Barack Obama

Russian Into Trouble

The World on a Silver Platter 

 

by  Lance Thompson

Barack Obama is the most authentically anti-war president since Jimmy Carter.  While a student at Columbia, he wrote a paper called “Breaking the War Mentality” which favored a unilateral nuclear freeze, advocated shifting spending from military to social needs, and supported other campus anti-military organizations.  During the presidential campaign, he advocated immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and was widely known as the anti-war candidate of his party.  Upon taking office, his administration has cut funding for new jet fighters, missile defense systems for the United States and Eastern Europe, and Obama himself has pledged never to “weaponize space.” Obama is completely against war and the military.

Except for the war in Afghanistan.  Even during the campaign, Obama accused George Bush of focusing on the wrong war in Iraq.  Obama advocated increasing our forces in Afghanistan, and since taking office has supported continued efforts to attack the Taliban in that desolate region.  I have not understood why until Obama’s recent Russian visit with Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev.

True to his background, Obama pledged to cut our nuclear forces by a third, thus giving the Russians a diplomatic victory beyond their wildest dreams. America will voluntarily disarm in the face of rising threats from Communist China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia itself.  Obama returned trumpeting his achievements.  One of those, perhaps little noticed, is the Russian agreement to allow American re-supply flights through Russian air space to our forces in Afghanistan.  Again, I wondered why.

Russia has a long and nearly unbroken tradition of denying over-flights to other countries, ever since the Communists took over.  During daredevil aviator Wiley Post’s round-the-world flight in 1931, Russia at first refused over-flight privileges and then relented at the last minute, only to furnish Post with inaccurate charts so as to give no information to a foreign government.  It has been much the same ever since, up to the 1983 shooting down of KAL 007 by a Russian interceptor.  The unarmed civilian jumbo jet went down with no survivors.  Russia ordinarily does not consider requests to cross its borders to even private aviators, let alone military flights.  Yet now, the Russians are granting that privilege to American military aircraft to re-supply our troops in Afghanistan.

Another long and consistent tradition is Russian expansionism.  During the colonial period, when Great Britain established coaling stations around the world to service the Royal Navy and protect its global empire, most other powerful nations followed suit.  This is what resulted in the Dutch East Indies, German possession of New Guinea and other Pacific islands, and French Guyana, to name a few.  The Russians, however, never went in for far-flung colonies they would need fleets to defend.  With the exception of some remote fur-trading outposts on the North American coast, Russia always expanded at its own borders.  In the 11th Century, Russians absorbed the lands of the Upper Volga, from the Urals to the Baltic Sea.  In the 16th Century, Russia expanded  to the Caucasus and Black Sea, into Turkestan and Siberia. Russians clashed with China and Japan, and in the 20th Century, brutally subjugated most of Eastern Europe, including bloody takeovers of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and half of Germany.  In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and became mired in a punishing guerilla war with enemies who included the Taliban.  The Soviet Union withdrew ten years later, having suffered tremendous losses.  But they never relinquished their claims or ambitions in the region.

Which brings us back to the present day.  American troops have succeeded where the Soviet forces failed.  Americans have defeated the Taliban repeatedly, cleared areas of the enemy, destroyed terrorist training camps and hideouts, and stabilized the national government and economy.  When the Taliban attacks in strength, they are decimated.  When they disperse, we hunt them down.  When they attempt to terrorize the population, they are exposed and captured or killed.  American troops have demonstrated resourcefulness, persistence, and courage.  And they have prevailed.

The American pattern for this kind of war is to defeat the enemy, establish a fledgling democracy, and withdraw our troops.  In the past, American presidents have always offered support and protection for the emerging democratic government, lest it be set upon by enemies during its infancy.

However, it is evident to the world that Obama is a new kind of president.  He criticizes our staunchest ally in the Middle East–Israel.  He withholds official support for Iranian protestors who stand up against the oppression of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the risk of their own lives.  He supports a Honduran dictator and condemns the legal measures undertaken to remove him from office.  He bows to the Saudi King, makes overtures to Hugo Chavez, and allows North Korea to fire missiles at United States territory.  Obama has clearly demonstrated that he is not the champion of democracy or freedom, as previous American presidents have been.  Obama more often sides with the tyrants rather than the oppressed.

This fact is not lost on the Russians.  They know that the American military, after defeating the Taliban, will some day leave Afghanistan and its infant democracy to its own devices.  And that is when Russia, with its chief Afghan opponent–the Taliban–destroyed by the United States, will return to claim Afghanistan for itself.  The Russians know Obama will not defend a struggling democracy, that Obama would rather placate a powerful opponent than challenge one, that he will abandon any ally to avoid confrontation.

Thus, the Russians are only too eager to help with our pacification of Afghanistan.  While our troops do the heavy lifting, the Russians will plan their takeover.  As soon as we’re gone, the Russians will sweep in behind us and swallow Afghanistan in a matter of days.  There will be no organized guerilla force to oppose them, as there was in the 1980's.  There will only be a free people, weakened by years of war, unable to defend themselves.

It’s impossible to know whether Barack Obama foresees this eventuality or not.  One can ascribe many errors in judgment to simple incompetence.  But rest assured that Russian foreign policy is not trusted to neophytes and community organizers.  Their expansionist strategy is long-term, consistent and ruthless.  And they know an opportunity when they see it.

 

Government Healthcare Cost Cutting Now

In a town hall meeting on July 1st 2009, Dear Leader ZerO met Exhibit 'A' of how the government controls health-care costs. Debbie Smith is suffering from Renal failure and is allegedly unable to work. But the government no longer considers Renal failure a disability (cost cutting) and she can not get Medicaid assistance to pay for her medical needs. This is the result of government efforts to cut medical costs. Today the government denies disability and medical assistance to a woman with Renal failure, tomorrow they delay tests and biopsies for suspected tumors, and the day after tomorrow they deny procedures and drugs for people deemed non productive for society. This is what government health-care cost cutting means. A bureaucrat decides what is and isn't a medical disability, prudent preliminary test, or a necessary procedure.

Debbie Smith said: (from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-the-President-in-an-Online-Town-Hall-on-Health-Care-Reform/ )

"Good afternoon, Mr. President. I'll try not to cry. I'm trying to figure out what I can do currently. My situation is I had renal cell carcinoma in '98 that was radiated, because my dad was dying of colon cancer at the time, and I was his health care server on his living will, so I could not be tied up having my kidney removed. So they did radiation procedures to kill the tumor then. And I had insurance and everything was taken out.

But basically because of the damage that the radiation did in things, I'm no longer able to work and I have no health insurance. Now I have a new tumor. I have no way to pay for it. Doctors will not see you without paying $100 or $150 to come into their office. I can get checked into a hospital -- under their program, they will run tests and release me, but that costs a lot of money.

So currently I basically -- Social Security will not give me disability because renal failure is no longer a qualifying factor under Social Security currently. I cannot get Medicaid from the state of Virginia because you have to be considered disabled through Social Security to qualify for Medicaid in the state of Virginia because I have no dependent children at home -- it's just me. I get food stamps, but that's it. And I'm just trying to figure out how I'm going to make it in nine years until I'm qualified to get my regular Social Security -- now that I have a new tumor and I have nowhere to turn."

As Dear Leader ZerO has stated in the past. We need to control costs, why should we pay for extra tests when they aren't really needed. Tests and treatments that your doctor may need to eliminate a possible ailment origin as well as to determine the cause. Or a test that can lead to early discovery of a disease not even contemplated. They aren't really needed.

On June 15 2009: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-the-Annual-Conference-of-the-American-Medical-Association/ )

Dear Leader Zero: "treatments that, in some cases, they don't really need"

Of course, government control of costs is all about finding what works.

Dear Leader ZerO: "identifying what works is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided."

Of course it isn't about 'control' or 'dictating' what is and is not allowed due to costs. It is about what 'works'. According to some bureaucrat.

Dear Leader ZerO does advocate better medical information sharing and computerization of medical records to help modernize the medical profession and cut costs through better efficiency. A program proposed by President Bush during his State of the Union address in February 2005, and signed into law by President Bush with full implementation by 2014. President Bush was following up on an idea begun by his father President George H. W. Bush which hit a lot of snags due to concerns about privacy of the electronic records. Although Dear Leader ZerO yearns to take credit for it. (from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-the-Annual-Conference-of-the-American-Medical-Association/ )

Dear Leader Zero: "First, we need to upgrade our medical records by switching from a paper to an electronic system of record keeping."

But his top priority is control. By government top down central control of the Medical delivery system. The operative phrase here is 'government control'.

On June 23 2009: (from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Press-Conference-by-the-President-6-23-09/ )

Dear Leader Zero: "What I've said is, our top priority has to be to control costs. And that means not just tinkering around the edges. It doesn't mean just lopping off reimbursements for doctors in any given year because we're trying to fix our budget."

It means control by eliminating options that the government does not have control over. Like private enterprise. Like freedom of choice. It means giving Americans an offer they can not refuse like the Public Health Program.

The Public Health Program option is a rigged game. Like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this Government agency will look on the surface to be an independent entity, but in fact will be a toy of the members of Congress that are on the oversight committee. They will appoint cronies to oversee it and manage it. Giving them bonuses and incentives to cut costs to look good on one hand, and subsidizing their revenue shortfalls from the cost cutting with tax money on the other. No private Insurance program of any kind will be able to compete with a company that can print it's own money to be profitable. In short order, the only option will be the Public Health Program option, and the controlled costs of any medical care you may need.

What we should have is less stifling of the Health Insurance industry in inter state commerce so that people in each state are not limited to only the local insurance companies where there may only be a few or even just one offering. The extra competition will lower costs of insurance and expand the diversity of products offered.

What we need is the addition of a tax exemption for Insurance costs on an individual level equal to the tax exemption businesses enjoy. That would allow individuals to purchase the insurance of their choosing while not eliminating the advantages business have in offering a health insurance benefit to attract employees.

Individuals should be allowed to partner with their employer to allow the business the tax advantage if they pay all or part of the insurance premium. At the same time allowing the individual mobility to carry the insurance to a new job when needed that may not offer any health insurance benefits.

Vouchers for insurance premiums for low income families to purchase a policy could be designed similar to the food stamp program model. Approved Insurance plans would be offered to anyone using the voucher system to prevent fraud and abuse. Some states already use a system of approved Insurance plans with premiums paid for by the Medicaid program instead of being a direct payer.

Everyone will have the freedom to choose their benefits they want, the doctor they like, and have the ability to switch plans if they are not being served adequately.

The best way to control medical costs would be if everyone paid out of pocket for medical care and by necessity had to shop for the best medical care for the purchase amount. Insurance and Government programs do not provide for consumer oversight of medical costs like individual direct payment would, but with medical costs as high as they are for even minor ailments, it would be beyond the means of most family budgets to be direct payers of medical costs. We have to rely on a common pool of funds. The proposition is if we rely on one government controlled fund, or on a choice of many Insurance funds.

Our future will be one Government controlled program when Dear Leader Zero implements his medical cost controls and Public Health Program 'option'. More and more people will be like Debbie Smith. When more ailments are added to the list of inadequate diseases to qualify for treatment, like renal failure no longer qualifies for disability, all to cut costs. We will all be unable to qualify for medical disability. Or we will be waiting for tests. Or we will be in line for approval for a review of a preliminary exam for the necessity of an operation for a life threatening ailment.

Obama the Medicine Man

The Messiah calls them from all over. The hopeful, sick from diabetes, arthritis, cancer, and every other disease and ailment known to mankind. All of them seeking the Messiah that can divine what ails them and cure them. But like any good Faith Healer or Medicine Man, there is something going on behind the curtain.

On July 1st, 2009, Dear Leader ZerO held an 'open, on-line' town hall meeting to get honest unscripted questions from the public at large about his Health-care plan. His staff prescreened the questions posed online through Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. No doubt to make sure they gave Dear Leader ZerO the hard insightful questions asked about his health-care plan. Questions about the costs in money and debt. The queries about procedures and tests that would be rationed, forbidden or delayed to cut costs.

In the town hall audience, three lucky people where given a chance to ask their questions. Exhibit 'A' was Debbie Smith, from Organizing for America. The second was Jason Rosenbaum, who works for Health Care for America Now. The third was an unnamed Service Employees International Union employee.

