The NHS has started to ration hearing aids for the deaf – with thousands of people being offered only one device when experts say they need two.
Specialists recommend that patients who are losing their hearing in both ears should be offered two aids, but some NHS authorities have started to offer just one to such people, in a cost-cutting exercise that saves a modest £90 per person.
The charity Action on Hearing Loss, formerly the RNID, has found four hospital trusts in England and two health boards in Wales now initially offer one aid.
The Obama Administration has worked hard to convince America that the British National Health Care model is so superior to our (former) "independent provider" model, we have almost forgotten just how BAD the NHC (National Health Care) system really is.
Jeremy Hunt has admitted taking his children to accident and emergency [A&E] because he did not want to wait for a GP appointment.
The Health Secretary has spoken numerous times to urge the public to avoid A&E departments in all but the most urgent cases and turn to pharmacies, doctors’ surgeries and walk-in centres instead.
But speaking during today’s health questions in the House of Commons, he appeared to go against his own advice.
Mr Hunt said: “I took my own children to an A&E department at the weekend precisely because I did not want to wait until later on to take them to see a GP.”
[added by editor for clarification]
The Future of Obamacare
The problems with a National Health Care System (ake: Obamacare .. or earlier, Hillarycare" are threefold:
(1) Somebody has to pay for it
(2) It's run by the Government
(3) It completely ignores the advantages of capitalism
Well ... and that's His trick. How many have truly signed up, considering that as of March 1 nobody expected enrollment to reach six million, let alone seven point one million, and Smarmy Biden was "lowering expectations" from 7 mill to 6 mill a month ago?
Imagine, after all these months to get six million enrollees, when it came down to the wire and they absolutely had to show progress .... they got ONE MILLION PEOPLE to sign up for Obamacare in just four weeks.
Question: How many of the enrollees have actually actually sent a check?
OH, and ....
According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2009 there were 48.6 million people in the US (15.7% of the population) who were without health insurance. (source as of July 2013)
Assuming that 7.1 million are now insured, thanks to the wonder of ObamaCare ....
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to explain the Obama administration's latest decision to extend a key ObamaCare deadline by saying people just "are not educated on how to use the Internet."
Oh, that's just insulting.
No, the Obama Administration is "just not educated on how to use the Internet". How much did WE pay for an Internet Designer to screw up the Obamacare website? Too much. Over budget, missed the deadline, and even today the website is not "user friendly".
ObamaCare depends on young people to sign up, so they can pay for Old People who have more medical problems than the 'target group' ... which is young people.
Old People are a liability to Obamacare; this is the population segment which is most likely to burden the system though constant claims, because .. well, we're old, and we get sick more often. Young people don't get sick as often, and when they do they are reluctant to seek medical attention.
Yet this is the segment of the population which is expected to pay more, because .. well, they have a longer life span dating from the implementation of Obamacare. In other words, they are less likely to die before medical treatment is completed, but they still have an income and are more likely to continue contributing.
Why do "young People" .. those who were BORN to use the Internet for almost every transaction ... not sign up for Obamacare?
It isn't that they don't know how to use the Internet.
It's because they know their government is out to screw them. ObamaCare is a viper at their breast, and they are not buying into it.
I was phoning with my daughter in San Diego, as we teased each other about the relative climatic advantages of Southern California vs Central Willamette Valley in Oregon.
She and her husband are trying to relocate to Central California. Her mother (my ex wife) and stepfather (my best friend) are experiencing both physical and economic challenges. Daughter wants to move closer to her mom and step-dad, to support them.
The problem is, Daughter and son-in-law can't find jobs which will allow them to support themselves and their families.
Said daughter: "I didn't get the job I applied for; I was #2 on the list, and the woman who was #1 hasn't committed to the job yet. I DID find another job, but it turned out that it was not a full-time job, but two half-time jobs."
