Category Archives: Sarah Palin

1st Ever National Tea Party Convention

It’s been a week since I first made my journey south to Nashville, TN, to attend the first ever National Tea Party Convention put on by Tea Party Nation (TPN), and unfortunately, due to rescheduled flights and Snowmageddon, I haven’t had the opportunity to write about it before now — so here it goes:

I have to honestly say that the Tea Party has been characterized and painted in such a dishonest way by the media.  Everyone I met was incredibly excited to be involved in politics and their government.  There were people from all genders, age groups, and yes, there were minorities at the conference. The tea party represents a broad and expanding group of Americans who are simply “sick and tired of being sick and tired,” with their government and their representatives. {Only 600 tickets were sold to the event so this was just a small representation}

It is accurate to say that many who are part of the tea party movement are not fond of Obama’s policies or his ideology, but it would be disingenuous to stop there.  Most tea partiers are trying to return this country to a republic rather than the oligarchy it is heading towards.  The constitution is the law of the land and should be adhered to and treated as such.  The members of this grassroots movement are average, everyday Americans; many of which have jobs or are retired.  They pay taxes, work hard, believe in personal responsibility, a hand up not a hand out, fiscal responsibility, small government, and strong national defense.

I guess I have difficulty understanding how the media could paint citizens engaging in debate, in civics, in government, and expressing peaceful dissent, as being extremists, nationalists, and racists.  What is so wrong with expressing the principles you believe in?  Protesters were “in” when they were protesting the Iraq War and anything Bush; holding up swastikas, BusHitler signs, and even making a fake guillotine with a Bush head.  But now the media doesn’t like the dissent when it goes against the very principles they espouse.  There is something very wrong when the 4th column can’t remain objective.  I have no problem if you are liberal and in the media, but when you are ‘on duty’ act like it, then take your opinions and ideology home with you.

With that being said – there will always be people on both sides of the aisle that are considered extreme or fringe, which is normal.  The left and right both have their fair share to deal with when it comes to that, but nobody should categorically try to make an assumption of the whole based on its parts.

I personally hope that the tea party remains an independent entity and doesn’t fall into the trap of becoming an established political group.  What is so attractive to the movement is its appeal to all parties that share the same conservative principles.  Many would be surprised that many Democrats (i.e. JFK Democrats) are more conservative especially when it comes to fiscal policy.  Independents are also conservative in different aspects.  I, for one, have never been part of a registered party and have always considered myself unaffiliated because the establishment on both sides of the aisle needs reform.

All in all, I had a blast, and the entire convention surpassed my expectations.  I met a lot of great people, and had tons of fun – believe it or not, Conservatives definitely know how to have a good time! 🙂 There are lots of people working hard to put the right people into office so we the people can clean up our government.  It’s important to note that many involved are still very new to politics and grassroots activism so mistakes and missteps will be made along the way – but as long as we can remember Calvin Coolidge’s words referring to Persistence, the Tea Party can become a force to be reckoned with:

“Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
The slogan “Press On” has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.”

Here are some photos of the event:

Photobucket

Many people were excited to see Sarah Palin on Saturday – one of her fans taped her poster to his balcony!

Photobucket

The Tea Party Presser where both Judson Phillips & Mark Skoda spoke – the MSM was there in droves

Photobucket

The Presser was held at lunchtime on Friday – Angela McGlowan would speak later that evening and give a wonderful speech and also announce her candidacy as a Republican running in Mississippi. The other men next to her were part of a documentary crew that have already made one movie about the tea party.

Photobucket

There were so many great people who attended and I was afforded the opportunity to have lunch and hang out with Adam Andrzejewski who unfortunately lost the Republican primary for Governor in IL, but I have a feeling there is more in store for him!

Photobucket

The men who wore costumes from our founding era were awesome – many of them were in the Tea Party documentary and it made the event a lot of fun.

Photobucket

Here is a very small portion of the line awaiting Sarah Palin and the tea party banquet on Saturday night (people were in line by 3:30/4pm when the doors weren’t evening opening until 6pm).

Photobucket

Sarah Palin arrives to eat dinner at the banquet – We got some great seats that were about 50 feet away.

Photobucket

We got to hear a new song for the movement, I believe it was called “American Heart” by Jon David.

Photobucket

Sarah Palin begins her speech (I had to take these pictures with my blackberry so the lighting is very bad).

Photobucket

The view from the jumbotron

Photobucket

Top off the night by celebrating a successful convention with people like Andrew Breitbart, Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit), and so many others – Saturday night was a blast!

Photobucket

Of course we had to end the night by signing the official flag for the Tea Party convention. {that’s my friend Burnsy BTW}

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Constitution, Economy, Establishment, Government Spending, Media, MSM, National Debt, National Security, Progressivism, Protests, RINO, Sarah Palin, Tea Party

Sarah Palin, Facebook, And The Washington Elite

Sarah Palin appears more and more like a comic book heroine as the months march on.  She has a common foe that is constantly attacking her from both sides of the spectrum; the Establishment.  The evil establishment has been sitting, rotting in the pits of the DC beltway.  Those who enter this black-hole, leave without morals, standards, common sense, or dignity.  Many are mutated into something they never intended to become.  Many pump their faces full of botox, insert hair plugs, lie for the sake of lying, or for the sake of money and power.  These political villains ooze corruption and their struggle has been finding the kryptonite to finally do in this heroine that manages to enact change via a keyboard and a social media platform: Facebook.

The beltway pundits like Krauthammer, i.e. elitist neocons, pounce on this woman and treat her as some kind of joke.  Also, take for example, the insiders at the NRSC, who wrote her off, and instead asked Newt Gingrich to speak at their event. Even though she wasn’t the headliner at the event the start of it quickly became about her, just ask the crowd inside. 

The DNC attacks her as the next radical, religious zealot conservative, although she is a major proponent of the constitution and states’ rights, and does not believe in forcing her beliefs on others.  The libs fear her and can’t stop talking about her even outside town hall events in Towson, Maryland. 

If Sarah Palin was such a non-entity and was no threat to the establishment or the powers that be in Washington, why is she still given so much face time and why is every single statement she makes on Facebook picked apart? 

It’s quite simple: This woman is the future and she is a threat.  She represents what I have been wanting to see out of politics for a very long time.  She is an average individual who has made it up through the ranks with only God, family, and herself to thank.  She has gotten ahead by hard work and progressing one step at a time in a cut-throat political world.  The founding fathers had envisioned a government that would be run by the people, for the people, and not by career politicians that treated their constituents like peasants, believing they were part of the next plutocracy/oligarchy/political dynasty.  Sarah Palin is the type of person who is not beholden to the special interests, the lobbyists, the political back-scratching and corruption that is so rampant in our government. The Messiah of ‘Hope and Change,’ currently occupying the White House, can’t even compare to the standards Sarah Palin has set and what it is she exemplifies.

You may not like Sarah Palin, but you cannot say she isn’t a force to be reckoned with. 

I’ll put it out there now, I am a big Sarah Palin fan, I have been since that fateful day at the end of August.  I will never forget where I was and when I saw her introduced: I was actually working out at the gym, running on the treadmill of the Mandalay Bay Resort in Vegas, doing a fist bump into the air.  For the first time in my female adult life I was enthused by a politician and actually believed in them.  I could tell that this woman was the genuine article and respected her for that fact alone.  Every blow she made to Obama during her RNC convention speech was just one more time I was jumping out of my chair clapping, and confirming that this woman is the future of politics. 

I do not believe that a person must have a specific degree to be able to run a business, a school, or a country.  I find liberal ivy league elitists lacking in wisdom.  I don’t want to make a generalization here, but most who have graduated from a top school known for its academics, excel in knowledge, book smarts, and theory, but try applying that to the real world.  What happened to real life trial and error or insight?  Wisdom is not gained through books, it’s gained through life experience.  Sarah Palin has experienced much in her adult life, and her career.  She has had to work hard to make ends meet and even put herself through school.  Let’s think for a moment about those who have been born into privilege or have had their schooling paid for, whether through family, friends or a Saudi acquaintance… Do they appreciate their education and the effort/money it took to get it?  Or does the individual who had to scrimp and save to make it just another year appreciate it that much more?  Does the person who had to save understand what it means to not spend beyond your means or does the silver spoon, political wanna-be?

It’s no coincidence that those who came from ivy league schools have gotten us into some of the biggest messes this country has seen.  Take for example Jimmy Carter, the genius, he made things so bad they had to create a new economic term; stagflation.  If you don’t see the parallels between him and the next coming of the messiah, the genius from Columbia and Harvard Law, you are fooling yourself.  And what about the liberals who call Bush a dummy? Well didn’t he come from Yale?  Don’t use the excuse that you need an ivy league degree to manage a country.  I have seen businesses come and go and some of the most successful companies have been built from the ground up by college and high school drop-outs.  Ronald Reagan was no ‘ivy leaguer’ and he turned our economy completely around.  He studied economics at a small school and became a ‘B’ actor, something he was later made fun of for as well as his affinity for mac n’ cheese! 

Sarah Palin’s recent statements have been concise and have hit through to the heart of the matter.  She is the only member of the GOP, besides DeMint, Bachmann, and a handful of others who are true conservatives, unabashedly, unapologetic for calling a spade a spade. 

At first, I too, thought death panels could just be a metaphor for what the end of life counseling and bureaucracy would become, but upon further investigation into the section, there is much to be said for the candor behind Mrs. Palin’s statement.  The provision in the bill was so incredibly vague that fear and caution should have been the common sentiment among those reading the bill.  Many times these convoluted bills are written in such ways that nobody can understand the legalese. The bills are passed, and only later, do representatives realize there were too many loopholes in the first place. There is a reason why that provision was taken out of the bill after Sarah Palin doubled down on her death panel statement.

Sarah Palin has continued to blast Obama and the liberal policies that are being concocted in DC.  She recently made a statement regarding Obama’s off-shore drilling and oil funding hypocrisy.  George Soros and Goldman Sachs have had plenty of influence on the company that Obama just gave $2B to – Petrobras.  Sarah Palin made the following statement:

Why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than two billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources? That’s all Americans want; but such rational energy development has been continually thwarted by rabid environmentalists, faceless bureaucrats and a seemingly endless parade of lawsuits aimed at shutting down new energy projects.

I’ll speak for the talent I have personally witnessed on the oil fields in Alaska when I say no other country in the world has a stronger workforce than America, no other country in the world has better safety standards than America, and no other country in the world has stricter environmental standards than America. Come to Alaska to witness how oil and gas can be developed simultaneously with the preservation of our eco-system. America has the resources. We deserve the opportunity to develop our resources no less than the Brazilians. Millions of Americans know it is true: “Drill, baby, drill.” Alaska is proof you can drill and develop, and preserve nature, with its magnificent caribou herds passing by the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), completely unaffected. One has to wonder if Obamais playing politics and perhaps refusing a “win” for some states just to play to the left with our money.

[…]

Buy American is a wonderful slogan, but you can’t say in one breath that you want to strengthen our economy and stimulate it, and then in another ship our much-needed dollars to a nation desperate to drill while depriving us of the same opportunity.

Sarah Palin’s latest ‘take Obama to task’ moment occurred earlier today when she asked a question that many of us conservatives have been asking.  Why no tort reform?  I would think that we should fix the known problems that are smaller before tackling an entire system by overhauling it.  Tort reform is another lucrative business for the lobbyists, but those on the left conveniently forget that the liberal lobbyists are just as bad as the supposed ‘conservative’ lobbyists they love to demonize.  We have learned, however, that the evil insurance company lobbyists like PhRMA are actually on Obama’s dole as well.  The trial lawyer’s lobby, i.e. ABA, has had significant pull on Capitol Hill for years, and you can expect that they will not be mentioned by many of the politicians because most of them are probably old law school chums. 

If anybody knows about tort reform and a loser pays law, it would be Sarah Palin.  She saw, this past year, how a law that was intended for the right reasons, can be used and abused by partisan ideologues.  If Alaska had a loser pays law her ethics complaint issues would have been null and void.

First, we cannot have health care reform without tort reform. The two are intertwined. For example, one supposed justification for socialized medicine is the high cost of health care. As Dr. Scott Gottlieb recently noted, “If Mr. Obama is serious about lowering costs, he’ll need to reform the economic structures in medicine—especially programs like Medicare.” [1] Two examples of these “economic structures” are high malpractice insurance premiums foisted on physicians (and ultimately passed on to consumers as “high health care costs”) and the billions wasted on defensive medicine.

Dr. Stuart Weinstein, with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, recently explained the problem:

”The medical liability crisis has had many unintended consequences, most notably a decrease in access to care in a growing number of states and an increase in healthcare costs.
Access is affected as physicians move their practices to states with lower liability rates and change their practice patterns to reduce or eliminate high-risk services. When one considers that half of all neurosurgeons—as well as one third of all orthopedic surgeons, one third of all emergency physicians, and one third of all trauma surgeons—are sued each year, is it any wonder that 70 percent of emergency departments are at risk because they lack available on-call specialist coverage?”
[2]

Dr. Weinstein makes good points, points completely ignored by President Obama. Dr. Weinstein details the costs that our out-of-control tort system are causing the health care industry and notes research that “found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.”

Read more from Sarah’s facebook page here.

This woman is leading the charge and the debate and she hasn’t even made any major public appearances since she stepped down from being Governor of Alaska.  She has simply written her opinions on her facebook page, and the political world, as well as the media, is once again, all aflutter. 

You cannot tell me that this Conservative woman from Alaska is not a threat or a superstar.

5 Comments

Filed under Congress, Double Standards, Economy, Health Care, Media, Obama, Obama Administration, ObamaCare, Sarah Palin, Tea Party

Updated: Sebelius Misspoke, Either Way It’s All Gov. Health Care; Health Care: Semantics and ‘Fear’

UPDATE:

A spokesperson for the administration stated that the media misplayed Sebelius’ statement, but others are stating that she misspoke when she said the government option portion of the bill was not essential.  The backlash this statement caused across the blogosphere and twitter from Obama’s base could be felt far and wide.  Either the administration never intended to change it’s stance or the semantics of the bill, or they flip-flopped. 

Whether we call it a co-op or a public option, it’s all the same.  Let me also add, I find it strange that the administration has stated that the media misplayed all of this…

A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.

“Nothing has changed.,” she said. “The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals.”

A third White House official, via e-mail, said that Sebelius didn’t misspeak. “The media misplayed it,” the third official said.

ORIGINAL:

The White House appears ready to drop the government option in the health care bill.  At least this is what is being reported in many of the newspapers today.  It would be nice if I felt as though I could trust my government or my president, but as we have seen thus far, even over the last couple of years, no matter what side you are on, that’s not the case.  I am  incredibly skeptical of what the government is waving around in one hand, but doing behind the scenes in the other.

If President Obama dumped the government option from the bill what would be the point?  This is something that the progressives in this country, including himself, and almost everyone in his cabinet are proponents of, at the very least.  The government option didn’t even seem to cut the cake for some, who technically see a single-payer plan for everybody in America, as evidenced through various speeches that officials have given over the last decade. 

People on the right need to be wary and not believe we have ‘reached’ some type of victory in this debate.  It doesn’t make much sense to me that they would be willing to just dump a major liberal policy, one that their base has desperately wanted for a very long time.  That’s why when you read further into what they are saying, it’s just a change of semantics, which is typical from this administration.  Remember how the health care reform bill was changed from just that, to health insurance reform?  When liberals are losing the debate on one issue they change the name to make the policy sound less intimidating and brand new. This truly is Houdini as president. 

Obama has been pressing for the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation’s almost 50 million uninsured, but Republicans remain steadfast in arguing against it.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is “not the essential element” of the administration’s health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory on the showdown.

“I think there will be a competitor to private insurers,” Sebelius said. “That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing.”

Obama’s top spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice for the administration.

[…]

“It’s not government-run and government-controlled,” he said. “It’s membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that’s why it has appeal on both sides.”

As proposed by Conrad, the co-ops would receive federal startup money, but then would operate independently of the government. They would have to maintain the same financial reserves that private companies are required to keep to handle unexpectedly high claims.

The new term being launched by the administration is a Co-op, not a government run health system.

So what exactly is a co-op?  I wanted to look up the historical meaning of the term and what political system it stems from.  Without any shock and surprise it arose from the Democratic socialist party and also split off during the Marxist era in Russia.  Co-ops are socialist programs whereby there are certain types of co-ops that exist.  The technical definition of a co-op is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.

The rise of Marxism at the end of the 19th century accelerated the political split between different forms of socialism: anarchists were committed to libertarian socialism and advocated locally managed cooperatives, linked through confederations of unions, cooperatives and communities; Marxists were committed to state socialism, and the goal of political hegemony through the state, either through democratic socialism, or through what came to be know as Leninism.  Both Marxism and anarchism sprang from utopian socialism, which is based on voluntary cooperation, without the emphasis on bitter class struggle. With the collapse of state socialism in the USSR, other forms of socialism have reasserted their importance and influence.

Social cooperation or co-ops is another term to reach a type of social Utopia as a utilitarian belief for the good of all.  This particular co-op would be considered a Type A Social Co-op because it has a particular social purpose to provide health insurance for individuals, working in cooperation with the government, insurance companies, and the people. 

The Cato Institute also provided more information on what a co-op is, and in this case, what our government intends to do in a brief write-up that it made today:

It is suggested that the “co-ops” would be nonprofits, and therefore would offer better service and lower costs. But many insurance companies, including “mutual” insurers and many “Blues,” are already nonprofit companies. Furthermore, states already have the power to charter co-ops, including health insurance co-ops. In fact, health care co-ops already exist. Health Partners, Inc. in Minneapolis has 660,000 members and provides health care, health insurance, and HMO coverage. The Group Health Cooperative in Seattle provides health coverage for 10 percent of Washington State residents.

If the new co-ops operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother?

And there’s the rub. Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it operates.  As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.”

If a “co-op” is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, that is government-run health insurance by another name.

Historically speaking, the term co-op originated in England so I was therefore, curious, since England is in fact a democratic socialist country, what exactly would be an example of a co-op?  Well, low and behold, the NHS, or their government-run health system, is in fact utilizing co-op values within NHS

I don’t have much faith in NHS although there was a massive twitter campaign called #weloveNHS to interject on behalf of the US political debate.  The campaign itself was started by the man who created the character, Father Ted.  This campaign  consisted of a lot of spam, repeating the same exact mantra – I was surprised any real individuals for NHS actually existed, but found about 5 who did.  It’s hard to believe that their opinions aren’t biased when many work for NHS since they have now become one of, if not the, largest employer of the UK.  I find it amusing that recent economic reports, including this one from the National Center for Policy Analysis has stated that NHS is putting the patient last or the recent statistics that show nearly 46% of women diagnosed with breast cancer die in the UK as opposed to only a 25% death rate in the US.  Mammograms are required and insurance companies here cover them 1/year, where the government in the UK, who holds the purse strings, only allow mammograms 1/2 years.

It is incredibly disingenuous for a President in an op-ed of the NYT, no less, to write that people are using fear to politicize and change the debate on health reform.  There is plenty of fear when the government involves itself in the lives of individuals.  Nowhere in our constitution is health care a right, in 1776 and not until the 20th century, was health care an option. It has only been through the capitalist structure of our society that pharmaceuticals and operating procedures have thrived and been on the cutting edge.  Incentivized systems, such as our own, have driven innovation for years, it would be a disaster if all of that was taken away to pay for the supposed 46M who do not currently have health care.  Those 46M by the way, have never been explained to the American public.  The number of illegal aliens included in that number are nearly half, there are those who can also afford health care but elect to pay for it out of pocket because they can, children are also included in that number, and no, they do not have their own health care because their parents cover them, and we also have those who qualify for federal programs but refuse to use them.

I tend to find fear emanating from both sides of the debate, but given my skepticism of government and the convoluted legalese within the bill, I err on the side of caution.  The fear-mongering of the left is making it appear that a crisis will ensue if we do not pass this bill NOW.  If  85% of people like their insurance and over 50% do not want government interference what does this tell us?

Obama warned of us “not acting;” well some may beg to differ on that sentiment and actually feel that doing nothing would be better than rushing a bill that most representatives haven’t even read all the way through.  Mr. Obama also chose to use his op-ed pulpit to bash those evil insurance companies again.  I am finding it funny, yet at the same time very frustrating, hearing the same insurance company demonization, but no mention of trial lawyers, tort reform, or the fact that Obama just made a back-door deal with those very same insurance entities. 

Obama has also been espousing plenty of lies and other scare tactics.  The hypocrisy from the left during these current debates is laughable.  Obama continues the mantra that doctors are cutting out tonsils for money, amputating feet, and now he is using Otto Raddatz as an example.  First and foremost, let me bring up tonsils – I get tonsillitis nearly 5-7 times/year and I will be 28 years old soon, but none of the doctors I have had, either in Connecticut, Virginia, or Maryland, have let me get surgery; why? because I do not have tonsils that swell across my throat and therefore, are not life-threatening.  In fact, the greatest threat is surgery, as you get older, every surgery becomes tougher to recover from.  Obama’s big lie in all of this is his story surrounding Otto Raddatz, the man cited as having died in the midst of chemotherapy due to gall stones that were not disclosed to his insurance company, however, here is what really happened:

In President Obama’s recent speeches and in his editorial in the New York Times today, he has continued to mention the sad case of a man who lost his health coverage during life saving chemotherapy and consequently died because he did not disclose a previous condition of gall stones.  Quoting his editorial in the New York Times, “A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance discovered that he had gall stones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.”

