CBO: Health Care Reform May "Reduce Access to Care"

According to a blog post on the Weekly Standard's Web site, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf has defined the "death panels" that have been alleged to be an integral part of the Obama/Democrat health care "reform" efforts.

In a letter to Sen Harry Reid, the Weekly Standard has discovered, the cuts to Medicare may well necessitate health care rationing:

It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.

Shouldn't we all slow down and figure out if these alleged Medicare savings could be achieve through "greater efficiencies" or by slashing care for our Seniors before we institute these reductions?

After all, the provisions in the health care "reform" won't kick in for four more years; it seems that such a waiting period would allow some further investigation.

But, even if the savings work, it seems that they aren't savings at all:

Republicans, emboldened by a new letter from the Congressional Budget Office, accused Democrats on Wednesday of "Bernie Madoff accounting" for double counting the savings from Medicare as a means to pay for the Senate health care bill.

Check this out from CBO top-dog Elmendorf:

..(the) government counts money two ways, either through trust fund accounting, in which money is borrowed from future Medicare payments to pay for existing Medicare programs but is like a revolving line of credit, or unified budget accounting, in which the trust fund money is borrowed from Medicare but then spent on other health care programs that don't generate money to be be paid back into Medicare later.

Say what?

Even after we find out if this works or grandma gets left out in the medical cold, the Liberals in the Senate are trying to make sure no one fixes -- I mean, changes -- the Medicare "reforms" later on.

In a questionably Constitutional, and definitely immoral, provision, Harry Reid et. al. want to block any changes to the Medicare "reforms" they are instituting:

"it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

Once the Death Panels are firmly established, the Libs want no one to take them away.

One can only hope that the Republicans gain some traction with their charges that parts of the Senate bill are unconstitutional.

Two key issues seem to be attracting the bulk of the legal threats: a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and the special treatment that states like Nebraska are getting in the bill.

"I don't believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev said in a statement.

But, lest anyone think that the Liberals have no interest in the Constitution, Harry Reid calls the efforts to ensure Constitutionality as "a sign of desperation."

Yes, Harry, we are desperate. You must kill this bill before it kills the best medical system in the world.

Sen. Ben Nelson "Compromises" His Principles for Cash

Another great day in the U.S. political system.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid engineered a last-minute compromise in the health care debate that has won the support of the lone Democratic holdout and clinched the required 60 votes to pass a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system.

The compromise? Nebraska DEMOCRAT Ben Nelson sold out his principles for a couple hundred million dollars that the U.S. doesn't have so that he can buy votes back home.

Democratic leaders offered Nelson a deal similar to the $300 million in Medicaid assistance Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got for her support, numerous sources told Fox News.

Is there any wonder why Congress' rating are in the tank and 60-70% of American don't want them screwing with the best medical care system in the world?

Thank gawd for political whores.

Health Care Control for All

For those who think that the health care plans being debated by Congress will not affect you if ObamaCare goes through, you are mistaken.

After all, we have all heard President Obama tell us that if like our health care plan, we can keep it. While this is true on a semantic level, on a paperwork level, the government will tell your health insurance company what all plans can and must include.

From the latest version of the health care bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 3926):

Sec. 201: On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved:
4 (1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).

Sec. 221 A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 224 for the essential benefits package described in section 222 for the plan year involved.

This means that a health care plan will not be considered qualified unless it meets requirements that will be decided upon later. While we have no idea what will actually be covered by health insurance plans, we do know that your plan will be "average."

Sec. 222. In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 224, to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security, that—

(5) is equivalent in its scope of benefits, as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage in Y1.

In order to carry out paragraph (5), the Secretary of Labor shall conduct a survey of employer-sponsored coverage to determine the benefits typically covered by employers, including multiemployer plans, and provide a report on such survey to the Health Benefits Advisory Committee and to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

After all, average is fair. We can't have people buying "cadillac" plans when others can only afford to buy, or their employers can only support, Kia plans. You won't mind sacrificing on medical care coverage for your family, will you?

Sec. 224 Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary (of Health and Human Service) shall, through the rulemaking process consistent with subsection (a), adopt an initial set of benefit standards.

But, Obama told us we can keep our plan! Where does it say that it will change?

Right here:

Sec. 241 The Health Commissioner shall...promote accountability of Qualified Health Plan Benefits offering entities in meeting Federal health insurance requirements, regardless of whether such accountability is with respect to qualified health benefits plans offered through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside of such Exchange.

But, that just talks about "qualified" health plans. Can't my insurer come up with a scaled-down plan, like a catastrophic plan, that will cover my basic needs but not necessarily meet the "initial set of benefit standards"?

Well, they could, but:

Sec 241. In the case that the Commissioner determines that a QHBP offering entity violates a requirement of this title, the Commissioner may... (work) with State insurance regulators to terminate plans for repeated failure by the offering entity to meet the requirements of this title.

So you see folks, the federal government, through a agency of unelected, unaccountable people, including at least one practicing physician (Sec. 223), will be deciding what your health insurance plan can and will offer and what kind of medical care your doctor can provide to you -- and your children and your family -- whether you sign up for the plan "offered through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside of such Exchange."

And there ain't no other way to get a health insurance plan.

AP's Palin Investigation 52 Times Higher Than Health Care Bills. No Media Bias Here!

A brilliant piece published in the Best of the Web Today column from the Wall Street Journal online highlights -- yet again! -- just how Liberally-biased the mainstream media are. This time, the Associated Press, whose stories run in papers across the country, gives the white-gloves treatment to the biography of Sarah Palin while giving passing glances at the U.S. House and Senate health care bills:

An Associated Press dispatch, written by Erica Werner and Richard Alonso-Zaldivar, compares the House and Senate ObamaCare bills. We'd like to compare this dispatch to the AP's dispatch earlier this week "fact checking" Sarah Palin's new book. Here goes:

Number of AP reporters assigned to story:
• ObamaCare bills: 2
• Palin book: 11

Number of pages in document being covered:
• ObamaCare bills: 4,064
• Palin book: 432

Number of pages per AP reporter:
• ObamaCare bill: 2,032
• Palin book: 39.3

On a per-page basis, that is, the AP devoted 52 times as much manpower to the memoir of a former Republican officeholder as to a piece of legislation that will cost trillions of dollars and an untold number of lives. That's what they call accountability journalism.

That's what I call Liberal bias.

The Obama Mammogram Scan Scam

When the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced on Monday that women under 50 should not get mammograms, I was a puzzled and troubled as anyone else. Why would this government panel, under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, exhume 7 years old study data and reverse 20 years of thinking and medical care, and end a practice that has saved countless lives.

The right-wing blogosphere and talk radio were rife with suggestions that this represents the kind of rationing that we will see under ObamaCare.


However, after pondering this puzzling finding for awhile, I figured out the scheme behind this announcement. And, from the words of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, I may have my proof.

Someone parsed the old data (likely an HHS hack with no real work to do that day) and came up with this notion. The Obama Administration demanded these new recommendations be released, thinking that the mainstream media would not pick up on a story that would cast the administration in a bad light (I mean, why start now).

Sooner than later, they hoped, insurance companies across the U.S. would take these findings as justification to change their policies towards mammograms. Gotcha!

Obama would then come out and lambaste the insurance companies for restricting care to women in need. If we had passed my health care reforms, he would assure, this would never have happened. I would never allow mammograms to women under 50 to be curtailed in any way. This just shows that the evil health insurance companies are only out for profit! EVIL!

But the story caught fire, not just in the right-wing realm, but in mainstream media outlets too. This forced Obama to distance himself from this ludicrous policy sooner than he wanted to.

Sebelius said the task force's conclusions have "caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women and their families across this country" and noted that "they do not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government.

Sebelius' statement is aimed at "making it clear these recommendations are not ours," a White House source said.

Um, the Agency falls under your jurisdiction, Ms. Sebelius (who was directly appointed by Obama) therefore the recommendations are yours.

"Indeed," said Sebelius, "I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action."

Sure you are, Madame Secretary. You are now that you got caught putting the cookies into the cookie jar that you hoped someone would take.

Obama Admits His Deficit Spending May Backfire

In an interview with FoxNews' Major Garrett, President Obama announced that deficit spending "could actually lead to a double-dip recession."

"It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession," he said.

And yet, keep spending he does.

One analysis from the Heritage Foundation projects:

President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016... Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

Here's a thought, Obama. Stop spending money you don't have. Stop spending money you don't have on programs we don't want, like "stimulus" that doesn't stimulate, health care "reform" that doesn't reform, and Cap and Trade that trades reasonable energy costs for "skyrocketing" energy costs to consumers to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Stop spending this country into oblivion. Please.

Can Anyone Help Make Sense of the Era of Obama?

Can somebody please help me make sense of all this.

In the 10 months that Barack Obama has been president, we have been treated to some of the most outrageous policy moves and politics in the history of this country.

In his very first act as president -- on his way home from the inauguration -- Obama swore that he would close Guantanamo Bay; even though he had no plans for what to do with the terrorists there.

He told us that we could not use the word "terror" any more. No more terrorism. No more War on Terror. Instead, we have "man caused disasters" and "overseas contingency operations.

We had an $800 billion dollar "stimulus" package that stimulated nothing but some pet Liberal projects. We pledged to borrow nearly a trillion dollars to fund programs that are 90% Liberal special interest projects. Where are the "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects? He told us that under this plan, unemployment would not go higher than 8%; if we did nothing it would climb to 9%. Well, unemployment is at least 10.2% and rising. Where are the jobs he promised?

In March, we got a comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan, which was shown to be not working a few months later. It is now November, and we still have no new plan. Americans are being killed in Afghanistan and Obama has met with the general there once.

Then, we had the "Cash for Clunkers" program -- which was poorly run. This program took cars off the streets that had nothing wrong with them and "gave" people money to buy new cars they likely would have bought anyway. Cars that are no better for the environment than what folks had before. The minor economic blip from the program was more than offset by a huge drop-off in car sales in September. And just wait until you see what happens to used car prices when the supply is reduced because of this debacle.

We have thousands of people turning out for free handouts from the government, described by one in the crowd as "Obama Money," whose source no one knew nor seemed to care about.

We have working people being asked to return hundreds of dollars in "stimulus" funds that were given to them in error, all because of an IRS error. Forcing them to pay back the bailout while the major corporations getting billions in bail outs do not.

We have politicians in Washington killing themselves to pass a health care takeover that poll after poll indicate the American people do not want and know we cannot afford. Thousand of pages of proposals with no details of what the plan would do. Other than raise taxes and put people in jail if they don't buy health insurance.

We had an avowed Muslim extremist shoot up an Army base killing 13 or 14 people and wounding dozens of others; all the while he screamed the Muslim praise "Allah Akbar." But, our president assures us, it had nothing to do with Muslim extremism or terrorism.

We now have the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks being brought to New York City, blocks from the World Trade Center for a civilian trial. Despite the fact that almost everyone knows that American covert secrets will be revealed or requested to be revealed. We will see demands for our intelligence, how we got that intelligence, and who got it.

We have an administration that pledged to prosecute CIA agents for "torturing" known terrorists, even though they were just following orders. Obama wants to persecute the very people who pledged their lives to protect ours.

And today, the agency that sets guidelines and recommendations for our medical professionals tell women that they need not bother with breast self-exams for cancer, and that they should wait 10 more years before being checked, despite the fact that we know countless women are diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s, 30s, and 20s.

We have self-avowed Communists and fans of Chinese Communist revolutionary Mao Tse Tung in the White House, direct advisers to the president. We have health care advisers who openly advocate for limiting or restricting medical care for the young and elderly, saving "scarce resources" for those 15 to 40. The same adviser believes that the death of a three-year-old is not nearly as bad as the death of a twenty-something because society has not invested in the child.

We have a president who has taken every opportunity to speak ill of the United States and insult her people while in other countries. He has openly mocked and demeaned any voices of opposition, calling tax protesters by a homo-phobic slur and dismissing the #1 cable TV news network as tabloid.

This country is spinning out of control and we are all so busy with our daily lives, trying to earn enough money to get by, trying to get the kids to soccer practice or worrying about who is being voted off Dancing with the Stars to notice.

Does any one of these items make sense? How about all of them in totality. And, I know I didn't get them all.