To be more clear .. it was the same job with the same employer, except that it had been administratively redefined. The same number of hours, the same work ... but not a full-time job.
Why?
Nobody knows.
---
Okay, we do know.
Any employer who offers a full-time job is required to provide benefits which meet certain governmental mandates .. including health-care.
Part-time jobs, however, are not addressed under these same mandates.
What is easier to make it possible for a small business to hire new workers, but to define the job as a part-time job?
The employer is then not responsible for providing full benefits ... such as Health Care. Which is VERY expensive.
No, not as expensive as it was a few years ago, but MUCH more expensive!
The whole theory of governmental mandated health care is that the employer must provide health care benefits which are much more demanding than they were a few years ago. Failure to meet those demands results in penalties .. very expensive penalties .. imposed upon the employer.
But if the job is only part-time, the penalties are fewer, less expensive, or not applicable.
Think about it. If you were a small business employer, would you hire a person full-time, or hire two people part-time? I think we're seeing a trend, here.
For entry-level, or non-technical jobs, it's much more economically feasible for an employer to give new employees the choice of a part-time job with no health benefits than to hire a new employee with no or fewer benefits. And the most expensive benefit (now more than ever before) is health care.
And apparently, there is no reason why the employer cannot hire a single employee in two positions ... which just happen to overlap. On a part-time basis.
Admittedly, I don't know the details here. I don't know the law .. but who does, in a law for which the printed copy is taller than you are?
The point is that Our President, in his drive to revision re-engineer American society, has presented us with a set of laws which are not only difficult to understand, but also REQUIRE us to do the old things in new ways.
And as always, the American people are looking for ways to get around the arbitrary laws without going out of business.
Who loses? Well, my daughter loses. And her family loses. They have to find their own health care .. if they decide to accept the new job under the new rules.
This does not sound to me as if the new rules are performing in her favor. Wasn't that the goal?
Are the new rules designed to encourage workers to improve themselves? Or are they designed only for people with the lowest level of competence and experience?
The Obama administration has decided to jettison from HealthCare.gov the IT contractor, CGI Federal, that has been mainly responsible for building the defect-ridden online health insurance marketplace and has been immersed in the work of repairing it.
Federal health officials are preparing to sign early next week a 12-month contract worth roughly $90 million with a different company, Accenture, after concluding that CGI has not been effective enough in fixing the intricate computer system underpinning the federal Web site, according to a person familiar with the decision who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss private negotiations.
Duh.
Too little too late. but it's significant that the obvious takes far too long to become apparent actionable to Obama.
The Obama administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court not to exempt Catholic groups from an ObamaCare requirement to offer contraceptive coverage, after the high court gave them a temporary reprieve earlier this week.
Today, Obama revealed his determination to "remake the nation" regardless of First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Religion.
We've already discussed the "Little Sisters" appeal to the Federal Government to 'please don't make this an issue' for them to decide between their Catholic Tenents against contraception and the Federal Law.
The Obama Administration says that if they don't want to include pregnancy insurance in their "Affordable HealthCare Plan", all they have to do is to fill out a form.
The group of Catholic nuns argues that the contraceptive coverage
requirement violates their religious beliefs. To get around the mandate,
they claim they'd have to sign a "permission slip" authorizing others
to provide contraceptives and "abortion drugs" -- or pay a fine.
WASHINGTON — Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Obama administration from forcing some religious-affiliated groups to provide health insurance coverage of birth control or face penalties as part of the Affordable Care Act.
Acting at the request of an order of nuns in Colorado, Justice Sotomayor
issued the stay just hours before the requirement was to go into effect
on New Year’s Day. She gave the Obama administration until Friday to
respond to the Supreme Court.
Although this injunction stay was initiated directly on behalf of specific orders of Catholic nuns, it wouldn't take much imagination to expect it would ... or should ... also be applicable to other groups who believe that portion of the Affordable Care Act (AKA "ObamaCare") should not be imposed upon them. Examples include unmarried men, gays, Catholic nuns, and any other group which has reason to expect they should not be expected to be responsible for a pregnancy.
Which, to some of us (including widowed near-septuagenarians such as myself) seems only reasonable.
Unfortunately, this issue may become something of a "Tipping Point" for ObamaCare.
If it is either legally or morally inappropriate for the Federal government to impose birth control insurance premiums on individuals who don't expect to face that health-care situation, then why would it be appropriate for the Federal government to impose ANY insurance clauses on ANYONE who objects to them?
As is true in almost any civic law that the Supreme Court (or any of its individual Justices) take an interest, this is an "800 pound Gorilla In The Corner" which may react dramatically to ensuing events. If the ObamaAdministration ... no, let's be honest about this ... if President Obama personally fights this action, it may lead to the entire ObamaCare law being opposed by the Supreme Court on more than one ground.
Note that previous challenges on the basis of constitutionality have already been successfully met and overwhelmed. Specifically, the requirement that private individuals MUST adhere to federally mandated insurance mandates has been accepted because this socially tumultuous law has been designated by the White House and Congress as a "tax". And Congress is constitutionally empowered to impose taxes on American citizens.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances. — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
If Obama opposes Justice Sonia Sotomayor on this issue, that will open the door for opposition to the enforcement of ObamaCare by the Supreme Court, which has the power to declare the entire multi-hundred page law unconstitutional (and therefore unenforceable) until the question is resolved. That is, resolved to the satisfaction of The Court.
ObamaCare has been walking on little cat feet, like a San Francisco fog, for months. Now the Administration faces a challenge which it cannot win. This is the strength of the American Constitution. The tripartite nature of American government ... legislative, judicial and executive branches ... have the constitutional power to stymie each other on the basis of legality and constitutionality. While they have been careful avoid exciting the other two branches in recent years, Obama has for the past several months been striding boldly into areas where no-one has gone before.
This time, Obama may have tripped over his dictatorial tendencies.
It is the designated duty of both Congress and The Supreme Court to oppose the Executive branch when that portion of government seems to have exceeded its constitutional powers. Congress has neither the will nor the intestinal fortitude to oppose Obama's end-run on the right of The People to decide for themselves what level of health insurance they can afford.
Like the Second Amendment, it's not about the mechanics. It's about the Rights of The People.
When the Federal government stoops to using taxes not to finance The Common Good but to impose The Common Good ... and makes us pay through the nose for the privilege of being Governed ... then there's something wrong with this system.
Not the Carrot, but the Whip.
This guy has lost all perspective. It's time that someone said "Hey, wait a minute!"
Thank you for stepping up to the plate, Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The concept of "The Tyranny of the Majority" states that when the majority rules, and the government must -- or chooses to -- dictate policy based on the dictates of the majority, then the people learn that they can get anything they want based solely on their desires .... not necessarily based on their needs or their inability to provide for themselves.
This was a cautionary of Alexis De Tocqueville in his book "Democracy in America":
"Tocqueville speculates on the future of democracy in the United States, discussing possible threats to democracy and possible dangers of democracy. These include his belief that democracy has a tendency to degenerate into "soft despotism" as well as the risk of developing a tyranny of the majority .... ".
Another interpretation of the term "tyranny of the majority" is "Mob Rule".
The American Founding Fathers introduced the Republican, rather than the Democratic system of governmental philosophy (along with the attendant "Electoral College") specifically to avoid this "Mob Rule" aspect of a true democracy. True democracy works well for small groups; the Greeks found it worked well for city-states. But in a nation of over a third of a billion citizens, the temptation is strong for the sick, lame and lazy to prey upon the productive minority.
True, President Obama has not yet turned America into a Socialist state; he has not yet nationalized industry.
Well, there's General Motors, and "Organized Labor:, and savings & loans, and banks, and the entire "mortgage industry", and ... but that's all the fault of the Bush Bail-Out.
However, George W. Bush did not intentionally commit the entire National Debt for the next ten generations for the purpose "redistributing the Wealth of the Nation".
"Despite promises that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially," a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. "The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs." The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face "significant premium increases."
Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%. Editor's Note: How much extra will you have to pay? ......
On top of higher premiums, Obamacare will create no fewer than twenty new taxes or tax hikes on the American people.
Most of the new taxes go into effect January 1, 2014, but they are already infuriating millions of Americans. The Obama administration has even given the IRS an extra $500 million to enforce the rules and regulations of Obamacare.
You're screwed, blewed and tattooed. Don't like it? Tough! The New President CAN and WILL enforce his unconstitutional regulations which FORCE you to buy his snake oil.
Sebelius suggests Republicans to blame for ObamaCare website woes | Fox News: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took a swipe Friday at those calling for her to resign over the botched ObamaCare website rollout, suggesting that Republican efforts to delay and defund the law contributed to HealthCare.gov's glitch-ridden debut. During a visit to a community health center in Austin, Sebelius conceded that there wasn't enough testing done on the website, but added that her department had little flexibility to postpone the launch against the backdrop of Washington's unforgiving politics. "In an ideal world there would have been a lot more testing, but we did not have the luxury of that. And the law said the go-time was Oct. 1," she said. "And frankly, a political atmosphere where the majority party, at least in the House, was determined to stop this anyway they possibly could ... was not an ideal atmosphere."
And because the House controls the purse-strings, it has more power in terms of MONEY than the senate.
Note that the Senate elects only two Senators to represent each state: that's why we have 100 senators.
But the Representatives are elected by each DISTRICT within the state.
Funny thing about the difference between Senatorial and Representative votes: in a given state, the Senators are elected by the majority vote within the state. That means that the population centers (in Oregon, the free-loaders in Portland/Multomah County .. not to say that all the people living there but MOST of the people living there) get to choose their Senators.
ALMOST every where else in the state or, say, OREGON .. well, this is a bunch of farmers who don't know any better, so they elect Republican Representatives. Even in population centers, they tend to choose Democratic Representatives who actually listen to the Will Of The People.
So, while Senators tend to cater to Big City Folks, Representatives tend to represent Grass Roots folks.
That's why our Founding Fathers set up this bicameral system. They didn't want the Farmers to be outvoted by the Freeloaders, on wellfare.
(yes, I'm aware that I've just insulted a majority of my fellow Oregonians. I can live with that.)
So: Kathleen Sebelius is protesting (weakly, not from a position of strength). that: " ... a political atmosphere where the majority
party, at least in the House, was determined to stop this anyway they
possibly could ... was not an ideal atmosphere. "
Oh, I don't know about that. It depends on what your definition of "IDEAL", is.
For the Liberal Democrat Sebelius, an "Ideal Atmosphere" is a situation where the Legislative Branch of the Government rubber-stamps the Executive branch. She's seriously pissed, because "people" (read: "PEONS") who are not professional politicians, have expressed their will to not support the will of Their President ("Executive Branch").
Certainly, not an "Ideal Atmosphere" from her point of view. After all, didn't she already accept responsibility for the failure of the ObamaCare Website? How DARE the lowly "people" differ with her lofty Liberal position?
Did she not assume a sufficiently demure position? She SAID she was "sorry" the website didn't work, and there was the odd Senator or two who suggested that "we have to pass the bill, before we know what's in it". What more do the hoi poloi want?
Sheess!
Okay, let's look at the recent plethora of news stories which suggest that the Obamacare System can't even get people to register for the plan.
No, let's look at the stories which state clearly that the Obamacare System is too expensive for many Americans to afford. More expensive than the plans they already have, but those plans aren't 'acceptable' to ObamaCare because the new insurance doesn't allow you to tailor your Insurance to our needs.
.
No, let's consider that ObamaCare offers the Best, at the expense of the Good Enough.
No, let's look at the stories which reveal that Obama Lied about "If you like your doctor/insurance policy, you can keep them".
No ... you've all heard these stories, and I'm not going to link to them. Do your own damned Google Search.
Kathy is royally pissed because Republicans in the House are presenting roadblocks which cause both she and Obama to trip over their mutually non-existant Dicks on the road to full congressional acceptance of ObamaCare. She thinks they're Bad boys, these Republican iconoclasts who defy the will of Their Lord and Savior, B. Obama!
(... and their Goddess Kathleen Sebelius, for that matter!_
Unfortunately, both Sebelius and Obama have lost tract of one simple fact: they are not Royalty.
In fact, they are Servants of The People. As such, they are subject to the will of The People whom they represent.
And The People are pissed!
Among all the ills of ObamaCare, they ignore the fact that signing up for Their Plan is not only awkward, but costly. Most people who have succumbed to their sweet melody and discovering that they are not paying less, but more, than their current plans.
And they can't keep their chosen Health Plans, which exposes the LIES of Obama.
For example, if you're a young male petitioner, you have to accept a Health Plan which provides both Natal and Abortion clauses. Are you expecting to need an abortion? Doesn't matter; you have to have it .. and pay for it.
A Perfect Health Plan for an Imperfect People. And if you don't sign up for it? "I'll Kick Your Ass!"
So, Kathy is pissed because those Nasty Republicans (those few who still have the cajones to do so) are fighting against Presidential Edict?
Liberals will fight until they get their way -- and, as soon as they do, they announce their one victory is "settled law."
That's what happened with Obamacare. Weren't Americans reasonably clear about not wanting a hostile takeover of our health care system the last time Democrats tried it?
Hillarycare was so widely reviled that the majority Democratic Congress never held an up-or-down vote on it. In the very next election, the public punished Democrats for even thinking about nationalizing health care by voting in a Republican Congress for the first time in almost half a century.
Obamacare wasn't passed because the nation changed its mind. We got Obamacare because, at a brief moment in time, the Democrats happened to have aberrationally large majorities in the House and Senate, as well as the presidency. It was quickly and unconstitutionally enacted on a strictly party-line vote.
In the very next election, the American people elected 63 new Republicans to the House of Representatives -- the largest sweep of Congress for any party since 1948. Even liberal Massachusetts elected a Republican senator solely because of his vow to vote against Obamacare.
This is why the duly elected Republican majority in the House keeps
funding the entire federal government -- except Obamacare. Or except
Congress' exemption from Obamacare. Or except the individual mandate
that Obama has already waived for his big-business friends.
[OBAMACARE] Federal Laws Are What You Make Of It ... if you're a Liberal
I remember "HillaryCare", and I remember my outrage against it.
The 1990's were turbulent times (as if today is not) and this was the era in which I switched my political party registration from "Democrat" to "Republican".
"If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain".
... but I thought I was too clever by half. I would vote Democrat so that in the Primaries I could vote for the candidates who were so obviously unacceptable that they would be easily defeated by a Conservative candidate.
Little did I know then, that the most egregious fruitcakes on the American political scene would be so universally embraced!
Then they embraced The Evil Bill (President of the United States: POTUS .... Clinton ... he of the elastic zipper and plastic politics ...) and I realized that the old "One Man/One Vote" rule was insufficient to impose morality, let alone Good Sense, on the American Political Scene.
I had just begun to get my head around the concept of The New Liberality, when Hillary come on the scene not as a First Lady of America but as a Liberal Activist who had the intention of imposing her bizarre concept of "National Health Care" on the American People. She could do that, she thought; she was First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS).
Her idea? Hillarycare
Everybody gets free health care. The government will do that for you. (Sound familiar?()
My personal recollection is that during a televised announcement in late February, 1994, she suggested that it would be entirely paid for by imposing a federal tax (fifty cents?) on every pack of cigarettes sold in America.
Okay, I'm old and stupid; but I wasn't that old then and certainly not that stupid, and even this dumb old country boy can recognize that THIS is not going to work!
Fortunately, the Democratic MOJO wasn't powerful enough to overcome public skepticism.
Unfortunately, public skepticism is not nearly so prevalent today.
Even more unfortunately, those who are willing to 'buy' (in quotes, because they believe it will cost them nothing personally) into this "Pig in a Poke" have sufficient voice to over-ride the doubtfuls who don't delude themselves into believing that The Government has bottomless pockets.
Somebody has to pay for this Federal Largesse .. and it certainly isn't the senators who are voting for it. Hell, they aren't even subject to the conditions of the ten-foot stack of paper which describes the law.
The Senators don't even have to read it. And they have not!
All they know is, if they vote for it, they will get re-elected.
At least .. one more time. After it all goes into the crapper, who knows who will be elected in 2016?
You know what? If this goes on, we might as well all learn to speak French.
Because we will be no better than the French, with their 30 hour work week, five weeks guaranteed paid vacation, and a society which no longer knows the price of "national prosperity".
WASHINGTON (AP) — Bedeviled by technology glitches that frustrated millions of consumers, the Obama administration is taking down its health overhaul website for repairs this weekend.
Enrollment functions of the healthcare.gov site will be unavailable during off-peak hours, the Health and Human Services Department said Friday. The department did not release a schedule for hours of operation, but an HHS spokeswoman said the site would be taken down at 1 a.m. EDT each night for a few hours.
The website will remain open for general information. Technology problems overwhelmed the launch of new health insurance markets Tuesday, embarrassing the administration just when the health care law was supposed to be introduced to average consumers. "Americans have seen once again that Obamacare is not ready for prime time," Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, said in a statement. "A dysfunctional website is the least of that law's problems."
Why are we not surprised?
They had to activate the website, before they could see what it was.
After congress passed a Public Health Care bill that was incomprehensible and unwanted ... over strong public opposition by the folks who will have to live under it (which excludes the congress-critters who voted for it) ... they swore that we would like it after we had been given enough time to understand "what it was".
Surprising to most of us, since it was obvious that our federal representatives didn't understand "what it was" before they voted for it.
Time has passed, we still don't know "what it was". We are merely living in dread that instead of "what it will do for us", we'll learn "what it will do to us".
The democrats have therefore invested $2 million of OTM ("Other People's Money") to establish a non-profit for the sole purpose of convincing We The People that this Obamacare thing is A Good Thing.
Makes me wonder when was the last time I saw a political party not only ram a bill down our throats, but then set up a Shadow Group to teach us how to say "Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?"
I can't remember anything like this ever happening before. Can anybody else think up a good representative example of this particular type of political manipulation?
WASHINGTON — Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, had a little political advice last week for President Obama and the Democrats: Don’t pass the president’s health care legislation because you would risk losing in the midterm elections.
Mr. Obama laughed about it afterward. “I generally wouldn’t take advice about what’s good for Democrats” from Mr. McConnell, he told an audience in Pennsylvania. But he conceded that “that’s what members of Congress are hearing right now on the cable shows and in sort of the gossip columns in Washington.” He went on to argue that the issue should be what’s right, not the politics.
But this is Washington and politics are never far from the surface, especially at a decisive moment like this. If the schedule being mapped last week holds – and Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, said on Sunday that it would — the fate of the president’s health care plan should be decided within the week. “I believe we will have” the votes, Mr. Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week,” though Republicans and even some Democrats have questioned whether the votes are there now.
But the plan’s fate could depend on how a couple dozen Democratic congressmen answer the questions Mr. McConnell and Mr. Obama raised: Would passing health care devastate Democratic chances in the fall? Would rejecting it devastate a Democratic presidency?
"Abort Health Care Reform" from "The Smallest Minority" (Friday, November 20, 2009) In his indefatigueable drive to examine in excruciating detail the "Health Care Reforms" of President Obama, Kevin Bacon scores another Major Hit in the "A-Zone" of the Obamacare Bill.
A "UK Expat now living in New Zealand " commenter described as "Phil B." describes his personal experiences with Socialized National Medicine (Obamacare in the UK) in prolific and turgid prose.
It's not a pretty picture, and it bodes ill for the American of Socialized Medicine.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. William J. H. Boetcker, 1916 (often attributed to Lincoln)
It's a shame that the quote was cited as according to Abraham Lincoln; it undermines the veracity of the thought.
However, taken together "The Ten Cannots" should -- and perhaps would, under other circumstances -- provide us with some guidance, some perspective, in regards to the wisdom of mandating (as Rep Rogers says) that 85% of us should be penalized for the (unproven) benefit of the other fifteen percent.
I'm not saying that I don't agree with Mr. Rogers; I'm only saying that if you're going to support your political/social/cultural position by quoting A Great American, it would be wise to choose the Great American who actually said it.
This is important to me because, in three months, I will turn 65 years of age. This weekend I received a letter from Social Security Services Administration advising me that I should register for Medicare "three months before your 65th birthday". That's tomorrow for me, folks. (November 23, 2009 + 3 months = February 23, 2010.)
Obamacare is famously said to be designed to save health-care monies by cutting services to Senior Citizens. I'm on the cusp, this is ALL I have to look forward to for my future health care, and I'm pissed.
If this doesn't seem sufficient reason to be outraged by , perhaps you should consider the words of Pastor Martin Neimoler:
In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -- and by that time no one was left to speak up.
I apologize for writing so much about Politics lately, but it seems necessary. Besides, I haven't been to a USPSA match for over a month (don't get me started) and I'm getting a little testy.
If you don't want to read about my take on ObamaCare feel free to move on. But not to moveon.org please. ___________________________
President Obama had a lot to say today. In the morning he talked about ObomaCare to the children of America (in a broadcast which was controversial, even though the White House swore was not political. In the end he couldn't resist bringing it up during the Q&A period.)
In the evening Obama had scheduled a half-hour speech in front of congress. This as did not go as well as it might have. At one point, Congress interrupted his speech by shouting "Liar". when Obama "took a swipe at Sarah Palin's comment about Death Panels."
"Illegal Aliens": During the speech, he also gave the lie to charges that the ObomaCare bill would provide free health care to "Illegal Aliens".
Actually, this is true. The bill specifically says that free health care will not be given to illegal aliens. Unfortunately, the bill does not specifically state that free health care will be denied to applicants who can't prove that they are not legally in America, nor does it allow health care workers to inquire about the legal status of applicants, nor does it specify any penalties for illegal aliens who attempt to acquire free health care under this bill.
In other words, there are no negative consequences for Illegal Aliens who apply for free health care under this bill. And no grounds for denial, or enforcement of any implied restriction.
In fact, its all smoke and mirrors and no substance ... not only on this point, but on several others.
"Death Panel": This subject has to do with the accusation that the ObomaCare bill would allow the nation's inability to provide the maximum quality care for each individual to be undermined by the current economic situation.
And that concept is based on an interesting point.
Currently, you pay your insurance bills and your insurance pays for most procedures and medications, dependent on your ability to come up with the "Co-Pay" tithe.
Under ObomaCare, it doesn't require a great stretch of the imagination to conceive of a situation where the national economy is so strapped for case (either inflation or recession) that it's hunting for a way to minimize the expenditure of available funds.
Is that so hard to believe? How often have you read in your local newspaper that your state government is so strapped for funds that it must reduce "Essential Services"? Usually, this involves understaffing police and firefighters and Educational Institutions, or whatever your state considers a serious threat to your confidence that "We're From The Government, And We're Here To Help You".
