To listen to the Obama administration tell it, you’d think civilization as we know it will collapse within a fortnight if we don’t have universal coverage like, yesterday.  The problem is, the average American apparently doesn’t think so:

Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters nationwide say that cost is the biggest health care problem facing the nation today. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% believe the lack of universal health insurance coverage is a bigger problem.

So why the rush to nationalization–which, by the way, is precisely what President Obama’s plan amounts to–if an overwhelming majority of people don’t come close to sharing his apocryphal concerns for universal coverage?

President Obama knows his domestic agenda is sputtering, especially in the face of colossal spending, out of control borrowing, and crippling deficits.  In fact, he’s known this for quite some time–which is precisely why he’s been trying hard for some time to frame universal health care (along with education spending and his insane energy policy initiatives) as one of three factors that precipitated our present recession.  Charles Krauthammer remarked upon this way back in March, dubbing it “The Great Non-Sequitur”:

The logic of Obama’s address to Congress went like this:

“Our economy did not fall into decline overnight,” he averred. Indeed, it all began before the housing crisis. What did we do wrong? We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health care, and education — importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf?), not reforming health care, and tolerating too many bad schools.

The “day of reckoning” has now arrived. And because “it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament,” Obama has come to redeem us with his far-seeing program of universal, heavily nationalized health care; a cap-and-trade tax on energy; and a major federalization of education with universal access to college as the goal.

Amazing. As an explanation of our current economic difficulties, this is total fantasy. As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness, a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people

The problem for the president is, people know that Mr. Krauthammer is right.  President Obama almost assuredly knows it as well, which provides an explaination for the exceptional punctiliousness in his use of anecdotal arguments, wildly exaggerated statistics, and of course, President Obama’s favorite sport–shadowboxing the elusive “do nothing” gremlin that has dogged Obama throughout his presidency: “The opponents of health insurance reform would have us do nothing. But think about what doing nothing, in the face of ever increasing costs, will do to you and your family.”

Even polls usually sympathetic to the President are showing a dearth of support for ObamaCare, and even fellow Democratic Congressmen have expressed doubt about exactly where the money for ObamaCare is going to come from.  My best guess: “Rich” is about to be redefined to basically include anyone with a functional washing machine.  It’s either that, or let the printing presses run night and day spitting out new money.

As a parting shot, one should once again note that President Obama cannot help but take a swipe at his predecessor: “First, the same folks who controlled the White House and Congress for the past eight years as we ran up record deficits will argue – believe it or not – that health reform will lead to record deficits.”

First, for two of those eight eight years, the “folks” who “controlled Congress” were Democrats.  Second, those “record deficits” are no longer record deficits; President Obama has effectively seen to that at this point in time.  It is as though the man has some form of Tourette’s Syndrome that renders him incapable of delivering a speech that doesn’t include at least one dig against former president Bush.  The man makes speeches declaring that he won’t “harp and gripe”, and then he proceeds to… harp and gripe.

The more his poll numbers slip, the more urgent the “need” for ObamaCare will become.

July 19, 2009

The Alarming Growth of Federal Government

By Diana West

At some point of embittering clarity, Americans will open their eyes to the glaring significance of the Obama era and see the Power Grab Years for what they are. Whether this realization comes in time to stave off the eradication of the United States as we thought we knew it, or whether it comes too late, I predict it will surely come.

If it comes in time, the realization that the nation dodged history’s bullet will produce massive waves of relief. If it comes too late, the understanding of our fallen state will live on as the lost lore, not of a subject people exactly, but of a self-subjected people. That’s because in this strange historical instance, the American people, beginning with but not limited to those of us who voted Barack Obama into the White House, seem to have agreed to shoulder the heavy, costly yoke of exponentially increasing government control of our lives.

via RealClearPolitics – The Alarming Growth of Federal Government.

What if voters demand that Congress and the President give up their artificial bribery health plans given to them by the evil insurance companies, and be required to join only the “public plan” they propose for the rest of us?

Wouldn’t that be a hoot!

JULY 20, 2009

Democrats’ New Worry: Their Own Rich Voters

By JONATHAN WEISMAN

A group of Democrats elected in recent years from some of the country’s richest congressional districts have emerged as a stumbling block to raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for President Barack Obama’s ambitious health-care overhaul just as the plan has begun to meet increasing resistance over its cost.

Friday, two freshmen representatives — Dina Titus, from suburban Las Vegas, and Colorado’s Jared Polis, representing Boulder, Vail and some of the tonier suburbs of Denver — joined Republicans to vote against Mr. Obama’s top-priority health-care overhaul when it faced a vote in their House Education and Labor Committee. One reason was a one-percentage point-surtax on couples earning between $350,000 and $500,000 — gradually increasing to 5.4 percentage points on earnings more than $1 million — to pay for it.

via Democrats’ New Worry: Their Own Rich Voters – WSJ.com.

In the health debate, liberals sing Hari Krishnas to the “public option” — a new federal insurance program like Medicare — but if it’s good enough for the middle class, then surely it’s good enough for the political class too? As it happens, more than a few Democrats disagree. On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. Yet all Democrats — with the exceptions of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via proxy — voted nay. In other words, Sherrod Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse won’t themselves join a plan that “will offer benefits that are as good as those available through private insurance plans — or better,” as the Ohio and Rhode Island liberals put it in a recent op-ed. And even a self-described socialist like Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, who supports a government-only system, wouldn’t sign himself up.

No doubt Mr. Dodd acceded to the Coburn amendment to blunt such objections, and in any case he’ll strip it out later in some backroom. Judd Gregg was the only GOP Senator to oppose it, on humanitarian grounds. As he told us in an interview, the public option “will be so bad that I don’t think anyone should be forced to join.”

Senator Leahy threw down the gauntlet today.  If he ever hoped to get any kind of support from the Republicans in the future, he’s S.O.L. now!  He probably screwed things up for the Dems in the House as well.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor should be judged on the merits of her 17-year judicial record and the week of confirmation hearings that just ended rather than on suspicions about her racial allegiances.“You had one leader of the Republican Party call her the equivalent to the head of the Klu Klux Klan,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy said on CNN’s State of the Union. “Another leader of the Republican Party called her a bigot,” Leahy added, later explaining that he was making reference to comments by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

After Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Ranking Republican on the committee, referred to Sotomayor’s past involvement in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, Leahy again suggested that some Republicans were being unfairly critical of Sotomayor.

“I hope we don’t go back to the day when we used to have African-Americans up for confirmation and say ‘Yes, but you belong to the NAACP so, you know, we’re really suspicious of you,’” Leahy said CNN’s State of the Union.

“C’mon, stop the racial politics,” Leahy added.

Leahy remarks drew an immediate response from Sessions.

“Oh, c’mon, Pat. I’m going to disagree on that,” Sessions said.

“No but that’s the way it comes across . . . It comes across — if you belong to a group that tries to help Hispanics, help them in school, help them in other things, somehow you’re suspicious. The same arguments were used against Thurgood Marshall and others. I think it’s wrong,” Leahy said.

“I want to correct something,” interrupted Sessions. “No Republican leader said she was a bigot. You’ve overstated that. There’s nothing wrong with us asking her about the personal views about positions – legal positions – that she took as the member of an organization. That’s a normal thing to do. I don’t think that was unfair.”  -  CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart

The “Republican Leaders” he was referring to are Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.  Gee, I didn’t know they got elected to the Senate.  I thought the only “entertainer” on the Senate Judiciary Committee was Al Franken.

You see, Senator, they are commentators.  Unlike you, I can tell the difference between reality and entertainment.  I like Glenn Beck, but he is a commentator.  I like Peter Griffin, but he is a cartoon character.  Mr. Steele is the head of the GOP, he is a Republican leader.

Sonia Sotomayor herself started this whole mess by making some pretty stupid remarks in public.  Just like anyone else, she has to live with the consequences.  Besides, why are the Democrats whining so much?  She’s going to be confirmed.

By Noel Bagwell
July 19, 2009

First, please watch the following video in which “Black Chamber of Commerce, President and CEO Harry Alford accused Senator Boxer (D-CA) of playing race politics during an EPW Committee hearing on green jobs:”

Beyond Barbara Boxer’s attempted manipulation of the race politics involved in the issue being discussed, I find it worthy of note that Mr. Alford called Senator Boxer “ma’am” throughout the proceedings, and was never once corrected, as she corrected Brigadier General Michael Walsh:

I think, on the Glenn Beck Program this past Friday (July 17, 2009), Ann Coulter layed out an alarmingly correct perspective on the way in which liberals and secular-progressives use blacks, and other groups who they portray as victims, to achieve their political goals. Check it out:

So, it would seem that Senator Barbara “Don’t Call Me Ma’am” Boxer got caught by Mr. Alford, with her hand in the cookie jar. It would appear that she was trying to, essentially, bully Mr. Alford and the group he represents into accepting her viewpoint by saying, to paraphrase her remarks, ”The NAACP is on my side, so you should be, too.”  Mr. Alford responded by saying,

“We have been looking at energy policy since 1996, and we are referring to the experts, regardless of their color, and for someone to tell me, an African-American, college educated, veteran of the United States Army, that I must contend with some other “black group,” and put aside everything else in here – this has NOTHING to do with the NAACP and really has nothing to do with the National Black Chamber of Commerce. We’re talkin’ energy, and that, that road the Chair went down, I think is god-awful!”

He makes the point that it is perfectly understandable to bring in the Pew Research Center study – because they’re experts – but bringing the NAACP or any other race-based special interest group into the discussion is nothing but an unabashed attempt to manipulate race politics in this country to achieve the Sen. Boxer’s political goals.

I applaud Mr. Alford for calling Sen. Boxer out on this. Black Americans need to wake up, en masse, to the simple fact that liberals and secular-progressives – especially the DNC – have been manipulating them for years. They need to stop voting in bloc for Democrat Party candidates, and start paying attention to the issues.

Only when we vote our consciences with regard to real, important issues do we work to safeguard our freedoms. As George Washington pointed out, partisan politics is nothing but harmful to our nation.

Foxnews has a fascinating report hinting that some bias was involved in the making of the $800 Billion stimulus bill. Using information from the Wall Street Journal and Recovery.gov (the official government website for the stimulus bill with information about how much was spent and where it was spent), they found that per capita, states where the economy was worst received the least amount of money. The graphs below show this.

While I find this information surprising, what really worries me (and where the payoff part comes in) is the report from USA Today on how the stimulus is being sent out. So far, the States who supported President Obama have received about 20% more stimulus per person than those that voted for McCain. The counties that voted for McCain have received about half the amount of those that voted for Obama, $34 per person to $69 per person. Also, Politico has a report on the Stimulus Tour, showing a political connection between the states where it has been hosted and the election. 52 of the 66 events were hosted in states that voted for Obama in the election, and the other 14 were hosted in states where Obama lost by a narrow margin.

Despite this information, it is still questionable whether or not the stimulus is being used to reward Obama’s supporters, as only a small amount of the total stimulus has been sent, but a reward system isn’t far-fetched, and not necessarily irregular in todays political scene.

President Obama’s involvement in this even if it proves true is doubtful. Congress wrote and passed the bill, and while some of the blame should fall on him, most should go to the Congress. This possible reward system may be a continuation of a previous pattern, USA Today also reports that the counties which supported President Obama received about 50% more government money in 2005-2007 than those that voted for Sen. McCain.

Note: USA Today’s review did not include Alaska because they do not report election data by county.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

For years Congress has talked about overhauling the United States’ healthcare system. Now that the Democrats hold the majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate (as well as the Presidency), they are trying to push through sweeping legislation that will dramatically change the country’s health care system.  Although I have not read the proposed legislation (nor has most of Congress), I have been following it in the news. The more I hear, the more I wonder whether or not people have considered the vast implications of the changes. For the purposes of today, let’s consider the impact this new health care system might have upon the sport industry.

To begin with, if passed in the current state, the new health care system would put into place the largest “health insurance company” in the world…the United States Government. With the government in control of administering health care, services would be rationed in a manner similar to all of the countries utilizing a socialized medicine model. What would this do to the sport industry?

Let’s take a look at a few unintended consequences.

• According to news reports, once signed into law, organizations cannot add new employees to the company’s current health insurance policy. Doesn’t that mean that every new player drafted, signed as a free agent or traded from one team to another would be excluded from the team’s coverage? Furthermore, since it would be against the law for ANYONE to be self insured, athletes and their families would be forced to utilize the new health care plan administered by the government. Just imagine…health insurance for athletes (including sport-related injuries) would be paid for by the citizens of the United States, many of whom can’t afford to even attend the games!
• Let’s take the scenario a step further and pretend we are operating under the new health care system. What do you think would happen if Terrell Owens (insured on the government’s plan) were to tear his ACL and be told to (due to the rationing of medical services), he would have to wait six months before getting a MRI and/or surgery? To put it mildly, the entire Buffalo area would go nuts.  Imagine the backlash if he was suddenly pushed to the front of the line while everyone else had to wait—that too would be a scary thought!

