Dr. Obama, can I take my medicine now?

For  you idiots that elected Uh-bama and his teleprompter, WAKE UP!  The bus that is America couldn’t make the curve that the liberals have thrown it, and it has now burst through the guard rail and is hanging halfway over the cliff.  What’s worse, rather than try to pull it back, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are at the back bumper trying to push it over.

The latest Obamanation is this health care bill which the democrats are trying to ram down our throats this week.  This will result in rationing of health care to all but the extremely rich and politically powerful (that’s what’s happening in Canada and Great Britain).  You will be forced (i.e. you will have no choice NOT to buy) to buy your “insurance” from the government.  All competing plans will be disallowed.  New medicines and procedures will no longer be developed because there will be no financial incentive to develop them.  Quality doctors will leave medical practice and be replaced by less cabable ones because of salary caps and insurance laws.  In Great Britain there are a fixed number of doctors.  To get one of those positions, a doctor must either retire or die.  You have medical interns quitting after a 20-30 year wait without ever practicing medicine because no one died or retired.  A committee will decide who gets procedures and certain kinds of health care based upon how much “utility” the state will get from you after the surgery before you die.  In other words, the older you are, the less likely you are to get needed health care because you’re more likely to die before the state can get its money’s worth (pay back) from you.  Doctors and patients from Canada, Great Britain, and pretty much any other country you can name that has socialized medicine have gone on record imploring us not to go down this road.  Of course you never hear that from the Obamedia because of their biased coverage of the Obamessiah. (See this story and its links for more on that.) WAKE UP and see that we are going down the path to becoming the next version of the Soviet Union.

Contact your representatives and senators, and several of the others, to make them hear our voice.  Once this bill passes, we won’t be able to undo it.  See the files linked below for contact information for all congressmen and senators.

2009_senateinfo

2009_congressinfo_allhousereps

– The Loft – http://www.gopusa.com/theloft –

Dr. Obama, can I take my medicine now?

Posted By Bobby Eberle On April 27, 2009 at 7:50 am

The left-wing steamroller keeps right on rolling, squashing one American institution after another. From banks to energy to the automobile industry, Obama is squeezing the life out of the private sector and injecting government where it doesn’t belong. What’s next you ask? Health care.

Obama and the Democrats are now focusing on a massive health care bill that will put government in more control than ever before. Knowing that passage of such a bill would be a crowning achievement on the way to socialized medicine, the Democrats are now considering bypassing the traditional legislative process so that Republicans would not be able to mount a filibuster. Need an operation? Please take a number and get to the back of the line.

As noted in a FOXNews.com story, Obama and Congressional leaders are considering using a tactic known as “reconciliation” to push forward Obama’s health care plan.

The fast-track process would protect Obama’s ambitious plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system from a potential GOP filibuster and limit the Republicans’ ability to get concessions. It also would give Democrats far more control over the specifics of the health care legislation.

Under typical Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to advance a bill, but reconciliation would enable Democrats to enact the health care plan with just a simple majority and only 20 hours of debate.

In case you missed the 2006 and 2008 elections, Democrats hold majorities in the Senate and the House and, using tactics such as that described above, could pass almost any legislation. Add to that a few weak-kneed Republicans, and the situation becomes even more serious.

In a story on CNSNews.com, the leading Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, said that Obama’s health care plan would not result in “government-mandated health care rationing.” Obama currently says that he will pay for his health care “reform” plan by creating “efficiencies” in the medical system.

“There is no rationing of health care at all,” Baucus told CNSNews.com on Friday. “You choose your own doctor. You choose your own health insurance that you want to have. This is all a choice.

“What we are talking about is squeezing cost out of the system because of an emphasis on quality care, not quantity,” Baucus told CNSNews.com. “Today the emphasis in the reimbursement is quantity whether you are a doctor, or a medical equipment manufacturer, whatever you are. It’s quantity. You get paid for the number of units that you provide.

Baucus went on to say that this plan is a “whole new way of doing business,” but then added that “there may be some cuts.” Oh really!

The news story then quotes the White House’s director of the National Economic Council as saying, “Look at health care, the frequency of different procedures, whether it’s tonsillectomies or hysterectomies in different parts of the country — and what you see is that in some parts of the country procedures are done three times as frequently and there’s no benefit in terms of the health of the population.”

No benefit to the health of the population? What in the world does that even mean? I’m sure the person getting the procedure doesn’t care about the rest of the population.

Of course, the language in Obama’s plan is vague, to say the least, and Republicans are questioning where the “savings” would come from.

“If you’re going to quantify [savings] with certainty, that means you feel you’re going to ration with certainty,” said Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Feb. 26.

“How do they propose to go about doing this?” asked Ryan. “Do they propose to set up a system where the government is in the nucleus of our health care system, where the government is telling providers — physicians — how to practice medicine?”

As he did with the bailout, Obama is appealing to the media by saying that he wants the health care plan to be “bipartisan.” Give me a break. Yes, he wants to work with Republicans just as long as Republicans agree with him. As noted in the FOXNews.com story, “Democrats, including Obama, have said repeatedly that they want the health care debate to be bipartisan and that the filibuster-proof terms would be used only if the GOP obstructs.” Does that sound like a bipartisan environment to you?

“Reconciliation is basically a nuclear weapon to use against the negotiators so what happens is nobody negotiates seriously because they can always go to reconciliation … tilting the playing field unfairly,” said Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, top Republican on the Budget Committee.

The Democrats do deserve credit for one thing… once given control of government (because Republicans turned away from their principles); they have absolutely no problems in pushing forward their agenda. Given the opportunity they are ramming socialism down our throats. Imagine all we could have passed with our missed opportunity.

The more government gets involved in health care, the worse the health care system becomes. That is a simple fact.

‘America’s Smartest Woman’ Is Making Us Look Stupid

Hillary only stuck with Bill because it kept her close to the seat of power, and by not throwing Bill to the wolves she held power over him.  She is a power hungry enabler just like her new boss.  She’ll throw him under the bus if given the opportunity.  In the meantime, she just runs around the world making America look like fools.  That may actually be true if you look at who we have elected as our representatives and to the highest office in the land.  The liberal plan for public education has finally come to fruition.

‘America’s Smartest Woman’ Is Making Us Look Stupid

by A.W.R. Hawkins (more by this author)

Posted 04/01/2009 ET

Hillary Clinton is best remembered for blaming the accusations against her husband on a “vast right wing conspiracy” (until he was forced to admit that he was giving a different dog a bone) and blaming her 2008 Democrat primary losses on the anti-female sentiment in certain parts of our country. (No, not anti-female.  Just anti-beyotch.) But who is she going to blame for her disastrous debut as secretary of state?

Can we blame the president? No; his foreign policy experience is even less than hers. And, yes: her entire foreign policy experience was kissing the late Yasser Arafat’s wife on the lips and embarrassing her hubby on a China trip by making a plea for women’s rights to a group assembled by the Chicoms to listen politely to her. But I digress.

Now Hillary, long considered “America’s smartest woman” by people like Elton John and James Carville, is taking her blame game and her conditional loyalty to the world as our Secretary of State.

Her debut was a meeting with the Russian foreign minister, to whom she presented what was supposed to be a “reset” button, making light of Obama’s desire to make nice with the bad guys. The button, though, wasn’t labeled “reset.” Instead, due to the fine work by her staff, it had the Russian word for “overload” (like an electronic circuit) painted on it. So while it’s obvious that Hillary ain’t the Great Communicator, it gets worse.

Her recent trips to China and Mexico prove this point.

En route to China for her February 20-22 visit with Chinese leaders, Hillary wasted no time in criticizing others for problems the U.S. is facing with North Korea. She polished up the old refrain “it’s Bush’s fault” by intimating that North Korea has nukes because of the failed policies of former president George W. Bush.

Hillary believes Bush failed to keep North Korea within the parameters of an agreement they signed while Hillary’s husband was president. But gatewaypundit.com has duly noted that the “North Korean regime [has] violated the agreed framework almost from the time it was signed during the Clinton years.”

And what retribution did they face for this violation during the Clinton years? None.

Once Hillary landed in China, she went from blaming Bush to turning her back on core Democrat constituencies like Amnesty International and pro-Tibetan support groups, both of which are outraged over China’s violations of human rights. Instead of calling Chinese leaders out on their mistreatment of whole classes of humanity, Hillary said, “[E]fforts to press China on issues like Taiwan, Tibet and human rights ‘can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.’”

Hillary tried to clarify her reasoning by adding that there’s no use talking human rights with the Chinese because, “We pretty much know what they’re going to say.”

Since when is knowing what someone is “going to say” a valid reason for not doing what ought to be done?

In the German publication Spiegel, Günter Nooke, of the Christian Democratic Union Party, described the methods of America’s smartest woman as “very questionable.” He explained that the reason she really didn’t want to do anything to offend Chinese leaders was because her trip was part of a larger effort to seek “out fresh Chinese loans for the deeply-indebted American government.”

To put it succinctly, Hillary’s visit with Chinese leaders was conducted from a position of weakness. And such a mindset barred our inept secretary of state from standing up for Tibetans, the Taiwanese, or any other people group that China regularly assaults and threatens, for fear of financial loss.

Slate’s Annie Applebaum, a left leaning journalist, put it this way: “I…care quite a lot about what the new administration is going to do about human rights on the ground, and, to date, both Clinton and Obama have been utterly silent on that score.”

When Hillary traveled to Mexico last week, she further epitomized the sad state of our current administration by demonstrating that their refusal to call China on the carpet for obvious wrongs China had committed would not keep them from blaming America for wrongs that America had not committed.

Our smartest-woman-turned secretary of state told Mexico’s President Calderon that America had “a co-responsibility” for the violence currently overtaking Mexico: “Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians.” (It doesn’t matter that we KNOW  that the weapons that the liberals are speaking about were given to the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT by our government and then stolen from the Mexican government by drug cartels, or given to the drug cartels by sympathizers/moles within the military.  This is just a way to build uninformed sympathy for an illegitimate gun ban in this country.)

Isn’t anyone responsible for their own actions anymore? And wouldn’t it be more accurate to point out that Mexico’s violence is the result of the fact that they’re an anti-capitalist third world country with a population largely comprised of laborers whose own government robs them of the chance to better themselves?

Yet it just keeps getting worse. From Monterrey, Mexico, America’s smartest woman told Calderon: “[The] partnership that you have created…between the public and the private sector is a model that we and others will look towards.” I guess this means we, in America, would be better off by living like citizens of the third world instead of citizens of an industrialized one?

I fear that America’s smartest woman has yet to understand that she’s not just a first lady anymore: her words mean something now that she’s become secretary of state. And not only is she setting us up to pay financial reparations by taking “co-responsibility” for the crimes of another nation, she’s actually making America look internationally impotent by lacking the backbone to demand that the Chinese uphold human rights or the clarity of thought needed to see that Mexico’s political structure eliminates any possibility for paupers to go from rags to riches.

Hillary’s trips to China and Mexico, and the words she used while in each country, confirm that we’ve no longer an administration that’s proud of this country, its values, or its accomplishments. Gone for now are the days when America deals from a position of strength.

HUMAN EVENTS columnist A.W.R. Hawkins has been published on topics including the U.S. Navy, Civil War battles, Vietnam War ideology, the Reagan Presidency, and the Rebirth of Conservatism, 1968-1988. More of his articles can be found at www.awrhawkins.com.

(Overdue) “Controlled” Bankruptcy for GM

Couldn’t we have just let them go into bankruptcy in the first place and saved American taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars?

In the Obama-nation, the government picks the winners and losers.  If the government is bailing out, subsidizing, and otherwise propping up a FAILING business when it is unprofitable and poorly run, how can those who are being run smartly run hope to compete?  This is just one part in the destruction of capitalism that has provided the most advances in technology and standard of living of any system or nation in the history of the world.

April 1, 2009 11:23 AM

White House May Seek “Controlled Bankruptcy” For GM

Posted by Daniel Carty | Comment On This Post

(AP)

The Obama administration is weighing a “controlled bankruptcy” for General Motors Corp. if the floundering auto giant cannot meet government standards for viability by June 1, The New York Times reports Wednesday.

The move would fall somewhere between a prepackaged bankruptcy and a potentially chaotic legal battle between the company and creditors. It would involve persuading only some creditors to agree to a plan that would split the company into two pieces, sources familiar with the discussions told the Times.

In most prepackaged bankruptcies, all the creditors must agree terms, but the White House may circumvent that by financing the sales using taxpayer money, reports the paper.

Fritz Henderson, GM’s new CEO, indicated Tuesday that tougher government standards have made bankruptcy “more probable” than in the past.

Henderson said GM management was rushing to find ways to stave off that fate. It must slash billions in costs and debt in time for the Obama administration’s deadline.

The plan appears to resemble parts of the bank rescue plan – separating the company’s liabilities and bad assets from its profitable elements. Some specifics, according to the Times, include:

GM filing for prearranged bankruptcy.

Selling off valuable assets, such as Cadillac or Chevrolet, to a new company using government financing. This would apparently become GM’s new corporate face.

Leaving less desirable elements, like Hummer, with the old company.

Using revenue from the sales to pay off creditors.

The White House would hope to get support from the United Auto Workers union, which would likely be asked to make further concessions, but the law allows a judge to approve a sale over creditor objections, according to the Times.