The Obama Birth Certificate Issue

There's an American Thinker post up on the Obama birth certificate issue. You can read it for yourself. I'll say here what I said in email to the individual who sent me the link.

No sitting judge and not even the Supreme Court will reverse an election on a technicality, particularly as his Mother was undoubtedly an American citizen. So it is a moot point. I prefer fighting battles that can be won, rather than ones which can be used to marginalize the Right.

I'll also add that I can see why some might disagree, perhaps too much so fueled by anger at the amount of documentation of his past Obama has withheld from public view.

But now he is the President. I believe no one, not even the great Obama can appreciate what a meat grinder that job is unless or until you are sitting in the chair. It reveals everything about a person, as well as aging them beyond their years.

What we don't know of Obama we will soon find out. If there are flaws that make him bad for the nation, America will discover it and toss him out in four years.

It's time to prepare to engage that process and not fight losing battles to have it reversed.

Comments

[jharp]

"And you are right medicare and medicaid are a taxpayer paid for insurance."

they are not insurance. they are actual services which we pay for (by borrowing money).

Posted by: mark l. | Wednesday, December 03, 2008 at 06:06 PM

Get a friggin brain you imbecile. The debate is not about medicare and medicaid.

And it is insurance in the sense that if you don't use it you don't get your money back. Get it? You pay in, if you get sick you're covered, and if you don't they keep it.

[Worst President Ever]

Administrative costs for the US health care system are much, much higher than for the other industrialized nations. There's a huge opportunity to cut costs there.

*****
Results In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

[Anon]

I already explained why the alleged "cost savings" that Obama seeks are not going to be signficant enough to offset $50 billion in new yearly spending or anything close. But, here I go again

1) Technology improvements: The insurance companies have been trying to figure out how to use technology to cost costs for 20 years, at best they are going to provide a marginal improvement.

2) Preventive care: I already explained that preventative care isn't going to save much money overall because most care is spent on end of life or catastrophic illness which getting a yearly check up isn't going to help.

3) Reductions in ER care: Again, this is a pipe dream, it will create some marginal reductions in cost but overall all it does is shift the cost of care from the hospital to the doctor's office, the patient is still getting tests/care/drugs or whatever.

These are Obama's basic pots of savings along with allegedly reducing "administration" costs which are between 13-20%, but the only way to reduce administration costs is to reduce administration and that means fire people.

This leaves you with the overwhelming bulk of the cost for health care in doctors, hospitals and drugs.

If the set schedule of payments for the lists of procedures and tests are not fundamentally reduced, then you won't get any fundamental cost savings.

There are only a few ways to bring costs down, and that is either to pay less for whatever you are buying or to buy less of it.

[jharp]

Thank you WPE. I was aware of the higher costs but found little to substantiate it.

And we have our local moron health care expert Anon posting this idiocy.

"Furthermore, the ONLY WAY to reduce costs is to find a way to pay doctors and hospitals less. That's it. Everything else is a lie."

Good grief. Can you believe the stupidity?

[jharp]

Anon,

You don't know your ass from first base.

The other 29 industrialized countries are covering everyone for half the cost. And deliver the same quality care.

[Anon]

How are you going to eliminate these "adminstrative costs" when the structure of the health care system isn't being changed?

We are not going to a single payer system like they do in Canada, we are not planning on getting rid of private insurance via employers or multitudes of different insurance companies. And we sure as hell are not going to reduce government administrative paperwork if we're creating and expanding new government programs.

So, just exactly HOW are you going to save this money without upending the entire structure of US healthcare?

Oh yeah, and Einstein, exactly how many JOBS do you think all those billions in administrative costs represent, since health care is over 25% of our economy....

You are a fool, pure and simple.

[Anon]

Good lord, you idiot the "other 29 countries" now read slowly, DO NOT HAVE THE SAME SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE.

So, if you want to get the same savings then you have to scrap the current US model and start over.

Do you really think Obama is going to do that?

[Ozwitch]

"you should fight the battles that need to be fought,"

"I'm not saying don't fight it, merely pointing out politics is not the forum to fight religious fights. Republicans had control for years, nothing changed much regarding the law. Here's a quote - you can't legislate morality."

My remark had nothing to do with religion. I was pointing out that fighting for the law and particularly the Constitution, is worth fighting for, even if you lose some battles along the way. That was the original discussion you presented - about Obama's birth certificate. You've inserted my views into other arguments on this thread about religion and health care.

