ObamaCare Photoshop

by

52

Michelle Malkin is having an Obamacare poster contest.

My submission:

obamacare

As usual, I jumped into something without reading the rules first, which was to use old WWII poster art for the creations, but oh well, I’m sticking with this.

My inspiration?:

HERE COMES HEALTH CARE RATIONING

MORE:

Oh, this is interesting:

Conservative blogger, Dan J of Falling Panda, infiltrated an Obama Health Care Meet-up in North Hollywood:

As the discussion began, the meetings participants immediately began firing off questions about the details of the health care plan to Sandra and the other woman who was leading the event. For all of their enthusiasm these group leaders were completely incapable of describing the particulars of the Obama plan in any coherent way. What they did understand however was that Obama’s “public option”, the government run insurance program that Obama wants to create to compete with the private insurance companies, was the first step towards the entitlement that almost everyone in that room (based on the raising of hands at the beginning of the meeting) was really longing for. That being a European style “single payer” health care system. They also understood that part of their job as grassroots activist promoting the plan was to ensure people that the plan was not going to result in “single payer”. How Obamaesque.

Uh huh…typical lefties.

As Rush likes to say: They get up every morning and ask themselves, “How can we fool them, today”.

The bottom line, though, is that Dan went away from the meeting not terribly impressed with the Obots’  abilities to persuade an increasingly dubious populous.

Obamacare can be defeated.

Via Michelle Malkin on Twitter.

SPEAKING OF RUSH…

He was really on a tear, earlier today. I’ve never heard him sounding this alarmed:

CALLER:  It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, I tell you.  Number two, thank God my husband has a good job, but you were mentioning about the health care thing, we have benefits through his company.  What happens when everybody gets free health care, do we still have to pay through his company do you think or are we going to be able to get off this and get it free like everybody else or are we going to be paying double the price?  I have no clue what’s going to happen.

RUSH:  Everybody is going to be paying more.  There will be taxes on the company-provided benefits.  Either the company will pay the taxes or the employee will pay the taxes as imputed income.  There are also other tax increases planned.  Obama is planning on limiting, if not eliminating, all tax deductions for the top tax brackets, as a means of raising more revenue.  It’s another tax increase, which is going to provide many disincentives for people who engage in charitable activities or whatever to get the tax deduction for it.  It’s a disaster in the making.  It is an outright utter disaster he has planned. What’s going to happen, the answer to your question is people are going to get laid off. As everybody is going to be required to have health insurance and health coverage businesses are not going to be able to afford it, the recipients are going to have fewer jobs. They’ll have to fire people; they’ll have to lay people off.

CALLER:  Well, that makes me feel so much better.

RUSH:  It should make you feel better.  It should make you feel a lump in your throat.  We are on the cusp of an unmitigated national disaster and catastrophe.  There is no possible way to overstate this. Folks, you know me. I am not an alarmist.  I am an optimist.  I try to find the good things about every day. I want to enjoy life and I want to help as many other people enjoy life.  But I tell you, what I see coming down the pike as it gets worse and worse and worse, the architects of this thing, let’s do more of what’s making it worse, it’s time to put the foot down.  It’s an unmitigated disaster. It is a Obama-caused tailspin and it has to be stopped.  It must be stopped, for the sake of everybody’s kids and grandkids and great-grandkids and the country as well. Madeleine, thanks much for the call.

Are you listening Republicans in Congress? Take pride in being the “Party of NOOOOO” on this one.

MORE:

Ace has a good question:

Hey, If Obama Really Can “Save” So Much in Medicare with His Reforms, Why Doesn’t He Just Do That Before He Nationalizes Health Care?

52 thoughts on “ObamaCare Photoshop”

  1. Pingback: Michelle Malkin » Death, taxes & Obamacare: Poster contest, Round Two

  2. Perhaps it’s fortuitous that I see my Cardiologist tomorrow to discuss my future treatment. There is a very good chance I will be scheduled for my second bypass surgery sooner than anticipated, should Obamacare be fast-tracked. What are the chances Obama’s health care czar would say “nope – no surgery for you! You already had your shot. NEXT!”

    What the hell – I’ll be 63 on Saturday – how much longer do I have to live anyway, right, Barry? You can save the money from my SocSec Disability check and give it to some truly deserving ACORN member!

    Like

  3. Ah, the nattering nabobs of negativism, AKA: dopey conservatives!

    You people have never met a good idea that you couldn’t try to ruin!

    This just in: Ronald Reagan’s policies wrecked this country, and–oh, yeah–he’s still dead.

    Like

  5. A single-payer system is the way to go. I have lots of friends and relatives in both Canada and Europe and they have scratched their heads about this wasteful, inefficient system of ours for years.
    We have great doctors and nurses; that’s not the issue. The issue is access to care, 46/47 million uninsured, health costs causing bankruptcies, people not getting preventative care, etc.

    Don’t believe the hype from the Betsy McCaugheys of the world; they are lying. We need a single-payer system and CHOICE of plan.

    Like

  6. You know what? I don’t think this sounds like the way to go:

    http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/23/health-care-around-the-world-great-britain/

    Health Care Around the World: Great Britain

    April 23, 2008 in Health Care Around the World, International Health Care Systems

    Great Britain represents all that is good and bad with centralized, single-payer health care systems. Health care spending is fairly low (7.5% of GDP) and very equitable. Long wait lists for treatment, however are endemic and rationing pervades the system. Patients have little choice of provider and little access to specialists.

    Percent Insured. ~100%

    Funding. Great Britain has a single payer system funded by general revenues. With any centralized system, avoiding deficits is difficult. In 2006, Great Britain had a £700 million deficit despite the fact that health care spending increased by £43 billion over five years.

    Private Insurance. 10% of Britons have private health insurance. Private health insurance replicates the coverage provided by the NHS, but gives patients access to higher quality care, and reduced waiting times.

    Physician Compensation. Unlike in the case of other single payer systems such as Norway, most physicians and nurses are mostly government employees. In 2004, the NHS negotiated lower salaries for doctors in exchange for reduced work hours. Few physicians are available at night or on weekends. Because of low compensation, there is a significant shortage of specialists.

    Physician Choice. Patients have very little physician choice. However, under the experimental London Patient Choice Project, patients waiting more than six months for treatment will be offered a choice of four different treatment providers.

    Copayment/Deductibles. There are no deductibles and almost no copayments except for small copayments for prescription drugs, as well as for optical and dental care.

    Waiting Times. Waiting lists are a huge problem in Great Britain. Some examples: 750,000 are on waiting lists for hospital admission; 40% of cancer patients are never able to see an oncologist; there is explicit rationing for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery and care for the terminally ill. Further, minimum waiting times have been instituted to reduce costs. “A top-flight hospital like Suffolk Est PCT was ordered to impose a minimum waiting time of at least 122 days before patients could be treated or the hospital would lose a portion of its funding.”

    Benefits Covered. The NHS system offers comprehensive coverage. Because of rationing, care might not be as easy to get as advertised. Terminally ill patients may be denied treatment. David Cameron has proposed that the NHS refuse treatment to smokers or the obese (see 7 Sept 2007 post).

    Like

  7. Sorry, but the “HealthCare Economist” is a blogger who quotes the right-wing Cato Institute.

    The Cato Institute isn’t a reliable source for information on a topic they are on record as being against.

    Like

  8. Congratulations, Deb – you are now on the left wings official “Visit and Spam” list:) And wouldn’t you know it – I got a visit too!

    Like

  10. Deb: do your own homework; there are many doctor and nursing organizations with extensive writings on the topic. It may help to start broadening your horizons by reading something other than right-wing blogs or listening to Rush Limbaugh–they are polemicists and not health care providers.

    And Bruce, your “left wing” cliché is particularly juvenile.

    Like

  11. See how they do this, Deb? Re-direction. Use the same forms they use and yours is wrong, while theirs is always right. Left wing groups speak the truth – right wing lies. Rush is a polemicist, i.e., the art or practice of disputation or controversy: a master of polemics., while Bill Maher, Keith Olberdouche, Janeanne Garofalo, and their ilk are learned dispensers of truth. Laughable.

    Like

  16. By the way, Jayson…I have done my homework..that’s why I did a post on this.

    Perhaps you need to do your homework so you can understand why conservatives oppose statist policies.

    Like

  18. You gullible sheep that rail against the government and ask “what sane person entrusts their health…to the government” must really hate your country.

    Do you know who “the government” is? It’s police, firemen, military, your Social Security checks (which come like clockwork, and–yes–the system will be fine), Medicare (see Social Security, or better yet–try taking it away from seniors!). It’s the park rangers and highway maintenance crews, it’s your local dog catcher…

    Get the picture?

    Your scare tactics are complete bullshit and we aren’t falling for Betsy McCaughey’s crap this time.

    REFORM NOW!

    Like

  21. We have nearly 30 years to tweak SS; it’s worked very well for decades and will continue to so with modifications.

    Like

  24. Nice try again, there, Sue. Try citing a reputable pollster, that will ask pointed questions like: Do you want rationed health care? Instead of a phoney b.s. poll:

    http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/08/single-payer-another-phony-poll/

    Anyone can get the result they want by asking the questions in a leading way, or asking if people if they support “the status quo”, which most people don’t.

    Guys…go knock on some doors, or something. You’re not going to get die hard conservative to go long with socialized medicine. Period.

    You are wasting your time, here.

    Like

  25. You respond to data with some knucklehead’s BLOG POST???

    Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

    Anyway, I’ll spend my time in any fashion that I’d like, thank you very much.

    But just the fact that you seem to CARE about how I spend my time strangely seems to fly in the face of the fact that conservatives are well-known to only care about themselves.

    Like

  26. You respond to data with some knucklehead’s BLOG POST???

    “Data?” Liberal pollsters have been polling this question up the wazoo. The “data” is tainted.

    How about a Rasmussen poll? I believe he’s more reputable than Mellman:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/may_2009/42_favor_free_health_care_for_all_americans_unless_their_own_coverage_has_to_change

    the fact that conservatives are well-known to only care about themselves.

    Maybe you should look for some polls on who gives more to charity….conservatives or liberals? Then report back.

    Liberals are all about “helping people” (and themselves) with other people’s money.

    Like

  27. Pingback: Obamacare Photo Contest | The Lonely Conservative

  28. Ramussen polls? FOX News quotes them all the time. That’s a clue right there.

    Righties love to talk about “charity.” Sorry, but tithing a few bucks to your megachurch on Sunday doesn’t add up to the likes of Bill Gates or the excellent work of the CGI.

    But keep telling yourself that health care reform isn’t needed. Then when you get really sick and you can’t pay your medical bills, maybe one of your GOP buddies will be willing to go BK right along with you.

    Like

  29. Sue, you’re really a piece of work…Rasmussen is not good enough for you, but Mellman is?

    And we somehow find a way to bring Fox into this? LOL.

    Give me a break.

    I see you didn’t look at any studies on conservatives vs liberals on charitable giving. I don’t blame you. Libs do have a deplorable record on that. I’d be embarrassed, too.

    Then when you get really sick and you can’t pay your medical bills…

    Gee….uh…maybe I’m insured?

    Like

  30. The “charity” canard is ridiculous on its face. What’s the definition of “charity?” Money? Actions? Time?

    A ridiculous “argument” that conservatives seem to pull out of mothballs every now and again.

    The GOP is in retreat; Obama is a popular president and the GOP doesn’t have anybody who will ever win on a national stage.

    Palin? Ha! Gingrich? Ha! Romney! Ha! Jindal? Ha!

    Nobody.

    Too bad, too. There used to be two viable parties in this country.

    G’night. Hope you don’t get sick–at least until health care is reformed…

    Like

  31. Oh and BTW? You’re insured? So what? Do you really think your insurance means you will not have huge medical bills if you get catastrophically ill? If you believe that, you are in an even stranger fictional land than I already think that you are in.

    Oh, and what if you LOSE that insurance for some reason? It happens?

    And what about people who can’t even GET coverage because of a “pre-existing condition?”

    Or is it all about YOU?

    Like

  32. Sue…it really bothers you that conservatives are more charitable than libs, doesn’t it?

    Obama’s less popular than George W. Bush was at this stage during his Presidency…you know that, right? And he’ll be less popular when he leaves, than Bush was when he left…and that will be with his sycophantic media cheering his every move.

    There are all sorts of plans out their for all sorts of people, and health insurance advocates are out there to help people who are hard to insure – trust me on that one. Then, of course, there’s also Medicare and Medicaid.

    Just about everyone agrees that our healthcare system could use some tweaking, but socialized medicine is not the way to go.

    Like

  33. Sorry, Sue. Get some facts. The U.S. health care system is BROKEN.

    And, no, Deb, there are NOT “all sorts of plans.” I have a pre-existing condition and CAN NOT GET COVERAGE.

    I know several people personally in the same boat, and we are just a few of the 46/47 million uninsured in this country.

    Do some research instead of swallowing your “conservative” dogma whole.

    Like

  34. Um…yes. There are all sorts of plans. Most states have health insurance advocates that can find a plan for you.

    In Missouri, we have Benefits by Design:

    http://www.thehealthinsuranceadvocate.com/

    Then there’s medicare and medicaid.

    And the Republicans in Congress do have an alternative to the single payer plan.

    Video:Republicans Speak Out On ObamaCare

    And oh. Here’s that Charitable giving “canard”:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

    If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

    — Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

    — Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

    — Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

    — Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

    — In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

    — People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

    Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and “the values that lie beneath” liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

    But it’s all about “us”, and our “megachurches”.

    Like

  36. Deb, Deb, Deb. See? That’s the problem with you Eternal Victims in the GOP. You always call a dissenting view “venom,” visitors to your blogs “trolls,” and are constantly the aggrieved party.

    My research on health care has been on-going ever since my mother died of lung cancer in 1992. It accelerated when I was diagnosed with epilepsy on 1998.

    I know the facts. It’s you, Deb, who is falling for the right-wing’s scare tactics, mislabeling and lies.

    Grow up.

    Like

  38. Er…Sue? Did you perhaps note that the researcher whose data he cited was an Independent?

    And um…with your guy in the WH, and libs controlling Congress…how do you consider your view…”the dissenting view”.

    Mine is the dissenting view.

    And as for venom…go back and read your Charity canard comment again.

    I don’t think it was my imagination.

    Like

  39. No, Deb; according to conservative bloggers, if one disagrees on their precious, insular blog, one is “dissenting.” “Trolling,” I believe your type calls it.

    BTW: I read George Will on a regular basis. I read all sorts of columnists–left, right and center–on a regular basis. As an SU alum, I am familiar with Professor Brooks. Um, a “registered independent.” So? George Will isn’t about to trumpet any researcher who shines a positive light on health care reform. He’s a Reaganite; he thinks government is the problem, not part of the solution.

    Goodbye, Deb. I’m sure you are genuine in your beliefs, and I’m equally sure you rely on right-wing blogs and talk radio for those views.

    Good luck.

    Like

  40. And I don’t consider telling the truth “scare tactics” or lies. Single payer is socialized medicine. Your lot likes to change the names of things when they become too unpopular.

    Btw, have you noticed that Great Britain with decades of Socialism under their belts are in much worse shape than we’re in?

    Like

  41. George Will isn’t about to trumpet any researcher who shines a positive light on health care reform. He’s a Reaganite; he thinks government is the problem, not part of the solution.

    Yeah, but he wasn’t even talking about socialized medicine in that article so wtf?

    And no, not all differing opinions are considered trolls, here. Just the obnoxious ones.

    But thanks for bringing up that Reagan quote. It’s a good one, and it crystallizes the difference in our philosophies quite pithily.

    and I’m equally sure you rely on right-wing blogs and talk radio for those views.

    Very insulting. I’ve been conservative my whole life. It’s nice to listen to talk radio because for the most part the hosts agree with ME, as opposed to the MSM and the pop culture which is omnipresent.

    Thanks for playing.

    Like

  42. Sue makes a lot more sense than most here.

    Most Americans don’t really care if you call it socialized medicine. That’s just a term. We want health insurance options available for all that isn’t wasteful and bloated and run by insurance companies.

    If you don’t think that those are bureaucrats, too, you are crazy.

    A public plan will be funded by a massive pool of people “buying in”; now, some low-level dweeb in a cubicle has a profit motive to deny coverage.

    We all need better health insurance–just like government employees–Senators, for example–get.

    We don’t have that now.

    If you can get beyond silly labels, you might find that a single-payer plan–IF WRITTEN CORRECTLY–is far superior.

    Simple.

    Like

  43. Actually, I don’t think most Americans support a system in which the government is the sole purchaser of health care, makes the regulations, and sets the nation’s health care budget each year.

    And I doubt most Americans want the doctor’s salary to be set by the government.

    That is pretty much Socialism. Sorry you don’t like the label.

    Like

  44. Pingback: Video: Rush Limbaugh: Obama Is Destroying The Economy « Nice Deb

  45. But just the fact that you seem to CARE about how I spend my time strangely seems to fly in the face of the fact that conservatives are well-known to only care about themselves.

    I think that says it all for Sue right there. If it doesn’t, I’ll just mention that her poll cites don’t say what she says they say. She complains about potential bias and political commenters, then says that her own arguments are based on:

    My research on health care has been on-going ever since my mother died of lung cancer in 1992. It accelerated when I was diagnosed with epilepsy on 1998.

    Not a very smart or honest lady.

    Like

  46. And for a poll addict, she doesn’t seem to be keeping up very well:

    The GOP is in retreat; Obama is a popular president and the GOP doesn’t have anybody who will ever win on a national stage.

    Like

  47. We want health insurance options available for all that isn’t wasteful and bloated and run by insurance companies.

    No. We want health care, not health insurance. We want a strong, motivated, constantly improving health care industry. We don’t want to share our medical records with the government, or have the government poking into our financial arrangements with our health care providers.

    We don’t want one-size-fits-all treatment options, where our physician is going to expose himself to liability if he strays from the government-prescribed course. We don’t want to contribute to the worldwide shortage of physicians, and in particular don’t want to reduce the number in our own country.

    We don’t want to expand the domain of “public interest,” which has justified legislation such as seat belt and helmet laws, and could get even more intrusive into our lives (as it is in Britain).

    But most of all, we want a choice. We want the freedom to choose health insurance or to spend the money somewhere else. My brother went 10 years without health insurance, because he didn’t want to pay for it. Turned out to be a smart bet. I have always paid for health insurance, and have ended up paying far more than I cost the insurance company. For better or worse, those were our choices on how to spend our money.

    Nobody likes the insurance companies, rising medical costs, or the fact that money has become more important than delivery of care at some institutions. But if you’re going to institute reforms, we’d like to see reforms that increase, not decrease, our freedom of choice and privacy.

    Like

  48. >>A public plan will be funded by a massive pool of people “buying in”; now, some low-level dweeb in a cubicle has a profit motive to deny coverage

    So what you’re saying is you want a publicly funded entitlement plan that will be run with ruthless efficiency and not managed by some evil insurance company. Say something like Medicare or Social Security which are notoriously poorly managed, routinely raided by politicians and are now so underfunded they threaten to destroy our economy in the next decade?

    Exactly where do liberals go to obtain such insight and wisdom?

    Like

  49. >> It accelerated when I was diagnosed with epilepsy on 1998.

    flashes lights at Sue.

    “I don’t trust your sources” is a simpleton’s inability to argue the points made. If they are lies, which is the basis of your assertion, refute them.

    You don’t have to love them.

    Like

Leave a comment