The charges about "ObamaCare" keep changing but any that I've been
able to check on have proven false. I couldn't find anything on this most
recent iteration but can make a few comments based on my less than perfect
Robbing Peter to pay Paul: The $716
billion in Medicare cuts, as I recall, will come from Medicare Advantage, an
initially unfunded product of the Bush
administration. Benefits for Advantage will now, in many cases, be more in
line with regular Medicare but overall health care coverage, which includes
ObamaCare, will benefit.
Increased insurance fees: So long as
you have private companies, in business for a profit, providing insurance, you
will have more and larger increases than, for instance, Medicare.
However, the rate of increase has slowed down under ObamaCare and if companies
devote less than 80% of the premiums they receive to actual health care,
they have to give it back either in the form of a premium credit or an actual
check. In the old days before the companies got too greedy they
mostly dedicated 80% or more to health care.
(3) Doctor shortage
-- I don't know much about this one but being a doctor rarely results in a trip
to the "poor house." I think it will gradually be worked out.
(4) Delayed implementation (some
rules not yet written)
-- I also don't know too much about this one but suspect that it's just
another "red herring." You can be pretty sure that the rules
necessary for implementation will be written before the provisions they would
cover are scheduled to take effect. I could be proven wrong if Congress
doesn't provide enough funds to the executive branch but I think that
branch will probably manage somehow. All bets are off if Gov. Romney is
(5) "Healthcare Commissars" -- This
is an old shoe that has been beaten to death. The board will be advisory
and will have no power to enforce its decisions/opinions. For instance,
there absolutely is no "death panel" as is widely disseminated by
conservative news outlets. They will merely provide information and funds
to help families and individuals make end of life decisions.
Concerning the article on terrorism:
I think the initial reports of the fatal attack being spontaneous were due to
the"fog of war," not a cover-up. It was very soon also stated
that it could have been a terrorist group taking advantage of an unexpected
situation. It was also stated that they may have moved up an already
planned attack. None of this came directly from the White House.
Now there seems to be little doubt. Delays in getting the FBI on the
scene were entirely due to the Libyan government, which is not yet well
organized. A majority of people in that country are grateful for
help from the United States and NATO. The verdict is still out on
Egypt's future direction but it did send troops into the Sinai Peninsula, at
Israel's insistence, to crack down on alQaeda's attempts to set up shop there.
P.S. -- Some Arab
countries, like Saudi Arabia, seem to be sending arms to the Syrian rebels but
the United States has held back for fear of the arms winding up in the hands of
alQaeda. It's easy to gloss over things like this when you're only a
candidate for President. The buck stops on Obama's desk. --Dan
Sent: Mon, Oct 8,[masked]:16 pm
Subject: Fwd: Intel Officials Dismayed at Obama Cover-Ups in Libya, Egypt, and
I am trying to find a copy of obama care so I can look through it
and see if these things are true. I tried the internet but all I got was
titles about obama care and nothing I could read. I don't want to print it but
would like to be able to look at it and read certain sections.