Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Health Care’

Great video from U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) explaining what is currently wrong with Medicare and how his Path to Prosperity plan will fix it.

Power Line reports:

Medicare is heading for collapse, as all well-informed citizens know. The question is what to do about it. Democrats welcome the collapse, and have incorporated it as part of their strategy to force socialized medicine on unwilling Americans. Republicans, for better or worse, are trying to save the Medicare program in something like its present form.

[…]

[T]he best thing about the House Republicans’ approach is that it goes a long way toward restoring patient choice and market competition to our health care system. That won’t just benefit senior citizens, it will benefit everyone.

Bravo Rep. Ryan and keep up the good work.

As for the left’s response, here it is:

Demagoguery.

Reminder: Americans 55 years old or older will not be affected by Rep. Ryan’s plan anyway. Misleading? I think you know the answer.

*UPDATE* – May 25, 2011 – 10:45 pm

Rep. Ryan went on Fox & Friends this morning to defend his plan:

*UPDATE* – May 25, 2011 – 11:05 pm

Former President Bill Clinton told Rep. Ryan that he believes the Democrats need to do something about Medicare. ABC News reports:

“So anyway, I told them before you got here, I said I’m glad we won this race in New York,” Clinton told Ryan, when the two met backstage at a forum on the national debt held by the Pete Peterson Foundation. But he added, “I hope Democrats don’t use this as an excuse to do nothing.”

Ryan told Clinton he fears that now nothing will get done in Washington.

“My guess is it’s going to sink into paralysis is what’s going to happen. And you know the math. It’s just, I mean, we knew we were putting ourselves out there. You gotta start this. You gotta get out there. You gotta get this thing moving,” Ryan said.

Clinton told Ryan that if he ever wanted to talk about it, he should “give me a call.” Ryan said he would.

Oh, and it gets better. The New York Times reports:

Former President Bill Clinton, still widely considered one of his party’s foremost politicians, said on Wednesday that Democrats should cut a “reasonable” deal with Republicans on Medicare savings rather than conclude from Tuesday’s upset in a special Congressional election that bashing Republicans on the issue is the key to a party comeback in 2012.

[…]

Mr. Clinton, with some passion, returned to the topic at the end of an hour-long interview. “I think the Democrats are going to have to be willing to give up, maybe, some short-term political gain by whipping up fears on some of these things — if it’s a reasonable Social Security proposal, a reasonable Medicare proposal. We’ve got to deal with these things. You cannot have health care devour the economy.”

Great soundbite.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

If the federal government can force someone to purchase health insurance based solely on citizenship and on being alive, then why can’t state lawmakers force their citizens to purchase a firearm?

Well, that’s the reasoning behind a new bill being introduced in South Dakota. ArgusLeader.com reports:

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.

Although these lawmakers are only proposing this bill to make a point about health care, they do have a case to be made. As I stated above, if the government can force us to buy a product or service, such as a health insurance policy, what is to stop politicians from forcing us to buy a gun?

Also, I have noticed other blogs worry about the strategy of bringing guns and the 2nd Amendment into the Obamacare discussion, but I don’t think the panic is necessary. Is it possible these lawmakers are bringing up the “guns-for-everybody” argument, because it is something that scares liberals just as much as socialized health care scares conservatives?

Anyways, the technical side of the argument can be found here.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional and “must be declared void” in full.

The American Spectator reports:

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson on Monday became the second federal judge to declare the national health care law’s individual mandate unconstitutional.

The decision concerns the lawsuit based in Florida and involving 26 states, and follows a similar decision last month in the suit based in Virginia.

But Vinson’s decision went a step further than the Virginia ruling by not only declaring that the mandate was unconstitutional, but striking down the rest of the law as a result.

As enacted, the law did not include what’s known as a “severability clause,” which specifies that if one part of the law is struck down, the rest of the law stands.  Those challenging the law have argued that as a result, the whole law should be struck down, too.  While U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson of Richmond declined to do so, Vinson argued that, “because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.”

The Obama administration has launched an appeal in the Virginia suit, and is expected to do so in the Florida-based suit as well, likely setting the stage for an eventual showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can read the ruling here.

VICTORY! This is a critical milestone, but the fight against Obamacare is far from over. There are over a dozen more lawsuits filed in different states and it will be the US Supreme Court who will ultimately make the final decision. Either way, today is a great day for our United States’ Constitution.

My case of the Mondays is officially gone.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the United States House of Representatives today?

Answer: The Republican-led House easily passed legislation to repeal Obamacare!

Politico reports:

House Republicans passed a bill to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care plan Wednesday, taking their first major step toward rolling back the massive overhaul that has dominated the American political landscape for almost two years.

The vote was 245 to 189, and unanimous GOP support gave the vote the same partisan feel of the March vote to pass the law, underscoring once again the hardened political lines of the health care debate. Only three Democrats backed the repeal, a smaller number than Republicans had once predicted.

The bill will head next to the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised to block it. If it did receive a vote, the repeal bill would be unlikely to draw support from even a majority of senators. Even so, House Republican leaders have challenged Reid to give the bill a vote since Democrats, who control the chamber, have little to fear.

