am lying about health care reform:
(Emphasis added). I remember a time, years ago, when dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now, not so much.
Update II: Jack Tapper of ABC reports that White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs believes my anger may be manufactured and I may be one of those who just wants to maintain the "status quo." Trust me, my anger is real, and as I explained in another post, I believe that there do exist sensible reforms that can reduce health care costs, but the current proposals will significantly increase federal control of the health care system with out lowering costs.
Remember, the government can't even run Cash for Clunkers. How well do you think it's going to run your colonoscopy?
Update: The White House has now released a video concerning the above clips of President Obama expressing his desire for a single payer system and stating that this system will require a transition period of 10 - 15 years. The video is embedded below in its entirety. In it, the White House makes two claims: 1) bloggers, such as myself, are dweebs with too much time on their hands who are "cherry picking" the President's words and taking "sentences and phrases out-of-context;" and 2) the President has repeatedly made clear that if you like your health insurance coverage you'll be able to keep it.
Yes, I will admit that I may have too much time on my hands. Luckily for the Obama administration, this will change on approximately January 12 when Mrs. Bru gives birth to our first child. But on the out-of-context claim, I think it is important to note what the White House does not do. It does not show the clips that dweebs like me are cherry-picking and then offer the full clips to demonstrate how President Obama's cherry-picked statements were manipulated. Perhaps, the White House does not do this because President Obama's statements were not taken out-of-context. Here is one of the President's complete statements on his desire for a single payer system:
h/t http://www.breibart.tv/.
Second, after having read the first 40-some pages of H.R. 3200, the White House is lying at worst and being disingenuous at best about his claim that, yeah, you'll be able to keep your current coverage. Initially, yes, you could probably keep your current health insurance coverage because: (1) the requirements set forth in the current legislation do not become effective until 2013 (See H.R. 3200, § 100(c)(25)); and (2) employer-sponsored health insurance plans, which are how most of us obtain our medical coverage, have a 5-year "grace period" before they have to meet the definition of a "qualified health benefits plan" and provide an "essential benefits package." (See H.R. 3200, §§ 102(b)(1)(A), 122).
The problem, of course, is after this transition period your employer's group health insurance plan will probably be canceled because it does not meet the requirements of a "qualified health benefits plan"or provide an "essential benefits package." And at that point? Well, this is just an educated guess (because I am not so much of a dweeb that I have had time to read all 1017 pages of H.R. 3200), but you'll likely have to transition to the public option because your employer will find that it is too expensive to offer a health plan that meets the requirements of H.R. 3200 and there will not be any private insurers who offer individual coverage. Oddly, this would occur in about 9 years, which coincidentally mirrors the 10 to 15-year transition period candidate Obama advocated.
Oh, and by the way, the White House asks that you please snitch on me if you think I am lying about health care reform:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
(Emphasis added). I remember a time, years ago, when dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now, not so much.
Update II: Jack Tapper of ABC reports that White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs believes my anger may be manufactured and I may be one of those who just wants to maintain the "status quo." Trust me, my anger is real, and as I explained in another post, I believe that there do exist sensible reforms that can reduce health care costs, but the current proposals will significantly increase federal control of the health care system with out lowering costs.
Good, timely health care is expensive.
Here is a good 20/20 piece from John Stossel on the Canadian health care system. It's a system that we really do not want to copy in this country:
Saturday, August 1, 2009
A picture is worth a thousand words
Odd, that "racist cop" Sgt. Crowley helped Professor Gates navigate the stairs while Gates's "good friend" President Obama walked ahead blissfully unaware of his friend's struggles. Odd, indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
