race42008.com » Blog Archive » Intent to Kill: Genocide and Obamacare

August 14, 2009

Intent to Kill: Genocide and Obamacare

Genocide - acts committed with intent to destroy (life)

The term genocide was applied to the civil war in Rwanda, not based on total military and civilian casualty rates, but because of the intent of the government to murder Tutsis and Hutu moderates. The 1994 planning and execution of this Rwandan government policy has led to the arrests and convictions of former government officials.

The Hutu government’s intent was based on a traditional hatred of their Tutsi cousins, but not all genocidal events occurred because of hatred or political ideology. Some governments have inadvertently caused genocide through their economic and health policies, absent of sound judgement, credible research and facts.

In the late 1990’s,the Indonesian government decided to use a new type of warfare to combat the 20 year old democratic insurgency in Christian West Papua. With the purpose of reducing the number of healthy young men of West Papuan indigenous ethnicity, the Indonesia government relocated HIV-Aids infected prostitutes from Surabaya to West Papua with the purpose of infecting men of fighting age. Due to the unreasonable stigma and prejudices related to HIV-Aids in Indonesia, the government made this decision lacking the basic understanding of the medical science behind this disease. To the previous Indonesian government, HIV-Aids was a disease that only infected prostitutes and the men who visited them. The government officials who planned and executed this policy lacked the education on how HIV-Aids was transmitted and the statistics on the tens of thousands of children and parents who were infected across the country at the time. West Papua is an isolated region of Indonesia, which until recently had very little contact with the outside world. Residents lack access to sex education and health services to combat this foreign disease.

The long-term impact of the actions of the Indonesian government can only be described as genocide. West Papua now has one of the highest HIV-Aids rates outside of Africa. This health crisis threatens to exterminate an entire generation of West Papuans. Increasingly, they are no longer speaking of freedom, but of survival.

a local medical worker told me that for every reported case there is likely to be up 100 unreported cases of HIV/AIDS in West Papua. If her observations are correct, then up to ten percent of West Papua’s indigenous population may already be infected and the number is rising.

Whether the policy decisions are based on flawed judgement, the determination for political survival, or historical prejudices, we must fight governments (dictator or democratically elected) who are determined to initiate laws that threaten human life and dignity. This includes the proposed Obamacare reforms.

Obamacare legislation fails to acknowledge that mortality rates for cancer, cardiopathy ailments and other diseases are for the most part higher in countries with mandated public insurance program, then in the United States. If President Obama succeeds in transitioning the US health care system to a government run program, he will be responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of his fellow citizens. In addition to the higher mortality rates, expect a drastic increase in the suffering of those who are battling cancer. Canadians can wait up to 10 weeks longerthan they would in the United States for radiation therapy.

Under the Obamacare program, expect to see an increase in abortion rates (mandated funding in HR3200), decreased University enrollments for health care programs, more of a focus on treatment rather then prevention and higher long-term care costs for our seniors and hospital closures.

The chief of staff at Brampton’s embattled new hospital has apologized to a 72-year-old grandmother whose Christmas Day surgery to repair a broken thigh was allegedly botched when the doctor cut into the wrong leg, her family says. The apologies came after the family filed a formal complaint with the Brampton Civic Hospital ombudsman over the incident, which 21-year-old Kanwaljot Brar said has left her formerly spry grandmother in serious pain and incapacitated as she recovers not only from a broken bone but incisions on both legs. / Two other patients have died and their families believe it was due to complications caused by long waits for care.

Similarly to the genocide in West Papua, it will take years to study and calculate the deathly impact of public insurance on our families, economy and communities. For John Q. Public, their evidence will be the reality of watching their neighbours and family members suffer from lengthier absenteeism from work, extended hospital stays, or the many more who never return home because of the lack of access to quality, private care.

Is Obama intent of destroying the private system? Is Obama’s intent to drive up mortality rates for the sake of universal access? Is Obama’s intent to pass this reform regardless of the financial consequences? Or maybe, President Obama is uneducated or unwilling to educate himself to the realities of public health insurance programs in other nations?

Fight the socialist take-over and preserve liberty! Silence is surrender.

