DemCare Staggers Forward

It's been a few days since I posted about DemCare in the Senate. The debate has now begun, and there's a lot more analysis going on. Here are the highlights, and a bunch more links to check out if you want details...

First, let's look at the already socialized health care system of Britain. Things aren't going so well there:

An immediate investigation to uncover the true extent of death rates across the NHS has been ordered by the Health Secretary after scandals at two hospital trusts.

Amid claims that patients are dying due to poor care in at least 27 hospitals around the country, Andy Burnham said that patient safety was paramount and must take precedence above all else.

His comments come after the head of a foundation trust in Colchester, Essex, was sacked over concerns about high death rates, leadership and waiting times.

And how about that wonderful cancer treatment in socialized health care?

Up to 10,000 people die needlessly of cancer every year because their condition is diagnosed too late, according to research by the government's director of cancer services. The figure is twice the previous estimate for preventable deaths....

Britain is poor by international standards at diagnosing cancer. [Prof. Mike] Richards's findings will add urgency to the NHS's efforts to improve early diagnosis....

Nice. Can't wait until this becomes reality here. Even the Left (the ones who are honest) admit the current DemCare bill will inevitably lead to rationing. And on that subject, here's an interesting exchange about the recent attempt by the Obama administration to cut back the number of mammograms women get:

How are you going to feel about DemCare when the federal government decides that you or your wife/mother/daughter/sister isn't worth the cost of her mammogram? DemCare will make that scenario become reality.

There will be a new cosmetic surgery tax. And a tax on medical innovation.

Former Democrat Presidential contender Howard Dean actually agrees with the GOP on this one, saying that there is 'no reform' in this legislation.

The AARP once again endorses hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare.

DemCare will slam young Americans the worst.

But illegal immigrants will be covered. Whew! Lucky for them (never mind us, who have to pay for them).

Hundreds of thousands of surgeons have officially opposed a government takeover of health care. More and more Americans do, too.

In a new analysis, the CBO says that DemCare will raise the cost of insurance premiums. So much for Obama's promise that this won't cost anyone anything. Speaking of broken promises, Obama's promise that everyone will be able to keep their current insurance plan if they want to also turns out to be...well, broken:

President Barack Obama wants to cut spending on the federal insurance plan for the elderly to help fund his health-care overhaul. Part of that proposal would cut more than $100 billion from Medicare Advantage, through which the government hires private insurers such as Humana Inc. to deliver Medicare benefits to 11 million seniors, including extras like reduced co-payments and even gym memberships.

Should Congress scale back the program, “We’re not going to be able to say ‘if you like what you have, you can keep it,’” said Senator Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat. “And that basic commitment that a lot of us around here have made will be called into question.”

Huh. Couldn't have seen that one coming at all! Saw that one coming from a mile away! Of course, if you live in an Obama blue state, you'll probably be saved through some sort of exception. Yeah, it really is that disgusting:

Senators Charles Schumer of New York, Bill Nelson of Florida and Ron Wyden of Oregon are among those who secured special provisions shielding constituents from cuts.

Casey says he wants “very comparable” protections for his state, where more than one-third of Medicare beneficiaries participate in Medicare Advantage. “It’s the kind of thing that will likely be addressed on the floor,” he said.

Hey, once you start bribing Senators for their votes, what's the big deal about this kind of dirty handshake?

The current Senate version of DemCare was based largely on Sen. Baucus' committee bill, and Baucus finally admits to another deceit by the Dems:

"Just for a second -- health care reform, whether you use a ten-year number or when you start in 2010 or start in 2014, wherever you start at, so it is still either $1 trillion or it's $2.5 trillion, depending on where you start…"

Wow. So much for all of those boasts about being under $900 billion! For those of you who are visual like me, recall this helpful chart:

As such, some estimates of the first actual decade of DemCare will cost something like $6 trillion! There's no way in hell it'll improve the deficit.

And how about the timing of things? Obama and the Dems are pushing as hard as they can to get DemCare passed immediately. They initially wanted it done before the August recess, but the American people threw up enough resistance to force them to slow down. Now they're trying to shove it through by the end of this year. Why the rush? Simple (emphasis mine):

The truth is that passing health care reform by the end of this month is not essential. Whatever changes Congress and the administration make to the law will take years, if not decades, to reshape 17 percent of the U.S. economy. And that is if they actually function as intended, which is always questionable.

In two minutes and 18 seconds, Orszag revealed Obama's appeals for immediate action to be nothing more than hollow political rhetoric. There is no need to rush these changes into law.

And, even if the current DemCare got signed into law today, it wouldn't go into effect until 2013. Well, except for the tax increases - those would kick in right away. But the 'benefits' wouldn't happen for another four years. Why not? Well, let's see...2013 would be right after the next Presidential election...but nah, that's gotta' be just a coincidence.

But, these deceits also beg the question: are the Dems telling the truth on anything about DemCare? As it turns out, yes. Nancy Pelosi offered a sober warning to anyone who thinks the government doesn't intend to take over the entire health care system:

In a recent press release, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., argues that constitutional objections to the individual mandate are "nonsensical," because "the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited."

And remember...if you don't like this, that's too bad. The Dems are perfectly happy to throw you in jail for not participating in DemCare.

Ah, truth. It's such a double edged sword.

Crunch time is approaching. As the Senate actively debates DemCare, and as amendments are offered, ignored, and voted upon, we'll start to see more of the final shape of the bill. There is still a tremendous amount of dissent within the Democrat ranks, with some demanding nothing short of full government control, and others demanding the exact opposite. Let's hope the GOP will stand firm and fight to kill this thing outright rather than play ball in the name of that hideous bipartisanship.

There's my two cents.



Related Reading
Committing Harrycare
Is health care a moral imperative?
Damn the deficit, full speed ahead!
It doesn't feel like we're winning, but we are
You can't vote for DemCare and call yourself an American
The Republican alternative
Words mean things
The road to recovery begins with the end of Obamacare
Get equipped on what's at stake