If He Keeps Repeating The Same Lie....

...maybe you'll believe it's the truth. That's clearly Obama's plan. That's clearly Pelosi's plan. The President has spent a lot of effort with his multiple roadshows in an attempt to convince you that "nobody's talking about a big government takeover of health care". He's practically shrill with his repetition. The question is: Are you foolish enough to believe them? Let me take you back to the government and our speed limit. Back in the 70s, when oil skyrocketed and a number of other pet liberal issues came to the forefront, the federal government decided to force you to conform to what the elitists believed was proper behavior. In what way, you ask? The 55mph speed limit. But, you see, they couldn't actually tell states what to set their speed limits at. But here's what they did...they told the states that if they didn't drop their speed limits to 55 they would no longer be eligible for federal dollars for highway projects. The rest is history.

Fast forward to 2009. Most of the liberal Democrats have gotten bold enough to come right out (e.g., Barny Frank--the co-architect of our economic mess) and say they really want a Canadian-style, single-payer system. This means the feds would be the only way health care could get paid for and they would both determine what providers could charge and what services you would receive based on a kind of "return on investment" scheme. Here's how their 1000-page-but-nobody-has-read-it bill makes that happen. You create a Medicare-like pricing structure. You get creative in your funding by doing things like tax the private health insurance benefits of the same public you're now saying MUST have some sort of insurance. You tax behaviors you don't like. You add another tax on top of the regular income taxes your bilking the "rich" for. Then you low-ball the costs of your shiny new public health care insurance. Oh, did I mention that you fine employers and employees to choose not to have insurance? The result? Private insurance companies will be unable to compete, employers and employees won't be able to afford both a higher-costing private plan AND taxes levied on those same benefits to pay for the public "option" (yeah, right, option). How long do you suppose before people decide it's more trouble--and costly--than it's worth to hold onto private insurance and jump on the public gravy train? My guess is about five years. Private health insurance companies will fold, one by one, leading to more unemployment and government will never give up the power it has gained.

Now, once the government has you, do you actually believe that they will succeed in "keeping the cost down"? I mean, really? Has the federal government, in any program, ever kept the costs down? Nope. So, in order to keep this behemoth "free" health care system going they will have only two choices: increase taxes or reduce services. History being a great teacher, I'm confident they'll raise taxes first. Ah, but there's more to it than that. They will have an opportunity to do two things at the same time. They can justify reducing services by telling you what behaviors are acceptable and which are not. If they have studies that indicate that drinking sodas or eating red meat or smoking more often than not bring on certain physical conditions for which they would have to provide health services, then they may choose to deny you those services if you continue said behaviors. Remember the 55mph speed limit? They wanted to "make you a safer driver" and "make you conserve energy". So they found a way to get to their end game. It will be no different with health care.

What about the "return on investment" idea I mentioned? If they don't have enough money to pay for x number of open heart surgeries, they'll look at the "useful life" of the candidate. If it's between you, at age 70, and another person, age 45, who do you think will have a better ROI? Think I'm imagine this? Have you checked out Obama's Health Policy Advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel? Here's an excerpt from one of his articles:
"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."
Scary, huh?

Call your Congressional representatives and stop this evil!