We have got to wake up, people, and pay attention. We need to face the reality that the President of the United States is not doing what is in the best interests of the country. He is trying to dismantle our way of life, change the way this country is run, and ceding authority over this country to world governing bodies.

This is real and it is happening. Wake up before Obama's "transformation" of this country has gone too far. If you don't want to wake up for yourself, do it for your children. Make sure there is something left of this country to pass onto them.

If not, you might open your eyes one day soon and have no idea where you are anymore.

Obama Does Not Care About 2010 and 2012

It struck me yesterday, as I heard the reports that Obama was not watching the election results Tuesday night that Obama truly doesn't care.

Obama is a true idealogue who only wants to push as much of his spreawling, big-government, Liberal, socialistic agenda on the U.S. If he can get that done in the first year, he doesn't care about what comes next.

This is why he wanted the "stimulus" bill done in a matter of days; this is why he wanted the health care "reform" done in a few weeks; this is why he started to push Cap and Trade before the healthcare debate was settled.

Obama is committed to expanding the reach of government into as many venues as possible while he has the congressional majorities and before the American people wake up to what he is doing.

If all he could accomplish is socializing America, he would not care. If he is a one-term president, he would not care as long as he grew governement control as much as possible. If he goes down in history as a lousy president, he doesn't care.

For, even if Obama is declared by Americans as the worst president ever, his friends and associates at the Harvard dinner galas will laud his "transformation" of America. World organizations like the European Union and the United Nations will applaud his work to lower the standard of living in the U.S. to match the rest of the world. He will be cheered back in Chicago by his academic buddies for having taken the wheels off the capitalism train.

For that's all that matters to him. The rest of us are people to be looked down upon, to be lorded over. We aren't as smart as he; we aren't as sophisticated as he. We are just "mostly decent," "typical white" people who "cling to our bibles and our guns." He has no regard for us or our opinions.

This man must be stopped and the time is now.

Dear President Obama: It's the economy, stupid!

An open letter to President Obama:

Dear President Obama:

Back in 1992, then candidate Bill Clinton ran to the White House by telling us "It's the economy, stupid."

Well, Mr. Obama, he was right then and his sentiment is correct now. It's the economy you should be fixing.

In your nine-months in office, you have yet to do Thing One to help the failing economy that you claim to have inherited. You, sir, did not "inherit" these problems; you asked for them. You knew full well the state of the economy last fall and assured us that you were the person who could fix these problems. So far, you have not.

We now see consumer confidence at dangerously low-levels, with an increasing number of people believing the economy is in bad shape and shockingly low numbers of people thinking otherwise:

"Consumers' assessment of current conditions worsened in October. Those claiming business conditions are "bad" increased to 47.1 percent from 46.3 percent, while those claiming conditions are "good" decreased to 7.7 percent from 8.6 percent."

Business confidence is likewise flailing. The Wall Street Journal brings us an article today that codifies the dangerous state of business in our country under your "leadership:"

"But a health-care overhaul grinding through Congress could bring unknown new obligations to insure employees. Bush-era tax cuts are set to end next year, and their fate is unclear. Legislation aimed at tackling climate change might raise businesses' energy costs. Meanwhile, a bill aimed at increasing transportation spending is stalled.

Many companies say they have responded by freezing hiring, cutting benefits and delaying expansion plans."

Your "stimulus" plan that has all but petered out; your Liberal colleague's talk of additional "stimulus" that will likewise fail; your plans to stifle industry and the economy through the "cap and trade" plans to address a problem that doesn't exist; your designs to re-engineer a health care industry that few are complaining about; the massive spending that will inevitable lead to tax increases; your refusal to extend the "Bush tax cuts" that actually worked to stimulate the economy. All these pit-falls are freezing business, preventing them from hiring workers and keeping them shy towards spending the money that will help other companies hire.

It is time to scrap your grandiose visions and nirvana dreams of recasting this country, Mr. Obama, and time to find a way to reduce the rising unemployment rate, to create an environment where business will expand, to find a way to repair consumer confidence in this economy (and in your presidency).

However, the Consumer Reports Index, which tracks consumer financial and employment numbers to obtain an overall sense of consumer health, indicates that U.S. consumers are continuing to feel less secure about their financial situation. Recent government data supports this finding, as consumer credit and borrowing rates have been dropping sharply, spending and earning rates have been remaining almost flat while saving plummets, and the official unemployment rate (which only counts a fraction of the actual number of people out of work) has been creeping toward double digits.

You told us in August that giving people cash incentive to buy cars will help the economy as a whole. The oddly-titled Cash for Clunkers program resulted in a small positive blip that predictably leveled-out and even fell off as soon as the program ended.

I have a sense, through my limited economic understanding, my common-sense, and through historical perspective, that providing "cash incentive" through real tax cuts and a signigicant reduction in spending will be a far better panacea for the econony than record budget-deficits and increasing national debt.

Says Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center:

Consumers' assessment of present-day conditions has grown less favorable, with labor market conditions playing a major role in this grimmer assessment. In fact, the Present Situation Index is now at its lowest reading in 26 years (Index 17.5, Feb. 1983). The short-term outlook has also grown more negative, as a greater proportion of consumers anticipate business and labor market conditions will worsen in the months ahead. Consumers also remain quite pessimistic about their future earnings, a sentiment that will likely constrain spending during the holidays.

With all due respect, Mr. Obama, it is time for you and your party to stop acting "stupidly," and make some serious and significant moves towards actually helping the economy before engaging in utopian plans of health-care access and climate change cessation.

Mr. President, it is the economy that needs fixing. It is far past time for you to get to work on it.

Lawrence Summers: "We Created 30,000 New Jobs with Stimulus" Whoopie!

National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers told CNBC Television that Barack Obama's $787 billion "stimulus" package has created 30,000 jobs so far.

President Barack Obama signed a US$787 billion stimulus package into law earlier this year, and Mr Summers said the first US$16 billion spent created more than 30,000 jobs.

Sixteen billion dollars spent results in ONLY 30,000 jobs, and the administration is bragging about it! This spending works out to more than a half-a-million dollars per job created! And it took more than six months to do it!

At that rate, the full $787 billion will gin up a whopping 1.5 million jobs! Who says that massive government spending won't pull a country out of recession.

Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed
persons has increased by 7.6 million to 15.1 million, and the unemployment
rate has doubled to 9.8 percent.

Well, thank goodness Obama spent that $16 billion we don't have. Otherwise, we would have had 15.1 million and 30,000 people unemployed.

How is Hope and Change working for you?

Is Chairman Mao in the White House

On last night's program, Fox News' Glenn Beck aired a stunning video of interim White House Communications Director Anita Dunn seeming to praise Mao Tse Tung (Zedong), the first Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party.

Dunn called Chairman Mao one of her two favorite political philosophers (along with Mother Theresa, oddly enough). During a speech to a group of high school kids in June 2009, she offered advice based on the teachings of Mao:

...(this) tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers - Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa, ... the two people that I turn to most...

...In 1947, when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army. They had the air force. They had everything on their side, and people said how can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this? Against all the odds against you, and Mao Tse Tung said, you know, you fight your war, and I’ll fight mine, and think about that for a second.”

According to a well-sourced quote from Wikipedia, Mao's policies and political purges from 1949-1975 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. Mao also extensively used forced starvation and re-education camps to control and punish his people.

Think about that for a second, Ms. Dunn.

Do we really want someone this close to the President of the United States to worship a murderous, Communist dictator? I know I don't.

As peace activist John Lennon sang:

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow...

Amen, Mr. Lennon.

Did Obama's Speech Blow the Chicago 2016 Olympic Bid?

The International Olympic Committee just voted the city of Chicago out of the running to host the 2016 Olympics.

President Obama, depsite his words to the contrary just two weeks ago, flew over to Copenhagen to make a final pitch for his city.

Could it be that Obama's speech was the spoiler? Or, was Chi-town never really in the running?

In his speech, which ran over 1,100 words, Obama said "I" more than 20 times. However, when it came to convinving the IOC that Chicago could handle the massive impact of the games, he could only muster two sentences that are short on convincing rhetoric:

It's a city that works -- from its first World's Fair more than a century ago to the World Cup we hosted in the nineties, we know how to put on big events. And scores of visitors and spectators will tell you that we do it well.

Obama's evidence that the Chicago area can create an appropriate environment for the Olympics is how well the city ran the World's Fair in 1893 and the World's Cup in 1994?

Not one word on the city's ability to build the infrastructure needed for the games. Not one word on the abiltiy to pay for the games. Not one word that would convince anybody in his right mind that Chicago could hold the 2016 Olympics.

Instead, Obama spun stories of his childhood and sang about the diversity of his hometown.

Chicago is a place where we strive to celebrate what makes us different just as we celebrate what we have in common. It's a place where our unity is on colorful display at so many festivals and parades, and especially sporting events, where perfect strangers become fast friends just because they're wearing the same jersey.

What?

So I've come here today to urge you to choose Chicago for the same reason I chose Chicago nearly 25 years ago -- the reason I fell in love with the city I still call home...

You see, growing up, my family moved around a lot. I was born in Hawaii. I lived in Indonesia for a time. I never really had roots in any one place or culture or ethnic group. And then I came to Chicago.

Ahhh. That is a nice story, but no reason to site an event that hosts thousands of athletes and hundreds of thousands of spectators from around the world.

Chicago is a city where the practical and the inspirational exist in harmony; where visionaries who made no small plans rebuilt after a great fire and taught the world to reach new heights.

That Great Chicago Fire was in 1871. Why would this convince the IOC that the city can make "no small plans" nearly 150 years after?

But, this is Barack Obama; as such, he couldn't get by without a reference to inherited problems.

...the United States of America has a responsibility...to forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world.

And we all know who broke down those partnerships, don't we?

In the end, it was just another Obama speech; full of flowers and flourish, but completely absent any substance. And in the end, Obama loses again.

Thank goodness.

Will Obama Actually Pass Health Care Reform as an Earmark on a TARP Bill??

According to the Heritage Foundation, Obama and the Democrats plan to pass the health care overhaul as an "earmark" on an un-related piece of legislation: "... the entire health care reform effort will be included as an amendment to a ...TARP bill (on limiting executive pay) that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months."

I know what you are thinking: But haven't republicans ever done the same thing?

Certainly, it is a common trick on Capitol Hill to slip items into other legislation to ensure passage. It is a slimy trick that I thought Obama was going to rise above.

The outrage here is that the health care "reform" affects every single person in the United States.

I should think that something that will touch the lives in as basic and personal way as health care and health coverage would not be shuffled under the rug and slipped through without an actual vote on the issue.

Especially when every poll shows 60-70% of Americans are opposed to the plan they are trying to sneak through.

So much for change in Washington; so much for openness and transparency; so much for medical care in the U.S. if this thing actually passes.

Will You Need a State License for a Playdate?

The state of Michigan is threatening legal action against a woman who help her neighbors by babysitting their kids and getting them on the school bus in the morning.

Lisa Snyder of Middleville says her neighborhood school bus stop is right in front of her home. It arrives after her neighbors need to be at work, so she watches three of their children for 15-40 minutes until the bus comes.

Her "crime?" Running an "unlicensed daycare facility."

The Department of Human Services received a complaint that Snyder was operating an illegal child care home. DHS contacted Snyder and told her to get licensed, stop watching her neighbors' kids, or face the consequences.

So, if you baby sit kids for any period of time, you need a license from the state?

What does this say about our country? Does the government really think we can no longer care for our own children? Or, does it mean that the government is truly out of control. I'll suggest the latter.

What does this mean for little Sally next door who watches your children so you and your spouse can go to a moive? Will Sally need to register as a child care provider?

Maybe Ms. Snyder should be glad she doesn't live in Massachusetts. She would have to submit a “curriculum” that provides “evidence that programs provide specific, planned learning experiences” and that supports “school-readiness.”

If my kids friends come over for a play-date, will I need to submit a written progress reports must be issued every three to six months that track the cognitive, social, emotional, language, motor and life skill developments of infants and preschoolers.

And you want the government to run healthcare....

Obama: Stopping Global Warming "Ahead" of Fixing the Economy

In his first address to the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, President Barack Obama seemed to indicate that fixing the economy should take a back seat to "address(ing) climate change."

Buried at the bottom of this AP story, Obama tells the U.N. that fixing one's national economy "must not be allowed" to take priority over stopping global warming:

On the warming planet, he said "the danger posed by climate change cannot be denied — and our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred."
The president said "this is why the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over." He said he understood the temptation of nations to put economic recovery from recession ahead of work to address climate change, but said that must not be allowed to happen.

In his own words:

It's hard to change something as fundamental as how we use energy. I know that. It's even harder to do so in the midst of a global recession. Certainly, it will be tempting to sit back and wait for others to move first. But we cannot make this journey unless we all move forward together.

On one point, Obama is correct: fixing the economy is a very tempting idea, especially when the unemployment rate in the U.S. is fast approaching 10%, the highest it has been in nearly 3 decades!

Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the economy has shed 6.9 million jobs, the department said.
Jobs have been lost across manufacturing and service industries.
Total unemployment stands at 14.9 million ...
Most cuts were seen in the construction industry, with 65,000 jobs lost in the month (of August).

I am sure that the 15 million people out of work will be pleased to know that Obama favors battling fictitious "climate change" is more important to him than fixing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression getting you back to work.

The world is still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In America, we see the engine of growth beginning to churn, and yet many still struggle to find a job or pay their bills.

If the president has his way, that struggle will get ever harder. Barack, it seems, would rather us get those toxic curly light bulbs than to get a job.

Obama: The change you can take to the unemployment office.

Did Obama Stage The "Terror Threats" in NYC and DC to Make Him Look Tough on Terror?

Hmm. Set the Black Helicopter flying.

The day after the Washington Post breaks a story about Afghanistan being lost without increases to troop levels and Obama's inability to decide what to do, we are hit with the spectre of a massive terrorist plot, which, of course, Obama's crew is putting the kibosh on.

Federal counter-terrorism officials warned local police to patrol stadiums,
hotels and entertainment complexes for suspicious activity after the arrest of a
Colorado shuttle driver and others suspected in a potentially far-reaching
terror plot.

Extra officers wearing helmets and bulletproof vests were dispatched to spots like Grand Central Terminal in midtown Manhattan.

However, officials in New York City and Washington D.C. reported "no credible threat" that has sparked their actions.

"We have no specific information from intelligence sources that would lead us to believe there is a threat to our system at this time, yet MTPD (Metro Transit Police Department) officers remain vigilant," said Metro Police Chief Michael A. Taborn in a news release.

I know what you are thinking. I am nuts for even drawing the connection between Obama's Afghanistan dilemma and this threatening non-threat. I mean, no one would even accuse a sitting U.S. president of playing politics with our fear of terrorism, would he?

Humana Insurance Company Under Investigation for a Free Speech Violation

The Insurance company Humana, it appears, has angered the Obama administration and faces "possible legal action" for having the temerity to inform its subscribers about possible changes to Medicare under the Liberals' health care plan:

(A mailer from Humana to subscribers) focused squarely on the Medicare Advantage program.

"While these programs need to be made more efficient, if the proposed funding cut levels become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable," it said.

It urged seniors to sign up with Humana for regular updates on the health care legislation, and encouraged them to contact their lawmakers in Washington.

This information, so says Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont, is false.

The health care reform bill we released ... strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits," said Baucus.

So, because Baucus says so, it must be true. And, if you disagree with the Liberals on their mission to over-haul health care, and have the nerve to inform your customers, you may face legal action.

HHS ordered the company to immediately halt any such mailings, and remove any related materials from its Web site. In the letter, the government also said it may take other action against Humana.

So, if you happen to have a contrary position to the Administration, you now face legal action? Beats being called a racist, I guess.

Seems to me that Obama misleads people everytime he opens his mouth about health care; the only person who gets in trouble for this is Joe Wilson.

Another victory for free speech under Barack Obama.

BREAKING!! Top Ten List for Tonight's Letterman Show with Obama

REDINABLUESTATE NEWS FLASH!!!

I have managed to obtain the actual Top Ten List that I am told will be read on The Late Show with David Letterman in honor of President Obama's scheduled appearance. My sources tell me that Obama himself will read the list!!!

Tonight's Top Ten List -- The top ten Obama lies about the health care plan.

10 -- Anyone who opposes this plan is racist.
9 -- Adding 50 million people to the primary care system will have no impact on you.
8 -- This plan will require no additional funding, and will turn a profit in a few years!
7 -- This plan is not about a government takeover of health care.
6 -- This plan will not "add a dime" to the national debt or deficit.
5 -- There is $50 billion in waste and abuse in the Medicare system.
4 -- This plan will not increase costs paid by the middle class.
3 -- There will be no rationing of health care.
2 -- Illegal immigrants will not be covered.

And the #1 about Barack Obama lie about health care --

If you like your health insurance plan, nothing will change!!

The Top Ten Obama Lies About His Health Care Plans

In honor of President Obama's scheduled appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman, might I suggest a Top Ten List appropriate for the occasion.

Tonight's Top Ten List -- The top ten Obama lies about the health care plan. Read by the liar himself: President Obama!!

10 -- Anyone who opposes this plan is racist.
9 -- Adding 50 million people to the primary care system will have no impact on you.
8 -- This plan will require no additional funding, and will turn a profit in a few years!
7 -- This plan is not about a government takeover of health care.
6 -- This plan will not "add a dime" to the national debt or deficit.
5 -- There is $50 billion in waste and abuse in the Medicare system.
4 -- This plan will not increase costs paid by the middle class.
3 -- There will be no rationing of health care.
2 -- Illegal immigrants will not be covered.

And the #1 about Barack Obama lie about health care --

If you like your health insurance plan, nothing will change!!

My Kid Owes Nothing to Obama

In his tepid and cliched speech to school kids today, President Obama summed up his message by implying that because he is trying to fix up the schools, our kids owe the president their best effort in school.

I'm working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you've got to do your part too.

So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you.

Who is this guy to expect anything from my kid? It is as appropriate as a neighbor seeing my son walk to school and saying I expect you to do well in school. After all, I am paying taxes to support your education.

Mr. President, you work for us; not the other way around. You do not have the authority to expect my kid to work hard. It is my kid's job, my job, and his teacher's job to demand excellence. It isn't your place to tell my son what to do.

