The Truth the radical Left (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Democrats, Mainstream Media) don’t want you to know.
Archive for the ‘Health Care’ Category
Posted by DNW on 2013/11/12
It’s a striking fact that the predicate of Obamacare, i.e., the premise of a redistributionist implementation of what John Rawls approvingly called, a “commitment to a shared fate” is simply, and unequivocally, fascist.
This “shared fate” social obligation, is the very principle behind Obamacare; and is rhetorically traceable among others, to the Fascist in Chief himself.
Hyperventilating lefty professors, so fond of directing the charge of “fascist” at others for whatever rhetorical effect they imagine they can leverage out of it, will continue to busily construct their self-serving political taxonomies based on wish-fulfillment listings of the supposed attributes essential to a fascist attitude and polity. These attributes, they claim, invariably involve hostility to foreigners, or the arts, or minorities.
Yet a libertarian polity or anarchist system of association with a population that manifests these three traits on average, would not thereby be transformed into a fascist solidarity or corporatist state. Something more “positive” must be added without which the fascist state cannot logically or coherently be said to officially exist.
Recall here Obama’s problem with our current charter of negative (negatively defined) liberties. The problem as he sees it, is that it defines what you are free from, not what you must do for whom, or what you are entitled to expect from others.
The individual mandate with its across the board legal transformation of freeborn men and women into social resources unconditionally available to the government for the support and maintenance of a redistributive social solidarity state, is that necessary addition. It’s what the fascist left seeks to implement. And as such it’s the manifest essence of the fascist concept.
Recall that this Obamacare individual mandate claim upon the individual is not temporary, nor based upon the necessity of a repulsion of foreign invaders by all citizens, nor upon the need to distributively protect all from some contagion that knows no distinctions of person. It is instead, based upon the presumption of one’s open-ended duty to sacrifice one’s own opportunities and life choices in order to indemnify others against the costs and consequences of being themselves.
It’s emotionally difficult – despite the occasional rhetorical exercise by those like myself warning of a possibility to the contrary – for many of us, myself included, to face the fact that people whom one has heretofore considered as probable moral fellows, are not in fact anything of the kind. Obamacare has now brought this into the sharpest relief.
They, its advocates, have now willingly and overtly become people who in active and current fact, as well as in prior principle, operate off the principle that they will now recognize no limit to their claims upon other human beings for the sake of that secularized social sodality regime which they crave, and which they feel will benefit themselves through the coerced access they gain to your life energies and expenditures.
It, sadly, is therefore not at all hyperbolic to state that the Democrats in Congress who voted for Obamacare and the individual mandate were seeking to institute or to further an already incipient social fascism in the United States. The Democrats should just rename themselves the Fascist Party, and have done with it.
This Obamacare state of affairs has long been the obvious goal of left-wing ideologues: to construct a default situation wherein there preexists a sociopolitical presumption that the individual exists for the utility of others.
The Democrat party has now explicitly advanced and endorsed this premise through Obamacare. Whether the impulse further progresses to the social or state ownership of some or all productive resources or tools of production, as in full blown socialism, is besides the point. The point is that man has now been made by law, and by virtue of his mere existence, into a social resource upon which the state has a legally unlimited claim.
The definitional lines are drawn, and the sides chosen. How friends and relatives will react to being told to their faces that they are fascist, remains to be seen. My guess is that they could not care less what they are, or are called, as long as they get what they want out of others.
They like it that way.
And that, is not a matter of mere politics, but includes something that might almost be seen as a “spiritual dimension”.
Note: I wrote this out earlier today on the fly, and hit “post” rather than “save”. I’ve made a few of what I think should be improvements in clarity and precision. The labored language … well, that, I can do nothing about. LOL.
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/11/08
BFD, BO says I’m sorry. He’s sorry all right, he’s a sorry sack of Bovine Feces. He’s not going to roll back the clock, but he wants to “help”. If OBUMMERCARE is help, no thanks, you’ve helped screw this country enough. If BO was that so damn sorry, he should resign in DISCRACE for being the worst piece of Bovine Feces every to inhabit the Dark House. By not resigning, his words are more hollow than his head. Do us all a favor QUIT NOW. Your apology means NOTHING, Not A Damn Thing since you and your court jesters knew Obummercare was CRAP three Years ago.
