If You Think The Union Thugs Are Bad Now, Wait Until the Employee Free Choice Act Passes

The town hall meetings around the country were loud and intense, but it wasn’t until the president called out for the unions to join in the debate that things turned violent.

From The Caucus on August 6th:

John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, sent out a call to arms Thursday for rank-and-file members to counteract what he called the “right-wing ‘Tea Party Patriots’ ” who have been disrupting the meetings.

And the Service Employees International Union, the nation’s largest union of health-care employees, is deploying its members to the meetings to “reclaim our democracy,” according to a statement. Referring to the colorful T-shirts that the union’s members wear at rallies, a spokeswoman said the union was “unleashing the purple people.”

Following the arrival of Obama’s sycophants and myrmidons:








With the introduction of the unions, things have turned violent. Remember, it was Obama who encouraged his supporters to “get in their faces and argue” and the Democrats pledged to “punch them back twice as hard.”

Perhaps now you understand the danger of the Employee Free Choice Act. The AFL-CIO says they “need the Employee Free Choice Act.” The SEIU says they “support the Employee Free Choice Act.”

But card-check, the portion of the bill that most found to be very dangerous, has been removed. So what’s the danger?

Imagine the folks above, the type who stomp people and smash cameras into people’s faces, and consider the following:

…EFCA would mandate that businesses give union organizers access to their property and would restrict businesses’ ability to argue against union-organizing proposals. The organizing-campaign period would be shortened, thereby curtailing debate, and business owners would be prohibited from holding mandatory meetings to discuss union-organizing proposals with their employees. Which is to say, businesses will be forced to open their doors to union organizers, but will not be able to make the case against them on their own property. This is perverse, especially in a country whose constitution is alleged to protect citizens’ freedom of association, not to mention their property rights.

With union memberships at a historical low, should the federal government be mandating the above? Can you imagine one of these folks approaching you to discuss why you should join the union? How far do you think that discussion would go?

The current behavior by union thugs is nothing but foreshadowing of what will be if EFCA is passed.

Respond to this: 6 Comments

Democrat Economics Explained: The Public Option is Market Based

One thing that really bothers me about the statist’s propaganda is the claim the public option health care plan is “market based.”

For example, read this hogwash from Rep. Jane Harmon (D-ishonest):

A good healthcare bill will provide universal coverage, foster competition, encourage innovation, and preserve patients’ choice. I strongly believe that a robust public health insurance option is essential to achieving these goals. Neither a single-payer system nor an all-private market approach can achieve the results that competition among a robust public option and market-based plans will.

We know what happens when insurance companies don’t compete: The results range from complacency to price gouging. A public option will help fix this, harnessing the power of the market to drive down premiums, encourage efficiency and quality, and keep bloated treatment regimens in check. By one estimate, it could save the country $800 billion over the next decade.

The government option is harnessing the power of the market? Not remotely.

Here’s how it works. The government health care bill uses FORCE to make insurance companies offer benefits in plans they are FORCED to sell via The Exchange. The government also FORCES insurance companies to offer plans to those with pre-exisiting conditions. The insurance companies might not want to, but they have no choice. The law, aka the government, FORCES them to. It will also FORCE every American to have private health care, take the public option or pay a fine, getting nothing in exchange for their property.

The government also FORCES taxpayers to pay for the public option coverage of those who can’t afford to pay for the benefits themselves. This is called the “hardship waiver.”

That’s a lot of force to be market driven. See, in a market, the parties are free to enter into agreements based on mutual benefits. The seller agrees to part with a product or service for a price and the buyer agrees to pay the set price. The buyer gets a profit, the seller gets what they want or need.

With the Democrat’s health plan, the law tells the seller what they will sell and to sell to whomever asks. The more the government mandates, the higher the cost to the seller. Meanwhile, the government option is being sold at a loss, and the government doesn’t really care. If they need more money, they can use force to take it from the people, or they can just print it.

How exactly is this “harnessing the power of the market to drive down premiums?”

I assume Rep. Harmon is making the case that if the public option is cheaper than the private option, they will drop the price of their product to make it competitive with the government plan. But that’s impossible, because the private insurance company can’t afford to sell at a loss.

So what happens then?

Well, employers will see that their employees can get cheaper health benefits from the government and will drop the coverage. Those people will end up on the public option. People who can’t afford insurance now will apply for the government option since it’s really no skin off their backs. Someone else is paying for it. Insurance companies start hemorrhaging customers, driving down their evil profits. And those who chose not to carry insurance, but can afford it, will opt in for the government option instead of paying a fine for not having coverage.

The government, having forced people into it, will then brag about its success and trumpet the power and strength of the government option. And like Barney Frank says, that’s “the best way to get to single payer”:

The Democrats know the public option will put insurance companies out of business. That’s because the Democrats plan on selling their product at a loss by subsidizing it with taxpayer money.   We have trade laws against this. The U.S. government has actually gone to the World Trade Organization to get China to stop doing this exact type of behavior.

But when a Democrat promotes it, it isn’t unfair or illegal. It’s market based.

How can they make this claim when it’s obviously false to anyone who really looks at it?

They understand “the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.”

Or, if you tell a big enough lie over and over again, people are bound to start believing it.

Respond to this: 9 Comments

Do Democrats Plan to Ram Health Care Bill Through Via Reconciliation?

As I noted yesterday, the health care bill bringing to life the public option is very important to the Democrat party, but not for the reasons they publicize. They want it in the worst way, but are they prepared to drop a huge bomb on the Congress to get it done?

Sen. Charles Schumer said something that is making more than a few pundits wonder if the answer is yes:

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., raised the possibility again today that Democrats might use a process known as reconciliation to approve health care legislation pending in the Senate. The procedure would allow Democrats to pass a health care bill with a simple majority — 51 votes — rather than the 60 normally needed.

The comments were made in a conference call with reporters in which Schumer and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., were set to talk about the “need for Republican cooperation on health care,” according to the advisory distributed beforehand. “If the Republicans are not able to produce an agreement we will have contingencies in place,” Schumer said during the call. Asked if reconciliation was among the backup plans, Schumer said: “That’s clearly one of the contingencies on the table, yes.” Asked if there were any other “contingencies” on the table, Schumer said, “I’m going to leave it at what I said.”

That would be a huge move for the Democrats.

My first thought is, “Go for it.” As I wrote before, the Republicans need to let the Democrats own everything. Say, “No, this is a bad idea. Here’s how you fix it.” And offer a better alternative based on liberty and freedom, not Marxism.

But if they try reconciliation, no Republican should vote in favor of the bill. Make that vote on pure politics, since that is what you understand best. Make the Democrats own this failure.

Respond to this: 3 Comments

The Public Option and the Camel's Nose

Do you know what the camel’s nose represents? Have you heard that expression before?

It’s an expression used to explain the slippery slope an action can lead you down. If you allow the camel to get its nose under the flap of your tent, soon it will have its head under. Then, its neck. Before you know it, the camel is sleeping with you in your tent.

So, is the public option the Democrats keep bleating about an example of the camel’s nose?

Yes. It’s that simple.

It is the goal of the statists (thank you Mark Levin for reintroducing that term) in the Democrat party to take the American health care system down the road to a single payer system. They understand they cannot achieve this goal outright. They have to take it one deceitful step at a time. They promise that you can keep your insurance plan if you like it and promise that you can keep your doctor. They tell the masses there is no plan to take over health insurance.

But they tell their most loyal constituents a different story.

Hear it from their mouths and understand the end goal is not insuring the uninsured, but destroying free market health care and creating government run, socialist medicine:




You can sit back and believe the lies of the Democrat President, Congressmen and Senators, or you can hear them speak the truth in the video above and understand the true goal: total control of healthcare on a federal level.

Watch all of the Schakowsky video. Hear her say she is a advocate of single payer. Hear her say, “This is not a principled fight.” These are her words:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky Admits Obama Plans is to destroy Private Health Insurance – kewego
Rep. Jan Schakowsky Admits Obama Plans is to destroy Private Health Insurance Keywords: american politics jan schakowsky

Video from aforp

Barney Frank says he’s “all for it” and wishes it wasn’t off the table, but says the public option is the way to get it:




If you believe what the Democrats are saying to main stream America when it comes to health care, you are a fool. This is the camel’s nose.

Respond to this: Comments Off

Why John Edwards Is Responsible for More Unnecessary Operations Than "Greedy Doctors"

Last night during his national press conference, President Barack Obama maligned doctors as doing unnecessary operations based on greed, not the best interest of the patient. He said:

“Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. … The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out,’” Obama told a prime-time news conference.

The president added: “Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference.”

It’s interesting that President Obama discusses unnecessary operations as one of the causes of high health care costs. Do you know what the most often performed operation is in the United States? With heart disease being the number one killer in America, you might think it would be related to that, perhaps bypass surgery or angioplasty.

It’s cesarean section. In 1965, only 4.5 percent of children were delivered via c-section. Today, 31 percent are. That’s a huge increase for a procedure that was once reserved to emergency situations. And as the Los Angeles Times notes, it has resulted in “an explosion in medical bills, an increase in complications — and a reconsideration of the cesarean as a sometimes unnecessary risk.”

What is the reason for the increase? Is it greedy doctors looking for a new summer home? No, it’s something far worse.

John Edwards.

The now disgraced former Senator from North Carolina made his name, and his money, as a trial lawyer. In a 1985 case, he convinced a jury that a doctor’s negligence was responsible for a child’s cerebral palsy. He argued that had the doctor performed a c-section earlier, the girl would not have been disabled. He went so far as to channel the girl in court for the jury:

“I have to tell you right now — I didn’t plan to talk about this — right now I feel her, I feel her presence,” he said in his record-setting 1985 lawsuit on behalf of Jennifer Campbell, born brain-damaged after being deprived of oxygen during labor. “She’s inside me and she’s talking to you. . . . And this is what she says to you. She says, `I don’t ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don’t ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.’ “

The jury awarded the plaintiff $6.5 million. The New York Times reports this verdict led to more lawsuits:

In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. As a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits with pride.

“I was more than just their lawyer,” Mr. Edwards said of his clients in a recent essay in Newsweek. “I cared about them. Their cause was my cause.”

The effect of his work has reached beyond those cases, and beyond his own income. Other lawyers have filed countless similar cases; just this week, a jury on Long Island returned a $112 million award. And doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate Caesarean.

So what has been the result of the increase in Caesarean section births? Occurrences of cerebral palsy have “remained fairly stable” at about “1.5/1000 births.”

In fact, the incidence of CP seems to be increasing slightly with the increased survival rates of infants born before thirty-two weeks gestation.

Whether or not fetal heart rate monitoring during labor has led to a reduction in cerebral palsy has been researched extensively. The conclusion established by multiple scientific evidence is: Fetal heart rate monitoring during labor does not reduce rates of cerebral palsy, although it does increase the rate of cesarean section.

As the L.A. Times notes, they also lead to unnecessary costs:

As the No. 1 cause of hospital admissions, childbirth is a huge part of the nation’s $2.4-trillion annual healthcare expenditure, accounting in hospital charges alone for more than $79 billion.

Because the average uncomplicated cesarean runs about $4,500, nearly twice as much as a comparable vaginal birth, cesareans account for a disproportionate amount (45%) of delivery costs. Among privately insured patients, uncomplicated cesareans run about $13,000.

and:

The problem, experts say, is that the cesarean — delivery via uterine incision — exposes a woman to the risk of infection, blood clots and other serious problems. Cesareans also have been shown to increase premature births and the need for intensive care for newborns. Even without such complications, cesareans result in longer hospital stays.

If the president is really interested in reducing the occurrences of unnecessary operations, he doesn’t need to create the boogey-man of “greedy doctors.” Greedy doctors don’t remove body parts like tonsils. They implant body parts, like silicone breasts. The real culprit here is the trial lawyer, who has helped create a medical world that chooses procedures based on the CYA diagnosis method. However, the president’s speech last night was not critical of this, and didn’t emphasize tort reform.

A 2001 article from National Review explains why the president doesn’t see a need for tort reform:

An estimated 50 cents of every dollar awarded to tort plaintiffs gets eaten up by lawyers and courts-and a great deal of that money ends up benefiting Democratic candidates. Over the last decade, the legal profession has led all other groups in campaign contributions-giving a total of $357 million to federal candidates-and 70 percent of its cash goes to Democrats. The 56,000-member Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) was the top PAC contributor to Democratic federal candidates in the last election cycle; the organization spent $2.6 million, 86 percent of which went to Democrats.

If he were serious about lower costs, this would be the cornerstone of his movement. Instead, he maligns “greedy doctors,” many of whom work 16 hours or more a day trying to help people, and lets the “greedy trial lawyers” off the hook. Remember that next time he accuses the Republicans of bowing down to special interests.

Update:

Thanks to those who liked and linked, including Jimmie at the Sundries Shack, Melissa Clouthier at Melissa Clouthier.com and Right Wing News, Jenn Sierra at Fort Hard Knox, Kathy Shaidle at fivefeetoffury. You all helped me get my first Memeorandum thread!

If I missed you, it’s not intentional. I just haven’t found your link yet.

Don’t forget to retweet and stumble! Thanks again!

Update 2:

I guess this story has some legs. Welcome Lucianne and American Thinker readers. Please remember to subscribe and follow me on Twitter! I’m closing in on 3,000 followers.

Respond to this: 90 Comments

Obama Not Familiar with House Health Care Bill?

It was during a conference call with a bunch of lefty bloggers that President Obama let it be known that he wasn’t familiar with the House health care reform bill.

Heritage reports:

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)

This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.

Details matter, but as I have seen from this president, facts don’t.

The Lewin Group is familiar with the House bill and have produced a study showing what will happen if it is enacted:

    * Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and as a consequence about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.

   * About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.

   * Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.

You will lose your health care. Period.

Respond to this: 6 Comments

Democrats Hammered In Public Forums Over Government Run Health Care

Rep. Russ Carnahan was outright laughed at when he suggested the government run system would be more efficient than the free market. The question at the end of the video is especially important. I still want an answer for it:



Another Democrat faced off against one of his in a town hall meeting. Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland had to answer if he would really fine a person $2500 if they chose not to have health insurance. His answer? Yes, because you wouldn’t pay for your health care otherwise:



Someone needs to ask him why the government is picking up the tab in the first place.
Hat Tip: Freedom’s Lighthouse

Respond to this: 9 Comments

My American Issues Project Article: The Upcoming Explosion of Medical Tourism

This week over at AIP, I wrote about the coming exodus of American doctors to foreign countries. They will invite their current patients to visit them there where they can be treated for what ails them and recuperate on the beach.

The article is titled,”The Upcoming Explosion of Medical Tourism.” Here’s a taste:

My favorite doctor retired several years ago. He spent a lot of time during his retirement practicing medicine in different countries. When asked why he did that, he said he could just practice medicine without all the red tape. Doctors who find themselves tired of dealing with the bureaucratic nightmare that the Democrats are trying to foist upon them have few options. They can continue to work in the system, they can quit or they can move their practice to a better locale and just practice medicine. Some have already made it clear: they’re leaving.

Given the situation of having to wait for months, possibly years, for surgery or going to the Bahamas for a week’s worth of treatment, what would you do? Medical tourism is already on the upswing. As the New York Times reports, some insurance companies are paying travel expenses to go overseas.

If the Democrats succeed in taking over health care, this market will really take off.

Respond to this: 3 Comments

22 Year Old Alcoholic Refused Liver Transplant, Dies In UK Hospital

Like Obama keeps telling people, sometimes there are procedures that just don’t make sense. So it’s the job of the government to decide what doctors should do in each particular case. In this case, we have an alcoholic with severe cirrhosis of the liver. He couldn’t prove he would stop drinking, so by government regulations, he was denied a liver and died.Gary Reinbach.jpg

He was 22. Oh yeah, he was so sick he couldn’t leave the hospital to prove he’d stay sober:

Gary Reinbach, who died in hospital on Monday from a severe case of liver cirrhosis, did not qualify for a donor liver under strict NHS rules.

The alcoholic, from Dagenham, Essex, had admitted binge drinking since he was 13 but was only taken to hospital for the first time with liver problems 10 weeks ago.

He was never discharged.

His mother Madeline Hanshaw, 44, said: “These rules are really unfair.”

She told the Evening Standard: “I’m not saying you should give a transplant to someone who is in and out of hospital all the time and keeps damaging themselves, but just for people like Gary, who made a mistake and never got a second chance.”

Welcome to socialized medicine, where treatment is denied for the greater good. Coming soon to America.

Respond to this: 56 Comments

Democrats Refuse Pledge to Read Health Care Bill Before Signing

Let Freedom Ring has a pledge it wants lawmakers to take. It’s pretty straightforward. Before you vote to enact the health care reform bill, you will read the health care reform bill.

Here it is:

pledge-to-read.png

Right now it has 72 signatures. According to the Colin Hanna, no Democrats have signed on yet:

As you remember, Steny Hoyer found it funny that legislators would actually read the health care reform bill before voting on it.
My Congressman has signed the pledge, but Kit Bond hasn’t. I don’t expect Claire McCaskill will. Where does your representative stand on this?
Respond to this: 6 Comments