President Obama has announced that he will give a major speech on Health Care next Wednesday. With his approval ratings plummeting and the wreckage of the Health Care Town Hall meeting ringing in his mind. Obama realizes that his grasp on the ability to socialize 1/6 the of the gross national product is slipping away.
Thus, he will address the nation and the Congress next Wednesday evening at prime time to try and salvage his "prize" piece of legislation that he promised the Left wing of the Democrat party during his campaign for the Oval Office.

I expect as usual he will try to confuse and confound the public about what he is trying to do. He will once again demonize the industry and say it is time to have real competition in the Health Insurance Industry, This is a canard that any one who looks at what he is saying is the exact opposite of the facts. There are 1300 Health Insurance Companies that sell Health Insurance in this country.
The problem is not that there are not enough companies offering health insurance, but some State laws prohibit Insurance companies domiciled in another state from selling in their state. This is part protectionism for the Insurance companies in their state and part because they want the license fee to allow a company to sell in their state. This is a simple matter that can be resolved by passing a Federal law to allow all Health Insurance Companies to sell in all states provided they are properly capitalized.

The President will probably throw a bone to the people and Congress by saying he will abandon the Federal government option in favor of the scheme that includes Co-operatives.

This word co-operative is a semantic example of slipping in a word that appears to abandon the govt. option, but in fact does not!
In the first place the legislation that includes co-operatives also includes "seed money" of five billion dollars from the Federal government. And lest you forget, he who pays the piper calls the tune!

The following excerpt from CSNNews.com shows just how involved the Federal government will be involved in any co-operative scheme for health care reform, so do not be fooled by the man behind the curtain!
"The health care bill under consideration in the House of Representatives would give President Obama the authority to name a new federal “Health Choices Commissioner” who would have sweeping power to govern the health insurance plans offered in a so-called "exchange" where millions of Americans would get their health insurance if the bill is enacted.

These powers would include deciding which treatments are covered, which companies can participate, which states can run their own exchange, and enrolling individuals into the public exchange.

Though the bill, House Resolution 3200, faces many political hurdles, it has passed three House committees and could be ready for a floor vote after Congress returns from recess. The overhaul package calls for establishing a health insurance exchange where people earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level will be able to purchase health insurance with the help of federal subsidies. This exchange would include a "public option" government-run health care plan as well as private plans that provide a minimum benefits package dictated by the government.

The Health Choices Commissioner would establish “the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefit plans during each plan year,” according to page 84 of the 1,018-page bill. That means the commissioner would determine what benefits the participating insurance companies must offer participating customers in the exchange.

The commissioner would also set rules for insurance companies to participate in the health insurance exchange, and establish criteria for individuals to receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance in the exchange, according to section 142 on page 42 of the legislation.

Further, the commissioner would have the authority to establish “automatic enrollment” of individuals who qualify for the health insurance exchange.

“The Commissioner shall provide a process under which individuals who are Exchange-eligible individuals described in subparagraph (B) are automatically enrolled under an appropriate Exchange participating health benefits plan,” the legislation says, beginning on page 97. “Such process may involve a random assignment or some other form of assignment that takes into account the health care providers used by the individual involved or such other relevant factors as the Commissioner may specify.”

The exchange eligible individuals [determined by subparagraph (B)] include someone who “has not opted out from receiving such affordability credit,” someone who “does not otherwise enroll in another exchange participating health benefits plan,” and someone “enrolled in an Exchange-participating plan that is terminated (during or at the end of the plan year) and who does not otherwise enroll in another Exchange participating health benefits plan.”

The next thing he will do is try to scare the public by saying that if they do not pass the government option, the Heath Insurance Industry will continue to raise their premiums and more people will go bankrupt. The fact is that if we get the govt. option they will force the private health insurers out of business by offering such low premiums to begin with that private insurers cannot compete. But once they have control of the health care market the taxes and fees will cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and will bring senior citizens and the infirmed rationing, as every other nation has experienced who have government controlled health care!

Leopard does not change it's spots, and a radical community organizer will not abandon his determination to change our country from a free enterprise system that is the American dream, to a Marxist socialist country where the government tells you how to live and regulates every portion of our Industry and commerce. He has a good start by taking over the General Motors company and essentially dictating how bankers and investment houses can pay their executives.

Please do not allow smooth talk and promises of reducing the debt by nationalising our health care system. No major government program has ever reduced costs to taxpayers. Good examples are social security, medicare and the rail and postal service. All of these plans started small with little impact on taxpayers.
The best example is Medicare which now takes 7.65 cents out of every dollar that taxpayers make up to $107,000. This amounts to $8,185/year!

In 2008, we had 45 million people on Medicare. It cost $11,000 per year per person. In 2018, the Medicare trustees project that number to rise to 59 million as the baby-boomers retire. An average cost per person at $17,000 a year. Are we looking at higher taxes, co-pays, deductibles? Is health care for seniors going to cost a lot more than what it’s costing right now?

Therefore, if we continue to tax an average 18 percent or 19 percent of GDP--as we have since World War II--almost all of that federal revenue would have to go to funding Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Put another way, we would have to eliminate the rest of the federal government as we know it, including the Defense Department.Source:The Heritage Foundation.com

Of course, we could try to borrow our way out of this shortfall, but it would mean essentially trying to borrow the equivalent of $1 trillion per year in current dollars. That amount would grow dramatically simply because of interest costs and would quickly outpace savings here and abroad.And Obama is going to lie to the American public when he talks to a joint session of Congress by saying we must have the Government controlling health care costs in one form or another. This will be getting the socialist "camels nose under the tent", and expect amendments to follow.

