If Repubs Filibuster, Obama Will Pass Health Reform Through Reconciliation

According to the Plum Line blog, if the Congressional Republicans try to filibuster ObamaCare in an attempt to get Obama to start over with the goal of producing a more modest bill that tries to curb costs and helps small businesses and people with health problems secure coverage, the Democrats will use parliamentary procedures to ram the package through anyway.

Health insurance coverage and medical care in this country will be changed dramatically with no input from anyone who opposes the plans. Plans overwhelmingly opposed by the American people will be slipped through the cracks in the floor, the voters be damned.

Among Obama's recently announced "improvements" is a plan to let the federal government control how much your insurance company can charge you for insurance. A Federal panel will monitor and block exorbitant rate hikes and other unfair practices by the insurance industry.

This sounds good on the surface; but of course, there will be no definition of "exorbitant rate hikes," so Obama can block any rate increase for any reason, including political reasons.

Remember Humana insurance, who sent an e-mail to customers about potential changes to their service as a result of these "reforms"? Are they in line to have their every cost increase labeled "exorbitant"?

You will be forced by law to have health insurance whether you want to or not, and Obama will tell you how much it will cost you. One person in the federal government will get to determine what your health plan covers or doesn't include and it will be illegal for you to pay a doctor for a service on your own. Sounds like America to me, doesn't it?

According to Plum Line, Eric cantor (R-VA) sums up the Obama/Reid/Pelosi health care juggernaut well:

The Obama plan costs a trillion dollars, puts government in control of personal health decisions, and allows the government to set prices in the private market. That mirrors the Pelosi/Reid plans that have already been soundly rejected by the bipartisan majority of Americans."

Is this really the Hope and Change you voted for America?

Obama Steals Credit for Success of Iraq War

In an interview with Larry King, Vice President Joe Biden delcared Iraq one of the great achievements of this administration.

Despite that President Obama campaigned as an opponent of the Iraq war, he bragged about not supporting the war from the beginning, and voted against the "surge" that apparently helped the U.S. "win" the Iraq war, President Obama seems poised to claim he is responsible for freedom in Iraq -- a victory for which he did nothing but continue the policy of the previous administration.

"You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer," Biden said. "You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama, Iraq is one of the great achievements of the U.S. Military.

Biden seems an odd ambassador for declaring Obama's victory in Iraq, as he has been a strident opponent of the conflict from the beginning.

On the day of the Democrats first rumble in South Carolina and a critical vote demanding the President begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Thursday that the troop surge plan in Iraq has failed.

As the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden called the surge a mistake.

...the (anti-surge) legislation is “not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It’s an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq.”

Even the notoriously right-wing Time magazine is reluctant to give much credit to Obama for his efforts in Iraq:

By negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government shortly before leaving office, Bush made Obama's job a lot easier — because that agreement sets a cast-iron deadline for withdrawing all U.S. troops...

The moment in which the U.S. was able to significantly change the outcome in Iraq passed sometime before Bush left office; Obama is simply wrapping things up.

A couple of years ago, Biden himself agreed:

Biden said he delivered this message in a recent meeting at the White House, where he told Bush: “Mr. President this is your war."

Obama's War on Child Obesity Shows What is Wrong with Government

Quick! What do you do if you want to lose weight? Take your time; I can wait.

Did you say: eat less, eat better, and exercise more? If you did, you are way ahead of Barack Obama, who today announced the he needs a "task force" to figure out what to do about the epedemic of childhood obesity.

Like everything Obama, it seems that obesity is yet another crisis that requires "a coordinated Federal response." When Obama was deciding about the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial, he reportedly allowed one person to make the call. But fat kids? The Obama team will partner with public health professionals and private companies to solve the crisis.

While childhood obesity is no laughing matter (full disclosure, I suffered from childhood obesity and again adult obesity), the typical government hysteria is hilarious.

Get this. It is going to take the secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Education; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady; the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; and the heads of other executive departments, agencies, or offices as the Chair may designate 90 days to figure out how to get kids to lose weight.

How about this: Hey kid. Put down the Wii controller and get outside and play real baseball. And tonight, no Chinese food take-out. Print out a few thousand posters for schools to put up and run a PSA or two. Done.

Here lies the problem with government. No matter what the problem, it takes a massive effort to do the simplest thing. Countless personnel, endless funding, blue-ribbon panels all to solve a problem that is none of their damn business anyway.

Add to that, the condescending attitude of this particular administration, who promises to empower parents with information and tools to make good choices for themselves and their families.

Thanks, Barack, for your support in believing that I am screwing up my kids. Thank God you and Michelle are here to set things right. What have we done without ye?

"They feel like the deck is stacked against them. They feel guilty," (Michelle Obama) said. "We need to help them."

Ms. First Lady, we need your help like we need a shovel to the head. Speaking for myself, I do not need your help to make good choices for myself and my family, thank you very much.

What was it that we used to say when I was dealing with childhood obesity? Oh yeah. MYOB*!!

One last note, do you think that people will laugh at the ridiculously-titled Let's Move campaign the way they did for Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign? Yeah, me neither.

*mind you own business

Scott Brown and the Party of "No"

As Massacusetts Senator-Elect Scott Brown prepares to be sworn-in to the U.S. Senate today, all the typical voices are full-throated with claims of staus quo and the party of no.

Well, if all that Scott Brown does in his time in the Senate is say "No" to every Barack Obama proposal, I am OK with that:

Obama: I want to destroy the medical care system in the country.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to tax people who happen to carry their own insurance by 40%.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to control what kind of medical services your doctor can provide.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to cause energy rates to 'necessarily skyrocket.'
Brown: No

Obama: I want to cripple industry through this dubious cap-and-trade program.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to give full Constitutional and legal rights -- including full legal disclosure of intelligence secrets -- to admitted terrorists."
Brown: No

Obama: I want to spend trillions of dollars on 'stimulus' programs that don't seem to be working.
Brown: No

Obama: I want to burden future generations with untold deficits.
Brown: No

Sounds good to me. After all, Paul Kirk was hand-picked to replace Ted Kennedy simply because he would say "Yes" to everything Obama/Reid/Pelosi. So, when the voters of Massachusetts decide to actually elect a candidate to carry a different message, I say:
Go Scott! No!