Sarah Palin on ObamaCare "Death Panels"

Statement on the Current Health Care Debate
by Sarah Palin on Friday, August 7, 2009

See http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434

"The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

Repeal ObamaCare

Read January 5, 2011 article at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/05/obamacare_an_unacquired_taste_108442.html
Obamacare: An Unacquired Taste
By Michael Tanner

It includes:
"two years of almost continuous debate on the issue, it is far more likely that the public really does understand the bill. They know, for example, that, despite the president's reassurances, they are not going to be able to keep their current health insurance, even if they like it. They understand that outside experts now predict that Obamacare will cost at least $2.7 trillion over its first ten years of actual operation, not the $950 billion originally predicted, adding more than $350 billion to the deficit over that period, despite massive new taxes. They've seen their insurance premiums skyrocket in response to the law's new mandates and regulations. Their common sense tells them that imposing the employer mandate will increase the cost of hiring workers and mean fewer jobs at a time when unemployment is still a national crisis. They oppose the unconstitutional individual mandate as an assault on their personal liberty. And they are rightfully concerned over how the law will affect the quality of the care they receive."

Next, Michelle Obama's health reform plan for the nation's restaurant menus and families dining out

See Los Angeles Times Sept 14, 2010 at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/michelle-obama-obesity-restaurant-menus.html
"Next, Michelle Obama's health reform plan for the nation's restaurant menus and families dining out"

"First Lady Michelle Obama, who has been unable to convince the Smoker-in-Chief to give up that dreadful habit, now has some health suggestions for other American families and for restaurant menus across the country,"

[Michelle] "Obama would like to see more healthy choices for Americans dining out, even if it means a restaurant deleting a best-selling menu item.
The Democrat suggested that Americans are "programmed" by taste and advertising to eat many things that the government and health professionals know are not healthy for their bodies. So she wants to facilitate a nationwide re-programming of personal tastes by having restaurants start serving less of what customers ignorantly want and more of what they should have."

Gangster government stifles criticism of Obamacare

See Michael Barone column "Gangster government stifles criticism of Obamacare"
at http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Gangster+government+stifles+criticism+of+Obamacare+%7C+Washington+Examiner&expire=&urlID=435692247&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolitics%2FGangster-government-stifles-criticism-of-Obamacare-811664-102642044.html&partnerID=376964&cid=102642044

September 10, 2010

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius sent millions of senior Americans a brochure that is packed with blatantly false claims about Obamacare. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
"There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."

That sounds like a stern headmistress dressing down some sophomores who have been misbehaving. But it's actually from a letter sent Thursday from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans -- the chief lobbyist for private health insurance companies.

Secretary Sebelius objects to claims by health insurers that they are raising premiums because of increased costs imposed by the Obamacare law passed by Congress last March.

She acknowledges that many of the law's "key protections" take effect later this month and does not deny that these impose additional costs on insurers. But she says that "according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact . . . will be minimal."

Well, that's reassuring. Er, except that if that's the conclusion of "some" industry and academic experts, it's presumably not the conclusion of all industry and academic experts, or the secretary would have said so.

Sebelius also argues that "any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law." But she's pretty vague about the numbers -- "up to $1 billion in 2013." Anyone who watches TV ads knows that "up to" can mean zero.

As Time magazine's Karen Pickert points out, Sebelius ignores the fact that individual insurance plans cover different types of populations. So that government and "some" industry and academic experts think the new law will justify increases averaging 1 or 2 percent, they could justify much larger increases for certain plans.

Or as Ignagni, the recipient of the letter, says, "It's a basic law of economics that additional benefits incur additional costs."

But Sebelius has "zero tolerance" for that kind of thing. She promises to issue regulations to require "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases" (which would presumably mean all rate increases).

And there's a threat. "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: Those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."

That's a significant date, the first year in which state insurance exchanges are slated to get a monopoly on the issuance of individual health insurance policies. Sebelius is threatening to put health insurers out of business in a substantial portion of the market if they state that Obamacare is boosting their costs.

"Congress shall make no law," reads the First Amendment, "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Sebelius' approach is different: "zero tolerance" for dissent.

The threat to use government regulation to destroy or harm someone's business because they disagree with government officials is thuggery. Like the Obama administration's transfer of money from Chrysler bondholders to its political allies in the United Auto Workers, it is a form of gangster government.

"The rule of law, or the rule of men (women)?" economist Tyler Cowen asks on his marginalrevolution.com blog. As he notes, "Nowhere is it stated that these rate hikes are against the law (even if you think they should be), nor can this 'misinformation' be against the law."

According to Politico, not a single Democratic candidate for Congress has run an ad since last April that makes any positive reference to Obamacare. The First Amendment gives candidates the right to talk -- or not talk -- about any issue they want.

But that is not enough for Sebelius and the Obama administration. They want to stamp out negative speech about Obamacare. "Zero tolerance" means they are ready to use the powers of government to threaten economic harm on those who dissent.

The closing paragraph of Sebelius' letter to AHIP's Karen Ignagni gives the game away. "We worked hard to change the system to help consumers." This is a reminder that the administration alternatively collaborated with and criticized Ignagni's organization. We roughed you up a little but we eventually made a deal.

The secretary goes on: "It is my hope we can work together to stop misinformation and misleading marketing from the start." In other words, shut your members up and play team ball -- or my guys with the baseball bats and tommy guns are going to get busy. As Tyler Cowen puts it, "worse than I had been expecting."

Missouri pops the ObamaCare-media bubble

See August 4, 2010 HotAir.com at
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/04/missouri-pops-the-obamacare-media-bubble/

It includes:
"If anything, this shows that opposition to ObamaCare is growing, not receding".

"Bear in mind that over 315,000 Democrats turned out to cast ballots in the primary that nominated Robin Carnahan, while over 577,000 Republicans hit the polls. That is about a 65/35 split — which means that a significant amount of Democrats either supported the ballot measure repudiating ObamaCare, or didn’t bother to cast a vote to defend the program. Actually, Prop C got more votes than the combined voting in both Senate primaries — which tells us something even more about the passion in the electorate."

Stop ObamaCare - Go Missouri

See http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Missouri_Health_Care_Freedom,_Proposition_C_(2010)

Missouri Health Care Freedom Proposition C statewide is to block the federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance and bans punishment for those without health insurance. It protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions.

August 3, 2010 Election Results, YES 75% No 25%

A "yes" vote is a vote to amend current Missouri law to deny the government authority to "penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services." A "no" vote is a vote to reject the proposed referendum.

Believe President Barack Obama?

"Consider the president’s basic promises about his health overhaul:"
■ "it actually would save money"
■ "the only new taxes would be on the very wealthy"
■ "individuals would be free to keep their present coverage and doctors"
San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Nov 5, 2009 "Fear of Health ‘Reform’ Is Warranted"

Great Moments in Socialized Medicine - Canadian Premier Comes to US for Heath Care

See Great Moments in Socialized Medicine from John Taranto Feb 2, 2010 Best of the Web Wall Street Journal blog at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704022804575041482614796218.html#U10467664188tD

"Newfoundland and Labrador is one of Canada's smaller and lesser-known provinces. Danny Williams is its premier, so his rough equivalent in "the states" would be the governor of Delaware or South Dakota. CBC reports Williams is having some heart trouble, for which he will be having surgery--in the United States!

Why? The report doesn't say, but we can rule out geographic proximity, as Newf-and-Lab is the remotest of Canada's 10 provinces. According to Google Maps, getting from the capital, St. John's, to Portland, Maine, the nearest half-decent-sized U.S. city, is a 2,242 km drive, including a 176 km ferry to Nova Scotia. We don't know what "km" means either, but the point is, Williams is going a long way.

Why? We thought Canada had a great system of socialized medicine for all! Apparently even a provincial premier can get better care in America. What would Williams have done if ObamaCare had passed and turned out to be no better than CanucKare?"

President Barack Obama on Health Care Death Panels

This is from April and August 2009.

From April 29, 2009 see Bloomberg article by Hans Nichols at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc
"Obama Says Grandmother’s Hip Replacement Raises Cost Questions"
■ "President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a 'sustainable' model” for health care."
■ "Obama said 'you just get into some very difficult moral issues' when considering whether 'to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill'."

See New York Times April 28, 2009 "After the Great Recession" article by David Leonhardt see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
President Barack Obama said:
■ "So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right? I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here."
■ "Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."

From August 2009 at http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/08/11/a-debate-we-didn-t-have-to-have.aspx
■ "Gee, where could the misinformed town hall crazies have gotten the idea that Obama was thinking about saving money by denying expensive procedures toward the end of life?

Fear of Health ‘Reform’ Is Warranted

President Barack Obama - Do you believe him?

See Thursday, November 5, 2009 editorial at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/05/fear-health-reform-warranted/
■ "Consider the president’s basic promises about his health overhaul:"
■ "it actually would save money"
■ "the only new taxes would be on the very wealthy"
■ "individuals would be free to keep their present coverage and doctors"
■ "save money is largely based on the preposterous assumption that hundreds of billions of dollars would be cut in Medicare and Medicaid programs"
■ "an IRS-administered and collected levy on individuals without health insurance is really a tax. The bills before Congress call it a tax. But apart from this semantic debate, there are also new taxes on insurers, drug makers, health care providers and medical devices that would be passed along to consumers. Of course middle-class pocketbooks would take a big hit."
■ "The claim that people happy with their present health care would be unaffected ignores the fact that if the 'public option' were available, employers would have a financial incentive to drop private insurance in favor of cheaper government coverage. And even if the final bill didn’t include this option, private coverage would be microregulated on what it has to provide — and lawmakers swayed by contributions from medical specialists have already indicated plans to vastly expand what services must be provided. The inevitable result would be far costlier private insurance."

Why ObamaCare is Unpopular

See Wall Street Journal October 26, 2009 op/ed piece by Arthur C. Brooks at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495131591949574.html

■ "Americans recoil at policies that strip choices from citizens and pass them to bureaucrats. ObamaCare systematically does so. The current proposals in Congress would effectively limit choice across the entire spectrum of health care: What kind of health insurance citizens can buy, what kind of doctors they can see, what kind of procedures their doctors will perform, what kind of drugs they can take, and what treatment options they may have."

■ "Americans are cold to a health-care system that effectively rewards individuals for waiting to get insurance until they get sick—subsidizing their coverage by taxing those who responsibly carry insurance in good times and bad."

■ "Already, the Census Bureau tells us that 21% of the uninsured are in households earning at least $75,000"

■ "ObamaCare discourages personal ambition. The proposed reforms will institute a set of government mandates, price controls and other strictures that will make highly trained specialists, drug researchers and medical device makers less valued now and in the future. Americans understand that when you take away the incentive to make money while saving lots of lives, the cures, therapies and medical innovations of tomorrow may never be discovered."

■ "An April 2009 survey conducted by the polling firm Ayers, McHenry & Associates for the conservative nonprofit group Resurgent Republic asked respondents which of the following statements about the role of government came closer to their view: (a) "Government policies should promote fairness by narrowing the gap between rich and poor, spreading the wealth, and making sure that economic outcomes are more equal"; or (b) "Government policies should promote opportunity by fostering job growth, encouraging entrepreneurs, and allowing people to keep more of what they earn." Sixty-three percent chose the second option; just 31% chose the first."

■ "The health-care debate is part of a moral struggle currently being played out over the free enterprise system. It will be replayed in every major policy debate in the coming months, from financial regulatory reform to a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon emissions. The choices will ultimately always come down to competing visions of America's future. Will we strengthen freedom, individual opportunity and enterprise? Or will we expand the role of the state and its power?"

Who’s Going to Get More Publicity Palin or Obama Joint Session of Congress Speech?

President Barack Obama will today, Sept 9, 2009 address a joint session of Congress. I wonder how well he will do? I bet as he walks down the aisle, he will reek of cigarette smoke; I bet he is smoking about two packs a day now.
I’ll listen for Obama “this was the moment…” What a truly audacious fellow. From June 3, 2008 St. Paul Minnesota, after cinching the Democratic Party Presidential nomination, Barack Obama said:
“generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”
But can the Press not cover former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin even more? See her op/ed piece to day Sept 9, 2009 in the Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html
Governor Palin may make news in writing:
- “We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.”
- “How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.”
- “Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."
- “ask yourself whether the government that brought us such ‘waste and inefficiency’ and ‘unwarranted subsidies’ in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so..”
- “Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of ‘normal political channels,’ should guide decisions regarding that ‘huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .’ Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels?”
- “the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.”
- “Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.”
- “let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.”

The Convenient Fantasies of President Obama

So true. See Michael Barone's Sept 9, 2009 column "The convenient fantasies of President Obama" at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/The-convenient-fantasies-of-President-Obama-8215470-57862907.html

"the administration seems enamored of his "green jobs" concept. There's an understandable political reason. Legislation to restrict carbon emissions that is supported by the administration would undoubtedly kill a large number of jobs by increasing the cost of energy, and so you can see why its advocates might want to argue that there will be a compensating number of "green jobs" created -- at least if the government spends a lot of money on them.
But this sounds like fantasy. If there were money to be made in green jobs, private investors would be creating them already."

"Yesterday Baucus came out with his own plan, which includes a tax on high-value health insurance policies. But this is likely to be rejected by the Left, by labor unions that have negotiated such benefits from employers, and by members of Congress from states like New York, where, because of state policies, almost all health insurance costs that much.
There is an element of convenient fantasy as well in Obama's health care statements to date. We are going to save money by spending money. We are going to solve our fiscal problems with a program that will increase the national debt by $1,000,000,000,000 over a decade. We are going to guarantee you can keep your current insurance with a bill that encourages your employer to stop offering it."

"The list goes on. We are going to improve health care for seniors by cutting $500,000,000,000 from Medicare. We aren't going to insure illegal aliens, except that we won't have any verification provisions to see that they can't apply and get benefits."

Obama's Crisis: Credibility

Good point. See Sept 9, 2009 article by Michael Gerson at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/09/the_crisis_of__health_care_reform_98217.html

"And so Barack Obama's address to Congress on health care, at a minimum, must answer the question: What is the crisis? When an individual can't get needed health care, it is certainly a crisis for them. This, Obama might argue, creates moral responsibilities for the rest of us to help. But this would argue for a more incremental approach, adding coverage for the working poor instead of remaking the American health system for everyone."

"Obama abandoned his pledge to reduce the government's health costs long ago; now he only aims at budget neutrality. But every pending health reform bill in Congress increases both short-term and long-term deficits, failing even on Obama's modified terms. Americans get the joke. While Obama has made cost control a centerpiece of his public message, only about 20 percent of Americans, in one poll, believe Obama will keep his promise not to increase the deficit with health reform."

"America has an ongoing crisis -- an economic crisis of rising unemployment and negative economic growth. Obama clearly believed the economic emergency would give him the opportunity to do anything on the progressive agenda that he wished. Actually, it gave him the burden to do one thing well -- responding to the economic emergency. Insofar as health reform is seen as complicating this task -- particularly by the addition of massive, inflationary debt -- the narrative of crisis will continue to work against Obama instead of for him."

Catholic Church Does Not Teach That Government Should Directly Provide Health Care

Iowa bishop R. Walker Nickless in a message issued by the Diocese of Sioux City:
See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574387002761694162.html

"[T]he Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care.

Unlike a prudential concern like national defense, for which government monopolization is objectively good—it both limits violence overall and prevents the obvious abuses to which private armies are susceptible—health care should not be subject to federal monopolization.

Preserving patient choice (through a flourishing private sector) is the only way to prevent a health care monopoly from denying care arbitrarily, as we learned from HMOs in the recent past. While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit, it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined "best procedures," which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens. The proper role of the government is to regulate the private sector, in order to foster healthy competition and to curtail abuses. Therefore any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect. "

President Barack Obama on Health Care Public Option

President Barack Obama pushed Congress to pass Health Care reform legislation before taking its August recess. Instead of passing legislation, the Congress pressured by the public are examining what is proposed and forcing the elimination of the most onerous provisions.

See "White House backs away from public health care option" by Carrie Budoff Brown at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26158.html

June 2009: "Obama said in a letter to Senate Democrats that 'I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest'.”

July 2009: "Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that 'any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family'.”

August 15, 2009: "Obama downplayed the public option during a Colorado town hall meeting, saying it was 'just one sliver' of the debate."

Obama Poll Numbers Dip - Government Takeover of Health Care in Trouble

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071902176.html?hpid=topnews
Poll Shows Obama Slipping on Key Issues
Approval Rating on Health Care Falls Below 50 Percent
■ "Heading into a critical period in the debate over health-care reform, public approval of President Obama’s stewardship on the issue has dropped below the 50 percent threshold for the first time, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."
■ "Obama’s approval ratings on other front-burner issues, such as the economy and the federal budget deficit, have also slipped over the summer, as rising concern about spending and continuing worries about the economy combine to challenge his administration. Barely more than half approve of the way he is handling unemployment, which now tops 10 percent in 15 states and the District."

Less Support Now for Major Overhaul of Health Care System than 1993

See June 18, 2009 Pew Research Center for the People & the Press " Opinions About Health Care" at http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1534

"As health care reform legislation moves forward in Washington, the political environment is somewhat different than the last time a major overhaul of the health care system was attempted sixteen years ago. In early 1993 the sense of a health care crisis was far more widespread than it is today – a 55% majority in 1993 said they felt the health care system needed to be “completely rebuilt” compared with 41% today. Health care costs were also a broader problem in 1993 – 63% of Americans said paying for the cost of a major illness was a “major problem” for them, compared with 48% currently."