Debbie Smith may be "unemployed", but that hasn't stopped her from working for the Obama campaign as a volunteer at Organizing for America. Organizing for America is the Obama election machine that used to be called Obama for Change. They renamed themselves and moved under the auspices of the Democratic National Committee. Debbie Smith has also identified herself as a worker for the Virginia Organizing Project. Perhaps if she spent less time working her two jobs for Dear Leader ZerO, she would have the time to get a job for someone that actually paid wages and benefits. Instead of trying to help someone steal money from other hard working people to pay for her unemployment and health benefits.

Among Debbie Smith's unemployed accomplishments she moderated "a community discussion on health care issues" in Appalachia, Va. during December 2008. She told the local paper at the time the meeting "would be reported back to former Sen. Tom Daschle". Forming a committee to report to on health-care issues was a prime directive given Senator Tom Daschle by then President-elect Barack Obama. He is in constant contact with Dear Leader ZerO's team. Daschle told The Associated Press in a recent media meeting on health-care reform, "We interact with them daily." This despite his failed Health and Human Services Cabinet-nomination. Since he can't be a Cabinet member, he can be a secret Health Czar.

Jason Rosenbaum works for the George Soros linked lobbying project in Washington, D.C. called Health Care for America Now (HCAN). This is a K Street Lobby Group with a $40 million budget to lobby Congress for government-run health care. Debbie Smith's second job, Virginia Organizing Project has been coordinating trips and healthcare forums with Jason Rosenbaum's HCAN.

The unnamed questioner was from Service Employees International Union. A former SEIU health-care lobbyist by the name of Patrick Gaspard is now White House director of the Office of Political Affairs. The SEIU president is Andy Stern who boasted gleefully of spending nearly $61 million in dues money paid by SEIU members to elect Barack Obama. No doubt a wise investment. Spending money that isn't yours to help Dear Leader ZerO get elected so that SEIU employees could get free benefits paid for by taxpayers. Not having to pay them from Union dues, Andy Stern would have more SEIU money to support more political cronyism.

No doubt this audience was not stacked with plants and shills at all and represents Americans and the questions they have 100%. We all are either volunteers for Dear Leader ZerO, or we are lobbyists working on Dear Leader ZerO's agenda, or we are employees of a Union that spends our dues to support Dear Leader ZerO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kcTcR4Zs-4

Vote Barack & Your Grandchildren Get Burka & Long Beard: Conservative Punditry At NRO

Thomas Sowell of National Review provides this nonsensical warning:

Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their granddaughters to live under sharia law.

Such statements might fire up the base, but don't conservatives realize that it makes virtually everyone else question both their fitness to govern and their sanity?

No, it's not the 'Obama is a secret Muslim' threat  to America Sowell is talking about, his idea is that Obama will lead to us to being conquered by Muslims.

The major problem with Sowell’s post is to claim the risk would be greater under Obama. The risk of terrorists getting nuclear weapons has only limited relationship to whoever is president and I wouldn’t use this as an issue to attack either party. If we were to drag partisan politics into this, the Democrats have a far better track record in understanding the issue than the Republicans, making his post especially absurd. It’s not a question of being hawkish. It is a matter of understanding the problem and responding in a rational manner. Actually in some ways the Democrats were more hawkish. It was the Democrats before 9/11 who were more hawkish in terms of taking action against terrorism while the Republicans opposed this. Republicans win the overall battle for being more hawkish under Bush. The problem is that they were hawkish in ways which were counterproductive.

(via Yglesias)

How Obama failed on cap-and-trade and consequences for health care

Early coverage of the Cap and Trade bill has focused on the successes of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, although I noted that it was also a success for conservative movement groups.

However, focus is beginning to shift. Maybe they didn't get what they wanted? The New York Times' John Broder notes that various groups lobbied the hell out of it. He focuses on the utilities:

The biggest concessions went to utilities, which wanted assurances that they could continue to operate and build coal-burning power plants without shouldering new costs. The utilities received not only tens of billions of dollars worth of free pollution permits, but also billions for work on technology to capture carbon-dioxide emissions from coal combustion to help meet future pollution targets.

By not auctioning these permits, Obama lost a huge amount of money for his earlier proposals. Donald Marron notes that this totals about $600b in revenue that this bill didn't create.

Now think about what Joe Lieberman said yesterday about the health care bill...

Lieberman cited the cost of a public plan as his primary beef with the plan.

"Part of my concern is that, and this goes to the…growing national debt, that inevitably if we create a public option, the public is going to end up pay for it and that's a cost we can't take on," he said.

If Obama had come out of this cap and trade debate with an extra $600b, the healthcare debate would look a lot -- A LOT -- different.

As the scope of the deficit becomes clearer and the political salience of it rises, the cap and trade bill may look like an increasingly poor deal for America, but also the rest of the Obama agenda.

In Honduras, Freedom Restored

ARRA News - The story out of Honduras is that the people of that stalwart little country have now taken it into their own hands to preserve their democracy in the most courageous action since they established their constitutional republic nearly three decades ago. Just as former Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales prepared to seize full power in direct violation of the nation’s Constitution, the military leadership – with the backing of the people – removed him from power.

Unfortunately, Barak Obama, after encouraging the Zelaya coup with his complicit silence, has now condemned the people’s move to uphold their Constitution and preserve their freedom. And, as expected, the mainstream media has joined Mr. Obama in censuring the restoration of democracy by censoring the full story. Yet, what actually occurred in Honduras is a case study in the survival of freedom against the most oppressive odds.

Earlier this year, in the face of strong public opposition, Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales declared that he would stage a referendum to have the country’s constitutional term limits law overturned, thereby allowing him to remain indefinitely in power. The people of Honduras had adopted the single, four-year--term limit as part of their Constitution in January of 1982. Significantly, the term limits provision is one of only eight “firm articles,” out of 375. By law, cannot be amended.

The Supreme Court of Honduras declared the Zelaya referendum unconstitutional, his own Liberal Party came out in strong opposition, and the public overwhelmingly opposed his power grab. Despite this, Zelaya, a leftwing politician with strong ties to Cuba’s Castro and Venezuela’s Chavez, scheduled the referendum for Sunday, June 28. At midnight, Wednesday, June 24, the strong-arm president gave a televised speech accusing his opposition of promoting “destabilization and chaos” by attempting to thwart his unconstitutional referendum.

As the situation in Honduras continued to deteriorate, the Zelaya’s attorney general called for his ouster; his Defense Minister resigned; he fired the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for stating that he would refuse to send out troops to put down public protests; the chiefs of the army, navy, and air force resigned; and the country’s Supreme Court ordered the nation’s army and police not to support the unconstitutional referendum.

Through all of this, Barack Obama abetted the Zelaya power grab through his calculated silence. Yet, the brave people of Honduras – enduring almost unfathomable duress – stood firm in support of their Constitution and the term limits embodied in it. Now that the will of the people has triumphed over tragedy, we believe the time has come for Mr. Obama to concede the defeat of his partner and policy, and for the U.S. media to support those who, putting principle above personal safety, have let freedom ring. We applaud the Freedom Fighters of neighboring Honduras. [Source by ALG News]

Can We Get Obama to Tell Us What He Thinks of Conservative Objections to His Health Care Proposal?

Given his aversion to the bubble of the presidency, willingness to admit when he screws up, and experience as a professor of constitutional law, it seems fair to conclude that while Obama may disagree with you on a particular issue, he's at least conversant with the counterarguments. Indeed, it's said that a good lawyer—and Obama graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude—can argue both sides of a case. As such, I think the President would be open to the following question, which I submitted this morning for his upcoming online town hall meeting on health care:

What do you think—without caricature—is the strongest, most serious objection to your health care proposal, and how would you reply?

YouTube says the winning questions will be among the most popular ones, so if you're interested in which conservative criticism is most cogent, why not watch and share the above 16-second video? Let's see if we can replicate what Patrick Ruffini did in 2007 with YouTube's "10 Questions" contest.

Future Oscar winning documentary: "Barack and Me"

Oftentimes I have an idea, let it sit,  and then I see someone has written it up better than my first draft would have been

Such is the case with the Washington Post's Robert Samuelson, who compared Barack Obama's economic vision with the failed strategies that led to General Motors' collapse

 

Broadly speaking, the U.S. welfare system divides into two parts -- the private, run by firms; and the public, provided by government. Both are besieged: private companies by competitive pressures; government by rising debt and taxes. GM exemplified the large corporation as private welfare state. In contracts with the United Auto Workers, GM promised high wages, lifetime employment, generous pensions and comprehensive health insurance. All this is ancient history: New workers get skimpier benefits. .......

Pressures on private and public welfare won't abate. The economic conditions that encouraged corporate welfare have long since vanished. In 1955, GM, Ford and Chrysler accounted for 95 percent of U.S. light vehicle sales, reports economist Thomas Klier of the Chicago Federal Reserve. With market dominance and technological leadership, the Big Three assumed they could pass along to customers the costs of job guarantees, high wages and fringe benefits........

In theory, expanding public welfare could offset eroding private welfare. President Obama's health-care proposal reflects that logic. The trouble is that the public sector also faces enormous cost pressures, driven by an aging population and rising health costs. The Congressional Budget Office projects the federal debt will double as a share of the economy (gross domestic product) to 82 percent of GDP by 2019.

Any sober examination of figures like these suggests that the system has promised more than it can realistically deliver. We are borrowing not to finance investment in the future but to pay for today's welfare -- present consumption. Sooner or later, the huge debt will weaken the economy. Nor would paying for all promised benefits with higher taxes be desirable. Big increases in either debt or taxes risk depressing economic growth, making it harder yet to pay promised benefits.

The bottom line is that if the Fortune 500 couldn't provide free health care to all their workers and dependents, it's hard to see how governments are going to do it--that is--without tradeoffs which politicians aren't going to disclose up front.

I also find it interesting that the most vocal Congresional proponents of "public option" health care are those politicians who came of age at the tail end of the Great Society---Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Henry Waxman,  et al.---all of whom would like to pretend that big government never really failed--it just got bad press. And we all know Barack Obama "missed the 1980's"

Roger Smith may seem to be a light year away from our suave , metrosexual President. But maybe not.  When Smith took the reins at GM, the firm was challenged, but huge. Smith thought by sheer force of revenue he could buy GM's way out of trouble.  He spent profligate sums on his vision--buying Hughes Electronics, buying Ross Perot's EDS, building huge new assembly plants like Poletown and Buick City even when GM had plenty of old plants, starting the new Saturn brand to compete with Toyota.

Ironically, when American business was in the process of reinventing itself by becoming nimble, flexible and customer-oriented, Smith remade GM into even more of a command and control organization than he inherited--removing divisional autonomy. 

And a time when GM should have been trying to right-size itself with future demand, establish a realistic labor-management relationship and build its own organic resources, Smith brought his version of "Hope and Change"

Michael Moore depicted  how it worked out. By 1992 GM was shutting plants and taking charges against earnings. And with free cash flow later spent to gain temporary labor peace instead of new products, the cycle once started never really ended.  

How exactly is Barack Obama's economic vision different than Roger Smith's. He is trying to buy off the old labor establishment and spend his way past the problems we face--instead of forcing the painful but necessary reforms we will need to be competitive in a cutthroat global economy. And he is trying to impose centralized management upon a dynamic economy. 

Let me make one other point. If we adopt "cap and trade" much of the heavy industry left in the Midwest will give up the ghost and move to Asia. Then the workers will be retrained for health care. But "health care reform" is supposed to cut costs. In practice, that means closing hospitals and firing employees.  Out of the frying pan, into the fire.  Jobless recovery, anyone...or "Player Piano"

I fear that when "Buzz Lightyear economics" plays out we will have more vacant cities in the Rust Belt bereft of any hope. Perhaps a more conservative and thinner filmmaker will have at our President about it. He'll have as much luck getting an interview, I'm sure. 

Obama’s Personal Doctor 'Knocks' ObamaCare?

Obama’s internist from Chicago, David Scheiner, says that Obama is on a wrong track with regards to health care reform. No, he is not a doctor opposing health care reform but is recommending a single payer system. From Forbes:

Scheiner, 71, was Obama’s doctor from 1987 until he entered the White House; he vouched for the then-candidate’s “excellent health” in a letter last year. He’s still an enthusiastic Obama supporter, but he worries about whether the health care legislation currently making its way through Congress will actually do any good, particularly for doctors like himself who practice general medicine. “I’m not sure he really understands what we face in primary care,” Scheiner says.

Scheiner takes a few other shots too. Looking at Obama’s team of health advisors, Scheiner doesn’t see anyone who’s actually in the trenches. “I have a suspicion they pick people from the top echelon of medicine, people who write about it but haven’t been struggling in it,” he says.

Scheiner is critical of Obama’s pick for Health and Human Services secretary–Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who used to work as the chief lobbyist for her state’s trial lawyers association.

“He doesn’t see all the pain, it’s so tragic out here,” he says. “Obama’s wonderful, but on this one I’m not sure if he’s getting the right input.”

What should the president be focused on? Scheiner thinks that a good health reform would be “Medicare for all,” a single-payer system where the government would cover everyone and pay for it by cutting out waste in the system. “A neurosurgeon gets paid $20,000 for cutting into the neck of my patient. Have him get paid $1 million a year instead of $2 million or $3 million. He won’t starve,” Scheiner says.

Conservatives apparently loved the title of the article (Obama’s Doctor Knocks ObamaCare) and the beginning, but then had to change the tone after reading Scheiner’s support for a single payer plan. Gawker noted:

After first quoting approvingly, the National Review’s Mark Hemingway actually updated his post on Schneier. He had initially quoted the first three paragraphs and concluded “Ouch.” But then he read all the way to the sixth paragraph and discovered Schneier spouting Maoist propaganda. Like we said, whatever. The headline’s out there. Take it away, Hannity.

Scheiner also said that the proposed public plan doesn’t go far enough, and that Obama isn’t doing enough on malpractice reform:

Scheiner, like most others in his profession, thinks that it should be harder to sue doctors and that awards should be capped. He says that he and other doctors must order too many tests and imaging studies just to avoid being sued.

While conservatives often exaggerate the significance of malpractice when they sometimes claim that solving this problem will end most of the cost problems, the fact remains that this is probably the largest area where health care expenses can be cut without lowering quality. It makes little sense to talk about saving small amounts of money in other areas, or to spend large amounts of money on computerization of medical records in the hopes of future savings, without doing anything about money wasted on defensive medicine.

Malpractice reform will provide a test of whether the Obama and the Congressional Democrats are more concerned about lowering health care costs or appeasing the trial lawyers who typically support them.

 

Change Requires Accountability

When the #AllBarackChannel realizes something is going wrong, it's probably time to pay attention:

Obama's spending proposals and a record-breaking national debt inherited from President Bush that is projected to grow could be Obama's political Achilles heels, and one reason he often underlines fiscal prudence as a top priority.

The percentage of people in a Pew Research Center poll out today who expressed approval for the way Obama is handling the economy slipped to 52 percent from 60 percent in April.

Recent NBC/Wall Street Journal and CBS/New York Times polls showed that nearly six in 10 people said the Obama administration is not doing enough to reduce the deficit, and the Pew poll showed about the same percentage disapprove of the government spending billions to keep General Motors and Chrysler in business.

"They worry that government is going to be too involved in the economy and the everyday lives of the American people," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center.

Obama faces this conundrum: while the country voted resoundingly for a political change from George W. Bush, Obama continues to preside over a country that is fundamentally conservative not simply in the center-right political sense, but in its skepticism of big structural changes to the basic nature of the economy.

When hopeandchange is inextricably tied to disturbing and unsettling changes like auto nationalization and mountains of new debt, the whole "change" mantra tends to lose its luster.

The fear right now is not that the government will do too little, but that it will do too much. Popular resistance to any action to support the domestic auto industry runs counter to the natural political instinct to "do something" to help the little guy keep his job. The American people are way out ahead of Obama and the Republicans because of a basic sense that nationalizing industry is just not something we do here in America, not even temporarily. This is that basic don't-rock-the-boat mentality speaking, I think.

Furthermore, what if health care is effectively tied in to this? The proposition that the President is going to do for health care what he's doing for the auto industry seems pretty toxic, and has a kernel of plausibility, in that new government-owned entitites are springing up all over the place competing in the private market. It's not a huge narrative leap to suggest that neither the government standing behind your new muffler nor it competing in the health insurance market are particularly well-advised ideas.

It is here that I think the seeds of a Republican political recovery in 2010 are born. Republicans don't need to convince the electorate that Obama is the second coming of Karl Marx. They need merely to establish that if one has any doubt that the stimulus, or Government Motors, or health care will work out exactly as planned, the only prudent thing is to vote Republican as a hedge. There has been sweeping economic change these last few months, some of it created by the previous Administration, and little of it good. Sorting out the mess will require a huge national effort, not just one party. And times of sweeping change require accountability, not its complete absence.

Syndicate content