Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Lia, Liar, Pants on Fire!!!

index5Who’s the Liar Now, Mr. Obama?

Written by Chip Wood
Monday, 21 September 2009 02:00

It isn’t easy to upstage the President of the United States when he’s delivering a speech to a joint session of Congress. But Rep. Joe Wilson managed the feat 12 days ago, when he blurted out, “You lie!” during President Barack Obama’s pitch for his healthcare proposals.

Legislators from both sides of the aisle were quick to jump all over the Republican congressman from South Carolina for his rudeness. Katon Dawson, the former head of the Republican Party in South Carolina, opined, “If Joe’s mother or father were alive, they’d take him to the woodshed and whip him for bad manners.”

Before the night was out, Wilson had been pressured to call the White House to apologize. Not content that Rep. Wilson apologized directly to the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her cronies demanded he also apologize on the House floor. When he refused, they voted 240-179 to “disapprove” his actions. Ah well, at least it distracted them from spending a few billion more of your tax dollars for a day or two.

By the end of the day last Thursday, Rob Miller, his opponent in last year’s election, reported that he had received some $400,000 in contributions from 11,000 donors to help him defeat Wilson next time around. Wilson promptly announced that he too had received a big chunk of moola from patriots who want him to stay in Washington. Looks like next year’s election in that district will be mighty interesting.

Lost in all of the hullabaloo were two things worth mentioning: First, Wilson’s outburst paled in comparison to the treatment President George W. Bush received on numerous occasions from his Democrat opponents. There were times during George W.’s State of the Union speech in 2005 when there were so many jeers, cat-calls, mutterings, and murmurings that it was difficult to hear what he was saying. Anyone remember the liberal media expressing its outrage then?

But my second point is far more important: For all of his impoliteness, Wilson was telling the truth. Obama wasn’t.

Wilson’s outburst was in response to the president’s claim that nothing in the Democrats’ proposals would lead to federal funding of healthcare for illegal immigrants. Wilson knows something most Americans don’t: Liberals in Congress have defeated every single attempt by Republicans to put such provisions into law. Of more than 20 such amendments that were introduced in the past year, not a single one has been allowed out of committee.

No wonder Wilson was so upset. He knows what’s really been going on behind those closed committee doors. He knows Obama was playing fast and loose with the truth. And so did everyone else in the House chamber that night.

I wasn’t surprised by all the blatant falsehoods in Obama’s speech. For me, the tone was set in the first five minutes, when the president told the assembled lawmakers, “I am not the first president to take up this cause. But I am determined to be the last.”

That may have been great rhetoric. The assembled Democrats obviously thought so, because they gave the president an enthusiastic standing ovation.

Yes, it might have sounded good. But it wasn’t the truth. And everyone listening to the president knew it.

Is there anyone anywhere who honestly believes that the government’s role in providing healthcare for the public will no longer be an issue when President Obama leaves office? That no one on either side of the aisle — Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative — will ever introduce new legislation to “improve” whatever system Congress agrees to during Obama’s tenure?

Give me a break. This debate will continue until long after your great-grandchildren have collected their last Social Security check. Obama knows that. So does every member of the House and Senate who sat through his speech that night. And to pretend otherwise is nothing short of political duplicity. (That’s a more polite way of saying, “He lies!”)

Another obvious fantasy in the president’s address was his claim, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future — period.”

Let me see if I’ve got this right. Under ObamaCare, some 40 million Americans who currently do not have health insurance will suddenly get coverage … and it won’t cost taxpayers a dime? Does anyone believe this?

I was amused to hear the president say that one reason his plan would be more efficient is that the government-run program, unlike private insurance, wouldn’t have to make a profit. Nor would it have to pay all those expensive executive salaries.

Has anyone anywhere found one example of a government-run program that is more efficient than private enterprise? Anyone? Anyone?

It’s hard for me to believe that any adult American could be so gullible as to believe this. What I do believe is that a majority of Congress will pretend to believe it, knowing that a bunch of their constituents want it to be true. (Or, far more likely, don’t care if it is or not, so long as they get all those “free” benefits they’ve been promised.)

Another misleading remark in Obama’s address was his claim that “no federal funds will be used to fund abortions.” Did you notice that not a single pro-abortion legislator (who as a group are probably the most outspoken extremists in Congress) said anything in opposition to this part of Obama’s speech?

That’s because they know the fix is in. Despite repeated efforts by pro-life legislators, not a single proposal to put this into law has been approved in Washington. No matter what Obama says now, the pro-abortion crowd is confident that whatever legislation is finally approved, it will include a provision requiring that so-called “public option” health insurance covers abortions.

Finally, let me say a few words about the part of Obama’s speech I found the most offensive. That was his “my way or the highway” attitude. He accused talk radio hosts, cable news, and conservative leaders of deliberately spreading falsehoods. He wants you to believe that everyone who opposes his plan to nationalize medical care is lying.

There was not a word of criticism for the attack dogs on the left, such as House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who called opponents of these plans “un-American.” Or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who labeled those who disagree with him as “evil mongers.”

After denouncing virtually everyone who has disagreed with him, the president then said, “Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together.” The amazing thing to me is that no one laughed out loud at the hypocrisy of such a statement.

As every conservative on Capitol Hill knows, there has been absolutely no effort to include them in this debate. Their ideas are not welcome — and neither are they.

To say that conservatives and libertarians have never offered any constructive suggestions about healthcare is a flat-out lie. Anyone who cares can check out proposals on “How to Insure Every American” by Republican Representatives John Shadegg and Pete Hoekstra. Or the very sensible ideas for health-care reform by John Mackey, the founder and CEO of Whole Foods. Or the detailed analyses and proposals from the Cato Institute, Reason magazine, the Heritage Foundation, and a dozen others.

Republicans haven’t been included in negotiations on Capitol Hill for months. House Speaker Pelosi has shown nothing but disdain for those who disagree with her. Nor is it any different at the White House, where conservatives have been locked out of discussions on healthcare since early spring.

While he says he wants bipartisanship, Obama means he wants opponents to sit down, shut up and go along with his proposals. He seems determined to use the Democrat majority he enjoys in the House and the Senate to ram through the most drastic reorganization of healthcare this country has ever seen.

He doesn’t want to debate; he wants to dictate. We’re about to find out if a majority in Congress will let him.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

Chip Wood was the first news editor of The Review of the News and also wrote for American Opinion, our two predessor publications. He is now the geopolitical editor of Personal Liberty Digest, where his Straight Talk column appears twice a month. This article first appeared in PersonalLiberty.com and has been reprinted with permission.

[x] close
_:

*
a:
Amazon
*
d:
Download Squad
*
f:
Facebook
*
g:
Digg
*
l:
Lifehacker
*
m:
Mashable
*
n:
NYTimes
*
r:
ReadWriteWeb
*
s:
MySpace
*
u:
YouTube
*
w:
Wikipedia
*
?:
Who’s the Liar Now, Mr. Obama?

Powered by ScribeFire.

1 Comment

Filed under Grassroots, Patriots, Politicians, Uncategorized

Obama’s Orwellian Health Care Reform

This picture appears in an old acreditation fo...
Image via Wikipedia

Obama’s Orwellian Health Care Reform
Written by Steven Yates
29 July 2009

President Obama promised the country healthcare reform. With the number of uninsured or underinsured Americans now exceeding 45 million, the country’s mood appears ready to accept his plans. In fact, he has continued to make any number of promises regarding health care reform, e.g., that under “his” plan you’d be able to choose your primary care physician, or through your employer, the insurance plan that best fits your needs. Now, however, as we read the fine print of the two 2,000-plus page bills currently before each of the two branches of Congress, evidence is emerging that “Obama care” would make George Orwell spin in his grave.

Our current health care system is far from perfect, but does afford consumers a range of choices such as those mentioned above. These choices would disappear in the long run under “Obama-care.” The present plan under consideration amounts to a federal takeover of the entire health care industry in America. Under it, you would lose many more freedoms than you would gain.

Fortune at CNNMoney.com recently took us on an excursion through the fine print of “Obama-care.” Their conclusion is that you would lose five specific freedoms under the plans currently being considered by Congress:

(1) You would lose the freedom to choose what is in your plan. The bills before both houses would require you to purchase insurance through “qualified” (by government) plans offered by health care “exchanges” to be set up in every state. The federal government would impose a minimum list of benefits each plan must offer. Many states already have such a list in place, and such policies have driven up health-care costs. The bills before Congress would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits based on new recommendations from a panel of “experts,” meaning that the costs to Americans could be ratcheted up after a final version of “Obama care” is signed into law.
(2) You would lose rewards gained for not smoking or otherwise pursuing healthy lifestyle options as an individual. “Community rating” (already existing in 11 states) requires all patients to pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of age or medical condition. Younger and healthier people are forced to pay more than their actual cost, while older workers who can afford to pay more are afforded discounts. Under “Obama-care” this system would be federalized. Moreover, the bill specifically bars rewarding people who pursue healthy lifestyles such as participating in worksite exercise programs as being no different then barring insurance companies from charging higher premiums for customers with known health conditions such as diabetes.
(3) You would no longer be able to chose high-deductible coverage to lower your rates. Hundreds of employers offer employees Health Savings Account plans. Employees can deposit portions of their paychecks into the account with matching contributions from their employers. The employees can use their deposits to purchase a high-deductible plan for major medical costs (e.g., over $12,000) while also using the fund to pay for routine doctor’s appointments. HSAs prompt cost-consciousness. The bills before Congress endanger consumer cost-conscious health care. The required minimum packages would prevent patients from choosing plans covering only major medical expenses. Again, the federal government could set low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs after the bills are signed into law, according to John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis.
(4) President Obama has insisted that under “Obama-care” you would have the freedom to keep your present plan. Those who have closely read the bills before Congress contend that over the long run the reality would be otherwise. The legislation divides the insured into two main groups—employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as part of their benefits packages from their employers, and those not covered by ERISA but who have private insurance or through small businesses. The former may indeed “keep” their existing plans, but only because they have been “grandfathered” for five years. Afterward their employers would have to offer government-approved plans through the “exchanges” with all their rules and restrictions noted above, and below. The legislation would require all insurers offering plans to the second group to offer the government-approved plans. Employees who purchased their plans before the law goes into effect could again “keep” them, but with a major restriction: if their plan changes in any way, e.g., through switching coverage for a drug, the employee would be forced to drop out and seek coverage through the “exchange.” Millions of employees would lose their freedom to keep their existing health care plans within the first year. (You would not, it should go without saying, be allowed to choose to be uninsured under “Obama care.”)
(5) President Obama has maintained that under “Obama-care” you would retain the freedom to choose your own doctor. The Senate version of the bill requires that Americans buying health insurance through “exchanges” must obtain care through what it calls “medical home”—the Obama-care equivalent of an HMO. You would be assigned (not allowed to choose) a doctor, and that doctor would control your access to specialists if needed. Health care gatekeepers would guide patients to tests and treatments that have proven cost-effective. The danger here is obvious: patients could be denied necessary care if it couldn’t be shown to be cost-effective.

The present system has its faults. Some of us are wondering if the coupling of health care benefits to employment, a practice dating back to the 1930s, was a good idea to begin with. Our problem in a nutshell has long been that we Americans have wanted quality health care but have not wanted to pay for it, and have instituted mechanisms of avoiding paying for it. Consequently the system has delivered services at below-market-value rates. Moreover, the offering of health care services at below-market rates has failed to encourage healthy behavior within the population. Basic economics dictates that the costs have to be made up somewhere, and the consequences of offering health care services at below-market rates has been the explosion of costs we have seen recently—along with many employers no longer offering health care benefits to their workers.

What are we to conclude from this excursion? Perhaps that in true Orwellian fashion, Obama has said one thing while the massive proposal for health care reform will actually do something quite different — possibly moving us closer to the sort of society in which the elderly and others not contributing directly to the economic system would technically be part of the health care system but be denied crucial medications or procedures not deemed “cost-effective” — euthanasia without its name, in other words.

What can we do? First, we must go back to basics and realize that health care choices are decisions that stem from an individual’s basic and unalienable rights to life and liberty. As such health care decisions and expenditures should be made by individuals of their own free will. That won’t be the case under the Obama plan.

Steven Yates earned his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1987. He is the author of one book, Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (San Francisco: ICS Press, 1994) and numerous articles both in academic journals and elsewhere. He has taught philosophy at Clemson University, Auburn University, Wofford College, the University of South Carolina, Southern Wesleyan University–Columbia, and Midlands Technical College, and has held fellowships with or worked on projects with the Institute for Humane Studies, the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Acton Institute for Religion and Liberty.

Author of this article: Steven Yates
Show Other Articles Of This Author

* What Is the Bank for International Settlements? (30 June 2009)
* Real Danger From the Extremists (04 June 2009)
* Police Interfere With Emergency Medical Vehicle (01 June 2009)
* Supreme Court Pick: Sonia Sotomayor (26 May 2009)
* New Restrictions on Credit Card Industry (22 May 2009)

Powered by ScribeFire.

2 Comments

Filed under Grassroots, Patriots, Uncategorized