The following questions cannot be answered in the affirmative and at townhall meetings around the country politicians are simply not answering them. We call that a BIG NO!
Can you promise me that I will not lose my current plan and doctor? NO!
Barack Hussein Obama says it is “not legitimate” to claim the “public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.” But Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman have all admitted that the public option will inevitably lead to government-run health care. The independent and non-partisan Lewin Group estimates that about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance if Obamacare became law.
Can you promise that you and your family will enroll in the public plan? NO!
Members of Congress and their families currently receive health care through the popular, and completely public-option-free, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) which allows members of Congress to choose between 283 private health insurance plans. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposed an amendment that would require all members of Congress and their staffs to enroll in the newly-created public health insurance plan. His amendment passed by just one vote in the Senate Health Committee. In the House, Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) offered a similar amendment and all 21 Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee voted it down. If the public plan is so great, then Members of Congress should by willing to forfeit their private coverage and join the millions of Americans who would be moved into the public plan. 
Can you promise that Obamacare will not lead to higher deficits in the long-term? NO!
Barack Hussein Obama said that he would not support health care legislation that would add to the national deficit. But Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf has stated that the House health care legislation would “generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.” To help Obama keep his promise, Rep. Patrick Tiberi (R-OH) offered an amendment that would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit an annual report to the President and Congress, comparing the expected revenue and spending under the bill’s provisions for the upcoming 10-year period. In the event that projected spending under the bill outpaced revenue, the Secretary would have to reduce spending so that it would not exceed revenue. Democrats defeated Tiberi’s amendment.
Can you promise that government bureaucrats will not ration health care for patients on the public plan? NO!
Barack Hussein Obama promised on July 22 that health care reform would keep the government out of health care decisions, but both the House and Senate bills call for an increased role of comparative effectiveness research (CER). More information on health care effectiveness is good as long as doctor’s and patients are the ones empowered to use that information. Conservatives in both the House and Senate offered amendments prohibiting the use of CER by government to mandate, deny, or ration care. These anti-rationing amendments were defeated in both the House and Senate.
Can you promise me that my tax dollars will not fund abortions? NO!
The House bill, as currently drafted, allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to outline the minimum benefits that must be included in any health plan. There is no specific provision in the bill that would require insurance coverage of abortion. However, since the decisions over benefits are left to the Secretary of HHS, with recommendations from a newly created Health Care Benefits Advisory Committee, there is nothing to prevent the current or future Secretary from including abortion coverage in Americans’ health insurance. Conservatives in both the House and Senate offered amendments that would prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. The tax payer funded abortion bans were defeated in both the House and Senate.
Commenting on the townhall phenomenon, University of Pennsylvania political scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson tells Politico:
“If this comes down to vocal individuals, the Obama campaign ought to be able to always outnumber their opponent. And if they’re not, then that’s a problem.”
It’s the Saul Alinsky, Barack Hussein Obama way. Vladimir Lenin would be proud. Indeed!
Powered by A Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Copyright © 2010 Liberally Conservative™ and Liberally Conservatve.com™ are Registered Trademarks - All Rights Reserved
August 5th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Community organizing isn’t Communism, it’s good Democracy. This is why Obama is an effective Democrat and a strong leader, he’s good at getting people together. Realize, LC, that these town halls aren’t being HELD by the protesters. That would be much different, if there were an ALTERNATIVE forum going on across town, a GOP healthcare Q+A. But there isn’t, is there? Because they have literally no plan. Instead, they have shouting orders that are being passed out by the insurers and big business in the health-care industry. In the words of Mark Weiner, “Put up, or shut up.” Would you have Medicare abolished as well?
August 5th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Weiner is a Weiner. Indeed!
You do very well with the Marxist talking points.
The “protestors” at these forums are using their rights to free speech, unlike healthcare, which is not a right. They are asking questions and the Marxists refuse to answer. They want respect but they are servants, not rulers. The people rule!
If you have been reading, which is doubtful, the GOP Conservatives have outlined real healthcare reform, not heathcare takeover.
I would reform Medicare, and Medicaid. That is the starting point. I would remove it from government control and privatize it because private business is much more efficient than government.
Aka, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Social Security, US Postal Service, Amtrak………..Privatize it all.
BTW, how is that cash for clunkers program working for you? Oh that’s right, the government screwed that up totally.
Would you pay 70% in taxes? Is that equitable?
If you had a family farm who should inherit it? Your family or the government?
If you build a business from the ground up who should operate it? You or Barry Soetero?
If you wish to homeschool your children do you have to get Barry’s permission?
Should the government decide who lives and who dies? Oh I forgot, you Shawn live in Oregon where they pay you to commit suidcide but won’t help with medicine.
Did you know that lower taxes to individuals and businesses actually increase revenue to the US Treasury and that currently the Obama policies of tax and spend is increasing unemployment, sizing down businesses and lowering the amount of revenue collected? The Obama policies are hurting the economy not helping it. That’s the Marxist plan.
I SEE DUMB PEOPLE, VERY, VERY DUMB PEOPLE!!!
August 6th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Lots to respond to so let’s get started. I’ll play Colmes to your Hannity.
#1) The Constitution does include “promote the general welfare” among its principles. It also says to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” which is your argument. You want them to protect your riches, and I want you to cough up your fair share so we don’t have so much disease. That’s the whole argument.
#2) Weiner simply asked the GOP to do what they’d apparently wish, which is eliminate Medicare. Not one single GOP rep voted for it because it would be political suicide to -take away the government insurance program that 40 million people use and love.-
#3) The GOP Healthcare plan is all tax cuts and tort reform, and it does nothing (nothing) to expand access to the uninsured.
#4) If you privatized Amtrak, it wold work just like CSX, which killed a lot of people in the 90s by “saving costs” on maintenance, and then when they were sued they used a corporate tax loophole to make the -taxpayer- pay their settlements. Corporate Welfare much?
#5) C4C is going to run through Labor Day. If you don’t like the idea of Ford Focuses flying off of shelves and people getting $3500 to $4500 off the purchase price (which I’m sure dealers have inflated to earn the rent) then -don’t buy one-.
#6) 70% in taxes is equitable to someone who rakes in a billion a year. That puts that person into the same profit category as a person making 300 million a year. Now I’m saying “people” but I mean “entities.” The way that corporations break up their ownership structures is a direct result of the tax code and the necessity to divide assets so they are easier to hide.
#7) You are referring to and seemingly defending the “Laffer Curve” which stated that the marginal tax rates were a “magic bullet” for stimulating growth of the private sector. The problem there is that the public sector dies (and that ends up including things like highways and the military along with it) while the private sector gains more control, which leads to price-fixing and market manipulation (as there won’t be any regulators.) The Laffer Curve was not made up by an economist, it was made up by an ideologue, and has been proven false repeatedly. It is the reason we are always told by conservatives in office these days that “deficits don’t matter.” They think cutting taxes on the wealthy improves the flow of capital, when studies and history show a tendency simply to save it and live off the interest, removing liquidity from the market at the expense of the poor. The most wealthy among us are not investing in anything but the gamble, and that money they throw around pithily could do a lot more people a lot more good. Yes, I just qualified the moral judgment as “more good.” There is a better goodness to saving lives than to winning money on Wall Street.
#8) My politics would surprise you Don. Because I’m not a rabid knee-jerk, I’m pretty opposed to the estate tax when it does represent a family’s estate. Single-home families in a certain income group, that is. Go ahead and tell me Paris Hilton earned all her money. Homeschooled children are stupid. Seriously, they are. Watch “Jesus Camp.” Those kids are idiots. I’ve known a bunch of them, they’re anti-social. I’d never do that to my kids. But if you want to, by all means. Just don’t expect a voucher, I’d much rather exempt a person from the school taxes (at a rate over the years, so they don’t withdraw all support only to realize “my kid is becoming an asocial “moran” so I’d better put him back in the school I just defunded.”) And if I build a business form the ground up, and end up 30 trillion dollars in debt or some ridiculous amount because I manage it poorly, and then I walk up to whoever this mister Soetero is you’re babbling about (here, chew on this birth certificate) BEGGING FOR A CORPORATE HANDOUT, you’d better believe that Mr. S would then have every right to fire you from your post and put some talent in your place.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
And now Shawn is a Constitutional expert and he told me he was a line cook and propagandist.
Hmmmmmm, enough said.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Nice dodge, ad hominem. You stay classy, Don. We’re both propagandists, I’m just open about it.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
No “dodge.” As Joe Friday said, Just the facts ma’am, just the facts.
And that is what you get at LC, the FACTS!
August 12th, 2009 at 4:21 am
“The “protestors” at these forums are using their rights to free speech, unlike healthcare, which is not a right. They are asking questions and the Marxists refuse to answer. They want respect but they are servants, not rulers. The people rule!”
I think this paragraph highlights something I think alot of people have forgotten. Healthcare is not a right. People have been so spoiled by what they have gotten for nothing that they assume healthcare is a right. It’s a service, a very valuable service that has the right to be priced as such. Reform is needed but this plan is not the right reform.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
A Simple Proposal:
1) Create a very basic, high-deductible, catastrophic-event government health-care policy that pays for major medical events only. Include everyone and pay for it with taxes. No one would ever again lose their home or be denied life-saving procedures. It would be cheap because it would be “single payer” and would include the whole pool of healthy and unhealthy people, sharing the risk universally. Billing would be simple for hospitals who would be guaranteed payment and the cost of providing health care would be taken of the backs of businesses.
2) Middle class and wealthy consumers would pay for routine illness events out of pocket, just like getting your car repaired, or they could purchase add-on insurance from private companies, as they choose.
3) Poor people would get extra coverage for routine illnesses as welfare or in free government or charity clinics. There will always be people who are so poor that they can’t contribute anything.
Wouldn’t this solve everything at modest cost to the public, or I am just simple-minded?
August 13th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Healthcare reform would leave government out of it. We like paying for our private healthcare and using our money to aid and help the poor. Lower taxes would further that cause.
Medicare and Medicaid would be privatized and Barack Hussein Obama could take a cyanide laced pain pill for what ails the country.
Possibly on one of the Wednesday night White House parties all the Liberal ilk could share a punch bowl of Jim Jones special kool-aid.
Healthcare Reform solved.