07 June 2009

I Guess The Plan Really Is To Nationalize Healthcare

Ever since the presidential campaign Obama apologists have scoffed at GOP allegations that their sacrosanct saint wants to nationalize health care. His teleprompter soothed Americans with sweet sound bites insisting that it was just about "affordability." His political pimps promised everyone a healthy debate, but behind the scenes they've apparently been hustling their agenda like heroine hooked whores.

Remember how Barack Obama said that he had no intention of trying to run General Motors? Well, he lied.

Remember how Barack Obama said that his health care program was not about nationalization? Well, he lied.

According to The New York Times, the President has decided that it's time for him to take control of the nation's health care agenda "after months of insisting he would leave the details to Congress." Why not, I say. With his lack of experience in the auto industry he was able to drive GM to bankruptcy and lead them to shut down more dealerships and eliminate more jobs than even the worst projections expected to see. I'm sure his expertise as a community organizer will work equally well as he tampers with the most productive medical apparatus in the world -- the American health care industry.

Hugh Hewitt drops the straight scoop on what this really means for everybody:

President Obama is going to throw himself into the "debate" on the radical restructuring of American medicine underway on the Hill . . . Except that there hasn't been any "debate" to date, just a giant head-fake that kept the GOP, doctors, hospitals and insurance companies frozen while the Obama/Pelosi/Reid march towards a "government option" (which means single payer which means rationing and interference with a patent's choice of doctors and care) was positioned for a summer jam down.
Not to mention all of the additional "benefits" we've seen with everything else the government administers: higher cost, higher taxes, less efficiency and a political agenda behind every dollar spent.

And we can expect the same kind of "bipartisanship" with health care as the administration displayed during the development and delivery of their stimulus package, which is to say: the Democrats will bar all Republicans from the discussion as they rub against one another, stoking the Obamic embers that are waiting to blaze in the hearts of the main stream media.

The GM model did show us how Obama and his comrades function. If they can seize control they will do it. And the path of ruin becomes so wide that you will be able to drive a fleet of trucks through it . . . if automotive companies are allowed to build trucks anymore.


  1. Freadom said...

    I'm scared. I pray the good guys can stall him on this long enough for it to fail.

  2. Anonymous said...

    Good article. Why would they destroy the entire health care system in America for about 10-million people without insurance? Isn't there another free market solution? Come on... there must be! Oh yea, doctors who come up with those are likely to be shut down by the government. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

  3. Chuck said...

    On a somewhat related note, I saw an article today that talked about paying for this. Obama's solution is to tax the rich, largely through cutting off deductions.

    Two thoughts on this.

    These are the people that will pull our economy out of the toilet, if we don't take all of their money.

    I wonder how this will effect political donations. How many of the wealthy will still give to Dems if they are taxing them to the extreme.

  4. Z said...


    To a Dem, here's the definition:
    BIPARTISANSHIP = Agree with the Left.

    Chuck's a nurse; I wonder if he knows that almost every doctor I know here in Santa Monica voted FOR OBAMBA..>Don't they THINK about anything but their field?

  5. Chuck said...

    Z, it's not just in Santa Monica. A lot of the nurses and docs voted for him here in Grand Rapids, Michigan and we're fairly conservative in this area. One of the docs must have given a decent amount of money because he sat behind him on the stage at his big campaign appearance here. They will get a big "I told you so" once he starts making medical decisions for them and cuts their reimbursement rates.

    I actually find the whole thing confusing. I listened to him during the campaign, he wasn't saying anything that would indicate he was a friend to health care.

    Quite frankly medical professionals have had a tendancy historically to vote for Dems, I don't get it.

    Just remember, professionals or not, liberals are not very bright.

  6. Khaki Elephant said...

    Just remember, professionals or not, liberals are not very bright.

    Ha. Chuck, you summed it up.