Health Care Propaganda Rocks! – UPDATED

Earlier today I posted the latest USSR-inspired art project coming at us by The Capitalists Who Are Eager For You To Obey, and lamented my lack of artistic skills, which prevent me from spoofery.

Comes to the rescue, reader Brian Johnson. Ta-dah!

Brian has come through for me, before. I may have to put him on payroll!

UPDATE: Beyond the propaganda, Some Have Hats links to some of the highlights of the Health Care Bill:

Pg 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Government will audit books of all employers that self insure. Can you imagine what that will do to small businesses? Every one will abandon “self insurance” and go on Government insurance. So when Obama says that there will still be private health care, it’s simply a lie: this mandate will force employers to abandon their private plans.

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – a Government committee (good luck with that!) will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED! (We all knew this, because health care is rationed in Canada and Britain, but Obama kept saying it would not be).

Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You will have no choice!

Pg 58 HC Bill – Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accts for election funds transfer

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (read: ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government will create an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.

It goes on like that, and you can read it all here.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Xavier

    Regarding your note on Pg 30, Sec 123. How likely do you think it that pre-natal care would be authorized should the unborn child have Down Syndrome?

    [I know...or a story like this one, too -admin]

  • Pingback: The ObamaCare = “Meeting The Trains and Pointing Those To The Showers”

  • jaybear
  • NanB

    This “health” care bill scares me. I DO NOT want the government making heath care related decisions for me or my family. This whole situation reminds me of the 1973 film “Soylent Green”.

  • frblake

    This is frightful and anti-american.flb

  • Regina

    Is it just me, or does anyone else think this is moving us toward the “Master Race?” Is this the rebrth of the Final Solution to remove the defectives and the nonproductive?

    Never again.

  • Beatrix

    As a Canadian/Brit, please let me advise you guys; do what you can to stop going down this road.
    You guys need tort reform. You don’t need socialism.
    Have you thought of the Canucks? Our family doctors are often great, but if we’re in a situation where we need to see a specialist… or have a procedure… fuggadaboudit!
    Our emergency health back-up plan is called “going to the States”.
    (I am talking, of course, about those of us who are not closely related to powerful political figures; they never have problems with waiting lists.)

  • Dee

    I’m sure this bill is close to a thousand pages long, with very few on the Hill bothering to read it. Just what you’ve posted takes my breath away and I can feel the b/p rising.

    This goes beyond government intrusion into our lives. It’s total control.

  • CDJ

    I’m totally stealing this poster for my facebook page. With a direct link, of course. :)

  • Left Coast conservative

    We’ve had discussions in our family on how to best protect the handicap members and the elderly. This reminds me of the Michael O’Brien novel . . .

  • Bender

    It is a totalitarian nightmare.

    But then again, it is likely — a near certainty, actually — to blow up in their faces if they were to ever actually pass it. And by blow up, I mean there is the potential for an earth-shaking, transformative, all-out nuclear blow-up that would destroy the Democratic Party.

    Rule Number One of modern politics — DON’T TOUCH THE SOCIAL SECURITY OR MEDICARE BENEFITS OF SENIORS. Seniors, those old folks who have been voting Democrat forever and ever as a cultural matter, simply because they are Democrat and they have always been, not because they have actually put any thought into the matter, these seniors don’t like folks messing around with their benefits.

    And when you go and reduce the level of their care, including a total denial of care in some instances, and increase the costs, seniors will go ape @#%&. And this time they will know who did the cutting. The Dems own this and everyone knows it. No blaming the Republicans this time. And the anger could be transformative. It could be FDR in reverse. Just as they stayed Democratic for life after FDR, so too could they vote against the Dems for life after they destroy their Medicare.

    Meanwhile, all those young people who voted for Obama and who have been trending lib and Dem, including those totally out-of-touch lefties on campus, they too are going to be mighty annoyed when the government forces them to cough up mega-bucks to buy insurance that they neither need nor want nor will use. All those perfectly healthy young people who do not need anything beyond major medical coverage for unexpected big things like injuries and hospitalization — and many of them do perfectly welll taking the risk of not having any insurance at all — they are going to be fairly ticked off when they are the ones asked to subsidize everyone else and be compelled to buy insurance that they do not want, or else pay a hefty fine to the government. These young people already know that the Social Security taxes they are paying are going down the rat hole and they will never see a dime of it back. But coercive insurance could be the last straw that turns young people against Dems for generations.

    We should fear this attempt at totalitarianism. But we should also lose that fear with the sure knowledge that what Obama wants to do will not and cannot work. That the monster he wants to create will only result in the entire system come crashing down. Just as it was clear before the “stimulus” bill that that would not work and would, instead, make things worse.

  • DaveW

    When you sit around in cardiologist and cardio vascular surgeon offices a lot as I have recently you notice something; the waiting rooms are filled with old folks.

    Old folks, retired, disabled, non-productive people that are getting extremely expensive high tech medical care to preserve their lives. There is no “red pill/blue pill” decision, it is either get the surgery or die.

    I strongly suspect that these people – people like me – are going to find this care very difficult if not impossible get under a universal care system that has to ration out medical care based on some (as yet unknown) criteria.

    Or overweight people with diabetes. Why should the government pay for your care when you are clearly not taking care of yourself? Or smokers.

    They’re going to have to ration care based on some criteria. What criteria do you think they’re going to use?

    And you can take to the bank that it will pay for abortions.

    This is a horrible development. We must keep this from happening. Force the uninsured to buy into Medicare, whatever, find another way. Do NOT fool with the basic fundamentals of the health care system in the United States.

  • JuliB

    Two things -

    1. I WISH they would stop calling it reform. It isn’t. It’s a complete re-do, and that should scare everyone.

    2. Any bill that gets passed should have a trial run of 1 or 2 years, with the trial group being Congress, the Administration, their staff, and all federal agencies.

    Informational updates should be posted on the internet (with info blanked out to protect confidential info) so that citizens can get a look at the actual results.

    The above 2 would guarantee that this disaster wouldn’t pass.

  • dry valleys

    Of interest regarding health & that.

  • dry valleys

    Freak me- not working.


  • Bender

    Off topic, but –

    Is it too late to dish on Walter Cronkite? Sure, why not? after all, MSNBC and CNN are still running Michael Jackson specials at least half the day.

    So I was watching a Cronkite hosted special on Discovery or something. He was talking about his and CBS’s coverage of the Apollo 11 moon landing. And what do you know? It was faked.

    No, the moon landing was real. But the coverage by Uncle Walter and CBS was faked.

    Seems that CBS had this nice looking mock-up of the Lunar Module and the moon, together with a countdown clock, to show a simulated landing (shown from the perspective as if CBS had a film crew already on the moon), and they had the LM landing on the moon about 40 seconds before it actually happened.

    Most trusted man in America my @#%

    Can’t be trusted? Well maybe it’s a bit on-topic after all.

  • Laen

    Some of this might be humorous if the danger were not so appalling. Your attention is invited to “Shadows in Amsterdam” by Sally Thomas in FIRST THINGS May 09. She correctly writes that “. . . . American have allowed abortion to become the standard medical reatment for children prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome. Ninety per cent of such children are aborted: That’s how heroic our moral struggle has been.” I learned that 90% statistic last year in conjunction with Sarah Palin, who kept her Down syndrome child. For that, she is reviled on a bi-partisan basis. But what about Euthanasia? Its cultural rationale overlaps abortion of Down syndrome children — persons who are too inconvenient and expensive and serve no useful purpose. I’m appalled that the political party with an absolute voting majority in this country is frantically implementing national socialism and cannot be stopped. The bulletin of my church (Cathedral of St. Thomas More) today includes a petition to keep abortion out of National Health Care. What naivete’! (Euthanasia isn’t even listed.)Our would-be National Socialist Dictator says National Health Care will save money. Don’t you think he, and the Party, know which group is the most expensive consumer of care?

  • Gordon Savage

    Sometimes it comes down to a moment. When John Kerry marched out on that Democratic convention stage and saluted, declaring himself ready for duty, you knew he would never win. The American people still know when they’re being mocked.

    I’m not sure which moment it was during the Wednesday presser: “the red or blue pill,” the “stupid” cop, or “your doctor wants to cut out your child’s tonsils for profit if we don’t socialize health-care.” Doesn’t matter. The emperor has no clothes, and nothing he can do from now on will erase the memory of that naked fool.

  • Pingback: Patriotic Americans know when to die « Public Secrets

  • Sherry

    Comments to President Obama on the red pill,blue pill solution:

    1) You first.
    2) What’s in those pills?
    3) This is a “Your Money and Your Life” type of hold up.
    4) Is there someone else that we could talk to?
    5) What if the red pill is actually better?

  • Richard

    I started reading through the bill along with the comments, and my conclusions are as follows:

    -The claims regarding government intrusion one’s personal finances do not appear to pan out, specifically the items on pp. 58-59. I think it’s flatly incorrect to interpret what’s on these pages to mean that the govt. will have access to your bank account.

    -The claims that the bill mandates rationing are overstated, although much of the language appears to leave the door open for that eventuality, esp. considering that we still don’t know how this is all going to pay for itself or how we’re going to have enough medical resources to cover everyone.

    -The worst thing (in my opinion) among these comments is what goes under the euphemism “Advanced Care Planning Consultation” (p. 424-432). This essentially amounts to the compulsory brow-beating of seniors and their families into dying early.

    On the whole, I think there’s enough bad stuff in the bill to warrant getting very upset about. But I would not trust this list that’s been put out and is being copied on various websites. it’s got too much wrong, and it exaggerates too much. All of that serves to undercut the arguments against what actually is in the bill.

  • dry valleys

    Whistleblower tells of America’s hidden nightmare for its sick poor

    Let us also observe that many low-income Republicans, some of whom are wholly unemployed, have for many years been in no mood for “libertarian” arguments, & have formed a crucial constituency of “pro-government conservatives”.

    They were kept in Bush’s big tent by some concessions to their economic wishes & by talk about culture war issues which in my view were always irrelevant, but which are even more blatantly so in these times of economic hardship. This is why simply screaming about “socialism” is such a shite tactic.

    My suspicion is that if Obamacare can even pretend to work, & work for the growing number of poor Americans, it will establish itself in the public imagination. Limbaugh was right all along, in his way, when he said he wanted Obama to fail. Because that’s the only repectable position any right-whinger can take given that it’s curtains for you if he succeeds.

  • dry valleys

    The above argument in fact holds completely independently of whether this policy helps anyone or not. Just saying that this is a huge game-changer.

    You should certainly be fearing for the future now. Personally I’m not, but obviously your values differ from mine ;)

  • Gayle Miller

    From the murder of the unborn to the eradication of the elderly is not that long a stretch for the leftwingers. The only class whose lives they seek to preserve are the criminal class who, like the Dems, have demonstrated a lack of concern for the lives of their fellow humans!

    God will sort it all out, I suppose. But it makes life here on this plane somewhat distressing!

  • JuliB

    @ Richard – “it exaggerates too much”. Maybe not. If it were to pass, the bureaucracy would interpret it in the way it pleased in order to run the program. Then, if a problem, the courts interpret it. History shows us that how something was intended when written can be both very different from implemented policy and settled case law.

    @ dry valleys – Would you PLEASE use the spelling right-wing? I may be the only one you are offending, but the use of whinger instead (meaning whiner/complainer) seems a little sneaky and underhanded.

    The Anchoress hasn’t caught on to it, but this juvenile spelling insult is beneath any poster on this blog. She wisely disallows nastiness on variations of the President’s name, but I don’t think she realizes that whinger is not just a typo or a British/euro-spelling.

  • ricki

    I watched “Soylent Green” for the first time ever this weekend on TCM.

    I’m still trying to get the images out of my brain.

    The scary thing is that I can just see some of that (the “dying centers”) happening, and people being persuaded that it is their duty to go and die, because they are “sucking resources” from the able-bodied.

    I fear for a future where our value is reduced to what we can produce for the government. We will be done as a nation and as a society if that happens.

    I have parents who are in their 70s and would actually physically fight (like fist-fight) anyone who said they should just go off and die because they’re no longer “productive.” That’s how mad this makes me.

