Obama Kicks Crutches from Crippled Soldiers

[Ed Hudgins]

Obama Kicks Crutches from Crippled Soldiers

by Edward Hudgins

March 19, 2009 – We’ve seen this week just what sort of warped morality guides Barack Obama and his administration. And we’ve seen just what we can expect if we allow them to take from us our freedom to make decisions concerning, among other things, our own health care.

The rapacious gang in Washington wanted to generate $540 million in revenue by refusing to pay for treatment of military veterans who suffered disabilities and injuries in the line of duty. Instead, the Obama administration wants to force veterans’ private insurance providers to reimburse the government for such treatment.

This proposal was not some overlooked line in the recent spending-spree bill, which the Democrats who control Congress refused to allow anyone to read before voting on it. Rather, it was put forward in a White House meeting by Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and Veterans Secretary Eric Shinseki while meeting with an incredulous David Rehbein, the head of the American Legion.

Obama, who claims inspiration from Abraham Lincoln, clearly had forgotten the Great Liberator’s admonition from his second inaugural address near the end of the Civil War, “to care for him who shall have borne the battle.”

After several days of outrage from veterans and others, the administration decided to drop the plan. But this episode should not be forgotten because it showed how this administration is morally rotting from the head down.

First things first: The proper function of government is to protect its citizens. Soldiers in our military volunteer for this high calling. They risk and often lose their lives, and many of them come home with life-altering injuries. It is the moral obligation of government—to say nothing of the legal obligation—to assist those who have so suffered in their efforts to protect us.

Now consider what the Obama proposal revealed about the moral premises motivating him and his minions.

Here’s a president who pushed a so-called “stimulus” bill with hundreds of billions of dollars in new handouts and entitlements for those who haven’t earned them, appropriations that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Here’s a president who solemnly promised to go through budgets looking to cut earmarks, yet who just signed a $410 billion budget with nearly 9,000 earmarks, justifying his hypocrisy with a glib remark that it was “last year’s budget.” Here’s a president who wants to bail out individuals who bought homes they could not afford or who wanted to flip houses for a quick profit.

Yet here’s a president who would deny funds to those crippled in the service of their country and shuffle off the responsibility onto the shoulders of others.

This time the administration got caught and reversed itself. But this moral outrage should give every American a crystal-clear view of exactly what sorts of mentalities will be controlling their health care and making decisions for them if the Obama administration and Congress get their way.

It is already virtually impossible to opt out of the current government-regulated system if you’re a senior citizen. You’re automatically enrolled in Medicare when you retire and begin to collect Social Security. And if you and your doctor—virtually every one of them in the country—are taking Medicare money, the government will determine what you can be treated for and what sort of treatments are permitted. If you want to take out your own wallet and pay for some extra treatment that the government doesn’t authorize, forget it. It’s currently a crime.

If Obama’s callous policy toward wounded veterans disgusted you, consider what it will be like to have your health care controlled from cradle to grave by thousands of sanctimonious political hacks and stupid, incompetent federal bureaucrats.

If you don’t like the thought, you’d better take every opportunity to rub your fellow citizens’ noses in this and similar decisions by Obama in hopes that they will wake up to the awful smell of servitude and demand the fresh air of freedom.

----

Hudgins directs advocacy and is a senior scholar at The Atlas Society

[Judith]

It is already virtually impossible to opt out of the current government-regulated system if you’re a senior citizen. You’re automatically enrolled in Medicare when you retire and begin to collect Social Security. And if you and your doctor—virtually every one of them in the country—are taking Medicare money, the government will determine what you can be treated for and what sort of treatments are permitted. If you want to take out your own wallet and pay for some extra treatment that the government doesn’t authorize, forget it. It’s currently a crime.

!!!!

Under what circumstances, specifically, can and cannot a senior citizen pay with his or her own money for health care determined directly between him/her and the doctor, just as one does with one's veterinarian and with no intervening interference?

I need to know.

Judith

[BaalChatzaf]

Obama Kicks Crutches from Crippled Soldiers

by Edward Hudgins

March 19, 2009 – We’ve seen this week just what sort of warped morality guides Barack Obama and his administration. And we’ve seen just what we can expect if we allow them to take from us our freedom to make decisions concerning, among other things, our own health care.

The rapacious gang in Washington wanted to generate $540 million in revenue by refusing to pay for treatment of military veterans who suffered disabilities and injuries in the line of duty. Instead, the Obama administration wants to force veterans’ private insurance providers to reimburse the government for such treatment.

This proposal was not some overlooked line in the recent spending-spree bill, which the Democrats who control Congress refused to allow anyone to read before voting on it. Rather, it was put forward in a White House meeting by Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and Veterans Secretary Eric Shinseki while meeting with an incredulous David Rehbein, the head of the American Legion.

Obama, who claims inspiration from Abraham Lincoln, clearly had forgotten the Great Liberator’s admonition from his second inaugural address near the end of the Civil War, “to care for him who shall have borne the battle.”

After several days of outrage from veterans and others, the administration decided to drop the plan. But this episode should not be forgotten because it showed how this administration is morally rotting from the head down.

First things first: The proper function of government is to protect its citizens. Soldiers in our military volunteer for this high calling. They risk and often lose their lives, and many of them come home with life-altering injuries. It is the moral obligation of government—to say nothing of the legal obligation—to assist those who have so suffered in their efforts to protect us.

Now consider what the Obama proposal revealed about the moral premises motivating him and his minions.

Here’s a president who pushed a so-called “stimulus” bill with hundreds of billions of dollars in new handouts and entitlements for those who haven’t earned them, appropriations that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Here’s a president who solemnly promised to go through budgets looking to cut earmarks, yet who just signed a $410 billion budget with nearly 9,000 earmarks, justifying his hypocrisy with a glib remark that it was “last year’s budget.” Here’s a president who wants to bail out individuals who bought homes they could not afford or who wanted to flip houses for a quick profit.

Yet here’s a president who would deny funds to those crippled in the service of their country and shuffle off the responsibility onto the shoulders of others.

This time the administration got caught and reversed itself. But this moral outrage should give every American a crystal-clear view of exactly what sorts of mentalities will be controlling their health care and making decisions for them if the Obama administration and Congress get their way.

It is already virtually impossible to opt out of the current government-regulated system if you’re a senior citizen. You’re automatically enrolled in Medicare when you retire and begin to collect Social Security. And if you and your doctor—virtually every one of them in the country—are taking Medicare money, the government will determine what you can be treated for and what sort of treatments are permitted. If you want to take out your own wallet and pay for some extra treatment that the government doesn’t authorize, forget it. It’s currently a crime.

If Obama’s callous policy toward wounded veterans disgusted you, consider what it will be like to have your health care controlled from cradle to grave by thousands of sanctimonious political hacks and stupid, incompetent federal bureaucrats.

If you don’t like the thought, you’d better take every opportunity to rub your fellow citizens’ noses in this and similar decisions by Obama in hopes that they will wake up to the awful smell of servitude and demand the fresh air of freedom.

----

Hudgins directs advocacy and is a senior scholar at The Atlas Society

And to think, he has not been in office for even one hundred days.

Fourteen hundred days to go. Will we survive?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

I am going to offer a different take on this proposal. I think it was offered by the Obama administration as a way of taking attention from all the money they are spending now. They can say we tried to save the taxpayer some money but these veteran's organizations stopped us. Don't forget they are going get rid of subsidies to corporate farms too.

[galtgulch]

It is already virtually impossible to opt out of the current government-regulated system if you’re a senior citizen. You’re automatically enrolled in Medicare when you retire and begin to collect Social Security. And if you and your doctor—virtually every one of them in the country—are taking Medicare money, the government will determine what you can be treated for and what sort of treatments are permitted. If you want to take out your own wallet and pay for some extra treatment that the government doesn’t authorize, forget it. It’s currently a crime.

!!!!

Under what circumstances, specifically, can and cannot a senior citizen pay with his or her own money for health care determined directly between him/her and the doctor, just as one does with one's veterinarian and with no intervening interference?

I need to know.

Judith

Hmmm!

I am over 65 but still working more than full time and have health insurance but there is a deduction from my paycheck for unwanted Medicare payment. I pay more in taxes in one year than my mother earned in her whole life, so a few bucks a month into Medicare against my will is just another nuisance tax.

I am not aware that I need permission from the govt to get health care of any kind.

If I worked in a prison I would bring a sleeping bag and stay inside where I might be safe from Dept of Homeland Security. This country is heading in the wrong direction aside from the efforts of the Objectivists and the Libertarians and Constitutionalists.

www.campaignforliberty.com 20Mar 6AM 124834; 21 Mar 125506

gulch

Edited March 21, 2009 by galtgulch

[merjet]

Right on. Imagine how hostile BO would be to learn a private sector employer did not provide workers compensation or health insurance for its employees with hazardous jobs, 100% paid by the employer.

[Robert Campbell]

Ed,

The Obama administration has been getting itself into so many scrapes that this attempt to shift the burden for the health care of wounded veterans didn't get the media attention that it deserved.

Thanks for shining a light on it.

Robert Campbell

[anonrobt]

I understand that the plan has been dropped...

[Brant Gaede]

As I understand it, once you're 65 you get Medicare A (hospital) automatically at no cost to you. Medicare B and D are optional. Now, when you don't have Medicare B and you are over 65 you can go to any doctor you want but that doctor cannot charge you any more than the Medicare B pay sheet permits unless he refuses all Medicare patients. Since I turn 65 on the 28th I have to choose whether I enroll in B and D.

Now with a B payment of $97 a month and no health issues to speak of I still need to see four specialists for catch up. If I lie about my age and even name and pay in cash I can avoid this government mandate crap and pay my doctors what they deserve. If something really serious comes up, I can go abroad for treatment. I've refused to pay for private health insurance for over a decade because of mandates that inflate the cost and because I kept reading about fully insured who go bankrupt for medical costs anyway and because the insurance companies out of their own desperations screwed over their customers whenever and however they could--seemingly--and because of the way health care providers seemingly kept coming after the patients after the insurance paid out.

My step-Mother as a federal government employee (Immigration Judge) had the best health insurance possible because my Dad carefully analyzed all the different choices available to government employees 50 years ago. She spent 12 years fighting the cancer that finally killed her, but the insurance thoroughly protected them from financial disaster. Private people can't go out and buy this type of protection. The equivalent is what the UAW provides its members de facto bankrupting the Big Three.

I believe in health insurance to protect against economic disaster, not for expected visits to the doctor. In the 1960s I was totally against the Medicare enabling legislation under LBJ's Great Society. Now Medicare/Medicaid is going to be the ultimate, absolute ruin of this country, unless they turn it into means testing. That is, if you have any assets you don't get benefits until you are impoverished. They will have to turn Medicare into Medicaid.

I have to accept the fact that for reasons all too logical this great country is fulminating into fascism or complete impoverishment and disintegration. It cannot be stopped. The man on a white horse may not be called emperor but he will be one. That is what I expect will happen. 200-300 hundred years of emperorhood and then the collapse of the American empire. Why not? It's been generations and generations since Americans actually deserved the freedoms they enjoyed, not appreciating properly that they weren't born almost anywhere else. Even 50 years ago they didn't deserve it considering all my brain-dead elementary-school classmates. Think it got even a little bit better since?

(I got caught up in a long conversation and kept drinkin' so I can't be coherent from here until tomorrow so now I'm shuttin' down.)

--Brant

[Judith]

I'm still confused.

As I understand it, once you're 65 you get Medicare A (hospital) automatically at no cost to you. Medicare B and D are optional. Now, when you don't have Medicare B and you are over 65 you can go to any doctor you want but that doctor cannot charge you any more than the Medicare B pay sheet permits unless he refuses all Medicare patients. Since I turn 65 on the 28th I have to choose whether I enroll in B and D.

What the heck are the differences between A, B, and D? Is there a C? :-)

If something really serious comes up, I can go abroad for treatment. I've refused to pay for private health insurance for over a decade because of mandates that inflate the cost and because I kept reading about fully insured who go bankrupt for medical costs anyway and because the insurance companies out of their own desperations screwed over their customers whenever and however they could--seemingly--and because of the way health care providers seemingly kept coming after the patients after the insurance paid out.

Are you saying you could go abroad for treatment of something serious because it would cost you less, you being uninsured, or because of legal issues with Medicare?

I believe in health insurance to protect against economic disaster, not for expected visits to the doctor.

YES!! YES!! A thousand times yes!

I wish people would begin to understand this concept. God damn it, that's what the term insurance MEANS! One doesn't buy auto insurance to cover replacement tires and oil changes! The coverage that always gets me whenever I'm looking over plans is "well baby visits". I'm supposed to pay into the premium pool for other people's babies to go to the doctor when they're WELL?? And these visits are anticipated by anyone having a baby, and therefore budgetable? But NO, we live in a society in which medical care has become expected to be "free", all because of a stupid tax loophole created after WWII. Makes me want to scream.

Judith

[merjet]

What the heck are the differences between A, B, and D? Is there a C? :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

[BaalChatzaf]

What the heck are the differences between A, B, and D? Is there a C? :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

Part C is so called supplemental coverage or "medigap" that covers some of the items, not covered by part D. There a thirteen subplans under Part C labeled a through l and each has the same areas of coverage regardless of what company is selling the insurance. Premiums differ from company to company.

There are other plans such as the Humana ™ plan which offers all the coverage in Medicare Parts A, B, C and D. The catch is that the premiums go up with age and that coverage can be denied because of prior medical conditions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Simply A coverage is for hospital costs, B coverage is for doctor costs and D coverage is for drug costs.

Doctor costs in the hospital can be very costly so I'll probably sign up for B coverage.

You can get major surgery in Thailand and India for a fraction of the cost in the United States in first-class facilities with first-class doctors. There are possible drawbacks. This would be an option for those lacking medical insurance in the US or--in some cases--for those who have it. It is not something I as a Medicare patient would likely choose.

--Brant

[Ed Hudgins]

Judith - Brent, with Merlin and Ba'al's additions, cover the Medicare issue pretty well. You can also check out the Institute for Health Freedom website for discussions of specific topics:

http://forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/M...caid/index.html

Cato also has good stuff:

http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new.p...=49&ra_id=6

[BaalChatzaf]

Simply A coverage is for hospital costs, B coverage is for doctor costs and D coverage is for drug costs.

Doctor costs in the hospital can be very costly so I'll probably sign up for B coverage.

You can get major surgery in Thailand and India for a fraction of the cost in the United States in first-class facilities with first-class doctors. There are possible drawbacks. This would be an option for those lacking medical insurance in the US or--in some cases--for those who have it. It is not something I as a Medicare patient would likely choose.

--Brant

By what raring scheme are the Thai and Indian doctors first class. Also, concerning medical service, would you go to a hospital in a country where 80 percent of the arable land is covered with cow shit and human shit. I am sure Indian doctors wash their hands and sterilize their instruments. It is not going to a hospital in India that concerns me. It is exiting from the hospital. If you go by life expectancy, apparently the excellence of Indian doctors have not help the population of their countries overly much.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Judith]

By what raring scheme are the Thai and Indian doctors first class. Also, concerning medical service, would you go to a hospital in a country where 80 percent of the arable land is covered with cow shit and human shit. I am sure Indian doctors wash their hands and sterilize their instruments. It is not going to a hospital in India that concerns me. It is exiting from the hospital. If you go by life expectancy, apparently the excellence of Indian doctors have not help the population of their countries overly much.

Do your research. Excellent quality heart surgery, orthopedic surgery, and others are available in India in resort-class hospitals with superb service for about $10,000.

Times have changed.

Judith

[Chris Grieb]

Judith; You're not suggesting that Baal is out of step with the times?

[Ed Hudgins]

Robert - Obama's multi-trillion dollar spending, slowness to address the underlying banking issues, inability to find cabinet members and appointees who pay all the taxes that he wants us to pay, and other miss-steps does now have more people doubting his policies, even though his personal approval is still high. With the "tea party" protests in various cities and talk radio on his case, there is hope that the friends of freedom can slow the slide to servitude.

[BaalChatzaf]

Do your research. Excellent quality heart surgery, orthopedic surgery, and others are available in India in resort-class hospitals with superb service for about $10,000.

Times have changed.

Judith

I go by results. Look at the life expectancy in those countries. Pathetic. Also the general level of hygien and cleanliness. If Thailand and India are so great, why to the rich and famous come to the U.S. for treatment?

Superb? By whose estimation.

I would like to see an unbiased evaluation of Indian and Thai medical treatment compared to the U.S. and Canada.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anonrobt]

Do your research. Excellent quality heart surgery, orthopedic surgery, and others are available in India in resort-class hospitals with superb service for about $10,000.

Times have changed.

Judith

I go by results. Look at the life expectancy in those countries. Pathetic. Also the general level of hygien and cleanliness. If Thailand and India are so great, why to the rich and famous come to the U.S. for treatment?

Superb? By whose estimation.

I would like to see an unbiased evaluation of Indian and Thai medical treatment compared to the U.S. and Canada.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Perhaps these resort-class hospitals and surgeons are not for the peasants...

[Dragonfly]

Do your research. Excellent quality heart surgery, orthopedic surgery, and others are available in India in resort-class hospitals with superb service for about $10,000.

Times have changed.

Judith

I go by results. Look at the life expectancy in those countries. Pathetic. Also the general level of hygien and cleanliness.

That in itself doesn't prove that there are no first-class doctors or medical care in those countries. It may very well be that the general population has no access to them. $10000 may be peanuts for us (well, not exactly of course), but I can imagine that such amounts are an insurmountable barrier for most people there.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I go by results. Look at the life expectancy in those countries.

Bob,

That's a hell of a standard for hospital competence. According to your standard (see List of countries by life expectancy), anyone in the USA would be much better off going to several other countries for hospital care, for instance, the communist Macau, the socialist Sweden, the Jewish Israel, the Islamic Jordan and 40 other countries throughout the world.

Michael

[Ed Hudgins]

Folks - This is hardly a serious standard by which to judge places for medical treatment. It's like: "There are some really poor areas in the rural South of the United States where the hospitals are quite inferior. So avoid at all costs the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, since Minnesota is in the same country as the rural South."

Research places for treatment in all cases.