Poll Watch: Only 24 Per Cent Rate Health Care Reform as Most Important of Obama’s Priorities

Posted Posted in Barack Obama, Obamacare, Polling, Socialized Medicine

Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez

So says the latest Rasmussen poll.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of U.S. voters say cutting the deficit is the most important of the four priorities the president cited in a speech to Congress in February, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That’s up from 32% in March.

At the same time, 24% rate health care reform as the most important of Obama’s priorities, down from 29% in the earlier survey.

But a growing number of voters (63%) – up from 54% in March – also see cutting the deficit in half as the goal the president is least likely to achieve.

Just after the president’s speech, 42% named deficit reduction as the top priority while 24% said health care.

And, why?

Americans voters fail to see the utility of Obamacare. In other words: “What’s in it for me?”

The last time Congress tried to overhaul the health care system, most Americans didn’t see any personal stake in it, other than possibly the rationed care the critics warned them about.

Today, White House officials gave another example of how they’re going to help lawmakers make a better case this time. They released a report predicting that most Americans’ income will go up if the federal government can get health care costs under control.

The report, “The Economic Case for Health Care Reform,” by the Council of Economic Advisers, predicts that the annual income for a typical family of four would be $2,600 higher in 2020 than it would have been without an overhaul — and nearly $10,000 higher in 2030. That’s because the increases in efficiency and lower deficits would help the economy grow faster than it would have otherwise, according to the report.

There is nothing but higher taxes and SLOWER economic growth as a result of Obamacare in the future and Americans know that the Obama Administration is spinning the issue.

There has been something very odd about the logic of the Democrats’ case on health-care reform the past few months. Rather than focus on access and the uninsured, as they have usually done and as Obama did during the campaign, they’re talking about their massive expansion of the government’s role in American health insurance as a way to save money, and focusing a lot of attention on the (unquestionably pressing) need to control health care costs. The trouble is, they don’t actually have any plan to control health-care costs.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers released a report this morning that offers a good example of this peculiar approach. It’s basically a 50-page explanation of how wonderful it would be if we could reduce the rate of growth of health-care spending. It’s called “The Economic Case for Health Care Reform,” and it makes a strong case. But it’s not a case for Obama-style health-care reform. In fact, the examples it offers of the causes of rising health-care costs are mostly examples of government-driven inefficiency, especially in Medicare, which hardly argues for a government run insurance “option.”

This is a very interesting tactic by Obamacare universal health care system advocates to promote long term cost savings by allowing the government to have more control of the health care system. You see the federal government already controls 50 per cent of the system with Medicare but Obama wants to control it all. To think that Obama and Democrats argue that entitlement costs will be reduced by creating a vast NEW ENTITLEMENT does not make any sense.

Flap does not think Obamacare will go very far in this Congress.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care Reform?

Posted Posted in Barack Obama, Obamacare, Socialized Medicine, Soda Tax
How does drinking soda relate to childhood obesity? Richard F. Daines, M.D., New York State’s Health Commissioner, explains why more milk consumption and a tax on sugar based soda are better for kids’ health.

There will have to be a helluva lot more soda consumed to pay for Obamacare.

Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system.

The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.

Reducing consumption of sugary drinks will certainly help obesity and dental health. However, I really cannot foresee any beverage tax coming anywhere close to paying for ANY socialized universal health care system the way President Obama has envisioned.

To think so, is just plain stupid. But, you know bureaucrats and big government folks – like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama.

Pretty soon, the government will attempt to restrict the amount of calories an American can consume a day since everyone will be paying for government run health care. You know, less calories, more health, less death – more years to pay taxes to the state.

It is all good, right?

Technorati Tags: , ,

Video: The Faces of Government Healthcare

Posted 1 CommentPosted in Health, Socialized Medicine, Universal Healthcare
Canadian physician Dr. Brian Day discusses the Canadian Socialized healthcare system

A new website is up: The Faces of Government Healthcare

Before Congress considers any form of government-run health care, they should hear the voices of patients denied care because the government deemed it too costly or delayed care because of long waiting lists for surgery or diagnostic tests.

Any serious discussion of health care reform that does not include choice, competition, accountability and responsibility — the four “pillars” of patients’ rights — will result in our government truly becoming a “nanny-state,” making decisions based on what is best for society and government rather than individuals deciding what is best for each of us.

Check it out…..

Shortage of Doctors to Derail Obama Universal Care?

Posted 1 CommentPosted in Medicine, Socialized Medicine
shortage of drs

No, the Obama Administration will simply enter the medical marketplace and train more doctors.

Good luck with that.

Obama administration officials, alarmed at doctor shortages, are looking for ways to increase the supply of physicians to meet the needs of an aging population and millions of uninsured people who would gain coverage under legislation championed by the president.

The officials said they were particularly concerned about shortages of primary care providers who are the main source of health care for most Americans.

One proposal — to increase Medicare payments to general practitioners, at the expense of high-paid specialists — has touched off a lobbying fight.

Family doctors and internists are pressing Congress for an increase in their Medicare payments. But medical specialists are lobbying against any change that would cut their reimbursements. Congress, the specialists say, should find additional money to pay for primary care and should not redistribute dollars among doctors — a difficult argument at a time of huge budget deficits.

Some of the proposed solutions, while advancing one of President Obama’s goals, could frustrate others. Increasing the supply of doctors, for example, would increase access to care but could make it more difficult to rein in costs.

Every socialized plan by the Obama Administration and every argument for universal care leads to the main question: Who is going to pay for this?

Unless you ration the care like the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, bureaucratize care and have government price controls, universal health care is simply too expensive for the government to provide. Even with that the NHS provides abysmal care with horror stories at least once a week in the U.K. press.

Now, the Obamacare advocates are worried about the number of primary care physicians. They might want to address the question as to how many doctors will continue to practice if they radically change the health care system in the United States?

Technorati Tags: ,