  • Western Chauvinist

    I’d like to add another suggestion to Julie’s request for dry valleys. Please desist from use of this “pro-government conservatism” terminology. Such language is only a couple steps removed from the Left’s slander of Bush as fascist. I remember Naomi Wolfe saying Bush was six steps into his ten step plan for a dictatorship in America. Hum – I wonder how she reacted to the “smoothest transition” of power in recent memory and the unprecedented access and cooperation the Bush administration gave Obama? I’m fairly sure she gave Obama all the credit.

    I do not deny that there are people on the political spectrum which you intend the term to describe. But, conservatism in America is defined by its dedication to liberty for the individual, making “pro-government” conservatism an oxymoron. Perhaps you can invent a new term, dry valleys, and earn a trademark?

    The Left has already co-opted much of the language of our discourse. We conservatives are late to the fight, but we should start by insisting on maintaining the meaning of “conservative.”

  • Sherry

    Xavier…why does the down syndrome diagnosis change the situation in your opinion?

    I fear this bill. I do not want this bill. I do not want our government spending month after month in the trillions on bills they haven’t bothered to read, lie about, and deny even the value of the public imput not politically motivated.

    This is tax and legislative negligence at best. If the President does not know what is in the bill he signs into law, it is an abdication of his moral and legal obligations as leader of the country. If he knows what is in it, it is a massive and to my mind, oppressive grab of power and an inappropriate abuse of his authority as President.

    Either way, even if his intentions are arguably good, (wanting medical care for the uninsurred), this is bad business, this is bad law and this is bad policy.

  • dry valleys

    Right, I will stop using the term “right-whinger”. I suppose it is unworthy of this site, & for that matter of me.

    I personally quite enjoy being called names, “leftoid” being my very favourite, but I suppose it’s not for everyone.

    I do take your point about the traditions of American conservatism, but I didn’t coin the phrase “pro-government conservative” myself, it is a phrase very commonly used by Pew Research & others to describe a part of the Republican coalition.

    See, not something I’ve made up, rather people who are real & have influence. It isn’t unfair to say that they’re not friendly to the prevailing tone of this blog & most Republican narrative. It isn’t unfair to say that Obama might win them over with some of his policies.

    You may wish to call them RINOs, yes, but they do vote generally for Republican candidates. I think they’re some of those other Republicans identify as a problem in getting a coherent message across, but it’s undeniable that Huckabee sorts exist.

    Look, you’re taking me more seriously than I deserve if you get offended at what I say. I am quite glad to be here & reluctant to needlessly upset anyone. I won’t back down if I think a point of principle is involved & offending people is unavoidable. But I have been a bit remiss in my language, thanks for telling me.

    I think the vilification of Bush went over the top, but I would have voted for Obama & not had any regrets yet. I really can’t see anything to make me share the horror this is inspiring amongst some.

    Re: senior citizens, this is a link of great worth. I comment as “asquith” on there.

    [I wasn't aware that "whinger" was anything; assumed it was some cute English thing. Thanks for not using it. As most know I'm not much for the name-calling thing. I don't really like "leftard" or RINO (Especially when I am having it thrown at me by purists on the right) or "nazi" (when I'm having it thrown my way on the left.) I think the commenters of this site are the best and they illustrate how easy it is to refrain from being uncivil while arguing ideas. I appreciate it very much, from all. admin]

  • Gina

    “pro-government conservatives”

    I haven’t met any of these. In fact, I know a lot of conservatives who were lackadaisical about the growth of government, who are generally not political people, certainly not the type to organize and protest, but who are now waking up in a big way. Perhaps it doesn’t transmit in Britain since from reading your papers it seems you get the American news from the AP and Reuters etc., but take a look at the polls. A lot of Americans are alarmed, and souring rapidly on a President they had assumed was going to be round 2 of the Clintons with some newfangled cachet, and are realizing they did get a naive, incompetent big-spender like the cranky right-wing Fox News commentators warned them about.

    People like handouts, even people who call themselves conservatives, but there are limits. Obama and Pelosi appear blissfully unaware of the fact that they’re trampling like elephants over those limits.

