| Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page |
|
November 17, 2009 |
|
 |
|
Story #1: Government Rationing: No Mammograms Until 50
RUSH: For those of you women out there who have a lot of hope invested in Obamacare: "A U.S. government group recommends that women delay getting regular mammograms until age 50, instead of 40, the age at which the American Cancer Society (ACS) has long advised women to begin screening for breast cancer. The government group issued its new guidelines Monday, citing evidence that the benefits of regular screening do not justify the potential harms in younger women. ... 'I am appalled and horrified,' says Dr. David Dershaw, director of breast imaging at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City in response to the new guidelines. 'There is no doubt that mammography screening in women in their 40s saves lives. To recommend that women abandon that is absolutely horrifying to me.'" Hello, Obamacare. Here you have a government panel upping the age of mammograms to 50. This is the beginning of rationed care, Obamacare, and he's out there, ladies and gentlemen, talking about the poor discrimination that women face, brutes of men they have to deal with in the United States.
Story #2: Obamacare Support Drops If Tradeoffs Explained
RUSH: This is an amazing story here from State-Controlled Associated Press. They've gone out and conducted a poll out there, and they report that Americans are fretting over health overhaul costs, and what this poll shows is that when you actually ask people about what is in the bill, they don't want it.
If you ask 'em broad-based: "Do you think everybody ought to have health insurance?" "Oh, yeah!"
"Do you think somebody else should pay for your health insurance?"
"Oh, yeah!"
"Do you think you should pay for somebody else's?"
"No way!"
But then you start asking specifics based on the contents in either the House or the Senate bills and it changes dramatically and AP even reports this. And before telling you some of the quotes from this story I have to tell you that it's probably even much worse than the story indicates, because I'm surprised by the quotes they use in this story. "Americans are worried about hidden costs in the fine print of health care overhaul legislation, an Associated Press poll says. That's creating new challenges for President Barack Obama as he tries to close the deal with a handful of Democratic doubters in the Senate. ... The poll found that 43 percent oppose the health care plans being discussed in Congress, while 41 percent are in support.
 "An additional 15 percent remain neutral or undecided. 'Well, for one, I know nobody wants to pay taxes for anybody else to go to the doctor --I don't,' said Kate Kuhn, 20, of Acworth, Ga. 'I don't want to pay for somebody to use my money that I could be using for myself.'" Now, that is fascinating, is it not? I'll bet you she voted for Obama. I'm just guessing. See, I think most people -- most independents, most moderates -- who vote Democrat do so for reasons that you and I wouldn't understand, but they're founded largely in ignorance, 'cause if she, "I know nobody wants to pay taxes for somebody else to go to the doctor," well, do you want to pay taxes for somebody else to eat? Do you want to pay taxes for somebody else to have a home? No! Yet they vote for people who do.
Now, "The latest survey was conducted by Stanford University with the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. When poll questions were framed broadly, the answers seemed to indicate ample support for Obama's goals. When required trade-offs were brought into the equation, opinions shifted -- sometimes dramatically. In one striking finding, the poll indicated that public support for banning insurance practices that discriminate against those in poor health may not be as solid as it seems. A ban on denial of coverage because of pre-existing medical problems has been one of the most popular consumer protections in the health care debate. Some 82 percent said they favored the ban, according to a Pew Research Center poll in October.
"In the AP poll, when told that such a ban would probably cause most people to pay more for health insurance, 43 percent said they would still support doing away with pre-existing condition denials, but 31 percent said they would oppose it." Support is cut in half when you tell people, "Insuring people with preexisting conditions is going to cost you." Now, people don't naturally come to this conclusion, which bewilders me. Actually it doesn't bewilder me. I guess we have a sizable percentage of our population who thinks that government has its own money and that it doesn't come from them, when in truth (as you and I know) government doesn't have a dime without taxing the people who produce the wealth and create it.
They print the money -- and when they print it, and use it, of course, they're causing inflation and adding to the money supply. But they don't generate anything. "Costs for those with coverage could go up because people in poor health who'd been shut out of the insurance pool would now be included, and they would get medical care they could not access before," but it's going to cost a lot of money to do it. "'I'm thinking we'd probably pay more because we would probably be paying for those that are not paying. So they got to get the money from somewhere. Basically I see our taxes going up,' said Antoinette Gates, 57, of Atlanta. The health care debate is full of such trade-offs. For example, limiting the premiums that insurance companies can charge 50-year-olds means that 20-year-olds have to pay more for coverage."
So if you say to the senior citizens and the middle class, "We're going to lower your premiums and we're going to make sure that easier for you to get insurance," somebody's gotta make up the difference. "'These trade-offs really matter,' says Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who follows opinion trends. 'The legislation contains a number of features that polls have shown to be popular, but support for the overall legislation is less than might be expected because people are worried there are details about these bills that could raise their families' costs.'" It ought to be the instinct that everybody has, given any interaction they've ever had with any government program. There is no government program that comes in on budget.
There's no government program that doesn't cost a lot of money. There's no government program that does not cause taxes to be raised. And yet somehow people -- some people -- are persuaded that health care reform is going to expand treatment, make it better, is going to reduce insurance costs and going to reduce medical costs because, what? A couple of millionaires are going to have their taxes raised? If more and more people are coming to realize this is all a bill of goods then so much the better. "The poll suggests the public is becoming more attuned to the fact that in health care, details can make all the difference. For example, asked if everyone should be required to have at least some health insurance, 67 percent agreed and 27 percent said no. The responses flipped when people were asked about requiring everybody to carry insurance or face a federal penalty: 64 percent said they would be opposed, while 28 percent favored that."
"So, should everybody be required to have health insurance?"
"Yep!" (Sixty-seven percent say so.)
"Well, what about if you go to jail if you don't?"
"Unh, uh, uh! I'm not in favor of that!"
"Among Democrats, only 12 percent oppose the broad goal of requiring insurance. But 50 percent oppose fines to enforce it." As to the Senate bill: "Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) confirmed Senate Democratic leaders' fears that he will insist that the massive health care reform bill be read aloud on the Senate floor. That could take days. 'The American people are going to get to hear this bill read, period,' Coburn told reporters last night. The bill is expected to be hundreds of pages long, probably more than a thousand pages. It would take the Senate clerk several days to read the whole thing. One senior Senate Democrat aide said, 'Republicans will be expected to man the floor the entire time if they want the bill read aloud.' Otherwise, [Dingy Harry] might ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Such requests are routinely granted in the Senate. But opponents have occasionally objected to either slow down progress on the bill or to highlight other objections. "Coburn said that he would also block other legislative shortcuts that Reid might seek to employ[.]"
Story #3: "Secret" Anti-Obamacare Group Scares the AP
RUSH: There's also this from the AP: "Secretive Front Group Battled Health Bill -- Americans for Quality and Affordable Insurance is trying to shape opinion. One operative tried to enlist trade groups in Maine to oppose government-run health coverage. ... These below-the-radar activities were the handiwork of a law firm in Charlotte, N.C., that operates a secretive group called Americans for Quality and Affordable Healthcare. The organization's sponsors remain a mystery - its Web site offers no clues, and the law firm won't say." Secret group scares AP. How in the hell is this any different than Americans Coming Together or MoveOn.org or ACORN or the freaking unions? Or the secretive George Soros? Or any of the other groups the Democrats have? Somehow when it's against the liberal agenda it's secretive, it's scary! It reeks of swift boaters. I frankly -- and probably a lot of you -- would like to join this secretive group trying to stop this monstrosity. The State-Controlled AP wants us to think there are dark forces working against health care. Dark forces, powerful forces, secretive forces trying to deny you your own coverage!
Story #4: Schopenhauer and Gandhi on Stages of Truth
RUSH: Hey, Snerdley, and the rest of you, too, have you ever heard of Arthur Schopenhauer? Brian? Ah, never mind, I know you never heard of Arthur Schopenhauer. Dawn? You haven't either H.R.? Arthur Schopenhauer born February 22nd, 1788, died September 21st, 1860, was a German philosopher known for his atheistic pessimism and philosophical clarity. At age 25 he published his doctrinal dissertation on the fourfold route on the principle of sufficient reason, which examined the fundamental question of whether reason alone can unlock answers about the world. I wanted to tell you who Schopenhauer is because I have a couple of Schopenhauer quotes for you.
First quote is this. "Every truth passes through three stages --" I think this truth applies to me and my broadcast career. "Every truth passes through three stages before it's recognized. In the first stage, it is ridiculed. In the second stage, it is opposed. In the third stage, the truth is regarded as self-evident." There's another Schopenhauer quote, and this is dead on, too. "Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see." Yeah, I was just doing a little Obama impression here during the break thinking about myself, being a little narcissistic, so I thought I'd go look up some Schopenhauer quotes to illustrate how I think of me. It's also a variation on that from Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
Story #5: Post Office Reports Loss, May Cut Saturday Service
RUSH: Gosh, I love this headline here: "Post Office Reports Loss May Cut Saturday Service." They still have Saturday service? Remember when Obama told us health care would be great just like the post office? "Hey, hey, the post office competes!" Ha, ha!
Story #6: AP-Obama: Uninsured Twice as Likely to Die in ER
RUSH: One more thing, folks, from AP-Obama. They're in a push for Obama's health care with a totally fraudulent story: "Uninsured emergency room patients twice as likely to die as people who don't have insurance when they show up in the ER."
|
|
|
|
|
| *Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time. |
|
|
