In his speech last night, Obama attempted to assure Americans that under his plan, if a person already has insurance through their job, Medicare, Medicaid or the VA, that they could keep their present doctor. He went on to state that those who lose their job, change jobs, or own a business, would be able to get coverage. And what kind of coverage would that be? He promised that "a new insurance exchange" was being developed." A "market place where people can shop for health insurance at affordable prices as one big group. Sounds pretty much like a co-op. He also stated that he had no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. He just wanted to hold them accountable. Why wasn’t that done when that administration bailed them out with our tax payer money? A bailout that the majority of us didn’t even want!
But what if you’re unemployed or you lose your job or you can’t afford the "new insurance exchange?" Well, he had an answer for that too. There would be a "government option." And that option would only be available to those who don’t already have insurance. The thing about the "government option" is that it’s kind of like the "Hotel California" in that you can check in (nearly) anytime you like. You just can’t ever leave. In addition, he also stated that there will be some companies who will still choose not to participate in the "new insurance exchange." They’ll end up paying a fine and their employees will be given the sole "choice" of taking this new "government option."
Now if you were reading all of that carefully, you have figured out that the "government option" is simply an extension of the broke Medicaid and Medicare systems. And that "choice" does not mean what it says. Inner city clinics take Medicaid. It’s the kind of insurance that people on welfare get, and it’s not only broke, but it’s ineffective. People "fall through the cracks" all the time and the care is awful. So that’s why the Obama administration is trying to fix it, right? And how are they going to pay for fixing it?
He said last night that it wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime. That it would be funded by "the premiums that it collects." So where do you suppose the premiums are coming from if that particular system is being forced on the unemployed? From those who aren’t unemployed who have been forced into the system because their company didn’t want to provide them with the "insurance exchange option," right? How else could it be getting paid for if it’s not being funded by taxpayers? Wait! If premiums are being collected, then taxpayers ARE funding it! What an excellent illustration of devil-tongued double-speak! Just brilliant. So, we are indeed marching forward toward socialism, which, by the way, is unconstitutional in America according to Article 1 section 9 of the constitution. This president needs to be impeached and forced to leave the White House along with his administration! And even given the sole choice of prison!
But that opinion aside for a moment, I suppose that there might be some who think that socialized healthcare is good thing. I’ll ignore the fact that big government can’t even effectively run the smaller version of the "socialized systems" of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. I’m just going to move on to pointing to a country or two who are already doing this on a grand scale and they can’t make it work.
The UK will be my first illustration. Back on September 2nd, the UK Telegraph reported that people were being, "Sentenced to death on the NHS." The article stated that, "patients with terminal illness are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors warn." The article went on to state that, "a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death." How’s that for a government run option? One very recent example of that was reported in the Christian Telegraph. British doctors refused to treat a 21 week old premature baby because, "he was two days under the limit set by the British government’s National Health Service (NHS) rationing guidelines" (emphasis added). This is the Obama administration’s model for "ideal healthcare!" Now one has to ask the question, who decided the British government’s rationing guidelines? Might this be comparable to Obama’s "independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead"? That sounds an awful lot like death panels to me! And don’t forget that Cass Sunstein, Obama’s "Regulation Czar" has "embraced a controversial ‘senior death discount.’" Will this man be in any way involved in regulating or rationing healthcare? But there’s more!
Since the UK has socialized medicine, you know, that "government option," there is now a push for "assisted suicide." And another Christian Telegraph article states that, "An editorial appearing in the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) has blamed disabled people 'who want to live' for the difficulties surrounding the debate in the UK on assisted suicide." Senior citizens and disabled Americans, with all due respect, beware!
England’s government run healthcare option (the NHS) is presently an overwhelmed system because of swine flu. As a result, "unnecessary surgeries" are being canceled. In addition, according to a Financial Times article, "Daniel Hannan, a Conservative member of the European parliament, has spoken out about the NHS, but was slapped down by his own party after saying he ‘wouldn’t wish it on anybody’ because of its far from perfect waiting lists and survival rates." Hannan went on to state that, " to copy the system would lead the US towards bankruptcy and that the UK was ‘just a couple of years behind Zimbabwe." This is where a government run option is going to take American citizens!
But enough about the UK. We can look even closer to home to see just how beneficial a government option will be. Our northern neighbor Canada has it’s own horror stories revolving around it’s government option. Back in August, the Canadian Press reported that "The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country’s health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it." The article went on to state that Dr. Anne Doig said that, "we all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize."
In Vancouver, Canada, the Vancouver Sun reported that, "A Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million." Government options don’t work! Unless the idea is to kill people off and reduce the population! That's something that would also help alleviate
the shortfall. And it would help fix the Social Security problem, too.
Obama promised last night that, "not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for the (government option) plan." He promised that, "I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficits now or in the future. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promise don’t materialize." Will that include cutting "unnecessary" surgeries? Or maybe it will include cutting necessary ones because one life is more valued than another — which would be a violation of The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Nevertheless, Obama also stated that, "the plan I’m proposing will cost around 900 billion over 10 years." But it won’t be taxpayer funded and will be sustained off of the premiums it collects? Is it going to be cheaper to just remain unemployed? I supposed that remains to be seen. Then again, much like this government run option is a "choice" for those who don’t have any other insurance that they can afford, perhaps he’s got some plan up his sleeve for offering everyone the ‘choice’ to work, too.
Similar articles:
Obama's czars are unconstitutional
Socialism in America is unconstitutional
Congressman says Obama has potential to 'make himself a dictator'
Swine flu hype arising
Social Security collapse: a call for church to respond
Tea Pary Movement inspires Cincinnati Christians to run for office
Websites of possible interest:
teaparty.org/
cincinnatiteaparty.org/
Comments
I get a kick out of "Christians" who adopt the individualist right wing agenda. The Bible was written within a collectivist society. "Individualism" appeared late in human history, during what we now call the enlightenment. In the Bible, the most important reality is the family and the community. Obama is asking us to consider health care within that perspective. Come on, Bible thumpers! You play a song within the key it is written. If you change the key (individualism) it is no longer the same song.
First, several songs change keys halfway through, or towards the end. It is still very much the same song.
Second, can you please provide a reference from the Bible to support your claim?
Thanks for your input, tio viejito.
Obama is asking us to consider healthcare that is patterned after the NHS, a system that is totally anti-family, anti-respect of the elderly and lowers quality of life in a major way. Did you click on ANY of my links? Have you even read the constitution and do you understand that what Obama wants to do is unconstitutional and a blatant violation of your rights as an American citizen? (I am guessing that you are indeed a citizen.) If your employer does not offer you insurance through the exchange, you will be forced onto Medicaid. And so will anyone else without employer coverage. Obama is asking Americans, whether Christian or non-Christian to accept him as a dictator! As for the Bible, Jesus HEALED the sick and he was all about LIFE. Not a "commission" of death panels!
Thanks for your insight, Jay.
I'm glad you identified you byline as "Christianity & Politics"...Your article complied quite well with the predjudiced rehtoric I would have expected. No objective analysis of the bill's components, only a ready-made rehash of political bias.
Thanks for your input, Christopher.
Can you please explain to me how using Obama’s own words from
His speech last night is “prejudiced rhetoric” and lacking in “objective analysis”?
perhaps the cost of health care could be reduced if: 1)lawyers couldn't make a killing on malpractice cases, therefore TORT reform needs to happen. 2) those that received medicaid should have to pay a premium and a co-pay, like any other insurance program. I know someone who is on the system and they use the emergency room because they dont have to pay anything (totally irresponsible).If they have to pay for it perhaps they would be more responsible with it. What obama is proposing hasnt worked in other countries, why would it work here? What he is proposing will damage small businesses, just let it happen and you will see even more job losses. an employer doesn't OWE their employee anything but a fair wage for a fair days work.
Thank you for your thoughts, M Taylor.
The article complains about government rationing care in the UK and Canada. How naive! Medicare is a government run program in this country but there are are generally no complaints about end of life care udner that program. As a matter of fact, polls show that people are generally more satisfied with government-run Medicare than private insurance.
And it's naive to think that private insurance doesn't ration care . . . try getting needed surgery done when your lifetime policy limits run out, you have a pre-existing condition, you lose your job . . . Private insurance allocates care to those who can afford it or who are not sick. Millions of good, hard-working people will go bankrupt this year because of medical bills.
Obama's proposals may not be perfect, but at least he trying to reform a system that has gone bad. The U.S. has the highest health care costs in the world (over 17% of GDP), but we lag far behind other countries in rates of infant mortality.
How can socialism be unconstitutional when it did not even exist when the constitution was written? Also, almost every single time you here the word "you" in the Bible. It is plural, not singular. The focus is always on the community as a whole. Just look at the book of Acts. Take ch. 2 for example at the end, everyone gave to everyone according to their needs. In ch. 5 Ananias and Sapphira are killed for lying about the giving of their money because of this violation to the community and in ch. 6 there is a debate among Hebrew and Greek Jews due to the supposed unfair allocation of that money. Sounds like the principles of community and socialism are not un-Christian after all.
I'd like to ask a simple constitutional question. Given that any health care program obviously must in some manner or fashion regulate the personal lives of those involved in it, and given that any tax dollars in it cannot be directed by those the money came from, how is national health care constitutional? Please don't give me the "general welfare clause" answer. I point out it is linked with "provide for general defense" meaning any action authorized under it must do both. Obama's plan does not provide for the general defense. Further, our Constitution clearly does not provide for regulation of humans since 1868 without their consent. But, if my tax dollars are used for this program and I don't want them to be (as would be the case for any private insurance program meaning if I have insurance with Allstate I don't pay Hartford)how can not to be said paying for the program regardless of whether or not I participate in it? Am I therefore not still regulated?
One more point. Once this plan is in, what's to stop all the companies in this country from dropping health care, not by not offering it but by simply changing the ratio of support from the customary 80/20 of today to something like 1/99 thus making the cost so high everyone is forced onto the public plan and the companies still remain in compliance with the law yet not having to spend any money because there is no one on the plan?
Another point. If I don't like a decision by this "voluntary" health group, where and how will I be able to redress the grievance? As it is a public program, the Constitution mandates its records be public. Does this mean my medical records will become general public knowledge and please don't give me the HIPPA regulations. They are legal because they apply to PRIVATE business; once you go public you fall under PUBLIC law and reporting standards. Finally, if the government has control of my body via health care can it then dictate what I will do with it?
Insurance companies are now killing people by denying care, telling doctors what to do, cancelling policies, and refusing to insure anyone who is not in a perfect health. They fill up their pockets with blood profits and waste a lot of money by shuffling papers. I would trust the government anytime over these blood suckers. At least the government can be voted out if they don't do a good job. Try to vote out an insurance company. Medicare is much more effective than any health plan and most seniors can't wait to be old enough to be on Medicare. Medicare is run by the government. I wish we all could buy in to Medicare.
I do not know how you good Chrisians can sleep well or show up in church on Sunday while opposing millions of people’s chance to be treated for illnesses. Too many people are dying of cancer because of lack of health insurance while you are praying for salvation and a place in heaven, and probably praying for these people to be denied care at the same time. Good luck.
JESUS is the most famous and best socialist in history.
Elizabeth Delaney you call yourself a "Cristian Examiner"
Think about it. You are not a Christian. You are one of the Pharisees.
Thanks for your input, MFA.
Since you apparently know the Bible so well, can you please tell me where you have found scripture that supports the notion that Jesus was a Socialist? By the way, if the present healthcare bill passes, there will be a some type of government healthcare advisor and a panel of “experts” that decide what treatments will be given and who may have them. With all the new people being forced into government run healthcare, it will most likely overload the system (as in England and Canada) and quality of care is going to plummet.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!