Obamacare

[wiretie]

The Obamacare horror story you won't hear Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 6/19/2009 7:20:00 AM

The White House, Democrats and MoveOn liberals are spreading healthcare sob stories to sell a government takeover. But there's one healthcare policy nightmare you won't hear the Obamas hyping. It's a tale of poor minority patient-dumping in Chicago -- with first lady Michelle Obama's fingerprints all over it.

Both Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois have raised red flags about the outsourcing program run by the University of Chicago Medical Center. The hospital has nonprofit status and receives lucrative tax breaks in exchange for providing charity care.​

Yet, in fiscal year 2007, when Mrs. Obama was employed there, it spent a measly $10 million on charity care for the poor -- 1.3 percent of its total hospital expenses, according to an analysis performed for The Washington Post by the nonpartisan Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. The figure is below the 2.1 percent average for nonprofit hospitals in surrounding Cook County.

Rep. Rush called for a House investigation last week in response to months of patient-dumping complaints, noting: "Congress has a duty to expend its power to mitigate and prevent this despicable practice from continuing in centers that receive federal funds."

Don't expect the president to support a probe. While a top executive at the hospital, Mrs. Obama helped engineer the plan to offload low-income patients with non-urgent health needs. Under the Orwellian banner of an "Urban Health Initiative," Mrs. Obama sold the scheme to outsource low-income care to other facilities as a way to "dramatically improve healthcare for thousands of South Side residents."

In truth, it was old-fashioned cost-cutting and favor-trading repackaged as minority aid. Clearing out the poor freed up room for insured (i.e., more lucrative) patients. If a Republican had proposed the very same program and recruited black civic leaders to front it, Michelle Obama and her grievance-mongering friends would be screaming "RAAAAAAAAACISM!" at the top of their lungs.

Joe Stephens of The Washington Post wrote, "To ensure community support, Michelle Obama and others in late 2006 recommended that the hospital hire the firm of David Axelrod, who a few months later became the chief strategist for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Axelrod's firm (ASK Public Strategies) recommended an aggressive promotional effort modeled on a political campaign -- appoint a campaign manager, conduct focus groups, target messages to specific constituencies, then recruit religious leaders and other third-party 'validators.' They, in turn, would write and submit opinion pieces to Chicago publications."

Some healthcare experts saw through Mrs. Obama and PR man Axelrod -- yes, the same Axelrod who is now President Obama's senior adviser. But the University of Chicago Medical Center hired ASK Public Strategies to promote Mrs. Obama's initiative. Axelrod had the blessing of Chicago political guru Valerie Jarrett -- now a White House senior adviser.

Axelrod's great contribution: re-branding! His firm recommended renaming the initiative after "internal and external respondents expressed the opinion that the word 'urban' is code for 'black' or 'black and poor.' ...Based on the research, consideration should be given to re-branding the initiative." Axelrod and the Obama campaign refused to disclose how much his firm received for its genius re-branding services.

In February 2009, outrage in the Obamas' community exploded upon learning that a young boy covered by Medicaid had been turned away from the University of Chicago Medical Center. Dontae Adams' mother, Angela, had sought emergency treatment for him after a pit bull tore off his upper lip. Mrs. Obama's hospital gave the boy a tetanus shot, antibiotics and Tylenol, and shoved him out the door. The mother and son took an hour-long bus ride to another hospital for surgery.

I'll guarantee you this: You'll never see the Adams family featured at an Obama policy summit or seated next to the first lady at a joint session of Congress to illustrate the failures of the healthcare system.

Following the Adams incident, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) blasted Mrs. Obama and Axelrod's grand plan. The group released a statement expressing "grave concerns that the University of Chicago's policy toward emergency patients is dangerously close to 'patient dumping,' a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)" -- signed by President Reagan, by the way -- "and reflected an effort to 'cherry pick' wealthy patients over poor."

Rewarding political cronies at the expense of the poor while posing as guardians of the downtrodden? Welcome to Obamacare.

 

[SteveT]

Where's the mainstream media? Infuriating.
Thanks.

 

[XJEEPER]

Where's the mainstream media? Infuriating.
Thanks.

Kissing some O-butt......

 

[XJEEPER]

So you have to ask yourself, "Why the rush to pass something so important? How has rushing to pass bills in the last 6 months worked out for us....the US taxpayer?"

When someone is pressuring me to buy something and do it now.....there is always a hidden reason, and the more resistant I am to buying. History has proven that the devil is in the undisclosed details......alway look to see what's in the "other hand."

Let's look as some details that Obama is glossing over.........

• Under the proposed plan, only 17% of the spending comes in in the first five years. 83% comes in in the second five years.

And Obama is pressing this bill to be passed by August 2009 for what reason? Not for the benefit of the People, obviously.

• Once everything kicks in, the plan actually costs $230 billion a year, AND the cost rises every year. Not hearing this from Obama.
• The cost of $230 billion a year does not include administrative costs. It doesn't account for the cost of implementing the program. It doesn't count the effects on other spending, these are all a mystery.
• Name 1 government program or agency that operates more efficiently than the same program operated by the private sector?

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf said the plans already released by the House and Senate would keep costs rising at an unsustainable pace.
In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Mr. Elmendorf also addressed a recent CBO report that showed federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid would increase from the current 5 percent of gross domestic product to nearly 10 percent in 2035 and to more than 17 percent by 2080.

Without changes in policy, Mr. Elmendorf told the committee, that projection means that in 2080 the federal government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.

"Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid is the central long-term challenge for federal fiscal policy," the report concluded.
By 2013, however, the House health reform bill would require the federal government to pay 100 percent of the cost to provide Medicaid coverage to all non-elderly people with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level who were not currently eligible. This would raise federal outlays for Medicaid by $438 billion, CBO estimated. Federal spending on Medicaid has already increased from $12 billion in fiscal 1979 to an estimated $262 billion in fiscal 2009.

Subsidies to provide insurance for the uninsured would cost the federal government $33 billion in 2013 and $160 billion in 2019, CBO estimated earlier this week.

Mr. Elmendorf told the Budget Committee that cost-cutting reforms in Medicare and Medicaid were not nearly enough to offset rising federal costs mandated by the new bills, especially over the long term.


"Now, their other option that they talked about in the past is to pay for some of it with money that they take from you, if they can just get cap and trade. Mark my words. They are going to go for cap and trade. While we are all debating healthcare, they're going to go for cap and trade. Isn't that what happened last time? They introduce healthcare and then they pass cap and trade. Now here comes the healthcare bill. You see, they have to have cap and trade to be able to pass this. Remember, all of this is based on the idea that the evil insurance companies are just so profit‑hungry. The government can beat them in efficiency because they don't have to care about profits or paying CEOs millions of dollars. They won't have all of that greed." GB




This is not about healthcare. It never has been about healthcare.


This is about, what does Obama call it...... remaking America.

This is government taking control of 1/6th of the economy.

 

[XJEEPER]

More details-from a blog site I Googled.

This is probably one of The One’s most incredible acts since Obama has been President and speaks volumes to his presidency and agenda to pass laws through as fast as possible before people notice and his poll numbers completely tank. There is a reason why America disapproves of Obamacare and it’s not a partisan fight, check out how Independents oppose Obamacare, 55% to 40%.

Barack Obama has used the sky is falling tact with healthcare in the US. It must be passed yesterday. If it is not, worlds will collide, it will rain fiery hail and locust will swoop down upon the earth. Why the rush Barack Obama? We have already witnessed the colossal calamity of the rush in passing the stimulus bill when no one was afforded the opportunity to read it. Now President Obama wants to ram through a multi-trillion dollar health care plan, Obamacare, without discussing it? I think we now know why … Obama is not familiar with any of it.
Is there any wonder why even Democrats are at odds against Obamacare, let alone “We the People”. Ask your self a simple question … why does there need to be a time table of Summer recess for healthcare? Wouldn’t Americans want them to get it right rather than just pass anything to fit a time table? Doesn’t America want their politicians, including President Obama, to know what is in the bill and discuss it, rather than just vote on something blindly?

If Democrats in the lower chamber do not pass a healthcare reform bill before the recess, it would be seen as a major step backward from the legislative timetable President Obama initially outlined. As recently as last week, leading Democrats were predicting they would pass bills through the House and Senate before adjourning for the summer.
​

In a conference call with liberal bloggers,: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill HR 3200. Are you joking? This has become like a nightmare that won’t end. How can a President put on an all out media blitz, spin and lie to the American people that Obamacare is good, and force politicians to pass legislation when he is not even familiar with the provisions of the bill???!!!

Listen to the Dana Pretzer commentary regarding not being familiar with it and also commentary from one who experiences Canada’s healthcare system every day.

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.”
​

Is it any wonder why the American people have lost confidence in Barack Obama dealing with healthcare and the economy? If he is not familiar with it, then he most certainly is misreading it.
Who would you trust with your healthcare, The Mayo Clinic or Barack Obama?

The Mayo Clinic on the House health bill: “Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill … the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite. … The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.”
​

As stated at Flopping Aces, Ground Shifting Fast in Health Care Battle … call your Congressman now and voice your disapproval.

 

[XJEEPER]

Below are the top five questions Sen. DeMint would like the president to address:

1. If the major provisions of the health care bills will not kick in until 2013, four years from now, why the rush to pass a thousand-page bill before the August recess, a bill you admit that you haven't fully read yourself?

2. You have said your health care bill will cut costs and not increase the deficit. But, independent analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office contradicts both claims, saying it will raise costs and increase the deficit by $240 billion in the first ten years. What independent analysis will you provide that supports your claims and refutes CBO's?

3. You have repeatedly said that your health care bill allows any American who likes their current employer-based plan to keep it. But the most comprehensive independent analysis available, by the Lewin Group, contradicts your claim and found your bill will force over 80 million Americans to lose their current coverage. Will you provide independent analysis to refute this study?

