The True Cost Of Obamacare Is Over $2 Trillion

The Weekly Standard took a look at what the real cost of obamacare is. After they stripped away all the Voodoo math that was given to the CBO they found out that things aren't what the Democrats are telling us. Big suprise politicians that don't give the whole truth.

From The Weekly Standard: […] For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs.  First, it includes 2010 as the initial year.  As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time.  Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House health bill in the middle of 2009.  But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare.  If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.

But even that wouldn’t come close to reflecting the bill’s true costs.  The CBO projects that over the next four years, less than two percent of the bill’s alleged “ten year” costs would hit:  just $17 billion of the $940 billion in costs that the Democrats are claiming.  In fact, the costs through President Obama’s entire presidency, should he be reelected, would be $336 billion.  What would the president leave behind for his successor?  According to the CBO, he would leave behind costs of $837 billion during his successor’s first term alone.  If his successor were to serve a second term, he or she would inherit a cool $2.0 trillion in Obamacare costs — about six times its costs during Obama’s own tenure.  This legislation is a ticking time-bomb.[…]

We are seeing the fruition of Chicago style politics and we will be the ones that get cought holding the obamacare bag when this thing goes south. This weekend you need to find a rally against this health care bill and let the government know what we expect of them as our servants. If this bill passes then good luck when you get ill. You'll need it. Read the whole Weekly Standard article it will amaze you what the Democrats are trying to push through.

The Money The Democrats Are Playing With Is Our Money Not Theirs

 Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has issued a stern warning to the would be theives. The Democrats are treating our money as theirs to do with it as they want without recorse. It's about time the Republicans stood up for we the people. America is watching the Democrats and we don't like what we have been seeing. Democrats are not above the law and it is high time the Republicans started playing hardball with the loose Democratic Party.

When Is It OK To Take Anothers Property?

We are at a cultural crossroads in America. The culture in Washington is one that goes against my Christian beliefs. But it also goes against Jewish and Islamic beliefs as well. But since I'm a Christian I will give that perspective. Charity is mentioned in the Holy Bible many times. Charity is the FREE WILL giving of your own property and giving it to another less fortunate person. "Social justice" and "Spread the wealth" are not free will giving. This is what God says about taking another persons property.
Seventh Commandment

	Thou shalt not steal.
	What does this mean? We should fear and love God that we may not take our neighbor’s money or goods, nor get them by false ware or dealing, but help him to improve and protect his property and business.

	Seventh Commandment
	Thou shalt not steal.
	What does this mean? We should fear and love God that we may not take our neighbor’s money or goods, nor get them by false ware or dealing, but help him to improve and protect his property and business.

Now for decades I've been hearing about abortion right and that no one has the right to tell a women what to do with her body or with what is in her body. The left have been sqaying that as long as the baby is inside the mother then she can do with that baby what she wants to. She can smoke,drink,do drugs. She can even kill the baby inside her in the most torturous ways imaginable because it is in her body.  Where are they now that the government wants to take over her bodily rights? Any rights given to you by God are yours to do what you will with them. But now that the government sees fit to make your health care a right then they can give it and take it away. The left have now changed their beliefs on our bodies and our property. Will you let them do this to you? The government doesn't have anything that hasn't been taken form someone else. The government doesn't give you health care. It takes it and gives it out as it sees fit.
Fifth Commandment

Thou shalt not kill.
	What does this mean? We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need.

	Thou shalt not kill.
	What does this mean? We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need.

The "change" that I see Obama doing to our country is it is OK to take from the rich and give to the poor. Even though by definition alone it is considered stealing the federal government is above those laws of God and man. And the left want the right to take my money and give it to a woman to pay to kill her child. Where are my religious rights? Why do I have to pay to do something that is against my beliefs.                                                                                                                                                    We are "one nation under God" and "in God we trust". The left have made it their mission in life to remove God from our country.  Our founding fathers put God in His rightful place in our nation. He is the cornerstone of our nation through the Bill of Rights and the USA Constitution. Seperation of Church and State is meant to keep the government out of the Church but they surely didn't want to remove the Church/God from influence in State affairs.                                                                                                                                                   How does taking God out of the State effect our nation? Well we have our God given right. If they succeed in taking God out of our country then there is no "God given rights". Well then without having any God given rights then where would we get our rights from? That would be were the Progressives come in to "fundamentaly change" our nation. Progressives want power,even Gods power. Everything the Progressives do is to take from the people and redistribute what they get as they see fit. Conservatives do not want power. They want power to be given back to the people. That is why conservatives keep going back to the Constitution. The Constitution is the enemy of the Progressive agenda,as well as God. We conservatives need to start waking America up to the true agenda of the Progressive agenda. They aren't trying anything new. If you want to know how the Progressives agenda works then look at most of the past and other nations. Most countries have tried Progressivism in one form of another and it has never ever worked. What form of governemnt has worked and worked better then any other form of government in the history of mankind? It's not a Democracy,socialism,marxism,communism,facism. The only form of government that has proven itself to be the most superiour form of government known to any nation is a Democratic Republic that is under God. We are the only nation that has ever been as great as America. And just because John Lennon sang a song that Imagined a Progressive world without war,religion and hate doesn't mean it can be obtained by anyone other then God. This is an imperfect world and country but it's the best we have until God calles us home. God Bless America. And if you think He hasn't blessed us as a nation then find me a more blessed nation then America.

Where Will All The Doctors Go?

The way the Democrats want to fix health care is to give free health care for 30 million people while taking it away from the rest of us that pay for it. Good luck seeing a doctor when you need it. If your kid has an asthma attack they might die before they can see a doctor under the Democrats Obamacare. But they don't care about the people that had insurance but now they can't find a doctor. This is the cold hard truth about what the doctors will do if Obamacare passes.

A new survey published by The New England Journal of Medicine, a prestigious magazine, says that nearly half of primary care doctors in America could leave the medical profession if Obamacare is passed.

According to the Journal, 63 percent of physicians feel that health care reform is needed but should be done in a more gradual way. And an astounding 72 percent of doctors believe a public option, that is a government-run health insurance company, would have a negative impact on medical care in the USA.

From the jump, "Talking Points" has been telling you about the unintended consequences of Obamacare. But if half the nation's doctors are considering getting out, that's by far the most frightening offshoot of health care reform.

If Obamacare passes, there could be about 30 million more Americans seeking medical care from the establishment. Dick Morris says even if every doctor stays in place, the result would be health care rationing. But if doctors begin leaving the profession, well, you do the math.

The question is: Why? Why are so many doctors queasy about Obamacare? There are essentially two reasons.

First, loss of control. Most doctors value their freedom to make decisions when it comes to their patients. They don't want some pinhead in Washington telling them how to treat a person.

Second, many doctors believe Obamacare will cut payments, especially in the Medicare area. With the high cost of medical malpractice insurance and other expenses, many doctors say hey, it's just not worth it.

If the Democratic Party is concerned about an exodus of American doctors from the field, we haven't heard it. We haven't heard President Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid say anything about this.

But I believe the study in The New England Journal of Medicine because I've talked to enough doctors myself to know there's no great enthusiasm for Obamacare in the medical community, even here in liberal New York City.

The massive Obamacare plan is already out of control and it hasn't even been passed yet.

And that's "The Memo."

Physician Survey: Health Reforms Potential Impact on Physician Supply and Quality of Medical Care
Mar. – Apr. 2010
Key Findings

Physician Support of Health Reform in General
• 62.7% of physicians feel that health reform is needed but should be implemented in a more targeted, gradual way, as opposed to the sweeping overhaul that is in legislation.
• 28.7% of physicians are in favor of a public option.
• 3.6% of physicians prefer the “status quo” and feel that the U.S. health care system is best “as is.

Health Reform and Primary Care Physicians
• 46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.

Health Reform, Public Option, and Practice Revenue/Physician Income
• 41% of physicians feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically” with a public option.
• 30% feel income will “decline or worsen somewhat” with a public option.
• 9% feel income will “improve somewhat” with a public option, and 0.8% feel income will “improve dramatically” with a public option.

Health Reform, Public Option, and Physician Supply
• 72% of physicians feel that a public option would have a negative impact on physician supply, with 45% feeling it will “decline or worsen dramatically” and 27% predicting it will “decline or worsen somewhat.
• 24% of physicians think they will try to retire early if a public option is implemented.
• 21% of physicians would try to leave medicine if a public option is implemented, even if not near retirement age at the time.

Health Reform and Recommending Medicine to Others as a Career
• 36% of physicians would not recommend medicine as a career, regardless of health reform.
• 27% would recommend medicine as a career but not if health reform passes.
• 25% of physicians would recommend medicine as a career regardless of health reform.
• 12% would not recommend medicine as a career now but feel that they would recommend it as a career if health reform passes

Source:“Physician Survey: Health Reform’s Impact on Physician Supply and Quality of Medical Care,”
The Medicus Firm, www.TheMedicusFirm.com

RUSH: Folks, you know, I very seldom -- as you well know for 21 years -- encourage phone calls and e-mails and letters to members of Congress.  The reason that I don't do it is that I never want the charge to be leveled that whatever response you gave was not genuine, that you had been talked into it or motivated and inspired or manipulated into doing it.  I think it is pedal-to-the-metal time, and even if you have been e-mailing and faxing and calling, I think it's time to intensify it.  You call the local offices. You call the Washington office of these people, the Democrats and so forth.  The Republicans are like Martians: They can't stop this.  The Martians couldn't stop it, the Republicans can't stop it. Not with votes. They don't have the votes to stop it, but you can.  The only reason we are where we are now is because of you, the American people.  That's the truth of the matter.  I normally don't do this, but time to throw down the gauntlet here and really ratchet it up, to go along with all the other pressure that is being brought to bear elsewhere throughout the rest of the media…. 

… The lines are busy. Some people are getting through and some people aren't, but what you can also do is Google "Code Red." Just put in "Code Red." Just search for it. You'll find a website link.  

The Hill reports the results of Rush’s call to arms was: 

"House phone lines were nearing capacity on Tuesday as conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh encouraged fans to call in their objections on healthcare legislation. 

The House e-mail system was also deluged in what the House’s technology office called “a very significant spike” in traffic. 

The office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) sent out a system-wide advisory to member offices at 2 p.m. Tuesday, warning them of the dramatic increase in traffic..."

“Our phone system is nearing capacity,” said Jeff Ventura, spokesman for the CAO. “It got critical enough whereby we notified all systems’ administrators throughout the House that the phone systems are overloading.”                                                                                      We conservatives of both parties have been coming together to stop this health care bill from harming our country. Call,email or protest at their local offices. Yesterday we shut down the phone lines at Capitol Hill. Get their direct numbers and call them. Tell your friends to call them. The walls of Jerico came down with noise so lets see what we can dow when we really want something or don't want it. These Progressives in Washington are taking over every private sector they can and then say they aren't socialist. Have they once found a problem that a govenment take over wont fix? We see what they have done to SSI and Medicare and all the other government ponzi scams they have started and are now out of control.

Slaughter House Rule

Lefties (Daily Kos, TPMDC, and Huffington Post) are defending against allegations that the “Slaughter Rule” proposed strategy to pass ObamaCare without a vote is unprecedented and unconstitutional.  The Slaughter Rule has the support of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and is the Democrats preferred strategy to pass ObamaCare.  Liberals are peddling a talking point that self-executing rules like the Slaughter Rule have been done before and it was the Republicans that used this tool in the past.
The fact of the matter is that there is no precedent for the House to pass a bill without a direct vote by using a budget reconciliation measure as a trigger and a means to pass ObamaCare.  Nancy Pelosi’s potentially unconstitutional strategy to pass unconstitutional ObamaCare is without precedent nor justification.
The Wall Street Journal has a piece today that critiques the Pelosi strategy, the “Slaughter Rule,” that is being considered to pass ObamaCare.

