Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Obama puts commies on the White House staff?



Commies in the White House ?


who is the Obama green czar Van Jones ? a left wing commie ?


hear the audio info at
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/


GLENN: From high above Times Square, this is the third most listened
to show in all of America. Hello, you sick twisted freak. I want to
take another look with some new audio now that I swear to you I
cannot believe that there is no one in this country that is willing
to take on this audio, that is willing to ask the tough questions.
I cannot believe that I am alone. I know you are there, too. You must feel the same way.
Where is everyone? I want you to hear some new audio from the green jobs czar, specific adviser to the president for green jobs, or whatever they want to call him. What I want you to do is give me ten minutes. I need you to take a good hard look at who Van Jones is.
I told you, well, for the last couple of months that this guy
is an avowed, self avowed radical revolutionary communist.




http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/see more info on Van Jones

Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill ?

Congressional Research Agency Confirms Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill

Last Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is the non-partisan "research arm" of the United States Congress, issued a report that concludes that illegal aliens will be able to receive benefits under the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) through two major loopholes. (See CRS Report and FAIR Press Release, August 26, 2009).

According to its own website, CRS is a legislative branch agency that provides Congress with "policy and legal analysis" that is authoritative, objective and accurate. (CRS website). The latest CRS report validates what FAIR has been saying for the past month and a half — that illegal aliens will be able to receive taxpayer-funded health benefits under the House health care bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Updates, July 20, 2009; July 27, 2009 and August 3, 2009).

The House bill creates an "exchange" and "all individuals," which would include illegal aliens, are eligible to participate in the exchange. Anyone who participates in the exchange, and does not otherwise have health insurance, can either enroll in the public option plan created by the House bill or enroll in a private insurance plan. Accordingly, the first loophole that provides illegal aliens with health insurance is the ability for illegal aliens to freely enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized public option. According to CRS, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — from participating in the Exchange." (CRS Report). Accordingly, illegal aliens can enroll in the public option, courtesy of the American taxpayers, to meet their health insurance needs. (See CNN.com, August 2009).

The second major loophole is the failure to require any meaningful verification procedure for taxpayer-subsidized insurance credits. Under the House bill, individuals who buy private insurance through the Exchange may receive an affordability credit to offset the cost of insurance. This credit is ostensibly limited to individuals lawfully present in the U.S., but CRS (like FAIR) notes the complete absence of any provision in the House bill that requires verification of eligibility for the affordability credits. Without such a mechanism, there is nothing in the bill that will prevent illegal aliens from receiving this taxpayer subsidy to buy private health insurance.

These conclusions by CRS should eliminate any remaining doubt about whether illegal aliens will receive health benefits under the bill. As a result of this report, President Obama can no longer characterize the concerns about the illegal alien health care loophole under the bill as "misinformation." (See FAIR's Legislative Update, August 24, 2009 and FAIR's Health Care Podcast, August 24, 2009). In addition, Members of Congress can no longer claim the bill prevents coverage for illegal aliens, and the media can no longer suggest this concern is a "myth." (See FAIR's House bill summary and Townhall.com, August 27, 2009).

Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
The amnesty lobby suffered a significant setback last week as a federal court upheld a regulation that will require most federal contractors to use E-Verify — the online, electronically operated employment verification system that allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. (The New York Times, August 27, 2009).

The ruling came more than eight months after a coalition of special interest groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.; the Society for Human Resource Management; the American Council on International Personnel; and the HR Policy Association - sued to block the rule from taking effect on its original targeted implementation date of January 15, 2009. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, January 5, 2009).

The push to require federal contractors to use E-Verify has had a long history. On June 6, 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13,456, which amended EO 12,989 to require federal contractors to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system to verify the work authorization status of their employees. EO 13,456 also required the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to choose the verification system to be used. (EO 13,456, June 9, 2008). On June 9, 2008, former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff designated E-Verify as the system to be used by federal contractors under the EO. (DHS Press Release, June 9, 2008). The Final Rule implementing President Bush's EO was issued in mid-November 2008. (Final Rule, November 14, 2008).

