As Obama's approval ratings continue to slip, and it becomes increasingly obvious that our Commander-n-Thief has no idea what he's doing with the economy, even BHO's friends at WaPo are starting to express concern. Apparently, criticism regarding Obama's stimulus plan is gaining quite a bit of traction. And it's not just the "racist" tea party crowd doing the complaining anymore.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee says, "People know we have an overall situation here that doesn't add up." No kidding. "People" like the Chinese and the Germans are at the top of the list. Obama's fuzzy math fails to impress.
With a whiff of desperation, Obama tells us he can help get us on the right track with his cost-saving health care plan. But Obama has already spent a lot of credibility and political capital on his massive stimulus agenda. So rank and file voters from the heartland are starting to voice some strong reservations about these radical plans to assume control of the health care industry.
On his way to a health care pep rally in Green Bay, WI, Obama was greeted by a thousand angry protesters who took time out of their busy work week to make their disapproval known:
Obama is rushing to advance his health care agenda because time is running out. Dissatisfaction with Obamanomics is spreading.
More
Obamanomics: a Burden on 100% of U.S. Taxpayers
The Rooftop Revolution
Team Obama Gets Nasty
Political Risk
The Ugly Truth
The road to government-run health care begins with deception. Here's an EXCELLENT compilation of statements. Share it.
Our military's success shows us that big government can work...right?
And we think government MIGHT save us some money on health care?
15 comments:
Why hasn't the stimulus worked? Joe Biden says everyone guessed wrong on how bad economy was. Translation: We need even more government intervention and spending.
Hopefully obama will meet with enough opposition to gridlock him for the rest of his one-term presidency on the takeover of healthcare.
"Hopefully obama will meet with enough opposition to gridlock him for the rest of his one-term presidency on the takeover of healthcare."
DaBlade, this is my fondest wish! RightKlik, great post. Heartening.
As more people start to feel the effects of Obama's "change" personally, more will voice opposition to his policies. Healthcare is a big deal and Obamacare will be a disaster. Let's hope the opposition to it is LOUD enough to stop it.
hopefully pple will wake up before its too late my friend but dont hold yer breath!!!
The one thing he apparently _doesn't_ want to cap is medical lawsuits.
The only question I've heard lately is "how will we pay for all the health benefits?" Nobody seems to question _why_ health care has gotten so expensive. Are the medical insurance companies making money hand over fist? If so, why not a "windfall" tax like they want to put on oil companies? Are doctors earning a similar increase in pay? Are they getting kickbacks from the places that do all the "unnecessary" medical tests? If either is true, then why not attack those problems directly? If not - and it's my personal opinion that that is _not_ the cause - then what is causing the increase? Could it be due increased premiums to lawsuits? Could the "unnecessary" be simply a means of defense against medical malpractice lawsuits? Who's to say a medical test is unnecessary? My father died as a result of a tumor. The symptoms mimicked the symptoms he'd had earlier that were caused by osteoarthritis in his spine. He was scheduled for surgery for that problem just about the day he died. If he'd had an catscan before he went into a coma, they might have found it in time to operate. They _did_ do a catscan when he was taken into the hospital unconscious - with no info, they did "unnecessary" tests, and found the actual problem. Too bad it was too late.
You've heard the expression "I found X in the last place I looked".... well duh. It would be pretty dumb to keep looking after you found it! Diagnoses also require a lot of looking - and maybe lots of "unnecessary" tests - unnecessary if you _know_ the problem, but necessary _until_ you know the problem. Tests could also be done sequentially if you wanted to eliminate "unnecessary" tests. Take a test, wait for the results, schedule another test, wait for the results, each test requiring another visit to the doctor. Yeah - that's really efficient.
I found a lump in my breast on Thursday or Friday. I had an appointment on Monday for a biopsy, results on Tuesday, appointment with a specialist on Thursday, blood tests for surgery on Friday, surgery on Tuesday.
Think Obama's health care can match that? Check out England's NHS...I've been following this blog for a while...just to get a bird's eye view. Not a system I'd want to have.
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/
_NOBODY_ is talking about _why_ health costs are increasing.
I would say his pathetic performance while people are dying in Iran won't help him. But I am sure Biden will come to the rescue.
DaBlade: No matter what the problem is or what caused it, Dems always want more gov't.
"Hopefully obama will meet with enough opposition..."
Opposition seems to be growing. I'm more optimistic than I once was.
O6: Thank you.
TCL: I think the opposition is getting louder. Of course we are part of that. Let's keep it up.
WHT: They're beginning to understand the problem.
Suek: You hit a lot of important points.
"The one thing he apparently _doesn't_ want to cap is medical lawsuits."
Trial lawyers practically OWN the dems.
"Nobody seems to question _why_ health care has gotten so expensive."
There are a so MANY reasons. Many (if not most) of the reasons are the result of (surprise) government interference in the health care industry.
It started back in the (40s?) when government tried to control wages. Employers got around that by offering benefits like health insurance. Health insurance came to be thought of as an employer's responsibility. With the tax incentives that we have come to take for granted, we have become addicted to expensive all-inclusive coverage and have moved away from less expensive, catastrophic coverage. So we don't think the costs of routine health care should fall on our shoulders. Our insurance company or our employer foots the bill and so we have no idea what an x-ray costs...someone else is paying the bill. So why shop around? We don't. And the result is inflated prices. (Everybody knows how much a gallon of gas costs...everybody knows how much a new car costs, but nobody knows how much an Xray or a CT scan costs...curious isn't it?)
Another part of the problem is that the costs of Medicare/medicaid and the uninsured are shifted onto the shoulders of those who pay into the system through private insurance. Because of govt, families already pay $1800 each year for someone else's health care. http://tr.im/BadCare
I could go on and on....
Government tells health insurance companies what they can and cannot cover. If you're young and you want a high deductible plan for catastrophic coverage...forget about it. If you like a plan offered in some other state...forget about it.
I could go on and on...
"If so, why not a "windfall" tax like they want to put on oil companies?"
Take away the incentive to make a profit and ultimately it will come back around to bite consumers in the backside.
"Are doctors earning a similar increase in pay?"
Adjusted for inflation, doctors are making a lot less now than they did 20 or 30 years ago. Medicare fees have been cut so drastically that the money barely covers overhead expenses. And Medicare fees set the bar for the private insurers. Physicians are going bankrupt as a result. So they have to subspecialize or work as a hospital employee to make ends meet.
Doctors often make a very comfortable living, and they never go hungry, but the costs of medical school and malpractice insurance are beginning to outweigh the rewards of practicing medicine.
"Are they getting kickbacks from the places that do all the 'unnecessary' medical tests?
Kickbacks are illegal. It's a heavily regulated issue. If doctors order too many tests, it's usually because they are trying to prevent lawsuits.
Sorry to hear about your father.
"Take a test, wait for the results, schedule another test, wait for the results..."
Too bad they can't always get it done in 30 minutes like on "House"
"I found a lump...surgery on Tuesday. Think Obama's health care can match that?"
In the beginning, maybe. In the long run? No way.
"NOBODY_ is talking about _why_ health costs are increasing."
Because the solutions are not glamorous and the solutions don't give more power to the politicians.
RV: Yeah, Biden, the perpetual gaffe bag. If Obama can't mess it up Biden can.
No disagreement from me on any of your points, but even you don't mention the malpractice suits problem.
I'd maintain that if we assume that health insurance companies are not making skyhigh profits, then we have to ask why not. If doctors are not earning monster bucks, and if the drug companies aren't making monster bucks, then who is? Why _aren't_ insurance companies making skyhigh profits? The answer, I think, is because they have to pay out monster settlements either because they lose lawsuits, or because it's cheaper to pay out than to go to court. Either way, who profits? we both know - it's the lawyers.
Every day on tv I see ads for new "class action" suits. "did you recive xxx medication when you had an open heart operation? if you or a loved one did and then died, you may have a suit...call us".
I probably could have sued someone in my Dad's case. (though it was 15 years ago, and even in that time frame it was less frequent to sue your doctor) In his case, I suspect he himself probably had something to do with the error - "Doc, my back's killing me again - can we redo the surgery I had 10 years ago?"
But still... you get the point.
I think another change we need is to have professional juries made up of medically expert people who can actually make an informed decision as to whether the doctor's action should be classified as malpractice or just life's vicissitudes. You know - a jury of the doctor's _peers_.
And if a doctor is actually guilty of malpractice - as judged by other doctors - then pull his license. In some cases, we should be able to sue states who have issued licenses - or at least have not pulled the licenses - of doctors who are either incompetent or have some other problem.
Suek: Medical malpractice is definitely a huge issue. I think you have very good ideas for tort reform.
Here's a shocking factoid:
It can cost an ob-gyn in South Florida $209,000 a year to insure for delivery of babies: http://tr.im/Tort
YIKES!
But Obama and his trial lawyer loving democrat buddies aren't going to touch tort reform with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole:
http://tr.im/RubberMeetsRoad
>>It can cost an ob-gyn in South Florida $209,000 a year to insure for delivery of babies:>>
That seems huge...but how many of those annual premiums would it take to pay off a lawsuit? And how much of that lawsuit would the lawyer collect?
Let's say there was one lawsuit. Let's say the award is $1 million. Of that,I'd expect the lawyer to collect 1/3 - approximately 1.5 annual premiums. The injured party would then receive about 2/3 or about $666,000. Non-taxable. That's about equal to 3 - nearly 4 - annual premiums. How many suits are filed each year? I wonder if those numbers are available...
>>Our military's success shows us that big government can work...right? >>
Heh.
FUBAR is an acronym that originated with the military. Many civilians don't have any idea what it stands for. I love the military - but no one in their right mind considers it an "ideal" organization.
"...how much of that lawsuit would the lawyer collect?"
Quite a bit. Just ask John Edwards.
"I love the military - but no one in their right mind considers it an "ideal" organization."
The VA is the best example of what we can expect with gov't run health care.
I should probably link this article to one of the more recent articles, but in any case...
You might find this interesting..
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121097874071799863.html
Heh. And then, right after reading that one, I come across these two:
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2009/06/health-care-rationalisation-cruellest.html
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2009/06/margaret-thatcher-let-them-eat-cake.html
Suek: WSJ article is great...thanks for sharing. "The cruelest cut"...very enlightening. "Let them eat cake"... the future of government-run health care in the U.S.
Now I'm gonna have to start paying you for these great links!
Post a Comment