Palin: Listen Now, Or Listen in 2010 - Your Choice.

The LOTUS: The Pelosi Bill Was Rammed Through on Saturday, But Sunday’s Coming

We’ve got to hold on to hope, and we’ve got to fight hard because Congressional action tonight just put America on a path toward an unrecognizable country. The same government leaders that got us into the mortgage business and the car business are now getting us into the healthcare business.

Despite Americans’ decisive message last Tuesday that they reject the troubling path this country has been taking, Speaker Pelosi has broken her own promises of transparency to ram a health “care” bill through the House of Representatives just before midnight.

Why did she push the 2,000 page bill this weekend? Was she perhaps afraid to give her peers and the constituents for whom she works the chance to actually read this monstrous bill carefully, if at all? Was she concerned that Americans might really digest the details of a bill that the Wall Street Journal has called “the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced”?

This out-of-control bureaucratic mess will be disastrous for our economy, our small businesses, and our personal liberty. It will slam businesses at a time when we are at double-digit unemployment rates – the highest we’ve seen in a quarter of a century. This massive new bureaucracy will cost us and our children money we don’t have. It will rob Americans of more of our freedom and further hamper the free market. Make no mistake: we’re on course to have government commandeer one-sixth of our economy. The people who gave us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now want to run our health care. Think about that.

All of us who value the sanctity of life are grateful for the success of the pro-life majority in the House this evening in its battle against federal funding of abortion in this bill, but it’s ironic because we were promised that abortion wasn’t covered in the bill to begin with.

Our healthy distrust of these government leaders made us look deeper into the bill because unfortunately we knew better than to trust what they were saying. The victory tonight to amend the bill and eliminate that federal funding for abortion was great – because abortion is not health care. Now we can only hope that Rep. Stupak’s amendment will hold in the final bill, though the Democratic leadership has already refused to promise that it won’t be scrapped later.

We had been told there were no “death panels” in the bill either. But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care. Look closely at provisions addressing illegal aliens’ health care coverage too.

Those of us who love freedom and believe in open and transparent government can only be dismayed by midnight action on a Saturday. Speaker Pelosi’s promise that Americans would have 72 hours to read the final bill before the vote was just another one of the D.C. establishment’s too-common political ploys. It’s broken promises like this that turn people off to politics and leave them disillusioned about the future of their country.

But despite this late-night maneuvering, many of us were paying close attention tonight. We’ll keep paying close attention. We need to let our legislators in Washington know that they still represent us, and that the majority of Americans are not in favor of the “reform” they are pushing. After all, this is still a country “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

We will make our voices heard. It’s on to the Senate now. Our legislators can listen now, or they can hear us in 2010. It’s their choice.

- Sarah Palin

Puke-Pelosi Care Passes by Five Votes

The LOTUS Takes on the Baucus Bill (and boy is it smokin')

Shhhh! The LOTUS is speaking:

Good Intentions Aren't Enough with Health Care Reform

Now that the Senate Finance Committee has approved its health care bill, it’s a good time to step back and take a look at the long term consequences should its provisions be enacted into law.

The bill prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and from charging sick people higher premiums. [1] It attempts to offset the costs this will impose on insurance companies by requiring everyone to purchase coverage, which in theory would expand the pool of paying policy holders.

However, the maximum fine for those who refuse to purchase health insurance is $750. [2] Even factoring in government subsidies, the cost of purchasing a plan is much more than $750. The result: many people, especially the young and healthy, will simply not buy coverage, choosing to pay the fine instead. They’ll wait until they’re sick to buy health insurance, confident in the knowledge that insurance companies can’t deny them coverage. Such a scenario is a perfect storm for increasing the cost of health care and creating an unsustainable mandate program.

Those driving this plan no doubt have good intentions, but good intentions aren’t enough. There were good intentions behind the drive to increase home ownership for lower-income Americans, but forcing financial institutions to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them had terrible unintended consequences. We all felt those consequences during the financial collapse last year. Unintended consequences always result from top-down big government plans like the current health care proposals, and we can’t afford to ignore that fact again.

Supposedly the Senate Finance bill will be paid for by cutting Medicare by nearly half a trillion dollars and by taxing the so-called “Cadillac” health care plans enjoyed by many union members. The plan will also impose heavy taxes on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, and clinical labs. [3] The result of all of these taxes is clear. As Douglas Holtz-Eakin noted in the Wall Street Journal, these new taxes “will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.” [4] Unfortunately, it will lead to lower wages too, as employees will have to sacrifice a greater percentage of their paychecks to cover these higher premiums. [5] In other words, if the Democrats succeed in overhauling health care, we’ll all bear the costs. The Senate Finance bill is effectively a middle class tax increase, and as Holtz-Eakin points out, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation those making less than $200,000 will be hit hardest. [6]

With our country’s debt and deficits growing at an alarming rate, many of us can’t help but wonder how we can afford a new trillion dollar entitlement program. The president has promised that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.” [7] But his administration also promised that his nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. [8] Last month, our employment rate was 9.8%, the highest it’s been in 26 years. [9] At first the current administration promised that the stimulus would save or create 3 to 4 million jobs. [10] Then they declared that it created 1 million jobs, but the stimulus reports released this week showed that a mere 30,083 jobs have been created, while nearly 3.4 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed. [11] Should we believe the administration’s claims about health care when their promises have proven so unreliable about the stimulus?

In January 2008, presidential candidate Obama promised not to negotiate behind closed doors with health care lobbyists. In fact, he committed to “broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are. Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process. And overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists...” [12] However, last February, after serving only a few weeks in office, President Obama met privately at the White House with health care industry executives and lobbyists. [13] Yesterday, POLITICO reported that aides to President Obama and Democrat Senator Max Baucus met with corporate lobbyists in April to help “set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.” [14] Needless to say, their negotiations were not broadcast on C-SPAN for the American people to see.

Presidential candidate Obama also promised that he would not “sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.” [15] PolitiFact reports that this promise has already been broken three times by the current administration. [16] We can only hope that it won’t be broken again with health care reform.

All of this certainly gives the appearance of politics-as-usual in Washington with no change in sight.

Americans want health care reform because we want affordable health care. We don’t need subsidies or a public option. We don’t need a nationalized health care industry. We need to reduce health care costs. But the Senate Finance plan will dramatically increase those costs, all the while ignoring common sense cost-saving measures like tort reform. Though a Congressional Budget Office report confirmed that reforming medical malpractice and liability laws could save as much as $54 billion over the next ten years, tort reform is nowhere to be found in the Senate Finance bill. [17]

Here’s a novel idea. Instead of working contrary to the free market, let’s embrace the free market. Instead of going to war with certain private sector companies, let’s embrace real private-sector competition and allow consumers to purchase plans across state lines. Instead of taxing the so-called “Cadillac” plans that people get through their employers, let’s give individuals who purchase their own health care the same tax benefits we currently give employer-provided health care recipients. Instead of crippling Medicare, let’s reform it by providing recipients with vouchers so that they can purchase their own coverage.

Now is the time to make your voices heard before it’s too late. If we don’t fight for the market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven reform plan that we deserve, we’ll be left with the disastrous unintended consequences of the plans currently being cooked up in Washington.

- Sarah Palin


[1] See http://tinyurl.com/yjs3mgf
[2] See http://tinyurl.com/yfuw3k3
[3] See http://tinyurl.com/yfxq8ca
[4] See http://tinyurl.com/ykefsk6
[5] See http://tinyurl.com/ygf42fj
[6] See http://tinyurl.com/ykefsk6
[7] See http://tinyurl.com/lkvgsp
[8] See http://tinyurl.com/nx4nh6
[9] See ibid.
[10] See http://tinyurl.com/yhhr56v
[11] See ibid.
[12] See http://tinyurl.com/yhzhkvg and http://tinyurl.com/lhyr9o
[13] See http://tinyurl.com/yksd6h3
[14] See http://tinyurl.com/yl9gg27
[15] See http://tinyurl.com/yknpxd6
[16] See http://tinyurl.com/d2k5hb
[17] See http://tinyurl.com/yf8qmfh

Sick to Death of Death Panels

I don't know about you, but I'm sick to death of death panels. Not just the topic itself, but the continued mischaracterization of Sarah Palin's original statements. One Alaskan hockey mama's opinion of the healthcare bill grew legs of its own and has been a thorn in Obama's side ever since. While I would love to let it fester there and just move on, the topic keeps on rearing its controversial head, and so I must address some of the latest developments.

1. Someone finally interprets Sarah Palin's Facebook statement accurately.

Matthew Continetti wrote an article in the Weekly Standard last Monday called "Technocracy in America" in response to Obama's healthcare address:

The partisan and misleading speech that President Obama delivered to a joint session of Congress last week revealed the president's preferences--more government mandates, regulations, and taxes--when it comes to refashioning the American health care system....Why do more Americans disapprove than approve of the president's approach to health care? Why did Obama's approval rating drop steadily--among independents, precipitously--throughout the summer?

The answer, he said, is "all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months." There is no legitimate basis for opposition. There are only lies. "Americans have grown nervous about reform," the president continued. "Prominent politicians" whose "only agenda is to kill reform at any cost" have spread "bogus claims" about his health care plan, scaring a gullible public into disapproval. For example.....the idea that "we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens" is a "lie"....."If you misrepresent what's in this plan," Obama said, "we will call you out.".....

The president was correct when he said that his proposals do not include "panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens." But that is not quite what the "prominent politician" was saying when she wrote, Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these "unproductive" members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care."

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, someone finally correctly interpreted Sarah Palin's original Facebook statement about the death panels. Matthew goes on,

Indeed, in his speech last week Obama said himself that his plan will "eliminate" the "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" in Medicare and "create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts"--a panel, if you will--"charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead." It is no stretch of the imagination to think that one man's "waste" might one day turn out to be a senior citizen's preferred medical treatment.

Like it or not, Sarah Palin is making an argument about the possible tradeoffs and unintended consequences of Obamacare. Hers is an extrapolation based on an analysis of the facts. It is not a "lie," unless "lie" suddenly means "an argument with which I disagree."

I must point out that Matthew Continetti said there were no death panels in terms of bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies, and then went on to highlight one said panel, but no matter.

I also have to include a conversation on C4P:

Doug Brady: "Are you not familiar with the term "metaphor"? When Winston Churchill talked about the "iron curtain", he didn't mean there was an actual two thousand mile long curtain made of iron. You are aware of that, right?Was Churchill wrong too?"

Uffda: "Okay, one more time....Death panels is a term. Get it? A TERM. She put it in quotation marks, for Pete's sake. Doug's analogy of the Iron Curtain is right on. I can just see the media today: "Who is this loon? He thinks there's a curtain made of iron? Liar!"

Uffda: (My spin on what the AP might have said if Churchill were alive today) "The AP: "Churchill's Iron Curtain remarks which have been widely debunked by members of his own party, for some reason still seem to resonate with many Americans...."

Narciso: "It's an interesting comparison, Churchill had been out of national office, for a year, roughly when he remarked about the Iron Curtain. Most of foreign policy was still organized under the aegis of theUS/Soviet rapprochement. It was probably considered unnecessarily provocative for many, yet he was ultimately right."

Uffda: "Here was the actual reaction to the iron curtain remark: "At first, many countries in the West widely condemned the speech. Much of the Western public still regarded the Soviet Union as close allies, in context of the recent defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan. Many saw Churchill's speech as warmongering and unnecessary. In light of the now public Soviet archives, many historians have now revised their opinions." Notice that many historians have now revised their opinions. Hmmm.... perhaps the past will repeat itself?"

2. The new defense: Palin introduced her own death panels!

Now, I would like to point out that end-of-life decisions are a separate topic and I have no problem with those things being addressed. It's not "end of life counseling" that I have a problem with, it's the idea of it being tied to a big government structure that has to keep down costs and that has philosophies like those of Ezekiel Emanuel. It's the unintended consequences. When it comes to life and death, are we not better off safe than sorry?

Anyway, Axlerod went on Bill O'Reilly after Obama addressed the joint session of Congress and said that Palin herself set up death panels. Palin's response on Facebook:

"Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything. In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public.Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill."

Meg Stapleton, Palin's spokesperson, later commented:

"Palin’s office told KGW that comparing Alaska’s Healthcare Day proclamation with the House end-of-life provision was "hysterically funny" and “desperate.”

“The Healthcare Day proclamation did not evaluate whether your life is worth surgery, a pill, or maybe even death,” a possible result of Portland’s provision, Palin spokesperson Meghan Stapleton told KGW. "Gov. Palin signed a proclamation raising awareness on an issue, asking knowledgeable Alaskans to volunteer their time to help fellow Alaskans with answering any questions they may have on end-of-life issues," she added."

Again, I say the problem is not being informed on living wills and other end of life issues, the problem is having those things attached to a big government bureaucracy that's running low on resources and could be tempted to see people in terms of dollar signs and not their intrinsic value as human beings, kinda like the baby in England that doctors refused to treat simply because he didn't fall into their NHS mandated guidelines of a child worth saving. Do we have problems in our healthcare system? Yes. Mostly in terms of affordability. But not being able to afford care or going into debt to pay for it is not the same as the government telling you point blank you cannot have it. With one you'll most likely get the care anyway, we just have to find a way to pay for it. With the other you won't get it period, whether you can pay for it or not.

3. Out of desperation, some Obama-zombies are trying to make the case that death panels are a good thing.

Hey, if you can't convince people you weren't really trying to kill somebody, convince them that killing the person is the right thing to do.

Again, I say they're missing the point, like in this Newsweek article. It's not about whether or not you want to be resuscitated, it's about putting the government in a position of having too much power to the point where you won't be resuscitated whether you want to be or not. It's not about choosing palliative care, it's about getting to a point where you have to take it whether you want it or not. It's not a debate about end of life issues themselves, it's that those issues should be nowhere near Washington, D.C. Either they're evading the issue, or they really don't understand the problem we have with this aspect of the bill in the first place.