Political, International And Religious Issues
An Idiot's Guide to Why Many of Us Fear Obama's Health Care Reform 
Monday, September 21, 2009, 02:37 PM - Health Care
Posted by Administrator
If you are very well-informed about the health care issues facing America right now, feel free to skip this article. There's probably very little I can add to your understanding.

However, if you find yourself saying things like: "I don't understand how someone can oppose universal health care." or "How can someone say health care is not an obvious human right?" or "Obama cares so much for all of us. These radicals are just opposing it because it's his plan." or any of a few dozen variations, this guide very well might be for you.

Many have said, semi-incorrectly, that the proposed plan will not allow one to use private insurance. The fact of the matter is, yes it will...

But..........

Picture this:

Say there were a small neighborhood with three pizza shops that have been competing with one another for about two decades. Everyone in town has their favorite, and all the owners are doing quite well for themselves.

The pizza is not cheap, however, at $2.00 a slice. So, sadly, the less fortunate kids in town view pizza as a rare treat, and even the middle class folk don't want to buy too much, because of that burning feeling in the pocket.

... But it sure is tasty ...

Now, after much protestation in the community that the pizza is too expensive for many, the government decides to subsidize a new pizza shop, and pizza is only one nickel a slice. The pizza is definitely inferior to all three other shops, but there isn't a person in the neighborhood who can't have pizza whenever they choose.

The other three pizza shops start going crazy. "The government is trying to shut us down," they yell.

The government smugly replies, "We aren't shutting anyone down. Everyone, without exception, will still retain the option to go to the other places as often as they want."

But we're not naive.

We know what happens next.

Tons upon tons of people ditch the other three shops for the sake of the much cheaper alternative.

For a little while the other three hang on, cutting costs here and there, firing a few employees, charging even more in the hopes that they will gain some extra profit... but the end result is inevitable. They cannot compete with the government.

All the talk of allowing people to buy whatever pizza they choose is irrelevant if the other places have to close down.

*You see, when you look past all the political jargon (i.e. blah blah) you realize in the upcoming changes the end of private medicine as we know it.*

So what happens next?

After all thee private pizza shops are no longer around, the very mediocre government subsidized option is the only one left standing.

And the lines are out the door. After all, who can resist pizza at such an amazing price?

But there are thousands of people in this town, and they all love pizza. Now, some of them used to buy only one slice, but now buy two. Some used to cook for parties, but now order a dozen pizza pies. Some used to try and estimate exactly how much pizza they needed, but now they gladly overestimate with no fear whatsoever.

(Picture people who now go to the doctor much more often. People who go every time they have the smallest cough. Millions of previously uninsured people who never used to go who now go freely. And so on.)

In order to deal with the influx of customers to the nickel shop, several new decisions need to be made.

Should we hire new workers? Should we rush them through the training so we can get them into the shop ASAP?

Should we seek cheaper ingredients to deal with the increase in cost with the influx of orders?

Perhaps we might need to create a system where people need to order their pizza several weeks in advance? Or we need to prioritze some people over others, saying some people should not receive as many pizzas as others?

And let's not forget that "government subsidized" is just a code-word for "sponsored by you the tax payer". So in order to pay for this heavily subsidized pizza we have two (bad) choices:

a. borrow, and send the government further into debt (bad), or

b. raise taxes (bad)

And thus we complete the package of why we fear the proposed reforms.

We fear overworked doctors. We fear the potential need to hire more doctors quickly, with worse training, to deal with increased need from more patients.

We fear being rushed through the system ultra-quickly in order to deal with the surplus of new patients, resulting in inferior care.

We fear giant waiting lists preventing us from getting essential care in a timely fashion. (Think Canada and England, where patients have died waiting for treatment.)

We fear the reorganization of priorities. If the cost needs to be reduced, someone needs to have their services reduced. In the current situation, it looks like our wonderful American government has chosen the elderly as the victim.

We fear the country going into further debt, and we fear the potential of out-of-control taxes that seem to be the inevitable result of universal health care.

We fear the Robin Hood style government that thinks all can be sponsored involuntarily by the wealthy. We fear that if the wealthy are taxed severely, they will fire tons of employees which would further wound the economy, or they might pick up and move to a country which allows them to retain their profits, crippling the economy.

We fear a non-talented, non-thorough government making hasty decisions which could destroy everything we know and love about our country. The Constitution of the United States of America is much shorter than this proposed health care bill, but it took longer to write and was written by more talented, more intelligent people. And that is why it's basically eternal and has kept this country going strong for so long.

The difference between someone like me and the people of the current administration is foresight and deliberation. We all want change. The current health care situation is ridiculous. But change is NOT inherently positive.

If intelligent, well-meaning people set forth to better our system, slowly and carefully, good things are bound to come.

But rush into something like this, and we might all soon be eating burnt, nasty pizza...

