Obama's Healthcare (Obamacare) Is A Fraud

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:19 am

Brandon Turbeville

September 4, 2009

Before I weigh in too deeply on the current healthcare debate I would like to make it clear that I am neither a Democrat or Republican, nor do I consider myself a liberal or conservative. The only alignment I wish to make for myself is with freedom, liberty, and a basic respect for the Constitution.

Let me begin by saying that I am actually quite open to the idea of a single payer healthcare system here in the United States. I have heard proposals that I believe could achieve the goal of healthcare for every American without raising taxes and without the Federal or State governments being involved in the doctor -patient decision-making process. Of course, these proposals have been scrapped and ignored from the very beginning. But, as I say that I am open to the single payer system, it may surprise many that I am opposed to the current healthcare bill generating so much debate around the country. So, let me explain myself.

First, this bill is not single payer. The mainstream media has created a false debate in this country. Liberals and democrats support this bill because they see it as single payer healthcare for all while conservatives and republicans oppose it because they see it as single payer socialized medicine. But as the American people argue over something that does not even exist, they completely miss the things that spell the opposite of healthcare for all as well as the things that are much worse than “socialized medicine. Essentially, this bill is going to require every American to purchase a private insurance plan with their own money. If you can’t afford this private insurance, then you will be “taxed or fined by the government (Title IV, P.167).

Secondly, before denying healthcare to the elderly and the handicapped became a national joke, there was a flicker of debate about what the mainstream media mockingly labeled as “death panels. I regret to inform the readers that these panels do in fact exist both within this bill as well as other legislation. Section 1233 of the healthcare bill is rife with clauses that establish government control over the health care procedures you undergo particularly at the end of life. This section asserts that a government approved list of end of life resources will be established(Section 1233, p. 425) as well as the required “end of life counseling every five years or if his/her health takes a sudden turn for the worst (Section 1233, P.425). It goes even further to say that a government board will determine what level of treatment you will receive, if any, at the end of your life (Section 1233, P.430). Section 1162 indicates that the government will mandate what it calls “outcome based measures, which is a polite way of saying rationing (Section 1162, P.335).

The government panel that will make these decisions is actually already in existence. It was created earlier in the year tucked away safely in the stimulus bill. The stimulus legislation created a new bureaucracy called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research which is modeled on a UK board that oversees the rationing of healthcare procedures in that country and uses a formula to determine who receives care and who doesn’t (McCaughey ). With its’ focus on “cost effectiveness and “outcome based measures, it is clear that the elderly, the handicapped, and the chronically ill will receive far less care than younger healthier patients as they are seen to benefit less in terms of quality of life and quantity of years. Yet it should be clear to everyone that it is not a question as to whether or not these individuals will benefit from the treatment, it is a question of whether or not they are seen as a benefit to the governmental establishment.

If one is not convinced of the intended rationing of healthcare by simply reading the bill, then he/she should consider what the authors and largest supporters have said in regards to it. Former Senator Tom Daschle, also a former Obama nominee for the position of Health and Human Services Secretary, actually wrote many of these provisions (McCaughey). Daschle is quoted in his book as saying that Americans expect too much from their healthcare system and that Europeans should be commended for being more willing to accepting “hopeless diagnoses and foregoing “experimental treatments (McCaughey). He also goes on to say that seniors should be more accepting of these hopeless diagnoses and illnesses that come with age instead of treating them (McCaughey).

Ezekiel Emanuel, health policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget as well as a sitting member of Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research is quoted as saying that doctors take the Hippocratic oath too seriously, “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others (JAMA June 18, 2008,). Indeed, that is generally what patients want from their doctors. In an article written for the Hastings Center Emanuel says, “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia (Hastings Center Report Nov.-Dec. 1996, p.13). Emanuel is clearly advocating a eugenics-based rationing system.

The healthcare bill also contains other frightening clauses such as Subpart XII, Section 340L which establishes a “Corps that will conduct “Home Healthcare visits as explained in Section 1713 to assess the designated families’ “economic self-sufficiency, employment, school readiness, and educational achievement and to coach them on how to raise their children(Section 1713,P.768). This bill does in fact contain provisions that would set the wages of doctors (Section 225 and Section 223), possibilities of a draft to a National Health Service Corps (as mention also in the stimulus bill; section 1713), creation of a National Medical Device Registry(Section 2521), and potential to mandate even the food we eat (Section 3121).

It is important for the American people to realize that this bill is not single-payer and that it does not provide healthcare for all. It is a eugenics program that will ration healthcare for most and outright deny it for some. The mainstream media and those who control it have created a false debate among us in an attempt to divide and distract us from the real issues at hand. The American people continue to argue with one another over issues that do not even exist. While we spin around chasing our tails they attach yet one more link in the chain of tyranny and government control.

http://www.infowars.com/obamacare-is-a- ... s-program/

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:33 am

TruthBringer;1238933 wrote: It is a eugenics program that will ration healthcare for most and outright deny it for some.
How does that differ from the current state of affairs, TruthBringer?

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:43 am

spot;1238935 wrote: How does that differ from the current state of affairs, TruthBringer?

There are many things listed in Obamacare that are not in place in our current system. If we allow for Obamacare to be passed as it is currently written, Americans are going to be in for a big surprise. A shell shocker for sure.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:10 am

TruthBringer;1238937 wrote: There are many things listed in Obamacare that are not in place in our current system. If we allow for Obamacare to be passed as it is currently written, Americans are going to be in for a big surprise. A shell shocker for sure.

You pay very little attention to what other people actually write - let me ask it again.

How does "It is a eugenics program that will ration healthcare for most and outright deny it for some" differ from the current state of affairs?

luciferjohn · Post by **luciferjohn** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:46 am

spot;1238940 wrote: You pay very little attention to what other people actually write - let me ask it again.

How does "It is a eugenics program that will ration healthcare for most and outright deny it for some" differ from the current state of affairs?

i believe he is trying to say it will be worse then it presently is,personally it sounds kinda like the manditory auto insurance bill of the early 60's or 70's, if you have the money no problem if not you get fined or your car impounded,i wonder what they'll impound if you dont have medical insurance???painful thought,anyway hope that cleared that up?:D:D

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:52 am

luciferjohn;1239216 wrote: i believe he is trying to say it will be worse then it presently is,personally it sounds kinda like the manditory auto insurance bill of the early 60's or 70's, if you have the money no problem if not you get fined or your car impounded,i wonder what they'll impound if you dont have medical insurance???painful thought,anyway hope that cleared that up?:D:D

The insurance thing was fine because it was legal not to have a vehicle. Driving being optional one could legally avoid the expense of the insurance.

Capitalist America is turning into a place where it's impossible to legally exist without money. That never used to be the case.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:59 am

luciferjohn;1239216 wrote: i believe he is trying to say it will be worse then it presently is,personally it sounds kinda like the manditory auto insurance bill of the early 60's or 70's, if you have the money no problem if not you get fined or your car impounded,i wonder what they'll impound if you dont have medical insurance???painful thought,anyway hope that cleared that up?:D:D

Are you implying that it is not compulsory to have auto insurance in the US?

Third party insurance has been mandatory here for decades and is considered to be the best way to protect others from a bad driver.

luciferjohn · Post by **luciferjohn** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:11 pm

Bryn Mawr;1239221 wrote: Are you implying that it is not compulsory to have auto insurance in the US?

Third party insurance has been mandatory here for decades and is considered to be the best way to protect others from a bad driver.

what im saying is insurance dosent solve the bad driver problem it just lets more bad drivers on the roads, if the testing was stricter we would have better drivers,all insurance does is pay while people are talking on cells, changing clothes, drinking , doing drugs, these people shouldnt be on the road yet because of insurance they are, and those of us who are good drivers, keep paying for something we never use. its a waste of funds for good drivers, we need a better testing policy, not the insurance thing,right now its easier to get a drivers liscence then a job, people who cant even spell their names are geting driving privlages and it dont make sense to me. not trying to be mean or rude i just dont understand how it makes sense?:D:D

luciferjohn · Post by **luciferjohn** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:12 pm

spot;1239219 wrote: The insurance thing was fine because it was legal not to have a vehicle. Driving being optional one could legally avoid the expense of the insurance.

Capitalist America is turning into a place where it's impossible to legally exist without money. That never used to be the case.

for the most part i agree.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:26 pm

luciferjohn;1239229 wrote: what im saying is insurance dosent solve the bad driver problem it just lets more bad drivers on the roads, if the testing was stricter we would have better drivers,all insurance does is pay while people are talking on cells, changing clothes, drinking , doing drugs, these people shouldnt be on the road yet because of insurance they are, and those of us who are good drivers, keep paying for something we never use. its a waste of funds for good drivers, we need a better testing policy, not the insurance thing,right now its easier to get a drivers liscence then a job, people who cant even spell their names are geting driving privlages and it dont make sense to me. not trying to be mean or rude i just dont understand how it makes sense?:D:D

Could you take me through the logic of that? How does having insurance let more bad driver onto the roads?

The presence of insurance has no bearing on the strictness of the licensing procedures. Neither does it have a bearing on the strictness of the policing of driving standards.

What it does mean is that when a bad driver has an accident, the harmed party will have restitution independently of the driver's ability to pay.

If your car is written off in an accident that was none of your doing or, more to the point, you are innocently minding your own business when you are hit by an idiot mounting the sidewalk 'cos he's lost control of his car, is it right that you should receive no compensation to cover your repair or hospital bills because the driver is bankrupt?

Far better, surely, for all drivers to be insured to ensure that all victims of the driver's incompetence be recompensed.

luciferjohn · Post by **luciferjohn** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:04 pm

Bryn Mawr;1239235 wrote: Could you take me through the logic of that? How does having insurance let more bad driver onto the roads?

The presence of insurance has no bearing on the strictness of the licensing procedures. Neither does it have a bearing on the strictness of the policing of driving standards.

What it does mean is that when a bad driver has an accident, the harmed party will have restitution independently of the driver's ability to pay.

If your car is written off in an accident that was none of your doing or, more to the point, you are innocently minding your own business when you are hit by an idiot mounting the sidewalk 'cos he's lost control of his car, is it right that you should receive no compensation to cover your repair or hospital bills because the driver is bankrupt?

Far better, surely, for all drivers to be insured to ensure that all victims of the driver's incompetence be recompensed.

gladly, if the insurance system was to give discounts of more then a couple dollars to people who took extra classes and training, it would lead to people taking those classes for the discount, with the presant system everyone pays approxamatly the same prices give or take 5 dollars, so people figure why bother with extra courses it dont beifit us any, was that a better explanation?:D

:Dsmiles:D

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:22 pm

Obama's Healthcare (Obamacare) Is A Fraud

Congress doesnt even know what the bill is yet. How could you possibly know?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:05 am

luciferjohn;1239357 wrote: gladly, if the insurance system was to give discounts of more then a couple dollars to people who took extra classes and training, it would lead to people taking those classes for the discount, with the presant system everyone pays approxamatly the same prices give or take 5 dollars, so people figure why bother with extra courses it dont beifit us any, was that a better explanation?:D

:Dsmiles:D

Ours do give exactly such a discount - pass the IAM qualifications and your insurance is cheaper. That's just fine tuning of the insurance system whereas you appeared to imply that insurance was fundamentally flawed and an imposition.

For interest, is it legal to drive in the US without any form of insurance?

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:10 am

"Every state in the Union requires that motorists carry minimum levels of auto insurance coverage (or the equivalent in financial responsibility waivers) in order to ensure that its drivers can cover the cost of damages to people or property in the event of an automobile accident."

Car Insurance Quotes - Instant Car Insurance Rates Online - DMV Guide

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:19 am

AussiePam;1239399 wrote: "Every state in the Union requires that motorists carry minimum levels of auto insurance coverage (or the equivalent in financial responsibility waivers) in order to ensure that its drivers can cover the cost of damages to people or property in the event of an automobile accident."

Car Insurance Quotes - Instant Car Insurance Rates Online - DMV Guide

Thank you, that is indeed a relief.

If I thought I'd be amongst so many uninsured drivers I'd never get into a car in the US again - never mind drive myself.

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:19 am

AussiePam;1239399 wrote: "Every state in the Union requires that motorists carry minimum levels of auto insurance coverage (or the equivalent in financial responsibility waivers) in order to ensure that its drivers can cover the cost of damages to people or property in the event of an automobile accident."Does a financial responsibility waiver cost anything? Must it be bought or can it just be sworn to or attested?

luciferjohn · Post by **luciferjohn** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:03 pm

Bryn Mawr;1239398 wrote: Ours do give exactly such a discount - pass the IAM qualifications and your insurance is cheaper. That's just fine tuning of the insurance system whereas you appeared to imply that insurance was fundamentally flawed and an imposition.

For interest, is it legal to drive in the US without any form of insurance?

i do appologize for the implacation, i was just irratable about auto insurance cause i got my bill and my cousin and i where talking hes got the same rate i do and he,s a lousy driver who has totaled 3 cars, but your insurance setup sounds more logical to me because ive taken mulitple driving courses, including the national safty council safe driving course and exam, so i appologize for any improper implications i may have made.

:D

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:50 pm

luciferjohn;1239817 wrote: i do appologize for the implacation, i was just irratable about auto insurance cause i got my bill and my cousin and i where talking hes got the same rate i do and he,s a lousy driver who has totaled 3 cars, but your insurance setup sounds more logical to me because ive taken mulitple driving courses, including the national safty council safe driving course and exam, so i appologize for any improper implications i may have made.

:D

No problem, I get confoosed easily and need to check that I understand what was intended.

With our insurance, your cousin's premium would be way higher than yours because of the accidents. For each year with no claim (or a claim fully paid by the other driver('s insurance) you get a reduction in your premium. If you make repeated claims for accidents that are your fault (or if you have prosecutions for bad driving) them your premium is loaded. Acts is a good incentive to keep a clean record.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:40 pm

Bryn Mawr;1239831 wrote: No problem, I get confoosed easily and need to check that I understand what was intended.

Do you?

Me too.

Do you ever get stupid? The kind of stupid where your brain just ceases to function? Someone could ask you the most basic of questions and your capacity to not only comprehend but spit out some semblence of a reasonable response is so overwhelming that all you can do is stare at them wondering how your going to get out of there short of slapping them and saying my mother told me about people like you, then hauling ass?

Is this a universal malfunction with others or is it just me?

Its ok if its just me. You can tell me.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:41 pm

Nomad;1239993 wrote: Do you?

Me too.

Do you ever get stupid? The kind of stupid where your brain just ceases to function? Someone could ask you the most basic of questions and your capacity to not only comprehend but spit out some semblence of a reasonable response is so overwhelming that all you can do is stare at them wondering how your going to get out of there short of slapping them and saying my mother told me about people like you, then hauling ass?

Is this a universal malfunction with others or is it just me?

Its ok if its just me. You can tell me.

Very much so - brain malfunction to the extent that the answer has no relationship to the question. Hopefully I fail to press send when it happens but, if I do, sowwweeeeee