Obama Approval Numbers Still Dropping, While Petitions Mount Against Health Care Plan

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

A series of recent public opinion polls and anti-Obamacare petitions have shown that President Obama and his health care overhaul are continuing to decline in popularity at the end of a turbulent Congressional recess.

The public disapproval rating of Obama's handling of health care has jumped nine points since July to 52 per cent, according to an Associated Press-GfK survey released today. In the same poll, 49 said they disapproved of Obama's overall performance, up from 42 per cent in July.

The most recent Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that 31 per cent of the nation's voters strongly approve of Obama's presidential performance, while 39 per cent said they strongly disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8.

Scott Rasmussen noted in an August Wall Street Journal opinion piece that the polls indicate Obama's efforts to galvanize support for his plan have grim prospects of success: only 25 per cent of American voters strongly favor the health care reform, while 41 per cent strongly oppose it. Among independent voters in August, 60 per cent opposed the bill while 35 per cent were in favor, with 47 per cent strongly opposed and 16 per cent strongly favoring.

Obama is scheduled to speak today to a joint session of Congress, presumably the latest attempt to persuade reluctant bipartisan lawmakers to accept his health reform agenda.

A Zogby Interactive Survey released August 31 noted that the August drop in support ran across several of Obama's core constituencies. Democrats, liberals, African-Americans, and young voters in the survey who approved of Obama's job performance all showed a drop of about 8-9 points since July 24.

Meanwhile, an online petition this summer sponsored by Townhall.com called "Free Our Healthcare Now" has raced across the Internet, and now touts over 1.3 million signatures - which its sponsors say makes it the largest public policy petition ever delivered.

The anti-Obama group Grassfire.org claims that its own online petition against the health care overhaul has reached nearly half a million signatures.

Grassfire is also circulating a critique of the health care overhaul by ABC reporter John Stossel, republished by America's News Today on Youtube last month.

In the report, Stossel encapsulates many of the fears expressed by citizens across the country in townhall meetings by showing the pitfalls of government-run health care systems. Though President Obama has denied that he intends to bring about a single-payer health care system, the ABC report points to a video of then-Senator Obama specifically advocating for a "single-payer health care system."

Another video showing Obama advocating for a single-payer plan in 2003 and 2007, and linked by the Drudge Report, was blasted by the White House early last month as "taking sentences and phrases out of context and cobbling them together to leave a very false impression" of the president's stated position. The White House attempted to prove its position by showing more recent videos of Obama denying a future government takeover. However, the Drudge Report quickly linked to an uncut version of Obama's 2003 remarks that verified the message of the first video. The White House did not respond to the later video.

More Bishops Criticize Government-Run Health Care; ‘Our Federal Bureaucracy Is A Vast Wasteland’

From Catholic World News

Drawing upon Catholic teaching on subsidiarity, an increasing number of US bishops are criticizing the concept of government-run health care. Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo has criticized the view that “the national government is the sole instrument of the common good.” Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford adds:

As Catholic people, however, we are not allowed to wash our hands of it and to let things shake out as the federal government would have it. Our more than bicentennial experience with our federal government leads many to the conclusion that our government really does only one thing well: waging war. In every other area of life, when someone says, “I am from the government and I am here to help you,” our survival instinct tells us to run and hide. In the early ’90s when the health care scare was last put upon us, the opposition crowed: “If you like the postal service, you will love national health,” and that still seems to be the feeling of many …

The fourth principle is subsidiarity which commands us to seek the most effective approach to solving the problem. Our federal bureaucracy is a vast wasteland strewn with the carcasses of absurd federal programs which proved infinitely worse than the problems they were established to correct. It perhaps is too extreme to say that competent government is an oxymoron, but sometimes it seems that way. The moral principal of subsidiarity implies decreasing the role of government and employers in health care when lower order groups can better serve individuals and families. We need to think of health care as more of a market than a system …

It was observed by the ancients that usually the problem with totalitarian governments is not that they do not love their people; the problem seems to be that they love them too much — they just do not trust them. To establish control, these governments have always tried to control food. Remember why Jacob’s sons went down to Egypt in the Book of Exodus. But since homo sapiens is an omnivore, this proves increasingly difficult.

Modern socialist governments like to control not food but the means to protect and extend life. Some have called the current efforts of our federal government “senioricide” or “infanticide.” That perhaps is too severe, but we as Catholics should take care that health care does not morph into life control.

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

• Catholic bishops question details of health care overhaul (AP)
• Concerns to take to heart in health care and proposed reforms (Rockford Observer)
• Kansas City bishops question centralized health-care system (CWN, Sep 2)
• Iowa bishop warns against healthcare rationing, ‘federal monopolization’ (CWN, Aug 28)

British Study Reveals 'Cruel and Neglectful' Care of One Million NHS Patients

A major report was released today on the abuse and suffering endured by patients under Great Britain's government-run national health service. It is a shocking glimpse of what Obama would impose on all Americans. The more than 100 comments that follow the linked story below shed even more light on a socialized medical system that The One holds up as a model.

One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today.

From The Telegraph
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor

In the last six years, the Patients Association claims hundreds of thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel' treatment.

The charity has disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff.

The Patients Association said the dossier proves that while the scale of the scandal at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust - where up to 1,200 people died through failings in urgent care - was a one off, there are repeated examples they have uncovered of the same appalling standards throughout the NHS.

Read the rest of this entry >>

The Audacious Lies of Barack Obama on Socialized Medicine

Support for Congressional Health Care Reform Falls to New Low

From Rasmussen Reports

Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low as just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan. That’s down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that opposition to the plan has increased to 53%, up nine points since late June.

More significantly, 44% of voters strongly oppose the health care reform effort versus 26% who strongly favor it. Intensity has been stronger among opponents of the plan since the debate began.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those under 30 favor the plan while 56% of those over 65 are opposed. Among senior citizens, 46% are strongly opposed.

Predictably, 69% of Democrats favor the plan, while 79% of Republicans oppose it. Yet while 44% of Democratic voters strongly favor the reform effort, 70% of GOP voters are strongly opposed to it.
Most notable, however, is the opposition among voters not affiliated with either party. Sixty-two percent (62%) of unaffiliated voters oppose the health care plan, and 51% are strongly opposed. This marks an uptick in strong opposition among both Republicans and unaffiliateds, while the number of strongly supportive Democrats is unchanged.

Despite the loss of support, 51% of all voters still say it is at least somewhat likely that the health care proposal will become law this year. That figure has hardly budged since the debate began and now includes 18% who say passage is very likely. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say passage of the plan is unlikely, but only 10% say it is not at all likely.

Congress is now in recess until early September, but Democratic congressional leaders have vowed to pass some form of the health care plan when they return to Washington. Town hall meetings many of the congressmen are holding to get public feedback on the plan have turned into protest sessions, and the New York Times reports today that the president and Democratic leaders are revamping the sales strategy for the reform effort because they find themselves on the defensive.

As for the protesters at congressional town hall meetings, 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors, while 37% think they’ve been put up to it by special interest groups and lobbyists.

The latest polls shows that 26% of voters believe that passage of the Congressional health care plan will lead to a better quality of health care. But most voters (51%) disagree and say the quality will get worse. Seventeen percent (17%) expect it to stay the same.

Voters ages 18 to 29 are closely divided on the question of quality, but those in all older age groups by sizable margins expect quality to worsen.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of Republicans and 59% of unaffiliated voters say passage of the health care plan will cause the quality of health care to go down. Among Democrats, 41% say quality will improve, 25% get worse and 26% stay the same.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of all voters say the cost of health care will go up if the reform proposal passes. Nineteen percent (19%) say costs will go down, and 21% say they will stay the same.

Voters in all age and income groups, again by large margins, believe passage of the reform measure will drive up health care costs.

Republican voters overwhelmingly say costs will go up with the new plan. By a two-to-one margin, unaffiliated voters agree. Democrats are fairly evenly divided as to whether costs will go up or down.
When it comes to health care decisions, 51% of voters fear the federal government more than private insurance companies. But 41% fear the insurance companies more.

Yet only 25% agree with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that health insurance companies are "villains."
While Congress has debated reforms to the U.S. health care system, Americans have begun to show greater confidence in it. Forty-eight percent (48%) of adults now say the health care system is good or excellent, and only 19% say it’s poor.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters say tax cuts for the middle class are more important than new spending for health care reform, although the president’s top economic advisers have indicated that tax hikes may be necessary to fund the reform plan. That helps explain why 76% say it is likely that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class to cover the cost of health care reform, and 59% say it’s very likely.

Thirty-two percent (32%) favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone, but 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan.

And Now It's AARP Against Their Members

White House Caught Between Drudge and a Hard Place on Health Care Reform

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

The Drudge Report, perhaps the most popular news nexus on the internet, has found itself in the White House's crosshairs after it published a link to a video in which President Barack Obama is shown, in 2003 and 2007, expressing enthusiastic support for a "single-payer" socialized health-care system. In recent weeks, however, Obama has repeatedly attempted to assuage widespread concern by stating that he does not intend to eliminate private insurance companies, but only wants to provide a "public option" to give insurance to an estimated 47 million persons currently lacking coverage. Obama has also rejected the charge that a public option would act as a "Trojan horse" for a single-payer system, which some Americans fear would lead to rationing of health benefits and excessive wait times.

Yet, on Monday, the Drudge Report linked to a video montage compiled by Naked Emperor News that shows Obama explaining that his plans for health care reform would eventually lead to the elimination of private health insurance companies in favor of a single-payer system.

"I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process, I can envision in a decade out, or fifteen years out, or twenty years out," Obama says in a 2007 interview with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The video montage then follows with a 2003 speech given by Obama at an AFL-CIO conference on "Civil, Human, and Women's Rights" in which he says, "I am a proponent of single-payer universal health care plans."

The White House yesterday launched an internet counter-attack, accusing Drudge and bloggers of being agents of "disinformation" with "deceiving headlines" about Obama's health-care reform plan. The White House repeated the President's recent statements that no Americans would lose their current coverage.

"You know, the people who always try to scare people, whenever you try to bring them health insurance reform, are at it again," said Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House Health Reform Office. "They are taking sentences and phrases out of context and cobbling them together to leave a very false impression."

Drudge, however, then responded by providing the uncut context of Obama's 2003 address to the AFL-CIO labor union posted on Breitbart.tv. In that address Obama states clearly, "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. ...

"A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."

According to recent polls, Americans have become increasingly wary of the powerful reach of the proposed health care legislation, which seeks to bring the entire health-care industry under the control of the federal government and its bureaucracy.

Although the White House and Congressional Democrats pushing the health-care reform plan have said that the government plan will be deficit neutral, a recent analysis from Investors Business Daily concluded otherwise. Investors Business showed that in the years between 1968 and 2007, costs to maintain government health plans skyrocketed, with Medicare increasing 85.5 times and Medicaid 105.9 times, dwarfing government estimates for the actual costs of the programs.

For both houses of Congress, the August recess has many Senators and Representatives facing the heat of voters' wrath at packed town hall meetings in their home districts. Some Democrats have described the meetings as "town hells," as constituents demand to know how they can trust the government to manage health-care, when it cannot keep the "cash for clunkers" program afloat for more than a few days without running out of money.

Today Drudge also linked to an Associated Press report that effectively validates the concerns of pro-life advocates that the health care reform will open the door to government funding of abortion.

Health Reform and Cancer

The danger is that ObamaCare will stifle medical innovations that could save patients like me.


From The Wall Street Journal
By Myrna Ulfik

I have been battling non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, an incurable blood cancer, for the past nine years. Last year, I was also diagnosed with uterine cancer.

I didn’t run to Canada for treatment. Medicare took care of my needs right here in New York City. To endure, I just need the freedom to choose my insurance, my doctors, and get the diagnostic scans and care I need. And one more thing: I need hope that a treatment will be developed that can control my diseases the way insulin controls diabetes.

Every cancer patient needs these things, especially hope. But the government’s plan to reform the health-care system in this country threatens all of this—particularly the development of new treatments.

When I was first diagnosed in 2000 I had chemotherapy. It put me in remission, but nearly killed me.

Three years later the lymphoma was back and I faced more chemo. This is so often the pattern of cancer: recurring disease and repeated chemo. In the end patients often die not from the disease, but from the treatments.

I took a different path, seeking a cancer vaccine. One had been developed at Stanford University 12 years earlier that had given 90% of patients very long remissions and cured some entirely. Unlike chemotherapy, there were no severe side effects.

But I couldn’t get the vaccine because the Food and Drug Administration required another trial that would take nine more years. Over-regulation has kept this treatment from patients for 21 years, as some 24,000 lymphoma patients died each year.

My husband and I searched the Internet and found another vaccine being tested at Freiburg University in Germany. That vaccine has helped me avoid chemotherapy for years. My oncologist says he’s never seen another patient do so well with the type of lymphoma I have.

I am still here because my care was managed by doctors—not a government agency. My doctors do what the bureaucracy can’t: They see me as a human being.

Patient-as-person will be a lost concept under the new health-care plan, where treatments will be based not upon individual patient needs, but upon what’s best for everyone. So cancer drugs for seniors might take second place to jungle gyms and farmers’ markets—so-called preventive care—which are covered under both the House and Senate versions of the health bill.

The stimulus package passed earlier this year allocated $1.1 billion for hundreds of “Comparative Effectiveness Research” studies. This project will compare all treatment options for a host of diseases in order to develop a database to guide doctors’ decisions. Research of this sort typically takes years. But the data will likely be hastily drawn conclusions that reflect the view of the government agencies that fund the studies: Cheap therapies are just as good as expensive ones.

In order to finance health-care reform, Democrats in Congress have proposed cutting $500 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years. Yet in his press conference last Wednesday, President Barack Obama denied that Medicare benefits would be cut. He has surrounded himself with advisers who believe otherwise.

Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama’s original pick to head Health and Human Services, argues in his book “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis,” that we should accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments.” Mr. Daschle blames the “use and overuse of new technologies and treatments” for runaway health-care costs. He suggests a Federal Health Board modeled after the British “NICE” board to make decisions on health-care rationing.

But the British system is infamous for denying state-of-the-art drugs to cancer patients. Thus cancer-survival rates in Britain are far below those in America, just as they are in Canada.

Canadian cancer patients told to wait months for treatment and diagnostic scans frequently go south and pay out-of-pocket for care in the United States. A number of Quebeckers even sued their government for violating their “right to life and security” under the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada’s Supreme Court has acknowledged the pervasive rationing that occurs. In the 2005 case Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) , the majority opinion stated: “The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.”

Despite such evidence, the Obama plan is likely to target various treatments—including radiology scans—in order to cut costs. I survived this long because my radiologist examines each of my scans with me in detail.

One of those scans also saved my life by picking up unsuspected uterine cancer. The congressional majority seems blissfully unaware that all cancer patients need those scans to monitor their diseases.

Also uneasy with the cost of medical progress is Dr. David Blumenthal, Mr. Obama’s new head of Health Information Technology. It is not reassuring that he stresses that two-thirds of the annual increases in health spending result from medical innovation, as he has written in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Cancer patients need nothing more than such innovation. Yes, developing more effective, less toxic treatments is expensive. The prices of new cancer therapies reflect the billion-dollar cost of developing each new drug. But such treatments can be life-saving, as they have been for me.

Despite its warts, our system works. Carelessly tinkering with it will have a world-wide penalty—the stifling of new drug development. What company would spend a billion dollars to develop a drug that will not be reimbursed by the new health plan? This would be a direct, devastating blow to the most vulnerable Americans.

In spite of the president’s assurances, there is every sign that this plan will be financed by deep cuts to Medicare, which, like the public option, will limit payments for specialists, radiology scans, and cutting-edge cancer drugs. These are prime targets because they are more expensive than other services. But are we really expected to forgo new medical technology and return to the cancer care of the 1970s?

When members of Congress are asked if they will opt for the public plan, they say no. That’s for the rest of us.

The number of Americans who have cancer exceeds 10 million. It’s time for cancer patients and their families to remind those on Capitol Hill that health-care reform is a matter of life and death for us.

Ms. Ulfik is a writer in New York.

From Our Mail: Are We Slaves on Obama's Plantation?

From: Randall A. Terry

Re: Comedy Videos: Are we Slaves on Obama's Plantation? Kill Granny, and more

Hello Pro-life Friend.

It is time for some satire!

G.K. Chesterton said: "That which is ridiculous deserves to be ridiculed." The idea of Obama forcing us to pay for dead babies is evil - but it also worth mocking.

I hope you enjoy these videos, and forward them to your friends!

1) Are we slaves on Obama's Plantation? (Filmed at the White House!)

2) The KKK endorses Obama' sHealth care: Abort more black babies.

3) The KKK endorses Obama: YOU are a racist!

4) Kill Granny, Save your Inheritance, and lower health care costs!

On a serious note, go to www.OverturnRoe.com to learn what you can do to defeat this damnable healthcare bill.

VISIT your congressmen's local offices IN PERSON. Let them hear your anger; let them see your eyes.

Go to them, and tell them you will not pay your taxes.

And maybe forward these videos to them!

Keep in the fight.

Randall

5 Freedoms You'd Lose in Health Care Reform

If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.

From Fortune
By Shawn Tully

In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.

A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.

If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:

Read the rest of this entry >>

Does Ted Kennedy Deserve His Extended Cancer Care?

From American Thinker
By James Lewis

Senator Ted Kennedy, who is now 76 years old and was diagnosed with brain cancer in May of last year, is telling the world that nationalized medical care is "the cause of his life." He wants to see it pass as soon as possible, before he departs this vale of tears.

The prospect of Kennedy's passing is viewed by the liberal press with anticipatory tears and mourning. But they are not asking the proper question by their own lights: That question -- which will be asked for you and me when we reach his age and state in life --- is this:

Is Senator Kennedy's life valuable enough to dedicate millions of dollars to extending it another month, another day, another year?

Because Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy agree with each other that they of all people are entitled to make that decision. Your decision to live or die will now be in their hands.

Ted Kennedy is now 76. Average life expectancy in the United States is 78.06. For a man who has already reached 76, life expectancy is somewhat longer than average (since people who die younger lower the national average); for a wealthy white man it may be somewhat longer statistically; but for a man with diagnosed brain cancer it is correspondingly less. As far as the actuarial tables of the Nanny State are concerned, Kennedy is due to leave this life some time soon. The socialist State is not sentimental, at least when it comes to the lives of ordinary people like you and me.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Obama Advisor Won’t Guarantee Americans Will Keep Their Health Plan

Here's Christina Romer, Obama's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, unable to answer a basic question about the Democrat health care plan, and unwilling to state that Americans will be able to continue coverage they currently enjoy, although that had been one of their promises until recently. The concept of choice has very limited application for socialists.

Where Does Single-Payer Health Care Work?

From The National Center for Policy Analysis

Two days after President Barack Obama told the American Medical Association that in some countries a single-payer health care system "works pretty well," the White House reaffirmed that people in those countries liked their health care, but also said it did not know to which countries the president was referring.

The criticism of single-payer health care -- primarily as practiced in Canada and Europe -- has been that operations and procedures are long-delayed or denied and health care is rationed to control costs. For example:

• In Canada, the average wait for a 65-year-old man to get a hip replacement is six months, according to the Freedom Works Foundation.
  

• The average wait time in a Canadian emergency room is 16 hours and 18 minutes.
  

• Also, the average cancer test and radiation treatment cycles vary between 6 to 8 weeks, according to the foundation.

Meanwhile:

• In Great Britain, at any one time, there are about a million people waiting to get into hospitals, according to John C. Goodman, president, CEO and Kellye Wright Fellow of the National Center for Policy Analysis.
  

• Almost 900,000 Canadian patients are on the waiting list at any point in time, according to the Fraser Institute.
  

• In New Zealand, 90,000 people are on the waiting lists, according to government figures.

"Those people constitute only about 1 to 2 percent of the population in those countries, but keep in mind that only about 15 percent of the population actually enters a hospital each year," says Goodman. "Many of the people waiting are waiting in pain. Many are risking their lives by waiting. And there is no market mechanism in these countries to get care to people who need it first."

Earlier this year, the Obama administration signed an economic recovery act into law that established a comparative effectiveness council to determine the most cost-effective medical procedures. This economic stimulus bill also included the establishment of a centrally linked electronic infrastructure that would include the medical information of every American by 2014.

Obama and most Democrats in Congress are pushing for a "public option," or government-run health insurance program that would compete with private health care companies.

Many analysts agree that the private, market-driven companies would be unable to compete with a government-run insurance program, which would have nearly unlimited resources.

Source: Fred Lucas, "White House Stands by Obama's Claim That Single-Payer Health Care Works In Other Countries -- It's Just Not Sure Which Countries Obama Meant," CNSNews.com, June 18, 2009.

For text: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49743

For more on Health Issues: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_Category=16

The Democrat's Dream: Canadian-Style Socialized Medicine

Here's a simple five-minute video that any patient can understand, even though in this case, it is brain surgery:

Watch, and pass it on to anyone you know who's thinking about voting to put liberal Democrats in control of both Congress and the White House, with the resulting power to finally enact their Canadian-style socialized medicine system.

The younger you are, the more years you and your family might be forced to live at greater risk to your life and health.