Are you pro-life? A majority of us are now apparently willing to describe ourselves that way in this country. If that is so, then you really need to heed the words and spread the facts I will discuss here. This is something we have to inform people about (because, after all, the Main Stream Media has uttered not a word). There is an alarming pattern developing in the TYPE of person Obama is appointing as his “Czars”. [Glenn Beck, to his credit, has done a lot this week to inform us about who these people are.]
Obama has made noises about “dialogue” with us but actions and associations speak – in this case, scream – louder than mere words.
First of all, even many Democrats are wondering why so very many czars [34? “more than the Romanovs” in Russia] are being appointed and why the extent of their power and the use of our tax dollars are beyond scrutiny; is it constitutional? There had been only a handful of them before in our history. It smacks of ‘shadow government’. (Perhaps, radicals know Americans would not go along with their plans if they were plainly stated.)
But something worries me most of all: the views that these unassailable appointees have expressed on human life. The main point is that many of them seem to be not just standard “liberals” on life issues. Some liberals might actually be authentically described as “pro-choice”, sincerely though ignorantly supporting what they don’t understand. This is not true of these friends of Obama; they are not just ‘fellow travelers’ or dupes of the Far Left Marxists. No, they ARE the Far Left Marxists!
{There are many places to investigate all of this. Look for yourself. Here is an example. Start there and keep on looking.}
Let us peruse a few of Obama’s appointees:
1. Van Jones
Mr. Jones has been appointed “Green Job” Czar. His radical connections are too myriad to count. Suffice it to say he calls himself a Communist (of the ‘Maoist’ variety) and a “rowdy Black nationalist”. He was a member of STORM, a radical group indeed. His lack of respect for life in general and willingness to take extreme measures reminds me of Bill Ayers’ rants about re-education.
2. John Holdren
Holdren is the new “Science Czar”. He remains a proponent of the discredited theories of Paul Erlich (who in his book, “The Population Bomb”, has given us one of the most stupendously failed attempts at prediction in history). These are among his anti-life pronouncements:
– babies are not human until they’re socialized and may be killed if needed
– we should have a planetary regime to force abortions and sterilizations
– sterilizing agents should be put into the drinking water of the population
3. Ezekiel Emmanuel M.D.
The brother of Rahm Emmanuel, he is Obama’s “Health Policy Adviser”, the moving force behind Obama’s supposedly benign Health Care Plan. In his own writings, he supports “Social Value Allocation”, which, when you get beyond the euphemistic language, advocates radical anti-life ideas, including infanticide, forced abortion and many hints at euthanasia.
4. Cass Sunstein
He is the new “Regulatory Czar”. Following a pattern present among many of these people, he is, like Professor Peter Singer, a radical animal rights supporter. This view sees absolutely no uniqueness or value in human life as opposed to animals. He has proposed giving animals the right to sue! What about unborn and newborn humans, I wonder?
I suppose I could go on, but I’m not writing a research paper here. I just want to wake up as many as possible about this pattern. Let us send appreciation to the Democrats who are trying to challenge the constitutionality of these Czars or any who might do so. Send emails to as many people as you can to let them know this information. Above all, I think this should put to rest, once and for all, any tendency to want to buy ANY part of this horrible HR3200 or any other version of “health care reform”. If they insist on ramming this down our unwilling throats in whatever form, we can reasonably surmise that it is merely a wedge to gain the radical anti-life goals of those who wrote, influenced and promoted the monstrosity. Keep on working. We cannot let up. As our Founding Fathers knew, such work is its own reward and also beckons the blessings of Providence.
ADDENDUM:
Here are some links to start with:
Nat Hentoff expresses his fears about life:
FoxNews, Holdren, forced abortions and sterilization
Glenn Beck has a segment this week called “Know Your Czars”!
Hitler had a “shadow” form of military command that eventually displaced the Wehrmacht official command. Why does obama bother with a cabinet if the czars really hold the power? I also question how it is even possible to have so many of these people – who are not even approved by the Congress – being paid with our tax dollars. The Congress is to blame for many issues, including the allowance of all these czars with nary a peep of protest. You are right, we have to keep the pressure on – ou relected representatives have, for the most part, abdicated their proper roles.
At ThornNJ — I think I can answer that question. Czars don’t have to go through the approval process. They don’t have to pass Congess, public opinion, or apparently, even FBI clearence procedures. Few, if any of Obama’s Czars could make it through the entire process. I thinksome couldn’t make it through any of the procedures.
