Tag Archives: Obamacare

Pelosi Proves Palin’s Point

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

When the health care debate was raging, one of arguments from the opposition was that an eventual shortage of government monies would result in lost lives.  Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was mocked and disparaged as a fool for warning Americans that Obamacare would usher in “death panels” where, due to budgetary restrictions, the aged and chronically ill would be denied care.

Even President Barack Obama joined smarmy liberal comedians like Bill Maher to publicly scoff at the idea of “death panels.” The left condemned what they called outlandish scare tactics employed by conservatives attempting to stop a policy that would provide coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans, but in effect would put the government in control of life and death issues.

Fast-forward to 2011 and the very people who condemned Sarah Palin and the Republicans for being over-the-top on the anxiety chart became the harbingers of imminent death panels, only this time the fatalities would be driven by budget cuts.

Take for example Nancy Pelosi saying that the budget bill would starve six million seniors to death and that impoverished children would be jettisoned out of the Head Start program. Worse than that, Nancy said that Republicans, led by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), were declaring an all-out “war on women.”

When speaking to CNN, Washington’s newest Death Panel Diva left no stone unturned, especially when it came to describing the detrimental effect of Republican policies on the fairer sex:

If you are talking about jobs, their pay in the work place, health care, making — no longer is being a woman a pre-existing medical condition. They want to change all of that. So in every aspect – whether it is employment, whether it is education, whether it is health care, whether it is retirement, whether it is collective bargaining which affects women as well women have a lot to lose with the ideological old style agenda of the Republicans.

According to Nancy, even modest spending cuts would result in a nation of unemployed, underpaid, uneducated, penniless, sick females unable to retire.  Pelosi predicted American women would be destined to roam the streets like zombies, riddled with cancer and missing womanly parts of their anatomy, all victims of “the ideological old style agenda of the Republicans.”

This is the woman who “called out former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) for having made the ‘lie of the year’ for claiming the healthcare bill would set up ‘death panels.’”

According to the former Speaker of the House, cutting $38 billion, give or take a billion – which is about what it takes to run the US government for four days at $10.46 billion per day – American women would fast become the bane of planet Earth. Yet, ask a Democrat whether it will cost lives if a nation with a $14.3 trillion deficit ever had trouble coming up with $1.2 trillion for health care reform, and the answer is always a resounding “No!”

Nevertheless, when it comes to Democrat budgetary doom and gloom, Pelosi is not alone.  In response to Republicans demanding funding be cut to abortion provider Planned Parenthood, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a huge leap from those on the right not wanting to pay for dilation and curettage to accusing Republicans of wanting women to die of cancer.

On the Senate floor Reid said: “Republicans want to shut down the government because they think there’s nothing more important than keeping women from getting cancer screenings. This is indefensible and everyone should be outraged.”

Isn’t this is the same group who mocked Palin for suggesting that government run health care would end in death panels?

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi attempted to win a budget battle by implying that Planned Parenthood being denied $349.6 million dollars a year in funding could ultimately impact the well-being of 91.4 million adult women, which is quite a stretch. Such an absurd claim greatly differs from Sarah Palin coming to the logical conclusion that a shortage of health care money could equal denial of care. Reid, on the other hand, is alleging secret motives of an entire political party amounting to purposeful murder.

Lest we forget, this whole the death panel discussion was resurrected because the government’s inefficiency has placed America in an economic quandary. And this is the same government that swears there will always be ample funds to ensure that even an 85 year-old grandparent will never be denied care and sent home to die.

During the Obamacare debate, Sarah Palin was merely pointing out that a virtually bankrupt government could never cover the high cost of caring for an aging population. It took Harry and Nancy carping about denial of funds to Planned Parenthood to confirm that Sarah was right.

In an attempt to smear Republicans, Harry and Nancy probably didn’t realize it, but they proved Sarah Palin’s original point that health care reform policy poses a threat.  If the left’s argument is correct that modest budget cuts have the potential to starve old people to death and threaten lives, what will happen when the entire nation is at the mercy of a government that finds it impossible to maintain the solvency needed to keep 300 million people alive?

Fast food medicine in Canada

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

When Obamacare was only a fantasy in the mind of a President with far-fetched ideas, I’d joke: “If government-run healthcare ever manifests, Americans can look forward to a complimentary Big Gulp with a throat culture at 7-11.” Who would have thought the outrageously absurd would become an actual option?

Take, for instance, Canadian doctor Alan Lund realizing an “end of life” discussion he was having needed a more private location. Dr. Lund’s creative solution gives credence to Washington DC eventually being capable of instituting a low quality, cost-cutting bureaucratic package by mandating that filing taxes be done while getting an annual physical.

Before discussing where Lund’s dying patient ended up, maybe Americans should contemplate a potential Obamacare nightmare:  For lack of a hospital bed, you expire in a waiting room on a stretcher, with Family Guy blaring on the overhead flat screen as a roomful of moderate to deathly ill people try not to stare.

Up north at New Westminster’s Royal Columbian Hospital, Dr. Lund was “trying to have a private conversation with [a] patient…near the end of life.”  Lund said, “Everybody in the waiting room was sitting with their eyes on the television, trying to pretend that we were not doing patient-care right underneath them.”

That’s when Lund came up with the brilliant idea to ferry the man, along with some other “overflow patients,” into an “adjacent coffee shop.” Dr. Lund said he felt he had to do something for the dying, as well as those waiting for more than 90 minutes to receive “medications and treatments.”

Lund wheeled the ailing into a location where catheterizations and café au lait provided the terminally ill both “privacy and dignity.” Patients able to tolerate solid foods were probably ecstatic about the availability of Tim Horton coffee and donut favorites like Sour Cream Glazed and Canadian Maple.

Americans admire our people-friendly neighbors to the north, and Obama aspires to the type of single payer system that Canadians on stretchers in coffee shops enjoy. If instituted, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius can easily make cost-cutting recommendations such as coupling a soft-serve ice cream cone with a visit to a podiatrist.

Dr. Lund said his coffee shop “decision was made in consultation” with other hospital personnel. Sort of a DMV worker’s conference on how to better provide hundreds of people the self-respect they deserve as they wait for hours for a two-minute eye test.

British Columbia critics contend that using “coffee shops for emergency patients raises concerns over so-called hallway medicine and whether inadequate government funding [compromises] patient care.” We’re talking a future filled with stitches at Dunkin Donuts, and drive-by EKGs at Mickey D’s.

New Democratic Party Health Services critic Sue Hammell said, “I think it is outrageous. What are we coming to when we are serving up…health care in a fast food restaurant?” Americans on the cusp of coffee shop examining rooms should heed Hammell’s single payer warning that “The problems of delay and cutbacks [show up] a number of years later.”

Dr. Lund said overcrowding is so common that at times people clamoring to get free health care are “double parked” on stretchers in hospital hallways. Think Baby Boomers stacked against the counter at Starbucks.

About the coffee shop decision, Lund responded to detractors by saying “I think it was a good decision. We were able to move patients who were in a totally inappropriate space.”  Thus, if one day Obamacare falls short of “appropriate space,” the original prediction about saying “Ahhhh” at 7-11 becomes a distinct possibility.

Buying into Britain’s Debacle – American Thinker – July 31, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker

At the Netroots Nation Convention in Las Vegas, by way of video communication, Barack Obama spoke reassuringly to a roomful of left wing ideologues.  The President attempted to quell liberal frustration by agreeing with dissatisfied Progressives that in many areas, including health care reform, “change hasn’t come fast enough.”

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid then reiterated Obama’s sentiments, assuring liberal activists that in due time “We’re going to have a public option. It’s just a question of when.”

In Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s speech, the woman with the pearls the size of apricots claimed, “President Obama was happier on the evening health care reform finally passed out of Congress than on the night he won the presidential election.”

Health care reform must hold a lot of clout for the left if it means more to liberals than being leader of the free world.  If Great Britain’s National Health Care System (NHS) portends what Barry, Harry and Nancy have in store for America, government will soon control life and death and mere mortals will be granted heady power reserved for God, not man.

The NHS started in the very way American health care reform was promoted by the left. More than sixty years ago, Britain’s original plan was to provide universal care to the half of the population – mainly women, children and the elderly – who had no health coverage.

In the United States Obama has decided to exploit 10% of the uninsured as a means to coerce the other 90% to submit to a system the majority rejects.  Barry, Harry and Nancy, more accurately defined as the tyrannical trio, are in the process of imposing health care reform at a time when the world watches in horror as the British prototype falls apart.

Unable to sustain the high cost of “free” health care, Britain’s NHS officially hit the rocks and its crumpled body is presently lying dead at the bottom of a socialist ravine. Yet, the President remains resolute in his desire to push America over a similar precipice, well aware that rationing is in America’s future

To save money in an already abysmal health care system, Britain plans to implement further rationing. Unbeknownst to the British people, lines will be even longer for ill-fated patients destined to die of dehydration at the hands of  “lazy” nurses in understaffed government run hospitals.

In the future, if traveling to England, tourists should also be prepared to see many more crippled, blind people with crooked teeth, because the NHS plans to judiciously mete out knee and hip replacements, cataract surgery, and orthodontic procedures. Yet, Obama presses on.