I think the Constitution is worth fighting for more than ever, as it is being eroded yearly by political 'interpretations' to mean the exact opposite of what it originally meant. This is a battle worth fighting by everybody, not just for political gain and whether you think you can win. It's not about winning. It's about right and wrong. And the inability of Obama to prove he is Constitutionally able to govern is wrong.

Clear enough now?

[jharp]

Be patient, Anon. Rome wasn't built in a day.

And keep in mind I favor a single payer. And I also believe in upending the entire structure. Obama is going to do something which is far better than doing nothing.

Will he get it right immediately? No. I like some of his plan. Especially the mandatory coverage. Wait and see.

One proposal I have seen would allow buying in to medicare at age 55.

The fact is the U.S. has the most expensive health care system in the world by double. And 40 million go without insurance. And we suck both in life expectancy and infant mortality.

[jharp]

Good lord, you idiot the "other 29 countries" now read slowly, DO NOT HAVE THE SAME SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE.

So, if you want to get the same savings then you have to scrap the current US model and start over.

Do you really think Obama is going to do that?

Posted by: Anon | Wednesday, December 03, 2008 at 06:36 PM

I am aware the other 29 countries use some form of a single payer and it lowers costs dramatically. It's why I favor single payer.

And yes. Scrap the current U.S. model. It is a miserable failure.

I don't think Obama is going to do it. But he will at least make some steps in the right direction.

[Anon]

I am also in favor of scrapping the system and starting over though given the size of the U.S. and the diversity of population I'm not sure a single paper system would work here.

If you want to argue that insuring people who don't have insurance is better than doing nothing, then that's fine, but don't say Obama's plan is going to save money and bring U.S. costs down to those of Europe because that is not going to happen.

What I would favor is something that should have been done ten or twenty years ago, which is to run several different models at the state levels for 3-5 years to see what actually works, what saves money, what are the pitfalls, etc. and then there would be some real world experience behind rolling it out nationally.

What Obama is doing...a universal, nationwide program with no beta testing, that is cobbled onto the existing over priced and inefficient system has no hope of improving EFFICIENCY.

And once you put a government program in place it is almost impossible to ever scale it back. Which is exactly why I oppose his plan and why I know it will be more expensive than he says, have more unintended consequences than he knows and will more than likely increase waste, fraud and inefficiency rather than the opposite.

[jharp]

Anon,

I appreciate you putting some thought into your post.

There is a lot of ground to cover before any Obama is put into place and to be honest a lot of ground to cover before it's even decided what it is.

After all, the mandatory coverage and the buying in to Medicare at age 55 are new ideas post winning the election.

I like the mandatory coverage. An example. A guy putting in a new driveway for my neighbor I spoke with recently about health care. Though and industrious guy I felt he was scamming the system. He had two children and lives with the both Mother and children. The only difference between his family and mine was marriage. Mom doesn't work. As a result kids are on Medicaid.

I cannot believe we have tolerated this for so long. It has been going on for years.

I like mandatory coverage or Medicare for all. And funded through a payroll tax. I honestly believe the net savings for most families will be favorable. Keep in mind the rest of world does it. For 1/2 the cost.

[Dan Riehl]

"Clear enough now?"

As Mark l pointed out, the appropriate State authority has stated that he is elligible. Furthermore, you didn't ultimately cite the Constitution in your defense. That travel link is from the State Department - the same one that so happily would cede certain authority to the UN.

Have your day in Court. There's no law against that ... in this case.

[Acefullm]

Isn't it interesting that a simple search for the truth brings out into the light of day the ignorance of the arrogant? Does anyone remember a time in the past when a nation was destroyed for allowing the ignorance of voters to result in the loss of millions of lives? Any of you not sleep through those history classes? Freedom always comes with a price. Those who don't demand the truth will partake of the consequences.

[Acefullm]

Isn't it interesting that a simple search for the truth brings out into the light of day the ignorance of the arrogant? Does anyone remember a time in the past when a nation was destroyed for allowing the ignorance of voters to result in the loss of millions of lives? Any of you not sleep through those history classes? Freedom always comes with a price. Those who don't demand the truth will partake of the consequences.

[Lala]

Produce the dog gone birth certificate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJc6uczdhE0

[IslamoLlama]

"-- In September 09, a year after this statement, we will be emerging from recession. It doesn't happen that fast unless the fundamentals of the economy are strong. --"

Well you've raised an interesting hypothesis, but I don't see much evidence to back you up. Will the wounds from this recession be healed by 9/09 when unemployment continues to rise straight through December? I somehow doubt we're going to see a 3-5% drop in unemployment in 9 months. But if we do manage it, I will concede that our fundamentals are stronger than I give them credit.

Personally, I don't think we'll be seeing a full on recovery until at least 2010 if not 2012. We were suffering from the shockwaves of the recession in '87 straight through '92, and that was the closest economic comparison I've seen short of the Great Depression. The mini-recession in '02 was founded in crooked accounting, but it didn't collapse the entire credit market. Systematic government buyouts of Fortune 500 juggernauts don't magically make everything better.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Does anyone remember a time in the past when a nation was destroyed for allowing the ignorance of voters to result in the loss of millions of lives? --"

Nope. Can't say I have. There have been a number of instances in which wide scale voter suppression and intimidation or rigged electioneering has resulted in the will of the voters being denied. Fighting the will of the populace at large in favor of a privileged aristocracy tends to give us places like Cuba, Iran, Alabama, and the USSR. Which democracy are you referring to?

[anon]

Islamo,

You might want to reflect on the most successful societies of the past and their form of government, Renaissance Italy was run by the Medici Princes, Classical Greece and Rome were 'democacies/republics' ruled by the ruling class of landed, ethnic males, Europe was ruled by hereditary kings and queens until the 20th century, the same for China.

There is something to be said for letting the educated and capable run a country rather than the mob which brought us the Russian Revolution, millions dead, French Revolution, hundreds of thousands dead, Communist China, millions dead, and Nazi Germany, tens of millions dead.

Rule by "the people" only works when "the people" have the education, intelligence and wisdom to make it work, otherwise it degenerates into violence and anarchy.

Just sayin.

[katablog.com]

While it's very true that the Supreme Court will probably not hear this case and nothing will be done, I hardly think that upholding the law of the land is a "technicality". Like the illegal alien issue, if you want to change the law, okay, let's do it legally - but in the mean time, breaking the law is breaking the law.

I can't for the life of me explain why Congress, the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, or Barack Hussein Obama would want any US Citizen to have any doubt whether Obama meets the criteria to be president of the USA. Why on earth would he and others who support him not put all these questions to rest? Why is it supposedly wrong, or just sour grapes, for US Citizens to want these questions answered?

[24AheadDotCom]

So, basically, Riehl is suggesting capitulating to the MSM, rather than trying to discredit them by pointing out how they're lying about this issue. For that, and for the truth about what we know and what we don't know about BHO's cert, see this:

http://24ahead.com/s/obama-citizenship

[physics geek]

"Our rank in infant mortality. Hint. There are 41 countries that fare better than us."

Don't hurt yourself thinking about this topic. You're dead wrong, but I shan't bother to correct you. I can educate an ignorant person, but I cannot educate a willfully ignorant and stupid person.

[mark]

I watched my local Republican Party (DuPage County, Illinois) lose three seats on the County Board to Democrats for the first time since I have lived here. I watched as the Republican versus Democratic debate over conservatism versus liberalism tilted in to the muck of moralism vs. socialism and patriotism vs. terrorism, with my party proclaiming with confident self-righteousness to be "American" and labeling the Democrats as "terrorist sympathizers." When one of the candidates for the County Board told me over lunch that he had "serious doubts" over Obama's birth records, I told him that if he starts saying that publicly, he will lose his seat because even though he lives in a district that is deeply loyal to the Republican Party, they will be offended at such nonsense. Although he didn't listen, he still retained his seat, but barely. I have heard many of his former supporters say that he is just too extreme.

What is happening? Answer: these nutty issues are being peddled and spammed by a few very loud extremists who are killing this party. The public, in general, does not realize these extreme views do not represent the mindset or match the agenda of mainstream conservatives. Alan Keyes? No thank you. If Newt Gingrich believed this was a legitimate issue, I would consider getting behind it. But there is no one of any substance within our party that reflects the views of true conservatives that endorses this silly issue. I for one am getting fed up with the wackos on the far right margin of our party hijacking the issues that matter and replacing them with nothing but distractions. If Rove worked for the Dems, I would think he did this on purpose to sabotage us!