4. Your own record in the Senate reveals you spent years voting against nearly every reform to make health care more affordable and accessible, but this week you said that opponents of your plan are "content to perpetuate the status quo, [and] are, in fact, fighting reform on behalf of powerful special interests." Which specific elected officials will you cite that have proposed to keep the status quo, and is that how you characterize the opposition of the 52 Blue Dog Democrats in the House and the moderate Democrats in the Senate?

5. Yes or no question: Will you guarantee pro-life Americans that, under your plan, they will not be forced to subsidize elective abortions?

I have another:

6. Why will the President and Congress continue to receive (until death) privately supplied healthcare under their current plan, that the US taxpayers will contined to be billed for? (We pay for 75% of their benefits)

 

[msrorysddad]

Thanks guys

 

[XJEEPER]

Here's the org chart for the proposed HB 3200.


http://audacitywatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.jpg

 

[90Blue_XJ]

 

[AL BUNDY]

More Obamacare fun:
Page 425 of Health Care Bill - Listen to this interview Fred Thompson's Radio Show interviewing Betsy McCaughey (pronounced Mc Coy). Or look it up on www.fredthompsonshow.com, under interviews.



On page 425 it says in black and white that EVERYONE on Social Security, (will include all Senior Citizens and SSI people) will go to MANDATORY counseling every 5 years to learn and to choose from ways to end your suffering (and your life). Health care will be denied based on age. 500 Billion will be cut from Seniors healthcare. The only way for that to happen is to drastically cut health care, the oldest and the sickest will be cut first. Paying for your own care will not be an option.



Now, CALL YOUR PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell them to read page 425 if they don't read anything else. Surely some of themhave parents.



CF




"ON PAGE 425 OF OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE BILL, the Federal Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier. Yes...They are going to push SUICIDE to cut Medicare spending!"
Fred Thompson: Interviews


(BE SURE TO CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINE!)

This does not suprise me. Obama's medical czar said 'people need to stop expecting to have surgeries that will allow them to live so long'. It will not apply to congress, they have their own retirement and medical- separate from social security and Medicare. That's their big plan to save money. Have everyone only live half as long. Obama even admitted in a question from a reporter that he would not follow the guidelines of his healthcare plan for his own family. He would want his family to have the best care available. I guess his healthcare plan is only for the rest of us.

 

[AL BUNDY]

Even more:
Investor’s Business Daily Exclusive Series
Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when
reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there
on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance
illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page
document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw
individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance
issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such
coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the
first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course,
exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't
be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for
themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned
that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized
health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither.
Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their
current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will
gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington 's coverage.

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or
more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in
such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or
fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice
President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the
market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies
be written after the public option becomes law.

The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts,
a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that
alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their
medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of
the welfare state will be removed.

The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate
for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this
advance of soft tyranny.

Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to
outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It
shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or
legislating major changes in Americans' lives.

It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the
political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many
more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002 pages.

[FONT=Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]See Page 16 and entire bill at the following site
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf[/FONT]​

 

[AL BUNDY]

Subject: AMA & Health Care Reform

Apparently the American Medical Association has weighed in on the proposed health care reform………
The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception, and the Ophthalmologists considered the idea short sighted.
Pathologists yelled “Over my dead body!” while the Pediatricians said, “Oh, grow up!”
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.
The Internists thought that it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, “This puts a whole new face on the matter”.
The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn’t have the heart to say “No”.
In the end, it was the Proctologists who won out, leaving the entire decision up to the Assholes in Washington !

 

[1985xjlaredo]

Well I'm sure that when it passes, the company I work for Georgia Pacific, will demand emergency contract negotiations with our teamsters local. And then I will have no health insurance. I am very proud that I did not vote for Obama!

 

[tbburg]

Medical cost savings British style:

And it'll save3 million dollars!

We have SO much to look forward too!

 

[tharlanjr]

Apparently the American Medical Association has weighed in on the proposed health care reform………
The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception, and the Ophthalmologists considered the idea short sighted.
Pathologists yelled “Over my dead body!” while the Pediatricians said, “Oh, grow up!”
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.
The Internists thought that it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, “This puts a whole new face on the matter”.
The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn’t have the heart to say “No”.
In the end, it was the Proctologists who won out, leaving the entire decision up to the ***holes in Washington !

 

[AL BUNDY]

uhhhhh........that looks kinda familiar.

 

[tharlanjr]

lol, I even scanned real quick to see if it was there, and it ends up just a few posts above...

my bad

 

[AL BUNDY]

http://www.darkskiesblog.com/2009/08/04/mountain-climbers-test-govt-run-health-care-video/

 

[tharlanjr]

funny video, makes a good point.

 

[AL BUNDY]

The Perfect Solution to Senior Health Care

You may have heard the rumors that if you’re a senior you need to suck it up and give up the idea that you need any health care. A new hip? Unheard of. We simply can't afford to take care of you anymore. You don't need any medications for your high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. Let’s take care of the young people. After all, they will be ruling the world very soon.

So here is the solution. When you turn 70, you get a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives. Of course you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head and all the health care you need! New teeth, great! Need glasses, no problem. New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Well bring it on. And who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. And since you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income tax.

I really think we have found a Perfect Solution!