Barry's ObamaNation

Current Posts Post New Entry

« Back to Current Posts « Older Entry | Newer Entry »

An analysis of the Obama Health Care Plan by Peter Ferrara of the Heartland Institute

Posted by Jesse on August 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM

This is a Word excerpt from a PDF file of a report by Peter Ferrara of the Heartland Institute. This report and analysis of Obama's Health Care proposal is quite an eye opener. I have down loaded, and tried to read Obama's huge proposal, but not being a Lawyer, I had no idea what I was reading. Then I found this report of it. It is a 36 page PDF File that is well worth your time to read. If you like Obama or not, this is something you need to read. The link to the PDF is below the following excerpt.

The Obama Health Plan: Rationing,

Higher Taxes, and Lower Quality Care

By Peter Ferrara

1. Introduction

President Barack Obama and

Congressional Democrats are rushing to enact legislation that would overhaul the way health care is financed and delivered in the United States.

It would dramatically increase the role of government in virtually all aspects of health care.

Such an initiative should be carefully studied to determine whether it actually solves problems in the health care arena or makes them worse.

National health plans similar to what President Obama is proposing have been adopted in other countries.

They always start out promising universal access and free or reduced-price health care. But they end up with massive institutional bureaucracies whose purpose and function are to deny health care and medical services.

Often they fail to control spending despite resorting to withholding care to politically

weak groups.

President Obama insists that his plan to fundamentally restructure health care is needed to reduce

costs. He has touted a report from his Council of Economic Advisors that specifies exactly how

that would be done.

That report, however, elaborates a policy of thorough government health

care rationing achieved through government control of the financing and delivery of care.

This study will explain how the health policy changes President Obama and Congressional

Democrats support would cause millions of Americans to lose their choice of doctors and

insurance coverage, require that access to care be strictly rationed, and cause the quality of care

to deteriorate.

Despite all this sacrifice, nationalizing health insurance in America would require

major tax increases, slow economic growth, and increase the national debt.

Complete Report

Back up site

Sign the Petition to Congress to stop the Obama Health Care Reform Bill. Click Here

...

Categories: None

3 Comments

Reply some call me scene

01:05 PM on August 17, 2009

great conspiracy theory, jesse. interesting that you said that if a public health care option were available, then that institution would strive to "deny health care and medical services." the reality is, those who are uninsured are already denied health care and medical services. a chief goal of a public option is to enable access to said services, so your logic is literally collapsing upon itself.

moreover, you claim that a public option would result in tax increases while increasing the national debt. the proposal is to establish a non-profit to administer the public option; meaning, no tax increases or effect on the national debt.

my advice: do more research when attempting to criticize obama, or any politician for that matter. smear campaigns like barrysobamanation do nothing but harm. the american two-party political system is inherently flawed, and malicious cooperatives like this one cause even more partisanship and perpetuate the defectiveness of the faulty system.

Reply James Helms

12:22 AM on August 11, 2009

A well thought out plan will serve the people of these great states much more and for a longer period of time than hurried efforts thrown together to satisfy a political promise. Quite frankly, what I have seen of the current proposed plan causes me great concern. I totally agree that healthcare reform is needed, but giving the government such latitude is not the solution. Take some time to put together a plan that is truely going to serve the intended purpose without creating more problems than currently exist.

Reply john lorenz

10:25 AM on August 10, 2009

The supporters of Obamacare deny the validity of the arguments or concerns put forth by the opposition,even though NOONE, not even Obama himself knows what's in the bill.This is by design. The fewer the specifics, the fewer the targets for opposition. Afterall, the Democrats control the legislative process, their fawning white guilt media controls the distribution of the news and they don't know anymore about Obamacare than its critics, but the critics can't possibly be right. In fact, their defaulrt argument is, "Well Medicare is government/socialized healthcare." If this is the best they can do, their argument is specious at best. In 1964 when we were sold Medicare, were we told it would develop into the single most threating thing to our economic and budgetary stability with a CURRENT UNFUNDED LIABILITY of $31 TRILLION? Were we told that the cost would exceed more than 10times "government expert" estimates? Were we told that a separate payroll tax would be instituted to help fund the program, beyond annual rising premiums? Were we told that 45 years later promises made to the people would be reneged upon to helppay for Obamacare? The answer to each is NO. That's why people are angry.If controlling the whole process they can't or won't provide details, why should we buy? That doesn't mean healthcare shouldn't be "reformed". It just means this ultimate government power grab isn't the answer.

John Lorenz, Church Hill, Tennessee, jelorenz53175@yahoo.com