Exclusive: Obama personally apologizes for Americans losing health coverage
By Chuck Todd, NBC News
President Obama said Thursday that he is “sorry” that some Americans are losing their current health insurance plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act, despite his promise that no one would have to give up a health plan they liked.
“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he told NBC News in an exclusive interview at the White House.
“We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”
In a wide-ranging interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, President Obama discusses implementation of the Affordable Care Act, rollout of the healthcare website, NSA spying, Iran and keeping Joe Biden as his running mate.
Obama’s comments come 10 days after NBC News’ Lisa Myers reported that the administration has known since the summer of 2010 that millions of Americans could lose their insurance under the law.
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/11/05
The By-Stander President has said over and over “if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it, Period. if you like your doctor you can keep him, Period.” I believe these statement in plain everyday English and Diction to make a clear declarative statement that do stand on their own. These need no interpretation or explanation to be understood. Obama has said this and recorded over 20 times. Now lets look at Malfeasance.
mælˈfizəns/ Show Spelled [mal-fee-zuhns] Show IPA noun Law.
the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust). Compare misfeasance ( def 2 ) , nonfeasance.
Now at least 20 times or more Obama has said this: “If you like your plan, you can keep it PERIOD”
Now, within the last few days, Obama has taken the word “Period” or end of statement and turned it to another New Lie. Now Obama has dropped PERIOD and now has a new qualifier since people have lost their insurance and doctor. The worst is a woman being treated for FOUR YEARS for Cancer lost her plan and can not find another one to replace it.
It is clear the President has Lied, Misled, stretched beyond all recognition THE TRUTH.
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Meaning of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”
by Jon Roland, Constitution Society
The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word “high”. It does not mean “more serious”. It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.
Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject’s fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.
Perjury is usually defined as “lying under oath”. That is not quite right. The original meaning was “violation of one’s oath (or affirmation)”.
The word “perjury” is usually defined today as “lying under oath about a material matter”, but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is “violation of an oath”. We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter “j” is the letter “i” in Latin.
periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.iurator, oris, m., a swearer.iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.per, … IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, … under pretense of, by the pretext of, ….
Posted by DNW on 2013/09/27
A Question: Why is it expected by some that so-called Obama Care will collapse of its own accord, when its designers and promoters recognize no limits to their ability to coerce or draw upon you in order to fund and prop it up?
How exactly does that work?
Is there some length to which the progressives currently threatening social violence if their ill-begotten and legally bastard dream of punitive equity is not endowed, will henceforth refuse to go?
Is there some extractive limit beyond which, those who nonchalantly admit they recognize no limits, will not legislatively trespass if their spawn appears undernourished?
For those who think so, what real world evidence do they have to support this hope?
Posted by DNW on 2013/09/25
Posted by DNW on 2013/09/21
I’m working today and while doing so I’ve been accessing the Internet.
I don’t know why exactly, but possibly because after hearing about the House Republican’s courageous act of defunding Obama Care, I glanced at one of Perry Hood’s typically puling exercises in social justice pimping.
I then decided to revisit and review the fact situation premises underlying the arguments we’ve all seen concerning “national” health care costs by doing a couple of searches. Just for the sake of Auld Lang Syne …
My first search was on the topic of uncompensated emergency care. I Googled: “Percentage of US health care expenditures on uncompensated emergency room treatment”.
There, in the results window I found links that informed me that emergency room treatment accounted for only about 2 cents of every dollar expended on medical treatment in the United States.
Emergency care represents less than 2 percent of the nation’s $2.4 trillion in health care expenditures while covering 136 million people a year.i ii
Emergency departments are open 24 hours a day and provide “one-stop shopping” with all the hospital’s resources – such as diagnostic testing and consultation by other medical specialists – in one place.
The most pressing economic issue in emergency medicine is uncompensated care: the lack of adequate reimbursement for emergency medical care has led to the closure of hundreds of emergency departments.
The focus on preventing so-called “non-urgent” ER visits distracts policymakers from the real cost savings in reducing hospital admissions.
Emergency departments are critical to our communities and must be adequately funded.”
We also learn that,
“About half of all emergency services go uncompensated, according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).iv The typical ER treats 1 in 5 patients without insurance or a clear method for reimbursement. The CDC reported that 19 percent of all emergency patients in 2009 were uninsured.”
“Nearly half (44 percent) of emergency physicians responding to a poll say fear of lawsuits is the biggest challenge to cutting emergency department costs. More than half (53 percent) say this fear is the main reason for ordering the number of tests they do.viii Every additional diagnostic test adds to the overall cost of care.”
See also this American College of Emergency Physicians link
So, at first glance anyway, only about 20 percent of 2 percent of the money spent in the US on medical treatment is spent on the uninsureds’ emergency room treatment. Though, this burden is costly enough, and damaging enough, to the facilities treating these patients.
Next I began to check on structural issues related to demographics. Say for example, on the cost of behavioral problems to the US economy. But that was not really a fruitful avenue. We learn of course that fat kids are a large (pun intended) and growing (same) problem and that they will likely experience a host of chronic conditions which will eventually …
Oh. Yeah, “Chronic care”
Wonder what that costs “us” as a portion of what “we” spend?
Google: “Chronic condition expenses as a percentage of American medical costs”
And this my friends really set me back on my heels. I couldn’t believe it. Though I cannot now explain why I hadn’t known it earlier.
We debate insurance reform, and malpractice reform, and we talk of defensive medicine. But what are the real causes of this social phenomenon are we being held political hostage to? Is it really primarily due to greedy doctors and profiteering insurance companies, inflated drug costs, scheming lawyers, and proliferating defensive medicine?
We speak in terms of “social costs”. What of social use? Is the demand itself unreal? What of actual use and spending, and of who is doing the using and spending?
” … Half of the population spends little or nothing on health care …”
it turns out that,
” … 5 percent of the population spends almost half of the total amount [spent]…”
What? How can this be? Feeling dizzy too? But why should we stop there when there is so much more to learn …
” … In 2002, the 5 percent of the U.S.community (civilian noninstitutionalized) population that spent the most on health care accounted for 49 percent of overall U.S. health care spending …”
” … the 50 percent of the population with the lowest expenses accounted for only 3 percent of overall U.S. medical spending, with annual medical spending below $664 per person. … those in the top 5 percent spent, on average, more than 17 times as much per personas those in the bottom 50 percent of spenders“
” … The elderly (age 65 and over) made up around 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2002, but they consumed 36 percent of total U.S. personal health care expenses. The average health care expense in 2002 was $11,089 per year for elderly people but only $3,352 per year for working-age people (ages 19-64 …”
” … people in the highest 5 percent of the distribution of medical expenses were 11 times as likely to be in fair or poor physical health as people in the bottom half of that distribution (45 percent vs. 4 percent) …”
” … 21 percent of people in the top 5 percent [those with the highest medical expenses] were in fair or poor mental health, compared with 3 percent of people in the bottom 50 percent [of medical expenses]“
Chronic, crazy, (and a modest percentage of the) elderly account for half of that infamous 16 percent or so of the GDP being spent on health care. This then is half of the “crisis” that has been driving a formerly free people into the clutches of an Obama Care mandate, and toward the degraded status of “Property of the State”.
I’m going to quit writing now; before I say something really, really cruel …
You can read and judge for yourself. As for me, I am done researching for today.
Oh you can bet your bottom dollar on this though. Once the government really gets its say, and those figures are considered, as they already have been by many in the Single Payer system movement, there will be death panels.
And what will the left do? That is to say the same left that earlier mocked Palin?
They will shrug and ask, “What did you fools expect?”
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/10/22
Barack Obama is pro-abortion. He’s so pro-abortion that he voted against the partial birth abortion ban, which prevents murderers from delivering 90 percent of a baby, sucking that baby’s brains out, then delivering the rest of the baby. He’s also so pro-abortion that he voted against a law that requires doctors and nurses to care for a baby born alive after an attempted abortion, purposefully allowing that living, breathing baby to die.
From On The Issues.org:
1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion
In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238-239 , Aug 1, 2008
Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions
Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 , Aug 1, 2008
When you vote for Barack Obama, you vote for this evil monstrosity and this crime against humanity.
Posted in abortion, Character, Elections, Health Care, Law, Liberal, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Photography, politically correct, politics, society, truth | Tagged: aborting born babies, Barack Obama, Born Alive Act | 1 Comment »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/07/11
The US House of Representatives voted today to repeal ObamaCare, with five Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with the Republicans. As I predicted, Harry Reid has declared the US Senate will not vote on the bill, just like Harry Reid prevented a similar House Bill from being voted on in the Senate in 2011.
More on this later, as I build the article. And apologies for the lateness as I was in the midst of writing an article responding to the radical Leftist Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware, and his unhinged, fact-free rant about Texas, which included the “severe drought” and how everything was going kaput, when I had to take a 3-hour break due to a strong thunderstorm which caused rivers of water down the gravel drive and heavy ponding in the yard, and caused an internet outage for me.
The five Democrats who supported repeal were Reps. Dan Boren (Okla.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.) and Mike Ross (Ark.).
Matheson voted against the original law but did not vote for its repeal last year.
In a statement after the vote, Matheson, who faces a tough reelection bid, said he had voted against the healthcare bill “at every opportunity” but did not mention last year’s opposition to repeal. He cited statistics showing that healthcare costs are still projected to rise at a greater rate than the economy, indicating the law has had little if any impact.
“With the Supreme Court ruling behind us, and as I reflect on my conversations with Utahans, I think about protecting the future of our economy,” he said. “We must scrap this flawed effort once and for all, start over and do it right.”
Note: Jim Matheson (D – Utah) is up against Truth Before Dishonor endorsed Mia Love, and in a fight for his political life. That could very easily explain both his vote and his dishonest and dishonorable statement after his vote.
Kissell, also in a tough reelection fight, had earlier announced his intention to switch his position on repeal, citing the law’s continued unpopularity with his constituents.
The other three — Boren, McIntyre and Ross — all voted to scrap the law in 2011 and opposed its enactment.
I have updated my ObamaCare Roll Call page with today’s vote, with an extremely modified version of a roll call. If you wish to see the actual Roll Call as provided by the Office of the Clerk of the US House of Representatives, it is provided here.
Posted in Conservative, Elections, Health Care, Liberal, Obama, Over-regulation, Philosophy, politics, society, TEA Party | Tagged: Dan Boren, Jim Matheson, Larry Kissell, Mike McIntyre, Mike Ross, ObamaCare | 34 Comments »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/07/10
The first vote to repeal ObamaCare since the outrageous Supreme Court ruling upholding it on “taxing non-activity” grounds is scheduled for the US House of Representatives tomorrow. With the majority of voters still in favor of full repeal, rumor has it some Democrats will cross the line and vote with the Republicans to repeal the monstrosity. (HT Hot Air Headlines) What will the US Senate do? The same thing it does with a great many House-passed Bills: refuse to bring it up for a vote, because doing so will only serve to hurt Democrat election chances. Just remember, every Democrat in the Senate at the time ObamaCare came up for a vote the first time around voted in favor of ObamaCare.
I intend to update my ObamaCare Roll Call page with tomorrow’s Roll call. (And I hope that I actually do update it. heh)
It is rare that an action which took place three years prior to an election has such a heavy impact on that election due to the “short attention span” of the American electorate, but these are unique times. Democrats will lose their election bids as a direct result of ObamaCare and the majority desire for its repeal. And the fact that the destructiveness of ObamaCare has remained in the spotlight ever since its anti-American start.