BluegrassBulletin.com

Rationalizing Rationing Health Care: The Next Step Toward Totalitarianism

You have no doubt heard the word "Totalitarianism", but do you really know what it means?  From dictionary.com:

1.    the practices and principles of a totalitarian regime.

2.    absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution.

And you certainly know that our nation was born in revolt to "Totalitarianism", don't you?  We declared our Independence from Britain whose monarchy was in absolute control.  We declared that we do not get our rights from men, but that we are endowed with them by God.  Among those rights are the right to life.

Now, with Obamacare moving swiftly through the Congress, we are being dragged back into as state of totalitarianism, where your right to live will be decided by the government.  How you might ask?  By the rationing of health care services.  Take a look at this from the New York Times.

WHY WE MUST RATION HEALTH CARE

You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?

If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasn’t going to be good. But suppose it’s not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man — and everyone else like him — with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone’s life? If there is any point at which you say, “No, an extra six months isn’t worth that much,” then you think that health care should be rationed.

In the current U.S. debate over health care reform, “rationing” has become a dirty word. Meeting last month with five governors, President Obama urged them to avoid using the term, apparently for fear of evoking the hostile response that sank the Clintons’ attempt to achieve reform.

The case for explicit health care rationing in the United States starts with the difficulty of thinking of any other way in which we can continue to provide adequate health care to people on Medicaid and Medicare, let alone extend coverage to those who do not now have it. Health-insurance premiums have more than doubled in a decade, rising four times faster than wages.

President Obama has said plainly that America’s health care system is broken.  Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse.  When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money.

The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable.

Be afraid, be very, very afraid.  And then take action.  Donate, run for office, become involved and stop this communist defeat of our American way of life.  You do see this don't you?

Trey Grayson Just Visiting, Or Is It Something More?

Secretary of State Trey Grayson traveled to the national association of Secretary's of State meeting this week where he was just elected president.  After that, however, he made the 3 and one half hour drive over to visit with someone else, Mitch McConnell's former campaign manager Justin Brasell.

The Graysons and the Brasells are friends, and the side trip to Sioux Falls was a short one by comparison to the distance home from Minneapolis, but the visit no doubt increases some speculation as to McConnell's role in Graysons campaign, and what role Brasell might have in the future.

Brasell is running the re-election bid of John Thune who defeated Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle.  Brasell ran McConnell's campaign last year where McConnell, the perennially unbeatable candidate, barely eeked out a victory.

But by now Brasell has certainly accumulated a strong portfolio of donor information which could help Trey in the next reporting period since many in Kentucky feel that Grayson's good showing with $600,000 plus raised in the last quarter pretty much tapped out his sources.

It is tougher to predict whether Brasell would leave Thune and return to Kentucky to run a Grayson campaign, but his family did make a home in Park Hills and he is still close with Congressman Geoff Davis who is likely to swamp any comers in the next go around.

Could be that they are just visiting, but the chances that politics will not be discussed are thinner than Obama's qualifications to be president, and that's damned thin.

The Dishonesty Of Obama's Health Care Plan

What do you think Obama is up to with his health care plan?  Taking care of the uninsured, trying to reduce costs to the government, looking out for "the people"?

No.  He is intentionally setting about to put private health insurance companies out of business.  That's right, the government is calculating a way to completely wipe out a significant American industry.

How do we know this?  Why they have told us so.  Not only in the words they have spoken but in language written into the voluminous bill they expect no one to read.  But some have read it and here is what it does, as pointed out by Investors Business Daily:

It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

And just in case you find this analysis too hard to understand, just watch this video.  They have told us exactly what they are up to, fraud and dishonesty.

Is The White House Threatening States With Funding Cuts Unless Their Senators Keep Quiet?

Arizona Senator Jon Kyl has been very vocal in his opposition to further deficit spending under Obama's so-called "stimulus" bill.  Now the White House may be playing "dirty pool" with politics over the funding for some Arizona projects in an effort to quiet Kyl down, according to one report.

