What ObamaCare Will Mean for You— and What You Can Do About It Today

BAB's A List, Barack Obama, Communism, Free Markets, Government, Healthcare, Propaganda, Regulation, Socialism, Taxation, The State

By Robert James Bidinotto

Now that the House and Senate finally have completed work on their enormous health-care bills, we can see what the final provisions will be. Their differences are far less important than their similarities. Either bill will be a disaster for our economy—for our personal well-being, both financial and medical—for our precious rights and freedoms—and for the futures of our children and grandchildren.

Both bills are now coming up for crucial floor votes. Many in Congress are very nervous about what their votes will mean for their political careers.

This coming week is critical in the process of passing or defeating this legislation, once and for all. Now is the time that you can weigh in and make a real difference with your congressman and senators.

Here is what you need to know. Rather than overwhelm you with arcane details of each bill, it is more important that you understand in principle what ObamaCare will mean for you and your family.

ObamaCare will mean:

Outrageous Costs. At a time of exploding federal spending and budget deficits, both the House and Senate bills would add far more than a trillion dollars to the mind-boggling financial liabilities we taxpayers already face. Even the stated price tags of these bills are fraudulent products of statistical manipulations. One way they pretend to reduce costs is to remove a quarter-trillion dollars in doctor Medicare reimbursements from the bills, but instead add that gargantuan spending into separate legislation. Another way they pretend to balance the books (“deficit neutrality”) is to impose years of tax increases to fund these bills, before the outrageous spending actually kicks in. When it does, the “cost curve” in later decades will soar upward, and deficits will pile up by the billions. In addition, the bills would vastly expand the already-bankrupt Medicaid program; this would impose on state governments, which already face crushing budget crises, tens of billions of dollars in new taxing and spending commitments. You will ultimately pick up that tab, too.

Soaring Taxes. ObamaCare is not “insurance,” but a gigantic new entitlement scheme meant to “spread the wealth around.” To pay for this spending spree, both bills will drain our ailing private economy of hundreds of billions of dollars in higher taxes. These taxes will fall disproportionately upon the young and healthy: They will be forced to buy costly policies, thus expanding the “pool” of payers who will subsidize those older and sicker. Higher taxes also will fall heavily upon “the rich.” But these include the same entrepreneurs and employers whom we expect to create businesses and jobs to lift us out of the recession—and also the very doctors whom we expect to provide the medical services to the millions of new patients. The legislation also proposes hefty taxes on better private-insurance plans, which would penalize and undermine existing employer-employee benefits packages. These are just a few of the many new taxes and fees the bills would impose on us.

Perverse Incentives. ObamaCare would subsidize and greatly expand the demand for health care, while discouraging the supply of health care. It would create a gigantic new federal entitlement program that would add millions of new, taxpayer-subsidized claimants for health-insurance coverage. Then it would force insurers to accept all comers—regardless of any actuarial risk factors—and to provide them coverage that is far beyond what many people actually require. On the other side of the equation, ObamaCare will increase taxes on those private insurers (who now average only 2-3% profit margins), while expecting them somehow to pay all the new benefits. It will also increase taxes and fees on hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the inventors of new medical devices—thus punishing those who create and provide medical treatments. Inevitably, this will deter many of them from developing or offering vital new medical treatments for patients, and it will even force some of them out of business.

Government rationing. When soaring demand for medical care overwhelms shrinking supply of providers, the only outcome would be government rationing of medical care—which has occurred in all socialized-medicine regimes.

Lost Individual Choice. All talk of adding “choice and competition” to the health-insurance market is a complete fraud. The bills do not free individuals to buy insurance across state lines—“choice and competition” that would actually reduce the cost of insurance. Instead, the bills propose a host of new mandates on private individuals, employers, and private insurers. Under penalty of fines or jail, individuals will be forced to buy costly coverage; employers will be forced to provide it and to comply with countless petty regulations; and doctors, hospitals, and private insurers will be forced to comply with a mountain of new government orders, requirements, restrictions, demands, and regulations. Compliance with all these ever-expanding governmental edicts will drive up the costs for physicians, hospitals, medicines, treatments, and private insurance premiums. Skyrocketing costs will force more and more people into the “public option.” Meanwhile, the bills would slash reimbursements to Medicare Advantage plans, killing a private-insurance option now exercised and enjoyed by one-fourth of all seniors.

Broken promises. In sum, the pending legislation will not cover all the uninsured; it will not add to freedom of choice for consumers; it will not be “deficit-neutral”; it will not “bend the cost curve downward”; it will not prevent illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer-subsidized medical care; it will not prevent government payments from funding controversial procedures such as abortions; and it will not allow people to “keep their current coverage.” All of these are the loud promises of ObamaCare’s advocates; all are demonstrable falsehoods.

Instead, ObamaCare will do only one thing, which was the overt objective of its proponents from the outset: put the federal government in charge of the delivery of all health care in America.

A single-payer, government-run program of socialized medicine is the stated objective of those who designed this legislative monstrosity—from President Obama, to the vast coalition of unions and advocacy groups, to the congressional leaders who drafted these bills. They explicitly intend to bankrupt the private-insurance marketplace, so that only the government option remains. Far from adding “choice and competition,” then, ObamaCare aims at imposing on us a government health-care monopoly.

But only if we allow it to happen. Because this power-grab still can be stopped.

Congress remains deeply divided over many provisions of this legislation. If it passes, it only will be by a handful of votes. That means we can defeat this monstrosity by changing just a few minds. Now—this week—is the time for you to raise your voice and put on the pressure.

To contact your congressman, by phone, mail, or email, go here:

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

and contact your two senators by going here:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Tell them the following, preferably putting the ideas into your own words:

The House and Senate bills will not create “universal, affordable insurance.” They instead would create a gargantuan, unaffordable new federal entitlement program. They would further explode our soaring deficits; hugely increase tax burdens on our ailing economy; create perverse incentives that would expand the demand for medical services, while discouraging and punishing the suppliers of medical care; and deprive Americans of true choice and competition, by imposing an endless stream of new “mandates” on individuals and employers. This legislation would destroy existing private health-insurance plans, and ultimately destroy the quality and affordability of health care in America.

This legislation is so flawed and destructive in principle that it cannot be “fixed” or amended; it must be scrapped in its entirety. True health-care reform is necessary, but it must be based on our free-market system—such as:

• allowing individuals to purchase insurance from companies across state lines, and letting them take that coverage with them when they change jobs;
• letting individuals buy high-deductible, low-cost catastrophic coverage, by freeing insurers from laws that force them to offer only costly, state-mandated provisions in their policies;
• enacting tort reform, to eliminate the costly practice of “defensive medicine.”

Such reforms would expand coverage to millions of the uninsured, while actually reducing costs to employers, policy-holders, and individual taxpayers.

I feel so strongly about this, that I cannot consider you for re-election unless you vote against this legislation, in any shape or form.

* * *

Whether or not you have ever contacted a congressman or senator, now is the time to do it. This week may be the last time we can influence the outcome on this issue.

Your health, your financial well-being, and your nation’s future hang in the balance.

Please act today—then forward this message to your family, friends, and associates. If you are on Facebook, an annotated version of this can be found and linked out:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&suggest&note_id=211096360608

Updated: Bring Back The Silent Steely Type

Celebrity, Feminism, Film, Gender, Hollywood, Pop-Culture, The Zeitgeist

Steve Sailer: “After the Tom Cruise generation of boyish, small, and energetic stars, it’s refreshing to see a Golden Age of Hollywoodish leading man like tall, dark, and handsome Jon Hamm, who plays creative director Don Draper as the strong, silent type” in “the cable period drama Mad Men.”

Too true, but bless Steve: In an article about “Mad Men” the series, this is one of the few mentions the MM get.

I’ve watched Mad Men a couple of times, mainly for the Draper character. He’s perfect. As is evident from his tender affair with a teacher, the viewer recently discovered that this complex character (now that’s a novelty) would probably not be quite such an incorrigible philanderer were his beautiful wife not so icy and hostile. Poverty, military service, and a marriage of necessity—these are all interesting facets revealed recently about the Draper character.

I watch it, when it doesn’t get too tedious, for the nostalgia the production triggers—nostalgia for the days when women had soothing, soft voices, spoke in complete sentences, and seemed so much smarter and refined than their modern-day, emancipated shrew sisters.

One more thing: The Cruise generation has been followed by a slew of androgynous, unisex actors supposedly in possession of the Y Chromosome. For example, Ryan Phillippe. Yuk. Unwatchable. Or Leonardo DiCaprio; a fair actor, but frightfully undeveloped physically. I hope Hamm makes a lot of films, thrillers, especially. Maybe a couple of new-generation “Dirty Harry” flicks.

Steve’s spot on: “the show relentlessly exposes the sexism of pre-feminism men like Don Draper, seemingly for today’s women to cluck over.”

MadMan_med

Update (Oct 31): Oh for heaven’s sake: “Perfect” to describe the Draper character is meant to compliment his dashing looks, manly demeanor, and complexity. There is a lot of good about him.

Asserted and assimilated by men in the Comments Section is the feminist truism whereby saying that a man would be a good husband if he only had a loving wife is an excuse for the man’s innate badness.

Given the profile of the average woman—leftist, whining, romance-reading, Oprah-watching idiot—it makes perfect sense to feel sorry for a lot of men.

I have only to watch couples purchasing homes on the “House and Garden” channel to marvel at why more men don’t stray. The average woman shopping for a home:

“The dog would love this yard. This yard is not large enough for the dog.” Here’s a fem checking over a $1.3 million home: “my couch will go well in this living room; no, I can’t fit that grand sofa I purchased at Target in here.”

And I’m saying to Sean: “The agent is kind of cute. She gets that you don’t purchase a home to accommodate your ugly old furniture. Or dog! He should go for her.”

It’s also possible that TV reflects the worst of America.

However, certain verbose individuals should take a cue or two from the silent steely type. Never shutting up; never censoring yourself—spewing forth with every infarct of a thought the misfiring brain produces: now that is bloody off-putting.

Draper does not talk a lot. My favorite people ration speech.

An exchange with writer Rob Stove produced these BAB memories/thoughts some time ago:

“When my daughter was seven-years old, her school assigned her the task of describing her parents. On her father, daddy’s darling heaped unrealistic praise (the tables have since turned. Excellent!). For her affection-starved mother, the little lady reserved a matter-of-fact appraisal. ‘My mother,’ she wrote in her girlie cursive, ‘is a quiet woman who speaks mainly when she has something to say.’ (Rob’s riposte: ‘if everyone rationed speech thus, the entire mainstream punditocracy would cease to exist.’ Amen.)”

Pinpointed by my perceptive chatterbox of a child, this economy explains the lack of gush in my writing. Cutting and slashing at a column are one of the best things a writer can do. That’s my advice to budding writers (or people who believe they are writers). Slash mercilessly.

Updated: “A Sudden Exit Driven By An ‘Irrational’ War” (& Vain Talk)

Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Terrorism, The Military, War

“Another of the contradictions of [the occupation of Afghanistan]: The Pashtun population we patronize happens to disdain the central government we hope to strengthen. So it goes: We help local groups we believe to be patriotic but, at the same time, end up establishing an authoritarian protectorate. Pakistan anyone?”

That’s Mercer in 2008.

“In Afghanistan, everything is much more localized. Allegiance is really to your family and then to your village or your valley. And that’s what they fight for. There has not been a tradition of central government there and I don’t believe central government is wanted. And actually, I believe they fight the central government just as much as they fight the foreign occupiers.”

That’s Matthew Hoh in 2009. Hoh is the latter-day Scott Ritter, and “the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war.” He gave an impressive interview to PBS. Here is the transcript:

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News.

MELISSA BLOCK, host:

And I’m Melissa Block.

Matthew Hoh is a man who has seen the U.S. conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan up close. Now, he’s become the first U.S. official to publicly resign in protest over the war in Afghanistan. Hoh began his public service in the Marine Corps. Then as a Civilian Defense Department employee, he led reconstruction efforts in Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit. Later, as a captain in the Marines, he fought in Iraq’s Anbar province, where he was cited for uncommon bravery. And after his stints in Iraq, Hoh signed on as Foreign Service Officer in Afghanistan, working on development efforts in Zabul province, a hotbed of the Taliban.

Last month, Hoh resigned saying in his resignation letter that he had lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purpose of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan. And Matthew Hoh joins us to explain that decision. Welcome to the program.

Mr. MATTHEW HOH (Former Foreign Service Officer, State Department): Thank you, Melissa.

BLOCK: In your resignation letter to the State Department, you said: My resignation is based not upon how we’re pursuing this war, but why and to what end. Can you explain what you meant by that?

Mr. HOH: I’m not so much concerned about the how of the war. I’m not so much concerned about debating General McChrystal’s views or any of the views of the folks here in D.C., that think-tank crowd. I’m more concerned about why we’re in Afghanistan. Why are we losing soldiers and Marines in combat to people who are fighting us really only because we’re occupying them? Why are we supporting an Afghan government who, if we are successful in stabilizing it, that stabilization won’t defeat al-Qaida? And if Pakistan is our priority because of its nuclear weapons, then why do we have 60,000 troops in Afghanistan and why are we not fully supporting Pakistan? And so, those are the issues that I really feel need to be addressed and I really hope the American people understand what we’re doing there. To me, it does not make any sense in terms of – the losses of our soldiers do not merit anything that comes in line with our strategic interests or values.

