“PRESIDENT OBAMA is a great admirer of the Mayo Clinic. Time and again he has extolled it as an outstanding model of health care excellence and efficiency…
So perhaps the president will give some thought to the clinic’s recent decision to stop accepting Medicare payments at its primary care facility in Glendale, Ariz. More than 3,000 patients will have to start paying cash if they wish to continue being seen by doctors at the clinic; those unable or unwilling to do so must look for new physicians. For now, Mayo is limiting the change in policy to its Glendale facility. But it may be just a matter of time before it drops Medicare at its other facilities in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota as well…
Why would an institution renowned for providing health care of ‘the best quality and the lowest cost’ choose to sever its ties with the government’s flagship single-payer insurance program? Because the relationship is one it can’t afford…
But if you think that sounds grim, wait until Congress enacts the president’s health care overhaul. A central element of both the House and Senate versions of ObamaCare is that Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and doctors - already so low that many providers lose money each time they treat a Medicare patient - will be forced lower still.”
Even the NYT knows this is a national trend.
The CBO knows as well as anybody that the big three entitlements (Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid) are bankrupting the nation. Contrary to Dim propaganda, it is an objective, quantitative FACT that these entitlements are -- by far -- the primary driver of Federal deficits and ever growing fiscal crises at the state level (Medicaid is an unfunded Federal mandate which the states have to pay for -- except, of course, for those states represented by scumbag Senators -- like Nelson -- who sell their votes).
And yet, the moronic Dim proposal for improving upon what is quantifiably the BEST health care system in the WORLD is to INCREASE the role of the Federal government in 1/6th of the nation’s economy? Are they NUTS? The filthy, stinking, scumbag politicians are -- as ALWAYS -- the ones who created whatever imperfections we now face!
Who -- other than moronic Federal bureaucrats -- could simultaneously bankrupt the nation with skyrocketing costs AND bankrupt the single MOST efficient health care provider with plummeting reimbursements? It seems that organized crime (both in the Congress AND in the streets) is the ONLY real beneficiary here.
Listen up! These goddamn tyrants are not the LEAST BIT interested in improving upon ANYTHING! They are ONLY interested in a fucking power grab!
I’m PISSED!
And, I will NOT take it anymore!
8 comments:
You have posted a lot in one post and it's hard to comment on any one part... so many conflicting thoughts.
Some like yourself would draw a line and try to make a stand, but I am afraid that that line will keep being redrawn kind of like one of those comedy sketches where the little guy keeps redrawing a line in the sand and then backing up and daring the bully to step over this line and then repeatedly retreating. I don't think the American public has a chance without some radical violent revolution that will accomplish nothing; I hope I am wrong. History shows that revolution doesn't lead to change that benefits the people especially in light of the high cost in human life. The American Revolution could be pointed out in argument, but I think you would have to look hard to find any others that actually changed things for the common man.
I have to run to work and I am not fully awake yet, so hopefully I will be able to get back to you this evening.
Thomas,
First, understand (as even PBS knows) that our nation remains locked in a century old struggle between the most beneficent economic system humanity has ever seen (Capitalism) and the most destructively tyrannical economic system humanity has ever seen (Socialism).
We are -- as a nation -- far too divided to unite behind a revolution. If it comes to violence, it will be a Civil War rooted in the conflict described above.
That said…
I have said repeatedly that a violent Civil War would be the worst possible outcome for both our nation and the world. Mercifully, that is an extremely unlikely outcome. As a nation, we are still far too affluent and complacent to even begin to contemplate anything requiring so much sacrifice as a Civil War. The far more likely outcome is that we continue our complacent and complicit descent back into bondage as described in this link. That descent back into bondage will lead to a collapse much like the collapse of the Soviet Union. What comes after that is anybody’s guess.
Or, we can wake up and (non-violently) take back our liberties. It’s possible. But, the Dims will never take us there. Socialist tyranny is EXACTLY what they want. Our ONLY hope is that the Republican Party (and the American voter) rediscovers the virtues of Capitalism and limited government. They might.
SBVOR
I see no hope in the Republican Party. It is no longer the party of Reagan and Gingrich. They (the Republicans) have proven themselves to be as untrustworthy as the Dims. Too much inbreeding?
I would not expect a violent civil war, either. At least not unless the government takes up arms against the citizens. A tax revolt is needed and what reaction could be expected?
One factor that could shift the ground would be a power play by obama - granting citizenship to illegals so as to have more obama voters. Socialist countries tend to break-up.
Texas is a nice place.
John
I agree with you on the civil war or any other kind of violent uprising. Not just our nation but the world would be in very great danger.
I have many thoughts on the socialist tyranny part. I know that giving people their daily needs does in a way make them slaves and destroys them. In a very pacifist way this could be called tyranny. I also know that there are those who need assistance to get by in this world or they face devastation, but they can do at least something to help themselves and keep some of their souls. But, to ignore their needs would be... very inhumane and we should be better than the animals, but at the same time... We as humans tend to shy away from the things in life that are not nice and pretty. We don't want to see or be involved in things that show our true place in life and our true nature. Survival of the fittest is fine for animals but not for us higher organisms, but we are in essence animals (I mean that in every sense of the word). In some ways we are not better than animals because we won't support other members of the pack and I don't mean giving sustenance to those who won't work. I mean support or backup.. In business; it should mean that those companies that made mistakes or took too many chances and failed should fail and die and that the CEO's should either live in shame or die jumping out a window. But, those working for these failed companies should have the chance to pick up the pieces and get back on their feet and work somewhere flipping burgers or cleaning buildings. It should be survival of the fittest and perhaps the luckiest.
This brings me to the idea that a social program is bankrupting the nation; I see many parts to the equation and not just one thing or just social programs bankrupting our nation.. The war on terror could be a part. The insatiable appetite of wormy politicians could be a part. Spending money that was paid in by hard working Americans over the years could most definitely be a part. Medicare or Medicaid all by themselves are not bankrupting this nation and we can not just drop something that so many of our grandparents and parents are depending on at the end of their lives and we as a higher life forms cannot just leave them out in the cold and many of these people have no family to fall back on and .. if they did many could not afford to support their aging parents. The only other option is to leave them out in the cold for the death panels to deal with.... What death panels?
The terrorists win and we blame each other.
John,
Thanks for your thoughts.
Obviously, the GOP is not what it could be or should be. And, it has clearly strayed from the principled leadership which Reagan provided. But, I see some signs of hope.
1) First, I would note that it is a myth that there is little to no difference between the GOP and the Dims. The data prove that to be a myth. Somebody should alert Glenn Beck to that quantitative fact. Glenn is as guilty as anybody of perpetuating the myth that there is no difference between the Dims and the GOP.
2) Many within the GOP seem to be awakening from their Socialism-Lite slumber and realizing that their only hope (OUR only hope) is to return -- more so than ever -- to the principals of free market Capitalism and limited government.
Listening to Michael Steele describe his new book suggests to me that this is one example of that awakening.
I am -- at best -- guardedly semi-optimistic that we might just take back the country this year (in a meaningful way). We cannot afford the existing entitlements, much less MORE of them. Until the VOTERS accept that we have to start dramatically rolling BACK existing entitlements, we will NOT salvage our nation. THAT I do not yet see happening (and, I am not at all sure it ever will).
Thomas,
1) Far too many accept the MYTH that if government does not take care of those who truly cannot take of themselves, nobody will.
The lowest form of life is he who looks to government to provide charity rather than digging deep into his own pocket to offer assistance through FAR more effective and FAR more efficient PRIVATE charities.
2) When you suggest that “Medicare or Medicaid all by themselves are not bankrupting this nation” you are willfully ignoring the utterly undeniable quantitative facts which I have offered on a silver platter.
A) Start with this statement from the CBO:
“under current law, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid measured as a share of GDP will rise from 4 percent today to 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total amount that the federal government spends today…
Federal spending on programs other than Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—including national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—is likely to contribute far less, if anything, to the upward trend in federal outlays as a share of GDP.”
B) In this post, I presented the undeniable evidence that Medicare and Medicaid are what created our downward spiral into ever larger deficit spending.
SBVOR
I understand your perspective regarding the differences that exist between the two parties. My perspective is perhaps more black and white. The GOP (under Bush) raised entitlements beyond all reason. Granted not as much as the Dims want to do now - but neither can or will have the means to pay for the spending. Both continue to be fiscally irresponsible.
We are being subjected to legalized ponzi schemes and proposed extortion (forced insurance requirements).
There was hope when term limits and line item veto were in play.
John
John,
You are absolutely correct about Bush and a GOP Congress passing the largest expansion in entitlements since LBJ.
That is part of what I referred to as "Socialism-Lite". In that example, the only "Lite" aspect was that there was a quasi Free Market component to the entitlement.
Obviously, that quasi Free Market component does not justify the expansion of the entitlement.
It remains to be seen whether the GOP has really learned their lesson.
Post a Comment