More about ObamaCare: August 27, 2009

ITEM 1:
According to a Fox News report, both ABC and NBC news are refusing to run a national ad critical of Pres. Obama's health care reform plan. The ad was created by the League of American Voters, which describes themselves as a "national non-partisan and 501(c)4 non-profit organization created to keep our elected officials in Washington and across the nation accountable." The ad features a neurosurgeon who admonishes that the current health care reform plan will affect the U.S. industry much like the rapidly failing public single-payer systems in both the United Kingdom and Canada. Quotes from important newspapers scroll across the screen, proclaiming dire consequences if the current plan is enacted into law.

An ABC News spokesperson responded to criticism for this decision by stating that "The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue."

Really? So when ABC essentially gave an entire day to discuss the plan with Preisdent Obama back in June, when did ABC plan on giving the same amount of time to the loyal opposition to provide their views on this complex legislation. This is an example of where the "Fairness Doctrine" could certainly be applied to broadcast TV as opposed to just AM talk radio. 33 seconds vs. most of primetime for a day. To me, it still seems that ABC is in President Obama's hip pocket.

ITEM 2
I read on Breitbart.com that Representative Pete Stark (D-CA), head of the Health subcommittee on the House Ways and Means committee has declared that the "Blue Dogs" (a fiscally conservative faction of roughly 50 Democratic representatives) are "brain dead" and "just want to make trouble" with their opposition to President Obama's health care reform plan. He went on to essentially accuse the Blue Dogs of siding with big-money insurance companies and health care providers in order to "raise money". The political discourse in this country has absolutely gone to the dogs (pun intended). Why can't either side of this debate admit that the other side believes what they want is the best without slandering their character or intentions? Sure... the constituency for the Blue Dogs has nothing better to do than send representatives to Congress who just want to make trouble. I find it interesting that the Blue Dogs are fiscal conservatives. Maybe they have not yet been convinced that ObamaCare won't actually cause our federal budget deficit to skyrocket to the point where we might actually owe more money in debt than our gross national domestic product. And this at a time when foreign countries are actively considering dumping U.S. dollars in favor of a new "world currency" or a fund made up of several currencies, not just U.S. dollars.

ITEM 3
TimesOnline.co.uk: Apparently the Democrats, realizing that the August recess has only shown a weakening of public support for Pres. Obama's health care reforms, are trying to capitalize on the recent passing of Senator Edward "Ted" M. Kennedy (D-MA). Senator Robert Byrd suggested the health care reform plan (currently the United States Nationalized Health Care Act) should "bear his name", while Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) opined "Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality healthcare for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration.” While there is no question that the Chappaquiddick... er ... Massachusetts senator made public health care a major policy priority during his tenure as a elected servant, isn't this getting just a bit operatic?

ITEM 4
This is from CBSnews.com. ObamaCare would require that the IRS (yes, THOSE guys) would be required to divulge taxpayer identity information to include filing status, modified adjusted gross income, number of dependents and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. This information will then be used by the Health Choices Commissioner (a new position mandated by USNHC (ObamaCare)) to determine if someone qualifies for "affordability credits". Don't believe, go to Section 431(a) of the bill. I'd give you the page number, but this thing keeps getting rewritten so the section keeps moving. This is also restated in Section 245(b)(2)(A). Uh, wait a minute... I think I remember reading that the Privacy Act requires that agencies get their information directly from individual, not from other agencies. This would mean that thousands upon thousands of government employees would suddenly have very easy access to some of your most important information, namely, your income. What's to prevent those agencies from using this information in other ways?

Well, that's enough for today... oh yeah, and still no addition of Tort reform in USNHC. Which absurdly brings me to DNC Chairman Howard Dean's opinion on that subject.

ITEM 5
From SFExaminer.com: SFExaminer reporter Mark Tapscott accurately described this slip as "incredibly candid" when he reported on the following. At a townhall meeting hosted by Jim Moran (D-VA), an audience member asked why the legislation does nothing to cap medical malpractice class-action lawsuits against doctors and medical institutions (Tort reform). DNC Chairman Howard Dean, himself a former physician, responded by saying "The reason tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that's the plain and simple truth." Well, great. So it's ok to take on doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharamceutical companies, but those trial lawyers just FIGHT TOO HARD so we'll not take them on, and incidentally, cut U.S. national spending on healthcare by possibly as much as two-hundred million dollars as the result of smaller malpractice insurance premiums and outrageous settlement amounts. Incidentally, you WERE aware that the most common prior occupation for a member of the U.S. House of Representatives is "lawyer", right?