Posted on

Obama – SIngle Payer System – Socialism

President Barack Obama made it no secret he was a proponent of a single payer health care system in America when he first came on to the national scene. However, he explained to his supporters over the years that a “potential transition” would be necessary to break away from the current system.

Interestingly, as the implementation of the Obamacare exchanges face problems and millions begin to lose coverage from their private insurers, something President Obama promised would not happen, Democrats and their liberal allies are now beginning to suggest a single payer system as a solution to the rickety exchanges.

Rep. John Larson (D – CT) told Breitbart News last Wednesday that under a single payer system Americans would not be losing their private health care coverage, claiming, “You would be covered automatically. But that’s not the law. The law is that it’s a free enterprise system and they have the right not to enter into the exchange or not to provide for you in the exchange. That is their right.”

The video below shows clips of Obama explaining to supporters  his views over the years about how he would transition a single payer system into the United States. At the same time he criticizes his detractors, saying the Affordable Care Act is not a “government take over” of American health care.


Obama – Remarks to AFL – CIO

“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care plan. The United States of America–the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent–14 percent of its gross national product on health care and cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody and that’s what Jim is talking about when he says, ‘Everybody in. Nobody out.’ A single payer health care credit–universal healthcare credit. That’s what I’d like to see, but as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House and we’ve got to take back the Senate and we’ve got to take back the House.”

Obama – Remarks  – 8/4/07

“This is a two trillion dollar part of our economy and it is my belief that it’s not just politically but economically it is better for us to start getting a system in place–a universal healthcare system signed into law by the end of my first term as president and build off that system to further to make it more rational…”

“By the way, Canada did not start immediately with a single payer system. They had a similar transition step. ”

Obama- New Hampshire Public Radio 11/21/07

OBAMA: It’s a transitional system building on the existing systems that we have.

HOST: Transitional to what?

OBAMA: Transitional, hopefully, because the system is currently a patchwork of inefficiency that over time I would want to see Medicaid, Medicare, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)–all those integrated more effectively.

Obama – Public Remarks 4/3/07

“Let’s say that I proposed a plan that moved to a single payer system–Let’s say Medicare plus. Essentially, everybody can buy Medicare, for example…”

“Transitioning a system is a very difficult and costly and lengthy enterprise. It’s not like you can turn on a switch and you go from one system to another. So it’s possible that up front, you wouldn’t need not just– you might need an additional ninety or a hundred billion dollars a year.”

Obama – (SEIU Healthcare Forum) – 3/24/07

“But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out..”

Obama – Public Remarks – 1/27/05

“There’s no denying that part of the solution in the health care arena as we transition and deal with the legacy systems that we’ve inherited will probably require some additional money.”

Obama – Remarks to American Medical Association – 6/15/2009

“The public option is not your enemy. It is your friend…Let me also address an illegitimate concern that is being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single payer system.”

Obama – (SEIU Healthcare Forum) – 3/24/07

“My commitment is to make sure we’ve got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president…”

“I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can’t go through their employers to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort…but I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out..”

Rep. Barney Frank (D – MA) – 7/27/09

“I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to single payer and that’s the best way to reach single payer.”

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D – IL) – 4/18/09

“And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option saying, ‘It wouldn’t let private insurance compete–that a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single payer.’ He was right. The man was right.”

Posted on

28 Amendement

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.”

Posted on

CMS clarifies when charging patients fees for records is appropriate

[preamble]AH HA! The EHR incentive money has caveats! You accept the money you lose more control over your practice and how you conduct business. The inevitable creep of socialism and government employed physicians. Nothing is FREE! and you doctors took the bait – yet again![backtopost]

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has issued new and updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the Meaningful Use Incentive Program, including one that warns that is it not appropriate to charge patients a fee when they electronically view, download or transmit their health information pursuant to the incentive program, implying that the patients’ access is really for the provider’s benefit. CMS distinguishes this access from situations where records are provided to a patient in response to a request, and points out that fees charged in response to patient requests are governed by HIPAA’s Privacy Rule. CMS also published a new FAQ on secure messaging, and updated two FAQs on outpatient calculations and public health agencies.

Posted on

Government control of what we eat

[preamble]Under the guise of “unsafe”, the FDA – aka the government, determines whats good for us – is not extending the FDA control over our foods linked to our health insurance costs? They CAN make illegal ANY foods the government determines are “no good” for us.

I suggest we all watch the FDA and other agencies to “see” if they are excising more control over us. [backtopost]
The Food and Drug
Administration today took a step toward potentially eliminating trans fats from
the food supply with a preliminary determination they are no longer
“generally recognized as safe.”

Trans fats are found in a variety of frozen, canned and baked processed foods.
Partially hydrogenated oils are the major dietary source of trans fats in
processed food. Trans fats have been linked to an increased risk of heart

If the preliminary determination is finalized, according to the FDA, then
partially hydrogenated oils will become food additives subject to premarket FDA
approval. Foods with unapproved additives cannot legally be sold.

Posted on

Doctors under attach by lawyers in commercials – Doctors say nothing!

Last night as I was watching the beginning of the destruction of NY as DeBlasio was touted as our new mayor, a commercial was played many times about a law firm showing a cute couple complaining about their baby was not delivered by cesarean fast enough and suffered a disability and how this legal firm got them money for malpractice  – Message? Doctors are bad sue them!

This plus numerous other similar TV commercials and radio ads are constantly touting how doctors hide behind their white coats and MUST be made to pay! SHOW ME THE MONEY!

And doctors say nothing – Do Nothing! Tort reform? Never since lawyers are making too much money on this!

Doctors need an advocate to counter each and every one of these detrimental occurrences.

YET – doctors are silent and continue on their failed course! You notice not one doctor has risen up and complained about Obama care publically – where are the rallying physicians showing the effects of this on their business? No – the physicians are blind to their own demise!

Posted on

Obama website – Should not we get a refund?

If you purchased an expensive car and it arrived broken, would you not expect the car company to either replace the car, fix it or refund your money?
Of Course!

So why, are we not getting this service from the company that WE THE PEOPLE paid $600,000,000 for and is broken?
How much more are “we” aka Obama going to spend to make this “work”?
Should not the company that built the site be responsible?
No one is accountable for anything!

For gods sake lets stop being deceived by a WEBSITE – the web site is NOT Obama care!

When this folly ends!

Posted on

Christianity under attack!

Florida history book has chapter on Muslim Religion BUT no other!
When asked – school states its “implied” about other religions!

Exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood wants!
Wake up America!

Posted on

White House Attacks Cancer Patient For Speaking Out Against Obama Care

Cancer patient wrote an article complaining that she CANT keep her doctor and her plan is cancelled.
The white house response?
Attack Her! – Evidently she is not smart enough to understand insurance and what is “good” for her
This Is not a democracy to the white house – its OBAMALISM!
When this folly ends!

How Low Can They Go?

The White House attacks a cancer patient.

By            James Taranto     November 4, 2013
It’s been just over a month since ObamaCare’s disastrous launch, and it’s just over three years until the scheduled election of Barack Obama’s successor. It’s going to be a long three years. The exposure of Obama’s signature “achievement” as both incompetent and fraudulent (with its economic inviability yet to be realized) is also showing the administration’s true face. It is an ugly one, and we can expect to see a lot more of it while Obama remains in office.

This morning the White House went on the attack against a cancer patient who is also a victim of ObamaCare. Edie Littlefield Sundby of San Diego explains in today’s Wall Street Journal that she’s been managing a case of stage 4 gallbladder cancer, an affliction whose five-year survival rate is just 2%. Having survived the diagnosis by seven years so far, she beat very long odds–and she did so with the help of an excellent insurance plan that covered care at three hospitals, two in California and one in Texas.

In touting ObamaCare, Obama asserted at least two dozen times (in slightly varying language) that if you like your health plan, you can keep it. As Sundby explains, she is a victim of Obama’s fraudulent sales pitch:

Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.

But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.

Covered California is the state ObamaCare exchange, one of those that, unlike the administration-built federal one, has some degree of technical functionality. Thus Sundby was able to log in and check out her options, which–contrary to Obama’s “new and improved” sales pitch, that people whose policies are canceled will get better insurance–were unsatisfactory. No plan available to her would cover both her primary-care doctor at the University of California, San Diego, and her oncologist at Stanford.

Sundby asks: “What happened to the president’s promise, ‘You can keep your health plan’? Or to the promise that ‘You can keep your doctor’? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.”

This morning Dan Pfeiffer the fast-talking flack tweeted out a piece from, a leftist propaganda outfit. Titled “The Real Reason That the Cancer Patient Writing in Today’s Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance,” the piece, by one Igor Volsky, claims that “Sundby shouldn’t blame reform.” Volsky instead blames United Healthcare, which, he writes, “dropped her coverage because they’ve struggled to compete in California’s individual health care market for years and didn’t want to pay for sicker patients like Sundby”:

“The company’s plans reflect its concern that the first wave of newly insured customers under the law may be the costliest,” UHC Chief Executive Officer Stephen Helmsley told investors last October. “UnitedHealth will watch and see how the exchanges evolve and expects the first enrollees will have ‘a pent-up appetite’ for medical care. We are approaching them with some degree of caution because of that.”

Get that? The company packed its bags and dumped its beneficiaries because it wants its competitors to swallow the first wave of sicker enrollees only to re-enter the market later and profit from the healthy people who still haven’t signed up for coverage.

Sundby is losing her coverage and her doctors because of a business decision her insurer made within the competitive dynamics of California’s health care market.

All this may be true, but it begs the question. The addition of a phrase to that last sentence shows why: Sundby is losing her coverage and her doctors because of a business decision her insurer made within the competitive dynamics of California’s health care market under the regulatory structure established by Obama’s comprehensive “reform.”

Obama did not qualify his pitch by stating that if you like your health plan, you can keep it unless your insurer makes a business decision to the contrary within the competitive dynamics of your state’s health care market.

Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on how ObamaCare is defrauding consumers. Photo credit: Associated Press.

To the contrary, he represented ObamaCare as protecting consumers from precisely that sort of cruel business decision, and he has not backed away from that fraudulent promise: At a speech last Wednesday, he asserted that the only policies being canceled were “substandard” ones offered by former “bad-apple insurers” whose practices ObamaCare reformed.

Over the weekend a New York Times editorial parroted that line, claiming that “insurers are not allowed to abandon enrollees” and that “people forget how terrible many of the soon-to-be-abandoned policies were.” But even the Times editors can’t quite defend the if-you-like-your-plan-you-can-keep-it fraud. The best they can do is equivocation: “Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that.”

To misspeak means to express oneself imperfectly or incorrectly. It implies either a careless choice of words or an unintended candor (as in a “Freudian slip”). Obama did not misspeak. As The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend, the slogan was the result of careful deliberation. Whereas “some White House policy advisers objected to the breadth of Mr. Obama’s ‘keep your plan’ promise,” “political aides” insisted upon it. The latter prevailed. In an interview with the Journal, one unidentified former official “added that in the midst of a hard-fought political debate ‘if you like your plan, you can probably keep it’ isn’t a salable point.”

The story closes by quoting a “policy expert” who shrugs off the deception:

Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the law’s impact on existing insurance arrangements was “a social policy decision the government made” and the president’s description of it was “pretty low on the totem pole of political overstatements.”

Suppose the deliberations the Journal describes had taken place in a corporate suite rather than a government one and had concerned a commercial rather than a political advertising slogan. In that case, we’d be talking about a criminal conspiracy to defraud consumers.

Yes, it’s unrealistic to expect politicians to be held to the same standard of honesty as corporate executives. But what does astonish us about the Obama administration is the relentlessness and aggression of its efforts to blame others and evade political accountability. The tone is set at the top by a president who, at age 52, retains an adolescent’s aversion to adult responsibility.

Still, you’d think a political professional would recognize that Edie Sundby’s story calls not for an attack but for a show of compassion, even if one lacks the capacity for the real thing.

Posted on

Obama’s big “IF”

So all the speeches, all the statements and all the videos we heard about Obama care – we NOW hear that we ALL MISSED the IF…..

The presidents new speech is the same story that you can keep your doctor and plan BUT now has a DRAMATIC pause THAN a BIG IF………….

Wake up America! – Bait and Switch – I don’t care how good the law is, I don’t care what the reasons are – We THE PEOPLE were told a lie to have a law passed. The MEANS does not justify the ends in a democracy. If we heard this in the beginning than we would have made an INFORMED choice!

When this folly ends!