By: David Jaffe
http://rabbijaffe.today.com
add comment ( 97 views )   |  permalink
Obama's Inexperience is His Achilles Heel For Health Care Reform 
Monday, September 21, 2009, 02:28 PM - Health Care
Posted by Administrator
President Obama recently said, "I'm not the first president to take up health care but I am determined to be the last". It is fairly certain that this congress will pass something called health care reform. It is even more certain that it will not look anything like what the president wants. He will be able to claim a political victory, but the socialist engineers in government will not allow this to be the end of the health care debate. Though this sound bite qualifies as comely rhetoric, President Obama is wrong once again.

President Obama overcame his inexperience to win his election last November, but his inexperience has caught up to him. He made the mistake of thinking that his "rock star" persona would translate into political power. There can be no doubt that the more experienced politicians that are surrounding him tried to slow him down as he began to add trillions to the national debt, began the government take over of the auto makers, and effected the destruction of millions of jobs in the name of environmentalism. He did not listen to his older and wiser advisors, and it is his major passion that will suffer because of his miscalculations.

There are two realities that the inexperienced Obama did not count on. First, it takes more than just getting elected to advance an agenda. The president did not consider the fact that the new voters that he was able to woo to the voting booth in November are not going to fight the long battles that are necessary to win policy in this constitutional republic. The new voters responsible for his electoral victory were not even aware that policy victories would require an immense amount of work after the election was over. More importantly when they voted for Obama they were expecting that he was going to do all the work for them. They were the kind of people who believe that government can solve every problem.

Secondly, because of his lack of experience in an executive position he was not aware that he held a finite amount of political capital. Because he did not heed the advice of his handlers, the president proceeded to spend his political capital like the average lottery winner spends his newfound wealth (the winners of large jackpots in the lottery are generally worse off financially within five years after winning than they were before they won the lottery). Now he has nothing left to purchase the health care plan that he so desperately wants.

The Democrats in congress will try to save face for their president. There is little doubt that they will pass something called health care reform, but it will look very little like the socialist plan the president wanted. Therefore, he has taken up health care like others before him, but he will not be the last to carry this mantle. The socialists will not be satisfied until the government has complete control of your health. The president produced a great sound bite, but it is only half right. For those who see socialism as the failed system that it is this battle will never end.

By: Randal A. Pope
Randal A. Pope is the founder of Natural Healing Herb, a distributor of quality herbal supplements for you and your family. You can find information about what herbs to use for your health. We are partnered with Nature's Sunshine®, which has been manufacturing quality herbs for your health for more than 30 years. Find us at http://www.naturalhealingherb.com
add comment ( 12 views )   |  permalink
New York Times Turns on Obama - Can Flyover Country Be Far Behind? 
Monday, September 21, 2009, 02:14 PM - Politics
Posted by Administrator
The new test of liberal political ideology seems to be, not whether you favor Obama's health care plan, but how long it takes you to realize what a disaster it is.

The American people were, as usual, first out of the gate to demonstrate their common-sense conservatism. Although a slim majority voted for Obama in November, a growing preponderance has been telling pollsters they disapprove of the President and his handling of health care. On Sunday, Rasmussen reported that Obama had reached a new low in their Presidential Approval Index, with health care one of his lowest-rated issues.

Like a teacher indulging a failing student's pleas to find a way to give him extra points on his test, the Congressional Budget Office has spent all summer admonishing Obama for presenting legislation that will be more expensive than advertised, produce no savings, and yield expanding and unsustainable deficits for the next 10 years. "Now, Barry, I've already given you all the credit I can-next time you'll just have to try harder."

The Mayo Clinic, which Obama cites as a model for cost-cutting measures, called the Medicare payment model proposed by Congress a "catastrophe."

Seven state medical associations banded together with private medical societies and two previous AMA presidents in a letter to the President opposing the legislation. The American Hospital Association is imploring hospital directors to counter Congress's bill, as are specialty associations such as the American College of Physicians.

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal cataloging the myriad flaws in Democrats' proposal.

After Obama insulted the Postal Service in his quest for a bill, the National Association of Postal Supervisors wrote Obama a letter expressing "our collective disappointment that you chose to use the Postal Service as a scapegoat ... It was a kick to the chest to have you take a shot at a group of federal employees who are working hard every day to support this country."

Pseudo-moderate network CNN recently chronicled "Five Freedoms You'd Lose in Health Care Reform," including the freedom to negotiate details of your plan, cut costs by living healthier, choose a high-deductible plan, keep your current plan, and select your doctors.

The Associated Press fact-checked Obama's claims and called him out for continuing to tell the same lies: e.g., if you like your health insurance, you can keep it-the implication being that you can keep it for as long as your employer and insurance company would otherwise have offered it without government health care, which is outlawed in Congress's plan.

The Washington Post, no friend to conservatives, has been barraging readers with columns opposing ObamaCare. Columnist David Hilzenrath affirmed that the administration would not be able to ensure that employees can keep the plans they have now. Martin Feldstein explained that the 85% of Americans who now have insurance would pay higher taxes and receive fewer services. Maya MacGuineas ridiculed the administration's pledge that it can add an expensive new health care plan covering millions more Americans that will cost no extra and actually alleviate the budget deficit.

The Post's editorial board also reminded the administration of the CBO's harsh projections and warned him not to treat these lightly. In a separate editorial, they scorned Democrats' stubborn, mindless fixation on a public option.

Obama's own Hyde Park doctor suggests that Congress's legislation is worthless and adds of his patient, "I'm not sure he really understands what we face in primary care."

In the workers' paradise to our north, the current and incoming presidents of the Canadian Medical Association recently bemoaned the failures of Canada's universal health care system, calling it "sick," "precarious," and "imploding," and urged Canadian doctors to support free market reforms to the system.

The artist of the Obama "Joker" poster, Palestinian socialist and Dennis Kucinich supporter Firas Alkhateeb, admitted, "[Y]ou had all of these people who basically saw him as the second coming of Christ. From my perspective, there wasn't much substance to him."

Air America host Christiane Brown decried Obama's reversal of his promise not to bar negotiation for lower drug prices, then purred, "He's such a charming liar, though. He's such a nice guy when he lies like that."

On Sunday, Senator Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats, said he's changed his mind on proposed legislation and urges postponing it until the economy recovers.

Now The New York Times has gotten on the bandwagon; you might say they finally have some "skin in the game." Times reporter David Pear reported a few days ago that there is, after all, a legitimate basis for elderly Americans' fear that legislation will lead to rationing of health care.

Paul Krugman criticized the President's priorities, belittled his dwindling ability to inspire confidence, and lamented that "his speeches and op-eds still read as if they were written by a committee."

Bob Herbert scolded Obama for not explaining why a gargantuan new government program is in our country's interest in the middle of a recession: "Many sane and intelligent people who voted for Mr. Obama... have legitimate concerns about the timing of this health reform initiative... [He] has not been at all clear about how the reform that is coming will rein in runaway costs... [P]eople are starting to lose faith in the president."

I'm glad the Times is finally starting to see the light on Obama's executive inexperience and his disastrous agenda. Maybe now millions of Middle Americans who hang on Krugman and Herbert's every word will develop more confidence in expressing their opposition at all those town hall meetings I keep hearing about.

By: Scott Spiegel
http://www.scottspiegel.com
add comment ( 28 views )   |  permalink
Indentured Slaves of America 
Monday, September 21, 2009, 01:59 PM - General
Posted by Administrator
You didn't know you were an indentured slave?

Let's understand what is an indentured slave. Back in the days of the Pilgrims those who wanted to come to the new land - America - had to have the money for fare and enough to get along when they arrived. Few had it. There were sponsors in America who paid their way in return for 5 years or longer of servitude.

The indentured slaves did the work and kept the sponsors in positions of high income and great power.

Indentured means the workers had to sign a contract agreeing to the terms of the sponsor.

Today slavery in the U.S. and most countries (not all) is not allowed. Today the American slaves don't even realize they have come under the yolk of greedy sociopathic people who seem to be taking care of them just as the original indentured folks were hundreds of years ago.

What do our new indentured slaves do? How did they get that way? Do they even know they are bound to a hidden master?

The hidden master is hiding in plain sight. He (she) lives in the neighborhood. The slaves love their master. Why? Because he continues to feed them and provide freebies of all kinds - free housing, food (stamps), money for TVs, cars, special education, social development, etc., etc.

The new master has a new name - politician. He provides everything the slave can want and the slave does not even have to work. The new master wants as many of these slaves as he can have dependent on him because they keep him in power. He makes more money, has greater power, unlimited health care and fantastic freebies. In fact the slaves don't care as long as they get theirs.

Our new slaves do not sign a contract for all their handouts. They do have to sign their name occasionally. It is on a ballot to vote every couple of years to keep their master in power. They do not realize that these handouts stop their brain from working because they could actually do better on their own. Initiative has been silently stolen from them.

Each time one of those who votes for a politician because he is going to get something "free" has more of his personal initiative stolen and becomes more indentured. They do not understand it is not free.

When freebies are proposed the indentured will always side with their sponsor. They have no thought as to who is going to pay for them or what rights are being taken from those who must make those payments. It's free.

The sponsor (politician) doesn't care either. It is not his money. He takes it from others.

When a person makes his payment to his sponsor (vote) he must decide if he wishes to continue his servitude or determine his own future.

By: Al Thomas
Al Thomas' best selling book, "If It Doesn't Go Up, Don't Buy It!" has helped thousands of people make money and keep their profits with his simple 2-step method. Read the first chapter and receive his market letter (made 15% profit in 2008) at http://www.mutualfundmagic.com Discover why he's the man Wall Street does not want you to know. Copyright 2009 All rights reserved
add comment ( 19 views )   |  permalink

<<First <Back Next> Last>>