Bold Colors Blog

Stickin’ it to the libs, one day at a time

Posts Tagged ‘Human jellyfish pseudo Republicans’

Stimulating the destruction of health care as we know it.

Posted by Liberty on February 10, 2009

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey

The Senate is poised to pass Obama’s massive “socialize America” stimulus plan.  Thanks to human jellyfish pseudo Republicans like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, news blips everywhere will praise the bill’s passing as “bipartisan.”  The unfortunate thing is that there is policy buried in this stimulus that will change the course of our society as we know it. 

Most people don’t even have a clue–they’ve bought the Obama bill of goods that the stimulus will build roads and schools.  Obama has done this country a major disservice by doing his best to shut down discussion on this bill.  If there had been a more honest, open debate, perhaps more people would know about the back-door transition to socialized medicine that’s been included under the guise of improving our economy.  Here I reference a piece that was published yesterday on Bloomberg.com.  Betsy McCaughey has done the work that the celebutard pre-occupied main stream media has refused to do.  Debate rages about Jessica Simpson’s weight gain, Alex Rodriguez’s steriod use and whether or not some R&B artist beat up his girlfriend when it should be focused on the fraud being perpetrated upon us all.  The numbers included in the quotes I’ve pulled from Ms. McCaughey’s article are the page numbers in the  H.R. 1 EH, pdf version.

“The bill’s health rules will affect ‘every individual in the United States’ (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and ‘guide’ your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what [Tom] Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and ‘learn to operate less like solo practitioners.’”

I don’t know about you but I trust my doctor.  That’s why I go to her instead of down to the DMV when I need medical care.  If you’re wondering what exactly it means to have the federal government “guide” your doctor’s decisions, read on.

 

“Hospitals and doctors that are not ‘meaningful users’ of the new system will face penalties.  ‘Meaningful user’ isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose ‘more stringent measures of meaningful use over time’ (511, 518, 540-541).

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the ‘tough’ decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept ‘hopeless diagnoses’ and ‘forgo experimental treatments,’ and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.”

Is this what you want?  To accept a “hopeless diagnosis” like a European?  To just give up?  What about hope?  Isn’t hope the very thing we’re supposed to have now that Obama has been elected?

“Daschle says health-care reform ‘will not be pain free.’ Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.”

Quick, can somebody tell me who the AARP endorsed in the 2008 Presidential election?

The hypocrisy here is simply appalling.  These same “compassionate” liberals that don’t believe in killing terrorists and think that every child should start the day with taxpayer-funded Lucky Charms are implementing policy that will deny medical treatments for the elderly.  How long is it going to be before the doctor approaches the family gathered around dear old aunt Mary’s bedside and says, “The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research says there’s nothing more we can do.  I think it’s time to put her down.”

“If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. ‘If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,’ he said. ‘The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.'”

Arrogance!  Unbelievable arrogance!  Not only does Daschle think that he is above paying taxes, he believes you should not have a say on the implementation of socialized medicine.  Don’t comfort yourself for a second by thinking that at least Daschle has withdrawn his nomination.  That isn’t going to slow this plan down in the least.  The Senate is scheduled to vote today.  You can still call them.

Update, 11:22 am

The bill passed.  Our only hope for stopping this is in the conference committee now.  I thought of two things since I originally posted this morning.  Liberals whipped themselves into a hysteria over the Bush administration’s wire taps on suspected terrorists.  Civil libertarians were absolutely crazed over it.  Do you think they’ll have a problem with a federal bureaucracy over-seeing our health care? 

Also, what about the “my body, my choicer’s?”  They want choice when it comes to killing babies and under Obama’s plan, that’s one option that will probably always be there.  But what will your choices be when the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research dictates your treatment for diabetes, arthritis, kidney stones or any other condition to your doctor?  Why is it important for you to have the choice to kill babies but not to choose what course of treatment is best for cancer, MS or neo-natal care?

Advertisements

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Bureaucratic ineptitude, Celebutards, Constitutional Rights, Health care, Innate hypocrisy, Just plain dishonest, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, Obama, Slavish media bias, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Socialized medicine, Stupid legislation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dear old Nancy, then and now. What does the future hold for bipartisanship?

Posted by Liberty on February 7, 2009

Nancy Pelosi, quoted in an October 28, 2008 KGO-TV article:

“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there.  But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan.”

From a November 6, 2008 Boston Globe article:

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday pledged that the Democratic-controlled Congress would take a bipartisan approach in working with the incoming Obama administration, saying Democrats need to ‘govern from the middle’to accomplish an ambitious agenda on the economy, energy independence, and healthcare.”

Speaking of the immigration bill in an interview with Al Hunt, re-printed on Real Clear Politics June 15, 2007:

“…we’ll work together in a bipartisan way. This bill affects too many people over a long period of time. We want it to be bipartisan and comprehensive.”

From The Politico, February 6, 2009:

“In a statement sure to rile Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Friday dismissed calls for bipartisanship as ‘process’ arguments extraneous to passing a stimulus bill — and warned Senate Democrats against slashing proposed increases to education spending.

Pelosi — speaking to reporters on the second day of her retreat with House Democrats at a swank Williamsburg, Va., golf resort — was clearly annoyed with Senate attempts to slash up to $100 billion in spending from the $819 billion package the House passed last week.

At the same time, she urged the need for speed in passing the package — and stopped short of saying that she’d insist on her demands during upcoming conference negotiations with the Senate.

‘Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship, when the rest of the country says they need this bill,’ the California Democrat said, seeming to sweep aside the Obama administration initial desire to have broad GOP support for the plan.”

Democrats only like bipartisanship when Republicans cross the lines and vote like Democrats!  They like to pretend that they’re just naturally more open-minded and cooperative [ie. bipartisan] than Republicans but it’s a myth.  The word “bipartisan” has become misconstrued to mean “Democrats getting their own way.” 

I say, it’s time to chuck the concept of bipartisanship.  Our elected Republicans [with the notable exceptions of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter] should be reveling in their new-found strength and mentally deleting the word “bipartisan” from their vocabularies.

I appreciate how the majority of Republicans in the Senate have hung together in opposing this shameful pork-packed “stimulus” bill.  If the stimulus is such a great and necessary piece of legislation as the Democrats claim, why don’t they just pass it themselves and get it over with?  They have the votes, especially with human jellyfish pseudo-Republicans like Snowe, Collins and Specter on their side.  Better yet, why don’t they write it up as an Executive Order and Obama can just sign it all into law with a stroke of his mighty pen?  [Picture this…Obama signs the Executive Order to socialize…I mean, “stimulate” the economy and then he turns to Greg Craig to ask what exactly is in the bill.]

The answer is, of course, that the Democrats don’t want to own the consequences of this massive spending plan.  They don’t want the American people to blame them when the economy gets worse instead of better.  They don’t want the electoral consequences when the voters figure out that the stimulus has less to do with fixing the economy and more to do with paying off Democrat supporters like unions, bureaucrats, community organizers and abortionists.

Republicans have probably had about as much influence as they will get over what goes into this bill and how much is spent.  The only thing to do now is to take a principled stand against the stimulus.  We’re going to lose this argument but at least we can go down fighting.

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Conservatism, Future of the GOP, Innate hypocrisy, Liberalism, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Sticking to their guns, Stupid legislation, Taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »