If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be deleted from my list (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

I attempt to post a new issue each Sunday by 2 or 3 pm central standard time (I sometimes fail at this attempt).

I try to include factual material only, along with my opinions (it should be clear which is which). I make an attempt to include as much of this week’s news as I possibly can. The first set of columns are intentionally designed for a quick read.

I do not accept any advertising nor do I charge for this publication. I write this principally to blow off steam in a nation where its people seemed have collectively lost their minds.

It does not appear as though Obama’s Health Care Bill or his Cap and Trade Bill will be voted on in the near future.

Obama holds his 4^th press conference; although it is heavily viewed, viewer ship again is down from the previous press conference.

Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates is arrested in a rent home after breaking into it and, apparently, giving the arresting officer grief. Obama says the Cambridge police department “acted stupidly,” after admitting that he did not have all of the facts.

Fred Thompson on Obama care: “You can’t have more of something and pay less for it.”

Janeane Garofalo: "The media in the States is much more to the right. I mean there is almost no liberal outlet for news commentary or editorializing."

Steve Crowder: “Michael Moore has become like the WWF; he is entertaining, but no one believes him anymore.”

Mitch McConnell on a 2^nd stimulus bill: “There is no education from a second kick in the head by a mule.”

"We cannot but regard [Hillary] Clinton as a funny lady as she likes to utter such rhetoric, unaware of the elementary etiquette in the international community...Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping." From an official statement released by the Foreign Ministry in Pyongyang, North Korea.

Pyongyang foreign ministry released statement calling Secretary of State Clinton a schoolgirl and a pensioner. This is not Kim Yong-il running at the mouth, but an official statement which is released. This is the reset button?

That Russia is allowing us to supply our troops by using Russian soil, that ought to give us pause...do you really think that the Russians did this out of the goodness of their hearts or because Obama is just such a good talker? Obama traded something for this, but we don’t know what it is yet.

Although I preferred the old Hannity and Combs over the new Hannity show, but this introduction to his show is fantastic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqw6GzPje88 (it is the first 4 minutes; after the intro, Dick Morris lays it out, so there is no confusion, that Obama is leading toward a European-style socialism)

Steve Crowder actually goes to Canada and tries to get treatment under free Canadian health care (this is excellent):

1) I could be wrong, but I think that Obama is nearly 100% sincere (something which I believed of Jimmy Carter). It is pretty easy for us to identify the problems with health care today and note that there is waste and fraud in both the private sector and in any government sector. I believe that Obama believes that he can really sign a bill which recognizes and fixes 80–90% of this fraud and waste, and without torte reform. He gave several illustrations during his speech; like of some guy going to 3 different specialists who all order the same tests, and charge his insurance 3x because they don’t communicate; and the sad cases of those who had problems with their insurance or being between insurance. I think that he believes this; that is, I think he believes that, if the government steps in, regulates like there is no tomorrow, and provides that magic government option, that these things will occur far less often.

2) It should be obvious to anyone who has watched any of Obama’s press conferences that he is not there to provide information, but to sell whatever is up next. He takes each question and transforms it into a set of talking points. If you look at any question and his answer, you can find the answer to the question, more or less, within his answer; but that he spend the majority of the time selling his plan. So, instead of standing up there and talking for 50 minutes straight, he intersperses his talks with questions from the press. Most of the time, you lose track of what the question was, and whether or not he really answered that question. I think that he studies what he believes will be the kinds of questions asked, and then forms answers for them, as well as jumping off points into what he is selling.

3) The president admitted that Medicare costs are skyrocketing out of control; so how does appending one larger government program with a very similarly designed huge program will fix things? It makes no sense. Hugh Hewitt.

4) Obama promised to appoint some independent council to examine and deal with out of control costs. Excellent idea, even though we do not know how it is possible to find an independent council, let’s just assume that Obama has a way to do this. Let’s let them loose on present government programs and fix them first. Once they are fixed, then let’s talk about turning over the health care industry over to the government. But fix the mess government has created first. Hugh Hewitt.

5) I watched a lot of FoxNews this week and listened to a lot of TalkRadio. Even though too much time was wasted on Obama, the policeman and the professor (soon to be an NBC sitcom), those mediums spend a lot of time on health care, interviewing a host of experts, as well as partisans from both sides of the aisle. If you feel ignorant of what is being sold as the solution to our health care ills, then you are accessing the wrong news sources. I have absolutely nothing to complain about when it comes to the news, debate, and opinions delivered by FoxNews, Rush, Medved, Hannity, Beck, Ingraham, etc. I believe that these news and opinion services went out of their way to be informative and accurate.

6) It ought to be obvious why Obama wants health care legislation passed as quickly as possible, because the more we hear about his specific proposals, the more it is obvious that this is a bad idea. Liberals who still support Obama in this regard (1) think that whenever government runs anything, it is better; and (2) are thinking with their emotions, thinking that such legislation is going to make everything better for the poor, even though there is absolutely no evidence that this will happen.

7) After Obama’s blunder at the end of his news conference calling the actions of a police officer stupid, Bill Kristol noticed that Obama has no problem apologizing for America to any foreigner who will listen, but can’t apologize for himself.

8) There is a chart which shows what sort of bureaucracy Obama-care would create. Republicans wanted to mail this chart to their constituents (Congress is given free postage in order to inform their constituents about what is going on). The Democratic Congress blocked this and will not allow these charts to be sent out freely. They consider the chart to be too partisan (there is nothing more partisan than trying to reveal to the people what Congress is doing; what are Republicans thinking).

9) One of the provisions of Obama-care is going to be a group of counselors for older people (there are 5 or 6 pages in the bill which deal with this very thing). Now, what do you think this counseling is going to be all about? It is simple. When you get older, health care becomes more expensive, because your body begins to break down. When you increase coverage for more people, and more people use up health care resources (and some will use them even when they don’t need them); and the fewer resources there are for others. So, older patients are going to be given other options, such as, allowing the disease to take you. That is what the counselors are all about. It is much cheaper to employ a counselor than it is to employ a doctor. Talk is much cheaper than treatment.

10) Essentially, we elected President Obama on the basis of his judgment. Would you like to present evidence of his good judgment?

11) Louisiana, New Jersey and Illinois (particularly in the Chicago area) are known for corrupt politics. Which party has controlled those states for most of the past 40+ years? Do you think there might be some voter fraud involved? How deeply entrenched is this voter fraud?

12) California has been facing a budget crisis shortfall of about $26 billion; and, on the books is a project to build a train which travels from LA to SF. This will cost $41–45 billion (in reality, it will cost 2x or 3x as much). California, I have an idea...

13) As a landlord who just recently had a kicked in door replaced, I am glad that the Cambridge police department hauled in University Professor Gates for breaking into a house he is renting.

14) The are a number of Obama cabinet members who strongly believe in a woman’s right to choose, which means, they believe that abortion being legal is a good thing. Do you want these kinds of people, who have no respect for life in the womb, making the decision which determines whether you get health care or pain pills? It is not a giant leap between killing babies in the womb and allowing old people to die because whatever disease or physical problem they have contracted is to expensive to treat, given their relative quality of life.

The percentage of registered voters who voted in the 2008 election was virtually identical to the percentage of registered voters who voted in 2004. There was a 0.2% difference.

More than 130 public officials have pleaded guilty or have been convicted of corruption in New Jersey since 2001.

Do an Obama news conference where he talked about someone going into a doctor for a health exam, and the doctor decides, in order to make some more money, he will do an organ transplant, since he happens to have some new organs laying around the hospital that day.

When Obama is asked to give examples of where government has enacted big programs which have functioned without fraud and abuse, and he gives an honest answer.

Even Charles Rangel said that Pelosi and Obama were moving too fast. I don’t know if this really is a shout-out to Charlie, as he may have the same ideas; but he may recognize that this sudden lurch to the left is going to sink the Democratic party for several elections.

[New Regular Feature: More than any president that I recall, President Obama tends to use language very carefully, to, in my opinion, obfuscate what he is doing rather than to clarify. This seems to part and parcel of the Obama campaign and now of the Obama presidency. This has become a mainstay of the Democratic party as well. Another aspect of this is offering up a slogan or an attack upon some villain rather than to make a clear statement or to give a clear answer.]

1) Over and over and over again, Democrats are bemoaning the lack of health care in America and how we need health care reform. There is absolutely no lack of health care in America; almost any person who needs health care can get it. What is lacking is, 100% coverage with a health care insurance policy. Not having a policy does not exclude you from care; and, legally, not having money does not exclude you from care either.

2) With respect to this White policeman in Cambridge who arrested a Black professor in or near his home, I have heard several commentators speak about racial profiling. Racial profiling is not an issue here. The policeman did not happen to stop this profession for driving while Black; he responded to a 911 call which identified 2 men breaking into a house as Black. That has nothing to do with racial profiling.

You claimed that your health proposals were ⅔^rds paid for. Why not let the recipients of the plan—those who benefit from your plan—pay the other third? They are getting health insurance at ⅔^rds off.

"1. If the major provisions of the health care bills will not kick in until 2013, four years from now, why the [hurry] to pass a thousand-page bill before the August recess, a bill you admit that you haven't fully read yourself?

"2. You have said your health care bill will cut costs and not increase the deficit. But, independent analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office contradicts both claims, saying it will raise costs and increase the deficit by $240 billion in the first ten years. What independent analysis will you provide that supports your claims and refutes CBO's?

"3. You have repeatedly said that your health care bill allows any American who likes their current employer-based plan to keep it. But the most comprehensive independent analysis available, by the Lewin Group, contradicts your claim and found your bill will force over 80 million Americans to lose their current coverage. Will you provide independent analysis to refute this study?" And Obama won't. He doesn't debate. He clears the field. He gets rid of opponents. He does not debate issues. He does not do that. He has his ideas -- and they are his, and they are right, and they're going to happen come hell or high water -- and we don't even have the right to disagree. We are being uppity if we disagree with this man's brilliance.

"4. Your own record in the Senate reveals you spent years voting against nearly every reform to make health care more affordable and accessible, but this week you said that opponents of your plan are 'content to perpetuate the status quo, [and] are, in fact, fighting reform on behalf of powerful special interests.' Which specific elected officials will you cite that have proposed to keep the status quo, and is that how you characterize the opposition of the 52 Blue Dog Democrats in the House...?

"5. Yes or no question: Will you guarantee pro-life Americans that, under your plan, they will not be forced to subsidize elective abortions?"

You think your news sources are good, and yet you know little or nothing about any of the details of Obama’s Health Care plan or Cap and Trade.

Michael Medved had an interesting guest on last Tuesday, and he made some unusual predictions: that Obama already has made a deal with Russia. The deal is, we will or Israel will, bomb Iran, to take out all of their nuclear facilities. The Russians will not interfere and possibly allow us airspace (and supply lines if necessary—although this will probably be strictly an areal attack). Russia will get no missile shield in Poland and will be able to move on Georgia and take it (and possibly other countries which used to be a part of the U.S.S.R.). I print this (1) because it is not an impossible scenario; (2) Russia has given us land which we can use to supply our troops (which would be completely unexpected unless there was a catch); and (3) this guy predicted 9/11. Furthermore, the Obama team may see that he cannot be reelected. However, if we are in a shooting war with Iran (or anywhere else), Obama might be reelected. We know, from Obama’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, that he is not some sort of a peacenik, even though he got the peacenik vote. I am not 100% sure of who made these predictions, but I think it is Dennis Avi Lipkin (AKA Victor Mordecai).

Republicans will probably take the House and make significant gains in the Senate in 2010. I don’t see how Obama, given how much of an ideologue he is, will be able to work with Republicans. He will continue to demagogue them. Whereas, Clinton worked well with republican Congress and Bush seemed to be excited to work with Democrats (much to my chagrin, but having had him as a governor, it was certainly not a surprise), Obama just isn’t build to go that way. Being nonpartisan for Obama, means that he is able to talk moderate Democrats into more liberal policies.

Glenn Beck predicts that, as has happened a dozen times in the past, when the minimum wage goes up, unemployment will increase (particularly among the young). He believes that this is intentional to get young people to sign up for Americorps.

Obama continues in full campaign mode, and even Obama supporters are beginning to admit to that.

Obama’s job approval has already fallen below 50%, according to Rasmussen (49% approve; 51% disapprove—were they not given the option, I’m not sure?). I expected jobless to hit 10% and Obama’s approval ratings to then fall; however, I still believe his approval ratings will drop precipitously once unemployment hits 10% (and it will).

There are a couple of things which we, as Americans, have become confused about. There are far too many Americans who think that health care is some kind of a right, whether we are able to pay for it or not; whether it decreases the quality of our health care and innovation or not. In the Constitution, rights are things belonging to us, given by God; and these are things which a government is not to mess with—life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (obviously, where our exercise of our rights impinges on the rights of another, something needs to be worked out, which is what makes these rights more difficult in their application).

However, we do not have a right to housing, to health care, to a government free ride, to transportation, to a guaranteed job, etc. etc. For any of those things to be given to Charlie Brown, they must be taken away from Lucy. Democrats have, again and again, demonized some of the rich (not movie stars, of course), and we have come to the point where about half of this country thinks that, just take 1 more percent from the rich and that will pay for what ought to be rightfully Charlie Brown’s. The fallacy here is, there is a point at which taking money from the rich hurts our economy, because, quite frankly, it is the rich who make our economy go. There are not many poor people out there making our economy work or offering you and I jobs.

Back to health care. We have to accept that, no matter what, health care is going to be expensive. Furthermore, if government comes in and regulates a special price for itself, that does not lower the price for everyone else; it raises the price for everyone else, who make up the difference. If a bully comes a takes a dollar from you for lunch, his lunch is less expensive, but you either get less lunch or, for all intents and purposes, your lunch costs you more.

You may not recall that Republican Richard Nixon tried to fix prices; and we found out, government cannot fix prices. It did not work. It was a stupid idea. Obama cannot fix prices either.

We have come to expect that we ought to get a great medical plan, walk into the doctor’s pay a tiny fee, and get any damn thing we want. It was not always this way. 40–50 years ago, most people who went to the doctors simply paid for it. The market determined the price.

We ought not to expect this. This ought to be the gold plan and the gold plan ought to cost a lot of money. Maybe we get the gold plan maybe we don’t; but no way does everyone get the gold plan. I fly, and not everyone flies first class. I don’t sit in the back of the plane and seethe at those rich people drinking their free wine and getting real food, and often the hottest flight attendant.

Here is what ought to concern us as consumers: we do not want to have an accident or have a serious medical problem, and end up in the poor house because of it or lose our insurance because of it. Those are the sad cases which Obama brings before us, and those can be dealt with. Catastrophe insurance. I buy the cheapest car insurance; and some people buy the gold plan. It ought to be the same for medical insurance. We are not inuring that we have good health; we are insuring ourselves against a catastrophe.

There is insurance out there which is like that; you can purchase insurance with a high deductible. If insurance does not kick in until we pass over $1000, it is one price. It is cheaper if you choose insurance which does not kick in until you reach $5000.

Furthermore, we do not need insurance for everything. California requires, if I am correct on this, that every insurance plan provide mental health care as well as several other things that most people do not need. We need no-frills insurance, perhaps with some regulation from the government, which kicks in at some high deductible, and covers catastrophes so that we are not destroyed financially due to an illness. Bear in mind, that is going to be expensive, but, if the government lets us write off $2000/year of insurance costs, most of us can find a no-frills, catastrophe policy for that cost.

This means that government does VERY little. I worked out the figures 2 issues ago: what Obama proposes right now will provide health insurance for about 15 million people at a cost of $10,000/year/person. That is a gold-plated plan, even though they will not get a gold-plated plan (as the government is involved). For far less, the government could essentially see that everyone got the wood-plated plan, which covers catastrophes.

There ought to be breaks for (1) non-smokers; (2) males or women past the birthing stage; (3) those who are within their proper height, body weight; etc. There ought to be things we can simply leave off our plan: mental health insurance, sex-change insurance, abortion insurance, fertilization insurance; etc. Or, if some state has to put those on everyone’s policy, allow for a high deductible—say $25,000.

Perhaps the cheap plan can allow for one physical a year at a bargain price (say, $75).

One big problem has been people showing up at hospitals for free, non-emergency care. That has to stop. There are some who are poor, and just as a state provides section 8 housing for some people, they need to provide some sort of a medical card for those who are poor, and allow them visits to a free clinic. The identification card allows a full medical history to be kept and easily referred to.

The state can determine how this is to be done, the proper identification which goes with this (like a thumb print), and a plan for the patient to reimburse the state, either through additional property taxes or income taxes, if and when that person reaches a reasonable stage of income. The ID card can keep a running balance as well as he medical history. Some people might be given the opportunity to work to pay for the services which they used.

There are a number of medical students in every major city, and they ought to staff such facilities in their 3^rd and 4^th years.

Some hospitals can be encouraged to set up onsite or near-site clinics. If government incentives are involved, then savings to the hospital must be shown.

Wal-mart has, from what I understand, set up some health facilities in some of their superstores (I have not personally seen this). These are great for simple, cash services—flu shots, vaccinations, check ups, physicals, simple prescriptions. In many cases, much of this stuff can be handled by a nurse or by a physician’s assistant. There are little clinics all over, and I think they would do well to give a flat out 10–20% off for cash (which is a deal I work out almost anytime I pay for any sort of health care).

It cost money for me to buy food (which is a necessity); to put gas in my car (mostly a necessity) and to watch cable tv. We need to understand that health care costs money, and that is a change of our mental attitude. It is not free and we ought not to think of it as being free. We need to get over the idea that everyone deserves a gold-plated health care plan, no matter what.

None of this requires a huge government intervention. None of this requires alternative government insurance, which will increase the cost of health care for those not using the government option. None of this requires that we turn over most of the medical community to government officials, who know far less about health care than do health care insurance professionals.

What will the government have to do? A president needs to level with the people and tell them, “You don’t get the gold-plated health insurance plan for free. It cost money to provide you health services and you need to be willing to pay for it. Doctors work hard, clinics and hospitals employ hundreds and thousands of hardworking individuals, and they ought to be paid for their innovation, service and dedication. If someone has dedicated 8 or more years of their lives to train to become a doctor, we should not expect them to work for free or for less money. That will drive doctors out of the profession.”

That will need to be a president who actually has some understanding of the marketplace. That will require a president who recognizes that it is rich people who make our economy go, and the more we take from them, the less our economy goes. It needs to be a president who recognizes that government cannot do everything nor can government solve every single problem.

What else ought the government do? Provide basic guidelines for insurance companies, and set up a basic, no-frills policy expectations. The government needs to also stop demanding health care for a lower price than the private insurance companies pay.

Finally, government needs to slowly ease itself out of the medical business. What government has promises us by way of medicare, it cannot deliver. There is a time coming where, medicare (and social security) will break the bank. If our government does not make some of these changes soon, most of you reading this will see government policies either break the bank or you will see everyone taxed at unbelievably oppressive rates (60% and more).

Here is an idea for a book: President Obama wants to increase the size of Americorps and other government youth programs. Increasing minimum wage will decrease employment opportunities for young people, which will increase young people looking to government for employment. If you are a young person who is able to write, you need to join Americorps and tell what is going on from the inside. Is this organization leaning far left? Are you brainwashed after joining? What is their philosophy? What do you learn in their classrooms?

President Barack Obama gave his 4^th press conference on his health care proposal, several versions of which are making there way through committee in the Senate and the House. He was on 11 Networks (including 2 Spanish-language networks and BBC-America), and this garnered over 24 million viewers, 4 million less than his previous press conference.

“Six months ago, I took office amid the worst recession in half a century. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month and our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As a result of the action we took in those first weeks, we have been able to pull our economy back from the brink. We took steps to stabilize our financial institutions and our housing market. And we passed a Recovery Act that has already saved jobs and created new ones; delivered billions in tax relief to families and small businesses; and extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have been laid off.”

"If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket; if we do not act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day."

Two of the reasons for soaring health care costs are (1) lawsuits filed against doctors and too many sympathetic juries. (2) When government demands that such-and-such a procedure under Medicare or Medicaid cost only so much, then insurance companies or individuals must make up the difference. (3) Hospitals are required to treat everyone who shows up at their Emergency room (which is extremely expensive care), which cost is pass along to paying customers. Obama-care does not address that.

Secondly, people are losing their insurance because they are losing their jobs, something Obama promises would not happen if Congress passed his Stimulus Plan. As an addendum to this, Obama’s worthless stimulus plan was 5x the size of George Bush’s worthless stimulus plan; and every Obama talking head, along with Obama, kept calling this recession the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression; so Joe Biden cannot walk this back and say, “We did not know how serious this recession was.”

“And the fact is, even before this crisis hit, we had an economy that was creating a good deal of wealth for folks at the very top, but not a lot of good-paying jobs for the rest of America. It's an economy that simply wasn't ready to compete in the 21^st century - one where we've been slow to invest in the clean energy technologies that have created new jobs and industries in other countries; where we've watched our graduation rates lag behind too much of the world; and where we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it.

That is why I've said that even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, we must rebuild it stronger than before. And health insurance reform is central to that effort. ”

Obama has an ideology, which includes lots and lots of government jobs, lots and lots of subsidies; and his vision for energy, health care, and government jobs are all central to this. It is his ideology which teaches him that this is how an economy is saved (I believe that he is sincere). However, Obama has no real experience in this realm; and certainly not with the private sector.

Somehow, he seems to believe that, if government employs more people doing stuff that Obama wants them to do, that this will improve the economy. Lots of ideology without a scrap of evidence to support his ideas.

“This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance. Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage if they become too sick, or lose their job, or change their job. It's about every small business that has been forced to lay off employees or cut back on their coverage because it became too expensive. And it's about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid.”

It is certainly not about these 47 million, because Obama-care is not going to cover many of the uninsured. To those who know very little about the bill, we are supposed to think that this is going to insure the uninsured; but it will insure about ⅓^rd of them (and, as I have shown you mathematically, at a cost of $10,000 per person per year; wouldn’t you like to have that much to spend on your health care?).

Medicare and Medicaid are two big government medical programs; replacing them with an even larger government program is going to save money? Really?

“So let me be clear: if we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. If we do not act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction. These are the stakes of the debate we're having right now.”

“If you already have health insurance, the reform we're proposing will provide you with more security and more stability. It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it.”

“It will prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get too sick. It will give you the security of knowing that if you lose your job, move, or change your job, you will still be able to have coverage. It will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for your medical costs out of your own pocket. And it will cover preventive care like check-ups and mammograms that save lives and money.”

“If you don't have health insurance, or are a small business looking to cover your employees, you'll be able to choose a quality, affordable health plan through a health insurance exchange - a marketplace that promotes choice and competition Finally, no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition.”

“I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade - and I mean it. In the past eight years, we saw the enactment of two tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a Medicare prescription program, none of which were paid for. This is partly why I inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.”

“That will not happen with health insurance reform. It will be paid for. Already, we have estimated that two-thirds of the cost of reform can be paid for by reallocating money that is simply being wasted in federal health care programs. ”

“In addition to making sure that this plan doesn't add to the deficit in the short-term, the bill I sign must also slow the growth of health care costs in the long run. Our proposals would change incentives so that doctors and nurses are free to give patients the best care, not just the most expensive care. That's why the nation's largest organizations representing doctors and nurses have embraced our plan.”

Obama continues to attack doctors and nurses. Do we have a huge number of doctors and nurses figuring out what is the most expensive way to deal with a medical problem? Are you kidding me? Now, we do have this problem, so some extent, with some individual doctors and Medicare and Medicaid, because those in the medical profession are paid less by the government; so some will try to get extra money out of the government through fraud. This is significant, and would likely be reduced if government paid a fair price for the services it receives.

When it comes to tests, lawsuits have cause doctors and nurses to run more and more tests in order to keep from getting sued. Torte reform would be a good idea. However, Obama never uses the phrase torte reform.

“We also want to create an independent group of doctors and medical experts who are empowered to eliminate waste and inefficiency in Medicare on an annual basis - a proposal that could save even more money and ensure the long-term financial health of Medicare. Overall, our proposals will improve the quality of care for our seniors and save them thousands of dollars on prescription drugs, which is why the AARP has endorsed our reform efforts.”

It sounds good, this independent group of doctors and medical experts. First of all, who will they be and who will choose them and why would a doctor forgo a doctor’s salary for a government job?

Don’t we have these type of boards in the financial sector, which boards were unable to catch Bernie Madoff until they received years and years worth of complaints and concerns from people who figured out what Madoff was doing was impossible.

“This is about the woman in Colorado who paid $700 a month to her insurance company only to find out that they wouldn't pay a dime for her cancer treatment - who had to use up her retirement funds to save her own life.

This is about the middle-class college graduate from Maryland whose health insurance expired when he changed jobs, and woke up from emergency surgery with $10,000 in debt. This is about every family, every business, and every taxpayer who continues to shoulder the burden of a problem that Washington has failed to solve for decades. ”

“This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they cannot afford to wait for reform any longer. They are counting on us to get this done. They are looking to us for leadership. And we must not let them down. We will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice, and provides coverage that every American can count on. And we will do it this year. ”

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Congress, as you alluded to, is trying to figure out how to pay for all of this reform. Have you told House and Senate leaders which of their ideas are acceptable to you? If so, are you willing to share that stand of yours with the American people? And if you haven't given that kind of direction to congressional leaders, are you willing to -- are you willing to explain why you're not stepping in to get a deal done, since you're the one setting a deadline?

OBAMA: Well, before we talk about how to pay for it, let's talk about what exactly needs to be done. And the reason I want to emphasize this is because there's been a lot of misinformation out there.

Right now, premiums for families that have health insurance have doubled over the last 10 years. They've gone up three times faster than wages. So what we know is that, if the current trends continue, more and more families are going to lose health care, more and more families are going to be in a position where they keep their health care but it takes a bigger biting out of their budget.

“Now, what we did very early on was say two-thirds of the costs of health care reform, which includes providing coverage for people who don't have it, making it more affordable for folks who do, and making sure that we're, over the long term, creating the kinds of systems where prevention and wellness and information technologies make the system more efficient.

That the entire cost of that has to be paid for and it has got to be deficit-neutral.”

“And we identified two-thirds of those costs to be paid for by tax dollars that are already being spent right now. ”

“The remaining one-third is about what the argument has been about of late. What I've said is that there may be a number of different ways to raise money. I put forward what I thought was the best proposal, which was to limit the deductions, the itemized deductions, for the wealthiest Americans.”

“The one commitment that I've been clear about is I don't want that final one-third of the cost of health care to be completely shouldered on the backs of middle class families who are already struggling in a difficult economy.”

“And that's why I say, if we can -- even if we don't reduce our health care costs by the $6,000 that we're paying more than any other country on Earth, if we just reduced it by $2,000 or $3,000, that would mean money in people's pockets, and that's possible do.”

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You've been pushing Congress to pass health care reform by August. Why the rush? Are you worried that, if you don't, there's a delay until the fall, the whole effort will collapse?

OBAMA: A couple of points. Number one, I'm rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health care costs. And they ask me, "Can you help?"

No matter when this is passed, it does not kick in for several more years, like the stimulus bill. Obama and the Democrats need to separate what they are doing by several years so that we are unable to connect cause and effect. So, these people writing to Obama saying, “Can you help” are going to be put off no matter when this passes.

We all know, Obama’s big problem is, people finding out what is in this bill. The more the public knows about Obama-care, the less they like it.

It sounds great when a sincere, articulate president tells is, “It won’t cost us any more money, we will get better care, and everyone is going to be covered. We might to tax a couple rich people an extra percent or so, but not you, the middle-class taxpayer; you have nothing to worry about.”

“So I've got a middle-aged couple that will write me and they say, "Our daughter just found out she's got leukemia and, if I don't do something soon, we just either are going to go bankrupt or we're not going to be able to provide our daughter with the care that she needs." And in a country like ours, that's not right. So that's part of my rush.”

OBAMA: Now, I do think it's important to get this right. And if, at the end of the day, I do not yet see that we have it right, then I'm not going to sign a bill that, for example, adds to our deficit. I won't sign a bill that doesn't reduce health care inflation so that families as well as government are saving money. I'm not going to sign a bill that I don't think will work.

“So I'm confident that, if we just keep at it and we keep working, we're diligent, we're honest, if we take criticisms that are out there and modify whatever plans are already working through Congress, so that it meets those concerns and those criticisms, that we can arrive at a bill that is going to improve the lives of the American people.”

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. We were just talking in that question about -- about reducing health care inflation, reducing costs. Can you explain how you're going to expand coverage?

Is it fair to say -- is this bill going to cover all 47 million Americans that are uninsured? Or is this going to be something -- is it going to take a mandate? Or is this something that isn't -- your bill is probably not going to get it all the way there? And if it's not going to get all the way there, can you say, how far is enough? You know, "OK, 20 million more, I can sign that; 10 million more, I can't"?

OBAMA: I want to cover everybody. Now, the truth is that, unless you have a -- what's called a single-payer system, in which everybody is automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual because there's always going to be somebody out there who thinks they're indestructible and doesn't want to get health care, doesn't bother getting health care, and then, unfortunately, when they get hit by a bus, end up in the emergency room and the rest of us have to pay for it.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You said earlier that you wanted to tell the American people what's in it for them. How will their family benefit from the health care reform? But experts say that in addition to the benefits that you're pushing, there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care.

When you describe health care reform, you don't -- understandably, you don't talk about the sacrifices that Americans might have to make. Do you think -- do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?

OBAMA: They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. And I -- speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want.

“Look, if, right now, hospitals and doctors aren't coordinating enough to have you just take one test when you come because of an illness, but instead have you take one test, then you go to another specialist, you take a second test, then you go to another specialist, you take a third test, and nobody is bothering to send the first test that you took, same test, to the next doctors, you're wasting money.”

Here is a big problem: Obama here is either lying or he simply does not understand how the real world works. If you are handed off from one doctor to another (rarely is that going to happen that you will be sent to one specialist and then he sends you to another specialist), but these are doctors and they do communicate with one another, and you are not going have the same test run on you 3 times. He is either lying, does not understand what doctors do, or just making crap up that sounds good.

“You may not see it, because if you have health insurance right now, it's just being sent to the insurance company. But that's raising your premiums. It's raising everybody's premiums. And that money, one way or another, is coming out of your pocket. Although we are also subsidizing some of that because there are tax breaks for health care.”

“If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?”

“And -- and -- and just to -- to raise a broader issue that I think has colored how we look at health care reform, let me just talk about deficit and debt, because part of what's been happening in this debate is the American people are understandably queasy about the huge deficits and debt that we're facing right now.

And the feeling is, all right, we had the bank bailout, we had the recovery package, we had the supplemental, we've got the budget, we're seeing numbers, trillions here and trillions there. And so I think, legitimately, people are saying, "Look, we're in a recession. I'm cutting back. I'm having to give up things. And yet all I see is government spending more and more money."

And that argument, I think, has been used effectively by people who don't want to change health care to suggest that somehow this is one more government program. So I just want to address that point very quickly.

First of all, let's understand that, when I came in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit -- annual deficit that we had already inherited. We had to immediately move forward with a stimulus package because the American economy had lost trillions of dollars of wealth. ”

This is not rocket science. Obama pushed his budget which resulted in a $1.3 trillion deficit; it was based upon Bush’s deficit of the previous year of around $0.4 trillion deficit (which budget originated in a Democratic Congress). All a president has to do is eliminate the programs which he believes were included in the previous budget which are wasteful. However, Obama is unable to do that. He cannot even get his Cabinet to identify $100 million in waste, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the deficit that he is running. All Obama is doing here is taking his own budget, which he and a Democratic Congress passed, and he is blaming it on George Bush.

“That was the day I was sworn in; it was already happening. And we had 700,000 jobs that were being lost. So we felt it was very important to put in place a recovery package that would help stabilize the economy.

Then we had to pass a budget by law, and our budget had a 10-year projection. And I just want everybody to be clear about this. If we had done nothing, if you had the same, old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion.

Now, that's not good, but it's $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in. ”

So, Obama got EXACTLY what he requested for a recovery package, guaranteeing that this is what ALL of the economic experts recommended; the fact that it has not worked is just a minor detail.

Most conservatives agree, Bush spent too much money, particularly at the end with a Democratic Congress; and if necessary, why don’t you repeat that against another 300 times? But, if the deficit is too high, then it is up to you and Congress to reduce it.

“It's not enough. But in order for us to do more, we're not only going to have to eliminate waste in the system -- and, by the way, we had a big victory yesterday by eliminating a weapons program, the F- 22, that the Pentagon had repeatedly said we didn't need -- so we're going to have to eliminate waste there.”

“So to all -- everybody who's out there who has been ginned about this idea that the Obama administration wants to spend and spend and spend, the fact of the matter is, is that we inherited an enormous deficit, enormous long-term debt projections.”

“It originated under the Bush administration. We continued it because, whether you're on the left or the right, if you talk to economists, they said that this could have the kinds of consequences that would have dropped us into a deep depression, and not simply a very severe recession.

Now, one of the success stories of the past six months is that we really have seen a stabilization in the financial system. It's not where it needs to be. But people are no longer talking about the financial system falling off a cliff. We've stepped away from the brink. ”

“Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if they're looking and you come in and you've got a bad sore throat or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, "You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out."

Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change -- maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference. ”

This is, by far, the most outrageous thing that Obama said. A doctor does not believe that he is making enough money, so, a kid comes in with a sore throat and the doctor takes out the kid’s tonsils so that the doctor can pad his bill. This is so wrong on many levels. First of all, 99% of the time, a pediatrician is not going to put on his surgeon hat and go take out the tonsils of some sore-throated kid who wanders into his office. He would refer the kid to a surgeon. The pediatrician does not take out tonsils. In other words, Obama cannot even come up with a realistic example of how to scam the system.

Secondly, this impugns the character of the doctors, that they would do some unnecessary procedure on a child in order to beef up their own bank account.

Finally, where we have by far the most fraud and waste in our medical system is in relation to Medicare and Medicaid, two government programs, where some unethical doctors double and triple bill the government. However, Obama cannot use that example, because it is an example of exactly why a government-run system will be worse when it comes to waste; not better.

Whether Obama is this ignorant of real life or whether he is intentionally lying, I could not say. But, I have no reason to trust him in this arena.

IN making his case for a gov ernment takeover of the US health-care system, President Obama is going far beyond the usual Washington truth-stretching.

"If you like your current health-care plan, you can keep it." Even White House spokesmen have said that Obama's oft-repeated pledge that you can keep your current insurance isn't meant to be taken literally. The reality is that millions of Americans -- perhaps most Americans -- will be forced to change insurance plans.

First, the president supports an individual mandate -- a requirement that every American buy health insurance. And not just any insurance but insurance that includes all the benefits government thinks you should have. That insurance could be more expensive or include benefits that people don't want or are morally opposed to, such as abortion services.

And that doesn't just affect those without insurance today. The bills now before Congress say that while you won't be im mediately forced to switch from your current insurance to a government-specified plan, you'll have to switch to satisfy the government's requirements if you lose your current insurance or want to change plans.

Plus, the president supports the creation of a government insurance program that would compete with private insurance. But because this ultimately would be subsidized by American taxpayers, the government plan could keep its premiums artificially low or offer extra benefit.

In the end, millions of Americans would be forced out of the insurance they have today and into the government plan. Businesses, in particular, would have every incentive to dump their workers into the public plan. The actuarial firm the Lewin Group estimates that as many as 118.5 million people, roughly two-thirds of those with insurance today, would be shifted from private to public coverage.

"You will pay less." The Congressional Budget Office has made it clear that the reform plans now being debated will in crease overall health-care costs, yet President Obama on Friday repeatedly said that his reform would reduce costs and save Americans money.

But no matter how many times he says it, the truth is you will pay more -- much more -- both in higher taxes and in higher premiums.

The final health-care bill is expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. That means much higher taxes, and not just for the wealthy.

If one totals up all the new taxes in the House Democratic health-reform bill -- the income surtax, the penalties on businesses and individuals that fail to buy into the government health plan, as well as other fees and taxes -- the cost to US taxpayers will top $800 billion. New York City will face marginal tax rates as high as 57 percent.

At a time of rising unemployment and economic stagnation, that is like throwing an anchor to a drowning man.

In addition, the new insurance regulations expected to be part of the final bill are likely to drive up insurance premiums. And, if the new government-run plan under-reimburses doctors and hospitals -- as Medicare and Medicaid do -- providers would be forced to recoup that lost income by shifting their costs to private insurance, driving up premiums. A study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimates that the president's proposals could increase premiums by 75 to 95 percent.

"Quality will improve." Anyone who thinks a government takeover of the health-care system will improve quality of care has only to look at the health-care programs the government already runs: The Veterans Administration is overwhelmed with problems, Medicaid is notorious for providing poor quality at a high cost -- and Medicare has huge gaps in coverage.

Worse, however, on Friday, Obama endorsed the creation of a government board with the power to dictate how your doctor practices medicine and all but endorsed the rationing prevalent in nationalized health-care systems around the world.

In short, when it comes to claims about the wondrous new world of government-run health care, a bit of skepticism might be in order.

Michael D. Tanner is a Cato Institute senior fellow and co-author of "Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It."

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's assertion Wednesday that government will stay out of health care decisions in an overhauled system is hard to square with the proposals coming out of Congress and with his own rhetoric.

Even now, nearly half the costs of health care in the U.S. are paid for by government at all levels. Federal authority would only grow under any proposal in play.

OBAMA: ''We already have rough agreement'' on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: ''It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it.''

THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.

Indeed, Obama went on to lay out other principles of reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care. He said insurance companies would be barred from dropping coverage when someone gets too sick, limits would be set on out-of-pocket expenses, and preventive care such as checkups and mammograms would be covered.

It's true that people would not be forced to give up a private plan and go with a public one. The question is whether all of those private plans would still be in place if the government entered the marketplace in a bigger way.

He addressed some of the nuances under questioning. ''Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system?'' he said. ''No. The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier.''

He acknowledged then that the ''government already is making some of these decisions.''

OBAMA: ''I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it.''

THE FACTS: The president has said repeatedly that he wants ''deficit-neutral'' health care legislation, meaning that every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy, with or without a health care overhaul.

Beyond that, budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

THE FACTS: Obama did so in his opening statement, saying, ''I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me.''

OBAMA: ''I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.''

THE FACTS: The facts are in dispute between black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the white police sergeant who arrested him at his Cambridge, Mass., home when officers went there to investigate a reported break-in. But this much is clear: Gates wasn't arrested for being in his own home, as Obama implies, but for allegedly being belligerent when the sergeant demanded his identification. The president did mention that the professor was charged with disorderly conduct. Charges were dropped.

OBAMA: ''If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion.''

THE FACTS: Obama's numbers are based on figures compiled by his own budget office. But they rely on assumptions about economic growth that some economists find too optimistic. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its own analysis of the president's budget numbers, concluded that the cumulative deficit over the next decade would be $9.1 trillion.

PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.

The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.

There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.

Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.

Governor Rick Perry says that Texas, under the 10^th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, will refuse to bow to Obama-care. There may be some grandstanding here, since it looks like Obama-care is going to fail; but it is an interesting legal proposition.

3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July! Of course, you don’t read about this in your newspaper.

Time Magazines had an online poll for the most trusted newsperson, and the results were:

From what I can follow, this was only a few thousand who participated in this poll, and there were only these 4 choices, so we have not entered into the apocalypse yet.

SNERDLEY: Um, Obama, what's up with this, yo? Here you got... First of all, everybody keeps saying the man was arrested in his house. Does anybody stop and actually read the newspaper, yo? Well, there's only one or two left out there. Um, it's not his house. The house belongs to Harvard! He's just chilling in it, yo. That's number one. Secondly, you got two brothers roll up on the house, right? Okay, put yourself in that situation, yo. You got two brothers roll up on the house, somebody calls the cops and says, "Yo, man, there's two people out there, man. I think they get in. You know, something's up over there." They go in the house, right? Okay? The boy should be like, "Yo, man, thanks, yo, for showing up. Everything is cool over here. Nobody else is in here. See you later. Out!" No. Now it blows up. But I got a question for you, Rush. Where's Colin Powell?

RUSH: That is a fascinating question. By the way, since you mention it, Colin Powell does come up as a discussion item in Part Two of my interview with Greta Van Susteren tonight. But that is an interesting question: Where is Colin Powell weighing in on this issue? I'd like you also, as the Official Obama Criticizer, to explain what the Cambridge police organization said; what they meant when they said that there's no racial profiling there; that they know that racial profiling happens elsewhere in the country, but it doesn't happen there. Why would you think that there's no racial profiling in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where Harvard is located?

SNERDLEY: This is Cambridge. Come on, man! What you think we're talking about? Queens, New York? Brooklyn? Kill-a-delphia? Detroit? SanFran, yo? This is Cambridge. We have the upper crust of the upper crust here! The black people in Cambridge aren't really like, you know...black like, you know, urban black. They're like super black! They're not like the other brothers. These are the... I'm going to quote the vice president: The clean ones, the smart ones, the articulate ones. So we don't profile the clean, articulate, smart brothers.

RUSH: So we had a disaster of a press conference last night, according to the Drive-By Media that loves Obama. As I said in the first hour, this was great. The more we learn about this guy, whining all night, "We inherited a mess," and lying about what he inherited, lying about inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit. He voted for everything that led to the deficit. The Democrats have been running the Congress since 2007. Obama, with 150 big days working in the Senate and a six-year term -- well, he didn't serve all six, but he voted for everything that busted the budget. He voted for TARP. He voted for all this. He inherited his own work. But he still whines about it.

You and I, ladies and gentlemen, we see certain things. The casual watcher, casual viewer last night -- and I'll bet the ratings stink. That was laborious last night. But the casual viewer is going to say, "Why does he keep blaming, why is he keep whining, we inherited, we inherited," and then to talk about all the successes? You see, this is why I was afraid to give the audio engineer the sound bite roster order because now I've decided we're going to do number 11 here. I just watched with my mouth wide open. The CBO and all these other agencies that say, "No, Mr. President, your numbers are not right," he needs to come up with his own White House agency to counter the CBO, the Office of Imaginary Information, or O.I.I., the Office of Imaginary Information, which he can cite. Listen to this. I don't know what to say about it.

OBAMA (sped up): A result of the actions we took in those first weeks we've been able to pull our economy back from the brink. We took steps to stabilize our financial institutions and our housing market, and we passed a Recovery Act that has already saved jobs and created new ones, delivered billions in tax relief to families and small businesses, and extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have been laid off. Of course we still have a long way to go. And the Recovery Act will continue to save and create more jobs over the next two years just like it was designed to do.

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, there is no job creation taking place. There are no jobs being saved other than in government. The economy's not back from the brink. We have not stabilized the housing market. None of that's true, not a word. Tax relief in billions of dollars to families and small businesses? What did I miss? Well, we have extended unemployment insurance. These unemployment numbers, Barbara Hollingsworth, local opinion editor at the Washington Examiner: "'Is Unemployment Actually Much Higher? Like Close to 20 Percent?' -- Every month, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes six 'measures of labor underutilization' (i.e., unemployment). The official unemployment rate used by politicians and the media, referred to as U3, measures the percent of the civilian labor force that is out of work. But U3 does not include so-called 'discouraged workers' who have completely stopped looking for jobs, 'marginally attached' workers who had not searched for a job within the past month, or those involuntarily employed part-time instead of full time. U6 includes every willing worker who wants, but is not able to secure a full time position, so a state's U6 rate is obviously higher than its U3. Much higher, in fact. For example, Michigan, which has the highest U3 figure in the nation (11 percent), has an eye-popping 19.2 percent U-6 unemployment rate. Nine other states' U6 figures are also above 15 percent, according to BLS." Here they are:

Now, I don't know where in the world you can come out and say, "As a result of the actions we took in the first weeks we've been able to pull our economy back from the brink. We took steps to stabilize the housing market, and we passed a Recovery Act that's already saved jobs and created new ones." Everybody watching this last night, "How come I don't have one? Where are these jobs? What are people doing?" And then we find out we've only spent, what, five or six percent of the Recovery Act. This guy lied through his teeth to the press corps, and not one question disputing any of this. There wasn't one question about Iraq or Afghanistan. There wasn't one question. I mean, Obama says he wants to do a press conference on health care and they dutifully oblige, and they ask softball setup. There are a couple questions that were asked that were somewhat tough. Where's this transparency? You promised all these hearings on C-SPAN? Where are they? And he, you know, sort of knocked his way around that. This is becoming a mantra now, this next sound bite.

OBAMA (sped up): I understand how easy it is for this town to become consumed in the game of politics, to turn every issue into a running tally of who's up and who's down. I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to go for the kill. Another Republican senator said that defeating health care reform is about breaking me. So let me be clear. This isn't about me.

RUSH: They are really getting to him. You never heard Bush talk about this thing in personal terms. Bush never whined, he never complained, here's Obama, "These mean Republicans." I'm telling you this guy has led a charmed life. You don't dare criticize him, you don't laugh at him. He's Barack Obama. You just don't do that. And now the next sound bite, this is another thing I think the average American watching this thing, this is a kind of rub you raw --yeah, we know you're the president. He sits there and says, "I am the president." Listen to this bite.

OBAMA: What I said is that there may be a number of different ways to raise money. I put forward what I thought was the best proposal, which was to limit the deductions, the itemized deductions for the wealthiest Americans. The House suggested a surcharge on wealthy Americans and my understanding, although I haven't seen the final versions, is that there's been talk about making that basically only apply to families whose joint income is a million dollars. To me, that meets my principle that it's not being shouldered by families who are already having a tough time. It's my job, I'm the president. And I think this has to get done.

RUSH: The government and health care, by the way, are the only sectors where jobs are increasing. And health care is supposedly in trouble? Anyway, what do you have?

CALLER: I have a question that I haven't heard anybody talk about and I wanted your take on it. Obama is saying that if you're happy with your health care you're not going to lose it. The bill is saying that you need to be on qualified health care within five years. There are millions of children under the age of 12, there are millions of children yet to be born. What's going to happen when they enter the workforce? Are they going to be allowed to keep their parents' insurance that they're on currently? I would think that they're going to have to be funneled into the government health care plan.

RUSH: You are absolutely right. The whole point of this is to get everybody enrolled in the government health care plan. The whole point of this is to eliminate private insurance, qualified or unqualified. It's so easy, by the way, Monica for you to start out in this system with a qualified plan and then to have it be disqualified. For example, this is in the bill. You have a qualified plan. You have your own private insurance qualified plan from your employer or you buy it yourself. But then, within a year after this bill is signed into law, if any aspect of that plan changes, like they changed the premium or they make some adjustment in coverage, your plan's no longer qualified.

CALLER: Right. And I was concerned about it anyway because I work for a city government, and we just had a bunch of cuts and they're trying to balance the budget, and health care is a huge cost for them and I can see easily that in five or six years when they're trying to look at costs they can say, "Well, you can go get the government health care, we can't supply it for you anymore."

RUSH: Yeah. Well, it's even more drastic than that because if your city is having trouble with costs, the states are having trouble, look, Medicare and Medicaid, Medicaid's bankrupting the states, Medicaid is bankrupting the federal government. We're going to build on top of those two failures with a system that's based on both of them. You know who the people in this country are most concerned about health care, the elderly, by definition, they're the ones that spend most of the time in the doctors office talking to their doctors and so forth by definition. They're the ones that are going to get the shaft. They're the ones upon whom judgment will descend as to whether or not the investment in whatever medical procedure is needed to keep them alive is worth it. And it will be based on actuarial tables such as life expectancy, any preexisting conditions. If you're a hundred years old and in perfect health but you need a pacemaker, the odds are you're not going to get it. Obama even used that as an example, some people, you know, give 'em a pain pill, save money.

In the New York Times, an Obama administration official refused to rule out the possibility that federal tax money might be used to pay for abortions under proposed health care legislation. Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, was asked whether he was prepared to say that no taxpayer money will go to pay for abortions. He said, "I'm not prepared to say that right now." Of course, it's constitutional. It's a legally approved medical procedure. And with liberals running this show, every abortion is a political victory for them. Remember what Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg said? She let the cat out of the bag, (paraphrasing) "Abortion is about kind of limiting people in the population that you don't really want more of," and we know who she was talking about. This is a dastardly plan. Thanks for the call, Monica. I appreciate it.

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, we have found something else in the health care bill. Page 425 to page 430. The House version of the health care bill is going to require mandatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years, more often if the senior is sick or in a nursing home. Just how many government trained counselors will that put into the workforce? With an over-65 population of 38 million according to the US Census 2007, if you have an over-65 population of 38 million people you're going to need four counseling sessions daily, that's 37,000 at a minimum counselors plus their supervisors, then the people who read their reports, and the oversight agency. You know what we ought to do? We ought to put together a single page cut-and-paste fact sheet at RushLimbaugh.com that people could cut and paste and fax to the White House so that Obama will know what is in the bill.

I'll bet he doesn't know that there is end-of-life counseling for senior citizens on page 425 to 430. What is this counseling going to be? Why would you need mandatory counseling for all seniors, and who's going to pay for this? Mandatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years, more often if the seasoned citizen is sick or in a nursing home. And as Don Parker writes here at the American Thinker, "Don't even think that anyone should receive mandatory counseling regarding the end-of-life issues surrounding abortion." That's an invasion of the right to privacy. We can't have counseling for mothers who are thinking of terminating their pregnancy, but we can go in there and counsel people about to die. I'm sure you could get some counselors from the Hemlock Society to go in and do this. Kevorkian might want to come back to life and handle this. End-of-life counselors, end-of-life treatment for senior citizens, mandatory.

Two people in Obama’s cabinet who ought not to determine whether or not you get health treatment:

About 30 MoveOn.org people show up in front of Texas Senator’s John Cornyn’s office to demonstrate for Obama-care. They are surprised by 100 TEA party types who show up to protest Obama-care.

Spontaneous laughter when health-reform advocate Russ Carnahan tells us that public health care is going to operate on a surplus:

Obama is unfamiliar with one of the key provisions in his health care plan (Obama responds with his tried and true talking point, “If you like your insurance, you can keep it”):

President Reagan word when signing the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (later to be repealed when it turned out that it would cost the insured money);

Since there are some links you may want to go back to from time-to-time, I am going to begin a list of them here. This will be a list to which I will add links each week.

This is an outstanding website which tells the truth about Obama-care and about what the mainstream media is hiding from you:

Politico.com is a fairly neutral site (or, at the very worst, just a little left of center). They have very good informative videos at:

On Obama (if you have not visited this site, you need to check it out). He is selling a DVD on this site as well called Media Malpractice; I have not viewed it yet, except pieces which I have seen played on tv and on the internet. It looks pretty good to me.

Conservative Review
Issue #85	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	July 26, 2009