Government Denies Coverage To Mom With Leukemia

The Obamacare cheerleaders often try to demonize private health coverage by finding a story or two about ordinary Americans who were allegedly denied a life-saving procedure by a private insurer. Obama himself made such claims to promote his health care power-grab during a speech to Congress on 09 September 2009.

More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care.

Such statements are usually backed-up by an anecdotal story of some unfortunate individual who was denied coverage or dropped from their insurance just before they were to receive some life-saving procedure. A story such as one about a young mother in Florida who has a rare form of Leukemia and was dropped by Medicare just before she was scheduled to receive a life-saving transplant. Did you catch that? GOVERNMENT canceled this woman's health care policy right before she was going to have a procedure that she would likely die without.

Diana Smith is battling a rare form of Leukemia and needs the transplant to survive. She managed to raise money to pay for it thanks to her friends and the community, but then last week she found out her Medicaid coverage was dropped – putting her operation on hold.

Smith had gone through six months of radiation and chemotherapy -- one week out of every month. She is in remission and had a donor for a transplant; being in remission is a prerequisite for the transplant. [...]

In April, Medicaid canceled her universal health care policy because her income level had risen with her son's payments – making her ineligible for the insurance program.

Well, I thought that only "evil private health insurers" did that sort of thing. You mean government is saying that private insurers are dropping people from needed coverage, using such stories to play to the emotions of the populace in order to grab more power, and all the while the government is doing exactly what they accuse the private sector of doing? Next thing you know, people will be pointing out that the government denies more claims than the private sector does. What? They really do?

Government involvement in health care is going to do nothing more than add more bureaucracy and expense to the process. It is not going to improve health care, and it is not going to prevent people from being without coverage when they need it the most. If you don't believe me, just ask Diana Smith.

USMC 9971 OUT

Did Congress Take Away Their Own Health Care?

There are many news reports floating around today that reference a Congressional Research Service report that has found a provision in Obamacare that appears to prohibit members of Congress and their employees from participating in their current government health care plan. I haven't heard any member of Congress speak about this yet, and I still have not seen the CRS report. I do have access to the Obamacare bill, though, so I started reading.

There it was, only about 150 pages into the law, in Section 1312(d)(3)(D):

SEC. 1312(d)(3)(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.

(i) REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are—
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

(ii) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.—The term "Member of Congress" means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.—The term "congressional staff" means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

This was signed into law about three weeks ago, and unless Congress writes specific language into the legislation regarding the date that a provision is to take effect, provisions of legislation take effect when the legislation becomes law. That means that, unless there is something else somewhere else in the Obamacare monstrosity that would counteract or delay this, it would appear that the new law now requires that members of Congress and their staff may only have health plans made available to them by the federal government that are created under Obamacare or offered through an Exchange established by Obamacare.

Contact your Congress-critters and ask them if they are aware of this provision, and whether or not they intend to abide by it.

USMC 9971 OUT

New Obamacare Departments: Offices of Health Insurance Consumer Assistance or Health Insurance Ombudsman Programs

I'm sick of hearing from the Progressives that the talk of Obamacare expanding government is just a scare tactic. Well, I found a list of newly created offices or progams in the Obamacare bill here, so I am going to go through the list, verify the language in the text of the new legislation, and then present the summary of any new departments and a link to the actual text at the official House website.

Offices of Health Insurance Consumer Assistance or Health Insurance Ombudsman Programs (Section 1002)
Note: The above link opens a PDF of the full text of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" to the page on which Section 1002 begins

Summary
Grants will be provided to the states, or to health insurance exchanges operating in the states, in order to establish, expand, or provide support for Offices of Health Insurance Consumer Assistance or Health Insurance Ombudsman Programs. In order to be eligible for such a grant, the state must designate an office or ombudsman. Funding of $30,000,000 for the first fiscal year, and sums as may be necessary for each fiscal year following the first fiscal year.

Here's the tally:
Sections Reviewed: 1
New Funding: $30 million +

(h/t to Vir Speluncae Catholicus for the list)

USMC 9971 OUT

Spreading Around The Wealth

Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) admits that Obamacare is going to redistribute income.

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

Equality doesn't mean that you have equal outcomes, it means that you have equal opportunities. The Progressives want equal outcomes, but since they are not able to make everyone wealthy, they take from the wealthy to buy votes from the poor and un-industrious. The only equality that we will have under Progressive policies is the equality of being equally miserable.

USMC 9971 OUT

What Change Looks Like

And he didn't even have the common courtesy to give us a reach-around.

(From Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler via Hookers and Booze via Logistics Monster via Daletoons/Out of Order the Blog)

Another Lefty Acquaintance Said...

Yesterday I posted about losing an acquaintance over a disagreement about Obamacare. Well, another acquaintance also made a comment on that same post. He claimed that Obamacare is the same as government running fire departments, police departments, the military, and education. He further claimed that we're paying more now than we will when Obamacare is up and running (no source for that false claim was cited), and then he made this statement (emphasis mine):

The funny thing is that when presented with a choice between enacting something that benefits everyone and paying twice as much for the same outcome many choose some abstract notion of freedom over concrete benifits [sic].

That defines the opposition, folks. He honestly believes that it is better to choose government provided benefits over freedom, and that our freedom is nothing but an abstract notion.

That amazes me. I keep reading that statement, and I am still stunned that he believes that, when given the option of concrete benefits provided by government, we should choose to forego that "abstract notion of freedom" in order to receive the government's redistributed benevolence. Moreover, he seems to have no problem that those of us to would like to abstain from such government largess will be forced into the program; forced into giving up more of our freedom to an overreaching government.

As President Ford said nearly 36 years ago, "[A] government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Those on the Left should think about that quote, and they should realize that they will not be in the majority forever. If there is once again a Republican majority, does the Left truly want to lose the right to choose "some abstract notion of freedom" over the concrete benefits provided by a Republican run government? I'm quite certain that my acquaintance's view of freedom would change quite dramatically were the political tables turned.

As for me, regardless of the political label following the majority of the politician's names, and no matter how concrete the benefits offered by an overreaching government may be, I will choose freedom instead.

USMC 9971 OUT

Looks Like I've Lost My First Acquaintance Over Obamacare

She is a friend of my sister, I have known her since we were kids, and she is a raging lefty. We rarely spoke with or saw each other prior to this, so the biggest impact of this loss will be when my sister (also a lefty) decides to chastise me for not being nice. Not that I wasn't nice, but I'm sure that since my sister's friend was likely offended by my position that Obamacare is de facto theft, I will probably be labeled as mean.

Since Obamacare passed, I have been posting quotes from our Founding Fathers on a social networking site. Yesterday morning I posted the following quote from Jefferson:

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'"

Thomas Jefferson, 06 April 1816

This acquaintance decided to get a bit snarky with me and leave a bible verse comment on my post that she felt would be a good counter to the above Jefferson quote. It was "What you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me." She stated that she couldn't resist and closed with a smiley.

We exchanged a few back-and-forth comments until she asked how providing universal health care was stealing. I tore into that one, and closed by telling her that, if the law stands, I will do everything that I can to pay in as little as possible, overburden the system as much as possible, and undermine Obamacare with any legal means at my disposal. She decided not to continue the disagreement after that, and said that she was "glad [she] won't ever have to live in a country run by [my] philosophy."

Wouldn't it be horrible to live in a country run by a philosophy that a person takes care of himself and his own without having government take from others to provide that care, that a person is responsible for his own choices and actions, that government is limited and rarely involved with the day-to-day lives of the citizenry, and that a person may actually keep the fruits of his own labors? Only a lefty would dislike that sort of philosophy.

As Patrick Henry once said, if I hold back my opinions at this time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself guilty of treason towards my country. This issue is too important to our nation and our children for me not to be engaged, and because of that I will not concern myself that I may become estranged from friends and family over any opposing views on Obamacare.

USMC 9971 OUT

No More Death By Lack Of Insurance, Right?

Megan McArdle has a great item in The Atlantic in which she points out that, since the proponents of Obamacare noted statistics such as American life expectancy and mortality rates as arguments for the need of such legislation, we should be seeing improvments in all of those areas following the passage of Obamacare.

Judging by the statistics that have been used to sell this thing, over and over, liberals are expecting big things.

1) Ezra Klein is confidently predicting that it will save hundreds of thousands of lives.
2) Nick Kristoff expects miraculous improvement in our national life expectancy.
3) Michael Moore thinks this will stop people from getting thrown out of their homes in a Medical bankruptcy.
4) At least one of you must be willing to claim massive improvements in infant mortality, after you've cited those statistics to me over and over.

I think that this is a great point. I may need to start pulling together some stats that were used by the Leftists to push their Obamacare agenda, and then present the target stats that one should expect now that Obamacare has been enacted. If their claims were correct, we will certainly start seeing a longer life expectancy rate, lower mortality rates, fewer people dying due to "lack of insurance," reduced medical bankruptcies, and other quality-of-life improvements now that their will has been imposed.

Use their own words to defeat them.

USMC 9971 OUT

Legal Challenges Against Obamacare

Obamacare is a power-grab, plain and simple. The government can regulate what they fund, and they will make health care government run (and funded) by undercutting and over-regulating the private sector. Some states are going to try to fight this in the courts, though.

"The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives this last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," [Florida Attorney General Bill] McCollum said in a statement. [...]

Constitutional lawyers have questioned whether such a lawsuit could be successful, since federal law trumps state law. But opponents are looking to get around that by questioning the law's constitutionality.

McCollum is joining with attorneys general from South Carolina, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alabama, Washington, Pennsylvania, Utah, Texas and Nebraska.

If this can't be undone in the courts, then we may have run out of nearly all of our options. I pray that's not the case.

USMC 9971 OUT

Boehner's Floor Speech

At about four minutes in, the Speaker (I think it was Obey) says, "Both sides would do well to remember the dignity of the House." What dignity is that pompous blowhard speaking of? There is no dignity left in that den of thieves.

USMC 9971 OUT

Bought Stupak?

Was Bart Stupak's vote for Obamacare purchased? I just saw this little nugget on Stupak's House site.

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) announced three airports in northern Michigan have received grants totaling $726,409 for airport maintenance and improvements. The funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration.

Yep. I'm calling him Bought Stupak from now on.

Vote for Dan Benishek in Michigan's 1st District in November!

USMC 9971 OUT

IRS Needs More Shotguns?

I know that I've been on hiatus, but this Obamacare B.S. is making me extremely upset. In the legislation that the Democrats just voted for, the IRS is being designated as the enforcement agency for their power-grab. The IRS is supposed to get an additional 16,000 to 17,000 more agents due to this happy situation.

Then I see that the FBO put a posting online in early February for new shotguns for the IRS.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.

I know that it's for a mere 60 shotguns, but it will only take one face-off between the IRS and someone who didn't pay a fine after he didn't prove he had health insurance to the satisfaction of the government, and that order will increase by a factor of 10 or more.

Get ready to embrace the suck, everyone.

USMC 9971 OUT

The Five Boxes

I'm sure that most people have heard this (or the mail-box-free Four Boxes version), but I believe that it bears repeating.

"There are five boxes to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in that order."

I have used the soap box in the health care debate by writing on this blog and speaking to others about the monstrosities that are the House and Senate health care bills.

I have used the mail box in the health care debate to contact my senators. Since my senators are Klobuchar and Franken, though, I do not expect that they will represent my wishes in Washington, D.C.

I will use the ballot box next fall in an attempt to get some suitable representation at all levels of government.

The Senate will vote to open debate on the health care measure tonight. Contact your Senators and implore them to vote against opening debate. Let them know (as I did for Klobuchar) that if they aid the passage of the health care bill in any manner, you will actively work against them when they are next up for election, both in the primaries and, if necessary, in the general election.

I never want to need to use the last two boxes, so let's stop this health care fiasco before it begins and prevent the further erosion of our freedoms and liberties.

USMC 9971 OUT

Mandatory Health Care Coverage Will Create A New Criminal Class

Government-run health care will destroy our economy and erode our freedoms. The way the bills look now, it will likely be much more fiscally prudent for many employers to stop providing health care to their employees. Those employees must then either pay for a new government approved health care plan, get no new coverage and pay a monetary penalty to the government for not being covered, or get no new coverage, refuse to pay the non-coverage penalty, and then face the risk of fines and/or imprisonment for lack of compliance.

Think about that last part. If the non-coverage tax ends up as part of the final bill and becomes law, then choosing not to have health insurance will become a criminal act. If you lose your current coverage because your employer drops the benefit and you are unable to pay the full premium, and if you cannot afford new coverage or the non-coverage tax, then you will be a criminal. If young adults who do not have coverage now, or if young adults lose coverage under their parents' policies because of situations like the previous example, then they will become criminals if they are not able to afford new coverage or the non-coverage tax.

Government-run health care will reduce availability and quality of care, it will hurt 16% of our economy, and it will create a new criminal class that did not exist prior to its inception.

USMC 9971 OUT

The Real Cost Of Govt. Run Health Care

The government will destroy affordability, not to mention availability and quality of care, if they get their hands on health care. Contact your senators now. Do not let this pass.

USMC 9971 OUT

More Lies, Less Freedom

If this so-called "health care reform" passes, we will all lose.

USMC 9971 OUT

DMV Style Health Care

This was created by CatholicVoteAction.org, although I first found it in this post over at Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. Fantastic!



USMC 9971 OUT

"Public Option" Voted Down 15-to-8!

Good news! Fifteen members of the Senate Finance Committee (five Democrats, including Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, and all ten Republicans) voted down a new government run health insurance program.

Voted Against Public Option
Max Baucus (D - MT)
Thomas Carper (D - DE)
Kent Conrad (D - ND)
Blanche L. Lincoln (D - AR)
Bill Nelson (D - FL)
Jim Bunning (R - KY)
John Cornyn (R - TX)
Mike Crapo (R - ID)
John Ensign (R - NV)
Mike Enzi (R - WY)
Chuck Grassley (R - IA)
Orrin G. Hatch (R - UT)
Jon Kyl (R - AZ)
Olympia J. Snowe (R - ME)
Pat Roberts (R - KS)

Voted For Public Option
Jeff Bingaman (D - NM)
Maria Cantwell (D - WA)
John F. Kerry (D - MA)
Robert Menendez (D - NJ)
John D. Rockefeller IV (D - WV)
Charles E. Schumer (D - NY)
Debbie Stabenow (D - MI)
Ron Wyden (D - OR)

UPDATE: The roll call above is for the vote on the Rockefeller Amendment. The Schumer Amendment was also voted down; that one was 13-10, with Baucus, Conrad, and Lincoln voting against it along with all of the Republicans on the committee.

USMC 9971 OUT

Sound Off Against Govt. Healthcare

Watch the video above (it's a long one, but it's good), and then contact your representative and senators and let them know that we do not want to have our health care system taken over by the government.

USMC 9971 OUT