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!

The Bush Administration

My dear readers (all four of you), if you come to this blog with the idea that I am an apologist for the Bush administration, or think that perhaps because I lambast Democrats in Congress and in the White House that means I approve of everything Bush did, then you are mistaken.

George W. Bush, like his father, was not a conservative.

Should I repeat that? I wish I did not have to, but I probably should because some people cannot seem to get an "us vs. them" mentality out of their heads. They read everything through that template.

George W. Bush, like his father, was not a conservative. Neither did I approve of everything he and his administration did.

One thing I appreciate about Bush is that he worked tirelessly after 9/11 to keep us safe and was successful in doing so. Thank-you, Mr. President, for that.

But, please. If your only response to a criticism of the Obama administration is to point out a foible of the last administration, or if you think that by pointing out some inconsistency in Bush you point out an inconsistency in my conservative/libertarian viewpoint, then you are, well, mistaken.

Maybe I should post something about how I'm no longer a Republican because they no longer represent my values--so that I can better get my point across. Wait. I already did that. Or maybe I should post something about how the Republicans will need to do more than just talk conservatively to win me back, like I did this very morning, and then you might get it.

Probably not.

So, while a response like, "Well, Bush did blah, blah, blah . . ." might impress your liberal friends, it really isn't an adequate response to any criticism of this administration, is it?

The People's Cube

While surfing around the web this morning I ran across this gem of a blog. The People's Cube. I'm adding it to the sidebar. They are creative and funny and their wit hits home. These are some examples of what they did in a recent response to the White House solicitation of email addresses of those who were "spreading fishy misinformation" about Obama Care.







They even set up a website where they have a few items along this theme that you can purchase. Don't you just love the instincts of a good capitalist?

The People's Cube Store