Obamacare Round-Up

Jonah Goldberg talks about an article in the New York Times titled "False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots" and points out...

If you haven't read the story, it's the usual connect-the-dots to blame dishonest and crazy rightwingers piece gussied up as truth-squadding. My own question is why the Times couldn't bother to at least quote Obama's interview with ... The New York Times:

LEONHARDT: And it's going to be hard for people who don't have the option of paying for it.

THE PRESIDENT: So that's where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that's also a huge driver of cost, right? I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
LEONHARDT: So how do you - how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

Also from the New York Times magazine is this left-wing-jerk Peter Singer arguing for your grandmother to die. I loath that man.

"What to Do About Pre-existing Conditions?" askes John H. Cochrane over at the Wall Street Journal.

"At the Town Halls, Trivializing Evil?" is another question being asked by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post. (He claims its being used by both sides but if that is true only one side is using the term correctly - aka Fascism is also known as National Socialism - hello lefties.)

John Stossel over at reason.com has this piece up titled, "Big Business Goes Big for Health Care Reform" explaining how these large companies are going for short-term profits at the risk of long-term non-existance. No one is too big to fail. GM and Wall Street should have failed rather than been bailed, when the public option subsumes private insurance does these companies really believe the government that put them out of business is going to bail them out. Ridiculous!

Ouch. Looks like the Washington Post is seeing the writing on the wall and starting to subtly express some doubts about Obama and Obamacare. This article titled, "Obama to Take On Health-Care Critics. Town Hall Meetings Expected to Be Feisty." is fairly even-handed with the writing a bit sympathetic to the challenges Obama if facing. But this photo is OUCH!


David Limbaugh has a piece titled "Obama's Forfeited Credibility Sabotaging Obamacare." up at Townhall.com that is fairly feisty. By the way, a little bit of journalistic translation. In writing, when you see the word "misled" the writer is really saying "lied". This is in the great British tradition of a politican being described as "tired and emotional" was rip-roaring drunk.

Sarah Palin's latest take is here on her facebook page. She is doing a good job dismembering Obamacare, I might add. I hope she takes Newt Gingrich's advice here.

Finally, and more importantly, The Gormogons are doing what no member of Congress seems to be - reading the Obamacare bill, here.

The Czar laughed at this one: Sec 133 (a) (2) Plain language requirement: that plan information be written in plain language; or “language that the intended audience, including individuals with limited English proficiency, can readily understand and use because that language is clean, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing.” Too bad that wasn’t the case when they wrote this bill.

Read the whole thing. They've only hit the first 100 pages and below is their conclusion.

This bill has no intention of saving Americans money on health care premiums. It reads like the administrative and operations manual of an insurance company because, in effect, that is exactly what it is!

This is an operations manual, in effect, for a new insurance company called America, Incorporated. And like new companies, the business model is not solid yet: so instead of specifics about how the company will make money, re-invest capital, or lower costs, it’s filled with SWOT analyses (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), and detailed descriptions of jobs, roles, and tasks such as bill collection, arbitration, information technology, and so on.

Of course, this really isn’t a start-up company. It’s the federal government, so it will become a health benefits provider in exactly the same way the United States Armed Forces is a security service, the USPS is a private courier, or the FBI is a speed-trap cop.

And this is the incredible mistake of this legislation. The United States is not a competitive player: it becomes a monopoly. Yeah, the theory is pretty simple: the United States becomes an alternative to the big insurance providers. The problem is that by doing so, it squeezes out the competition, who could never muster the resources enough to counter the government muscle. Within a few years, the United States will become the largest health insurance provider in the country, with only a few niche players surviving (and even thriving).

In the next part, the Czar will review pages 101-200, and he will discuss the tax ramifications, why the bill’s proponents think this thing is so awesomely cool, and why they are completely wrong in their logic.