race42008.com » Blog Archive » Elderly will make GOP majority party post-ObamaDem Medicare betrayal

August 8, 2009

Elderly will make GOP majority party post-ObamaDem Medicare betrayal

ObamaCareDems put in writing what Democrats scared Seniors into fearing from Republicans for last 40 years

Recent polls even in the Age of Obama, consistent with most polls ever taken on the subject over the last century and the present one, confirm a majority, center-right nation. Yet, we find ourselves led by very liberal democrats in the White House and Congress.

Conservative seniors can now join their natural party

How is this possible? Mainly because so many naturally conservative, high voter turnout, Senior Citizens have continued to vote for the Democratic Party, despite its increasingly liberal views, thinking it could only trust Democrats to preserve their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Since Medicare’s passage under LBJ with mostly Democrat votes, the world’s oldest political party has essentially scared our oldest citizens with the “Republicans will take yo’ check” line, into sticking with a party whose values are mostly anathema to those who ought be conservative if over 40 unless they have no brain. Of course, the 20-year olds with a heart naturally remain captive to the donkeys, but I digress.

Democratic Party’s fragile coalition severed by ObamaCare

So, despite no Republican president nor GOP majority proposed laws to take away the checks, the elderly mostly stuck with the devil they knew since the checks kept coming in. I say mostly, because the last time Democrats held the White House and super-majorities in Congress resulting in inflation so high that their checks were rendered worthless, they did turn to a fellow senior named Ronald Reagan to fix the checks, despite his conversion to the GOP. But once fixed, they reverted to their “unnatural” yet default Democratic Party.

So, we can almost understand why Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow democrats remained so confident that they continue to condescend to this vital constituency group, even to the point of directly contradicting the import of a written bill that ends Medicare as we know it.

Arrogant Democratic Party leaders forgot the elderly can read

The difference this time is that, unlike lies about what Republicans might do, the present lies from their mouths are drowned out by the actual, written House bill proposed, and written exclusively by democrats.

Did I mention that the bill is written? Do elected democrats understand that the elderly are literate?

Geezer mobs outnumber Public Employee Union mobs

They do now! Witness the mobs of geezers daring to shout when their elected democrats directly contradict (see lie, prevaricate, bear false witness) with their mouths, what the geezers see, with their own Coke-bottle thick corrected lenses, on pages 421-422 of the bill.

As a former Dem Party official of 18 years before 2000, I have often referred to the ubiquitous glazed-over eyes looks in Dem Party meetings among those of us that repeated known lies to each other that justified our embrace of known failed policies, but dared not admit same lest the whole House of Cards come tumbling down. The GOP is a party primarily defined by like-minded people on values, principles and policies. The Dems are an amalgam of factions that support each other on quid pro quos.

The Dems forgot the pro quo for the old when they wrote the health care reform bill. They long ago betrayed their minority faction by throwing the black man out the house and making Uncle Sam daddy. The only faction they don’t betray are public employee union leaders. Under ObamaDem rule, John Edwards would be right. There would be two Americas: Union and non-Union. Only the unions would be exempt from ObamaCare. How many states can Democrats carry with only black and union votes? Would only D.C. and the native state of McGovern be safe?

How dare mere constituents read and comprehend what John Conyers needs two lawyers and 48 hours he doesn’t have, to understand. They understand the import of required, periodic, end of life counseling every five years after age 45; increased Hospice emphasis; “cost savings” despite 40 million new insureds and no new doctors; and more. They are especially enlightened when democrats at Town Halls like Keith Ellison (D-MN) and President Barack Obama announce the principles likely to inform the Government Board replacement for “evil” Blue Crosses and Shields, include eschewing “guilt trips” and “subjective” concerns over “objective” criteria when choosing pain meds over life-prolonging treatment for the retired.

Denials of life-prolonging treatment is not active, life-taking euthanasia, but the result is the same.

Before Obama let Pelosi write all this down, did they overestimate the votes Democrats normally get from the dead, with the loss of votes from those seniors that continue to live?

Blue Dawgs ruled by We the People this time

The conservative movement has new life. Rumors of its death were greatly exaggerated, especially when Rahm Emanuel only crafted a majority with Blue Dogs running as fiscal conservatives in districts that voted heavily for Bush and McCain.

Even when Obama himself felt the need to run to the center and to repeat the mantra that if you “like your current coverage, you can keep it.” He ran on that, and keeps repeating that, but neither he, nor the yellow and blue, dogs can hide from a bill that has no such guarantee in it.

We did cover the fact that elderly democrats can read, right?

And so, the majority of old folks that have always eschewed apologies for America to foreigners; abortion on demand; non same-sex marriage; high taxes; Jeremiah Wright; Bill Ayers; those that call cops stupid; and those that unleash pitchforks on those that dis the Godfather.

