The Future of Health Care?

Dr. Lemuel Calhoon, magister maximus of Hillbilly White Trash, posted this gem at the end of one of his weekly re-postings of Ann Coulter's op-ed genius. I wanted to bring it here because, well, he is exactly right.

Read it for yourself here, or go there and read it.

Lemuel Calhoon:

"The absolute worst thing about socialized medicine in the US is that it will slow the advancement of of medical science in the whole world to a glacial pace.

Right now the vast majority of new medical techniques, drugs and technology are discovered in the United States. This is because America still has a thriving free market health care system. For-profit companies which develop and manufacture drugs and medical equipment are free to pour their profits into research and development to bring new medications and medical equipment to market. All in pursuit of profit.

Because our doctors are not employees of any kind of National Health Service they are not required to see X number of patients per week and to choose only from a government approved list of treatment options (approved more for reasons of cost than effectiveness). Doctors in the US are free to innovate and experiment.

The fact that in America we attempt to keep our elderly people alive as long as possible and give them the best quality of life possible (in addition to proving our moral superiority to other nations) provides a test bed for methods of managing, treating and even curing chronic conditions which are associated with (but by no means exclusive to) aging. You can see that this is far more conducive to creating an upward spiral of medical knowledge than the "give granny morphine until she stops breathing" approach taken by nations with government run health care.

Let me tell you a true story about Mother Calhoon, who is 76. Earlier this year she broke her leg. In 1950 the doctor would have set the bone and put her leg in a cast. The bone would have taken the better part of a year to heal and would have never been the same. During this time her mobility would have been so severely restricted that she would have not been able to live at home alone. So mom would have gone to a nursing home where she would probably have spent the rest of her life. But the doctor's bill for setting the leg and applying the cast would have only been a few hundred dollars.

Today mom was taken to an excellent hospital where a doctor operated on her leg installing a metal rod to support the bone so that it would not break again. She was given a battery of tests which determined that she had mild osteoporosis and was put on medication to treat the condition. After a few days in the hospital she was sent home where a nurse looked in on her three times a week for the next three months. The cast on her leg was designed to allow her to walk and she was encouraged to do so (with the aid of a walker, then a cane). As time went by she was instructed to put more and more weight on the leg until now, less than a year later, she has no cast and no longer needs walker or cane (unless she is going to walk for more than two miles or so, then she brings along the cane). The cost of the entire episode came to around $40,000.00 - which comes to $4500.00 in 1950 dollars.

Assuming that we do not plunge down Barack Obama's rat hole of socialized medicine and freeze the advancement of medical science what can a 76-year-0ld woman with a broken leg expect in 2050?

With the proviso that no one can predict the future with absolute accuracy I would assume based on current trends in medical science that it would go something like this:

The ambulance brings the patient to the emergency room where a doctor scans her leg building a detailed three dimensional picture of the injury, including damage to tissue and blood vessels caused by the broken bone. The doctor then looks over the computer's recommended course of action and signs off on it. The patient is then sent to surgery where the surgeon adds a few refinements to the computer generated plan.

In the operating room the woman is sedated and her leg is immobilized. A robot surgeon will then set the bone and repair any other damage to the leg - while a human doctor and nurse observe ready to step in if required. The leg will then be placed in a rigid cast and the woman will spend the next few days in a hospital room while bone regenerators heal the fracture.

A few days later she leaves the hospital with her leg as strong or stronger than it was before. While it is impossible to estimate the dollar amount of the bill for this treatment I very much doubt that it will be more, in 1950 dollars, than the 2009 bill. But look at how much better the outcome for the patient!

But what if we adopt Obama's plan for government run health care? What will a 76-year-0ld woman with a broken leg face in 2050?

The doctor will set the bone and put her leg in a cast. The bone will take the better part of a year to heal and will never be the same. During this time her mobility will be so severely restricted that she will not be able to live at home alone. So she will have to go to a nursing home where she will probably spend the rest of her life. But the doctor's bill for setting the leg and applying the cast would have only been a few hundred dollars - in 1950 dollars.

This assumes that the hospital's rationing panel (we won't call it the "death panel") doesn't decide that at her age she (who will never again pay income taxes) simply isn't worth the money to treat. Then she will be put in a bed and given morphine until she stops breathing. The bill for that will be under a hundred bucks.

The problem with a government solution to anything is that government is a piss-poor innovator. Let the government decide that something is so important that the private sector cannot be trusted to run it and whatever "it" is becomes frozen in time. It cannot be otherwise when a powerful entrenched bureaucracy has a massive vested interest in keeping things exactly as they are.

Someone suggested this thought experiment. Imagine that some visionary in government had looked at Henry Ford's Model T and realized how important the automobile would be to America's future. Suppose that this visionary had been able to convince the legislature and the president that the development and manufacture of cars was too important to be left to the profit-seeking private sector.

You don't have to imagine what the result would have been. All you need do is look back to East Germany before the Wall fell and remember how an East German could spend his fifteen years on the waiting list dreaming about what he would do when he took possession of his new Trabant.

Some things are too critically important to be taken out of the hands of the private sector. Our health care is one of them."

45% of Doctors Would Consider Quitting

And 65% of doctors oppose ObamaCare according to a poll published today in Investor's Business Daily.

Major findings included:

• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.

It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform."

Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the "association representing the nation's physicians" and what "many still regard as the country's premier lobbying force" — is "lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama's sweeping plan."

The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA's support of Democrats' proposed health care overhaul.

• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

Can anyone say Atlas Shrugged?

The Bizarro World of Babylon D.C.

Only in Washington D.C., where the real world and the ethos of the common people seldom enter, could the spectacle of last night and this morning have taken place. As I contemplate these things, it causes me to muse on that magical, mystical place . . .

We shall call this chimerical city Babylon D.C. Behold its mystery and mayhem!


First, we have King Barack I, whose wardrobe consists of the world's finest oratory. A quick check with the opinions of all the smartest and most beautiful people will squelch any doubts about that. Just ask them. These, in fact, whether one asks them or not, are always at the ready to remind us of that indisputable point. Barack I is the finest orator to have ever ascended the throne of Babylon D.C. To say otherwise, to doubt such hyperbolic orthodoxy, is akin to saying he has no clothes on at all!

Next, we have the Democrats, champions of the people! These brave heroes never miss an opportunity to stand up for fairness, justice, and the little guy, thumbing their considerable noses at special interest groups, big corporations, and evil right-wing Nazis like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Truth is their Gibraltor and they will fashion that Gibraltor on their potter's wheel into whatever form best suits their political ends. We might point out that one cannot be a champion of the people while robbing individuals of their rights and property, but in doing this we prove ourselves to be just the mind-numbed minions of Rush Limbaugh. We should learn to think for ourselves . . . think like Democrats! We must be at one with the beautiful and important people. Watch them as they hail the great leader!

And watch the Republicans follow suit! Those evil neo-cons are always trying to destroy our democracy by standing in the way of the smart and beautiful people. They dare to offer an alternative--themselves as the wiser, safer central planners. They seek to show us a better way. "Let us grow government, yes," say they, "but let us grow it leaner and more efficiently, and in slower increments." We might point out to them that the end result is still the same, a bloated distortion of the founders' intent, but they only respond, "Reagan! Reagan! I was a foot soldier with Reagan!" And so they applaud the great leader as well, and admire his fine clothing.

Behind King Barack I sits Lady Pelosi, Duchess of Ditz. She wanly smiles, fearing to overdo it lest the royal botox injections should be stressed at the overmuch pressure. Above all things, Lady Pelosi desires, nay lusts, to obtain and to wield Barack's scepter, to take his reins and turn him in whatever direction she chooses. It is her agenda he is pushing, or is it vise versa? Who wields the scepter when it is just the two of them behind the scenes?

And for what reason has this regal assemblage been called? Is it a call to war? Is the kingdom at stake? Must some catastrophe be averted? It is all three. This coven has gathered to expose and then cast out that infernal disease, that enemy of the state, corporate greed, along with its sibling, profit, and its progenitor, irresponsibility (that wicked criminal which has ever haunted us under the pseudonym freedom.)

Silence ensues as King Barack pauses to begin his speech. The willing crowd is mesmerized at his electrifying elocution, his dynamic diction, his resounding rhetoric. A thought pops into someone's head . . . this guy is wholly dependent on the telepromptor, what would, what could he do without it? But the thought is quickly squelched and evaporates into the oblivion as kingly rhetoric overcomes it.

"Black is not black," says the King. "It is white."

Everyone cheers.

"There are those who have been saying that black is black. Such in-sophisticants do not deserve our time nor attention. Nevertheless, they have poisoned the minds of many with their mis-information. Their words are false and deleterious. These are just pushing their corporate agenda. They are against reform just for the sake of being against reform. They make up facts. I am not just speaking of rancorous radio hosts or nefarious news programs on cable television. I am speaking even of politicians. In short, they lie." His mind's eye reaches out to the wicked witch of Alaska as he says it. "But I'm here to tell you tonight that black is white, has always been white, and never will be otherwise, not as long as I am king. Moreover, it is free! It will never cost anyone anything!"

"You lie!" hollers a young knave from the gallery.

Everyone stops. The king pauses, stutters, mumbles, then goes on. Botox bubbles appear on the rosy cheeks of Lady Pelosi seated behind the king. But, the moment is lost.

Finally the Liar is finished with his speech. The great assembly of liars and thieves is delighted. We shall work together. We shall overcome. We shall create utopia! But not until that young and foolish villain is brought under the iron fist, forced to bow the knee!

Before anyone can think what to do, old general McCrotchety speaks up and speaks out against such insolence as was brazenly and doltishly displayed by the upstart Congressman. He demands an apology.

And, thus, the young scallywag is brought forward and forced to submit, under the guise of decorum, as truth and integrity are assiduously ignored.

And so all the earls and dukes with their royal knights and ladies attendant leave, lying to each other about what has taken place, how important they all are, how great was their king's oratory, and how much good has been done for the people, while the lone honest man is censured.

Welcome to Babylon, D.C.

"You Lie!"--Obama's Offensive Oration

"South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" after Obama had talked about illegal immigrants." - Fox News article.

Say it ain't so, Joe!

I cannot wait to hear all the fallout from this, especially what Congressman Wilson has to say for himself about it later. I will say this, though. What did you expect, Joe? Of course, he lied. Leftists cannot be truthful about their agenda. If they are they will be rejected.

See here.

And here.

While that was the most interesting thing said at the speech, did anyone notice how deftly Obama tried to position his proposal as centrist, neither right nor left? Yes, he really believes he can get away with that.

And as predicted he simply denied some of the tougher allegations against his plan, no actual refutations necessary.

He did throw a bone to the right by offering to consider some retort reform in the future, but then he outright stated that he planned to take away liberty from millions of Americans by forcing them onto insurance plans that they do not want. Claiming their "irresponsible" behavior costs society too much, Obama cheerfully and unashamedly promised to rob them of liberty and property in the name of the greater good of the collective. Goodbye, liberty. Hello, tyranny.

Obama also noted that he was not the first President to attempt health care reform before adamantly stating that he would be the last. He has drawn a line in the sand. He will have his health care reform bill.

Property Rights: Who Owns You?

In a free society, the answer to the above question should be obvious. The individual is the owner of and is responsible for himself. This is what was believed by the founders of this country and, for those of you who are Christians, this idea of individual responsibility is fundamental to your faith. You are responsible for your actions. You will give an account to God. No one will stand there with you in that day, including government.

Why, then, the question?

I ask the question because, increasingly, Americans are answering it in the same way it is answered in all the other countries of the world. The state owns you. And to an ever increasing degree, that is true.

If this sounds far-fetched to you, or if you would simply like an elaboration, I invite you to read this op-ed piece written by Walter Williams.

Here is an excerpt:

. . . In a free society, the question of who has the right to harm whom, by permitting rap music and smoking, is answered by the property rights question: Who owns the bar? In a socialistic society, such conflicting harms are resolved through government intimidation and coercion.

What about the right to harm oneself, such as the potential harm that can come from not wearing a seatbelt. That, too, is a property rights question. If you own yourself, you have the right to take chances with your own life. Some might argue that if you're not wearing a seatbelt and wind up a vegetable, society has to take care of you; therefore, the fascist threat "click it or ticket." Becoming a burden on society is not a problem of liberty and private property. It's a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of someone else. That being the case, the government, in the name of reducing health care costs, assumes part ownership of you and as such assumes a right to control many aspects of your life. That Americans have joyfully given up self-ownership is both tragic and sad.

Do you think that our founders would have turned over their rights of self-determination when it comes to medicine in exchange for a massive federal program which taxes people unequally in order to dole out mediocre benefits to all while taking freedom of choice away from them? Are we really ready to give up our rights for this mess of pottage?

Ann Coulter Thrashes ObamaCare

I love Ann Coulter. No, really. I absolutely love her. Okay, not in the same way that I love my wife. I just love the way Ann fearlessly, plain-spokenly, and skillfully rips through liberal lies and boldly, unashamedly stands for truth.

She has chosen to take on the liberal lies concerning this health care plan that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are pushing in Congress right now. She cuts through their arguments like Excalibur through Mazola.

Here is Liberal Lies About National Health Care: First in a Series

and

Liberal Lies About National Health Care: Second in a Series (Collect all 10!)

Read them if you dare. Or just keep your head in the sand.

A "River" Reader Goes to a Town Hall Meeting

One of our readers here at The River recently had the opportunity to attend a town hall meeting set up by his local representative to Congress, Sheila Jackson-Lee. He even got to ask a question, along with a follow-up.

Before I get into the story and tell you who it was, I just have to say that I thank the Lord God Almighty of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that this woman is not my congressman (shudder). I am abundantly blessed to have, instead, Jeb Hensarling as a U.S. Rep. and he represents my viewpoint almost perfectly.

But not so blessed is our friend Allen Lewis, the Texas Conservative. Here is the story of his second trip to a town hall meeting and what took place there, including his questions to the distinguished Mrs. Jackson-Lee. (click here)

I'm just glad for our friend Mr. Lewis that Mrs. Jackson-Lee's mobile phone was apparently turned off this time and he was able to have her undivided attention, even if just for a few minutes.

For those of you too lazy to go over to his blog right now, I wanted to bring up a fabulous point that Mr. Lewis made to the congresswoman by quoting him here and then giving him a hearty "amen." Here is Mr. Lewis:

For me, I finally got to ask my question, which I did not get to do at the last meeting. I pointed out to her that Congress is not authorized in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution to operate a health care program. I asked her if she would sponsor an amendment to the Constitution which would reserve this power for the Congress.

Her answer was not really an answer so much as it was a skillful avoidance of the question. She stated that the government does many things which are not specifically allowed in the Constitution, and said that this was being done to “promote the general welfare” and “to form a more perfect union.”

My reply to her was that her interpretation of the general welfare clause essentially allowed for an arbitrary government, which naturally leads to tyranny. I also pointed out to her that from 2001-2009, she and other Democrats were rightfully angry at what they perceived to be arbitrary laws made by the Bush administration, such as the Patriot Act; and the unconstitutional abdication of the responsibility to declare war by the Congress.

She definitely agreed with me that the Patriot Act and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were not Constitutional. Unfortunately I was way over my time, so I didn’t get to make my closing point which was: by her reasoning, if George W. Bush and the Congress said, “The Patriot Act is for the general welfare of the nation,” it immediately becomes Constitutional - no matter what the bill actually says or does.

I think that our friend, Mr. Lewis, thinks on a far deeper level than someone like Mrs. Jackson-Lee ever has. And his logic here is flawless. "Progressive" politicians have been abusing that little clause in the preamble since Theodore Roosevelt.

More Socialized Medicine Horrors Exposed

From the UK Telegraph:

By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor

'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed

One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today. . . .

In the last six years, the Patients Association claims hundreds of thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel' treatment.
The charity has disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff.

The Patients Association said the dossier proves that while the scale of the scandal at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust - where up to 1,200 people died through failings in urgent care - was a one off, there are repeated examples they have uncovered of the same appalling standards throughout the NHS. . . .

To read further about the horrors of socialized medicine, click here.

Government. It's so wonderful. It can do so much for you.

Obamacare and the IRS

From a CBS News Blog, posted by Declan McCullagh

One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as "Obamacare." (Here's our CBS News television coverage.)

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

To read the whole blogpost, click here.

Big Brother is watching.

Dick Morris on 'Death Panels'

I'm on Dick Morris's email list so I get two or three things from him a week. Lately, he has been all over this health care debate and has really done yeoman's work to try to get this abominable legislation defeated. For the record, he and I would not always agree on what the role of government should be in our lives. Neither would I attack the Obama health care reform with the same aruments he does (keep in mind that Morris was the political brains behind the Clinton administration). But he makes some salient points in this op-ed piece published in the New York Post a day or two ago and I thought I would post that piece here. I do not know what the etiquette on re-posting this is, so I went ahead and included a couple of links at the end so you can check out his site, his youtube videos, and his book. I hope that makes it okay. Enjoy.

IT'S ALL A DEATH PANEL: THE TRUTH ABOUT OBAMACARE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on August 17, 2009

Washington is all atwitter about "death panels": President Obama derides the idea that his health-care reform calls for them; the Senate is stripping "end of life" counseling language from its bill -- and last Friday the voice of the liberal establishment, The New York Times, ran a Page One story "rebutting" the rumor that ObamaCare would create such boards to decide when to pull the plug on elderly patients.

But all those protests miss the fundamental truth of the "death panel" charge.

Even without a federal board voting on whom to kill, ObamaCare will ration care extensively, leading to the same result. This follows inevitably from central features of the president's plan.

Specifically, his decisions to (1) pay for reform with vast cuts in the Medicare budget and (2) grant insurance coverage to 50 million new people, vastly boosting demand without increasing the supply of doctors, nurses or other care providers.

Whether or not he admits it even to himself, Obama's talk of cutting "inefficiencies" and reducing costs translates to less care, of lower quality, for the elderly. Every existing national health system finds ways to deny state-of-the-art medications and necessary surgical procedures to countless patients, and ObamaCare has the nascent mechanisms to do the same. With the limited options that Obama's vision would leave them, many will find that "end of life counseling" necessary and even welcome.

"Reform" would cut care to the elderly in several ways:

* Slash hundreds of billions from Medicare spending, largely by lowering reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals for patient care.

If a hospital gets less money for each MRI, it will do fewer of them. If a surgeon gets paid less for a heart bypass on a Medicare patient, he'll perform them more rarely. These facts of the marketplace are not only inevitable consequences of Obama's cuts but are also its intended consequence. Without them, his savings will prove illusory.

* Expanding the patient load by extending full coverage to 50 million Americans (including such "Americans" as illegal immigrants) without boosting the supply of care will force rationing decisions on harried and overworked doctors and hospitals.

People with insurance use a lot more health-care resources -- so today's facilities and personnel will have to cope with the increased workload. Busy surgeons will have to decide who would benefit most from their treatment -- de facto rationing. The elderly will, inevitably, be the losers.

* The Federal Health Board, established by this legislation, will be charged with collecting data on various forms of treatment for different conditions to assess which are the most effective and efficient. While the bills don't force providers to obey the board's "guidance," its recommendations will still wind up setting the standards and protocols for care systemwide.

We've already seen Medicare and Medicaid lead a similar race to the bottom with their formularies and other regulations. With Washington dictating what every policy must cover and regulating all rates, insurers and providers will all have to follow the FHB's advice on limiting care to the elderly -- a de facto rationing system.

* In assessing whether to allow certain treatments to a given patient, medical professionals will be encouraged to apply the Quality-Adjusted Remaining Years system. Under QARY, decision-makers seek to "amortize" the cost of treatment over the remaining "quality years of life" likely for that patient.

Imagine a hip replacement costing $100,000 and the 75-year-old who needs it, a diabetic with a heart condition deemed to have just three "quality" years left. That works out to $33,333 a year -- too steep! Surgery disallowed! (Unless of course, the patient has political connections . . . )

Younger, healthier patients would still get the surgery, of course. The QARY system simply aims to deny health care to the oldest and most infirm, "scientifically" condemning them to infirmity, pain and earlier death than would otherwise be their fate.

In short, ObamaCare doesn't need to set up "death panels" to make retail decisions about ending the lives of individual patients. The whole "reform" scheme is one giant death panel in its own right.

Order a copy of CATASTROPHE - Go Here Now!

View Dick's videos on YouTube, Go Here Now!

ShamNow

Found this over at the B.S.Report.

Paglia Agrees With The River

Camille Paglia, columnist, uber-liberal, and Obama aficionado, agrees with me and this blog concerning Nancy Pelosi . . . and . . . the town-hall protesters.

She writes in Salon:

But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises--or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a health care plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities. . . .

In fact, Paglia speaks a lot of truth in her column and I recommend you go there and read all of it. The admissions will be shocking coming from a liberal, but that's Paglia.

Wow. A Lefty who is honest about the Left. Somebody pinch me.

Click here for entire column.

Death Panels?

From the Politico: (click here for the entire article)

Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin defended her claim that the Democratic health care proposal would create “death panels” in a statement Wednesday night slamming President Barack Obama.

“Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that 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,” Palin wrote in a note on her Facebook page.

“The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled ‘Advance Care Planning Consultation.’ With all due respect, it’s misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients,” she continued.

“Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often ‘if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program.’"

The White House and Democratic lawmakers have blasted Palin in recent days for suggesting that her own son, Trig, would have had to face a bureaucratic panel to get access to health care under the provision in the House health care proposal because he was born with Down syndrome.

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil,” Palin wrote last week.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs identified Palin on Wednesday as one of the GOP leaders he says is spreading “wrong” information about the health care debate.

Palin has come under a lot of fire for her rhetoric, posted last week on her facebook page, concerning ObamaCare. This fire has come both from the Left and some on the Right for whom Sarah continues to be an embarrassment. On the Right, the criticism has been that this sort of hyperbole, referring to the end-of-life counseling sessions mandated under the House health care reform bill as "death panels", is a type of hyperbole that is unproductive and makes conservatives look shrill.

Now watch this video clip that ABCNews.com ran on its webpage as "Obama Debunks Health Bill's 'Death Panel' Rule".



So who are you going to believe, Palin or Obama?

Well, . . . then there's this neat little piece from a week or so ago in Oregon where they have state-run health care. You know, the good old government option.

From an article at ABCNews.com . . .

The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.

The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

"It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

Notice how ABC spins this horrible act as something done by an "insurance company." Sort of implies that this is some private, evil, corporation. Not so fast. A closer look reveals what ABC simply will not state explicitly, that this is a government insurance company--the Oregon Health Plan. This is ObamaCare at the state level.

So, are we going to believe Obama . . . or observation?

I think Palin is right.

John Dingell Plays the Race Card

Yes, American subjects, this is what the American nobility thinks of you.

They're not listening.

Hillary Slams Pelosi

As you may have heard, several big-name Democrats have verbalized, recently, the opinion that those American citizens who show up at Town Hall Meetings to question their legislators or vocalize their dissent about the current helath care proposal being considered by Congress are un-American. The most recent example of this was Nancy Pelosi over the weekend.

From FoxNews.com

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned the health care debate up a notch Monday, penning a column along with her top deputy that questioned the patriotism of those disrupting town hall meetings to air their complaints.

Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer claimed such behavior is 'simply un-American.'"

Again, to read the entire newspiece click here.

Interesting.

Even more interesting was Hillary Clinton's purported response to that accusation.



(smile)

AARP Town Meeting Erupts

Check out this video. It speaks for itself. Comments are welcome.

Health Care Misinformation

The White House is concerned about misinformation being spread by bad people concerning the health care reform being touted by Generalissimo Obama. So concerned are they that they have generated an email account so that the populace can report the spread of misinformation to Mr. Obama himself.

Click on this sentence to get it straight from the horse's mouth.

Don't want to go there? Here's one of the pertinent quotations:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

For the record, that "misinformation is coming from people who actually have read the bill that is being considered by the House of Representatives right now. It is the House bill which would specifically enable the government to go straight into an individual's bank account to collect funds for services rendered. It is the House bill which recommends regular end-of-life counseling between a patient and the government doctor, a practice which could easily, easily be abused as recent news items have established.

(I plan to blog something about that this evening.)

Also, in that post on the White House blog, the White House again repreats the lie that . . .

"For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them."

That is a lie and anyone with any sense knows it. While it is true that there is nothing directly in the bill to take anyone's private insurance away from them, it is also true that as soon as employers have the ability to reduce their insurance costs by dumping their employees onto the government option, many of them will do so. Nothing in the bill protects consumers from this, therefore the statement is a lie, intended to deceive.

But, that's beside the point of this post.

Just think about what the White House has done here, especially in the light of my last two posts. Are we really to spy on our neighbors, turn in our friends, point the finger at people who have differing political opinions from the current administration? Are we to turn them in to the government?

