Other than in the past on a professional basis, when he wrote highly technical articles about IBM's AS/400 computer system, Brian Kelly receives no compensation for his work. Additionally, Kelly has not taken any donations or contributions other than for his US Senate Campaign of 2012. Mr. Kelly has recetly canceled his write-in campaign for the US Senate, and instead he endorses Tom Smith for US Senator from Pennsylvania v. Robert P. Casey Jr. If you would like to donate to the closed campaign to help defray costs, feel free to go to www.kellyforussenate.com and click the DONATE button. Your donations are most appreciated.
Additionally, if you would like to help Mr. Kelly in his efforts to continue to write free patriotic articles and to write additional patriotic books for the good of America, feel free to visit this site or that site to purchase Mr. Kelly's patriotic books. His latest book, Saving America, the How-To Book is available from this site. Thank you.
Please enjoy the rest of this article.
Rationing rules are rationing rules and the way they work best is that the person with the most health needs should get no care so that five other people can get a little and can be made happy or made silent since Big Brother is in charge. Of course in this scenario, the elderly and the sickliest die first. When your good insurance policy is no longer available and Medicare is funding illegal aliens; and people who never invested in Medicare are receiving Medicare benefits, why would such a government choose you instead of somebody else to receive care?
You probably already know about the impending doctor shortages and that there are already shortages of life sustaining drugs. You just can’t get them. So, who decides whether you live or die? In the new Obamacare world, it is a government bureaucrat. In the old world, you could do whatever was necessary to recover from an illness. Those days are gone. Thank you Mr. President, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid. I can understand why none of you three, or your cohorts would want to be under this plan.
Wasn’t it a better deal when we all worked hard and we paid, or our employer paid for our insurance policy, simply because we worked hard for the company?. When you are thrown in the pot with everybody else, nobody is going to care how hard you worked? You are just part of the soup.
Many people cannot see it because it is not physical like those items that are products, such as chocolate, cheese, and butter. When you are talking about products, it is easy to understand that such a box will go empty eventually, no matter how much you think you are entitled to. Well, the same thing goes for healthcare.
Sine healthcare is a scarce commodity and the government will be in charge of it s rationing, it thus gives the government the right to decide who gets what care, and when, it also gives the government the right to see your private bank accounts and dictate what options you can have for free and for what care options you will be taxed. Certain unions got temporary sweetheart deals while their plans cost about $10,000 more than anybody else’s. That will end for sure and even union members will feel the sting of Obamacare. The best healthcare plans will lose the most.
The system is intentionally designed to kill private insurance companies and take down many physician practices. The government wants to create a shortage that otherwise would not exist, and for which only government has the solution. Government wants you to be dependent on government and that is how government will get to last while people die from its decisions.
The Physicians with whom I speak are not prepared to work their practice as a loss leader. Yet, the government with Obamacare says doctors will all make the same amount regardless of their expertise and time spent in the office. Who would want that? And so, doctors will be getting out of Dodge. Maybe they will go to a business friendly country like Costa Rica!
Every conservative already knows why this terrible 2700 page piece of Obamacare legislation must go. I am sure the little bit of healthcare good that may be in the bill can be replaced by a plan that removes lifetime limits and pre-existing conditions and makes it all fair. It can be reworked to permit people to have the same flexibility in insurance as they have now. The key part is that the people again be in control instead of having to give up their own healthcare so somebody else can have it. I would think no more than twenty or thirty pages of good, solid legislation ought to cover a rework that works for hard working Americans.
As you recall, the promises before the passage of Obaamcare were numerous. We now know they came from thin air. Please never forget this now famous disingenouous Obama quote: “If you like your doctor or healthcare plan, you can keep it.” The verdict on this is in as more and more doctors are rejecting Obamacare, and many plan to leave the practice of medicine or at least sever ties with government funded medicine if they are permitted.
Additionally, corporations, with a fiduciary responsibility to stockholders, are seriously considering dropping health plans, taking the penalties, and sending affected employees to the government “exchanges.” The reports are endless. The results of the modeling by independent agencies are in, and they show that the famous Obama quote is untrue on a number of fronts. Looking for numbers, count on about ten million Americans or more being dropped onto the state exchange rolls. Who signed up for that? Which American said it was OK for Obama to ruin their opportunity to get quality healthcare insurance—especially as we age.
The only saving grace for the notion of healthcare reform is to improve the lot of all Americans. Yet, Obamcare hurts every American that ever worked to have good health care for life. Somehow, the Prevaricator in Chief believes the Obamacare law gives him the right to mess with everybody’s health plans, leaving some, who once had great health insurance, with no recourse but to beg for services from the government.
In America and most countries that are still doing OK despite the economy, you have the hard working, and the not-so-hard-working. The hard working that often were the highest producers in days past would decide to help those not-so-hard-working, or shall we say, those less fortunate than they. This was called charity. The founders never put the word redistribution in the Constitution because to have a strong country, each worker must be able to reap what they sew. Otherwise, soon the reapers will outnumber the sewers.
Consequently hard working Americans like the idea of helping people that are less fortunate. They like to help the helpless but they are not as interested in making people helpless. Obamacare lifts the needy to a superior position over the providers. It places the reapers above the sewers, and it can only work if government exercises a heavy hand. Government domination will make able bodied and productive Americans not only long for the good ole, pre-Obama days, but we will demand it. We have yet to see government dominance in America, but just look at the new regulations on a daily basis, and there is reason for able bodied men to fear their government. Who, by the way, in the US would you say is helpless?
Without getting into specifics, there is a class of people that are lumped together and called homeless. I must admit that I am puzzled by where the homeless fit in all this Obamacare stuff. Are they harmed or do they benefit? Do they get shelter out of the deal, which today’s programs already provide but there are lots of reasons why it doesn’t work? Does Obamacare merely permit the homeless to come off the streets to make arrangements for your doctor to see them. Some things apparently are better left unsaid.
If anybody needs help in America, it is the homeless . Are they not the first ones who come to mind, who need real help? Yet, statutes in Obamacare at first blush hurt the homeless, unless they are given waivers. On another theme, perhaps the homeless could be helped more is the resources from Obamacare were used to address their plight. How about a war for the homeless? We can solve the financial problems regarding a better life for the homeless problems for a lot less than Obamacare. Is there values in taking wads of dollars and giving medical insurance to the homeless for whatever charge, while we still have homeless with no place to go?
Would it not be more prudent to us use any cash that we can muster to build more shelters and have the shelters all run by the good people from the Salvation Army, if they would take the job. We can build top-notch neighborhood clinics right in the shelters. If we could get this going, we could probably get some very generous people and some other charities to chip in, along with the government, to make sure such projects are successful. We can even offer the homeless jobs and help them build life skills in building the shelters. Wouldn’t that be nice a lot better than able bodied people losing their health care insurance policies so that a mythical non-descript set of unidentified poor, who are not homeless can have better health care?
Homelessness itself is a visible manifestation that all is not well in America. The numbers cannot be measured with 100% accuracy. Statistics from nationalhomeless.org show that there are 3.5 million homeless people and of those, a whopping 26% suffer mental disorders. When you wonder what happened to the people that once were committed in insane asylums years ago, now we know. They are still out there, literally. Would we not be better off investing in helping them than disrupt the healthcare of all Americans to solve problems that are not well identified.
As a rehash, ObamaCare was passed by Congress on March 21, 2010, and it became federal law on March 23. President Obama waited a day or two to sign his signature legislation but he did not wait not long enough for many of us. It is now the law of the land. In essence, its purpose is to socialize the US healthcare system and put the government in charge of all aspects, including who gets what service, and when. One of the most controversial pieces of the legislation is the notion of an individual mandate. Using this mechanism, each member of US society is required to buy private health insurance. Forcing citizens to buy anything is an unprecedented act in American history, and the Supreme Court is preparing to rule on its legality sometime this summer.
The big beef with Obamacare, which is formally known as “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” is that it imposes huge penalties on young workers, small businesses and others who choose not to buy expensive health insurance. The big pains do not begin until 2014. It is unclear if the homeless will benefit or be hurt by the individual mandate. Technically if they have no insurance, they can be penalized. I can’t see the government giving anybody a break on Obamacare. If you are homeless and carry no documentation and can’t prove that you do not have income, perhaps the default treatment for homeless people, who do not buy the mandated policy will be the same as everybody else. They would pay a fine and/or go to jail. Whose job will it be to round up the homeless to put them in jail?
Besides the controversial provision that requires all private citizens to buy health insurance, Obamacare has already created a war on the Catholic Church and other Christian organizations regarding the funding of abortifacient drugs. The full law requires the involuntarily funding of abortions, and Obamacare dollars will be used to provide erectile dysfunction drugs for convicted pedophiles. There is also a penalty of up to 2.5% of one’s income if they fail to purchase government-approved health insurance. I guess if the homeless have no income, this may get them off the hook.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) have little use for Obamacare and in fact they see it as a tool so that large hospitals can take over their physician practices for a pittance. They see no redeeming provisions in Obamacare. Their shared perspective is that it will overall increase the cost of health care for most citizens while simultaneously reducing the quality of care that the system otherwise would provide.
Though the Obama spinmeisters argue that there will be no rationing of healthcare, we argued this point earlier in this article. Obamacare opponents, including political analyst and commentator Dick Morris feel the same as me. The Obama plan is a way to intentionally use the rationing of senior health care to reduce costs. Such actions will significantly decrease the life span of senior citizens, but because seniors must be used to elect Obama, his is not telling them the facts as of yet.
When the Pelosi and Reid Congress took $500 billion from Medicare to fund healthcare for the poor and homeless, seniors were not overly concerned as they bought the Obama spin. As tricky as Obama’s government is, even they cannot take $500 billion from Medicare and have it be seen as a net plus. Yet, they sure are trying to do just that. As a senior, I know that my friends and I are not buying it.
By the way, more and more analysis of the 30 million people who are in line for Obamacare coverage, show that most of them do not want health care. They now either pay as they go or they are young and they simply take their chances and they don’t want the government telling them to buy something they think they do not need.
We asked this before but, what about the homeless? There are an estimated 3.5 million homeless in the country, though this may be a bit off as the researchers claim that homeless are tough to measure. So, who are the other 26,500,000? If we do not know who they are, how does the government know what they need?
You can thank the US House of Representatives in the 112th Congress for trying to undo the work of the corrupt 111th Congress. On January 19, 2011, almost right after they were sworn in, this new House voted to repeal ObamaCare (56 percent to 44 percent). It is a bad program and needed repudiation, and it received it.
Repealing the bill would have eliminated $770 billion in the newly mandated tax increases, according to the CBO. On February 2, 2011, the Senate, still fully under control of progressive / liberals did not agree with the House and they defeated the bill by 51-47 vote. Obama would have vetoed it anyway but it says something about your Democratic Senators. It says that it is time for them to go so we can get the stink of corruption off the Senate Floor.
In a political forum not too long ago, some folks were debating the homeless and Obamacare. Just like my conundrum on the homeless and the individual mandate, the question is how will the government force a homeless person to buy health care insurance if everybody must buy healthcare insurance? These people for the most part can’t afford food or a place to live or a phone, so how will they pay for healthcare insurance? And when the government fines them for not buying healthcare insurance, how will they pay the fine? Will they go to jail when they can’t pay the fine? Will the warmth of the jail be a better alternative for life on the street? My barber today said they would get three hots and a cot. Will there be good healthcare in jail? How do we answer this? President Obama has a flippy floppy way of dealing with the issue.
Ironically, in 2008, this is the homeless argument that Obama used to blow away Hillary Clinton’s health care package, which included an individual mandate. It is amazing that when Obama flip-flops his views are solidifying or evolving, but when John Kerry changes his mind or Mitt Romney changes his mind, he is a flip flopper. Obama controls the press. That is why it is as it is. We really have no free press in America today. That’s why Conservative Action Alerts, and the rest of the Internet are so helpful.
How disingenuous can one man be? If it is Barack H. Obama, one can be as disingenuous as one needs to be to win elections. Most people, if they understand that this President has no views on any subject that are not evolving, would not even buy a used car from him. Yet, he wants to be President again, and thinks he can dupe everybody just one more time. Looking at the polls, I am in disbelief There are too many people, who would trust him with their healthcare, but would they really trust him with a used car?