Generally speaking, Team Physicians (as we currently know them) would no longer exist.  Players and coaches could no longer run into the locker room for an immediate x-ray during the game. Even players only in need of a simple, short-term IV in order to get back on the field would be denied. Is this what we need in the United States? Is this in everyone’s best interests? Decide for yourself, take action and hope for the best!

Thank god for Frank Rich, the only guy with balls enough to confront the reality of the hypocritical, condescending Republican senators on the Judiciary Commttee for their despicable treatment of Judge Sotomayor. I can’t tell one of those conservative white guys from another, so I don’t know who precisely said what, but the worst offenders seemed to be the Messrs. Jeff Sessions, Lindsay Graham, and Orrin Hatch. Frank Rich is particularly scathing with regard to Senator Tom Coburn.

Separated at Birth?

One of these guys had the nerve to repeatedly ask this distinguished lawyer, who knows more than all of them put together, Do you know…what such-and-such means? or …the difference between this and that? They’d never talk to a male judge that way! One of them had the gall to tell her she’d be confirmed unless she “has a meltdown.” Really, now, can you imagine them saying such a thing to Justice Roberts or Scalia?

Almost as despicable were the Democrats, not in their treatment of Ms. Sotomayor, certainly, but in their cowering and kowtowing and utter inability to seize a golden opportunity and criticize the Roberts Court, which, as a rep from the Lawyers Guild pointed out on KPFA this morning, has drifted steadily to the right, with several justices serving, without any qualms, as “activists” in their decision-making. As noted in my earlier post on the hearings, this was mentioned only once, in passing.

As for Judge Sotomayor, she too did a fair amount of kowtowing, but this was expected and unavoidable if she wanted to be confirmed. As Rich points out, ever since Bork committed political suicide by freely sharing his judicial philosophy, every nominee to the Supreme Court has kept his or her opinions under wraps. To tell the truth, Sotomayor came off as so conservative, I wouldn’t vote for her.

I am sick to death of this kowtowing on the part of the Democrats, this attitude that they must hide every shred of liberalism from the right-wingers. Why? They’re the ones in power, while the GOP is impotent (politically, that is). President Obama is doing the same thing. Instead of recognizing and asserting his legitimate power, he’s compromising and even kowtowing to Republicans. Why?

Why do Democrats kiss Republican ass? Could it be they lack the courage of their convictions? Cuz that’s sure what it looks like.

Wake up, Democrats! Now that you’ve got the power, use it. An opportunity like this one may never come along again.

Barbara Boxer is one nasty piece of work. She’s racking up quite a string if incidents where she demonstrates her arrogance towards anyone speaking before her.

This time, she pretends that a resolution from the AACP is the same as research from the black chamber of commerce.

But at the end, she explains she’s just playing politics. So I guess if you’re a Democrat that makes racism ok.

Let us make this simple.

If the Political Elites deign to vote in Health Care for all, vote us the plan they vote for themselves.
Or they can vote to join the plan they wish to inflict on us!

From the WSJ

Their Own Medicine

Senators prefer the insurance they have.

In the health debate, liberals sing Hari Krishnas to the “public option” — a new federal insurance program like Medicare – but if it’s good enough for the middle class, then surely it’s good enough for the political class too? As it happens, more than a few Democrats disagree.[snip]

Yet all Democrats — with the exceptions of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via proxy — voted nay. [snip]

And even a self-described socialist like Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, who supports a government-only system, wouldn’t sign himself up. [snip] (emphasis added)

Way to go Bernie, a true Comintern member. Nothing good for the proles!

No doubt Mr. Dodd acceded to the Coburn amendment to blunt such objections, and in any case he’ll strip it out later in some backroom. Judd Gregg was the only GOP Senator to oppose it, on humanitarian grounds. As he told us in an interview, the public option “will be so bad that I don’t think anyone should be forced to join.”

Sanders is an embarrassment to his own political philosophy. Go back to Brookaleen, Bernie. And get a real job for once in your life! Be the Baron of Bensonhurst.

One more thing Bernie, explain why YOU are voting to give all the ILLEGALS free health care on our dime!

From Charles Kerchner of the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit, a new ad placed in the weekly edition of the Washington Times for July 20, 2009:

“The below linked advertorial is running tomorrow in the Washington Times National Weekly edition on page 9.  Introduced to the readers of that national newspaper with this issue is an additional key point about Obama and one more of his many flaws in his exact citizenship status, i.e., that:

“Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject”.

And of course, as a British Subject at birth, Obama is not eligible to be President and the Commander-in-Chief of our military forces since he is not, and never can be, a “natural born citizen” of the USA as is required under Article II of our Constitution, per the intent of the founders of our nation and framers and legal scholars of our Constitution such as Franklin, Jay, and Washington, and per legal constitutional standards.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17478578/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-Advertorial-in-20090720-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-9

If you can, please give some coverage of this new key point in this newer version of the advertorials I have been running, i.e., that Obama was born a British Subject when born in 1961 no matter where he was born. His father was a British Subject and thus under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Obama was a British Subject at birth too.

While we who have been fighting this battle may clearly know and understand that point, most in America do not, nor do they understand the importance of that point as to natural born citizenship status under Article II of our Constitution, to constitutional standards.

Also if you can, please point out that if your readers wish to see more of this type of advertising in a national newspaper on the issue of Obama’s citizenship flaws, that they can now help the cause and contribute to funding the advertorials at:  http://www.protectourliberty.org/  I thank all the patriots who have contributed to-date to make this latest advertorial insertion possible. With help, more will be done.  Thank you.”

Sincerely,

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

For recovering a struggling economy?

But hey, Obama didn’t promise to help boost the economy, he promised to make things “more fair”.

$1,191,200 and two months produced 2 lbs of frozen ham, sliced.

Apart from the fact that the entire bill was corrupt kickbacks to political cronies, why do I suspect there’s more pork to this item?

To my Dear Readers: Just wanted to let you know this is the first in a series of reports.

Here is my first Sniffer report in which I suggest I have detected indicators (radiation) that the opponents of health care reform are going to try to kill it.  I call it the “nuclear option,” an all out, once for all attack that will destroy any chance of true health reform being implemented, and to ensure that Universal Health Care never becomes a reality.   As I stated in my earlier post, I assumed the opponents would operate behind the scenes as they have always done.  So to provide myself a reasonable boundary against common every-day paranoia, I decided to search for evidence of what is not being revealed by sniffing for the presence of influence not being stated, which should have a distinct “odor.”  I can’t prove I’m right, of course, but I can look for the radiation being emitted as the nuclear weapon is assembled and prepared for deployment.

My exhibit “A” is this snippet from New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, posted on his blog on July 17:

Will the destructive center kill health care reform? It looks all too possible.

What’s especially galling is the hypocrisy of their claimed reason for delaying progress — concern about the fiscal burden. After all, in the past most of them have shown no concern at all for the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook.

One sign of radiation is applying a delaying tactic.  The opponents want more time to not only maneuver, but to try to sway public opinion.  In this case they are desperate because they know 72% of Americans support health care reform that includes the public option.

Stuart Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report told ABC News on July 19,

“The deadline is artificial but it does reflect a reality and the reality is the longer this drags out, the less likely that the president will get exactly what he wants and all that he wants,” Rothenberg told ABC. “Look, there’s still a very good chance that we’re going to get a health care bill either later this year or a next year bill.”

“There’s going to be some sort of reform, I think most people believe, but in terms of the dramatic program, policy changes that the president wants, the longer this lasts the less likely that something dramatic is going to truly be passed and be signed,” he added.

Rothenberg, writing in his Report on July 16 stated,

Fundamentally, Republicans believe that while the Obama White House has been politically astute in promising that people happy with their current health care plan can keep it and that any new program won’t add to the deficit or require a major tax increase, the Obama plan will result in nothing less than government takeover of health care.

And Republicans think that time is on their side, which is why the Castellanos memo insists it is crucial for Republicans to slow down what it calls “the Obama experiment with our health.”

