obamacare

You are currently browsing articles tagged obamacare.

Althouse points to a NYT article bemoaning the “uncertainty” that would befall the nation if Obamacare were to be struck down.  After all, we’ve already been implementing the bureaucracy for two years.  So it’s obviously too late to declare it unconstitutional.

Consider the argument — featured in the NYT — that it’s too late to strike down Obamacare, because so much work and planning and money has already been sunk into implementing it. And yet some experts say that the”important dialogue that has happened over the last three and a half years” will make it “easier for Congress or the states to revisit the issue.”

This ridiculous argument brings to mind the scene from Christmas Vacation where Cousin Eddie explains how best to deal with a ‘Mississippi Leg Hound’.  This is the sophisticated, nuanced liberal mind we have heard so much about.

If a dog is humping your leg its best to just let him finish:

NOBAMA Bumper Sticker Window Decal USA 2012 Anti-Obama No Obama Romney 2.5"x12"
$5.00
End Date: Thursday May-30-2013 3:12:27 PDT
Buy It Now for only: $5.00
Buy It Now | Add to watch list
ANTI Obama NOBAMA Style#1 Vinyl DECAL Car Truck Window Wall Laptop Political
$5.75
End Date: Sunday Jun-2-2013 20:59:50 PDT
Buy It Now for only: $5.75
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

Tags: ,

If ObamaCare falls, liberals might push for greater government control of health care « Hot Air Headlines

If Democrats make little progress on alternatives, some purists might decide it’s best to just renew the case for a single-payer system in which all Americans receive health care paid for by the government.

This is the Mississippi Leg Hound defense of Obamacare.

Tags: ,

If you cannot commit several hours per week to maintain the liberty that others afforded you http://biggovernment.com/files/userphoto/1018.jpgthen you by your inaction and silent voice abet those who seek to destroy it.

The lovely and talented Dana Loesch lays out an excellent and combative call to action at BigGovernment.com. She has no patience for those who are unwilling to fight.  Go read the entire post.  Then re-read it.

How bad do you want liberty? I’ve received several emails from folks who’ve said that they’re ready to move, to leave the country, and give up. I received an email the other day from a woman named Melanie who confessed that she just “doesn’t have time to get involved.” During a conversation about precinct captains with a gentleman at a recent protest, I was told that the commitment “sounds like too much time.”

My reply:

Get out.

Get out of my country any freeloader who possesses such an attitude, you betrayers of conservatism, of liberty. How dare you claim the belief of self-sustenance and individualism while warming your hands by another patriot’s fire, living off the fat of another patriot’s blood, sweat, and tears. As I said on my radio program last week: any one who dares call themselves a patriot and refuses to commit to maintaining their country’s liberty can burn in hades with the socialists who’ve jeopardized our children’s futures.

Update Dana’s Hit with O’Reilly

Tags: , ,

Dan Banishek for Congress

Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund Pledges to Drive Out Pro-life Betrayers in November

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to Rep. Bart Stupak’s announcement that he and other self-labeled “pro-life” Democrats will vote in favor of Healthcare reform legislation with the addition of an Executive Order from the White House to address concerns about abortion funding, Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:

“This Wednesday night is our third annual Campaign for Life Gala, where we were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform-We will no longer be doing so. By accepting this deal from the most pro-abortion President in American history, Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children, but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country.”

Phyllis Schlafly adds:

“Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn’t willfully align themselves with the Party of Death.”

“This vote will expose the myth of the ‘pro-life Democrat.’ With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same.”

Update: Megyn Kelly Interviews Stupak

Tags: , ,

Big Government contributor Washington News Observer sat down with Rep. Michele Bachmann to discuss the latest twist and turns in the health care debate. Rep. Bachmann has taken the lead in calling for citizens concerned about a government take over of health care to rally at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, November 5th and make “house calls” on their members of Congress. Info on that event can be found here.

Tags: , ,

Sarah Palin responds via Facebook:
After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.

Many Americans fundamentally disagree with this idea. We know from long experience that the creation of a massive new bureaucracy will not provide us with “more stability and security,” but just the opposite. It’s hard to believe the President when he says that this time he and his team of bureaucrats have finally figured out how to do things right if only we’ll take them at their word.

Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere “bickering” or “games.” They are not an attempt to “score short term political points.” And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use “scare tactics” when in the next breath he says that “more will die” if his proposals do not pass.

In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” — so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.

In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat …. gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council — an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost … the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives….” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.

It was heartening to hear the President finally recognize that tort reform is an important part of any solution. But this concession shouldn’t lead us to take our eye off the ball: the Democrats’ proposals will not reduce costs, and they will not deliver better health care. It’s this kind of “healthy skepticism of government” that truly reflects a “concern and regard for the plight of others.” We can’t wait to hear the details on that; we look forward to working with you on tort reform.

Finally, President Obama delivered an offhand applause line tonight about the cost of the War on Terror. As we approach the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and honor those who died that day and those who have died since in the War on Terror, in order to secure our freedoms, we need to remember their sacrifices and not demonize them as having had too high a price tag.

Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a “victory” is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn’t always the answer; now hear us — that’s what we’ve been saying all along.

- Sarah Palin

Tags: ,

From the WSJ editorial:

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.”

Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .”

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .”

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels?

The response from the left has been predictable. Marc Armbinder offers the customary “good advice” to conservatives regarding Palin: “Ignore her.” She is too stupid to be a part of this serious debate. Its better that we listen to “serious” Republicans. Like Olympia Snowe, no doubt.

There are many Republican, conservative health care spokespeople who have earned the right to speak for their party’s principals, and, truth be told, can recite the talking points (complete with Ronald Reagan quote) better than Palin and her writer can.

So here’s a challenge to the media: if you want to do justice to conservative ideas and find some balance in your coverage tomorrow, book serious Republicans with original ideas on your programs. If you don’t, Palin is giving herself a voice at your expense and through little effort of her own.

By implying, incidentally, that Palin gets help from a speechwriter, I mean to make an observation. Barack Obama didn’t draft his op-ed, either. But, reading Obama, it’s not a leap to believe that the ideas are truly his. Palin has no chops and no experience talking about health care and isn’t participating in this debate; the content of her op-ed piece isn’t original, and the points are points that Republicans make every day.

Tags: ,

« Older entries