Author Archives: Stephen Gordon

Obama’s disdain for free speech

According to Drudge, President Obama plans to take a bigger step closer to totalitarianism regarding the separation of the media and the state.

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

Of course, ABC promises to keep the coverage fair and balanced.

I sort of welcome this move, as it provides some the transparency Obama promised. If the mainstream media is to be Obama’s propaganda team, why not move their offices over to the White House?

However, Obama doesn’t treat the free speech rights of those he doesn’t like in the same manner.  Obama seems poised to sign a bill which will further erode the rights of tobacco companies to advertise:

The marketing and advertising restrictions in the tobacco law that Congress passed last week are likely to be challenged in court on free-speech grounds, but supporters of the legislation say they carefully drafted the law to comply with the First Amendment.

The law’s ban on outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds would effectively outlaw legal advertising in many cities, critics of the prohibition said. And restricting stores and many forms of print advertising to black-and-white text, as the law specifies, would interfere with legitimate communication to adults, tobacco companies and advertising groups said in letters to Congress. [snip]

Opponents of the new strictures, including the Association of National Advertisers and the American Civil Liberties Union, predict that federal courts will throw out the new marketing restrictions. They point to a 2001 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Massachusetts rule imposing a similar ban on advertising within 1,000 feet of schools.

“Anybody looking at this in a fair way would say the effort here is not just to protect kids, which is a substantial interest of the country, but to make it virtually impossible to communicate with anybody,” said Daniel Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers. “We think this creates very serious problems for the First Amendment.” [snip]

“The bill has been carefully drafted, and I am confident that the provisions will be upheld,” Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., a sponsor of the legislation, said in a statement Monday.

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an advocacy group that pushed for the law, said: “Frankly, the tobacco industry and the advertising industry have never heard of an advertising restriction that they thought was constitutional. In this case, great care was taken to permit black-and-white text advertising that permits them to communicate whatever truthful information they have.”

While Obama continues to destroy our economy, wreck the automobile industry and put our health care system on life support, he’s now taking swipes at the First Amendment.

Obamacare roundup

As I’m in the middle of writing an article regarding President Obama’s health care scheme, I thought I’d check around and see what other folks are saying about it.  I started with my wife, as she’s not only smarter than me, but also a practicing physician.  Obama told members of the AMA the following:

That is why I will listen to you and work with you to pursue reform that works for you. And together, if we take all these steps, we can bring spending down, bring quality up, and save hundreds of billions of dollars on health care costs while making our health care system work better for patients and doctors alike.

My wife’s response: “If Obama is truly serious about listening to doctors, this one says that he needs to leave my patients and me alone.”

Megan McArdle: “And what about the government’s infamous ability to wrestle new savings out of ‘providers’?  They are large, but they are not unlimited.  Medicaid patients find it very difficult to get doctors to take them, since the doctors tend to lose money on their care.  (I’ve heard persuasive arguments that ‘Medicaid mills’ adept at fraud are integral to providing care to the poor–without the fraud, Medicaid doesn’t reimbursements won’t cover the bill.)  Medicare patients are starting to have the same problem.”

Jason Pye:  “President Obama says that the country will go broke unless he can borrow and spend up to $2 trillion to ‘reform’ our health care system, comparing the future of the country to Government General Motors. You’re reading that right, our president claims that unless we spend more money and effectively run private insurers out of business over the course of time, the country will go bankrupt. Doesn’t make much sense, does it?”

Ronald Bailey: After parsing the numbers, it looks as though most the ‘savings’ that President Obama wants to use to finance his health care reforms are achieved by imposing price controls.

David McKalip: “In these circumstances, patients will be subject to a ‘mill’ mentality and treated like numbers that must be entered in a computer to satisfy a functionary sitting in a cubicle somewhere in Washington D.C. A better solution is to empower patients financially to pay doctors for their time. I find that when I look my patient in the eyes and spend 45 minutes with them, they are getting my best care.”

Stephen Green: “The President is promising to save money by eliminating a lot of those seemingly pointless end-of-life treatments. But that’s also going to mean an end to end-of-life profits. And, well, you can bet our life expectancy will get frozen in place as a result.”

Skip Oliva: “You can see why government-controlled health care is so appealing to the Obama regime. It’s hard to resist giving yourself even more power to decide who lives and who dies. There’s nothing more fun than playing God, right?”

NTU blog: “The only effects of nationalizing health care, it seems, would be to raise the age of a woman’s first mammogram, reduce the number of routine screenings she receives throughout her life, and delay the detection of breast cancer beyond the point of easy treatment. How do you justify jeopardizing the health of over 50 percent of the population to expand coverage to the 9 million or so that, according to The Spectator, are those truly uninsured for the long haul? Apparently women’s health doesn’t fall under the category of ‘universal coverage’.”

Ron Paul: “I started medicine when there was no Medicare and no Medicaid. And let me tell you, I don’t remember one time where I saw people out in the streets begging for medical care. Now we do. With managed care and now with socialized medicine coming, believe me, quality will go down. Costs will go up.  There will be shortages, there will be lines — and nobody is going to be happy.”

Grant Babcock: “Underlying the Obama plan is the same hubris that underlies all schemes to take decisions out of the hands of everyday people and instead entrust them to central planners: the belief that the government knows what you need better than you do.”

Robert Stacy McCain: “The MSM is asleep at the switch as Barack Obama fields ‘spontaneous’ health-care questions from . . . a former Democratic Party candidate for Congress…”

Donny Ferguson: “In a move that would have made Ken Lay proud, Democrat congressional leaders are expected to deal with the huge price tag of Barack Obama’s government takeover of health care in a unique way — ditching the estimates prepared by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and replacing them with the nunbers prepared by the politically-appointed White House Office of Management and Budget.”

Preston Mui: “Reality is setting in with President Obama and the Democrats: No matter how well-intended a policy is, it cannot evade the economic facts of reality.”

Michael Tanner: “But the problems with Obamacare go well beyond the Public Option, which the AMA opposes. The mandates on businesses and individuals, taxpayer subsidies, insurance regulation, and government interference in private medical decisions pose serious threats to American businesses, taxpayers, and most importantly patients. That’s bad medicine, no matter what you call it.”

Chris Moody: “Okay doctors, architects, and farmers. Your work is now my right. Feed me, house me and care for me. I don’t have to pay for it. I was born with the right to your labor.”

Steve Chapman: “There are only three ways to pay for this expansion of health insurance coverage: increased taxes, reduced benefits, or shiny gold ingots falling out of the sky. Voters emphatically prefer the latter option, so that is the one most likely to be embraced by Congress and the administration.”

Bruce McQuain: “This is not your grandfather’s America. Pay czars who arbitrarily set arbitrary pay limits based on what they ‘think’ (according to presidential spokesperson Robert Gibbs) is ‘fair’, a government appointed CEO for an auto company who admits he knows nothing about cars and the government hijacking of health care. If you’re not concerned, you’re not paying attention.”

Glenn Reynolds: “ANOTHER NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM THAT DOESN’T WORK: PROMISES, PROMISES: Indian health care needs unmet.

CROW AGENCY, Mont. – Ta’Shon Rain Little Light, a happy little girl who loved to dance and dress up in traditional American Indian clothes, had stopped eating and walking. She complained constantly to her mother that her stomach hurt.

When Stephanie Little Light took her daughter to the Indian Health Service clinic in this wind-swept and remote corner of Montana, they told her the 5-year-old was depressed.

Ta’Shon’s pain rapidly worsened and she visited the clinic about 10 more times over several months before her lung collapsed and she was airlifted to a children’s hospital in Denver. There she was diagnosed with terminal cancer, confirming the suspicions of family members. . . . On some reservations, the oft-quoted refrain is “don’t get sick after June,” when the federal dollars run out.

“This is what Obama wants for your family — or, at least, it’s what he’ll deliver in the end. Fix this — and Medicare — first!”

My prediction: Obama and the AMA will make make some cooing noises as they banter a bit about capping malpractice awards.  Then the AMA will give Obama a standing ovation as he creates his national insurance company.  AMA members won’t understand that they’ve been taken to the cleaners until they realize that their nurses are making more than they are.

Lame Idea of the Day: Masters in Social Media

From TechRadar:

Students will now be able to take a Masters degree in ‘Social Media’, with the University of Salford insisting that the course can give real-world skills and experience.

Although it should come as little surprise that people will now have the option to have an MA in Facebook and Twitter, the course is apparently aimed to produce the next generation of PRs and marketers.

They add:

TechRadar will probably not be attending the course as we are too fully focused on our Doctorate in YouTube for such frivolities. But we do like the idea of doing a 140-character dissertation.

What’s next — a grad school program for the next aspiring Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron? A Doctorate in becoming a Playboy model can’t be far behind.  I’d also suggest a degree program in being stupid, but they already do that.

The upside of this is that government and corporate bureaucrats will start hiring folks with the correct box on their job application checked, as opposed to some sort of merit-based system.  All those social media experts at Whitehouse.gov may soon have to look for a new job.

Leadership on the right still has no freaking clue

Writing at the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove offered some advice about how to defeat the anticipated onslaught of socialized medicine.  In the column, he used an example of socialized medicine he helped to promote to illustrate why Democratic socialized medicine is bad, but Republican socialized medicine is good:

Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That’s competition enough. The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore this. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 — nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition’s benefits.

The last time I checked, Medicare Part D is all about redistributionism.  One can’t even make the flimsy argument that current beneficiaries have paid into the system.  I work and they take money from me to offset the price of medicine for seniors.  What’s worse, they don’t have enough money to pay the bills.  As a result, my children will end up picking up most of the tab, along with the interest charges.

I was beginning to have some hope that the GOP would at least take on the Obama administration regarding socialized medicine, but it appears they don’t even understand the rhetoric of free-market economics anymore.  What’s next in the GOP playbook? Directly quoting Karl Marx?

Senator Feingold wants your input on health care

Senator Feingold is half of the team which brought us McCain-Feingold. His “Citizen Brief on Health Care” wants your input. It asks:

  1. How does the state of our current system affect you and your family?
  2. What reforms do you think are necessary to fix our health care crisis?
  3. Do you support the creation of a public plan option?

and then for some contact information.

Here’s the link.

1 4 5 6 7 8 35