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

by Kristofer Lorelli @ 2:03 pm. Filed under Barack Obama, Issues

[Comments (35)] [Trackback URL] [link] [Print This Post ]

Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42008.com/2009/08/14/intent-to-kill-genocide-and-obamacare/trackback/

35 Responses to “Intent to Kill: Genocide and Obamacare”

Kristofer Lorelli Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Michelle Malkin: Rep. Melissa Bean charging $25 entrance fee to town hall
OHIO JOE Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
“Michelle Malkin: Rep. Melissa Bean charging $25 entrance fee to town hall.” I do not believe what is happening to this country. Who is getting the money?
mike Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
The people in America live on genetically modified frankenfood. This is by design by the New World Order. High fructose corn syrup has replace normal sweeteners and turn the home of the brave into the home of the lard A##. Fluoride is in most public water supplies. This is proven to cause cancer and make people less aggressive. Stalin used Fluoride in the gulogs to keep people under control and need less guards in the prison. Once you have a fat docile American they then give you Asparteme (which causes cancer) in every diet food. The drug companies are owned by the global elite. The media is owned by the global elite. The Federal Reserve is owned by the global elite. Turn off your TV, start rejecting their drugs and frankenfood, and drop the right left paradigm. The Council of Foreign Relations hates America.
GetReal Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
3 – It wasn’t me, it was the Twinkies! The Twinkies I say!
Alex Knepper Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Are you seriously now charging Obama with planning to commit genocide?
Kristofer Lorelli Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Obama’s Youtube Arrogance Just Became A Nightmare

http://forthardknox.com/2009/08/14/obamas-youtube-arrogance-just-became-a-nightmare/
American Ideals Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Under the Obamacare program, expect to see an increase in abortion rates (mandated funding in HR3200),

Completely false. There is no such provision.
American Ideals Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Are you seriously now charging Obama with planning to commit genocide?

A little over the top, wouldn’t you say?

http://www.dailykos.com/weeklypoll/2009/8/13

Dems up across the board, GOP down across the board, and this is a snapshot after the first few weeks of August recess. More people want healthcare reform, despite the loud minority protests.
Kristofer Lorelli Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
BUSTED!: “Obama As Hitler” Poster Was A Democrat/Union Plant
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/busted-obama-as-hitler-poster-was.html
Kristofer Lorelli Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Obama Behind Beck Boycott

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/08/obama-behind-beck-boycott.html
Bob Hovic Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Kristofer: I feel very badly for the folks of West Papua, but I still think your characterization of ObamaCare as genocide is just a wee bit over-the-top.

Did you stop and think before you posted this?
Kristofer Lorelli Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Is ObamaCare a form of Geriatric Genocide?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2310992/posts
Bob Hovic Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I wouldn’t use Free Republic (or Kos, if I were on the left) as a back-up when being questioned as to whether I’m going over the top (“Hey, I’m not going too far — some guy at Kos agrees with me”). But even the post you reference begins, “Yes, I know…I’m engaging in a bit of hyperbole with the above title …”

When a Freeper realizes a claim is hyperbolic (and you inserted no such disclaimer), that means it’s waaaay past what I’d normally expect at R4-12.
Aron Goldman Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Conrad says he won’t support government-run health care program
http://www.jamestownsun.com/event/article/id/91608/

CARRINGTON, N.D. — Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. presented his cooperative health care proposal here Thursday and told an audience of 100 that he would not vote for a government-run health care program.

Conrad stopped in Carrington as part of his a statewide tour touting the Senate Finance Committee’s cooperative health care proposal.

The proposal has received bipartisan support for several reasons, he said. The cooperative would offer a non-profit insurance option to compete with private health care. It would not be government run, he said.

Individuals, families and small business owners could stick with their current provider, or they could opt for the cooperative plan.

Health care issues are a concern in the country and North Dakota, Conrad said. A North Dakota family of four currently pays more than $11,000 for health insurance. By 2016, Conrad predicted health insurance costs could almost double to more than $20,000 for a family of four.

“The government itself cannot afford the direction we’re going,” he said.

Those attending the meeting also voiced their concerns regarding health care reform.

Carrington Mayor Don Frye said his concern was the importance of health care in rural areas. He feared health care reform could impact rural facilities like the Carrington Health Center.

“Our community’s strength is only as strong as the health care system in place,” he said.

Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements are handled unfairly, Conrad said. The reimbursements punish states like North Dakota whose work is more efficient. He said he won’t vote for any reform plan that doesn’t make reimbursements more equitable.

Dr. Todd Schaffer, a family practice doctor who works at Carrington Health Center, said patients should be treated without regard to costs. That, however, doesn’t always happen.

“The health care that we give is sometimes not what we want,” Schaffer said.

Matt Paulson, pharmacist at Carrington Drug, said health care reform needs accountability. And it needs time to create the best solution.

“When things are rushed in our daily lives, things get missed,” he said.

Conrad agreed.

He said he and the Senate Finance Committee have yet to submit a final proposal. The proposal needs more time and shouldn’t be rushed, he said.

President Barack Obama had originally set an August deadline for the House and Senate to pass health care reform. That target is too rushed, Conrad said.

“I don’t think an arbitrary timetable fits with an issue of this complexity,” he said.

Conrad said he would not vote for any health care reform that funded abortions, care for illegal immigrants or a plan that mandates end-of-life counseling.
Aron Goldman Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Oh, Those Death Panels
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/13/oh-those-death-panels/

You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody’s business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn’t already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that’s not just shameless, it’s stupid.

Yes, that’s right. Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let’s go to the bill text, shall we? “The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary’s need for pain and symptom management, including the individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.” The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now–or they’re lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it, Mr. Grassley (“Yea,” 2003)?
Aron Goldman Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Multiple Republican Leaders Voted in 2003 for Measure Similar to Current “Government Euthanasia” Bill

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/multiple-republican-leaders-voted-in-2003-for-measure-they-now-decry-as-government-euthanasia/

GOP officials John Boehner, Thaddeus McCotter, Johnny Isakson, and Chuck Grassley all voted in 2003 for a measure very similar to the one in the current House health care bill they now suggest in various ways could lead to government-encouraged euthanasia.

As Time’s Amy Sullivan reported late last night, Grassley voted for the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, which — ready? — provided coverage for “counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.”

The only difference between the 2003 bill and the House Dem one that’s inspired the “euthanasia” talk, Sullivan reports, is that the earlier one “applied only to terminally ill patients.”

Let’s go back and check the roll call on that 2003 vote to see who else voted for it. Turns out Boehner, McCotter and Isakson all did, too.

Boehner and McCotter, as you know, have said that Medicare coverage of end of life consultations could lead to “government encouraged euthanasia.” While Isakson supports end of life counseling generally, he opposes the House bill because it allows “government to incentivize doctors by offering them money to conduct end-of-life counseling.” Grassley said people are “right to fear” that government could “decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”

Fun postscript: GOP Rep. John Mica of Florida voted for the 2003 bill — and last week he denounced the current House measure for creating Medicare-funded “death counselors.”
Aron Goldman Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Boehner Spox: It’s “Idiotic” to Cite His 2003 Vote for End of Life Measure
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/boehner-spox-its-idiotic-to-cite-his-2003-vote-for-end-of-life-measure/

Here’s the response from Boehner spokesman Michael Steel to our post, which said that the 2003 Medicare prescription drug act, which Boehner and many Republicans backed, provided funding for end of life consultations, albeit for the terminally ill:

“Anyone who understands this issue would find this comparison idiotic. Hospice care is, by definition, for people who are already close to death. The Democrats’ new government takeover of health care legislation would offer this counseling to every senior on Medicare.”

Steel’s point is that the earlier legislation Boehner backed is specifically for those undergoing “hospice consultation services” and are terminally ill, while the more recent legislation funds all end of life consultation. That’s true — and the later bill does contain other various provisions that the earlier one didn’t.

But the core objection many Republicans are making to the current bill is to the general concept of Federally funded end of life consultations, because Republicans say they risk veering into discussions of euthanasia. The objection is that government money shouldn’t be funding any conversations about artificially ending one’s life.

It’s not even clear that this would happen. But if it did, and if you opposed Federally-funded conversations about ending a patient’s life, it’s unclear why you’d be okay with them if the patient were terminally ill.
Aron Goldman Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Giuliani on “Death Panels” Issue
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1715547,rudy-giuliani-health-care-.article
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=313617

Giuliani, a once and possibly future Republican presidential candidate, headlined a three-day meeting of GOP state legislators from around the country at a “GOPAC” political action committee convention at the Westin O’Hare. The focus is on fighting the Democrats’ health care reform plan.

He blamed Obama for “causing the problem of people being cynical” by insisting the government can afford to expand coverage without raising taxes.

“President Obama says he will cover 30 to 40 to 50 million people who are not covered now — without it costing any money,” Giuliani said. “This is absurd. Health care — in case the Obama administration hasn’t noticed, is very expensive. They will have to cut other services, cut programs. They will have to be making decisions about people who are elderly.”

Guiliani said “intelligent people” would come to the conclusion that Obama’s plan will ration health care and threaten the lives of senior citizens, particularly by offering end-of-life counseling that would push them to give up costly treatment efforts.