BLOCK: This is quite a lengthy and, at times, emotional resignation letter that you sent to the State Department. One point you make is that we have understood the true nature of the Afghan insurgency. You used the word, valleyism. I want you to explain what you mean by that.

Mr. HOH: Sure. I think everyone is familiar with the term nationalism. We have seen that throughout our history in terms of from our own revolution, where we fought out of nationalist concerns to, you know, most recently the Vietnam War, where, I believe, we mistook what was Vietnamese nationalism for some type of communist threat. In Afghanistan, everything is much more localized. Allegiance is really to your family and then to your village or your valley. And that’s what they fight for. There has not been a tradition of central government there and I don’t believe central government is wanted. And actually, I believe they fight the central government just as much as they fight the foreign occupiers.

BLOCK: Can you compare what you saw in your time in Afghanistan, you were there for about five months, with what you saw in Iraq? You were there at the height of the Sunni insurgency. Why have you concluded the war in Afghanistan seems – is fundamentally un-winnable?

Mr. HOH: Yeah. I don’t want to go down that path about talking about whether or not it’s winnable or not. I prefer to keep talking about is it worth winning. Is it worth losing war more lives? And is it worth spending billions of dollars that, frankly, this country does not have? I don’t feel it’s un-winnable. I just don’t feel – it’s not worth winning. No one has been able to answer to me: Why are we there? And that’s what I’m looking for.

BLOCK: You were in Afghanistan for about five months. That’s not a huge of amount of time. Do you really think it’s enough time on the ground to fully understand the situation in all parts of the country?

Mr. HOH: Yes I do, because I was fortunate to have served time in two different parts of the country. I served time in the east where our forces are heavily engaged in Kunar and Nuristan provinces, as well as time in the south, where our forces are also heavily engaged. I had done quite a bit of studying. I have many friends and colleagues who had served in Afghanistan prior to me going there. And then most importantly, the position I had as a political advisor, my job was to work with local Afghans on a daily basis. And I did and I was able to get out and I was able to meet with local Afghans throughout the east and the south of the country. And they’re the ones who really codified my thoughts on this. And you realize that what they want is to be left alone.

BLOCK: The question then would be if they are left alone, as you say, if the Taliban were to take over in Afghanistan again, would the – would al-Qaida regroup there? I know, you have said that you don’t think they would. Secretary of State Clinton disagrees entirely. She has said if the Taliban take over Afghanistan – I can’t tell you how fast al-Qaida would be back in Afghanistan. Is she wrong?

Mr. HOH: I don’t believe that’s correct. I believe that after 2001, we disrupted al-Qaida and chased al-Qaida and Taliban out of Afghanistan, that al-Qaida evolved, and al-Qaida became, basically, an ideological cloud that exists on the Internet. I don’t believe al-Qaida will ever again tie itself to a geographical or political boundary. I believe they have evolved and that they get recruits worldwide. They’re not looking for a safe haven in Afghanistan. They don’t need that. They’ve already got safe havens in half a dozen other countries – Somalia, Sudan, Yemen.

And more to the point, if you look at the successful attacks al-Qaida has had, including 9/11, the majority – the vast majority of those attackers are not from the Pashtun belt of Afghanistan or Pakistan. Many of them are Western-European or from the Gulf. And so much of that training and planning for those attacks – whether it was 9/11, Madrid, London – took place in Western Europe or – you know, hey. I mean, as everyone knows in the 9/11 attacks, a lot of training happened here in the U.S.

BLOCK: You’re talking about the flight schools.

Mr. HOH: Correct, correct. So, I think what we’re doing is we have an approach where we haven’t evolved ourselves. We are still set up to do our foreign policy and our defense operations like we were in 1991. And we need to change. Al-Qaida changed. They evolved. They got smart about how they’re going to do their operations. We need to do the same. And more to the point, say we do continue to occupy Afghanistan and say, hey, we – say we even go farther. Say, we occupy Pakistan. Occupation only reinforces the message of al-Qaida. Occupation only causes people to want to fight the West and to join their ranks.

BLOCK: And your message is it is not just now that you feel this is the case, you feel this has always been the case in Afghanistan.

Mr. HOH: That’s correct. You know, of course, we had to go in there in 2001. We had to drive the Taliban from power. We had to do our best to destroy al-Qaida. But that was eight years ago, and things have changed. And we have just basically – because we have been unthinking in our approach, I think, because we’ve been unflexible in our approach, we just continue to march down this path. We’re – now, we have 60,000 troops, we’re looking to bolster it to 80 or 100,000. And we just keep going into more valleys and finding more enemies because we’re going into their valleys. But yes, I do believe that we’re now in a position where we have to really change – fundamentally change our approach to fighting al-Qaida.

BLOCK: Matthew Hoh, you end your resignation with this thought: Families must be reassured their dead have sacrificed for a purpose worthy of futures lost, love vanished and promised dreams unkept. I have lost confidence such assurances can anymore be made. What message do you think that sends to families of the more than 800 troops who’ve already died in Afghanistan? Was it a lost cause? Did – were those deaths do you think in vain?

Mr. HOH: This is a very – that’s a very difficult question. And it’s a very emotional question. I just had a friend this week pass away in Afghanistan. It’s – it’s very hard to say that. It’s very difficult. It was very difficult for me to write that, but I don’t believe we should continue losing and sacrificing our young men and women for goals that meet no strategic purpose to the United States. And the idea that we should continue fighting there just because we have been fighting there for the last eight years, I think, is completely irrational.

BLOCK: Matthew Hoh, thanks for talking with us today.

Mr. HOH: Thank you, Melissa.

BLOCK: Matthew Hoh resigned his post with the State Department in Afghanistan last month. You can read his resignation letter at our Web site, npr.org.

Update (Oct. 31): VAIN TALK. Waxing poetic about whether soldiers fighting a futile war to no end are dying “in vain”: that was some vain talk, “bolstered” by flawed “comparisons.”

Whether you’re saving your buddies or just dying by your lonesome in Afghanistan or Iraq—you are dying for nothing.

From “PAT TILLMAN AND THE CULTURE OF DEATH” (2004):

“That Tillman was the antitype to the Ugly American that has emerged from the Abu Ghraib jail does not mean that his death was not a horrible and futile waste. To believe otherwise, one has to buy lock, stock and barrel our government’s claim that American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are defending Americans on U.S. soil. This is at best a stretch; at worst, an obscenity.”
“To believe that Tillman and the 900-plus other soldier victims did not die in vain one must have internalized the abstractions our politicians have force-fed to a torpid public. No one’s ‘freedoms’ are more secure now that Pat Tillman is dead; good is no closer to obliterating bad, nor will it, certainly not by conquest and coercion. As for democracy, it is the tyranny of a slim majority that has brought us this far.”
Philosopher Adam Smith’s wisdom runs contrary to the neoconservative nonsense espoused by these Beltway lap dogs. Smith would have advised Tillman to act in enlightened self-interest, and reject the state’s definition of the common good, especially in the era of ideological wars. ‘By pursuing his own interest,’ wrote Smith in The Wealth of Nations, ‘[man] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.'”
“Had he been guided by Adam Smith’s ‘Invisible Hand,’ Tillman would have truly benefited himself and many others, not least his wife. Instead of his ashes, she would still have his love, companionship and, quite possibly, his gorgeous offspring (Pat Tillman was a glorious specimen of a man). Tillman’s immense earning power, scorned by our collectivists, would truly have redounded to the public good. Instead of once-off work for the undertaker, Tillman would have generated jobs for years to come.”

Old Blights (Afghanistan) And New (Barack)

Barack Obama, Bush, History, Homeland Security, Propaganda, Terrorism, The West, War

The excerpt is from my new WND.COM column, “Old Blights (Afghanistan) And New (Barack)”:

“So far, the Left’s Prince of Peace has beefed-up Bush-era troop levels to 68,000, and is giving a good deal of thought to further deepening American involvement in the Afghan theater. The recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize (now that provided some comedic relief) has managed to also sustain his predecessor’s efforts in Baghdad, where streets are slick with fresh blood.

As Dr. Johnson said, ‘There is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea.’ Neoconservative (Bush) or Progressive (Barack): louse or flea—a pest is still a pest.

It’s hard to tell whether B.O. believes his own the blather. Nevertheless, the president has expressed a talismanic faith that if he solves Afghanistan, he’ll solve terrorism …”

Read the rest, here.

Miss the weekly column on WND.COM? Be sure to catch it on Taki’s Magazine on the weekend.