Well, That Saves a Blog Entry

Obama's choice for "Green Jobs Czar," Van Jones, gets the boot -- I mean resigns. Nice to hear some good news once in a while.

And, I had a headline all picked out: Obama Green Jobs "Czar" a Red.

Obama's latest pick for the Cuckoo's Nest is an avowed Communist/9-11 Truther who openly called congressional Republicans "assholes" in a recent speech.

But now, because people learned the truth about this cretin, he retreated to the typical "vicious smear campaign" canard and ran home crying. Why is it that when we tell the truth about Liberals they call it vicious smears?

Jones, who somehow missed the video of the airplanes actually hitting the buildings, signed a petition calling for an investigation into the cause of 9/11. Oh sure, he assures us:

That he did not agree with the petition's stand on the Sept. 11 attacks and that "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."

He must not have read the petition before signing it. Perfect qualification to become a Democratic legislator.

But, there have been no denials about his involvement with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM). From Wikipedia:

STORM initially included anarchists, communists and revolutionary nationalists, but after some struggle the anarchists left and STORM become more communist-oriented. The group considered Mao Zedong as their spiritual leader and as an atheist organization expressed deep dislike of religion.

Quite a loss for the country. Oh well, I am sure there are plenty of crackpots out there that Obama can pick from. He has no shortage of them so far.

Obama Czar Advocates Mandatory Organ Donation...

...Unless You Can Prove Otherwise

According to CNS News, Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s choice to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) wrote LAST YEAR that he favors requiring doctors to harvest the organs of deceased patients unless the patient has specifically designated otherwise.

Currently, after a patient passes, the medical staff is actually required to ask the family or other health care spokeperson(s) for permission to harvest organs for transplant. In their book, Nudge, Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler argue that government should require that organs be harvested unless you can prove otherwise.

(Requiring patient consent) could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”

Some might think it a good idea to increase the pool of available organs for transplant. However, think what could happen if you are unable to communicate when brought to the emergency room. How will you tell them not to take your liver, kidneys, heart, your skin? What if you are in a tragic accident and don't happen to have your driver's license that does not say Yes to donating; what if you die suddenly, far from home, and a family member cannot be located to advocate for you?

Oh well, you weren't using them eyes anyway. Yank them out.

Why stop there, Suss? Why not change the law to prevent people from saying No. Think of the good it would do for society. After all, gentlemen, your book's Web site tells us that we homo sapiens are incapable of making decisions on our own:

From the book's Web site (bolding in original):

Every day, we make decisions on topics ranging from personal investments to schools for our children to the meals we eat to the causes we champion.

Unfortunately, we often choose poorly.

(The authors) show that by knowing how people think, we can design choice environments that make it easier for people to choose what is best for themselves, their families, and their society.

In other words, Sunstein beleives that you cannot make your own decisions and he wants to help you. And, what better position to help us all make better decisions than the Office of Information and Regulatory Affiars.

Among OIRA's responsibilites is the implementation of government-wide policies and standards with respect to Federal regulations and guidance documents.

So, Obama wants the government to take more (read: total) control of medical care decision-making, and the man who's job it is to advise Obama on policy is someone who thinks you make bad decisions.

Scary stuff indeed.

Yet another out-of-the-mainstream hack in the White House. Who would have thought Obama would surround himself with crackpots.

Massachusetts to Have Special Election to Decide Which Kennedy to Appoint

Massachusetts is mired in a debate on how to fill the late Senator Kennedy's place in the U.S. Senate.

By the current law, the state is to have a special election to replace a senator who leaves his seat before his term expires. However, the good senator lobbied to have the law changed to allow the governor to appoint someone to the seat.

Ironically, Kennedy was one of the loudest voices to change the law in 2004 to prevent the governor from appointing someone to a vacated senate seat when a Republican governor might have a chance to replace Senator Kerry, should he have won the presidency.

Who gets that seat - and how he or she or perhaps they get it - became the week's unanswerable riddle. If you're a Massachusetts Democrat, it's pretty tough to vote against Ted Kennedy's deathbed wish, even when it's asking you to rewrite state law to allow Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim senator for five months, even when you voted five years ago to prevent then-Gov. Mitt Romney from appointing an interim for the same period.

Well, here is a compromise position to consider, have a special election to decide which Kennedy should get the Kennedy seat in congress.

The ballot could look like this:

• There is Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the second wife of the late Ted, whose primary qualification appears to be the ability to say I do.
  
• There is Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, some nature of relation, who proved to stupid and ill-informed to get Hillary's seat in New York (she would be prefect for MA, if that is the case)
• Don't forget ol' Joe Kennedy, one time U.S. Rep, without whom we are all suffering.
• And, the genius of Patrick "Patches" Kennedy, whose addictions and rehab visits make a perfect replacement for ol' Ted.
• Or, Judy Flanagan Kennedy, a city councilor in Lynn, MA who is not related to Ted in any way, but is running under the slogan JFK for mayor.
  

This simple solution would solve the problem of changing the law to benefit one family by both allowing the special election and by ensuring some nature of Kennedy keeps the family seat. It is a lose-lose solution for the state of Kennedy-chusetts.

The U.S. Federal Government Wants YOUR Computer

A bill in the U.S. Senate, written by Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), would -- says CNET.com -- "permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency"

Declan McCullagh writes that:

...the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government.

Sounds innocuous, on the surface.

But, McCullagh quotes Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, this proposal is being pushed through "before the legal review is finished."

As most things from the Liberals these days, details are lacking and undefined.

"It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector," McCaullagh quoted Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance.

What constitutes an emergency is undefined; when they can seize which systems is undescribed. The bill is, apparently, a open offer for Obama to take over whichever systems he wants for whatever reason he deems "necessary for the national defense and security."

The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it," says Tein.

"Translation," summizes McCullagh, "if your company is deemed critical, a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

Pretty scary stuff, indeed.

Kennedy's funeral is being planned for the The Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help.

"Kennedy's funeral is being planned for the The Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in the Mission Hill section of Boston. "

Boy, that's rich.

The man who built a career on developing government programs that never go away and don't solve the problems they are intended to help is being memorialized at a church called "Perpetual Help."

