Just last week, we were told by the Obama Administration and the Democrats in the Congress that we needed lots of government spending in order to stimulate the economy. So the liberals in Congress passed the largest spending bill in US history and it was signed by President Obama. This week, President Obama is now telling us that the government needs to cut spending in order to reduce the deficit. In order to cut spending, the government will reduce our military and reduce government spending on health care for the elderly via Medicare and Medicaid.
Essentially, what the liberal Democrats in Congress and President Obama himself are telling us that it is OK for the government to take money out of the US treasury to give to their fat cat friends on Wall Street and organizations like ACORN that stuff the ballot box each election… but that it is not OK for the government to fulfill its promises to pay for grandma’s operation or her medical treatments.
What the liberals are doing is playing a big “shell game”, hoping that we don’t notice what they, the magicians, are doing to take money away from grandma’s health care in order to provide money to the likes of GM, Chrysler, the Big Bank CEOs and the environmental tyrants who are behind the hoax of man-made global warming.
Perhaps Ann Colter was right: liberals think that we Americans have no memory span and that history is what happened after we got up this morning. They are dead wrong.
It seems that in every election, the elderly have been used by the liberal Democrats as pawns in a game to gain political power so that the liberal Democrats can enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of those who have paid into Medicare for decades. Now, when it comes time for the government to provide the services that were paid for by taxpayers…now when some of them are just about to be eligible for Medicare…now the liberal Democrats are taking away those benefits that taxpayers paid for and are entitled to.
If the liberal Democrats wanted to stimulate the economy by putting money into it, they could have done so by simply letting the elderly get their medical treatments under Medicare and Medicaid. That would have put money into the health care system. But they didn’t want that. Apparently the liberal Democrats in Congress and the White House don’t think that they should give back to the average American the money that they paid into the Medicare system for decades . Instead the liberal Democrats in Congress and the White House think that it is just fine for the government to make us pay by taking money out of the US treasury to give to some of Al Gore’s friends so that they can make ethanol out of our food. The liberal Democrats in Congress then force us to pay even more at the pump by passing laws mandating that all gas have at least 10% ethanol in it. What the corrupt politicians in Washington don’t want us to know is that the money that we pay at the pump goes back to Al Gore’s friends and that some of it ends up in the bank accounts of liberal Democrat politicians in the form of book deals, speech gratuities and campaign contributions.
The liberal Democrats are tyrants. Members of AARP and their children should be outraged at such corruption in Washington DC and vote the rascals out of office. If they do not, then they can expect their own lifespan be shortened because the liberal Democrats took their Medicare money and gave it to their liberal friends in order to get the kickback. It is time to break out the protest signs, the pitch forks and the torches and to march on Washington DC.
OT, sort of:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,498669,00.html
Police in Baltimore today made what is believed to be the first arrest in a civil disobedience program aimed at supporting homeowners who refuse to vacate their foreclosed homes.
An activist with ACORN — the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now — faces criminal charges after breaking into a home in southeast Baltimore on Thursday to protest the foreclosure crisis sweeping the country.
Great post!
They are paying off who voted for them. However, this won’t work. The Dems cannot pay off all of us and they have upset more people than they have appeased.
Also, keep in mind, that they are not giving the proper people their money, because the Dems would be relinquishing power to the citizenry. They would not dare to do that, because they would not be in control. That is all they want, control over everything.
As you said, Tyranny! WE do need to speak out in a peaceful, reasonable manner and have our voices heard.
http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
The Iraq War was a bigger spending bill, even if President Bush refused to include it in his budget calculations.
I think it’s interesting that Obama is being criticized both for increasing Medicaid (most posts on this blog) and also for threatening to cut Medicaid (this reader blogpost).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
P.S. I’d like to see a discussion started on whether any of the wars we’ve fought since World War II were worth what we spent on fighting them (to say nothing of human casualties), from the point of view of the interests of the USA.
@runnswim
Wars are not spending bills. They are wars.
The issue with the “Spendulous” Bill is that it is irresponsible spending to do nothing constructive in this country. It is WASTE of our tax dollars. It is a flat out lie by our government who calls it a “stimulus,” which it is not. It is spending. It does not stimulate anything but the groups, industries, and etc. that voted for Obama. Simply, that is the issue with the bill.
In regards to your point about war, there is not a dollar value anyone can put on freedom and liberty for anyone on this planet.
http://frankilinslocke.blogspot.com/
In case you haven’t noticed, Larry. This isn’t a “lockstep” blog. Even we regular authors have our differences of opinions. What you want to criticize is what we call free speech, and a void in the echo chamber. You decry the latter, then criticize the former. Make up your bloody mind, would ya?
Ah yes, let’s increase Medicaid so the scam artists can be paid in full…
Larry, you and I shall forever disagree on federal spending. You’re happy with social welfare programs. I believe the feds should be limited to what they were originally supposed to do… protect the nation (defense spending), and manage the nation’s money (printing and regulating trade)
So if you want to talk Iraq, I don’t care if it was a bigger spending bill.. which it wasn’t. It falls into our national security, and a viable allocation of funds as decided by a Commander (not campaigner) in Chief. And an action I happen to agree with.
So instead of attempting to start worthless gotcha games about past wars, past administrations… nay, war in general… why you don’t think war is necessary? Don’t forget to consult that crystal ball of yours and tell us how life would be oh so much better if Saddam were still around…
And while you’re at it, why don’t you justify federal welfare programs in lieu of national defense… ala Obama’s attempts to save money by cutting defense spending 25%. Then reconcile that with State’s rights… trampled daily by your buds in Congress.
Larry,
Most previous complaints about Medicare and Medicaid (M&M) stem from the excessive waste due to excessive bureaucracy, inefficient use of tax funds, and widespread corruption.
Unfortunately, instead of fixing M&M, the current administration appears to want to just throw “money at the problem” by increasing funding. Add to injury the threat to reduce cost by cutting elder care, and it looks like Obama is turning his back on the elderly, which doesn’t jibe with Democrats’ message of compassion.
So yes, it’s not that unreasonable to object to Medicare and Medicaid as they exist now and as they would be under what we understand about the administration’s proposal.
Jeff V
At least 62% of Americans are stupid and have no long term memory. How else does one explain the lack of outright laughter when Obama blows through $800 billion (including $30 million for the harvest mouse) and another $275 billion and whatever for banking and then tell us with a straight face that we have to spend responsibly and live within our means?
All the left needs is to be told what they want to hear. I doesn’t matter a hang if you renege or not. Just tell them what they want to hear and they’ll believe it’s true.
Let me respond the charge that I, the author of this post, am being contradictory when I say that Medicare costs will be increasing under Obama while, simultaneously, the money spent for medical treatment of the elderly will decrease. This is not a contradiction. The federal government will spend money on treatments for young, but will put pressure on doctors and hospitals to NOT provide treatments for the elderly. Tucked into the Stimulus Bill was H.R. 1 EH, which establishes a National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. In Betsy McCaughey’s article recent article, she reported:
One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
Hidden Provisions
If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.
The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181). – Bloomberg, 9 Feb 09.
—So, the tyrants in Washington are going to take away the medical treatments for the elderly under the rationale that it is not “cost effective” to save the lives of the elderly, who will die perhaps within a decade…it being more “cost effective” to save the costs of medical treatments for younger people who potentially have many more years ahead of them.
The upshot of all of this is that tyrants in Washington will basically be deciding who lives (…who gets medical treatment…) and who doesn’t. Thus is the ultimate in tyranny…deciding who lives and who dies. (So much for the Constitution, for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…for people over 65.)
This is the culmination of the liberal idea (…the Marxist idea…the Fascist idea…) that there is no higher authority than government. The natural consequence of putting liberals (Marxists, Fascists) in charge of government is that they will play God. Our government has become a government of the tyrants, by the tyrants and for the tyrants. We Americans must decide if we are going to accept this tyrannical government or if we are to re-establish a government that abides by the Constitution. I know where I stand. Where do you stand?