My Obamacare Story in 1 Picture

THIS is why Obama had new insurance premium prices held until AFTER the election! Last year, they were posted October 1st.

Thanks, Obama! And thanks Gruber and the “stupidity of the American voter!”

Read the rest of my post at The Political Insider. 

Related:

Obamacare increases minimum premiums in Virginia by more than 350%!

OFA is Advertising for GOP on Obamacare

LOLOL Obama for America Organizing for Action is advertising for Republicans now by pointing out the GOP's many efforts (46 times and 80 governing hours!) to save the American people from Obamacare!

Here's the email I got today.

Subject line: They wasted more than 80 governing hours on this:

Friend --

Remember how the House voted 46 times to repeal or restrict Obamacare? And how they wasted more than 80 governing hours trying to prevent Americans from getting covered?

Now that millions have coverage thanks to health care reform, I want to know if this is still at the top of their agenda.

Are these members of Congress willing to look their constituents in the eye and say they want to take their health care away?

Add your name today -- join the OFA supporters who are going to be asking this simple question to Health Care Repealers:

http://my.barackobama.com/Calling-Out-Health-Care-Repealers

Thanks -- stay tuned,

Beth

Beth Kelly
Deputy Health Care Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action

Are these members of Congress willing to look their constituents in the eye and say they want to get rid of Obamacare? Hell yes they are and they'd love to be asked such a softball question from OFA subscribers! Many Dems are wishing they could go on record opposing Obamacare, too!

Obamacare has been a disaster for many more millions than have signed up for it.

With all the changes and delays Obama has issued for Obamacare, maybe OFA should be asking him if he wants to take away people's health care.
.

Obamacare increases minimum premiums in Virginia by more than 350%!

Instant proof Obamacare raises costs that you can check yourself:

I went to ehealthinsurance.com to look up prices for individual health care in Virginia.  When you choose your coverage to begin in 2013, deemed "pre-Obamacare," the prices start at $44.  If you choose it to begin in 2014 to be Obamacare-compliant, the cheapest plan is $202!  That's more than a 359% increase!

2013 Plans:

 

2014 Plans:

Obviously the benefits are different - but that's the point. In 2013, a man isn't required to have maternity coverage, nor is a woman who will not give birth, but in 2014 they are. Coverage they do not want or need, but now they get to pay for it!

I got these two results on this page without yet entering in age, sex, or even a zip code. I wonder what their algorithm is without age and sex. I am assuming the website knows I'm in Virginia because when I typed in zip codes from other states, the numbers changed.

What is the price difference in your state?
.
(I got the idea for this post from Capitol City Project's similar inquiry)

5 Best Obamacare Mocking Memes

Star Wars - "Luke, I am your father"

 Condescending Willy Wonka

Office Space - Milton "I was told..."

Austin Powers - Dr. Evil 

The Matrix - Morpheus "What if I told you..."

Saw all these on GenOpp.tumblr.com but they didn't make all of them.

Submit to Obamacare or YOU WILL GET CERVICAL CANCER AND DIE!!!

It was only a few short months ago when I saw pictures of little girls holding signs saying, "If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd f*** a senator!" My how times have changed!

Of course, then we were talking about abortion, but now when talking about Obamacare, getting the government all right up in there is A-OK!

Suddenly, when it comes to Obamacare, "My body, my choice" goes right out the window - and anyone who disagrees is pro-cancer!

That's what Brian Beutler from Salon says (Really! I'm not making this up!) in his absurd article "Koch-backed conservatives go pro-cervical cancer," written in reaction to this excellent ad on opting out of Obamacare:


The point of the video is obviously to show how Obamacare puts the government in between you and your doctor, which, DUH, it does! After seeing a creepy Uncle Sam sneak up to a girl in stirrups with a speculum, Beutler tsk, tsks at the makers of the ad, Generation Opportunity.

He warns, unless you give up your health care to the government, YOU WILL GET CERVICAL CANCER AND DIE!!!11! Yes, really:

Here’s what Stan Dorn of of the Urban Institute told me last year: “We know that women with cervical cancer who are uninsured get their cancer detected later … and sometimes die.”

This ad, part of a six-figure campaign, says young women without means would be better off skipping Pap smears than enrolling in Obamacare … which is one of the most dangerous possible reasons to skip Obamacare.

...
But I have to wonder what these people’s consciences say to them about the possibility that dozens or hundreds of women across the country will follow their advice and then get a horrible diagnosis after it’s too late.

Pretty much, if you liked the ad, you love cervical cancer.

While I was having fun going back and forth with @ExJon and others on Twitter mocking this ridiculous yet disgusting article, another liberal who apparently writes for Outside the Beltway hilariously tried to insert himself into the conversation by bringing up transvaginal ultrasounds (dude, don't even GO there!) and then agreed with Beutler:

@AlexaShrugged you’re in favor of forced transvaginal ultrasounds?
— Rob Prather (@robprather) September 20, 2013

Oh, kind, sir, PLEASE tell me more about what a transvaginal ultrasound feels like! (And since when do GYNs ask before poking and prodding you?)

@AlexaShrugged so your in favor of women forgoing Pap smears and getting cervical cancer?
— Rob Prather (@robprather) September 20, 2013

Oh, you got me! It's true, I'm pro-cancer. ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

The point lost on these presumably "bro-choice" men's ham-handed attempts at counteracting this clearly effective ad is what "opt out of Obamacare" actually means. It means opt out of Obamacare.

Not opt out of health insurance or opt out of going to the doctor. Opt out of Obamacare only.

They are letting people know that if they don't have insurance, they do not have to enroll in Obamacare, but can instead opt out and get their own cheaper individual insurance. OptOut.org addresses this on the FAQ protion of the website:

Don’t I have to buy into Obamacare? Isn’t it illegal to not buy Obamacare insurance?
No. There is a relatively small tax associated with not buying government-approved health insurance, but you can pay that small penalty and buy a health insurance plan that meets your individual needs.

For example, in Virginia right now there are 87 health care plans sold on the individual market — the cheapest one being $40.84 per month. Not all of those plans would meet the standards to be sold in a government “exchange,” but almost all of them would be a better deal for young Virginians. It’s like that across the country.

It goes on to answer other questions like, "Why would I turn down government assistance to buy health care? It’ll be cheaper (or free) if I get it from the government, right?" etc.

All quite reasonable. So reasonable and effective, in fact, that the left is going NUTS over it!

You know you've struck a nerve when they start screaming YOU WANT WOMEN TO GET CANCER!!! or TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUNDS ARE RAPE!!! or REPUBLICANS WANT TO BAN CONTRACEPTION!!! OR ROMNEY KILLED A WOMAN!!!

The worst part is that we have to respond to such astounding nonsense because common sense isn't enough.

Can you imagine if we resorted to such hysterics?

UNCLE SAM WANTS TO RAPE WOMEN WITH A SPECULUM!!!

Sweet dreams tonight!

Yes, Mitt Romney was Right about Everything

Yesterday BuzzFeed had a great article entitled "Was Mitt Romney Right About Everything?" The answer is Yes, yes he was. It goes on to talk about Russia, Mali, Obamacare, and Detroit's bankruptcy and is worth quoting at length:

In the most actively cited example of the Republican nominee’s foresight, Romneyites point to the candidate’s hardline rhetoric last year against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his administration. During the campaign, Romney frequently criticized Obama for foolishly attempting to make common cause with the Kremlin, and repeatedly referred to Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe.”

Many observers found this fixation strange, and Democrats tried to turn it into a punchline. A New York Times editorial in March of last year said Romney’s assertions regarding Russia represented either “a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics.” And in an October debate, Obama sarcastically mocked his opponent’s Russia rhetoric. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” the president quipped at the time.
...
Indeed, earlier this summer, Moscow defiantly refused to extradite National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden to the United States, prompting Obama to cancel a meeting he had scheduled with Putin during the Group of 20 summit. Russia has blocked United Nations action against Syria. And on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told lawmakers that Russia was one of the countries supplying Syria with chemical weapons.
...
During a foreign policy debate in October, the candidate briefly expressed concern over Islamic extremists taking control of northern Mali — an obscure reference that was mocked on Twitter at the time, including by liberal comedian Bill Maher. Three months later, France sent troops into the country at the behest of the Malian president, bringing the conflict to front pages around the world.

On the domestic front, Obamacare — which Romney spent more time railing against on the stump than perhaps any other progressive policy — is less popular than ever, while the federal government struggles to get the massive, complicated law implemented. (One poll in July found for the first time that a plurality of Americans now support the law’s repeal.)

And while the unemployment rate has, in the first year of Obama’s second term, gradually fallen to post-crisis lows, the still-ailing U.S. economy, which served as the centerpiece for Romney’s unsuccessful case against Obama’s reelection, was given a potent symbol earlier this summer when Detroit became the largest American city ever to declare bankruptcy.
...
“It’s frustrating because there’s no way to correct it,” Zwick said.  

I totally agree with Zwick.  While it's nice to be vindicated and see Obama finally exposed, his approval ratings down, NSA and IRS scandals unfolding, his own side turning against him on drones and war with Syria, there is NOTHING we can do about it!

Our chance to fix and prevent this came on November 6, 2012. Now there is nothing we can do, short of impeachment, in which case we'll get President Joe Biden (shudder). We can only sit and watch Obama run this country into the ground.

Even if we manage to get a majority in the Senate in 2014, that would only allow us to stop Obama legislatively and we know that doesn't matter to him, he is perfectly willing to govern through executive order or simply ignore the rule of law.

2016 is a political lifetime away and if a Republican somehow managed to win the presidency, I don't think that will even matter because the damage will be irrevocable by then.

2012 was our chance. Mitt Romney was the man for the moment. America blew it.

As an old Obama buddy once said, "America's chickens are coming home to ROOST!"
.
[WOO HOO MY FIRST INSTALANCHE!!!]

Chief Justice Roberts Sends Dangerous Message: He Can Be Manipulated

CBS has confirmed what many speculated - Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote from a 5-4 majority with the conservative justices plus Kennedy to overrule Obamacare, to a 5-4 majority with the liberal justices to uphold it as a tax.

Although I knew Roberts is too much of a pragmatist, more concerned about the perception of the Court as an authority and his legacy, this section of CBS' report is still particularly disturbing (emphasis added):

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

The courts are supposed to be independent and above politics.  The notion that the President, the head of a competing branch of government, could browbeat the court into a decision is especially galling.  Not to mention the blackmail from the mainstream media and liberal elites, threatening the legitimacy of the court based solely on the outcome of the decision.  The fact that a chief justice could be influenced by these external forces is shameful and unbecoming of the prestigious position he holds. 

I can't help but think such a chief justice is unfit for the role.  His duty is to the Constitution, not to his own legacy, not to Congress or the President, and not to the perceptions of the Supreme Court.

The perceived authority of the Supreme Court has ebbed and flowed over the last 200 plus years.  It is extremely short-sighted for Roberts to think he has to safe-guard today's perception.  The Supreme Court is much bigger than him, it is not going away, no matter how much the liberals pout and cry.  It is disgusting to think that their threats of a temper tantrum would make him change his mind.  This is similar to when liberals wanted to abolish the Electoral College after Bush v. Gore.  They ridiculously want to change the rules when they don't win the game.  But our institutions, while not perfect, were expertly designed and are meant to endure temporary partisan heartache.

Justice is supposed to be blind, but Roberts is wide-eyed to the external pressures he is supposed to ignore.  This is precisely why justices are given lifetime appointments - so that the politics of the day do not influence them.  They are to have no constituencies of their own, no fickle voters to appease, their only duty is to their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." 

One must stand with the Constitution, not cave into the threats to destroy it.  Unfortunately, Roberts does not have that kind of courage.  Yes, Chief Justice Roberts is a wimp.  The chief justice of the Supreme Court should not be susceptible to blackmail and professional threats. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent.  How can the Constitution be upheld when the leader in charge of safe-guarding it can be manipulated?  What other outrageous laws could President Obama enact in - God forbid - a second term that Roberts will feel pressured to uphold?

Ironically, in twisting and contorting himself to supposedly protect the court's and his own legitimacy, he has further damaged the institution.   Unlike Roberts, I can see the big picture.  I know the court will endure.  The question is, will the character of our once great republic under Obamacare?

President Obama, Are You Serious? Are You Serious?!

President Obama made some unprecedented and extraordinary statements yesterday about Obamacare and its prospects at the Supreme Court, to which I had to say, Pelosi-style, "Are you serious?  Are you serious?!"  For starters, he said:

I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress. ...

As many have pointed out, this is a laughably unprecedented and extraordinary definition of the words "unprecedented" and "extraordinary."  It's as if President Obama thinks the Supreme Court has never struck down a law before!  Or that Congress has never passed an unconstitutional law in its history!

After his Solicitor General got terrible reviews for his oral arguments, which some think put the case in jeopardy, Obama is trying to reframe the debate in case he loses.  If Obamacare goes down, Obama wants you to think it is because of an activist, extreme Supreme Court - not because the law itself is an unconstitutional federal intrusion into your life.

And is Obama really calling a bill that had zero Republican votes and passed 219-212 in the House a "strong" majority?  Obama did do better in the Senate, on a 60-39 party-line vote taken on Christmas Eve.  But where's that "strong majority" now?  Less than a month after the Senate vote, Scott Brown was the first Republican to be elected to the Senate from Massachusetts in decades, in part because he ran as the 41st vote to stop Obamacare.  Today, the Democrats are down to 51 Senators and the House saw a 60 person swing and a switch over to GOP control since the vote, which played a huge part in the 2010 elections.

In his weakened state, Obama is reduced to lecturing conservatives on what he thinks we say:

I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. ... 

Obama seems to think that simply striking down a law passed by Congress is what makes a ruling judicial activism - as if not acceding to whatever the legislative branch wants is judicial excess.  But it's not whether a law is upheld or struck down, it is whether the law was Constitutional and whether an originalist or strict constructionalist theory was applied that matters.

Judicial activism is about judges who disregard the Constitution and make up rights out of whole cloth.  Like "penumbras, formed by emanations" that magically find rights to abortion or separation of church and state hiding in the text of the Constitution all along.  It's about illiterate judges who uphold gun bans despite the clear wording of the 2nd Amendment.  It's about courts that think the the Founders' original intent in the 1st Amendment was to ban prayer.  Obama has no idea what judicial activism is, for him, words only mean what he wants them to mean, only at that particular point in time.

Finally, let's hear why Obama thinks Obamacare should be upheld:

I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. ...

Ok, nevermind, I take it all back - Obama's astounding powers of persuasion and impeccable reasoning skills have convinced me of the error of my ways!  He wins!
.
UPDATE: Looks like the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is taking Obama's words seriously:

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
...
In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president's comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws "have troubled a number of people" and that the suggestion "is not a small matter."
The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation."
"I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday -- that's about 48 hours from now -- a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president," Smith said. "What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?"

I'm glad there are consequences for Obama's irresponsible words.  This is part of why the Founders' system of checks and balances is so brilliant.  Instead of each branch colluding with each other, they are pitted in competition with each other, with each not wanting the others to overstep their bounds and encroach into their territory.  Here the judiciary branch is pushing back against an executive assault on its Constitutional powers.  This system is meant to break allegiances across the branches on partisan lines, but alas that has been happening far too often these days.
.

No, Planned Parenthood, Birth Control is NOT "Basic Health Care"

Flashback: Susan G. Komen for the WIN FAIL: What Planned Parenthood doesn't want you to know

Ok, so I've talked about #1 Controlling the Birth Control Debate and #2 Debunking the Myth that 99% of Women Are Using Birth Control, now for Part 3 I am going to discuss this nauseating quote from a Planned Parenthood statement celebrating the Obamacare contraceptive mandate (which they call a "benefit"):

"The birth control benefit underscores the fact that birth control is basic health care, and is fundamental to improving women’s health and the health of their families."

No, Planned Parenthood, birth control is NOT "basic health care."

Unlike abortion, which stops a beating heart and ends a life, I am pro-choice when it comes to contraception.  However, contraceptives are, on the whole, not a health care need, but a lifestyle want.  The vast majority of women don't use contraception because they need to prevent pregnancy for their health but because they don't want children at that particular point in time in their lives, for whatever reason, that's fine to me.  They choose the birth control that they want based on things like convenience or side effects - perhaps using a barrier method to avoid bad ones like weight gain or using hormonal contraceptives to gain good ones like clearing up acne.  Ok, all well and good, but here's the rub: these are not real medical or health reasons and they do not deserve to be force-subsidized by religious objectors who consider it a sin or even just by regular Americans who don't think it's their business to pay for it!  As IMAO_ said: If you want contraceptives to be a personal matter, you probably shouldn't force other people to pay for it.  Not to mention the fact that you're trading in a whole lot of freedom to the government for no co-pay.

No, Planned Parenthood, birth control is NOT "fundamental to improving women’s health." 

In fact there are many cases in which it hurts women's health.  There are many known serious risk factors related to hormonal birth control including several cancers (cancer.gov cites an increased risk for breast, cervical, and liver cancer from oral contraceptives).  The first thing the drug label says for Depo-provera is "Women who use Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection may lose significant bone mineral density." Even Planned Parenthood lists the serious and potentially fatal side effects for contraceptives with estrogen like the pill, the patch and the NuvaRing as heart attack, stroke, having a blood clot in the legs, lungs, heart, or brain, or developing high blood pressure, liver tumors, gallstones, or yellowing of the skin or eyes (jaundice).  (Interesting aside - Planned Parenthood lists these risks under the section labeled "What are the Disadvantages of xxx" and not under "How safe is xxx."  Seems like it should be the opposite.  Or both.)  Those are rarer but more serious risks, more common risks include weight gain, depression/mood swings, decreased libido, nausea, and headaches.  Not the worst, but not fun and certainly not an improvement.

Of course, as Jim Geraghty notes, there may be some women with real medical reasons who genuinely need help paying for birth control, but we should tailor policies for those specific needs, not issue a blanket ultimatum that all women - regardless of need or ability to pay - should get it for free, which is HUGELY expensive and will raise the premiums for everyone who has insurance (i.e. all of us, under Obamacare.) 

No, Planned Parenthood, birth control is NOT fundamental to improving "the health of [women's] families."

Come on, is that a joke?!  Is there a PP press release generator that randomly spits out combinations of words like "women," "health," and "families" and whatever it comes up with is published?  Not even going to bother ...

Read more on my discussion of the Obamacare contraceptive mandate here:

Part 1: Controlling the Birth Control Debate

Part 2: Debunking the Myth that 99% of Women Are Using Birth Control

.

Controlling the Birth Control Debate

First the Planned Parenthood-Komen kerfuffle, now contraception?  Who would have thought 1 year ago that we would be battling the culture wars again 9 months before a presidential election when the economy's in the tank.  Well, maybe Obama.  And that's the point.  As Dick Morris said this week:

It's a deliberately calculated move on his part.  The Democrats realized that abortion is no longer a winner for them.  So what they're trying to do now is replace it with contraception.

So far it seems to be working - not only are they distracting from Obama's economic and foreign policy failures, they're trying to wedge moderates against the GOP on social issues.  It astounds me that Obama and liberals have been able to turn the truth of an Obamacare mandate forcing religious objectors to pay for contraception into the hysterical liberal lie that REPUBLICANS WANT TO BAN CONTRACEPTION!!!!11!

[Glenn Reynolds: "It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying 'What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!'"]

No one is trying to ban contraception or access to it!  They are trying to stop the government from forcing not only religious groups for whom it is a mortal sin but ALL Americans to pay for it (through increased health insurance premiums) to be "free" (no co-pay).

A woman who works for the Catholic church is not "banned" from getting contraception; she has access to it, she just can't get the church to foot the bill.  If she wants contraception she can pay out of pocket. And don't give me the "what if she has to choose between buying birth control pills or eating dog food??!" sob story, there are plenty of pharmacies that offer discounts and free clinic programs that help low income women - she could even go down to her local high school and grab some free condoms from the office basket for all I care!  [Update: 2 recent headlines: California counties get federally-funded teen mail-order condom program and Pa. vending machine dispenses 'morning-after' pill]  Bottom line: with or without this mandate, contraception will remain available and accessible, the only difference is who pays for it, how, and at what price.

There is absolutely no reason for contraception to be universally free on demand for anyone who wants it and certainly no reason - logically or morally - for the government to unilaterally force insurers give it out free.  Granting this kind of power to the federal government is truly troubling - and it should be a concern no matter which ideological end of the spectrum you sit.  Turn about is fair play.

Hey liberals: You know that if the Obamacare law has the power to mandate the right to free birth control, it also has the power to ban it, right?  As Rush Limbaugh said, "Obamacare could ban contraception. Once Obamacare is implemented, the government can make any change unilaterally it wants."  As in, the next president, (oh, let's REALLY give them chills!) maybe Santorum, can not only change that mandate, but replace it with whatever other mandate he wants because the law gives him that power. As they say, "A government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

If the government can force insurers to cover birth control for free, and can force you to buy health care, what CAN'T it force companies and citizens to do?  I am very afraid that if the Supreme Court does not declare Obamacare unconstitutional we will find out.

UPDATE: Last year Jenny Erikson wrote about her experience buying birth control even though (GASP!) her insurance didn't cover it, and she says of the mandate:

This isn’t about helping women obtain contraceptives; this is about exerting control over yet another portion of U.S. business. Women already have access to birth control for little or no money. Medicaid (government-sponsored medical care for those that meet income guidelines) covers contraceptives. Planned Parenthood hands out condoms like they’re candy. Walmart fills birth control pill prescriptions for as little as $9 per month.
...
The only thing this birth control mandate will do is remove the cost of contraceptives from women that can afford it, and shift it to everyone else in the form of their premiums going up. Which means that people barely managing their payments every month will have to scrimp elsewhere, or drop their coverage and get on the government plan. After all, it will soon be illegal to be without health insurance.

UPDATE!!!  I just wrote this follow up:

Part 2: Debunking the Myth that 99% of Women Are Using Birth Control

Part 3: No, Planned Parenthood, Birth Control is NOT "Basic Health Care"

Read it!!!

Socialized Health Care: Grand Failure

Peakes woman loses her baby, dignity while awaiting hospital treatment - Isn’t Canada’s health care grand?

Jonas, 32, sewed up his own leg after ER wait - Sweden’s health care is grand, too!

Obamacare Only Looks Worse Upon Further Review - Won’t US health care under Obama be grand!

My Top 5 Must Reads of the Day 7/6/10

1. Son pleads for help as mother awaits stoning in Iran CNN 




"Legally, it's all over, and we have no chance. It's a done deal. Sakine can be stoned at any minute. But we have experienced again and again that when we organize events world-wide, when we protest world-wide, and in particular when we contact European governments and these governments put pressure on the Islamic regime in Iran, sometimes we have a chance."


This needs more attention!!! It really makes you appreciate the rights and freedoms we have in America - including the double jeopardy rule in the 5th Amendment. 




2. Arizona Dems contest Obama's assertions on border security
The Hill




“The crisis on America’s borders won’t be addressed with words,” said [Dem Rep.] Giffords. “I was disappointed to hear the president give short shrift to border security concerns by saying that our nation’s southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years. “That is not a sign of progress, it is a statement on the poor job we have done in securing the border for the past two decades.”


Even Democrats know Obama is "just words." Too bad the teleprompter can't jump into action!




3. NASA Chief: Next Frontier Better Relations With Muslim World FOXNews
   




"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things...third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," Bolden said in the interview.


NASA = Now About Self-esteem for Arabs. BTW, he gave this interview to Al-Jazeera.




4. Barack Obama: The great jobs killer Las Vegas Review Journal
By Wayne Allyn Root




This "community organizer" knows as much about private-sector jobs as Pamela Anderson knows about nuclear physics. It's time to call Obama what he is: The Great Jobs Killer. With his massive spending and tax hikes -- rewarding big government and big unions, while punishing taxpayers and business owners -- Obama has killed jobs, he has killed motivation to create new jobs, he has killed the motivation to invest in new businesses, or expand old ones.


And they call him Barak the Knife.  With all his complaining about the economy he "inherited," what exactly does Obama think he will leave to his own successor?




5. The Massachusetts Health-Care 'Train Wreck'
The future of ObamaCare is unfolding here: runaway spending, price controls, even limits on care and medical licensing. WSJ
By Joseph Rago




As events are now unfolding, the Massachusetts plan couldn't be a more damning indictment of ObamaCare. The state's universal health-care prototype is growing more dysfunctional by the day, which is the inevitable result of a health system dominated by politics. ...The deeper problem is that price controls seem to be the only way the political class can salvage a program that was supposed to reduce spending and manifestly has not. Massachusetts now has the highest average premiums in the nation.

Read it and weep at what ObamaCare has in store for our country.

Obamercial Response

Check out Cato's response to the many inaccuracies of the #Obamercial last week:

AIP Socialized Health Care Horror Stories: Cancer

With Obamacare increasingly becoming the focus in Washington, it is important to highlight the horrors of government-run universal health care in other countries so it can be stopped here.

Here's are two recent stories on how government health care affects cancer treatment:

UK:

The cancer divide: Men are most at risk because the NHS prefers saving women, says cancer expert

It revealed that among cancers which affect both sexes, men are 60 per cent more likely to develop the disease and 70 per cent more likely to die from it. ...

As a cancer specialist for the past 30 years, I found the study depressingly predictable. It has long been clear to me that we men are unfairly discriminated against by an NHS which has unfairly favoured female health matters ahead of the needs of male patients. ...

For the fact is that politicians, eager to court the female vote, have long presided over a huge disparity in funding and treatment of female cancer patients at the expense of their male counterparts. ...

The truth is that by treating the NHS as a political football to be kicked in whichever direction they judge will win them the most votes, politicians have added hugely to the disparity between male and female cancer survival rates. ...

I believe we need to look at financial incentives as a possible answer. Recently, private health insurers have started offering reduced premiums for subscribers who agree to join gyms, and even ‘no claims discounts’ for those who remain healthy. Why shouldn’t the NHS adopt a similar approach?...

From this example we can see that when the government controls health care, politicians will use it to get votes from favored constituencies - at the expense of the health of others. Notice also how the author approvingly cites the practices of private health care to encourage better health outcomes.

Canada:

OHIP cost cutting complicates cancer treatment

Interleukin-2 is a protein in the human body that stimulates the immune system and helps infection-fighting cells multiply and grow. It is used to treat certain types of cancers such as advanced melanoma and renal cancer. IL-2 was approved by Health Canada several years ago, but its use is not as widespread in Canada as it is in the United States.

OHIP covers pre-approved IL-2 treatments in the U.S. for Ontario residents who need it, but Hunt has been waiting to get the life-saving drug for two months....

He sought treatment in Detroit and had a consultation with an oncologist there but didn't get OHIP's approval to proceed because of a simple mistake in the paperwork, Meghan said.

Frustrated, the couple spent hours on the phone, calling doctors, the Ministry of Health and local politicians, hoping that someone could help them.

But while they were scrambling to secure Hunt's treatment in Detroit, there was a change in OHIP rules.

OHIP will now only cover Hunt's cancer treatment in Buffalo, N.Y., where the Roswell Park Cancer Institute is the ministry's only "preferred provider" of IL-2 treatment for metastatic malignant melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. The Ministry of Health has a number of funding agreements with out-of-country health care facilities, which are chosen based on specific criteria.

After much bureaucratic wrangling, Hunt will finally meet with specialists in Buffalo today and find out when he can begin treatment there. But he still doesn't understand why he and his family have to make the four-hour trip instead of simply crossing the border to get the same medical care in Detroit.

First of all, the fact that Canada is sending its patients to the U.S. for proper care should be enough of an indication of the failures of their system - where will Canadians go if the U.S. gets socialized health care? Second, this story demonstrates the red tape and government control of where people can seek treatment, which is based on cost, not necessarily on better care or patient comfort.

These are just two examples of many of how poorly run universal health care is for cancer patients. Next week, we'll take a look at other aspects of the system.

Originally posted at American Issues Project Blog.