The nation's 30-year five trillion-dollar anti-poverty campaign should be evaluated primarily in terms of the extent to which it has facilitated the efforts of low-income people to achieve independence. Outcome-based analyses of the facts show that the current approach to poverty has been a dismal failure. Although welfare spending (in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars) has skyrocketed, there has been no significant reduction in America's poverty rate since the War on Poverty was launched.

Kennedy has been fighting his entire career for increasing dependency on government, whether it is expanding the welfare state, exponentially increasing illegal immigration, keeping kids trapped in failing public school (while sending his to private schools), and voting for higher taxes and against balanced budgets.

We, as a nation, are losing little with Kennedy's passing. He was just another silver-spoon Liberal pushing destructive policies. I am only saddened to not have the chance to vote against him again next year.

Obama: WIll Vacation Be Spoiled by Bill??

President Obama plans to visit the tony Massachusetts Island of Martha's Vineyard next week. That is, if Hurricane Bill doesn't ruin it for him.

Wouldn't that be great if Hurricane Bill -- as in Bill Clinton -- ruined Obama's first presidential vacation. A delicious irony.

One would think that the president would stay in some fancy digs while on holiday. But, apparently, that is not the case, suggested White House spokeman PC Guy (aka Robert Gibbs):

But "there will be a certain point in which the president will largely be down enjoying his vacation, as well as I think the vacation that millions and millions of Americans hopefully will," the spokesman added.

Somehow, PC Guy, I don't think "millions and millions of Americans" will get to vacation at "a private 28-acre estate that rents for $35,000 a week."

Does anyone else find it odd that the same guy who bemoans "fat-cat" Wall Street tycoons decides to stay in a vacation home whose weekly rent is only slightly less than the average American makes in a year?

While on the Vineyard, rumor has it that Obama will visit the ailing Senator Ted Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound in near-by Hyannis, MA.

I wonder if -- in honor of good friend Kennedy -- Obama will pay a visit to Chappaquiddick, a mere 14 miles away.

Obama: Vacation to be Spoiled by Bill??

President Obama plans to visit the tony Massachusetts Island of Martha's Vineyard next week. That is, if Hurricane Bill doesn't ruin it for him.

Wouldn't that be great if Hurricane Bill -- as in Bill Clinton -- ruined Obama's first presidential vacation. A delicious irony.

One would think that the president would stay in some fancy digs while on holiday. But, apparently, that is not the case, suggested White House spokeman PC Guy (aka Robert Gibbs):

But "there will be a certain point in which the president will largely be down enjoying his vacation, as well as I think the vacation that millions and millions of Americans hopefully will," the spokesman added.

Somehow, PC Guy, I don't think "millions and millions of Americans" will get to vacation at "a private 28-acre estate that rents for $35,000 a week."

Does anyone else find it odd that the same guy who bemoans "fat-cat" Wall Street tycoons decides to stay in a vacation home whose weekly rent is only slightly less than the average American makes in a year?

While on the Vineyard, rumor has it that Obama will visit the ailing Senator Ted Kennedy at the Kennedy Compound in near-by Hyannis, MA.

I wonder if -- in honor of good friend Kennedy -- Obama will pay a visit to Chappaquiddick, a mere 14 miles away.

Obama: Health Reform is Like "Belts and Suspenders"

For the best speaker in the history of the World, President Obama has had more than his share of unintentional laughers in the past several days.

On a conference call and video forum to "200,000 of his most loyal supporters," Barack told the crowd that health care reform is like a "belt" and "suspenders."

"This is sort of like the belt-and-suspenders concept to keep up your pants," (Obama) said. "You know, the insurance reforms are the belt. The public option can be the suspenders.

Does that mean that the two are redundant? We can do with one and not the other, but don't need both? Does anybody know what that means?

Not that I am going to get all "wee-wee'd up" about a verbal gaffe or two. After all, maybe he's just "having problems" like the U.S. Postal Service.

Well, the one good thing is that it is the Jewish New Year, and maybe Obama can make a resolution to stop making these phonetic faux-pas.

...the Jewish New Year won’t take place until September 18th. In fact, today marks the beginning of the month of Elul, the last month before the New Year begins. And yet (during in his conference call with 1,000 rabbis) the president said “shanah tovah [happy new year] to all of you.” This is kind of like wishing people “Merry Christmas” on Thanksgiving.

Maybe, Obama just needs a vacation. He plans to visit the tony Massachusetts Island of Martha's Vineyard next week. That is, if Hurricane Bill doesn't ruin it for him.

I am sure that I will turn on Letterman tonight and hear ol' Dave start a new segment of Great Moments in Presidential Speeches, as he did for every minor blip in President Bush's verbiage.

Can't wait to get my Obama-isms calendar next year, too.

Boston Globe: At Least Obama's Health Care is Better than North Korea

The Boston Globe's Metro newspaper, a freebie hand-out tabloid hawked on subway platforms, gives feint praise to President Obama and his health care "reform" plans:

Health care is far from the only issue driving critics to chide Obama for wanting to turn America into a socialist nation. Since the beginning of the 2008 election, Republicans have been warning that Obama plans to institute über-liberal policies. Here’s a look at the policies of some of the world’s countries most rooted in socialism. The United States is a far cry from them.

In short: We'll, it ain't Cuba!

Under one of the more ludicrous headlines of all time, the paper compares the United States favorably to such "Socialist" countries as Cuba, China, Vietnam, and North Korea.

China: The Government oversees private business entities, mandating that they conform to the state's economic interests.

Setting aside that these countries are avowed Communist regimes, I am grateful that the Obama administration doesn't control any private entities in this country, or want to meddle in their business affairs or affect the course of any business in the U.S.

If the best thing you can say about Obama's health care plan is that it is better than North Korea's health care, you had better revisit your talking points.

You think Obama's policies are liberal? America, you haven’t even begun to taste true liberalism...

Perhaps that is true; but we don't want a taste of "true liberalism" (aka Communism). It tastes bitter going down and leaves a real sour aftertaste, from what I hear.

Obama's Aide: If You Are Not Adolescent or Middle Age, Forget About Getting Medical Care.

As the Obama Administration works on details of the proposed health care overhaul, President Obama is getting advice from someone with some very unsettling views on who should be allowed to receive medical care.

