Opinion

Obama’s Summer of Discontent

The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy

So we are to have a French health-care system without a French tradition of political protest. It is odd that American liberalism, in a veritable state of insurrection during the Bush presidency, now seeks political quiescence. These “townhallers” who have come forth to challenge ObamaCare have been labeled “evil-mongers” (Harry Reid), “un-American” (Nancy Pelosi), agitators and rowdies and worse.

A political class, and a media elite, that glamorized the protest against the Iraq war, that branded the Bush presidency as a reign of usurpation, now wishes to be done with the tumult of political debate. President Barack Obama himself, the community organizer par excellence, is full of lament that the “loudest voices” are running away with the national debate. Liberalism in righteous opposition, liberalism in power: The rules have changed.

It was true to script, and to necessity, that Mr. Obama would try to push through his sweeping program—the change in the health-care system, a huge budget deficit, the stimulus package, the takeover of the automotive industry—in record time. He and his handlers must have feared that the spell would soon be broken, that the coalition that carried Mr. Obama to power was destined to come apart, that a country anxious and frightened in the fall of 2008 could recover its poise and self-confidence. Historically, this republic, unlike the Old World and the command economies of the Third World, had trusted the society rather than the state. In a perilous moment, that balance had shifted, and Mr. Obama was the beneficiary of that shift.

So our new president wanted a fundamental overhaul of the health-care system—17% of our GDP—without a serious debate, and without “loud voices.” It is akin to government by emergency decrees. How dare those townhallers (the voters) heckle Arlen Specter! Americans eager to rein in this runaway populism were now guilty of lèse-majesté by talking back to the political class.

We were led to this summer of discontent by the very nature of the coalition that brought Mr. Obama, and the political class around him, to power, and by the circumstances of his victory. The man was elected amid economic distress. Faith in the country’s institutions, perhaps in the free-enterprise system itself, had given way. Mr. Obama had ridden that distress. His politics of charisma was reminiscent of the Third World. A leader steps forth, better yet someone with no discernible trail, someone hard to pin down to a specific political program, and the crowd could read into him what it wished, what it needed.

The leader would be different things to different people. The Obama coalition was the coming together of disparate groups: the white professional liberals seeking absolution for the country in the election of an African-American man, the opponents of the Iraq war who grew more strident as the project in Iraq was taking root, the African-American community that had been invested in the Clintons and then came around out of an understandable pride in one of its own.
The last segment of the electorate to flock to the Obama banners were the blue-collar workers who delivered him Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana. He was not their man. They fully knew that he didn’t share their culture. They were, by his portrait, clinging to their guns and religion, but the promise of economic help, and of protectionism, carried the day with them.

The Obama devotees were the victims of their own belief in political magic. The devotees could not make up their minds. In a newly minted U.S. senator from Illinois, they saw the embodiment of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Like Lincoln, Mr. Obama was tall and thin and from Illinois, and the historic campaign was launched out of Springfield. The oath of office was taken on the Lincoln Bible. Like FDR, he had a huge economic challenge, and he better get it done, repair and streamline the economy in his “first hundred days.” Like JFK, he was young and stylish, with a young family.

All this hero-worship before Mr. Obama met his first test of leadership. In reality, he was who he was, a Chicago politician who had done well by his opposition to the Iraq war. He had run a skillful campaign, and had met a Clinton machine that had run out of tricks and a McCain campaign that never understood the nature of the contest of 2008.

He was no FDR, and besides the history of the depression—the real history—bears little resemblance to the received narrative of the nation instantly rescued, in the course of 100 days or 200 days, by an interventionist state. The economic distress had been so deep and relentless that FDR began his second term, in 1937, with the economy still in the grip of recession.

Nor was JFK about style. He had known military service and combat, and familial loss; he had run in 1960 as a hawk committed to the nation’s victory in the Cold War. He and his rival, Richard Nixon, shared a fundamental outlook on American power and its burdens.

Now that realism about Mr. Obama has begun to sink in, these iconic figures of history had best be left alone. They can’t rescue the Obama presidency. Their magic can’t be his. Mr. Obama isn’t Lincoln with a BlackBerry. Those great personages are made by history, in the course of history, and not by the spinners or the smitten talking heads.

In one of the revealing moments of the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama rightly observed that the Reagan presidency was a transformational presidency in a way Clinton’s wasn’t. And by that Reagan precedent, that Reagan standard, the faults of the Obama presidency are laid bare. Ronald Reagan, it should be recalled, had been swept into office by a wave of dissatisfaction with Jimmy Carter and his failures. At the core of the Reagan mission was the recovery of the nation’s esteem and self-regard. Reagan was an optimist. He was Hollywood glamour to be sure, but he was also Peoria, Ill. His faith in the country was boundless, and when he said it was “morning in America” he meant it; he believed in America’s miracle and had seen it in his own life, in his rise from a child of the Depression to the summit of political power.

The failure of the Carter years was, in Reagan’s view, the failure of the man at the helm and the policies he had pursued at home and abroad. At no time had Ronald Reagan believed that the American covenant had failed, that America should apologize for itself in the world beyond its shores. There was no narcissism in Reagan. It was stirring that the man who headed into the sunset of his life would bid his country farewell by reminding it that its best days were yet to come.

In contrast, there is joylessness in Mr. Obama. He is a scold, the “Yes we can!” mantra is shallow, and at any rate, it is about the coming to power of a man, and a political class, invested in its own sense of smarts and wisdom, and its right to alter the social contract of the land. In this view, the country had lost its way and the new leader and the political class arrayed around him will bring it back to the right path.

Thus the moment of crisis would become an opportunity to push through a political economy of redistribution and a foreign policy of American penance. The independent voters were the first to break ranks. They hadn’t underwritten this fundamental change in the American polity when they cast their votes for Mr. Obama.

American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. In the American tradition, the “mandate of heaven” is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics.

Those protesters in those town-hall meetings have served notice that Mr. Obama’s charismatic moment has passed. Once again, the belief in that American exception that set this nation apart from other lands is re-emerging. Health care is the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it is an unease with the way the verdict of the 2008 election was read by those who prevailed. It shall be seen whether the man swept into office in the moment of national panic will adjust to the nation’s recovery of its self-confidence.

Mr. Ajami teaches at the School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University. He is also an adjunct fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

************************************************************************************************

Obama Should Have to Disclose ‘Side Effects’ of Health Reform

Sunday, August 23, 2009 By Jay Ambrose

Maybe you’ve caught one of those TV commercials that tells you all the terrific stuff about some product that will get rid of sexual dysfunction or pimples or maybe depression, and then, by obligation of law, adds that there are some possible side effects, such as the loss of toes, the growing of a second nose and death.

If you’re like me, you find yourself imagining some potential customer thinking to himself, well, it might be a nice thing to get rid of that pimple, but sporting a second nose? Perhaps not. And “perhaps not” is pretty much what lots of Americans are now saying as they look at an Obama health-care plan promising a world of good but accompanied by side effects that just might give us a world of hurt.

The chief pitch is that everyone will get a shot at obtaining affordable insurance, through a government-run program if nothing else, but then comes a major, sink-the-ship consequence of that means of achieving a supposedly happy end.

By independent, nonpartisan calculation, the cost will be an amount that neither taxes nor deficits can handle without economic mayhem unless something is first done about Medicare’s $40 trillion of unfunded liabilities. President Barack Obama says that by letting the present situation continue, you get a crash, which is true and means precisely this: Take care of the system’s cost issues before you even dream of adding incredible new costs, and then cut out the dreaming. Figure out a cheap solution.

Supposing the president were under the same legal constraints as the pharmaceutical companies advertising on TV — forced to discuss side effects — he would have to admit something else about this government program. By competing unfairly with private programs, it will eventually become the only show in town, giving us the disastrous kind of single-payer systems found in Canada and England and cheered by the left with their rationing, the waits in line and more, much more.

Rationing, of course, is the dirty little secret of this reform. Although in euphemistic terms, the president has discussed it and has made clear he wants to find ways to edge us toward the use of fewer and fewer treatments seen as superfluous or useless. There are models of inexpensive, controlled, good care, but everything we know about the Obama approach is that it would simply increase government control over fundamental medical decisions, not lead us through market mechanisms to something like those models.

Sarah Palin has gone so far as to talk about death panels, and I was initially flabbergasted. With all the sound arguments against these initiatives, why would she parade a gross stupidity that reform supporters would leap on as a supposed example of just how baseless all criticism of reform proposals was? But the reform proposals are complex and obscure and aimed at extending governmental power in hundreds of ways, and it turns out there is material in one bill about advisory panels that could conceivably someday be given authority beyond mere advice.

To say as much is not to defend Palin’s far-fetched imaginings so much as to say it’s almost impossible to know all we should about the Obama plan. The administration and Congress have been in an utterly irresponsible, politically motivated hurry, the legislative compilations run to 1,000 pages and more, there are several versions of the basic ideas and it’s almost impossible to figure out where all of this would take us.

Here resides much of the public angst. Millions of lives will be affected by what Congress does, and we’ve had the exact opposite of what was needed, a temperate, prudent, step-by-step effort to address one portion of the issue at a time. The groups confronting congressional representatives should aim more for politeness, but a bigger outrage than their shouting is the left-wing propagandists calling them “mobs.”

They’re not that at all. They are people interested in side effects.

Harsanyi: Presenting new rules for radicals

By David Harsanyi

Posted: 08/07/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

If you’re a virtuous and patriotic American, you may find this column either offensive or misleading. If so, please forward it to White House authorities at the Department of Fishy Activity. (E-mail the good people at flag@whitehouse.gov.)

As many of you have heard, the White House now requests that the public tattle on those of us spreading “fishy disinformation” regarding Washington’s proposed takeover . . . oops, I mean “reform” . . . of your health care. This step, naturally, is for our own good.

Now, don’t get overly paranoid, you freaky right-wing zealots. Judging from the Obama administration’s track record, the program will do absolutely nothing other than add billions to the deficit.

The vital thing to bear in mind, though, is that the nation needs a concerted plan to corral this wacko “mob” of “thugs” who recklessly use the First Amendment to decelerate all this forward progress.

We are talking about a moral imperative here. As one senator asserted this week, passing government-run health care is the “sacred duty” of Congress. (Boy, it’s a good thing we banished all that moral preening from Washington.)

When your mission is the same as that of the Lord himself, well, you can imagine the kind of scandalous characters populating the opposition camp. It is the type of individual that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi astutely points out has the tendency to carry “swastikas and symbols like that” to local town hall meetings on health care.

You might be curious to find out what symbols Pelosi believes are “like” swastikas. Maybe she’s referring to the Gadsden flag.

In any event, it’s true that people who believe in health-care choices and free markets are zombies. For one thing, they are entirely too well dressed to contemplate serious issues independently — and thank you, California Sen. Barbara Boxer, for pointing this out. A man without Birkenstocks, after all, is a man without a soul.

Organizing and protesting, as any sensible and compassionate citizen already understands, is exclusively the bailiwick of ideologically diverse and free-thinking groups like unions.

And, really, the most galling aspect of this entire spurious uprising are the rumors that protesters are actually organized. Can you imagine?

The question now becomes: How can we, thinking people, stop this horde of well-heeled, Nazi-loving, insurance-industry funded (and possibly organized) robots? What can we do to destroy our health care?

Well, as always, the president has crafted a glorious plan forward. In an e-mail to the nation, President Barack Obama begins by telling Americans, “This is the moment our movement was built for.”

“That’s why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month,” the president goes on, his words stirring even in pixel form, “where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you’re counting on them to act.”

Who knew? “Organizing” for America? Movements? Sounds familiar.

For those of you who will gleefully point out the hypocrisy of Democrats grousing about organized grassroots activism — whether well-funded or organic — you just don’t get it. It is imperative that we start thinking about the world in a counterintuitive way.

In today’s world, the “radicals” are the ones who protest the takeover of a huge swath of the economy by government bureaucrats who have proven they can’t even run a program that gives free money away to car buyers properly. It is radicals who want to preserve the pillars of a system that over 80 percent of Americans still believe works — though certainly not perfectly.

In this new world, radicals are the ones who protest adding trillions to our debt and who have the temerity to ask if legislators have read the bills they sign. You’ve seen them. Those radicals who are ranting and raving about silly things like the Constitution.

So here is a plan. Instead of making the case for health care “reform,” let’s launch an offensive against citizens. Nazis. Fanatics. Mobs. Thugs. Whatever you call them.

And if you’re really patriotic, you can even report them.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Krauthammer’s Opinion

To my Friends & Associates:

Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults.

He is NOT a fear-monger nor an extremist in his comments and views.

He is a fiscal conservative, and has a Pulitzer prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.

A summary of his comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual.

He is not to be underestimated.

He is a ‘cool customer’ who doesn’t show his emotions.

It’s very hard to know what’s ‘behind the mask’.

Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment.

The Clintons still do not understand what hit them.

Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton.

He has a way of making you think he’s on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite.

Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power.

He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism.

He can’t be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along.

He has a heavy hand, and wants to ‘level the playing field’ with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society.

He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY ….. PUBLIC EDUCATION ….. & NATIONAL HEALTH CARE by the Federal government.

He doesn’t care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus.

The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth.

Paying for FREE college education is his goal.

Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof.

The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada . God forbid.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

5. He’s surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types.

No one around him has ever even run a candy store.

But they’re going to try and run the auto ….. financial banking ….. and other industries.

This obviously can’t work in the long run.

Obama’s not a socialist; rather he’s a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution.

He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left.

Again, watch what he does, not what he says!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

6. Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world.

He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas.

He sees moral equivalency in all cultures.

His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors.

This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

7. He’s now handing out goodies.

He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not ‘come due’ until after he’s re-elected in 2012.

He’d like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future.

He has a huge ego, and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong.

We’re ‘pining’ for another Reagan, but there’ll never be another like him.

Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney ……Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party.

Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage.

Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she’s to be a serious candidate in the future.

We need to return to the party of lower taxes …..

smaller government …..

personal responsibility …..

strong national defense …

and states’ rights.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous.

We’re spending trillions that we don’t have.

This could lead to hyper inflation, depression or worse.

No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity.

The media is giving Obama … Reid … and Pelosi … a pass because they love their agenda.

But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn’t work, nor will the stimulus package.

These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama’s allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above. (Energy …. Education …. Health Care)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed.

Fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of ‘change’ caused people to act emotionally.

Any Democrat would have won this election; it was surprising is was as close as it was.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10% ….. Republicans will be swept back into power.

If it’s under 8%, the Democrats continue to roll.

If it’s between 8-10%, it’ll be a dogfight. It’ll all be about the economy.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

I hope this gets you really thinking about what’s happening in Washington and Congress.

There’s a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance.

The work will be hard, but we’re right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it’s far too late.

******************* End of Review of Krauthammer’s Opinion **********

August 6, 2009 A woman from Arizona

I’m a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you’re willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues a re that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I’m not a racist. This isn’t to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill , I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal health care. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don’t you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don’t you start there.

Seven, ACORN.. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don’t trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why — what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we’ll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band-Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let’s have it. Let’s say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try — please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let’s just slow down and get some input from some non politicians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bill s into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I’m busy. I’m busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business s of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bill s, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill . We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington . Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don’t want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we’re morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we’re so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn’t ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when he will rise like Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don’t care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

JULY 23, 2009 By Betsy McCaughey

GovernmentCare’s Assault on Seniors

Since Medicare was established in 1965, access to care has enabled older Americans to avoid becoming disabled and to
travel and live independently instead of languishing in nursing homes. But legislation now being rushed through
Congress—H.R. 3200 and the Senate Health Committee Bill—will reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end
their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years.
The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health bills with new taxes and a $500 billion
cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as baby boomers turn 65 and increase Medicare enrollment by 30%. Less
money and more patients will necessitate rationing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 1% of
Medicare cuts will come from eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.
The assault against seniors began with the stimulus package in February. Slipped into the bill was substantial funding
for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age. Economists
are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or
quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for
older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.
When comparative effectiveness research appeared in the stimulus bill, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., (R., La.) a heart
surgeon, warned that it would lead to “denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care.” He and Sen. Jon Kyl (R.,
Ariz.) proposed amendments to no avail that would have barred the federal government from using the research to
eliminate treatments for the elderly or deny care based on age.
In a letter this week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, White House budget chief Peter Orszag urged Congress to delegate
its authority over Medicare to a newly created body within the executive branch. This measure is designed to
circumvent the democratic process and avoid accountability to the public for cuts in benefits.
Driving these cuts is the misconception that preventative care can eliminate sickness. As President Obama said in a
speech to the American Medical Association: “We have to avoid illness and disease in the first place.” That would make
sense if most diseases were preventable. But the two most prevalent diseases of aging—cancer and heart disease—are
largely caused by genetics and their occurrence increases with age. Your risk of being diagnosed with cancer doubles
from age 50 to 60, according to the National Cancer Institute.
The House bill shifts resources from specialty medicine to primary care based on the misconception that Americans
overuse specialist care and drive up costs in the process (pp. 660-686). In fact, heart-disease patients treated by
generalists instead of specialists are often misdiagnosed and treated incorrectly. They are readmitted to the hospital
more frequently, and die sooner.
“Study after study shows that cardiologists adhere to guidelines better than primary care doctors,” according to Jeffrey
Moses, a heart specialist at New York Presbyterian Hospital. Adds Jeffrey Borer, chairman of medicine at SUNY
Downstate Medical Center: “Seldom do generalists have the knowledge to identify the symptoms of aortic valve disease,
even though more than 10% of people over 75 have it. After valve surgery, patients who were too short of breath to walk
GovernmentCare’s Assault on Seniors. – WSJ.com http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574303903…
1 of 2 7/30/2009 6:08 PM
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law.
For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
can resume a normal life into their 80s or 90s.”
While the House bill being pushed by the president reduces access to such cures and specialists, it ensures that seniors
are counseled on end-of-life options, including refusing nutrition where state law allows it (pp. 425-446). In Oregon,
some cancer patients are being denied care by the state that could extend their lives and instead are afforded the
benefit of physician-assisted suicide instead.
The harshest misconception underlying the legislation is that living longer burdens society. Medicare data prove this is
untrue. A patient who dies at 67 spends three times as much on health care at the end of life as a patient who lives to
90, according to Dr. Herbert Pardes, CEO of New York Presbyterian Medical Center.
What is costly is when seniors become disabled. In a 2007 Health Affairs article, researchers reported that surgeries to
unclog arteries and replace worn out hips and knees have had a major impact on steadily reducing disability rates. And
nondisabled seniors use only one-seventh as much health care as disabled seniors. As a result, the annual increase in
per capita health spending on the elderly is less than for the rest of the population.
Nevertheless, Medicare is running out of money. The problem is the number of seniors compared with the smaller
number of workers supporting the system with payroll taxes. To remedy the problem, the Congressional Budget Office
has suggested inching up the eligibility age one month per year until it reaches age 70 in 2043, or asking wealthy
seniors to pay more.
These are reasonable solutions—reducing access to treatments and counseling seniors about cutting life short are not.
Medicare has made living to a ripe old age a good value. ObamaCare will undo that.
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant
governor of New York state.

GovernmentCare’s Assault on Seniors. – WSJ.com http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574303903…
2 of 2 7/30/2009 6:08 PM

Comments (1)

robert firth says:

September 24, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Obama was elected by a fluke. Few of the white voters really bothered to check into his background and the blacks just voted color. Everything Beck has said about obama, van jones, cass sunstien, mark Lloyd, et al, is absolutely true and, in most cases, he used their own words to prove his point. Obama is a radical who wants to destroy the white middle class by destroying their savings and monetary system. He so far is getting pretty close. Quantitative easing and monetizing the debt plus the absurd non working stimulus are giant steps toward destruction. If he gets his way with government health care and cap and trade, the country will be finished………anyone not seeing that as a distinct possibility either hasn’t read the bills or is a brain dead obamaton……A government trying to spend and print itself out of a recession or depression is akin to a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself by the handle…….. It don’t work…….