Can you count on Obama? Sixteen years ago in a written survey when he was running for the Illinois State Senate, his position was clear. He was for same-sex marriage. Just a few years later as higher offices were on his mind, he backed off. By 2004, as a U.S. Senate candidate he simply abandoned using the word “marriage,” but noted that he did favor “civil unions.” When running for president in 2008, BHO was again against it. Now he’s for it again. Obama calls it an evolution, and so the main stream press who are progressive / liberal and who like his new stance, use the term evolution. Yet, it clearly is a flip-flop-flip-flop or as I have heard recently, the reverse of a reversal.
This article takes no position on same-sex marriage but Obama’s supposed “evolution,” on the issue has a lot to do with whether Americans should trust the President with their health and ultimately with their lives. What if Obama flips on his current stance that there is no healthcare rationing? Well, since there is rationing already in Obamacare, though it would technically be a flip-flop, or an evolution, it would bring Obama back to a position that is at least in line with the truth.
Many Democrats were disappointed when Obama blew Hillary away when he argued against the individual mandate in a South Carolina debate in 2008. Candidate Obama said: “A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. … But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can’t afford it. And that’s why my plan emphasizes lowering costs.” That was Obama then, before the post election flip flop. I had a friend who would often say when he was “forced to lie,” there are things men must do! I guess there are things Obama must do.
In February 2008, President Obama surprisingly, for an evolving kinda guy, took the Hillary Clinton position on healthcare but it was too late for Hillary to become President. Hillarycare was about to become Obamacare with no recognition and there was nothing she could do about it, though it was her idea. Before making Hillary’s position and Obama’s position the same position, the President had said that you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home. Those homeless people are always in the news but nobody is doing anything to bring them to the forefront of the many lists of the needy. Mr. President if Obamacare does not help the homeless, who does it help?
Obama nonetheless had been all over Hillary on the notion of the individual mandate during the campaign. He attacked her support: “Hillary Clinton’s attacking, but what’s she not telling you about her health care plan? It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don’t.”
So, Mr. Obama, how would you propose that the homeless pay their Obamacare premium? How should the homeless pay their fine? Perhaps they won’t really have to pay since there is magic in the White House. The Obama Administration has the power to take our dollars from our wallets to pay our neighbor’s bills. It is called redistribution, and when you no longer have healthcare, you can just say that your healthcare has been redistributed to somebody more deserving.
Obamacare is killing the engine of industry in the country and each year it is causing our insurance rates to rise. What happens when nobody pays for health insurance any more other than a few inflation eroded dollars in premium per month. It will take a lot to make America successful again but Obamacare is not one of the correct prescriptions.
The RRR plan that I developed when I was heartily running for the US Senate in PA in the fall 2011, has been covered in many articles on this web site. It looks at each item that inhibits economic recovery and job creation and offers a number of solutions. I admit that I have a few unique perspectives on Obamacare, but the essence of the RRR plan is to make sure all R’s are covered. For Obamacare, the R is simple. Repeal Obamacare. A treatise on Obamacare anymore than we have offered is not needed here since there are a million reasons why it is a bad idea and most of those are readily available on the Internet.
The repeal of Obamacare is crucial for the recovery of our country. Repealing Obamacare is essential for businesses to have certainty and for individuals to have the freedom to maintain their health insurance and their health without government interference. We already know why Obamacare is not a favored tenet of a conservative platform, so I will spare you any more paragraphs of a lengthy essay. RRR, a unique plan for economic recovery and job creation, promotes that Obamacare be repealed as soon as the right people are elected. Of course it would be nice if the Supremes kill it by a heavy majority even before the election. Amen!
Brian Kelly is a business owner and former assistant professor at Marywood University; he and his wife live in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Kelly is running for Senate in his state and believes limited government brings liberty and freedom.
About Brian Kelly
Brian Kelly is a business owner and former assistant professor at Marywood University; he and his wife, Pat live in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Kelly ran for COngress and for the US Senate in his state and he believes limited government brings liberty and freedom. Brian's 48th book is titled, Saving America, The How-To Book. It is available at www.checkoutking.com and www.itjungle.com.