Although much attention was given to yesterday's Republican vote in the House to repeal Obamacare, another recent vote should be getting Americans' attention... and raising real concerns.
According to a Reuters poll, nearly two-thirds of U.S. doctors believe that Obamacare will cause patient care to deteriorate significantly within the next few years.
Of course, besides the majority of House Republicans and doctors, Obamacare is also opposed by a majority of Americans, and a majority of states - with some 26 states fighting court battles against the unsupportable costs of Obamacare as well as Washington's unconstitutional "individual mandate" power grab.
So let's see...that means that a majority of Representatives, doctors, citizens and states are against a plan that raises healthcare costs while lowering the standard of care.
And oddly enough, we're told that if all the above makes us (heaven forbid) angry... then we're the ones who must be sick.
-
-
-
17 comments:
And the LSM continues to tell us that the majority of Americans love the bill and that the hate filled conservatives have their facts wrong. Yesterday afternoon, a left wing-nut on NPR (I repeat myself) was refuting all the conservative objections to the bill without actually refuting any of them. She would start with a given scenario and respond to it without ever stepping within the bounds of hypothetical. An example was a man asking, as a small farmer earning $15K/year, “will I be forced to buy Health Insurance”. The answer was, “No. If you are earning less that x times the poverty level which currently is $14,xxx (sorry I don’t remember the exact numbers given, but I certainly caught the 14), you will not have to buy health insurance”. THAT WASN’T THE QUESTION!
Yes, I yelled at my radio on the drive home. I’m not proud of it, but I knew that the NPR interviewer was NOT going to challenge the guests answer, and she didn’t. She didn’t challenge any of the false and misleading answers given to sound, reasoned questions.
Meanwhile, a short, vomit inducing trip into the left blogosphere yesterday left me wondering if I had lept into an alternate universe! Beside all the “The Right are all idiots, haters, racists, un-American, Nazi, heartless …” stuff was a recurring and repeated contention that the LSM was supporting the right-wing agenda! Say what?!? Yep, that’s what they said. Don’t ask me why they think that … no examples were given. I guess it’s possible that they think FOX news IS the media since its viewership dwarfs the rest?
And then Michelle Obama is going to encourage Walmart to sell "healthier foods".... without any rude mention about how she should practice what she preaches about weight loss... its clear that this "healthy food" kick is because the less they have to pay out in Obamacare, the better.
I want Laura Bush back, in her classy suits, reading to children so that they can go to college and get a good job someday. Not who we have now, a woman with big biceps and big other things who wears loud, tacky bright red prom dresses to state dinners and tries to force everybody to eat herbs and carrots and okra (while she sneaks the caviar).
Suzy - in.re. WMart and 'healthier foods' - if *I* were king, food stamps would be useful for ingredients ONLY, NO "processed foods" (ie, TV dinners, mac and cheeze boxes, chips, soda, cakes, ice cream, etc. Rice, beans, flour, meat, veggies, sugar, yeast - sure. Eat healther, (lower sugar / salt for a start) cheaper, and give you something to DO other than sit on the couch. Granted, not all food stamp people are unemployed / welfare types, some have jobs... still... I think it's tragic to see people on 'assistance' who are morbidly obese (not 'just' "fat") and/or malnourished.
But hey, that's just me
Well I guess the new age of civil political discourse is over, at least judging by the inflammatory rhetoric being emitted by countless Democrats in response to yesterday's vote. I even heard one Democrat utter the words "blood libel"; a term I assumed was off-limits after Sarah Palin uttered them a weeks or so ago.
Hypocrites.
Pete...I TOTALLY agree and have thought for a long time that food stamps should be run more similar to WIC...to where there is a list of qualifying foods. Fresh meat, veggies, fruit, rice, pasta, potatoes, milk, cheese, eggs, bread....those things will keep you alive and healthy. I think the processed foods should be in the same category as cigarettes and beer...basically, a luxury item that you need cash for. I don't see why that would be so awful.....
While I don't participate in the deification of doctors, I do think that 2/3 of an affected group being against something is worthy of a listen. Whether it be the effect of Obamacare on their own bottom line or the effect it will have on patient care and medical innovation, either of those arguments have validity because they both impact on my relationship with my doctor and ultimately the care I receive. The current regime and their fluffers in the media would have us think that medical care will actually get better, or at least no worse, without affecting the overall economy. Tell me, Stilton, is it inflammatory for me to call bullshit on that?
Chuck- Listening to NPR while driving can be dangerous. You're right, the tough questions aren't being asked and the faulty assumptions aren't being challenged. Repealing Obamacare will allegedly add billions to the debt only because the CBO is forced to use the "numbers from Mars" they've been given by the Dems.
Meanwhile, as you and John the Econ point out, the Dems seem to have officially had enough of "words that heal instead of wound," comparing the Republican drive to repeal Obamacare (and restore healthcare) to the Holocaust.
Suzy & Pete- I couldn't agree more. Making food stamps only applicable for ingredients instead of processed food would be a boon to the health of recipients, while saving money at the same time. In fact, it's such a logical idea that I can't imagine the government actually pursuing it.
Surely every democratic congressman's constituency can not be in favor of Obamacare! Just shows you they are only playing 'follow the leader' again. And, all this after Nov's election, showing clearly that the folks out here dont want this monstrousity!!!
Stilt - "In fact, it's such a logical idea that I can't imagine the government actually pursuing it."
In college, I discovered the truism - "That would make sense, and is therefore immediately suspicious."
Pete(Detroit)- I think I may have that saying embroidered for my office wall!
My health insurance is mostly paid for by the great company I work for, but my share went way the hell up this year. Sombody in our annual benefits meeting questioned why, and the answer was pretty simple. "We now have to insure your kids up to age 26." My company is self insured, so the wonderful "gift" BO gave us hit almost immediately.
I cringe when I hear the libs freaking out and spewing shit about how expensive it will be if we repeal Obama's "gift" to us. Mother Jones RAGazine is trying to tell us how we "voted against our own best interests" in November! They really DO think we are THAT stupid!
As far as food stamps go; yes, in an ideal world food stamps would only pay for staple items, but I will say this. My son is a single parent of four boys ages 4 through 11. He works 10-12 hours a day, sometimes 6 days a week and seldom has time to actually prepare a meal. He gets a whopping $250 a month in food stamps, and, yes, in addition to staple items, he buys stuff that can be made quickly. He may be the exception to the rule; I don't know, but if it were not for things like ramen noodles and mac & cheese, his kids might not eat at all some days. just sayin'.....
Colby_Muenster- I still think food stamps only for food ingredients is a great idea. Your son gets $250 a month for food. I'm sure he spends a lot more than that per month on feeding his family, right? And, I'm sure he doesn't feed them mac-n-cheese every meal. So, use the food stamps for "real" food, and pay for the "quick" meals with cash. His budget won't change, only what money goes where.
Food stamps for staple items does indeed make too much sense. It's a much better idea to sell carrots in liquor stores.
I too got hit this year with higher premiums for covering my family. The reason? Blue Cross placed the blame squarely on Obamacare. Makes me wonder if the 30% raise is designed to outrage their customers, so they can point the finger at Obamacare? Or, is it really costing them that much more?
Anonymous (above)- I doubt it's costing the insurance companies that much more NOW, but it will soon...and they'll be insolvent if they don't make prices skyhigh.
Imagine: from now on, people who are ALREADY SICK and need expensive treatment can sign on and start receiving benefits. There is NO lifetime limit on benefits. And government approved plans are forced to give "free" services (like colonoscopies) which the insurance companies have to pay for without any deductibles.
So Obamacare makes medical COSTS skyrocket, adds billions to the debt, and makes actual patient care plummet. If it only caused cancer, it would be perfect.
LOL Stilt!
And yeah, you're welcome to use the 'makes too much sense' phrase.
I'll never forget the size of most of the folks wading out of the Ninth Ward after Katrina. We were told these were the poorest of the poor. One small notion in their defense is the lack of chain grocery stores willing to build in many of these inner city neighborhoods. The closest food comes from 7-11 type stores which are mostly processed snacks with high sugar and fat content. Yum.
Stilt- If what you're saying is correct, and I suspect it is, then what are the odds that the insurance companies will lower their rates back to their original levels once Obamacare is dismantled? ... Yeh, that's what I figure, too.
Anonymous (above)- Ha, ha, ha! Good one!
Seriously, there are very few things that will bring down the cost of insurance. One is real competition in the open market, which the government is trying to eliminate (you can't sell insurance over state lines, yet the government claims the "individual mandate" is legal because it's interstate commerce. Huh?!) Another is to bring down the actual costs for medical care which the insurance companies have to pay - and the quickest way to do that (without costing taxpayers a dime) would be tort reform.
Doctors who pay less for malpractice insurance can CHARGE less to patients and medical insurance companies. Additionally, they wouldn't have to order so many expensive CYA tests which have no purpose other than to protect the doctor in case of a lawsuit. But as Pete said "That would make sense, and is therefore immediately suspicious." Plus, the trial lawyers who generously fund the Democrat party wouldn't like it.
Post a Comment