On December 23, 2008, a coalition of special interests filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland alleging that the Final Rule was unlawful because it violated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The plaintiffs argued that Secretary Chertoff had violated Section 402(a) of IIRIRA, which states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security may not require any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program [of employment eligibility confirmation]." In designating E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system to be used by federal contractors under President Bush's EO, the plaintiffs alleged that Chertoff had violated this statutory prohibition. The complaint contained several other allegations, including a claim that the Final Rule violated a separate IIRIRA statutory prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. (Complaint, December 23, 2008).

In last week's decision, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. rejected the claims made by the coalition of special interest groups. Judge Williams noted that "[t]he decision to be a government contractor is voluntary and…no one has a right to be a government contractor." Williams added that, even though the Final Rule requires federal contractors to enroll in E-Verify, "[p]otential government contractors have the option not to contract with the government," so Secretary Chertoff hadn't actually required anyone or any entity to use E-Verify. Judge Williams also went on to reject the coalition's claims that the E-Verify contractor rule violated an IIRIRA prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. According to Williams: "Nothing in IIRIRA explicitly prohibits the Executive Branch from using E-Verify for current employees." (Decision, August 25, 2009).

The Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to implement the final rule on September 8, 2009 — after having delayed the regulation on three separate occasions. (See The Washington Post, January 30, 2009 and FAIR's Legislative Updates from April 20, 2009; June 8, 2009 and July 13, 2009).However, the E-Verify program itself is set to expire on September 30, 2009. While many immigration reformers have been insisting that the program be permanently reauthorized, the Administration has avoided adopting such a position. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) successfully attached a related E-Verify amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security spending bill that would (1) permanently reauthorize E-Verify and (2) require all federal contractors to use E-Verify to check the work authorization status on all of their new hires, plus existing employees who are assigned to affected federal contracts. The fate of the Sessions Amendment is uncertain, however. The Homeland Security spending bill is scheduled to move to a House-Senate conference sometime in September. Since the House version of the bill does not contain the Sessions Amendment, the Conference Report — which would likely become law - may include or drop this language. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).

Illegal Alien Faces Death Penalty for 2008 Murder of High School Football Star
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced last week that it will seek the death penalty for Pedro Espinoza — an illegal alien member of the 18th Street Gang who allegedly murdered 17-year old high school football star Jamiel Shaw, Jr. in cold blood last year. (CBS News, August 27, 2009; KPCC, August 26, 2009; KTLA, August 26, 2009; and The New York Times, August 26, 2009). Shaw's murder on March 2, 2008 touched off an explosive debate over Special Order 40 — the Los Angeles sanctuary ordinance which does not require police officers to check the immigration status of suspects who have been arrested. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 14, 2008).

According to Los Angeles police, Shaw was about three blocks from his house, talking on his cell phone with his girlfriend on the night of his murder. Two men in a car pulled up to Shaw, jumped out, and asked Shaw if he belonged to a gang. When Shaw did not respond, Espinoza allegedly shot him to death. Shaw's father, Jamiel, Sr., was on the phone when he heard the shots and raced outside to find his son lying on the sidewalk, bleeding. His mother, Army Sergeant Anita Shaw, was serving her second tour of duty in Iraq at the time Jamiel was killed. (The Los Angeles Times, March 4, 2008).

Following the murder, it came to light that the illegal alien who had allegedly killed Jamiel, Jr. had been released from jail on a firearms charge just one day before Shaw was killed. This prompted Shaw's parents to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on the grounds that the illegal alien should have been turned over to federal authorities instead of being freed. (CBS News, August 27, 2009). Additionally, Shaw's parents unsuccessfully petitioned for Jamiel's Law, legislation that would have altered the sanctuary provisions in Special Order 40 by requiring authorities to check the immigration status of gang members who were under arrest or investigation. (KTLA, August 26, 2009). FAIR Media Director Ira Mehlman commented last week about the release of the illegal alien who has been charged with murdering Shaw: "The local police never took the trouble to find out he was an illegal alien and remand him to federal authorities. If they had done that, they would not have put him back out on the streets. He would have been remanded to federal custody and never had the opportunity to murder Jamiel Shaw." (OneNewsNow, August 28, 2009).

Parents Jamiel, Sr. and Anita Shaw were proud of their son. Jamiel, Jr. aspired to play college football and wanted to become a sports agent after graduating college. Jamiel's mother compared the gang violence that had led to her son's death to the violence that she had seen in Iraq: "The only thing is we don't have sand and dirt flying all around. But we have the bullets." In the days following Jamiel's murder, Jamiel, Sr. said of his son: "He was set. He was going to college…he was my hero." (CBS News, August 27, 2009).


http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21337&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1

Monday, August 31, 2009

is Mark LLoyd a Marxist in the FCC ?


is Mark LLoyd a Marxist in the FCC ?

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29920/

who is this Marxist as a new FCC Diversity Czar from Obama ?


This guy is getting Glenn Beck upset.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Tea Party Rally Heading to Sacramento,CA

Tea Party Rally Heading to Sacramento,CA

Fed up and fighting back -- thousands of Valley residents are heading to Sacramento to protest tax hikes.

Some of the organizers are the same ones behind similar Tea Party protests held earlier this year.They say they're angry about higher taxes and environmental regulations that have hurt the Valley's water supply.

The Fresno Tea Party was held at the Save Mart Center on Tax day and organizers are looking to build on that successful event.










http://www.cbs47.tv/content/special_features/story/Tea-Party-Rally-Heading-to-Sacramento/KPLunIgRpEO8e2U33Ifwvg.cspx

Obama's "Shadow Government"

Shadow Government: What Obama Doesn't Want You To Know About His Czars

Edited by Scott Wheeler and Peter Leitner

Get the book Obama doesn't want you to read. All 35 Czars covered. Take to your town hall meetings and have all the information you need and can demand answers.

Order now and receive free shipping. Sign up with your email address and receive updates on the activities of the Czars free for six months.


http://nationalrepublicantrust.com/

Thursday, August 27, 2009

NBC abd ABC won't run this ad critical of Obama

The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June and hosted at the White House.

The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form.

"It's a powerful ad," said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters, a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability. "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."




click to see this 30 second ad

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

see Obama red ink, how can we take back his federal Mastercard?

see Obama red ink, how can we take back his federal Mastercard?


Most red ink ever: $9 trillion over next decade

more bullshit from Obama, just got out of town in time

more bullshit from Obama, just got out of town in time

he is a smooth talker.

bad forecasts numbers, cia investigation,
ben bernke appointment
looks like he had to duck out of town.

special thanks for the excellent work done by the CIA, turn up those drill revs

special thanks for the excellent work done by the CIA, turn up those drill revs

Monday, August 24, 2009

how did Rahm Emanuel make $16 million in 1 years

how did Rahm Emanuel make $16 million in 1 year ?

Obama's "bag man"






http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=8157698&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html

is Glenn Beck going off the edge ?

is Glenn Beck going off the edge ?



he does have some enlightening ideals on Obama behavior

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Lieberman says many health care changes can wait

Lieberman says many health care changes can wait

WASHINGTON – An independent senator counted on by Democrats in the health care debate showed signs of wavering Sunday when he urged President Barack Obama to postpone many of his initiatives because of the economic downturn.

"I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. "There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms."

The Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance a measure to an up-or-down vote. Senators from both parties said that Democrats might use a voting tactic to overcome GOP opposition, abandoning the White House's goal of bipartisan support for its chief domestic priority.

Democrats control 60 votes, including those of two independents, but illness has sidelined Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. The party's leaders also cannot be assured that their moderate members will support every health care proposal.

"I think it's a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform, health care reform plan that the public is either opposed to or of very, very passionate mixed minds about," Lieberman said.

Talk about resorting to this maneuver comes as Republicans dig in against the idea of a government-run insurance program as an option for consumers and a requirement that employers provide health insurance to their workers.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans would like to start over "with a genuine bipartisan approach."

"The American people will be very troubled by a single political party's 'my way or the highway' attitude to overhauling their health care, especially when it means government-run health care, new taxes on small businesses, and Medicare cuts for seniors," McConnell, R-Ky., said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would consider the voting tactic, known as reconciliation, if necessary to pass a bill by year's end if Republicans won't work toward a bipartisan solution.

To Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, "that would be an abuse of the process."

Even Sen. Kent Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman, acknowledged that "it's an option, but it's not a very good one." He has warned that nonbudget items in health care legislation would be challenged under the rules allowing reconciliation.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., also suggested that a fresh start was needed.

"Bringing up of the health care situation in the midst of recession, the unemployment problems ... was a mistake," Lugar said. "For the moment, let's clear the deck and try it again next year or in subsequent times."

Kennedy, one of the major proponents of health care reform, has missed most of the recent debate because of cancer. Both Hatch and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Kennedy's absence has taken a toll on the process.

"He had a unique way of sitting down with the parties at a table and making the right concessions, which really are the essence of successful negotiations," McCain said.

Lieberman and Lugar appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" while Hatch and Schumer appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press." Conrad spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation" and McCain on ABC's "This Week."


By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press Writer

Monday, August 17, 2009

While in Mexico, President Obama Promises Amnesty Next Year

While in Mexico, President Obama Promises Amnesty Next Year
Last week, while meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Guadalajara, Mexico, President Barack Obama predicted Congress would pass an amnesty bill next year to legalize more than 12 million illegal aliens who are presently in the United States. (ABC News, August 11, 2009 and The Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2009).

While in Mexico, President Obama stated: "Secretary Napolitano is coordinating these discussions, and I would anticipate that before the year is out we will have draft legislation along with sponsors potentially in the House and the Senate who are ready to move this forward, and when we come back next year, that we should be in a position to start acting." The President also conceded that overcoming the opposition of the American people to an amnesty bill would be difficult, saying: "Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No. This is going to be difficult." (ABC News, August 11, 2009). The Los Angeles Times even suggested that passing the bill would "prove [to be] a major political test."

Mexican government officials were upset with this timing. According to media reports, Mexican Senator Carlos Navarrete of the "leftist Democratic Revolution Party" responded to Obama's announcement by saying: "This is not good news," and also stated "we can hope that Latino Congress members who have taken on this initiative [of immigration reform] will maintain their activism in this matter." (The Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2009).

The people who should be the most upset by this announcement, however, are the American people, particularly those who are out of work. America has a real shortage of jobs, and the idea that Congress would consider amnesty legislation, thereby giving illegal aliens the ability to openly compete for scarce jobs, is not in the best interest of the American worker. (See FAIR's Report Amnesty & Joblessness, July 2009). In fact, earlier this year, Vice President Joe Biden even suggested that America's economic situation is at odds with President Obama's goal of signing amnesty legislation. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 6, 2009).

More recently, The New York Times opinion page expressed just how dire America's job situation is. Op-Ed columnist Bob Herbert wrote that "the American economy does not seem able to provide enough jobs — and nowhere near enough good jobs — to maintain the standard of living that most Americans have come to expect." Herbert's column states that the U.S. economy has lost 6.7 million jobs since December 2007 and that the economy has fewer jobs today than it did in 2000, despite the fact that the "labor force has grown by around 12 million workers since then." Coincidentally, nearly 12 million illegal aliens are in the United States, with nearly 8.3 million in the workforce. Herbert also stated that "[n]o one is predicting a recovery in the foreseeable future powerful enough to replace the millions of jobs that have vanished," further calling into question the wisdom of any amnesty legislation and undercutting any calls for a "guest worker" program as part of any immigration bill. (The New York Times, August 10, 2009).

DHS April Report Attacking True Immigration Reformers as "Extremists" Further Discredited
The "intelligence assessment" on "Rightwing Extremism" issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in April was further discredited last week, this time by information provided by DHS. (DHS Report, April 7, 2009). The April assessment painted millions of American citizens, including many of America's "returning veterans" as "extremists," and categorized Americans concerned with unchecked illegal immigration as a threat. (FOXNews, April 17, 2009; See also FAIR's Legislative Update, April 27, 2009).

The American public, including organizations that represent generations of America's veterans like the American Legion, were outraged by the DHS assessment. (FOXNews, April 24, 2009). Democrats on Capitol Hill also said they were "dumbfounded" by the DHS report, and others questioned the reliability and sources behind the report. Despite questions about the reliability of the report, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stood behind it. (The Washington Times, April 16, 2009).

This past week, DHS responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Americans for Limited Government (ALG), and their response reveals that DHS's "assessment" was not based on actual intelligence. (Americans for Limited Government, August 13, 2009). Instead, DHS's disclosure reveals that they relied not on primary sources or investigations to draft the report, but exclusively on secondary sources, including some that are highly questionable. (DHS Interim Response to FOIA Request, August 5, 2009).


The FOIA request submitted by ALG asked DHS for federal records related to the extremism report, including "all data and all studies, reports, or other documents regarding data created or reviewed by the Department in general to draft the report." (ALG FOIA Request, April 17, 2009). In response, DHS provided ALG with a list of "website links for…217 pages of publicly responsive material." The list shows that DHS relied on spurious sources — including heavy use of materials from the Southern Poverty Law Center and "WhatDoesItMean.com" — in issuing its "Rightwing Extremism" report. (DHS Interim Response to FOIA Request, August 5, 2009).


The SPLC is well-known for slanderously attacking groups and individuals who advocate for the enforcement of immigration laws. The SPLC neither has definitions for the labels it freely slaps on organizations, nor provides any sources or footnotes to support the conclusions made in its "reports." Prior to a House Judiciary Committee hearing on "the Public Safety and Civil Rights

Implications of State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws" (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 6, 2009), the SPLC submitted a letter to Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) that provided erroneous information about FAIR. At the actual hearing, Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) read parts of the SPLC letter into the record. FAIR President Dan Stein responded by sending a letter to Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chairwoman Lofgren pointing out the obvious falsehoods in the SPLC's letter. Two days after Mr. Stein's letter was sent to Mr. Conyers and Ms. Lofgren, the SPLC was forced to correct a number of the claims they made in their original letter. (For more information on the SPLC, see FAIR's Inquiry into the Methods and Tactics Employed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and FAIR's Journalist Alert.)

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21223&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#2

Saturday, August 15, 2009

creation of the Dump Reid PAC

With the creation of the Dump Reid PAC, we’re moving the Dump Reid blog to a new location until the new Dump Reid website is completely designed and developed.

So please change your Dump Reid blog bookmark to


http://www.dumpharry.com.

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Congress buys 3 private jets for themselves ?

Congress buys 3 private jets for themselves ?

what is this bullshit in Washington ?

By Michael Schwanke and Chris Durden (WICHITA, Kan.)

Less than a year after lawmakers in Congress criticized automakers,
the House approves nearly $200 million for Gulfstream jets to fly government officials and members of Congress.

"I don't know how I go back to my constituents and say the auto industry has changed. If they own
private jets which are not only expensive to own expensive to operate and
expensive to fly here rather than to have flown commercial." Congressman Brad Sherman
(D-CA) said back in November.

Now, members of Congress may be the ones on the "hot seat" after the House of Representatives
overwhelmingly approved the purchase of three, $65 million Gulfstream 550 jets.
They are top of the line and two of them will be used by members of Congress,
military brass and top government officials.

"I thought this is supremely hypocritical for them to do that," says Wichita resident
Robert Gruenloh who contacted us after reading the story.

"I just basically hit the ceiling because our industry around here
is hurting because in part what some of the remarks members of congress made about corporate aircraft."

The jets are part of a Defense Appropriation Bill for the Air Force.
Officials with the Air Force say it only needed one jet.

It's reported the funding for the jets was pushed by two members of the Appropriations Committee,
Democrat Sanford Bishop and Republican Jack Kingston.
Both are from Georgia, where the Gulfstream is made.

"The corporate guys were doing it with shareholder money and Congress is doing it with taxpayer money and that doesn't seem right to me," says Gruenloh.

Eyewitness News contacted Congressman Todd Tiahrt who is on the Appropriations Committee.
He was with family and unavailable for an interview, but he has strongly opposed
comments by members of Congress about corporate jet usage.


http://www.kansascw.com/Global/story.asp?S=10855866

Friday, July 31, 2009

Rep Waxman: Congress win not have to join government healthcare !

Rep Waxman: Congress win not have to join government Obama health care !

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

ObamaCare for Seniors: Sorry, You're Just Not Worth It

ObamaCare for Seniors: Sorry, You're Just Not Worth It

Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 29, 2009 at 7:32 am

The debate over Barack Obama's health care plan continues. Senators are trying to cut deals and members of the House of Representatives are doing the same. Democrats are trying to push through a massive government plan that will cost Americans billions and billions of dollars all because Obama wants to take power away from the people and put it in the hands of government.

Throughout this debate, the voices of seniors have been strangely and disturbingly silent. Do they not know the details of ObamaCare? Are they so enamored with this "nice, young man" that they don't even look at what the plan has to offer? ObamaCare has a strong message for seniors, and it is one they shouldn't ignore: If you are old in America, then don't get sick... you're not worth the cost.


In a recent update by The Heritage Foundation, seniors can read for themselves some of the results of ObamaCare on their daily lives.

First, seniors would face an increasing risk of losing their doctor. With cuts to Medicare reimbursements, more and more physicians are no longer taking Medicare patients. ObamaCare makes it worse: "Obama plans to pay for up to a third of his plan by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients."

Obama's plan also places a disincentive on people to become physicians as his "public" option "could decrease the annual net income of hospitals by $36 billion, while the annual net income of physicians could drop by $33.1 billion."

Then there is the worry that seniors will lose their coverage. As noted in The Heritage Foundation's report, "22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. These health plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coor­dinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. President Obama has proposed killing this program entirely."

And, of course, there is the issue that Obama and the liberal Democrats want seniors and all Americans to ignore: the rationing of health care. Under Obama's plan, there will be a new government bureaucracy known as a "federal health board." The purpose of this board is to determine whether various procedures and tests are deemed necessary in the eyes of the federal government. That notion is truly scary.

Obama supporter and infanticide advocate Peter Singer made the case for rationing health care recently in the New York Times, writing: "The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated." Conservatives in Congress have given Obamacare supporters every opportunity to disavow government-rationed health care, but Obamacare supporters have voted down every anti-rationing amendment proposed. Make no mistake, Obama plans to pay for expanded coverage for the young and healthy by denying treatments to the old and sick.

As noted in a story by the Associated Press, a group of senators is actually working to squeeze more money out of Medicare. "Under the plan, an independent commission would be empowered to recommend changes in Medicare annually, to take effect automatically unless Congress enacted an alternative."

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=1776

how about using one state as a pilot for any federal healthcare program ?

how about using one state as a pilot for any federal healthcare program ?
note not Massachussetts senatorKennedy's home state.(bad example, what not to do).



state could selected by a lottery, then fine tune program after the first
year



www.mccainalert.blogspot.com

Look to Massachusetts state healthcare as a prototype

Look to Massachusetts state healthcare as a prototype, Senator Kennedy home state, quality is declining, costs are rising ?

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

how about medical malpractice reform or do the trial lawyers own Obama?

how about medical malpractice reform or do the trial lawyers own Obama?


this could reduce healthcare costs and reduce the defensive medical that this
generates.


This could be a simple bill, not a overwhelming 100-2000 page document.


www.mccainalert.blogspot.com