GOP new protector of Medicare could be permanent majority party

The elderly have found the true protector of their checks, and it turns out to be the folks they agree with on most all other issues. So now, than can correct the cognitive dissonence of a center-right nation reuled by liberal elites.

ObamaCare aroused the silent majority. It is silent no more. Taking away Medicare checks was bridge too far. A betrayal that will not be forgiven.

The Dems made the mistake of putting their overreach in writing, depending on blue dogs to fold before the recess. Four did fold on the committee. But five joined Republicans on that committee, and at least 36 in anonymity refused to fold on the floor.

Now, at least two blues aren’t true blues as they have gone public in Town Halls against Obama and Pelosi.

Pitchforks may work on Bank execs and corporate CEOs fearing business death, Mr. Obama. But when seniors face an earlier death sans the pitchforks, then the threat of pitchforks has no power.

We the People have the power, and blue dogs are getting the message.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

by Mike "Gamecock" Devine @ 11:21 am. Filed under 2010, Barack Obama, Democrats, Issues, Republican Party

[Comments (48)] [Trackback URL] [link] [Print This Post ]

Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42008.com/2009/08/08/elderly-will-make-gop-majority/trackback/

48 Responses to “Elderly will make GOP majority party post-ObamaDem Medicare betrayal”

Josiah Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Until the elderly DIE.

The GOP can’t afford to just sit back and take the McCain Strategy (i.e. wait for your opponent[s] to self-destruct and then be the last man standing, whom voters reluctantly choose out of lack of a better choice).

The GOP needs to listen to what voters are saying: EXTREMELY smaller government, WAY less spending, FAR lower taxes, and TOTAL accountability and transparency of all government institutions across the board. And we need to cut back on government power and spending EVERYWHERE, including domestic AND foreign policy. We can’t be the Party that runs up record deficits while whining about children’s health insurance and bridges in Alaska. We’ve got to take care of the log in our eye, before we go around picking specks.
Au standard Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 11:33 am
it will be interesting if the dems stay consistent….when the Reps had the majority to change social security, they didn’t (couldn’t) because they had to listened the popular uprising against it…and dems stated that they should listen….this time its reversed and now the dems claim they don’t have listen to the people.
Mike "Gamecock" Devine Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Agreed #1 and #2
American Ideals Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Fortunately the vast MAJORITY of the people want health care reform, and given their own experiences with private insurers, when the dust settles there will be progress on health care. The question I have is what will people think about all the fabrications the right has been pushing, when the truth finally comes out?
Thunder Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
# American Ideals Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Fortunately the vast MAJORITY of the people want health care reform, and given their own experiences with private insurers, when the dust settles there will be progress on health care. The question I have is what will people think about all the fabrications the right has been pushing, when the truth finally comes out?

Okay who let the liberal in the house, its the left who are lying to the people, not the Right. This is not a socialist nation.
MetroIndependent Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“American Ideals,” just because the public wants health care reform does not mean they want more poison as the cure.
Mike gamecock DeVine Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
#4 and I wonder when you will stop beating your spouse?
MetroIndependent Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I want health care reform. We must return healthcare to the free market in order to get costs under control.

That doesn’t mean you can’t provide government health insurance for the poor, by the way.

It means everyone has a deductible, everyone has a co-pay, rate sheets are published, and people factor in the rate sheets into their decisions, like we do for everything else.
Liz Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
AMEN to this, brother. No doubt that if Obama were to be honest with himself, even he would admit that the life and death decisions to be made by him and his bureaucrats in this disastrous bill are ABOVE HIS PAYGRADE.
Liz Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
No honestly the first impulse I had in reading segments of this bill was, well what kind of evil people write this stuff up? Then I downgraded it to “brainless” people, but it’s a toss up for me.

Those creepy photos where Rahm Emmanuel is lurking in the background behind Barack, or sumsuch person, there may be something to that creepiness. I’ll bet he wants this power over who lives and who dies, getting into our bank accounts, accessing all our personal information wherever it might be….saying how much doctors can earn or even own, I mean that’s just weird control-freak-like and the fact that members of Congress are willing to sign off on this, I’m motivated. Let’s just say that. Very self-preservation-like motivated.
Illinoisguy Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Metro – I think we may agree on this one:

I don’t mind helping the poor with their health care. HOWEVER, I want a president that will pursue a course of action that will greatly reduce the number of poor people, and I don’t mean by the Obama method of spreading the wealth. I mean by putting in place those economic principles and incentives, that cause people currently too lazy, fat, drunk, or drugged to get off their can and get a job. We made a little progress in the ninties moving people off of welfare, but then we stopped the focus. I think our candidate, once president, and to some degree should campaign to implement policies that make war on poverty by getting the lazy bums to work, or be weaned off of help, whichever is their choice. Is that too much to ask?
OHIO JOE Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
““American Ideals,” just because the public wants health care reform does not mean they want more poison as the cure.” BINGO.
Paul Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
It’s funny we hear Republicans say that they do not want “faceless bureaucrats” making medical decisions but they have no problem with “private sector” “faceless bureaucrats” daily declining medical coverage and financially ruining good hard working people. And who says that the “private sector” is always right, do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Of course the federal government will destroy heathcare by getting involved, Oh but wait, Medicare and Medicaid and our military men and women and the Senate and Congress get the best heathcare in the world, and oh, that’s right, its run by our federal government. I can understand why some may think that the federal government will fail, if you look at the past eight years as a current history, with failures like the financial meltdown and Katrina but the facts is they can and if we support them they will succeed.

How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings, endears them to anyone. Especially when the organizations that are telling them where to go and what to do and say are Republicans political operatives, not real grassroots. How does shouting someone down or chasing them out like a lynch mob advanced the debate, it does not. So I think the American people will see through all of this and know, like the teabagger, the birthers, these lynch mobs types are just the same, people who have to resort to these tactics because they have no leadership to articulate what they real want. It’s easy to pickup a bus load of people who hate, and that’s all I been seeing, they hate and can’t debate. Too bad.
Right Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Why is that gay dog always on your post?
Aron Goldman Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Palin Paints Picture of ‘Obama Death Panel’ Giving Thumbs Down to Trig
by Jake Tapper
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/palin-paints-picture-of-obama-death-panel-giving-thumbs-down-to-trig.html

When we last heard from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin she was — not without some justification — beseeching some members of the media to “quit making things up.”

But in a post on her Facebook Page today, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee seemed to take some liberties of her own.

In a column titled “Statement on the Current Health Care Debate,” Palin wrote that as “Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!”

She questions Democratic promises that the health care reform plans will reduce the cost of health care, invoking economist Thomas Sowell, saying the only way to cut costs is to refuse treatment.

“And who will suffer the most when they ration care?” Palin asks. “The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

One can question whether there will by necessity be any rationing decisions that will need to come as a part of health care reform (and, in fact, we have) but pictures of government bureaucrats forcing euthanasia upon seniors — and, now, children with Down syndrome — because they’re not productive members of society are not part of any reasonable debate on the facts of the matter. (And frankly, I agreed with Palin previously, when she was asking members of the media to keep her children out of any public debate.)

Asked specifically what the former governor was referring to when painting a picture of an Obama “death panel” giving her parents or son Trig a thumbs up or down based on their productivity, Palin spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton responded in an email: “From HR3200 p. 425 see ‘Advance Care Planning Consultation’.”

That’s a curious reading of page 425 of the House Democrats’ bill, which refers to “advance care planning consultation,” defined as a senior and a medical practitioner discussing “advance care planning, if…the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.”

This includes an “explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to,” an “explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses,” and an “explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.”

It directs the medical provider to give the patients “a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning,” and an explanation “of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title,” as well as “an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders.”

Factcheck.org disputes this interpretation, saying “accepted definition of end-of-life planning means thinking ahead about the care you would like to receive at the end of your life — which may include the choice to reject extraordinary measures of life support, or the choice to embrace them….the bill would not make these sessions mandatory.”

Likewise, Politfact suggests that this interpretation was “Pants-on-Fire” untrue.

Palin refers in her statement to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who in a speech on the floor of the House, Palin said, described the “Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff. … I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.”

Bachmann’s speech was based on an op-ed article in the New York Post, titled “Deadly Doctors,” by the former lieutenant governor of New York, Betsy McCaughey, that took a number of leaps of fact when discussing the academic writings of Ezekiel J. Emanuel, health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

We vetted the factuality of McCaughey’s op-ed HERE.

The Heritage Foundation’s Thomas Sowell wrote a column, “Utopia Versus Freedom,” in which he warned readers to “not be surprised when life-and-death decisions about you or your family are taken out of your hands — and out of the hands of your doctor — and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington.”

In another column, “Care Versus Control,” he went further, asking, “Are decisions made by doctors who have treated the same patient for years to be over-ruled by bureaucrats sitting in front of computer screens in Washington, following guidelines drawn up with the idea of ‘bringing down the cost of medical care’? The idea is even more absurd than the idea that you can add millions of people to a government medical care plan without increasing the costs. It is also more dangerous.”

Having looked at other countries’ health care plans for his book, “Applied Economics,” Sowell wrote that “the actual consequences of government-controlled medical care is not a pretty picture, however inspiring the rhetoric that accompanies it. … Many people do not understand that it is not just a question of whether government bureaucrats will agree to pay for particular medical treatments. The same government-control mindset that decides what should and should not be paid for can also decide that the medical technology or pharmaceutical drugs that they control should not be for sale to those who are willing to pay their own money.”

Sowell’s are more reasonable arguments, though they don’t exactly emphasize that health care insurance company bureaucrats already are making such decisions. In any case, nowhere does he raise the specter of an Obama “death panel.”

The White House had no comment.
Illinoisguy Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I actually like the fact that Palin used the terminology of ‘Obama’s death panel’. It’s the kind of thing that should make the news, and the elderly and those with older parents and grandparents will really become vividly aware of this part of the bill. Any verbage that can highlight the atrocities of this bill is welcome
Doug Forrester Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
#8 I think you ought to write a post along those lines. I’m sure most of us on here would be willing to post it.
Tommy Boy Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
In response to Tapper, I’ll post links backing up Palin’s point (they are in the open thread as well):

An Inconvenient Truth About The “Death Panel”
By William A. Jacobson
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/inconvenient-truth-about-death-panel.html
Tommy Boy Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Keeping Big Brother Out of End-of-Life Decisions
By Suzanne Fields
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/07/death_in_the_casino_97806.html
Tommy Boy Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Did Sarah Palin say Obama’s “death panel” might kill her baby?
By Ann Althouse
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/08/did-sarah-palin-say-obamas-death-panel.html
Tommy Boy Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Factcheck and Politifact did not address the points made by the former Lt. Gov. of New York in her recent WSJ op-ed.

Betsy McCaughey: GovernmentCare’s Assault on Seniors
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320421050552730.html
Tommy Boy Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Or her interview with Mark Levin:

Betsy McCaughey on The Mark Levin Radio Show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w4f04zrF2s&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eexaminer%2Ecom%2Fx%2D11257%2DDenver%2DLiving%2DOver%2D55%2DExaminer%7Ey2009m8d6%2DFive%2Dof%2Dthe%2Dtop%2Dten%2Dquestions%2Dto%2Dask%2Dabout%2DObamas%2Dhealt&feature=player_embedded
Tommy Boy Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Obama did kind of respond to the “death panel” rhetoric today:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/08/obama_takes_issue_with_politic.html?hpid=topnews
Aron Goldman Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Livin’ La Vida Loca
By Maureen Dowd
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09dowd.html?pagewanted=print

Ego can be dangerous. Bill “believed that Obama had gotten a free ride from the media, and he wanted to force a conversation about that,” Balz and Johnson wrote in their book, “The Battle for America 2008.” They added, “His once certain political touch and instincts eluded him.”

It’s also interesting to read the chapter on “Palinmania” and remember how serene Sarah Palin was before she became unhinged by fame and her fixation with her reviews, especially from conspiratorial and gossipy bloggers.

The same McCain advisers who later turned against Palin were impressed with her at first, when she earned adjectives like unruffled, self-confident, tough-minded and self-assured.

From Bill Ayers to Reverend Wright, “Sarahcuda” was ready to bite, telling rallies, “The heels are on, the gloves are off.”

But by the end, after Tina Fey, Katie Couric and the shopping spree, Palin had lost confidence. She became erratic.

“During a campaign trip in October to New Hampshire, she balked at sharing the stage with former congressman Jeb Bradley because they differed on abortion and drilling in the Arctic wilderness,” the authors wrote. “That same day, she was reluctant to join Bradley and Senator John Sununu for conversation aboard her campaign bus and had to be coaxed out of the back of the bus to talk to them, according to a McCain adviser.”

President Obama fires back at Sarah Palin post claiming his health plan would create a ‘death panel’
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/08/08/2009-08-08_sarah_palin_facebook_posting_claims_obama_health_care_would_create_a_death_panel.html#ixzz0NcPkqZPf

Fact-Checking Palin
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/factchecking-palin.html

President Obama: Don’t buy health reform ‘rumors’
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25935.html

Obama Takes Issue With ‘Political Point-Scorers’ Over Health Care
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/08/obama_takes_issue_with_politic.html

Jewish Groups Assail Nazi Comparisons Made by Conservatives in Health Care Debate
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/jewish-groups-assail-nazi-comparisons-made-by-conservatives-in-health-care-debate.html

Reactions to Rush Limbaugh’s Obama/Hitler comparison
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/07/limbaugh/

For Dems, a new public enemy No. 1
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann is outspoken, conservative, media-friendly — and for many in the Democratic Party, a new public enemy No. 1.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25928.html#ixzz0NeJGpfjw
Liz Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
If your lib friends are like mine, they are willing to put off supporting Obamacare until Obama makes good on his earlier promises of filling their gas tanks, free TV’s, reduced mortgage payments, and lowering the sea level etc. I’m comfortable with that compromise.
Liz Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
And as for Paul asking if I’d rather have private insurance saying no than the government, of course I would. You can sue private insurance, you CANNOT sue government it’s in the bill. IN ADDITION to that, with private denials I can still go and pay for my own care, privately. The government does not even allow you to get PAIN KILLERS privately or your gov-care is terminated. Ask Daniel Hannan.
MWS Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Metro,

I agree with Doug in #17. She should do a FPP fleshing that out, and explain how more market transparency means lower cost.
MWS Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Liz,

#25 LOL!
Tommy Boy Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
‘As I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous.’
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmIxZDRhYTZmOWMyYWUyYTQ4YWQwMjlkM2MwMzhhNTA=

For those who didn’t like my post on how the end-of-life counseling provision in the health-care bill could never, ever, ever, turn into something less innocuous, cross the federal government’s heart, you must read this column by the Washington Post’s Charles Lane:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic.

. . . Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.

Speaking as a right-wing wacko, if the federal government had a long history of handling complicated questions in a professional manner with delicacy, sensitivity, caution, and recognition of unintended consequences, then I would have more faith in this provision not leading to something profoundly disturbing.
Illinoisguy Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
By the way, even though I stated I liked the fact that she said it doesn’t mean I think it was a good move for her politically. I was referring that it helped bring the issue to the forefront, which I think hurts Obama and his backers in Congress. It probably hurts her some politically, but I’m not sure she cares right now.
Liz Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Hey, my husband got a job!!! Obama did fix the economy. China’s economy. My husband will be living over there for quite some time, bless those Chi-coms hearts for not letting my babies starve. I think I’ll celebrate by going to a townhall and getting beaten bloody by the SEIU I’m so jazzed.
Liz Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Maybe we’ll move there, problem is I have 8 kids and they only allow 1 there. Course, if Obamacare passes, I might have to give some up here too once that government family planner comes around. Hmmmm….
Tommy Boy Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Undue Influence
The House Bill Skews End-of-Life Counsel
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html

Until now, federal law has encouraged end-of-life planning — gently. In 1990, Congress required health-care institutions (not individual doctors) to give new patients written notice of their rights to make living wills, advance directives and the like — but also required them to treat patients regardless of whether they have such documents.

The 1997 ban on assisted-suicide support specifically allowed doctors to honor advance directives. And last year, Congress told doctors to offer a brief chat on end-of-life documents to consenting patients during their initial “Welcome to Medicare” physical exam. That mandate took effect this year.

Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they’re just trying to facilitate choice — even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic.

What’s more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor “shall” discuss “advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to”; “an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses” (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and “a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families.” The doctor “shall” explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).

Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable. What are “key questions”? Who belongs on “a list” of helpful “resources”? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?

Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.

As it happens, I have a living will and a durable power of attorney for health care. I’m glad I do. I drew them up based on publicly available medical information, in consultation with my family and a lawyer. No authority figure got paid by federal bean-counters to influence me. I have a hunch I’m not the only one who would rather do it that way.
Tommy Boy Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Dr. McCaughey’s rebuttal of PolitiFact’s Truth-O-Meter re: “End of Life Counseling”
http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/images/website_rebuttal_sburg_P-1.pdf

There have been flawed criticisms of my reading of a section of H.R. 3200. The critics have hastily read page 425 of the HR 3200, rather than reading the full relevant text (425?443) or considering the reality of being a frail elderly patient. Here are four facts frequently overlooked:

1. The counseling includes not only living wills and durable powers of attorney, but specific methods to end life. On page 430, the bill prescribes counseling on whether or not to forego nutrition, hydration, and antibiotics, in states where such counseling is permitted.

2. There is an inherent conflict of interest in this counseling. Medicare funding is going to be cut 10% over the next decade ($500 billion in cuts) to pay for the health reform legislation, at the same ti????e that Medicare enrollment is projected to increase 30%. More people to care for and fewer dollars will necessitate rationing. It is understandable that the government wants to curtail spending on end of life care. But the use of specific “patient decision aids” (p.443) discussed in the legislation such as scripts, videos, and brochures is problematic. If United Healthcare provided end of life counseling with a script prepared by the insurance company, there would be up uproar over the obvious conflict of interest.

3. The author of “Pants on Fire” should read on to pages 443 to see that patients will participate in “shared decision making.” Shared with whom? The government certified counselors. No where is it stated that the patient unilaterally has the final say. The bill merely says the patient’s views will be “incorporated” into the decision making.

4. The author ignores how unlikely it is that elderly patients will instruct a doctor or other authority figure who offers end of life counseling to stop the presentation

In summary, the Truth?O?Meter should turn its attention to the man with his pants on fire, the President, who makes the false statement daily that if you like your health insurance you can keep it. Pages 15?17 of H.R. 3200 make it clear that is untrue.
Aron Goldman Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Obama’s Embrace of a Bush Tactic Riles Congress
President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us/politics/09signing.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print

As Dems fret, Obama sharpens war goals
President Barack Obama next month will send Congress a new plan for measuring progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in an effort to build confidence among wavering Democrats and give sharper direction to a costly and increasingly bloody war, White House officials told POLITICO on Saturday.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=FBAA94FF-18FE-70B2-A8D67999137B328A

Will Obama fight for his health plan?
President Obama is supposed to be the great communicator. If he wants healthcare reform, he better start communicating.
By Joan Vennochi
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/08/09/will_obama_fight_for_his_health_plan?mode=PF

Reforms Conservatives Can Favor
As healthcare passions rise, let’s keep in mind reforms that Republicans and conservatives can and should support.
by David Frum
http://www.newmajority.com/reforms-conservatives-can-favor

What if We Win the Healthcare Fight?
http://www.newmajority.com/what-if-we-win-the-healthcare-fight

GOP Congressman Booed for Telling People to Turn Off Glenn Beck
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/08/gop-congressman-booed-telling-people-turn-glenn-beck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fGZATm4HkE&eurl=
Tommy Boy Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Someone must be worried about re-election….

Bennet introduces bill to cap deficit, limit spending
http://www.ktva.com/ci_13014937

“(The Denver Post) Sen. Michael Bennet introduced legislation today that would put a statutory cap on the deficit beginning in 2012, forcing Congress to limit its own spending or trigger automatic cuts.

Bennet’s bill would require the deficit to be capped at 4 percent of GDP in 2012, then drop to 3 percent every year thereafter. If that goal isn’t met, automatic spending cuts would kick in to bring it to that level.

Appointed as Colorado’s junior senator in January to replace Ken Salazar, Bennet over the last several weeks has rolled out a number of initiatives to define himself as a ‘fiscal hawk.’

Entitled the Deficit Reduction Act of 2009, this bill is similar to a law in effect in the 1980’s known informally as “Gramm-Rudman-Hollings,” which aimed — and failed — to reduce the deficit to zero by setting specific targets.

Bennet chief of staff Jeff Lane said his boss’s bill is more flexible than that well-known piece of legislation because it sets reduction targets as a percentage of GDP and because those targets are waived in times of slow or no growth.

The current budget would come nowhere near meeting the bill’s target. Largely because of the $787 million stimulus, the federal budget deficit this year is 12 percent of GDP. It is projected to drop to 8 percent next year and then fall to 3 percent by fiscal year 2014.

In all, the deficit broke the 3 percent mark only twice between 1950 and 1980, Lane said. Since then, the deficit has landed above 3 percent 16 times, showing the need for legislatively-imposed discipline, he said.

Still, the bill is likely to have an uphill battle in the Senate budget committee, whose chairman, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., is opposed to the kind of automatic budget cuts that could be triggered by Bennet’s bill.

“We have no illusions how difficult this might be, but we think we need to get the conversation started,” Lane said. That conversation is already a little tardy, said Amber Wilkersen, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Senatorial Committee. “Unfortunately, this is too little too late from Senator Bennet after his vote in favor of the failed stimulus bill, the pork-laden omnibus, and the President’s massive budget in just seven months since his appointment by Governor Ritter,” she said.
Tommy Boy Says:
August 9th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Here’s a response to Frum:

David Frum’s Counsel of Despair
By Robert Stacy McCain
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/08/david-frums-counsel-of-despair

What Frum’s analysis neglects, it seems to me, is the possibility that the Left knows what it’s doing in pushing for ObamaCare. If defeating ObamaCare would not be a victory for conservatives, then why is the Left pushing so hard to pass it? Is the “status quo” so “irrational” and “underperforming,” does Frum mean to say that ObamaCare would be a genuinely beneficial reform?

On the other hand, if a massively expensive government takeover of the health-care industry is bad policy — and conservatives are unanimous in saying so — then why does Frum seem so eager to discourage and demoralize opponents of ObamaCare? Frum’s “New Majority” strategy looks like what some would call the Vichy Republican response.
Aron Goldman Says:
August 9th, 2009 at 2:06 am
The Massachusetts Model
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09sun1.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
Mike gamecock DeVine Says:
August 9th, 2009 at 9:07 am
#14 Blue Dog
Aron Goldman Says:
August 9th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Republicans banking on 2012 election
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25923.html

Blue Dogs rocket to prominence in House
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/blue-dogs-rocket-to-111560.html?printArticle=y

Dean on Palin’s health care claims: ‘She made that up’
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/09/dean-on-palin%E2%80%99s-health-care-claims-%E2%80%98she-made-that-up%E2%80%99/

Crunch Time for Obama
Mr. Obama still has time to avoid repeating the mistakes of the first Clinton term but it will take a fundamental and near-term shift in ideology, approach and commitment to regain his momentum.
by Doug Schoen
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/columnists/doug-schoen/ci.Crunch+Time+for+Obama.opinionPrint

Congressional Budget Expert Says Preventive Care Will Raise — Not Cut — Costs
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/congressional-budget-expert-says-preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs.html
Tommy Boy Says:
August 9th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Gingrich defends Palin’s ‘death panels’
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/gingrich-defends-palins-death-panels-.html

Newt Gingrich and Howard Dean went at it on health care this morning on This Week. Especially over Sarah Palin’s claim that Obama’s health care plan will create “death panels” that would encourage euthanasia.

“Communal standards historically is a very dangerous concept,” Gingrich told me.

“You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in American who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.”
Tommy Boy Says:
August 9th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Death panels? What death panels? Oh, those death panels
By Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/09/death-panels-what-death-panels-oh-those-death-panels/
Tommy Boy Says:
August 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Defending Frum
By Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/09/defending-frum

Robert Stacy McCain took issue with David Frum’s blog post arguing that defeating Obamacare may prove a pyrrhic victory for conservatives, but I actually mostly agree with what Frum wrote in this case. Just take a deep breath and give me a moment to explain. As I have written repeatedly, conservatives should not be defenders of the status quo, because we do not have a free market health care system in this country. Nearly half of health care spending is already done by the government through entitlement programs that are bankrupting us at the state and federal level, and what’s left of the private market is controlled by bad government policies. We have a tax code that discriminates against those who purchase insurance on their own rather than through their employer, which makes it impossible for somebody to take their health insurance with them from job to job and drives up costs because people always have the perception that somebody is else is picking up the tab. And those who do purchase health care on their own must navigate a highly-regulated individual insurance market in which they don’t have the freedom to purchase the amount of insurance coverage they want, because states mandate how many benefits insurers must offer.

So, while it’s encouraging to see the backlash against Obamacare, it’s easy to see how many of the same arguments can be turned against any future effort to pass free market reforms of the health care system. If Obama, with the full backing of AARP, can’t touch Medicare without getting scorched by seniors worried about losing coverage, then it’s difficult to see older Americans digesting conservative entitlement reform proposals. If Democrats have had to shelve even tinkering with the employer-based health system, both because of bad polling and union opposition, then its hard to see how conservatives could successfully argue that we need to move away from it. And if conservatives have gained traction by noting that Obama’s health care proposals will cause people to lose their current coverage, the argument could be turned around because transitioning to a free market system — while, in my view, much better in the long-run — would have to disrupt the employer system in a way that would likely result in some people losing current coverage. Now, as I said at the outset, I “mostly agree” with Frum, but not entirely. While watching this health care battle unfold demonstrates how difficult it would be to pass free market reforms, the passage of Obamacare would actually make real reform impossible. If we lose this battle we’ll have a massive new entitlement in place that we won’t be able to do away with and it really will be the coup de grace to limited government conservatism. I’d prefer to have a fighting chance.
Tommy Boy Says:
August 9th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Frum, Health Care, Conservatives Cont’d
By W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/09/frum-health-care-conservatives

One of the biggest mistakes conservatives made after defeating the Clinton health care plan in 1993-94 was to delcare victory and go home rather than pursue policies that would create a freer market in health care. To the extent that Republicans got involved in health care policy at all, they either defended the status quo or promoted incremental steps toward a more government-controlled system — Kennedy-Kassebaum, SCHIP, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The one exception has been relatively modest expansions of health savings accounts.

Republican presidential candidates tout more or less free-market health care plans on the campaign trail just to have something to say when they issue comes up. Then they promptly chuck these plans once the election has passed. The failure to present a real alternative means that even when we dodge a bullet, as we have done repeatedly since the Truman years, it’s inevitable that the issue is going to come up again on liberal terms.
American Ideals Says:
August 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
“Course, if Obamacare passes, I might have to give some up here too once that government family planner comes around. Hmmmm….”

Ah, summer. To hear the cry of the ‘deathers’ on a peaceful summer’s eve…
Aron Goldman Says:
August 9th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Kudos to Democratic mayor of Newark, Cory Booker, who said the following this morning on Meet the Press:

MR. GREGORY: Let me talk about taxes. Mayor Booker, if the president wants to expand government with not just a stimulus program but also a massive healthcare overhaul, can he keep his pledge of not raising taxes on the middle class? Is that the responsible thing to do?

MAYOR BOOKER: Well, look, in our cities we’re finding that the more we can create tax incentives, the more we can create tax-free zones, the more you stimulate economy, the more you create opportunity. If we’re going to create competitive cities for the future, we’ve got to continue programs like the one started by Jack Kemp and supported by many Democrats, which was enterprise zones and things like that. So I’m hoping, and my conversations with the Obama administration is that they’re looking at ways to create–may create more competitive cities so we can create–compete with the Mumbais, the Dubais, the Shanghais, cities like New York and cities like Newark. But the challenge is, is that when you want to do more and provide more as a government in terms of services, you’ve got to figure out a way to pay for it.

