US Daily Review » Heath Care

Lawsuit on Obama health plan likely going to trial

Kenneth Daines — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:47:43 +0000

PENSACOLA, Fla. – A federal judge said Tuesday he will likely dismiss only parts of a lawsuit by 20 states challenging the Obama administration’s health care overhaul as unconstitutional, though he didn’t specifically say what portions.

The Obama administration had asked U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to dismiss the entire lawsuit. The states and the administration disagree over whether people should be required to have health insurance, and whether states should pay additional Medicaid costs not covered by the federal government.

The judge said he will issue a ruling by Oct. 14. The lawsuit is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Vinson upholds the states’ challenge, he would…

Read full story

In Massachusetts, “Obama style” care is leading to firms canceling coverage

Kevin Price — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:24:07 +0000

One of the major ideas behind Obamacare and Romneycare (the Massachusetts government controlled health care program) is to force people to be responsible and get coverage of their own. The methodologies of both programs may actually having the opposite effect. The reason for this is that governments typically do not understand human nature. They do not understand that if a person is attacked, they will either “fight” or “take flight.” The great economist Thomas Sowell once asked in a Forbes Magazine column, “are we like trees?” The answer is clearly “no.” Unlike wood that will take the blows, we humans (and our businesses) respond according to the attack.

I recently heard syndicated talk show host, Clark Howard, talk about how the city of Washington, DC has passed a tax charging 5 cents for plastic bags you use to get for free from stores, as an environmental measure. What kind of impact did it have? Well, retailers in DC are nothing short of shocked as the usage of such bags was cut in half in just a matter of weeks and that percentage continues to shrink. Money matters in our decision making.

It is being reported that, in Massachusetts, new mandates, few reforms that actually contribute to lowering costs, and artificially high demand created by the government requiring people to have health insurance, have led to a massive increase in health insurance costs in that state. Instead of containing costs — a “promise” offered both by Obama and Massachusetts reform advocates, there has been a huge increase, which is prompting many small companies in the Bay State to drop coverage for their workers. Those businesses are also encouraging those employees to sign up for state-subsidized care instead. This promises to put an enormous strain on a state that already has a budget crisis, according to the Boston Globe.

Since the state’s socialized health care program went into effect a few years ago, insurance brokers have noted a significant increase in the number of terminations among smaller firms. Companies that have seen the biggest jump are restaurants, hair salons, stores, and day-care centers. These same firms are known for their low wages and for having employees that easily qualify for the state’s subsidized insurance program.

The 2006 health insurance “reform” included new regulations meant to discourage low wage employees from pursuing state insurance instead of the firm they work for, more pricey plans. For example, Massachusetts made individuals ineligible for state plans if they had been offered private coverage that paid for 33 percent or more of an insurance plan in the six months before they applied. In spite of the prohibition, some firms have let employee plans go in order to test the state’s response and their employees were still able to get state coverage. To make matters worse for the state’s health care program, it is much less expensive for businesses to merely pay the state’s penalties (approximately $295 per employee, per year) than it is to pay thousands in health insurance premiums. $295 does little to pay for the huge cost of the state’s health care program. Since the Massachusetts law requires people to have coverage — the least expensive to individuals, but most harmful to the state’s fiscal integrity — will naturally become a natural favorite to many. This is just one more example of how public policy that fails to recognize human nature will naturally fail. This failure in policy is only fostering more fiscal ruin and could provide a window into the future problems we will face nationally from Obamacare.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN radio). Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

The uninsured and the emergency rooms

Kevin Price — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 02:50:59 +0000

Rarely would one expect to find anything interesting from an agency called the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), but a report on how emergency rooms are used and by types of groups is creating quite the stir among advocates of government health care and ammunition for opponents of socialized medicine. NCHS is the nation’s primary health statistics agency and its new report suggests that the perception of our emergency rooms being dominated by the uninsured is based more on fiction and propaganda than on fact and reality.

The prominent use of the emergency room by the uninsured was one of the most frequently heard arguments for the President’s socialized medicine program. Since people know they can get treatment there without paying immediately (if at all), they would fill up the room regardless of how small the need. The argument goes on that this care costs so much more and when done for non-emergency needs, it creates a disruption of care for those who really need emergency treatment. Devon M. Herrick, a health economist and senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, believes the data from the NCHS paints a very different picture.

So who are the biggest users, those most likely to misuse, and even abusers of emergency rooms? According to NCH,S it is a group that already has government health care…individuals in the Medicaid system. Here are some other findings:

Approximately 32 percent of these Medicaid enrollees used the emergency room at least once during a 12 month period in 2007. Meanwhile, those with private health insurance were only about half as likely (17 percent) to go to an ER, and a similar number (around 20 percent) of the uninsured did the same in that time frame.
Medicaid enrollees were three times more likely than those with private insurance and twice as likely as those who are uninsured to go to the ER twice in that past year.
There are approximately 120 million ER visits made in the United States each year. These make up approximately 11 percent of all ambulatory visits.

One thing that there is little debate among health care professionals is that many of these 120 million ER visits could be better handled in other environments (such as a doctor’s office, emergency clinics, etc.). Dr. Stephen Nichols, a regional medical officer for Schumacher Group, says “In general, 5 percent to 25 percent of patients who visit an emergency department in a community hospital have non-urgent complaints that could easily have been addressed in an outpatient setting,” The Schumacher Group contracts for emergency department services at community hospitals.

The Heartland Institute in its report on the uninsured and their use of emergency rooms, quotes Dr. John Dunn, an emergency room specialist from Brownwood, Texas who noted that “Thirty percent to forty percent are emergencies or urgent care and deserve treatment within a reasonable time. But it is care that could be seen to in an urgent care clinic or a well-equipped office, though the patients probably are better off in the emergency department.”

Why are Medicaid patients the most likely to use the ER in a less responsible manner? It simply comes down to the economic way of thinking. People with private insurance pay significantly more in co-pays for using an emergency room over a clinic or doctor’s office. Therefore, avoiding the Emergency Room makes economic sense to them as consumers. Obamacare will essentially have all Americans treated similarly to the current Medicare patients. As a result, one can expect ER abuse to explode once socialized medicine goes fully into effect. This NCHS study not only weakens the argument for socialized medicine, but would be a devastating blow if facts still mattered in public policy debates.

“Extreme Measures” draws attention to how health care is improved

Kevin Price — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:56:10 +0000

Recently my wife talked me into watching a little movie entitled “Extraordinary Measures,” staring Brendan Fraser and Harrison Ford. The film had “made for TV” written all over, although the story is engaging and the lessons learned, significant. Fraser stars as a desperate father with two seriously ill children fighting for their lives. Ford plays a research scientist poised to make a significant discovery in the treatment of a terrible disease. It is inspired by a true story. The children in the story suffer from Pompe’s disease, which, according to the film, those who get it as a child usually die in the 9th year. Pompe is an autosomal recessive metabolic disorder that attacks muscles and nerve cells through out the body.

My wife, Stacy, has a heart for these type of movies. We watched it quietly together and were inspired by the story. Fraser plays John Crowley, a biotechnology executive who works in the marketing side of the industry and, in the quest of saving his own children, partners with a scientist at the University of Nebraska who is on the edge of a breakthrough on treating Pompe. In order to do this, Crowley leaves a lucrative job with a major health care company in order to try and help his children. To do so he gives up a lucrative salary and will depend entirely on his entrepreneurial skills.

The movie is inspiring as Crowley first takes the developing treatment to a venture capital (VC) firm to convince them that it can significantly improve the quality of the lives of Pompe patients and that it is a worthy investment. Early stage development will require millions by the firm and assurances from Crowley that the therapy would be subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review within 18 months. He has two children who are dying, so Crowley does not hesitate to agree to the terms and to make the science catch up later. In order to meet the 18 month deadline, Crowley and company hire a team of young scientists to work around the clock to get the drug ready. It becomes clear that, in spite of the amount invested and the huge amount of energy behind it, they would not meet the deadline without additional help. The VC firm then sales the development to a larger drug company and that is when things really begin to take off. With hundreds of millions of more dollars brought to the treatment, the drug finally gets a chance to face FDA review and to be used on actual patients. Meanwhile, Crowley’s daughter has suffered a couple of near death experiences, so there was little time to spare.

The goal of a drug company is to have the most effective results, so the firm decides to limit the type of patient used in the tests to infants. No one under three would be allowed to participate. Furthermore, no employee would be allowed to have his or her child participate because it could undermine the objectivity required in pursuit of such science. This is devastating news for Crowley who is now a part of the company and his children are beyond the age of three. He is desperate — even willing to steal the drugs in order to save his children. Fortunately he doesn not have to as the head of the research makes a pitch to do a “sibling” test as part of the program because it is so rare to have family members with this disorder, than the company fires Crowley to eliminate the conflict of interest.

In the end, the medicine is very successful in treating younger patients and even leads to many having completely normal lives outside the confines of wheel chairs and respirators. Crowley’s own children see an end of the disease’s progression and enjoy remarkable improvement. This is a real tearjerker.

I turned to my wife who was in tears and said, “that turned out to be a great movie.” She agreed, even if she could not express that verbally. I then said, “You know what impressed me most?” She put together the words to say, “the power of love when parents want to save their children.” I paused, but had to get my point out. “Yes, that too, but also the power of markets when it is capable of making money to improve the lives of others.” Money, and the prospect of making more money, was behind the development of this drug each step of the way. She did not like it, but that is the most important lesson of this movie for me in the times we live in. More than 90 percent of all health care drugs and treatments come from the United States. It isn’t because we have more “love,” it is because we have more incentives. And, as we see in the movie, “Extreme Measures,” incentives really do matter.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Constitution vs. Health Care Reform

Kevin Price — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:26:40 +0000

One of the few “funny” stories to come out of the sweeping health care legislation to go through Congress was that the majority who wanted reform — but did not want it applied to them — woke up finding themselves subject to those laws. They, too, will eventually find themselves burdened by the same burden of taxes, regulation, and rationed care that the rest of us will suffer. This was not the only thing they failed to notice, but also the fact that this bill is an easy target for attack in the courts.

Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) notes that several parts of the law should simply not survive a constitutional challenge. Nancy Pelosi was the subject of many jokes when she essentially said, “we will not know what is in the bill until we vote on it.” Many now wish they had looked a little closer at the fine print.

The first and most obvious place for the courts to focus on according to the IBD piece is “the individual mandate that requires those who aren’t previously covered by insurance to buy a plan.” The federal government has never had the power to require individuals to purchase something from a private or publicly owned company. Politicians lack a fundamental understanding of this principle. Recently I moderated a forum that featured the Democrat’s nominee for Governor of Texas, Bill White and I asked him about his view of the President’s health care reform and, in particular, the apparently unconstitutional mandate that individuals would have to buy something from a company. He, quipped, “like auto insurance?” Auto insurance has been a requirement for decades, but always on a state level. Even then the analogy is only true if someone wants to own and drive a car. The federal government’s powers are different from the states as seen clearly in Article I of the Constitution. White is a graduate of Harvard and did his law degree at the University of Texas at Austin, he should know better, but like most in public policy today he is clueless when it comes to federalism. In spite of changes in the courts, I do not see this bill holding up.

Another area that is attracting attention on a constitutional level is the expansion of Medicaid, which forces states to increase spending on that program. Add the troubling facts that some states (such as Louisiana and Nebraska) received “sweetheart deals” that benefit their states at the expense of the rest of the nation.

The problem is, even if these provisions were struck down, the bulk of the law would remain intact, as will the burden that accompanies it. But that may not be the case, IBD notes, it quotes Greg Scandlen, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute. Scandlen notes that ”due to a little-known legal concept the entire law would unravel if a single part was found to be outside the Constitution.” He goes on to state that “Apparently there was no ‘severability’ clause written into this law, which shows how amateurish the process was,” he wrote. “Virtually every bill I’ve ever read includes a provision that if any part of the law is ruled unconstitutional the rest of the law will remain intact. Not this one. That will likely mean that the entire law will be thrown out if a part of it is found to violate the Constitution.”

Although the legal community seems to be dismissing much hope that this bill will be overturned, it is clear that this legislation is walking on thin ice. With almost 3,000 pages and huge mistakes like those covered above, this bill is begging to have major changes or to be disregarded entirely. The case for “reform of the reform” is stronger now than ever.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN radio). Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you like the Health Care you have, you can’t keep it: from Matthew Clemente at Freedom Works

Donald Borsch Jr. — Thu, 20 May 2010 19:34:21 +0000

From Freedom Works comes this incredible piece written by Matthew Clemente, detailing the lie that Obama uttered:

“If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you’ll be able to keep it.”

This is heady reading, so be prepared to get your brain stretched. Mr. Clemente is, of course, spot-on.

Please to enjoy. Article follows—h/t to CSteven over on Facebook!

——————————————

On July 21st of last year, President Obama made a promise to the American people. In a televised speech, the president gave us his word:

If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you’ll be able to keep it.

On December 9th, I wrote a blog in which I quoted a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that refuted Mr. Obama’s claim:

We estimate that between 9 million and 10 million other people who would be covered by an employment-based plan under current law would not have an offer of such coverage under the proposal.

Now it appears that skepticism regarding the president’s ability to keep his promise was in fact warranted. In an op-ed written for this morning’s Wall Street Journal, Dr. Scott Gottlieb writes:

President Obama guaranteed Americans that after health reform became law they could keep their insurance plans and their doctors. It’s clear that this promise cannot be kept. Insurers and physicians are already reshaping their businesses as a result of Mr. Obama’s plan.

That is because the new law places caps on how much insurance companies can spend on expenses. Beginning next year, insurers will be allowed to spend no more than 20 percent of what they take in in premiums on running plans sold to small employers and individuals; and, they will be allowed to spend no more than 15 percent of what they take in on plans sold to large employers. These new regulations will have the greatest impact on those who purchase their insurance directly rather than receiving through an employer. Gottlieb writes:

…individual policies have high start-up costs. If insurers cannot spend more of their revenue getting plans on track, fewer new policies will be offered.

That means that some policies currently being offered will be no longer be available and even if patients “like their current plan,” they will still lose it.

But the Democrats’ reform bill will not only affect the coverage offered by insurers; it will also affect how doctors administer care. The new regulations will raise operating costs, making it more difficult for doctors to own their own practices. In fact, many have begun selling their private practices to local hospitals. In 2005, over two-thirds of medical practices were privately owned by doctors. But as of next year, over 60 percent of physicians will be salaried employees with about a third working in hospitals. This shift away from privately owned practices will undoubtedly cause some patients to lose the doctors and the care that they currently enjoy. According to Gottlieb:

Consolidated practices and salaried doctors will leave fewer options for patients and longer waiting times for routine appointments.

Routine appointments aren’t the only places that Americans can expect longer wait times. According to Jay Heflin of The Hill, the Democrats’ healthcare reform bill will force 32 million newly insured patients into the already overused emergency rooms. Although one of the goals of reform was to alleviate some of the pressures felt by ERs by providing preventative medicine for those who typically end up in them, America does not possess the infrastructure to accommodate tens of millions of new patients. In Heflin’s article, Rich Dallam, a healthcare partner at the architectural firm NBBJ, states:

Everybody expected that one of the initial impacts of reform would be less pressure on emergency departments; it’s going to be exactly the opposite over the next four to eight years. We don’t have the primary care infrastructure in place in America to cover the need. Our clients are looking at and preparing for more emergency department volume, not less.

In fact, the Academy of Architecture for Health predicts that hospitals will have to spend at least $2 trillion over the next 2 decades to keep up with the rising demand.

The fact of the matter is that in place of the real reforms promised by President Obama and the Democrat-run Congress, Americans should expect less care, fewer options and longer wait times. Fortunately, the fight to take back America and repeal this healthcare nightmare has already begun. And November is just a few short months away.

Holy mistake! Congress wipes out congressional health care insurance: from Devonia Smith

Donald Borsch Jr. — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:45:30 +0000

Photo AP

From Devonia Smith–Dallas Political Buzz Examiner!

Legislate in haste, repent at leisure. Looks like Congress is having one of those “Holy S—!” moments; it appears they have royally mucked up their own health insurance – for all 535 members of Congress and untold congressional employees. In a hurry, they forgot to get it right and wrote it all wrong; now it’s the law…

Looks like Congress is in the same boat they built for the rest of America, without a clue what the new health care reform will mean to them. The beauty of their delimma is that they have written law requiring that they move into a system that doesn’t yet exist.

How could that be? Simple, a scaled-down provision of Republic Senator Grassley’s “Health Reform Accountability Act” – this one requiring all congress members and their employees, with the exception of Senate committee and leadership staffs, to get their health insurance through the same health insurance exchanges where the general public would get theirs was left in the bill, unopposed, and was signed into law by President Obama.

How utterly fantastic! Isn’t there a certain, oh I don’t know, reap what you sow kinda vibe to this whole thing?

It appears that the poorly written law is so mangled that “It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage,” the research service said in an 8,100-word memorandum. ”

Some are concerned, and rightly so, that as written, the bill can be interpreted to mean that the second the bill went into law – their own insurance that they know and love – was wiped out. It’s a long stretch to 2014, when health care exchanges go into effect and the law (as written) voids their insurance without providing a alternative. Whatever are they to do in the meantime?

Of course that was never their intent, their intent may have been to scrap the amendment altogether – or to revisit and firm up exactly how, when, and by whom all of this was to be handled- but, Oops! they forgot. Unfortunately, they were in rush to pass the bill and never looked back.

Now looking forward is full of panic and a scrambling effort to “fix” what may end up being decided in court. The courts are inclined to judge law as it is written, not by what intended to write. How do you even explain this to a judge? Dare they try to plead it is unfair to execute a law conceived in haste and poorly composed? We all know a few states who would like to try just that.

What a mess their insurance is in now; and these are the same buffoons who wrote ours – trust us, they said. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Obama – what a triumph of leadership!

If you are so inclined, read the report here and *wink* weep.

Dallas: As of this time, there are no referrals for your questions about health care reform in the Dallas Ft.Worth area. If anyone hears of any groups who are offering answers -at Dallas libraries, health centers, senior citizens centers, even a Dallas health care telephone hot-line - please contact me.

Mucho h/t to Devonia Smith for this awesome article! Long Live the Republic, and so sorry for Congress, having to be like the peasants….it must be horrid for them.

Obama to GOP Health Care repeal efforts: “I welcome that fight.”

Donald Borsch Jr. — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:03:27 +0000

Nothing amazes me more than ignorant and misdirected bravado. Akin to, say, a worm on a hook about to be devoured by a fish, Obama maintains his smugness, his arrogance, and his spoiled-child rhetoric, when faced with a very real push by the GOP to repeal his Government Takeover of America’s Health Care Bill.

From Breitbart we read:

President Barack Obama mocked Republicans’ campaign to try to repeal his new health care law, saying Thursday they should “Go for it” and see how well they fare with voters.

“Be my guest,” Obama said in prepared remarks for the first of many appearances around the country to sell the overhaul to voters before the fall congressional elections. “I welcome that fight. Because I don’t believe the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver’s seat.”

No, you’re right Mr. President. The American people would so much rather have the government in the driver’s seat when it comes to their health care. I mean, you all have done such a bang-up job with the Postal Service. How could we not be tickled pink to abdicate that portion of our lives into your capable hands? And we all know you have our best interests in mind because, by golly, you love us.

In response to Mr. Obama’s wonderfully comforting speech given in Iowa City, La Shawn Barber over at Michelle Malkin says:

The Democrats pushed through an expensive, expansive, unpopular bill opposed by a majority of Americans, and I believe Democrats will feel the backlash. So far, 55 percent of American voters favor repealing the bill.

Democrats are riding high, but over half the country’s voters don’t want the bill. And Obama thinks Republicans will face repeal repercussions? Conservatives in Congress should take their chances. Either way, voters will have their say in November. So yes, please, GO FOR IT.

Amen, La Shawn!

Listen, we are all adults here. It is blatantly obvious that come November, the Democrat Party is going to face a severely humiliating political bloodbath of Biblical proportions. President Obama’s blind arrogance and purposed intent to dismiss the will of The People and the efforts of the GOP to repeal his ObamaCare nightmare, are simply a case of him living in some Fantasy Land bubble. He maintains that he ‘welcomes that fight’. Please. Just like a defiant worm on a hook….

How macho will his words be when Pelosi, Reid, and a slew of his sycophants are nowhere around to defend him? In 2012, President Obama will begin a long two-year lame-duck presidency. And his repealed Health Care Bill will be nothing more than a bad memory in our Nation’s unfolding history.

“I welcome that fight.” Sure you do, Mr. President. Sure you do.

The House passes Health Care: The Morning After

Donald Borsch Jr. — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:24:13 +0000

Did Congress really listen?

Last night, 21 March 2010, around 10:45 pm EST, the once noble House of Representatives passed, by a vote of 219-212, the Democrat’s massive, complicated, hidden-agenda defining, progressively America-hating “health care bill”, and the Nation roared in anger. For those of you who were online last night, be it Facebook or Twitter, or any other such outlet, you heard and saw what I did. Aside from the liberal cesspools of Daily Kos and Huffington Post, no one was celebrating.

This morning is indeed, “The Morning After”. Headlines this morning include:

Analysis: Political lift of health bill uncertain

Sebelius: Public will embrace health care reform

From David Horowitz’s NewsReal Blog we get: Stupak and Lessons Learned: Democrats Lie. Chronically.

And from Conservative powerhouse Mark Steyn, one of my favorites, from yesterday: Happy Dependence Day!

This morning it is rainy, dreary, and chilly where I live in New England. It is weather and a mood that fits the general feel in the air. As a Patriot, I find myself slightly discouraged and angry this morning, as I’m sure a great many other Americans do. However, lest we become too discouraged, allow me to share these words from Lady Libertas, written on the evening of 21 March 2010:

The Passage of the Senate Healthcare bill by the House of Representatives tonight, while defeating in spirit, cannot cause us to falter.

This was a Battle and not the War.

Lady Libertas had a good cry this evening and then I picked myself up, dusted myself off and I am ready to being ANEW.

This healthcare bill may be going to the desk of the Traitor-in-Chief but our defeat does not go with it.

A passage by THREE VOTES is not a mandate.

November 2010 will show them a mandate – THE PEOPLE’S MANDATE.

They are in for the fight of their lives and we will make the healthcare battle look like a kindergarten playground.

Rest tonight. Kiss your families. Take a deep breath. And continue. We must continue with greater fervor and energy and commitment than ever before.

Our Congress, which should serve us, has ignored us. Our President, who should serve us, has ignored us to advance his Agenda above all. Ladies and gentlemen, this is where we are this morning. We are now, without a doubt, living under the leadership of those who dismiss, ignore, and treat us as peasants and with contempt.

This is where we are right now.

Where we go from here is up to us. Where we go from here is in our hands. Destiny, fate, karma, whatever- our future is ours to lose. We will grasp the America-hating agendas of this current administration and break them across the iron wills of our American Patriotism.

If ever a time there was to become active in the welfare and direction of our Nation, it is NOW. Our leaders have sold their integrity. Our leaders have lost our respect. The Day by Day cartoon, for today, from genius Chris Muir, says it best. Be sure to swing by there and check it out.

It’s time to get to work, Patriots. Long Live the Republic.

Kuhner: Impeach the President? From the Washington Times

Donald Borsch Jr. — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:37:27 +0000

Ah yes…the good old days when President Bush was vilified, mocked, ridiculed, parodied, and essentially shown severe disrespect from the liberal left. How I miss those days…

sarc/off

We now have a new President. He is the first President who is a Socialist, Marxist, progressive, liberal, and Democrat. Yay for Barack! In the short time he has been in office, his list of offenses, bad judgments, poor character, childish egotism, and incompetence has utterly destroyed any bad moves of every President before him by 100 times. Yeah. He is that bad.

The TEA Party, Sarah Palin, the GOP, Independents, Libertarians, Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Conservative bloggers, etc, have all had something to say about President Obama. Strangely enough, the MSM, *cough*, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc, etc, have said nothing. President Obama is their rock star, their Messiah, their Anointed One. They love and adore and worship him.

However….I saw this today at The Washington Times online and it gave me pause. Impeach President Obama? Really? Well now,….hmm. Take a look for yourselves, if you haven’t already. Kuhner makes for an interesting case. As always, Long Live the Republic.

From Washington Times:

Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life – the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.

Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure’s sweeping and radical aims – the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.

Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.

Kuhner goes on to speak of the dangers of the Slaughter Solution and if enacted, it “would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime – a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.” [emphasis mine]

Hence, an impeachable offense. But don’t take my word for it. Click on the link and read it for yourselves.

This is a time in our history as the greatest nation on the planet that is taking on a dark, dark mood. There are only so many times you can poke a dog before it up and bites you. The Democrats in Congress, and our President, would do well to remember this.