If Obamacare is so swell, why do Members of Congress get their own separate plan?

I don't know about you, but I'm plenty excited by the prospect of an Obama designed Health Administration Bureau:

The only puzzling thing is why the Democrat party is trying to ram Obamacare through Congress with a separate healthcare plan for Members of Congress attached. Republican Rep. John Fleming is puzzled too and has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to change it:

Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.

Together we will work to ensure that any plan that is good enough is for American families is good enough for every member of Congress.

View Resolution

Meanwhile over in the Senate, Tom Coburn had a little fun too:

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma called bluff on the Democrats' support for their own health care bill by challenging his colleagues on the Senate health committee to vote in favor of joining the program once enacted.

Mr. Coburn said, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander," and that "if Congress thinks a government-run plan is safe and effective for Americans, they should prove it with enrolling."

All the Republicans on the committee, except for New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, voted for the amendment, but only three of the panel's 13 Democratic caucus member joined them. The 10 others voted "nay," though the amendment thus passed by a 12-11 vote.

The Democratic senators who voted against it were Sens. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Patty Murray of Washington, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent but a member of the Democratic caucus, also opposed the bill.

Democrats who voted in favor of the amendment were: Sens. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland.

Gosh, why would those 10 Democrat Senators turn down a chance to participate in Obamacare? Maybe it's because they are older than dirt and don't want their medical care rationed along with the rest of the senior citizens? As for the 3 Donks who voted for it, I'd like to think it was the courage of their convictions, but since we are talking Kennedy, Dodd, and Mikulski I suspect it was their conviction that the amendment will get dropped in the House-Senate conference committee plus enough liquid assets to buy whatever medical care they need.

Hold on Granny! Your medical care has to first be approved by Obamacare

But don't worry, Obamacare is a streamlined government program:

(click for full details on the processing of your Obamacare claim)

So don't worry, Granny. With any luck you will be scheduled to see a doctor within a year. And if not, well you are old and really aren't going to live that long anyhow.

Obamacare means shortchanging the elderly but they'll be dead soon anyway

Mickey Kaus spots my favorite shortcoming of the Obamacare plan to spend a trillion dollars to screw up US medical care:

Dick Morris is right twice a day, and this could be one of those times: If I were a Hill Democrat, I'd be very worried about this possible line of attack. ... It's a proven killer, and Obaman Dems, with all their talk of bending cost curves and denying treatments and  reducing Medicare spending by 30%, have rendered themselves wide open to it.

I tend to agree with Kaus about Dick Morris, but this time he is right on the money:

Obama’s health care proposal is, in effect, the repeal of the Medicare program as we know it. The elderly will go from being the group with the most access to free medical care to the one with the least access. Indeed, the principal impact of the Obama health care program will be to reduce sharply the medical services the elderly can use. No longer will their every medical need be met, their every medication prescribed, their every need to improve their quality of life answered.

It is so ironic that the elderly - who were so vigilant when Bush proposed to change Social Security - are so relaxed about the Obama health care proposals. Bush’s Social Security plan, which did not cut their benefits at all, aroused the strongest opposition among the elderly. But Obama’s plan, which will totally gut Medicare and replace it with government-managed care and rationing, has elicited little more than a yawn from most senior citizens.

I expect most of the senior citizens can't really believe it is happening and their favorite news sources on the TV networks sure aren't telling them nor are the erstwhile watchdogs at the AARP who are busy giving Obama a tongue bath. Besides senior citizens tend to vote Republican so killing them off is a double win for Obama because ACORN and the local Democrat machine will have them voting Democrat as soon as they die.

(Shovel ready graphics from The People's Cube)

John Holdren - another whacko pal of Barack Obama

Does Barack Obama know anyone who's not a moonbat? Based on all available evidence the answer is no. Check out Barack's new Science Czar, John Holdren:

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Ole John sounds like a really fun guy. Too bad he was born too late - Stalin, Hitler, and Chairman Mao would really have appreciated his fine tuned sensibilities. Still, Barack Obama isn't that much different.

Obama booty patrol

Watch our dignified and classy president, Barack Obama, check out the underage (16 years) booty at some goofy United Nations conference for kiddies. Sheesh, ole Pedobear Obama looks like he is about to start drooling. Just wait until he gets back - Michelle will be firing all the female interns.

Update: here's the front view that Barack missed:

 

Mayara Tavares is 16 and lives in the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. She inherited from her grandmother and father a passion to take part in community action and social movements and has been an activist in her community fighting for children and adolescent rights. She has recently acted as a community researcher interviewing other adolescents in the community about their lives and how it feels for them to be growing up in the shantytowns of Rio de Janeiro. Through this work she became part of a National Platform for the improvement of poor communities situated in large urban centers, an initiative carried out by UNICEF in Brazil. She also became a member of the Youth Forum in her municipality and hopes that she can continue to engage her peers in this work.

Fourth of July, 2009

The 4th of July is a day to celebrate and reflect on many things. One of them is how our forefathers stood up to and defied tyranny. Can we be as brave?

Nancy Pelosi says "Jump!" and Steve Driehaus asks "How High?"

You have to admire the duplicity of those House Democrats who tell the folks back home that they are fiscal conservatives and then head off to Washington and turn into Nancy Pelosi lapdogs. Don't they think anyone will notice?

Anyhow, today's case in point is Rep. Steve Driehaus of the first district of Ohio who apparently lost his self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatism" at the banks of the Potomac and voted for every crack brained tax scheme that Nancy told him to vote for. Lacking any backbone sure must make ole Steve a heck of a guy for yoga!

Communist coup averted in Honduras, democracy restored: Hillary Clinton upset

Hugo Chavez's Honduran butt boy President Zelaya overreached himself with an illegal referendum that would enshrine himself as Presidente For Life (just like Chavez in Venezuela) and he was removed from office. Now Hugo is blustering, the Cubans are whining and all decent people are happy, right? Well, the decent folks may be happy but not our sleazy Secretary of State - Honduras Defends Its Democracy: Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton object:

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.

But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.
...
It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.

Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.

Many Hondurans are going to be celebrating Mr. Zelaya's foreign excursion. Street protests against his heavy-handed tactics had already begun last week. On Friday a large number of military reservists took their turn. "We won't go backwards," one sign said. "We want to live in peace, freedom and development."

As do we all. Why is this administration on the side of the totalitarians?

Why don't Obama and the Democrats just offer US taxpayer funded health care to everyone in the world?

Guess what!  it turns out that Obamacare is really about the taxpayers providing better funding for illegal aliens health care. (We're already paying for them, of course, but Obamacare would provide full health care insurance for illegals.) But it's even better than that - they want to limit treatment of elderly citizens so that there is enough money to give illegal aliens high quality care.  Let's listen as the folks from La Raza and the "Children's Defense Fund"  plot Obamacare propaganda strategy with a rep of US Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ):

... they started the conference out by saying "America does not need health care reform, but Latino immigrants need health care reform."
And someone from Menendez' office [Ed.: Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ] promised that he would make sure that "the useless barriers of citizenship would not be in this bill" and that he would make sure that they would use keywords like "streamline"...

... Yes [they said they would get free health care for illegal aliens], these are my notes, Mark. They actually got up and said "Latino children need health care more than whites". And then they would say things like "you must go out into your communities, use words like 'streamline', use phrases like 'all workers' and 'all families'," because they said -- and I quote -- "If the American people find out that this bill is about giving health care to non-citizens, they will rise up against it."

... One of the quotes they said was, "We want to make sure we take care of barriers like verification, but we can streamline programs to the more affluent" and, quote, "Useless treatments for the elderly can be gone because we don't need to spend money for people who are going to die anyway."

...And they also said that 75% of the children who will be picked up in this will be non-citizens and that 44% of the uninsured are non-citizens and they can't possibly allow the American people to know this."

Such a deal - we install a massive bureaucracy, pay 1.5 trillion additional dollars in taxes, and ration healthcare to the elderly so that everyone who sneaks across the border gets great medical care. Why not cut down on wear and tear on the Border patrol and just pay for all medical care for everyone in the world. I'm sure the US taxpayers would mind too much.

Obamacare: Higher taxes (except for unions), Medicare cuts, euthanasia for Baby Boomers

Barack Obama certainly has quite a plan to solve the nonexistent healthcare problem. Major features:

Massive tax increases and benefit cuts:

Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.

Democrats will work on the bill’s details next week as they struggle through “what kind of heartburn” it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today.

Even getting "Chuckles" Rangel to cough up all the taxes he has been evading isn't going to fill this black hole.

Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion over a decade, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.” Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, say the costs will likely exceed $1.5 trillion.
...
Rangel said Democrats are still considering options for tax increases that might be in the bill, including a possible end to the income tax exclusion for employer-paid health benefits.

That's certainly a a bummer, but don't worry if you are a union member, Since your leadership has Barack Obama in their collective hip pocket, you won't be affected:

Mr. Baucus, the Finance Committee chairman who is helping lead the Obama health effort, is still deciding what to include in the bill. But his far bigger headache remains how to pay for this blowout. He and other Democrats have been inching toward the taboo benefits-tax, putting them on a collision course with liberal special interests like unions. Mr. Baucus's newest solution? A union payoff.
...
Mr. Baucus officially floated his plans for a tax this week, only with a surprising twist: His levy will not apply to union plans, at least for the duration of existing contracts. In other words, Mr. Baucus intends to tax the health-care benefits only of those who didn't spend a fortune electing Democrats to office.

And the second class citizens can pound sand, I guess. Still, we'll all be in the same manure pile when it comes to rationing of healthcare which Obama's flying monkey bloggers are already trying to turn into a benefit:

Democratic blogger Ezra Klein appears to be positioning Dem health care reforms as a way to cut costs, on the grounds that a reformed system will be able to make "hard choices" and "rational" coverage decisions, by which Klein seems to mean "not providing" treatments that are unproven or too expensive--when "a person's life, or health, is not worth the price." Matthew Yglesias' recent post seems to be saying the same thing, though clarity isn't its strong suit. (He must have left it on Journolist.)  

Isn't it an epic mistake to try to sell Democratic health care reform on this basis? Possible sales pitch: "Our plan will deny you unnecessary treatments!" Or maybe just "Republicans say 'yes.' Democrats say 'no'!" Is that really why the middle class will sign on to a revolutionary multi-trillion dollar shift in spending--so the government can decide their life or health "is not worth the price"?  I mean, how could it lose?

Even better, of course, is the observation that it's mostly old folks that need medical care and so what Obama and his pals are proposing is really, "Let the Boomers Die!"  Why not just give each one of the Baby Boomers an expiration date? That would sure solve the money problem.