Archive for August 11th, 2009

The American People Believe The Government Public Option Plan Is The Path To The Single Payer Government Plan–Socialized Medicine–Obama Caught Lying To The American People!

Posted on August 11, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Health Care, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Science, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance


Obama’s Hearth Care Deception – “Public Option” will end up “Single Payer”, per their Plan


The Real Goal of the Public Plan Option – Squeezing Out Private & Employer-Based Health Insurance


Institute for America’s Future: Jacob Hacker’s Healthy Competition Brief


Jacob Hacker and Michael Lind – A Plan for Health Care Reform


In-Depth Look – Drawbacks Of A Public Plan – Bloomberg


Paul Ryan Offers Amendment to Strike Government-Run Health Care Plan


Obamas Malpractice: Faulty Logic on The Public Option


President Obama Discusses a Public Option at his Press Conference


Glenn Beck; Linda Douglas back again


Obama Pokes Fun At ‘Don’t Touch My Medicare’ People


Ronald Reagan speaks out on Socialized Medicine – Audio


Obama: Existing Health System Threatens Medicare


Obama -vs- Obama on Medicare Cuts 

Sean Hannity: Barack Obama Health Care Reform Discussion with Dick Morris [FOX News]




HRO11 Tort Reform

When candidate Obama was among those who shared his political agenda, such as labor unions–AFL-CIO and SEIU, he stated his goals clearly and emphatically and without weasel words.

In regards to health care, candidate Obama was for a single payer universal health care system. The single payer is the Federal Government.


Obama on single payer health insurance

When this clip was discovered and played during the campaign, candidate Obama changed his story and added the weasel words:


Barack Obama and single payer health care


Obama on single payer health care insurance


Barack Obama at SEIU Healthcare Forum (Questions part 2)

Universal health care is a code word for forcing every American to purchase the mandatory government health care plan–whether an individual wants the plan or not. or whether they can afford one or not.

This is what most Americans would call socialized medicine and coercion.

Well if President Obama does not want a single payer plan, then drop the public plan option that everybody believes is the trojan horse or pathway to a single payer or Government monopoly of health care.

Actually  I believe President Obama wanted and still wants a single payer Government controlled and operated monopoly and he is using the public option to destroy competition in the health insurance market and not as he claims increase competition. He is very intentionally misleading at best and lying at worse about the long term consequences of the public option plan.

President Obama is lying to the American people.

Cut the bull Mr. President.

The vast majority of the American people do not believe him nor trust him.

This is the reason his popularity is falling in the polls.

As they say in Texas, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

President Obama has revealed himself to be the unbelievable President.

Once the trust is lost, it is very rare for any one including the President of the United States to regain a person’s trust.

President Obama rush to pass so-called Health Care Reform now reframed as Health Insurance Reform, like the rush to pass a cap and trade energy tax,  will for all practical purposes be the two inititiatives that will lead to his and his party defeat at the polls in 2010 and 2012.

The Big Lie public relations or propoganda strategy may have worked if big media still had a monopoly on the news.

Fortunately, big media is declining in viewers, readers and listeners.

The bloggers and talk radio are keeping up with what is the truth and what are the lies.

Professional politicians are begining to understand that when you lie your words, photo, and even video may be on the internet within hours.

Competition works in spreading information and knowledge to the American people who are free to chose who they believe. 

Who does President Obama listen to on health care policy?

Well we have a President that has some very creepy friends and advisors when it comes to health care and science: 

Glenn Beck – The Elderly, Disabled, Eugenics & Obama Health Care (Part 1)


Glenn Beck – The Elderly, Disabled, Eugenics & Obama Health Care (Part 2)

Glenn Beck Clips 08-11-09 Seg4- HC Benefits Advisory Committee Determines Whats Covered

Glenn Beck Clips 08-11-09 Seg5- Obama Administrations HC Advisors Personel Tree

Glenn Beck – Where are the Tough Questions on Health Care Reform


Eugenics–Rockefeller–United Nations–Population Control–Holdren–Abortions/Sterilization–Browner–Cap and Trade–Obama–Compulsory Socialized Medicine–Euthanasia–Transhuman–Brave New World!–Videos


Background Articles and Videos

Wild Misrepresentation Watch: Obama lies about AARP endorsement

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 11, 2009 05:30 PM

President Obama assailed “wild misrepresentations” by his opponents at the Portsmouth town hall today.

But he wildly misrepresented his position on single payer.

And he wildly misrepresented the AARP’s position on Obamacare:

…the President may have overstated support for his plan in one instance. When asked about the potential impact of the reform plan on Medicare, the President said, “The AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare.” Problem is – the AARP has not yet endorsed the plan. The New Hampshire head of the AARP chapter here told ABC’s Lisa Chinn today that the AARP hasn’t yet made up its mind as an organization whether to endorse the bill.

President Obama, meet the AARP rank-and-file: …”

What ‘Right’ to Health Care?

By John David Lewis

“…The first premise is moral: that medical care is a right. It is not. There was no right to such care before doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies produced it. Health care is a service, which we all need, and none of us are better served by placing our lives and our doctors under coercive bureaucratic control.

The second premise is economic: that the government can produce a positive result by redistributing thousands of billions of dollars from its most productive citizens. This is the road to stagnation and national bankruptcy, not universal prosperity.

If Congress really wanted to address health care problems, it could begin with three things: (1) tort reform, to end the ruinous lawsuits that force medical specialists into insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year; (2) Medicare reform, to face squarely the fact of the program’s insolvency; and (3) regulatory reform, to roll back the onerous rules that force doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies (who are pilloried for producing the care that many people then demand as a “right”) into satisfying bureaucratic dictates rather than solving patients’ problems.


The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘’America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,’ Says

Posted by John David Lewis

“…What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissioner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.  

This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.

We may answer one question up front: How will the government pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options.  We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not. …” 


2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .


  1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
  2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.
  3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

3. what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?

Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

 (a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . .  

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care . . .



(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).


  1.  The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.  
  2. By setting a minimum 70%  actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal. …”




By Jacob S. Hacker, Ph.D.*

*Professor of Political Science, U.C. Berkeley

Co-Director, Center for Health, Economic & Family Security,

U.C. Berkeley School of Law

Fellow, New America Foundation

“…Executive Summary


eading political figures, including President-Elect Barack Obama,Committee Chair Max Baucus, and Human Services Tom Daschle3 are proposing to offer a new public insurance option to Americans who lack employment-based coverage. The public plan would be similar to conventional Medicare (the “public Medicare plan,” as distinguished from private plans that contract with Medicare) in that it would be managed by the federal government and pay private providers to deliver care. The public plan would be offered through a new national insurance “exchange,” where it would compete with private insurance plans.  



This policy brief sets out the argument for public plan choice. The core argument is that public insurance has distinct strengths and thus, offered as a choice on a level playing field with private plans, can serve as an important benchmark for private insurance within a reformed health care framework. This is not an argument for a universal Medicare program, but instead for a “hybrid” approach that builds on the best elements of the present system—large group plans in the public and private sectors—while putting in place a new means by which those without access to secure workplace insurance can choose among health plans that provide strong guarantees of quality, affordable coverage. The case made in this brief is that this menu of health plans

First, public insurance has a better track record than private insurance when it comes to reining in costs while preserving access. By way of illustration,

Medicare has proven superior at cost control not just to health plans in the private sector, but also to private plans that contract with the federal government, such as those offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)—suggesting that public insurance can outperform private plans even in the context of insurance reforms.

Second, over the last generation, public insurance has pioneered new payment and quality-improvement methods that have frequently set the standard for private plans. More important, it has the potential to carry out these vital tasks much more effectively in the future, using information technology, large databases of practices and outcomes, and new payment approaches and care-coordination strategies. Indeed, a new public plan could spearhead improvement of existing public programs as well as private plans.

Third, public plan choice is essential to set a standard against which private plans must compete. Without a public plan competing with private plans, we will continue to lack strong mechanisms to rein in costs and drive value down the road. As a benchmark, a new public plan alongside private plans will help unite the public around the principle of broadly shared risk while building greater confidence in government over the long term.

Public plan choice will allow Americans to realize the benefits of both public and private plans: flexibility and security, innovation and stability, and market and democratic accountability. And, according to opinion polling, this is what most Americans want: public and private insurance competing side by side so that they can choose the best option for themselves and their families.




1 Senate Finance 2 and Secretary-Designate of the Department of Health 3 are proposing to offer a new public insurance option to Americans who lack employment-based coverage. The public plan would be similar to conventional Medicare (the “public Medicare plan,” as distinguished from private plans that contract with Medicare) in that it would be managed by the federal government and pay private providers to deliver care. The public plan would be offered through a new national insurance “exchange,” where it would compete with private insurance plans. must include a good public plan modeled after Medicare if the broad goals of reform—universal insurance and improved value—are to be achieved. between 1997 and 2006, health spending per enrollee (for comparable benefits) grew at 4.6 percent a year under Medicare, compared with 7.3 percent a year under private health insurance. At the same time, Medicare has maintained high levels of provider participation and patient access to care. 


The Cost and Coverage Impacts of a Public Plan:

Alternative Design Options 

Staff Working Paper #4

Prepared by: John Sheils, Randy Haught 

“…Summary and Introduction  







President Obama has proposed to create a “public plan” that would compete for enrollment with the private insurance industry, but has provided few details on how it would work.

During the 2008 campaign, Senators Clinton and Edwards proposed a public plan administered through Medicare using Medicare provider reimbursement levels. Employers and individuals would have been able to purchase coverage from the public plan by paying a full cost premium, with subsidies provided for low-income families.

