White House sued for free speech violations

White House sued for free speech violations:

"In the lawsuit, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CARE) claim the White House had 'illegally' used its power to collect information on political speech.

[The lawsuit] claimed that the White House knew its data collection would chill free speech and in fact intended to do just that.

"The suit demands that the White House remove any information it might have already collected and that it be prohibited from collecting personal data in the future.

The lawsuit stems from a move by the White House earlier this month to push back on what it claimed was disinformation being spread about Obama's health-care reform plans. In an Aug. 4 blog post, Macon Phillips, director of new media at the White House, lamented what he called the disinformation and rumors that often traveled via chain e-mails or through casual conversations."

ABC, NBC Won't Air Ad Critical of Obama's Health Care Plan - Political News - FOXNews.com

ABC, NBC Won't Air Ad Critical of Obama's Health Care Plan - Political News - FOXNews.com:

"The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June and hosted at the White House.

The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form."

Redistribution

We all heard a lot from and about Obama in his campaign and early presidential days about redistribution of wealth. We haven't heard much about that lately, and probably with good reason: he's taken the idea of redistribution and applied it to health care, this time with the elderly losing out.

Think about it; as a community organizer, Obama revealed his core as a "social justice" type, meaning that essentially, all people should have more or less equal outcomes (as opposed to the American ideal of equal opportunity).

In Obama's mind, equal outcome can be achieved in a variety of ways, but concerning healthcare, in order to get the bulk of the money shifted away from the elderly and middle class and toward the poor, he'd have to remake the entire healthcare system.

It's easier to hide his true intent this way, by casting the entirety of the healthcare system as completely broken, and necessary to remake it.

Just like any good con man playing a shell game, Obama and the democrats needed speed to push it through, so no one would catch on to what they were doing. That didn't work. However, Americans being the trusting (read: dopey) souls that we are, Obama may still get what he wants; that is, unless the voters speak out even more loudly than we have.

What I got with Cash for Clunkers - Sterling Brooks: Too old for clunkerdom (4) - CNNMoney.com

What I got with Cash for Clunkers - Sterling Brooks: Too old for clunkerdom (4) - CNNMoney.com:

"My smoke-belching, fuel-guzzling diesel van doesn't qualify for Cash for Clunkers. I have insurance, current license plates, a safety-inspection sticker... but my van is one year too old to qualify."

Clunkers program could end soon -- with a crash - Aug. 20, 2009

Clunkers program could end soon -- with a crash - Aug. 20, 2009:

"Auto dealers, among the biggest supporters of the program, are pulling out in large numbers, worried that they won't be reimbursed for the up to $4,500 they have advanced to each customer who trades in older gas guzzlers for more fuel efficient models.

Dealers are complaining that slow processing of paperwork by the Department of Transportation has put them in a cash flow bind, requiring them to advance well over $1 billion so far.

They also worry that the delays in processing their applications could mean there are far more deals in the pipeline, a problem since the $3 billion allocated to Cash for Clunkers is already close to exhausted."

Tennessee Experiment's High Cost Fuels Health-Care Debate - WSJ.com

Tennessee Experiment's High Cost Fuels Health-Care Debate - WSJ.com

In 1994, Tennessee launched an ambitious public insurance program to cover its uninsured. The plan, TennCare, fulfilled that mission but nearly bankrupted the state in the process. Unlike Massachusetts's more recent universal coverage law, the TennCare plan's... runaway costs show that the public health-insurance proposal by House Democrats could bankrupt the federal government.

As originally envisioned, the Tennessee plan expanded Medicaid, the government health-care program for the poor, to cover people who couldn't afford insurance or who had been denied coverage by an insurance company.

In a letter to Congress last month, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) compared the public plan envisioned in the House bill to TennCare, warning that TennCare became so costly at its peak that it ate up one-third of Tennessee's budget.

"The promise of TennCare has gone unrealized," she wrote. "Many of the concerns we have expressed about the proposal before us today are the stark realities of a system that went terribly wrong in Tennessee."

With an initial budget of $2.6 billion, TennCare quickly extended coverage to an additional 500,000 people by making access to its plans easy and affordable. But the program became so expensive that Tennessee was forced to scale it back in 2005.

TennCare had its failings. The plan, for example, paid health providers less than private insurance plans, prompting some physicians and hospitals to increase charges to private insurers. Some of this resulted in so-called cost shifting, with insurance companies passing on the costs through higher premiums.

Rep. Blackburn says TennCare shows that a public plan would undermine the current employer-based health-care system, citing data from University of California at San Diego that showed 45% of people claiming TennCare's benefits had left employer-provided insurance.

SPIN METER: Cash for Clunkers also helps consumers buy SUVs, trucks and crossovers too | Washington Examiner

SPIN METER: Cash for Clunkers also helps consumers buy SUVs, trucks and crossovers too | Washington Examiner:

"But what LaHood and other administration officials usually don't mention is that some trucks and sport-utility vehicles that get less than 20 miles per gallon, like the Ford F-150 truck and one version of the Cadillac SRX Crossover, also are being purchased with the new government subsidies. Both are bulky vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds when loaded that boast at least 248 horsepower.

Just how many consumers used the federal rebates to buy these larger, not-so-green vehicles is unclear. The Obama administration has declined so far to release detailed records of purchases under the program being compiled by the Transportation Department, listing every clunker deal requesting rebates. The Associated Press requested the data July 31."

Intelligence from the Din

Below is a comment from an article on Sen Ben Cardin's town hall meeting on health care reform. It's probably the most intelligent suggestion made concerning the mess that is now health care "reform."

I have a great idea (which means Washington will never implement it). I am an engineer and make a living solving complex problems. When engineers are tasked to solve a problem the first thing they do is an in-depth study of why the problem exists in the first place. After that you take each cause and try and find a particular solution that fixes it. The problem here is that health care used to be affordable and now it is not. Why is that? Is it the insurance companies gouging consumers? Is it unnecessary malpractice lawsuits? Is it doctors padding the bill with unnecessary tests? Is it the government's inefficiencies? Is it illegal immigrants getting free care that the taxpayer ultimately pays? I don't know, but my idea would be for the government, Republicans and Democrats, to do a lengthy, thorough study and find this out. Then we could start tackling each cause one at a time and develop solutions that actually address the problem. Why does congress have to ram a hastily crafted bill down our throats? Why can't they figure out what the cause is and fix it? Like I said earlier, nearly 100% of the people against the Democrats bill are for some sort of reform, but they don't want reform for reforms sake, especially when the government has such a poor track record. Lets have real reform that really fixes the problem and you will see support from nearly everyone.
RixonGator (08/11/2009, 1:19 PM )

Opponents dominate Cardin town hall meeting on health care -- baltimoresun.com

What's "Bitch" In Congolese?

Clinton's Outburst in Congo Raises Concerns About Her Diplomatic Skills - Political News - FOXNews.com

Some foreign policy analysts said while her reaction may not have any political repercussions, it reflects her limitations as a diplomat.

"If a student in the Congo can get under your skin with a mistranslation and you're unable to deflect it in a gracious diplomatic way, one gets a little concerned when an issue of more consequence comes along and she might indulge in a personal perspective as opposed to something that's good for the country as a whole,"

- Robert Schadler, senior fellow in public diplomacy at the American Foreign Policy Council.

"It's inappropriate for a diplomat to be so harshly personal," Schadler added. "You can't imagine the great secretaries of state with expressing that unnecessary personal view when they would be overseas and talking to a foreign audience."

No Wonder Obama Wanted to Ram Health Care Bill Through

There's always a reason for everything, and now those reasons are starting to emerge. Age-based healthcare was bad, but race-based health care is even worse. Read on.

EXCLUSIVE: Panel sees race bias in health care bill - Washington Times

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights says some little-noticed provisions in the House health care bill are racially discriminatory...

...and it intends to ask President Obama and Congress to rewrite sections that factor in race when awarding billions in contracts, scholarships and grants.

The commission also fears the programs, which are designed to improve health care in underserved areas, will not be effective.

In a draft of a letter the commission approved Friday, the group raises constitutional questions about giving preferential treatment to minority students for scholarships, and about favoring medical schools and organizations that have a record of sending graduates to areas with inadequate health care services.

"These programs are unlikely to reduce health care disparities among racial and ethic groups," according to the draft letter obtained by The Washington Times. "A growing body of evidence indicates that increasing access to high-quality physicians - whatever their racial or ethnic ancestry - is the best way to mitigate such disparities."

The draft letter also cites testimony from Dr. Amitabh Chandra of Harvard University who said the idea that expanding the number of minority physicians and providing "cultural competence training" will bridge the health status gap is "grounded in hope more than science," according to the draft language.

It cites research from Dr. Chandra that found that improving the quality of health care in the 500 largest minority serving areas would improve minority health care more than the elimination of racial disparities within every provider in the U.S.

Show me the money

Obama: Canadian Health Care Won't Work for America - Political News - FOXNews.com:

"Obama said the United States spends the most money per person on health care but some measures show the U.S. doesn't rank at the top in terms of outcomes.

'We're not doing better than a lot of other advanced, developed countries that are spending much less per person,' he said."

Right. Name me 2 countries spending less and doing more that have the same large and diverse population as the United States. The world's largest emerging nation, India, still has a population who takes a dump in the public streets (see Slumdog Millionaire).

But then, isn't it logical to spend money on the same old American system that mostly eradicated polio, measles, TB and brought the world penicillin, even though you think it's wretched?

I think it's a good thing to live in the country that spends the most on healthcare. Leave it alone. Those who don't have health insurance still have health care, let's be clear about that. Federal law says it, bubby.

I wish the people could see this for what it is: no crisis of any kind. Care is given to anyone who wants it and appears at the door of any American hospital. What Obama wants is to pigeonhole who will pay for it. So it's maybe an issue regarding accountability for costs related to the sick who get treatment not under insurance; it should fall on the shoulders of the feds because they enacted the laws. Actually, care for the uninsured is eaten by the hospital itself. Which is why hospital costs are high and rising - treating the poor under federal law without reimbursement. Obama seems to want to push that payment off onto the taxpayer or, more recently, onto the buyer (employer or employee) of health insurance. As if they have nothing else to pay for.

But who gains? Not the taxpayer, but actually the hospital - which is why a lot of them support the Democrats in this. Yep, it's always about the money.

In the bargain, Obama has embraced Hilary Clinton's notion: never let a good crisis go unused. Redefining the issue of health care payments for the uninsured as a crisis of the entire health care system is a good way to gain control over it. Convince the bumpkins that everything is a wreck, and then swoop in like the hero and make everything right. And what is created is under the control of our hero. Stalin, eat your heart out. The only problem is that there are 300 million screaming voters out here that need to be controlled, and not a Bolshevik in sight.

Enter Obama... but never, ever forget - it's always about the money.

A New Revolution?

Michigan crowd vents health care fury - Washington Times
ROMULUS, Mich. | There were no buses, no swastikas, not a piece of Astroturf in sight.

But there was name-calling, jeering, red faces and finger-pointing as Michigan residents shot back with fury at a congressional town-hall meeting geared to explaining President Obama's health care plan.

Rep. John D. Dingell, a Democrat and a lead author of health care legislation in the House, did his best to remain composed, even as many constituents and other residents argued that the plan is socialized medicine and rained down fury against a smaller group of supporters for the plan.

"You're a fraud, you have not read the bill," screamed Mike Sola, who got directly in the lawmaker's face in furious confrontation...

...wheeling his 36-year-old son, Scott, who has cerebral palsy, directly to the podium before police stepped in and encouraged the Milan, Mich., man to leave. He asserted that the bill would not help his disabled child.

"Fascist America," Mr. Sola screamed on his way out.

My question: Why was Mr. Sola asked to leave?

It seems to be perpetually "alright" to promote cultural imagery of people standing up for their rights, especially when it involves the health of people and particularly their children. The litany of films is endless: John Q, Erin Brockovich, Damages (on FX Networks), Sicko, The Rainmaker, etc etc. Those who lean to the political left love stories about people who stand up to the Goliath of government and industry. But they ain't loving this.

In the current real-life story, we have the Goliath of the US Government concocting a plan to control everyone's health care, perhaps even determining who is eligible for life-saving treatment based on their age and use to society (there was a film about that, too, called Soylent Green). We'd find it unbelievable and relegate it all to the realm of SciFi if it weren't actually happening in Canada with their national healthcare system.

But here we have everyday Americans not just afraid, but really pissed off and letting their representatives know it. Despite what the Town Idiot Pelosi and her pal, Hoyer say, this is the most American thing ever; it's how we got started and why we remain who we are - having the freedom and nerve to stand up for what's ours.

My hope is that this is a turning point in the way we view politics and politicians. I hope that people finally get off their laziness and tell their politicians what they want. And vote them out if they don't do it.

A new revolution?

Thank you, DNC. We appreciate further division.

Health Care Town Halls Turn Violent in Tampa and St. Louis - Political News - FOXNews.com:

"Town hall meetings called to discuss proposed health care legislation turned violent Thursday, with a meeting in Tampa, Fla., descending into shouting and one in St. Louis ending in arrests.

Inside [in Tampa, FL], Democratic lawmakers had a difficult time delivering their opening remarks, as they were met with shouts of "You work for us!'' "Tyranny! tyranny! tyranny!'' and "Read the bill!" the Tampa Tribune reported.

As tensions rose further, Rep. Castor was escorted out of the town hall by police after Reed encouraged her to leave.

"They're hiding from their constituents. She works for us and needs to listen,''

- Karen Jaroch, a homemaker and organizer for the 9-12 Project

"We said all along our role was to come and give an update on the bill in Congress. That's what Betty Reed asked us to do ... and that's what we did," Castor's spokeswoman, Ellen Gedalius, was quoted as saying.

Health care opponents said liberal organizers had tried to allow early admission to those who were seen as favorable to legislation making its way through Congress. "

"If socialized medicine is best ... why didn't Ted Kennedy go to Canada?"

The American Left, the White House, and Totalitarianism

Not only is the Obama White House asking for people to "turn in" their neighbors, but they're also acting against citizens' rights to yell at their representatives by moving to counter the voices of these citizens.

Obama rallies health counterprotesters - Washington Times:

"A day after the White House dismissed protesters at town-hall events as people sent from opposition groups in Washington, the administration's political wing began mobilizing millions of its own supporters"

This is really extraordinary, because it harkens back to the McCarthy days, when Americans were expected and encouraged to turn in their fellow citizens for "suspected" communist activities. However, this time it's worse: it concerns no threat to the US (as communism may have been), but rather it's about Americans voicing their First Amendment freedoms countering Obama's and the democrats' proposed policies. In response, the democrats are moving to quiet American voices, so that they can operate without opposition.

I really can't believe what I'm seeing here in America. No right-wing politician in this country, even McCarthy, ever did anything close to this. It smacks of the early Nazi party days, when the SA started controlling the German people through fear.

The White House's request to "turn in" information and their efforts to counter American citizens' protests to their elected representatives supports the argument that the left is after totalitarianism. Clearly now, that's where Obama and the democrats want to head.

Unbelievable; having not just a president, but an entire political party, that runs so counter to the American ethos.


White House Draws Fire for Requesting 'Fishy’ Information From Supporters on Health Reform - Political News - FOXNews.com:

"The White House is under fire for a blog post asking supporters to send 'fishy' information received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversations to a White House e-mail address, flag@whitehouse.gov."

Three More Downsides to the Clunkers Clunker

The Clunkers deal is being criticized roundly by those with policy experience. Here's another couple of bad things the Cash for Clunkers deal will introduce:

1. The Clunkers program is requiring that all cars traded in for federal cash be destroyed. This is taking out of the market cars that usually pass to the poor, because they can be sold cheaply. But taking all of these off the road will cause a dearth of vehicles that the poor can afford.

Mark my words, in a year or two, the Democrats will introduce a bill whereby in some form or another, the government will buy a newer car for the poor. They've almost done it for illegals, through giving driver's licenses to those in the country illegally.

2. The new cars being sold through the program are not American cars. What's up with that? Tis gets away from the basic tenet of the program, which was to revitalize the automotive industry and get the government out of it, words used by Obama himself. So what the hell?

3. Giving away cars to support charity will go away. Carities often accept donations of these very clunkers that they can then sell for scrap themselves. They use it as a means to support the charity. But with the ability to trade in your clunker and the government scrapping the cars themselves, they've taken away a very powerful tool for charities to raise much needed cash. I've donated a car myself to this, and still feel good about it.

On the upside: There have been many problems with the program, and still are, not the least of which has been the administrative costs and oppressive paperwork. So if you want to see what US Federal health care will look like, look no further.

Do the math

Considering the shoddy state of our schools, it's no wonder that congress can't do simple artithmetic. I say that, looking at numbers from the proposal to "reform" our the health care system. (As an aside comment, I have to wonder how congress believes it can reform anything, given that they have yet to reform a single congressman sent to federal prison. But I digress...)

If the goal is to get health insurance to what the Obama Administration claims is 46 million uninsured people, the central question no one is asking is: why not simply buy insurance for the uninsured? This question is especially important given that the democrats want to spend 1 trillion dollars on this debacle, and it will actually cost more than that because your individual health insurance rates are likely to rise, too. But in comparison, what would a simple, welfare-inspired and government-sponsored HMO plan cost? (Another aside: the health care of people on welfare and the unemployed are already covered under federal law; ask your doctor or nurse if you don't believe me.)

You can answer the cost question that yourself: take the cost of your health insurance, then multiply that by the number of uninsured Obama wants to have under the government healthcare jackboot. Inc magazine says the annual cost for an average HMO is $4,299 for individuals; multiply that by 46 million people and that gives us $197,754,000,000. In people-speak, that 197 billion, 754 million dollars.

That's less than 0ne-fifth of what the democrats are proposing, for simply buying a commercial HMO plan for the uninsured.

Of course, this number would be substantially less, because the government would bid the plan to a commercial company, which could reduce the 193 billion cost by at least one-third.

So tell me again how this crazy-assed, trillion-dollar plan of theirs is going to work better than this? More importantly, tell me who asked for it?

Jefferson on Newspapers

I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it.
- Thomas Jefferson