Act now! Our future depends on it!

To my readers:

Tonight, our future -- and the future of our children and grandchildren -- hangs in the balance.  The left persists with their desire to control our every waking move, and wants to ram through Obamacare by any means possible.

They will not rest until that have destroyed the free market in this country.

Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress are socialists.  They want to make us into Europe, with the state in charge of our lives.

Health care is the first (and biggest) step.  Next will come control of energy via "cap and trade" -- even in spite of the fact that the science of climate change has been debunked, you are going to have to live the way they want you to.

And after that it will be food regulation.  Just today, the New York legislature introduced a bill to ban salt in NY restaurants.  Don't believe me?  Click here to read it yourself!

There is no end to this.

What can you do to stop Obamacare?

Simple.  Go to this page and fill in the form:

Free Our Health Care!

It is free and simple.  It will send an email to your Congressperson and also 58 other Congresspeople whose votes hold the fate of our nation in their hands.

Do it tonight!  There is no time to waste!

Obamacare...in the left's own words

Gotta love this courtesy of the Weekly Standard:

"Last week, President Obama opined that health care "easily lends itself to demagoguery and political gamesmanship, and misrepresentation and misunderstanding." No one has done more to demonstrate the truth of this assertion than the president himself. In light of such concerns, the fairest thing might be to let the left describe Obamacare in its own words, free of any potentially false portrayals by those who oppose it -- namely, conservatives, independents, libertarians, and the bulk of the voters in Massachusetts.

So here is a description of ObamaCare in the Left's own words:

• Over ten years, "start[ing] in 2014," it would cost "$2.5 trillion" (Sen. Max Baucus D-Mont.); 
• It would involve "redistribution" of wealth, as the "Democrats propose to shift resources from the rich and the healthy to the poor and the sick" (Jonathan Chait, The New Republic); 
• It would "cut hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicare" (Sen. Dick Durbin D-Ill.); 
• It would be "a massive giveaway to the insurance companies" (MoveOn.org); 
• And, in regard to taxpayer funding for abortion, it would "take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak Amendment" by substituting language that “was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray" (Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius).

This summary, courtesy of the left, describes the proposed legislation quite well. This is what President Obama is peddling -- free of any demagoguery, gamesmanship, misrepresentation, or misunderstanding."

Who needs the right to hammer this when the left is doing such a good job of being honest about its impact?

The Hurt Locker and Hollywood

Last night I watched my first Oscars telecast since at least 2004.  I will admit to having developed a profound distaste for the event during the Bush years, when poorly educated, overpaid actors professed their opinions (and feigned knowledge) of international politics and foreign policy.  These opinions -- from the likes of Sean (Jeff Spicoli) Penn, George (ER) Clooney and others -- were harsh, anti-Bush and, at a time when American is at war, anti-American.  And when coupled with the snarky comedy of David Letterman and Chris Rock was enough to make me ask repeatedly:"Where have you gone Billy Crystal"?

The 2010 edition of the Academy Awards seemed to represent a change -- if not of political perspective, certainly of attitude.  Not only did "The Hurt Locker" -- a film about the U.S. military in Iraq -- run away with the evening, but it's victory was accompanied by an acceptance speech from the film's director that actually paid tribute to American soldiers in harm's way.  While in previous generations such a statement of support might not have been anything unusual, in today's leftist Hollywood the speech by Best Director recipient Kathryn Bigelow is significant, indeed.  Her words, greeted by polite applause by the audience, were not echoed by the film's producers who also accepted the Best Picture award, leaving Bigelow to again repeat her "thanks" to "those who serve" a second time, though this time she did seem a little sheepish (saying "sorry to reiterate") and then throwing firemen, hazmat teams and others who keep us safe.  In a telecast with admittedly very low expectations, and even with Bigelow's slight temporizing at the end, it was a significant moment for Hollywood. 

But what does it really mean?  Bigelow herself has called the film "anti-war" -- which may have swayed some dovish voters to support it, though when I saw the movie I did not come away with that message at all.  The Academy may have been rewarding a female director who has gotten herself out of the outsized shadow of her ex (fellow Best Director nominee James Cameron), or it may have found a movie that allowed it to tell the rest of America that it is "pro troops" even as it remains anti-war.  Or maybe in a crowded field where Avatar and its computer generated characters took the air out of the room, the movie was simply "the best of the rest".

We will never know the collective reasoning of the Academy, of course.  But could it mean that Hollywood has begun to tire of the leftist diatribe it has been on for the past decade?  Roger Simon at Pajamas Media asks this question in a piece entitled: "Did the 2010 Academy Awards mark the end of liberal Hollywood"?

The 2010 Academy Awards may not have marked the end of “liberal Hollywood” as we know it, but they certainly put a solid dent in it. With the pro-military “The Hurt Locker” winning over the enviro-pabulum of “Avatar” and Sandra Bullock garnering the Best Actress Oscar for a Christian movie, the times are a-changin’ at least somewhat, maybe even a lot.

But one thing is now certain. It is time for conservative, center-right and libertarian filmmakers to stop feeling sorry for themselves and go out and just do it. Their “victocrat” days are over. No more excuses. “The Hurt Locker” and “The Blind Side” have proven that it can be done. Get out of the closet, guys and gals. If you want to make a film with themes you believe in, quit whining about Industry prejudice and start writing that script and trying to get it made. That’s not an easy thing, no matter what your politics.

Right siders can take inspiration too from Sunday’s Oscar ceremonies themselves. They weren’t defamed for a moment. Missing in action was the usual libo-babble, no extended hymns to the cause du jour or ritual Bush-bashing. And Barack Obama wasn’t even mentioned. Not once. But the troops were – several times by Kathryn Bigelow.

We are obviously long removed from the Hollywood of John Wayne, who embodied American patriotism in film, or of Jimmy Stewart, who heroically flew a B-17 in combat in the real war against Germany. But it is possible that we've turned a bit of corner in the vehement anti-Americanism that Hollywood has taken up since 9/11, though I certainly wouldn't call the success of the Hurt Locker last night a sea change.  As Donald Douglas has recently pointed out, there is an effort underway by Robert Greenwald's  Brave New Films to fund a series of "hardline leftist films on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars" that use U.S. veterans to pursue a very typical anti-American line of exploitation and imperialism. 

If past is prelude, I'd say that Greenwald will need a big star or some gratuitous nudity to find a large audience for his leftist fare: previous anti-American films on Iraq have fared badly at the box office, and have failed to find an audience -- let alone win mainstream cinema awards.  The Hurt Locker's appeal stems in part from its avoidance of policy and its gritty, realistic portrayal of young American soldiers in battle.  In fact, I found the Hurt Locker to be a patriotic film -- not in the "Flying Tigers" or "Hellcats of the Navy" genre, but rather in it's portrayal of American kids showing courage, ambivalence and even fear under fire.   These are things that ordinary Americans can relate to, and that is in part why the film has been so well received.

Our future? Better hope not!

This from the Times of London: Labour Hid Ugly Truth about National Health Service: 

DAMNING reports on the state of the National Health Service, suppressed by the government, reveal how patients’ needs have been neglected. 

They diagnose a blind pursuit of political and managerial targets as the root cause of a string of hospital scandals that have cost thousands of lives.

The harsh verdict on the state of the NHS, after a spending splurge under Labour between 2000 and 2008, raises worrying questions about the future quality of the health service as budgets are squeezed.

The first report, by the Massachusetts-based Institute for Healthcare Improvements (IHI), identified the neglect of patients as a serious obstacle to improving the NHS. “The lack of a prominent focus on patients’ interests and needs ... represents a significant barrier to shifting the trajectory of quality improvement in the NHS."

One heading in the report says: “The patient doesn’t seem to be in the picture.” It adds: “We were struck by the virtual absence of mention of patients and families ... whether we were discussing aims and ambition for improvement, measurement of progress or any other topic relevant to quality.

“Most targets and standards appear to be defined in professional, organisational and political terms, not in terms of patients’ experience of care.”

Is it really hard to see how this might happen in the U.S. under Obamacare?  

As government (and thus funding) become the tail that wags the dog, it is easy to see how hospital and insurance companies become even LESS focused on patients than they are now, and thus also LESS responsive to physicians.  The not-so-little secret is that putting the government directly in control of U.S. health care will lead to the kind of metric-based analysis on care -- focused on cost containment and patient "throughput" -- that has happened in Britain.  It will be a bigger version of the "No Child Left Behind" act in education, where test scores become the goal, and where the individual kids being taught are increasingly treated like chattel used for increasing federal education monies into the schools.

The massive new regulatory regime (read "bureaucracy") that will be put into place under Obamacare is simply an NHS-starter program.  The real goal of Obamacare we know -- from the president's own words -- is a single payer system like that of the NHS.  As insurance companies get squeezed on costs, they will leave the market.  What is left is the "public option" -- only it is no longer an option.  It is the only game in town.

Don't give up!  Call Congress and protest Obamacare.  The vote in the House hangs by a few Congressional Reps who are under tremendous pressure to switch their votes.  

They are vulnerable.  Keep up the pressure!  Stop British-style health care now!

 

Demystifying the Left's Denial on Obamacare polling

One of the rationalizations Obama has been using lately to justify cramming through health care reform on a purely partisan basis is that the components of the plan are "popular with the American people". 

This despite the fact that Obamacare as a whole is polling 3-1 against. 

Funny thing -- Obama's rationale is actually a bit more reasonable than that of Nancy Pelosi, who has tried to convince the media that a bill that combines liberal and "conservative" Democrats is somehow "bipartisan" -- even if it has no Republican votes. 


How's that for living in a parallel universe??

Leave it to Charles Krauthammer again to cut through the noise on Obama's intellectual dishonesty (or at minimum, willful ignorance) on the popularity of Obamacare: 

Unfortunately for Democrats, that seven-hour televised exercise had the unintended consequence of showing the Republicans to be not only highly informed on the subject, but also, as even Obama was forced to admit, possessed of principled objections -- contradicting the ubiquitous Democratic/media meme that Republican opposition was nothing but nihilistic partisanship.

Republicans did so well, in fact, that in his summation, Obama was reduced to suggesting that his health care reform was indeed popular because when you ask people about individual items (for example, eliminating exclusions for pre-existing conditions or capping individual out-of-pocket payments) they are in favor.

Yet mystifyingly they oppose the whole package. How can that be?

Allow me to demystify. Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: A dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course.

However (life is a vale of howevers) suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed -- say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak was to be cooked. How do you think this would poll?

Perhaps something like 3-1 against, which is what the latest CNN poll shows is the citizenry's feeling about the current Democratic health care bills.

The truth is that the people instinctively know that the Democrat's health plan is really about power and control.  It's not really about health care.  The "nanny state" goals of the left require that they ultimately be able to force "good behavior" by controlling health care coverage.  And boy, will they be able to control coverage -- telling us what we get, when we get it and how much it will be.

This IS the nanny state in practice!

It takes C-O-U-R-A-G-E

This is a fascinating interview that runs 8 minutes.  It's worth watching. 

Three important points:

1)  Chris Mathews actually sounds reasonable and asks good questions for once -- shocker!

2)  Paul Ryan is the future of the Republican Party.

3)  The problem outlined here by both Mathews and Ryan is one of political courage.  The leadership on both parties has very little of it; from 2000 to 2008 George Bush spent like a drunken sailor, expanding entitlement programs and running big deficits.  The Republican Congress aided and abetted it.

Now we have the left-wing of the Democrat Party in control, with every interest group in line with their hand out (SEIU and the unions at the front).  Spending is out of control, and we are looking at a crushing debt burden because everyone wants something for nothing.

It just wont work.  Someone in power needs to have the courage to say that the system is broken and we must stop the spending!  You cannot tax your way out of this problem.  And the Democrats are now embarking on yet another multi-TRILLION dollar boondoggle that will only make matters worse!

The president is plumb naked!

The Wall Stret Journal has a devastating editorial up this morning that should be entitled "Obamacare: the Big Lie".  So blatant are the distortions in the President's health care statements that they can be termed nothing less: they are lies.