Political pundits have repeatedly said that H.R. 2 (the repeal of Obamacare) will not make it through the Senate. Granted, the odds are extremely slim, but it is not impossible. There is a way to get it on the Senate calendar:

  • Republican Senators need to use Senate Rule 14 and object to the second reading of the bill. By doing this, the bill will “hold at the desk” and sit on the Senate calendar which could be brought up for debate at any point during the next two years.
  • Since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) will not proceed with the bill, Republican Senators can use Senate Rule 22 to commence debate on H.R. 2 if they have held the bill at the desk. By doing this, it would bring up a cloture vote, but Republicans will not have the 13 Senate Democrats to break the filibuster. Instead, it would force Democrats, who cried about the filibuster and obstructionism for the past couple years, to engage in a real filibuster. In the end, this would be exciting to witness.

Ultimately, full repeal of Obamacare will depend on the courts. If a number of federal courts declare parts of Obamacare unconstitutional, then there will be more incentive for Democrat Senators to vote for repeal. Also, as Hot Air points out, “if the GOP regains a Senate majority in 2012, they could conceivably use reconciliation to break a Democratic filibuster and push a repeal bill through.”

It will be tough to do, but full repeal must be done!

On a side-note, watch Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) slap House Democrats with a giant dose of reality and common sense:

Beeeeeeeeautiful!

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post?

Answer: More proof that liberals have the hardest time understanding why the government can mandate one type of insurance and not another.

Here is their op-ed where they continue to bring up the same ol’ debunked argument:

Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.

If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it’s essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

The same is true for health insurance. Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.

Apparently the mind of liberal doesn’t allow for the common sense comparison between auto-insurance and Obamacare to seep in. If the Democrats are capable of understanding and passing a 2,000+ page piece legislation (which is debatable), then why can’t they understand the distinct differences between auto-insurance and Obamacare?

First of all, auto-insurance places requirements on the voluntary act of driving and not on life itself. Second, there is a difference between the powers of the federal and state governments – shocker, right? Thirdly, auto-insurance requirements are limited to individuals that choose to drive on public roads (private property is off limits). Lastly, auto-insurance only covers injuries to others, not yourself. If you still don’t see the differences between auto-insurance and Obamacare, Ed Morrissey – from Hot Air – put together a good article that explains it in further detail:

Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing.  It’s not applicable at all.  Furthermore, states impose the insurance requirement, not the federal government, because states license drivers and vehicles.  Driving is, after all, a voluntary activity conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property.  People who don’t drive on public roads aren’t required to buy a license or the insurance.

There are other problems with this analogy as well.  Those who do have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs.  Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, and tire rotation.  That’s why auto insurance is relatively affordable.

Also, auto insurance is priced to risk.  If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft.  If they drive badly (get moving violations and accidents), premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver.  Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses.   Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums.  Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness.  That means we all pay more, removing the incentive to lower risk.

Debunked once again.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the Democrats’ advertising strategy for the upcoming mid-term election?

Answer: Their self-proclaimed “historic” vote for Obama-Care is nowhere to be found.

Honestly Democrats, what’s wrong with millions of Americans losing their current health insurance? Or the individual mandate that will erode our liberty and increase taxes? Or the fact that it’s not paid for? Or better yet, creating a complex one-size-fits-all health-care system that will eventually centralize America’s health-care decisions in Washington? What could possibly go wrong?

Perhaps that’s why Democrats are avoiding the subject all together – besides the few Democrats who just-so-happen to be running against the new health-care law. Politico reports:

At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party’s health care reform bill are highlighting their “no” votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running an ad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March.

One Democratic strategist said it would be “political malfeasance” to run such an ad now.

Democrats have taken that advice to heart; it appears that no Democratic incumbent — in the House or in the Senate — has run a pro-reform TV ad since April, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ran one.

I have one word for Democrats: Meow.

Here’s a suggestion, how about you liberal cowards “man-up” and back your record if Obama-Care is such a great thing for the United States? (Democrats’ reaction: click here) Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked a group of atheist doctors?

Answer: They are twice as likely to make decisions that shorten the life span of terminally ill patients!

😯 Yikes! The Guardian reports:

Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to take decisions that might shorten the life of somebody who is terminally ill as doctors who are deeply religious – and doctors with strong religious convictions are less likely even to discuss such decisions with the patient, according to Professor Clive Seale, from the centre for health sciences at Barts and the London school of medicine and dentistry.

“If I were a patient facing end of life care, I would want to know what my doctor’s views were on religious matters – whether they are non-religious or religious and whether the doctor felt that would influence them in the kinds of decisions they were looking at,” said Seale.

A patient who wanted their life prolonged at all costs in the event of a terminal illness, or did not want it prolonged, should make sure they had a doctor who was in sympathy with this.

Doctors are influenced by their beliefs, just as other people are, said Seale.

“It is easy for clinicians to present themselves as neutral appliers of science, but values do come into it,” he said. […]

Seale’s study, published online today in the Journal of Medical Ethics, was based on a survey of doctors in specialisms likely to care for people at the end of life, such as neurology, elderly and palliative care but also general practice. More than 8,500 doctors were contacted and almost 4,000 responded.

Interesting study… I know which doctor I would be choosing.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »