Vonnegut and Orwell Couldn't Write Something This Surreal

From CNET news comes this link. But remember, George W. Bush was the tyrant. Bold and italics emphasis mine.

"Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet .... CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency."

(ht Verum Serum)

The Net Effect: "Trust Me"

Not surprisingly, the President is contradicting himself. Not verbally, necessarily, but if you look at this health care debate logically, you can see it for yourself.

He starts off this sound bite above by "countering" the "absurd notion" that under HR 3200 "illegal immigrants are to be covered." Problem with this claim: the Bill as it is written, has no verification mechanism to ensure those who access the system are in fact, American citizens. So the net effect is that it WILL cover illegals. The fact that on multiple occasions Democrats in the House committees have blocked provisions that would establish a verification mechanism proves that this is their backdoor method of ensuring that illegals will be covered under Obamacare. If you think we have an illegal immigration problem now, imagine the headache - financial and otherwise - that will come across the border looking for treatment if and when this monster gets passed in its current form.

Next, he claims that it is misinformation to say that this plan will involve government takeover of health care. Again, this is stealthy slight-of-hand to make this claim. No where in the bill does it actually SAY that private insurance will be eliminated, but if you look at the claims made by its proponents here, isn't it safe to be suspicious? And can a private business (i.e., private insurers) really compete with a government that hasn't had to balance its books for years? The Federal Government, folks, can borrow for an eternity and stay in business - we know this because it has done so for most of the last 100 years. Private insurers can't, and the Democrats who support this thing know that. Once the private market dries up, its over. There will be nothing but the Public Option (or Co Ops, same thing). Then we will be locked into single payer. Again, follow the logic. "For now, wink wink to my single payer allies, you can keep your private coverage."

The next claim made by Obama in the clip above is that abortion will not be provided with taxpayer dollars. The President here is counting on the fact that people are not reading the bill. As John Sexton at Verum Serum points out in a post last week, Annenburg's Fact Check finds that (emphasis in the original):

"for (abortions not provided by Medicaid), the Capps amendment leaves it to the secretary of Health and Human Services to decide whether or not they will be covered. It says, 'Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing' abortion services that would not be legal for Medicaid coverage. Says the NRLC’s Johnson: 'The Capps Amendment MANDATES that the public plan cover any Medicaid-fundable abortions, and AUTHORIZES the secretary to cover all other abortions. … [F]rom day one, she [Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] is authorized to pay for them all. And, she will.'”

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is a known advocate of Abortion "rights". If the bill, as it is written, gives her office the leeway to determine on a case by case basis which abortions will be funded through the public option, I think it follows logically that under this provision, taxpayers will be paying for abortions that are not the result of Rape or Life of Mother. Mr. President, we've read the bill.

Lastly, Obama claims that we aren't going to "pull the plug on Grandma". Everyone in the room chuckles. He makes us feel reassured, doesn't he? Again, follow the logic. We shared the post by Economist Cliff Asness from his "Stumbling on Truth" blog a few days ago. As Asness points out, if the government is going to eventually be controlling health care because its competition has dried up; If there are limited hospital beds and a nation of people covered for medical expenses by a sole provider; If there are a limited number of doctors and a seemingly limitless number of aging people being "insured", the resource scarcity is eventually going to empower the government to reserve the right to .... pull the plug on Grandma. Asness was correct when he makes the case that seems so lost on so many single payer advocates (paraphrase): There is no way an unlimited number of people can have access equally to a limited number of resources. Plain and simple. Once the government purse strings are providing for the entire nation's health care, its not too inconceivable for said government to start making these kind of choices for us.

What's more, Obama has eluded to this on more than one occasion. We all know the infamous health care forum where a woman spoke of her 100 year old Grandmother needing a pacemaker. Obama's retort? Maybe we need to consider whether or not she should just take a pain pill. And that's not the only instance. Bloomberg here tells the story of Obama's grandmother's hip replacement surgery

"during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a 'sustainable model' for health care."

Folks, let me cut to the chase here: Barack Obama and the Democrats who support this bill are counting on the "Uncle Barry" personna to convince as many people as possible that this is NOT the trojan horse that it really is. Obama and the Single Payer Democrats know that their dreams of Single Payer Universal Coverage (and its traveling companions of state-funded abortion, coverage for illegals, and monopoly, rationing and control of health care) are things you will not support if presented openly. So, they claim that the details of bill - which if followed to their logical ends spell out exactly the Single Payer nightmares that we the people fear - aren't what they truly are. Uncle Barry and his soothing voice are counting on you not knowing the details of the bill. All you need is to sit on Uncle Barry's lap, Mr & Mrs America, and trust him.

That's the net effect of the video here above. Trust him. Sorry, Mr. President. Something happened on the way to the Town Hall. We the people read the Bill and followed its prescriptions logically.

And we don't trust you.

******UPDATE*****

In all my haste to get this posted, I left out the article that prompted me to write it in the first place. Hat tip to my Facebook Friend Gene Fama, Economic Soulmate and son of the infamous Chicago economist who shares the same name.

Betsy McCaughey writes today in the Wall Street Journal a fascinating piece about Dr Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the President's Chief of Staff. Dr Emanuel is a Health Policy Advisor to the President and, if you will read the post you'll discover that he is an enemy of the Hippocratic Oath and a proponent of Health Care Rationing.

Again, folks, follow it logically.

Dr. Frank Rosenbloom and Obamacare

Dr. Frank Rosenbloom today at American Thinker has this piece entitled "Obamacare - Point and Counterpoint". Check it out.

I think he could be a little more specific on some points, but overall its very good analysis from someone on the frontline of the debate. This point I thought was especially salient, discussing gross government inefficiency in comparison to the free market:

"...due to a change in the corporate status of my practice I was required to apply for a new national provider identification number (NPI) in March of this year. Within several weeks, without exception, all of the private insurance companies had registered the number and were paying on claims. After five months and exhaustive work of over 140 hours by my office staff Medicare and Medicaid had still not paid on a single claim. Finally, on August 14, Medicare made their first payment on claims that were five months old. Yet, if we do not bill Medicare within three months of the date of service, Medicare will not pay us at all. Government regulation and control permeates the entire medical system."

.

Prediction for 2010?

The Great John Hinderaker discusses that here, in a Powerline post entitled "A Republican Congress in 2010?"

Most interesting in his piece is this segment regarding a Republican home run in the next election (bold emphasis mine):

But I think these strategists are re-fighting the last war. That is, they are extrapolating Bill Clinton's story and applying it to Barack Obama. Could things shake out that way? Perhaps. But that was then and this is now, and the current uproar over Obama's government takeover of health care dwarfs anything that happened in 1994. And Obama isn't Bill Clinton. Clinton is, I think, much smarter than Obama. He had a basic understanding of economics that Obama lacks. And in a pinch, Clinton didn't really believe in much of anything, while Obama is a hard leftist, by American standards.

I've had the same thoughts and discussions regarding the difference between Clinton and Obama. Bill Clinton was, to me, first a politician and second an ideologue. Obama, like Jimmy Carter before him, is the reverse. In other words, I believe whole heartedly that Clinton's worldview is centered around his Liberal/Left ideology, but more precious to him is/was political success. Hence, at the conclusion of the Democrats' drubbing in 1994, Clinton took to the airwaves and said to the American people (paraphrase): "I heard your voice in the last election." Case in point: Clinton's constant self congratulation for creating budget surpluses. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that, without Newt Gingrich and the Republican Majorities forcing the issue on Clinton, he'd have never even given it (budget deficits) a moment's consideration.

I think Obama will not be so fickle with his core beliefs. In that sense, he's vulnerable in 2012. Let's pretend that Republicans do take back both houses in 2010, Obama will most likely double-down on his radicalism, rather than go with the flow of voter sentiment.

That said, a 2010 re-taking of Congress is a pipe dream without a unifying strategy. Congressional elections are won on the local level - what did you do for the district/state? - rather than on the national one. That's why 1994's Contract With America was such a powerful concept. When legislators pledged to the nation that they would band together to bring a list of important issues to the floor of both houses of Congress for a vote, it changed the whole dynamic of Congressional elections.

We need something of this nature again if we want to capitalize on voter dissatisfaction with Democrats. Call it "Pledges to America" or whatever, but a list of five to ten things that resonate with voters and offer to bring them to a vote if elected. Some examples:

1. a pledge to scuttle the "public option" debate as its currently written, and introduce interstate portability options that do not empower the government
2. a pledge to scuttle cap and trade
3. a pledge to refund to the tax payer all of the unused stimulus money in Obama's recent Stimulus Bill

I could think of a few others, but you get the drift. Without something like this being advertised and offered to the American People, the fight to retake the Legislature will be difficult.

www.stumblingontruth.com

Battling insomnia - again (largely due to a sick Labrador Retriever that needs attention) - I "stumbled" upon a website maintained by an Economist named Cliff Asness. Cliff is living proof that economists can, in fact, have a sense of humor.

Cliff has a very entertaining piece entitled "Health Care Mythology" that enjoyed reading. Its a tad long but he makes a very thorough argument against Obama's Public Option that is worth the time to read. I've excerpted some of my favorite parts below, bold emphasis mine. Well done, Cliff.

*****

"Many of the countries we are being compared with come from, frankly, healthier cultures than ours. I do not think the government should be allowed to make, for instance, your health vs. fast food trade-off for you. If free Americans more often than others go for the Wendy’s Triple w/ Cheese like I do, our cost/GDP will be higher. Freedom sometimes ain’t sugar‑free. By the way, if we change our system to socialism, but these habits persist, our costs will still be higher. So, here come the diet and exercise laws..."

"The government does not co-exist or compete fairly with private enterprise, anywhere. It does not play well with others. The regulator cannot be a competitor at the same time. It cannot compete fairly while it owns the armed forces and courts. Finally, it cannot be a fair competitor if when the 'public option' screws up (can’t pay its bills), the government implicitly or explicitly guarantees its debts. We have seen what happens in that case and don’t need a re-run."

More on Govt Competition with the private sector:

"Once the government discovers it cannot win, it changes the rules. You see, the government has the power to legislate, steal, imprison, and even kill. Those are advantages most private firms do not have, save Google, and you did not hear that from me...."

"But it takes literally seconds to realize that this 'public option' cannot co-exist with the freedom to choose and thus will indeed lead to full‑on socialization. Since the simplest answer is usually best, and the President has already declared his preference for a 'single-payer' system, and since this 'public option' leads there with near certainty, might I be forgiven for assuming he knows this and has a socialized medicine end-game in mind?" Yes, you can most definately be.

On the inevitable rationing that the Public Option will lead to:

"It is an uncomfortable truth that tough choices will have to be made. There is no system that provides for unlimited wants with limited resources. Our choice is whether it should be rationed by free people making their own economic calculations or by a bureaucracy run by Congressional committee (whose members, like the Russian commissars, will, I guarantee you, still get the best health care the gulag hospitaligo can provide). Free people making their own choices only consume what they value above price, using funds they have earned or been given voluntarily. With socialized medicine health care is rationed by committees of politicians trying to get re-elected and increase their own power, and people consume as much of it as the commissars deem permissible. I do not find these tough alternatives to choose between."

On the "right" to health care:

"Listing rights generally involves enumerating things you may do without interference (the right to free speech) or may not be done to you without your permission (illegal search and seizure, loud boy-band music in public spaces). They are protections, not gifts of material goods. Material goods and services must be taken from others, or provided by their labor, so if you believe you have an absolute right to them, and others don’t choose to provide it to you, you then have a 'right' to steal from them. But what about their far more fundamental right not to be robbed?" (I made a similar comment here).

On the motivation of politicians pushing government-run health care:

"Lots of politicians understand that the simple free system leaves them out in the cold. No power for them. No committees to sit on to decide people’s lives. No lies to tell their constituents how they (the government) brought them the health care they so desperately need. No fat checks from lobbyists as the crony capitalists pay dearly to make the only profits possible under this system, those bestowed by the government. "

Check out Cliff's work. Its a fun read.

Hey Tubby, Enjoy All You Can Eat BBQ While You Can....

I have a lot of concerns that I have yet to share with frequent patrons of JGAH about the "public option" being debated before both houses of Congress. Most principle among them is the open door that it gives the Federal Government to rob us of everyday freedom. How, you ask?

Simple, and others have made this point: Once government is responsible for paying for your health care, then they have a justification for running just about every part of your life. Especially with how you indulge in certain consumption pleasures. What kind of and how much food you eat, how much you drink, and whether or not you can indulge in tobacco and to what extent if you can. Risky activities? Don't be surprised if those are targeted as well.

And don't think it too Orwellian and out of the question for you to be required to disclose this information to the government on a regular basis.

Hey, Tubby, hope you're texting your pals in the SEIU Bowling League to set up a last evening of beer swilling and wing eating at Buffalo Wild Wings. Because pretty soon, its very realistic that you will not be able to.

More From Newt....

Prosperity is created by the private sector, folks. Instead of burdening the private sector and empower politicians, how about creating an environment that is conducive to business and attracts investors? THAT is how you create wealth and economic activity. Not with "hope and change".

Newt Gingrich Explains The REAL Solution to the Poverty Problem

This point should be hammered home by our side incessantly. Amen.

Charles Krauthammer Has It Right

In re: Health Care Reform Town Halls. How rich is it that Obama's own tactic, agitation against elected officials, is now being turned against him??:

Look, Democrats are out of control on this. Under Bush, dissent was the highest form of patriotism in America. And now it's a form of Nazi insurrection.

Last year community organizing was such a high calling that the Democrats elected one [community organizer] to the highest office in the land. And now if you organize a community it's called a mob...

God What a Miserable Bitch

Have you ever wondered why Bill married this troglodyte?

Hey, Hill: you're Secretary of State because Barack wants you off the political radar. Not because you are an Uber Diplomat. Get over yourself.

"... but we'll do it in a way that we're not going to frighten people into thinking they're going to lose their private insurance"

hat tip to verumserum.com and Scott Johnson at Powerline. Do you need any further proof as to what their intentions are? How can Obama claim to be offering choice and options on the one hand, and then have all this prattle in the video above about "not getting there(to Single Payer) overnight"? How many different languages can you say "smoking gun" in, boys and girls? And now their Union Thugs are silencing debate at town hall meetings, the only pre-election avenue for ordinary citizens to register their disapproval of this abomination. Here's a video that's been making the rounds. It does my heart a lot of good to see a fat, trashy union thug get handcuffed (at about 2:40 in the video).

I am encouraged by the turnout at these town hall meetings. If the Democrats who support Obamacare move forward on their votes in favor, it could get ugly in next fall for the party of the Jackass.

More from the Great John Hinderaker at Powerline:

"Pelosi's attempt to ram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people under false pretenses, with little debate, has a lot more in common with totalitarianism than individual Americans going to public meetings and expressing their views."

I Told You. Don't Tell Me That I Didn't....

He's doing it... raising taxes on the middle class. Of course, the messiah himself didn't say it, but that's to come.

I predicted it, here and here.

When is the next Democrat, trumpeting "change" going to come along and change Middle Class Tax Rates, all on the heels of a campaign pledging not to? If voters don't start wising up to this tactic, maybe as soon as 2016.