I was wrong about Obama

[_richardMdBorn]

He really is the Messiah. Recently, he said that your employer's premiums will drop by 3000 percent if you pass health care reform.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUd-slJc ... r_embedded

So if the average cost for a family plan is $14K ($12,680 in 2008 http://www.therubins.com/medicare/healthcare.htm), Obama's going to reduce the cost by $420K. The White House corrected this and said that he meant to claim that your employer's cost will be reduced by $3K. Does anybody believe the corrected number.

Note that even Democratic Senator Dick Durbin admits that premiums will continue to rise under the Democrats' plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7QAci-XWHY

[_bcspace]

Obamacare defies known economic principles if reducing costs and providing coverage is the goal. The situation is largely solved simply by allowing insurance companies to swim in a free market instead of what they are forced to do now.

[_Kevin Graham]

That’s not what Dick Durbin said last week. Health care “costs” are projected to go down according to the CBO and that is not what Durbin referred to. What Durbin said was that “next year’s” premiums would go up, but the part the Right Wing Propaganda Machine failed to mention -relayed here - is that Durbin stressed that premiums would increase more rapidly without the Health Care Reform Bill. Now compare this to what Obama said a week ago:

“Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people's premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion OVER THE NEXT DECADE because we're spending our health care dollars more wisely. Those aren't my numbers. Those aren't my numbers --they are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress for what things cost.”

[_richardMdBorn]

That’s not what Dick Durbin said last week. Health care “costs” are projected to go down according to the CBO and that is not what Durbin referred to. What Durbin said was that “next year’s” premiums would go up, but the part the Right Wing Propaganda Machine failed to mention -relayed here - is that Durbin stressed that premiums would increase more rapidly without the Health Care Reform Bill. Now compare this to what Obama said a week ago:

“Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people's premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion OVER THE NEXT DECADE because we're spending our health care dollars more wisely. Those aren't my numbers. Those aren't my numbers --they are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress for what things cost.”

Kevin, perhaps you should look at the report

Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its
release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its
consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a
review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and
refinement of the budgetary projections.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf

Do you consider this report to be definitive? The CBO obviously doesn't.

Pelosi touted fantasy savings from cutting Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse totaling some $500 billion over the first ten years of the Demcare plan. But House Democrats are relying on reaping massive dividends from Medicare reimbursement cuts that no one in Congress has had the courage to make. They also set aside the projected $200 billion so-called “doctor fix” to Medicare to make their math fit.

The first four years of Demcare clock in at $17 billion, which means the last six would cost a whopping $923 billion. As the CBO noted, it “does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period” — with second-decade projections subject to “an even greater degree of uncertainty” than its projections for the first decade.

http://article.nationalreview.com/428505/the-deem-o-crats-towering-deception/michelle-malkin?page=2

Ten years of taxes are compared with six years of benefits. Guess what will happen to the economy next year when there are huge tax increases.

[_richardMdBorn]

Of course, Obama's an expert on health care. Remember his brilliant comments last summer:

At a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., last month, our uninformed lawyer in chief suggested that we physicians would rather chop off a foot than manage diabetes since we would make more money doing surgery. Then President Obama compounded his attack by claiming a doctor's reimbursement is between "$30,000" and "$50,000" for such amputations! (Actually, such surgery costs only about $1,500.)

http://orthoprax.blogspot.com/2009/09/just-brilliant-doctors-plan-for-legal.html

President Obama managed to offend two very powerful interest groups during his press conference on Wednesday night: the National Fraternal Order of Police, who did not take well to the suggestion that the Cambridge Police Department had acted "stupidly" in arresting a Harvard professor for disorderly conduct; and, even worse, otolaryngologists whom he falsely suggested enjoy frivolously removing young people's precious tonsils.

It is one thing to be accused of poor police procedure or even racism, but to be labeled a reckless tonsil-harvester is a smear from which few recover. Here is the vicious speculative falsehood that President Obama uttered during his rather long and lecturey talk with the press:

Right now, doctors, a lot of times, are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if ... your child has a bad sore throat, or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, "You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out."

Now, that may be the right thing to do. But I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change -- maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference.

The American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) hastened to release a statement expressing its grave disappointment that the president would speak so capriciously of tonsillectomy, which, as a point of fact, may be a lot cheaper than treating allergies or whatever.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/archive/Tonsil-Doctors-Fight-Obama-Smear.html

But Obama's a lawyer. Maybe he's just arrogant and ignrorant about health care. He certainly would know the Constitution since he's been touted as a constitutional scholar. At least, he wouldn't make a mistake about it in an important speech like the State of the Union.

We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/state-of-the-union-2010-president-obama-speech-transcript/story?id=9678572&page=4

The genius quotes from the Declaration of Independence and says that the promise comes from the Constitution.

[_richardMdBorn]

More information for Kevin to consider:

During his speech about health care reform last Wednesday (3 March), the president made these startling comments: He demanded an “up or down” vote on his health care bill, arguing that his bill “will bring down the cost of health care for millions,” that it is “fully paid for,” and that it will lower the long term deficit by a trillion dollars. As columnist Peggy Noonan has commented: “Does anyone believe this? Does anyone who knows the ways of government, and how history has played out in the past, believe this? Even a little?”

