Posted on 09/09/2009 4:59:00 PM PDT by Chuck54
Ole “Don’t Mess with Joe” was shaking his head from side to side in horror and disgust...LOL!!!
I enjoyed watching with Laura too, she lets the guests talk and fires away at the opposition rather than kissing up to them like BOR does.
I’m a FOSP on Facebook!
How freaky. While she was good on SYTYCD, I can’t imagine her replacing Paula. It makes me sad.
I second your ugh..bring back Paula, she’s dippy and harmless.
The third or fourth replay is on Fox and I was noticing Sebelius in Collins’ face yammering away while they wait for ZerO to make his grand entrance.
Thanks. :)
Then it needs to be explained to the American people that their handlers in congress inten to have a two-tier plan: a much higher tier for themselves financed by Joe Sixpack, and Joe Sixpack’s paltry, rationed program also financed by Joe Sixpack.
” If that’s what you want, Mr. President, you don’t need congress, a bill, or presidential power to set up your plan.
Since the “public option” you are describing requires no federal funding and is completely self-sufficient, you can set it up as a private citizen. And since it’s going to be so efficient and provide such marvelous care and have no administrative waste and be such a “good deal for the consumer,” I’m sure your plan will succeed wildly on it’s own merits, with no government intervention whatsoever. “
Well put.
I am making a list of all government programs that we currently have that work well.
I currently have only one program on that list:
the United States Armed Forces.
On my list of government programs that are inefficient, space does not permit to list them all.
Amtrak is just one egregious example.
How well does the govt run an insurance plan? Well, how about the insurance plan known as “social security”
How well is that being run? Feel like your premiums are in a lockbox somewhere funding your future payouts?
Ask again in about 5 years
Indeed. Like I said, the list would be long.
Now we need a link to “his plan.”
Anyone?
Anyone?
Oh, that’s right. There are a few details left to be worked out. (Uproar of laughter!)
.
Yep. Some people are more equal than others.
Things you should know:
8/23/2009: Ways and Means Committee Markup of H.R. 3200 “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act”
Democrats Refuse to Let Americans Keep the Insurance They Have and Like
2 out of 3 will lose their health insurance
Democrats voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to strike the government-run plan. When speaking before the American Medical Association, President Obama stated that, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” However, the Democrats government-run plan breaks this promise. According to two independent studies: The government-run plan will result in more than 100 million Americans losing their current private health coverage.
This amendment to let Americans keep the insurance they like by striking the government-run plan was defeated, 25-15
Democrats Protect Themselves, Not the Public from Government-Run Plan
Democrats voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) to require all Members of Congress to get insurance through the government-run plan – proving Democrats do not think the government-plan will provide quality health care. Republicans voted in favor of the amendment, believing if it is good enough for the American people, it should be good enough for Member of Congress.
This amendment to ensure Members of Congress don’t exempt themselves from the government-run plan was defeated 21-18
Democrats ‘OK’ Government Rationing of Medicines & Treatments
Democrats voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) to prohibit the use of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) to make coverage determinations on the basis of cost. As it relates to the role of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee recommendations the discussion draft introduced last month said: “In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and ensure that essential benefits coverage does not lead to rationing of health care.” The new bill says: “In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.” Democrats actually removed what little language they had protecting Americans from the rationing of care. This subtle change makes it more likely we will face the rationing of care experienced in other countries.
This amendment to prevent the government from using the results of comparative effectiveness research to make coverage decisions based on cost was defeated 26-15
Democrats Okay with Government-Run Plan Increasing Wait Times, Cancer Deaths
Democrats voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) to repeal the government-run plan if wait times exceed certain thresholds. In order to save money, the government-run insurance plan created in the Democrat bill could ration health care by making Americans wait to see their doctors. Giving millions of Americans an insurance card with the seal of the federal government on it will mean little if patients are unable to see a doctor. Republicans believe if the government-run plan results in beneficiaries being forced into long wait lines to be treated, then it should be repealed.
This amendment to terminate the government-run plan if it led to rationing by delay was defeated 26-15
Democrats Raise Taxes on Employers in Recession
Despite national unemployment rates approaching 10 percent, Democrats voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) to strike the job-killing employer mandate. The Democrats’ bill contains hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax increases, hitting employers especially hard, including an 8 percent payroll tax on employers who:
* Can’t afford to offer health insurance to their employers;
* Do the right thing and offer health coverage to their employees but it’s arbitrarily deemed “insufficient” by the government;
* Offer “sufficient” coverage but the employee enrolls in coverage elsewhere (e.g. coverage through a spouse’s employer); or
* Aren’t paying at least 72.5% of an employee’s premium (65% for family coverage).
This amendment to strike this tax increase on employers was defeated 25-15
Democrats Prefer Trial Lawyers to Lowering Health Care Costs
Democrats voted against an amendment offered by Rep. John Linder (R-GA) to prohibit the government-run exchange from operating in States that do not provide for reasonable medical liability regulations. Fundamental health reform and bending the cost curve cannot be considered serious and complete without addressing medical liability reform. Many physicians are forced to provide unnecessary and duplicative tests to protect themselves from overzealous trial lawyers, resulting in fees of billions of dollars and wasted resources every year.
This amendment to limit participation in the exchange to those living in states with meaningful medical malpractice reforms was defeated 26-15
Democrats Vote Against Making Sure Illegal Aliens Don’t Get Subsidized Health Insurance
Democrats voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) to better screen applicants for subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or otherwise entitled to it. The underlying bill is insufficient for the purpose of preventing illegal aliens from accessing the bill’s proposed benefits, as it does not provide mechanisms allowing those administering the program to ensure illegal aliens cannot access taxpayer-funded subsidies and benefits.
This amendment to provide better verification of eligibility for benefits under the bill was defeated 26-15
Democrats to Force Plans to Provide Abortions
Democrats voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) to ensure the defined minimum benefits in the government-run exchange not include abortions. The Democrats’ bill gives the Secretary of HHS and an unelected federal health board unprecedented authority to mandate which benefits private health plans in the exchange, and the government health plan, are required to cover. The Secretary and a committee of federal bureaucrats should not be allowed to use this authority to mandate that health plans cover abortions.
This amendment to prohibit the government from requiring health insurance plans to cover abortions was defeated 23-18
Democrats Set Different Rules For & Allow Taxpayer Bailouts of New Government-Run Plan
Democrats voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) to require the government plan to maintain reserves and other margins in amounts consistent with insurance standards that apply to private plans. The amendment would further clarify that reserves would have to come from premiums, not taxpayers thru federal subsidies.
This amendment to make the government-run plan operate on a more level playing field was defeated 22-19
Democrats Want Government to Deny Doctors, Hospitals the Right to Choose Which Plans to Participate In
Democrats voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) to ban the Health and Human Services Secretary from forcing providers to participate in the government-run plan. Republicans believe it is wrong to force anyone to offer services in this plan that will underpay doctors and hospitals.
This amendment to ensure providers aren’t compelled to see patients enrolled in the government-run plan was defeated 25-16
Democrats Vote to Eliminate Private Insurance, Force Everyone into Government-Run Plan by Attrition
Democrats voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) to repeal the prohibition on new enrollees in private individual market plans. Today there are 16 million Americans who are enrolled in an individual market health plan. House Democrats want to eliminate this option for every American. The Democrats’ bill says that beginning in 2013 the health plans that provide coverage for these Americans could no longer enroll new members. This will cause a slow and steady attrition out of these plans, violating the promise that you should be able to keep the coverage you like.
This amendment to prevent the slow but steady erosion of the individual insurance market was defeated 26-15
Democrats to Force Taxpayers to Fund Abortions
Democrats voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) to ensure that no taxpayer money would go to plans that pay for abortions. The Democrats’ bill allows for plans that would require taxpayers and private insurance companies to subsidize abortions. Presently, all government-subsidized health care plans (SCHIP, DOD, Medicaid, etc.) prohibit abortion coverage. Any plan that Congress passes must include this prohibition.
This amendment to prohibit the government from forcing taxpayers to fund abortions was defeated 22-19.
-
Also FYI:
Obama Misrepresents Insurance Case
September 10th, 2009 From Mr. Obama’s address last night:
One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.
This is the story of Mr. Otto Raddatz, a case that Mr. Obama has cited several times before, including his August 16th editorial in the New York Times.
For the record, however, the case is not quite the way Mr. Obama has characterized it, at least according to the sworn testimony of Mr. Raddatz’s sister.
From Ms. Raddatz’s opening statement, from page 58 of the hearings transcript (a pdf file):
Otto began more chemotherapy for purposes of preparing him for a stem cell transplant. In the midst of his chemo treatments, Otto received a phone call and letter from Fortis Insurance Company stating his insurance was canceled. It was rescinded all the way back to the effective date of August 7, 2004.
This meant none of his cancer treatments would be covered. Most importantly, he would not be able to receive the stem cell transplant need [sic] to save his life. My brother only had a very small window of time in which to have the stem cell transplant. He needed to be scheduled within the next 3 to 4 weeks.
My brother was told he was canceled during what they called a “routine review” during which they claimed to discover a “material failure to disclose”. Apparently in 2000 his doctor had done a CT scan which showed an aneurysm and gall stones. My brother was never told of either one of these conditions nor was he ever treated for them and he never reported any symptoms for them either.
After months of preparation, the stem cell transplant could not be scheduled. My brother’s hope for being a cancer survivor were dashed. His prognosis was only a matter of months without the procedure.
Mr. Radditz was faced with having to pay for the stem cell transplant himself.
However, Mr. Raddatz’s lawyer sister contacted the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.
They investigated and found that the doctor who did the CT scans could not remember whether he had ever told Mr. Raddatz about his findings.
The insurance company overturned their original decision to rescind her brother’s coverage, and he was reinstated in the words of his sister, “without any lapse.”
Again, from Ms. Raddatz’s sworn testimony:
After two appeals by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, Fortis Insurance Company finally overturned their original decision to rescind my brother’s coverage and he was reinstated without lapse. This is after weeks of constant phone calls between myself and the Attorney General’s Office and we were literally scrambling hour by hour to get this accomplished so that my brother wouldn’t lose his 3- to 4-week window of opportunity that he had prepared for and lose his opportunity to have the procedure.
In other words, Mr. Raddatz’s did receive the stem cell transplant without delay.
Indeed, Ms. Raddatz does not seem to claim anywhere in her testimony that the insurance company’s actions shortened her brother’s life. (Though she does accuse them of having been cruel and unethical.)
From page 75 of the hearings transcript:
Mr. Barton. My next question is to the gentlelady there in the middle. Your brother, has he had his stem cell transplant?
Ms. Raddatz. He did indeed receive the stem cell transplant. It was extremely successful. It extended his life approximately 3-1/2 years. He did pass away January 6, 2009, and he was about to have a second stem cell transplant. Unfortunately, due to certain situations, his donor became ill at the last minute and so he did pass away on January 6. But again, it extended his life nearly 3-1/2 years and at his age, each day meant everything to him…
This is not quite the impression Mr. Obama gives with his rendition of Mr. Raddatz’s story.
Despite Mr. Obama’s claims, Mr. Raddatz never lost his coverage. His treatment was never delayed. And he did not die because of it.
And to think in this very same speech Mr. Obama accused others of misrepresenting the facts.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-story-about-lost-insurance
More to follow with links when I get home... gotta hop.
FYI:
Wake-up Call: Islamists Insert
Themselves into Healthcare Debate
[What is remarkable and at issue here, is certainly not the right of MPAC’s leadership to have a personal opinion on health care policy. But what is most telling is how these Islamist organizations have a way of finding a way to worm themselves and their Islamization agenda into every political issue related to government under the name of Islam and Muslims. As is typical of Islamists, they exploit Muslim faith based organizations and their often unsuspecting supporters and members for their own very specific domestic and foreign policy agenda of the day. This agenda clearly and malignantly crosses the line of mosque and state in an aim to impose the Islamization of every topic related to the domain of government and public policy upon the Muslim community and ultimately the greater American community.
Does this ring a bell? It’s the modus operandi of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). They are a well known political party in Egypt with a specific political platform that has now metastasized around the world into hundreds of splinter groups with a headquarters also in London. Ultimately that political platform is Islamism (a.k.a. Political Islam). Islamism is specifically the desire to somehow put shar’iah law (Islamic jurisprudence) into place in government through a legal system not based in reason but rather based in clerical exegesis of Islamic jurisprudence. The Brotherhood is the predominant global face or front of that movement.
When it comes to domestic policy stances, one can usually pick out MB politics from a mile away. On economic issues, the Islamist (MB) platform is heavily socialist based in government entitlement programs. They thus will see common cause on economic issues with the left in the United States. On social issues, the Islamist platform is focused on their own version of family values and they will try and seek common cause with the right in the U.S. on those issues. Just in these two examples it begins to become more clear that Islamists are neither Democrat nor Republican. On foreign policy their stances are also easily identifiable. They have their own political platform-Islamism. They advocate for Western isolationism in order to allow for unimpeded advancement of Islamist movements globally. Forget any advocacy for liberty. They are doves as minorities from within the West so that their brothers can be hawks from within Muslim majority nations so they can impose and spread Islamism abroad. In domestic and foreign policy politics they will support whichever party stands less of a threat to the advocacy of the transnational Islamist agenda.
Thus, while members of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) front groups in the United States will certainly not be carrying cards identifying themselves as Ikhwan, their ideologies can be easily identified. What is particularly identifiable is not only their ideas but the way that they use the banner of Islam or “Muslims” to advocate for any and all domestic or foreign policies within the Islamist agenda. It is sad that to this day it remains rare to find active leading American Muslims who take these organizations like CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) , MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council), MAS (Muslim American Society), or ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) to task for their “grand deception”. The deception is that the majority of Muslims agree with any of their stances that identify their comprehensive Islamist political platform under the banner of our faith of Islam. Regardless of their denials, they cannot avoid the fact that their use of the terms “Islamic” or “Muslim” in their organizations is exploitative when they weigh in on non-faith based policy debates and are advancing the agenda of political Islam.]
RTWT (links @ link)!!
God bless you for watching out for US Dr. Jasser!!
much more here:
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/
Someone needs to push McCain into a broom closet with a metal space monster ray gun, Tinker Toys, a bottle of YooHoo and a box of Ring Dings.
FYI, Check this out.
Baucaus Healthcare Revenue Options
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-baucus-health-care-reform-bill
” I’m pretty sure the Teleprompter has been reading Sarah’s Facebook posts, or maybe her article in the WSJ.”
Agree. He certainly fired one her way.
Thing that really bothered me was his “ now let me talk to your seniors”. Happen to be one.....
Anyone else notice he just read off the telepromter, didn’t look straightforward into the camera ?
That , to me , shows how he disrepects us /the office. We are used to presidents looking right at us, regardless of message.
Even the great (sarc) communicator supreme Frank Lunz missed this in his summary to Sean Hannity.
I’m surprised you didn’t add Goebbels and the Mussolini chin pic as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.