National Health Care
and Mass Failure:
The Reasons it is a Dead Issue
Victor Edward Swanson,
The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan 49721
November 10, 2014
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: email@example.com. 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.)
Special Note #56: On Thursday, October 7, 2010, a federal judge based in Detroit--U.S. District Judge George Steeh--made big news that showed what trouble could be had ahead by those opposed to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Judge George Steeh issued a twenty-page decision that, ultimately, noted that he would not issue an injunction to potentially stop much of the act from taking effect; for example, he did not issue an injunction in relation to the rule in the act that required every individual to buy health-care insurance in the near future. The requirement by the federal-government act that a person must buy something from someone else or from some entity has never happened before in the history of the United States of America, since a person's being required to buy something as determined by the federal government goes against the true ways of The United States Constitution, but the idea does not go against those two believe The United States Constitution is a passe document and that the federal government has no limits as to what it can do--which is the way of "liberals" (such as communists) or what I call "enslavists" or "enslavers," who promote "enslavism," as does Barack Obama and as do members of the Democratic Party.
Special Note #57: On October 14, 2010, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson made a ruling in which he said that a lawsuit, which had been initiated by, in essence, twenty states of the country, could go forth, and the topic was really the Patent Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010, and the next action related to the case would be a hearing that was set for December 16, 2010. On Friday, October 15, 2010, a man named Mark Simone did substitute hosting duty for Sean Hannity on the nationally syndicated radio show entitled The Sean Hannity Show, and at one point during the show, Mark Simone talked Betsy McCaughey, who runs the Web site known as "defendyourhealthcare.us," and the main topic was the decision that had been made by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson. Here is a big portion of the interview in text form:
Betsy McCaughey: "...We're gonna have that day in court in December, and it's gonna make it all the way to the Supreme Court before the next presidential election."
Mark Simone: "Well, a lot things wrong with Obama care. It's increased costs for a lot of people. It's actually cut services for a lot of people. But, wait, you're right. Way back when you hear people say, "Well, wait a minute, how's that constitutional for the government to pass a law requiring you to buy products from a private company in the private sector?'"
Betsy McCaughey: "Or to buy anything or frankly, ah, to do anything? The, The, The Constitution provides a very set number of powers for Congress, and nowhere in there does it say that Congress can force you to buy health insurance."
Mark Simone: "Yeah. But when, when people would say that's you can't pass a law requiring you through a private company to buy their product."
Betsy McCaughey: "Right. Or...."
Mark Simone: "And, and I, what I used to say, 'Well obviously that's not true, otherwise these brilliant Senators and Congressmen would know that.' And, ah, maybe it was true."
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, in fact, I wonder how many of those brilliant Senators and members of the House even read The Constitution, that document they've, they've sworn to uphold."
Mark Simone: "So, ah, what, now, this court ruling is it a state-by-state thing?"
Betsy McCaughey: "No. This is major. I'll tell you what happened. Twenty states--big states, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, Michigan--twenty states went to court and said, 'We want a trial on these constitutional issues.' The major one is the one you just focused on--Can the federal government force our citizens to buy health insurance and not only any kind of health insurance but this kind of one-size-fits-all health insurance described in this Obama health law? And, dah, ah, I remember last November when Nancy Pelosi was asked, 'Can the government do this?' She said, 'Are you serious. Are you serious.' Well, now we're getting serious. It's very exciting to see. But in this country, you can go to court, challenge the President, and win!"
Mark Simone: "Now, what will happen now? The Justice Department will have to go battle this?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Oh, yes. There' gonna be a trial beginning December 16. Ah, and regardless of the outcome--but I, I telling you, I'm not a gambling woman, but this time, I'd bet the ranch that we're gonna win in court--ah, and then there will be a series of appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, and the, the Supemes will rule probably just before the presidential election in 2012."
Mark Simone: "Well, so luckily, ah, Attorney General Eric Holder not that busy prosecuting any terrorists so he'll have plenty of time now to work on this thing."
Betsy McCaughey: "And, by the way, this is the second, ah, legal defeat for the administration on Obama care, because back on August 2, in the State of Virginia, ah, a federal judge also ruled that the, there were serious constitutional questions here. So there's, there's a, a hearing starting next Monday on that case."
Mark Simone: "Yeah. But it is a fascinating legal issue. And how could a court in the end decide that the government can require you to buy a product from a private company in the private sector?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, that's right, because if they could require you to buy health insurance, making these arguments that it will lower the price for everyone, they could require you to buy cars to prop up Detroit or buy stocks to prop up Wall Street. They could require you next year to buy a gym membership, 'cause the more people who join, the cheaper it is, and then everybody would exercise. I mean there is no limit to what the federal government could do, ah, if they're allowed to force you to purchase things."
Mark Simone: "But then they'll make the case--Well, that's different, but they're not doing it to help a business, they're saying, 'You need this for your own safety and protection.' But couldn't you make the case that, if you live in certain areas, you're required to have a burglar alarm...."
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, exactly. They could make exactly that kind of argument, and, and pretty soon all your individual freedoms to decide how you're gonna live, how you're gonna take care of your family would be gone. Now, the administration argues that this was part of the Commerce Clause. There was a facetious argument and both the federal judge Virginia and, yesterday, the federal judge in Florida pointed out that the decision not to buy health insurance is hardly commerce. But that's the, that's the argument the administration tried to make."
Mark Simone: "Um. But the government can require businesses to have certain things, like--I don't know. Maybe, you're required to have a fire extinguisher in a certain spot. You're, you're in a radio station where, where required to have lights on our...."
Betsy McCaughey: "Okay, but let's..."
Mark Simone: "...tower."
Betsy McCaughey: "...let's make an important distinction, Mark. It's not government. It's state or local government. The powers of the federal government are limited and enumerated. They're written in The United States Constitution, and states and cities have many broad powers that the federal government doesn't have, and the whole reason behind that was that the framers--the founders--of our country said, 'If we divide the power to govern among different types of government, it will weaken government, it will weaken power, and that means protecting the freedom of the individual. So, Massachusetts passed a law that everybody has to have health insurance, that's consistent with The Constitution of Massachusetts, but the U.S. government doesn't have that power."
Mark Simone: "So, ah, what some Democrats will say is, 'Well, but you're required to have car insurance. Of course, that's."
Betsy McCaughey: "Ah, but only if you decide to buy a car."
Mark Simone: "Yeah? So that goes with the product...."
Betsy McCaughey: "Exactly. And, and, ah, what's really important to know about this monumental victory yesterday is that, if the federal court strike down any part of this twenty-six-hundred-page health-law monstrosity--any section of it--the whole thing will fall like a house of cards. Ah..."
Mark Simone: "What, what happens if you're a Christian Scientist--there are a lot of them in this country--and you're never gonna use a doctor, you're never gonna use the medical system, why should you be required...?"
Betsy McCaughey: "...religious exemptions in here. But let's get back to that issue--What happens if the court strikes down one part of this law?--because that's what everybody's waiting with baited breath. Well, what will happen to the rest? The fact is that, generally, in complex legislation like this, there's a boiler plate, um, that says, 'If one part is struck down, all the other parts remain in force.' But the, the authors of the Obama health law actually took that out because they realized that this monstrous scheme can't work without compulsory insurance. So that's what I meant--the whole thing falls apart. There will be no Obama health law if the court rules against them."
Mark Simone: "Okay. But whatever this court rules, then what happens? Then, obviously, the government will, will take it to another court."
Betsy McCaughey: "There'll be a series of appeals, and that's how it gets to the Supreme Court in the fall of 2012."
Mark Simone: "Well, that's a long time from now. So does everything stay on hold till then?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, if, if the defenders of freedom win at the trial stage this fall, they will ask the court to put a stop on the clock, to just freeze Obama care, and so that none the, none of the provisions that roll out over the three of four years will take effect. They'll just ask put a stop on it until the Supreme Courts decide, and that's gonna save the state taxpayers a bundle of money, because there are all these prere, preparations that states are supposed to start making, and they won't have to make them. Why should they spend billions of dollars preparing for a law that may never go into effect, because it's unconstitutional."
Special Note #58: When politicians in Washington, D.C., were trying to craft a health-care act around early 2010, Sarah Palin (a Republican and the most recent former governor of Alaska) noted that the Democrats were working to have the government health-care system have "death panels," like those of the United Kingdom, which would make the final decisions about who would and would not get health care, and Democrats tried to dispute Sarah Palin's statement. On Sunday, November 14, 2010, a big-name left-wing icon named Paul Krugman was one of the guests on This Week with Christiane Amanpour, which is a weekly series shown by ABC-TV; incidentally, Paul Krugman at the time was a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, and Woodrow Wilson was a President of the United States of America (from 1913 to 1921) and a socialist). On the program, Paul Krugman actually admitted, "...Some years down the pike, we're gonna get the real solution, which is gonna be a combination of 'death panels' and, and sales taxes. It's gonna be that we're actually gonna take Medicare under control and we're gonna have to have some additional revenue probably from a VAT ["value added tax"]...." Let me show more of what Paul Krugman is--a man who feels nothing about other persons. On March 29, 2010, Paul Krugman made this statement on This Week (on ABC-TV): "...It's, it's amazing actually if you think about people on the 'right,' they're simultaneously screaming, 'They're gonna send all the old people to "death panels" and it's not going to save any money.' That's a contradictory point of view." and "...well, the, the, the advisory panel, which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we're not gonna pay for it. That is actually gonna save quite a lot of money. We don't know how much yet. The CBO gives it very little credit, but, but most, most of the health-care economists I talk to think that's going to be a really, a really major cost saving...." [By the way, ask yourself--How many economists and what type of economists has he talked with? And, by the way, it is being proved daily his idea of a "real solution" is not working in the United Kingdom, and yet his wishes for that "real solution" to be set up in the United States of America. I say that Paul Krugman is an educated idiot and dangerous to other people.]
Special Note #59: It was on March 23, 2010, that Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 into law, and it is a law that many people understand is a bad law, and some people well understand the law was purposely enacted to hurt the country--and give it a socialistic health-care system. On Monday, December 13, 2010, a judge in Virginia struck down at least a part of the law as unconstitutional--or against the essence of The United States Constitution. The judge was Judge Henry Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District, and some of his remarks about his ruling were:
"...On careful review, this court must conclude that Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Card Act--specifically the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision--exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power...."
"...An individual's personal decision to purchase--or decline purchase--(of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the U.S. Constitution -- no specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance...."
"...would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers...."
On the evening of Monday, December 13, 2010, Mark R. Levin, the host of The Mark Levin Show (a nationally syndicated radio show) did an interview with Ken Cuccinelli. Mark R. Levin is the author of Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto and founded the Landmark Legal Foundation, and, on this date, Ken Cuccinelli was the Attorney General for Virginia (officially, the Commonwealth of Virginia), and both men had been involved in the case argued--Virginia v. Sebelius (3: 1-cv-00188)--that Judge Henry Hudson had ruled on early in the day (in essence, Landmark Legal Foundation had assisted Virginia). Here, I present some of what Ken Cuccinelli said during the interview so that you have a better perspective about the case and what recently had happened:
"...Well, today, the judge in Virginia ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that is it is not saved by the penalty that you would have to pay if you didn't buy the government-mandated health insurance. The federal government argued as a fall back that that penalty was a tax, and, of course, Congress has considerable taxing power, so that was, that was what they were trying sweep the law in under, and, and the judge did not accept the fall-back argument anymore than he did the argument about the individual mandate. And those were the two arguments about constitutionality today, and Virginia won on both. And, dah, needless to say as, as I'm sure you recall, Mark, and when we began this on March 23--ah, the same day the President signed the bill--we filed suit, which, by the way, was the two-hundred-thirty-first anniversary of Patrick Henry's 'Give me liberty or give me death' speech...."
"...Health insurance is just the subject of this bill. The real problem, here, constitutionally speaking is that, if the government can do this, what can't they do? If the federal government has this power, federalism is dead, because there's no separate arena of authority, no separate sphere of authority for states, separate and apart from the federal government. If they can order you to buy a product and penalize you if you don't, then they can more or less achieve any goal that they want, and, of course, the Founders would be appalled by that and the notion that we no longer have a limited government, which would, of course, be the case, and we've been moving in that direction anyway...."
"...Everybody remembers the check and balances they learned in tenth grade, and you, with the part of that everybody remembers is the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches checking each other's power, but the vertical check of power put in place by the Founders is what we call "federalism." It is the check between the federal and state governments, and, right here, as an Attorney General representing Virginia, I am doing exactly what he Founders had in mind for states--and that is we would check the federal government's exercise of power when they overstep their boundaries. And I obviously I'm not alone. In Florida, they got twenty more states in [in another case], and by the end of January--with the elections last month of some new governors and attorneys general--by the end of January, over half of the states in the United States of America will be suing the federal government as parties. And, as far as I know, that is the first time in American history that's ever happened, where we're all as parties plaintiffs suing the federal government over this unconstitutional exercise of power, in this case that means the individual mandate...."
"...But more important than all of that is the point that you made earlier, and that is liberty's at stake here. This isn't about even dollars. It isn't about state budgets. It isn't about health insurance. It's about liberty and preserving The Constitution...."
Note: For more information, about this case, you could see the Web site know as "cuccinelli,com", which can be reached though this link: Cuccinelli.
Special Note #60: Monday, December 27, 2010--on this date, Mark Simone was the guest host on The Sean Hannity Show (which is a nationally syndicated radio show), and one of the guests was Betsy McCaughey, who has already been presented to you in this document in "Special Note #22," "Special Note #25," "Special Note #34," and "Special Note #57." In the interview, the main topic was health care. Look at most of that interview in text form:
Mark Simone: "...Dr. Betsy McCaughey, how are ya?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, I'm very glad to join you today, because, um, almost everyone listening has seen the headlines in The New York Times about the revival of Obama's, ah, end-of-life program for seniors and would probably like some information about this."
Mark Simone: "Yeah. You know, ah, we love we're using the phrase where they give you 'death panels.' And then, ah, that, all the crazy Keith Olbermann types are saying, 'There are no death pan, panels!' But if you've been watching them for the last several months, he's been complaining about 'death panels'--now, in his case, he's trying to make it sound like it's Arizona Governor Brewer--but by doing that, he's acknowledged that when the government gets involved you end up with 'death panels.' He has used that phrase repeatedly to describe government involvement in health care, so I think we can use that phrase, now, I guess."
Betsy McCaughey: "I guess we can. I actually didn't invent it. I have to give credit to Sarah Palen for inventing that phrase. But I was very concerned in earlier drafts of the Obama health law when I saw that the government was gonna take charge of, of ensuring that older people are instructed on how and when to end their lives--whether they should have an advanced directive or what some people call a 'living well' and, if so, what it should say, and, ah, under a storm of protest, the Obama administration dropped that out--they said--of the Obama health law. But here is it. What they couldn't achieve through legislation, they are now putting in through regulation, and they just announced that one of the new--and I'm putting this word in quotes--'benefit' under the law will be annual well visits for seniors. Ah, and it will include a yearly consultation--yearly--about limiting aggressive care toward the end of your life. Now, there's nothing wrong with paying doctors, ah, to spend time talking with older patients about the tough choices they're gonna face. That's a good thing! But, unfortunately, the government actually intends to script this meeting and to make videos and brochures on how people are ta end their lives or, ah, die when the time comes."
Mark Simone: "But what is the reason you would ever be discussing that, 'cause I assume everybody, especially an older person, has a regular doctor they know and trust, and that's where the conversation would take place?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, that's, of course, where it would take place, with your doctor, with a trusted, ah, or compassionate nurse, with, with friends and family, with maybe your minister or rabbi, but not with, ah, this new agency that's being set up here. It's called the 'Shared Decision Making Learning Resources.'" [She laughed a bit.]
Mark Simone: "...that, that does not sound good at all...."
Betsy McCaughey: "...Ah, ah, in section nine thirty-six of this law, the government is actually gonna be producing what they call 'patient decision aids' or learning tools on how to die. It just isn't something the government should be doing!"
Mark Simone: "No. It sounds ridiculous. And what would, what would be happening tn years ago? Would people just be discussing this with their family doctor, correct?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Of course, of course. And that fact is anyone who's in the hospital now is asked whether they've thought about these things, whether they've filled out these legal forms, if they want to. So this is not a neglected area. But the real problem here is that it certainly isn't an area of life where the government should be calling the shots...."
Mark Simone: "What's...."
Betsy McCaughey: "...They claim it's voluntary, but that's really open to question."
Mark Simone: "What is the government's motive, just to save money and make sure they don't have to give these treatments and spend that kind of money anymore?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, let's put it in perspective. The Obama administration expands Medicaid, enlarging that program to reach a projected eight-five-million people in 2014--that's gonna cost an enormous amount--and, in order to pay for that huge expansion of one program, they're, they're reducing future funding for another one, Medicare. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, only it's robbing grandma and grandpa. So, they're, they're very motivated to reduce spending on care for older people."
Mark Simone: "Well, what if grandma is not shovel ready? Ah...."
Betsy McCaughey: "Right. That's exactly, that's the. And, you know, here's the other problem. They claim that it's voluntary. But that would be true if you're doctor didn't suffer financially--get penalized, get paid less--if you decline this counseling or decline to have, ah, a living well or advanced directive. We don't know if that's true.... In, in earlier versions of this law, the doctors would be penalized when patients didn't do this. We know that Medicare grades and pays doctors based on compliance with protocols. What if this is gonna be the next protocol? Well, then, it's not gonna be voluntary at all, because your doctor is gonna put a lot of pressure on you to make this living will so that he doesn't get dinged financially by the Medicare system."
Mark Simone: "So, you, you started with a great point. You said, what they couldn't ach, achieve through legislation, they're gonna achieve through regulation."
Betsy McCaughey: "Right!"
Mark Simone: "And, hopefully, there'll be court challenges to that."
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, before that even happens, what I'm hoping is that the public will become so concerned with this and express their concern that the administration backs off and assures that the government is not gonna be meddling in these most delicate and private and--let's face it--wrenching decisions."
Mark Simone: "What about the, all the doctors in the medical community standing up to this? Now, sometimes the government will say, 'The AMA is with us on this.' But does the AMA really represent all the doctors?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Of course, not! The, only about seventeen percent of doctors even belong to the AMA. Most doctors are furious that the AMA has cow towed to the president, ah, in, in some parts to make money on certain coding responsibilities that they have. But the fact is the AMA certainly doesn't represent the interests of patients and doctors who are committed to their patients."
Mark Simone: "Most of this health-care stuff in this legislation hasn't even kicked in yet. It won't kick in till some time. Well, have we already seen doctors, ah, abandon certain practices and patients and sta...?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, yes. And, and actually the whole contest over the Obama health law has moved to two new fronts--the incoming Congress and the U.S. Courts. This is really quite dramatic. Ah, in the first state challenge to the Obama health law is mandatory insurance provisions, the State of Virginia won in a federal court. Judge Henry Hudson declared it unconstitutional to force Americans to buy health insurance or anything else for that matter. Ah, and he explained that, once the government can force you to buy things, there's literally no limit to what the government can force you to do...."
Mark Simone: "Which sounds to me like a very good point. However, two other judges have ruled the opposite."
Betsy McCaughey: 'Well, no, that's really not true, Mark, because, in the other two cases, it wasn't a state challenging the Obama health law, they were a much smaller, ah, groups challenging it and, much more importantly, they made very weak cases. Now, there are twenty other states challenging the Obama health law, and it's likely that Judge Roger Vinson--the federal judge hearing those cases--is also gonna rule that the mandatory insurance provision is unconstitutional."
Mark Simone: "Now, that's interesting. ....This, this is just going to be one battle in the long war in the courts."
Betsy McCaughey: "Well, the, it will actually reach the Supreme Court early in 2012 if not sooner, and we will have a definitive decision before the 2012 presidential election. I'm confident that, with The U.S. Constitution on our side, freedom is going to prevail."
Mark Simone: "Now, you've studied all this stuff for years. Let me ask you just a basic simple, ah, question as, as an idiot who knows nothing about this. Ah, when you go to a hospital and you do some, just, have a broken arm fixed, and there's a bill for $50,000 and you find out you were charged eighteen dollars or an aspirin and all, shouldn't we be workin' on, ah, just getting these costs down to something reasonable and they we wouldn't have to worry about all this other stuff?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Amen! I totally agree. And, actually, there are many things already happening to bring down the costs. We've seen a much slower increase in costs recently. Um, and part of it is due to marvelous new technologies. I'll give you just one example--anesthesia reversing drugs. It used to be that, when people went into the hospital for surgery and had a general anesthesia, they had to stay in the hospital at least over night because the impact of the anesthesia more than the surgery. But, now, new medications actually reverse the impact anesthesia and allow patients to go home after a knee repair, for examp...."
Mark Simone: "Really?"
Betsy McCaughey: "...couple of hours."
Mark Simone: "But how come, if I go, if you were to stay in a hospital, the room--this filthy little disgusting nothing room--you get bill for like three-thousand dollars. If you went and stayed in the finest room in the Ritz-Carlton, it's only a thousand dollars. How, what makes this happen?"
Betsy McCaughey: "Ah, well, first of all, it's very labor intensive. Right? The person who's taking care of you in the hospital has a lot more training than the fella bringing up your coffee in the morning. Ah, so that's one reason. Ah, and secondly, you're being treated with a lot of expensive high technology with expensive medications, and there's more at, at stake here than whether your bed linens felt good. In many cases, they're saving your life."
Mark Simone: "Okay, but when you get an itemized bill and you look, sometimes you do get charged like eight dollars for an aspirin. I can go to a store and buy an aspirin for pennies."
Betsy McCaughey: "You're absolutely right. Course, there's a lot of handling that goes into that aspirin. I'm not defending the eight-dollar charge. But it has to go through the hospital pharmacy. It has to be relabeled. It has to be delivered to your bedside. It's not like when you walk to your own medicine chest and take one."
Mark Simone: "But, ah, doctors have said to me that, way back when when we started all of this, we let it get out of control, we didn't nip it in the bud. Ah, once the government was payin', and insurance was payin', everything just went crazy on prices, and we should have stopped that in the beginning. And the other thing, wasn't the original purpose of health care [insurance] to cover you for a serious major thing?...."
Betsy McCaughey: "Absolutely!"
Mark Simone: "...We now use the health-care insurance for a flu shot and everything and anything."
Betsy McCaughey: "You're making such a good point. The fact is, if we went back to that system where insurance covered you for the unexpected problem or the big illness and you paid cash for your routine visits to the doctor, you'd actually be saving a lot of money. You wouldn't be paying those enormous premiums. Whether you're paying them yourself or at work, they're coming out of your pocket."
Mark Simone: "Yeah. So, with the government running around, what they're...basically, trying to cure the symptom and not the disease. They're trying to figure out how to pay all these health-care costs. But we should really be figurin' out how to get 'em back to something reasonable."
Betsy McCaughey: "Yes, and, in fact, the, ah, projections provided by the administration recently showed that health insurance is gonna cost more under the new Obama health law every year as far as the eye can see, way through 2018--more than it that law hadn't passed."
Mark Simone: "Oh, God! Don't take this the wrong way, but you're makin' us sick with all this..."
Betsy McCaughey: "...some more good news. Also, there is some good news, because the new Congress that was elected in November and will be taking its seat, ah, January Second or Third, um, they have...they are pledged to undoing some of the worst aspects of Obamacare. They can't repeal it. They don't have the votes. But they can starve the beast, that is, defund it by refusing to pass laws appropriating the money for it."
Mark Simone: "All right, well, some good news to end on...."
Special Note #61: On January 4, 2010, the members of the U.S. Congress were back in Washington, D.C., and one of the first issues that many Republicans in the U.S. Congress were working on was the idea of repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, an idea that had already been known by Democrats in the U.S. Congress or Democrats who would become a part of the U.S. Congress in January 2011 for many weeks, given what had happened in the election of November 2010, when the Democratic Party took a beating. A day or so before the U.S. Congress would start up again, information was reported to the public through articles that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was paying Google money to "point" users of Google to the government-run Web site known as www.healthcare.gov first when people did a search for information about, for instance, "Obamacare," and lead people away from information about repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Anderson, Jeffrey H. "HHS is Paying Google with Taxpayer Money to Alter Obamacare Search Results (Updated)." The Weekly Standard, 3 January 2011, 3:45 p.m.), and what the Barack Obama administration was doing was continuing to promote the lies that had been told for months by Democrats about what the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 would do, such as lower the cost of premiums. (By the way, it could be argued well by me that the federal government was taking part in a form of censorship by paying Google to put its site, which is filled with lies, ahead of other sites and downgrading other sites.) Soon after Democrats of the U.S. Congress returned to work, they were making public statements to the press about repealing the health-care act, and here I show a few statements:
On January 4, 2010, U.S. House of Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (a Democrat related to Florida) said: "...Under the Republican repeal effort, insurance companies would once again be able to drop people when they get sick, exactly when coverage is need most; children with pre-existing conditions would be denied coverage, while insurance companies would again be able to impose devastation annual and lifetime caps; young people will not be able to stay on their parents' insurance until their age twenty-six; pregnant women and breast-cancer survivors could be denies coverage; seniors will face an increase in their prescription-drug costs, millions thrown back into the Medicare Part D doughnut hole. Repeal would deny seniors a fifty-percent cut in their brand-name prescription drugs, recreating the devastating coverage gap. Plain and simple, repealing health-care reform would hurt millions of Americans...."
On January 4, U.S. House of Representative Nancy Pelosi (a Democrat related to California and the highest-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives) said: "...If everyone in America was very, very pleased with his or her health insurance and had no complaints and had access to quality affordable health care in our country, it still would have been necessary for us pass the health-care reform bill, because we could not sustain the system. To say we're going to repeal it is to do very serious violence to the national debt and deficit...."
Both Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz passed along more than one lie in the statements that I present. One lie that Debbie Wasserman Schultz passed along is that "insurance companies would once again be able to drop people when they get sick," which is not allowed, since health-care insurance is a contract situation, which insurance companies must follow or be taken to court for failing to live up to the terms. One lie that Nancy Pelosi passed along is "to repeal it is to do very serious violence to the national debt and deficit," which is wrong, given that repealing it would save billions and billions and billions of dollars of federal spending.
I say in jest, "Yes, Barack Obama and the Democrats in the U.S. Congress are doing what they can do to make sure we do not have to go back to the old health-care system, that horrible, horrible health-care system."
Oh, on December 26, 2010, Barack Obama was vacationing in Hawaii, and on that day, he telephoned King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who in the previous week had received medical care for a blood clot and and a slipped disk in--not Saudi Arabia--New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, the United States of America, which is, you know, that country with the terrible health-care system and terrible doctors and terrible hospitals according to Barack Obama (The Associated Press. "Obama calls Saudi King Abdullah to extend well wishes after surgeries." StarTribune (St. Paul-Minneapolis, Minnesota), 26 December 2010, 4:41 p.m.).
Before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 would be make law, the health-care system in the country did need some reworking, especially the parts that had become defective because of federal-government intervention and poor managing, such as Medicare, which, today, still has corruption and is trillions in debt.
****Special Note #62: On Wednesday, January 5, 2010, Mark R. Levin of The Mark Levin Show made me and at least several million other persons aware of some information that the well-known liberal media was not reporting to the people of the United States of America. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was made law, and in the many months before it was made a law, the Democrats in Washington, D.C., such as Barack Obama, had pushed the idea that the health-care law had to be passed because, for one, so many, many people in the country had no health-care insurance because they had pre-existing medical conditions that blocked them from getting health-care insurance. On January 5, 2010, Mark R. Levin read information from an article written by Dr. John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis entitled "Health Problem Qualified" (Goodman, John. "Health Problem Qualified." National Center for Policy Analysis, 5 January 2011.). The country has about 310,000,000 persons, and it had about that many persons when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2010 was made a law, and, yet, as Dr. John Goodman reports, only around 8,000 persons in the country were known by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services--the Barack Obama administration--to be persons who were having trouble getting health-care insurance because of pre-existing medical conditions. I will not tell the entire story here, and it is a story that shows the heartlessness and evilness of the people of the Democratic Party. Instead, I strongly urge you to look for the story on the Internet. Also, on January 5, 2010, Mark R. Levin talked about a story written by Amy Goldstein for The Washington Post in December 2010 that is related to the subject, and the story was entitled "Health plans for .high-risk patients attracting fewer, costing more than expected" (Goldstein, Amy. "Health plans for high-risk patients attracting fewer, costing more than expected." The Washington Post, 27 December 2010, 10:54 p.m.), and you should see that article too. You shall learn more of how evil Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their associates are. To close this section, I leave you with some words that Mark R. Levin spoke during his radio show on January 5, 2010: "...I keep saying this has never been about health care. It's about liberty versus tyranny. It is about the citizen versus government, the individual versus the politician. They want control over your body! They want you to have to come to them for your medicine, for your procedures, for whatever technologies are available. They're building a massive bureaucracy with all kinds of tributaries--that is, offices and units and divisions and czars to make all these decisions for you and then impose them on you! That's why they laugh at The Constitution. None of this is constitutional! None of it!..." And I make it clear--Yes, Barack Obama and his communist and socialist friends pushed the idea that the entire health-care industry in the country had to be taken over by the government so that around 8,000 persons out of 310,000,000 could be helped.
Special Note #63: Before you read this section, read "****Special Note #62" if you have not yet, or read it again so that you are well aware of what is stated within it, and then return to this section. During the week of Monday, January 17, 2011, the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives were working on presenting a bill that would--it was hoped--repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, but it seemed very unlikely that, if the bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives, the bill would be passed by the U.S. Senate, and if the bill passed the U.S. Senate, it was very unlikely that Barack Obama would sign that bill, which would kill the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, but one of the main goals of the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives was to get Barack Obama to show himself even more as a person who supports the bad Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 by not signing the repeal bill. On January 18, 2011, Katheen Sebelius, who is the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, released a federal report that noted, if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was repealed, up to 129-million persons in the country would have trouble getting medical insurance because they have pre-existing conditions. Yes, Kathleen Sebelius issued lies in a formal document--entitled "New report: 129 million Americans with a pre-existing condition could be denied coverage without new health reform law"--on January 18, 2011. Ask yourself--How could up to 129-million persons not get coverage if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was repealed, given that somewhere around only 8,000 persons had had trouble getting health insurance before that Patient Protection and Affordable Act of 2010 was enacted into law? Remember: Around the time the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was made a law, which happened in March 2010, about 12-million persons in the country did not have health-care insurance, and some did not have it because they did not want to buy it, and some did not have health-care insurance because they were on transition from one health-care plan to another, et cetera?
In essence, the Democrat Party is made up of "enslavists," such as, specifically, communists, and communism is bad, and it was the Democrats in the U.S. Congress working in association with Barack Obama who pushed through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 through the U.S. Congress, and, by the way, while they were creating the health-care bill, they lied about what was in the bill in 2010, and during the week that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives were working to pass the repeal bill in January 2011, Democrats said things that were lies and in even evil, such as equating Republicans with Nazis of World War II Germany, and I have examples. On Wednesday, January 19, 2011, U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (a Democrat related to Texas) made this comment: "...The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process. That is what H.R. 2 does. And I rise in opposition to it, and I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives, and we recognize that 40-million-plus are uninsured. In my own country, Harris County, this bill will allow some eight-hundred-thousand uninsured members of Harris County, citizens of Harris County, to be insured in Texas. In addition, the Texas Department of Insurance, as many other states, have already implementing this bill, the Patient Protection bill, gladly so and saying it will help save lives and provide for the families of their state. Can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law. This bill is constitutional, and it protects the constitutional rights of those who ask the question--Must I die, must my child die because I am now disallowed from getting insurance?...." Sheila Jackson-Lee not only passed along lies, such as the issue of "40-million-plus" person are uninsured, but also passed along convoluted and nonsense thoughts, such as the idea of getting rid of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 would take away the human rights that exist under The United States Constitution, and that is a wrong idea. I say to Sheila Jackson-Lee, "The Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with the health-care issue, dummy, and the Fourteen Amendment has nothing to do with the issue either, and Texas is one of the roughly twenty-six states in the country that are involved in court action against the federal government over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010!" In addition, Sheila Jackson-Lee was unclear in her presentation--you should understand Sheila Jackson-Lee's "This bill is constitution" refers not to the bill being worked on in the U.S. House of Representatives to cancel the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 but refers to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and that shows she is a sloppy speaker. Also, Sheila Jackson-Lee said: "...I would just say to you, this is about saving lives. Jobs are very important. We've created jobs. But even the title of, of their legislation--H.R. 2 Job Killing,--this is killing Americans if we take this bill away, if we repeal this bill...." The name of the repeal bill in the U.S. House of Representatives was--H.R. 2 - Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act. Sheila Jackson-Lee passed along crap! And on Wednesday, January 19, 2011, U.S. Representative Steve Cohen (a Democrat related to Tennessee) said: "...Those are nonpartisan packs of people we hire to give us the truth, and they don't like the truth, so they summarily dismiss it. They say it's a government take over of health care. A big lie! Like Goebbels, you say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing. The Germans said enough about the Jews, and the people believed it, and you had the Holocaust. You tell a lie over and over again. And we've heard on this floor--government take over of health care...." Steve Cohen comments are nonsense and show his evilness--his equating the Republicans to Joseph Goebbels and the Germans of the mid-1900s in Germany, such as during World War II. I have shown that Barack Obama is a perpetual liar in my document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document, and, really, what Steve Cohen did in the quotation is describe Barack Obama, who is a communist, and communists lie, all in the process to enslave people and hurt people (and you are urged to see my document entitled Conservatives and The United States Constitution Versus Enslavers and Enslavism (Communism, Sharia, Socialism, et cetera), which can be reached by using this link: Enslavism).
Special Note #64: On Wednesday, January 19, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2 - Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, the bill that is designed to repeal the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The bill passed on a vote of 245 "yes" votes to 189 "no" votes, and, basically, all the Republicans voted "yes," and all the Democrats voted "no"; however, three Democrats did vote "no." The bill was passed on to the U.S. Senate for consideration or action.
Special Note #65: Around January 19, 2011, CNS News had available through the Internet a clip of U.S. Representative John Lewis (a Democrat related to Georgia) answering a question (which had been posed to John Lewis on January 18, 2011) about what provision in The United States Constitution allows the federal government to force citizens to buy health insurance, and the answer is now presented in text form: "...When you start off with the "Preamble" to The Constitution, you talk about the pursuit of, of happiness. Ah, you go to the Fourteenth Amendment, equal protection under the law. We have not repealed the Fourteenth Amendment..." Ignorance is rampage in the Democratic Party, and John Lewis is proof of that. It is The Declaration of Independence that has the often-quoted statement about the pursuit of happiness, and the statement does not appear anywhere in The United States Constitution. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with equal protection under the law and health care; the Fourteenth Amendment deals with, for example, a person's getting and having equal protection under the law and being treated equally under the law in relation to all the other citizens, such as in criminal court cases.
Special Note #66: Here is a "for-the-record" section. On Wednesday, January 26, 2011, the Chief Actuary for Medicare--Richard Foster--was testifying before the U.S. House of Representatives Budget Committee; the Chief Actuary is supposed to be non-political, and Richard Foster seems to be non-political, and he got his position before Barack Obama would become the U.S. President. U.S. Representative Tom McClintock (a Republican related to California) asked Richard Foster whether or not the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 would keep medical costs down, asking for an answer of "true" or "false." Richard Foster answered, "...Um, I would say, ah, false." Tom McClintock sort of interrupted Richard Foster by saying, "Okay." And Richard Foster's finish to the answer was: "Ah, more so than true...." In addition, Richard Foster told the Budget Committee that not all people would be able to keep their current health-care insurance coverage, saying-- "...not true in all cases...." Later in the day on January 26, 2011, Barack Obama nominated Donald Berwick to be the head of Medicare for a full term; he was currently the head, having gotten the job, in essence, on a temporary basis in July 2010 through an appointment made by Barack Obama when the U.S. Senate was on break (so Donald Berwick did not have to go through a confirmation process in the U.S. Senate).
Note: You are strongly urged to read "Special Note #50" to see how defective Donald Berwick is as a man.
Special Note #67: On Monday, January 31, 2011--a truly historic day or a really historic day in the history of the United States of America--I was traveling long distance by pickup truck in Michigan in the afternoon and evening, and, by the way, the pickup truck was not an electric vehicle or a hybrid vehicle, and I heard the news that a federal judge in Florida had ruled the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is an unconstitutional law and the Barack Obama administration has to stop implementing it. Fortunately for me, I was traveling with a smart woman, so she had useful thoughts to say, and she understood what I was talking about, and before we heard about the judge's ruling, we had talked about Egypt and how I believed the rioting going on in Egypt, which had been going on for about a week, was not really a push for democracy in Egypt, given that I had already heard dozens of people in Egypt had already been killed, that there had been looting, that the Egyptian army had had to guard the pyramids from rioters, and that a potential replacement for the president of Egypt had expressed interest in working with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is not organization aimed at creating a democrat state or country anywhere in the world (and you are urged to see my document entitled Sharia Law, Shariah-Compliant Finance, Radical Islam, and Barack Obama, which can be reached by using this link: Sharia). Egypt is yet another country in the world where the government is based on a person--a particular individual--and not on the "individual," and that means the people in Egypt are beholden to the government and the government is not beholden to the people, which is unlike the United States of America, where the government--defined by a document called The United States Constitution--is beholden to the people and is not all powerful, though people like Barack Obama think it is or can be made to be that way. What I have to say in the remainder of this section is a combination of thoughts of mine and thoughts of Mark R. Levin's (Mark R. Levin is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host, whose program is called The Mark Levin Show), and it is hard to separate whose thoughts are whose, so consider the structure of the remainder of this section is partially guided by Mark Levin (not that I am not smart enough to have thought of the same thoughts, but while I was traveling, Mark Levin covered things that I would have covered first).
To begin the discussion, I must talk about The United States Constitution here, since at least some readers of this section could be naive about life and what the purpose of The United States Constitution is. The United States Constitution was put together in the 1700s to define the form and type of a government for the country--the United States of America--and define what the government can do or is supposed to do, giving the government limits, and it also was given protections that the people have against the government, which, in the future, might become populated by politicians whose mind set is that of the "enslavist" (and you are urged to see my document entitled Conservatives and The United States Constitution Versus Enslavers and Enslavism (Communism, Sharia, Socialism, et cetera, which can be reached by using this link: Enslavism). The United States Constitution is a blocking document--unique in the world--and it is supposed to block politicians from making laws on the whim of the moment or changing laws from day to day--making one rule one day and changing it the next and changing it yet again the day after that, as a dictator might, and The United States of America is designed so that no one person can be all powerful or no small group of people can be all powerful, ruling at whim. Really, The United States Constitution is a logic puzzle related to matters of politics and law.
Now, here I present information about why the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was considered unconstitutional, and the case was seen "In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, and the case was "State of Florida, by and through Attorney General Pam Bondi, et. al.; plaintiffs, v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., defendants," and the case number was: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT. A main reason Florida took the U.S. government to court--and Florida would be joined in the case of twenty-five other states--is that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was given a provision that noted that people are required buy health-care insurance; no law had ever been made in the past in which the government mandated that a citizen had to buy something from some other person or entity. The court case was started in 2010, and it ended on January 31, 2011, with a decision made by Roger Vinson (Senior United States District Judge). Roger Vinson cited in his ruling--a logic puzzle--history and events, and, for one, he talked a bit about the Founders of this country and "The Federalist" papers, which were 85 essays and articles (written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay) that presented reasons why the proposed constitution should be adopted (ratified), which it would be. On page two of the ruling, Judge Roger Vinson brought up important history and an important rule of life by writing:
"James Madison, the chief architect of our federal system, once famously observed:If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither internal or external controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; in this next place oblige it to control itself.Yes, some men do wish to enslave other men, and Judge Roger Vinson showed he understood that point and noted that the Founders, one of whom was James Madison, had understood that point.
Basically, the focus of the case was the provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 that forces people to buy something, but the whole law was the issue since the provision could not be severed from the entire law, and, in essence, the Barack Obama administration had had to fight in a way that if the provision about buying insurance was struck down or defined as unconstitutional, the Barack Obama administration would find that the judge would have to rule the entire law was unconstitutional. (There are times when one provision of a law can be the subject of a court case, and if that one provision is found to be defected, such as unconstitutional, the entire law would not be found unconstitutional. That is the idea of "severability." In this case about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the provision could not be separated from the entire law.)
It is not my purpose to make a full and detailed discussion of the ruling made by Judge Roger Vinson, since that is not the purpose of this document, but I have to note as few points. The federal government was pushing the idea that, if a person does not buy something, that person is affecting commerce, and the federal government has the power to regulate a person who buys something and a person who does not buy something, since in both cases, commerce is affected, claiming it had the power under the "Commerce Clause" of The United States Constitution. On pages forty-one and forty-two of the decision, you will find this text written by Roger Vinson:
"...Furthermore, there is a simple and rather obvious reason why the Supreme Court has never distinguished between in activity and inactivity before: it has not been called upon to consider the issue because, until now, Congress had never attempted to exercise its Commerce Clause power in such a way before. See: CBO analysis (Advising Congress during the previous health care reform efforts in 1994 that '[t]he government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.'). In every Supreme Court case decided thus far, Congress was not seeking to regulate under its commerce power something that could even arguably be said to be 'passive inactivity.'
"It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting --- as was done in the Act --- that compelling the actual transaction is itself 'commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce'..., it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It's difficult that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be 'difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power'..., and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers would have intended."
On pages seventy-five and seventy-six of the decision, you will find this text written by Roger Vinson:
"...Regarding of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether or not the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.
"For the reasons state, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without the power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not be disputed in this case. The principle of the dispute has been about Congress chose to exercise this power here.
"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void...."
I make it clear--On this date--January 31, 2011--the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 became null and void and dead!
I now present meaning. Since the Patient Protection and Afford Care Act of 2010 was made null and void, the federal government is supposed to stopped implementing the law, such as by making through agencies additional regulations tied to the law or hiring people to help implement provisions of the law. The Barack Obama administration can go to a higher court to get a ruling--a "stay"--that would allow the administration to continue implementing the law until the decision made by Judge Roger Vinson could be appealed in a higher court. Before a decision about a "stay" is issued, the Barack Obama administration could oppose the ruling made by Judge Roger Vinson and continue to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and if that happens then the Barack Obama administration would be in violation of law (which is not new for the Barack Obama administration, which, in 2010, after having been told by a court that a rule about no drilling for oil was void, continued to press a moratorium on drilling), and also the Barack Obama administration could go to a higher court to get--if possible--an appeal to the decision made by Judge Roger Vinson, hoping to make the law active again.
And that ends this section, but I have to make a serious comment--I say that there could be great trouble ahead for the United States of America, since if the U.S. Supreme Court were to rule that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 could continue to be a viable law, smart people would see the U.S. Supreme Court is a lawless entity, and it would seem very likely to me the country would end up in a situation like that of Egypt--rebelion of some type.
Special Note 68: On February 1, 2011, Bernie Sanders was one of the United States senators related to Vermont, and he was calling himself an "Independent," but history shows that he is a Marxist and a liar. Let me show you some prove of what Bernie Sanders is, and the topic tied to him here is health care. On February 1, 2011, Bernie Sanders made this statement on MSNBC: "Ah, frankly, I don't think they [the Republicans in the U.S. Senate] have the vote, but I think that it is a totally absurd proposal. Ah, they talk about our large deficit, and yet, if they are successful in repealing health care, they're goin' add a trillion dollars to the national debt over a ten-year period at a time when fifty-million Americans have no health insurance right now. Health-care reform would provide health insurance for over thirty-million And what these guys want to do is say, 'No, we can't do that.' Ah, at a time, when people were denied, ah, access to health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, they want to allow that obscenity to continue to exist. Ah, this bill--and I was active in that--would provided, ah, access to community health centers and double the number of community health centers for twenty-million more Americans. They want to do way with that. Look! At the end of the day--let's be clear--the United States is the only nation in the industrialized world that does not provide health care to all of our people, and yet we end up spending almost twice as much as any other country. Is this health-care reform bill the bill that I would have written? No, it is not! And one of the changes that I wanna see is not to repeal the whole bill but to give states the flexibility to go forward in more affective ways. In my state, I would like to see--and I think we've got a shot at passing--a Medicare-for-all single-payer program, which in cost-effective way could provide health care to all of our people. Those are the changes we need, not the wholesale repeal this legislation." The statement has lies, such as the "fifty-million figure," and the statement shows he wants a Marxist/communist-style health-care system--a single-payer program. In addition, on February 1, 2011, Bernie Sanders said: "I, I think you're absolutely right on that. Look! This, again, this--from my mind--could we have written a better law, a stronger law, taken on the insurance companies more effectively, taken on the drug companies? Yes, we could have! But this debate took place for an entire year--whole nation was involved in it. I'm on the committee. Trust me! We had hearing after hearing, mark up after mark up. And now it all comes down perhaps--if you're correct, and you may well be--to one justice in the United States Supreme Court determining the future of health care in the United States of America. If that is not judicial activism, then I don't know what is." Again, Bernie Sanders lied, such as with "whole nation was involved in it" (only the Democrats in the U.S. Congress guided the making of the law). Regularly, Bernie Sanders used the term "all of our people" during the interview, showing what he thinks of the citizens of the country--they belong to the government. And, also, Bernie Sanders made this statement in the interview: "...But, again, what I am fighting for right now is to give states flexibility to maintain the high standards in the health-care-reform bill, but give us the flexibility to do it in a more cost-effective way. I happen to believe that, when you get rid of the insurance companies, when you put an emphasis on preventative health care, you can say, and you can get rid of a lot the bureaucracy, ah, an administrative costs that presently exist, you can provide health care to all people, ah, without having to spend more overall dollars." Yes, Bernie Sanders passed along crap thought in the interview, given, for instance, he wants to exchange private-sector record keeping for government-operated record keeping. How does changing established record keeping for new government-operated record keeping save money? And then you can see--Bernie Sanders wants to kill insurance companies. Bernie Sanders is an "enslavist!"
Special Note 69: On Wednesday, February 2, 2011, the U.S. Senate voted on whether to pass or not pass Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, which had passed through the U.S. House of Representatives on January 19, 2011, and, on this day, the bill was not passed in the U.S. Senate. The vote was 51 "no" votes to 47 "yes" votes"; two members did not vote--one a Independent and one a Democrat. All the Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted "yes" on the bill, which was designed to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and all the Democrats who voted voted "no" on passing the bill, and one Independent (Bernie Sanders, who is related to Vermont) voted "no.". (To see who voted "yes" and who voted "no" in the U.S. Senate, you are urged to see my document entitled Enemies of the United States of America: A Report on Votes Made by the Members of the 112th U.S. Congress (the Good and the Bad), which can be reached by using this link: Enemies 2).
I now present "for the record" parts of two speeches made on the floor of the U.S. Senate a little before the vote would take place. On February 2, 2011, U.S. Senator Harry Reid (a Democrat related to Nevada) said: "...Democrats are fighting to modernize our nation's air travel. Republicans are fighting to repeal the health-reform law, ignoring the eighty percent of Americans who want them to leave it alone. In other words, Democrats want passengers the rights they deserve. Republicans want to take away patients' rights they already have...." Harry Reid spoke crap, and one proof of that is "eighty percent of Americans" do not want the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be left alone; for instance, on January 31, 2011, Rasmussen Reports (a polling entity) reported that at least 47 percent of the Americans contacted in a recent survey strongly wanted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 to be repealed. On February 2, 2011, U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (a Republican related to Kentucky) said: "...It's not everyday that you get a second chance on a big decision after you know all the facts. This is that second chance. And for all of us who oppose the health bill, we reaffirm our commitment to work a little harder to get it right. We can't afford to get it wrong...." It is clear Democrats did not choose the opportunity to change their minds and vote "yes" to kill the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
Special Note #70: On February 9, 2011, the federal government was not supposed to be implementing any part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, since the law had been made null and void on January 31, 2011. To enact any part of the law was to violate a federal court ruling, and that is against the law. On February, 9, 2011, Kathleen Sebelius--the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services--announced that $750 million is being spent for various programs related to the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which had been created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and, clearly, that announcement shows the Barack Obama administration was continuing to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
Special Note #71: This entry was made on February 17, 2011, and on this date, I report that, between late 2009 and February 17, 2011, Barack Obama and his associates promoted the idea that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is going to be good for the American public, such as by not causing people to lose their health-care plan, but during the period, the promoted idea would be shown to be a lie. Between September 2010 and mid-February 2011, to stop some people from losing their health-care plans or from having their health-care plans dropped, the federal government gave out waivers to four states and nine-hundred health-care plans, allowing them to be exempt from, for example, the required annual minimum benefits figure of $750,000, and some of the waivers were given out after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 had been made null and void by a federal judge on January 31, 2011, and that shows another instance of disregard by the Barack Obama administration for a federal-court ruling--the Barack Obama administration's giving out waivers after January 31, 2011, means the Barack Obama administration was acting as if the law is valid.
Special Note #72: Here are two events of February 17, 2011, that are related. On this date, the governor of Alaska--Sean Patrick--pronounced publicly that he was not going to continue implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, noting it was made null and void by a federal judge (Judge Roger Vinson) on January 31, 2011. And on this date, the U.S. Department of Justice went to Judge Roger Vinson (of the U.S. District Court system) and asked that the judge clarify whether or not the states should continue to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, hinting that the judge should make the states keep implementing the law, and what the U.S. Department of Justice was doing was stalling and avoiding having to actually ask for a "stay" from a higher court on Judge Roger Vinson's decision of January 31, 2011.
Special Note #73: It was on Saturday, February 19, 2011, that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to finish the main funding for the 2011 fiscal year for the federal government, and the bill, which was then passed on to the U.S. Senate, included a feature that would defund the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and to learn about the vote on this bill, you should see my document entitled Enemies of the United States of America: A Report on Votes Made by the Members of the 112th U.S. Congress (the Good and the Bad), which can be reached by using this link: Enemies Too.
Special Note #74: U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson finally made ruling on March 3, 2011, on a "clarification" requested that had been asked for by the Barack Obama administration in relation to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which Judge Roger Vinson had ruled "unconstitutional" on January 31, 2011. On March 3, 2011, Judge Roger Vinson issued a "stay," allowing the federal government to continue implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010--but Judge Roger Vinson gave the Barack Obama administration only seven days in which to file an appeal of Judge Roger Vinson's decision of January 31, 2011, or the "stay" was canceled, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 would then be truly considered null and void and states could ignore the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. On this day, Judge Roger Vinson issued his ruling in a twenty-page document, which also at at least one point chastised the Barack Obama administration. Here are two main pieces of the document, which was for case number 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT:
On page fourteen, it is written: "So to 'clarify' my order and judgment: The individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. Because that 'essential' provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire legislation was void. This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the 'practical' and 'functional equivalent of an injunction' with respect to the parties to the litigation. This expectation was based on the 'long-standing presumption' that the defendants themselves identified and agreed to be bound by, which provides that a declaratory judgment against federal officials is a de facto injunction. To the extent that the defendants were unable (or believed that they were unable) to comply, it was expected that they would immediately seek a stay of the ruling, and at that point in time present their arguments for why such as stay is necessary, which is the usual and standard procedure. It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to 'clarify.'"
On page nineteen, it is written: "After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants' motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED. However, the stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the U.S. Supreme Court under Rule 11 of that Court."
Special Note #75: On March 3, 2011, U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (a Republican related to Minnesota) issued a YouTube press release entitled "Michele Bachmann exposes $105 billion in hidden Obamacare Funding." The press release had Michele Bachmann speaking, and here is a text version of the video: "Hi! My name is Michele Bachmann, and I'm from Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District. Recently, we've just had information come to light that's absolutely outrageous. People all across America are asking Congress to repeal Obamacare, and if we can't repeal, to at least defund it. But this is what we've discovered. When Obamacare was passed by Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama last March 21, contained in that bill was funding for Obamacare of one-hundred-five-billion dollars. Practically no member of Congress even knew that a hundred-five-billion of funding was contained. This is absolutely ourtrageous--to put a bill before members of Congress, and they don't even know that a hundred-five-billion dollars is contained in the bill. This is legislative fraud that's be perpetrated by the President, Speaker Pelosi, and by Harry Reid! It's an outrage, and we demand an answer from Nancy Pelosi! Until we can succeed in repealing Obamacare outright, I think the American people have called on Congress to defund it. They expect us to. But we haven't done it yet. And although the House voted to deny new funding for Obamacare, it has done absolutely nothing to pull back any of the one-hundred-five-billion--and let me show you what that figure is--that the last Congress, Nancy Pelosi already appropriated for Obamacare when the bill was passed. That's what most people including many in Congress don't realize that the Obamacare law contained one-hundred-five-billion in appropriations. This is done! This money will be spent unless we pull it back, including what's called an advanced appropriation for future years. Unless we specifically rescind these appropriations, five-billion dollars will be spent this year--2011--and another one-hundred-billion dollars will be spent in the next eight years on implementing this monstrosity. The Obama administration and his Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will get to spend that money whether we like it or not. So it's not enough to shut off the spigot of new money for Obamacare, we also need to drain the pool of money it already received." Note: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was signed into law on March 23, 2010.
Special Note #76: On Sunday, March 6, 2011, U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (a Republican related to Minnesota) was one of the guests on Meet the Press with David Gregory, which is a weekly program on shown on NBC-TV on Sunday morning. Michele Bachmann made a number of statements that should be remembered, and I present them here. The first comment that I present is related to health-care, and the second comment is tied to information that I present in "Special Note #75, and the third comment relates to an incident that took place on June 9, 2009, when Michele Bachmann passed on her beliefs that the Barack Obama administration is a "gangster government." Also there is a fourth statement, which was sort of a continuation of the thoughts involved in statement three, but I separate it away so that I could introduce it.
When David Gregory mentioned that Barack Obama has brought out the idea of letting the states opt out of the 'individual mandate' of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Michele Bachmann answered with: "David, that's not a give at all. In fact, all it is a pretexts for implementing a single-payer plan. If you, if you recall the President's entire statement, he said--the state's can opt out as long as they stay within the con, the re, requirements of all of Obamacare unless they want go with single-payer plan. Again, from the very beginning, it has been said that Obamacare is a crime against democracy. It has been a deception from the beginning...."
When David Gregory wondered whether Michele Bachmann would vote to "shut down the government over those riders," Michele Bachmann said: "I think that President Obama needs to give back that hundred-five-billion that they already appropriated. They have tied the hands of Congress for the next eight years, David. They already appropriated this money. Members of Congress didn't even know this money was in the bill because we couldn't read the bill before it was passed because it wasn't give to us but hours before we had to vote for it...."
When David Gregory wondered whether Michele Bachmann stands by past statements about her calling the Barack Obama administration a "gangster government" and her belief that Barack Obama has anti-American views, Michele Bachmann said: "I believe that the actions of this government have, have been emblematic of ones that have not be on true American values. Just consider Obamacare--over nine-hundred wavers have been given out to unions and protected special interest...." [David Gregory interrupted her, and he said some words, and then she added more.] "...I do believe that actions that have been taken by this White House--I don't take back my statement on 'gangster government'--I think that there have been, ah, actions that have been taken by this government that I think are corrupt, really corrupt."
When David Gregory interrupted Michele Bachmann to press the issue about Barack Obama's being 'anti-American," Michele Bachmann had to wait and then say: "Well, eh, eh, I've already answered that question before. I said I had very serious concerns about the President's views, and I think the President's actions in the last two years speak for themselves."
Note: To learn more about Michele Bachmann, you are should to see my document entitled Patriots of the U.S.A. and the Counter-Counter Revolution, which can be reached by using this link: Patriots.
Special Note #77: It was on Tuesday, March 8, 2011, that U.S. Department of Justice essence, Barack Obama--filed an appeal in relation to the ruling about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 that had been made on January 31, 2011, by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson. That means the first appeal process will take place, and, in this case, it will take place in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th District, which is in Atlanta, Georgia, where the U.S. Justice Department filed the appeal. The appeal process will start with a small panel of judges, who will hear the appeal case in a few months.
Special Note #78: A lot of people people really are unaware how bad the idea of the one-hundred-five-billion dollars spending part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is, which is covered in "Special Note #75" and "Special Note 76." Mark R. Levin, a lawyer and author, is the host of the nationally syndicated weekday radio show entitled The Mark Levin Show, the flagship station of which is WABC-AM, New York City, New York. On Wednesday, March 9, 2011, Mark R. Levin made a few comments about the one-hundred-five-billion dollars on his radio show, and, "for the record," here is some of what Mark R. Levin said: "...I wish our conservative friends would fight this hard over a hundred-and-five-billion that was laced throughout Obama--the Obamacare authorization bill. Understand--as I do now--how sleaze what they did actually was, what Obama and Reid, Pelosi did. They took an appropriate--excuse me--as authorizing bill and put appropriations language in it. Normally, it's a separate process. But they wanted to get this done before you--the American people--would have an opportunity to vote. n order words, they denied you effectively your right to vote on a major issue, because they knew you would change your representation in Washington over this issue. That is how tawdry, how immoral and how undemocratic these leftists are and this President is. So they put hundred-and-five-billlion dollars in this Obamacare bill that should've gone through the appropriations process and never did. They never told anyone. They told you. They never told me. They never told us. The media, which was so busy reporting on the game, they didn't ask, they didn't go through the bill, they didn't look. A hundred-and-five-billion dollars, and they changed the appropriation process not only by using this authorization as an appropriation vehicle, but they also changed it by in effect saying that the only way the spending can stop is if Congress eff, affirmatively defunds it. And because we know the President will use his veto pen, they're off to the races no matter what. And they really lucked out--the left--because of the Republican leadership in the House, which refuses to address this--absolutely refuses to address this. If I were a member of the House or the Senate, I would never vote to lift this debt ceiling. I said a few months ago, I would vote only if we could put in place a deal which set forth massive cuts, which would put in place a system to ensure from that day forward there would be structural change in out spending policies. I don't trust this President anymore! I don't trust the Democrats anymore! Under no conditions--zero--would I vote to lift the debt ceiling. Zero! This kind of truly immoral and unethical behavior, this kind of undemocratic conduct is judge beyond belief...."
Special Note #79: Before you read this section, you should read "Special Note #75," "Special Note 76," and "Special Note 78."
This section presents information that Ernest J. Istook Jr. presented to the Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on March 9, 2011. March 9, 2011, Ernest Istook was associated with The Heritage Foundation, an entity that is fighting against people who wish to keep intact the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Presented here is text from the scheduled statement that Ernest J. Stock Jr. was going to present, and this information was available at the Web Site for The Heritage Foundation, and the material was filed under an article entitled "Defunding Obamacare: Istook Testifies in the House" and dated March 9, 2011 (at 10:00 a.m.) and associated with The Foundary:
"...Although I am a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, the views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing an official position of The Heritage Foundation.
"My comments regard the creative use--and abuse--of the appropriations process within the health care legislation enacted into law during the last Congress. It is formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), but also known to many of us as Obamacare because of President Obama's crucial role as the driving force...."
"The massive 2,700-page health care law is deliberately designed to make defunding and dismantlement difficult. Although original estimates reported that it created 159 new government agencies, the Congressional Research Service later concluded that the actual number of new agencies, boards, etc., 'is currently unknowable,' because of many of them are empowered to spawn additional entities, just as weeds grow by sending our runners and seeds...."
"The new law attempts to bypass the normal appropriations process, another feature that makes defunding more difficult. By making advance appropriations for tens of billions of dollars up to the year 2019, these provisions of Obamacare seek to remove spending decisions from the reach of the current Congress and from future Congresses and Presidents. Although Obamacare was not pitched to the public as a mandatory spending entitlement, the details of the legislation reveal an intent to block any future Congress from controlling Obamacare's spending.
"One largely unknown fact is that $6-billion or more was immediately appropriated in the new law and approximately $105-billion more was appropriated for FY2011 and beyond. That violates the typical Congressional process of appropriations. The normal process typically involves enacting authorization bills that authorize spending, and then follows those with separate legislation that actually appropriates the money. This enables those to be balanced with other spending decisions. The PPACA contained large authorization for future appropriations as well as containing these actual appropriations. That made it quite different form most bills, even major legislation.
"This funding also stayed below the radar screen because it was so often reported--inaccurately--that Congress had not passed any appropriations for the current fiscal year. Obviously, the last Congress chose to fund Obamacare even though they failed to pass any of the regular appropriations bills...."
"To de-fund Obamacare, it is insufficient simply to deny future funding. Until the full law can be repealed, at least the existing and advance appropriations need to be rescinded, just as the House last month voted to repeal billions of dollars from previous appropriations to 123 federal programs. An effort to restrict use of the funds appropriated within Obamacare was thwarted because the House did not waive the same point of order (House Rule XXI) as it waived to allow de-funding those 123 other programs. This was most unfortunate.
"To any who do not realize that over $105-billion has already been appropriated to fund Obamacare, I direct your attention to the February 10, 2011, revision of the Congressional Research Service's paper, 'Appropriations and Fund Transfers in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),' CRS number R41301. It documents the specified provisions that I'm discussing and the magnitude of those advance appropriations.
"Speaking as a former Member of Congress who served 14 years on the House Appropriations Committee, and who chaired several of its subcommittees, I am not aware of any abuse of advance appropriations that even approaches the scale found in Obamacare. An advance appropriation, as defined and used by the Office of Management and Budget, is an appropriation made to become available one fiscal year or more beyond the fiscal year for which the appropriation act is passed. These are the exception and nor the rule in the congressional appropriations process...."
"Making many years' worth of advance spending decisions is an attempt to handcuff the current Congess and prevent it from determining current levels of spending. By going far beyond any precedent for making appropriations for future years, Obamacare is an outrageous effort by the former Congress to bind the current and future Congresses. This may not breach the constitutional limits of Congress, but it certainly breaches the sense of propriety. Spending decisions should be made by those who currently hold office, not by those who have resigned or been turned out by the voters...."
"I am glad that the committee is looking [at] legislation to pull back the funds previously appropriate for Obamacare, but I must caution you that timing and leverage are important parts of your effort. If it takes years to halt the funding stream, then meantime billions of taxpayer dollars will already have flowed out of the Treasury. The underlying law will have sunk its roots deeper into the nation, making it more difficult to uproot. That is why I believe the appropriations process itself must also be used to extinguish these advance appropriations, since it provides proper legislative vehicles that are considered must-pass legislation.
"Defunding is a routine policy tool for Congress. So is funding that is well below the amounts authorized...."
"So when a repeal of legislation is blocked, defunding is the obvious and proper next approach. In the case of Obamacare, this is tricky because the law is designed to be difficult to uproot, just like a plant with an elaborate root system. Everyone who has a lawn and has pulled weeds knows this problem firsthand.
"But defunding can be done and should be done, and internal Congressional protocols should not be used to block this. Undoing what was done last year is a proper pursuit....."
Note: On Tuesday, March 15, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a spending bill--a three-week-only spending bill--that did not have a way to stop the automatic spending in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2011, and you will see what Republicans did well by not voting "yes" for the bill by looking at my document entitled Enemies of the United States of America: A Report on Votes Made by the Members of the 112th U.S. Congress (the Good and the Bad), which can be reached by using this link: Enemies Too.
Special Note #80: On Monday, March 1, 2011, U.S. Representative John Conyers (a Democrat related to Michigan) was at the National Press Club. He made at least this statement when there: "...Had that bill [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care bill] with all its flaws failed, it would have taken us another decade or longer to get 'single-payer up and going. We view the health-care-reform bill as a platform on which we are now able to more forward...." Yes, the purpose of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010--in the eyes of John Coyners--has always been to create a monopolistic health-care system for the country--a system controlled by government officials or politicians or bureaucrats to enslave the people and make the people dependant on the government for their lives.
Special Note #81: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2011 has 906 pages, and that act allows the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to make additional regulations related to the act. Around early April 2011, people were hearing information issued by U.S. Senator John Barrasso (a Republican related to Wyoming) to the press that six pages of the federal act had been turn into four-hundred-twenty-nine pages through work that had been done to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to clarify and expand rules of the law, and I will say again, 6 pages (related to section 3077 of the law, which runs from page 297 to page 302) has been expanded to 429 pages rules and such. Now, let me show how the federal act could be expanded to an incredible mess of laws and rules. If every six pages of the law were turn into 429 pages of stuff that is put together by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the total number of pages would be 64,779 pages!
Special Note #82: I have, here, a statement made by Steve Wynn, whose career has been focusing on creating and operating casinos in Las Vegas, and the statement was made to interviewer Neil Cavuto on Cavuto on the Fox Business Channel on April 19, 2011: "...What's happened here is that the living standard of my employees has been plummeting. For example, ah, the early results of Obamacare have caused our insurance increase--our cost of medical, we, we self insure--to go from eight percent increase a year to twelve, and for the first time since we built the buil, business, we had to increase the amount of, ah, co-pay of our employees so some money has been taken out of their pockets, which is tough on them...."
Special Note #83: When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was being put together, a woman named Sarah Palin (a well-known Republican) noted that, in essence, a national health-care law would lead to the creation of "death panels," entities that would work to cut medical costs by stopping some people from getting medical care--maybe because of their age (though the care that might be given would be beneficial to the persons and allow the persons to live easily for many years to come). I note that Section 3403 and Section 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 created a panel known as the "Independent Payment Advisory Board" (or the IPAB), which is made up of : fifteen persons who are appointed to the seats on the board by the U.S. President and, to get on the IPAB, must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. One purpose of the IPAB will be to find ways to reduce Medicare costs. On April 20, 2011, the White House--through writer Nancy-Ann DeParle--published this "blog" article on the Internet--"The Facts About the Independent Payment Advisory Board" (DeParle, Nancy-Ann. "The Facts About the Independent Payment Advisory Board," The White House Blog, 20 April 2011, 05:45 p.m. EDT.), and the article noted a number of things, such as the IPAB will "...coordinate care....," would be involved in "...incentivizing best practices....," and would "...modify who is eligible for Medicare...." You might not understand or believe that the definitions can lead to the panel's--ulimately, the U.S. President's--deciding who and who does not get medical care in order to save money, but since the IPAB exits and although it has sort-of defined duties, you should understand a fact of life--especially when life is controlled by such "enslavists" as communists and socialists--what the IPAB will ultimately do could easily be changed in the near future, and it could easily gain more and more power every day till, indeed, it will have the power to decide whether or not you get medical care or not (as the government panel known as "NICE" does in the United Kingdom)..
Special Note #84: Here, I have for you some thoughts to keep in mind about life. On May 12, 2011, people were coming across on the Internet a video with comments made by U.S. Senator Rand Paul (a Republican related to Kentucky) about health care, specifically the right to free health care. Rand Paul said: "...With regard to the idea of whether or not you have a right to health care, you have to realize what that implies. It's not an abstraction. I'm a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you're going to enslave not only me but the janitor of the hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses. If you have a right to their services, basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone's services--do you have a right to plumbing, do you have a right to water, do you have a right to food?--you're basically saying that you believe in slavery, you're saying you believe in taking and extracting from another person. Our founding documents were very clear about this--you have a right to pursue happiness, but there's no guarantee of physical comfort, there's no guarantee of concrete items. In order to give something concrete or someone's service, you got to take it from someone. So there's an implied threat of force. If I'm a physician in your community, and you say you have a right o health care, do you have a right to beat down my door or with the police escort me away and force me to take care of you. That's ultimately what the right to free health care would be. If you believe in a right to health care, you're believing in basically the use of force to conscript someone to do your bidding...." I add--"Free" health care costs, or "free" health care for one person comes with a price--slavery for another person, who is that person who pays for it in money or provides it through use of time and effort.
Special Note #85: Here, I have to show that Newt Gingrich is a man whose judgment related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and creating a law that will allow a good or better health-care industry to develop in the country is not good for several reasons. A bad part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is the part that mandates that every person buy a health-care plan, and this feature of the law is being fought in court as part of the way to cancel the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, because if the government can make a person buy a health-care plan, it could set up the precedent that the government can mandate that a person buy or not buy other things, the way of a tyranny, and although that feature of the law is being fought in court, Newt Gingrich is one person--as a Republican--who supports the "mandate," and that is bad. By Sunday, May 15, 2011, Newt Gingrich had already announced that he was running to be elected as the next U.S. President, and on Sunday, May 15, 2011, while on Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich said: "...I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors, but there are specific things you can do...." and "...I think that that [the Paul Ryan plan] is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose...." and "...I'm against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change. And I will be against a conservative imposing radical change...." On Monday, May 16, 2011, Newt Gingrich was a guest by telephone on The Mark Levin Show (which is a nationally syndicated radio show hosted by Mark R. Levin), and Newt Gingrich tried to defend his statements made on Meet the Press, and Mark R. Levin pushed the point that, unlike how Obamacare was pushed through into law, the proposal by Paul Ryan is going through the proper process, and Mark R. Levin, for instance, noted: "...But Ryan's not proposing a, a right-wing social engineering...." and "...This isn't social engineering. This is legitimate Burkian reforming...." During the interview, Newt Gingrich sounded like a boy who had been caught doing something wrong by his father and knew he deserved a scolding, and, several times, New Gingrich stalled, seeming lost as to how to counter Mark R. Levin's points, and Newt Gingrich was wishy-washy. Since Newt Gingrich supports the "mandate" and seems to discount the "conservative" approach to health-care reform in the country, Newt Gingrich cannot be trusted to make a law that will allow a good or better health-care industry to form or come about in the country.
Special Note #86: Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was made a law in March 2010, the U.S. government--particularly the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services--has been granting short-term waivers to some groups or entities--meaning they have been given a way to be exempt with complying with the act for a short period, such as a year. A person should ask--If the federal act is so great, why are some entities and groups getting waivers? By March 2011, the federal government had already handed out about 1,040 waivers (Morrissey, Ed. "ObamaCare waivers soar past 1,000." Hot Air, 3 March 2011, 12:15 p.m.). In April 2011, 204 waivers were given out, such as to unions, and it looked as if about twenty percent of those waivers went to entities, such as hotels and nightclubs, in the U.S. Representative district for Nancy Pelosi (a Democrat), who had been one of the persons who was instrumental in pushing through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 into law (Morrissey, Ed. "1 in 5 of latest ObamaCare waivers went to Nancy Pelosi's district?" Hot Air, 17 May 2011, 8:48 a.m.). For a person who is naive, I must say that the waivers are being given so that public outcry about as much of the bad as possible in the law will be delayed till after the election of November 2012, and if Barack Obama gets elected in November 2012, a person who will sign an act that repeals the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 will not exist in the White House as the U.S. President.
Special Note #87: Well, let us look at the mindset of a Democrat (really, a socialist/communist)--U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (related to New York). On Sunday, May 29, 2011, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer was a guest on Meet the Press, which is a program that airs on Sundays on NBC-TV, and he said: "...The root of the problem is it's a cost-plus system. When a doc, when you're sick, a doctor gets paid for each, ah, service, each prescription, each, ah, pill, each test. If you were to tell doctors--you get a certain amount of money to treat Jim Smith, who has a certain form of diabetes--say ten-thousand dollars--every study shows that you'd save hundreds of billions without cutting the benefits to people. That's what Democrats stand for, and the reason our Republican colleagues resist is they don't want the present Medicare system to be preserved...." Chuck Schumer passed along crap and defective logic, and, for one, he showed the Democrats are pushing for rationing by controlling how much money will be spent on a patient, but I noted that every patient is different, and each patient does not get or need exactly what other patients get or need so it is impossible to determine up front the amount of money that will be needed to care for a given patient. Remember: Everything in life costs money, so each piece of care given must be paid for and must be taken into account. And Chuck Schumer's "every study shows that you'd save hundreds of billions without cutting the benefits to people" is undocumented and unsubstantiated and is crap.
Special Note #88: On Wednesday, June 8, 2011, oral arguments were heard in about a three-hour session of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals about whether a ruling that had been made in January 2011 by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson should be upheld or not. The arguments by attorneys were presented to a three-judge panel (which was made up of Chief Judge Joel Dubina, Judge Stanley Marcus, and Judge Frank Hull), and one main point that was discussed is--If the panel were to strike down the ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, what are the limits on the federal government's being able to tell a person what that person must buy in the marketplace? In essence, the attorney for the Barack Obama administration--acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal--had no good answer to the question, and that showed that there would be no limits as to what the federal government could make a person do in relation to buying or not buying something. I say that, if there are no limits, the federal government would be a tyranny!
Special Note #89: On June 10, 2011, The Washington Post published an opinion piece from George F. Will entitled "Government by the 'experts'" (Will, George F. "Government by the 'experts.'" The Washington Post, 10 June 2011.), and the article presents thoughts about bad legislative aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010, and I urge you to see the article, but here I do note one devious aspect of the law. In '"Special Note #83" of this document, I talk about the entity that is informally known as "IPAB," and George F. Will notes that, to close down the IPAB, a resolution to abolish the IPAB "must pass both house of Congress, and no such resolution can be introduced before 2017 or after February 1, 2017, and must be enacted by August 15 of that year, and if passed, it cannot take effect until 2020." The procedure to shut down the IPAB is nearly impossible to meet, and it should see--since the law is supposed to go into full effect in 2014--the law will be well entrenched by the time any repeal of the law could take effect, so what you have is, in essence, a law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010) that cannot be repealed, and that shows how evil and unethical the Democrats in the U.S. Congress--who were instrumental in passing the law--were, and those person are still evil and unethical. You must understand the purpose of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is designed to put the federal government in complete charge of your health care and to shut down the private-health-care industry, such as insurance companies and doctors' private practices, and, really, the health-care law is not designed to make health care better for people, such as you.
Special Note #90: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is filled with crappy logic and features, and, here, I note one that I learned about on June 2,1, 2011, through an article published on the Internet entitled "Major Glitch Found in Obamacare: 3 Million 'Middle Class' People Could Get Nearly-Free Care" (Seidl, Jonathan M. "Major Glitch Found in Obamacare: 3 Million 'Middle Class' People Could Get Nearly-Free Care" The Blaze, 21 June 2011, 2:45 p.m.). Generally speaking, it notes that the federal law could result is letting around three-million persons who can be called "middle-class" types--such as husband-and-wife team who make about $64,000 in a year--qualify for Medicaid, which will put more financial stress on Medicaid programs in the states (Medicaid is supposed to be for only really poor persons). You should see a husband-and-wife team with an income of $64,000 in a year (and, by the way, Social Security benefits would not be counted for eligibility) is not exactly poor, but the people who put the law together made it possible for such persons--more persons--to get free stuff from the government when those persons should not have to or should not, and that is all that I will say now. Go look for the article. [Commentary: It seems to me the makers (writers) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 put the feature in the law as another way to hurt the health-care industry in the country.]
Special Note #91: It was on Wednesday, June 29, 2011, that a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (based in Cincinnati, Ohio) issued a ruling on a case involving the Thomas Moore Law Center and focusing on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2011, and in a two-to-one ruling, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2011 was deemed constitutional.
Special Note #92: It was on Friday, August 12, 2011 that a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in Atlanta, Georgia, issued a ruling on a case involving, for example, 26 states of the Union against the Barack Obama administration in relation to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2011. In this case, the ruling was that the "individual mandate" was unconstitutional, and that was all that was ruled unconstitutional. The decision was issued in a document of 304 pages, and since the "individual mandate" is a highly important part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to the Barack Obama administration, it is very likely the Barack Obama administration will appeal the decision.
Special Note #93: Who should be able to determine what type of health-insurance plan you should buy, you or the federal government. Around October 6, 2011, it was clearly evidence that the federal government was working to have it determine what should be in the health-insurance plan for about 68-million Americans. On that day, in essence, the Institute of Medicine (or IOM) released its recommendations--while working for the federal government and at the request of the federal government--for what the federal government should have as an "essential benefits package" for those people who are privately insured, and the recommendation was a three-hundred page report. On October 6, 2011, it was reported that the recommendation package would go through a comment-type process next.
Special Note #94: I say that, in the United States of America, there are many bad or evil federal judges, some of whom seem to be working to force communism or socialism (which is soft-line communism or something on the way to developing into communism) on the country. On Tuesday, November 8, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on a case (No. 11-5047) related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and it ruled that the "individual mandate" feature in the law is constitutional, and one judge--Judge Laurence H. Silberman--even said: "...The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local--or seemingly passive--their individuals origins...." A smart person who studies the statement can realize the judge has set up the idea that federal politicians can use the excuse that anything and everything can be a national problem, which means the U.S. Congress can act on anything and everything, and what that does is gives politicians unrestricted ability to tell the individual citizen what the individual citizen has to do or must do--from telling the citizen to buy something from somebody or some entity or telling the citizen what the person may or may not eat. This federal judge has given the U.S. Supreme Court one way in which to rule against the structure of The United States Constitution and not strike down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and I say that the decision is a defective decision.
Special Note #95: On Monday, November 14, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court reported that it would take up the issue of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, put forth by lower-court cases, in 2012. For one, it will deal with a case in which 26 states are fighting the constitutionality of the law, particularly the "individual mandate" feature. Also the U.S. Supreme will look at the push by the federal government to force states to take part in expanding Medicaid, which is eating up budgets of states, and the court will deal with whether or not the penalty related to the individual mandate is a tax that can only be challenged when if it finally imposed on someone. And, really, it could be said that the U.S. Court will be dealing with several lower-court cases, one of which involves the National Federation of Independent Business.
Special Note #96: On Tuesday, November 21, 2011, people who listed to the third half hour of the three-hour-long nationally syndicated radio show called The Mark Levin Show (hosted by Mark R. Levin) got to hear an interview between Mark R. Levin and a telephone caller--a neuro surgeon, who was identified as "Jeff" (the man had been vetted by a staffer of the radio show and was known to be a reliable person, and I do not know the man's full name or the correct spelling of the man's name). The man was traveling by car and talked about a meeting he had recently attended in Washington, D.C. Here is the interview in text form:
Mark Levin (introducing the caller): "...Jeff, Chicago, Illinois! I know you're not listening on WLS, 'cause it's taped delayed there, but WLS country. How are you listening?"
Mark Levin: "Or did you just pick up the phone?"
Jeff: "...Can you hear me?"
Mark Levin: "I can hear you, sir."
Jeff: "Oh, okay. Sorry. I'm driving actually from Chicago to Detroit. But, um, I heard you talking earlier about the government making, knowing not knowing how to make pencils, and, dah, you talked about brain surgeons, and I happen to be a brain surgeon, so I, ah, found your topic quite interesting and actually just returned from Washington, D.C., where we were reading over what the, um, Obama-health-care plan would be for neur, advanced neuro surgery for patients over seventy, which we all found quite disturbing, 'cause as our population gets older, the majority of our patients are getting over seventy that it requires stroke therapy or aneurysm therapy. And, basically, what the document stated was, if you're over seventy and you come in to an emergency room and you're on government-supported care that you get comfort care. And...."
Mark Levin: "Wait a minute! Where, what, what document and when did you hear? Where? What's the source for this?"
Jeff: "This is, ah, the, um, Obama's health, new health-care plan for advanced neuro-surgical care."
Mark Levin: "And who issued this--HHS [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]?"
Jeff: "Yes! And, basically, they don't call them 'patients,' they call them 'units,' and instead of they call it 'ethic panels' or 'ethic committees,' which get together and meet and decide where the money would go for hospitals and, basically, for patients over seventy years of age that advance neuro-surgical care was not generally indicated."
Mark Levin: "So, it's generally going to be denied?"
Jeff: "Yes! Absolutely!...."
Mark Levin: "...Well, let me ask you this. Is this public...."
Mark Levin: "Go ahead!"
Jeff: "If someone comes in at seventy years of age with a bleed in their brain, um, I promise you I'm not going to get a bunch of administrators together on an ethics panel at two in the morning to decide that I'm okay to do surgery."
Mark Levin: "Let me ask you this. Um, is this published somewhere where the general public--in other words, a pedestrian like me...."
Jeff: "Not yet!"
Mark Levin: "...get a hold of it? No?"
Jeff: "Not yet!"
Mark Levin: "So this was discussed just with, ah, your community of neurosurgeons?"
Jeff: "Yes. Exactly. The double-ANS and CNS--the American Association of Neuro Surgeons [the American Association of Neurological Surgeons] , and the Congress of Neuro Surgeons the Congress of Neurological Surgeons], because everybody knows cuts are coming in medicine in reimbursement, and we're the most expensive out of all the fields in medicine, and we're the smallest field. But at two, three, four in the morning, we're the ones that are in the operating room, and we have to wait for a ethics panel to convene--which are not made of physicians--which are made of administrators to decide whether a patient should receive our care."
Mark Levin: "So, so Sarah Palin was right? We're gonna have these 'death panels,' aren't we?
Jeff: "Oh, absolutely! I'm, I'm German by heritage, and I've read the on The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and, basically, they call them--they don't call them 'patients,' they call them 'units.' And if you're a, a 'unit' above a certain age, you get comfort care, instead of advanced neuro-surgical intervention."
Mark Levin: "Now this, this, ah, this. You went to a seminar in Washington, D.C.?"
Jeff: "Yes! Where, um, a few of my former partners--two of them have gone to work for, um--one work...is running the VA system and one is the head of the Congress of Neuro Surgeons [the Congress of Neurological Surgeons] out of D.C."
Mark Levin: "And this information, eh, this information is based--you're certain--on representations and information provided by HHS and other government officials?"
Mark Levin: "And when will the rest of us become aware of it, after the election?"
Jeff: "Um, probably. I mean, if, you know, there's, there's so many things that the government keeps under control that are used in surgery called 'HUD' devices or 'humanitarian-use devices' that we're allowed to use now because they haven't undergone full FDA approval, and they're just, they're just used in surgery because people know it's the right thing to do, but the government can step in at any time, like they did two months ago with device and said, you know--this device hasn't met what we want, and there's no exact criteria, and then can take it away from us."
Mark Levin: "And the people telling you what to do, they don't know how to make a pencil, do they?"
Jeff: "Oh, exact, exactly. That's what I saying, and, you know, we always joke around--It's not brain surgery. But, you know, I did nine years after medical school, have been in training ten years, and now I have people that don't know a thing about what I'm doing telling me when I can and can't operate."
Mark Levin: "All right, Jeff. Please keep in touch with us, will ya? I have to go...."
Now, I say, "Yes, to Barack Obama and his associates, you are a 'unit'--just another 'unit'--and not a 'person,' and you are expendable, like toilet paper."
Special Note #97: On January 20, 2012, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services--really, the Barack Obama administration or Barack Obama--reported that, in the near future, health-care-insurance plans tied to religious entities, such as the Catholic Church, would be required to cover free birth control and free abortions services. Over the next few weeks, people began to learn about new rule, and they, in essence, began to protest, since the ruling would go against their religious beliefs--having to pay for the abortions or birth control of others. Then, on February 10, 2012, Barack Obama made a mini-speech in the Briefing Room of the White House and noted that there was going to be a change in plans (based on a so-called agreement)--sort of. Now, religious organizations would not have to directly pay for abortions and birth control, but insurance companies would be required to offer the services for free (Barack Obama has no legal power to force any entity to offer something for a fee or for free to anyone), and that meant nothing was changing, since people would be paying for others to get free birth control and free abortions, having to pay through an increase in their health-care premiums (insurance companies would have to increase the cost of premiums to cover the costs of birth-control products and abortions).
Special Note #98: A man named Jonathan Gruber (of Massachusetts Institute of Technology) was involved with the creation of "Romney-care" and "Obamacare," and during the creation of "Obamacare," Jonathan Gruber promoted the idea that, if "Obamacare" was enacted, health-care-insurance premiums would not go up or the prices would not increase (and, at the time, in essence, Jonathan Gruber was getting $392,600 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service related to no bid contracts, which were not tied to his direct advising work to the Barack Obama administration and the creation of "Obamacare." The Daily Caller reported on November 11, 2012, that Jonathan Gruber had recently recanted his push that "Obamacare" would not cause health-care-insurance premiums to increase (Miller, Myles. "Obamacare architect: Expert steep increase in health care premiums." The Daily Caller, 11 February 2012, 12:56 a.m. (11 February 2012, 5:46 p.m.). Basically, Jonathan Gruber reported to The Daily Caller that, in relation to his promotion of the idea that health-care-premiums would not go up in cost because of "Obamacare," he was acting at the time in his self-interest.
Special Note #99: On February 13, 2012, two interviews conducted by Frank Beckmann on The Frank Beckmann Program on WJR-AM (Detroit, Michigan) inspired me to put this section in this document. On February 10, 2012, I published T.H.A.T. #94 and Michigan Travel Tips #94 on the Internet, and both documents had a special introduction paragraph that noted that I was calling Michigan State University a bad university, because the management of the university had recently set down a new policy in which, in the forthcoming fall, freshmen would be required to have health-care-insurance plans, and I noted that the university had no legal authority to order any person to buy something not related specifically to something dealing with education, such as class credits and books. I note, there, that other educational institutions in the country, such as Ohio State University, have such defective policies, and the policies are defective policies since the educational institutions are not government bodies that have been given authority to determine what a person must buy, and a person should see, if an educational institution has such power, then in the future--given the nature of men, especially bad men--an educational institution could get involved in determining other things that students must have or may not have, such as the type of vehicle that the student may have, tied to outlawing, in essence, non-"green" vehicles on campus. On February 13, 2012, during the nine o'clock hour in the morning, Frank Beckmann spoke with the Director of Media Communications at Michigan State University, Kent Cassella, and Kent Cassella passed along nonsense about why the university was requiring freshmen in the near future to have health-care-insurance plans. One defective thought is there are so many students on campus, and if a person has a health-care-insurance plan, then the student body of the university will be safer from sickness. I say that a person's having a health-care-insurance plan has nothing to do with making the student body of a university safer from sickness; as long as a person has had vaccinations for such diseases as measles or mumps, then that person meets requirements related to health and not passing along bad diseases in the community, and health-care-insurance plans cannot stop diseases in students or accidents to students. The other main argument pushed by Kent Cassella is that, if a person does not have a health-care-insurance plan and if the person gets really ill with a illness that can only be treated through costly means, then that student could be hurt financially for years. It is no concern of a university to set the risk of living for a student. Incidentally, Kent Cassella pushed the idea that some students could get money for health-care-insurance plans through Pell Grants, and I say that it would be others who end up paying for health-care-insurance plans of students, and that is a bad idea. During the eleven o'clock hour in the morning, Frank Beckmann spoke with former U.S. Representative Bart Stupak (a Democrat related to Michigan), who, in essence, had been the deciding vote--a "yes" vote--in the passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Bart Stupak had voted "yes" after having been given assurances personally from Barack Obama that abortions (abortion pills) would not be paid for in relations to the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010. On February 14, 2012, Bart Stupak said a number of things in stumbling ways, such as he believed Barack Obama did not goes back on his word (related to the "conscious clause" of an Executive Order) as things stand on this date and he believed Barack Obama is not violating the promise through a backdoor way in which the abortion pills now are going to be free from insurance companies (which will be subsidized by all those paying insurance premiums), and in response to a question wondering if Bart Stupak has any regrets about voting for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Bart Stupak said: "No! No, because I believe the, the, the goal, the goal here has always been to provide Americans with quality affordable health care, and I think this bill [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010] and this legislation goes a long way to accomplish that...." [see "Special Note #98]. Both Ken Cassella and Bart Stupak are supporters of "enslavism" and are ignorant and evil men, one reason of which is they pass along propaganda, and what the two interviews show is the creeping ignorance in society and the creeping "enslavism" in the country, the latter of which The United States Constitution was designed to help block from becoming commonplace in the country, and it all comes down to a few pressing defective rules on people under the guise of "health care."
Note: To see T.H.A.T. #94, you can use this T.H.A.T. #94 link, and to see Michigan Travel Tips #94, you can use this Travel #94 link.
Special Note #100: At the Cannon Office Building in Washington, D.C., the U.S. House of Representatives Budget Committee held a hearing on Wednesday, February 15, 2012, and at one point, U.S. Representative Scott Garrett (a Republican related to New Jersey) was questioning Jeff Zients, who is the "acting" Budget Director for Barack Obama (or the "acting" head of the Office of Management and Budget), and it was a hearing that was broadcast on C-SPAN 3. I present two portions of the questioning period between the two men. The first portion shows the nature of what Jeff Zients is--a man who evades answering questions--and the second portion is most important because Jeff Zients contradicts what, in essence, Barack Obama is doing in court in relation to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
Here is the first portion, which is related to the budget proposal for fiscal year 2013 from Barack Obama :
Scott Garrett: "...If we pass this budget tomorrow, when does the budget balance under in this country under this proposal?"
Jeff Zients: "We achieve significant progress...."
Scott Garrett: "I'm just looking for a year."
Jeff Zients: "If we achieve significant progress...."
Scott Garrett: "Just a year!"
Jeff Zients: "..we, we bring, ah...."
Scott Garrett: "Just a year. When does this budget balance in this country under your proposal?"
Jeff Zients: "This budget makes a serious...."
Scott Garrett: "Just a year!"
Jeff Zients: "No, ...."
Scott Garrett: "Just the year! Can you tell me when this budget...."
Jeff Zients: "...That's not a year question."
Scott Garrett: "He's not answering the question. It's a simple question. I'm looking for a year. What year does your budget ever balance?"
Jeff Zients: "This budget makes significant progress across this decade. The President is willing...."
Scott Garrett: "Is it your answer that this budget...."
Jeff Zients: "...He's willing to do more work to drive...."
Scott Garrett: "Is it your answer this budget never balances?"
You can see that Jeff Zients is very evasive, and, in fact, he was purposely working to avoid giving an answer, and that shows the nature of the man.
Now, here is the second portion, and the focus is the "fine" feature in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2012, which is something that a person will have to pay for not having a health-care-insurance plan, if the act is not shut down, and, in essence, Barack Obama has been arguing in court that the "fine" is a "tax," and the federal government is allowed to "tax" people, but notice what Jeff Zients--a high-ranking member of the Barack Obama administration--said about the "fine":
Jeff Zients: "...The Affordable Care Act saves money."
Scott Garrett: "I understand that, but is that a tax on me then if I do not to pay with that or is that not a tax?"
Jeff Zients: "I'm not sure I...following the question."
Scott Garrett: "You said there's no tax increases if people make under $250,000. If I make under $250,000 and I do not buy health insurance, as I'm required to, is that a tax on me or is that not a tax on me?"
Jeff Zients: "Well...."
Scott Garrett: "A moment ago, you said there's no tax increase....."
Jeff: Zients "...."
Scott Garrett: "...So, that's not a tax?"
Jeff Zients: "No."
Scott Garrett: "That's not a tax. Okay. That's just want to be clear, clear on that because that's not the argument that the administration is making before the Supreme Court...."
So, what Scott Garrett has done is undermine the case in court of the Barack Obama administration, and what Jeff Zients has said can be used in court and against the Barack Obama administration.
Special Note #101: On Monday, March 26, 2012, oral arguments began in the U.S. Supreme Court about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and it would be a three-day ordeal, involving, for example, the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court (John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel Anthony Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan). I said at the time the decision that would come out of the U.S. Supreme Court would show how evil and corrupt and defective some members of the U.S. Supreme Court was as people at the time. During the oral sessions, it was easy to see how defective and corrupt and evil the U.S. Solicitor General (Donald B. Verrilli Jr.), an employee of the Barack Obama Administration, was. For example, on Tuesday, March 27, 2012, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. was facing Justice Anthony Kennedy and then Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Anthony Kennedy said: "...Can you create congress, commerce in order to regulate it?" The answer that Donald B. Verrilli Jr. gave was: "That's not what's going on here, Justice Kennedy. And we're not seeking to defend the law on that basis. In this case, the, ah, the, what is being regulated is the method of financing health, the purchase of health care. That itself is economic activity with substantial affects on interstate commerce, and...." Then Justice Antonin Scalia said: "So any, any self-purchasing, anything I purcha--eh, eh, you know, if, if I'm in any, any market at all, my failure to purchase something in that market subjects me to regulation?" Donald B. Verrilli Jr. answered: "No! That's not our position at all, Justice Scalia. In the health-care market, ah, the, the health-care market is characterized by the fact that, aside from the few groups that Congress chose to exempt from the minimum-coverage requirement--those who for religious reasons don't participate, those who are incarcerated, ah, Indian tribes--virtually everybody else is either in that market or will be in that market, and the distinguishing feature of that is that they cannot, pe, people cannot generally control when they enter that market or what they need when they enter that market." Donald B. Verrilli Jr. produced confused thought, and Donald B. Verrilli Jr. put forth much more confused thought and ideas while arguing for the Barack Obama administration--especially Barack Hussein Obama--before the U.S. Supreme Court. At another point on Tuesday, March 27, 2012, Justice Anthony Kennedy said: "...Assume for the moment that this is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed--the affirmative duty to act, to go into commerce. If that is so, didn't you not have a heavy burden of justification? I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional. But even so, ah, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this what we can stipulate is I, I think a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under The Constitution?" Donald B. Verrilli Jr. went about answering the question with: "So, two things about that, Justice Kennedy. First, we think this is regulation of people's participation in the health-care market, and, and all this minimum-coverage provision does is say that, instead of requiring insurance, ah, at the point of sale, that Congress has the authority under the 'commerce power' and the 'necessary proper power' to ensure that people have insurance in advance of the point of sale because of the unique nature of this market, because this is a market in which, ah, ah, in which, ah, you, you, although most of the population is in the market most of the time--eighty-three percent visit a physician every year, ninety-six percent over a five-year period--so virtually everybody in society is in this market. And you got to pay for the health care you get. The, the predominant way in which it's, in which it's paid for is insurance, and, ah, and the respondents agree that, that Congress could require, ah, that you have insurance in order to get health care or for big health care for being provided...." Yes, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. again presented a confused collection of words, and what Donald B. Verrilli Jr. did was not answer the question posed, and the answer was done to cover up the fact that the Barack Obama administration was pushing through the idea that the government wants to and should be able to regulate before anything happens, which means it should be able regulate at will and regulate everything--and that is "enslavism" and shows the nature of the "enslavist"--tryanny. The United States Constitution was designed to block individuals from becoming dictators over the country and was designed to limit the authority of the federal government. Some people, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had recently told Egyptians not to base a new constitution for Egypt on The United States Constitution, dislike the fact that The United States Constitution blocks people from becoming dictators over the citizens (or, as communists would say, the "masses") or does not all the federal government to "free"--to be free to do anything and do anything at any time. Yes, enslavists push the idea that the government should have "liberty"--not be restrained--to do whatever it feels has to be done. It must be remembered Sonia Sotomayor, as the U.S. Solicitor General, was instrumental in arguing for the Barack Obama administration in a case about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 in a lower court, and if she were a good person--not a evil person--she should step down or step away from hearing this U.S. Supreme Court case. On Wednesday, March 28, 2012, the issue of "severability" was the topic, focusing on whether or not, if the "individual mandate" feature of the act is found unconstitutional, the remainder of the act can stand or remain in effect. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said on Wednesday, March 28, 2012, such things as "...There are so many things in this act..., ah, that, ah, unquestionable okay....," and what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did during the session was pushing the idea that why should we--the U.S. Supreme Court--make the U.S. Congress redo the things that are good because one thing might--might--be bad, hinting that she was not eager to have the entire act wiped out because of one little, tiny problem, though it would be the right thing based on precedent and rules and history, and that shows that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a bad person. What the case is coming down to is there are bad people on the U.S. Supreme Court who want to make it so that bad people--enslavists--can tell you want you can and cannot do and will be able to have complete control over what health care you get or do not get, and the decisions by the members of the U.S. Supreme Court on this case to save what is clearly a piece of crap of a law, as this document shows, will for all time show the real nature of the bad people on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Special Note #102: On Monday, May 21, 2012, a big attack against, in essence, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2012 got started (the big attack got little coverage by such main media outlets as ABC-TV, NBC-TV, and CBS-TV). On this day, 43 Catholic-related entities, such as the Notre Dame, started up court action against the Barack Obama administration, which had made a ruling in January 2012 that, starting on August 1, 2013, health-care plans tied to religious entities, such as Catholic churches, would have to cover, for one, abortion-inducing drugs. The entities that started up the court action saw the rule as a violation of their Catholic teachings related to abortion and contraceptives and such and as an attack on their religious freedom.
Special Note #103: On Thursday, June 28, 2012, during the ten o'clock hour in the morning (Eastern Daylight Time), the U.S. Supreme Court issued the decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and, for one, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld much of the law as constitutional, one portion of which was the "individual mandate," and, in essence, the United States of America took a big step toward becoming a hard-line communist country, where a few persons--politicians and bureaucrats--rule the masses, without any limits, and where the country no longer is based on the individual, who is supposed to own the government and the country.
Note: To learn more about the decison of the U.S. Supreme Court, you are urged to see my document entitled Not Supreme in Nature -- The U.S. Supreme Court and the "Obamacare" Decision: The Majority Pushed "Enslavism" on the Country, which can be reached by clicking on this Supreme link.
Special Note #104: On Wednesday, November 21, 2012, Tom Marr (the host of The Tom Marr Show on WCBM-AM, Baltimore, Maryland) was the guest host on the nationally syndicated radio show (aired five-days a week) called The Mark Levin Show. On this day, Tom Marr did an interview with Betsy McCaughey, an expert on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the author of the book entitled Decoding the Obama Health Law: What You Need to Know. Here are a couple things that Betsy McCaughey said:
"...And the fact is that we do have important things to talk about. Ah, one of them you just put your finger and that is the recommendations of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force that men should no longer get prostate specific antigen tests--that's the PSA test--that is a routine part of a physical for a man bey, beyond a certain age. And it is shocking because this U.S. Preventative Service, Preventative Services Task Force has no urologist on it, no specialist what-so-ever. And read the letter from Dr. Patrick Walsh, and, in fact, I included in my forthcoming book, because it is so important that men not consider that U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recommendation seriously, although it will have an impact on what tests insurers, including Medicare, cover."
"...This, in fact, you can call it an "Obama board" because the Obama health law expressly empowers the federal government--Secretary of Health and Human Services--to modify or eliminate--that's the word in the law, Tom, 'eliminate'--tests like this, like the PSA test, based on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. So this recommendation could be deadly for men! And, and when you look at how better off, ah, men with prostate cancer and women with breast cancer are in this country--how much better are recovery rates are--in, in the United States ninety-nine percent of men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer recovered from it, it is not a death sentence here, but in Europe, almost one in out of every four men diagnosed with pro, prostate cancer dies from it."
"...They're [the government people are] looking at the cost, not at the lives saved."
"Well, first of all--and this is coming, this is coming at us very soon--if you get your health plan through work, either your own work or a spouse's work, you may lose your health plan in the coming year before 2014. In fact, you may also lose your full-time status at your job, because the employer mandate in the Obama health law requires that employers with fifty or more full-time workers provide health insurance, and not just any health insurance, Tom, it's got to be that one-size-fits-all government-design health plan. And that health plan costs about twice as much as what many employers currently offer. It adds an unbelievable a dollar-seventy-nine an hour every hour to the cost of hiring a full-time worker. So many employers are gonna say--I can't afford that, I'm gonna drop health coverage all together and pay the fine instead."
"..And some employers are gonna say--I don't want to pay the fine either, so I'm gonna change you from a full-time employee to a part-time employee so I'm not even liable for this fine."
"...But I want to make one more point about these jobs. Because when members of Congress voted for this health law, they already knew that people who get health plans at work were gonna lose them. Only in Washington, D.C., would you concoct an employer mandate that results in fewer people getting health coverage on the job, but the Obama administration actuaries in CMS--Centers for Medicare and Medicaid--it was in their projections that people would be dumped by their employer, that they wouldn't be able to have health insurance on their job anymore."
"...Cuts to Medicare, Tom, pay for over half the Obama health law. Imagine that. And the chief actuary of Medicare warned Congress before this law was enacted that the cuts to Medicare would force hospitals to operate in an environment of extreme scarcity, that fifteen percent of them would likely stop accepting Medicare. And you're seeing it already that they're laying off nurses. That's what hospitals have to do when the Medicare cuts come. They lay off nurses, and the results is that elderly have a harder time surviving their illness and going home again. You see the death rates from heart attacks specifically rise six to eight percent when the hospitals spread the nurses thinner, and the patients have to wait longer when they push the button for help."
"Maybe, but I think the bigger issues here in terms of derailing Obamacare are the inevitable challenge to section thirteen-eleven. And I'm not being cute. Let me explain what it is. Section thirteen-eleven of this law empowers the federal government for the first time to actually dictate how doctors treat privately insured patients. So even if you're a, if you have a plan with the label Aetna or Cigna on it and you paid for it yourself, the federal government is still gonna have a say over the decisions your doctor makes and the federal government's gonna be eyeing those decisions with, with the intent of reducing health-care consumption. So, the Supreme Court has ruled in the past, that the federal government cannot attempt to standardize medical practice and interfere with how doctors treat patients--that that is not a federal role. And it's likely that will be, ah, ah, a very meaningful challenge to the entire law...."
"...And as you know the governors, right now, are putting the breaks on this law by refusing to set up state insurance exchanges."
"Here's a real whopper! As of October 1, 2012--it's already gone into effect--Medicare is now awarding bonus points to the hospitals that spend the least per senior. Can you imagine?"
"And what's unconscinable--when you look at the projections provided by the Obama administration--these are not numbers from a conservative think tank, these were put out by the actuaries that worked for the President--health-care administration, translated government bureaucrats making rules and telling doctors and patients what to do, that cost is going from twenty-eight billion when President Obama took office to seventy-one billion. Can you imagine seventy-one-billion dollars a year. That difference--over forty-billion--is enough to buy health plans for eight-million people every year, and, and it's being squandered on paper pushers."
Special Note #105: Finally, on October 1, 2013, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was fired up, or, rather, people could begin to sign up for health-care insurance plans tied in someway to the provisions of the law, and people could sign up in several ways, such as through telephone calls to "navigators" or through a website. However, the website was rotten and did not work well right from the start, either by design, in which it was supposed to fail for people, or through incompetence, and, in fact, it was public news by November 1, 2013, that many people had tried to access the website on the first day and that only six persons in the country actually ahd signed up for health-care-insurance plans through the website on the first day. By November 1, 2013, it was no matter that the website was not working well, since it was very likely the website would be repaired in the days or weeks to come, and it was a matter that the law was rotten for all that it was [Note: You are urged to see my document entitled It is a Matter of Self-Defense: The Individual Against the Federal Government of the United States of America, Especially the Killer Known as Barack Obama and the Other Democratic Party Politicians, which can be reached by using this Self-Defense link and which shows more of why the law is rotten to the core]. In addition, it was public knowledge on November 1, 2013, that the federal government--especially Barack Obama--had lied about the law, such as about the idea that noted that a person would be able to keep a current health-care plan; in fact, it had been reported, in essence, on page 34552 of the Federal Register (a publication that reports, for example, doings of the federal government) for June 2010 that the federal government knew some 93-million persons were ultimately going to lose their private-sector health-care-insurance plans because of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and it was well known then that Barack Obama had lied numerous times over the past several years by saying that people would be able to keep their doctors and keep their health-care insurance plans [Note: You are urged to see my document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama, a link to which exists at the end of this document]. I note--What Barack Hussein Obama--the lover of communism and Islamic law (Sharia)--and the other Democrats had done was commit a crime against humanity by enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010!
Special Note #106: On October 17, 2013, and October 18, 2013, the University of Pennsylvania was the site for the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference, and during the conference, at least one man made statements that showed up the rottenness of how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was made by the people who made it, one of whom was him--Jonathan Gruber, who is regarded as instrumental in creating the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, being a main writer, and his words also showed up the rottenness of Chief Justice John Robert of the U.S. Supreme Court, who distorted the English language by calling a "penalty" (related to the "individual mandate") and "tax" during a court case about whether the law was constitutional and was instrumental in upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 as constitutional. Jonathan Gruber said during one panel discussion at the event at the University of Pennsylvania--"...This bill [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010] was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies...". Notice Jonathan Gruber proved the "penalty" was not to be considered a "tax," and yet John Roberts decided the "penalty" was a "tax," by corrupting the English language. Jonathan Gruber also said--"...Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage....". This statement was said to show that, in essence, the makers and politicians who pushed to have the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 a law lied! And Jonathan Gruber showed during his talk that he was proud that it--which included his work--was based on lies.
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).
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.
"Abraham Lincoln." Wikipedia.com, 8 December 2009.
"Albert Gore, Sr." Wikipedia.com, 21 September 2009.
"Donald Berwick." Wikipedia.com, 13 May 2010.
"Health-care law unconstitutional, judge says." MarketWatch, 13 December 2010, 1:02 p.m. EST.
"Independent Payment Advisory Board." Wikipedia.com, 11 April 2011.
"Jan Schakowsky." Wikipedia.com, 7 May 2009.
"Judge: Health plan suit can go to trial." Detroit Free Press, 15 October 2010, p. 2A.
"Lester Maddox." Wikipedia.com, 5 December 2009.
"Missouri Health Care Freedom, Proposal C (2010)." Ballotpedia.com, 5 August 2010.
"Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americas Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare." Forbes, 31 October 2013, 3:33 a.m.
"Obama reaps victory as judges uphold health law." CBS News, 29 June 2011, 2:55 p.m.
"Paul Krugman." Wikipedia.com, 15 November 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.
"Three Judge Panel From the 11th Circuit Express Cynicism Over Obamacare." Visiontoameria.org, 8 June 2011.
"White House Pressure? Using Taxpayer Funded Groups to 'further our agenda' Beyond Explaination." yostforcongress.com/blog/?tag=michael-skolnik, 21 September 2009.
"Woodrow Wilson." Wikipedia.com, 15 November 2010.
AFP. "Judge rules Obama health reform unconstitutional." Yahoo! News, 13 December 2010.
Alonso-Zaldivar, Ricardo (The Associated Press). "Feds to design health insurance for the masses." Bloomberg Businessweek, 6 October 2011, 7:01 p. ET.
Alonso-Zaldivar, Ricardo. "Medicare Official Doubts Health Care Savings." CNSNews.com, 26 January 2011.
Alonso-Zaldivar, Ricardo, and Stephen Ohlemacher. "Canceled health plans are new blow for adminstration." Detroit Free Press, 30 October 2013, p. 2A.
Armstrong, Drew. "McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers." USA Today, 7 October 2010, 5:50 p.m.
Ashenfelter, David, and Patricia Anstett. "Judge upholds health care law." Detroit Free Press, 8 October 2010, p. 6A.
The Associated Press. "White House renominates Berwick as Medicare Chief." WHTM-TV (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), 26 January 2011, 8:30 p.m. EST, 8:50 p.m. EST.
Catron, David. "Catholic Institutions Revolt En Masse Against HHS Mandate." The American Spectator, 22 May 2012, 6:09 a.m.
Davey, Monica. "Missouri Voter Reject Health Law." The New York Times, 3 August 2010. (http://www.nytimes.com....)
DeParle, Nancy-Ann. "The Facts About the Independent Payment Advisory Board," The White House Blog, 20 April 2011, 05:45 p.m. EDT.)
de Vogu, Ariane. "Juge Vinson Clarifies Florida Ruling, Maintains That Entire Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional." ABC News, 3 March 2011, 1:38 p.m.
Fosmoe, Margaret (South Bend Tribune), and The Associated Press. "Notre Dame, Catholic Diocese, others file uit regarding HHS mandate." WSBT.com, 21 May 2012, 11:18 a.m. EDT.
Foster, Dan. "OBAMA'S MEDICARE ACTUARY UNABLE TO REVIEW BILL BEFORE VOTE." Conservative Blog Watch, 20 March 2010. (http://www.conservativeblogwatch....)
Harris, Andrew, and Greg Stohr. "Court: Health care rule intrusive, but legal." Detroit Free Press, 30, June 2011, p. 13A.
Hobson, Katherine. "Gingrich on Health Care: Yes on Individual Mandate, No on GOP Medicare Overhaul." The Wall Street Journal (blog), 16 May 2011, 9:57 a.m. ET.
Istook, Ernest. "Obamacare's Falsehoods: Replace Obama's teleprompter with a lie detector." The Washington Times, 1 November 2013.
Kendall, Brent. "Supreme Court Agrees to Rule on Health Law." The Wall Street Journal, 14 November 2011, 6:35 p.m. ET.
Kennedy, Kelly. "Problems persist in health care website." Detroit Free Press, 20 October 2013, p. 11A.
Klein, Philip. "Obama's Rationing Man." The American Spectator, 13 May 2010, 6:09 a.m. (http://spectator.org....)
Kliff, Sarah. "Health-care Law individual mandate ruled unconstitutional by 11th Circuit appeals court." The Washington Post with Bloomberg, 12 August 2011, 05:44 p.m. ET.
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.
McCarthy, Meghan. "11th Circuit Court Rules Against Obama's Heatlh Care Law." NationalJournal, 12 August 2011, 1:29 p.m. (updated 2:18 p.m.).
Mears, Bill. "Viriginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional." CNN Politics, 13 December 2010, 1:11 p.m. EST.
Messenger, Tony. "Prop C passes overwhelmingly." stltoday.com, 4 August 2010, 8:30 a.m.
Miller, Myles. "Obamacare architect: Expert steep increase in health care premiums." The Daily Caller, 11 February 2012, 12:56 a.m. (11 February 2012, 5:46 p.m.).
Myers, Bill. "Supreme Court takes up challenge to health care reform law." CNN.com, 14 November 2011, 2:41 p.m EST.
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.
Pear, Robert. "Four States Got Waivers to Carry Out Health Law." The New York Times, 16 February 2011.
Pear, Robert. "Obama Panel to Curb Medicare Finds Foes in Both Parties." The New York Times, 19 April 2011.
Pear, Robert. "U.S. Appeals Florida Health Care Ruling." The New York Times, 8 March 2011.
Pelofsky, Jeremy, and Lisa Lambert. "Judge lets Viriginia healthcare challenge proceed." Reuters, 2 August 2010, 4:57 p.m. EDT.
Pickert, Kate. "Health Care Lawsuits: Why the 11th Circuit Might Matter More." Time, 8 une 2011.
Savage, David G. "Judges Sharply Challenge Healthcare Law." Los Angeles Times, 8 June 2011.
Schwartz, John. "Health Law Survives Test in Court of Appeals." The New York Times, 8 November 2011.
Sheppard, Noel. "Forbes: White House Predicted That 93 Million Would Lose Their Health Plans Under ObamaCare." NewsBusters, 31 October 2013, 10:20.
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....)
Will, George F. "Government by the 'experts.'" The Washington Post, 10 June 2011.
Note: On November 10, 2014, I first saw a video on YouTube called "GRUBER: 'Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage'", which had been posted by AmericanCommitment on November 7, 2014.
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 More Evilness,
Corruption, and Thuggery from the
Democratic Party Exposed: Mark R.
Levin Interviews Betsy McCaughey
about "Obamacare" and Immigration
(on June 20, 2013), which can be
reached by using this link: Corruption.
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
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
To see the Site-Summary Page for The
Hologlobe Press, which has links to
all the documents available through
The Hologlobe Press, use this