cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index cj.myfreeforum.org
NEWS, prophecy, dreams, ZionsCRY, Bible, teaching, visions
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> HEALTH and Medical NEWS
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.

Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Site Admin

Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32229

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:08 am    Post subject: ObamaCare DETAILS  Reply with quote

ObamaCare was PLANNED to FAIL!!

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan at ObamaCare Summit
When Wilson yelled -[i] YOU LIE! - to Obama, he was telling the TRUTH.[/i]

ObamaCare is CONTROL, EUGENICS, not health
February, 2010
Key points made by Mr. Ryan are
· CBO has told us they cannot yet estimate the Presidents plan because it lacks detail. But because it closely aligns with the Senate bill lets unpack the Senate bills CBO score.

· The Majority claims credit for reducing the deficit by $131 billion over 10 years. Thats less than this months deficit.
· This is the result of six years of spending, paid for by ten years of tax increases and Medicare cuts. The true ten year cost when subsidies kick-in? $2.3 trillion.
· The bill is full of gimmicks that more than erase the false claim of deficit reduction:

o $52 billion of savings is claimed by counting increased Social Security payroll revenues. These dollars are already claimed for future Social Security beneficiaries, and claiming to offset the cost of this bill either means were double-counting or were not going to pay Social Security benefits.

o $72 billion in savings is claimed from the CLASS Act long-term care insurance. These so-called savings are not offsets, but rather premiums collected to pay for future benefits. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad has called these savings, A ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

· Additionally, the nearly half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts cannot be counted twice. Medicare is in dire need of reform in order to make certain that we can ensure health security for future seniors.

· Using Medicare as a piggy bank, it raids a half trillion dollars from retirees health coverage to fund the creation of another open-ended health care entitlement.

· The Presidents chief Medicare actuary says up to 20% of Medicare providers may go bankrupt or stop taking Medicare beneficiaries as a result. Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage they now enjoy.

· Objections to the policy aside, you cannot use these savings twice to both extend the life of Medicare and to pay for other spending. The half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts are either to extend the programs solvency or to reduce the cost of this deficit but not both as its authors claim.

· When you strip away the double-counting of Medicare cuts, the so-called savings from Social Security payroll taxes and the CLASS Act, the deficit increases by $460 billion over first ten years and $1.4 trillion over second ten years.

· Finally, one of the most expensive and most cynical of the gimmicks applies to Medicare physician payments, the so-called Doc Fix.

· By the Administrations own estimate, the Doc Fix adds an additional $371 billion to the cost of health care reform. With the price tag beyond what most Americans could handle, the Majority decided to simply remove this costly provision and deal with it in a stand-alone bill.

Ignoring this additional cost does not remove it from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending doesnt reduce spending

Paul Ryan website

Series on youtube

A GOLD TAX is hiddin in ObamaCare - plus more

Andrew Napolitano on Challenging the Health Care Bill
You’re in for an unpleasant surprise:

OBAMACARE  *  A System from HELL

ObamaCare, Banks, Economy

              Posted   <*)))><   by  

ZionsCRY  NEWS with Prophetic Commentary

Last edited by CJ on Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:52 am; edited 22 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32229

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:26 am    Post subject: ZionsCRY Summary of Feb ObamaCare Summit Reply with quote

1/3 of Doctors May Quit
A Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes, New England Journal of Medicine Says.
Many physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases.

Govt-Run HealthCare BACK from the DEAD

Obama proved himself an arrogant fool Feb 25, 2010
at the 7 hour heathcare summit with republicans.

4 heroes emerged
Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan
Senators Eric Cantor and Lamar Alexander and Tom Coburn.


Despite constant interruptions from 0bama, the Repubs were intellegent, rational, fact-based, with excellent points and questions.
0bama actually attacked his own bill when he wouldnt allow one Senator to read an excerpt from it!!!


Lamar Alexander brought up this summit was a waste of time if 0bama, Reid and Pelosi were just going
to ram thru healthcare anyway. This made 0bama furious!  And showed his unwillingness to be bipartisan

0bama usurped MUCH time, he is a dicktator, not a statesman.  The Republicans have a good plan, they won,
Obama lost, Obama filibustered, Obama closed with a threat.  

This damned Obama will ram thru healthcare, against the
Republicans in Congress and against the wishes of the American people.
Whenever Obama is on TV lying again, the Dow stock market falls.


We Cant Afford This

Lawmakers Remain Divided at healthcare summit

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Last edited by CJ on Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:13 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32229

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:34 am    Post subject: Obama Health Care Reply with quote

Obama HELLth Care

The bill from hell - the Congress from hell
This whitehouse from hell!!


This bill is under 0bama's signature - and there is NOTHING Republicans can do about it.

The U.S. Senate newest Republican Scott Brown turned traitor and voted YES on Dems jobs bill.
Obama is charting a dangerous unAmerican course that imperils our future.

Massachusetts RINO Brown Joins Senate Demoncrats, SNUBS Repubs

Obama Policies Not American
No surprise, Obama is African, born in Kenya

Abortion language in bill

Page 11 on health care plan does NOT explicitly ban the use of federal funds for abortions.
Obama had promised no federal dollars would be used to kill babies.  

The bill's funding restriction allows insurance plans that cover abortions to receive federal subsidies.


One baby in 30 left alive after abortion

Republicans to Crash the Party
House Minority Leader John Boehner told Republicans "We need to show up and crash the party" at Obama's televised
health summit.  Demoncrat leaders admit that they may not be able to pass the health care overhaul.
I pray NOT.  0care will hurt everyone and help no one.
It will destroy the healthcare Amerika has now.
"We shouldn't let the White House have a 6 hour taxpayer-funded infomercial on ObamaCare."

Obama is addicted to lying

Last edited by CJ on Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32229

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:08 pm    Post subject: ObamaCare, Letter from a doctor Reply with quote

ObamaCare Letter from a doctor
April 1 UPDATE - A radio talk show host said this is a HOAX.
Maybe - maybe not.  DONT TRUST SNOPES - EVER!

February 28, 2010
This letter appeared in the Indianapolis Star (owned by the same people who own the Arizona Republic) and was sent to Indiana Senator Bayh.
An Indianapolis doctor's letter to Sen. Bayh about the ObamaCare Bill
Here is a letter I sent to Senator Bayh
Feel free to copy it and send it around to all other representatives. -- Stephen Fraser
Dr. Stephen E. Frazer, MD practices as an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis, IN

Senator Bayh,
As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!
Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued! (Papers please!)

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. (Time for more cash and carry)
Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)
Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.
Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.
Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees ANDtheir families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)

Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.
Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.) (Like always)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records. (I guess so they can 'deduct' their fees)

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!) ( a 'fee' instead)
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)
Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).
Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)
Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)

Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)
Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)

Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)
Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)
Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)
Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death.
(Also called 'assisted suicide.') (Sounds like Soylent Green to me.)

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)
Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans..

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)
Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)
Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.
Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.
Respectfully, Stephen E. Fraser, MD

* Probably a duplicate but I left it here

Last edited by CJ on Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:05 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32229

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:57 am    Post subject: States Pre-empting Ocare Reply with quote

States Pre-empting Ocare
36 states kill mandatory Obamacare

March 09, 2010  -  36 legislatures fight for citizens rights to opt out of health-coverage demand
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and outspoken critic of the individual mandate, told CNS News that if Congress can force Americans to buy health care, or mandate the purchase of anything, "we've lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us."

At least 36 state legislatures are considering legislation that would allow citizens to opt out of a key component of President Obama's health-care "reform" – an "individual mandate" requiring that all Americans have health insurance.

Both the House and Senate health-care bills require Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.
The House bill establishes a fine based on percentage of a person's income, while the Senate version creates a penalty as a
flat fee or percentage of income, whichever is higher.
Those refusing to get insurance could be found guilty of a misdemeanor crime, punishable by another fine or even jail time.

Join nearly 100 members of Congress and 13,000 Americans in rejecting federal government health-care mandates on patients,
employers, individuals and states – sign on to the Declaration of Health Care Independence.

"The president's proposal adopts the Senate approach but lowers the flat dollar assessments,
and raises the percent of income assessment that individuals pay if they choose not to become insured," a White House plan released in February states.

Hero States rejecting 'individual mandate'

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, formal resolutions or bills have been filed in opposition to the individual mandate in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Also, as of March 4, Virginia became the first state to enact a new statute section titled, "Health insurance coverage not required." In Arizona, voters will cast ballots on a constitutional amendment in November 2010 that would "preserve the freedom of all residents of the state to provide for their own health care."

Lawmakers suggest approval of the legislation may spark a legal battle over states' rights versus the federal government's reach of power. The Boston Globe reported the measures could set the stage for "one of the greatest tests of federal power over the states since the civil rights era."

"The administration is trying to shift from a government by social compact, agreement between elected officials and citizens, to a government where the leaders tell the subjects what to do," Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, chief sponsor of the measure in his state, told the Globe. "That is not what the American Revolution was about."

The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, has sparked nationwide interest with its model "Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act: How Your State Can Block Single-Payer and Protect patients' Rights." ALEC warns that forcing patients to enroll in one-size-fits-all plans would cause massive increases in spending and force policymakers to ration care as a cost-containment measure.

Is mandatory insurance constitutional?

Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer told the New York Times in September 2009 that lawmakers in his state have proposed a state constitutional amendment to protect citizens from government interference in their private health decisions.

"All I'm trying to do is protect the individual's right to make health-care decisions," Emmer said. "I just don't want the government getting between my decisions with my doctors."

He said an amendment wouldn't prohibit anyone from participating in a federal health program. It would simply prevent them from being forced to enroll.

"[T]ell me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the federal government has the right to provide health care," Emmer said. "This is the essence of the debate."

During the Democratic presidential primary, Obama took a jab at Hillary Clinton over the individual mandate.

"The main difference between my plan and Sen. Clinton's plan," he said, "is that she'd require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she'd 'go after' your wages if you don't."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, the federal government has never mandated that Americans purchase any good or service. In 1994, the CBO studied the individual mandate in Clinton's universal health-care plan and found that it was an unprecedented requirement.

"A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action," the CBO report stated. "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government."

Opponents say the individual mandate is unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government power to fine citizens for refusing to purchase goods and services. Ken Klukowski, senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, explained in a Politico commentary why there is no constitutional basis for the individual mandate.

"People who decline coverage are not receiving federal money, so that mandate can't fall under the spending part of the Tax and Spending Clause," he wrote.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes excise and capitation taxes, and the 16th Amendment created the income tax. However, Klukowski contends that government health insurance cannot be considered an excise, capitation or income tax.

"It can't be an excise tax because that's a surcharge on a purchase, and here people are not buying anything," he explained. "It can't be a capitation (or 'direct') tax because that is a tax on every person in a state and must be equal for every person in the state; this would be a levy that some people would pay and others would not. And it can't be an income tax because that must be based on personal income, not purchase decisions."

He added, "All that's left is the Commerce Clause. And the people who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would not be engaging in commercial activity, so there's no interstate commerce. That, in fact, is the government's problem with them: Those people refuse to take the money or play the game."

Likewise, the Congressional Research Service recently reported that determining whether an individual mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause "is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service."

Klukowski wrote that if Obama wants a plan that forces Americans to purchase insurance, he will need to "persuade the nation to adopt a constitutional amendment creating a right to health care."
He added, "You might have better odds of getting struck by lightning."

Last edited by CJ on Tue May 19, 2015 7:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Honestly - I don't think this "universal health care" will happen until the AC makes his emergence. Ditto the peace process in the ME - I can't imagine any current living being(whether it's Javier Solana, Tony Blair, Obama, or whoever) that can pull this off.

Of course, we need to keep praying against this wicked, but JMHO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32229

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:50 am    Post subject: Can Pelosi Get the Votes Reply with quote

Can Pelosi Get the Votes?

March 11, 2010

Are there enough votes in the House to pass the Senate's health-care bill?
As of today, it's clear there aren't.
House Democratic leaders have brushed aside White House calls to bring the bill forward by March 18, when President Barack Obama heads to Asia.
Nevertheless, analysts close to the Democratic leadership tell me they're confident the leadership will find some way to squeeze out the 216 votes needed for a majority.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indeed shown mastery at amassing majorities. But it's hard to see how she'll do so on this one. The arithmetic as I see it doesn't add up.

The House passed its version of the health bill in November by 220-215. Of those 220, one was a Republican who now is a no. One Democrat who voted yes has died, two Democrats who voted yes have resigned, and one Democrat who voted no has resigned as well. So if everyone but the Republican votes the way they did four months ago, the score would be 216-215.

But not everyone is ready to vote that way. The House bill included an amendment prohibiting funding of abortions sponsored by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak. The Senate bill did not. Mr. Stupak says he and 10 to 12 other members won't vote for the Senate bill for that reason. Others have said the same, including Minnesota's James Oberstar, chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Dan Lipinski, a product of the Chicago Democratic machine.

Mrs. Pelosi may have some votes in reserve—members who would have voted yes if she needed them in November and would do so again. But we can be pretty sure she doesn't have more than 10, or she wouldn't have allowed the Stupak amendment to come forward at the last minute the first time. She also might get one or two votes from members who voted no and later announced they were retiring.

But that's not enough—and there are other complications. Voting for the Senate bill means voting for the Cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana purchase—the price Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid paid for the votes of Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. It's not hard to imagine the ads Republicans could run attacking House members for sending money to Nebraska and Louisiana but not their home states.

To be sure, Democratic leaders say they want to repair the Senate bill by subsequent legislation that could be passed with 51 votes in the Senate under the reconciliation process. But they have yet to produce such a bill. It can't include the Stupak amendment, which experts say doesn't qualify for the reconciliation process. And there's no way they can credibly promise the Senate will pass it. Senate rules allow many forms of obstruction. The reconciliation process is littered with traps.

There is also the House's historic lack of trust in the Senate, which is on display by Democrats who voted yes in November. "No, I don't trust the U.S. Senate," Wisconsin's Steve Kagen told WLUK-TV in Green Bay, this week. New York's Dan Maffei was quoted in the Syracuse Post-Standard on Monday that "I will trust the president, but I will not trust the Senate."

"I am not inclined to support the Senate version," Nevada's Shelley Berkley told the New York Times last week. "I would like something more than a promise. The Senate cannot promise its way out of a paper bag." Her district voted 64% for Barack Obama.

Other Democrats who voted yes seem to be wavering. "I don't think reconciliation is a good idea," Indiana's Baron Hill was quoted recently in Bloomberg News. New York's Michael Arcuri says he's a no for now. "There would have to be some dramatic changes in it for me to change my position," he recently told the Utica Observer-Dispatch.

"I think we can do better," California's Dennis Cardoza told the New York Times last week. "If the Senate bill is not fixed, that"—voting no—"is not a flip-flop," Nevada's Dina Titus told the Las Vegas Review-Journal last week. "I see that as standing by your convictions." Most of these members represent districts which went Republican some time in the past decade—and could easily do so again if national polls are an indicator.

There's a more fundamental problem for the Democratic leadership: Their majority is not as strong as their 253-178 margin suggests.

A Democratic House majority tends to have fewer members with safe seats than a Republican majority. Consider that in 2005 Speaker Dennis Hastert had 214 Republican members elected in districts Mr. Bush carried, just four seats short of a majority. Today Speaker Nancy Pelosi has 208 Democratic members elected in districts Mr. Obama carried, eight seats short of a majority.

The Democratic bedrock is actually slightly smaller than the Republican bedrock was four years ago, even though the Democrats have 31 more members. That's partly because of Republican gerrymandering earlier in the decade, but it's more because Democratic voters tend to be bunched in relatively few districts. Mr. Obama carried 28 districts with 80% or more; John McCain didn't reach that percentage in any district.

A lot of Democrats—most Black Caucus members and many "gentry liberals" (to use urban scholar Joel Kotkin's term) like Mrs. Pelosi—are elected in overwhelmingly Democratic districts. This means there aren't that many faithful Democratic voters to spread around to other seats.

As a result, more than 40 House Democrats represent districts which John McCain carried. Most voted no in November and would presumably be hurt by switching to yes now. Moreover, Mr. Obama's job approval now hovers around 48%, five points lower than his winning percentage in 2008. His approval on health care is even lower.

Another 32 House Democrats represent districts where Mr. Obama won between 50% and 54% of the vote, and where his approval is likely to be running under 50% now. That leaves just 176 House Democrats from districts where Mr. Obama's approval rating is not, to borrow a real-estate term, under water. That's 40 votes less than the 216 needed.

"If there is a path to 216 votes, I am confident the Speaker will find it," writes Bush White House legislative strategy analyst Keith Hennessey on his blog. "She has a remarkable ability to bend her colleagues to her will." True, but perhaps that ability has led Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill to embark on what will be remembered as a mission impossible.

Mrs. Pelosi, whom I have known for almost 30 years, may turn out to be even shrewder than I think. But she may be facing a moment as flummoxing as the one when Democratic Speaker Thomas Foley lost the vote on the rule to consider the crime and gun control bill in August 1994, or when Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert saw the Mark Foley scandal explode on the last day of the session in September 2006. Both were moments when highly competent and dedicated House speakers saw their majorities shattered beyond repair.

That moment, if it comes, will occur some time between now and the Easter recess. The Democrats' struggle to get 216 votes is high stakes poker.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32229

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:56 am    Post subject: Senate Health Care Bill Dead on Arrival Reply with quote

Senate Health Care Bill Dead on Arrival
say Pro-Life House Democrats

We'll see ....

March 11, 2010

The health care reform bill passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve appears to be dead on arrival in the House, as seven anti-abortion Democrats intend to join the ranks of lawmakers who plan to vote against the legislation

7 new 'NO' votes would be enough to kill the Senate bill, and several more fence-sitting lawmakers are under pressure from both sides of the aisle.

Foremost among the seven new no votes is Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., whose anti-abortion amendment to the House version of the legislation got the bill passed in that chamber last year.

But because the Senate and House Democratic leaders weren't able to agree on joint legislation before losing their supermajority in the Senate this year, they have few options other than getting the House to pass the Senate bill and then making changes to the law through a separate budget reconciliation bill that could pass with simple majorities.

The Senate bill, however, doesn't contain the same language as the Stupak amendment, which explicitly prohibits federal funding of abortion in any of the reform measures intended to expand health care coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.

The House bill passed by a slim majority last year. In addition to Stupak, Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois has gone on the record as changing his vote to no if asked to pass the Senate bill, which some argue doesn't do enough to forbid tax-funded abortions. "Protecting the sanctity of life is a matter of principle," Lipinski said.

Other Democratic representatives who voted yes on the House bill but are on record as opposing the Senate bill are James Oberstar of Minnesota, Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania, Steve Driehaus of Ohio and Marion Berry of Arkansas.

Rep. Joe Donnelly of Indiana is the latest to join them, and Stupak said there may be more.

"Unless the language changes, there's at least 12 Democrats who have said they could not vote for health care unless we keep the current law, which says no public funding for abortion," Stupak told Fox News.

Others who are potential new no votes are Reps. Brad Ellsworth Indiana, Jerry Costello of Illinois, Charlie Wilson and Tim Ryan of Ohio, Sanford Bishop of Georgia and Richard Neal of Massachusetts.

The House bill contains a ban on tax-funded abortion, which has been the law of the land for more than 30 years.

The Senate bill is a big change, say critics. It would require women to have a separate private insurance policy if they want abortion coverage, but contains no explicit ban on tax-funded abortion as the House bill does.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Democrats' lead pro-choice negotiator, is noncommittal about any changes that would be made to the Senate bill.

"They'd like to change it, that may be changed, but it may have to be changed at some future time. That's been my view but nothing has been resolved," he said.

The health care legislation passed the House last year on a 220-215 vote. But since then, four "yes" votes from Democrats have departed: Reps. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii and Robert Wexler of Florida resigned. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania died last month and Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama switched parties and said he will not support the bill.

Former Democratic Rep. Eric Massa of New York, who voted against the legislation last year, resigned this week.

That means passage of the Senate bill now requires a 216-vote threshold.

"I would not vote for it," Donnelly told the Rochester Sentinel on Tuesday. "From my reading of it, it does permit federal funding for abortion related services, in the Senate bill as it stands today, and so that is a fatal flaw in my opinion."

An unnamed Democrat told Fox News that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is "smart enough to realize" that without the Stupak Amendment in November, "the bill fails."

"The debate is just like it was before," the Democrat said.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32229

PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:43 am    Post subject: Shortcut to socialism Reply with quote

Shortcut to socialism

March 13, 2010
Henry Lamb

The official title is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (bill text here), popularly known as "Obamacare," passed by the Senate in the wee-hours of Christmas Eve. This 2,400-page monstrosity does what no enemy of America has ever been able to do: transform the land of the free into the home of the enslaved.

For the first time in the history of the nation, the federal government will force its citizens to purchase a product.

If Americans – through their elected officials – accept this principle, there is nothing to prevent the federal government from forcing its citizens to purchase any other product the government decides its citizens should have.

Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the federal government to require its citizens to purchase anything. The writers of this bill, however, conclude that even though insurance sales may be limited by each state, health insurance is still sold across state lines, and therefore is subject to federal regulations under the commerce clause, and that regulatory authority includes the authority to force citizens to purchase health insurance, whether they want it or not.

Individuals who fail to purchase the required insurance will be fined 1/12 of the annual cost of the required insurance with penalties "not to exceed 300 percent"(Chapter 48, Section 5000A, page 321 ff).

As bad as this legislation is, it is just the first step toward a much worse condition: government control of health care.

That's the plan.

Like a master snake-oil salesman, Obama loudly condemns the horrible insurance companies that increase rates and make profits, as the reason the government must act to provide relief to consumers.

He ignores the fact that increased rates are required to pay the increased costs of providing health-care service. He ignores the fact that much of the increased cost of service is the unintended consequence of government's involvement in health care.

There are two primary reasons why health care is unaffordable for some citizens: 1) the misguided belief of some that everyone has a "right" to health care; and 2) government's efforts to provide health care to everyone, including people who are in our country illegally.

In its effort to provide more health care to more people, the government has distorted the market, and the consequence has been removal of the cost factor from the consumer. In a free market, the consumer is king. It is the purchase that triggers the flow of money. Providers compete for the consumer's purchase by offering products and services at prices low enough to incite the consumer to act. Consumers shop and compare, denying dollars to providers whose price is too high or service is too low.

Enter the government. Medicare offers an excellent example. Consumers no longer care about price. The cost of service is not a deterrent. Consumers are thereby encouraged to consume at will. Providers no longer care about winning the customer's purchase; the government will pay. Moreover, the government will pay what the government wants to pay, so there is no incentive for the provider to compete in price or service. Since government is paying a fixed fee for products and services, suppliers throughout the system seek ways to maximize payment. Over time, they get really good at it. That's why the actual cost of Medicare has vastly outstripped its estimated costs.

These increased costs permeate the industry and apply to non-Medicare patients as well. That's why insurance companies are forced to increase rates. In a real free market, consumers would be able to shop different insurance companies to find the best service at the best rate.

Enter the government – again. Government limits the choices consumers have. Obamacare will limit private choices even further by imposing regulations that will force private companies out of business.

When government is paying for health care, government dictates the quantity, quality and price of the care. The costs that are not extracted as premiums or co-pay will be extracted as increased taxes.

When government is paying for health care, there are no choices, there are no options. Every life is subject to whatever requirements the government may choose to impose. Smokers, for example, could be denied certain services – should the government so decide. Overweight people could be denied certain services unless they meet government-imposed weight limits. Seniors could be denied life-extending procedures should the government decide that the cost is greater than the benefit.

Perhaps the worst consequence of Obamacare is the expansion of a culture that depends upon government; that teaches that government can bestow rights, whether to health care, education, a living wage, or all the other so-called rights listed in the socialists' agenda.

Obamacare, if enacted, is indeed a shortcut to socialism.



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> HEALTH and Medical NEWS All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 1 of 10

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum