ObamaCare: No, Stop, Knock It The Hell Off!

Frankly, I don't care how it's expressed at this point. With this administration and the Democrats talking about ramming through bad health care reform legislation, they need to get one message perfectly clear.

There will be so much of their blood in the water come 2010, there may not be much of a Democrat party left after that.

Voter hell as it's never been experienced in America will rain down on them. The anger it will unleash will be more then they can imagine in their wildest nightmares.

It is more important now than ever to send a clear, unambiguous message to Washington. That is why I am asking you to sign a petition urging President Obama and his Democrat allies to start over on health insurance reform; to work hand in hand with Republican leaders to craft sensible legislation that will address the real issues that plague our health insurance system; and to listen to and enact the will of the American people.

Stand up for yourself and your country. The White House has not heard your voice. Make them hear it. Sign this petition today.

Update: Some additional thoughts on Obama's plan. Get Ready for a Health Care Shortage

Comments

[Jimbo]

To Dan:

No creep. There is not a 'democrat' party, there never was sh!thead. It is - and shall always be the 'democratic' party. I know home schooling really messed up your head, but at leas try to keep up with some on the GOP short bus.

Your little cult of a party is run by the losers you selected: palin, Plumber, limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, etc...If you threw a dead cat against a phone book, you would find smarter people to lead your (lost) cause.

Geez, with people like you running the bullhorn, it is no wonder America is a laughing stock around the world.

[mark l.]

this whole plan by the wh and dems was hatced BEFORE bayh retired.

if he isn't the 51st vote for their plans, they should really consider how vocal his "no" will be.

they better recalibrate or their planned summit will look like an intervention, where the individual in question is going to set the agenda.

[montee]

@ Mantis. Let me try to give one possible answer to the question you asked Dan as to why he doesn't support reform, since it be political poison for the Democratic party.I guess Dan's pleasure at watching a voter backlash against the Democratic party would be tempered by the reality that a brand new budget busting, deficit exploding entitlement would have been established would be notoriously difficult to manage and get rid off.

[wpe]

Actually, the odds are much better that a Democratic Health Care bill will be very popular and hurt The Party of No in coming elections. In case you haven't noticed, people are just a tad pissed at insurers these days.

**********
Indiana customers of WellPoint are joining Californians in their outrage over steep hikes in the premiums they pay for individual health-insurance coverage.

Early retiree Perry Stow, South Bend, said he was shocked to learn that as of March 1, his individual coverage through Anthem, a unit of Indianapolis-based WellPoint, would jump from $280 to $387.49 a month -- an increase of 38 percent.

[Terrye]

I signed it. And Jimbo, I don't think Dan is the creep here. Besides, Joe the Plumber does not even like Palin anymore. And you know what? The American people have made it chrystal clear that they do not want Dear Leader's health care plan. As for popular, we will see how popular the mandates, the high costs, the taxes, the long waits, the government panels, the commissions, the red tape really are won't we? In fact I think that repealing Obamacare might be the rallying cry for the next couple of elections.

[Terrye]

wpe:

And both Indiana and California have state run programs that help people buy insurance as well. Do you know that in Wisconsin people pay less than half as much as people in New York do to buy the same insurance? The main reasons are mandates, required at the state level, the costs of which are passed onto consumers. The truth is that nothing is free, Obamacare will require that people buy insurance and even if they subsidize people, those people will still have to pay for the insurance, it won't be free. And then of course someone has to pay for the subsidies.

[gus]

Jimbo, get your mouth off of Obama's Cokk.

[wpe]

From that Commie Mouthpiece, Forbes:

The international data, however, show no evidence that increasing government's share of health care expenditures raises health spending as a share of GDP. The top five countries with the highest government share of total health outlays spend almost exactly the same percentage of GDP on health as the lowest five countries excluding the U.S.: 8.2% of GDP on average for the former versus 8.3% of GDP for the latter. (I left out the U.S. because it skews the data; the bottom five countries including the U.S. spend 9.7% of GDP on health on average.)

Even more significant is the fact that despite spending vastly more on health than any other country, the U.S. has little to show for it in terms of key measures of health resources. For example, we have fewer physicians per capita than most other OECD countries: 2.43 per 1,000 population versus an OECD average of 3.1. Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway all spend at least a third less of GDP on health than the U.S. yet have almost four doctors per 1,000 population.

Only four OECD countries have fewer acute care hospital beds per capita than the U.S. We have 2.7 per 1,000 population versus an OECD average of 3.8. Japan has 8.2 acute care beds per 1,000 population despite spending half as much of its GDP on health as the U.S. does.

Nor has the U.S. bought significantly better health with its vastly higher health spending. Life expectancy at birth is probably the best general measure of a population's health. This statistic has increased by 8.2 years in the U.S. since 1960, but has risen more in most other OECD countries. In Canada, life expectancy has risen 9.4 years and more than 10 years in both Germany and France. Life expectancy rose by almost 15 years in Japan over the same time.

Infant mortality is another good general measure of the quality of a health system. In 2006, 6.7 infants died per 1,000 live births in the U.S.--a sharp decline from 26 deaths in 1960. But the infant mortality rate is lower in every other OECD country except Turkey and Mexico. The average rate for all OECD countries is 4.9 deaths per 1,000 live births.

[GJ Merits]

Nullification. The State's hold the final say when it comes to the constitution - not the Supreme Court. When Scalia said succession was not legal - http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0210/Scalia_No_to_secession.html -, he was wrong for two reasons. First read Jefferson vs Lincoln: America Must Choose

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/20/jefferson-vs-lincoln-america-must-choose/

I chose Jefferson.

Secondly, the reason Scalia is so against succession is really his fear that its lesser brother - that of nullification - would commit the SCOTUS, along with the rest of the federal government, into its rightful place. Nullification would remove power from not only the President and the Congress, but from Scalia and his eight companions as well. The time for talking about nullification is over. It's time to start acting - the movement is growing.

For a primer read: http://tinyurl.com/yjt5n7t

Honestly take the time to learn about it by visiting the various sites referenced and pass it on to fellow freedom minded people. If we need to, we should be prepared to fight socialism tooth and nail, starting with nullifying ObamaCare. I am NOT talking about nullifying the mandate for buying insurance, nor challenging the mandate in court, but nullifying the entire bill and ignoring any ruling by the Supreme court which tramples on State's rights. After reading the above material, it should become clear that this is the way the country was designed by our founders to work. It is time we took that power back.

Nullifying or challenging the mandate sounds nice in principle. Assume for a moment that we were successful and the Supreme Court ruled in our favor. What method would be left to fund the "reform"? Why taxes of course. You have just moved yourself that much closer, that much faster, towards as single-payer system. Don't concentrate on the mandate, concentrate of nullification of the entire bill. Concentrate on nullifying everything that comes out of the federal government that does not meet the following:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".

Read it carefully. It does not mention "as decided by the Supreme Court". If the states stand together, there is no way the federal government can enforce the laws of collect taxes. Read the material. Are we a nation of wimps? I tend not to think so. I have had it with these bums in DC and I, for one, am ready to take the fight to them for a change.

It says near the end of the Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security"

The thrusting off of the tyranny is not to be taken lightly - evils are sufferable and challenging the centralized powers should not occur for "light and transient causes". However, we are now in a period where we are suffering a "long train abuses". Per the Declaration of Independence, the document that began the founding of this country, it is our DUTY to throw off such government. No Supreme Court justice, Congress member, or President can tell you otherwise, for the wisdom of this document, which was the catalyst for the founding of this country, is far greater than any of the weasels in the federal government.

What we should be doing now is looking for that person to lead us back to constitutional governance. A leader of great oratorical skills and charisma. We need our Ghandi, our Martin Luther King, Jr., our William Wallace. The time is now. A failure to act equate to the death of our Republic. Sounds pessimistic, but it's true. Your children and grandchildren - all your descendants - now face living to a standard that is less than yours, with less freedoms than you enjoy.

[SacTownMan]

Damn Dan I haven't seen this much Astroturfing here by the trolls since before the election.

The mean little bastards are starting to climb out from under their rocks again now that the great Xerxes is going down in flames!

This is really getting to be fun watching the little rats scurry around like this!!

Keep defending the mighty Xerxes he needs all of the help he can get these days!!

[Xiaoidng]

"Nor has the U.S. bought significantly better health with its vastly higher health spending. Life expectancy at birth is probably the best general measure of a population's health. This statistic has increased by 8.2 years in the U.S. since 1960, but has risen more in most other OECD countries. In Canada, life expectancy has risen 9.4 years and more than 10 years in both Germany and France. Life expectancy rose by almost 15 years in Japan over the same time."

Meaningless. Where did these countries start from?

"Infant mortality is another good general measure of the quality of a health system. In 2006, 6.7 infants died per 1,000 live births in the U.S.--a sharp decline from 26 deaths in 1960. But the infant mortality rate is lower in every other OECD country except Turkey and Mexico. The average rate for all OECD countries is 4.9 deaths per 1,000 live births."

Again, meaningless. Infant mortality is the least trustworthy number in all history, countries lie about it all the time. Check into the details of those numbers, they mean nothing.

[mark l.]

"Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" or in this case...
the nuclear option.

if 51 votes can fund a bill, 51 votes can defund it, over the objection of 49 senators. libs should be very careful what they wish for, and they should consider how a 51 vote threshold can be used against them.

while the odds of them retaining the senate are dwindling, they really should look at what is on the slate for 2012. They are going to yank out their own teeth.

[wpe]

Health Care Spending by Country
.............%of GDP.............Per Capita
US..............16.0%.............$7290
France..........11.0%.............$3601
Switzerland.....10.8%.............$4417
Germany.........10.4%.............$3555
Belgium.........10.2%.............$3462
Canada..........10.1%.............$3895
...
OECD Average.....8.9%.............$2964

Gee, considering how much we're paying, shouldn't we be at the top of this chart?

http://www.oecdilibrary.org/oecd/sites/health_glance-2009-en/01/01/g1-01-01.html?contentType=/ns/Chapter,/ns/StatisticalPublication&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2009-3-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

http://www.oecdilibrary.org/oecd/sites/health_glance-2009-en/01/01/g1-01-04.html?contentType=/ns/Chapter,/ns/StatisticalPublication&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2009-3-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

[mark l.]

http://www.worldsalaries.org/generalphysician.shtml

here you go wpe...

want to shave thousands off of health care?
just say doctors make too much money.

the only problem is that when one starts looking at other countries salaries, by other occupations, the same problem keeps popping up. have fun with that.

[mark l.]

but actually, there aren't as many doctors as there are nurses...

http://www.21stcenturynurse.com/UKSalary.htm

exchange rate can be found by multiplying the pounds by 1.55...
a senior nurse makes less than forty grand.

us national average is 45.5k.

take a look at the face of running a cheaper system. have fun with the nurses unions.

[wpe]

The problem isn't doctors' salaries, it's that everything costs more in the US - a lot more.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/IFHP%20Comparative%20Price%20Report%20with%20AHA%20data%20addition.pdf

[mark l.]

"The problem isn't doctors' salaries, it's that everything costs more in the US"

"everything" would, you must admit, include pay rates.

should we villianize people who work in a hospital, for "taking more than their share"?

i can't really discriminate between an insurance company increasing their charges, when medical salaries have outstripped inflation for the past thirty years. of course maybe not as fast as govt worker salaries...

[wpe]

Yeah, if their pay is out-of-line then it's going to need adjustment overtime. That can be done gradually by lowering the rate of pay growth.

So I guess you're think it's wrong to villanize hospital workers for "taking more than their share" but OK with it when government workers are being villanized. Which you just did.

But there's lots of other places to cut health care costs. Administrative costs and over-priced drugs would be good places to start.

[mark l.]

"But there's lots of other places to cut health care costs."

has the wh offerred any projection on how much they will cut costs?
10%? 20%? 30%?

I've seen the "bend the cost curve" argument, implying that there WON'T be any recdution in cost, just a slowing of the rate of increase...

forgive my skepticism, when our larger problem is bending the cost curve of govt-keeping it's growth below the rate of gdp increase. it really does dwarf our healthcare cost issues.

the problem, wpe, is that we are bankrupt paying out on our existing entitlement system. the american people have no faith in govt to create a new entitlement system which is capable of bending the cost curve. wishful thinking and 'hope' are not the foundations of logic.

[mark l.]

just wondering what the liberal spin is for the canadian premier coming to america for tx...

"An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision."

"I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA

[mark l.]

"But there's lots of other places to cut health care costs. Administrative costs and over-priced drugs would be good places to start."

my previous argument remains...

you want to adjust charges for some in the system, but not for others, based upon your selective interpretation of who 'deserves' it.

It's funny...
I see a wide range of salaries for medical staff, based on their state and relative cost of living. Let's make all nurses federal employees, and payout a standard rate, nationally. Nurses in the deep south will make a killing, as they will be paid in accordance with california rates.

sounds crazy...right?

we are already doing it with other federal employees.

forgive me if I see the call for national healthcare as a means of both dumping faltering union health care plans off on the american public, while simultaneously trying to increase union membership.

the occam's razor of gauging the wh is pretty simple.
if it helps unions, the wh will try it. when obama's entire inner circle is chicago centric, you honestly trust his motives? I really can't even blame obama-he isn't an economist.

The one economist that the wh does manage to trump out there is peter orzag. tlak about placing all their eggs in one basket.

I'm sure you could offer krugman or stiglitz, but they don't work for the admin. to borrow from obama- They have no skin in the game.

something about success having many parents...
aside from orzag, healthcare looks like an orphan.

[mark l.]

as for 'skin in the game'...

consider the hypothetical case of 'someone' who is working, exclusively to cover their healthcare costs.

they have enough to retire on, but are decades from the 65 year old benchmark for medicare. suddenly, a new system arises where this 'someone' no longer has to work to pay for insurance. their income, at best, can be based on the year's withdrawal from investments, providing they don't seek an exempt form of payment.

this 'someone' has a 250k house that is paid off, and 500k in capital assets to draw from. healthcare reform, in its current incarnation, would remove the greatest reason for working.

what reason would 'someone' like this have to resist implimenting the proposed healthcare system? is this a case of a 'greedy conservative'?

[Xiaoidng]

"they have enough to retire on, but are decades from the 65 year old benchmark for medicare. suddenly, a new system arises where this 'someone' no longer has to work to pay for insurance. their income, at best, can be based on the year's withdrawal from investments, providing they don't seek an exempt form of payment."

??? What the? Can you put that in english?

"this 'someone' has a 250k house that is paid off, and 500k in capital assets to draw from. healthcare reform, in its current incarnation, would remove the greatest reason for working.

what reason would 'someone' like this have to resist implimenting the proposed healthcare system? is this a case of a 'greedy conservative'?"

Even if i could make sense of this, what is your point?

[mark l.]

i work because it pays my insurance.
now, if i don't work, obamacare will pay my insurance.

so...

where I would be working for another 20 years, to avoid drain on my net wealth to pay for private insurance, under obamacare I can retire. No income means no charge for healthcare.

let's say I was paying 6k a year for the next 20 years before i retire, 120k total.
obamacare means I no longer have to work.

120k that would have been paid into the 'crappy system' that is, now gets turned around and budgeted for me. I don't just save 120k, I actually get free healthcare, which we could say would be worth 100k.

obamacare incentives for retirement?
220k. for me? but i'm sure my circumstance is unique...snicker.

[wpe]

Let's skip all the BS in your post and just deal with one easily refuted fact:

"The one economist that the wh does manage to trump out there is peter orzag. tlak about placing all their eggs in one basket."

Like most of your post, it's hard to figure out what you're saying. I guess it's that the vast majority of economists want nothing to do with health care reform. Wrong again. Here's 23 prominent economists with two nobel prize winners - liberal, moderate and conservative.

****************
As economists, we believe that it is important to enact health reform, and it is essential that health reform include these four features that will lower health care costs and help reduce deficits over the long term. Reform legislation that embodies these four elements can go a long way toward delivering better health care, and better value, to Americans.

Sincerely,
Dr. Henry Aaron, The Brookings Institution
Dr. Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate in Economics
Dr. Alan Auerbach, University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Katherine Baicker, Harvard University
Dr. Alan Blinder, Princeton University
Dr. David Cutler, Harvard University
Dr. Angus Deaton, Princeton University
Dr. J. Bradford DeLong, University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Peter Diamond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Victor Fuchs, Stanford University
Dr. Alan Garber, Stanford University
Dr. Jonathan Gruber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Mark McClellan, The Brookings Institution
Dr. Daniel McFadden, University of California, Berkeley, Nobel Laureate in Economics
Dr. David Meltzer, University of Chicago
Dr. Joseph Newhouse, Harvard University
Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, Princeton University
Dr. Robert Reischauer, The Urban Institute
Dr. Alice Rivlin, The Brookings Institution
Dr. Meredith Rosenthal, Harvard University
Dr. John Shoven, Stanford University
Dr. Jonathan Skinner, Dartmouth College
Dr. Laura D’Andrea Tyson, University of California, Berkeley

[mark l.]

pass it.
the worse that happens is that I retire, a recipient of a 250k gift from the libs.

"The one economist that the wh does manage to trump out there is peter orzag."

I didn't know any of the above cited works for the wh.
in fact, it is a letter written to the president. not for the president.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/econletter111709.pdf

"Let's skip all the BS in your post and just deal with one easily refuted fact"
you failed.