About the post; Good read, well written. On a quick read, I couldn’t find anything to argue about, or even aanything with which I had any real disagreement. From your previous posts/responses, I believe you are a sincire, heart-felt, honest person. I have no doubt that every word you wrote is true, especially since I have previously found most of the stuff that you posted. I applaud that you have put it together here in one place for persons who might not spend as much time researching the net as you and I probably do. However, some of those who aren’t willing to dig hard enough to find these quotes and such, might dispute their basis in fact, since they haven’t read/saw the source. If you could update the post with some links to some of your source materials, it might help us convince some doubting Thomas types.
Great work. Keep it coming!
@Old Ez:
Post away Old Ez.
I’m watching the filter.
We need a “VOMIT CZAR” Cause the “Regulatory Czar” will have us eating people not cows. Don’t think I will like to be turned into a Solyent cookie or have to eat one as I watch my dog chewing on my open sores that the medical system thinks that I am to old to be worth helping.(66)
Thanks Aye Chihuahua,
On my first edit it spam filtered me again. I took out at ThornNJ and a back-slash. Don’t know if thats what let it through this time or it was your help. I”ve made a coupke of attempts in the last few days and this is the only thing I”ve gotten past it, even just the short spam message back wouldn’t go through. I did change my listed email today. Maybe it had flagged my email?
Thanks again
Hmm,,, Nothing works now.
At the rate he’s appointing Czars he will soon need a Czar to oversee the Czars,a Czar Czar I guess.
There is no question that these “appointed czars who answer to no one other than Obama”, and cost the taxpayer about $500,000 each, are scary folks. It’s also the crux of my debate against “ObamaCare.” How could anyone wield over that much power not only to government, but a government that has clearly demonstrated absolutely no respect for human life (unless of course that life comes from within elite circles).
This isn’t easy to say but I will say it again. WE LET IT HAPPEN! Forty years and 50 million abortions, over half of the US Negro population lost to “legal black genocide”, and we still voted into office the most pro-abortion president in US history.
Unlike pacifist Martin Niemoller (quote below), we can’t even use “fear” as our defense, unless of course, it’s fear of failed birth control. Ronald Reagan was famous for often saying “Did you ever notice that all pro choicers have already been born?
Politically we’ve lost the abortion debate. I too am guilty of “silence” until only recent years. Only by the grace of God’s have I’ve finally come to understand the horrors and consequences of abortion and disrespect of human life.
While I agree that the Obama administration is the “perfect storm” waiting to strike, what’s to come from our actions, our debasement of human life, is inevitable, with our without Obama and czars. We are, for the most part, an unrepentant country guilty for 40 years of killing our unborn, the least among us. We are now so insensitive to its evil it’s a litmus test for political office.
When I finally did become active in pro-life, one thing that was always known to me was this: the unborn are only the first stage of the battle. In an almost Godless (albeit lots of lip service to Christianity), abortion killing country, one need not be a prophet to understand “who’s next.”
With or without “death panels”, once life is cheapened to chattel, it merely competes with other commodities, one of the many reasons Alveda King (granddaughter of MLK), continues to warn that abortion is the “civil rights” issue of our day. Like her grandfather, understanding well where debasement of human life leads.
Maybe America is slowly getting it, with polls showing for the first time a “pro-life America.” I’m convinced the poll is flawed, as it doesn’t factor in birth control. Pro life is many things, starting with being open to “Be fruitful and multiply”, by God’s timing, not ours. But that’s a topic outside the scope of this blog. What I DO believe about that poll is that many are now starting to rethink their “right to choose” in a different light then when they “first chose.” That’s more than obvious by the increase in the “Silence no more, I regret my abortion” groups, a increasing presence at every major walk for life.
In any case, we are Rome (or Ancient Israel, take you pick), and we are falling.
in spam, #9. You know one of the real drags about spam is we can’t fix our typos, which I usually never catch until my posts are on line.
pdill….you can edit your comment up to two hours after you posted it. If your a registered user and are logged in you can edit you comment indefinitely.
@pdill:
I dug you out.
Make corrections if you need to and I’ll pull you from the filter again if that is necessary.
Thanks Curt and Aye; have never realized that. Every time I’m in spam, I just noticed that it never posts back with the edit button available. Thanks for the info!
Now I understand why it matters to log in (never have done it before)
Van Jones is the co-founder of “Color of Change” which is the group which is trying to get sponsorship away from Glenn Beck’s show AFTER Beck blew the cover.
Folks, I think it is way past time to get rid of the Czars. I don’t care which political party has them. It is time to write our representatives and demand that these positions be eliminated.
Now we will have an interogation Carz operating out of the White House. What could go wrong with that ?
I think a better term for these Czars would be “Kommissars”.
This is slightly off topic but I wanted to pass it on:
This is a must watch. Send it along.
Papa Ray
West Texas
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. 2009 Judge Alex Kozinski
I follow Glenn Beck myself, he is doing yeoman’s work as usual…watching him at the moment in fact.
Regarding the Czars, a gal at the TH Meeting with McCain was one of the best…hope to have a link sometime soon…she said it all.
There were a lot of great Americans there today, great questions, one gal got a standing ovation.
These Czars answer to no one, paid by us, along with their staff, we have no clue what this is costing us, and like the gal asked, where are others in congress speaking out on this outrage?
I’ve posted about them a lot myself here and there over time, I am beyond furious about this…I want my country back!
Btw…Carol Browner is another critter of the most dangerous kinds, Czar for the EPA.
…and there has been a bill or some-such in the House, most likely will never see the light of day either…represented by Marsha Blackburn if memory serves me right, have a link somewhere, will look for it if anyone is interested later.
Check back after a bit…gotta’ run.
Holdren and Emmanuel wrote scientific papers discussing instances of resource scarcities. Being scientists and not politicians, they do not advocate or denounce any of these practices, which is why you don’t have a single quote in your litany of accusations. If you look at the NRO’s David Freddoso criticizing these statements in context, you will see scientific neutral language and an acknowledgment that ethics/morality are a separate question. Freddoso, and yourself in this post, betray a complete ignorance of scientific literature; in his own words:
Of course, the point of a scientific paper is not to issue moral dictates but to present an unbiased account of an analysis – a concept that political demagogues can’t even comprehend. Claiming that either is proposing “anti-life” measures would be like saying that a historian writing about the rise of the 3rd rich is championing Nazism, or that these people are proposing pushing a fat man in front of a train.
As for the concept of czars, the reason they are not elected/approved is because they don’t have any legal power but talk to the president. Presidents should and do meet with such unofficial advisers on a constant basis – Bush frequently had face-to-face and conference call discussions with right-wing blogs (including fairly out-there sites such as RedState) and policy decisions and strategy. In the spirit of transparency, Obama has publicized these advisers and given them un-official titles so you can research their background and credibility. As far as I know the president still has the power to listen to people even if they haven’t been vetted by Washington.
@trizzlor
Have you read the recently published papers of Dr Ezekiel Emmanuel? Have you read HR3200?
Where do you think the concept/terms of DALY and QALY originated–very specific concepts and terms to Dr Emmanuel’s writings? I site only one of many components of HR 3200 that are directly from Dr Emanuel’s published writings and/or of those he co-authored.
The President has the right to appoint advisors — we, Americans, have the right to persistently question and remain vigilant. Especially of those that are appointed as advisors to the President, with questionable backgrounds/security risks, and non-transparent, unchecked authority.
Better get used to Obama, the Transparent, and his Shadow Government being questioned — I predict MUCH more to come — enough is enough!
I have an idea — why don’t you, Trizzlor, volunteer for a test patient of Obama health care…let us know how you like you QALY or DALY score — and how it limits your available treatment. Or possibly be a test citizen for Dr Holdren’s ideas on birth control/sterilization (his ideas also reflected in HR3200)
Trizzlor this may well be the biggest crock every written on FA. I’m not sure which is more egregious, trying to convince us that Holdren and Emmanuel are NOT politicians, playing us all for stupid as in “unscientific” enough to “get it”, or actually believing that “all is fine.”
Are you also totally blind to not only actions but the “others behind the curtain”, such as Peter Singer (close friend AND ADVISOR to Sunstein, Holdren, and Emmanuel. And don’t forget the big money guys also “advising” Mr. President, such as George Soros and friends (I posted about the plutocrat ‘population control ‘,a number one agenda ,a few days ago here on FA).
My goodness even an idiot can Google Peter Singer and John Holdren and get almost 5000 hits!
It might behoove you to remember the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson:
Nice try Trizzlor, and as they say, “Thanks for playing.”
Can someone get me out of spam #21?
@PDill: So your rebuttal is to introduce yet another individual of questionable character, this time a friend of an adviser of Obama, with no evidence at all (well, an unprecedented 5000 hits on teh Google)? I guess any evidence against the conspiracy is just evidence of a broader conspiracy in your mind.
