Monday, November 4, 2013

Death Cures Everything

 photo CANCELED3_zps8b1c44ab.jpg

The Baby Boomers and the not so Affordable Care Act (why we need those Soylent Green Death Panels)

The American Thinker ^ | 11/4/2013 | Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh

Why is it that we needed the Affordable Care Act? Was it because everybody was told inaccurately that Americans were dying in the streets untreated? If you ask Europeans and people from other continents that is exactly the perception they have about the United States.
They do not know that any American can walk sick into an emergency room and he/she will be treated immediately. They don’t have to wait weeks and months to have a doctor’s appointment, tests, and procedures before they are actually treated as is the case in all socialized medicine countries.
Why was it that ObamaCare had to have a 15-member “death panel” that rations care based on age and utility to society, a complicated formula that only a bureaucrat can devise, not a doctor who took a Hippocratic Oath to care for all sick, regardless of age?
Will a person past the age of 55 be able to receive expensive treatments such as chemotherapy for cancer? We do know that anyone over the age of 70 becomes a “unit,” they are no longer human beings.
Between 1946 and 1964, there were 76 million Americans born, the so-called Baby Boomers. Four million had died by April 1, 2000. However, the U.S. Census counted 79.6 million due to “net immigration, the number of people coming into the United States from other countries, minus those moving the other way, outweighing the number of deaths.”
In 2011, the oldest Baby Boomers turned 65 years old, eligible for Medicare and Social Security... Every year approximately 3.65 million Baby Boomers receive an average $1,500 in earned Social Security benefits for a total of $5,475,000,000... Each year until 2030, $5,475,000,000 will be needed additionally to meet just the Social Security outlays for Baby Boomers...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The man who knew too little!




Of Course


Forever Stamp!


Coyote Ugly


This device


We finance them!


Welcome to the marketplace




Bounce them out!


Best and Brightest


Standing By!


Hope for you yet!


Mean ole Republicans


Heckuva job, Sebelius!


You Fool!


Liar, liar




All Aboard


NYTimes Musters ‘Hillary’ Defense of O’Care: ‘What Difference Does it Make?’ ^ | November 4, 2013 | John Ransom

The New York Times brought out the big guns in defense of Obamacare.
Faced with a growing chorus of complaints about the keystone health insurance reform that bears Obama’s name, the New York Times shrugged.
They shrugged because that’s all they have left.
The shoulder shrug, by the way, is a sign of the lie.
The Times shrugged off the problems with the website, the problems with rising insurance premiums and the major problem with the president’s promise that if you like your insurance you get keep it.
The problem the president faces is that when he promised Americans they could keep their insurance he was either wrong and didn’t know it or he was lying and did know it.
It’s a problem with all the Democrat policies: They either are wrong or lying.
Because, now we know that you can’t keep your policy if you like it. You have to get a new policy that more often than not will cost you more because you are paying for someone else’s benefits.
“Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that [you could keep your insurance if you liked it],” writes the New York Times Editorial Board.
But what difference does it make they continue?
Those policies weren’t worth keeping anyway say the Manhattan liberals who think that $541 is a reasonable sum to pay monthly for parking.
“By law, insurers cannot continue to sell policies that don’t provide the minimum benefits and consumer protections required as of next year”
So what?
“[I]nsurers are not allowed to abandon enrollees,” the New York Times says. “They must offer consumers options that do comply with the law, and they are scrambling to retain as many of their customers as possible with new policies that are almost certain to be more comprehensive than their old ones.”
And MORE expensive.
It’s simple math: Cover more people, cover more things and you have increased costs. Someone pays, even if perhaps it might not be you. But if you’re insured already, it probably is you who does pay.
And in that case you were the very people who were promised that if you liked your insurance you could keep it.
That’s the dirty secret that Obama and the Democrats have tried to keep from Americans since they first introduced the Obamacare legislation.
It’s why they didn’t want anyone to read it.
It’s why they didn’t want anyone to debate it.
It’s why they shouted from the top of the rooftop amid Republican doubts: “But it’s the law!”
It’s simple math: Cover more people, cover more things and you have increased costs.
At first we were told that thousands of people would have their policies cancelled for “more comprehensive” and more expensive ones that offer benefits that most people didn’t ask for.
Then it was estimated --a few days later—Obamacare would affect in the hundreds of thousands policies in an insurance bait and switch that under any state’s laws would land a real insurance agent in front of a disciplinary body.
Now it’s estimated that at least 1.5 million and perhaps as many as 93 million people won’t be able to keep their insurance.
It’s simple math: Cover more people, cover more things and you have increased costs.
According to Forbes the administration itself on page 34,552 estimated “that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” and thus become illegal under Obamacare.
“How many people are exposed to these problems?” asks Forbes, “60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance…. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.”
But, hey, what difference does it make?
We only have four dead Americans, said Hillary.
Or 93 million Americans without the insurance they liked, says the Times.
They’re just numbers after all.
Yeah, as we know now—-much to our sorrow--Liberals are THAT bad at math.
And it’s just that simple.