  • dry valleys

    Of great interest, Gina. Few would deny that the size of government is much larger than it was in the Bush years. I am ambivalent on this: I may seem from some of my more thoughtless posts to welcome it, but I am really ambivalent. (I also obviously don’t take as much actual interest in American domestic politics as you).

    This constituency that was described in Pew Research. Whether they turn against big government, or decide that they quite like things like health care actually, is something that I think can’t be said with certainty so early. You’re right that I lean towards the latter point of view, whereas you hold the former.

    I am not a betting man, but we’ll see in a few years who’s right. Thinking about it there’d be no surprise if there was an anti-government turn. But Obamacare etc don’t even need to work, they just need to give a good impression of working.

    A lot of the New Deal still exists. Our own postwar welfare state survived Thatcher & will survive the next right-wing government, which I’m dreading, but I don’t like this pack of so-called leftists either. (I usually support third parties or don’t vote). So it may be that Republicans have to accept it or lose, or it may be that it can be done away with without tears, but if I were you I’d be worrying, as I said.

    As for where I get my info on America? It’s actually mainly Andrew Sullivan & the links he gives to his pals. I also enjoy Daniel Larison. I read Pandagon every now & then but really it’s a bit too much for me on that site. I am more of a moderate leftist than I must appear sometimes.

  • MissJean

    “My suspicion is that if Obamacare can even pretend to work, & work for the growing number of poor Americans, it will establish itself in the public imagination.”

    One very big problem here: Poor Americans already have health coverage. Even illegal aliens have health coverage.

    Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with American health care system as it stands. I can walk into the emergency room and get treatment, even if I can’t pay for it. The hospital will bill me, but they are stuck with whatever pay schedule I decide to make. (For example, I paid a $300 bill at about $20 a month. No interest was charged.) That’s not even counting those who simply don’t pay; they’re aren’t jailed or taken to court.

    The only danger is that a hospital system will hire someone to divert poverty cases to other hospitals. ;)

  • Richard

    @ JulieB: You’re point about interpretive leeway is well-taken, and I do believe that legislators will take as many liberties as they can with this language. But I’m mainly concerned about how to go about persuading so-called “moderates”, many of whom (in my experience) like to take any minor loophole (e.g., “it doesn’t *exactly* say that”, “that’s slippery slope”, etc.) and use it to invalidate the entire argument and wave away other legitimate concerns under the blanket accusation of wing-nuttery, esp. when the counter-narrative being pounded home by liberals is that this is all for the poor and the immigrants and if you don’t support it than you’re selfish, heartless, or some other invidious insult.
    Now, it may very well be the case that I’m chasing after the wind in trying to appeal to moderates. But I like to think that there’s enough here that’s bad enough that we don’t need to open ourselves to the accusation of scare tactics.

    That said, I do want to rescind my comment that “The claims that the bill mandates rationing are overstated”. After re-reading pages 28-30, I now believe that it does mandate rationing in a particularly sneaky way. If I’m reading it correctly (and anyone please feel free to point out if I am not), it does so through the language of limiting “cost-sharing” for non-preventive care. This can easily be spun into something like, ‘oh, we’re cuttings costs by decreasing the amount you spend in co-payments, so you’re actually going to be paying less than you may be now!’ But while that’s technically true, it obscures the fact that the reason you’ll be paying less is that you won’t be ALLOWED to pay more for services above an beyond those covered by the government and within your mandated spending limit.

  • dry valleys

    On about Obamacare- the Rude Pundit.

    Not safe for work. But a joyous force of nature indeed.

  • Pingback: ObamaCare ads : Pursuing Holiness

  • Elise

    Pages 424-434 of HR3200 include Section 1322 which covers Advance Care Planning Consultation. This does not require, mandate, or compel end of life counseling. It offers end of life counseling as a new service Medicare will pay for separately as opposed to paying for it when included as part of a standard physical exam. The provisions regarding counseling on antibiotics, hydration, and so on come from a POLST, a standard end of life care form. You can Google POLST and see what one looks like.

  • Pingback: The Anchoress — A First Things Blog

  • Soopermexican

    Love it!