Tag Archives: healthcare reform

Huh?! Obama’s Healthcare Now for the Privileged

Originally posted at Clash Daily

access1In the mixed-up world of liberal logic, it’s hard to ignore that policy initiatives passed by this incompetent bureaucracy intended to advance fairness often end up contradicting the argument used to justify instituting them in the first place.

Take for instance the liberals’ insistence that healthcare is a right or a moral entitlement. The argument is that health care should not be a marketable commodity available to a chosen few, but instead a free perk every human being, regardless of social or financial status, should have access to and be able to afford.

The problem is that a ham-fisted government attempting to establish healthcare as a right has accomplished precisely what it was trying to prevent. Instead of healthcare becoming more accessible and affordable, it’s becoming less accessible and even more unaffordable.

Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization, agrees with the liberal left that health care is a right:

The right to health means that governments must generate conditions in which everyone can be as healthy as possible. Such conditions range from ensuring availability of health services, healthy and safe working conditions, adequate housing and nutritious food. The right to health does not mean the right to be healthy.

Although not up-to-speed on the “adequate housing” part just yet, in hopes of “ensuring availability of health services” to every American, Barack Obama has worked feverishly to catch up to socialist countries like Great Britain and Canada, both of whom have healthcare systems that, despite the glowing advertisements, fail miserably.

Oddly, here in America, those determined to ensure that 300 million people are recipients of what the WHO calls the “right to health” are making it harder instead of easier to attain the “right to be healthy,” which Dr. Chan did point out is not a right.

During the 2008 debates, when asked if healthcare was a right or a privilege, former professor and full-time revisionist of America’s “fatally flawed” Constitution, candidate Barack Obama (who makes things up as he goes along), said that he believed healthcare should be a right!

Barack Obama followed that proclamation by proceeding to tell a heart-wrenching personal tale – eventually proven false – about his dying mother spending her last days fighting with her insurance company from her hospital bed! In typical Barack Obama style, the president was fudging the truth a bit. Ann Dunham’s health insurance adequately covered her cancer treatment; what the anthropologist with ovarian cancer was arguing over was her disability insurance policy.

It should be noted that Obama said that Stanley Ann did the arguing from a hospital room, which was a privilege denied to 150 and counting deceased U.S. veterans trapped in a government single-payer system who wasted away on a VA waiting list.

Now, six years after Barack Obama shared his made-up family deathbed insurance struggles, there are millions of Obamacare horror stories emerging daily and a VA rationing scandal with a growing body count. Notwithstanding the sadness associated with his mother’s medical condition, Stanley Ann Dunham was ultimately better off than millions of Americans who will surely be denied access to healthcare thanks to her highfalutin’ son’s attempt to reengineer the U.S. healthcare system.

What Barack Obama and his liberal cohorts sold to America as a safeguard against healthcare denial stemming from lack of privilege has now become the tool that is depriving 270 million Americans of many of the benefits they enjoyed before the promise was made. In other words, contrary to the original stated intent, what was supposed to be a safeguard is accomplishing the exact opposite.

The initial effort was to turn a marketable commodity into a fundamental right, which it is not, and as a result – regrettably for the progressive left – the liberal cause has taken a hit. Thanks to the government’s pervasive lack of ability, instead of accomplishing another lofty liberal goal, the special advantages that healthcare reform was instituted to eliminate have made things worse.

No Free Thinking Allowed: Everybody Repeat After Obama: 2 + 2 = 5

Originally posted at Clash Daily


Millions of Americans believed the president when he swore that the goal of healthcare reform was merely to insure thirty million uninsured Americans. Those who disregarded their instincts and dismissed their skepticism are finding out that what was originally presented as a remedy for thirty million people is turning into a nightmare for the 270 million Americans perfectly content with the insurance they are in the process of losing.

Contrary to a promise that Obamacare would be a panacea, millions of cancellations of health insurance policies, from the individual to the small-group market, are happening daily. Moreover, premiums that were guaranteed to go down are skyrocketing, and a severe doctor shortage looms.

The problem that now exists for the president is that at more than 29 recorded appearances, America heard him assure us with his own mouth that contrary to the scare tactics of healthcare reform critics, when Obamacare was enacted “if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan, period.” Obama repeatedly used those very words as a defense against political detractors who rightly issued a myriad of warnings that Obamacare would put America’s superior healthcare system in dire jeopardy.

The right correctly predicted that, with or without health insurance, Obama’s socialized  “share the wealth” vision would affect everyone negatively.   What was forewarned is proving to be even worse than anyone predicted.

But, true to form, Barack “Blame Game” Obama is not accepting responsibility for his lack of candor and instead is now qualifying his original “like your healthcare plan …keep your healthcare plan” assurance that he relentlessly hammered home.

Appearing at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, DC to address a crowd of 200 Organizing for Action acolytes, Obama brazenly altered his original statements by implying that he didn’t misspeak, America misheard. Speaking in the plural, the president insisted that “What we said was you could keep [your health insurance] if it hadn’t changed since the law was passed.”

Further, even though America was falsely led to believe that their old plans would remain unchanged, now that they’re not, the president is claiming that: “If we had allowed these old plans [to continue]…then we would have broken an even more important promise – making sure that Americans gain access to healthcare that doesn’t leave them one illness away from financial ruin.”

Apparently, the president’s best intentions required double-dealing to ensure that every American had an opportunity to obtain affordable, accessible healthcare which, by the way, is turning out to be neither affordable nor accessible.

Hence, to spare Americans “financial ruin” and mostly to seal a shady deal, lying was necessary and the secretive “even more important promise” justified trumping the truth.

And while dishonesty is bad enough, what is even more diabolical is Barack Obama insisting he said something that anyone with ears or closed captioning knows full well that he did not say.

Graduating from deceitfulness to totalitarian brainwashing, it seems by insisting that somehow America didn’t hear what we heard dozens of times when he promised “if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan, period” the president is now treating the unwashed masses like a horde of clueless dolts.

Having our minds played with is eerily reminiscent of an Iranian short film on fascism where a headmaster tells students over a loudspeaker that there would be changes in their schooling and that the pupils should pay attention and follow the teacher’s instructions “to the letter.”

Standing in front of a classroom of adolescent boys, the instructor writes 2 + 2 = 5 on the board and instructs the youngsters to repeat “two plus two equals five,” and to say it louder over and over again.

One boy raises his hand and corrects the teacher, saying, “But sir, surely two plus two is four.” The clearly irritated teacher responds, “You’ve been told that two plus two is five. You will not question this. Do you understand?” The confused boy responds, “Yes sir, I just thought…” Quickly interjecting, the teacher retorts, “Don’t think. You don’t need to think. Two plus two equals five. Now sit down and be quiet.”

Another more outspoken boy then challenges the teacher and is told “Who gave you permission to talk? How dare you question me?”

Crying out for group affirmation, the second lad turns and addresses the class, saying, “Two and two is four; surely you can all see that!” With that, the teacher stomps out of the room and returns with three stoic youths dressed in white shirts and red arm bands, who stand at attention in the front of the room.

The teacher then intimidatingly asks the cheeky schoolboy, “Boy, tell us again what two plus two equals?” The youngster responds, “Four, sir.”

After mocking the child, the schoolteacher tells the boy to write the equation on the board and complete the sum of two plus two. Defiant, the boy writes “four” and is promptly shot dead by the three soldier-like students, his blood splattered across the scribbled equation. Calmly, after the dead body is removed from the room, the teacher erases the fresh blood from the chalkboard and asks the class, “Does anyone else not understand today’s lesson?”

That is the precisely the type of proselytization and intimidation that brings us back around to our esteemed indoctrinator Barack Obama, who is now swearing he said something about healthcare reform that every American knows he did not, and who is now asking Americans to agree with him and disregard what they know to be true.

So what is the lesson here? Are Americans being asked to ignore the truth, to deny what we’ve heard the president say?

Is the goal here to get the people to whom he lied to just follow orders and repeat after Obama when he insists, “Two plus two equals five?”


Making the ‘Military Pay’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Barack Obama is showing his hand by using the military as guinea pigs in what is soon to be one of many social experiments initiated by Obamacare.  If the President’s proposed plan to place an increased burden for healthcare costs on military families and retirees is any indication of how the Obama family interprets “Joining Forces,” then we civilians are in dire straits.

How is the Barack Obama choosing to say “thank you…mobilize, take action and make a real commitment to supporting military families?” Why, it’s to ask American heroes who preserve our freedoms to “pay sharply more for their healthcare.”

Remember back in 2009 when the President said “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan?” Word to the wise: Don’t bet on it.

It appears as if the move to raise health care costs on the military is a stealthy attempt to shuttle the first busload onto the Obamacare state-run insurance exchange rolls. In this case, the initial group just happens to be outfitted in military fatigues. A congressional aide involved in the issue said, “When [Obama administration officials] talked to us, they did mention the option of healthcare exchanges under Obamacare. So it’s in their mind.”

According to Bill Gertz at the Washington Free Beacon, “Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.”  Bingo!

So if hippie-dippy liberal baby-boomer types believe that right about the time they need that pacemaker, trusty old Blue Cross/Blue Shield will be there to help make it happen, they’re in for one big surprise.

Many in the military are pointing out that “The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.”

What the proposed increases should also do is issue a clarion call to every American that just like Obamacare military health coverage is government-run, the government is obviously in a budgetary crunch, and so health care benefits provided by the government are now being negatively affected by the government that originally instituted them.

The “proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending.”  According to the Pentagon, the cuts “seek to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget and $12.9 billion by 2017.”

There’s nothing like asking the America’s armed services to pay the bills for spending that Obama refuses to curtail.  Does patriotic service to our nation now require promoting “fairness” by coughing up the extra dough needed to dole out free cell phones, food stamps, and government-funded abortions?

Under the proposed plan, the Pentagon would gain most of its savings from “under-65 and Medicare-eligible military retirees by forcing them to endure a tiered increase in annual Tricare premiums that will be based on annual retirement pay.” It’s kind of a “useful eater” trial, where retired servicemen and women are crushed under an economic strain, so that taxpayer money can fund remedial college courses for illiterate 18-year-olds.

If the bill passes, the legislation will ultimately deliver “increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year.” Those increases are scheduled to begin after the 2012 election to shield Barack Obama from losing military votes in the upcoming presidential election.

After the President is firmly ensconsed in the White House for another four years, in addition to first-time enrollment fees, the plan will then impose a “five-year increase ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent – more than 3 times current levels.”  That means a “retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.”   And that’s Barack Obama’s way of saying ‘thank you’ to our men and women in uniform?

Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, maintains that it’s wrong to place the burden for irresponsible spending on our military, saying, “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.” Especially since, according to Mr. McKeon, “we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population.” Maybe Buck doesn’t realize that the only Americans who are really exempt are the unionized workers courted by Obama; meanwhile, everyone else is fair game.

Logic tells us that this is just the beginning in a series of “Yes we can…changes.” America should heed the message being sent directly from Mr. Obama: “First I’ll castrate the military, and after I’m finished with those guys, I’m coming for you!”

One might ask, how is this possible?  How does a patriotic nation that takes pride in its military target them for increases in health care premiums as they age?  Lest we forget, this administration’s value system utilizes government dollars to ensure women can kill the unborn, so why are we surprised that our armed forces are being targeted?  Question is, who comes next – the aged, infirm, mentally challenged, and chronically ill?

For the sake of entitlement programs, Obama’s slash-and-burn military mentality is putting American troops in harm’s way abroad by asking them to bear the brunt of budgetary shortfalls and fight wars without the “equipment and force levels needed for global missions.”  Then, if they happen to make it home alive without being shot dead by the Muslim extremists to whom the President keeps apologizing, they’re asked to pay more for health insurance while the civilian workforce at the Department of Defense and the federal government are left unscathed.

One peeved Congressional aide discussing the proposal expressed the opinion that “It doesn’t matter what the benefit is, whether it’s commissary, PX, or healthcare, or whatever … under the rationale that if you raise your hand and sign up to serve, you earn a base set of benefits, and it should have nothing to do with your rank when you served, and how much you’re making when you retire.”  Yeah, that was true until Barack Obama was elected to “fundamentally transform” America. Since that day, all bets are off. Congressional hearings on the matter are set to begin next month.

Michelle the Menu Micromanager

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Michelle Obama probably doesn’t like Red Lobster or the Olive Garden. It’s even possible she’s never eaten at either of them, and these days most certainly wouldn’t be caught dead doing so.  In fact, anytime the Obama Foodorama website mentions Michelle’s choice of cuisine, dining establishments, or ingested epicurean delicacies, they have yet to refer to franchise specials such as “Endless Shrimp” or post pictures of the first lady tucking into a “Never Ending Pasta Bowl.”

But lack of firsthand experience hasn’t stopped Mrs. Obama from breathing her healthful hot air all over America’s dinner plate in hopes of scraping our mashed potatoes into the garbage pail and replacing whipped butter and spud heaven with Shiitake mushrooms.