L-I-E-S.

The Democrats think that Obama can say whatever he wants -- making facts up out of whole cloth -- and people will simply believe it because HE'S the one who is saying it.

Sorry, that may have been true during the campaign, but everyone knows that the Emperor is now wearing no clothes.  He's plumb naked!

*   *   *   *   *

Every argument has been made. Everything that there is to say about health care has been said, and just about everybody has said it," President Obama declared yesterday as he urged Democrats to steamroll his plan through Congress. What hasn't been heard, however, is even a shred of White House honesty about the true costs of ObamaCare, or its fiscal consequences.

Nearby, we reprint Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan's remarks at the health summit last week, which methodically dismantle the falsehoods—there is no other way of putting it—that Mr. Obama has used to sell "reform" and repeated again yesterday. 

No one in the political class has even tried to refute Mr. Ryan's arguments, though he made them directly to the President and his allies, no doubt because they are irrefutable. If Democrats are willing to ignore overwhelming public opposition to ObamaCare and pass it anyway, then what's a trifling dispute over a couple of trillion dollars?

At his press conference yesterday, Mr. Obama claimed that "my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions—families, businesses and the federal government." He said it is "fully paid for" and "brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades." Never before has a vast new entitlement been sold on the basis of fiscal responsibility, and one reason ObamaCare is so unpopular is that Americans understand the contradiction between untold new government subsidies and claims of spending restraint. 

They know a Big Con when they hear one.

Mr. Obama's fiscal assertions are possible only because of the fraudulent accounting and budget gimmicks that Democrats spent months calibrating. Readers can find the gory details in Mr. Ryan's pre-emptive rebuttal nearby, though one of the most egregious deceptions is that the bill counts 10 years of taxes but only six years of spending. 

The real cost over a decade is about $2.3 trillion on paper, Mr. Ryan estimates, and even that is a lowball estimate considering how many people will flood to "free" health care and how many businesses will be induced to drop coverage. Mr. Obama claimed yesterday that the plan will cost "about $100 billion per year," but in fact the costs ramp up each year the program exists. The far more likely deficits are $460 billion over the first 10 years, and $1.4 trillion over the next 10.

What Mr. Ryan calls "probably the most cynical gimmick" deserves special attention, which is known in Washington as the "doc fix." Next month Medicare physician payments are scheduled to be cut by 22% and deeper thereafter, though Congress is sure to postpone the reductions as it always does. Failing to account for this inevitability takes nearly a quarter-trillion dollars off the ObamaCare books and by itself wipes out the "savings" that the White House continues to take credit for.

Some in the liberal cheering section now claim that this Medicare ruse isn't Mr. Obama's problem because it was first promised by Republicans and Bill Clinton in 1997. But then why did Democrats include the "doc fix" in all early versions of the bill to buy the support of the American Medical Association, only to dump this pricey item later when hiding it would make it easier to fake-reduce the deficit?

The President was (miraculously) struck dumb by Mr. Ryan's critique, and in his response drifted off into an irrelevant tangent about Medicare Advantage, while California Democrat Xavier Becerra claimed "you essentially said you can't trust the Congressional Budget Office." But Mr. Ryan was careful to note that he didn't doubt the professionalism of CBO, only the truthfulness of the Democratic gimmicks that the budget gnomes are asked to score.

Yesterday Mr. Obama again invoked the "nonpartisan, independent" authority of CBO, which misses the reality that if you feed the agency phony premises, you are going to get phony results at the other end.

The President also claimed the reason his plan is in trouble, and the reason Democrats must abuse the Senate's rules to ram this plan into law, is that "many Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies." So most of Mr. Obama's first year in office has been paralyzed over nothing more than minor regulatory hair-splitting.

This is so preposterous that the President can't possibly believe it.

Congress's spring break begins on March 29, and Democratic leaders plan on jamming this monster through Congress before then. Americans have to hope that enough rank-and-file Democrats aren't as deaf to fiscal honesty as this President.

*   *   *   *   *

Obamacare is one big, fat lie.  Pure and simple.