At the state level, this is a threat which you probably interpret as meaning "either cops and firefighters and teachers gotta go, or your state senators will have to take a cut in pay. And you know we're not going to take a cut in pay!"
So take that same default bureaucratic stance and move it from the state level to the federal level. The next time the national budget is 'at risk' (which happens every frickin' year, almost without fail, except for the first term of a new incumbent administration), you can expect to discover that National Health Care or ObomaCaree, whatever you want to call it, will be the Bogeyman with which your president threatens you.
Only, in this case, it's not a straw man. It's the real thing. Historically, countries with a National Health Care System (in England it's NHS, or National Health Service) don't bother to threaten you with cuts in service. They just ... cut the service, and boldly dare you to complain.
They won't listen to you. They don't have to. You, who have already allowed your national government to establish a NHS, no longer are a part of the decision making process.
Think of AMTRACK, the U.S. Postal Service, and any Department of Motor Vehicles office you have ever visited, and you should have a visceral understanding of how a NHS works for you.
So let's look at how NHS (I'm really tired of trying to write and format " ObomaCare") works in nations which have already been taken like the Monkey took the Miller's Wife.
We'll get back to ObomaCare, after we've taken a few pertinent examples from The Brits.
Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.
But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn. ... The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.
The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours. ... It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.
It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.
Okay, let's look upon this report as a basic Governmental policy that 'some people are just not worth the resource investment required to extend their lives'.
Maybe it's true. After all, Arctic cultures (frequently, if inaccurately, referred to as "Eskimos") have historically abandoned their old people to freeze/starve to death on the Arctic Ice, because they had become to great a burden on the tribe's ability to survive, without providing tangible benefit to the tribe. "...in the past some Eskimos did kill old people when circumstances were sufficiently desperate."
So we're talking about to reverting to a primitive culture which no longer even practices such draconian methods to preserve societal resources? Yes, if we adopt ObomaCare, which is an American adoption of the British NHS.
Oh, of course it's not that obvious. We would only, as do the Brits, counsel them on how much a burden they are on their family, and vaguely wonder whether we can 'in good conscience' reasonably continue to exhaust our 'clan' resources. And this is the kind of "End Of Life" counseling that ObomaCare espouses, in the bill if not in the speeches.
How about other limitations on Health Care?
How about an infant who is born prematurely, and is denied 'extreme measures' because the chance of saving a life is just ... not ... worth ... the ... effort.
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.
Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatm ... Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago.
Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child's 'best interests'.
The guidelines said: 'If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.'
Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.
The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.
The association said they were not meant to be a 'set of instructions', but doctors regard them as the best available advice on the treatment of premature babies.
Okay, so maybe we're making too big a thing of Obamacare. Maybe we can just ignore it (eg: continue as we are, even if we don't subscribe to a Health Care System, maybe even if we don't want to.) Why should we care?
1. An official of a bureaucracy. 2. An official who is rigidly devoted to the details of administrative procedure.
Note that we aren't seeing any mention of "value earned for money paid", or "concern for the patient". We're just looking at "administrative procedure", and that is the essence of obomacare, NHS or any other governmentally constructed and administrated National Health Care System.
If they can afford to take care of you, they may. If they can't, or think they can't ... they won't.
Bottom line, folks. They don't care about YOU. They care about "the details of administrative procedure". And as a state employee for umpteen years, I can tell you with some assurance that while the individual governmental agent may prefer to provide a service, the default mode is to find a way by which the agency can evade administrative procedures to that the bureaucracy is not obliged to spend funds which can either (a) be better spent on a better 'investment', or (b) spent on Office Furniture for the Bureaucrats so that next year's budget is not diminished because we didn't spend all the money we were allotted this year.
Why should we get so bent out of joint about this Natinal Health Care Bill, and the Obama Administration generally?
Maybe we should ask Jack Web. Isn't DRAGNET the American Icon that we grew up with? height="344">