@American Voter: DALY/QALY are terms that have been used in health-care for decades and represent simple normalization ratios – being afraid of them is like being afraid of denominators. More to the point though, HR3200 (which you can read here) doesn’t actually mention either term or adjusted life years in general. If you can’t get something as simple as that right, I’m tempted to doubt you on sterilization being in the bill.
As for joining the public option, if I was being bankrupted by health insurance or had a pre-existing disability which completely prevented me from getting it I would jump at the chance to join Obamacare. In fact, the whole concept of pre-existing conditions is DALY measures taken to their logical capitalist extreme. Insurance corporations (rightly) have no interest in covering the at-risk cases … so my options would be Obamacare, however limited, or the ER – what would you pick?
Trizzlor:
Mind my asking what planet you are on? I digress.
Perhaps you’re thinking of the “good ol’ days” czars, triz. The Obama age czars… i.e. the car czars… are most certainly empowered to do more than chew the ear of the POTUS. They now presume to reach into the private sector and control everything from production and marketing to salary.
The Obama WH has written the IMAC legislation, which is supposed to be carried via Rockefeller to Congress. This bill wrests the Congressional power from MedPAC and places it in a panel of health czars who will decide policy and reimbursement amounts for Medicare twice annually, present it to the POTUS for approval. At that time, Congress only has the option to “disapprove” it with a joint resolution within 30 days before it’s automatic implementation.
Now if you want to parse definitions, the “health czars” may differ from Obama’s current czars (like the auto czar) because are appointed by the POTUS, with a Senate confirmation – much like cabinet members. However the reason I call them czars is because they are now empowered with Congressional powers – which confirmed appointees are not – and usurp that same body’s power of oversight and approval.
This new class of appointed-with-confirmation czars – just as dangerous as the non-confimed czars – started with TARP and the elevation of the Treasury Secretary to powers even more far reaching than the POTUS. Get it by us once, and watch the abuse of the same run amok.
At least the performance of the elected POTUS is subject to Congressional impeachment, and revisition via election every four years. On the flip side, the Treasury Secretary and Obama’s IMAC health czars are immune from any court of law’s jurisdiction for their decisions and policies. What kind of thinking makes this new class of public servant immune from our court system?? This is especially hypocritical in the wake of Obama’s AG, determined to prosecute CIA members for interrogation. Apparently *some* public servants will show up in our court systems, but others will not… all depending upon if it’s a pet cause of the current POTUS.
The point here, Mr. Triz, is despite your and my political differences, both of us as American citizens should be railing against the placement of such powers in the hands of unelected individuals. Nor should we be sanctioning the stripping of Congressional powers into the hands of these appointed czars.
And the most frightening thing is watching this power hungry mongrel WH strip the CIA of interrogation powers before our very eyes, based on “recommendations” by yet more unelected/POTUS selected “experts”.
I’m not sure what you know about health insurance and pre-existing conditions, but if you are in a group plan, you cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions. This is something that only comes up when you are forced to seek health insurance solo.
So instead of government mandates, why not use the existing template and allow for the formation of more “groups” that lessen… if not eliminate… anyone having to go solo for insurance? This wouldn’t cost the taxpayer a dime. However this does entail having to deal with state regulations, which govern such criteria.
Secondly, you wouldn’t be “bankrupted” by health insurance if the costs were not driven up by the “public option” we do have and can’t sustain… Medicare. Streamlining bureaucratic red tape, elimination of the malpractice onerous laws that result in unnecessary tests and increase both hospital and doctors business costs, and allowing wealthy seniors to opt out of Medicare (without losing their SS retirement) would go a long way in cutting costs…. all without – again – costing a dime to the taxpayer.
If you want “reform”… meaning lower the costs… this bill ain’t it. This is a “remaking” of insurance WITHOUT addressing the issues that drive the costs up.
I’m for “reform”, not “remaking”. And reform doesn’t cost us a dime.
@trizzlor
tell your buds to go ahead and pass the bill that you deem so perfect — why waste your time pontificating/wordsmithing…clever words are not going to negate what is written in HR 3200…nor change the minds of citizens that can analyze content for themselves? Nor is the smoke and mirror routine — on all issues — by the White House & Dems winning us over.
Well, what is the hold-up — the bill was supposed to be passed prior to August recess?
Oh, and don’t worry, I read the bill when it was introduced…It would seem you have not. Anyone can cut and paste links. The real work is to read for yourself — it sounds like you need to catch up.