“This is a real concern,” he said. “This isn’t made up by talk show hosts.”

Pressed on whether he himself believed the legislation calls for “death panels” to recommend hospice instead of treatment for the elderly, Giuliani said, “The only way in which you can save money the way the president and the House claims is by reducing care. So it is natural that some people would believe, particularly since they have these provisions for end-of-life decision-making councils, that it is natural that people would suggest that one of the ways you would do that is to cut off care for the elderly. Whether they will do that or not I don’t know. … People assume these ‘Death Panels’ will be created. They [Democratic legislators] have created that suggestion in the ambiguity of the legislation.”
Aron Goldman Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Giuliani: Obama failing to lead
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=160044F5-18FE-70B2-A852FFAF5A1BF3C8

Former New York City Mayor and rumored gubernatorial candidate Rudy Giuliani said Thursday that President Barack Obama may be facing the first big loss of his presidency because he has not taken strong enough leadership on health care.

Giuliani, in an exclusive interview with POLITICO prior to delivering the keynote address to the second annual GOPAC conference in Chicago, said the president has allowed fears of so-called “death panels” to persist because the White House has not taken a strong enough hand in crafting health care legislation.

“They never really studied the legislation that has been proposed,” Giuliani said. “The reason for the concern about the death panels is the legislation and the claim by the president that he will cover thirty to fifty million people without cost, and any time you say it’s without costs you raise a number of concerns.”

“It has to be with cost, because it costs money with every single person that is covered. That cost has to come from somewhere, which means something has to be cut,” the former Republican presidential candidate explained. “So where are you going to decrease services? There is a great fear that it will be by cutting off care for the elderly.”

Like former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin, Giuliani insisted that some of the president’s “closest advisors” have advocated for the creation of “death panels” to determine the course of treatment for some elderly and infirm Americans.

“If they’re concerned that they’ve created this massive groundswell that is worried about death panels, the only ones they have to blame are themselves,” Giuliani said of the Obama administration. “If they would like to end it, they should change the legislation, remove all these end of life panels, remove these czars and come clean with the American people that it is going to cost them a lot of money.”

From the beginning of the process, the White House has been mindful to not repeat the perceived mistakes the Clinton administration made during the 1994 push for health care in not being flexible enough with congressional leaders. Rather than taking a top-down approach, the Obama administration has left Congressional leaders to take the reins in passing the respective bills and intends to weigh in heavily only as the two chambers hash out a compromise in the conference committee.

Giuliani though, said the White House’s hand-off approach has proven flawed, claiming that the president has at times lost control of the debate.

“If the White House had proposed the plan, it would basically be the same plan. But would they have looked better doing it? I think so,” the former Republican mayor said. “My definition of leadership is that’s what you should do. Whether it would have worked better this time or not, I don’t know.”

“They would have looked more like they were in control and in charge,” he added. “Maybe the president would have had a better performance during the last press conference, when he didn’t seem to know what the plan was about.”

Additionally, the former mayor blamed the White House for the polarizing nature of the health care debate, and said the administration hadn’t made an effort to roll Republican ideas into the legislation.

“When president Obama took tort reform, medical malpractice reform, off the table, he also took off the table any hope of a bipartisan solution,” Giuliani said. “It demonstrated a kind of sense that he wasn’t really acting in good faith, that this was a political solution rather than a good government solution.”

While Giuliani conceded that it is likely Democrats will still pass some variety of health care reform legislation, he believes the White House will have suffered its first big loss if the bill does not include a public option.

“[Obama] really defined the terms of the debate. As I listen to the president the most important thing to him is the public option, if he doesn’t get that, then he has lost,” Giuliani said. “If he doesn’t get the public option it will be an immediate and big political defeat.”

The former mayor though said a loss for Obama is not likely to immediately translate into a boost for Republicans.

“The president has the spotlight, it’s not on Republicans,” Giuliani said. “The president could have any number of political defeats right now and it doesn’t mean anything two years from now.”

“I actually think it would be counterproductive for Republicans to try to capitalize on it right now. I don’t think people are interested right now in Republicans,” he continued. “People are interested in the president’s plan and does it make sense? Does it not make sense? Is it a disaster? There are plenty of Republican plans out there that no one is going to pay attention to.”

When asked to provide his alternative, Giuliani suggested that rather than a systematic overhaul, those who cannot afford private health insurance should receive subsidies similar to the federal grants and loans many Americans receive to go to college.

