Eric the Red

I laughed out loud when I read this one:

“Polls indicate that Canadians know full well the system is unsustainable in its current form, says Stuart Soroka, Director of the Canadian Opinion Research Archive at McGill University. And yet it’s us who are apparently easily alarmed by scare tactics. Mr. Soroka’s studies also find that the more dysfunctional the system gets, the more Canadians seem willing to entertain alternative options. It took war to shake the official narrative of ours as an exclusively peacekeeping nation; it may take health care catastrophe to get Canadians to finally agree to a real debate on the subject. If those pleading for reform are right in their predictions, it may yet come.”

The same article tells us that the Canadian system consumes 40% of budgets.

Meanwhile, Obama continues to prance around the country telling us that the program will be mostly paid for by eliminating waste from existing government programs and reducing medicare payments. Excuse me? Where will these reductions in Medicare spending come from? Simple: rationing.

How about other government waste? There will be a hodge-podge of tax increases that will not affect the majority of Americans, so the rest of the funding for this program *must* come from cutting waste in the existing government. Other idiots agree.

Please tell us, Mr. Obama, what this waste is, how much money can be saved and how quickly it can be saved. Tell us, or we will continue to not believe your lies.

Arlen Spector met with constituents about health care reform. I think the people in Pennsylvania know very well what ObamaCare represents: expansion of government at the expense of personal freedoms. I’m amazed that our representatives are so quick to throw us all to the wolves for something that we do NOT want!

Obama, in defense of his signature piece of legislation, says “I don’t want death panels“. Then again, he is putting control of our health coverage (and the benefits we receive) in the hands of a group of political appointees who are essentially above the law. Need surgery? Sorry, the Panel doesn’t think it will be effective for you. Try some bed rest and antibiotics. Does your doctor think you need a particular drug? Sorry, the Panel doesn’t think that drug is effective for you. No dice. The intent of comparative effectiveness studies and the language of the law makes his desire very dubious. My thought: they will pull then plug if the savings make sense.

Obama sets up an email address to collect information on those who dissent. Hmmmm….if this isn’t fascism, I don’t know what is. I think its sick that citizens are now accused of being corporate plants or political enemies bent on destroying the Obama administration. I’m wondering if anyone will report me….?

I will conclude my post with some words from Adrian Rodgers:

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first steal from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

As the health care debate degenerates into a raucous, I’d like to have a few major questions that need to be answered:

Obamacare supporters say that this plan will “bend the cost curve” of health care. But since new technology generally costs the most money, how will Obama accomplish this without rationing care and excluding the latest advances from coverage?

Obamacare supporters say that creation of a national health care plan will extend health benefits while preserving existing coverage. They claim that if we are happy with our plans and doctors, we may keep them. But if a national plan, subsidized by the taxpayer, is created what will prevent existing insurers from dropping coverage? What will stop employers from dropping their plans in favor of the (less costly) option of paying a small tax and forcing employees onto the public plan?

Why does the current bill make it illegal to enroll in a private insurance plan after the effective date of the bill?

Why does the bill force employers to auto-enroll new employees in the government-run public option? Why not enroll new employees in the employers existing plan?

Medical research costs money. Drug development costs money. Medical equipment costs money. Advances in medicine, pharmaceuticals and equipment save lives and improve the quality of life for us all. No one can dispute these facts. But the only real way to contain these costs of these is to block the availability of these treatments. How will the latest ad greatest methods of care be available if no coverage of them is available? Of course, as costs continue to rise, taxes will rise in kind. Anyone who thinks small business and the middle class will be spared tax hikes to pay for this mistake is an ignorant fool.