“Even voters who support a ‘public plan’ think Obama and Congress are moving too fast, with reckless speed, risking a huge part of our economy and our health care, when they don’t know what reform would really bring,” the memo says. “If we slow this sausage-making process down, we can defeat it, and advance real reform that will actually help.”

You can read the Republican Plan (all three pages of it) and come to your own conclusion about “reform that will actually help” by clicking here.  I thought the underlining was particularly helpful. . .

CNN reported on July 16, in an article titled “Real Battle Over Health Care About to Begin,” corroborates Krugman’s assertion:

Even some Democrats are up in arms over a recently unveiled health care reform bill in the House.

A leader of the conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats told CNN on Wednesday that he and other group members may vote to block the House Democrats’ health care bill from passing a key committee if they don’t get some of the changes they want.

Asked whether the Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee are considering voting as a group against the bill if it remains unchanged, Ross replied, “absolutely.”

“We remain opposed to the current bill, and we continue to meet several times a day to decide how we’re going to proceed and what amendments we will be offering as Blue Dogs on the committees,” said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Arkansas.

Ross said the bill unveiled Tuesday by House Democratic leaders did not address concerns he and other conservative Democrats outlined in a letter late last week to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The conservative Democrats don’t believe the legislation contains sufficient reforms to control costs in the health care system and believe additional savings can be found.

CNN goes on to report that the Soft Drink Industry is planning ads to oppose the legislation:

Special interest groups are also affected.

Beverage companies are running a TV ad opposing one congressional proposal that would pay for reform, in part, with a soft-drink tax.

“This is no time for Congress to be adding a tax to the simple pleasures we all enjoy … like juice drinks and soda,” the announcer in the TV ad says. “Taxes never made anyone healthy.”

This next item comes from the Insurance & Financial Advisor Web News.  They quote Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, from an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on June 7, 2009:

“If you think the government can’t run General Motors, why would you think they can run health care?…[A government-sponsored insurance company is] just the first step toward a national health system,” he said according to a transcript of the program. “I mean, they will absolutely use that model… to destroy all the insurance companies and get to a national health system.”

And now, an introduction to Rick Scott, who is very publicly leading the charge against any form of Government subsidized health care and health care reform.  This is from Washington Post staff writer, Dan Eggen:

The television ads that began airing last week feature horror stories from Canada and the United Kingdom: Patients who allegedly suffered long waits for surgeries, couldn’t get the drugs they needed, or had to come to the United States for treatment.

“Before government rushes to overhaul health care, listen to those who already have government-run health care,” intones Rick Scott, founder of a group called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights. “Tell Congress to listen, too.”

Scott, a multimillionaire investor and controversial former hospital chief executive, has become an unlikely and prominent leader of the opposition to health-care reform plans that Congress is expected to take up later this year. While disorganized Republicans and major health-care companies wait for President Obama and Democratic leaders to reveal the details of their plan before criticizing it, Scott is using $5 million of his own money and up to $15 million more from supporters to try to build resistance to any government-run program.

The campaign is being coordinated by CRC Public Relations, the group that masterminded the “Swift boat” attacks against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, and is inspired by the “Harry and Louise” ads that helped torpedo health-care reform during the Clinton administration.

In this piece, from MSNBC/Associated Press, Rick Scott’s “Swift Boat” ad is mentioned as well as two more players, Art Pope and James Miller:

The ad with Shona Holmes — who says she borrowed and saved money for a crucial operation in the United States — exemplifies how groups are intent on bending the debate toward their agendas.

Its sponsor, Patients United Now, is an offshoot of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a privately funded, Washington-based conservative group that believes in limited government and cutting taxes. Among its directors are businessman and conservative activist Art Pope and James C. Miller, a top Reagan administration official.

Slippery slope?

The group says it has spent nearly $1.8 million running the ad in Washington, D.C., and 11 states with senators on committees writing health care bills or ones seen as wavering. Patients United spokeswoman Amy Menefee says the ad is fair because giving government more control over health care would be a slippery slope toward increasing the federal role, and because some Democrats still favor government-only insurance.

Dominating the spending among opponents is Conservatives for Patients Rights, led and largely financed by Rick Scott, who was ousted as chief of the Columbia/HCA health care company during a fraud probe that ultimately saw the firm plead guilty to overbilling charges. Spokesman Brian Burgess says the group has spent over $4.5 million on TV ads that have run hundreds of times this year, mostly criticizing public health coverage.

Incidentally, The Canadian Broadcast Company (CBCnews.ca) ran this same AP story under the headline, “Canada Again Cast as Villain in U.S. Health Care Fight.“

USAToday published an article, “Advertising Wars Escalate in Health Care Fight” that provides more details of the players entering the field in opposition to  reform in one respect or another:

This week’s entries have been the most pointed so far this year. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce ran a full-page ad in Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, opposing the employer mandate and public insurance plan. “Health care reform that punishes employers would be bad for the economy and jobs,” the ad warned.

The National Federation of Independent Business ran an ad in The Hill, a similar publication, and plans an Internet ad next week. “We need to make it really clear that a mandate will kill jobs,” spokeswoman Stephanie Cathcart said.

The GOP ad ran Wednesday on cable TV as ABC aired a town-hall-style meeting on health care from the White House. “When he says ‘government option,’ that means putting government bureaucrats in charge,” the ad intoned.

So far, insurers have kept their money on the sidelines. “It’s still early in the process,” says Robert Zirkelbach of America’s Health Insurance Plans. “We haven’t taken anything off the table.”

A group called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, headed by former Columbia/HCA Healthcare executive Richard Scott, is launching a round of 30-second cable TV ads in 11 states next week. The ads target 14 senators who could help decide the fate of Obama’s public option. Scott’s group has spent more than $1 million a month since March, much of it his own money.

Last month, a group called Patients United Now joined the ad wars in opposition. It’s backed by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group headed by political strategist Tim Phillips that claims more than 22,000 donors. One of its founders was David Koch of Koch Industries; two of its current directors are Art Pope, a North Carolina conservative activist and businessman, and James Miller, former budget director in the Reagan administration.

It’s clear a lot of people are ponying up a millions of dollars to oppose either the parts of health care reform that will affect their industry, or are in opposition to Universal Health Care.

Here is my Sniffer “Radiation Detected List” for this post:

1. Blue Dog Democrats wanting to slow down the process or expressing “concern” over parts of the bill.  How much of that is genuine–the bills are massive documents–and how much of that is lobbying influence to give the opponents more time to prepare the Nuclear Option?
2. The so-call advocacy groups, like Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, Patients United Now (backed by the conservative group Americans for Prosperity) are ramping up their ads to influence public opinion and have, in the “Shonna” ad,  even succeeded in really irritating the Canadians.  There appears to be LOTS of money coming from somewhere and it is likely from donors with big bucks who don’t want their identities ever revealed.
3. Americans Against Food Taxes is not a grass roots organization, but a huge corporate consumer advocacy group encompassing virtually the entire Grocery Industry, their national associations , plus the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  To their credit, however, they list all their members on their web site.  Their combined lobbying influence is simply huge.
4. But here’s the comment in this post that sent the Sniffer Radiation Detector into the alarm mode:

So far, insurers have kept their money on the sidelines. “It’s still early in the process,” says Robert Zirkelbach of America’s Health Insurance Plans. “We haven’t taken anything off the table.”

The words, “We haven’t taken anything off the table” sent chills up my spine and set off the Radiation Sniffer like a red alert on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise.  Just what are they planning?

So what’s missing here?  Big Medicine.  And, yes, I’m aware the AMA has announced it is coming on board in support.  But should I say I’m just more than a bit skeptical about their sudden conversion.  Watch for the next post!

The Sniffer at Work. Photo Credit: Smith Detection, Inc., U.K.

Post Script:  Sen. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, was on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this morning.  The New York Times reported that he said:

Mr. McConnell declared that the United States already had the best health care in the world and did not need an approach that would have the country’s hospitals and doctors “working for the government.”

Here’s the actual quote from the Meet the Press transcript:

Let me, let me just tell you what I think, David, if I may, is flawed about the whole approach. They don’t seem to grant that we have the finest health care in the world now. We need to focus on the two problems that we have, cost and access, not sort of scrap the entire healthcare system of the United States.

Sen. McConnell–If you don’t have access to the finest health care in the world, then you don’t have the finest health care in the world, regardless of cost.

It wasn’t a Kennedy tragedy, it was a Kopechne tragedy. The fact that the man stayed in power for so long does not reflect well on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the Democratic Party.