Doctor’s View

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

 

You shouldn’t judge the Affordable Care Act based on headlines or by listening to politicians or talking heads. I tried for a while, but only heard wildly conflicting stories that seemed to have little basis in reality.

Instead, you should ask someone who actually deals with the law on a daily basis — a doctor, for instance.

The Physicians Foundation did exactly that in its “2014 Survey of American Physicians,” which was released last month. The survey, which reached over 80% of doctors in the U.S. and elicited responses from some 20,000, is doctors’ collective report card on the Affordable Care Act’s first four years.

The grades aren’t good. Only 25% of doctors give it an “A” or a “B” grade. Nearly half ( 46%) give it a “D” or an “F”.

I can help explain why so many of us are fed up with the law: In many cases, it shifts our focus from patients to paperwork, from finding cures to filing documents.

The survey indicates that physicians now spend 20% of their time on non-clinical paperwork. I now spend many hours at a desk or a computer rather than at the bedside assisting patients. This isn’t why I became a doctor.

Unsurprisingly, this shift negatively influences patients’ access to health care — doctors simply don’t have the time to see the same number of patients.

The survey indicates that 44% of doctors “plan to take one or more steps that would reduce patient access to their services.” This includes “cutting back on patients seen, retiring, working part-time, closing their practice to new patients or seeking a non-clinical job.”

I would add another important effect based on my own observations: Spending less time with patients.

The ACA’s regulatory burden directly bears on these decisions. There are already at least 11,000 pages of government regulations related to the law. Some of it applies to insurers, some of it applies to doctors and some applies to the relationship between the two.

No matter who it applies to, it adds bureaucratic hassles to the health care process that may impact your doctors’ ability to attend to your medical needs.

It should come as no surprise, then, that 69% of physicians “believe their clinical autonomy is sometimes or often limited,” meaning they have a diminished ability to make medical decisions in consultation with patients.

And “limited” may be an understatement. The ACA’s implementation has also coincided with a dramatic decline in private practice — the small, personal doctors’ offices that have been in local communities for generations.

The number of private-practice doctors has dropped by nearly half in a mere six years, with the most dramatic drops occurring in the four years since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law.

According to the survey, 35% of physicians are now independent practice owners. In 2012, half were independent. In 2008 — two years before the ACA was passed — 62% were independent. In the last two years alone, the number of solo practitioners has dropped from 25% to 17%.

No wonder: Private and solo practitioners often lack the staff and the financial resources required to implement and keep up with the ACA’s dramatic changes to medicine.

The Physicians Foundation survey indicates that our country’s health care is still going in the wrong direction. Of course, it’s important to note that the Affordable Care Act is only one of many issues affecting doctors’ decisions and outlook.

But it is not a good sign that in the law’s first few years, physicians are seeing fewer patients, private practices are disappearing and nearly twice as many doctors believe the law is harming, not helping, American health care.

• Fodeman is an internal medicine doctor practicing in Tucson, Ariz. (IBD)

War on Doctors

In an address to the House on Wednesday, Alabama Representative Mo Brooks read aloud a letter sent to him by Dr. Marlin Gill of Decatur. The letter holds nothing back while detailing the excessive costs and regulations that Dr. Gill calls Obamacare’s “war against doctors.”

Here is the full text of the letter, courtesy of Rep. Brooks’ office:

Dear Congressman Brooks,

 

As a practicing family physician, I plead for help against what I can best characterize as Washington’s war against doctors.

 

The medical profession has never before remotely approached today’s stress, work hours, wasted costs, decreased efficiency, and declining ability to focus on patient care.

 

In our community alone, at least 6 doctors have left patient care for administrative positions, to start a concierge practice, or retire altogether.

 

Doctors are smothered by destructive regulations that add costs, raise our overhead and ‘gum up the works,’ making patient treatment slower and less efficient, thus forcing doctors to focus on things other than patient care and reduce the number of patients we can help each day.

 

I spend more time at work than at any time in my 27 years of practice and more of that time is spent on administrative tasks and entering useless data into a computer rather than helping sick patients.

 

Doctors have been forced by ill-informed bureaucrats to implement electronic medical records (“EMR”) that, in our four doctor practice, costs well over $100,000 plus continuing yearly operational costs . . . all of which does not help take care of one patient while driving up the cost of every patient’s health care.

 

Washington’s electronic medical records requirement makes our medical practice much slower and less efficient, forcing our doctors to treat fewer patients per day than we did before the EMR mandate.

 

To make matters worse, Washington forces doctors to demonstrate ‘meaningful use’ of EMR or risk not being fully paid for the help we give.

 

In addition to the electronic medical records burden, we face a mandate to use the ICD-10 coding system, a new set of reimbursement diagnosis codes.

 

The current ICD-9 coding system uses roughly 13,000 codes. The new ICD-10 coding system uses a staggering 70,000 new and completely different codes, thus dramatically slowing doctors down due to the unnecessary complexity and sheer numbers of codes that must be learned.

 

The cost of this new ICD-10 coding system for our small practice is roughly $80,000, again driving up health care costs without one iota of improvement in health care quality.

 

Finally, doctors face nonpayment by patients with ObamaCare. These patients may or may not be paying their premiums and we have no way of verifying this. No business can operate with that much uncertainty.

 

On behalf of the medical profession, I ask that Washington stop the implementation of the ICD-10 coding system, repeal the Affordable Care Act, and replace it with a better law written with the input of real doctors who will actually treat patients covered by it.

 

America has enjoyed the best health care the world has ever known. That health care is in jeopardy because physicians cannot survive Washington’s ‘war on doctors’ without relief.

 

Eventually the problems for doctors will become problems for patients, and we are all patients at some point.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Dr. Marlin Gill of Decatur, Alabama

Brooks warned of the serious – and, in some cases, life-threatening – consequences of ignoring Dr. Gill’s warning. Let’s hope that America will listen.

This is What It Looks Like When the State Just Doesn’t Care About Your Rights Anymore

Well, Liberal know what’s best for you better than you do, in their minds. And this was about helping the uninsured get insurance, in their minds, so since they only had the intentions of angels of mercy the fact that they are devils incarnate will never occur to them and since they have been waiting almost 100 years for this they will never give up their toys. And they sure as hell will never understand the damage they have caused or will cause because their intention were good.

It’s someone elses fault for screwing up their angelic vision. Or your lack of cow towing 100% to their will, resistance is hurting YOU.

That’s the kind of denial you’re going to get.

Deal with it.

When asked if there were any parts of Obamacare that would “absolutely” not be delayed in the future, Sebelius responded: ”I don’t have any idea how to answer that question.”

It’s complicated…. 🙂

“This is a complicated law,” Sebelius told Breitbart News. ”It’s in place right now and we anticipate full implementation.”

The governor (a Republican) told a reporter that he had no plans to meet with Sebelius when she came through Nashville on Thursday.

“She didn’t ask,” Haslam said. (CBS)

Not on her Agenda! 🙂


146347 600 Obamacare countdown cartoons


146312 600 Yet Another Obamacare Delay cartoons

Charity Begins with Washington :) IN Triplicate

No good deed will go unpunished under ObamaCare. If a charitable hospital treats a homeless person who staggers into the emergency room without insurance, it may be punished with taxes and fines.

One of the “unintended” consequences of the misnamed Affordable Care Act was to place charitable tax-exempt hospitals in a medical Catch-22: To maintain their tax-exempt status they’re required to treat a minimum number of patients who can’t pay, yet ObamaCare requires everyone to have health coverage.

Right now, about 60% of the 6,000 or so hospitals in the U.S. are tax-exempt nonprofits, while 25% are government-owned. The rest — fewer than 1,000 — are for-profit. But this may change under provisions of ObamaCare to be enforced by the IRS.

A provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code that takes effect under ObamaCare sets new standards of review and installs potential financial penalties if hospitals don’t conform to IRS standards of when and how much charitable work can be performed.

Religious groups, especially Catholic orders, opened many of these facilities as charitable institutions. The IRS originally granted tax-exempt status to institutions that provided a “community benefit,” defined as spending 3% of operating revenue to take care of patients who couldn’t pay.

This benefited the hospitals as well as the community, for if you counted all the sales, property and income taxes that nonprofit hospitals currently avoid paying, it would total $20 billion.

The quality of mercy may not be strained, but it must now be carefully defined and audited with stringent new reporting requirements. “It (the IRS) requires tax-exempt hospitals to do a community needs survey and file additional paperwork with the IRS every three years,” says John Kartch of Americans for Tax Reform. “This is to prove that the charitable hospital is still needed in their geographical area — ‘needed’ as defined by ObamaCare and overseen by IRS bureaucrats.”

“Failure to comply, or to prove this continuing need, could result in the loss of the hospital’s tax-exempt status,” Kartch adds. “The hospital would then become a for-profit venture, paying income tax.”

Failure to complete a community health needs assessment in any applicable three-year period results in a penalty on the organization of up to $50,000, according to a report by Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation.

It is our belief that community need is best determined by those who reside in the community, not by faceless Washington bureaucrats with a vested interest in growing government and imposing leftist ideology.

We also believe the record shows faith-based and charitable institutions are most efficient at delivering needed services to the poor, hungry and sick. They should be encouraged, not punished, for their work.

Yet the government is rigging the game against them, in this case against nonprofit charitable hospitals. All blessings must flow from that government, which will determine who can help the needy and when, lest they be punished, either with loss of tax-exempt status or fines for not having the proper paperwork.

Faith-based institutions such as Catholic hospitals are already under attack because of ObamaCare’s mandate that free contraceptives be provided in any health plan even if that violates your free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.

One in six patients in the U.S. is in a Catholic hospital. Catholic charities provide needed services to the hungry, homeless and poor. Many would be forced to close, and many would do so rather than render unto Caesar that which is not his. ObamaCare may spell the doom of nonprofit hospitals.

So, if you’re that Good Samaritan who sees someone in need along the road, make sure the government approves and have your forms in order. (IBD)

In triplicate, stamped,  and countersigned no doubt.

Dr. Hawkeye Pierce (M*A*S*H): “We’ve been getting double-talk in triplicate.”

.“The Late Captain Pierce” (M*A*S*H Season 4): Back in Colonel Potter’s office, Hawkeye and the Colonel are visited by an army bureaucrat named Captain Pratt. After listing the procedures for bringing Hawkeye back to life, which, of course, entails the filling out of way too many forms, Captain Pratt chuckles and classifies Hawkeye as an ‘unperson’  lists the numerous forms Hawkeye will have to fill out and have signed by other officers (in triplicate). They include ‘a request to rescind the certificate of death on form ten-stroke-249, in triplicate, accompanied by an SF-88-stroke-11-0-7, signed by three officers of equal or higher rank, followed by a personal written report on form 63-stroke-E-B-Y by a ranking officer who actually saw the deceased not die, in triplicate’.An unperson is a person who has been “vaporized”; who has not only been killed by the state, but effectively erased from existence. Such a person would be written out of existing books, photographs, and articles so that no trace of their existence could be found in the historical record. The idea is that such a person would, according to the principles of doublethink, be forgotten completely (for it would be impossible to provide evidence of their existence), even by close friends and family members. Mentioning his or her name, or even speaking of their past existence, is thoughtcrime; the concept that the person may have existed at one time and has disappeared cannot be expressed in Newspeak.Sounds like Ambassador Chris Stevens….Or am I just be UNcharitable… 🙂

Consider: Hit by years of budget cuts, some U.S. public school boards are looking to avoid providing health benefits to substitute teachers and supporting staff under President Barack Obama’s reform law, education officials say.

According to the law, employers will have to offer health coverage to all full-time employees, defined as those who work an average of 30 or more hours per week each month, or else pay a fine starting in 2015.

School boards, already struggling to manage after years of state budget cuts, are trying to get ahead of the potential costs of Obamacare for the current academic year, education and labor officials say. The need to find creative solutions, or risk cutting back staff hours further, will increase as they finalize their budgets, they say.

In Pennsylvania’s Penn Manor School District, Superintendent Mike Leichliter said there is no room in its constrained budget to provide additional employee insurance. Instead of cutting hours, the district used a substitute-teacher contracting service to pay part of the salaries for 95 employees. Money for such a service does not count against the school’s budget.

“When we looked at our costs, (healthcare) was one area that really had the potential to skyrocket,” Leichliter said. “This is absolutely the worst time for school districts to be faced with mandated increases.”

“It creates a lot of inconsistency in staffing, and I can’t see how that would be good for students,” Wehrbein said. “How could you have a teacher teaching English four days a week and then on the fifth day you have someone else?” (townhall)

Aren’t you happy that the same people who want all this want even more! 🙂

Enjoy…

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

Insurance 201

Thomas Sowell has column today that is very well sad and I personally know the impact of it. And I have preached at this pulpit before.

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/insurance-101/

In insurance markets, moral hazard occurs when the behavior of the insured party changes in a way that raises costs for the insurer, since the insured party no longer bears the full costs of that behavior. Because individuals no longer bear the cost of medical services, they have an added incentive to ask for pricier and more elaborate medical service—which would otherwise not be necessary. In these instances, individuals have an incentive to over consume, simply because they no longer bear the full cost of medical services.

And does this not sound like ObamaCare to you?? :)

Take it away Mr. Sowell.

Insurance is all about risk. Yet neither insurance companies nor their policy-holders can do anything about one of the biggest risks — namely, interference by politicians, to turn insurance into something other than a device to deal with risk.

By passing laws to force insurance companies to cover things that have nothing to do with risk, politicians force up the cost of insurance.

Annual checkups, for example, are known in advance to take place once a year. Foreseeable events are not a risk. Annual checkups are no cheaper when they are covered by an insurance policy. On the contrary, they are one of many things that are more expensive when they are covered by an insurance policy.

All the paperwork, record-keeping and other things that go with having any medical procedure covered by insurance have to be paid for, in addition to the cost of the medical procedure itself.

If automobile insurance covered the cost of oil changes or the purchase of gasoline, then both oil changes and gasoline would have to cost more, to cover the additional bureaucratic work involved.

In the case of health insurance, however, politicians love to mandate things that insurance must cover, including in some states treatment for baldness, contraceptives and whatever else politicians can think of. Playing Santa Claus costs a politician nothing, but it can cost the policy-holder a bundle — all of which the politician will blame on the “greed” of the insurance company.

(see Adverse Selection).

Insurance companies are regulated by both states and the federal government. This means that, instead of there being one vast nationwide market, where innumerable insurance companies compete with each other from coast to coast, there are 50 fragmented markets with different rules. That adds to the costs and reduces the competition in a given state.

When there are innumerable insurance companies, it is by no means clear that political regulation of them will produce better results than the regulation provided by competition in the market. In a competitive market, insurance companies would cover only those things that their policy-holders are willing to pay to have covered. Policy-holders would have no reason to pay to have insurance cover things that would be cheaper if paid for directly — or not paid for at all, in the case of things that are not a real concern to many people, such as baldness cures.

One of the factors in the number of the “uninsured,” for whom politicians are willing to turn the whole medical care system upside down, is the high cost of insurance that covers far more things than most people would be willing to pay for, if it was up to them. The uninsured who use hospital emergency rooms and don’t pay are a problem only because politicians passed laws forcing hospitals to let themselves be taken advantage of in this way.

Too many political “solutions” are solutions to problems created by previous political “solutions” — and will be followed by new problems created by their current “solutions.” There is no free lunch. In the case of health insurance, there is not even an inexpensive lunch.

Health insurance would be a lot less expensive if it covered only the kinds of risks that can involve heavy costs, such as a major operation or a crippling disability. While such things can be individually very expensive, they don’t happen to everybody, and insurance is one way to spread the risks, so that the protection of a given individual is not prohibitively expensive.

The problem of “pre-existing conditions” is a problem largely because of the way that politicians have written the laws — more specifically, by giving a tax break to employer-provided health insurance. If individuals bought their own health insurance, with the same tax advantages, the fact that an illness occurred after they changed employers would not make it a “pre-existing condition.”

There is no inherent reason for employers to be involved, in the first place. The fact that some guy manufactures furniture or plumbing fixtures in no way qualifies him to understand insurance for his employees. Including him in the loop adds another unnecessary layer of bureaucratic costs.

Political risks are the biggest risks.

So you want to know why your auto insurance is going up “even though I’m a good driver” or your Home insurance is going up “even though my house is worth less”??

Well, it’s very simple. Along with all of what has been discussed there is INFLATION.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

And the medical costs, repair costs and the lawyer  (you know all those “call me now” lawyer commercials?) costs go up and guess what happens to your premiums. They go up. It’s not personal.

And any real homeowners policy will be based on the replacement cost of the home and not the market value because the market value is a) fickle (just think about 5 years ago) b) includes land and locational factors that have nothing to do with the home.

Example, my home. It’s located with the “noise zone” of Sky Harbor International Airport. Thus my house is technically worth less because you can hear plane noise at a certain level.

If my house burns down do I want the replacement cost based partially on that or do I want it based on the materials to rebuild it?

And if inflation in the cost of those materials cause the premium to go up?

I hope you see the point.

Most people don’t.

Why?

Narcissistic Greed. It’s all about ME! and Insurance should only be about ME.

I don’t want MY policy based on other people.

Which is a fundamentally flawed understanding of the entire concept of insurance in the first place.

And that lack of education is a real problem because it leads people to misunderstand the entire process and the fundamentals underlying the entire concept.

And lets politicians and manipulative Liberals get away with their “solutions” that just cause more problems but make them look good.

And thus, you go for “get rich quick” type schemes by manipulative politicians that actually CAUSE more problems than they solve. But you get the satisfaction of “sticking it” to them. But it’s you that ultimately gets stuck.

Oh, there are ways to bring it down, but reforms to litigation laws and practices (by politicians who are mostly lawyers) is very hard. Lobbyists are very strong in the area. This is their meat and potatoes.

Medical costs are skyrocketing and ObamaCare will just make them worse. Trying to reform that gets you “thrown grandma off the cliff” rhetoric.

So, in the end RHETORIC HAS IT’S CONSEQUENCES.

Consequences in your wallet.

That’s the risk.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Mindless III: The Continuation

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner didn’t dispute a Harvard economist’s estimate that each job in the White House’s jobs plan would cost $200,000, but said the price tag is the wrong way to measure the bill’s worth.

“You’ve got to think about the costs of the alternatives,” Geithner said when asked about Harvard economist Martin Feldstein’s calculation that each job created by President Obama’s American Jobs Act would cost taxpayers about $200,000.

And since around 4 million have lost their jobs since Obama took office that’s only $800,000,000,000,000 if everyone who wasn’t unemployed in 2008 got a job under this bill.

Such a deal! 🙂  You can’t pass that up now can you? Really, are you that heartless and cruel and want to protect rich people that much? 🙂

“If government does nothing, it does nothing now because they’re scared by politics or they want to debate what’s perfect, then there will be fewer Americans back to work, the economy will be weaker,” he said. (ABC)

Only government can solve this. Government is the only answer! And only Liberals have the answer!

And at $200,000 per job it’s a bargain and no one could possibly do better, certainly no those evil “obstructionist” “partisan” Republicans. 🙂

Cutting Corporate Taxes (so we aren’t the highest in the world) and cutting regulations that cost $$$ could not possibly work and is only designed to benefit the rich so that’s absolutely impossible.

Any questions… 🙂

“If the alternative plan is for Washington to do nothing, that’s unacceptable,” Geithner said. “If the alternative plan is to sit there and say we’re going to cut our way out of this by just cutting spending, that would make the economy weaker. Or we’re going to sit here and just complain about regulation. … That will not do anything to help the average family now still suffering so much from the crisis.”

Clueless aren’t they? Blinded by ideology.

“The focus right now from him [Obama] is ‘pass my whole bill, pass my whole bill,’ [and] some of the struggle with that is no Democrat in the House has even taken his bill and filed it yet (But when it fails it will be the Republican’s fault, mind you) So we can’t even pass the bill because no one wants to put their name on it and say, ‘this is my bill’ and file it in the House,” said Rep. Lankford in a September 23 interview at the U.S. Capitol.

According to a report by the Office of Personnel Management and reported in Ed O’Keefe’s “The Federal Eye” column in the Washington Post, our government has been sending checks to dead people. “In the last five years,” O’Keefe writes, “the Office of Personnel Management has made more than $601 million in payments to dead federal retirees, according to the agency’s inspector general. Total annual payouts range between $100 million and $150 million.”

This isn’t something new. Inspector General (IG) Patrick McFarland had urged OPM in 2005 and again in 2008 to more closely monitor such payments. It appears his advice has gone unheeded.

“Improper payments to dead retirees are up 70 percent in the last five years,” cites the OPM report. In one outrageous case, the son of a deceased annuitant kept receiving federal benefits for 37 years after his father’s death. OPM didn’t learn about the improper payments until after the son died. Of course, the agency never recovered any of the money. Could this be why the government has no qualms about spending other people’s money?

According to Citizens Against Government Waste (www.cagw.org), “The USPS has 600,000 employees and is the second largest employer in America behind Wal-Mart. The USPS Office of Inspector General reported that employees were paid $21.9 million for 875,540 hours of ‘stand-by’ time in FY 2010, and $4.3 million for 170,666 hours in the first half of FY 2011. The USPS also has a 24 percent vacancy rate in its 284 million square feet of interior office space.”

Also last week, Senate Democrats rejected a continuing spending resolution passed by the House because, among other reasons, it contains cuts in the very solar energy program that funded Solyndra. So just because a company or a person dies does not necessarily disqualify them from receiving additional taxpayer money (borrowed from the Chinese, of course).

It is beyond disgraceful that so many elected officials and unelected bureaucrats continue to waste so much of our money, all the while demanding we be taxed more because they can’t “afford” to cut a dime and some of us allegedly aren’t contributing our “fair share.”

We are past not being able to afford our government and it’s long past time to start cutting them off, much as a parent might stop sending money to a spendthrift college student who wastes it on partying and high-living.(Cal Thomas)

The EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be “absurd” in application and “impossible to administer” by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.

The EPA aims to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn’t give the EPA explicit power to do so. The agency’s authority to move forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that such a decision should be left for Congress to make.

The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously — from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.

These new regulatory efforts are not likely to succeed, the EPA admits, but it has decided to move forward regardless. “While EPA acknowledges that come 2016, the administrative burdens may still be so great that compliance … may still be absurd or impossible to administer at that time, that does not mean that the Agency is not moving toward the statutory thresholds,”
The EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated cost of $21 billion. That cost does not include the economic impact of the regulations themselves. (DC)

Don’t worry, be happy and “feel” good. It’s good for the environment! 🙂

The Senate passed a continuing resolution by a vote of 79-12 funding the federal government through Nov. 18. The bill must still be approved by the House, but the Senate also passed a short term bill funding government through Oct. 4, giving both chambers additional breathing room.

They passed the buck and kicked the can down the road a piece.

Remember, Oct 1st is the beginning of a new fiscal year for Congress and the Senate Democrats have refused to pass any budget since April 2009!

It’s all continuing resolutions and stop-gap measures.
So how does that make you feel about the “super committee”?? 🙂
In Washington, “the problem is that things have gotten so ideologically driven, and everybody is focused on the election, and putting party ahead of country,” he claimed, in yet another repetition of the controversial claim that Republicans are unpatriotic for disagreeing with his progressive, big-government policies.“That [GOP disagreement] has got to change, and [that is] why your voices are so important,” he said. “I need everybody here to be speaking out on behalf of the things you care about … and to say to legislators you’ve elected, to say to them, act responsibly.”-President Obama 9/27/11

It’s Not Him, it’s Them!!!
Vote for me the other guys the problem not me!

Obama’s malcontent leftist friends on the Leftist Coast agree that he has not been liberal enough. So to regain their favor, he jetted out West in that covered wagon known as Air Force One and pleaded with them to understand the predicament he is in with nasty Republicans opposing him every step of the way. He is, he assured them, as radical as they are.

In Seattle, representing the downtrodden, Obama told the 65 guests who were paying a paltry $35,800 per couple, “From the moment I took office, what we’ve seen is a constant ideological push-back against any kind of sensible reforms that would make our economy work better and give people more opportunity.”

The bipartisan Obama told his fellow warriors for the poor that the Republican alternative “is an approach to government that will fundamentally cripple America in meeting the challenges of the 21st century.”

That’s the ticket. Unless we agree to Obama’s spending $450 billion more in borrowed money on the grounds that increasing the national debt will decrease the national debt, we will be crippling America. If we demand fiscal responsibility, we simply cannot be trusted to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Why is it so hard for some people to grasp that neither government tax and regulatory roadblocks against economic growth nor massive wealth redistribution programs improve the plight of lower- and middle-income groups? When will a greater percentage of blacks realize that liberal prescriptions harm rather than improve their economic conditions? When will they realize they are being exploited and injured by the very leaders who say they are the only ones who care about them?

These demagogues had better hope minorities and lower- and middle-income groups never systematically study the damning results of their policies. Obama scapegoats Republican obstruction for the failure of his policies, but no matter how hard he dissembles, he had his way the first two years of his term.

Nevertheless, he persists. On the next stop on his propaganda tour, Obama told his audience that the 2012 election will be even more important than the one in 2008. It will be “a contest of values.”

Finally, there’s something we can all agree on. It will indeed be a contest of values. Unfortunately for Obama, recent polls show that essentially half the American people fear his beloved federal government.

So let’s get ready to rumble. (David Limbaugh)

Ronald Reagan noted the only proof of eternal life on Earth is a government program. And Obama and Co want Even More!

And if you don’t give it to them, well, you’re just an “obstructionist” right wing tea-bagger racist who just wants to crush the poor and save the rich.

Now don’t you “feel” better. 🙂