3  Absolute reasons to vote NO on healthcare bill

1.  We cant afford it.  We are going broke.  We need jobs and business creation.  This bill will kill jobs.  Jobs in insurance. Business losses as increased mandated taxes will force some businesses barely hanging on in this economy to fold.  Increased Taxes.   Trillions of debt added to the already unsustainable national debt.

2. This is the worst intrusion into the private lives and freedoms of the American people ever to be written.  Keep politicians, health Czars, beauracracies, forced mandates, eventual rationing out of our lives.  It is clear after learning what is hidden deep in the pages of this bill that it is not about improving healthcare for the American People. But a takeover of the worst kind.  You do not fix the problem of  20 – 40 million uninsured by forcing 330 million onto the Government Dole…Giving way the the eventual destruction of Private Insurance companies. Place  $2,500 fines for every individual not “acceptably insured”.  Force yearly check ups.  Mandate end of life counseling, add 35 government agencies to oversee our healthcare, Force online enforcement of perosnal health records, force you to provide IRS information to health czars, enter the diversity police into our healthcare, the Fat police the QARY agencies that decide if a health prescription is cost beneficial and countless other socialist treats buried deep in the bill..

3.  The more we read about this bill the more facts we find that are ALARMING to say the least. Why add this tremendous burden forever to our debt.  Why  relinquish forever our most important assets to the whims of  politicians.  What the Government giveth the Government Taketh away..


10 Questions to Ask about Healthcare Reform

Written by Tom Coburn.

Dr. Tom Coburn (R.) is a United States senator from Oklahoma.

And also one of two doctors in the Senate.

While I have confidence in the American people to come up with their own probing questions, let me suggest a few questions that my own colleagues have been loath to answer:

1. Why do we need to increase spending on health care by at least $1.6 trillion and steal prosperity from our children and grandchildren when we spend nearly twice per person what other industrialized nations spend on health care?
2. What programs will you cut and whose taxes will you raise to pay for health-care reform?

Any politician — Republican or Democrat — who refuses to answer this question or avoids the topic by deferring
to    the committees of jurisdiction doesn’t deserve to be in office.

3. What earmarks or pet projects that you have sponsored will you sacrifice to help finance the cost of health-care reform?

It is immoral, in my view, to ask taxpayers to make more sacrifices while politicians practice business- as-usual
pork-barrel politics. In my view, any bill that increases spending is a failure and not serious reform. The problem
is  not that we don’t spend enough on health care, but that we don’t allocate resources efficiently and get value for
what we pay.

4. Will you vote for a public option that requires taxpayer-funded abortion?

5. If the public option is so wonderful, will you lead by example and vote for a plan to enroll you and your family in the public option?

I offered an amendment in committee to force members of Congress to enroll in the public option. Nine out of eleven
Democrats on the health committee who back the public option refused. If the politicians creating the public    option
don’t have confidence in it, neither should the American people.

6. Will you vote for a plan that will allow a board of politicians and bureaucrats to override decisions made by you and your doctor?

Both the Senate and House bills set up a government-run “comparative effectiveness” board that will make final
decisions about treatment and care. In committee, I gave senators several opportunities to accept language that
would forbid this board from denying care. All of my amendments were rejected, which suggests that the intent is to
set up a board that will ration care, as is done in the United Kingdom.

7. If you support a “comparative effectiveness” board, what qualifies you, as a politician, to practice medicine? Have you delivered health care to a single person, much less entire classes of people you claim to represent, such as the poor, the uninsured, or children?

I’m one of two physicians in the Senate, along with John Barrasso of Wyoming. I know for a fact that very few leaders
in this debate have any firsthand experience or knowledge of health care, which is disturbing.

8. How will a government-run public option perform better than other failing government programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Indian Health Care?

Forty percent of doctors refuse to accept Medicaid patients because the program is broken. Access to a
government   program — such as the public option — does not guarantee access to health care.

9. If increasing spending on health care was the solution, why hasn’t it worked yet?

The public-option “reform” is not new at all but an extension of 1960s-era public policies that say a little more
government spending and intervention is always the answer.

10. Are you more committed to doing reform right or quickly? Would you consider backing a thoughtful alternative to the public option? If so, which one?

I’ve introduced a bill along with Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.) and Reps. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) and Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) called the Patients Choice Act that guarantees coverage and choice for every American without raising taxes or increasing spending. In fact, our bill will save taxpayers at least $70 billion. Many other members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, are working on alternatives that don’t herd the American people into a government-run program.

The choice is not between the public option and nothing. The choice is between the public option and an option that can win the support of the public. The future of health care truly is up to you.

Obama’s Healthcare Horror

This article appeared on a  liberal website, written by Camilla Paglia.  Thankfully there are some liberals who are not blindly following the insanity and hypocracy of the current administration.  Below are some exerts.

But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises —

“Obama’s aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land”

The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation…

You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you’re happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.

I just don’t get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration’s outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable “casual conversations” to the White House.If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.

Read the entire article here

An Inconvenient Debt

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "An Inconvenient Debt", posted with vodpod