Expectant Mother in Final OB-Gyn Visit Deems Obama Statement on Reconciliation of ObamaCare with Reality to be Bait and Switch.·
Editor at PoliSat.Com.
March 19, 2010--
An expectant mother's question during her final OB-Gyn visit causes her to deem President Obama's statement on Reconciliation of ObamaCare with reality to be bait and switch. Obama's obfuscatory responses to Bret Baier's questions on the contents of the plan made this undeniably obvious.
Obama's repeated descriptions of the bait (eliminating pre-existing conditions, yada, yada, yada) attempted to obscure a fact that both the Senate plan and the House plan have in common-- i.e., both would create huge federal bureaucracies and empower federal bureaucrats to promulgate regulations specifying terms required to be in any health care plan in order for it to be deemed "approved" despite Obama's repeated assurances that "if you like your current plan, you can keep it." To understand the breathtaking scope and brazenness of this lie go to http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf. (Even though it's 1,900 pages, it's only 3 megabytes.) Then go to page 91 and read pages 91 through 96 (sections 202 through 212).
These requirements for government-bureaucrat approval and empowerments for government bureaucrats to disqualify existing plans are in the Senate bill currently being considered as well as in the House bill. This will be pedal-to-the-metal federal bureaucracy controlling not only every aspect of everyone's "health care" but also every aspect of everyone's lifestyle, diet, yada, yada, yada.
The proposed legislation to "grandfather" your current plan if you want to keep it puts your right to do so in the future totally at the mercy of federal bureaucrats to be empowered by ObamaCare to specify mandatory and prohibited contents of a plan in order for it to be one approved by the government, and prospective changes in your current plan automatically disqualify it from being the plan you can "keep." (See also the illustrative video below, which is accurate now, as it was when released back in August, in illustrating the boldness of Obama's lie that the ObamaCare proposals would not force anyone into a government-run plan.)
Every American valuing his/her right to make his/her own decision about his/her own medical care ought to hand-write a letter to each of his/her Senators and Representatives demanding that they vote against takeover of such rights by a federal bureaucracy by voting "no" on every version of ObamaCare currently being proposed.
But you must do more NOW if you want to avoid such ruination of what's the best medical-care system in the world despite its flaws and imperfections. It's already "9 After 12" right now. What does that mean? To learn, go to "http://PoliSat.Com/9After12.htm" and follow suggestions there on how tens of millions of you can simultaneously, publicly, forcefully and unequivocally demonstrate your opposition to ObamaCare. We don't have time to repeatedly trek to Washington D.C. to demonstrate that we outnumber the rent-a-mob leftists activists agitating for government-run health care. Despite the massive display of opposition to ObamaCare in August and September, 2009, at town halls, at tea-party rallies and at the massive 9-12 rally in D.C. on September 12, 2009, many of the non-leftist politicians are getting wobbly-kneed and are susceptible to being "bought off" by back-room legislative deals. If we don't keep the pressure up, they will cave-in to such pressure, and the head, not just the nose, of the socialized-medicine, government-run-health-care "camel" will be in under the tent.
Despite Obama's blatant lie that you can "keep" your own plan "if you like it," there are sources for accurate information about the status, intended effects and likely effects of proposals for ObamaCare. Among the more ridiculous aspects of the current debate over "reforming" our "health care system" is the left's mantra that one of the greatest needs is to "eliminate" exclusion of "pre-existing conditions." No one seems to be willing to counter this argument by pointing out that the problem of "pre-existing conditions" was created by the government's enactment of legislation decades ago in the form of social engineering though manipulation of the income-tax laws to discourage individuals from acquiring and maintaining their own medical-care insurance by incentivizing employers to provide health-care coverage to their employees. That's what caused the "pre-existing condition" problem in the first place-- i.e., when an employee changes from one job to another, the new insurer quite naturally doesn't want to insure a "pre-existing condition."
If the government were to have left the free market alone decades ago, competition would have generated availability of affordable medical insurance marketed to individuals as their own policies, under which circumstances an individual's change of employment would have no effect on such individual's medical insurance coverage. Are there current proposals to remedy this problem? Of course there are.
Currently, too little attention is being paid to free-market proposals for transitioning to such a system under which each individual employee would become the "owner" of any insurance coverage currently being provided by an employer with the funds being paid by the employer being deemed funds owned by the employee and with income-tax laws adjustments to exclude such funds from taxable income (but sensibly treating the employer's payment of same as deductible just as any other form of income paid by an employer to an employee is deductible from the employer's gross income).
|·View wmv version at PoliSat.Com/ObamaCareOBGynVisit-wmvHQL.htm·|
Why are none in the media focusing on such common-sense proposals? Could it be that the dominant media has a "dog in the race" in that the dominant media is as ideologically in favor of "government" health care (single-payer) as are Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the leftists in Congress. No wonder the dominant media don't want to shed light on common-sense proposals?
An expectant mother's OB-Gyn last visit before the expected delivery date exposes provisions under proposals for ObamaCare under which her planned post-delivery resignation from her job (and cancellation of her employer-provided health care for herself and her baby) and her husband's application for inclusion of her and the baby in his excellent medical-care insurance would disqualify the husband's insurance plan and force him to enter a government-run/regulated plan. Learning this almost caused the expectant mother to immediately go into labor. The video accompanying this installment is not about that particular mother. Rather, it serves to illustrate the kind of dilemma likely to be created for working women planning to take a few years off after child-birth and to have their and their newborns' medical insurance added to their husbands' policies.
Despite the efforts of proponents of ObamaCare to rush the proposals through the legislative process before voters can discover that the entire purpose of the program is to establish, or create a political momentum of inevitability for, a universal, government-run, "single-payer" system of health care, there are numerous reports about such plans that are beginning to gain public attention and thereby generate public opposition.
Just a few examples of recent reports include: TimesOnLine, Wall Street Journal, The Post Chronicle, Washington Examiner, The News Tribune, Examiner, Orange County Register, Columbus Ledger-Inquirer, Cape Cod Times, Politicker (Maryland), Waco Tribune, American Thinker, Investors Business Daily, NRO OnLine, Weekly Standard, HotAir, Heritage Foundation, and many, many more media sources other than the traditionally dominant media. (Note: Among traditional media touting themselves as guardians against encroachments of governmental power, who's missing from the list of media organizations exposing aspects of the ObamaCare proposals about which its proponents don't want the public to know? Can you say New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, ABC (except for Stossel and Tapper), CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, Newsweek, Time, etc. ? Coverage by the traditionally dominant media tends to be designed to reinforce the liberal template of profound, still-lingering depression over the "Republican" defeat of "Hillary Care" in 1994 mixed with their "hope" that current Republican opposition to ObamaCare will prove self-destructive for Republicans.)
Obama now disingenuously denies his real agenda is a "single-payer" system (i.e., government-run health care), but what has he really said? Watch and listen:
To learn how to forcefully tell your Senators and Representatives to stop this nonsense, go to "http://PoliSat.Com/9After12.htm" and follow suggestions there on how tens of millions of you can simultaneously, publicly, forcefully and unequivocally demonstrate your opposition to ObamaCare..
--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Permanent links to this installment: