Showing posts with label Government Control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government Control. Show all posts

Monday, October 19, 2009

Microchipping: What You Need to Hear

We've all heard it. Microchipping would enable doctors to link to a database and be able to view your medical information. Beware this benign campaign, folks. It opens the door to government intrusion even further.




Sounds pretty safe, eh? I mean this could come in handy should you find yourself in an emergency room on vacation, right? The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Two days from now, representatives from the VeriChip Corporation and RECEPTORS LLC will meet in New York to unveil two new proposals. One is a virus triage detection system. It would utilize a small strip or test tube and a reader similar to the glucometers used by diabetics to check their blood sugar levels. The other is a plan to get diabetics to have their blood sugar levels monitored via an implanted RFID microchip. No more pricking your finger or resetting your glucometer. The chip would provide a reading at any time.

To read more about this, click here.

I'll be honest. Microchipping scares the crap outta me. Not only because of my personal religious beliefs, but because it allows for more government control of the people. Yes, we got Zeus chipped earlier this year, but he's not going to be carrying our personal information on it. In fact, should he run off and be scanned, all they'll know is where the chip was implanted. From there, my vet can contact me.

Think of what could be done with a microchipped population. No need for money conversion anywhere in the world (a one-world currency system), the ability to see whether or not you contracted an STD in college, and viewing your entire criminal history (including a shoplifting charge you had as a juvenile) would become conveniences of an already overreaching government. In fact, I offer a one-world government.

What would be the next step? Requiring a chip to drive? Want a credit card? Filling out that pesky application would become a thing of the past. When the government can't find a fugitive, GPS tracking within the chip would solve that problem. Then, and this is where my belief system comes in, you can't do business without a chip. All done in the name of convenience and efficiency.

The problem of convincing people that this is a real possibility (and arguably a foretold reality) is that those who float the idea of microchip abuse are often painted as religious zealots or crackpots. Those of you who are regulars here: Do I fit that description?

I urge each of you to look within yourselves and decide whether this is something that you're comfortable with. Explore your faith and your conscience. If you fear being labeled as crazy or paranoid, don't be afraid.

There ARE people who agree with you.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Education: Other Views


Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
-Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

*******************************

When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.” -Adolf Hitler

********************************

“Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” -Josef Stalin

**********************************

"The education of all children,
from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care,
shall be in state institutions at state expense."-- Karl Marx

****************************

"We who are engaged in the sacred cause of education are entitled to look upon all parents as having given hostages to our cause."

-- Horace Mann, father of common (government)school movement.

****************************

"At every hour of every day, I can tell you on which page of which book each school child in Italy is studying."

-- Benito Mussolini - Italian Fascist Dictator

***************************

"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our Founding Fathers, toward his parents, toward belief in a supernatural being, toward sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity... It's up to you to make all these sick children well."

-- Chester Pierce - Harvard University Psychology professor.

****************************

“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” -- Josef Stalin

***************************

In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present eduction conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds, and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people, or any of their children, into philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen – of whom we have an ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.
– John D. Rockefeller General Education Board (1906)

**********************************

We must create out of the younger generation a generation of Communists. We must turn children, who can be shaped like wax, into real, good Communists.... We must remove the children from the crude influence of their families. We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them. From the first days of their lives they will be under the healthy influence of Communist children's nurseries and schools. There they will grow up to be real Communists.
– Communist Party Education Workers Congress (1918)

**********************************

Teachers are directed to instruct their pupils... and to awaken in them a sense of their responsibility toward the community of the nation.
–Bernhard Rust, Nazi Minister of Education, from "Racial Instruction and the National Community," 1935

************************************

It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.
– Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany


Am I the only one thinking about how this just smacks of today's left?

Monday, August 31, 2009

How Close to Communism Are We?


In the recent debate over socialized medicine, those of us who believe in liberty and the power of the free market system have been labeled "Communists" for speaking out against a massive power grab on the part of the government. But do we really understand what constitutes a Communist nation? I, for one, really didn't understand EXACTLY what that meant: until now. And it scares the crap out of me.

My perception of Communism was limited to my experiences growing up as a teenager in the 80's when the Soviet Union exemplified Communism. We knew that people waited for hours for bread and other basic necessities and that the media was controlled by the State. Little did I know that now, in my adult years, my beloved country is on the brink of becoming a symbol of everything the Founding Fathers abhorred.

In 1848, Karl Marx published The Communist Manifesto, which gave specific criteria outlining what Communism is and what it takes for a country to be considered Communist. The following is a list of what are considered the ten "planks" of Communism. As you read them, think about what we've seen transpire since January.

  1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes -- I'm no expert, but for some reason, the terms "zoning laws" and "eminent domain" come to mind.
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax -- Remember this one on April 15. We are taxed on everything from vices to merely existing. What's that? There is no such tax? Oh, yes there is. It's called the per capita tax.
  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance -- When a loved one passes and you inherit their property, you pay a tax on it despite the fact that the taxes on that property have already been paid. If you don't pay it, the government will take it. By making the "death tax" onerous, it could potentially ensure that the government gets the deceased's estate.
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels -- This one could come down to interpretation of words. Who's to say that a "rebel" isn't one of us bloggers or the average American who doesn't agree with the government? And how many times has the IRS been used against political enemies? If necessary, Google "Billy Dale" or "Clinton Travelgate."
  5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly -- The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE banking entity regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), another privately-owned entity. All local banks are members of the Fed system, which practices fractional reserve banking and sets the standards that the government follows like blind sheep.
  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State -- One only has to look to the recent legislation introduced by Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to know that control of communication is a real possibility. Couple that with the capitulation of the MSM and you've got state-run media. With regard to transportation, any trucker will tell you about all the restrictions placed on them depending upon the load. At the very least, there's the DOT. The government has taken complete control over who can drive and who can't through the licensing process. Sounds centralized to me!
  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan -- Department of Agriculture regulations regarding what can and cannot be used in farming would, in my opinion, fall under this heading.
  8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for farming. -- Affirmative Action and Obamacorps, anyone? How many times have we heard the call from 1600 for America's youth to volunteer, especially in the "green" industry? And all Affirmative Action does is take away the right of an employer to hire the best of the best regardless of skin color. It's forced integration and reverse discrimination.
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country. -- For now, we do have the Tenth Amendment to protect states from the federal government overreaching its powers. Without it, I'm almost certain this administration would have already erased state borders, creating one huge state. Population redistribution has already been done. A recent ruling in Federal Court dictates that Section 8 housing MUST be built in the predominantly affluent area of Westchester County, New York. Hope the Clintons enjoy living in the small microcosm of the world that they've wanted to create for years.
  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. -- Those of us who don't send our kids to private schools have no option other than government-run indoctrination centers. Homeschooling, you say? While parents have the option of homeschooling their most precious gifts from God, the government still has a hand in it. In most states, students are still required to take government-created standardized tests. And Heaven forbid we teach the kids of today about work. No wonder the vast majority have NO work ethic whatsoever and a complete disregard for any structure within a business. Half of them don't care about being on time or doing the very best job they can. Just ask anyone who has worked with them in the fast food industry as I have.
Now that you may have a more clear understanding of what Communism truly is, only one question remains: To what lengths will you go to to defend the sanctity of the principles put on paper by the Founders?

We now know our enemy, and he took office January 20, 2009.

Saturday, August 8, 2009

National Guard: Internment Jobs Available


From worldnetdaily.com comes even more telltale signs of what may soon be in this great country. I about crapped myself!! Thank Heaven for the Second Amendment. That may be our last line of defense against tyranny.

This is a long article, but very much a necessary read.


WND Exclusive
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
National Guard asked to explain 'internment' jobs
Campaign recruiting for workers at 'civilian resettlement facility'

Posted: August 07, 2009
11:45 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

An ad campaign featured on a U.S. Army website seeking those who would be interested in being an "Internment/Resettlement" specialist is raising alarms across the country, generating concerns that there is some truth in those theories about domestic detention camps, a roundup of dissidents and a crackdown on "threatening" conservatives.

The ads, at the GoArmy.com website as well as others including Monster.com, cite the need for:

"Internment/Resettlement (I/R) Specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility. I/R Specialists provide rehabilitative, health, welfare, and security to U.S. military prisoners within a confinement or correctional facility; conduct inspections; prepare written reports; and coordinate activities of prisoners/internees and staff personnel.

The campaign follows by only weeks a report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security warning about "right-wing extremists" who could pose a danger to the country – including those who support third-party political candidates, oppose abortion and would prefer to have the U.S. immigration laws already on the books enforced.

The "extremism" report coincided with a report out of California that the Department of Defense was describing protesters as "low-level terrorists."

The new ad says successful candidates will "provide external security to … detention/internment facilities" and "provide counseling and guidance to individual prisoners within a rehabilitative program."

Officials at the state and federal National Guard levels told WND they were unaware of the program, although one officer speculated it could be intended for soldiers trained in the U.S. and dispatched overseas to "detention facilities." From the national level, WND was told, officials were unaware of any such "internment facilities" at which there could be jobs to be available.


Army job ad for 'internment' specialist

At a NationalGuard.com website, a front page video describes the position thoroughly.

But one of the critics was a YouTube contributor who identifies himself as jafount and titled his video, "Want a job putting people into camps?"

Alarmed by the ads, he said it, the idea "just absolutely blew my mind."

Citing a promise that successful applicants would be trained in "search and restrain procedures," he said, "That's code for violating the 14th Amendment."

Likewise, he said, "use of firearms" is "code for depriving somebody of their life.'

"This is the real deal, I think," he said, citing, among others, the NationalGuard.com link.

"I saw something that didn't sit right with me. I posted it so other people can investigate," he said.

A commenter on the YouTube site pooh-poohed the whole suggestion.

"You have … put out a relatively benign fact, twisted it into something sinister, and then did a tinfoil-hat connection to give a false impression," the forum participant wrote.

The ads list as "advanced responsibilities" issues such as supervision and administration, responsibility for the "prisoner/internee" population, "custody/control for the operation of an Enemy Prisoner of War/Civilian Internee (EPW/CI) camp," and work on "custody/control for the operation of detention facility or the operation of a displaced civilian (CD) resettlement facility."

An editorial at CanadaFreePress.com raised some overall concerns:

Let's look at some of the evidence we have of the U.S. government's intentions to establish the infrastructure that could be used to house large numbers of political dissidents, so-called terrorists and other individuals the U.S. government wants locked up.

HR 645 the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act is a proposed bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would authorize FEMA to build no less than six National Emergency Centers throughout the U.S. on closed or open military facilities. These facilities are to be designed to house large numbers of people. Why would emergency centers need to be built on closed or open military facilities unless there was a need to keep people from coming in and out of them?

KBR was granted a government contract a few years ago to build facilities to house illegal immigrants. Now with illegal immigration becoming less of a problem with the U.S. economy in the toilet, these facilities can now be used for other purposes.

"This is just another step in the U.S. government's long term plan to build the infrastructure that could be used to contain wide spread popular revolt. Combine this with the swine flu fear mongering and the potential for a mass swine flu vaccination operation and it is easy to see what might happen. Refuse to take their poisonous vaccine and you might risk being locked up as being a hazard to public safety. With the economy in the toilet and more and more people not trusting either political party or the corporate media, the 'powers that be' realize that they need to continue building their martial law apparatus. These Army National Guard job listings are just another piece to that puzzle proving what we already know is being built," the editorial claimed.

At the Examiner, a commentator wrote, "Correctional/internment facilities? I have to admit that the U.S. government is good at one thing: creating fluffy names for evil acts. During WW2, of course, the U.S. didn't have concentration camps, we had 'relocation centers' for hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese citizens."

The jobs also were listed at Jobsearch.money.cnn.com, employmentguide.com and freedomsphoenix.com.

WND reported when the DoD eventually withdrew a training manual question that linked protesters across the United States to terrorism.

That followed by only weeks a Department of Homeland Security report that described as "right-wing extremists" those who oppose abortion and support secure national borders.

Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, has told WND that as part of his organization's research for its lawsuit over the DHS "extremism" report, it has discovered additional information that it is withholding now but will include in a pending amended complaint.

Thompson said one of the things that sparked the organization's curiosity was a reference by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in the original report to not only government resources but also non-governmental resources.

Thompson said the information he has "creates even more concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is unconstitutionally targeting Americans merely because of their conservative beliefs."

The earlier DHS report was "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." WND has posted the report online for readers to see.

The report linked returning veterans with the possibility of terrorism, and when it was released it created such a furor for Napolitano she has given several explanations for it, including that she would have reworded the report and that it was issued by a rogue employee.

She later apologized to veterans for having linked them to terror.

But Thompson noted that the report also targeted as "potential terrorists" Americans who:

  • Oppose abortion

  • Oppose same-sex marriage

  • Oppose restrictions on firearms

  • Oppose lax immigration laws

  • Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs

  • Oppose continuation of free trade agreements

  • Are suspect of foreign regimes

  • Fear Communist regimes

  • Oppose a "one world" government

  • Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world

  • Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India, and more

Thompson told WND no apology has been offered to the members of any of those classes of citizens.

Thompson said the original "extremism" report was "the tip of the iceberg. … Conservative Americans should be very outraged."

The Thomas More Law Center filed its lawsuit against Napolitano and the DHS on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Inc. and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.

It alleges the federal agency violated the First and Fifth Amendment constitutional rights of the three plaintiffs by targeting them for disfavored treatment and chilling their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that DHS encouraged law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.

Friday, August 7, 2009

Here Comes the SS


Foxnews.com is reporting that the White House is vowing to 'punch back twice as hard' to defend Democrats from criticism should they support Obamacare.

In a counseling session on how to handle disruptions by concerned citizens, senators were told to emphasize issues such as insurers denying coverage for pre-existing conditions as their polling numbers show it's a winner. They feel this could sway independents, women, seniors, and rural voters. Evidently, they haven't stepped out of the ivory towers long enough to learn WE DON'T WANT IT.

Harry Reid (D-NV) has accused the Republican party of organizing these disruptions. Evidently, he doesn't think we're smart enough to speak our minds on our own.

"These are nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate that we should have, and are having," Reid said Thursday. "They are doing this because they don't have any better ideas.

They have no interest in letting the negotiators, even though few in number, negotiate. It's really simple: they're taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongerers ... and insurance rackets."

Hey Harry! What about all the libs who interrupted debate time and again when Bush was president? How is what the American people doing now any different? I forgot...it's different when you're a conservative or libertarian. We're just a bunch of redneck racists according to Murtha. Did that statement sit well with you?

Also Thursday, the AFL-CIO announced plans to mobilize labor activists to attend town hall meetings in 50 congressional districts this month to counter the conservative protesters. You know...the way ACORN bussed in people to protest AIG executive bonuses AT THEIR HOMES. At least we respect privacy enough to take it to taxpayer-funded property.

White House aides David Axelrod and Jim Messina traveled to the Capitol for their presentation to Democratic senators. Senators saw videos of disruptions at events held by House members, and were told to organize their events more carefully as well as work with labor unions and other friendly groups to generate enthusiasm.

Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, also said any advertising attack would be met with a bigger response, these officials said.

"If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard," Messina told senators, according to two people in the room.

"It's a challenge, no question about it, and you've got to get out there and make the case," Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said afterward. "This is not the time for the faint-hearted."

You're right, Mr. Dodd, because WE THE PEOPLE are going to fight this with everything we have. And should you choose to ignore us, start scanning the want ads.

Folks, we've got them on the ropes, and they don't know whether to crap or go blind. The Dems are meeting during the August recess to get their ducks in a row so that in September, they're loaded for bear. KEEP SPEAKING no matter how dreary the outlook is. It's our only chance.

Monday, July 27, 2009

AARP to Members: Obamacare Will Be Great!


Holy cow! Where does a person start with this?

In the July & August issue of the AARP Magazine, an article outlines eight "myths" about healthcare reform and tries to debunk them. It makes one wonder what the angle is being that talk of "end-of-life counseling" has been suggested. Surely, our senior population CAN'T be falling for this. But then again...

Rationing is ahead for everyone should this get through; except for seniors. They won't even get rationed care. But, as it usually goes, the AARP seems to think that everything will just be peachy-keen under the Obamacare system. Have they no shame for selling out senior citizens like they do?

When Newt Gingrich suggested cutting the RATE of increase of Social Security, the AARP was one of the first groups to cry "foul". Why, then, would they sell their members this bill of goods (or no goods)? Do they think it will grant them political clout in future elections? Not with the elitist who currently occupies the White House.

Here is the article. I, of course, will interject my comments and opinions throughout.

8 Myths About Health Care Reform

By Karen Cheney, July & August 2009

And why we can't afford to believe them anymore




Americans spend more on health care every year than we do educating our children, building roads, even feeding ourselves—an estimated $2.6 trillion in 2009, or around $8,300 per person. Forty-five million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever. These staggering figures are at the heart of the current debate over health care reform: the need to control costs while providing coverage for all. As John Lumpkin, M.D., M.P.H., director of the Health Care Group for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, says, "There is enough evidence that it is now time to do something and to do the right thing." The key is to focus on the facts—and to dispel, once and for all, the myths that block our progress. (Since when have "facts" stopped anyone who has previously tried this crap? I think you best check yours. Let the free market system control and determine cost, you socialist!)

Myth 1: "Health reform won't benefit people like me, who have insurance."
Just because you have health insurance today doesn't mean you'll have it tomorrow. According to the National Coalition on Healthcare, nearly 266,000 companies dropped their employees' health care coverage from 2000 to 2005. "People with insurance have a tremendous stake, because their insurance is at risk," says Judy Feder, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. What's more, in recent years the average employee health insurance premium rose nearly eight times faster than income. "Everyone is paying for health increases in some way, and it's unsustainable for everyone," says Stephanie Cathcart, spokesperson for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). "Reform will benefit everyone as long as it addresses costs."

“There are many ways to tackle our health care problem, but we will come up with a uniquely American solution.” (Do you mean the costs associated with frivilous lawsuits also? Tort reform is LONG overdue, and that is part of the reason insurance premiums and healthcare costs in general have gone up, you nitwit. And define "uniquely American". Do you mean free market principles will be in play since that is what our country was founded on? I highly doubt it.)

Myth 2: "The boomers will bankrupt Medicare."
If you're looking to blame the rise in health care costs on an aging population, you'll have to look elsewhere. The growing ranks of the elderly are projected to account for just 0.4 percent of the future growth in health care costs, says Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change. So why are health care costs skyrocketing? Ginsburg and others point to all those fancy medical technologies we now rely on (think MRIs and CT scans), as well as our fee-for-service payment system, in which doctors are paid by how many patients they see and how many treatments they prescribe, rather than by the quality of care they provide. Some experts say this fee-for-service payment system encourages overtreatment (see "Why Does Health Care Cost So Much?" from the July-August 2008 issue of AARP The Magazine). (The baby boomers will not bankrupt the system because the system is already bankrupt, you moron. And if Grandma ends up dying because she DIDN'T get the MRI or CT scan, the family will sue the doctor, hospital, and God himself if they think they can get money.)

Myth 3: "Reforming our health care system will cost us more."
Think of health care reform as if it's an Energy Star appliance. Yes, it costs more to replace your old energy-guzzling refrigerator with a new one, but over time the savings can be substantial. The Commonwealth Fund, a New York City-based foundation that supports research on health care practice and policy, estimates that health care reform will cost roughly $600 billion to implement but by 2020 could save us approximately $3 trillion. (First of all, where is the $600 billion going to come from? That's right...the taxpayers. The same people who are utterly fed up with the entire system and having their paychecks raided. Where is the saving going to come from? Denial of services. I bet this is the same rhetoric that Europe spewed to sell this to their citizens.)

Myth 4: "My access to quality health care will decline."
Just because you have access to lots of doctors who prescribe lots of treatments doesn't mean you're getting good care. In fact, researchers at Dartmouth College have found that patients who receive more care actually fare worse than those who receive less care. In one particularly egregious example, heart attack patients in Los Angeles spent more days in the hospital and underwent more tests and procedures than heart attack patients in Salt Lake City, yet the patients in L.A. died at a higher rate than those in Salt Lake City. (Medicare also paid $30,000 for the L.A. patients' care, versus $23,000 for the care of the patients with better outcomes in Salt Lake City.) (Los Angeles is in a state that will bilk the government to cover the costs of those who wade into this country illegally and demand services. They're trying to recoup money from anywhere and everywhere to pay for their wasteful state spending. Red state, blue state...one fish two fish)

Myth 5: "I won't be able to visit my favorite doctor."
Mention health reform and immediately people worry that they will have fewer options—in doctors, treatments, and diagnostic testing. The concern comes largely during discussions of comparative effectiveness research (CER): research on which treatments work and which don't. But 18 organizations in a broad coalition, including AARP, NFIB, Consumers Union, and Families USA, support CER—and believe that far from limiting choices, it will instead prevent errors and give physicians the information they need to practice better medicine. A good example: Doctors routinely prescribe newer and more expensive medications for high blood pressure when studies show that older medications work just as well, if not better. "There is a tremendous value in new technology, but in our health care system we don't weigh whether these treatments work," says Feder. "Expensive treatments replace less expensive ones for no reason."(Keep the drug companies out of the lobbying business. And any doctor worth his salt will gladly consider cheaper alternatives. All a patient has to do is ask. I know...I do it. You are dead wrong on your "favorite doctor" argument, because only those deemed worthy enough by the government will be practicing medicine, and you will have to take what they give you.)

Myth 6: "The uninsured actually do have access to good care—in the emergency room."
It's true that the United States has an open-door policy for those who seek emergency care, but "emergency room care doesn't help you get the right information to prevent a condition or give you help managing it," says Maria Ghazal, director of public policy for Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs at major U.S. companies. Forty-one percent of the uninsured have no access to preventive care, so when they do go to the ER, "they are most likely going in at a time when their illness has progressed significantly and costs more to treat," says Lumpkin. Hospitals have no way to recoup the costs of treating the uninsured, so they naturally pass on some of those costs to their insured patients. (Everyone has access to preventative care. They can choose to live a healthier lifestyle, and there are plenty of programs to help people learn how to do it. If they choose to wait until they go to the ER, then it is not the fault of everyone else that they didn't pursue or listen to the advice. Plenty of hospitals and clinics offer free screenings on a periodic basis. Take your mush elsewhere.)

Myth 7: "We can't afford to tackle this problem now."
We may be in the middle of a recession, but as Robert Zirkelbach, spokesperson for America's Health Insurance Plans, says, "the most expensive thing we can do is nothing at all." If we do nothing, the Congressional Budget Office projects that our annual health costs will soar to about $13,000 per person in 2017, while the number of uninsured will climb to 54 million by 2019. Already more than half of Americans say they have cut back on health care in the past year due to cost concerns. Roughly one in four of us say we put off care we needed, and one in five of us didn't fill a prescription. Clearly, the urgency is greater now than ever before. (We can't afford to do anything anymore since January 20. Don't you follow the news?)

Myth 8: "We'll end up with socialized medicine."
Some experts favor a single-payer system similar to Medicare or the health program offered to federal-government employees. Yet all the proposals being discussed today would build on our current system, Feder says—which means that private insurers and the government are both likely to play roles. Says Lumpkin: "There are many ways to solve our health care problem, but we will come up with a uniquely American solution, and that solution will be a mixed public and private solution." (Government has no business being in healthcare. Period. If you think that government is going to provide service on demand like we have now, think again. Just ask the folks in Britain and Canada.)

I would hope that the AARP would be honest with their members, but I really don't foresee that happening anytime soon. I guess we here in the blogosphere will have to do the job! Please inform your elderly loved ones of what's REALLY being pushed!


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]