Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Phyllis Schlafly :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama's Health Care Plan Can Be Defeated
by Phyllis Schlafly
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



The Democrats' most recent answer to the question of how they will pay for their trillion-dollar health-care reform was just announced by Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel. He wants to impose a surtax on incomes over $280,000, which would be a staggering blow to small businesses that create most jobs.

Another option floated by the Democrats is to tax employer-sponsored health coverage. Obama-supporter and union boss James P. Hoffa calls this "a bitter, bitter pill for middle-class wage-earners" and has vowed to fight it.

The real purpose of Obama's health care "reform" is to seize control of another major industry (health care) and move us rapidly into socialism. The Democrats' plan involves mandates to force individuals to buy insurance, employers to provide insurance and private insurance to offer an expensive list of benefits.

Instead of allowing insurance to compete by offering different benefit packages, the Democrats are considering insurance mandates to cover exotic benefits that individuals may not want to buy, such as in-vitro fertilization, hair transplants, rehab services, hearing aids, sex-change operations, prescription drugs, abortions, mental health and substance-abuse programs.

The Democrats intend to prohibit low-cost policies for catastrophic care. They want to bar you from buying cheaper insurance in other states.

The Democrats intend to impose community rating on a federal level, which means all customers will be offered the same rates regardless of age, obesity, smoking or other lifestyle differences. This forces young people to subsidize older patients.

The Democrats intend to launch a "public option" to compete with private insurance. Government subsidies for the public option would soon drive private insurance out of business and become the "single-payer" (government plan) that the liberals really want.

Obama promised that if you like your current insurance, you can keep it -- but that option will soon be gone under Obama reform. Your employer could cancel his company-paid insurance (because it's cheaper to pay a fine, instead), or your insurance (because it can't compete with government subsidized insurance) could cancel your company.

Obama's choice of White House health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle shows the conflicts of interest that surround many of his appointments. In the past three years, she pocketed $5.8 million from her work for major medical companies ($2.3 million from serving on the boards of six firms to be affected by the health-care bill, and $3.5 million from director's fees, stock sales and awards from health-care firms).

DeParle was paid $471,000 as a member of the board of directors of Cerner, a leading developer of electronic medical records systems. Cerner has already boasted that it is well-positioned to take advantage of Obama's push to modernize medical records (for which $19 billion was allocated in the stimulus law).

Modernizing health-care records means putting all your health-care information on computers where it will be accessible to government bureaucrats to help them decide the comparative effectiveness of proposed tests and treatments in relation to your age and health (a.k.a. rationing). Private information can leak out and be used against you by employers, prospective employers, health and life insurance, ex-spouses or political opponents.

The elephant in the Obama health-care room may be abortion. Time Magazine is asking the explosive question: Will Obama's national health care cover abortions?

The majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars to pay for abortions. Because of the Supreme Court decision in Harris v. McRae upholding the Hyde Amendment, federally paid health care (such as Medicaid) does not now cover abortions.

Hillary Clinton, the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood and NARAL are already bragging that nationalized health care will include abortion. Feminists believe that abortion should be covered just like an appendectomy.

Unless it is excluded, abortions will be covered by national health care, thus making the taxpayers pay for hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. That's why 19 pro-life Democrats, organized by Rep. David Boren, D-Okla., sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi warning that they "cannot support any health-care-reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health-insurance plan."

The Obama plan will permanently put unaccountable bureaucrats (who have never treated a patient) in charge of decisions about if and when you can get the procedures and treatments you and your doctor believe are necessary.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., believes this is "a make-or-break moment for Americans" and a battle we can and must win. As a physician, he reminds us that we can't effectively treat a problem unless we get the diagnosis right, and the Democrats have misdiagnosed the problem as too little rather than too much government intervention.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Phyllis Schlafly‘s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

HEALTHCARE
Please vote NO to Obama's Plan
Stop this madness

Health Care Overhaul
Stop the madness!!!

HEALTH CARE
I DO NOT WANT MY HEALTH CARE CHANGED

Lets let the government run everything
The problem is once the government takes over an industry there is no recourse for dissatisfaction over the service. There is no one responsible in the end if the job is not done right. Heart surgury, brain surgury. Do you want the same level of care to your body as the government takes care of roads for example.

Tax the rich!
I think the thing that's got me the most irked about this is CNBC's revelation that "We’re going to have 2 million to 4 million people pay for all of this when they are already paying 70 percent or 60 percent of all the tax income in this country."

Those who are making more than $280k, as you put it. This makes no sense to me. If it's going to be a public option, don't dump it only on everyone who has absolutely no need for it. If you want to provide a public option, make the public pay for it.

Of course, I'm opposed to the whole idea of taxpayers paying everyone healthcare as a rule, but that revelation just broke the camel's back for me.

Mike
Just wait until you have to "haggle" with the government when care has been denied to you by some bureaucratic Acorner with a GED. They'll just put you on hold....literally.

You will wish you were back "haggling" with that 'blessed' free market insurance company.

Same ole Phyllis...
Who exactly is calling for coverage of hair transplants, Phyllis? Give me a break. Oh no, the scary government bureaucrats will administer a public insurance plan. As opposed to the insurance company bureaucrats, who are accountable to no one, denying coverage for every procedure as a matter of policy? The same insurance companies that run effective monopolies in many regions of the country?

How are you holding up financially, Phyllis? I'm guessing you've never had to haggle with one of those blessed free-market insurance companies.

PV, re double posts:
I agree that our posts frequently don't show up immediately on TH. I could discuss the technical processes in detail (and put all to sleep) but suffice it to say that sometimes it takes a few minutes for our posts to get added to the page rebuilds.

My solution to this minor annoyance is to use my browser more wisely, a tabbed browser AKA Firefox 3.5. I open the main site, then open multiple articles in new tabs. If I comment in one and don't see my post immediately, I go to the next tab (story) and wait 5 minutes before returning to the previous tab. If necessary, I copy my comments to Notepad or substitute while waiting.

Hope this helps.

i

To All
Sorry for the double post.

This site makes it very difficult sometimes to know if what you have posted actually shows up.

You think something didn't take so you resend it only to find it already did.

Town Hall, you have a great site, but why can't you try to address these shortfalls and edit out double posts?

Lilly
Why don't you try something novel and pay your own way? Why don't you gather a group of people who think like you and pay for the health care of those you feign to care for yourselves?

Why do you think you should have the right to steal from other people to fund the things you should be funding yourself?

Don't try to impose your pseudo religious beliefs on me. Feel free to do whatever you want on your own dime, but don't you dare try to use government to strong arm me.

Do whatever you want yourself. Talk is cheap. If you really believe in what you are always spouting on this site, then put your money where your extraordinarily big mouth is and pay for it yourself. You always want to talk big, but you always want to make somebody else pay for it.
Do it yourself, or shut the heck up.


Lilly
Why don't you try something novel and pay your own way? Why don't you gather a group of people who think like you and pay for the health care of those you feign to care for yourselves?

Why do you think you should have the right to steal from other people to fund the things you should be funding yourself?

Don't try to impose your pseudo religious beliefs on me. Feel free to do whatever you want on your own dime, but don't you dare try to use government to strong arm me.

Do whatever you want yourself. Talk is cheap. If you really believe in what you are always spouting on this site, then put your money where your extraordinarily big mouth is and pay for it yourself. You always want to talk big, but you always want to make somebody else pay for it.
Do it yourself, or shut the heck up.


To Diane
Your nasty post suggests that white native Americans work while immigrants (particularly non-white immigrants) are lazy free-loaders who don't work. Come to Chicago and take a look: immigrants are working their butts off. Every time you drive past a construction site, every time you go to a restaurant or a hotel, every time you see landscapers planting and mowing and maintaining, every time you hire people to do drywall or lay carpet or install a new sink, I 100% guarantee you that in Chicago the workers you see hard at work will be immigrants.

Take a city bus any time between 5 PM and midnight---it will be loaded, standing room only half the night, with immigrants returning from jobs, going to their second job, going to their evening or night shift job, and going to school so they can get a better job (they are carrying workbooks and studying as they travel). Go to immigrant neighborhoods and see who owns and operates the small businesses---laundromats, thrift stores, Dollar Stores, convenience stores, grocery stores, bakeries, restaurants, produce stores---all immigrant, and these streets are bustling with active commerce. Take a taxi and see who's driving it: he will be speaking into his cell phone, and the language he's speaking won't be English.

Your stereotype is not only snotty, it is untrue. And as for your fire, how do you know the white people didn't set it?


Well Duh Lilly
Up until now, the government has not planned on rationing the expense allocated to seniors to fund the cost of health care for those who haven't seen fit to provide for themselves.

Seniors are going to be denied care so that those able bodied illegals and ne'r do wells who can't be bothered to take care of themselves will be funded by people who have always paid for themselves.

Lilly, you are one of the thieves who think you have the right to steal from your neighbors to pay for what you should rightfully be paying for yourself. Why do you think someone else should pay your way for you? Are you a thief? Why do you think you have a right to lay claim on my property while at the same time denying me the right to use my own property as I see fit?

You really are nothing but a thief and probably should be put behind bars.

Don't lecture us on how we should be able to use the resources we have worked a lifetime to set aside while people like you have done nothing.