“If we want to go the direction of universal health care, then the way we should go is the idea of subsidizing people who can’t afford health insurance the way we subsidize people who can’t afford a college education,” he said. “Democrats oppose that. So I believe we are in favor of reform even more than Democrats are in favor of reform.”
Tommy Boy Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Preliminary data from Colorado:

http://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/3313091835

“The Mountain West has plenty of birthers too- 94 Obama was born in the US, 44 he was not, 44 not sure.”
Tommy Boy Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
If these numbers hold up, I think Obama is looking at 45/48 approval/disapproval in Colorado.

http://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/3313077897

“Colorado: should the govt. stay out of Medicare- early counts- 71 yes, 79 no, 38 unsure. That’s a good prism into the health care battle.”
American Ideals Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
“Colorado: should the govt. stay out of Medicare- early counts- 71 yes, 79 no, 38 unsure. That’s a good prism into the health care battle.”

Not really. The question is suitably vague to get a firm answer. If the question was, should the government fix the financing of Medicare to keep it solvent, you’d get a flip in numbers easy. If you asked, should the government dismantle the socialist Medicare program, you’d get another answer. You can’t tell anything about moods with a question that isn’t specific.
Aron Goldman Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Considering the Dems at PPP are asking absurd, sarcastic questions like: ‘Is Hawaii part of the U.S.?’ to gauge just how deranged the birthers are, I took this question about the government staying out of Medicare as a trick question intended to screw with (mostly Republican) respondents.

Obama Pokes Fun At ‘Don’t Touch My Medicare’ People
July 28, 2009
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/07/obama-pokes-fun-at-dont-touch-my-medicare-people.php

President Obama poked fun today at people who want the government to stay out of Medicare.

“I got a letter the other day from a woman. She said, ‘I don’t want government-run health care. I don’t want socialized medicine. And don’t touch my Medicare,’” Obama said at an AARP-hosted town hall on health care. The crowd laughed.

“I wanted to say, you know, that’s what Medicare is: a government-run health care plan that people are very happy with,” Obama said, smiling, as he made the case for a public option to compete with private insurance plans.
Tommy Boy Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
GOP: Dems Want To Spend Money To Cut Medicare
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/gop_dems_want_to_spend_money_to_cut_medicare.php

That’s what Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) will say of President Obama’s health care reform initiative in tomorrow’s Republican radio address: that’s its basically the worst of two worlds, in which Democrats spend a trillion dollars to expand government involvement in health care, while at the same time cutting Medicare:

Especially at a time when spending and debt are multiplying with such alarming speed, like an almost $2 trillion national deficit this year alone, $200 billion in state deficits, a Medicare program on the edge of bankruptcy and a national debt that will triple within the next decade…

Medicare offers an important lesson. With $38 trillion in future costs, it is facing bankruptcy within the next decade, threatening access to care for millions of Americans. So what is the Democratic approach to fix Medicare for our seniors? Hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts which will be used to expand a financially-strapped Medicaid program and create another government-run plan.
Tommy Boy Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Republicans Going States’ Rights On Health Care
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/republicans_going_states_rights_on_health_care.php
Tommy Boy Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Good read from far-left liberal Taylor Marsh:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/08/14/the-divider/
Tommy Boy Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Ominous signs for those who support Barack Obama. A great sign for those of us who oppose the man.

A Tale of Two Reform Plans
By Kristen Soltis
http://thenextright.com/kristen-soltis/a-tale-of-two-reform-plans

Picture the scene: a fairly popular President, having amassed a significant amount of political capital, decides its time to cash in and spend some on a tough reform effort for a failing, inadequate system. Many Americans agree that the status quo isn’t acceptable long-term but hesitate to sign on to changes that they deem too risky. Members of Congress go out to their districts and are confronted at town hall meetings with frustrated, vocal constituents worried about the risks of the plan. The President’s popularity outpaces his policies and in particular, this major reform package. Even with control of both houses of Congress, the package can’t survive. The reform fails.

If you feel like you’ve seen this story before, you’re not wrong. The trajectory of the 2009 health care debate seems eerily similar to that of the 2005 battle for Social Security reform. Taking a look at the polling from then and comparing it to the data of today shows the parallels in the situation and shows why the health care debate feels all too familiar.

Similarity #1: Presidential Popularity

First, take a look at a bit of a throwback post from 2006 at MysteryPollster.com where Bush’s job approval from January 2005 forward is tracked. Bush began 2005 with job approval over 50% – slightly below where Obama started at the beginning of July (Gallup’s 7/05-07/2009 poll had Obama at 56%). The trends are not dissimilar: Charles Franklin’s plot of Bush job numbers from January 05 forward shows a similar shrinking of support that looks an awful lot like the Obama job approval chart on the front page. This isn’t a particularly surprising finding, but provides context to the other more striking comparisons.

Similarity #2: The Agreement that the Status Quo is Unacceptable

In both the Social Security debate and the health care debate, Americans agree: the system needs major overhaul. While so many other issues fail to get Americans to agree with the crucial “we need to do something” sentiment, both Social Security and health care had that extra boost from a public that agreed: maintaining the current system is not workable long term. In February 2005, Gallup found 73% of Americans said Social Security was “in crisis” or “has major problems”. (18% said Social Security was “in crisis”).

Compare that to the health care debate of today. Gallup has found that 20% of Americans believe health care is “in crisis” and at least a majority believe it has major problems (unfortunately, Gallup doesn’t tell us how large a majority). To flesh that out a bit, Gallup asked the question in November 2008 and found 73% of respondents said that health care was either “in crisis” or had “major problems”. Does that number sound familiar?

Similarity #3: Issue Handling

By March 2005, Bush’s numbers on issue handling of Social Security were brutal, with an ABC/WaPo poll showing only 35% approving and 56% disapproving. CNN/Gallup had even worse news with only 1 out of 3 approving. Compared to 49% approval shortly after Bush took office, once the issue became a hot topic, Bush’s number tanked.

Similarly, Obama’s numbers have plummeted on health care since before the debate. In April, during Obama’s honeymoon, Pew showed Obama with a 51-26 advantage on health care job approval. By August, he had a 42-43 disadvantage – quite the fall from the earlier numbers. The idea that “the president is more popular than his policies” held true then as it does now. (Just take a look at Mara Liasson’s February 2005 NPR story, titled: “Bush More Popular that His Social Security Plan”).

In both cases, the President began his administration with the trust and support of the people to fix their given “crisis”. In both cases, once the debate flared, their numbers dropped significantly. But it is worthwhile to point out that the comparison is not perfect – the Obama honeymoon numbers were immediately followed by the debate, while Bush had a full four years before tackling Social Security.

At any rate, this is just the basic side-by-side look at the reasons why this health care debate may seem like a bit of a “glitch in the Matrix”, giving those who watch politics a sense of deja vu.
Heath Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
You are becoming a characture of yourself Kris. An unknown version of Glen Beck.
Kristofer Lorelli Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
#28, Glenn has 2 n’s in his first name.

Now, don’t you have drug needles or x-s condoms to hand out to your liberal friends in downtown Sydney?
Heath Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Charming.
Kevin Says:
August 15th, 2009 at 1:49 am
A genocide?! Wow.

This is kind of stuff that will make people hostile and violent.
OHIO JOE Says:
August 15th, 2009 at 6:07 am
“This is kind of stuff that will make people hostile and violent.” Hello, what do you think genocide is? Ha, you are trying to tell us that genocide is not violent.
Illinoisguy Says:
August 15th, 2009 at 6:24 am
States rights is exactly the angle from which we should be fighting the health care battle. Nit picking individual components just gives them the opportunity to pull a few things out and act as if we are just the party of ‘no’ if we fight it after they pull them out. This doesn’t belong at teh federal level, PERIOD!
OHIO JOE Says:
August 15th, 2009 at 9:19 am
We need to do both Illinoisguy. Simple logic, apart from the constitution dictates that such non-sense does not belong on a Federal level, but we are dealing with a bunch of clowns that do not care about the constitution, logic or our country. They are either ignorant, stupid or trying to sabotage our country, take you pick. We need to fight this both on constitutional grounds and nit pick individual component and the same time. Other countries have constitutions too, but they have socialized medicine. Constitutions are only good if both the government and the people follow and live by the Constitution. It is not a health care issue, but look at the @#$% they tried to do in Hondures.
Eric Dondero Says:
August 15th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Kristofer, your article is NOT OVER THE TOP! In fact, it’s actually quite brillant. Thankfully, someone is standing up and saying what needs to be said.

We Libertarians were starting to think that our Conservative cousins were getting a bit wimpy in this fight against Obama Fascism. I just wish more Conservatives would stand up and say similar things to what you’re saying here.

Good job my good man! Good job.

I have you a prominent link and feature at http://www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com