What's The Latest?

It's time to check in on ObamaKennedyDeathCare, because things are rapidly approaching the point of no return.

Let's first continue to hammer away at the myths being propagated by the Left:

On the subject of losing benefits, here's another very interesting piece of information:

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a "public option" health insurance company.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 29% take the opposite view. They say it’s more important to give people a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option.

So, this really means that a clear majority of people are more worried about losing their coverage than making sure a 'public option' is implemented. After the above discussion about Medicare Advantage, I'd say it's a pretty well-founded concern.

Barack Obama is really digging deep with his flailing attempts at justifying his government takeover of health care:

President Barack Obama tried to make the case today in his weekly address that his nationalized health care plan would create jobs by making small business startups more affordable.

Does he actually believe his latest anti-capitalist plan will actually make small business startups more affordable?

Create jobs, huh? Gateway Pundit reminds us:

Yeah right... Just like his stimulus bill did.

Barack Obama told America that if his $787 billion stimulus bill was passed the unemployment rate would stay under 8%.
...Maybe he meant 9.8%?

Or maybe higher, because that's where it's going. This facetious argument only serves to show his desperation on the issue, as well as the fact that what people really care about right now is jobs.

But can Obama cajole Congress to circle the wagons on this most contentious issue? It's hard to say:

The DailyKos is reporting that out of the 83 signatories to the we will vote no if there is no public option pledge, only 46 remain standing firm. The rest of the progressives have caved. For these 46 liberal Members, a robust public plan means a Medicare plus 5 percent reimbursement rate for providers. However, the Blue Dogs are pushing a rival “negotiated provider reimbursement rate” which the progressives say effectively kills the public option.

Progressives are being squeezed by two fronts, one is their dropping numbers of Members who will stand firm on the public plan or they will vote no pledge, and two, on the negotiated Medicare reimbursement rates which they believe will gut the public option. So, 46 Democrats signed a letter to the Speaker demanding no negotiated rates or we vote no because it will kill the public option.

The Progressives are losing the battle, however, according to the DailyKos, because the direction of the bill is clearly moving to negotiated rates.

But 46 liberals are still more than enough to kill the bill with their votes alone. These 46 votes likely does not account for the other Dem NO votes because of any of the following issues: taxes, spending, abortion, immigration or other bill-killing issues. According to pro-life Democrats, there are 40 NO Dem votes against ObamaCare solely on the issue of abortion, for example.

Very interesting, don't you think? Still, I'd say your phone calls continue to be needed on this issue, and for a very good reason:

But now, senior administration officials are holding private meetings almost daily at the Capitol with senior Democratic staff to discuss ways to include a version of the public plan in the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to bring to the Senate floor later this month, according to senior Democratic congressional aides…

At the same time, Obama has been reaching out personally to rank-and-file Senate Democrats, telephoning more than a dozen lawmakers in the last week to press the case for action…

“The challenge is to go to the (Senate) floor, hold the deal,” said Steve Elmendorf, a lobbyist who was chief of staff to former House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt. But “they are more involved than people think. They have a plan and a strategy, and they know what they want to get and they work with people to get it.”…

He has met repeatedly in private with Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who has floated a proposal to allow states to set up government plans as a fallback if commercial insurers do not control premiums.

Any problem with setting up the public option as plan B if and only if private insurance premiums spiral out of control? Why, yes: Between requiring all Americans to carry insurance and requiring all insurance companies to cover people regardless of preexisting conditions, the final bill’s practically guaranteed to generate that spiral. Robert Tracinski:

The Baucus bill includes an “individual mandate” that requires everyone to buy health insurance-but not inexpensive, high-deductible catastrophic health insurance. Instead, it imposes a requirement for pricier comprehensive coverage that pays for routine costs like annual checkups. The bill then requires that insurance companies provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and that they charge customers at high risk of medical problems the same rates as those with lower risks-which means that these extra expenses will have to be paid for by raising everyone else’s premiums.

And then the Baucus bill delivers the knock-out punch: after forcing us into expensive comprehensive insurance plans and driving up the cost of those plans, the bill would impose a massive 40% tax on “gold-plated” plans-which turn out to include the health-insurance plans of many in the middle class. So that drives up the cost of insurance even higher.

You can see why it doesn’t much matter whether or not we have a “public option” in the original bill. Everything else in the bill is designed to make private health insurance unaffordable-so that in a few years, people will clamor for a government-subsidized “public option,” and the same politicians who destroyed private health insurance can make a big show of coming to the rescue of their victims.

More backroom deals. Just ask yourself how well each of the others has worked out in the past nine months.

But what does the public think? Probably what you're thinking about it:

Sometimes, as the old saying goes, the devil’s in the details.
Most U.S. voters (54%) believe that major changes are needed in the U.S. health care system. Sixty-one percent (61%) say it’s important for Congress to pass health care legislation this year.

The problem is that just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support yet measured. Fifty-six percent (56%) are opposed to the plan.

The gap between a desire for change and support for the current Congressional plan helps explain why voters overwhelmingly prefer a series of smaller reforms that address specific problems rather than a comprehensive overhaul of the health care system.

Bottom line: no one denies that this country needs health care reform. Just as clearly, most of America doesn't want the government control that Barack Obama's radical Leftist plan would give us.

Contact your Senators and Rep, and share your thoughts with them. Votes in the Senate will likely be coming up soon, so time is running short.

There's my two cents.