After a nationwide search, Obama hired Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, as a special advisor to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy.

Writing in the Lancet journal (free subscription required for article), Emanuel and two colleagues examined various means for the "allocation of scarce medical interventions." A cynic might call this an article on how to best ration health care.

This article on how to best ration health care contains some chilling conclusions on the part of Obama's right-hand man on health care policy.

Emanuel favors what he calls the Complete Lives System, which give priority to "younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid." Meaning, that young people between ages 15 and 40 will become the most likely to receive these "scarce medical interventions." Leaving children and the elderly to take a back seat.

Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.

The basic theory is, if a 25-year-old person and a 60-year-old person both require the same medical treatment at the same time, the 20 something will get the care long before his elder, simply because he -- in theory -- has longer to live.

...why give an extra year to a person who has lived for many when it could be given to someone who would otherwise die having had few?

As for giving the 25-year old preference over an infant, Emanuel speculates:

It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does...

Excuse me? This is a shocking and clearly ignorant piece of filth, coming -- I am certain -- from someone who has not lost a child. This is a grotesque insult, bred from pure ignorance; and to base an entire health care philosophy on this bit of hate is contemptible at best. Sick and disturbed at worst.

However, if you are a sickly or disabled young person, you might be out of luck, too:

A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable.

Combine this notion with a finding in an Emanuel article from 10 years ago (PDF), and the future for the disabled seems even more in question:

(S)ervices provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

If there is anyone out there with a disabled child, know that Obama's main man on health care does not want to give medical care to your child because he will never become a fully "participating citizen."

As for the elderly, it seems that they are no better off:

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance (at receiving medical treatment), whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated...

But, these are just a few thoughts from the man whom Barack Obama has entrusted with YOUR medical care -- assuming you are among the select people who will be allowed to receive it.

And to think, we were afraid that Obama would limit medical care access to the elderly, shuttling them off to hospices instead. It seems his top adviser also wants to allow infants in children to die, rather than give them life saving treatment, even if that life is necessarily short.

This is some of the most twisted thinking from so-called respected ethicist I have ever heard. This is the stuff of bad science fiction movies. And if we don't act, it may become part-and-parcel of YOUR health care.

Click on Image to view larger size

President Obama: I Will Pass Health Care Overhaul Unilaterally

President Obama plans to pass massive health care legislation that will affect every single American citizen without considering the opinions of legislators opposing the measure:

"Sometime in September we're going to have to make an assessment" about whether to keep trying to negotiate with Republicans, President Obama told MSNBC.

Well, so much for the new tone in Washington under Obama. Another broken campaign promise.

Like the planning and execution of the "stimulus" bill before, Republicans Need Not Apply.

We will just have to get him to break that promise about taking over the health care system.

I Turned Myself in to the White House Disinformation Line

Feeling horribly guilty about trying to spread the truth about the Obama health care take-over plans, I turned myself in to the White House Health Reform Office.

Dear Leader --

I feel I must turn myself in. I have been trading in disinformation about President Obama's health care plans.

On a nearly daily basis, I have been posting things to my FaceBook account and to my blog when I can.

http://redboyinabluestate.blogspot.com/

I have used actual facts, direct quotes from the president, and opinions of experts in my missives. In short, I have been speaking the truth about how this plan will hurt nearly all Americans.

I know I should be toeing the Obama line about how he can add 50 million people to the health care rolls without causing any changes in the way I receive health care. I know that I should be saying that the president's plans will not just say money, but will actually earn a multi-billion dollar profit.

I am sorry. I will try to do better from now on, Amen.

Phew. I feel better. I turned myself in because I just know that Obama doesn't really want Americans to turn their fellow citizens for having an opinion and expressing their freedom of speech.

That would be un-American.

Boston Globe: All Health Care Opponents are Now "GOP Activists"

The Democrats and Liberals have been out the past few days insulting an demeaning anyone who actually has opinions against the Obama health care plans. We have been called a mob, Brooks Brothers protesters, insurance company flunkies, and even astro-turf.

Now, the Boston Globe is calling us all "GOP activists."

Scenes like this are playing out across America. As Congress returns home for its summer break, conservative activists are packing community halls and school cafeterias to protest the healthcare legislation, hoping to derail President Obama’s top domestic priority. In Texas, Representative Lloyd Doggett was confronted by a crowd chanting “Just say no!’’

Shocking! A U.S. representative was "confronted" by people saying "No." I can see why this could be so traumatic. No one should say "No" to a legislator, unless he is a Republican, of course.

Strange that the Globe has changed the headline of the story to a use a less divisive term, from "GOP activists" to "Foes."

While I have yet to attend a town hall on health care, I have not been called by the GOP, any insurance company, Brooks Brothers, or any other organization purported to be "packing" these forums. Maybe, just maybe, these folks are just normal, everyday Americans who are angry; scared about losing control of one of the most basic services that they rely on every day.

Nah!

Keep it up, Libs. The more you insult and demean us, the angrier we will get and the stronger we will be.

No wonder why the Boston Globe is on the brink of going out of business.

**Thanks to WTKK-FMs Michael Graham for pointing out this story.

Study: Global Warming is Your Kids' Fault

Tell me again how people in the global-warming crowd are not completely nuts.

A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives - things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

Global warming is your fault for having the audacity to have children.

Under current conditions in the United States, for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent - about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

But, have no fear, the study authors say, the length of a child's lifespan will directly affect his "overall impact on the global carbon equation."

The impact of having children differs between countries. While some developing nations have much higher populations and rates of population growth than the United States, their overall impact on the global carbon equation is often reduced by shorter life spans and less consumption.

So, if your child dies young, you can take some solace in the fact that his negative impact on the environment will be so much less. A comforting thought, indeed.

And, implies the study, we should all be grateful for those kids in China that have been killed over the one-child-per-family rule and third world poverty that kills children across this fever-riddled globe of ours.

The long-term impact of a child born to a family in China is less than one-fifth the impact of a child born in the United States, the study found.

Who the heck thinks like this? Who could get a birth announcement in the mail and think "Oh my God! The environment!!"

The tax-payer supported professors at OSU, and their Liberal kook friends, that's who.

Well, thank goodness that someone is doing something about global warming. Even though it doesn't exist.