Ronald
Re your belief that government has never done anything well:

Google "GI Bill". This was a government plan that sent returned military veterans to college. It sent so many of them to college that it expanded the middle class (sociologists say that a college degree is the ticket to the middle class). A college degree increases lifetime earnings, google that too. This government program was enormously successful---it improved life for millions of Americans and thereby improved our entire economy.

And when you're done, google "Marshall Plan".

To PV
Hello, we have already had government health care since 1965. It's called Medicare. When you turn 65 and retire from your job, you stop by the Personnel Office and they explain all the particulars: x amount of income from your pension (if you are lucky enough to still have one since Reaganworld and Bushworld changed that little detail) and from Social Security. And the minute you go on Social Security, you go on Medicare. Even if you have private insurance, say Blue Cross Blue Shield, Medicare is your primary provider, and the private company is your secondary provider. Your medical bills go first to Medicare, then, through "crossover", to BCBS or whatever company. Medicare already has your medical records. Please note that Medicare is not publishing people's private health data on the Internet. Please note that Medicare is not sending old people to die in gulags without medical care. Medicare is not denying care to people of a certain age. All the hysterical rumors that you folks delight in spreading are BS.

Facebook poll
Not scientific but this is the results of a poll on Facebook.

Should the U.S adopt a Universal Heath Care system?
NO - 10,113 (69.2%)
YES - 4,420 (30.2%)
I really don't care - 80 (0.5%)

Facebook is no Liberal bastion.

Tyler in WA - 2
6. Our present government-run systems – Medicaid, Medicare, VA and Tricare for Life - are criticized as much or more than any other present system. As a disabled combat veteran I find 3 out of 4 of them excellent, at worst good.
7. Insurance and drug companies are in all present systems and will be in any “plan” being offered up by Obama and the Congress.
8. Anywhere in the world and in states of the U.S. where big government or state-run plans have been tried they are deplorable for many reasons, outrageously expensive, bankrupt the people and the country or state and bureaucrats are between the doctor and patient. So it is not a farce but fact.
The only thing U.S. Federal government and others do well is war – kill people and break their stuff. So wake up please. Look around you. Read. Listen. Learn before you start flapping your yap again in your ignorance going to stupidity. You are mentally ill, a danger to yourself and others, working against your own best interests.

Tyler in WA
Silly question and argument by an obviously silly person – an Obama slobberer:
“Why don’t republicans like healthcare?
“Because the insurance companies and drug companies have paid hundreds of millions of dollars for lobbyists to make up lies and scare tactics against a government run system. They want to continue to make billions at the expense of the people.
“One of the main arguments is that a bureaucrat will get between the doctor and patient. That is a farce.”
1. Republicans like quality healthcare and are smart enough to know the U.S. has the best despite the Michael Moore, Obama, Lib Dem propaganda.
2. People flock here to learn and practice medicine; not to Canada, Cuba, England, France, Israel or anywhere else.
3. People come here from all over the world to get high quality health care, the best in the world.
4. Obama’s own Baghdad Bob Gibbs has said even that Americans like their health care in the U.S., and he could not name one country where there was a better model.
5. Only 8% of U.S. citizens have said they do not like their health care. The 50M without health care in the U.S. is a lie at the outset plus includes illegal aliens and people who have declined health insurance coverage. (cont.)

I find Paul Krugman to be fair
With his assessment. He's not just picking on Republican'ts, he's also pointing out that some Democrats are predisposed to work a "bait and switch" health-care reform. Here is a quote from one of Paul's articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r =1

"The Republicans, with a few possible exceptions, have decided to do all they can to make the Obama administration a failure. Their role in the health care debate is purely that of spoilers who keep shouting the old slogans — Government-run health care! Socialism! Europe! — hoping that "

What some find so hard to observe is the disconnect between the overwhelming perception of being confident and satisfied with U.S. health care, and then very unsatisfactory state of cost. There are few detractors who are getting beyond the satisfaction perception and reading the studies and analysis occurring as the debate rolls on in Congress.

If the CBO, GAO, Economists and many sources of analysis show time and again that cost of health care is unsustainable, then the cost is unsustainable. If there is action to be taken, and action is always up for debate, then it is now that action should be taken. I'm for action, I've shown numerous reasons, as I link what I agree with. My links have caveats, debates, and uncertainties, to which any such action will produce.

There will be a solution, but it is obvious that obstruction from detractors, based upon old, regurgitated rebuttals, will continue unabated. To those I write, you are in error. The reality of this reform is far more pertinent to our current circumstances than any of you are willing to negotiate, investigate, reason with, or perceive beyond your ideologue absorbed minds.

Its interesting
I noticed that no lib here seems interested in the fact that Obama danced around the question about whether he would submit his family to nationalized health care.

Thinks the members of the House and Senate will be on these plans? Think not.

Yes, lets follow Norway
We can fund national health care in the US just like Norway. Here is now;

1) We drastically cut down our Military, and ally with some superpower to defend us.

2) We force those evil greedy drug companies to move elsewhere, where they develope new drugs and medical procedures in a country that still subscribes to that silly notion of free market.

Royinoslo
My ignorance pales in comparison to your's.

If Norway's medical system is so much better than our's, please take advantage of it and leave us alone.

How much of this so-called superiority is homegrown and how much is contingent on the technological and pharmaceutical development taking place here in the US?

How much of our expense is due to the trial lawyers impact on malpractice insurance? This expense will not go away under the Democrats because the trial lawyers are one of their largest contributors and sacred cows.

I am glad to live in the US and have access to the very best medical care in the world. The cost problems we have are the result of government's already very excessive intervention in the system over the years. The answer to reducing cost is to get the frigging government out of the system, not hand the thing over in its entirety.

You are certainly free to enjoy your Norwegian care all you want, but you are not free to impose your monstrosity on us. Any involvement by the federal government in this area is unconstitutional.

Those of us who still have a brain can see exactly where a government system will take us and see very clearly what the impact will be on us. I am not going to let some petty, politically-driven, bureaucrat get to determine what care I get, and especially, whether I get it or not based on their comparative effectiveness schemes.

And you are so confused if you think government action is an expression of American ingenuity and innovation. Those qualities come from individuals and people demanding to be free.

They just don't believe in USA anymore
SARAH wrote, "Norway's income tax is 50% for EVERYBODY" -- Not true, the tax is progressive, with medium income taxed at about 39% and lowere income at 27%. And Norway contributes more per capita to foreign aid and development than almost every country on earth, including USA.

There are many, many models of health care in the world done quite successfully and to the general satisfaction of the users. What's amazing about the so-called Yankee spirit, American ingenuity-- it's utterly dead if you listen to the naysayers who want to give up, throw in the towel and say "We just cannot do this, people". We just had a 4th of July celebrating American achievement, and here we have have a bunch whiners who give up too easy.

BTW, PV, I am in Norway, at least most of the year, and your ignorance and name calling is quite pathetic.

Sure, BO's health plan...
...CAN be defeated. However the problem may be in instilling some backbone into some Republicans who seem ever ready to cut a deal with the dems and sell out for political expediency.

I am amazed.
There seem to be quite a number of people who can't wait to pay for my healthcare! I didn't even ask them too.

Well, instead of sending your money to the government so thay can pay. just send it directly to me and cut out the middleman! I'll let you know when you have sent enough.

Don't those fools realize that when the government pays the government gets the money from them? And what they get in return is higher costs and substandard care?

I am amazed.
There seem to be quite a number of people who can't wait to pay for my healthcare! I didn't even ask them too.

Well, instead of sending your money to the government so thay can pay. just send it directly to me and cut out the middleman!

peter


Loosing
Losing
Let's call the whole thing off, including Obama fing Care.

Sarah
You hit the nail on the head and are exactly right.

If America hadn't incurred the cost of protecting all of the EU countries' sorry butts all of these years, they wouldn't have had the resources available to dig themselves into the social welfare morass they're now in.

Many of these countries are desperately trying to find a way out of this social entitlement mentality that has stifled their productivity and resulted in double digit levels of unemployment.

While we spent the money on their defense, we did it in our own interest to thwart the expansionist ambitions of the former USSR. Just the same, it's too bad we didn't leave them to fend for themselves. From what I can see, none of them except the UK are worth one
American life or one American dollar. And the only thing they've ever given us in return for our largesse is their contempt.

Peter TN
Do you need the government to help you find the bathroom at night? Do you do anything for your self?

What a stupid comment that because health care is so important we need government to do it for us. I guess the government schools taught you how to spell "loosing even more elections."

Unfortunately, because the government schools have turned out mental midgets like you in large numbers we are "loosing" more elections.

There should be no "representation" (meaning ability to vote) without "taxation" (meaning you actually pay something to support the system). If you are willing to trust government with your health care you are in bad shape and most likely one of the people that should not be allowed to cancel out my vote.

@Al
Would you agree, that given certain circumstances you could live without a car? Say basically in every circumstance of your life?

And just for fact finding, living without health would eventaully end up not living anymore but that you can not avoid this very circumstance.

That is why one can argue, that health care is something different than automobiles, and by this give the government more authority.

If conservatives see vehicles as the same comodity as your health, than they will have a lot of fun loosing even more elections.

Royinoslo...
Norway has a population for 4.5 million, US has a population 330 million (effectively 1% the size of USA)
Norway's income tax is 50% for EVERYBODY~which tops out the tax rate of the USA progressive rate.
Norway's corporate tax is 52%

Now those are facts I can look up quickly...I am wondering if Norway has the similar US problems of illegal aliens? Does Norway donate as much money to the rest of the planet like the US does? Maybe when there is a major world issue the UN calls on Norway's military might EVERY time like they do the US.

In other words, it is not prudent to use a country like Norway to prove why the United States should adopt socialized medicine. Socialized medicine cannot work on such a large scale when people aren't expected to give up MAJOR portions of their income to pay for it. Obama wants to extend insurance to all everybody, but have only the "rich" pay for it. The bottom 40% of the US population doesn't pay income taxes yet they will jumping on to the entitlement train.

Tyler

I am a fiscally-conservative CONSTITUTIONALIST, without party affiliation. If I had to describe my philosophy, you would think that I sound like a Libertarian, who believes in foreign policy.

Having said that, my medical treatment is up to me. My body is my own. My privacy, includes my medical, my doctors, and my records. My money is my own and I want to keep as much of it, as is possible. I will never use a FedBulb or other silly mandates. I want the government to stay out of my life and get out of my way.

I detest the Federal Government and I have for almost all of my adult life.

I do not need a sex change, rehab, mental health, contraceptives and other prescriptions (if I do, I pay for them), maternity or any of those "exotic" items. I do not wish to pay for those needed by anyone else.

Why don't republicans like healthcare?
Because the insurance companies and drug companies have paid hundreds of millions of dollars for lobbyists to make up lies and scare tactics against a government run system. They want to continue to make billions at the expense of the people.

One of the main arguments is that a bureaucrat will get between the doctor and patient. That is a farce.


YGTBSM
S=Spoofing, you filthy-minded Dim Libs.

YdoGTBSM - Rangel cannot, does not even pay for his own luxury Caribbean and other home(s) or his taxes. But how does that make him different from any other Dim Lib pol or Obama appointee?

NoMucho
And I think the government should pay for my auto insurance too. I mean, the politicians all get their autos covered. Heck, they even get cars to drive...OH...New idea...Government should buy me a car as well. I mean heck, they own the car companies now so they can build them for free. Yeah, that's the ticket...new car and paid insurance...I love this socialism stuff!

Enslavement of Eugenics? - III
In 1992, Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case, wrote a letter to President-elect Clinton, imploring him to rush RU-486 -- a.k.a. "the abortion pill" -- to market as quickly as possible.

"[Y]ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country," Weddington insisted. All the president had to do was make abortion cheap and easy for the populations we don't want. "It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it. ... Think of all the poverty, crime and misery ... and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don't have a lot of time left."


Sotomayor has written that the denial of Federal funding to pay for a poor woman's abortion would result in enslavement.

I wonder what both Ginsburg and Sotomayor think about Margaret Sanger's belief that eugenics were necessary to rid society of the poor, the minority and the "undesirables."

Do they advocate post-birth abortion for aged and infirm? After all, if they do, then the Feds might be able to pay for ObamaCare. Will they vote to mandate taxpayer-funded abortions or for no medical treatment for the severely ill or elderly?


Or, what about a mother, who learns she is pregnant with a Down's baby? Would they force her to undergo an abortion?

Enslavement or Eugenics? - II
Regardless, Ginsburg's certainly right that abortion has very deep roots in the historic effort to "weed out" undesired groups. For instance, Margaret Sanger, the revered feminist and founder of Planned Parenthood, was a racist eugenicist of the first order. Even more perplexing: She's become a champion of "reproductive freedom" even though she proposed a "Code to Stop Overproduction of Children," under which "no woman shall have a legal right to bear a child without a permit." (Poor blacks would have had a particularly hard time getting such licenses from Sanger.)

To be sure, some heterodox liberals speak up. The writer Nicholas von Hoffman has written: "Free, cheap abortion is a policy of social defense. To save ourselves from being murdered in our beds and raped on the streets, we should do everything possible to encourage pregnant women who don't want the baby and will not take care of it to get rid of the thing before it turns into a monster. ..."

Enslavement or Eugenics? - I
Here's what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Sunday's New York Times Magazine: "Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided," Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, "there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

The comment, which bizarrely elicited no follow-up from Bazelon or any further coverage from the New York Times -- or any other major news outlet -- was in the context of Medicaid funding for abortion. Ginsburg was surprised when the Supreme Court in 1980 barred taxpayer support for abortions for poor women. After all, if poverty partly described the population you had "too many" of, you would want to subsidize it in order to expedite the reduction of unwanted populations.

Left unclear is whether Ginsburg endorses the eugenic motivation she ascribed to the passage of Roe vs. Wade or whether she was merely objectively describing it.


RoyinOslo
Here's why Norway's model works:

http://burkescorner.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-centre-right-c an-praise-nordic.html

"The Nordic model cannot be considered apart from the cohesiveness of society in the Nordic countries."

Quite different than the U.S. where the population is far more diverse. Ironically, the left promotes diversity which undermines their ability to collectivize.

"...taxes on consumption rather than income..."

This is a no brainer but the leftists in this country will never let the invasive and punitive income tax go.

"though the total tax take is much higher than in Canada, the tax mix is different. In particular, corporate taxes are lower, value added taxes higher."

Norway shows a more business friendly attitude than U.S. leftists. They know that in order to have social programs, you have to grow wealth. Ignorant, obsessive leftists don't get that.

Unfortunately, Norway is now in the process of increasing government spending over and above their legislated limits. I sense trouble ahead.

AARP pushing for HealthCare reform
Talk about self-defeating behavior!

I believe that the 10th Amendment (reserving power not specifically granted to the Fed Gov't to the several states) was intended to keep the Feds from micro-managing the United States, overseeing every aspect of our lives, eg, the $5k fine if Americans won't fill out an unconstitutional 28-page invasion of privacy/census, eg, "What time do you leave for/arrive home from work?"

One can only hope that they don't have search warrants so possible ACORN (or whatever the rebranding will be) workers can cool their heels on the porch, unable to enter our homes for a Gestapo-like inspection.

Obama tells the world that we are no longer a Christian nation. Odd that it is largely people from other countries coming to the US yearning to be free, although the wealthy poseurs occasionally move to France.

Our Muslim president (if Dad is a Muslim, so is the son, much like a Jewish mother produces Jewish children...even if they enjoy ham sandwiches) seeks to micro-manage every aspect of our lives.

At once gladly and sadly, we look forward to following the long-term trend of first-term (or only term) presidents losing members of the House and Senate. W gained seats in his first mid-terms.

This is why Obama must overload the system and make hay while the sun shines. Hopefully, he won't do irreparable harm to our nation in the next year...into the election season of 2010. One assumes that the Big Media (formerly known as Mainstream Media... much like Prince!) will continue to constitute Obama's most loyal fan club.

Jimmy Carter must be beaming with pride that Obama may well follow in his footsteps.

Royinoslow
If socialized care was so great in Norway, why don't you go back there and take the other "free cheese" idiots like Foxyloxy with you....and don't let the door hit you on your brains on the way out.

You are so full of crap. Here's your logic. Health care is too expensive for each of us as individuals to afford, so let's nationalize it, add 50 million more people to the system, don't add any doctors or hospitals, and suddenly, it will get cheaper and provide better outcomes. What wasn't affordable individually is now affordable collectively????

You people are absolutely insane. I don't want government anywhere near my health care. I don't give them permission to take/examine my health records. I don't give them permission to do anything except what is authorized to them in our Constitution, which is the rule book for government. They are violating all the rules, and greedy people like you are complicit in their crimes and encouraging them to commit even more obscenities.

We will not let you turn us into a wimp society like Norway or any of the other brain-dead social welfare Euroweenie states. Get lost.

Keep Your Grubby Fingers Off

Of my body.

Of my medical records.

Of my doctor and hospital.

Of my children and other family members.

Of my wallet.


If anyone wants socialized medicine, go ahead and move to the UK or Canada, but make sure you know exactly what you are getting into because both of these horror shows were used by Obama, Kennedy and Dodd.

National Healthcare
Keep up the pressure! The morons in the House are running around like chickens-sans-heads! Contact your "Representative" and let them know your thoughts on this travesty. National healthcare, and especially "single payer" national healthcare is just one more nail in the coffin of American freedom and private enterprise. It's all part of the marxist plan to run this country into the dirt by the narcissist-in-chief.

400 Billion Dollar Cut in Medicare
MEDICARE RECIPIENTS CAN STOP OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN

Obama's Health Care Plan can be stopped if we can get the Medicare recipients to join us in opposing it.

Get the information out that Obama plans to cut Medicare funding by 400 Billion Dollars to subsidize his Health Care Plan.

Medicare recipients will be faced with rationing and will move from the front of the line to the back.

That 400 Billion Dollars will be used to add over 10 Million Illegal Aliens to the health care rolls.

Most of the Medicare recipients are unaware of this.

AARP is backstabbing those they're suppose to protect by not informing their members of the 400 Billion Dollar Medicare cut.

In fact the liberal AARP is backing Obama's plan to the detriment of their members.

It is said that Social Security is the 3rd Rail of American Politics.

Medicare recipients comprise the vast majority of that Social Security 3rd Rail group.

United they are a formidable opponent.

Use your column to alert them of these Medicare cuts & that 3rd rail will include stopping the Obama Health Care Plan.


Sam Marx

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
It's not governments (taxpayers) responsibility to provide health care for the masses. The government has no money that it doesn't conscript from the citizens.The government can't efficiently oversee VA hospitals or Airport Security and you want a bureaucrat in Washington D.C. to decide your health care?

Health care in America does not currently work for all Americans but the cure proposed by the Obama administration will make things far worse.
If a bureaucrat decides when and where you receive healthcare that will be an even bigger personal crisis.
The American Medical Association opposes the Obama plan saying, "The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans,” and would lead to an "explosion of costs" (Pear, 6/10).

Go to : http://www.txazbee.blogspot.com

Two points from an article by a business
owner, which clearly rebut the notion that a surtax is rejected by business, and that it will cause them undo harm.

"fee pegged at 8 percent of payroll (which in fact is about what NewWest.Net pays for the lame health insurance plan we currently offer).

President Obama supports exempting "small businesses" from any mandate"

"Frankly, I would prefer to pay 8 percent of my payroll to the government and get out of the business of providing health insurance, which after all has nothing to do with my real business."

http://www.thebigmoney.com/features/making-payroll/2009/06/ 29/bring-public-option?page=full

I have noted this and two other links before which clearly show that the fear and loathing by non-investigatory, and opinionated columnists foment misinformation.

This is not acceptable, and you other readers could agree with me, if you would read the link I provide.

Sure there are caveats, sure there are questions, but to flatly refuse to consider the possibility that a government option would work does not make common sense. The illogical conclusions of columnists from this category of illogical fit information out of context, and relate an emotional, often visceral array of misinformed opinion without analysis of facts.

Healthcare czar
I notice that the true believers in Obamas reform plan failed to address the conflict of interest surrounding the newly appointed healthcare czar, Nancy Ann DePearl. You don't mind that she has pocketed 5.8 million for her work at major medical companies, six of which will be affected by healthcare reform? It's okay with you guys and gals that she made $471,000 working for Cerner, the leading developer or electronic medical records systems? This same company has bragged that they are well-positioned to take advantage of modernizing medical records. You know the system that Obama wants and has allocated 19B for. No there will be no money grubbing going on when we get healthcare reform. Just some sweetie-pie bureaucrats sitting next to a endless pile of money saying "YES" and rubberstamping every single proceedure that every single citizen (and non-citizen) desires.
And, it amazes me that the same people who where sure that W with his domestic terrorist spy operation was listening to their phone conversations have nary a word to say about a nationalized medical records system being computerized with all their personal information on it.
Get some perspective people.

Furthermore...
...And naturally, millions of men benefit from health care reform. Men who are notoriously poky about going to see there docs may in fact be cheapskates. If ya can go get that new mole checked out and can still buy a new fishing pole, just maybe you can catch skin cancer early.

Not to mention easier job mobility. Hmmm, could this be another big reason members of Congress are swimming in money coming from Chamber of Commerce types who benefit from the limits on the American workers who get squeezed by the present system?

Women empowered, men having easier choices about their health. Just who is buying the hogwash that such reform is a step backward?

The Second White Flight
White Americans, and others who can afford to come with us, will relocate to states that defy the usurper.

In South Los Angeles last month, a four-plex was destroyed by fire.

A Nigerian family of six con artists lived on the first floor, and all six died in the fire.

A black Islamic group of seven welfare recipients , all illegally in the country from Kenya, lived on the second floor, and they too perished in the fire.

Six LA gangbanger ex-cons lived on the third floor and they died as well.

One white couple lived on the top floor. The couple survived the fire.

Rev. Jesse Jackson, John Burris and Rev. Al Sharpton were furious. They flew to LA and met with the fire chief on TV. They loudly demanded to know why the Nigerians, Muslims and gangbangers all died in the fire and only the white couple survived.

The fire chief said, "They were at work."

Furthermore....
...And naturally, millions of men benefit from health care reform. Men who are notoriously poky about going to see there docs may in fact be cheapskates. If ya can go get that new mole checked out and can still buy a new fishing pole, just maybe you can catch skin cancer early.

Not to mention easier job mobility. Hmmm, could this be another big reason members of Congress are swimming in money coming from Chamber of Commerce types who benefit from the limits on the American workers who get squeezed by the present system?

Women empowered, men having easier choices about their health. Just who is buying the hogwash that such reform is a step backward?

Hal,
While I wouldn't assume that Ms. S. fears anything, there is much more to this naysaying to healthcare reform than meets the eye.

True reform with a public option will empower millions of women in America -- especially those with children -- who are beholden to severe limits to their health care options:

¤If in a bad marriage she might stay longer than desirable if she needs hubby's job-related insurance, with no public option.

¤If in a dead-end job she might feel stuck with it because of the insurance benefits, while the career she pines for starts with employers who don't provide insurance, with no public option.

¤If underinsured the limits to procreation are obvious, the temptation to terminate a pregnancy greater if you don't know how family's future med costs will be paid, if there is no public option.

"Shovel Ready" Healthcare

Coming to a neighborhood near you.

Phyllis and fear of irrelevance
You fear universal healthcare may well decrease unwanted pregnancies and make you redundant. Guess what? Folks with decent healthcare and nutrition may be able to have their babies; abortions should dramatically fall. This is the REAL reason you oppose universal health care.

Notmuch
You are completly right!

Do not forget the utterly disgusting "pre-existing condition" gimmick. Well so you have been born with an illness, to bad for you we wont help you, deal with it you could have lived a healthier life...

You said it, bureaucrats allready control health care, but they are bureaucrats with the incentive to deny health care. An incentive a government worker would not have.

If private insurance can not compete against a government insurance (what they can, look for example to Germany), than it is just an indication of a market failure and that means there should not be a private market.
Why pay more and get worse results if you can pay less and get better results, just for the sake of saying you have a private health care market? That is utter nonsense.

I could go on and on with it.

Great posts
from notmuch and royinoslo. We need SINGLE PAYER in the US.

A dose of pessimism
Quite telling that the post with real substance here is that of Notmuch, who has much to say about the advantages of a public option for health care insurance. Take it from someone who has lived with one such successful model for 10 years -- the Norwegian way -- it's a great idea whose time has come for Americans.

Choose your own doc, very low overhead, opt for private clinic if you prefer-- loads of advantages with but a few disadvantages.

Ideological propagandists like Schlafly and greedy elitists who are afraid of losing their premium care -- they won't! -- merely defend a status quo that has failed America, a mega-industry with a nearly bought Congress and enough frightened average American to spoil real progress.

This ought to be a slam-dunk easy decision, but the fear-mongers often seem to get their way-- like they did in the Rove-Cheney-Bush era.

MEDICAID ANYONE/

If our current health care is so expensive it will ruin us - what happens when the cost is trillions? Obama said we had No money. Does spending an outrageous amount of more money make it any cheaper?

If one person makes less that about $1,300 or 1,400 a month, then you will be put on MEDICAID. Not Medicare. MEDICAID. Which means you will get the minimum of care in the worst places after waiting the longest time - all from a stranger.

MEDICAID ANYONE?

You won't have a choice. It is in the bill.

Of course, if you don't live because you are too old to make it worth their while - you won't have to worry, will you?

Demo Health Propaganda
Obamanoids love mindless mantras as much as does any other totalitarian anesthesia campaign racket. So, how can we echo back something that might resonate in the empty spaces between their ears? All we need to do is repeat over and over "Obama's Health Rationing, Obama's Health Rationing." If they are dumb enough to go for the Obama plan, when they see future Death at their door in conjunction with the advertised rationing, a few might remember way back to 2009 when they were warned about RATIONING. Once they make the Pavlovian connection between Obama, rationing, and premature demise, even Obamanoids will have a hard time not realizing why Death came prematurely.

notmuch:
Have you ever lived under socialized medicine? I thought not.

Someone Who Knows

notmuch:
Its difficult to find anyone as clueless as notmuch.

notmuch writes:
Phyllis is out of touch
========================
Hopefully she will stay out of touch with people like you

Phyllis is out of touch
"Obama promised that if you like your current insurance, you can keep it -- but that option will soon be gone under Obama reform."

That option will soon be gone WITHOUT reform. Every year, the number of uninsured keeps growing. Wall Street constantly demands more profit and less care. Health care costs keep climbing faster than incomes. 22,000 men, women and children die every year in this country for lack of health care. We can't afford NOT to reform health care.

"This forces young people to subsidize older patients."

We already subsidize older patients. Phyllis Schlafly is 84 years old, which means we've been paying for her health care for almost 20 years now. Why should 50 million people go without health care while subsidizing Phyllis Schlafly's health care with their taxes? We deserve health care, too.

"The Obama plan will permanently put unaccountable bureaucrats (who have never treated a patient) in charge of decisions about if and when you can get the procedures and treatments you and your doctor believe are necessary."

Unaccountable corporate bureaucrats are already in charge of people's health care decisions in the private insurance industry. They deny coverage and rescind policies every day, directly causing people's deaths, and they are rewarded for it with greater profits and higher stock values.

It is about time we had a public plan, accountable to the voters, to put patients first, not shareholders. There's no excuse for the greatest nation in the world to spend more than any other country on health care, yet have outcomes that lag behind some third world countries. We can have better health care and control costs at the same time. Everyone -- liberal and conservative -- should be in favor of that.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.