Tag Archives: healthcare

Best Post-Debate Roundup (Taiwanese)

Last night the candidates for President met for the first time in a debate setting.  You’ve probably seen the spin machines already at work and had your e-mail inundated.  For a brief but complete (and absolutely hilarious) roundup of the debate, watch below.

You almost don’t need the subtitles.

Advertisements

Do Democrats Really Want To Campaign On Their Medicare Record?

The Democrats seem to think that they can win by making Medicare reform a key issue in the upcoming election.  They hope to scare seniors in crucial battleground states like Florida and Ohio – telling them that Paul Ryan’s budget would “end Medicare as we know it”.

Well, Obamacare HAS ended medicare as we know it.  The Romney/Ryan campaign points out that The Affordable Care Act stole $716 billion out of Medicare; cutting benefits for seniors, giving us bureaucrat run rationing boards, and bankrupting the trust fund.  If the Democrats insist on attacking Ryan and Romney over their plans, then Democrats will have to defend their own as well.

National Review lays out rather succinctly why this strategy may be a losing one for the Obama campaign.

Their defenses so far fall into roughly three categories: Ryan did it too, the Obamacare Medicare cuts aren’t very serious, and finally what can only be called frantic distractions. Even as pure demagoguery (let alone as efforts at actual substantive arguments) all three are exceptionally weak defenses, and suggest the Democrats could be in serious trouble. Let’s examine each one.

The “Ryan did it too” defense is perhaps the most amusing of the three, as it succeeds in being simultaneously untrue, irrelevant, and an admission of the basic charge against the Democrats. Even as they call Paul Ryan a cruel and merciless budget cutter who cares not for the weather service and would gladly see children exposed to E. coli, the Democrats justify their taking $710 billion out of Medicare and spending it on Obamacare over the next decade by pointing out that Paul Ryan didn’t put that money back into Medicare in his budget. So if he had, would that have made their cuts unjustifiable? Well it so happens that he did. By repealing all of Obamacare’s spending, the Republican budget does not spend the money Obamacare took out of Medicare and thus those funds are used to extend the Medicare trust fund. And this point is hardly hidden in the Ryan budget. The budget document spells it out in its spending tables and also explains it in its narrative section, noting on page 54 that:

This budget ends the raid on the Medicare trust fund that began with passage of the new health care law last year. It ensures that any potential savings in current law would go to shore up Medicare, not to pay for new entitlements. In addition to repealing the health care law’s new rationing board and its unfunded long-term care entitlement, this budget stabilizes plan choices for current seniors

The Republicans so far are giving as good as they get; staying on offense where Medicare is concerned.  Check out the new video:

 

Ron Paul Votes To Allow Sex and Race Selective Abortions

Yesterday the House of Representatives attempted to pass H.R. 3541 The Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA) sponsored by Trent Franks (R – AZ).

A BILL

To prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes.

This bill would make it a federal crime for a doctor to perform an abortion based on the race or gender of a child.  The vote, called under a suspension of House rules limiting floor debate, failed when it did not meet the 2/3rd majority required.  When the count was complete, a clear majority of 246-168 representatives had voted to pass the bill – 30 short of the required number.  Seventeen cowards just failed to vote while twenty Democrats supported the bill (see list at the bottom of this post). The seven Republicans (not) led by Ron Paul (TX) to vote to allow the abortion of unborn children based on their race or sex are Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), and Nan Hayworth (N.Y.).

If you are wondering what could have been so controversial in this bill that it warranted “no” votes from these staunch defenders of life, let us look at the bill:

H.R. 3541, Section (1)(A)-(B):

SEX DISCRIMINATION FINDINGS.—

Women are a vital part of American society and culture and possess the same fundamental human rights and civil rights as men.

United States law prohibits the dissimilar treatment of males and females who are similarly situated and prohibits sex discrimination in various contexts, including the provision of employment, education, housing, health insurance coverage, and athletics.

H.R. 3541, Section (2)(A)-(C):

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION FINDINGS.—

Minorities are a vital part of American society and culture and possess the same fundamental human rights and civil rights as the majority.

United States law prohibits the dissimilar treatment of persons of different races who are similarly situated. United States law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in various contexts, including the provision of employment, education, housing, health insurance coverage, and athletics.

A ‘‘race-selection abortion’’ is an abortion performed for purposes of eliminating an unborn child because the child or a parent of the child is of an undesired race. Race-selection abortion is barbaric, and described by civil rights advocates as an act of race-based violence, predicated on race discrimination. By definition, race-selection abortions do not implicate the health of mother of the unborn, but instead are elective procedures motivated by race bias.

There will be several directions that the Ron Paul camp can take to explain away their candidate’s support of discrimination and infanticide.  The first will almost certainly be to claim that the power to restrict abortion is not amongst the enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution as it is currently amended.  This allows him to take political cover and spur his supporters with the “it’s unconstitutional” and “it’s a 10th Amendment/state’s rights issue” rallying cries.  But it’s crap.  I give you Amendment V in the Bill of Rights:

No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

And the power to make laws enforcing this amendment are enumerated in Article I, Section 8:

… make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,

The only way that Mr. Paul can refute this Constitutional authority is to deny the personhood of an unborn child.  I look forward to his explanation of that.

Now that the first excuse has been debunked, let us move on.  The second argument most likely to emerge in an effort to explain away Paul’s inexcusable vote allowing racist and sexist abortions is that H.R. 3541 did not go far enough.  Supporters will say that nothing short of a total ban on abortion will suffice.  Well I call that cowardice.  It took this nation 78 years and 600,000 dead to end slavery.  That cost was paid even though the Constitution eliminated the importation of slaves just 20 years after its passage.  you don’t win a war in one day and you don’t win it with one battle.  Victories are cumulative.  By voting against this bill, Representative Paul has handed the infanticide lobby a victory.

This is no intellectual exercise.  Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills are recommending every day excuses and ways for mothers kill their unborn children.  The reason can be as callous as the parents bought the wrong color baby clothes. (sarcasm alert)  Recent undercover videos show the practice is happening in the United States today.

The last spin that I will address that we will likely hear from the Paul campaign will be that the measure punishes doctors too severely for what could be called a “thought crime”.  Let us return once more to the bill:

H.R. 3541, Section 3: 

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE UNBORN ON THE BASIS OF RACE OR SEX.

Whoever knowingly—

(1) performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child;

(2) uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion;

(3) solicits or accepts funds for the performance of a sex-selection abortion or a race-selection abortion; or

(4) transports a woman into the United States or across a State line for the purpose of obtaining a sex-selection abortion or race-selection abortion; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

The bill goes further.  It allows that:

  • Relatives may sue to prevent an abortion based on these criteria.
  •   Doctors who perform these procedures may be sued by the patient, a child that survives the procedure, or relatives of the child – including the father.
  • Groups violating this bill will be deemed as having violated title IV, section 601  of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and therefore lose their federal funding.
  • Licensed medical professionals would be required to report sex or race selective procedures.
  • Mothers can not be prosecuted for having had such a procedure

Hmmm.  Does anyone see a “thought crime” here?  I didn’t think so.

Congressman Paul has long claimed to champion conservative and pro-life causes.  He uses his credentials as a physician to support his “principles”.  First, he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.  He abandoned that yesterday.  Second, he has sworn a Hippocratic Oath to protect health and life.  How can his vote in opposition to H.R. 3541 yesterday be seen as anything other than another failed opportunity to defend his purported principles?

Remember, this is the guy who in 2008 was so peeved at not winning the Republican presidential nomination that he told his supporters to go out and vote for anyone else.  This suggestion included by name the avowed communist candidate Cynthia McKinney whom he was sharing the stage with that day.  If not his brand of conservatism, he prefers communism.  If not his version of pro-life, he prefers no life.

*****

Democrats voting in favor of H.R. 3541 are Jason Altmire (Pa.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Mark Critz (Pa.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Tim Holden (Pa.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Silvestre Reyes (Texas), Mike Ross (Ark.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.).

Obama Wants Wounded Veterans To Pay For Own Healthcare

I know that this story is a little old now, but I have to wonder how many of us heard about this from the mainstream media.  From CNN:

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

Lawmakers say they’d reject a proposal to make veterans pay for treatment of war wounds with private insurance.

…the proposal would be “dead on arrival” if it’s sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

With veterans making up almost 13% of the adult voting population, you’d think Obama might be more careful in how he treats them.  A recent Gallup survey shows the president is in serious trouble when it comes to veteran voters as this graph shows.

Say what you want about our 4th greatest president, a split like this amongst voters who have already shown that they are willing to make sacrifices in the defense of their nation has to be troublesome.  These are not sunshine patriots that can be kept from the polls by bad weather or media spin.  They will come out in November and they will vote.

Media Attacks Catholics Instead Of Reporting On Obamacare Lawsuits

Still silent over the 43 lawsuits filed earlier this week by Catholic institutions across the country, major media outlets decide today to cover instead decades old stories of alleged abuse.  Is this a concerted effort to bury the embarrassing news that churches have been forced to sue the government of the one nation on Earth FOUNDED on the principle of freedom?  Smear and distract is a tactic that the left has used to great effect since Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was published in 1971.  I think the proof that this IS the approach chosen by the lame-stream media is in the fact that ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts have spent just 19 seconds in the past 72 hours on the fight to protect the conscientious objections of millions of religious people and dozens of related organizations and schools from the forced imposition of a bureaucrats morality (is there such a thing?).

Since the media has chosen their side, it seems that Christians of other denominations are choosing theirs.  Today the leaders of 10 prominent non-Catholic religious groups have spoken out about the obvious bias of the media illustrated by their refusal to cover the story.  They are:

Tony Perkins – President, Family Research Council

Gary L. Bauer – Former Presidential Candidate, President American Values; Chairman the Campaign for Working Families

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01)

Dr. Charmaine Yoest – President and CEO of Americans United for Life

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon – Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Andrea Lafferty – President, Traditional Values Coalition

Dr. Keith Wiebe – President. American Association of Christian Schools

Mathew Staver – Founder and Chairman, Liberty Counsel; Dean and Professor, Liberty University School of Law; Director, Liberty Center for Law and Policy

Phylls Schlafly – Founder and President, Eagle Forum

Gregory Baylor – ADF Senior Counsel

The excoriating comments in their statements illustrate the frustration that many Christians feel daily as the media denigrates their faith, dilutes their traditions, and dismisses their principles.

Obama, his liberal cronies, and the sycophantic mainstream media shrug off the concerns of the faithful and conscientious of America.  This alone will not cost him the election.  The president will lose the coming election over his horrendous economic policies.  But, will America lose her soul before his immoral bureaucracy is uprooted?

(Read more on how this story began here and here.)

Catholic Church Sues Smartest President Ever

The media cycle can be brutal in today’s fast-paced world.  Dozens of interesting stories spawn each day that cry out for the main-stream reporter’s attentions.  Knowing that there is only so much ink and so many propagandists journalists, crucial decisions must be made to ensure that the public stays well-informed about the issues that will affect them the most.  Checking in at the websites of CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times shows us what we as informed media consumers must be most interested in.  We see coverage of important issues such as Passenger’s implant claim triggers flight diversion, US drug agents face probe for hiring prostitutes in Colombia, and Facebook I.P.O. Raises Regulatory Concerns.

But, nowhere to be found is mention of the dozens of lawsuits filed yesterday by Catholic Organizations representing millions of Americans.  There is not one blurb regarding the litigation against the Obama administration and the Department of Health and Human Services over their trampling of the 1st Amendment liberties of religious organizations and conscientious Americans.  I guess the media consuming public is more interested in stories like Iowa Man With Zebra, Parrot in Truck Gets DUI and Zombie blondes invade Facebook with fake profiles than in the pending decision by the United States Supreme Court over the constitutionality of Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act legislation.

The new media is where you have to go to get the real news these days.  Feel free to read the excellent article by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air for all the details on the stand that the Catholic Church is taking in defense of yours and their constitutional rights.

What Should You Give For Mother’s Day?

According to the White House, you should get her affordable healthcare.  In the latest cynical politicization of American culture, the White House presents to Mom’s this card.

Leaving aside the several glaring misrepresentations, I just flat-out resent the implication that if you are against the Affordable Care Act then you are against Moms women’s health.   At least someone in the administration managed to get something right with the other Mother’s Day card.

Military moms and wives around the world deserve our thanks and respect for the sacrifices that they make every day.   Use this day to honor mothers.  Don’t use them to further your political agenda.

A few more reasons to vaccinate your kids…

For over a decade now, the fad amongst “helicopter parents” (always hovering, overprotective) has been to refuse to vaccinate their children against childhood diseases.  The movement began decades ago when some faulty research studies falsely linked several developmental and disabling conditions with childhood vaccines.  These studies have been debunked over and over yet the idiotic practice continues.  Unlike smallpox, these diseases still run rampant in less developed portions of the world… and amongst the broods of these negligent parents.

When confronted with the factual data on childhood vaccination these parents will often fall back on worries over allergic reactions.  Any quick review of the disability and mortality rates of rare allergic reaction versus mumps, measles, or polio leads reasoning adults to the conclusion that vaccination (under physician supervision) is the proper course of action.

Since today is the anniversary of the announcement of Dr. Salk’s polio vaccine, I felt I should serve up some history of what this childhood plague wrought in this country.

Presidents and personalities thought it important to ensure that the immunization message got out.

FDR allowed this one and only photo of him in a wheelchair to be used by the March of Dimes.  He suffered paralysis from polio most of his life.  The White House had to be converted to accommodate the president’s special needs… including a heated therapy pool.

Elvis felt so strongly about supporting the March of Dimes that he got his shot on the Ed Sullivan Show from Dr. Salk personally.  He got to see first hand what the polio epidemic did to America’s children.

The Polio Survivors Association has more information on the disease, the fight to eradicate it, survivors tales and more.  Take a minute to check out their resources.

Polio is on the rise again in the world.  Several years ago, a few prominent Islamic scholars came out against vaccination saying that it was an “abomination” and corruption of the body” invented by the West to corrupt children.  Incidences of polio have become endemic to several countries in the region since this declaration.  With the speed of modern travel, an unvaccinated child is just one trip to a tourist spot from possible exposure.  Don’t make a misinformed choice that can last a lifetime.  Protect your family and get EVERYONE vaccinated.

So, do you still think Obamacare was a good idea?

I can’t really expand much on the following chart.  With simple elegance it displays how totally inept President Obama has been in his approach to healthcare.  That is unless you feel that he really believes socialism is what the American people voted for in ’08.

Which side of the fence are you on?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test.  You can’t get any more accurate than this!

___________________________________________________

Which side of the fence?

  • If a Republican doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
  • If a Democrat doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
  • If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
  • If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
  • If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
  • If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
  • If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how To better his situation.
  • A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
  • If a Republican doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches to other channels.
  • Democrats demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
  • If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
  • A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
  • If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
  • A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
  • If a Republican reads this, he’ll forward it to his friends.
  • A Democrat will delete it because he’s “offended”.

Which will you do?

(Hat tip to the Vermont Bushwhacker for this e-mail.)