Saturday, September 12, 2009
Action To Take Today
Attend a Tea Party. Watch FOX NEWS 1:00 to 3:00 PM. Thousands are in Washington letting government know we are fed up!
Friday, September 11, 2009
Democrats Promise Healthcare Bill
After the President's speech the other night, Democrats have a renewed interest in passing ObamaCare this fall. The President did not discourage the use of the so-called nuclear option - where only 51 votes are required to pass a bill in the Senate. This in effect - would force the legislation through - bypassing the conventional method. Many are against this.
Congress better think twice before supporting this strategy. Senior citizens are one of the largest groups opposing ANY government healthacare program because they will get the short end of it. Proposed cuts of $500 Billion dollars will be taken from Medicare to pay for the new government plan. This is the number one reason seniors are not for it.
Democrats better remember who helped put them in office. Seniors represent a large voting block and they have a record of voting in large numbers for all elections - including the mid-term elections.
Tea Parties have seen strong representation of seniors and they have a common interest - no government healthcare at the expense of seniors.
Congress Beware
If Congress passes ANY government healthcare using the Nuclear Option, they will have to face the wrath of senior voters in November 2010 or the next time they are up for re-election. Seniors don't forget!
Congress better think twice before supporting this strategy. Senior citizens are one of the largest groups opposing ANY government healthacare program because they will get the short end of it. Proposed cuts of $500 Billion dollars will be taken from Medicare to pay for the new government plan. This is the number one reason seniors are not for it.
Democrats better remember who helped put them in office. Seniors represent a large voting block and they have a record of voting in large numbers for all elections - including the mid-term elections.
Tea Parties have seen strong representation of seniors and they have a common interest - no government healthcare at the expense of seniors.
Congress Beware
If Congress passes ANY government healthcare using the Nuclear Option, they will have to face the wrath of senior voters in November 2010 or the next time they are up for re-election. Seniors don't forget!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
National Service Day - My Ass
Instead of having a National day to celebrate service towards the government, we should be remembering the 2,000 plus lives that were lost due to terrorists. No, let's indoctrinate people to become part of the "State" instead. That's a lot of White House crap.
September 11th should be a day of mourning and a day of remembrance of the heroes who died trying to save Americans from disaster.
September 11th should be a day of mourning and a day of remembrance of the heroes who died trying to save Americans from disaster.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Sara Palin Speaks Out
Here is the entire context of an article written by Sara Palin on the topic of governemtn healthcare.
"Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward. I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing
law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree. Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American." With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.
Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.
Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.
The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats' proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers." Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.
Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.
Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.
Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."
We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it."
"Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward. I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing
law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree. Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American." With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.
Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.
Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.
The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats' proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers." Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.
Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.
Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.
Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."
We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it."
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Medicare Advantage is One Target
In order to help pay for ObamaCare, the government will eliminate $177 Billion dollars from Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage was initiated in 2003 to allow seniors to use Medicare funds to purchase private insurance plans to fit their personal needs and budgets. Seniors get better care at a better value for money spent. This law also had built-in incentives to encourage insurance companies to offer lower costs and more benefits. It puts patients in charge of their own healthcare - not the government. That's why the Obama administration is trying to eliminate it!
Over 10 Million seniors have enrolled in this program to date. Obama's cuts to this program amount to 20% of it. This would reduce the amount of dollars these people would have to buy the insurance. In effect, cutting this program or forcing participants to leave it! So much for Obama's promise made in New Hampshire "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan." They will use the rest of Medicare spending to pay for the new legislation, effectively gutting Medicare for seniors to the tune of $500 Billion!
There is No Crisis!
The current medical system is not on the verge of collapse! That's what you keep hearing. This is NOT another crisis. 80% of the people are satisfied with the current system. Why overhaul the whole thing? It doesn't make sense.
Coming Media Blitz
Get ready for the upcoming BLAST of commercials forthcoming in September. The DEMS/Progressives have been preparing a strong media blitz that will begin soon. They have raised over $100 MILLION dollars to help promote their government program. Don't be fooled America. They will probably change the name of the program, saying that it is new or different. It doesn't matter what it's called "single payer system", "universal coverage", "public plan", they are all the same thing - Socialized healthcare.
They will still promise coverage for everyone (including illegal aliens), but will forget to mention that you will get less choice and less coverage. They will forget to tell seniors that they will be sacrificed to help pay for the new entitlements. Why? Because it's too expensive to pay for older citizens. The bulk of medical expenses are paid in a persons last few years of their life. Obama's advisors perscribe treating people betwee ages 15 to 55 because they will contribute more into the system than the others.
The government still does not have the money to pay for this legislation. They STILL will have rationing. They still will lie to you and tell you that it does NOT pay for abortions. They will lie to you and say that it won't cover ILLEGAL ALIENS - it does! Employers will still have to pay for mandatory healthcare or still pay an 8% tax. This will cost jobs and close thousands of small businesses. Why impose mandatory healthcare on the entire population at a time when the economy is struggling to create ANY new jobs?
The Majority Do Not Want It
Presently, the majority of American citizens do not want government controlled healthcare. Here are the polling numbers;
Do not let the government railroad you by forcing you to take this program!
Action To Take
Tell the government that we do not need to transform the entire healthcare system to fix what is wrong. We can save billons of $$ by adding tort reform. This would reduce lawsuits and lower malpractice insurance for doctors. We could offer more competition by allowing people to cross state lines to purchase health insurance. Stand Firm. Tell government that we want a SPENDING FREEZE. Tell them to NOT to pass ANY government healthcare!
Over 10 Million seniors have enrolled in this program to date. Obama's cuts to this program amount to 20% of it. This would reduce the amount of dollars these people would have to buy the insurance. In effect, cutting this program or forcing participants to leave it! So much for Obama's promise made in New Hampshire "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan." They will use the rest of Medicare spending to pay for the new legislation, effectively gutting Medicare for seniors to the tune of $500 Billion!
There is No Crisis!
The current medical system is not on the verge of collapse! That's what you keep hearing. This is NOT another crisis. 80% of the people are satisfied with the current system. Why overhaul the whole thing? It doesn't make sense.
Coming Media Blitz
Get ready for the upcoming BLAST of commercials forthcoming in September. The DEMS/Progressives have been preparing a strong media blitz that will begin soon. They have raised over $100 MILLION dollars to help promote their government program. Don't be fooled America. They will probably change the name of the program, saying that it is new or different. It doesn't matter what it's called "single payer system", "universal coverage", "public plan", they are all the same thing - Socialized healthcare.
They will still promise coverage for everyone (including illegal aliens), but will forget to mention that you will get less choice and less coverage. They will forget to tell seniors that they will be sacrificed to help pay for the new entitlements. Why? Because it's too expensive to pay for older citizens. The bulk of medical expenses are paid in a persons last few years of their life. Obama's advisors perscribe treating people betwee ages 15 to 55 because they will contribute more into the system than the others.
The government still does not have the money to pay for this legislation. They STILL will have rationing. They still will lie to you and tell you that it does NOT pay for abortions. They will lie to you and say that it won't cover ILLEGAL ALIENS - it does! Employers will still have to pay for mandatory healthcare or still pay an 8% tax. This will cost jobs and close thousands of small businesses. Why impose mandatory healthcare on the entire population at a time when the economy is struggling to create ANY new jobs?
The Majority Do Not Want It
Presently, the majority of American citizens do not want government controlled healthcare. Here are the polling numbers;
- Favor Government Healthcare - 42%
- Do NOT Favor Government Healthcare - 53%
Do not let the government railroad you by forcing you to take this program!
Action To Take
Tell the government that we do not need to transform the entire healthcare system to fix what is wrong. We can save billons of $$ by adding tort reform. This would reduce lawsuits and lower malpractice insurance for doctors. We could offer more competition by allowing people to cross state lines to purchase health insurance. Stand Firm. Tell government that we want a SPENDING FREEZE. Tell them to NOT to pass ANY government healthcare!
Monday, September 7, 2009
Where Was the Media?
It was so quiet last week, you could hear a pin drop! Where was the media coverage on the Communist Van Jones adviser to the President? Listen... there was total silence! That's pathetic! You think you can get the news from THESE outlets? Here is a list of the media who said NOTHING about the Van Jones controversy last week:
No wonder Americans are getting upset and joining Tea Parties. Journalism is DEAD at these "news" sources. This is a travesty and quite alarming. They can't handle the Truth so they won't print it. You can't trust them except to get their opinions - not the news. They censor or filter what you see or read. That's not news - that's propaganda! What is happening to America? We can’t trust the media!
Heed the Warning
Americans, our Constitution is under attack. Your liberties are under attack. The media outlets (above) are part of the attack. Don't trust anything they report. It is propaganda, not fact. They supported the admitted Communist Van Jones and his extremist views, just by not reporting the controversy. They were ALL silent on this subject!! America, this is a warning! They support this administration and their power grabs and deficit spending.
Action To Take
Americans, don’t be fooled any longer. Boycott these news outlets. Use other news sources. Don't watch their news broadcasts. Don't buy the products that they advertise. Don't listen to their "news" broadcasts. Don't buy their newspapers. Money Talks!
- New York Times = 0 words
- Washington Post = 0 words
- ABC World News: = 0 words
- CNN News = 0 words
- CBS Evening News: = 0 words
No wonder Americans are getting upset and joining Tea Parties. Journalism is DEAD at these "news" sources. This is a travesty and quite alarming. They can't handle the Truth so they won't print it. You can't trust them except to get their opinions - not the news. They censor or filter what you see or read. That's not news - that's propaganda! What is happening to America? We can’t trust the media!
Heed the Warning
Americans, our Constitution is under attack. Your liberties are under attack. The media outlets (above) are part of the attack. Don't trust anything they report. It is propaganda, not fact. They supported the admitted Communist Van Jones and his extremist views, just by not reporting the controversy. They were ALL silent on this subject!! America, this is a warning! They support this administration and their power grabs and deficit spending.
Action To Take
Americans, don’t be fooled any longer. Boycott these news outlets. Use other news sources. Don't watch their news broadcasts. Don't buy the products that they advertise. Don't listen to their "news" broadcasts. Don't buy their newspapers. Money Talks!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Hall Pass Your Kids on Tuesday
Dana Loesch discusses the growing number of parents who intend to keep their kids out of school during the Obama address. She raises some very interesting points about the upcoming Presidential speech targeting our children. Here is a pointer to the video clip:
She raises the several interesting issues regarding the President's speech. First, President Obama is breaking the rules to give a speech on how to follow the rules. This is quite hypocritical. Second, the focus of the lesson plans is NOT on students, but rather the President! The lesson plans are about what Obama thinks, not emphasis on the children. Third, the lesson plans asks how can students serve the government? or How students can work for your government? Or How does Obama inspire us?
Obama skipped existing protocols and ignored getting parental consent for students to hear/view his speech at a public school. The Federal Department of Education bypassed the school boards and superintendents by creating their own government lesson plans and workbooks. Sadly, these lesson plans were written by presidential activists - not educators! Hence, they may be deemed propaganda - not educational materials! Ironically, the National Education Association (NEA) had nothing to say about any of this. Oh, that's right, they donated to Obama's campaign!
This nefarious act is also targeted at high school students who will become voters in the next Presidential election. Coincidence or Propaganda? It SMELLS like propaganda to indoctrinate our youth!
Action To Take
Go to the website HallPassOnThat.com for more details on what to do. Call your local schools and let them know you do NOT want your children to participate in this brainwashing political speech.
She raises the several interesting issues regarding the President's speech. First, President Obama is breaking the rules to give a speech on how to follow the rules. This is quite hypocritical. Second, the focus of the lesson plans is NOT on students, but rather the President! The lesson plans are about what Obama thinks, not emphasis on the children. Third, the lesson plans asks how can students serve the government? or How students can work for your government? Or How does Obama inspire us?
Obama skipped existing protocols and ignored getting parental consent for students to hear/view his speech at a public school. The Federal Department of Education bypassed the school boards and superintendents by creating their own government lesson plans and workbooks. Sadly, these lesson plans were written by presidential activists - not educators! Hence, they may be deemed propaganda - not educational materials! Ironically, the National Education Association (NEA) had nothing to say about any of this. Oh, that's right, they donated to Obama's campaign!
This nefarious act is also targeted at high school students who will become voters in the next Presidential election. Coincidence or Propaganda? It SMELLS like propaganda to indoctrinate our youth!
Action To Take
Go to the website HallPassOnThat.com for more details on what to do. Call your local schools and let them know you do NOT want your children to participate in this brainwashing political speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