We’re not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely “deem” that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway.   Under the “reconciliation” process that began yesterday afternoon, the House is supposed to approve the Senate’s Christmas Eve bill and then use “sidecar” amendments to fix the things it doesn’t like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process.

I eagerly wait the left pointing to a precedent where a bill is deemed to have passed without a direct vote that effects 1/6th of the U.S. economy.  I also await a precedent where the House used a vote on a budget reconciliation measure to deem as passed another piece of legislation.  This process is so complicated that the President has to sign the ObamaCare bill before he signs the reconciliation measure into law, for this trick to work.
Speaker Pelosi admitted that she does not want to allow a direct vote on the House passed measure when she stated yesterday that “nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill.”  Ryan Grimm of the Huffington Post writes:

The Speaker, in a press briefing with progressive media in her Capitol office, said that three options were under consideration. One of them involved a vote on the Senate health care bill, followed by a vote on a reconciliation package. “Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill,” she said. She wouldn’t rule out that option, she said, because there is no official bill language yet, which she said she needs first before she makes a decision on process.

This shows an intent on the part of Pelosi to skirt the Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution that “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.” If the House does not have a direct vote on the legislation, this seems to be a violation of the explicit language of the Constitution.  Pelosi favors the Slaughter Rule that would allow a complicated procedure to be used so that the House does not have to schedule a direct vote on the Senate passed version of ObamaCare at any stage in the process.  More from Huffington Post and Pelosi:

So the third option is to write the rule so that the passage of the reconciliation package deems the Senate bill to also have passed, a parliamentary maneuver she said the Senate parliamentarian had said was acceptable.  It’s a technical distinction and Democrats hope that it’s deep enough in the weeds that average voters will focus instead on the substance of the legislation instead of the confusing process. Asked if she had firmly decided to pursue the third option, she answered, “I like the third one better.”

Now we know that the House is seriously considering a procedure of questionable constitutionality to pass a bill of questionable constitutionality.  Once this trigger is pulled, the Senate will consider a reconciliation measure that is functionally an amendment to the Senate passed ObamaCare bill.  This violates the House and Senate tradition that reconciliation amend existing law as a deficit cutting tool.  After that, the President has to sign the Senate passed, and House deemed to have been passed, version of ObamaCare.  After that he has to have another signing ceremony for the reconciliation measure for the plan to work.
This is a very complicated procedure being used to pull a fast one on the American people.

Common Sense

This 2,700 page health care bill must be worse then we know. If it was so great then why are they acting like cowards by not putting their names to it? The Progressives engineered this health care bill and they can't even get their own party to agree on it. Obama and Congress have been telling us this bill is good for us but they hide it from us. The president it acting desperate bringing in the fainting people and the sick people that will die if they don't get this bill passed. If those people existed why couldn't Obama fine some real ones dieing without care. And once this thing gets jamed down our throats we will have been addicted to the intitlement program until it can no longer exist. Just like SSI and Medicare. If we add 30 million people to free health care insurance where will we get all the doctors to treat them all? Yeh no one will die waiting for a doctor because you just gave people a new car and they want to drive it right away. This bill will be the killer and we need to stop this bill from going through or it will be too late. The left wing blogs are saying that the abortion in the bill actually help cut costs. Is that what we have become?  If they don't mind killing babies the elderly should be a breeze to kill. Our government has no right to give us our rights. Only God gives us rights if we can keep them. Governement takes rights away.

Talking Points vs. Realty

by Thomas Sowell

In a swindle that would make Bernie Madoff look like an amateur, Barack Obama has gotten a substantial segment of the population to believe that he can add millions of people to the government-insured rolls without increasing the already record-breaking federal deficit.

Those who think in terms of talking points, instead of realities, can point to the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has concurred with budget numbers that the Obama administration has presented.

Anyone who is so old-fashioned as to stop and think, instead of being swept along by rhetoric, can understand that a budget-- any budget-- is not a record of hard facts but a projection of future financial plans. A budget tells us what will happen if everything works out according to plan.

The Congressional Budget Office can only deal with the numbers that Congress supplies. Those numbers may well be consistent with each other, even if they are wholly inconsistent with anything that is likely to happen in the real world.

The Obama health care plan can be financed without increasing the federal deficit-- if the administration takes hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare. But Medicare itself does not have enough money to pay its own way over time.

However money is juggled in the short run, the government's financial liabilities are increased by adding this huge new entitlement of government-provided insurance. The fact that these new financial liabilities can be kept out of the official federal deficit projection, by claiming that they will be paid for with money taken from Medicare, changes nothing in the real world.

I can say that I can afford to buy a Rolls Royce, without going into debt, by using my inheritance from a rich uncle. But, in the real world, the question would arise immediately whether I in fact have a rich uncle, not to mention whether this hypothetical rich uncle would be likely to leave me enough money to buy a Rolls Royce.

In politics, however, you can say all sorts of things that have no relationship with reality. If you have a mainstream media that sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil-- when it comes to Barack Obama-- you can say that you will pay for a vast expansion of government-provided insurance by taking money from the Medicare budget and using other gimmicks.

Whether this administration, or any future administration, will in fact take enough money from Medicare to pay for this new massive entitlement is a question that only the future can answer, regardless of what today's budget projection says.

On paper, you can treat Medicare like the hypothetical rich uncle who is going to leave me enough money to buy a Rolls Royce. But only on paper. In real life, you can't get blood from a turnip, and you can't keep on getting money from a Medicare program that is itself running out of money.

An even more transparent gimmick is collecting money for the new Obama health care program for the first ten years but delaying the payments of its benefits for four years. By collecting money for 10 years and spending it for only 6 years, you can make the program look self-supporting, but only on paper and only in the short run.

This is a game you can play just once, during the first decade. After that, you are going to be collecting money for 10 years and paying out money for 10 years. That is when you discover that your uncle doesn't have enough money to support himself, much less leave you an inheritance to pay for a Rolls Royce.

But a postponed revelation is not part of the official federal deficit today. And that provides a talking point, in order to soothe people who take talking points seriously.

Fraud has been at the heart of this medical care takeover plan from day one. The succession of wholly arbitrary deadlines for rushing this massive legislation through, before anyone has time to read it all, serves no other purpose than to keep its specifics from being scrutinized-- or even recognized-- before it becomes a fait accompli and "the law of the land."

Would you buy a used car under these conditions, even if it was a Rolls Royce?

Obama Isn't Above Making Up A Sob Story About Natoma Casnfield

 

Do you remember the story of Natoma Canfield? Obama used her story like many other peoples stories to sell Obamacare. He said she is loosing her home because she can't afford the insurance premiums now that she has cancer. Obama is such a showman. He saved the many fainting people in the front rows of his speeches.lAs if I believe that Obama didn't plant those people now that these stories are out. I hope he doesn't use a small child to help sell his health care bill. Oh, he did did he? Is everything about this president smoke and mirrors?  Can we believe any words out of his lieing mouth? What kind of man uses dieing women,small children and lies to sell us a bill of goods we don't want?

Now here is were it turns into a soap opera. Gateway Pundit finds that Natoma isn’t the hard luck story she pretends to be.

Natoma Canfield is being cared for at one of the top cancer centers in America. She will qualify for financial aid and won’t lose her home.

FOX News reported:

Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama’s push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told FoxNews.com.

Though Canfield’s sister Connie Anderson said her sibling is afraid she’ll lose her house and Obama warned at an Ohio rally Monday that the patient is “racked with worry” about the cost of tests and treatment, she is already being screened for financial help.

Lyman Sornberger, executive director of patient financial services at the Cleveland Clinic, said “all indications” at the outset are that she will be considered for assistance.

“She may be eligible for state Medicaid … and/or she will be eligible for charity (care) of some form or type. … In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something,” he said, adding that Canfield should not be worried about losing her home.

“Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home,” he said.