No matter what he proposes, to accomplish his radical objectives--Socialism!!
It might be $13 trillion in promised, but unfunded, benefits over the long term. Whatever the total might be, it is an unlimited amount because this is an entitlement.

Do not be confused by semantics and smooth talk!!

It is a fact that president Obama said in 2003, when he was campaigning for a seat in the U.S. Senate, that he desires/wants a single payer health care system.
He said: "I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out."

Despite the president's statement, the lying Democrats keep telling the people that their plan will allow all people who have health insurance to keep it. What they do not tell you is that no insurance company can compete with a program that is priced so low that employers and individuals will be forced by economics to switch to the government plan.

Why can the government run a health plan that is actuarially unsound? Because they do not pay for the losses, the tax payer does! This has been happening for decades with the Social Security System and the Medicare and Medicaid plans. Not one of the three is actuarially sound or solvent!!
Looking at the costs of Medicare, Medicare is not controlling costs. Rather, it is allowing costs to grow faster than costs for private insurance, but balancing this by shifting an increasing share of those costs onto other payers, including the (seniors)beneficiaries themselves!

Despite the claims of "public plan" proponents, the available evidence from the nation's largest and oldest public plan does not indicate that a new or expanded public plan modeled on Medicare could provide Americans with health care that is comparable to that offered by existing private plans, much less at a lower cost.

The rationale for creating a new public program modeled on Medicare is based on four erroneous beliefs: 1. that Medicare, compared to private-sector health plans, provides comparable access to health care at costs that grow more slowly than those of the private sector; 2. that Medicare has lower administrative costs than private insurance; 3. that Medicare uses superior bargaining power to reduce health care costs without harm to patients; and 4. that public health plans are more innovative, whereas private health plans only follow the government's lead.

All of these assertions are verifiable false. Contrary to the claims of public plan advocates, and the president!

Total per-beneficiary health care costs are growing faster for Medicare patients than for private insurance patients. Medicare's per-beneficiary patient care costs appear to grow more slowly than costs in the private sector only if one ignores the fact that Medicare is paying a rapidly shrinking share of its beneficiaries' total health care costs. Total per-beneficiary patient care costs for Medicare patients are growing faster than total costs for patients with private insurance. However, spending by the Medicare program is growing more slowly than private insurance because much of the growth in health care costs for Medicare beneficiaries is offset by increased out-of-pocket spending by beneficiaries and other sources of private-sector funding.

Medicare's per-beneficiary administrative costs are substantially higher than the administrative costs of private health plans. The illusion that Medicare's administrative costs are lower comes from expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs, including patient care. Medicare's average patient care costs are naturally higher because its beneficiaries are by definition elderly, disabled, or end-stage renal disease patients, so its per-person administrative costs are spread over a larger base of health care costs.

Medicare has no "bargaining power." To the extent that the prices that Medicare pays health care providers are lower than prices paid by private health plans, it is because of the government's regulatory power, not because it reduces the actual costs of providing care or has superior bargaining power. Furthermore, lobbyists for physicians have persuaded Congress in each of the past seven years to intervene to block scheduled reductions in the prices that Medicare pays for physician services--and in six of those seven years to replace the reduction with an increase. This experience suggests that Medicare does not in fact have any bargaining power that would enable it to lower prices further, or even to maintain prices at current levels.

Historically, public plans have more often been followers, not leaders, in health care delivery innovation. It is private-sector organizations that have introduced new quality-improvement methods and new customer services, as well as disease management and coverage of preventive care.

A public health care plan would not improve the current health care situation and would likely make matters worse. Far from saving enough to cover the uninsured, it would increase the cost of covering even the presently insured at the current standard of care. A public plan could reduce overall spending only at the cost of substantial harm to patients by rationing or denial of care.

Why do the Democrats and their sycophants like AARP not want these facts known to the "mob" that is attending their propaganda sessions that they call Town Hall meetings?
As the Heritage Foundation's Robert A. Book states in his recent article: "by its nature, any public plan would be driven by congressional interventions, bureaucratic processes, and lobbying rather than by incentives to innovate in the financing and delivery of quality, efficient health care. This same phenomenon was evident with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, "public plan" mortgage companies that were established to compete with private lenders to "keep them honest" and increase levels of home ownership. Driven by congressional interventions, an implicit government guarantee, and lending policies at odds with economic reality, these public mortgage companies collapsed and threw the entire financial system into chaos. A "Freddie Doc" would eventually produce similarly disastrous results".Source:Heritage Foundation

There is a good reason why the "goons" of SEIU and ACORN have shown up at meetings about health Care reform. The Union movement has invested heavily in the passage of Obama Care.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi received union contributions that totaled the second-largest amount of labor PAC cash, getting $144,000. The California Democrat was followed by another, Rep. George Miller, the Education and Labor chairman, who received $119,540. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was next. His campaign committee collected $115,500.
Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center and a former FEC chairman, said it is not surprising that labor leads the pack in giving this year.

“The unions have an agenda in this Congress, and they are trying to move legislation,” Potter said. He added that unions, which give overwhelmingly to Democrats, also may be trying early in the election cycle to shore up the majority party in Congress, particularly its vulnerable members.

Speaking out for what you believe and then you are called a Nazi or a stooge for the Insurance Industry, and be threatened and possibly assaulted by union bullies is something out of the history of tyrants!

Democrats apparently only believe in freedom of speech when you agree with them. They are as intolerant as the Bolshevist thugs who ruled Russia for over 60 years.

Silence is acceptance! Speak out loudly and often. We want our country back! Stop National Health care! Stop Cap and Trade!
Or live with the dire consequences!!