During the recent health care “Summit” at the Blair House, Congressman Paul Ryan made the following remarks, which I quote at length: “Mr. President, you said health-care reform is a budget reform. You’re right. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability. That’s $38 trillion in empty promises to my parents’ generation, our generation, our kids’ generation. Medicaid’s growing at 21% each year. It’s suffocating states’ budgets. It’s adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to pay for. . . [T]he bill [you are proposing] has 10 years of tax increase, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. Now, what’s the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That’s $2.3 trillion. [Ryan also itemizes the following budget gimmicks in the bill:]

1. “It takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that’s really reserved for Social Security. So either we’re double–counting them or we don’t intend on paying those Social Security benefits.”
2. “It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That’s the long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets.”
3. “It raids [Medicare like a piggy bank of] half a trillion dollars, not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program. . . According to the chief actuary of Medicare . . . as much as 20% of Medicare’s providers will either go out of business or will have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors . . . who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage that they now enjoy. You can’t say that you’re using this money to either extend Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That’s double counting.”
4. “. . . when you strip out the double-counting and what I would call these gimmicks, the full cost of the bill [for the first 10 years] has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.”

In short, President Obama’s claim that his bill will reduce the deficit and is fully paid for is possible only because of the fraudulent accounting and budget gimmicks that Congressman Ryan has itemized. Quite frankly, the President of the United States is not telling the American people the truth. He did not answer Congressman Ryan and neither has any other Democratic leader.

http://www.issuesinperspective.com/2010/Mar/10mar13-14_2.cfm

[_Kevin Graham]

The genius quotes from the Declaration of Independence and says that the promise comes from the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence said all MEN were created equal, whereas Obama says the Constitution provides equality to all people. How is this wrong?

Richard, Obama doesn't consider the Declaration of Independence nor the original Constitution as a guarantee of equality. In fact he has said that is its flaw, a huge blindspot the original framers had. If you look at the context of his statement (i.e. "equal protection, civil rights," etc) he is clearly referring to the Constitution's 14th amendment.

[_bcspace]

Obama ain't no Classical Liberal, that's for sure. Nowhere does the Constitution enshrine the philosophy of the social or welfare liberal.

[_richardMdBorn]

The genius quotes from the Declaration of Independence and says that the promise comes from the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence said all MEN were created equal, whereas Obama says the Constitution provides equality to all people. How is this wrong?

Richard, Obama doesn't consider the Declaration of Independence nor the original Constitution as a guarantee of equality. In fact he has said that is its flaw, a huge blindspot the original framers had. If you look at the context of his statement (i.e. "equal protection, civil rights," etc) he is clearly referring to the Constitution's 14th amendment.

I would suggest that he's referring to the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. If you're going to make the argument that the DOI refers to men whereas the 14th amendment refers to all people, you're in some difficulty since it did nothing to give women the vote.

You may think that I'm quibbling. Let's move on to a more important issue. I agree that Obama thinks that the original constitution was flawed. He thinks that the CURRENT constitution is flawed since it doesn't set forth positive rights. It's interesting that pro-life people who are government officials are harassed by news people asking whether they will enforce Roe v Wade. Why wasn't Obama asked how he can affirm that he will preserve, protect and defend the constitution when he thinks it has deep flaws. Examples of his administration not abiding by the constitution are:

1) Chrysler bond action
2) Black Panther voter suppression in Philadelphia.

Perhaps the single most important question that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House are refusing to answer in the growing scandal (for the stonewalling and subpoena violations make it a scandal) is which political appointees were involved in the obviously wrongful decision to dismiss the lawsuit — a civil suit filed under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Newly released White House visitor records present strong circumstantial evidence of White House involvement in what should have been an independent and impartial law-enforcement decision.

The facts of the voter-intimidation case have been widely reported. There is even a video of NBPP members outside a polling place; they are dressed in paramilitary uniforms, and one of them is waving a nightstick. Poll watchers also reported that they were hurling racial epithets at elderly voters, some of whom were quite afraid. When the DOJ filed suit last January, the NBPP did not deny the charges, and the veteran trial lawyers were preparing a default judgment and broad injunction. So it is completely inexplicable from a legal point of view why the career lawyers in the Civil Rights Division were suddenly ordered in May to dismiss the lawsuit against the NBPP and all but one defendant. The injunction against the remaining defendant is a joke, for it does not prohibit him from wielding his weapon in polling places outside Philadelphia or from yelling racial epithets and blocking entrances to polling places anywhere. There is also nothing to stop the NBPP from organizing the same type of harassment in future elections.

http://article.nationalreview.com/421518/the-new-black-panthers-and-the-white-house/hans-a-von-spakovsky

[_richardMdBorn]

Why would anyone have a problem with Obamacare. He wants single payer ultimately and we all know how wonderful that is:

A quarter of NHS hospital trusts are failing to meet basic hygiene standards, with some treating patients on blood-spattered wards or with dirty equipment, a damning report has found.

A third of ambulance trusts have also missed the targets set, according to the Care Quality Commission.

The watchdog's report follows the introduction of tough new hygiene standards after a series of scandals at hospitals in Maidstone, Basildon and Stafford.

It also came as a survey of NHS employees found many are too overstretched to do their jobs properly because of staff shortages.

On hygiene, the CQC found 42 out of the 167 NHS trusts inspected were in 'breach' of registration requirements by failing to meet standards, with some hospitals being warned over blood-spattered wards and dirty equipment.

In Basildon, where at least 70 patients died as a result of poor hygiene last year, investigators found a commode soiled under the seat and 'procedure trays, used by staff to carry equipment when they take blood samples or give injections, had blood spattered on them'.

At children's hospital Alder Hey, in Liverpool, the inspection revealed dirty toys, hair stuck to medical equipment and 'nappy changing mats stored on the floor next to a toilet'. Water 'ran brown' from taps in patient areas.

A total of 36 trusts did not provide areas to decontaminate instruments, three trusts failed to flush unused water regularly to control legionella outbreaks, and a dozen failed to keep clinical areas clean.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258510/Quarter-NHS-trusts-failing-hygiene-standards-health-watchdog-finds.html