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.

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.

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.

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.