Yes, and DALY/QALY are used by veterinarians as well – however, the appearance of DALY/QALY in HR3200 and verbiage related to/defining enactment – are just coincidentally very similar — by accident? — to Emanuel’s most recent coauthored/singularly authored papers? (or have you even read those either?) Similar to Obama — pontificating/quoting from books on his ’08 campaign trail and indicating he had read..now appearing on his vacation “to read” list??
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/08/obamas-summer-re-reading.html
Bottomline is, below is a link to Pelosi’s/Reid’s office…call her and tell her to pass the “bull”…well, what are you waiting for? You/Dems don’t NEED anyone else’s vote…or do you?
————
http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
———–
@MataHarley: You’re right, I should have specified that the czars don’t have any legislative power – they can however work within the executive (though I haven’t heard of Jones, Holdren or Sunstein doing so). Personally, I don’t see the difference between giving a czar executive ability (while holding the president liable) and making the czar go through the president each time. When a czar starts making legislative decisions in lieu of congress (arguably, warantless wiretapping is one such example) I’ll be right there with you on the outrage train. As for IMAC, we’ve talked about this before and I’m glad you’re not avoiding the caveats (appointed, congress can veto, etc), but I think it’s pretty logical to have medical professionals decide what new/old procedures and costs should be revitalized … just as the CBO and DOJ do legislative/judicial analysis independent but subordinate to Congress.
Right, so what happens when my (hypothetical) child with down-syndrome, a pre-existing condition, is lucky enough to survive into his mid-twenties and not be supported by my group plan? Likewise, what would have happened to a retired childless elderly person without the Nazi nightmare that is Medicare? How do you propose we expand group plans to cover at-risk individuals without cost to taxpayers (socialism) or to company profits (social engineering)?
I’m all for tort and administrative cost reform (the latter of which is marginally better under socialist Medicare) and you’ve sold me on the Senior Liberation Act long ago, but low-level reform has been attempted on a state by state level (Texas, for example) and insurance companies simply pocketed the decrease in malpractice costs and continued to raise premiums. Moreover, there is a lost in the bill for mitigating “defensive medicine”, in particular incentivising successful overall treatment than successful tests. But malpractice costs are just a drop in the bucket – the point is that without some kind of public option to cover “uncoverable” individuals and spur private insurance to reduce costs, effective reform is impossible.
@American Voter: Neither DALY/QALY nor adjusted life years appear in HR3200 at all – I’m not going to get in the way of you chasing windmills anymore.
Again, you are talking about caveats that simply do not exist.. save for slight variations, triz. i.e. they may attempt to exclude coverage for a certain length of time and no more than 12 months. Not indefinitely.
Check any or many sites INRE group insurance and pre-existing conditions. Federal and state laws prohibit placing limits on these pre-existing condition exclusion periods under group health plans. These are usually extended to dependents as well, however the employer is not obligated to pay for your dependent’s coverage.
i.e. here’s one example from Health Insurance Info site.
Here’s another from Medical Health Insurance Today.
Makes you wonder who’s making up the “bogeymen”, eh? Tossing up the scare/fear mongering over pre existing when it’s really limited to the individual health insurance policy, and not group.
This is why having as many being able to bond together as a “group” can do much for eliminating the bones of contention… and again, not at the cost of the tax payer. How simple is that?
Well, in reality, it will have some 10th Amendment hurdles as the States normally decide these group regulations, and not the feds. But I’m sure there’s something that can be worked out.
What *are* you talking about, triz? What does parental status have to do with MANDATED Medicare enrollment at the age of 65?? That childless elderly person is forced onto Medicare if he/she is over 65, and is eligible for Social Security.
To be eligible for SS, you can read here. The gov sites seem to be down at the moment, as I get a cannot be displayed error.
Casts a pretty wide net, and none seem to have to do with children, triz….
You can find out more about Medicare qualifications here.
I can see we need to start from scratch with you on education to Medicare and health care issues. Please peruse the FA Health Care archives and weed thru the 76 posts to play catch up. Obviously you are suffering from some serious misinformation and lack of exposure. This is not an issue… as tied to our national financial status… that you can afford to be underinformed.
One more thing INRE IMAC health czars, triz
You overestimate the power of Congress in their policy/reimbursement decisions via POTUS approval, triz. Both chambers of the Congress have a mere 30 days to disapprove (not approve). Nor can they alter or change anything. In other words, there is no debate on the floors, no amendments, no nothing. Merely 30 days to pull together a joint resolution with a very disjointed Congress. Miss the deadline? oops… too bad.
This is rather like the fine print warranty on a product. If you don’t send in the card to take the warranty within x amount of time, tough luck.
Congress, in my opinion, does not possess the power to forfeit their Constitutional powers to others. Congress members, however, *love* the idea. When the public complains, they shrug their shoulders and say “sorry, out of my control. so you gonna vote for me?”
oi vey, triz… how did I miss this before hitting “submit”…
First, I’m glad you recognize the absurdity of forcing Medicare on everyone, and the value of Hall v Sebelius.
But let’s get a couple of things straight. Much of the malpractice stuff is federal not state. Also there is no “reform” on Medicare that a state can do because it’s a federally administered program.
The June New Yorker article you linked was quite interesting because it did, in one paragraph, sum up their issue of increased Medicare costs… overuse of medicine and tests.
Now you have to understand how Medicare pays out… and where private insurance premiums come into play. The bulk of the costs and time borne by the medical professionals were Medicare… which underpays for their time and services. Medical providers (professionals, facilities, etc) make up for the bottom line costs by overcharging the private insurance company, who passes on their costs to their insureds.
Read my cyberlips… it was *not* the evil insurance companies. They were paying out more to the providers to make up for the shortfall of overuse of medical care by those on either medicare (and likely Medicaid, since not everyone was over 65 or disabled).
Now follow me on this. Would not the cure to the rising premiums be to reduce the costs of the medical providers bottom line? And to do this it would include eliminating unnecessary treatments and tests that are done by reforming malpractice laws. If the medical providers can function with a bottom line that is more streamlined, and Medicare still pays out the same, there is less financial loss to be recouped by sticking it to the private insurers.
If you came with me on that thought, let’s try the converse. If we merely create a “new age” Medicare public option for those under 65, with the same problems, then more employers will move over to the public option. Nothing is done to contain costs by the over use of medical tests and treatments, nor the malpractice. So we have *more* people underpaying the medical providers, and less privately insured types that make up for their financial losses.
In this case, the fewer privately insured to carry the financial burden of the government underpaid services, the higher their premiums. And they too will go out of business and flee to the government system.
In the end, the government underpays all medical providers and they either go bankrupt, or become non-profits. The level of care goes down and advanced technology becomes a luxury.
See what I mean?
@MataHarley:
If that’s the case, why do avoid dealing with that situation? On most group plans your children are no longer covered once they reach their mid-20’s; likewise DS is generally considered a pre-existing condition which makes it extremely difficult to get affordable non-group insurance, so who covers the DS child?
Maybe I was unclear here, my point was that without socialist Medicare, an elderly person (with no children to support them) would have a very difficult time getting non-group insurance as well. Banning or severely charging at-risk groups is simple free-market policy on the part of insurance companies … how do you plan on covering these groups without a public option or extreme regulation?
@ Trizzlor
Thanks for the banter and good laugh — your kidding right?
Here’s one of hundreds of references regarding my “illusions.” This one was circulated to
a medical professional peer group.
http://allnurses.com/social-health-care/whats-your-qaly-415395.html
I’m sorry I can’t stay and enjoy your adhominem attacks – usually employed by
libs. I must go to work and pay my taxes. But I leave you with two thoughts…
1)You really need to bone up on the subject matter and understand how this is
going to work–in the real world of tax paying citizens…you need to get out of the
liberal mindset of “I feel–therefore I believe.”
2)No matter how many ad hominems you throw, or your use of clever wordsmithing, I
am able to read, analyze, and draw conclusions for myself. We need reform as many
of us have expressed (AND many have also given supporting ideas of where/how to start)
but ObamaC, as presented to us in HR 3200 — is not the answer.
My vote cancels yours out so enjoy your evening..but don’t forget to call Pelosi and
Reid to hurry up and pass HR 3200 or whatever incarnation will be unveiled in Sept…
@MataHarley: This is an interesting theory, and well laid out:
If that were the case, we would expect Medicare spending to stay relatively constant with respect to private premiums; but that hasn’t been the case, as Medicare spending trends very well with private insurance (ThinkProgress, but the source is CBO). Likewise, if malpractice reform was the major issue, then we would see this reflected with under-65 premiums in states that enacted reform; the New Yorker article shows, at least anecdotal, that this is not the case either (I’m open to counter-evidence here).
Rather, the problem is that everyone but the buyer has incentive for unnecessary medicine – the provider because they get more money from procedures, and the insurer because they could raise premiums (and subsequently profits). This isn’t *evil*, it’s simply the smart thing to do in an unregulated market. Now, some people like and afford exhaustive care like that, but the people who would be satisfied with less are dragged along for the ride and see their premiums increase too. Places where this hasn’t happened, the Mayo Clinic etc. as well as internationally, have succeeded because they put an emphasis on patient care rather than on profits – and the only way to do that is through unprecedented regulation (which would completely discourage top-tier/exhaustive care) or by offering a government alternative with emphasis on basic care and low cost.
Triz, I am not avoiding the situation. I am telling you your fear mongering doesn’t exist in but a few situations… i.e. individual insured v group insured. I am *dealing* with the situation by suggesting the the GOP suggestion of creating more “groups” will eliminate the need for “individual” insurance, thereby alleviating the pre-existing condition problem.
When a “child” reaches 20, they get insured on their own because… unless they are a dependent and still covered as such, they are no longer “children” but supposed to become responsible young adults.
Again you race off on tangents that are not even part of the debate, triz. NO ONE ever spoke of discontinuing Medicare. What should be under consideration is making Medicare less a national financial flush down the toilet.
Considering that the baby boomers, including myself, racing towards Medicare have had our paychecks drained annually for Medicare coverage for decades, we’d all be demanding our money back if the rug was pulled out with no choice.
However, if an over 65 person that was somewhat well to do wanted to get private insurance and opt out, saving the Medicare system drain, they should be allowed to do so with another “group” creation. What part about creating “groups” to replace “individual” aren’t you computing?? It’s a GOP suggestion (which is why you probably haven’t heard of it…) that has serious validity, and costs the tax payer nada.
So what’s the problem, other than you creating hypotheticals that are mostly imaginary with genuine reform revisited?
@MataHarley:
And under your scenario, what “group” would cover the adult with Down‘s or any number of debilitating diseases which you claim are mostly imaginary (*snark*)? And how are you going to do that without forcing insurance companies to cut into their profits and cater to these at-risk groups, stymieing innovation and all of that? I have an idea, let’s have a default “group” for all citizens which provides them with basic preventative care…
The reason I single out Down’s is not to monger fear, but to point a situation which is indicative of many others where individuals are not in a group and cannot afford private insurance through no real fault of their own.
You and I both know that’s not true – there’s nothing fundamentally different between Medicare and a public option which covers other at-risk groups under 65. Certainly they are both equally socialist (whatever that means in terms of insurance), and an argument against the public option is really a broader argument against Medicare. At least I think we’ve come to a consensus that there are some groups which private insurance has no monetary interest in covering and for which government has to step in.
Triz, if you do not read the links I provide that point out group insurance cannot deny coverage via both federal and state laws for more than 12 months, I don’t know how to deal with you. You are simply making up hypotheticals in order to fear monger, or pass along the fear mongering you are digesting from the O’healthcare lying advocates.
And I did not say debilitating diseases were imaginary. I said that your belief that group plans can deny pre-existing coverage for more than a limited exempt period was prohibited by both federal and many state statutes. Do try to read more carefully.
I can only say this… read the damn links.
Show me anywhere in any suggested reform… either the Dems debacle, or the GOP suggestions for cost reform… that says they are doing away with Medicare.
What the O’healthcare is all about is creating a new, secondary Medicare for those *under* 65. Again, you are fear mongering, and making crap up.
@MataHarley: I read your links, and you’re right that a person with a debilitating disease would be covered under a group plan (primarily due to the look back period, not the exclusion period); but I’m asking you specifically about individuals with debilitating diseases that are either unemployed or do not have insurance from their employer. What “groups” would you expand to cover them and how would you do this without cost to the tax-payer?
Moving the goal posts now, eh triz? LOL
First of all, insurance is not free with the public option. Anyone… whether unemployed, or employed by someone who doesn’t provide group options… is going to have to pay or suffer penalties annually when filing their income tax. So right now, someone who can’t afford insurance is ahead of the game because by the time Obama gets thru with them, it’s buy insurance or pay the government for not having insurance. Nice, eh? That’ll make it easier on ’em.
Or are you under the assumption everyone who isn’t working is going to get this for free?
So my question to you is, why do you ask about the unemployed or employed without a group option? I repeat, the choices Obama and Congress are giving the US citizen is PAY for a policy thru the public option, or PAY for the policy thru an employer (or have as employment benefits) or PAY for private insurance. The only promises for PAYING is that they say the public option will be cheaper. (because they will put the “in the red” costs onto the taxpayer)
Hell… forget the public option. If you’re going to mandate insurance, why not do real reform, lower the costs, form groups and at least make the private option more affordable. The public option is nothing but an expensive red herring to the real mandate…. buy insurance or pay the government. It is the public option that will be the taxpayer drain… not the private option.
BTW, an added fiscal business destroyer is HR 3200 is mandating *all* employers MUST provide insurance or they too are penalized… That’ll be a real help in this economy.
Boondoggle… figuring it out yet?
@MataHarley:
I just took it for granted that the average person with a debilitating disease would not be able to get the kind of work that had insurance; I don’t think that’s a leap but I’m glad we’re on the same page now regardless. Now I’m not a betting man, but I’ll wager you and I both now that “group” expansion would not cover this kind of scenario … so at the very least, the government would ideally create some kind of SCHIP/Medicare-style plan to cover these individuals. If it were up to me, we’d have something much closer to universal health-care so then everyone can stop complaining about rationing 🙂 . The public option is a step in the right direction which intends to make health insurance for at-risk groups more affordable through at least subsidies and at best the kind of reduction in overhead costs I talk about in a comment that’s still stuck in spam. The GOP alternative offers nothing for these people and (I’m guessing) more deficit spending through tax-breaks.
Sounds to me like a budget-neutral way to expand those “groups” you’re talking about.
May not be so “budget neutral” for the business, triz. Especially since the legislation is demanding not only a “penalty” if the employer doesn’t provide the insurance, they are mandated to increase their employees salary for the amount it would take to provide insurance. How many small businesses do you think are solvent enough to take that hit without downsizing?
Look at it this way… it’s the government’s way of getting further into the businessman’s pockets. Could the employers be better coerced into providing group insurance by offering tax benefits instead of penalties? And would that not increase their financial health?
triz… again… federal and state laws prohibit denial of pre-existing for GROUP plans. Therefore create more GROUPS and there is less pre-existing denial. You think any new groups no longer fall under current laws?? Boyo, you’re exhausting. heh
I can see a reform where *private* insurance is more affordable when purchased in tiers, and combined with tax incentives for medical accounts. This would look something like:
Low tier: tax exempt medical accounts to cover basic visits and check ups/tests
Middle tier: group plans for non-catastrophic impermanant coverage… broken limbs, minor surgeries, and include things like diabetes supplies that aren’t crippling, but require long term meds and supplies, etc
High tier: catastrophic and debilitating diseases of permanent nature
But why is it you believe the *government* has to create this insurance, and not the private sector? Have you now bought into Obama’land that only the government can do anything?
And oh, BTW, I do believe that somewhere up there you were still under the misconceived notion that admin costs for medicare were lower than for private. We’ve gone thru this battle before, and even the AMA studies say that the medicare admin numbers are higher, masked by a cheat and a lie of number crunching since they do not include all the departments that are involved in administering medicare, and that private companies must include their advertising as part of their admin costs. It is not an apples to apples comparison.
@MataHarley:
This is starting to remind me of the California fiscal crisis: a constituency that wants more entitlements, a lower deficit, and nobody to pay for it. How many business are solvent? The money, weather it’s for “group” expansion or for the public option, has to come from somewhere, and under HR2300 it’s hitting a staggering 5% of small businesses (see: NYTimes).
This is my point, the only way to put these kind of people into “group” plans is to force insurance companies to cover them either through coercive legislation which gets in the way of innovation (and let’s be honest, isn’t going to pass the lobbying process), or through tax-breaks which are basically spending against the deficit and hoping that corporations decide to take the government pay-off rather than simply raising premiums to match. On the other hand, you can offer a public option which puts the emphasis on basic patient care rather than procedural cost and ends up succeeding in the same way as the Mayo Clinic and others have (which dove-tails with my initial lost comment here about corporate motivation). If the tax-breaks are going to have to match the extra care to be useful as well as account for additional profit, why not just go for a public option and skip the middle-man.
Again, I think a tier-based system which encourages preventative care is a good idea, I just think that the private insurance companies have had long enough to converge on good coverage and have failed; as for the government, just about every foreign national health-care plan offers comparable coverage at lower cost … I think that corporations are very good at profit-driven business, but insurance, particularly when you can tell that an individual will be a liability, is not a service that functions well under such a philosophy.