The White House on Tuesday released letters from four cabinet secretaries to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, citing Kyl's comments and outlining transportation, housing, Indian education and other projects in his home state they said would be eliminated if the senator has his way.

"We certainly hope that they're somehow not threatening Arizona's portion of federal funding based on their disagreement with Senator Kyl," said a spokesman for Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

"It is one thing to joust with Senator Kyl over his position, but it is an entirely different matter for Cabinet secretaries to write letters to the chief executive of a state and threaten funding if support isn't provided," wrote Glen Hamer president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce.

Perhaps what the good people of Arizona and the rest of the US are forgetting is that Obama is surrounded by south side Chicago politicians.  There is nothing too dirty for them.

Did Obama Lie To The Pope?

When POTUS Obama said yesterday that he is going to get his health care plan "done", was this just another piece of evidence that he lied to the Pope?

Some are suggesting that it is.  His health care plan includes funding for abortions:

The Biggest battle for the Unborn this year is about to begin! With Congress considering a massive health care reform before their August recess, pro-lifers must continue to insist that President Obama and Congress respect the consciences of millions of Americans and exclude funding for abortion in a new health care program. In his speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in July of 2008, President Obama stated that in his mind "reproductive care is essential care, basic care, so it is at the center, the heart of the [health care] plan that I propose." When asked for clarification later, an Obama spokesman said that reproductive care included abortion." If Health Care reform passes without an express ban on abortions then Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will force the American people to directly pay for abortions for years to come. Please tell your Representatives to ban the funding of abortion. Tell them you don't want your tax dollars to pay for abortions! [Susan B. Anthony List]

At Gateway Pundit the charge of dishonesty wasn't based on future events, but past behavior:

Already this year, Barack Obama has signed several pieces of abortion legislation including funding foreign abortions. He also signed legislation to use taxpayer money to kill embryos in research. And, democrats are pushing legislation that will force healthcare providers to perform abortions even if it violates their moral or religious convictions.

Barack Obama is the most radical pro-abortion and infanticide president in the last 35 years. Barack Obama even voted 4 times to support infanticide during his political career.

But, that didn't stop Barack Obama from promising Pope Benedict last week that he would reduce abortions.
But, it doesn't look like President Obama was being honest.

Lying to the Pope?

Conway Casts All In With Obama On Cap And Trade?

The fate of all democrats running in next year's midterm elections will rise or fall on the success achieved, if any, by Barack Obama and how closely they will allow themselves to be tied to him.  If Obama's approval numbers continue to plummet and his programs continue to produce little if any results to assist in a meaningful economic recovery, dems will have to run away from him in order to win a seat in Congress.

But that might be hard to do for U.S. Senate candidate Jack Conway who, according to Patrick Crowley at NKy.com, says he favors Obama's cap and trade plan, whereas the other democrat running for Senate, Dan Mongiardo, says he opposes it because it will hurt Kentucky coal.

While his recent opposition to Obama might seem like a good play, Mongiardo might have problems of his own though should Obama continue his slide into the land of disapproval.  Mongiardo, unlike Conway, endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary in Kentucky.

Remember, wagons hitched to horses going over a cliff are apt to follow.

An Astute Observation About Sarah Palin

Not many accounts of Sarah Palin contain such astute observations as those to be found today at Powerline Blog.  I highly recommend that you take a look. Here's a tease:

I don't doubt that she is, personally, a conservative, but her record in office has not been particularly conservative and her political career owes little or nothing to the social issues. She represents, rather, an older strand of Republicanism--the reformist, good-government variety.

So I have high regard for Sarah Palin, the effective, good-government reformer. But that brings us to Palin's press conference and her resignation. The biggest problem with her press conference was that her stated reasons for resigning her office didn't make much sense.

Here is why I think Palin quit: she wants to be the Republican Presidential nominee in 2012. No surprise there, she currently has more support than any other contender in the polls. But she has a serious problem. Her rivals for the nomination are beginning to make the circuit of Republican and conservative grass-roots groups. They are able to criss-cross the country, building up support, establishing campaign committees, speaking to Republican groups on an informal basis, supporting other Republican candidates, laying the foundation for a 2012 run.

FULL STORY HERE

Thank You To All My Readers- BluegrassBulletin Is Two Years Old This Week

I want to thank all of you who read, link to, share and email the work published here on The Bluegrass Bulletin.  We are two years old this week.

In those two years many blogs have faded from the scene.  Some new ones have cropped up, only to stop updating articles and eventually have gone dark.  Not The Bluegrass Bulletin.

Other than the occasional times when pressing matters have necessitated that my attention be directed elsewhere, we have published thousands of articles, received thousands of comments and now have a readership which exceeds that of many newspapers.

In the last two years the New Media has begun to take root.  Some have used their first amendment rights with a limited sense of responsibility.  I have striven to bring you news, commentary, opinion and humor with a dedication to quality writing and respect for the privilege you have given me by being a loyal reader.

In the year to come I urge you to participate more, to share your thoughts and feelings and to invite others to come here.  Whether we agree or not, we are a community.

Thank you.

In The 'Motherland' Obama Inks A Deal To Weaken America

Okay, let's say you and your family live in a dangerous neighborhood.  Down the block is a home occupied by a gang of thugs well known for murder, home invasions and their alliances with other mobs in the neighborhood.  For self defense purposes you keep weapons in your home.  Unlike the thugs, you have never threatened to use them against anybody except in self defense.  You have good reason to believe the thugs are armed too.

Would you think it a wise idea to go down to their turf and say to them, "We'd like to get along with you better, so I have an idea.  We will get rid of some of our weapons if you get rid of some of yours."

And just to help make your point you have your cute little daughter parade down the street with a bouquet of daisies.

Some think that Obama's trip to Moscow was roughly equivalent to the above scenario:

President Obama has to date failed to articulate any coherent strategic rationale for the substantial cuts in nuclear weapons and delivery systems he agreed to Monday with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Obama's inability to do so is not surprising, because he made these commitments without waiting for an up-to-date "nuclear posture review," the definitive mechanism for assessing America's strategic needs.

Avoiding this authoritative process, coupled with the administration's hell-for-leather insistence on ratifying a new treaty by December, and its proposed cuts in missile-defense expenditures and critical weapons systems such as the F-22, demonstrate just how ideologically committed Obama is to a less robust U.S. defense posture. Not only are the proposed cuts in nuclear weapons levels dangerous, but the reductions in delivery systems are even more reckless, as the United States now significantly relies on such systems to deliver conventional warheads. Russia does not.

Obama's approach weakens our nuclear and conventional capabilities, while leaving Russia exactly at levels to which it would otherwise be driven by its own bleak economic realities. Moreover, Russia still insists on linking reductions in U.S. missile defenses to offensive cuts, and Obama hasn't unequivocally rejected this dangerous connection.

Obama's policy is risky for America and its global allies who shelter under our nuclear umbrella. It is hardly the time to shred that umbrella.[John Bolton USA Today]

Obama's Broken Tax Pledge To The Middle Class

Wow, the mainstream media may be waking up just a bit from its charisma induced stupor to realize that Obama is a liar has broken his tax pledge to the middle class and the poor:

President Barack Obama promised to fix health care and trim the federal budget deficit, all without raising taxes on anyone but the wealthiest Americans. It’s a promise he’s already broken and will likely have to break again. Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have already increased tobacco taxes — which disproportionately hit the poor — to pay for extending health coverage to 4 million children in working low-income families.

Now, lawmakers are looking for more revenues to help pay for providing medical insurance to millions more who lack it at a projected cost of $1 trillion over the next decade.

The floated proposals include increasing taxes on alcohol, which could raise $62 billion over the next decade, and a new tax on sugary drinks such as soda, which could raise $52 billion. …

Obama made a firm tax pledge during the presidential campaign, repeating it numerous times in the weeks and months leading up to Election Day: no tax increases for individuals making less than $200,000 a year or couples making less than $250,000.

“Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year. [AP]

You know what they say, once a liar, always a liar.  Now, what was that about keeping America strong by destroying our weapons?