British patient advocate groups are calling the draconian NHS measures “astonishingly brutal.”  An overbite is nothing compared to what “free” health care, akin to the type Obama promises Americans, will be delivering to our friends across the pond, especially the elderly. Apparently, “widespread cuts … have already been agreed to by senior health service officials,” better known in America as “death panels.”

Maybe one day when the world acknowledges the injustice of denying care to the elderly, there will be an exhibition similar to the shoe heap at the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum, only the pile will be comprised of discarded walkers.

Besides disrespecting seniors and exercising governmental choice on those deemed a useless drain on the collective, the NHS anticipates big savings from cuts to budgets designated for the terminally ill.  Britain plans to save money by instructing “dying cancer patients…to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens [in the] evening or [on] weekends.”

The [NHS] plan included more than £400,000 to be saved by “reducing length of stay” in hospital for the terminally ill.

As well as sending more patients home to die, the paper said the savings would be made by admitting fewer terminally ill cancer patients to hospital because they were struggling to cope with symptoms such as pain. Instead, more patients would be given advice on “self management” of their condition.

In other words, if you’re writhing on the floor in pain from stomach cancer, grab a bottle of Pepto-Bismol®, vodka, or Draino®, whatever works.

In addition to contributing to excruciating pain and angst, the soon-to-be-coming to America, “free” British health care includes the closure of nursing homes for the aged. Incontinent Alzheimer’s patients on feeding tubes will soon be living at home with family ill equipped to handle the challenges of aging parents.

Britain also promises a “reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.”  So, when visiting Big Ben or touring Buckingham Palace if insane people with life-threatening wounds are lying around in the street, do step over and around, “free” health care is merely exercising cost-cutting measures.

Another innovative NHS cost cut: “thousands of job losses…including 500 to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.”  Delaying breast cancer diagnosis ensures fewer people survive, which ultimately benefits Britain’s bottom line.

Like most Americans, British victims remain unaware of lies ahead in the future. Much like the details of Obamacare, the NHS has hidden “details of hundreds of cuts buried in obscure appendices to lengthy policy and strategy documents.”

Dr. Peter Carter, head of the Royal College of Nursing, said he is “incredibly worried about the disclosures.” Carter claimed that Andrew Lansley, Britain’s very own Kathleen Sebelius,

Keeps saying that the Government will protect the front line from cuts – but the reality appears to be quite the opposite. We are seeing trusts making job cuts even when they have already admitted to being short staffed. The statements he makes may be well intentioned – but we would implore him to get a grip on the reality, because these kinds of cuts are incredibly worrying.

Apparently, while putting metastasized breast cancer on hold Britain’s Health Secretary manages to feign human compassion.

Obama’s newly appointed, “well-intentioned” Medicare-Medicaid czar Dr. Donald Berwick, on the other hand, applauds the British National Health Service. Berwick would gladly shove America over the edge of the cliff, being of the opinion that the “decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.”

America should take heed as government-run Obamacare, like the NHS, will surely disadvantage the defenseless and weigh down the frail and dying with the burden of cutting costs. Barry, Harry and Nancy are an ideological, tyrannical trio committed to wresting control of life and death as they brazenly promise Progressive constituents, in the guise of fairness and compassion for the uninsured, a doomed system similar to Britain’s NHS.

Healthcare Camaraderie Centers – American Thinker – July 3, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Obamacare has actually found a way to inject the friend factor into health care reform.  In fact, community organizer Barack Obama may ultimately be responsible for advancing neighborhood camaraderie through government altruism.  It seems that as an added benefit of “free” medical care, crowded emergency rooms have the potential to be transformed into social gathering places where patients wheeled in on stretchers leave with a whole new group of friends.

How, you ask?  Well, one change the Obamacare overhaul is poised to deliver is extended ER wait times.  After bleeding for 4 hours before receiving triage evaluation, ER patients will be directed toward MRSA-infested waiting rooms jammed with people who, when forced to spend 72 hours together, could become lifetime friends.

Obama’s much touted nothing-is-free health care promises to cost the duped both quality and access.  An added bonus is the opportunity to fritter away precious time sitting in the ER perfecting Sudoku skills.

Savvy ER patients who used to pack a snack, afghan and a change of socks should now also pack a toothbrush. If predictions are on target, patients waiting for a butterfly stitch may find themselves eating stale Sun Chips® out of a vending machine for days on end.

Wasn’t it just a few months ago that Obama led Americans to believe, along with many other fabrications, that “getting 32 million more people covered by health insurance would ease the persistent problem of ER crowding?” The argument presented was that, thanks to Obamacare, patients that typically use the ER for minor issues like sore throats would have access to “routine health care by visiting a doctor’s office, as most of the insured do.”