Perhaps someone might object that this is not the intent, rather that the intent is for the White House to gather arguments and misinformation opposing the plan so that they may effectively defeat those arguments and misinformation?

Do you really believe that given these guys' record?

And, if so, why would they do it this way? Don't they know they are pouring blood into the water?

The Tea Parties

All over the country there is a simmering anger at what is going on in Washington. I've been alive for forty years, and in my short lifetime I have never seen average working Americans this stirred up and angry. I see it first-hand every day here in east Texas and I hear it in the media, both main-stream (Left) and alternative (Right). The tea parties are a prime example. While there have been some Republican leaders who have tried to make hay by appearing at these tea parties (our esteemed Texas Governor Rick Perry would be an example) I know first-hand that these events are not organized by the Republican Party. In fact, many if not most of the people attending these are as angry at the Republicans as they are at the Democrats. At the heart of the matter is a feeling of disenfranchisement and a growing fear of our liberties being taken away.

After one of the local tea party events got a huge attendance I was talking to my boss about the event the following day. My boss is a liberal and he began spewing the leftist talking points about the rally. He said, "I don't understand what these people are angry about, Bush is the one who drove up these deficits in the first place."

That was true as far as it went. But I informed him that these people were as angry at Bush as they were at Obama. Bush started it, Obama has escalated it. It is a mistake to think that these tea parties are a Republican-driven vehicle. In fact, if you go to the Texas tea party web-site you will find that the only political party they are promoting is something called the Constitutional Party. If this is a Republican opposition effort, then they are not doing a good job of promoting themselves. (But when was the last time a Republican really did a good job of anything politically anyway?)

The next claim my boss tried to make was that these were a bunch of racists. That's typical leftist. When in doubt, pull out the race card. When I asked him for evidence of this, he pointed out that someone had brought in a placard claiming Obama was a Muslim.

Yep, that's it. Talk about a leap in logic. I told him that all this placard proved was that the guy was a nut-job and that events like that always attracted a few nut-jobs. You can't judge a crowd by one or two members. I also pointed out his non sequitur. This caused him to mumble back something about he knows people from the South (he's originally from up north) and he just knew that it was racially motivated.

Again, this is what the Left does. Stand against them and they demonize you. It's not possible that average, working, freedom-loving citizens would get upset about encroaching socialism and attempt to do something--within the parameters of the law--about it. No, there must be some high-level Republican operatives behind it. It is to laugh.

"Enough of the Mob"

Check out this ad put out by the DNC today.



Nice, isn't it?

Here are American citizens exercising their first amendment rights . . .

1st Amendment: 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.

. . . in a peaceful manner, no doubt under the assumption that this is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, and the Democrat National Committee chooses to malign them by portraying them as an angry "mob." These, according to the DNC, are "extremists" who, judging by the photos, are full of hatred and malice. Obviously they are not grass-roots and genuine, rather they are being organized by those ee-vil Republicans who have no ideas at all.

This is classic leftist demagoguery--demonize the opposition.

The favorite debate technique of the Left in this country is the one known as ad hominem. In fact, it is the only one they know, but they use it recklessly and with impunity. Sadly, their constituency has proven itself consistently dull enough to make its use of inestimable value.

Pelosi and Carpet Bombing Washington

Nancy Pelosi, as quoted on ABCNews's The Note:

“I think it’s very clear that we want a strong public option in the legislation. Insurance companies are out there in full force carpet bombing, shock and awe, against a public option,” Pelosi said.

It would be easy just to laugh at this fool were she not the third most powerful politician in Washington. But, sadly, she is, and that's not a good reflection on us at all. I could tell you what I really think of this woman, but my mother may read this and she would not be proud of me for my honest criticism, I can tell you. So I will leave it at that.

As for her stupid ad hominem attempt at deflection and classic leftist creation of a big corporation bogeyman (how original . . . rolls eyes), let me just say that . . . would that it were so, Nancy, babe. Would that it were so.

[Disclaimer for anyone at the Department of Homeland Security who may be reading this: The River does not promote violence of any kind against anyone. Far from inciting violence, we wholeheartedly preach civil disobedience in manners of conscience. God bless you and have a nice day.]