But let’s take the reality of health care, for example. Right now urban hospitals are being crushed under the weight of paying for the uninsured, paying for undocumented immigrants. I’ve had two hospitals close in my city that sent out tsunamis in terms of waves of people that need help and need support. We’ve got to find a way to pay for these things because, unfortunately, the cost is getting passed on.

MR. GREGORY: Well–but that, but that’s the question, can you do all of that? Can you relieve that crunch and just tax the wealthiest Americans, or do you have to extend that?

MAYOR BOOKER: You, you have to talk about the problem in the totality. If you don’t have things like tort reform, if you don’t have things like advocating prevention programs, if you start working more aggressively in the totality of the problem, I think you reduce the burden on the taxpayer. And that’s why cost control is one of the most important parts of this conversation.

Will middle class’ taxes have to rise?
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Newark Mayor Cory Booker discuss President Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan with NBC’s David Gregory on “Meet the Press.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32348459#32348459

For those unfamiliar with Booker, here are a few other reasons why this fast-rising star from New Jersey will continue to attract attention from voters on the other side of the political aisle. Who knows? Maybe Booker is the kind of Democrat even Palin could campaign for.

Jack Kemp: A Great American Servant
by Cory Booker
http://blog.corybooker.com/?p=312

Home Is Where the Heart Is
Can Cory Booker save Newark’s schools?
http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3853122.html

Booker Seeks Vouchers, Says He Could Best Bloomberg on Schools
The mayor of Newark, Cory Booker, says he could turn around his city’s struggling schools in half the time it has taken Mayor Bloomberg to make improvements in New York City’s schools — if voters grant him mayoral control. Merit pay for teachers, vouchers, more charter schools and New York City-style empowerment for principals are also on Mr. Booker’s schools agenda, which he disclosed to The New York Sun in an interview last week.
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/booker-seeks-vouchers-says-he-could-best/48896/

School Choice and Government Reform: Pillars of an Urban Renaissance
By Cory Booker
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/cgi-bin/apMI/print.cgi
Aron Goldman Says:
August 9th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
This just hit my inbox from Barack Obama:

Friend –

All throughout August, our members of Congress are back in town. Insurance companies and partisan attack groups are stirring up fear with false rumors about the President’s plan, and it’s extremely important that folks like you speak up now.

So we’ve cooked up an easy, powerful way for you to make a big impression: Office Visits for Health Reform.

All this week, OFA members like you will be stopping by local congressional offices to show our support for insurance reform. You can have a quick conversation with the local staff, tell your personal story, or even just drop off a customized flyer and say that reform matters to you.

We’ll provide everything you need: the address, phone number, and open hours for the office, information about how the health care crisis affects your state for you to drop off (with the option of adding your personal story), and a step-by-step guide for your visit.

According to our records, you live near Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen’s office in Miami Beach, FL.

Sign up now to visit Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen’s office in Miami Beach this week.

(Not your representative, or think there might be another office that’s easier for you to get to? Click here to find a different office.)

As you’ve probably seen in the news, special interest attack groups are stirring up partisan mobs with lies about health reform, and it’s getting ugly. Across the country, members of Congress who support reform are being shouted down, physically assaulted, hung in effigy, and receiving death threats. We can’t let extremists hijack this debate, or confuse Congress about where the people stand.

Office Visits for Health Reform are our chance to show that the vast majority of American voters know that the cost of inaction is too high to bear, and strongly support passing health reform in 2009.

Don’t worry if you’ve never done anything like this before. The congressional staff is there to listen, and your opinion as a constituent matters a lot. And if you bring a friend, you’ll have more fun and make an even greater impact.

Click below to sign up for an Office Visit for Health Reform:

http://my.barackobama.com/OfficeVisit

Wherever you live, these visits matter: Many representatives are pushing hard toward reform, and they are taking a lot of heat from special interests. They deserve our thanks and need our support to continue the fight. But those who are still putting insurance companies and partisan point-scoring ahead of their constituents must know that voters are watching — and that we expect better.

Earlier this week, the President wrote that “this is the moment our movement was built for” and asked us all to commit to join at least one event this month. This is the way to answer that call, and rise to the challenge of this moment together.

Thank you for going the extra mile when it matters the most,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America
renie02 Says:
August 9th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I don’t see poster #11 complaining about the current “death panels” in the insurance companies that exist now. Oh but Wait! its the free market, so it’s ok to have death panels in the free market.

You sound more and more ridiculous to me about this subject.