National Health Care
and Mass Failure:
The Reasons it is a Dead Issue
by
Victor Edward Swanson,
publisher
The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 20551
Ferndale, Michigan 48220
copyright 2010
August 5, 2010
(Version 58)
(draft version)
An Introduction Lesson to Remember
When a man works to hurt millions of persons,
you have a man who likes to hurt other persons, and when
that man is a politician who has shown himself to be
a megalomaniac and a narcissist, you have a man with
a highly ill mind and a man who is insane, and when that
man signs a law that is a giant lie and deception about
health care and radically changes a health-care industry
of a country for the worse, you have man who is dangerous,
and, today, that man is Barack Hussein Obama.
National Health Care
and Mass Failure:
The Reasons it is a Dead Issue
In the title of this document, which is fully called National Health Care and Mass Failure: The Reasons it is a Dead Issue, the set of words "Dead Issue" is a set of words that I regularly use when I note that something that is to be started is clearly going to be a failure, and, certainly, one time that I used the term "dead issue" was when AAA Michigan chose to start up a weekday local-traffic-based traffic service for radio stations scattered around Michigan in 2000 and shut down the then-existing traffic services. For this document, National Health Care and Mass Failure: The Reasons it is a Dead Issue, the set of words "Dead Issue" has more than a meaning noting that something is going to be a dead system right from the start--it also notes that people will certainly end up dead because of a national-health-care system, as will be shown through information provided in this document. This document is a rather short presentation of a logic puzzle that I have been thinking about for some time, and it is not based on feelings and emotions, which some people seem to think make up the most useful parts of an analysis of any subject.
Thought Number One:
One reason that the national-health-care system will fail is Barack Obama, as is noted here:
Barack Obama is a liar with a defective mind, as is shown in my document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama, and Barack Obama has shown himself to be a man who cannot be trusted on or with anything.
Barack Obama is a dangerous man, who, for one, will use intimidation and coercion on people, and only one example that is how, in his bid to have the federal government and the UAW take control of Chrysler Corporation from the private sector in early 2009, the White House intimidated bond holders with character assassination, forcing them to accept less control of Chrysler Corporation through bankruptcy than they should have gotten, and you will find evidence of this in the document entitled Madness in a President and Other Matters of a Defective Mind (a segment of this document is entitled Frank Beckmann of WJR-AM Interviews Tom Lauria, an Attorney in Chrysler Mess).
Barack Obama has shown through interviews and statements that he is willing to hurt the country. For example, he has threatened to tax coal-based electric-generation plants into bankruptcy, and he said that electricity rates should go sky high. To see evidence of such statements, you should see the document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama.
Barack Obama has a defective foreign policy and has put down the country when in foreign countries, and, for instance, he has been chummy with such dictators as the Castro Brothers of Cuba and the President of Venezuela, who gave Barack Obama, as a gift, an anti-U.S. book, and Barack Obama gladly accepted the book, and Barack Obama has shown other ways in which he dislikes the country, such as his dislike of the way in which The U.S. Constitution is set up.
Barack Obama believes in the teachings of Saul Alinsky, a communist, and Barack Obama follows the teachings of Saul Alinsky's book entitled (in short) Rules of Radicals (you should see T.H.A.T. #59, which notes how Saul Alinsky's son said that Barack Obama "...learned his lessons well.", and to see T.H.A.T. #59, you might now use this link: T.H.A.T. #59).
Barack Obama is instrumental in the process to close down a voucher program for disadvantaged school children in Washington, D.C. The work to close down the school program shows that Barack Obama does not really care for disadvantaged children, especially those in the big cities with bad school systems, which have been run by, in essence, Democrats (of the Democratic Party) for years, and it also shows the Democrats have no real wish to fix public school systems. (By the way, around the first few months of 2009, the illiteracy rate for adults in Detroit, Michigan, was about 47 percent.) Officially, in March 2009, Barack Obama set off the process to close down the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program in the Washington, D.C., area, and that program was a voucher program, and, in early May 2009, protests by parents and children (students) who knew the program was giving children a chance to get a better education than that offered in the public schools pushed Barack Obama to fund the program till all the students currently in the program were graduated, but no new students could enroll in the program, so the program will end in the near future, which will keep students in the bad Washington, D.C., schools, and that indicates what Barack Obama wants for children, and that shows what Barack Obama really thinks about people.
Barack Obama has said that he is going to "change the world," and that is an indication that he has big, big, big plans, and when someone has big, big, big plans, each thing in the plan gets poor treatment, and since he has big, big, big plans, the plans are probably all about him and the world and not about you in the world.
Thought Number Two:
One reason that the national-health-care system will fail on a mass scale is the people who are setting up such a system have not the best interests of you and the citizens in mind because the people are liars, dishonorable, defective thinkers, and not very smart, and here are facts that show the truth of my statement:
Former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle had a book published in 2008 entitled Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis, and the book is being used as the guide for creating a national-health-care system in the country, and Tom Daschle, who, in early 2009, had to drop out of the running to be the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Barack Obama because he had cheated on his income taxes, said in this book that elderly people who have illnesses will not get treatment and will have to live with their problems (till they die).
Harry Reid, who is the majority leader and a Democrat in the U.S. Senate, made this wonderful statement that shows that he has a disdain for people: "...In summertime, because (of) the high humidity and how hot it gets here, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol...." This statement was made on December 2, 2008, when the new way-way-over-budget Capitol Visitors Center was opened up in Washington, D.C. (For more on this subject, you should see the document entitled Michigan Travel Tips #56, which can be reached at this link: Travel #56.)
Since Barack Obama, other Democrats in the upper levels of the federal government, such as Harry Reid, and other persons, such as Tom Daschle, do not like the people of the United States of America, they are not very likely to do well for the health care of the people of the United States of America--these politicians or elites are interested in controlling people and political offices and getting elected by giving people what they think they want even if what is wanted will actually be bad.
Thought Number Three:
One reason that the national-health-care system will fail is it will be run by federal government, and the federal government is a poor manager of anything. For example, for years and years, the Social Security System as been run defectively, and it is, in essence, bankrupt, and Medicare and Medicaid are also, in essence, bankrupt. The Social Security System, Medicare, and Medicaid are called "unsecured liabilities" of the federal government, which means the federal government does not take in enough taxes from businesses and individuals to fund them. The total amount of "unsecured liability" for only Social Security and Medicare as noted in April 2008 is at about $101.7 trillion (in today's dollars), which is ten times the national debt and seven times the U.S. economy (Villarreal, Pamela. "Social Security and Medicare Projections: 2008," National Center for Policy Analysis, No. 161, 30 April 2008, p. NA.). A national-health-care system will cost many trillions of dollars, and if you add the cost of a national-health-care system to the cost for running Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and since the cost of a national-health-care system would have a rise in costs every year, as the other three will, the unfunded liability of all four would be trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions..., and that will result in failure on a mass scale.
Remember: $101.7 trillion is $101,000,000,000,000.00 (and that is an incredible, incredible, incredible amount of money, beyond the comprehension of most people).
Thought Number Four:
One reason that the national-health-care system will fail is it will help bankrupt the country. In the first two months of 2009, Barack Obama pushed through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (which was signed into law on February 17, 2009), and it was professed to be a "jobs bill," but the act is really a Democratic Party pushed deep, deep deficit act that, in the next few decades will help keep people poor or poorer than they should have to be, because the federal government will have to tax people and businesses to death, and, in fact, between August 2008 and the date in which you read this document, the federal government has spent or has proposed to spend an incredible amount on money on things, and the total amount is somewhere between eight-trillion dollars (or $8,000,000,000,000.00) and at least ten-trillion dollars (or $10,000,000,000,000.00). The country cannot afford the cost of a national-health-care system, especially since the country is in a recession and Barack is causing the closing of companies in the private sector (companies create jobs and wealth for people, and the government creates nothing).
Thought Number Five:
One reason that the national-health care system will fail is it is being set up to purposely destroy the health-care industry in the country, as noted in a speech made by U.S. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky.
U.S. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (a Democrat related to Illinois) gave a speech at a rally for health-care reform on April 18, 2009, that noted that the Democrats--headed by Barack Obama--wish to destroy the health-care insurance industry, and one part of her speech was: "...And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who was there to argue against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn't let private insurance compete--their public option would put the private insurance industry out of business." The crowd cheered and maded it hard for Jan Schakowsky to be heard. "...He was right! The man was right! I, ah, I here's what I told him--'I said excuse me, sir! The goal of health-care reform is not to protect the private health-care industry.'" The crowd made more noise and made it hard for Jan Schakowsky to be heard. "I am so confident in the superiority of the public health-care option that I think he had every reason to be frightened...."
In July 2008, Jacob Hacker of the New America Foundation said, "...Someone once said to me, 'This is a Trojan horse for a single-payer.' Well, I said, 'It's not a Trojan horse, right? It's right, there. I'm telling you. We're going to get there over time--slowly--but we'll move away from a reliance on employer-based health insurance, as we should, but we'll do it in a way that we're not gonna to frighten people into thinking that they're going to lose their private insurance. We're going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when you're in the pool, and we're going to let them keep their private-employment-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it...."
A national-health-care system is not being made to be better than the current systems of health care in the country--there is simply an attack going on to destroy years of work and the lives of people and the plans of people, and the government is purposely creating fear to destroy the lives of people and, in the end, the United States of America..
Thought Number Six:
One reason that the national-health-care system will fail is that the health-care system that is being set up is not being set up through logical discussion. The system is being put together by only a few persons, the head of whom is Barack Obama, a man who has no real accomplishments to his name and who has never run a business, and the system is being put together by people who have not created any good health-care system, especially in such vast size as that which will be within the United States of America. Remember: The current health-care industry in the country is the best in the world, and it has been developed over the decades through the work of many minds, especially doctors and researchers who strive to set ever-higher standards of care (however, I do note that the federal government has adversely affected the health-care system in the country since the 1960s at least, such as by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson (a Democrat), who pushed through the poorly devised Medicaid).
Thought Number Seven:
One reason that the national-health care system will fail is socialism always fails for all things--and especially for health care--since socialism always provides the lowest common denominator for all persons, and, ultimately, the people in control do not strive for better procedures and drugs, not having minds that, for instance, have the instincts to try new procedures or gamble on trying to create new procedures. It has been shown that, for instance, the national-health-care systems, which are socialist national-health-care systems, of Australia, Canada, and the U.K. are failed systems. For instance, I have heard from persons in person and in interviews on radio, how the government-run health-care systems in Canada and the U.K. are bad for the elderly, since the health-care systems ration dollars and care, such as to cancer patients, who would otherwise survive for years and years if given care like that offered in the U.S., and I have talked to people who have had problems with the Canadian health-care system. To see articles that show how the health-care system in England is in a mess, you should go to www.liberty-page.com, and look for the material related to England, and you will uncover many, many articles of newspapers and magazines that show the problems, such as the lack of dentists (caused by people not taking up the field of dentistry).
Thought Number Eight:
One reason that the national-health-care system will fail is the Barack Obama administration is filled with corrupt people, such as liars and tax cheats, and it is very likely that there will be fraud associated with the national-health-care system, and evidence of this can be found in such documents at the Web site for The Hologlobe Press as Madness in a President and Other Matters of a Defective Mind, Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, and THOUGHTS AND PIECES OF LOGIC for the individual woman and the individual man,
Yes, nothing is perfect, and the health-care industry in the country could use a few fixes, and one of the big fixes it needs is that which stops people from suing in court and getting awarded super-extravagant judgements that make malpractice insurance premiums incredibly high for doctors and hospitals, and one other big fix that is needed is the health-care industry should not have to cover illegal aliens, which has to be done for free (illegal aliens should return to their countries and change their countries for the better or do nothing). The reform in the health-care system of the country that is being proposed is a complete reform and not a move to repair the few bad parts, most of which involve government!
Special note #1: Between January 20, 2009, and July 17, 2009, Barack Obama said that he is pushing for health-care reform to save the country money, but Barack Obama is a liar, as is shown in a piece of text that I present in which Douglas W. Elmendorf, who is the director of the Congressional Budget Office, answered a question posed to him by U.S. Senator Kent Conrad (of North Dakota) on July 16, 2009:
Kent Conrad: "Do you see the successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?"
Douglas W. Elmendorf: "No, Mr. Chairman. In the legislation that's been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And, on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs...."
Barack Obama is pushing death to the health-care industry in the country and, in essence, the country!Special note #2: On Tuesday, July 21, 2009, Mark R. Levin (during his nationally syndicated radio program entitled The Mark Levin Show) read information about some of what is in the health-care bill (the U.S.House of Representatives version) being forced on the American public on by Barack Obama and at least high-ranking Democrats in the U.S. Congress:
"...Obama doesn't know what was in the bill, running around saying the American people want this. We will link to this: Economic Policy Journal dot com. Peter Fleckstein, who reviewed this very carefully. I can't read all of it. Here's some examples that were in fact in this bill. Page 42, the Health Choices Commissioner will choose your health-care benefits for you. You have no choice. Page 50, Section 152, health care will be provided to all non-U.S. citizens--illegal or otherwise. Page 58, government will have real-time access to individual's finances, and national, a national I.D. health card will be issued to each of us. Page 59, government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic-funds transfer. Page 72, government is creating a health-care exchange to bring private health-care plans under government control. Page 84, government mandates all benefits packages for private health-care plans in the exchange. Page 85, specif, specifies benefit levels for the plans. The government will ration your health care!.... Page 95, the government will use groups--that is ACORN and AmeriCorps--to sign up individuals for the government health-care plan. Page 85, specifies benefit levels for plans. ARP [AARP] members, your health care will be rationed! Page 124, no company can sue the government on price fixing. No judicial review against the government monopoly! You got that? So you have no recourse! None! Page 127, doctors, AMA, the government will tell you what you can make. Page 145, employer must automatically enroll employees in the public-option plan. No choice! Page 126--make that page 146--employers must pay for health care for part-time employees and their families. Page 149, any employer with payrolls of four-hundred-thousand and above...[and] does not provide public option pays eight-percent tax on payroll above all other payroll taxes. Page 150, businesses with payroll between two-fifty-one and four-hundred-thousand who don't provide public option may pay a two-to-six- percent tax on all payroll. [Page] 167, any individual who doesn't have acceptable health care according to the government will be taxed two-and-a-half percent of their income. And it goes on and on and on. But Obama doesn't know what's in this bill, folks! He doesn't know. Government sets value of the doctor's time. Professional judgement! Literally the value of human beings. Page 253! Page 265, government mandates and controls productive for private-care industries. Page 268, federal govenment regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs. And on and on! Page 317, prohibition on ownership and investment--government tells doctors what and how they can own something. I guess they don't want them in the ownership of facilities business. Page 317, government is mandating hospitals cannot expand--hospitals have option to apply for exception, but community input required. Can you say ACORN? And, dah, well. You see, folks, it's very, very important that you do know what are in these bills, that you do know who controls, that you do know who's going to be punished! You will!..."
Note: You should read the entry for July 21, 2009, that is within my document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama. It notes how Barack Obama answered a question about a feature of the bill, and Barack Obama said that he is unaware of the feature. See the entry!
See: The "Special Note #22" section.Special note #3: During the time of Adolph Hitler's Nazi Party in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, children were urged to spy on their parents and report when their parents said something that was against Adolph Hitler or the Nazi Party, and, on Tuesday, August 4, 2009, I was listening to The Rush Limbaugh Show (which is syndicated nationally), and I heard Rush Limbaugh read material from a federal-government Web site, and what he read noted that the federal government has a Web site at which people can report when they come across on the Internet, such as in e-mail form, text that seems to be suspicious--that is, reports things about the proposed health-care bills (the U.S. House of Representatives bill about health care or the U.S. Senate bill about health care) that dispute what Barack Obama is saying about the bills--and you should understand it is the federal government that is urging people, such as people associated with ACORN, to report--like spies or secret communist informants--on other persons, especially persons who write material that is against the health-care bills (but, I think, the spies or informants could report other information about people, too). The Web site e-mail address is: flag@whitehouse.gov. Notice the "flag" part of the address. Barack Obama is using "flag" it seems to me to make a person think that a person who reports it doing what is patriotic for the country or for the "flag", but it is not--it is like communism and like what is done in a communist country, such as Russia and China. And Barack Obama is putting "communism" on Old Glory.
Update to "Special Note #3": By Monday, August 7, 2009, the Web site had been shut down it seems, but, of course, that did not mean the information already gathered would not be used by Barack Obama in some way, and Barack Obama still had the Web site known as whitehouse.gov/realitycheck.
Special note #4: In early August 2009, Sarah Palin (the most recent former governor of Alaska) noted that the Barack Obama was trying to set up "death panels," which would be made up of bureaucrats who would determine whether or not someone would get medical treatment, and around the same time, Barack Obama, who had for weeks said that you "could keep your doctor" under the proposed federal monopolist heath-care system that he was setting up, made this statement: "...If a family-care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether their taking their medication in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's thirty thousand, forty, fifty thousands dollars. Immediately, the surgeon is reimbursed. But why not make sure that we're also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation. Right? That will save us money...." [Barack Obama is liar and spews nonsense. A doctor does not get anything over $30,000 dollars to remove a leg (I have heard reports that a doctor will get somewhere near $1,000, such as through a report presented on The Rush Limbaugh Program around this time). Barack Obama is hinting that doctors are doing amputations to make big money, and that is a lie, and Barack Obama is trying to make you believe that doctors your enemy, though Barack Obama has said that, "under his plan," you "will be able to keep your doctor," which is a lie, as is noted in the U.S. House of Representatives health-care plan that was public knowledge around early August 2009.] Remember, in the recent past, Barack Obama had made this statement: "...solve every difficult problem in terms of en, end-of-life care. A lot of it's going to have to be--we as a culture and a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and, and, ah, for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system--that's not make anybody's mom better--ah, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily gonna improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know--'You know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe, you're better off, ah, not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer....'" [Study the statement well, and study the statements made by Barack Obama that I list in my document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama. Barack Obama spews crap!]
Special note #5: The national-socialist health-care system of Germany, under Adolph Hitler, of the 1930s and 1940s began to be developed in 1883, and the national-health-care system of England, which is a disaster, especially for the elderly today, was created in 1948, and Barack Obama is working to create a national-socialist medical system in the United States of America today, which is not surprising since Barack Obama is a communist and socialist and a "leftist" (by the way, Adolph Hitler was a "leftist").
Warning: On the weekend of Saturday, August 15, 2009/Sunday, August 16, 2009, numerous high-ranking Democrats of the U.S. Congress were saying, such as on television shows, that the "public option" (a federal-government run health-care system) did not necessary have to be in either the health-care bill of the U.S. House of Representatives or what might come out of the U.S. Senate, and they were talking about "co-ops," and you should be aware "co-ops" (or "cooperatives") will do the same or be the same as a "public-option" idea when the co-ops are run by the federal government or must abide by federal rules, and, remember, such entities can be created and then can be easily taken over by the federal government through other federal bills that are made laws in the future--probably, in the near future.
Special note #6: When a politician tries to push a bill quickly into law without really letting the public know what is in the bill, as Barack Obama has tried to do with, for one, the health-care bill of the U.S. House of Representatives (HR 3200), a citizen should be worried that the bill contains much that is bad. On August 7, 2009, Sarah Palin, the most recent former governor of Alaska, made a statement about Barack Obama and Barack Obama's health-care-bill push, and here is some of the statement: "...The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil....' (To see the entire statement, see my document entitled Patriots of the U.S.A. and the Counter-Counter Revolution, which can be reached through this link: Patriots.) In early August 2009, the health-care bill of the U.S. House of Representatives did have what can be deduced as the "death panel" idea, though not officially labeled as the "death panel" idea, and when such a panel exists in a country, it determines who lives and who dies, and that is why it can be called a "death panel"--government should not be allowed to make decisions about life and death, since it is for a person or a family in association with a doctor to decide (based on many, many pieces of information and fact).
See: The "Special note #21" section.Special note #7: On June 14, 2006, Barack Obama made a comment that shows how filled with nonsense in mind was and is (other examples of his nonsense can be found in my document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama), and what he said on that 2006 day was: "...Ah, and I think a good example is health care. Ah, you know, the president, ah, ah, allowed drug companies and insurance companies to help write the Prescription Drug Bill. We now have the worst of both worlds! Ah, we got the price gouging of the private sector and the bureaucracy of the public sector...." Study the text from Barack Obama. Notice how Barack Obama put down the bureaucracy of the public sector, noting it was bad, and, yet, today, Barack Obama is trying to make the health-care system in the country a government-run entity and only a government-supplied system (which will be filled with bureaucracy).
Special note #8: Bloomberg reported on August 28, 2009, that Barack Obama was working to cut 1.4-billion dollars in payments to doctors in relation to Medicare and medical care focusing on the heart disease and cancer next year, and you should see that that can be defined as working to ration health care focusing on heart disease and cancer (Nussbaum, Alex, and Lisa Rapaport. "Cardiologists Crying Four Over Obama Medicare Cuts (Update 1)." Bloomberg.com, 28 August 2009.). (Remember: In the past, I have reported in documents available at the Web site of The Hologlobe Press that rationing of health care related to cancer happens in Canada and England, where there are socialistic health-care systems.)
Special note #9: On Tuesday, September 7, 2009, Barack Obama gave a video speech to students in schools across the country, and, on the same day, Barack Obama made a comment to a young student about why the U.S. does not have a universal-health-care-coverage system, and here is what Barack Obama said: "What happened is that back in the 1940s and '50s, ah, a lot of, most of the wealthy countries around of the world decided to set up health-care systems that covered everybody. The United States for a number of different reasons organized their health care around employer-based health insurance. What happened was that the majority of Americans still have health insurance through their job...and most of them are happy with it. But a lot of people fall through the cracks...." Notice the segment that is "most of them are happy with it" in the text. Why then does Barack Obama want to completely change the health-care industry in the country? By the way, on the next day, which was September 8, Barack Obama did another health-care speech, which was presented to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, and the speech was filled with lies, and, for instance, one member in the Chamber even yelled out a comment that a statement that Barack Obama had just made was a lie (and you can see information about the person who yelled out the comment in the document of my entitled Patriots of the U.S.A. and the Counter-Counter Revoloution).
Incidentally, I say that, when a president lies or has to lie about a health-care bill, I would worry about features of the bill and the real intentions of the president.Special note #10: On September 15, 2009, Investor's Business Daily posted an article on the Internet about a new IBD/TIPP poll about doctors and Obama's proposed health-care plan. For one, the article, which was entitled "45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul," noted that 65 percent of the doctors surveyed reported that they are opposed to a national-health-care plan, and the article noted that hundreds of thousands of doctors would consider quitting or shutting down if a government health-care plan was passed. I recommend you see the article (Jones, Terry. "45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul."Investor's Business Daily (IBD Editorials), 15 September 2009, 4:30 p.m.).
Special note #11: What features politicans are thinking about putting in a law can show how defective the politicans are--a politician's even proposing that such and such be done can show how dangerous and sick and heartless a politician is. I have an example of one feature that was being proposed for a health-care bill being pushed through the U.S. Senate around September 25, 2009, and it is a deadly feature that shows the health-care bill was not really about health care, and the example comes from a segment of The Mark Levin Show (a nationally syndicated radio show) of September 25, 2009 (a segment was presented at about 8:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time). Here is spoken material in text form that Mark Levin gave on September 25, 2009: "...Listen to this! From Politico! Senator John Ensign, Republican, Nevada, received a hand-written note yesterday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up-to nineteen-hundred-dollar fee--you see you are required to purchase insurance, if you don't, you're going to be taxed under the bill being considered by the Senate--so if you don't pay the nineteen-hundred fee--that is a tax--for not buying health insurance. So what is the penalty? Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in prison or a twenty-five-thousand-dollar penalty or both. Barthold wrote in a, ah, on a JCT letterhead--on a Joint Tax Committee letterhead [Joint Committee on Taxation]--He cited, "Sincerely, Thomas Barthold." The note was a followup to Ensign's questioning at the markup. You know when I started talking about the, the attacks on your liberty and private property years ago and when I wrote Liberty and Tyranny, I could see this coming, but I did not see this coming so fast--nobody did. So, for your sake, in order to ensure that you have affordable health care, they will tax you, and if you don't pay or can't pay the tax, they can charge you with a misdemeanor, throw you in prison, and or charge you with twenty-five-thousand dollars as a penalty! Now this is considered a moderate compromise health-care bill! You know my dad calls me every night--he's eighty-four--and he wants to discuss all this stuff, 'cause it really just upsets him to no end, and I'm so worn out by then, I can't discuss it any longer, and he'll wanna, and I know he'll wanna mention this, because this is so outrageous. It's hard to take. And this is why the people of this country are rising up...."
Special note #12: I am a person who thinks, until Barack Obama is out of office and a number of known communists, Marxists, or socialists who are in the U.S. Congress are out of office, no health-care act of any type should be enacted by the federal government, since I know what would be enacted would bad for the country, because Barack Obama and number of people of the U.S. Congress are purposely working to kill the United States of America, and, also, a lot of the members of the U.S. Congress, only some of whom call themselves Republicans, have defective minds or corrupt minds or dishonorable minds, and I would not want any of them to make a decision on a health-care law or federal act for the country. I have one example in this section of a person in the U.S. Congress who has showed himself as a person who should cannot be trusted to make a good decision on voting for what might become a health-care act. On Tuesday, September 28, 2009, U.S. Representative Alan Grayson (a Democrat related to Florida) made a statement on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives that showed how defective he is: "...And it's my duty and pride tonight to announce exactly what the Republicans plan to do for health care in America. It's this--Don't get sick. That's right! Don't get sick! If you have insurance, don't sick! If you don't have insurance, don't get sick! If you're sick, don't get sick! Just don't get sick! That's what Republicans have in mind for you, America. But I think the Republicans understand that that plan isn't always going to work. It's not a foolproof plan. So Republican have a backup plan, in case you do ge sick. If you get sick in America, this is what Republicans want you to do--Die quickly. That's right! The Republicans want you to die quickly, if you get sick!...." Such crap this man spoke! Is this the type of man you want to vote on making a sweeping health-care law for the country, especially a law that will ultimately destroy the health-care industry as it is in the country today? And you must understand Barack Obama is insane, evidence of which exists in a number of the documents that are available at the Web site for The Hologlobe Press, such as Madness in a President and Other Matters of a Defective Mind.
Special note #13: On Tuesday, October 13, 2009, I made two entries into my document entitled Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, and both entries show why you would not want the Democrats in the U.S. Congress and a few Republicans in the U.S. Congress to create a main health-care law for the country. One entry is in the "Robert Reich" section of the document, and the information in it will scare you, since it shows how Robert Reich" is a cold-hearted man, who noted how he would deny medical care to the elderly, and, today, he is closely associated with Barack Obama. Under the "Olympia Snowe" section of the document (Olympia Snowe calls herself a "Republican"), you will see she is a dangerous woman, who would pass a health-care bill, even if, for one, it goes against The U.S. Constitution. Do see those sections in Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, which can be reached by using the link at the bottom of which document.
Special note #14: For more historical information about what is bad about socialized health care, you should see the section related to Ronald Reagan in the document entitled Patriots of the U.S.A. and the Counter-Counter Revolution, which can be reached by using the end of this document, and I really do urge you to see the recommend material and show it to others.
Special note #15: On October 14, 2009, U.S. Senator Harry Reid made a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and here is some of what he said: "...The senior Senator from New Hampshire, he talked about CBO [Congressional Budget Office] saying that there'd be fifty-four-billion dollars saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice, put some restrictions--tort reform--fifty-four-billion dollars. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it, Mr. President [the president of the Chamber and not the U.S. President]? The answer is 'Yes.' But, remember, we're talking about two-trillion dollars. Fifty-four-billions dollars compared to two-trillion dollars. You can do the math. We can all do the math. It's a very small percent...." You should notice that he is downplaying tort reform and the about of potential savings, which would really be good for the current health-care industry in the country. You should notice that he said that the proposed health-care legislation is focusing on two-trillion dollars (or two-thousand-billion dollars), and that goes against what I have been hearing from many in the main media over the last few weeks and months, and their focus has been a little over a trillion dollars over ten years. Harry Reid made a slip about the amount, which has been kept mostly secret to the American public (however, some conservative talk-show hosts have noted that the amount would be much more than two-thousand-billion dollars).
Special note #16: On September 26, 2007, Robert Reich (a former Cabinet member for U.S. President Bill Clinton) made a speech to students at the University of California--Berkeley, and the part of the speech that I am going to present shows how horrible the people around Barack Obama are, and this man is an associate of Barack Obama's, and here is some of what he said:
"...give you a speech made up entirely almost at the spur of the moment of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is, and a candidate will never say, but should say if we were in a kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were, and they could separate myth from reality, ah, from, in terms of what candidates would tell them. 'Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you and, ah, I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Ah, look, we are, we have the only health-care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people, and that's true, and what I'm going to do is, I'm going to try and reorganize it to be, ah, more amenable to treating sick people, but that means you--particularly you young people, ah, particularly you young health people--you're going to have to pay more.'" There was a little clapping in the audience. "'Thank you. Ah, and, by the way, ah, we are going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those years for the last couple years of your life to keep you, maybe, going for another couple of months--it's too expensive. So, we're going to let you die!'" There was a bit more clapping. "'Ah, also, ah, I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government, ah, in terms of Medicare, Medicaid--we already have a lot of bargaining leverage--ah, to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs, but that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents.'" There was a very short clapping segment. "'Thank you.'"
I hope you have read this document from the start to this point, and with all the knowledge in mind, you should understand that Robert Reich was serious--and was foretelling the future.Special note #17: It was on Thursday, October 15, 2009, that Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. Senate did a vote that made it possible for the process known to "reconciliation" to begin in relation to U.S. House Bill HR 3200 (the health-care legislation), which, if the next steps go well for the leadership of the Democratic Party, it means the leadership--headed by Barack Obama--only needs 51 votes to say "yes" in the U.S. Senate to pass the legislation--whatever the legislation turns out to be (which, I say, will probably be very bad for the country).
Special note #18: Sometime in 2009, a little before HR 3200 would be passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Representative Mike Rogers made this speech to his colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't tell you how much I'm disappointed at what a lost opportunity we have to I think to solve a huge problem in health care in access and quality to some--even by your numbers--46 million, and that's about fifteen percentage of the American population. Abraham Lincoln said, 'You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak. And so we have decided to do today is abandon the very principles of America and say, 'You know what, it's so hard and it's so difficult, we're going to punish the eighty-five percent of Americans who have earned health-care benefits as a part of their employment, and we're going to punish them and the employers who give it to them to try to come the fifteen percent that don't have it. That doesn't hardly seem like a solution that any of us would come to. Why would we punish the part that's working to cover the part that's not? It's like taking a queen-size sheet and trying to put it over a king-size bed. I will guarantee you, the corners are going to come up! That's exactly what we've done here today. And it's this notion that it's either this or nothing is the Chairman's choice, it's the Democrats choice, that it is either this or nothing. You present us very false choices. And let me tell you about the trade-off by going to this government-run system--and, oh, clearly it is. By the way, in Section 141, under the Health Choices Commissioner Act, they can actually go in and disenroll individuals! Unprecedented power by the federal government! They can rip you off your individual plan! It's in the bill! Oh, matter of fact, if you're an employer, two-hundred-fifty-thousand dollars in payroll--payroll, that's gross payroll--not much--guess what?--they can disenroll your whole company off a certain plan. Tell me you don't work for the federal government! Unbelievable! And here's the other trade off. According to the, ah, National Cancer Institute, the National Intellig--excuse me--the National Cancer Intelligence Center of for, ah, the United Kingdom, and the Canadian Cancer Registry, here's the trade off that they've picked by having government-run health-care--if you get, ah, prostate cancer, you have a less chance of survivability than you do in the United States, and that's the same for skin cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, ov, ovarian cancer, leukemia. And the list goes on and on and on! So what you have said to America is, 'We give up. It's just too hard. The government has to do it.' That's insulting! So what you're going to do is you're going look your mothers and your daughters in the eye and say, 'I'm sorry. We couldn't figure it out. We wouldn't allow innovation to do it. We're not going to allow the private sector to fix this problem for us. That's too hard. But I am going to tell you that, if you get breast cancer, I sorry, honey, you have less of a chance of survivable than you did before this bill passed.' I will not punish any woman in America to this kind of system, knowing how great America is. The very innovation of who we are is what got us here. And it wasn't the federal government, and it wasn't Washington, D.C. It was individuals who stood up for themselves and said, 'We can do better.' And because of that, we have the greatest middle class on the face of the Earth. And this is one more tip in their ability to succeed in America. We've already told them that fear--'Energy prices, ah, were too high middle class, we're going to raise those with "cap-and-trade." Oh, by the way, we're going to tell you what car to drive. We're gonna tell you what kind of light bulb you can put in. Oh, I'm going to tell you what kind of window you have to replace your ca, your, ah, house with. And, oh, by the way, now, I'm going to pick you doctor and your plan for your future!" We must and can do better! This is a travesty, Mr. Chairman!...." [By the way, Mike Rogers talked about the "46 million," and you must be aware he was aware the figure was a wrong, but he used it anyway.]
Special note #19: Now, I present scary thought. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is a health-care advisor to Barack Obama and is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, who is like the right-arm man to Barack Obama, and Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, and Ezekiel Emanuel wrote a work entitled "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions" that was presented in Lancet in 2009 (Lancet, 31 January 2009; 373: 423-31), and the subject was health care, and here is some of their material:
"...We recommend an alternative system--the complete lives system--which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, and save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles...."
"...The complete lives system discriminates against older people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation by age or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes and falsehoods would be ageism; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not...."
"...Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants (figure). 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. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life...."
These three quotes show the sickness in the minds of the three authors, one of whom is Ezekiel Emanuel, who is a really close adviser to Barack Obama on the health-care issue, and the quotations show that the men are trying to justify the killing of the very young and the very old when resources are low--when the money that available, such as through a government-run health-care system, is low or when cutbacks have to be made--and the quotations show that the men look at people as pawns and lifeless things.
Note: Study the quotations several times to see the nonsense thought that also exists, such as "...brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-terms plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life....", and, also, think about the title of the article, which should make up throw up.Special note #20: On Tuesday, October 20, 2009, Mark R. Levin used some time of his nationally syndicated radio show (The Mark Levin Show) to play audio clips of associates of Barack Obama's to show that Barack Obama and his associates are hoping for a single-payer health-care system for the country, and here are some of the clips in text form:
U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (a Democrat associated with Wisconsin) made a speech for Democracy Now on May 5, 2009, and said in answer to a question about whether or not he wanted a single-payer system: "I do. I always have. I don't think there's any possibility that that will come out of this Congress, and so for people to simply, ah, say 'that's this, this way or nothing' are, are looking at something that can't happen now. But I would love to see it. Ah, and I believe the goal here is to create whatever any legislation have in a way that could be developed into something like a single-payer system...."
Kathleen Sebelius, who was once the governor of Kansas is the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and, in 2007, she made this statement at Harvard University: "...What we need is a national agenda and a commitment to universal health care. Hum, I'm a believer that although if you could, could wipe the slate clean and start all over again, we would never start with an employer-based insurance, ah, product. That's really where we are. Seventy-five percent of Americans who have health insurance have insurance coverage through their employers. The rest have it through government. Ah, and to dismantle something in order to get to a better, hum, cause, I think may be not as productive as closing the gap. I mean I'm all for a single-payer system, ah, eventually. I think what we have to do, though, is work with what we've got to close the gap...."
Mark R. Levin offered statements, some of which exist in earlier parts of this document, and one statement that was offered had been made by Paul Krugman in 2009. I wanted to present the clip of his statement in this document in text form, but the sentences were so disjointed and sloppy and defective that I gave up on trying to put the statements into text form. Such a terrible thinker and speaker Paul Krugman showed himself to be, and it was evidence that his mind is filled with defective thought, and it was evidence of how defective his thinking is on the subject of health care.Special note #21:
The majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat related to California, publicly introduced another proposed health-care piece of legislation on Thursday, October 29, 2009, and, on that day, a number of things were learned about the bill, such everyone will be required to by health-care insurance (which is against The U.S. Constitution), the bill had 1,990, and the bill was going to increase taxes not only on the so-called rich but also on persons. This bill is true a bad piece of legislation that was crafted without any help from Republicans and that was crafted by far-left-wing Democrats--really communists, Marxists, socialists, and the like. This bill, which is bigger than HR 3200 is, is more evidence that some people in the country, such as Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, are purposing working to kill the country as it was founded.
See: The "Special note #6" section.Special note #22:
On Friday, October 30, 2009, Sean Hannity did a telephone interview with Betsy McCaughey (which is pronounced as "McCoy") on his nationally syndicated radio snow called The Sean Hannity Show, and the purpose of the interview was to allow Betsy McCaughey to pass along some information about what she had read so far in the 1,990-page health-care bill that had been publicly introduced on the previous day by U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (a Democrat related to California and the Speaker of the House), and here is the interview in text form (and, keep in mind, some of the quoted material from the bill may not be exactly as it is written in the bill, but I have punctuated the material as it was said by Betsy McCaughey):
Sean Hannity: "On our 'Newsmaker Line,' we're joined by Betsy McCaughey, patient advocate, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infectious, Infection Death [the Committee to Reduce Infection Death], ah, the woman who started it all by actually reading the bill, and, ah, so she got all nineteen-hundred-ninety pages of the Pelosi bill yesterday. I will tell you this. I tried. I finally got through the last bill [HR 3200] that they put out. I've, I tried as I could, I could not keep my eyes open last night ? and read much of the bill. I just fell asleep in my chair. But you got, what, halfway through it by now?"
Betsy McCaughey: "I'm about halfway through. I put it in three very large, ah, binders, because it's too heavy to carry by itself."
Sean Hannity: "Yeah, we brought it on the set of Hannity last night. I dropped it right on the set. It's huge."
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, I'd like to get to some of the facts that everyone is goin' to be so concerned about. First of all, you've heard the President say many times, 'If you like your health insurance, you can keep it--no problem.' But the language of this bill proves that that is untrue. Right here on page ninety-two, it explains that you have to enroll in the plan the government wants you to have."
Sean Hannity: "Explain in detail, because the, you're basically saying that, what the President is saying is not true."
Betsy McCaughey: "That's right! I'm saying that, right out in the open, he has not told us the truth. If you get your plan at work, your employer will have a grace period--five-year grace period--and then have to enroll you in what's called the 'qualified plan.' If you get your own insurance--if you go out and buy it--ah, you won't have a grace period--as soon as anything changes in your current insurance contract--a co-pay, a deductible, any of the benefits, literally one word in that contract--you have to give up that contract, you have to give up that insurance, and enroll in the plan that the government wants you to have. Now, the real issue is--What is this plan? Well, eighteen months after the bill is passed, it says, 'The secretary of Health and Human Services and a health-choices commissioner will make the important decisions--what you plan covers, how much leeway your doctor has, and how much you'll be legally required to pay for this plan.' And, you know, when I read that, Sean, here's what came to my mind...."
Sean Hannity interrupted her.
Sean Hannity: "Well...this is on page ninety-two as well?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Ah, ah, part of it is on page. Hold on! Just a second. No! It's also on one-sixty-nine. Describes the basic benefit package. And the eighteen-months provision is on page one-eighteen. So, here's what this like. This is like a banker handing you a loan agreement and saying, 'Sign here and now, and eighteen months later, I'm goin' to fill in the interest rate and the terms of repayment. Who would do such a thing?"
Sean Hannity: "So, if, so, basically, the biggest selling point to all this made by the President is, is debunked on pages ninety-two and one-eighteen?"
Betsy McCaughey: "That's right! And, also, it's important to know that this is definitely one-size-fits-all insurance. There's going to be one basic benefit package. And whether you have what they call 'the premium,' 'the basic,' or 'the enhanced'--'the silver,' 'the gold,' or 'the bronze'--whatever the names are in these plans, they all have exactly the same coverage, only the co-pay differs--how much you pay upfront versus how much you pay when you go to the doctor. And the, the key behind this is--the goal here--is not just to cover the uninsured, the goal is to lower the cost of care and standard of care to what the poorest can afford or toward [what] government can afford to provide to everybody equally. This is the great leveler. Don't give your family a better plan than what everybody else has. That's not going to be permitted anymore."
Sean Hannity: "What if you want to buy a plan on your own?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, you must be enrolled in a 'quality plan.' Now, there will be supplemental plans offered--I think--ah, the language is vague there, but that may be why the AARP, which is, basically, a giant insurance company has been, ah, so behind these bills, because they may be planning on selling a lot of that supplemental insurance."
Sean Hannity: "Wow! Betsy, what else did you find in this bill?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, dah, secondly, the most-important thing is that this is a knockout punch for seniors and baby-boomers. This trillion-dollar-or-so bill is paid for in part with tax hikes--everybody's heard about those--but also with a five-hundred-billion dollar reduction in future Medicare funding. That's about an eight-percent cut, when thirty-percent of more people will be enrolling in Medicare as baby-boomers reach that age. And that's going to mean fewer hip replacements, fewer knee replacements, less angioplasty, less bypass surgery. Sean, those four procedures have virtually transformed what it means to grow old in the United States. People who used to be literally parked in nursing homes and wheelchairs, like clunkers, too crippled from arthritis to walk, too breathless, ah, out of breath from a clogged arteries to walk--people are now enjoying their later years because of, of these procedures that Medicare has provided, and, now, there isn't going to be enough money."
Sean Hannity: "So, how else do they, they tax to pay for a lot of this?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, there is lots of penalties--penalties on people who don't enroll, penalties on employers--an eight-percent payroll tax, for example, on employers. Ah, but the real key here is that, you think that this is going to give you more health care, it is not going to give you more health care, it's going to cost more but reduce the standard of care, and for seniors, it's going to be a devastating reduction and access to care. You know, when Medicare was founded in 1965, the bill said clearly--it forbades the federal government from interfering in the treatment decisions that doctors make for patients. And over the years, that protection has been whittled away a little, but these bills finish off the job."
Sean Hannity: "What's you think, ah, is, is, ultimately, do you think it's gonna be the House version, the Senate version [the Max Baucus bill that was released to the public somewhat recently],
'cause you've also--to the extent it's been possible--you look at the Baucus bill."
Betsy McCaughey: "Oh, yes. And the Baucus has some of the most devastating, ah, harmful provisions for seniors. I'll give you one example. It says that 'Doctors who land above the ninetieth percentile in what they provide for their patients will be penalized financially.' So that means that, if you're a patient in an, an examining room and the doctor says 'You don't need that MRI,' you're going to have to wonder if the doctor's saying that because he's avoiding the penalty or because I really don't need it. In fact, I met with a group of doctors the other day, and one of the doctors, ah, Tracy Vipers [the name may be spelled incorrectly], a surgeon, said to me that the provisions in that Baucus bill are quote very scary ['Very scary.']. She said physicians could be induced to violate the Hippocratic Oath. She said--and here's a direct quote--'If the patient is sitting in the examining room with us and they're wondering "Is the doctor not ordering the test for me because he's going to get penalized if he does it, that is a major, major problem for patients.'"
Sean Hannity: "Ah, that sounds like a big.... Did you pick up anything else so far in your reading of this, and what page is it on?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, ah, certainly, ha, it's amazing...."
Sean Hannity: "I, I read that the death, the, the end-of-life counseling provisions are back."
Betsy McCaughey: "They are in there. Hum, I am looking, however. The, the part of the end-of-life counseling provision that troubles me the most in HR 3200 was the, ah, the provision that doctors, ah, would be, their quality would be graded and, of course, their reimbursement would depend on the percentage of their patients who have advanced directives or living-wills and the percentage who adhered to them. It was the 'adhere to them' part that really troubled me, because, as you know, I've spent a lot of time in hospitals, and pa, people who are well say, 'I'd rather be dead than be on a ventilator.' But when the time comes to make that choice, they often choose life, and you don't want a, a doctor penalized because his patient and family decided to choose life."
Sean Hannity: "Let me ask. Some of the things that other people have picked out of, ah, ah, of this, not only it still raises taxes on small businesses making five-hundred-thousand dollars a year, et cetera, et cetera, ah, but they also have an employer mandate that applies to small business. You've got a new medical-device tax."
Betsy McCaughey: "Yes."
Sean Hannity: "So that, in order words, if you need a--I guess--ah, a, a hip replacement or a knee replacement, you, you have, you're gonna be taxed on that. If you need a...."
Betsy McCaughey "...Well, all those...."
Sean Hannity: "...hearing aid, you're gonna be taxed on it."
Betsy McCaughey: "Yes. All those taxes on, ah, medical-device manufacturers will be passed along to patients in terms of higher costs, whether it's a stent for your heart or a prosthetic device or your hip. Obviously, those costs will be passed on. But the, the other thing that really worried me about these bills is just the, the intrusive nature of--there, the government is coming right into the examining room between the patient and the doctor, and that's the most dangerous part of all, because there's so many provisions here that will penalize doctors or discourage doctors from giving patients the care they actually need, especially seniors."
Sean Hannity: "Let me go to the issue of the new tax on Health Savings Accounts and the new payroll tax--this quote voluntary payroll tax to fund a new long-term care program requiring mandatory spending ['voluntary payroll tax to fund a new long-term care program requiring mandatory spending'], a.k.a. a new entitlement. What do you know about that?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, I, when I, I looked at the long-term care provision and also, by the way, ah, the early retirement provision--these seem to be a giveaway to unions, and I really have to go parse that language very carefully, but when I saw them in the Baucus bill, that's clearly what they were--a payoff to unions--ah, ah, to assume some of the cost that the unions are currently baring for early retirement health benefits. So tho, those are political issues."
Sean Hannity: "Now, the, we still un, as I understand it, abortions are still authorized in what is a break from the Hyde amendment and other long-standing pro-life policies."
Betsy McCaughey: "That's right!"
Sean Hannity: "This, this, so, all right.... Members of Congress are exempt from the government option. How do you like that?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, they, ga, in this bill, it says that members of Congress 'can' enroll in the government option, but they don't have to."
Sean Hannity: "Well, the bill ac, actually instea, the language says they 'may' enroll."
Betsy McCaughey: "That's right!"
Sean Hannity: "Right."
Betsy McCaughey: "Not required to enroll. I'll tell you what else bothers me about this, Sean."
Sean Hannity: "Now, by the way, and, and in this bill--I've read one a analysis of it--in contrast, while members of Congress may enroll, the bill uses the word 'shall' three-thousand-four-hundred-and-twenty-five times."
Betsy McCaughey: 'Oh, yes! And including in the discussion of what would be included in end-of-life counseling, 'shall' not 'may.' Now, here's what really troubles me. If you look at a bill that's nineteen-hundred-and-ninety pages, you know that tucked into that--and I'll find more and more of it as I go along--are lots of political deals that cost taxpayers an enormous amount but don't benefit anybody's health. And what we need instead is a twenty-page bill in clear honest English that does one thing--helps Americans--let me underscore that--who can't afford health insurance, give them someway to get the buying power, ah, to access a health-care policy...."
Sean Hannity: "all right, what is that noise behind you, by the way?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, I'm in a hospital, right now."
Sean Hannity: "Ah, okay."
Betsy McCaughey: "And, ah, I, ah, unavoidable. I have to be in a hospital today."
Sean Hannity: "And I hope you're not sick."
Betsy McCaughey: "No, no, I'm not sick. I'm here for someone else. And didn't want miss talking to you. I apologize about the noise. It's, it's just started this moment, but I can't turn it off. Ah, what we need is a twenty-page bill, because then the exemptions for members of Congress aren't hidden, the pork-barreled spending isn't hidden, and some of the outrageous provisions--for example, I was going through these bills and found a provision for what they called 'adult-preparation education.' Now, from my point of view, the best adult-preparation education is getting a job, but that's not what they meant. For them, it was sex education. What is that doing in these bills?"
Sean Hannity: "Yeah. It's. I didn't. What page is that on?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, that's in the Baucus bill, which is, ah, back in my office. But it makes you wonder. They have hidden so many things in here that don't belong in here, especially...."
Sean Hannity: "Well, they, they have...."
Betsy McCaughey: "...bill like this."
Sean Hannity: "They have all these budget gimmicks in there, and it's been written about by others--negotiated rates could start at Medicare, future rates could be set at levels below Medicare reimbursement, which is already low...."
Betsy McCauaghey: "These bills--let me make it clear--eviscerate Medicare. These bills eliminate the protections that seniors have had for so long. They really, eh, eh, eh, eh, completely defies that original federal protection...."
Sean Hannity: "And, by the way, they do protect the trial lawyers, but, Betsy, I got to run, and, ah, I don't want to take any more of our time. We'll, we'll take more about it next week...."
And that is what listeners heard (I did not put in the closing good-bye lines, though).
See: The "Special note #2" section.Special note #23: I note here that on Thursday, November 5, 2009, thousands of citizens of the country--patriots--gathered at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., to persuade the members of the U.S. House of Representatives to vote "no" on U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill (HR 3962), which was going to be put to a vote soon, and many thousands appeared at the event, and, on the same day, Barack Obama made a press statement, some of which was; "I am extraordinary pleased and grateful to learn that the AARP and the American Medical Association are both supporting the health-insurance-reform bill that will soon come up to a vote in the House of Representatives...." It must be remembered the American Medical Association only represents a small number of the doctors in the country--who are members--and the AARP, which is an organization that senior citizens can choose to belong to, does not represent all the senior citizens in the country, but it can be argued well both organizations--the managments--sold out their members, since HR 3962 is a terrible bill. (You should see my document entitled Patriots of the U.S.A. and the Counter-Counter Revolution to learn a little more about the "patriot" event at the Capitol on November 5, 2009, and the document can be reached by using the link at the end of this document.)
Special note #24: On Friday, November 7, 2009, Mark R. Levin used a part of the second hour of his three-hour nationally syndicated radio show (The Mark Levin Show) to talk about a feature of a proposed health-care bill--HR 3962. Mark Levin read material provided by Andrew Breitbart of biggovernment.com, and present the material as it was said by Mark Levin, and I show it in parts so that I could clearly indicate Mark Levin's asides (Publius. "Committee Confirms: Comply With Pelosi Care Or Go To Jail." Biggovernment.com, 6 November 2009, 1:36 p.m. (http://biggovernment.com....). Mark Levin said, "...Ranking member of the [U.S.] House Ways and Means Committee, today, David Camp, Republican, Michigan, released a letter from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation--it's a committee of [U.S.] Congress--confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health-care bill." Mark Levin made an aside, "The one that they're secretly massaging on Capitol Hill." Mark Levin then continued on, "could in fact land people in jail. The committee's letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain 'acceptable health-insurance coverage' and who choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax--generally two-and-a-half percent of income--are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars and punishment of up to five years in prison. HR 3962." Mark Levin made an aside, "This is an excerpt from the committee's letter." Mark Levin returned to reading, "Provides that an individual or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return who does not at any time during the taxable year maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax." Mark Levin made another aside, "It goes on." Mark Levin then continued on, "If the government determines that the taxpayer's unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply. Criminal penalties, prosecution is authorized under the code for a variety of offenses." Mark Levin made another aside, "Now, Rachel Madcow [referring to Rachel Maddow of MSNBC] you may want to listen to this. It doesn't have a preamble, but it's still important." Mark Levin read on, "Depending on the level on noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual. Section Seventy-two-oh-three. Misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and or imprisonment up to one year." Mark Levin did another aside, "That's for a misdemeanor!" Mark Levin continue on, "Section Seven-two-oh-one. Felony winfall, ah, ah, willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to a quarter of a million dollars and or imprisonment of up to five years." Mark Levin said more, but I leave that out, since you should understand the health-care bill is not really about health care, and it is evil stuff, and you can learn more by going to biggovernment.com. Then again, I note that Mark Levin did make a comment that was said in jest, "But they're going this for you, ladies and gentlemen. They're doing it for the children. They're doing it for the seniors, the working poor, the working class...." and "...What we have here in the Pelosi bill--all kind of cool stuff. It's chocked full cool stuff, including crimes--new crimes. Law-abiding citizens can now be criminals thrown into our prison system. Maybe, they should keep Guantanamo Bay [the prison for war enemies] open. It's not good enough for terrorists, but, maybe, we the people will be sent away...."
Special note #25: The Frank Beckmann Show is a three-hour show that is aired on weekdays on WJR-AM 760, Detroit, Michigan (it is on from roughly 9:00 a.m. to noon), and the host is Frank Beckmann. On Monday, November 9, 2009, Frank Beckmann interviewed Betsy McCaughey, who is the founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Death and is a former Lieutenant Governor of New York; on the previous Saturday (November 7, 2009), the U.S. House of Representatives passed a health-care bill, which was then moved to the U.S. Senate, and the bill was the topic of the interview. Here is almost all the interview:
Frank Beckmann: "...Good morning, Betsy. How are you?"
Betsy McCaughey: "I'm good. Thank you."
Frank Beckmann: "So nice to talk with you again."
Betsy McCaughey: "Thank you."
Frank Beckmann: "Well, we've got the Pelosi health-care bill passed now after the, the late-night vote on Saturday. It goes to the [U.S.] Senate, where some say, 'It's D.O.A.' and others say, 'No, they're gonna come up with a compromise, pressed by President Obama.' What, what are you foreseeing? Look in your crystal ball for us."
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, I don't know, but I do know that the public should be aware of what a heavy burden this bill is. I'm looking here at the Congressional Budge Office report on what families and individuals will be legally required to pay under this bill, and the Congressional Budget Office says that a family of, a household earning a hundred-and-two-thousand dollars will have to pay twenty-thousand-five-hundred dollars in premiums and average co-pays and deductibles or twenty percent of their adjusted gross income--that's their pre-tax income--that's a pretty heavy burden, but that's exactly what the Congressional Budget Office estimates this is going to mean when the whole bill is in effect."
Frank Beckmann: "And that's, that's in addition to all, that's in addition to all the other taxes they pay."
Betsy McCaughey "Oh, yes. And an individual--according to this report--an individual earning forty-four-thousand dollars a year and therefore not eligible for a subside, ah, will also have a big burden. That burden will be seven-thousand-three-hundred dollars on average--fifty-three-hundred dollars for the premium and twenty-thousand dollars, I mean two-thousand dollars in co-pays and deductibles or for a total of seventeen percent of that individual's, ah, pre-tax income. That's a lot of money."
Frank Beckmann: "All going into health care to, to 'save the system' as they say."
Betsy McCaughey "Right. And, of course, the President has promised that 'If you like you health plan, you can keep it.' But the language of the bill proves that's not true."
Frank Beckmann: "In, in, indeed you're, you're going to be forced eventually into the public option."
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, eh, we don't even have to make a leap of logic like that. The fact is that, as soon as the bill goes into effect, you will have to, ah, enroll in what's called the qualified plan. That's a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and her advisors or his advisors. Hum, so it's, it's the same plan--it's called basic, enhanced, or premium, but, believe it or so, despite those three different terms, it's all the same benefits, only the co-pays change. So whether you're getting a subside from the government or you're footing the whole bill yourself, you're going to be in the same plan."
Frank Beckmann: "And, Betsy, if you don't decide to carry health insurance, you're, you're fined and you could go to jail."
Betsy McCaugahey: "Well, you know, I haven't actually found the 'jail' part in the text of the bill, and I've read all nineteen-hundred-and-ninety pages."
Frank Beckmann: "But I believe it falls under the IRS guidelines."
Betsy McCaughey: "It could be. That's possible. I will tell you that you will be fined thousands of dollars for failing to wha, enroll in a qualified plan. I'm also very concerned about how this bill eviscerates Medicare. Ah, as you, as you know, this bill is paid for partly with tax hikes--everybody's heard about those--but also with an estimated almost five-hundred-billion dollar reduction in future Medicare funding, just when thirty percent more people---we, the baby boomers--will be enrolling in Medicare. And that's means, obviously, too many people and too few dollars. Ah, in addition, this bill moves to Medicare system from 'fee-for-service'--that's, that's a term of art that means seniors get to, they have maximum freedom to choose their doctors and rely on an specialist, get a second opinion, or a test when they think it's important--in, into a new concept called the 'medical home.' It sounds great, but it's really this decade's version of managed care, and it's done gradually, but it is done in this bill, and the Congressional Budget Office warns that this could mean the seniors have to deal with those very harsh cost-cutting methods that HMOs used in the early 1990s until they were outlawed. Some of these methods of reducing costs were literally outlawed because they were so hard on patients."
Frank Beckmann: "And, and under this bill, there are specifications that nurse practitioners will be, will be providing care rather than doctors in some cases."
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, yes. That's right. That's a very accurate reading of it. And also I was concerned to see the extent to which recourses are shifted from high-tech medical care to seriously ill patients--especially seniors--into social work. Now, some of these programs may be very worthwhile, but we need to have a national debate over whether we should be cutting Medicare funding and then providing a lot of money for new social services, like translators, cultural-sensitivity training for health-care workers to be sent to the U.S./Mexican border. It's just a new vision that nobody's really discussed."
Frank Beckmann: "Ah, you pointed this out in your Wall Street Journal piece [November 7, 2009], quoting from page fourteen-twenty-two of the Pelosi bill, Betsy McCaughey, you say that--it provides for grants to community entities with in qualifications except having quote 'documented community activity and experience with community health-care workers'...." Betsy McCaughey spoke several words, but I do not list them, since Frank Beckmann kept talking. "...What if you once dated a nurse, you could, you're qualified to do this?" [I note: Think "ACORN" in relation to the 'entities' mentioned.]
Betsy McCaughey: "That's a funny comment. I'm concerned that, even if some of these programs are worthwhile, there hasn't been a discussion, there hasn't been enough serious consideration about whether the, the, these bills are drafted tightly enough so the money just doesn't become cash into a political pipeline. These are issues that need to be discussed, and, frankly, most members of Congress haven't read these provisions and can't discuss them."
Frank Beckmann: "Amazing. And, and that continues to this day. That's wha, that's been the, ah, that's been the trend since the start of this health-car, health-care discussion...."
Betsy McCaugahey: "Don't we need?" She spoke while he was still talking.
Frank Beckmann: "...no interest in the details of it, simply an idea that we're going to change he system because it's broken."
Betsy McCaughey: "Right! And, in fact, it's not broken. Well, we still deliver the best health care in the world to people who are seriously ill. Take a look at the cancer survival rates. A man diagnosed with prostate cancer in the U.S. has a ninety-nine-point-three percent chance of surviving it. In Europe, you're only one out of every four men diagnosed with prostate cancer dies from it. It's a death sentence! What a difference!"
Frank Beckmann: "Ah, a huge difference, and, for seniors, I, I just fear the way we'll treat seniors under this...."
Betsy McCaughey: "I'm very worried. What we need are a series of twenty-page bills in clear English--each bill doing exactly what the title of the bills says and nothing else--we can allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, we could create high-risk pools for chronically ill people and people of pre-existing conditions and give them subsidies so they could afford those premiums, we could do legal reforms to bring down costs and provide swift justice when patients are injured, and, of course, we could even provide temporary subsidies to people who are laid off and need help paying for their COBRA. We could do all those things without cutting Medicare, without enormous increases in the deficit, and without dismantling the world's best medical system."
Frank Beckmann: "And without government control.
Betsy McCaughey: "Yes."
Frank Beckmann: "Betsy McCaughey, thanks so much."
Betsy McCaughey: "You're welcome."
Frank Beckmann: "Appreciate it...."Special note #26: I urge you to see T.H.A.T. #67, which has a review of a television news report about health care in Canada that was hosted by Stephen Clark (of WXYZ-TV, Channel 7, Detroit, Michigan) and aired on WXYZ-TV on October 28, 2009, and my review shows why the information presented by Stephen Clark is useless and why Stephen Clark is useless, and here is a link to T.H.A.T. #67: T.H.A.T. #67.
Special note #27: On Wednesday, November 18, 2009, on "Capitol Hill," U.S. Senator Harry Reid (a Democrat) said: "...We've traveled really a long ways to where we are, and tonight beings the last leg of this journey that we've been on now for some time. The American people, President Obama have asked us for health-insurance reform. It does two things. One makes it more affordable for the American people. We're not going to add a dime to the deficit. In fact, quite the opposite. We'll cut the problems we have with money around here by as much a three-quarters of a trillion dollars, and this bill is going to do good things over the next ten years fer some many different people in our society...." This statement, which was filled with lies, was made as a public show in which U.S. Senator Harry Reid announced he had a Harry Reid health-care bill. The bill was another monstrosity, and since thebill is being pushed by Harry Reid, who has shown himself as a man who is working to hurt the United States of America through what big spending bills he has helped move through the U.S. Congress and enacted, the bill should be opposed--at all costs.
Special note #28: When someone must exploit children to push a lie, you know you have a someone who is truly dangerous. In the fall of 2009, Barack Obama's Web site called Organizing for America (www.barackobama.com) had a contest, in which people made videos to promote Obama's health-care wishes, and the videos were to be made available at the Web site. The winning video had children making statements, and here is a portion of the winning video in text from that I derived from an audio clip (which I was able to hear on The Rush Limbaugh Show, a nationally syndicated radio show, on Friday, November 20, 2009, one day before the U.S. Senate was going to vote on the U.S. Senator Harry Reid health-care bill):
A child: "A year from now, I'll break my leg, and my parents will have to sell our house, because we couldn't afford health care."
Another child: "Three months from now, I'll need surgery, and my parents will go bankrupt, because they couldn't afford health care."
Yet another child: "Three years from now, I'll be diagnosed with leukemia, and I'll die, because we couldn't afford health care."
This video passes along lies. For one, a broken leg should not lead to a person's having to sell a house, since the medical community does installments. But notice the video is made to show a child on cannot get health care in the country. That is nonsense! For example, children do get health care, because the federal government has what is called "SCHIP" (which is pronounced as "S-chip"), which is more formally known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program and which was enlarged on February 4, 2009 (when Barack Obama signed an amendment to it into law).
Yes, you have U.S. President Barack Obama telling lies through children to children--It is a fear video for children, and it shows the ugliness of Barack Obama's mind.Special note #29: Keep this information in mind. The U.S. House of Representatives through a vote taken on November 7, 2009, passed the health-care bill known as HR 3962 to the U.S. Senate, which then crafted a U.S. Senator Harry Reid-backed health-care bill, and, on November 21, 2009, the U.S. Senator Harry Reid-pushed health-care bill was given a vote in the U.S. Senate to take it to the discussion stage soon (the vote was 60 "yes" votes to 39 "no" votes, and Republicans Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu voted "yes," which helped to allow the bill, which is a Marxist/communist/socialist monstrosity, to go on to the next stage). Incidentally, in the time before the vote of November 21, 2009, would take place in the U.S., Senate, four Republicans U.S. Senators were being pressured by the public to vote "no" on the bill, and they were Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), and Evan Bayh (Indiana), all of whom had shown themselves to be more like Democrats than Republicans in votes of the recent past (at least).
Special note #30:
On Monday, December 7, 2009, U.S. Senator Harry Reid (a Democrat relate to Nevada) showed himself to be a dangerous man and evil through a statement that he made on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and the statement to which I refer is: "...Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans can come up with is this--'Slowdown, stop everything, let's start over.' You think you've heard the same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, 'Slow down. It's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up--they wanted to vote--some insisted that 'They simply slow down. There will a better day to do that. Today isn't quite right.' When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone--regardless of the color of their skin--some Senators resorted to same filibuster threats we hear today...." In the 1860s, Abraham Lincoln, who was a Republican, was the U.S. President and pushed for the abolishing of slavery, and it was Democrats--the power in the southern states of the United States of America--who pushed to keep slavery, and it would be Democrats who pushed to keep segregation going in the southern states well into the mid-1900s, and, by the way, current U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (a Democrat related to West Virginia) was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan, which has been anti-black organization. In the mid-1960s when Civil Rights legislation about voting was passed, the U.S. President was Lyndon B. Johnson (who was a Democrat), and it was Republicans in the U.S. Congress, especially the U.S. Senate, who had helped pass the Civil Rights legislation, and it was Democrats who had worked to block the legislation (for instance, Democrat U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond filibustered to try to stop the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and Democrat Albert Gore, Sr., who was a U.S. Senator and a U.S. Representative and the father of Democrat Al Gore, Jr., who in the 1990s would be a U.S. Vice President and today is pushing hard for climate-change legislation, especially a United Nations treaty that would put the United States of America under the laws of an international communist country related to the United Nations, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Certainly, Harry Reid, through his choosing to use such a statement--filled with lies and filled with, for example, his trying to equate the fight by Republicans and citizens against his health-care bill with the fight by people (who he did not mention were actually Democrats) who opposed the voting rights legislations of the 1960s--shows he has a ill mind, and I say, "Why would you want a man with such an ill mind determine your health-care choices and possibilities?"Special note #31: If you want to learn more about the illness in the minds of the Democrats who are putting together the health-care bill, you should do some research about "Quality-Adjusted Life Years" or QALYs, and it is an idea related to putting a mathematical number on a person in relation to health care and whether or not health care is given, and it is an ugly compassionless way in which to determine health care for people--it makes a person nothing more than a number.
Special note #32: On Sunday, December 20, 2009, while on This Week with George Stephanopoulos , David Axelrod (a White House advisor to Barack Obama) defended a health-care bill that was being worked on by the U.S. Senate, and he gave a clear definition of what "fascism" is, and he clearly implied that he and the Democratic Party support "fascism," which is bad (since fascism is government controlling and running private companies through laws), and here is some of what he said this day: "...This bill, ah, has the imprint of, ah, sixty members of the Senate. But, look, Governor James main, ah, concern was that he called this a giveaway, ah, to the insurance company, but his facts were wrong. The fact is that this bill for the first time, ah, prohibits, ah, insurance companies from spending excessive amounts of money on, ah, CEO salaries, ah, on administrative costs, on, ah, shareholder, ah, profits so that more money is devoted to, ah, patient care. That's written into the bill...." (By the way, the Republicans were not involved in crafting the bill.)
Special note #33: During the week of Monday, December 21, 2009, the U.S. Senate completed some votes on a health-care bill known as H.R. 3590 (or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act); the final vote was conducted on December 24, 2009 (Christmas Eve). The bill of the U.S. House of Representatives and the bill of the U.S. Senate must now be joined into one bill by the work of a committee made up of members of the U.S. Senate and members of the U.S. House of Representatives. One reason that all national-health-care bills must be defeated and fought against is all the Democrats in the U.S. Congress are enemies of the United States of America because, for instance, the health-care bill of the U.S. Senate has a provision that makes a new rule for the U.S. Congress that states that provisions of the bill cannot be changed in the future, and that is a sign or communism, Marxism, tyranny, et cetera. (You are urged to see my document entitled Enemies of the United States of America: Politicians Who Have Hurt You and Your Family by Voting "Yes" on Bad Federal Bills, a link to which exists at the end of this document.)
Special note #34: On Monday, February 22, 2010, Barack Obama released to the U.S. Congress and the American people his health-care bill (in the past one year or so, the U.S. Congress has had several health-care bill that Barack Obama has worked to push along through the U.S. Congress), and though he released his health-care bill, he had yet planned to have a health-care summit with Republicans of the U.S. Congress in three days, I was only of probably many, many persons who wondered why the summit would take place, given that Barack Obama has "his" bill. On Tuesday, February 23, 2010, Frank Beckmann interviewed Betsy McCaughey (a former lieutenant governor for New York) again on this radio program called The Frank Beckmann Show on WJR-AM, Detroit, and they talked about the Barack Obama health-care bill. Here is a text version of most of the interview:
Frank Beckmann: "...She is the, ah, former lieutenant governor of the State of New York, health-policy expert. Ah, she founded the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths--hospitalinfection.org--and, dah, she serves as CEO of that organization, as well as chairman. And she's on the the end of our line, Betsy McCaughey. How are ya?"
Betsy McCaughey "I'm just fine. I'm so glad we can talk today, because I have poured over the President's posted, ah, revision of the Senate and House bills. The changes are very minor. This is really a repackaging--as my kids would say, 'A regifting'--of the bills. Ah, the price tag is a little higher than it was before, and the taxes are a little higher. Ah, but other than that, it's, ah, it's, ah, it's essentially the same proposal, just a coercive as it as before. It still forces people to buy the insurance plan the government requires you to have. It still expands the powers of the Internal Revenue Service to make sure you comply. And it still gives government officials--and this is quite unprecednted--the power to dictate how doctors treat privately insured patients."
Frank Beckmann: "That's, that's a stunner, and so is the limit on the profits of insurance companies that, that will go in here and the price controls that are possible through this legislation that, that, Betsy, I would think would drive insurance out of business with..."
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, that's certainly possible. Many people predict that. I'm also very, very concerned about the impact on our way of life, because, as I just mentioned, this bill costs even more. And this is a very unusual year, Frank, because, this year, for the first time since World War II, government--federal, state, and local--has consumed more than forty percent of everything produced in the United States. We all go to work every day, and no matter what we're making, the government is, is consuming forty percent of it to support government programs. It happened during World War II once, because, of course, it was the major undertaking of the nation to defend the freedom. But nothing today justifies this confiscation of forty percent of American productivity, and, yet, that's what's happening before this health bill is passed. So we're, we're already toiling, ah, to support these politicians' ever-expanding government programs."
Frank Beckmann: "It, it, dah, is not stopping. That, that's certain, ah, and, and the, ah, the bottom line is the effort to take over the health-care system, there, there's no compromise here with the Republican ideas of, ah, say--simply offer more competition among the insurers by allowing them to sell across state lines. That's a very simple step that could actually lower some costs for Americans."
Betsy McCaughey: "Oh, definitely! In fact, right here in New York, where I'm speaking today, ah, New Yorkers pay four times as much as Californians do for the same policy--four times as much--because of the very unwise insurance laws in New York state. Um, but I'm really concerned also, because this bill is a, a, just a punishing blow to people who are depending on Medicare. It takes five-hundred-billion dollars out of the Medicare program over the next decade, just when thirty percent more people will be enrolling in that program. Um, and those numbers don't add up. It's gonna mean fewer hip and knee replacements, less cataract surgery, less access to the things that have really made growing old more pleasurable and less painful than it used to be. So, people who are in their fifties or sixties who are listening to us better be on notice that, if this bill passes, they are not going to get the kind of health care that people currently get under Medicare. They're gonna get a lot less, even though they've been paying into the system all these years."
Frank Beckman: "Did you find any tort-reform proposals in there?"
Betsy McCaughey: "No! No tort-reform proposals at all! In fact, ah, it's not really mentioned, except on an experimental basis, but, even then, the pilot program specifying no caps on lawyer's fees, no caps on damages. So, I don't know what they're talking about when they say 'tort reform'--the, the lawyers are making out like bandits, here, and the doctors are being turned into, ah, ah, day laborers."
Frank Beckmann: "...Would tort reform work if you very simply put 'loser pays' ah, on, on the system?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, it, basically, includes three things. Ah, one is loser pays for me unmeritorious lawsuits, and that's the way it should be. Secondly--ah, and this is really important--medical courts--by that I mean, ah, not that we're doing away with the jury system--but pick judges, ah, pick judges to preside over these medical-malpractice cases time after time after time so they develop some expertise in it, they know who the reliable expert witnesses are and which ones are the charlatans, they understand the terminology, and they can help the jury really sort out fact from fiction. So, a medical-court system would go a long way toward improving the fairness of the verdicts. Capping damage awards is also important. But why just cap them when you can eliminate unfair damage awards?"
Frank Beckmann: "You wouldn't have to if you eliminated the unfair ones...."
Betsy McCaughey: "Exactly!"
Frank Beckmann: "...you wouldn't have to cap."
Betsy McCaughey: "Exactly! So medical courts [are] an important of that proposal, but you won't find a word about that in the Obama plan. I'm also concerned about people who may be listening who are in their thirties and maybe they earn fifty-five-thousand dollars a year, they're single, and, instead of making car payments or buying a condo, they're going to be forced to spend a whopping percentage of their pretax income paying for these mandatory health plans that they don't really want."
Frank Beckmann: "I thought that was capped at eight percent of income...."
Betsy McCaughey: "Oh, no! Ah, under the President's schedule, the, the premium would be capped a nine percent of pretax income, but that doesn't include your co-pays and deductibles, so your real out-of-pocket expenses could be twelve or thirteen percent pretax!"
Frank Beckmann: "So, where are the cost savings for consumers here? We keep complaining about how insurance companies are ripping us off and they're making all the money for themselves! Well, aside from government, ah, ah, how are consumers making any money out of this? It looks like...."
Betsy McCaughey: "Not at all!"
Frank Beckmann: "...It looks like we've replaced the, the greedy insurance with the greedy government!"
Betsy McCaughey: "Yes, in fact, the Congressional Budget Office has warned that individuals that go out an buy their own insurance are gonna to face quite a tax hi, quite a price hike under this bill. Their, their premium will go up ten or thirteen percent more than if the bill were not passed."
Frank Beckmann: "All right. I, I'm qonna quote from you...Peter Morici, ah, professor of economics at the University of Maryland who's been on with us a number of times before, ah, says, 'Hey, look, Republicans aren't offering viable all, alternatives either.' He says, 'Tax breaks, medical savings accounts, relying even more on markets are not going to curb drug, insurance company, and malpractice costs. Why not leave the present system alone but offer a public or nonprofit alternative patterned after European and Canadian systems. Require drugs companies to charge those entities no more than they do foreign systems, those insurers to spend as many in Nebraska do ninety-two percent of premiums on medical services and the insurers, ah, make sure ninety-two percent go to medical services, and required subscribers to forego the right to sue health providers.' Good idea?" [Note: The quoted material that Frank Beckmann read seems not to be as Peter Morici had written, since Frank Beckmann seemed not to read it correctly, but I list it as I have.]
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, there are some good ideas there. The real key here is--Would this option pay hospitals and doctors the full cost of caring for the patient? Here's what we found across the nation, at that Medicare pays about ninety-three cents for every dollar of care delivered, Medicaid pays about eighty-six cents, and hospitals are able to keep their doors open because they squeeze a dollar-thirty-two out of the private insurers to make up the difference. And, um, so that short charging by the public programs pushes up premiums for people in the private sector. Now, if you're talking about creating a public option that will also short change the hospitals, then you're going to see private premiums go up even more."
Frank Beckmann: "All right. And where have you. Have you posted your analysis, Betsy?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Oh, yes! Come to defendyourhealthcare.us."
Frank Beckman: "Defend your health care..."
Betsy McCaughey: "All one word...."
Frank Beckmann: "Okay."
Betsy McCaughey: "Dot U S. You will find all the information up there and also how to call your members of Congress and let them know what you're thinking."
In essence, that was the substance of the interview, since the remainder mostly made up what could be called a "good-bye segment."Special Note #35: On the week on Monday, February 22, 2010, several main events took place in the health-care story. On Monday, February 22, 2010, Barack Obama made public "his" health-care bill. From Tuesday, February 23, 2010, to Thursday, February 25, 2010, a number of new entities reported stories about Danny Williams, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, and stories noted how doctors in Canada, where there is a socialized health-care system, advised Danny Williams to go to the U.S. to have a heart operation, and he did go and he did have heart surgery at Miami Sinai Medical Center, Miami, Florida., and two off his comments of the week were (1) "...This is my heart, it's my health and it's my choice..." and (2) "...I did not sign away my right to the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics...." ("Canadian premier defends U.S. surgery. UPI.com, 23 February 2010, 7:59 a.m.; Huget, Jennifer LaRue. "Canadian official has heart surgery -- in the U.S." The Washington Post, 25 February 2010, 7:00 a.m. ET.). On Thursday, February 25, 2010, Barack Obama held a health-care summit with a few Democrats and a few Republicans from the U.S. Congress, and the event was a failure for a number of reasons, one of which is Barack Obama was shown to be uninformed about what has been and is in the health-care bills that have to made available to the public to read, and the Republicans showed themselves to be more informed about the Barack Obama health-care bill than Barack Obama was.
At the Barack Obama health-care summit, U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (related to Tennessee) was the first Republican to speak, and one thing he said was: "...our step-by-step plan for reducing health-care costs, and I'd like to just mention those in a sentence or two. You mentioned Mike Enzi's work on the small-business health-care plan. Two, helping, ah, Americans ba, buy insurance across state lines. Number three, put an end to junk lawsuits against doctors. Ah, give states incentives to lower costs, number four. Number five, expanding health savings accounts. Number six, House Republicans have some ideas about how my friend in Taloma* can continue to afford insurance for this wife who has, had breast cancer. Six steps--maybe the first six--but combined with six others and six more and six others, they get us in the right direction...." [* = It is unknown what this word should be, but I put this in, since the word when spoken by Lamar Alexander sounded as like this word.]
At the Barack Obama health-care summit, U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander also said: "...Now, some say we need to reign in the insurance companies--maybe we do--but I think it's important to note that, if we took all the profits of the insurance companies, the health-insurance companies entirely away, every single penny of it, we could pay for two days of the health insurance of Americans, and that would leave three-hundred-sixty-three days with costs that are too high...."
At the Barack Obama health-care summit, U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander also provided this thought: "...I have a suggestion and a request for how to make this a bipartisan and truly productive session. Before we go further today, the Democratic congressional leaders and you, Mr. President, renounce this idea of going back to the Congress and jamming through on a partisan vote through a little-used process we call reconciliation, ah, your version of the bill. Ah, you can say that this process has been used before, and that would be right, but it's never been used for anything like this...."
At the Barack Obama health-care summit, one thing that U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (related to Kentucky) said was: "...One thing that I think we need to be acutely aware of, ladies and gentlemen, we are here representing the American people, and Harry mentioned several polls. I think it is not irrelevant that Americans, if you average out all the polls, are opposed to this bill [the Barack Obama health-care bill] by fifty-five to thirty-seven, and we know from a, a U.S.A. Today-Gallup poll this morning, they're opposed to using the reconciliation device--the short-circuit approach--that Lamar [Alexander] referred to--that would end up with only bipartisan opposition by fifty-two to thirty-nine...."
At the Barack Obama controlled health-care summit, U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (a Republican related to Wisconsin) said, "...This bill does not control costs! This bill does not reduce deficits! Instead, this bill adds a new health-care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have...." (You are urged to see the Paul Ryan section of the document entitled Patriots of the U.S.A and the Counter-Counter Revolution, which can be reached by using this link: Patriots.)
At the health-care summit, U.S. Representative Paul Ryan also said: "...and, and we've been talking how much we agree on different issues, but there really is a difference between us, and it's basically this--We don't think the government should be in control of all of this, we want people to be in control, and, then at the end of the day, [that] is the big difference. Now, we've offered lots of ideas--all last year, all this year--because we agreed that the status quo is unsustainable, it's got to get fixed, it's bankrupting families, it's bankrupting our government, it's hurting families with pre-existing conditions. We all want to fix this, but we don't think that this is the answer to the solution. And all of the analysis we get proves that point. Now, I'll just simply say this--and, and I respectfully disagree with, with the Vice President about what the American people are or are not saying or whether we're qualified to speak on their behalf--so, we are all representatives of the American people, we all do town-hall meetings, we all talk to our constituents, and I got to tell ya, the American people are engaged. And if you think they want a government take over of health care, I would respectfully submit, 'You're not listening to them.'...."
And at the Barack Obama Health-Care Summit, U.S. Senator John McCain and Barack Obama got involved in an exchange of words. John McCain (a Republican associated with Arizona) said: "...The people in my state and across this country are deeply concerned about--and that's not just product that we are examining today, the two-thousand-four-hundred pages--but the process we've gone through to reach that. Now, both us, during the campaign, promised change in Washington...eight times you said that negotiations on health care reform would be conducted with the C-SPAN cameras--I'm glad more that than a year later, they are here--unfortunately, this product was not produced in that fashion. It was produced behind closed doors. Was, it was produced with unsavory deal making--ah, the 'Louisiana purchase' funding of three-hundred-million dollars for one state. Why should that happen? And at the town-hall meetings, people are angry. We promised them change in Washington." Barack Obama tried to interrupt John McCain by saying "John...." And they talked over each other. But John McCain was able to make clear: "...Can I just finish, please? My constituents of Americans, they want us to sit down together and do what's best for all Americans. So I hope that would be an argument--to treat all Americans the same." Barack Obama then was able to say, "Let me just make this point, John, ah, because we're not campaigning...the election's over." They spoke over each other again. Barack Obama was able to say clearly, "We can spend the remainder of the time with our respective talking points, goin' back and forth, we were supposed to talkin' about insurance. This would probably be a good time to turn it over to Secretary Sebelius." John McCain spoke up and said, "Could I just say, Mr. President, the American people care about what we did...." Then Barack Obama tried to interrupt John McCain, and that is all that I present of the exchange of words, though I note that is was clear the Barack Obama was perturbed, if not angry.Special Note #36: On Thursday, March 11, 2010, information was being reported by, for instance, talk-show hosts, such as Mark R. Levin, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, and Republicans in the U.S. Congress, such as Michele Bachmann (a member related to Minnesota), that the Democrats in the U.S. Congress, especially the high-ranking members of the U.S. House of Representatives, had come up with what was being informally called the "Slaughter Solution" to pass the health-care bill into law. The rule is--a federal bill related to spending is supposed to be initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives and then, once it is passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, to be sent to the U.S. Senate for action, and The U.S Constitution (Article 1, Section 7) notes that all bills must be voted on by the members of the U.S. Congress. On this date--March 11, 2010--the only existing health-care bill being talked about was a bill that had been passed by the U.S. Senate. through the "Slaughter Solution," Democrats were proposing that a rule change would take place in the U.S. House of Representatives, in which the U.S. House of Representatives would not vote on the exact bill of the U.S. Senate but would vote on a rule change that would say that the U.S. House did pass the bill of the U.S. Senate. The idea of the "Slaughter Solution" (the name for which came from the name of a woman on the "Rules Committee" in the U.S. House of Representatives called Louise Slaughter (a Democrat related to New York)) goes against the ways of The U.S. Constitution. The Democrats--who were or are communists, Marxists, socialists, et cetera--in the U.S. Congress are doing what is done by those who work take over countries--make the rules as they go along and forget things like The U.S. Constitution. For Democrats to even think about and to openly talk about using their so-called "Slaughter Solution" shows how evil the Democrats are and how much they wish to be tyrants and kill The U.S. Constitution.
Special Note #37: On Tuesday, March 23, 2010, U.S. Representative Bart Stupak (a Democrat related to Michigan) was on The Ron Jolly Show of WTCM-AM, 580, Traverse City, Michigan, and he made a number of comments. One comment that Bart Stupak said was, "...Fast forward three years, now we have a Executive Order, once again dealing with life issues, protecting the sankctity of life, and suddenly the critics are saying, 'Ah, it's no good. It's not worth it.' Eh, eh, you can't have it both ways...." Bart Stupak even said that the law would help children with "genetial diseases" (I believed he was talking about "genetic diseases").
*****Announcement: On March 23, 2010, Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 into law.*****
Special Note #38: On Wednesday, March 23, 2010, U.S. Representative John Dingell (a Democrat related to Michigan) was one of the guests on The Frank Beckmann Program on WJR-AM, Detroit, Michigan; the previous day, Barack Obama had signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 into law. The interview, which was long, took place during the ten o'clock hour in the morning, and since it was a long interview, I only provide some portions of the interview in text form. The interview shows why John Dingell is stupid and an enemy of the United States of America.
Here is one portion of the interview:
Frank Beckmann: "...and you'll find that our life expectancy far surpasses that of European countries."
John Dingell: "Well..."
(They talked over each other. By the way, many of the three-dot segments that I present in this section are places where both were talking at the same time, and the missing material is not that important to present.)
Frank Beckmann: "...Canadians come here. They've, they've had their government officials recently come here for...."
John Dingell: "Let me give ya, let me give you the statistics. Let me give you the statistics. The simple fact of the matter is that, alt, that the United States ranks about, ah, ranks well down out of the top ten on life expectancy. And a lot of countries are significantly higher in terms of the length of life expectancy by both men and women, and we rank with many of the Third World countries with regard to the, ah, infant mortality, so, Frank, you can argue about, about accidental death...."
Let me provide notes about the short portion of the interview just presented. John Dingell did not present where the statistics had come from. I believe John Dingell used the corrupt and inaccurate figures that had been compiled by the World Health Organization, which is a part of the United Nations and which is controlled by dictators, communists, et cetera. John Dingell is a Marxist, and he pushed Marxist ideas, no matter how defective. One reason that the statistics are wrong is some Americans die as a consequence of war, and other countries do not have such deaths, and another reason is some people die in snowmobile accidents in the United States of America, and, for example, countries in Africa do not have snowmobiles, on which some persons die, often at a young age, and, in essence, some countries have almost no cars and no car accidents, unlike the United States of America.
Here is another portion of the interview:
Frank Beckmann: "...Congressman, the other day you were on the air with our, our mutual friend Paul W. Smith [the morning radio host on WJR-AM]...."
John Dingell: "I was."
Frank Beckmann: "And you made comments that are now being, ah, ah, played, dah, nationally on The Drudge Report, when you, ah, talked about Obama care and eventually what it would lead to. I want to play this clip and then have you explain it, if you would."
John Dingell: "Sure!"
The clip of John Dingell: "We're not ready to be a union, but let me remind you, this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover three hundred [million] American people in different ways, it takes a long time to, to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."
Frank Beckmann: "Now, now the term 'control the people'....facing a lot of eyebrows."
John Dingell: "Well, it, it should. And if you'll notice, I made two mis-statements in that...."
Frank Beckmann: "Yes, you said...."
John Dingell: "..First of all I said 'three-hundred' instead of 'three-hundred million.' And second of all, I didn't say to 'control and guide the people who are going to administer the law.'...."
That ends the second portion of the interview that I have for you, and now you should keep the 'control of the people' sets of words in mind.
Here is yet another portion of the interview of March 24, 2010:
Frank Beckmann: "So, you're, you're not talking about controlling the people of the United States?"
John Dingell: "Of course, not! I'm talking about controlling the administrative people that are going to administer the actions and to control the, ah, to issue the regulations that are going, for the first time control the, ah, insurance companies, which quite frankly have been without any controls at all and quite frankly have been exploiting the people in some pretty terrible ways."
That ends the third portion of the interview, and you should see that John Dingell passed along crap, since health-insurance companies are highly regulated and have been highly regulated for a long time.
Here is yet another portion of the interview:
John Dingell: "...And we're going to work it out so that people who want health care and need it can get it. We're going to eliminate the, the, the behavior of insurance companies in canceling insurance. Ah, we're going to control the behavior of insurance companies and prevent them from denying, ah, people care...."
That concludes another portion of the interview, and you should see how John Dingell is attacking insurance companies, and you should see that John Dingell likes to use the world "control," and you should keep that idea in mind.
Here is another portion of the interview:
John Dingell: "Frank, it hasn't begun! And I'm, and, and, you're just spending a lot of useless terror, rather than participating in, in seeing to it that we have an intelligent discussion and that...."
Frank Beckmann: "Pardon me, Congressman! I am spreading useless 'terror'?"
John Dingell: "Yes, sir!"
Frank Beckmann: "Did you...say that?"
John Dingell: "And there's a lot of other people that are doing that, too!"
Frank Beckmann: "That, that is, ah, I, I, I've never heard you, ah, talk that way to...."
John Dingell: "Well., I've..."
Frank Beckmann: "...interviewer. I'm, I got to tell you, I'm absolutely stunned that you would say such a thing!"
John Dingell: "Well...."
Frank Beckmann: "We have a government that is taking over the health-care system of this country!...."
John Dingell: "Well, now there, there...."
Frank Beckmann: "...insurance industry, Congressman!"
John Dingell: "No, no, no, no! There you go again, Frank. The government is not taking over the health-insurance industry!"
That ends that portion of the interview, and the biggest lie is that the federal government is not taking over the insurance industry of the country.
Here is another portion of the interview:
John Dingell: "...Good care, they have found that good care reduces the costs. I had a secretary who, ah, was thrown out of the hospital, ah, because the, because the...."
Frank Beckmann: "My wife got...."
John Dingell: "...Wait a minute. Let me finish. Who was thrown out of the hospital the second day after she had a mastectomy. They had removed all the tissue under her arms. She couldn't take care of herselves, ah, and, and she was draining, and she ultimately died. And I believe that that happened because she was kicked out of the hospital before her treatment was properly concluded. And this was because, ah, the insurance company mandated that that action take place...."
That ends another portion of the interview. In this portion of the interview, John Dingell talked about the secretary. The story about the secretary is incomplete. When did it take place, and where did it take place? What are all the facts about the secretary's health? To me, it looks as if John Dingell is working on a vendetta. Yes, maybe, the secretary was involved in a bad deal. But John Dingell surely hates the entire insurance industry of the United States of America based on the incident, and John Dingell is working to kill the entire insurance industry of the United States of America because of the incident. I say that John Dingell is highly ill or has a highly ill mind!
Incidentally, in 1961, my mother died of European Blastomycosis, and, in essence, she died because fungus attacked her brain and nervous system--and you think cancer is bad?--but I do not attack everyone in the medical industry, knowing, at the time (in 1961), my mother's disease could not be stopped from killing her, and so goes life.
Note: I note I have left out much that could have been useful to you and could show how much of a liar that John Dingell is, such as his statement talking about the "thirty-two-million Americans" who he tried to suggest do not have coverage--Mark R. Levin (of The Mark Levin Show, a nationally syndicated radio show) has shown that the thirty-two-million" figure is a lie through the book entitled Liberty and Tyranny: A ConservativeManifesto (which was published in March 2009).Special Note #39: The previous note shows what is in the mind one man involved in voting "yes" for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and that man is U.S. Representative John Dingell (a Democrat related to Michigan), and this section shows the mind of another man who voted "yes" for the act. On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care bill of 2010, and that allowed the bill to be moved on to Barack Obama, who would sign the bill into law on March 23, 2010, and one of the persons in the U.S. House of Representatives who voted for the bill was U.S. Representative John Conyers (a Democrat related to Michigan). After the bill was signed into law, John Conyers made a statement to the reporter, who had wondered about what rule of The U.S. Constitution says that people can be forced by buy health-care insurance, and John Conyers said: "Ah, under several causes. Ah, the Good and Welfare clause. Ah, and, ah, a couple others. Ah, all the scholars--constitutional scholars--that I know--I'm chairman of Judiciary Committee, as you know--they all say that there is nothing unconstitutional in this bill. And if there were, I would've tried to correct it, if I thought that there were...." The U.S. Constitution does not have a "Good and Welfare" clause. John Conyers showed he cares not for The U.S. Constitution and is willing to create any law, even those that go against the ways and restrictions of The U.S. Constitution, as was done through the creation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
Special Note #40: On Thursday, March 25, 2010, the U.S. Senate passed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (which was passed to amend a bit the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010), and, on the same day, U.S. Senator Max Baucus (a Democrat related to Montana) said: "...This is also a, a income shift. It's a shift to leveling, to help lower-income, middle-income Americans. Too often, too, too much of late, the last couple three years....the balance distribution of income in America is gone up way too much. The wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy....wages have not kept up with the increased income of the highest income Americans. This legislation will have affect of addressing this mal-distribution of income in America, because health care is now a right for all Americans and because health care is now affordable, ah, for all...." [Note: I had to leave a few words out of the statement, since Max Baucus spoke as if drunk, and it was difficult for me to determine all the words that Max Baucus spoke, but even with a few words missing, it should be clear to you that Max Baucus is a Marxist, if not a communist, who achieved the idea of redistribution of wealth through the voting "yes" for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Act of 2010.]
Special Note #41: On Friday, March 26, 2010, Frank Beckmann (of WJR-AM, Detroit) did an interview for viewers of Betsy McCaughey (I first mention Betsy McCaughey in "Special Note #22" of this document), and this section provides in text of some statements made by Betsy McCaughey during that interview:
"I'm glad to be back with you. Mmm, mmm, most Americans now are kind of reeling under the blow, ah, from the passage of this health bill, and, dum, and it is a bruising blow to American freedom, but they shouldn't despair, because the war is not lost lost. It can't be! There can be no surrendering or no negotiating between coerosion, coercion and freedom, so everyone, everyone listening should be aware that we're just simply moving the battleground now to the mid-term elections and immediately to the courts, and, dah, that's a very good news. The states are in revolt. In the last day, ah, quite a few states have already filed suits challenging the constitutionality of this coercive new law."
"...And it's very unfortunate to even see the President criss-crossing the nation now. After the signing of this bill into law, he's now determined to convince the public that the, that the bill they were against is in their best interest. But it's the demagogic nature of his presentations that so [are] alarming to me. It's so un-presidential the way he's ridiculing those who are committed to The Constitution rather than showing respect for our opposing points of view."
"...Well, certainly, they're going to see premiums go up in the near term, because of the, ah, one of the only parts of this law that goes into effect immediately is certain requirements on health insurers. So they're likely to see their premiums go up in the near term, and, of course, their taxes will go up. And, dum, the, the Reconciliation package that was passed yesterday and is now heading to the President's desk as well, ah, has been depicted as kind of a clean-up bill to eliminate some of the sweetheart deals, but--au contraire--what it really does is to raise your taxes more and expand Medicaid even more. One of the real fallacies in this legislation is that it makes health insurance affordable. In fact, it's gonna to push up the cost for those who pay their own way, um, but it simply enrolls more people in Medicaid. There's almost a doubling of the size of that program, and, as you know, that's a taxpayer-funded program."
"...This adds to the cost of employing someone!"
"...So many people who are getting good health insurance through their employers will now be forced to get this one-size-fits-all plan without any of the frills. And, as you know, later on, ah, in twenty-eighteen, which sounds like it's a long way away but it really isn't, um, people who have what they call 'Cadillac plans'--their employers provide them with really good health benefits--well, those are gonna, eh, ah, be taxed at forty percent, and the Congressional Budget Office has already warned that most employers are either gonna to substantially cut back on health coverage to avoid that tax or pass the cost along to their workers in the form lower take-home pay."
"...The President is going to campaign across the country to sell this, and we must remember that this war is not over. We've simply moved the, ah, the campaign to the courts and to the mid-term elections, and the courts are the very promising place at the moment, because this legislation violates those twenty-eight beautiful words in the Tenth Amendment--Essentially, what it says is that the powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people themselves, that the powers of government are not unlimited."
"...Well, not only that, Frank. But for over half a century, health insurance has been reg, regulated only by the states. In fact, there's a federal law still on the books, the McCarran-Ferguson Act [of 1945], that says individuals may not buy health insurance in any state except where they live...."
"...That's right! And that's very troubling. In, in, simply appending, ah, one bill that has nothing to do with health care to another bill--to grease the skids as they say--was, it, it, it's it's a violation of our, the concept of representative self-government. But I'm not despairing, and here's why. If you look back at the history of the United States, there have been other times where Presidents and Congresses over-reached, trying to meddle in, micro-manage every aspect of our lives. And one good example is the National Industrial Recovery Act [of 1933], which was passed during the New Deal, and two kosher butchers from Brooklyn said--Look we're, we're just selling chickens in our store, and yet the federal government is coming in and telling us how much we pay our employees, what hours we can stay open, and even how we can sell these chickens. The law lit, literally prohibited their customers from reaching in to the cage and pick, picking their own. They took this case all the way to the Supreme Court and won nine zero. So, in extraordinary times like this, ordinary people can stand up for freedom." [Betsy McCaughey was responding to Frank Beckmann's thought that a companion piece of legislation or an attached piece of legislation about the student-loan industry was passed into law through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and that attached piece of legislation now puts the federal government in complete control of the student-loan system of the country, and that is the way of a, for example, communist country.]Special Note #42: Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 into law on March 23, 2010, which would be amended days later by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (which would be signed into law on March 30, 2010), and now the United States of America is tied to a highly defective law created by highly defective people, such as Barack Obama (who is insane and a Marxist), and about half of the members of the U.S. Congress, some of whom were U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Senator Harry Reid, and U.S. Representative John Dingell (and to learn more about what persons were in the U.S. Congress for the vote of March 23, 2010, you should see my document entitled Enemies of the United States of America: Politicians Who Have Hurt You and Your Family by Voting "Yes" on Bad Federal Bills, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document). If you have read this document completely up to this point, you are aware of the nonsense that was involved in getting the act passed and what Democrats planned for the country as health-care rules, and you should surmise, even if you have not read the act, that the act must certainly be defective. Remember: When an insane man who is a politician, such as Barack Obama, makes rules for people, the rules are very likely to be highly defective and be mostly designed to hurt those other people. I contend here now publicly that those who voted "yes" for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 have perpetuated a crime against humanity, and I here now contend publicly that Barack Obama perpetuated a crime against humanity, since it is clearly obvious that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is designed to hurt people and even kill people, especially when it becomes fully implemented in the near future. In addition, I claim that the members of the main media who have promoted Barack Obama as good in anyway since 2008, even if only for a short time, are involved in the crime against humanity (and some of those persons are identified in my document entitled Never Forget These Media "Darlings" ? -- A Guide for the Individual in the United States of America, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document). Since 2008, many persons involved in hosting talk-radio programs have worked hard to show the defectiveness of those who were working to made the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 a law and those who were promoting the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 as good and to show that the proposed pieces of legislation that ultimately became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 were very bad pieces of legislation, and some of those persons are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Billy Cunningham, and Mark R. Levin. Earlier in this document, I presented material from Mark R. Levin, and, here, I now pass along some more text of some dialogue from Mark R. Levin, and the text was spoken during Mark R. Levin's nationally syndicated radio show entitled The Mark Levin Show on Friday, March 27, 2010, and my presenting the material shows more of what many of the main media have not told you about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, hoping to, for one, keep you ignorant of the evilness that is involved in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. On March 27, 2010, Mark R. Levin read from a document entitled "Timeline of Major Provisions in the Democrats' Health Care Package," which had been put together by the Committee on Ways & Means Republicans (of the U.S. House of Representatives) and which was not dated, and I present what Mark R. Levin said while looking over the document (but I do not distinguish between the text of the document and his asides or comments, such as by using quotation marks to identify what he was reading): "...Now, you know there's the ten-percent tax on indoor UV-tanning. Now, most of us don't do that. So, you're thinking, 'Who gives a damn?' That starts on July First. But you know what also starts on July First? Medicare cuts to inpatient psych hospitals. Now, Obama will point out that, starting in September, with plan years beginning, prohibits lifetime and annual benefits spending limits, prohibits non-group plans from canceling coverage. Requires plans to cover at no charge most preventive care. Ah, these, these insurance companies will not survive! Allows dependents to stay on parents policies through age twenty-six. Some preexisting conditions for children, but obviously you're well aware there's a gap. But also Medicare Advance cuts begin. Medicare cuts to home health begin. Wealthier seniors--that is, those making eighty-five-thousand a year--begin paying higher part D premiums, not indexed for inflation. Part D--that's prescriptions. Medicare reimbursement cuts when seniors use diagnostic imaging like MRIs, CT scans, et cetera. Got that? Now, MRIs and CT scans are often used to, to try and find what, tumors, cancer? So that will be cut for seniors. Medicare cuts begin for ambulance services, diagnostic labs, normal medical equipment. They're going to impose a new annual tax on brand-name pharmaceutical companies. Americans will begin paying premiums for federal long-term care insurance, the Class Act. Insurance companies will be required to spend a minimum of eighty percent of premiums on medical claims. ...prohibition on Medicare payments to new physician-own hospitals. Now, what this will do is limit expansion of physician-owned hospitals, the building of new physician-owned hospitals. This guarantees limits on beds available to all citizens nationwide. Penalties for non-qualified HSA and Archer MSA distributions double. Seniors prohibited from purchasing power wheelchairs unless they first rent for thirteen months. Ten percent Medicare bonus payment for primary care and general surgery, five years. In two-thousand-eleven, next year, employers are required to report the value of health benefits on the W-2. See here, ah.... New Medicare cuts to long-term care hospitals begin on July One two-thousand-eleven. Additional Medicare cuts to hospitals and cuts to nursing homes and impatient rehab facilities begin in FY twelve. New tax on all private health-insurance policies to pay for comp research. Yee, yee get the, ah, the trend here? See what's going on? The government is slashing Medicare, while expanding coverage for people generally, while limiting hospital beds, while regulating and taxing insurance companies. The squeeze is on! I'm reading what's in the bill to ya, right now. Medicare cuts in twenty-eleven to dialysis treatment begins. Medicare to reduce spending by using an HMO-like coordinated care model. Let's see. Twenty-twelve, new Medicare cuts to inpatient psych hospitals. So that's a second phase of cuts. In other words, seniors with menr, mental-health issues so severe that they require inpatient treatment. Medicare cuts to hospitals with high readmission rates begin. Medicare cuts to hospice begins. Gee, aren't you liberals thrilled? They close a twenty-five-hundred dollar annual gap on FSA contributions. Then, the tax kicks in! Twenty-twelve, increase Medicare wage tax by point-nine percent and impose a new three-point-eight percent tax on unearned non-active business income for those earning over two-hundred K, couples earning over two-hundred-fifty K. And get this! It's not indexed for inflation! So, ten years from now, if somebody's earning two-hundred-thousand dollars, which may be the equivalent today of eight or ninety thousand, they're going to be rich. See they [Marxists] always suck you in! Let's see here. Starting in twenty-thirteen, impose a two-point-three percent excise tax on all medical devices. Medicare cuts to hospitals who treat low-income seniors begins. See, I'm just, I'm reading through it. Individuals without government-approved coverage are subject to a tax of the greater of six-hundred-ninety-five dollars or two-point-five percent of income. So, in twenty-thirteen, the individual mandate kicks in! Employers who do not offer insurance must pay a tax penalty of two-thousand dollars for ever full-time employee. More Medicare cuts to home health begin in twenty-thirteen. Let's see. Anyway, I could go on and on. In twenty-fourteen. Twenty-fourteen. Insurance plans must include government-defined essential benefits and coverage levels. So, at that's the point at which the government will begin rationing care! And, dah, twenty-fifteen, more Medicare cuts to home health begin. ....that's enough. Twenty-eighteen, impose Cadillac tax on high-cost plans. Forty percent on the benefit value of above a certain threshold-- $10,200 individual coverage, $27,500 family. Well, let me tell you something--ten-thousand-two-hundred in twenty-eighteen on individual coverage, eight years from now, that's not going to be that high. So, essentially, ten-thousand-two-hundred on individual coverage of forty-percent tax that's, that will be the bulk of private policies. So, I mean, I'm not representing this as everything, pro and con, but I am picking some of the, ah, aspects out of this, and it is not as Obama goes around the country saying, is it? Now, if you need an MRI, and the, ah, reimbursement or subsidy for the MRI is severely slashed, that's the problem they have in Canada, right now, rationing MRIs and CTs. That's why people come here [to the United States of America]. That's why our, our ability to treat cancer is far superior to the UK and Canada. So, we have built in here with MRIs and CAT scans severe limits for seniors. So, I said a long time ago that Obama is, is the really the worst President the seniors have ever had. And he is!...." That covers what he said. To find the document that Mark R. Levin was looking at, go to the Web site for the Committee on Ways & Means Republicans on the Internet, and when you are at the main page for the Web site, type in "Timeline of Major Provisions in the Democrats' Health Care Package" in the search-field space that is located in the upper-right-hand corner of the page and start the search. What I have presented should convince you that each person who did work to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, such as Barack Obama, has perpetrated a crime against humanity, like a killer, and must be seen as an enemy of the United States of America--in essence, members of the federal government have purposely and willfully physically attacked the citizens of the United States of America.
Special Note #43: In the previous section, I show only some of the bad that is contained within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and now I make comments about what was not contained in a full-page article about the new health-care law that was published in Detroit Free Press on Sunday, March 28, 2010, and the article shows why many Detroiters (citizens of Detroit) have a dead city and are ignorant, and the article to which I refer is entitled "Health care changes coming in '10" (Anstett, Patricia. "Health care changes coming in '10." Detroit Free Press, 28 March 2010, p. 23A.). None of the bad that was reported in the previous section by Mark R. Levin, while he was skimming "Timeline of Major Provisions in the Democrats' Health Care Package," was reported in the article, so, for example, people who read the article may be unaware that, in a few years, there will be taxes on all medical devices and that, in the near future, seniors will not be able to go out--on their own--and buy motorized wheelchairs till they have done renting of wheelchairs for at least thirteen months, even if they have enough money to buy motorized wheelchairs. The article noted only one bad piece of information: "...BUT -- insurers can charge people ages 50 to 65 as much as three times more than people ages 21 to 34, whose coverage doesn't cost as much. Monthly premiums also may be higher based on where a person lives, the size of the family and whether those covered by the policy are smokers...." The article shows how the "liberal" main media is keeping people ignorant about the Marxist/communist-type health-care system that has been set up by Barack Obama for the United States of America. (You are urged to see my document entitled Detroit and Death: A View of a Future United States of America, which can be reached by using this link: Detroit.)
Special Note #44: Face the Nation is a television show that is shown weekly on Sundays on CBS-TV; it has been shown on CBS-TV since November 7, 1954, when the first guest was U.S. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (of Wisconsin), who was anti-communist and fought--rightly--against the communists in the country. On Sunday, March 28, 2010, Tim Kaine (the chairman of the Democratic National Committee) and U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (a Republican related to Minnesota) were two of the guests on Face the Nation. This section provides text of comments made by Michele Bachmann and Tim Kaine, and the comments must be remembered by you for many decades to come.
I start with comments made by Michele Bachmann, who, for one, noted that now the federal government owns or controls "fifty-one percent" of what was a part of the private section about two years ago, when the federal government did not own or control private-sector-created entities:
"...This is stunning! Prior to September 2008, one-hundred percent of the private economy was private. Today, the federal government has taken either direct ownership or control of banks, the largest insurance company in America, [which is] AIG, Freddie and Fannie, the federal government owns, Bob [Bob Schieffer], over fifty percent of all home mortgages, now the direct student-loan industry, Chrysler, GM, and with the health-care industry, that's an additional eighteen percent of the private economy, which means government would be making decisions over our lives from cradle to the grave. I think that's a stunning level of government takeover and control that we have never seen before in the history of our country."
"What I meant are the policies that I have just mentioned to you. I think it is very serious when the federal government directly owns car companies. That is not the American way. Or when the American economy* directly owns fifty percent of all America's mortgages or has direct ownership or control of the health-care industry. Just this week, we saw American businesses announce 'Obamacare' will cost them fourteen-billion dollars. Here in Minnesota, Medtronic announced, because of the new tax increases on medical devices, they could be looking at shedding an additional thousand jobs. Or 3M, it will cost them potentially ninety-million dollars in the first quarter. President Obama's own numbers--his own economic adviser, Christina Romer, said that 'Obamacare' could cost the economy five-and-a-half-million jobs lost. That is not going to bring us back to economic health going forward, but that's what you expect when you have massive tax increases, massive Medicare cuts, massive premium increases, you will have massive job loss." [* = I believe she miss spoke and wanted "government" and not "economy."]
"...I went to the House floor the first thing on Monday and put a bill in that would repeal 'Obamacare.' So did other of my colleagues. Steve King of Iowa. Ah, also Parker Griffith of, ah, Alabama. And also other members as well. Jim DeMint also put in a bill to repeal 'Obamacare.' That's what I believe the American people want us to do. And, again, The New England Journal of Medicine released a survey the week President Obama signed 'Obamacare' stating that, oh, over thirty percent of American physicians would leave the profession if the government took over health care. That's very serious!"
Here were comments made by Tim Kaine, the first of which focuses on his answering the question about whether or not he thinks 'Obamacare' will be repealed:
"I think that's unwise, and I don't think it will happen, Bob [Bob Schieffer, the host]. You know, one of the things I was struck in, in listening to Senator DeMinton [DeMint] and Congresswoman, ah, Bachmann is just the incredible just anger that's there, ah, in them. And I don't think Americans are anger people. I think Americans are upbeat, optimistic, can-do people. Now, we're in a tough time, and they want to see government that is working to obtain results, but I, I don't think they want to see somebody who's calling the President anti-American, or a member of the Senate who says the main goal of health care should be to break the President. You know, this is about people and the problems they're experiencing, so they [Republicans] may want to push forward on a repeal of health care, to tell small businesses 'you're not going to get tax credits to pay for insurance,' to tell families 'you now can't keep children on your policy till your twenty-six,' to tell folks that 'you're now subject to new, these abuses of the insurance industry,' I think they'd be unwise to do it, and I think the American public will reject it."
"...I was listening to Senator DeMint. He says he wants to repeal the government takeover of hea, ah, the health industry. Oh, really what he is trying to repeal is curbs on insurance companies. You know, we [Democrats] don't want insurance companies to able to kick people off their policies when they get sick or turn you down when you try to get a new job because of a preexisting condition. Ah, I don't know why the Republicans would want to put insurance companies back in a position where they have that kind of whip hand over the American public. We want the doctors and the patients to make the decisions."
If you have read this document from the beginning to this point, you should be able to determine which person--Michele Bachmann or Tim Kaine--is the person who passed along nonsense and flapdoodle and fluff and "spin."Special Note #45: Social Security is an "entitlement program," and the new health-care law creates a super-big "entitlement program," a program that is much bigger than the Social Security program is, and, during the weekend of Friday, March 26, 2010, PBS stations around the country played an episode of The McLaughlin Group, and the panel for the show was Eleanor Clift, Bill Press (a radio talk-show host), Monica Crowley, and Pat Buchanan, and the host was John McLaughlin, who, through a pre-recorded segment for the show, said at one point: "...Social Security provides pensions for retired Americans. It is funded largely by payroll taxes. This week Social Security reached a milestone, and it was not a good one! Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it will receive in payroll-tax revenues. It's the first time this has happened in the seventy-five year history of the system. This critical marker was not expected to be reached until at least twenty-sixteen, says the Congressional Budget Office. Analysts say that this is a tipping point that makes the first step in a long slow march toward Social Security insolvency unless Congress figures out a way to expand the program's funding...."
Special Note #46: On Sunday, March 28, 2010, Meet the Press also covered the health-care issue, and this section presents statements made by guests who appeared on the episode, and the guests that I present are all "liberals" (or communists or Marxist or the like)--U.S. Senator Chuck E. Schumer (a Democrat related to New York) and Bob Shrum (Democratic Strategist).
Chuck E. Schumer: "Well, I think as people learn about the bill, and now that the bill is enacted, it's going to become more and more popular, and here's why. Two things happened, David [David Gregory, the host]. First, the lies that have been spread, they vanish, because you see what's in the bill. We had 'death panels' in the summer. People are going to see there are no 'death panels.' Illegal immigrants are going to get health care--it's clear that's not true in the bill. And the number one lie that brothers people is you'll lose your insurance if you have it now...."
Chuck E. Schumer: "...Then, at the same time, the positives are going to start weighing in. Senior citizens will get much better opportunities to buy prescription drugs, which we know they care about. Small businesses will get tax breaks so they'll be able to cover their employees--many small business people want to but can't afford it--or, ah, keep the coverage it they have it already. People will be less likely to be, have their insurance policies canceled when they get sick. That's a big thing to people...."
Chuck E. Schumer: "...So, I think you're gonna find this is the first attempt in the history of health care to get at the waste, the fraud, the abuse, the duplication. Everyone's experienced it! You're on a gurney. Ah, they say, 'So, here's Doctor Wilson.' He waves. And then you look at the bill, and they charge you one-thousand dollars for him. And you don't know what he did."
Chuck E. Schumer: "...There are a number [of doctors]--maybe ten percent--who spend all their time maximizing income...." [Where did Chuck Schumer get the 'ten-percent' statistic? It looks as if he pulled the statistics out of a hat!]
Bob Shrum: "...But, you know, it's very hard to quarrel with a President who has achieved his kind of measure of social justice, the greatest measure in fifty years, and, by the way, without the Congressional majorities of the size that LBJ or FDR had. I think from here, you have to go on and look at what's going to happen with financial reform, which Lindsey Graham sort of hinted is gonna pass. And I think it will. And at the end of fourteen months, let alone the end of this year, you have a President with achievements of historic sweep--the largest economic recovery program in history, health care, ah, the, ah, student-loan reform--wholesale student-loan reform, which, by the way, was just tucked into the bill and hardly anybody talked about--and a major arms control treaty with, with the Russians. This is the beginning, I think, of a historic presidency that could be a great presidency and could lead us into a whole new political era...." [Yes, the new era is the "social justice" era, whatever that means and whatever that is, and the communist era.]Special Note #47: On Sunday, March 28, 2010, Jake Tapper was the host of the weekly series shown by ABC-TV entitled This Week, and this political talk show covered the health-care topic. Statements made by two guests on the program are provided in this section. On this date, Valerie Jarrett was a Senior Adviser at the White House and Ed Rendell (a Democrat) was the current of governor of Pennsylvania.
Valerie Jarrett: "...This has been a long and challenging process. There's been a lot of negative rhetoric that we've heard around the country. But what we are sure of is that, as the American people begin to understand what's in this package, when they begin to see the benefits, when small businesses are able to take ta, tax deductions and hire new employees as opposed to having to struggle to make en mees [ends meet]...mothers who have children with, ah, preexisting conditions are now going to be covered and not be discriminated against by their insurance companies, as we begin to put in more practices so that the premium costs don't escalate and the out-of-pocket costs come down, not to mention the enormous, ah, way that we're going to bring down the national deficit as a result of health-care, ah, reform. We are confident that the American people will support this. It's good for them...." [Notice that Valerie Jarrett used the world "discriminated" in her statement, which makes me think she was trying to call insurance companies racists--entities that discriminate--and that shows that she is a defective woman.]
Valerie Jarrett: "...But I think a lot of hard work has gone into this plan. It's been a arduous process. The president has listened to all voices. We have made numerous improvements to the plan as a result of that process. Now, let's let it work." [Valerie Jarrett lied about Barack Obama's listening 'to all voices.']
Governor Ed Rendell: "...Look, the Commerce Clause says you can not only regulate interstate activity, you can regulate intrastate activity...." [Wrong!]
Governor Ed Rendell: "...By the way, this is not a government takeover. We left the private health-insurance companies intact...." [Wrong! The health-insurance companies are now in what I call a "trap play." For one, companies are going to drop paying health-insurance plans for employees because of new taxes and rules imposed by the federal government]Special Note #48: I contend that at least a few persons who voted "yes" for the health-care bills passed into law in March 2010 have highly ill minds or really defective minds, yet they were in positions to determine the health care of millions and millions and millions of Americans in the future. This section presents an exchange of dialogue between U.S. Representative Hank Johnson (a Democrat related to Georgia) and U.S. Admiral Robert Willard, which took place on Friday, March 26, 2010, during a session of the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Notice the defective thoughts of U.S. Representative Hank Johnson, and the subject was Guam and, maybe, putting more U.S. troops and their families on Guam.
Hank Johnson: "This is a, ah, island that at its widest level is--what?--twelve miles from shore to shore, and at its smallest level, ah, ah, smallest, ah, ah, location its seven miles, ah, between one shore and the other. Is that correct?"
Admiral Willard: "I don't have the exact, dah, dimensions, but, ah, to your point, sir, Guam is a small island."
Hank Johnson: "Very small island in about twenty-four miles, if I recall, long. ...Twenty-four-miles long, about seven miles wide at the least widest, ah, place on the island, and about twenty, and about twelve-miles wide, ah, ah, on the widest part of the island, and, dah, and I don't know how many square miles that that is. Do you happen to know?"
Admiral Willard: "I don't have that, ah, figure with me, sir. I can certainly supply it to you, if you like."
Hank Johnson: "My, my fear is that, dah, the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and, ah, and capsize."
Admiral Willard: "Ah, we don't anticipate that. The, ah, the raw population--I think--currently about a hundred-and-seventy-five thousand. And, again, with eight-thousand marines and their families, it's an addition of about twenty-five thousand, ah, more into the population."
Hank Johnson: "And, ah, and also, things like the, ah, environment, ah, the sensitive areas of the, the environment, coral reefs and those kind of things, and I know that, you know, lots of people don't like to think about that, but, you know...you think about global warming either, and, dah, now we do have to think about it, and so, ah, I'm concerned from an environmental standpoint whether or not Guam is the, the best place to do this relocation, but it's actually the only place. Is that correct?"
Note: I say that Hank Johnson has an ill mind and is stupid, and his defective mind leads him to promote ignorance, such as the manmade-global-warming idea, which has been shown to be a fraud (and to learn more about the fraud, you should see my document entitled "CAP AND TRADE" and Carbon Dioxide Facts and Nonsense, which can be reached by using this link: Carbon), and Hank Johnson should not be a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, but Hank Johnson has already hurt you--through his ill mind--by giving you the rules of the national-health-care acts of March 2010. Have you ever heard of an island tipping over? Do you think it is possible to tip over any island?Special Note #49: When Barack Obama and the Democrats in the U.S. Congress were working to push through health-care legislation in early 2010 (at least), they were saying that a national-heatlh-care system would lower the cost of premiums and the cost of health care; for example, on January 25, 2010, Barack Obama said, "...It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses....." (you should see the entry for January 25, 2010, of Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama, which can be reached by using this Health link), and, on March 15, 2010, Barack Obama said, "...Ah, well, a lot of folks, through their employer, it is estimated would see premiums fall by as much as three-thousand percent...." (and you should see see the entry for March 15, 2010, of Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama). Around Friday, April 23, 2010, the Obama administration worked to defend itself, trying to play down the information that the actuary of Medicare--Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--had passed along recently that the health-care law was going to increase costs and not lower costs, and the administration tried to say that the information about costs from the Congressional Budget Office (which had been known before the health-care act was passed) was better than the information from Robert S. Foster was, though, really, that is not true, since the Congressional Budget Office had only been able to work with vague information that had been passed along to it (by the U.S. Congress) about the proposed legislation, and Robert S. Foster was working with what actually exists in the health-care act ("CBO Score on Health Care Bill Released: Boosts Democrats' Hopes Of Passing Reform." The Huffington Post, 18 March 2010, 05:40 p.m.; Edson, Rich, and The Associated Press. "Administration Defends Health Law Despite Medicare Report Hiking Nation's Tab." FOXNews.com, 23 April 2010; Klein, Philip. "CNS Actuary Finds ObamaCare Bends Cost Curve." The American Spectator, 23 April 2010, 1:50 p.m.; Pear Robert (of The New York Times). "Medicare actuary's analysis says health care will rise." HeraldTribune.com, 24 April 2010, 1:00 a.m.). On April 26, 2010, The American Spectator published a short article that reported that, in the previous week, a report issued by U.S. Health and Human Sevices (which was then headed by Kathleen Sebelius) noted that health-care costs, such as health-care-insurance premiums, were going to go up because of the proposed health-care bill and that the HHS report had been in the hands of Kathleen Sebelius (the head of U.S. Health and Human Services) one week before the votes took place in the U.S. Congress on the health-care bill (The Prowler. "What Lies Beneath." The American Spectator, 26 April 2010, 6:09 a.m.). The information that I provide in this section shows that Barack Obama lied, as he almost always has and almost always does (as can be seen by reading Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama). (By the way, way back in March 2009, the Service Employees International Union--a Marxist-run union--was pushing the idea that a health-care law would lower costs, as is noted by the article that I was able to see at the Web site for the Service Employees International Union on April 26, 2010, and the article, which was entitled "Senator Schumer: Competition Works for Health Care," was dated April 6, 2009, and was written by John Vandeventer.)
Special Note #50: In late April 2010, Barack Obama announced that he was nominating a man named Donald Berwick, who was a professor at Harvard University, to become the new head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (or the CMS). Keep in mind--Around April and May of 2010, it was clear that polls were showing that the opposition to the recently passed health-care law was gaining more persons and more and more people were getting on board to fully repealing the health-care law, and it was publicly known that Donald Berwick is a Marxist and likes a highly centralized government, especially that which controls the health care for every citizen. In 2008, Donald Berwick spoke at "NHS 60" in the United Kingdom, and look at some of what Donald Berwick said about the health-care system--or the "National Health System" (or "NHS")--of the United Kingdom, which is falling apart (and the text is punctuated under my rules, since I transcribed the text from a video found on the Internet and from audio heard on The Mark Levin Show during the week of Monday, May 10, 2010):
"...So, you could have had a simpler less ambitious, less troubled plan than the NHS. You could have had the American plan...." [You can see this man, who Barack Obama likes, dislikes the American health-care system, so you should be aware Barack Obama dislikes the American health-care system.]
"...You could have kept your system in fragments and encouraged supply driven demand instead of making tough choices in planning supply...." [And here is clear evidence that Donald Berwick supports rationing of health care, which means Barack Obama supports rationing of health care.]
"...You could have led an unaccountable system play out in the darkness of private enterprise, instead of accepting that a politically accountable system must act in the harsh and admittedly sometimes very unfair daylight of the press, public debate, and political campaigning...." [Here, you will notice that Donald Berwick attacked "private enterprise." When there is "private enterprise" involved in a health-care system, there can be numerous if not countless entities providing health care from which people can choose, but when there is only a government-controlled system, there is only one entity from which to choose. There is accountability in the "private enterprise" system, since, for example, doctors and hospitals compete to be the best and make few errors and save lives, and the doctors and hospitals work to get better and better and better, and, over the years, the society pushes for better and better and better, and in a "private-enterprise" system, a person can take legal action against people who may have done wrong and get satisfaction. In a government-run health-care system, how can a person get satisfaction for incompetence or failure or negligence by suing the government?]
"...You could have had a monstrous insurance industry of claims and rules and paper pushing instead of using your tax base to provide a single route of finance. You could have protected the wealthy and the well instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker and that any health-care-funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional. Britain, you chose well...." [I could say much about this set of words, but I will only note that "redistribution" (the moving of money from one person to another for no logical or truly ethical reason and to make everyone, supposedly, equal), which is the goal of the Marxist, was important in his mind and not improving health-care really.]
"...In the United States, these hundreds of insurance companies have a strong interest in not selling health insurance to people who are likely to need health care. Our insurance companies try to predict who will care, and then to find ways to exclude them from coverage through underwriting and selective marketing. That increases their profits. Here, you know that is not just crazy, it is immoral...." [Here, you have the words of a liar!]
"...Government action in the NHS is not mere restlessness or meddling or recreation, it is accountability at work through the maddening, majestic machinery of politics...." [Think about this one for a while.]
Note: On July 7, 2010, Barack Obama would make Donald Berwick the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and it would be done when the U.S. Senate was on vacation, and the way in which Barack Obama would make the appointment, Donald Berwick would not have to be interviewed in any way associated with a U.S. Senate confirmation process.Special Note #51: In 2009 and 2010, when the U.S. Congress was trying to create and pass a health-care bill for Barack Obama to sign, which would happened in March 2010, Barack Obama was saying that people would be able to keep their current health-care plans, but a number of people, such as nationally syndicated radio talk-show hosts Mark R. Levin and Rush Limbaugh, were saying that Barack Obama was lying in his statements about people being able to keep their current health-care plan. On June 11, 2010, Investors.com (of Investor's Business Daily) published an Internet article entitled "Administration: 51% Of Companies' Health Plan Won't Pass Muster" (Higgins, Sean, and David Hogberg. "Administration: 51% Of Companies' Health Plan Won't Pass Muster." Investors.com, 11 June 2010, 5:05 p.m. ET.), and it noted, for one, that White House documents show that, by 2013, 15 percent of employers will have to relinquish their health-care plans because they do not meet the standards of the health-care act (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010), and the documents, which had been leaked and posted on the Internet on 11, 2010, were products of the IRA, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Special Note #52: Today, the Democratic Party in the United States of America is filled with communists, black radicals, socialists, and like-minded bad people, and it could be argued well by me that most of the people of that political party dislike The U.S. Constitution and how the United States of America is set up, which is a system in which the people own the country and the country does not own the people. Certainly, some of the Democrats are actually stupid, but the Democratic Party is not the only political party that has stupid people--people who should not be members of the U.S. Congress--even the Republican Party has a few stupid people, who should not be allowed to hold a position in the U.S. Congress. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2010 is certainly a very bad law and a law that should be repealed, and once it is completely repealed, a better health-care bill should be created and made law sometime. On March 29, 2010, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (a Republican related to Alaska) showed that she should be removed from office or not voted into office against because of a statement that she made publicly, and the statement was: "...Repealing this [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] is not, is, is not the answer in my opinion, because, if you just repeal and you do nothing, we will have not addressed health-care reform...." U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski has showed herself to be a person who does not promote the idea of killing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and that is bad for the country.
Special Note #53:
In mid-2010, people, such as the members of the Landmark Legal Foundation, were challenging in court the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and one reason being used to challenge the law was the law required people (citizens) to buy something from someone else or some entity (such as an insurance company), which had never been done before and which they believed was not allowed by The U.S. Constitution. Around this time, proponents of the act were publicly saying--out of court--that the "Commerce Clause" of The U.S. Constitution allows the federal government to tell people to buy things from other persons or from entities, but, around this time, lawyers working to save the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 as law were saying in court that the taking of money from people to pay for health-care insurance was really like a tax (as had happen in the days when Social Security was created in the 1930s), and the federal government is allowed to raise taxes. In 2008 and 2009, Barack Obama was publicly saying that he was not going to raise taxes on, basically, most people in the coming days and months, and on September 20, 2009, Barack Obama appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, a weekly show broadcast by ABC-TV on Sundays, and he tried to persuade the host that the "individual mandate," which was the informal name for the feature of the act by which people were required to buy health insurance, was not a tax. Here is some of what Barack Obama said on that program:
George Stephanopoulos: "You were against the individual mandate during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?"
Barack Obama: "Well, hold on a second, George. Here's, here's what's happening. You and I are both paying nine-hundred bucks, ah, on average, our families in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now, what I've said is that, if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that--that's just piling on. If on the other hand, we're givin' tax credits, which set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've drivin' down the cost, we've done everything we can, and you actually can afford health insurance, then you just decided, 'You know what, I want to take my chances,' and then you get hit by a bus, and you and I have to pay for the emergency room...."
George Stephanopoulos: "That may be, but it's still a tax increase."
Barack Obama: "...No, no! That, that's not true, George! The, for us to say that you got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is that we're not gonna have other people carrying your burdens for you, anymore than the fact that, right now, everybody in America just about has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, 'That is a fair way to make sure that, if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.'"
George Stephanopoulos: "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy...."
Barack Obama: "No! But, George, yo, you just can't make up that language and decide that's called a tax increase--anymore, wah, wah, if, if I say that, right now, ah, your premiums are gonna be going up, ah, by five or eight or ten percent next year, and you say, 'Well, that's not a tax increase,' ah, but on the other hand, if I say that I don't want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable...."
George Stephanopoulos: "I, I don't think making it up. Merriam-Webster's dictionary--'tax, a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'"
Barack Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's dictionary that the definition of tax increase indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit, right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition."
George Stephanopoulos: "No."
Barack Obama: "...I mean, what you're saying...."
George Stephanopoulos: "I wanted to check for myself. Your critics say, 'It is a tax increase.'"
Barack Obama: "My critics say, 'Everything's a tax increase.' My critics say that I'm taking over, ah, ever sector of the economy. You know that! Ah, eh, eh, look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're gonna have an individual mandate or not, but...."
George Stephanopoulos: "And you rejected...."
Barack Obama: "I absolutely reject that notion...."
It should be interesting to see whether or not courts will see the "individual mandate" as a tax, and if a court considers it a tax, which Barack Obama used to say publicly was not a tax, then the defective Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 will probably not be eliminated through court action, and you will see a bad court.Special note #54: In March 2001, after Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law, about a dozen states soon started courts cases against the cast, such as attacking the requirement the citizens were being forced to buy something. On Thursday, July 1, 2010, the federal government and Virginia (the Commonwealth of Virginia) were arguing their sides in court--U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (and Judge Henry Hudson), and, for one, the federal government--Barack Obama--was working to have Virginia's lawsuit killed before anything substantial was done, such as the "discovery" phase of a case. On Monday, August 2, 2010, Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the case could go forward. (By the way, the Landmark Legal Foundation, headed by Mark R. Levin, is helping Virginia.)
On the evening of Monday, August 2, 2010, Mark R. Levin talked about the decision that had been made by Judge Henry Hudson earlier in the day during his nationally syndicated radio show (The Mark Levin Show) and, during the third hour of the show, interviewed the Attorney General of Virginia (the Commonwealth of Virginia)--Kenneth Cuccinelli--and here is one section of what Kenneth Cuccinelli said during the interview: "...Well, ah, here in Virginia, the federal court dismissed--denied, really--the federal government's motion to dismiss Virginia's challenge to the health-care bill, and, of course, ah, you're familiar with that 'cause Landmark filed an amicus brief, which we're very appreciative of, um, especially a couple of the points you made on the Commerce Clause [of The U.S. Constitution] and inactivity not being the same as inactivity. That was a shocker! But it still needs to be driven home. And, dah, the walk through the Comstock five-part test. You guys did great job, and it is much appreciated to have talented allies when you're in a battle like this. And, today, the result was that the court, basically, ruled on four different items--three, ah, traditional standing and one, ah, sort of on the merits in part. The first one was whether or not Virginia was injured. Because if you don't have an injury, you can't have a case. Courts don't give opinions about what they might do, they resolve actual fights. And the court held that, because Virginia has its own law--we have a Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, passed on a bipartisan basis this year and we have a Democrat Senate and a Republican House so it had to be bipartisan to get through--and a Virginia's law said that no Virginian can be forced to buy health insurance against their will. That became law before the President signed the federal health-care bill. So, the Supremacy Clause [of The U.S. Constitution] would normally have the federal bill, which requires us all to get health insurance--Nancy-approved health insurance--um, would trump the Virginia law, but not when the federal law is unconstitutional. And the. While you and I, Mark, can't have our own law, being individuals, the sovereign entity of the Commonwealth of Virginia does, and it's a unique feature of states and our constitutional system. The court agreed today that the trumping of Virginia's Health Care Freedom Act was, in fact, a legitimate injury--constitutional injury--that allowed the case to go forward. So that was their first one. The second one was sort of a fall back. It's called 'Rightness.' Well, if there's an injury, there's no injury yet, because the 'individual mandate' does not kick in until January 1, 2014. They lost on this point, because Virginia's law is already effective, and the federal law's been signed--there are no contingencies left--we all know that this conflict is going to hit January 1, 2014. And when the only thing between, ah, an injury today and the day it hits is the passage of time--no possible derailing of it--then the court have almost universally found that to be an irrelevant factor, and it was so held here, and it was interesting in the oral argument the federal government had cited a case the supports our position on 'Rightness.' In Florida--in the other case--and we cited it back at them in the oral argument, and, and I could tell watching on the screen I could see the table next to me--I didn't have to look over at them--and the, and there was a little bit of surprise and consternation when we hit them with that. But, dah, they lost on that as well. Um, the analogy I use with folks is--Look, we all know there's going to be a car accident on the corner on January 1, 2010, are we gonna grab popcorn and a chair and pull up to the corner and watch the disaster or are we gonna do something about it? And the court has never said, 'You have to just wait for the disaster and clean it up.' We can do something about it, when we know it's going to happen. The third argument was a pretty technical one. It was the 'Anti-Injunction Act.' This is a statute that is intended to keep people from challenging tax statutes until they pay their taxes. So it's a pay-to-sue statute. But Virginia isn't going to pay this penalty. It doesn't apply to us. And our injury isn't one of a taxpayer, it is of a sovereign whose, the dignity of whose legal code is being trounced by a federal statute that's in conflict with it. So we fall into a big exception--the Regan exception from South Carolina. So that doesn't apply. Those are the three standing issues. And one reason it's important that we won all three of those, we all know this case is gonna go on from this court, but now it's gonna on on the merits. And so when we go up to the Fourth Circuit--whoever loses here will appeal [in] the Fourth Circuit [Court of Appeals]--we will being dealing with the merits, we won't just be dealing with this motion to dismiss and whether Virginia should have been able to bring this case at all, and it'll go all the way up straight away, meaning through the Fourth Circuit to the Supreme Court presumably. And, dah, we don't have to do this, 'Well, that, court's overruled on this procedural matters, so send it back to the District Court, and then we come back up on the merits, and back down.' We don't have any of that going on now. So this gives us a pretty straight shot through the court process. The fourth item that we won on was the federal government said that, well, even if all of these are true, ah, what that Virginia has claimed in its pleadings--even if that's true--they still lose, meaning that the statute is within the boundaries of the existing Common Clause jurisprudence, within the boundaries of the tax jurisprudence, even as all the, is aided by the 'Necessary and Proper Clause' [of The U.S. Constitution]. And one interesting thing the judge said--he didn't say, 'today' because it was a motion to dismiss, he didn't say, 'the law is unconstitutional'--but what he did say is that no law under the Commerce Clause has ever gone this far before." [Mark Levin interrupted him, but I leave Mark Levin's comment out of this text version.] "He said it's beyond the outer limits of anything that the Supreme Court has ever said is constitutional before. Now, now...you know it, but your listeners should listen closely--that isn't saying it's unconstitutional yet. He may say that at summary judgment. But he is saying that, on the Commerce Clause, they are farther out there than anyone has ever gone--any Congress, any President has ever gone. And he said the same thing on the taxing power--that this is, this goes farther than any federal government has ever gone before. And one thing you all did very well in your brief is you walked through the Commerce Clause history. Um, one piece of the history that I like to point out to people is, when the Founding Fathers--before the war began, at the First Continental Congress in 1774, they acknowledge that the British, the Parliament could regulate commerce, and in the same document, they also agreed to boycott British goods and that they wouldn't export to Britain, and when the King's Solicitor General was speaking before the Parliament, he said the Colonists are well advised legally, they have come right up to the line and stayed within the law--in other words, King George and the Parliament of Great Britain, whom we felt compelled to fight a war with, because they were tyrants, ah, they didn't go as far as the Congress and this President have gone...." [Mark Levin made a comment, which is leave out.] "That's how unprecedented what they're doing is. Now, again, this is a fourth point, -the judge said that this legislation is out farther tha--beyond the Commerce Clause boundaries and the taxing boundaries, even aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause--than any decision of the Supreme Court ever before. He didn't say that means it's unconstitutional. He left that decision for summary judgment, which is scheduled for oral argument on October 18, and, of particular interest to you--and from me to you--October 4 is the likely deadline for making...."
(I urge you to see my document entitled Illegal Aliens and Immigration: The Focus is Protecting the Home--The United States of America, which can be reached through this Illegal link, since it shows, for one, an example of what a bad court ruling can be, particularly a decision made by Judge Susan Bolton of the Federal District Court on July 29, 2010, in relation to the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (of Arizona).)Special note #55: On Tuesday, August 3, 2010, a primary was held for political candidates in Missouri, and also people in the state voted on "Proposition C," which, if passed, would--it is hoped--give the people of Missouri the ability to opt out of having to buy health-care insurance as mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The vote turned out to be seventy-one-point-one percent for "yes" and twenty-eight-point-nine percent for "no." What does the vote mean? It may mean nothing. One reason is, if the vote is challenged in court, it may be overturned by a judge, especially if the judge is like Judge Susan Bolton, who made a defective ruling in the court case related to the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act in Arizona on July 28, 2010, which is talked about in my document entitled Illegal Aliens and Immigration: The Focus is Protecting the Home--The United States of America, which can be reached by using this Illegal link. (And you are urged to see the section called "The Judge Against the Many People" in my document entitled Justice for All?: The Rules are Changing Under Barack Obama, which talks about the very bad decision rendered by Judge Vaughn Walker on August 4, 2010, in relation to "Proposition 8" (of California), which had been voted on and passed in November 2008, and this document can be reached by using this Justice link.)
And never forget Barack Obama said to members of the AFL-CIO in 2003 that "...I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health-care coverage...." (And I say that it is a system that will lead to the destruction of the private health-care industry in the United States of America).
Urgent! See saveourhealthcarenow.com, and sign the petition, and here is the link: www.saveourhealthcarenow.com.
P.S.: On Friday, November 6, 2009, I was listening to The Frank Beckmann Show on WJR-AM, 760, Detroit, Michigan, and there was a substitute host for the show, and the host took a telephone call from a women who said that she was at the tea-party-like event at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, November 5, 2009, and the woman noted she was in the office of U.S. Senator Carl Levin, and a staffer in the office noted that she did not care about The U.S. Constitution and that she only cared that some people did not have health care.
###
Bibliography (previously unnoted material):
"Abraham Lincoln." Wikipedia.com, 8 December 2009.
"Albert Gore, Sr." Wikipedia.com, 21 September 2009.
"Donald Berwick." Wikipedia.com, 13 May 2010.
"Jan Schakowsky." Wikipedia.com, 7 May 2009.
"Lester Maddox." Wikipedia.com, 5 December 2009.
"Missouri Health Care Freedom, Proposal C (2010)." Ballotpedia.com, 5 August 2010.
"Protestors Blast Congress for Axing D.C. Vouchers While Sending Own Kids to Private School." FOXNews.com, 6 May 2009, p. NA.
"Robert Byrd." Wikipedia.com, 6 December 2009.
"Strom Thurmond." Wikipedia.com, 8 December 2009.
"White House Pressure? Using Taxpayer Funded Groups to 'further our agenda' Beyond Explaination." yostforcongress.com/blog/?tag=michael-skolnik, 21 September 2009.
Davey, Monica. "Missouri Voter Reject Health Law." The New York Times, 3 August 2010. (http://www.nytimes.com....)
Foster, Dan. "OBAMA'S MEDICARE ACTUARY UNABLE TO REVIEW BILL BEFORE VOTE." Conservative Blog Watch, 20 March 2010. (http://www.conservativeblogwatch....)
Klein, Philip. "Obama's Rationing Man." The American Spectator, 13 May 2010, 6:09 a.m. (http://spectator.org....)
Kopf, David. "Obama Nominates Berwick as CMS Admin." HME Business, 23 April 2010. (http://hme-business.com....)
Lambert, Lisa. "Virginia, government square off over healthcare." Reuters, 1 July 2010, 5:53 p.m. EDT.
Messenger, Tony. "Prop C passes ovderwhelmingly." stltoday.com, 4 August 2010, 8:30 a.m.
Neefus, Christopher. "Poll: Support for Repeal of Health-Care Reform Law Increases After One Month." CNSNews.com, 27 April 2010. (http://www.csnnews.com....)
Nolan, Jim. "Virginia, 13 other states sue over healh-care law." Richmond Times-Dispatch, 3 March 2010.
Pelofsky, Jeremy, and Lisa Lambert. "Judge lets Viriginia healthcare challenge proceed." Reuters, 2 August 2010, 4:57 p.m. EDT.
Turque, Bill, and Shailagh Murray. "Obama Offers D.C. Voucher Compromise: Tution Grants Would Continue for Private School Students Already in Program." The Washington Post, 7 May 2009, p. NA.
Vandeventer, John. "Senator Schumer: Competition Works for Health Care," SEIU blog, 6 April 2009, 3:24 p.m. Eastern. (http://www.seiu.org....)
Note: The first version of this document was posted on the Internet on Friday, May 8, 2009.
Note: This document is known on the Internet as www.hologlobepress.com/health.htm.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Enemies of the
nited States of America: Politicians
Who Have Hurt You and Your
Family by Voting "Yes" on Bad
Federal Bills, which can be reached
by using this link: Enemies.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Reasons That the
Democratic Party is a Dangerous
and Corrupt Entity That Must be
Crushed and Destroyed, which can
be reached at link: Democrartic Party.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Madness in a
President and Other Matters of
a Defective Mind, which can be
reached at this link: Madness.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitle Nonsense Statements
and Quotations of Barack Obama,
which can be reached by using this
link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Political Lessons
for the Individual Woman and the
Individual Man in the United States
of America, which can be reached
through this link: Lessons.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled A Collection of
Words--Just Words--That Show
Dangerous People, which can be
reached through this link: Words.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled THOUGHTS AND
PIECES OF LOGIC for the individual
woman and the individual man, which
can be reached at this link: Logic.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Never Forget These
Media "Darlings" ? -- A Guide for the
Individual in the United States of
America, which can be reached by
using this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Patriots of the U.S.A.
and the Counter-Counter Revoloution,
which can be reached at this link: Patriots.
To reached the main Web page for The
Hologlobe Press, you may use this
link: www.hologlobepress.com.
To see the Site-Summary Page for The
Hologlobe Press, which has links to
all the documents available through
The Hologlobe Press, use this
link: Summary.
###