Even though Michelle tends to unabashedly frequent establishments that serve high-end, calorie-rich cuisine, she has nonetheless anointed herself the maven and monitor of healthful eating.  Thus, the first lady’s obvious double standard has delivered yet another initiative whose success is measured by the level of Obama hypocrisy it manages to expose.

When Michelle goes on vacation – which, by the way, is quite frequently – she justifies indulging in limitless portions of whatever she happens to crave. Thanks to a dire fiscal condition exacerbated by Mrs. Obama’s husband’s economic illiteracy, Americans who take staycations and choose to order a huge platter of fried Admiral’s Feast at Red Lobster may soon see the usual connect-the-dots placemats replaced by ones with Michelle’s scowling face, pointing her finger in stern disapproval.

From now on, Michelle Obama will be directly involved in how much Americans can eat at certain restaurants, even though they pay for the food with their own hard-earned money. For future reference, this same bureaucratic babysitting mentality vows to the public that when government pays for their healthcare, rationing will not be an issue.

If Michelle is determining portion control when it’s not costing the government a dime, it’s only a matter of time before Americans are meted out a limited number of pacemakers – after spending two years on a waiting list.

Coincidentally, there is a connection between health care reform, the “breakthrough [anti-French fry] moment” in the restaurant industry, and Michelle posing for “Let’s Move” photos while leaning over patrons slurping Minestrone Soup at Olive Garden, thinking, “Aah, for another plate of Botswana fried fat cakes.”

It seems  “Orlando-based Darden Restaurants [which includes, to name a few, Red Lobster and Olive Garden franchises] is getting a break on part of the health-care reform law requiring companies to significantly raise annual coverage limits for low-cost insurance plans starting next year.”  In exchange for taking the pictures of French fries off the menu at Red Lobster restaurants and replacing popular choices with mealy apples, an Obamacare waiver will be applied to 20% of Darden’s 174,000-person workforce.

The reasoning behind accepting waivers, changing the menu and joining hands with an elitist connoisseur who pushes carrot sticks in franchises while she enjoys Ancho Chile Braised Short Ribs, Hominy & Wild Mushroom Sauté at gourmet restaurants, is that “Obamacare is bad for business.”

Apparently, Darden Restaurants considers it better business to “nudge” menu choices in a predetermined direction by defaulting “all kids’ meals [to] automatically come with a side of fruit or vegetables and eight ounces of 1 percent milk unless an adult requests a substitute.”

Thanks to Mrs. Obama, who allows her two girls to eat fried shrimp baskets and hot fudge sundaes on vacation, America’s children will find that when it’s treat time for them, “French fries and sugar-sweetened beverages will become the exception and not the rule.”

The first lady’s influences is so far-reaching that “The government soon will begin requiring restaurants with 20 or more locations, along with bakeries, grocery stores, convenience stores and coffee chains, to include clear calorie counts on their menus.” Which means the line outside the Magnolia Bakery will be a tad longer if Mrs. Obama spends time reading the side panel of the cupcake box on her next whirlwind New York City candy/pizza/spare rib tasting tour.

According to a report in March, “at least 1,000 companies have already been granted Obamacare waivers – and the legislation hasn’t even been fully implemented.” In the near future, there will be all sorts of businesses, as will Darden Restaurants, who will find out that Obama’s policies are either going to cost them money in healthcare benefits, or cost them money in lost customers. In the freedom department, the Obamacare waiver is destined to turn into a Faustian bargain.

The harsh reality will set in when businesses grapple with Americans refusing to have their portions restricted by certain controlling political figures whose BMI and feminine girth shout hypocrite.  Free people are bound to shake off the socialist shackles of rules and regulations inspired by Obama representatives like the first lady, who busily goes about imposing Draconian restrictions on everyone else’s eating habits while disregarding her own edicts.

If having choices and portions dictated by Michelle Obama in a restaurant that made a deal with the Obamacare devil means eating only what is approved by a woman with a voracious appetite for luxurious cuisine, then it’s just a matter of time before America takes a pass on the “Endless/Never Ending” offerings of whatever Darden Restaurants are serving.

Michelle the Menu Micromanager, Darden Restaurants, and the Nanny State are almost certainly about to find out that if given a choice, Americans will always choose a “Never Ending Bowl” whose portions government diktats, try as they might, will never control: the one filled to the brim and overflowing with freedom.

%d bloggers like this: