ObamaCare Lies

From Your ObamaCare Watchdog

Obama’s New “Waiver Flexibility” Plan To States Is Path To Single Payer Faster

What do you do when your signature piece of legislation has been ruled by two federal courts as unconstitutional, was passed against the will of the people, is massively unpopular by voters, and was responsible for the biggest mid-term election sweep against the party in power in decades? You act like you’ve heard the concerns and are willing to scale it back. Some. Except you don’t really mean it and except that your proposal is worse than meaningless window dressing.

While the Obama administration has handed out hundreds of ObamaCare waivers to corporations (especially those willing to play ball with it), it recently has heard the calls from beleaguered states who are overwhelmed with Medicaid expenses as is, and will be completely ransacked by the full implementation of ObamaCare. So, the other day, at a meeting with the nation’s governors, President Obama offered a plan to allow the states “flexibility” and which would move up the date by which they could opt out. But, as Conn Carroll at The Heritage Foundation’s The Foundry/Morning Bell blog points out in detail, the proposal only offers “flexibility” in the time it would take to get to a single-payer system (i.e., a complete government takeover).

There’s nothing like a disingenuous proposal to keep the people off your back. While supporters of the proposal, sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts), would allow the states some flexibility, it comes with many strings attached, not the least of which is our favorite: Any exemptions to ObamaCare as currently maintained in the law would have to come from the Secretary of Health and Human Services — one more power to the thousands that office currently holds under ObamaCare. Talk about czars!

Meanwhile, as Ben Smith reports at Politico, at the same time the president was selling this “flexibility” package with the governors — which, he maintains, would allow them to introduce market-based solutions — his health care advisors were on a conference call with liberal activists extolling the real aims of the plan: It would allow “blue” states to get to single payer faster.

Here’s how Heritage’s Center for Policy Innovation Director Stuart Butler described it in the New England Journal of Medicine:

One [problem] is that [Wyden-Brown] still locks the states into guaranteeing a generous and costly level of benefits. True, a state could propose alternative benefit requirements if they had the same actuarial value as those in the [health care bill]. But the requirements go well beyond basic coverage, and the HHS secretary is the one who defines “at least as comprehensive” benefits. …

Not much of a move to the middle, not much of a compromise, not much of a remedy to the states. Not much of anything at all . . . except another duplicitous front opened up by the administration to misdirect the public about the true intentions of ObamaCare.

March 3, 2011 Posted by | Health Care Law | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thomas Sowell On ObamaCare’s “Facts And Fables”

It’s pretty cold inside the 2,400 pages of ObamaCare. That’s according to the great economist, columnist and author of dozens of books, Thomas Sowell. There may not be a greater mind for liberty than Dr. Sowell and his words never fail to enlighten on the cause.

Today, I found this column of his archived at the Washington Examiner. His thesis in a nutshell:

We have to go back to square one and the simplest common sense in order to get some rational idea of what government-run medical care means. In particular, we need to examine the claim that the government can “bring down the cost of medical care.”

It is cheaper to remain sick than to get medical treatment. What is cheapest of all is to die instead of getting life-saving medications and treatment, which can be very expensive.

Then, after dismissing the claims of Euro-socialist medicine superiority over the American healthcare system:

Americans get the latest pharmaceutical drugs, sometimes years before those drugs are available to people in Britain or in other countries where the government runs the medical system.

Why? Because the latest drugs cost more and it is cheaper to let people die. 

Ouch! That rhetorical stab might require some medical attention of its own for ObamaCare apologists. But it’s not rhetoric alone. Dr. Sowell presents the facts, as researched by Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute in her book, The Truth About Obamacare.

Among my favorite facts expounded upon by Ms. Pipes that the Mainstream Media conveniently obscures when comparing the British socialized medical system and ours: More than 4,000 expectant British mothers in one year were fortunate enough to give birth inside a hospital. Too bad they didn’t have access to maternity wards. Instead, they were forced to use hallways, bathrooms and even elevators. Which also begs the question: Why do ObamaCare supporters avoid recognizing that Britain’s new government is taking significant steps to unravel its government-run system? Okay, that’s my own rhetorical flash.

Don’t think American health care could ever deteriorate into a mess like the maternity situation in Britain. Another ObamaCare lie exposed: Despite claims there won’t be heavy regulations, the 2,400 page law contains 150 boards and commissions. Who thinks they’re going to sit idly and mind their own business? The power vested in the office of Secretary of Health and Human Services alone is enough to make Hugo Chavez jealous.

The Obama administration wants to have it both ways: It is not socializing our healthcare, it’s only regulating it to make it fair for everyone; it’s not meddling in decisions or rationing, it’s bringing down prices. Sure, it may not be government-owned, but the thousands of regulations sure make it government-run; and the only way to bring down costs is to deny treatment to people. Maybe that’s not a regulation. But it’s certainly a dictate.

February 11, 2011 Posted by | Health Care Law | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: