President Obama Adopts Michael Moore Approach to Health Care "Debate": President "Sicko"?

Yesterday, the mainstream media (carrying the water, as usual, for Obama) breathlessly reported that President Obama now had a "new message" on health care "refrom": This message is that people need the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to "protect" them from INSURERS.


Problem for Obama: The people realize that there is NO ONE to prtect them from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and that the Federal Government is much more powerful and dangerous than any mere insurer.


See my previious entry on the 10 minutes I saw out of Michael Moore's bitter, anti-American (as usual for Moore) movie, "Sicko" What Michael Moore did was describe the pressure MANAGED CARE put on doctors and patients to control costs. Yes, Moore was talking about private HMOs, because to Michael Moore "profit" is a dirty word. Moore despises his country, and he despises capitalism. The question is whether President Obama is any different, or is he just another "sicko" like Moore? The evidence certainly is that Obama does not believe in capitalism, and that he hates his own country. If you dobut the latter assertion, consider how often President Obama has felt it necessary to APOLOGIZE for the United States of America.


Mamcy Pelosi today took up the new, media coordinated, "message" that it is the EVIL INSURERS that are lying to people to sabotage the virtuous (hypocritical, lying, devious) Democrats merely tryig to give everyone cheap health care. The problem is that it is NOT the "insurers" who are "sabotaging" the public view of a Federal takeover of health care "insurance". The people KNOW that the Federal Government is going to INCREASE costs, and that the people are going to have to pay for it. They are going to have to pay for it with both MONEY (eventually), and with LESS CARE. And how can you argue that Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats are not proposing a Federal takeover of health care MANAGEMENT, when they are TELLING YOU that they want to get rid of private insurers (those EVIL people, you know).


As I said with regard to MIchael Moore, what leftists are in fact proposing is the MOST MASSIVE, POWERFUL HMO THAT EVER EXISTED--an HMO which will eventually be your only choice. By this "new message, President Obama, Pelosi, and leftist Democrats are admitting that is exactly their goal. If you think it is bad dealing with an HMO trying to control costs for mere profit (where the "well care" to prevent disease FAILED to help HMOs control costs), then you ain't seen nothing yet. A massive Federal HMO, from which there will be no escape, will be the ultimate evil controlling your health care. And NO ONE will be able to protect lyou from those politicians and bureaucrats not interested in your health care, but only in advancing government power while controlling costs OVER THE DEAD BODIES OF PATIENTS. That is why it is so absurd for Obama, and Moore, to talk about "protecting" you from insurers, when they are proposing a takeover by people over whom you will have LESS control--people (the Federal Government) who will even be LESS interested in the problems of individual patients.


Let me make it perfectly clear (to quote one of Richard Nixon's favorite beginnings to a sentence): I HATE insurance companies (and banks). I was a plaintiff's attorney for 30 years, and one of my favorite things was SUING an insurance company (matched only by suing a bank). I did this many times, as well as dealing with insurance companies providing liablity coverage for other people and businesses I sued. I have found insurance company people and bank people (a generalization with obvious exceptions) to be DUMB AND HOPELESSLY BUREAUCRATIC.


You know who I found to be MORE dumb and hopelessly bureaucratic than insurance companies and banks? Right. GOVERNMENT. And it was not even close. Dealing with insurace companies was a picnic compared to dealing with government. That was true even of state and local government. However, it was especailly true of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It is simply impossible to deal with the Federal Government. Even Federal laws and regulatiions are impossible to understand. That was my experience as a practicing attorney, and I believe it is the experience of most people (whatever job they are in).


This is the problem Obama, Moore, and leftist Democrats have: The people generally KNOW that it will be a BAD thing for the Federal Government to take over management of their health care. They KNOW that it will be the most massive, bureaucratic, controlling HMO of all time. They KNOW that they will not like it. Even Thomason General Hospital, the local COUNTY HOSPITAL, has come out in opposition to the proposed health care plan (at least elements of it) as being a DISASTER for this country hospital (which already is forced to provide much free care to illegals, among others. The STATES will be forced to share in the cost. The people KNOW that they are on the Titanic, heading for an iceberg, with this proposed Federal "overhaul" of our health care "system" (one of the big pluses of which is that it is NOT a central planning "system", but a collection of many options and alternatives).


The people are just uncertain whether this juggernaut can be stopped. As stated, they KNOW it will be bad. But they elected all of these people unwilling to see reality--including Repubicans (most of them) who seem to accept the idea that the FEderal Government MUST do a massive "reform" of healthcare (damn the deficit, which Repubicans apparently do not really oppose). Health care in this country is NOT "broken". It is working pretty well. The idea that it is not working perfectly merely states what will always be true. There is no such thing as a perfect system. What we need to do is avoid RUINING the very good "system" that we have, in the quest for an illusory perfection.


Thus, and you will not hear this from ANY Repubicans, and few conservatives, the FIRST three options here are to: DO NOTHING, DO NOTHING, and DO NOTHING. The next option is to make clear that the states need to come up wth their own "solutioins", including insurance regulations, etc. The states are perfectly capable of doing this, except that on a state level ("pay as you go"), it quickly becomes apparent that government control/takeover is a BAD, costly thing. Yes, Nancy Pelosi and you leftists out there, I accuse you of trying to DECEIVE on costs by using the Federal Government as a massive vehicle to do what has FAILED on a state level--even though it will be a BIGGER ultimate failure on a national level.


Are Republicans really saying this should be left to states to appproach in different ways (where you can move to another state if you dislike Kal-ee--foornia)? Not a chance. Are Republicans saying that we should at least DO NOTHING until the deficit is under control, and the recession history? Not a chance. In fact, Repubilcans want to ADD Federal control to a health care bill with NATIONAL TORT REORM. Is thaere any reason states cannot do their own tort reform? Nope. Texas has dones so, and I have supported most of the legislation (even when it was against my economic interest, as a former plaintiff's attorney). There is NO reason for CENTRAL PLANNING on medical malpractice. Medicine is really one of our MOST LOCAL industries. Insurance compnaies have long been regulated by the states. There is really just as much "reason" for national worker's compensation laws, or national murder laws, as there is for a natiional takeover of either health care OR health care tort law. The states are better equipped to avoid being a massive HMO out of all control--both as to "management" and cost.


Now I may have succeeded in annoyin both lefitsts (who I do my best to annoy daily) and conservatives (who I do not deliberately try to annoy), with the above last few paragraphs. This does not change that I am right.


But you do not have to accept that I am fully right to KNOW that a Federal takeover of health care is a TERRIBLE idea. The American people are with me on this one, even if they do not buy everything I say above. They instinctively KNOW that we will be lucky to avoid the iceberg, because we have been steaming too fast in icy waters toward the massive danger of a Federal HMO controllig our health care (try to sort out the metaphors in THAT sentence, I dare you). I am convinced that the American people, at this point and this time, would rather DO NOTHING than get ANY bill that Congress is likely to pass in the next two years. They understand that our health care is pretty good, and that the main Hippocratic goal here is to "first do no harm".


Will we hit the iceberg and sink? I am more optimistic than I was, but NOT because of Repubicans. The people appear to be almost IN REVOLT. And that is all that can save us. No politican now out there is going to do it.


P.S. Obviously, "sicko" is a takeoff on the MIchael Moore movie name. But I consider Michael Moore a bitter, hating, SICK man. Is President Obama similarly "sick"? I believe he is. Look at this incredible Boston incident, blown out of proportion by the President of the United States attacking a local Cambridge police officer (Cambridge, of course, being the Harvard containing suburb of Boston). I truly believe President Obama is a race obsessed, bitter man who hates his own country in the way his mentor, Reverend Writght, hates his own country. I KNOW President Obama does not believe in free markets, or capitalism. He TOLD Joe the Plumber that, and has said the same thing, in many different ways, on many other occasions/. This "new message" is one of those occasions, as was his previous "message" that private insurers "need" to "compete" with tovernment insurance. President Obama does not believe in this country, as founded. He is, in fact, a sick man in the same way that Michael Moore is a sick man. Moore is just much more unattractive, while arrogant Obama (the Cambridge incident again showing his incredible arrogance, as did his statement to some Democrats that they were "ruining" his Presidency by failing to make the August "deadline" for a health care bill) is able to come across as attactive and intelligent. It is all form. In substance, I don't see any difference between Michael Moore and BArack Obama. Obama is just a more attactive Michael Moore. Obama, as this blog has shown, is also more of a COMIC GENIUS than Michael Moore, even though Moore USED to be able to be funny (hiding the extreme bitterness and hatred in his soul that way).