The public plan is difficult to evaluate because no one has specified in legislation how it would work. During the presidential campaign the President did not specify that the plan would be modeled on Medicare, and said that the plan would be open to only individuals, the selfemployed and small firms. Senator Baucus has also proposed a public plan, but has not yet specified payment levels or the groups that would be eligible to enroll.

Consequently, in this paper, we present impact estimates under several variations on the public plan model. Under each variation, we assume that the public plan is implemented together with President Obama’s coverage expansion proposals, which we estimate would cover about 28 million uninsured people.

If Medicare payment levels are used in the public plan, premiums would be up to 30 percent less than premiums for comparable private coverage. On average, the monthly premium in the public plan for a typical benefits package would be $761 per family compared with an average of $970 per family in the private market for the same coverage.

If as the President proposed, eligibility is limited to only small employers, individuals and the self-employed, public plan enrollment would reach 42.9 million people. The number of people with private coverage would fall by 32.0 million people. If private payer reimbursement levels are used by the public plan, enrollment would be lower, with only 10.4 million people switching to the public plan from private insurance.

If the public plan is opened to all employers as proposed by Senators Clinton and Edwards, at Medicare payment levels we estimate that about 131.2 million people would enroll in the public plan. The number of people with private health insurance would decline by 119.1 million people. This would be a two-thirds reduction in the number of people with private coverage (currently 170 million people). Here again, if the higher private payer levels are used, enrollment in private insurance would decline by only 12.5 million people.

Medicare premiums would be lower than private premiums because of the exceptional leverage Medicare has with providers. Medicare pays hospitals about 30 percent less than private insurers pay for the same service. Physician payments are about 20 percent less than under private coverage. Also, because Medicare has no allowance for insurer profits or broker/agent commissions, administrative costs for this population are about one-third of administrative costs in private health plans.   








Assuming Medicare reimbursement rates and eligibility for all individuals and employers, provider net income would decline under this public plan proposal, even after accounting for reduced uncompensated care and increased utilization for the newly insured. Net hospital


Do Doctors Really Support a Public Plan Option?

By Steven Goldfien MD

“…Although widely alluded to in the press, few in the public likely comprehend the importance of SGR for doctors and why it may be preventing the profession from taking a strong stand in opposition to a public plan option.  A stand many doctors strongly support.

To understand the impact of SGR it’s necessary to know how physicians are paid.  In 1965 the Medicare program began offering government insurance to seniors using the same rates doctors were receiving from private insurance. But financial problems soon emerged as previously uninsured people were given unlimited access to taxpayer- subsidized healthcare. Progress in medical research along with new drugs and technologies led to more beneficiaries living longer using more services and more federal money.  To slow the growth in physician payments Congress turned to price controls, which were eventually refined into the 1992 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS), the scheme under which payment for all physician services is still made. The effect of the MPFS was greatly increased when private insurers adopted it to cut their own physician costs.  Most insurers now pay doctors a fraction of the MPFS payment, usually a little more or less but always tied to Medicare rates.  Thus a change in Medicare rates reverberates throughout the healthcare system. …”

Barack Obama at SEIU Healthcare Forum (Questions part 2)

Barack Obama: Health care plan


Barack Obama: Social Security and Medicare


Blatant Hypocrisy: Democrats Silent on Obama Medicare Cuts


A Crisis in Medicare – Will There Be Enough Doctors?










Related Posts On Pronk Palisades


The Obama Big Lie and Inconvenient Truth About Health Care–The Public Option Trojan Horse–Leads To A Single Payor Goverment Monopoly of Health Care and The Bankruptcy of USA!

The Obama Public Option Poison Pill For A Government Health Care Monopoly–Single Payer System–Betting Your Life and Paying Though The Nose


Eugenics–Rockefeller–United Nations–Population Control–Holdren–Abortions/Sterilization–Browner–Cap and Trade–Obama–Compulsory Socialized Medicine–Euthanasia–Transhuman–Brave New World!–Videos

The American People Confront Obama’s Red Shirts (ACORN) and Purple Shirts (SEIU)–Bullhorns and Beatings Over Obama Care!

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Obama’s Marching Orders For His Red Shirts (ACORN), Purple Shirts (SEIU) and Black Shirts (New Panther Party)–Progressive Radical Socialists

Health Care Resources

Republican Health Care Reform: The Patients’ Choice Act

Medical Doctor and Senator Tom Coburn On Health Care–Videos

The Senate Doctors Show–Videos

Obama’s Waterloo– Government Compulsory Single Payer Socialized Medicine!–Videos

President Obama’s Plan of Massive Deficit Spending Is Destroying The US Economy–The American People Say Stop Socialism BS Now!

The Bum’s Rush of The American People: The Totally Irresponsible Democratic Party Health Care Bill and Obama’s Big Lie Exposed

Chairman Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Bill Kills Individual Private Health Care Insurance–Join The Second American Revolution!

Government Bureaucracy: Organizational Chart of The House Democrats’ Health Plan

Dr. Robert W. Christensen–Videos

John Stossel–Sick In America–Videos







Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 43 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...