Unfortunately for the president, the story is not true. The man received his life saving operation and lived an additional three years. The man in question is Otto Raddatz, an Illinois businessman. He became a central focus in a hearing on June 16th entitled “Terminations of Individual Health Policies by Insurance Companies” held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in the Energy and Commerce committee. His sister, Peggy Radditz, testified on his behalf. She testified that the insurance company Fortis dropped his coverage right before a life saving stem cell transplant because he failed to notify the company of pre-existing gallstones and an aneurysm.  Soon after, he was mentioned all over the left blogosphere as having perished because he did not receive this treatment.

For instance a blogger on Slate states“Otto Raddatz, a restaurant owner in Illinois, was rescinded in 2004 by FortisInsurance Co. after he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Fortis said this was because Raddatz had failed to disclose that a CT scan four years earlier had revealed that he had an aneurysm and gall stones. Raddatz replied—and his doctor confirmed—that he had never been told about these conditions (the doctor said they were “very minor” and didn’t require treatment), but Fortis nonetheless refused a payout until the state attorney general intervened. The delay in treatment eliminated Raddatz’s chances of recovery, and he died.”

The president was quick to pick up this meme and it has become part of his healthcare reform stump speech and at his town halls. The only problem with his narrative is that Otto Raddatz received his treatment and lived another 3 years. According to the meeting transcripts found here.

[…]starting on page 4, “… Otto Raddatzwas a 59-year-old restaurant owner from Illinois who was diagnosed withan aggressive form of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system. He underwent intensive chemotherapy and was told that he had to have a stem cell transplant in order to survive. With coverage provided by his individual insurance policy, he was scheduled to have the procedure performed. But then his insurance company suddenly told him it was going to cancel his insurance coverage. Otto could not pay for the transplant without healthinsurance.  The stem cell transplant surgery was cancelled.  The insurance company told him that it found when he applied for his insurance, he had not told the company about a test that had shown that he might have gall stones and an aneurysm, or weakness of the blood vessel wall. In fact, Otto’s doctor had never told him about these test results. He didn’t have any symptoms, and these conditions did not have anything to do with his cancer, but the insurance company was going to rescind his policy, effectively tearing up the contract as if it never happened and it would not pay for his stem cell transplant. Otto made a desperate plea to the Illinois Attorney General’sOffice seeking help to get his insurance company to reverse its decision.  He told them, and I quote, “I was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. It is a matter of extreme urgency that I receive my transplant in 3 weeks. This is an urgent matter. Please help me so I can have my transplant scheduled.  Any delay could threaten my life.”

The Illinois Attorney General’s Office launched an investigation, confirmed that Otto’s doctor had never even told him about the test findings and sent two letters to press the insurance company to reinstate his policy. The company relented and Otto received his stem cell transplant. He was able to live 3 more years before passing away earlier this year.”

Now certainly the insurance company looks bad in this instance and should not have rescinded the policy, but the doctor looks even worse since Otto was left in the dark. But why does our President need to embellish and outright lie to try to bolster his case. His arguments should stand on their own merit.

I find the accusation of scare tactics and fear-mongering offensive.  Take for example Sarah Palin’s statement that the end-of-life counseling and p. 354 section 1177 of the bill would ensure that bureaucrats would decide the futures of the elderly and that of her disabled child, equating them to death panels, was a lie and a right-wing tactic.  But I ask, then, why did the House Financial Services Committee take that section out of the bill last week, if it wasn’t in fact true or at least vague enough to be used as such? 

Lies exist on both sides, some perpetrated on purpose and others because of confusion, misinformation, and convoluted legalese. It’s important to understand the current game in DC.  It is a game and a competition “to the victor goes the spoils”, or as Obama likes to say “I won.” It’s silly to take one person’s word over another when politics as usual are a dirty, dirty game.

1 Comment

Filed under Congress, Constitution, Czars, DeathCare, Double Standards, Health Care, Hypocrisy, Obama, Obama Administration, ObamaCare, Op-ed, Progressivism, Sarah Palin, Tea Party