The Fascism Of The Left Taking A Dangerous Turn. And Are You SURE You Want To Take This Road To Hell, America???

Are now or have you ever been a Christian?

Don’t worry, Democrat.  You’re safe.  God knows YOU’VE never been one and never will be.  The only thing you love more than homosexual sodomy is murdering babies – and you’ve murdered sixty million so far and counting.

When I was preparing for ministry, I had a vision that one day I would end up in prison for being a Christian.

That day is soon coming as several recent stories prove:

October 19, 2014
New America: Ordained ministers threatened with jail unless they perform same sex marriages
By Rick Moran

City officials in Coeur d’Alene Idaho have told a married couple who are both ordained ministers that they will go to jail if they refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples.

The Alliance for Defending Freedom has filed suit against the city and asked for a temporary restraining order to prevent officials from carrying out their threat.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended.”

The couple would face 180 days in jail and up to $1000 in fines per day if they dared to adhere to their religious beliefs.

“The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”

How many other towns and cities have statutes like this? No doubt there are other budding fascists out there who would enjoy putting Christian ministers in jail for not violating the sacred tenets of their faith.

This is a law that manifestly violates the Constitution so I wouldn’t expect any court in America to uphold the city statutue. But the fact that it was passed in the first place should raise the alarm that the assault on religious liberty has entered a new phase. The power of government is being used in the contraceptive controversey and now the gay marriage issue to force acceptance of practices totally at odds with the religious faith of millions of people.

Notice that these wicked cowards aren’t going into mosques and imposing homosexuality on them.  I mean, where’s the left in forcing Islam to cater to their perversions?  Their cowards and provably cowardly.  But it’s open season on Christians, though.

Here’s another one, detailing the left’s demand for all records from church pastors as they conduct one of their Stalinist show trials:

‘Stunned’ in Houston: Pastors Vow to Fight Mayor’s Sermon Grab
By Tony Perkins , CP Op-Ed Contributor
October 16, 2014|10:16 am

Houston is home to one of NASA’s most sophisticated space centers — but even it would have trouble finding signs of intelligence in the local Mayor’s office. The city’s highest official is blowing past the First Amendment at warp speed — and lighting a political powder keg in the process.

After four years of forcing her extreme agenda on the city, Mayor Annise Parker may have finally picked a fight she’s bound to regret. Five months after bullying her way into a Houston-wide “bathroom bill,” Parker is furious that the city’s voters won’t roll over and accept it. Instead, America’s fourth-largest city fought back, gathering three times the number of signatures needed to put the issue on the ballot. Furious with local pastors for leading the pushback, Parker decided to get her revenge by ordering a Soviet-style crackdown on area churches.

In a story that’s spreading like wildfire, the Mayor had the nerve to subpoena pastors for their sermons, text messages, photographs, electronic files, calendars, and emails — “all communications with members of your congregation” on topics like homosexuality and gender identity. If she thought her religious “inquisition” would scare pastors, she’s got another thing coming. Local Christians are more outraged than ever, igniting a firestorm that could awaken a sleeping giant in churches from coast to coast. “We’re not intimidated at all,” said Rev. Dave Welch. “We’re not going to yield our First Amendment rights,” he warned — even if it ends in fines, confinement, or both.

The Mayor reportedly attempted to douse the flames a bit by saying the subpoena was the work of pro-bono lawyers and that she was not aware of it until yesterday. Then, she doubled down with a tweet: “If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game.”

In a conversation I had this afternoon with a handful of key pastors, it’s obvious that this is a fight they’re ready for. Pastor Steve Riggle, a friend of FRC’s, sees right through the Mayor’s agenda. “This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day,” he told Fox News’s Todd Starnes. And if she doesn’t pull her attack dogs off the city’s churches, the joke will be on her. It just might end up being the most ingenious way of getting liberals into the pews yet! “Political and social commentary is not a crime. It is protected by the First Amendment,” Alliance Defending Freedom pointed out.

This is the “wall of separation” Jefferson talked about: protecting churches from the government (not the other way around). The Left is fond of misrepresenting the third President’s famous letter, but Annise Parker’s intrusion is exactly what the Founders were concerned about. But what did we expect in a country where four little letters — LGBT — are trumping the letter of the law? “Even in Houston,” Erick Erickson writes, “you will be made to care.”

Unfortunately, Houston is learning a hard lesson about the importance of elections. As frustrating as it is, this is what happens in a city where only 16 percent turn out to vote in the mayor’s race. For now, though, local churches have a message for the government: go ahead and monitor our sermons. You obviously need the messages more than most.

You can stand with Houston’s pastors by signing FRC’s petition to Mayor Annise Parker, asking her to support free speech for all people.

Another article points out the outrage that the left – pretty much the damned Democrat Party – is demanding:

LGBT: The ‘T’ Is for Tyranny
By Matt Barber , CP Op-Ed Contributor
October 20, 2014|11:24 am

Tranny tyranny. Strike that. “LGBT” tyranny. Lesbian, gay, bisexual tyranny. That, generally speaking, is what’s on display in Houston right now. But trust me: Unlike Vegas, what happens in Houston will, most definitely, not stay in Houston – not if Democrats continue to have their way.

Houstonians elected themselves, as mayor, an extremist lesbian Democrat (but I repeat myself). She quickly, and quite naturally, took to doing what extremist lesbian Democrats do. Annise Parker is her name, and spreading political Ebola is her game. That and trampling the U.S. Constitution. As you’ve likely heard, Parker’s office has illegally subpoenaed the sermons and privileged communications of a number of Christian pastors who vocally opposed the city’s ironically branded “Equal Rights Ordinance” (aka, the Houston Bathroom Bill).

More on that later. First, let’s scoot north-leftward for context.

Washington state, dateline 2012: Colleen is just like the girl next door. Well, sort of. Colleen has a penis. So, I guess, unless the girl next door has a penis, Coleen really isn’t much like her at all.

But that’s beside the point. In Washington you must, under penalty of law, pretend, along with Colleen and Democrats that, in the face of both reality and sanity, Colleen really is like the girl next door. This includes letting Colleen, who is actually a 47-year-old dude named Clay Scott Francis, lay naked and “sprawled out in a sauna exposing himself” to girls as young as 6 years old. This really happened in the ladies locker room at Evergreen State College.

It’s only fair, you see, because, as Clay, er, “Colleen,” complained, and as police agreed, this sick bastard was “discriminated against” when he was asked to leave on behalf of a terrorized 17-year-old girl. “This is not 1959 Alabama,” cried Francis. “We don’t call police for drinking from the wrong water fountain.”

Get that, my African-American friends? According to this beneficiary of “white privilege,” a man who, incidentally, identifies as a “transgender lesbian” (meaning he’s sexually attracted to females), to be told that you cannot sprawl naked and intentionally expose your manly bits to 6-year-old girls is no different from being relegated to a “colored only” water fountain.

Mayor Annise Parker and the larger Democratic Party agree. Ian Tuttle reports for National Review:

“Earlier this year Parker, a Democrat, spearheaded the passage of an ‘Equal Rights Ordinance’ (ERO) that added ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ to the city’s non-discrimination provision, which includes, among other things, ‘public accommodations’ – for example, restrooms. Citizens, among them church leaders, balked. They launched a referendum petition that, with the requisite 17,269 signatures, would require the city council to repeal the ERO, or to put the measure up for a vote. They obtained 55,000 signatures.

“The city secretary, who has sole responsibility for certifying such petitions, signed off.

“Enter Houston city attorney David Feldman, who, with no legal authority, disqualified 38,000 signatures. Names that were printed, rather than written in cursive, were discarded; names that were written in cursive were considered illegible – just enough names to get the petition below the 17,000-signature requirement, at which point the city council and Mayor Parker rejected it.  And several citizens sued.

“But the city’s shenanigans had only just begun. Unsatisfied with violating the rights of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the City of Houston has subpoenaed privileged communications of five pastors (none of them party to the lawsuit) who helped to organize the petition drive. Among other information, the city is requesting communications between the pastors and their attorneys pertaining to the ERO lawsuit, communications between the pastors and their congregants, and even the pastors’ sermons. …”

This, of course, is typical Democrat corruption, as well as a gross violation of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause – one of the worst we’ve seen to date. It is, unequivocally, “LGBT” tyranny.

And it’s rooted in madness.

Through the secular-“progressive” looking-glass, the term “sexual orientation” has, in a few short years, evolved to accommodate an ever-expanding fruit basket of carnal appetites. First it was “LGB” – liberal shorthand for “lesbian, gay and bisexual.” Then was added a “T” for “transgender.” That’s gender identity disorder – cross-dressing. You know, perverts like Clay Francis. (Today it’s “LGBTOMGWTFBBQ” or some such.)

Anyway, because it’s now illegal to “discriminate based on the basis of gender identity” in Houston, and since it’s the only “tolerant” thing to do, men who sign up for the ever-persecuted “LGBT” class have secured the hard-fought “civil right” to fully expose themselves to, and otherwise ogle, your daughters in the ladies’ room.
Yay “gay rights”!

But slow down there, Dad. According to the law, if you have a problem with Mr. Francis baring all to your baby girl, then you’re the problem. You’re a “transphobe” (“homophobia’s” evil twin sister, er, brother … whatever). Deck this sicko for terrifying your first-grader and you’re off to jail while “Colleen” is off to the “Human Rights Campaign” for a commendation as the latest victim of an “anti-LGBT hate crime.”
Rosa Parks in drag, I guess.

You can call yourself a “Christian,” Democrat.  While you’re at it, why don’t you just go lay down in your garage and call yourself a “car”?  You would be every bit as much the latter as you are the former.

Romans chapter one declares that you have NOTHING to do with Christ or Christianity or God.  You are under the wrath of God.  You DEMAND to be under the wrath of God.  And you’re going to get yours because the God who told us that the last days were coming and the Antichrist whose mark you will soon be taking was coming and that the hell He created for the devil and his angels was coming and that you’re going to burn in it forever and ever.

The Democrat Party is the Nazi Party in America.  “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  It is the truly ignorant fool who doesn’t realize that if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party,” it would be nothing more than a name-change for the Democrat Party.  Although God in heaven knows that there are a great many truly ignorant fools walking around in these last days before the coming of the beast whom they will worship.

Interestingly, the Nazi Party rose on the back of homosexuality.  Just read up on the Nazi Storm Troopers, the brownshirt- and jackbooted-clad SA, who pushed, shoved and punched Adolf Hitler to power in Germany.  Adolf Hitler rose to power through the fascism of homosexuality.  FACT.

These proto-Nazis were as queer as they came.  And to the extent they frowned on homosexuals, it was because they who loved to sodomize other men irrationally distinguished themselves with the men who willingly submitted to their sodomy.

The Nazi Party was rooted in homosexuality.

Homosexuals are rooted in fascism.  As even homosexuals themselves admit with their “Gayjahadin” tactics.

Just as the Democrat Party is rooted in them today.

It’s just a plain damn fact that homosexuals and liberals target those who oppose them the same damn way the Nazis targeted Jews.

And what we’re seeing is that Nazism does what Nazism is and vice versa as we look at the fruits of the Democrat Party and the hard-core homosexual fascism that is beginning to take place in an America I am now ashamed of.

It is as much the nature of the Democrat Party to betray as it is the nature of the Democrat Party to do what is vile in God’s sight.

Take, for example, the elderly and Medicare.  It is only a matter of time now before the Democrat Party betrays the elderly and abandons them for the young.  It’s actually already begun to happen as ObamaCare strips hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicare to put into their new sacred cow.  Yes, it was the Democrat Party that imposed Medicare and made promises to people who are now elderly that the government would take care of them in their old age.  But health care is getting extremely expensive.  It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of health care expenses/costs take place in the last few years of life as the health of the elderly begins to break down and it requires more care and more expensive care to treat them and to keep them healthy.

D. James Kennedy prophetically warned, “Watch out, Grandpa!  Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after YOU!”

Leftist Paul Krugman declared the fact that, yes, Democrats were going to turn on the elderly:

Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising…there is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give…. …. We’re going to need more revenue…Surely it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.. We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes… on the middle class, maybe a value added tax…And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits . So the snarky version…which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.

Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein wrote:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

He wrote:

“Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

The “Complete Lives” program behind ObamaCare kills old people by medical neglect and funds young people.

That’s why liberal intellectual and Obama advisor Robert Reich had this to say:

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.

“Thank you. And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

A previous liberal, George Bernard Shaw, put it quite crystal clearly:

“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world; who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there, and say, now sir or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence; if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat; if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organisation of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”

So it’s already a matter of FACT that the Democrat Party is going to betray the elderly after seizing power on their false promises to the previous generation. It’s only a matter of when it is most politically opportune for them to betray that previous generation in favor of dishonest false promises to a younger generation.

The real motto of the Democrat Party is, “We’ll promise you ANYTHING to get your vote. That is, until we stab you in the back so we can promise the voters we want to replace you with anything to get their votes.”

Because the Democrat Party of today is the Party of Lucifer, and neither honesty nor  loyalty are the virtues of the devil.

Just like the last Nazis before them.

America is demanding the wrath of God be poured out upon it for its embrace of homosexuality.  And we’re getting what we demand and what we deserve.

Latest ObamaCare ‘Oopsie’: HealthCare Destruction Act Already Killing People

“It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.” – Robert Reich, lifelong Democrat “expert”

“A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people” – Obama Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.” – The Hussein himself, informing a woman that it’s basically time to let her mother die.

“ObamaCare Factoid: Access To Health Care Doesn’t Mean Squat When Hospitals, Doctors And Pharmacists Bail” – Title of article by Michael Eden now factually demonstrated to have been completely right.

Before I provide the article of the day, allow me to show you some things that I posted/wrote nearly a year ago:

This is nothing compared to what might happen under Democratic health overhaul plans, which would slash Medicare spending by nearly $500 billion over 10 years. As Medicare actuaries recently pointed out in understated fashion, such cuts “may be unrealistic.” But, if Congress actually carried them out, about one in five hospitals, nursing homes and home care agencies could lose money, they warned in their report. As a result, such providers could drop Medicare, leaving seniors with less access.

[…]

Don’t think for a second that this isn’t directly related to the disaster known as ObamaCare.  Democrats are gutting Medicare reimbursements and blocking the essential “doctor fix” from their bill to create the contrived and bogus illusion that their boondoggle will provide “deficit neutrality.”  They are playing all kinds of games and gimmicks, such as taxing for ten years and only providing benefits for five, to support that illusion. It will fail, and a lot of people will die.

[…]

And so, what do you think will happen when Democrats cut the reimbursement rates?  People who have commons sense know: hospitals and doctors will begin to see fewer and fewer Medicare patients, as a matter of simple economic necessity.   That isn’t a “reform,” but a disaster.

And this stuff is why the dean of the Harvard Medical School gave ObamaCare a failing grade.  It’s why the California Medical Association recently came out strongly against the bill.  It’s why more and more state governors – Democrats as well as Republicans – are beginning to scream that ObamaCare merely turns Medicaid into a giant deficit-creating unfunded mandate on the states (again, to create the illusion of being “deficit neutral”).

And, now, without further delay, the article of the day’s latest demonstration that the Democrat Party is the political arm of the devil and Barack Obama is leading America into ruin not seen since the last time socialism devastated Europe when our grandparents were young kids…

It is somehow ironically fitting that this destruction of our health care system would be described in Obama’s hometown.

Medicaid cuts: teeth pulled, transplant called off
By The Associated Press
Posted Dec 15, 2010

CHICAGO —

In Illinois, a pharmacist closes his business because of late Medicaid payments. In Arizona, a young father’s liver transplant is canceled because Medicaid suddenly won’t pay for it. In California, dentists pull teeth that could be saved because Medicaid doesn’t pay for root canals.

Across the country, state lawmakers have taken harsh actions to try to rein in the budget-busting costs of the health care program that serves 58 million poor and disabled Americans. Some states have cut payments to doctors, paid bills late and trimmed benefits such as insulin pumps, obesity surgery and hospice care.

Lawmakers are bracing for more work when they reconvene in January. Some states face multibillion-dollar deficits. Federal stimulus money for Medicaid is soon to evaporate. And Medicaid enrollment has never been higher because of job losses.

In the view of some lawmakers, Medicaid has become a monster, and it’s eating the budget. In Illinois, Medicaid sucks up more money than elementary, secondary and higher education combined.

“Medicaid is such a large, complicated part of our budget problem, that to get our hands around it is very difficult. It’s that big. It’s that bad,” said Illinois Sen. Dale Righter, a Republican and co-chairman of a bipartisan panel to reform Medicaid in Illinois, where nearly 30 percent of total spending goes to the program.

Medicaid costs are shared by the federal and state governments. It’s not just the poor and disabled who benefit. Wealthier people do, too, such as when middle-class families with elderly parents in nursing homes are relieved of financial pressure after Medicaid starts picking up the bills.

Contrary to stereotype, it’s the elderly and disabled who cost nearly 70 cents of every Medicaid dollar, not the single mother and her children.

In California, Medicaid no longer pays for many adult dental services. But it still pays for extractions, that is, tooth-pulling. The unintended consequence: Medicaid patients tell dentists to pull teeth that could be saved.

“The roots are fine. The tooth could be saved with a root canal,” said Dr. Nagaraj Murthy, who practices in Compton, Calif. “I had a patient yesterday. I said we could do a root canal. He said, ‘No, it’s hurting. Go ahead and pull it. I don’t have the money.”’

Murthy recently pulled an elderly woman’s last tooth, but Medicaid no longer pays for dentures.

“Elderly patients suffer the most,” Murthy said. “They’re walking around with no teeth.”

States can decide which optional services Medicaid covers, and dental care is among cutbacks in some places. Last year’s economic stimulus package increased the federal share of Medicaid money temporarily. But that money runs out at the end of June, when the federal government will go back to paying half the costs rather than 60 to 70 percent. So more cuts could be ahead.

During the Great Recession, millions of people relied on the Medicaid safety net. Between 2007 and 2009, the number of uninsured Americans grew by more than 5 million as workers lost jobs with employer-based insurance. Another 7 million signed up for Medicaid.

Just when caseloads hit their highest point, the nation’s new health care law required states not to change the rules on who’s eligible for Medicaid. That means states can’t roll up the welcome mat by tightening Medicaid’s income requirements.

So states have resorted to a variety of painful options.

In Arizona, lawmakers stopped paying for some kinds of transplants, including livers for people with hepatitis C. When the cuts took effect Oct. 1, Medicaid patient Francisco Felix, who needs a liver, suddenly had to raise $500,000 to get a transplant.

The 32-year-old’s case took a dramatic turn in November when a friend’s wife died, and her liver became available. Felix was prepped for surgery in hopes financial donations would come in. When the money didn’t materialize, the liver went to someone else, and Felix went home. His doctor told him he has a year before he’ll be too sick for a transplant.

“They are taking away his opportunity to live,” said his wife, Flor Felix. “It’s impossible for us or any family to get that much money.” The family is collecting donations through a website and plans a yard sale this weekend, she said.

The choices are difficult for states that have already cut payments to doctors and hospitals to the bone.

“If we don’t see an economic recovery where state revenues rebound, they’re really going to be very strained on how they can make ends meet,” said Diane Rowland, executive director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

States may consider lowering payment rates to nursing homes or home health agencies or further reducing payments to doctors, Rowland said.

“The problem here is the program is pretty lean, and payment rates are pretty low,” she said. Patients can’t find care because fewer doctors accept the low payments.

Prescription drug coverage in states is an optional benefit, another possible place to cut, Rowland said. “But if you cut back on people’s psychotropic drugs, is that penny-wise and pound-foolish? Do they end up in institutions where Medicaid pays more for their care?”

In Illinois, late payments became the rule.

Tom Miller closed his pharmacy in rural southern Illinois this summer and is going through bankruptcy, largely because the state was chronically late making Medicaid payments to him. Most of his former customers are in the program.

With the state sometimes months behind in payments, he couldn’t pay his suppliers. Five workers lost their jobs when his business closed.

“You can only fight it for so long,” said Miller, 54. He now works as a pharmacist in a hospital. He misses his old clients, the families he grew to know.

“I was in my third generation. I’ve had moms who had kids. I saw the kids raised, and they had their own children,” he said. As a neighborhood pharmacist, “you’re their friend. You’re family.”

The death panels are right around the corner.  To the extent that they’re not already here right now, as with the case of Francisco Felix, who is being denied life by being denied a liver by Medicaid.

Francisco Felix never stood in front of a death panel; but bureaucrats don’t need you wasting their time with bothersome questions when they decide to let you die a slow and agonizing death due to medical neglect (or maybe you’re fortunate enough to get that pain pill from Obama?).

We told you so.  We told you so.  We told you so.  WE TOLD YOU SO.

As one speaking from the lofty vantage point of one having a one-thousand percent batting average, let me forewarn you Democrats yet again: Someday, when you’re burning in hell for all eternity for your direct participation in the murder of 52 million innocent human beings in America alone through abortion, realize that God is going to turn up the fires a few billion extra degrees for the coming horror that is going to come to this country as a result of your ObamaCare disaster.

Waivers Granted To Unions And Big/Politically-Connected Companies; Death Panels For The Rest Of Us

Under Barack MaoBama, everyone is equal under the law.

Except for unions, big businesses and politically-connected companies that are a lot MORE equal under the law.

If you are a union, or a business that can afford a high-power attorney, or politically-connected, the fact that ObamaCare reeks to high heavens isn’t that important.  In fact, it’s even a GOOD thing for some companies: their competition will be driven out of business (and why should they care if their competitors’ employees lose their jobs?).

But if you’re NOT a union, or if you CAN’T hire a high-power law firm, or if you DON’T know Harry Reid or one of his ilk, you are just screwed.

That’s the message coming out of Washington.

As of Saturday, November 13, 111 unions and businesses had received waivers from ObamaCare.

That health care law that was supposed to be so great?  It’s such a pile of fecal matter that even the unions who pushed for it are begging to be waived from it.

Gateway Pundit has the facts:

This didn’t make any headlines…
The Obama Administration recently handed out 111 Obamacare waivers to special US companies… And, they’re hiding this from the American public. It takes 6 clicks to find out this information on the government’s health care website.

Unfortunately, if you’re a small business or you don’t have the right connections you can’t get a waiver for your company.
That’s the new reality under the Obama-Pelosi regime.

Unbelievable.
Via Cost of Freedom:

FOX News contributor Tracy Byrnes said it best:

“The bottom line here is that they gave out waivers is an admission of guilt. Basically they’re saying, “You’re right. We screwed up.” That’s the bottom line here. They did not create a law that benefits all of us.”

Here is the list of the 111 special companies that were granted Obamacare waivers.

Here are the 111 “special” unions and companies who are better than everybody else.  As the Gateway Pundit piece above points out, it takes 6 clicks to get to this information.  And since the government can easily make it 12 clicks – or just delete it altogether – it seems prudent to have a record:

	Applicant	Application Received	Plan Effective Date	Number of Enrollees	Application Completed by Applicant	Waiver Approved
1	Protocol Marketing Group	10/4/2010	1/1/2011	454	10/25/2010	11/1/2010
2	Sasnak	9/29/2010	1/1/2011	813	9/29/2010	11/1/2010
3	Star Tek	10/1/2010	1/1/2011	1,423	10/26/2010	11/1/2010
4	Adventist Care Centers	10/1/2010	1/1/2011	725	10/26/2010	10/29/2010
5	B.E.S.T of NY	10/7/2010	1/1/2011	1,200	10/27/2010	10/29/2010
6	Boskovich Farms, Inc	10/8/2010	1/1/2011	165	10/28/2010	10/29/2010
7	Gallegos Corp	9/29/2010	1/1/2011	86	10/28/2010	10/29/2010
8	Jeffords Steel and Engineering	10/4/2010	1/1/2011	112	10/28/2010	10/29/2010
9	O.K. Industries	10/4/2010	1/1/2011	1,238	10/28/2010	10/29/2010
10	Service Employees Benefit Fund	10/12/2010	11/1/2010	1,297	10/29/2010	10/29/2010
11	Sun Pacific Farming Coop	10/6/2010	12/1/2010	1,109	10/6/2010	10/29/2010
12	UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust	10/5/2010	1-Dec	68	10/25/2010	10/29/2010
13	HCR Manor Care	10/5/2010	1/1/2011	2,666	10/26/2010	10/28/2010
14	IBEW No.915	9/28/2010	1/1/2011	930	10/15/2010	10/28/2010
15	Integra BMS for Culp, Inc.	10/4/2010	1/1/2011	34	10/25/2010	10/28/2010
16	New England Health Care	9/27/2010	1/1/2011	7,454	10/26/2010	10/28/2010
17	Aegis Insurance	10/6/2010	11/1/2010	67	10/25/2010	10/26/2010
18	Alliance One Tobacco	9/30/2010	1/1/2011	138	10/21/2010	10/26/2010
19	Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund	9/29/2010	1/1/2011	2	10/21/2010	10/26/2010
20	Assurant Health (2nd Application)	9/29/2010	1/1/2011	19,024	10/21/2010	10/26/2010
21	Captain Elliot’s Party Boats	10/12/2010	11/1/2010	10	10/25/2010	10/26/2010
22	Carlson Restaurants	9/22/2010	1/1/2011	3,381	10/21/2010	10/26/2010
23	CH Guenther & Son	9/24/2010	1/1/2011	300	10/21/2010	10/26/2010
24	CKM Industries dba Miller Environmental	10/5/2010	11/1/2010	34	10/25/2010	10/26/2010
25	CWVEBA	10/14/2010	10/1/2010	4,500	10/18/2010	10/26/2010
26	Darden Restaurants	9/30/2010	1/1/2011	34,000	10/21/2010	10/26/2010
27	Duarte Nursery	9/23/2010	1/1/2011	283	10/19/2010	10/26/2010
28	Employees Security Fund	9/29/2010	1/1/2011	22	9/29/2010	10/26/2010
29	Florida Trowel Trades	9/27/2010	1/1/2011	297	10/21/2010	10/26/2010
30	Ingles Markets	9/30/2010	1/1/2011	917	10/25/2010	10/26/2010
31	Meijer	10/1/2010	1/1/2011	4,873	10/1/2010	10/26/2010
32	O’Reilly Auto Parts	9/23/2010	1/1/2011	9,722	9/23/2010	10/26/2010
33	Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund	9/30/2010	1/1/2011	534	10/21/2010	10/26/2010
34	Sun Belt	9/28/2010	10/1/2010	114	10/20/2010	10/26/2010
35	UFCW Local 227	10/12/2010	11/1/2010	1,125	10/12/2010	10/26/2010
36	Uncle Julio’s	9/30/2010	11/1/2010	115	10/25/2010	10/26/2010
37	United Group	9/24/2010	1/1/2011	177	10/19/2010	10/26/2010
38	US Imaging	10/11/2010	11/1/2010	148	10/25/2010	10/26/2010
39	Vino Farms	10/8/2010	11/1/2010	152	10/21/2010	10/26/2010
40	Advanta	9/20/2010	9/1/2011	52	9/20/2010	10/21/2010
41	Agricare	9/23/2010	11/1/2010	437	9/23/2010	10/21/2010
42	Alaska Seafood	9/23/2010	1/1/2010	262	10/15/2010	10/21/2010
43	American Fidelity	9/22/2010	10/23/2010	9,358	10/14/2010	10/21/2010
44	Convergys	9/20/2010	1/1/2011	1,400	9/20/2010	10/21/2010
45	Darensberries	9/28/2010	10/1/2010	1,450	9/28/2010	10/21/2010
46	Gowan Company	9/23/2010	1/1/2011	225	9/27/2010	10/21/2010
47	Greystar	9/23/2010	1/1/2011	1,747	10/13/2010	10/21/2010
48	Macayo Restaurants	9/22/2010	12/1/2010	46	10/18/2010	10/21/2010
49	Periodical Services	9/27/2010	1/1/2011	464	9/27/2010	10/21/2010
50	UniFirst	9/23/2010	9/1/2011	2,659	10/14/2010	10/21/2010
51	Universal Forest Products	9/23/2011	5/1/2010	1,738	10/19/2010	10/21/2010
52	UFCW Maximus Local 455	10/4/2010	1/1/2011	59	10/18/2010	10/18/2010
53	AHS	9/22/2010	1/1/2011	400	10/12/2010	10/14/2010
54	GuideStone Financial Resources	9/21/2010	1/1/2011	354	9/21/2010	10/14/2010
55	Local 25 SEIU	9/29/2010	10/1/2010	31,000	10/7/2010	10/14/2010
56	MAUSER Corp.	9/21/2010	1/1/2011	47	9/24/2010	10/14/2010
57	Preferred Care, Inc.	9/15/2010	1/1/2011	918	9/15/2010	10/14/2010
58	Ruby Tuesday	10/8/2010	1/1/2011	3,219	10/8/2010	10/14/2010
59	The Dixie Group, Inc.	8/27/2010	6/19/2010	269	10/12/2010	10/14/2010
60	UFCW Local 1262	9/20/2010	10/1/2010	5,390	9/20/2010	10/14/2010
61	Whelan Security Company	9/23/2010	1/1/2011	287	10/12/2010	10/14/2010
62	AMF Bowling Worldwide	9/14/2010	1/1/2011	295	10/7/2010	10/12/2010
63	Assisted Living Concepts	9/17/2010	1/1/2011	1,174	9/17/2010	10/12/2010
64	Case & Associates	9/17/2010	1/1/2011	87	9/17/2010	10/12/2010
65	GPM Investments	9/17/2010	1/1/2011	275	9/17/2010	10/12/2010
66	Grace Living Centers	9/14/2010	10/1/2010	534	9/14/2010	10/12/2010
67	Mountaire	9/17/2010	1/1/2011	2,074	9/17/2010	10/12/2010
68	Swift Spinning	9/16/2010	1/1/2011	240	9/16/2010	10/12/2010
69	Belmont Village	9/10/2010	1/1/2011	785	10/4/2010	10/8/2010
70	Caliber Services	9/13/2010	1/1/2011	606	9/13/2010	10/8/2010
71	Cracker Barrel	9/9/2010	1/1/2011	16,823	9/17/2010	10/8/2010
72	DISH Network	9/13/2010	3/1/2011	3,597	9/23/2010	10/8/2010
73	Groendyke Transport,  Inc	9/2/2010	1/1/2011	1,322	9/2/2010	10/8/2010
74	Pocono Medical Center	9/24/2010	1/1/2011	3,298	9/24/2010	10/8/2010
75	Regis Corporation	9/10/2010	3/1/2011	3,617	10/1/2010	10/8/2010
76	The Pictsweet Co.	9/13/2010	1/1/2010	694	9/13/2010	10/8/2010
77	Diversified Interiors	9/28/2010	10/1/2010	300	9/28/2010	10/1/2010
78	Local 802 Musicians Health Fund	9/29/2010	10/1/2010	1,801	9/29/2010	10/1/2010
79	Medical Card System	9/20/2010	10/1/2010	6,635	9/23/2010	10/1/2010
80	The Buccaneer	9/22/2010	10/1/2010	125	9/28/2010	10/1/2010
81	CIGNA	9/17/2010	9/26/2010	265,000	9/30/2010	9/30/2010
82	Greater Metropolitan Hotel	9/16/2010	10/1/2010	1,200	9/24/2010	9/30/2010
83	Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund	9/16/2010	10/1/2010	881	9/24/2010	9/30/2010
84	GS-ILA	9/15/2010	10/1/2010	298	9/15/2010	9/28/2010
85	Allied	9/13/2010	10/1/2010	127	9/13/2010	9/27/2010
86	Harden Healthcare	9/9/2010	1/1/2011	874	9/29/2010	9/27/2010
87	Health and Welfare Benefit System	9/16/2010	10/1/2010	41	9/16/2010	9/27/2010
88	Health Connector	9/20/2010	10/1/2010	3,544	9/24/2010	9/27/2010
89	I.U.P.A.T	9/16/2010	10/1/2010	875	9/23/2010	9/27/2010
90	Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.	9/22/2010	10/1/2010	326	9/22/2010	9/27/2010
91	Transport Workers	9/20/2010	10/1/2010	107	9/23/2010	9/27/2010
92	UFT Welfare Fund	9/16/2010	10/1/2010	351,000	9/27/2010	9/27/2010
93	Aegis	9/16/2010	10/1/2010	162	9/21/2010	9/24/2010
94	Aetna	9/16/2010	10/1/2010	209,423	9/16/2010	9/24/2010
95	Allflex	9/20/2010	10/1/2010	34	9/22/2010	9/24/2010
96	Baptist Retirement	9/10/2010	10/1/2010	127	9/17/2010	9/24/2010
97	BCS Insurance	9/13/2010	9/24/2010	115,000	9/22/2010	9/24/2010
98	Cryogenic	9/20/2010	10/1/2010	19	9/20/2010	9/24/2010
99	Fowler Packing Co.	9/8/2010	10/1/2010	39	9/17/2010	9/24/2010
100	Guy C. Lee Mfg.	9/15/2010	10/1/2010	312	9/15/2010	9/24/2010
101	HealthPort	9/17/2010	10/1/2010	608	9/17/2010	9/24/2010
102	Jack in the Box	9/17/2010	10/1/2010	1,130	9/21/2010	9/24/2010
103	Maritime Association	9/17/2010	10/1/2010	500	9/21/2010	9/24/2010
104	Maverick County	9/21/2010	10/1/2010	1	9/23/2010	9/24/2010
105	Metro Paving Fund	9/20/2010	10/1/2010	550	9/20/2010	9/24/2010
106	PMPS-ILA	9/19/2010	10/1/2010	15	9/23/2010	9/24/2010
107	PS-ILA	9/19/2010	10/1/2010	8	9/23/2010	9/24/2010
108	QK/DRD (Denny’s)	9/16/2010	10/1/2010	65	9/22/2010	9/24/2010
109	Reliance Standard	9/14/2010	10/1/2010	varies	9/14/2010	9/24/2010
110	Tri-Pak	9/20/2010	10/1/2010	26	9/20/2010	9/24/2010
111	UABT	9/17/2010	10/1/2010	17,347	9/17/2010	9/24/2010
	total			1,175,411

Just scrolling down the list, twenty of of these “waivers” have gone to unions.  You know, the socialist “workers of the world unite!” organizations that pushed so hard for the ObamaCare death panels that they’ve decided only others should stand before.

Everything Obama and the Democrat Party told you about ObamaCare – EVERYTHING!!! – was a lie.

Obama assured us that the ObamaCare mandates that would force Americans to purchase insurance (or be punished) was not a tax.  That was a lie.

Obama told us that if we liked our doctor we could keep that doctor.  That was a lie.  Even Obama admitted that his promise turned out to be a load of crap.

Obama promised us if we liked our current plan we could keep it.  That was a lie.  Many plans have simply been canceled altogether as a direct result of ObamaCare.  And people who loved their plans found themselves dumped.  And then, on top of that, it turns out that more than half of all company plans won’t pass Obama’s muster – meaning that even more people will find themselves dumped from their plans.

Obama promised that his health care system would “bend the cost curve down.”  That was a lie.  The fact is that Price Waterhouse determined that private insurance premiums would skyrocket 111% over ten years under ObamaCare.  And that the costs for individuals and for families would very nearly double.

Even those organizations that pushed for ObamaCare are now seeing their costs to cover employees go up as a direct result of it:

Citing health overhaul, AARP hikes employee costs
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press – Thu Nov 4, 4:34 pm ET

WASHINGTON – AARP’s endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. Now the seniors’ lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.

In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.

And AARP adds that it’s changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax.

Obama promised that his health care plan would be good for businesses.  That was a lie.  Company after company has announced that it would be taking millions and even billion-plus dollar writedowns due to the additional costs that would be imposed on them by ObamaCare.

And when these lying liars tell us we’re crazy if we think ObamaCare will have a death panel, well, that’s a lie.

In the words of über-liberal icon Paul Krugman:

Krugman made his comments on ABC’s “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” during a roundtable discussion about the economy and the recent findings of the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission.

Here’s the key excerpt:

“Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It’s going to be that we’re actually going to take Medicare under control, and we’re going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it’s not going to happen now.”

And fellow über-lib Robert Reich was even more explicit about this more death and more taxes health care plan of Obama’s:

Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you,  particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.“Thank you.  And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Unless, of course, you’re a privileged, politically-connected liberal, in which case you can get a waiver from this “we’re going to let you die” verdict that everyone else will receive.

With that on the table, we could still say that there isn’t a death panel in ObamaCare.  Because it turns out that there are 160 death panels:

The Democrats who rule this country now are the most evil politicians in American history.  And this generation of Americans who voted for them in 2008 is the stupidest generation (or you can call it “the Dodo bird generation”).

You’d better get smart quick.  Because these people will – now in their very own words – “let you die” with a “a combination of death panels and sales taxes.”

Medical Doctor Points Out That Doctors Will Be Fined Or Jailed If They Put Patients First Under ObamaCare

I pointed out in a previous article that Sarah Palin’s “death panels” were EVERYWHERE in this chart of ObamaCare:

Now more and more medical doctors are confirming that tragic and disturbing fact:

ObamaCare Endgame: Doctors Will Be Fined Or Jailed If They Put Patients First
by Dr. Elaina George

If Obamacare is completely implemented, doctors will no longer be practicing medicine. They will instead become the drones tasked with deciding who gets the meager healthcare crumbs doled out by the bureaucrats who have the ultimate power over patient life and death. Those who are deemed to have illnesses that require treatments which are not cost effective can expect a one way ticket to a hospice.

Like so many bills passed by Congress, there was a hidden provision in the Stimulus bill passed in 2009. It spends 1.1 billion dollars to create an important piece of the framework for the healthcare bill called the Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. It is based on the false premise that doctors in consultation with their patients don’t have the ability to make the right healthcare choices (see executive summary). The council consists of 15 people appointed by the President.

They all have one thing in common–they are all isolated from day to day patient care; and therefore, are insulated from the real practice of the art of medicine. It makes it easy to see patients as a cost center to be controlled. With views of members like Dr Emanuel, who champions the complete-lives system, it is hard to ignore the probability that senior citizens, those with chronic illness, and the very young will be on the outside looking in. This council is another example of the people of this country being told by the government that it knows what is best for us.

The framework set up by the stimulus bill merely set the stage for the implementation found in the healthcare reform bill. How can the government get doctors to participate in Obamacare thereby a) willingly destroying the doctor patient relationship, and  b) betraying their Hippocratic Oath to provide treatments that they deem to be effective? Simple – fear and intimidation.

A second board created by the stimulus bill called The National Coordinator for Health Information Technology “will determine treatment at the time and place of care”. They are charged with deciding the course of treatment for the diagnosis given by the doctor. Now it becomes obvious why there has been a big push towards the implementation of universal electronic medical record use. It becomes a tool to completely control the physician and the patient. Those physicians and hospitals that choose to practice individualized patient care in consultation with their patients will be punished because they are not “meaningful users of the system over time.” Beginning January 1, 2013, penalties for doing the right thing for a patient will cost the doctor $100,000 for the first offense and jail for the second offense. This will have a chilling effect and may be the straw that completely breaks the foundation of good medicine – the doctor patient relationship.

46% of physiciansin a survey by The New England Journal of Medicine stated that they would leave the practice of medicine if Obamacare was implemented. This will only further decrease the quality of healthcare when the 30 million more people enter the system.  Maybe that’s why there is a big push in the healthcare bill to increase the number of other providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. There is no question that rationing will become our future. If you add 30 million more people into a system with fewer resources how could you possibly avoid rationing? Perhaps those members of Congress who passed this nightmare don’t care since they made sure that it wouldn’t apply to them.

Doctor Elaina George makes it crystal clear: ObamaCare was never about health or care; it was always about massively increasing control over the people by government.  Government as God.  Government as the arbiter of life and death.

ObamaCare brings the abortion mindset to the treatment of the elderly.

It can best be summed up in the words of former Clinton Secretary of Labor and current Obama supporter and adviser Robert Reich, who said of health care:

“It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

ObamaCare amounts to a future rationing of health care to senior citizens.

Repeal and replace this monstrosity by electing Republicans, or watch as your parents and all too soon even YOU YOURSELF begin to experience the evil consequences.

‘Transparency’ In Action: Obama Blocks Media To Conceal Failures

Let’s see.  Hope?  No freaking way.  Change?  Yes, but it’s really, really BAD change.  Even die hard and hard-core liberals like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman are predicting that Obamanomics are leading us into a double-dip recession IF we’re lucky enough to avoid a depression. Transparency?

Ooh, boy.

Afghan violence is soaring.  Obama’s own handpicked general is saying that the president is overwhelmed and unprepared, and that his civilian leadership team is a bunch of incompetent clowns.  All the evidence indicates that Obama is massively failing in Iraq.

What should he do?

Well, he should do the same thing in Afghanistan that he’s going to do about all his calamitous failures in the Gulf of Mexico.

He’s going to make sure that the media doesn’t have a chance to report the truth about what a failure he is at everything he touches.

Obama is going to clamp down on senior military commanders’ access to the media.  Oh, that directive has NOTHING to do with the McChrystal fiasco, just as my writing this article on Obama banning the media has nothing whatsoever to do with the new media ban policy.

From the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday issued a directive to all senior Pentagon military and civilian officials saying their dealing with the media “has grown lax” in recent months and ordering them to get approval for all engagements with the press through his office.

The directive, a two-page memo signed by Mr. Gates, comes just days after Gen. Stanley McChrystal was fired as commander in Afghanistan for intemperate remarks made to Rolling Stone magazine. The existence of the directive was reported by the New York Times and a copy was obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

Despite the timing, Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said it had been in the works for months before Gen. McChrystal’s firing. “This memo was written well before that,” Mr. Morrell said. “He thinks the department has been much too cavalier with its handling of the press.”

Now, you’d THINK they’d just admit the obvious and say, “That McChrystal thing was a real disaster, and we need to try to prevent something that disgraceful from happening again.”  But this is the most pathologically dishonest administration in history.  It’s like they have a perfect record on lying, and they’re not going to break it by telling the truth now.

This just goes back to Rahm Emanuel’s “Never let a crisis go to waste” mindset.

This is an administration that is so hostile to actual transparency that it has actually closed workshops on government openness to the public and blocked the press from attending transparency and accountability board meetings.

On front after front, this is the most opaque administration ever.  They block themselves off from media accountability even as they pat themselves on the back for their transparency.

This is the kind of administration that claims that it is advancing the will of the people when they are cynically defying and misrepresenting the will of the people.

It’s a constant pattern.  Just today, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that Obama has utterly failed at transparency regarding the massive porkulus boondoggle.  What a shock.

In Afghanistan, Obama prevents the military from open access to the press, which means that the military can’t tell us how shockingly incompetent Obama is as commander-in-chief.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that Obama would deal with his failure in the
Gulf of Mexico the same way he’s handled everything else.  He has been so pathetically incompetent that there’s a pretty damn good argument that he is stopping the cleanup efforts on purpose.

White House Enacts Rules Inhibiting Media From Covering Oil Spill
By Noel Sheppard
Created 07/03/2010 – 11:28

The White House Thursday enacted stronger rules to prevent the media from showing what’s happening with the oil spill in the Gulf Coast.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper reported that evening, “The Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers and reporters and anyone else from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches — 65 feet.”

He elaborated, “Now, in order to get closer, you have to get direct permission from the Coast Guard captain of the Port of New Orleans. You have to call up the guy. What this means is that oil-soaked birds on islands surrounded by boom, you can’t get close enough to take that picture.”

You’ve got CNN and Anderson Cooper – both of whom lean reliably to the left – having this to say about Obama’s “transparency”:

“This time, however, we’re not talking about BP. We’re talking about the government, a new a rule announced today backed by the force of law and the threat of fines and felony charges, a rule that will prevent reporters and photographers and anyone else from getting anywhere close to booms and oil-soaked wildlife and just about any place we need to be.”

[…]

We’re not the enemy here. Those of us down here trying to accurately show what’s happening, we are not the enemy. I have not heard about any journalist who has disrupted relief efforts. No journalist wants to be seen as having slowed down the cleanup or made things worse. If a Coast Guard official asked me to move, I would move.

But to create a blanket rule that everyone has to stay 65 feet away boom and boats, that doesn’t sound like transparency. Frankly, it’s a lot like in Katrina when they tried to make it impossible to see recovery efforts of people who died in their homes.

If we can’t show what is happening, warts and all, no one will see what’s happening. And that makes it very easy to hide failure and hide incompetence and makes it very hard to highlight the hard work of cleanup crews and the Coast Guard. We are not the enemy here.

We found out today two public broadcasting journalists reporting on health issues say they have been blocked again and again from visiting a federal mobile medical unit in Venice, a trailer where cleanup workers are being treated. It’s known locally as the BP compound. And these two reporters say everyone they have talked to, from BP to the Coast Guard, to Health and Human Services in Washington has been giving them the runaround.

We’re not talking about a CIA station here. We’re talking about a medical trailer that falls under the authority of, guess who, Thad Allen, the same Thad Allen who promised transparency all those weeks ago.

We are not the enemy here.

Everybody who cares about reality, and everybody who cares about truth, is Obama’s enemy, Anderson.

Obama has a lot to hide.  He’s got a lot to be ashamed of.  He’s failing on so many levels at the same time that no one can even keep track of them all.  The Gulf spill – already the worst in history – could be such a disaster that we might literally be in a “You can’t handle the truth!” moment.  Obama is now the worst president in American history even according to the standards the Democrats used against Bush in 2004.  And all he can do on the economy is keep blaming Bush and keep telling the same failed lie he’s been telling since the American people were stupid enough to hand him the keys to the White House.

All I can do about the Fascist-in-Chief is say those four words: I told you so.

ObamaCare Will Bring Abortion Mindset To Treatment Of Elderly

D. James Kennedy prophetically said years back, “Watch out, Grandpa!  Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”

And coming they are.  And coming after Grandma, too, of course.

One of the morally depraved assumptions of abortion is that the baby has a duty to die for the convenience of his or her mother.

And guess what, Grandma and Grandpa?  It’s getting to be YOUR turn to quit burdening us with your useless lives.  It’s getting to be time that you shoved off and “died with dignity.”

May 11, 2010 12:00 A.M.
A ‘Duty to Die’?
Thomas Sowell

There was a time when some desperately poor societies had to abandon the elderly to their fate, but is that where we are today?

One of the many fashionable notions that have caught on among some of the intelligentsia is that old people have “a duty to die” rather than become a burden to others.

This is more than just an idea discussed around a seminar table. Already the government-run medical system in Britain is restricting what medications or treatments it will authorize for the elderly. Moreover, it seems almost certain that similar attempts to contain runaway costs will lead to similar policies when American medical care is taken over by the government.

Make no mistake about it, letting old people die is a lot cheaper than spending the kind of money required to keep them alive and well. If a government-run medical system is going to save any serious amount of money, it is almost certain to do so by sacrificing the elderly.

There was a time — fortunately, now long past — when some desperately poor societies had to abandon old people to their fate, because there was just not enough margin for everyone to survive. Sometimes the elderly themselves would simply go off from their families and communities to face their fate alone.

But is that where we are today?

Talk about “a duty to die” made me think back to my early childhood in the South, during the Great Depression of the 1930s. One day, I was told that an older lady — a relative of ours — was going to come and stay with us for a while, and I was told how to be polite and considerate towards her.

She was called “Aunt Nance Ann,” but I don’t know what her official name was or what her actual biological relationship to us was. Aunt Nance Ann had no home of her own. But she moved around from relative to relative, not spending enough time in any one home to be a real burden.

At that time, we didn’t have things like electricity or central heating or hot running water. But we had a roof over our heads and food on the table — and Aunt Nance Ann was welcome to both.

Poor as we were, I never heard anybody say, or even intimate, that Aunt Nance Ann had “a duty to die.”

I only began to hear that kind of talk decades later, from highly educated people in an affluent age, when even most families living below the official poverty level owned a car or truck and had air conditioning.

It is today, in an age when homes have flat-paneled TVs and most families eat in restaurants regularly or have pizzas and other meals delivered to their homes, that the elites — rather than the masses — have begun talking about “a duty to die.”

Back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann, nobody in our family had ever gone to college. Indeed, none had gone beyond elementary school. Apparently, you need a lot of expensive education, sometimes including courses on ethics, before you can start talking about “a duty to die.”

Many years later, while going through a divorce, I told a friend that I was considering contesting child custody. She immediately urged me not to do it. Why? Because raising a child would interfere with my career.

But my son didn’t have a career. He was just a child who needed someone who understood him. I ended up with custody of my son and, although he was not a demanding child, raising him could not help impeding my career a little. But do you just abandon a child when it is inconvenient to raise him?

The lady who gave me this advice had a degree from Harvard Law School. She had more years of education than my whole family had, back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann.

Much of what is taught in our schools and colleges today seeks to break down traditional values and replace them with more fancy and fashionable notions, of which “a duty to die” is just one.

These efforts at changing values used to be called “values clarification,” though the name has had to be changed repeatedly over the years, as more and more parents caught on to what was going on and objected. The values that supposedly needed “clarification” had been clear enough to last for generations, and nobody asked the schools and colleges for this “clarification.”

Nor are we better people because of it.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Don’t think Sowell knows what he’s talking about?

How about lifelong Democrat talking head and economist Robert Reich?

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you,  particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.

“Thank you.  And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

That’s right, young folk.  You get to pay more to have the privilege of one day being euthanized like an unwanted dog at the county animal shelter.  I know I’D certainly happily pay more for a privilege like that.  Pay more for my health care?  And then get to die a slow, painful death of medical neglect because I’ve been considered to be a useless burden like all those millions of babies Democrats have murdered?  Where can I sign?

Oh, I’m ALREADY signed up for it?  Coool.  I just can’t wait until that cancer starts eating holes in my body, and my government health plan offers me suicide in lieu of any actual care.  Or maybe I’ll get REALLY lucky and simply be left to die in my own filth.

Robert “Third” Reich isn’t the only one pointing out this actually quite obvious central tenet of the Democrats’ health plan.  Obama has appointed at least two other “experts” to advise him on medical issues.  Here’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, whom Obama appointed as OMB health policy adviser in addition to being picked to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated… The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care.  Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel included a chart with his work (available here), which shows how he wants to allocate medical resources under a government plan:

When you’re very young, or when you start reaching your 50s and 60s, you start receiving less and less priority.

Then there’s Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explains:

“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

There’s a great deal more about Obama’s own advisers’ plans here.

Which very much jives with what Obama himself told a woman concerning her mother:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

We can sum it up quite nicely with the words of Obama’s former senior economic adviser: “So we’re going to let you die.”

Die with dignity.  Or die without it.  It doesn’t matter.  What matters in the brave new world of ObamaCare is that liberals have finally succeeded in turning health care into a socialist boondoggle.  And it will one day be your duty to die in order to sustain that boondoggle.

Breast Cancer Screening: Government Fires First Volley Of Rationing, Death By Medical Neglect

Let me begin by saying that the current versions of ObamaCare don’t have a single death panel.

It’s more like 111 separate death panels.

Some of the names  and acronyms of the dozens and dozens of bureaucracies are undoubtedly different under the new iteration of socialized medicine, but here’s a snapshot of your new health care system if Democrats get their way:

The Senate version is 2,075 pages of fun, I hear.  Nobody understands it.  And nobody is going to end up getting a chance to read it by the time it gets voted on.

If you thought that there was going to be any kind of transparency or accountability – or even honesty – from the Obama administration – you need to stop smoking your crack pipe.

This latest event in the march toward socialized medicine reminds me of the case of Barbara Wagner.  In Oregon, which has “universal coverage” through the state, she was abandoned to die by a system that would not pay for her cancer treatment, but offered to pay for her euthanasia.

Only this time, the government wants to deny treatment on the other side of the cancer diagnosis.

IBD Editorials

Rationing’s First Step

Health Care: A government task force has decided that women need fewer mammograms and later in life. Shouldn’t that be between patient and physician? We have seen the future of health care, and it doesn’t work.

We have warned repeatedly that the net results of health care bills before Congress will be higher demand, fewer doctors, more cost control, all leading to rationing.  New recommendations issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) regarding breast cancer and the necessity for early and frequent mammograms do not convince us otherwise.

Just six months ago, the panel, which works under the Health and Human Services Department as a “best practices” study group, was shouting its concern about a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study showing a 1% drop in the number of women regularly undergoing such screening and prevention.

The task force was saying that women older than 40 should get a mammogram every one to two years. It found that frequent screening lowered death rates from breast cancer mostly for women ages 50 to 69. But that was then, and this is now.

“We’re not saying women shouldn’t get screened. Screening does save lives,” Diana Petiti, task force vice chairman, said of the recommendations published Tuesday in Annals of Internal Medicine. “But we are recommending against routine screening.”

Now the panel recommends that women in their 40s stop having routine annual mammograms and that older women should cut back to every two years. The concern allegedly is that too frequent testing can result in increased anxiety, false positives, unneeded follow-up tests and possibly disfiguring biopsies.  Preventing breast cancer and saving lives almost get lost in the new analysis.

“I have a particular concern in this case about who was involved in this task force,” says Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., who was a heart surgeon in private life. “There are no surgeons or oncologists who deal directly with breast cancer or even radiologists. … I’ve seen far too many young women develop late-stage breast cancer because they didn’t have adequate screening.”

Little, if anything, has happened medically in the last six months to cause such a shift. A lot, however, has happened politically as a health care overhaul has limped forward on life support. The Congressional Budget Office has been busy pricing these various bills, a process that includes screening and prevention.

As we have warned, the growing emphasis seems to be on cost containment rather than quality of care. About 39 million women undergo mammograms each year in America, costing the health care system more than $5 billion.

“The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40,” says Otis Brawley, its chief medical officer. “Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider.”

Daniel Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School, says: “Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and those idiots want to do away with it. It’s crazy — unethical, really.”

This, sadly, appears to be the future of medicine under government-run health care. Aside from taxes on insurers, providers and device manufacturers, we’ll be up to our eyeballs in cost-effectiveness boards that will decide who gets what tests and treatments, when and if. These are only recommendations for now, but they are the shape of things to come.

An IBD/TIPP poll found that 45% of medical doctors would consider retiring if the Congressional health care “reform” passes.  Given the fact that an increasing shortage of doctors is already one of the chief burdens in providing health care, this exodus would amount to a catastrophe that our health system would never recover from.

In Canada, the chronic doctor shortage has been bad enough that patients literally have to sign up for a lottery in order to have a chance to “win” a primary care physician.  But now we are learning that overwhelmed Canadian doctors are using a lottery of their own to dump patients.

Why on earth would anyone want this for America?

The Obama administration is preparing the health delivery system to implement the philosophy of Obama advisers such as Robert Reich, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Cass Sunstein, which can be easily summarized with the quote:

“It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Robert Reich’s words in context only make the hateful idea sound even more hateful:

And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Then there are the words of Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, who wrote:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

And Rahm Emanuel’s brother Ezekiel, whom Obama appointed as his OMB health policy adviser in addition to selecting him to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research wrote:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated… The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care.  Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”

And Obama himself told a woman who wanted to keep her aging mother alive:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

YOU take the painkiller rather than have that lifesaving surgery, Barry Hussein.  And why don’t you insist that Michelle and your two daughters take the pill rather than have that lifesaving surgery, too?  Just to be like all the “little people” out there.

But of course that’s not going to happen.  Rather, Democrats have now exempted themselves from 11 separate amendments that would have required them to have the same ObamaCare that they want to force everyone else to have.

You can understand why they would do so, given the promises that the system will be worse than terrible, and due to the fact that even a complete idiot who looks around and sees how horribly the administration has managed the H1N1 vaccine situation can recognize that taking on 1/6th of the economy would be beyond catastrophic.  I mean, heck, if I were a Democrat, I’d be sure to exempt myself from this monstrosity too, lest MY family members fall under the coming steamroller.

This “recommendation” of reducing mammographies isn’t mandatory now, but that’s because the government hasn’t usurped the health care system yet.  You just wait a decade from now, when the government runs everything, and soaring deficits force them to start cutting costs.

Contrary To Obama Democrats’ Demagogic Lies About Private Insurerer Profits

Do you want to have one-sixth of the economy – and literally life and death decisions – to be taken over based on lies and demagoguery?  If not, you’d better start calling your elected officials and demanding that Democrats finally start dealing with facts rather than demagogic lies.

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON — In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making “immoral” and “obscene” returns while “the bodies pile up.”

But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. Ledgers tell a different reality.

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would “keep insurance companies honest,” says President Barack Obama.

The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

The insurers may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

A look at some claims, and the numbers:

THE CLAIMS:

_“I’m very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers’ “obscene profits.”

_“Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed.” Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

_”Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe.” A MoveOn.org ad.

THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better — drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That’s a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry’s overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

Half of Americans are actually covered by not-for-profit insurers.

A pro-liberal, pro-government universal health care proponent has the following:

But this is not “change.” Nonprofit organizations have always had an important role in the financing and delivery of health care services in the United States. Nonprofit health care organizations are part of the U.S. economy’s “third sector,” the other two sectors are government and for-profit businesses. In the early 1900s the first health care prepayment/insurance plan was founded as a nonprofit organization—Blue Cross—by a nonprofit hospital in Texas. Today, nearly 50 percent of people with private health insurance coverage are enrolled in nonprofit health plans.

Unfortunately, the strong and persistent presence of private nonprofit health insurance companies has not prevented any of the structural problems leading to our current health care crisis.

So the Democrats are deceitfully and demagogically claiming that insurance companies are the villains due to their “excessive” and “immoral” profits when in fact they DON’T have such profits – and HALF of them are NON-PROFITS – and they are offering a “solution” to a problem which isn’t even part of the problem to begin with.

I’m sorry to have to point out that what the Democrats are doing is right out of Adolf Hitler’s and Joseph Goebbels’ playbook, but it is.  They are telling lies about innocent companies.  They are deceitfully trying to create villains using propaganda and demagoguery so that they can then impose their “final solution” onto one-sixth of the national economy.

The clearest one sentence explanation of the result of the Democrats’ health care agenda comes from the mouth of Obama economic adviser Robert Reich:

“… So we’re going to let you die.”

The so-called “crazy claims” about death panels turn out to be all too real.

Democrats claim that you can keep your private health insurance if you want to.  It’s a lie.  And they know it’s a lie.

Their real goal is to put health care under total government control, so that they have the power to reward their allies and punish their opponents.  They are using their current legislation as a backdoor to universal, socialized, government-controlled health care.  And again, when they say that isn’t true, their own words reveal their lies.

Right now, Democrats are trying to take over life and death decisions.  And they are the documented liars.  Trust them at your peril.

“… So We’re Going To Let You Die.” Vote Deathocrat, Vote Death Panels

Verum Serum sets up the hypocrisy of the Democrats:

Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor under Clinton and more recently an Obama economic adviser, has been all over the media lately shilling for ObamaCare. The public option is no more dangerous than a box of puppies according to this professionally produced video featuring Reich. (I won’t embed it but it’s worth a quick watch.) The real injustice, according to Reich, is that political operatives like us are trying to “confuse and scare” people about change.

So perhaps he can explain for us his comments in the video below. Reich is speaking at a Colloquium on Political Science at UC Berkeley on Sept. 26, 2007. No other set-up is necessary – watch:

Listen to the words of Robert Reich:

[Youtube link]

Here’s a transcript of the most relevant remarks of Robert “Third” Reich:

I’ll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you,  particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.

“Thank you.  And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Pay more, old people die.  Check, and check.  Sounds like exactly what any big government fascist would want.

“Third” Reich isn’t the only one pointing out this actually quite obvious central tenet of the Democrats’ health plan.  Obama has appointed at least two other “experts” to advise him on medical issues.  Here’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, whom Obama appointed as OMB health policy adviser in addition to being picked to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated… The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care.  Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel included a chart with his work (available here), which shows how he wants to allocate medical resources under a government plan:

When you’re very young, or when you start reaching your 50s and 60s, you start receiving less and less priority.

Then there’s Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explains:

“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

There’s a great deal more about Obama’s own advisers’ plans here.

Which very much jives with what Obama himself told a woman concerning her mother:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

We can sum it up quite nicely with the words of Obama’s former senior economic adviser: “So we’re going to let you die.”

Sarah Palin just cut right to the chase back when she wrote:

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.

And for all the hell that the servants of hell have unleashed on her for her comment, she was 100% correct.

The entire plan is evil:

And, yeah, there really are things that can very legitimately be called “death panels.”  Take “The Death Book for Veterans” – which George Bush banned and Barack Obama demanded be reinstated – that required veterans to consider life and death from a bleak perspective and consider euthanasia to avoid being a burden.  My article on that discovered some dishonest federal government shenanigans when that story was exposed as the VA sought to cover up the role of the Hemlock Society.

We’re seeing the genesis of a genuine holocaust beginning to emerge.  The Democrats’ plan will force health insurers to cover everyone regardless of whether they have a pre-existing condition, regardless of whether they honestly represented themselves when they obtained their insurance, and regardless of whether they can even pay for their coverage.  And the system the Democrats are creating completely depends on young, healthy people who have historically not bought medical coverage.  You can’t add massively to the costs of providing care if you don’t have at least an equally massive inflow of dollars coming in.  If young people who have never bought medical coverage before don’t buy coverage in huge numbers, we will very quickly face critical shortages, and massive rationing of care – particularly to the elderly who have less value under the Democrats’ plan – will ensue.

And I don’t mean just pay the “individual mandate” fines – which have been watered down significantly to make the Democrats’ plan more palatable – because they don’t create enough revenue.  I mean if they don’t purchase health care in huge numbers, we will see serious shortages, rationing, and death by medical neglect.

Harry Reid made a staggering admission while trying to prevent Democrat-special-interest anathema tort reform.  He said:

HARRY REID: “He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesnt it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, were talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. Its a very small percent.”

[Youtube]

The Democrats’ health plan will be FAR more costly than any estimates yet offered.  The government ALWAYS underestimates its cost for its programs.  Medicare cost nine times more than was estimated, for example.

And let me point out that figures such as Robert Reich, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Cass Sunstein are proponents of the Democrats’ system and believe it will go well – AND THEY ARE STILL TELLING US THAT A CENTRAL PART OF THE SYSTEM WILL BE TO ALLOW ELDERLY PEOPLE TO DIE.

Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson “warned” Americans that “Republicans want you to die quickly” during a floor speech in the House of Representatives.  But he is a liar.  It is not Republicans who are literally out talking about letting people die, but Democrats.

Please come to your senses and start denouncing the Deathocrats’ Death Panel bill.