The Alaskans who know her love Sarah Palin. What is there not to like?
She's been a superb leader in a state mostly known for partisanship and rampant corruption. She talks the talk, and she walks the walk. I've said that people who don't like Sarah Palin (people like Letterman, Begala, Axelrod, and most Democrats) really don't like America. They don't like the kind of opportunity that's available to someone from modest origins. They don't like the fact she's a model wife and mother, mostly because they don't really believe women should be wives and mothers, apparently. They don't like her espousal of liberty, tolerance, and opportunity, because they believe in an America run by academic ideologues, like Dr. Zeke Emanuel. They don't like the fact that her son is in military, whereas their sons and daughters aren't. They hate the fact that she's an excellent athlete in a family of athletes. She's physically beautify, while they aren't. She makes them feel inferior, which they are.
Again, people who despise Sarah also despise America. It's that simple.
Showing posts with label Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Palin Hammers Obama's DeathCare
See the USNews report on Palin's victory on "death panel": http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/8/13/score-one-for-sarah-palin-on-the-healthcare-reform-death-panels.html
Troubling Questions Remain About Obama's Health Care Plan
By Sarah Palin (on Facebook)
I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200).
It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.
As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care
inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing.
I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1]
Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the
“Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2]
How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.
The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise.
Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back
in 2003: “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan.... A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3]
A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. [4]
The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs.
Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill.
Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care.
Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary.”
In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote:
“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” [5]
I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” [6] 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.
There is one aspect of this bill which I have not addressed yet, but it’s a very obvious one. It’s the simple fact that we can’t afford it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He told the Senate Budget Committee last month:
“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” [7]
Dr. Elmendorf went on to note that this health care legislation would increase spending at an unsustainable rate.
Our nation is already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course. And will a burdensome new tax help our economy recover? Of course not. The best way to encourage more health care coverage is to foster a strong economy where people can afford to purchase their own coverage if they choose to do so. The current
administration’s economic policies have done nothing to help in this regard.
Health care is without a doubt a complex and contentious issue, but health care reform should be a market oriented solution. There are many ways we can reform the system and lower costs without nationalizing it.
The economist Arthur Laffer has taken the lead in pushing for a patient-center health care reform policy. He noted in a Wall Street Journal article earlier this month:
“A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated
benefits insurers are required to cover.
"It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.” [8]
Those are real reforms that we can live with and afford. Once again, I warn my fellow Americans that if we go down the path of nationalized health care, there will be no turning back. We must stop and think or we may find ourselves losing even more of our freedoms.
- Sarah Palin
[1] See
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
[2] See
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/white-house-adviser-backs-off-rationing/
[3]See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hsqzSKuC44
[4] See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjkwNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiOTc=
[5] See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html
[6] See http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6
[7] See
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html
[8] See
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324361508092006.html
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/note.php?note_id=116979483434&ref=nf
Troubling Questions Remain About Obama's Health Care Plan
By Sarah Palin (on Facebook)
I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200).
It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.
As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care
inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing.
I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1]
Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the
“Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2]
How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.
The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise.
Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back
in 2003: “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan.... A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3]
A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. [4]
The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs.
Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill.
Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care.
Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary.”
In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote:
“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” [5]
I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” [6] 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.
There is one aspect of this bill which I have not addressed yet, but it’s a very obvious one. It’s the simple fact that we can’t afford it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He told the Senate Budget Committee last month:
“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” [7]
Dr. Elmendorf went on to note that this health care legislation would increase spending at an unsustainable rate.
Our nation is already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course. And will a burdensome new tax help our economy recover? Of course not. The best way to encourage more health care coverage is to foster a strong economy where people can afford to purchase their own coverage if they choose to do so. The current
administration’s economic policies have done nothing to help in this regard.
Health care is without a doubt a complex and contentious issue, but health care reform should be a market oriented solution. There are many ways we can reform the system and lower costs without nationalizing it.
The economist Arthur Laffer has taken the lead in pushing for a patient-center health care reform policy. He noted in a Wall Street Journal article earlier this month:
“A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated
benefits insurers are required to cover.
"It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.” [8]
Those are real reforms that we can live with and afford. Once again, I warn my fellow Americans that if we go down the path of nationalized health care, there will be no turning back. We must stop and think or we may find ourselves losing even more of our freedoms.
- Sarah Palin
[1] See
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
[2] See
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/white-house-adviser-backs-off-rationing/
[3]See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hsqzSKuC44
[4] See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjkwNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiOTc=
[5] See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html
[6] See http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6
[7] See
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html
[8] See
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324361508092006.html
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/note.php?note_id=116979483434&ref=nf
Monday, August 10, 2009
Palin Versus Obama on Healthcare
Gov. Sarah Palin in her recent Facebook column (scroll down to see) has become the most effective critic of Barack Obama bizarre health care proposals. As the most likely GOP nominee for president in 2012, Palin is assuming a leading role in opposing Obama's efforts to turn our country into the political, social, and economic equivalent of a landfill.
As regards children with autism, their major protector within the political world is Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. She looks at them as American citizens with special needs who deserve special protection. Obama looks at them as non-voters and thus not one of the groups that he wishes to favor. Obama's bad taste joke on Letterman about the Special Olympics illustrates where he stands on special needs kids and adults, whom he apparently regards as a burden to society.
Obama's "death panel," condemned by Gov. Palin, will appear as the government takes over health care almost completely. It will set "guidelines" that will separate Obama's favorite groups, such as the more militant unions, from his least favorite groups, including those with autism and Down Syndrome.
Does this sound overly cynical? In fact, it is just a statement of the way Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel operate. Oh yes, there may be a bone tossed in the direction of the disabled, but they don't need bones. Rather, they need good health care, including physiotherapy and psychological assistance. That's precisely what they won't get.
On death panels, I urge people to read (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) about Obama's "health" advisers, including Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Jacob Blumenthal, as well as Princeton Professor Peter Singer, an important outside influence. Emanuel is a death-worshipper. Blumenthal thinks rigid government controls are a good way to "control costs." Singer believes that people with severe disabilities have no real right to life.
What about Obama's "advisers" on the other side? Sadly, there are none.
If there are humane, intellectually sound ways to reduce costs -- and there are, with such things as medical liability reform -- they are NOT included in the Obama Plan. Civil liability reform would offend the ambulance chasers (John Edwards is the most famous one) who contributed tens of millions of dollars to Obama's campaign. Such tort reform would save as much as a trillion dollars over the next 5-6 years, but it will never happen as long as Obama/Pelosi/Reid are in power.
My wife and I save for ourselves (and the nation) approximately $1300 a year by ordering prescriptions in bulk. Why doesn't the Obama Administration encourage such savings nationwide? Because it would anger the executives of pharmaceutical retailers who have embraced the Obama Plan in order not to be punished by the Administration.
We all like to engage in philosophical debates about health reform. However, if we want to know what's really going on, we need to remember an old line from Watergate: "Follow the money." Obama knows that politics and power have everything to do with money.
This gets us back to autistic and Down Syndrome children. Their contributions to the Obama Campaign (one that's endless) adds up to . . . zero. Therefore, they will get nothing from the man who is pretending to be "our president."
Obama's "death panel," condemned by Gov. Palin, will appear as the government takes over health care almost completely. It will set "guidelines" that will separate Obama's favorite groups, such as the more militant unions, from his least favorite groups, including those with autism and Down Syndrome.
Does this sound overly cynical? In fact, it is just a statement of the way Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel operate. Oh yes, there may be a bone tossed in the direction of the disabled, but they don't need bones. Rather, they need good health care, including physiotherapy and psychological assistance. That's precisely what they won't get.
On death panels, I urge people to read (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) about Obama's "health" advisers, including Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Jacob Blumenthal, as well as Princeton Professor Peter Singer, an important outside influence. Emanuel is a death-worshipper. Blumenthal thinks rigid government controls are a good way to "control costs." Singer believes that people with severe disabilities have no real right to life.
What about Obama's "advisers" on the other side? Sadly, there are none.
If there are humane, intellectually sound ways to reduce costs -- and there are, with such things as medical liability reform -- they are NOT included in the Obama Plan. Civil liability reform would offend the ambulance chasers (John Edwards is the most famous one) who contributed tens of millions of dollars to Obama's campaign. Such tort reform would save as much as a trillion dollars over the next 5-6 years, but it will never happen as long as Obama/Pelosi/Reid are in power.
My wife and I save for ourselves (and the nation) approximately $1300 a year by ordering prescriptions in bulk. Why doesn't the Obama Administration encourage such savings nationwide? Because it would anger the executives of pharmaceutical retailers who have embraced the Obama Plan in order not to be punished by the Administration.
We all like to engage in philosophical debates about health reform. However, if we want to know what's really going on, we need to remember an old line from Watergate: "Follow the money." Obama knows that politics and power have everything to do with money.
This gets us back to autistic and Down Syndrome children. Their contributions to the Obama Campaign (one that's endless) adds up to . . . zero. Therefore, they will get nothing from the man who is pretending to be "our president."
Friday, August 7, 2009
Palin Hammers Obama's "Death Care"
Sarah Palin in Facebook announced her horror at Obama's plan for a government takeover of health care. She predicts it will lead to rationing and the denial of care to the elderly and special needs children. She's right.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost.
And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. 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.
Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.
Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.
We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back.
Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.
- Sarah Palin
Rep. Bachmann's speech can be viewed here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CHBvKGmevI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