One problem: there’s “already a shortage of front-line family physicians…and experts think that will get worse.” Fewer doctors coupled with 32 million additional people glutting the government dole translates into ER rooms perpetually resembling JFK’s terminal 4 during the eruption of Eyjafjallajokull.

American College of Emergency Physicians president Dr. Angela Gardner says, “We’re starting out with crowded conditions and anticipating things will only get worse.”

If Obama gets his way, add to the 32 million the conservative figure of another 11 million illegals receiving amnesty and health care, and ERs across the nation will be forced to provide collapsible cots to accommodate overnight guests waiting for ice packs and ace bandages.

According to experts like Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann, “More people will have coverage and will be less afraid to go to the emergency department if they’re sick or hurt and have nowhere else to go.”

Seems as though Yes We Can just became “No we can’t!”

Perfect! Deluge the system before the means to accommodate the influx is in place.  Sounds like a recipe for government hope and change disaster. Overcrowd the lifeboat. Escape a burning building by cramming the elevator with more weight than the cable can handle. Jump out of the aircraft, worry about the parachute later.

Obamacare is about to be foisted upon America.  So as the world’s best health care is overwhelmed by official procedures, systemic inefficiency, and bureaucratic oversight, if – God forbid – you should happen to visit an emergency room, get geared up to meet lots of new and interesting friends and make sure to bring an overnight bag.

Post office ‘reforms’ a harbinger of troubles with Obamacare – American Thinker Blog – March 30, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker

American businessman Lee Iacocca’s once said, “One of the things the government can’t do is run anything. The only things our government runs are the post office and the railroads, and both of them are bankrupt.”  The words of Lee Iacocca hold rich prophetic warnings for the future of  American health care.

Why? Because the Postal Service is rolling out plans to cut services from six to five days. Faced with a projected “$238 billion short fall in revenue,” the USPS must make, “deep cuts if the independent agency founded by Benjamin Franklin is to survive.” Then again what does one expect from a group that issued a Howdy Doody postage stamp?

Postmaster General John Potter said the need to cut services results from, “mounting problems for years, squeezed by the rise of e-mail and online bill-paying, competition from private delivery companies like FedEx and UPS, and, more recently, hit hard in the recession.”

Although technology has impacted revenues, government regulations are largely responsible for keeping the agency from privatizing, making it impossible for USPS to compete with privately owned parcel delivery services.

Truth is the post office is indicative of a larger predicament that develops whenever government attempts to provide citizens with a service, be it delivering letters or healthcare.

Christmas cards arriving on Thursday, instead of Saturday, have little affect on wellbeing, but dying because healthcare is unavailable over the weekend, is quite another story. And while proposed Postal Service fixes may stem the influx of annoying circulars, cutbacks foreshadow America’s future when similar fiscal issues eventually besiege a bureaucratic healthcare system void of competition.

Take for instance, scaling back mail delivery from six to five days, which is a 17%  decrease. If similar percentages were applied to let’s say cutting services to 17% of the people that would translate into 50 million individuals, all of whom would be impacted by government remedies for economic dilemmas.

Another fix the USPS is proposing to address the budgetary crisis, is “modernization” of customer access by closing “underutilized post offices and [providing] services in more convenient locations such as grocery stores, pharmacies, retail centers and office supply stores.”  Why are similar scenarios so easy to envision like Americans lining up at 7-Eleven for a complimentary Big Gulp and a throat culture? Or how about going to Wal-Mart for a cost saving, neighborhood friendly MRI, or being the recipient of a colonoscopy while medical records are simultaneously scanned or collated at a local Staples copy center?

The post office hopes to save money by reducing the size of the workforce through attrition. Attrition is, “a gradual, natural reduction in membership or personnel, through retirement, resignation, or death.”  Health care reform could easily institute a similar cost saving approach, where dependent people are reduced by “attrition.” Case in point, budgetary cuts demand denial of care, resulting in natural reduction, or attrition by death.

Diminishing services and increasing costs are venues where government excels, regardless of the service. In an attempt to garner much needed revenue the post office yet again plans to jack up stamp prices. Americans shackled to government healthcare can expect higher taxes rushing in like a rising tide, as access and quality ebb away.

Presently, the issue of USPS “universal service obligation” is being bandied about as is the, “minimal level of service that the Postal Services is required to provide to all customers.”

In the interim, Americans should pay attention to what lays ahead for America as the government that mismanaged and regulated the USPS into insignificance, now controls national healthcare.

%d bloggers like this: