Friday, July 24, 2009

URGENT: Please Pick One of These Events to Attend This Weekend

Here we go everyone! Tomorrow is a big day for the Obots. They are going to be crawling all over Seattle trying to get people to sign the most vague petition ever. Do you want to fight them and hit them where it hurts? Do you want to be there, every step of the way, to combat their efforts? If so, get yourself to an event this weekend. Because this is so last minute, there is not really a leader for all of these events. It would more likely be you showing up with whoever you can grab and bring with you. I will list the events here, and you will need to follow my resource links to get the scripts, talking points, sign up sheets, petitions, flyers, etc. to use. This is a very individually motivated effort. So if you are up for it, get it done!

Schedule of local events to combat Obamacare:

Saturday, July 25th

Where: U-District Farmers Market, Seattle, 98105
Time: 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (any time in between would be fine)
Meet: On the corner of University Way and 50th St.
Type: Flyering/Petitioning

Where: Bergen Place Park, Ballard, 98102
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Meet: On the corner of Leary Ave NW, 22nd Ave NW, and NW Market St.
Type: Doorbelling

Where: Dale Way Spray Park, Lynwood, 98036
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Meet: On the corner of 190th St. SW and 64th Ave W.
Type: Doorbelling

Where: Green Lake, Seattle, 98115
Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Meet: Outside of the Starbuck's at 7100 E Green Lake Dr. N
Type: Flyering/Petitioning

Sunday, July 26th

Where: Everett Farmers Market, Everett Marina, Everett, 98203
Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Meet: In the Marina parking lot, just beyond Lombardi's Restaurant, 4702 Evergreen Way
Type: Flyering/Petitioning

Monday, July 27th

Where: Mary E. Theler Community Center, Belfair, 98528
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Meet: Outside of the community center, 22871 NE State Route 3
Type: Forum/Town Hall

Tuesday, July 28th

Where: Federal Building, Seattle, 98174
Time: 11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m.
Meet: On the sidewalk right in front of the building, 915 2nd Ave
Type: Rally/Counter Protest

... And guess what! Our friends from yesterday in Bellevue are apparently making this a weekly event! Every Thursday at 5:00 p.m. they will stand on the corner of 116th Ave and NE 8th, outside of the Group Health building. Apparently they will go canvassing afterwards every time as well. Who's up for meeting them there???!!

REMEMBER: a few of these events are at the same time as Organizing for America's events, so make sure that the people you are working with are on our side. A lot of our paperwork, but not all, will contain the Tea Party Patriot logo.


Talking points
Sign up forms
Tea Party WA flyer


When We Show Up, We Win! And Talking to a Baby. Updated with Pictures!

Update: Pictures of the event can be found here. David, the author of that website thought that one of the nurses was me, but alas, I am not that creative or cute. Maybe next time! :)

We had a GREAT turnout yesterday outside of the Group Health clinic in Bellevue, countering the pro-Obamacare robots!! Plus, we had less than 24 hours to plan it and get the word out!! It was so awesome, and I just want to say thank you to everyone that showed up, and I know there were lots of people who couldn't make it who were there in spirit. I want to share a conversation I had with a lady from the opposition. She walked across the street (we were on opposite corners) and as I was right on the curb, I was the first person she encountered.

Woman: I just wanted to tell you that I have been in and out of seven jobs, losing my health coverage over and over, and I have a chronic health condition and I want health care reform. That's all, I just wanted to tell you.
Me: Well, I want health care reform too, but not thi-
Woman: (interrupting me) This is the one I want. I want this reform. This is the one. I want this one.
Me: Well, you pay for it then. I'll pay for my health care and you pay for yours.

End of conversation. She walked away. She then went on to tell her sob story to EVERY SINGLE PERSON on our side. The woman ended up near me and I couldn't help myself when I heard her comment below, so here is the second conversation we had.

Woman: I want basic health care and I need it. I want it and I need it.
Me: Lady, your wants and needs are NO justification for forceably taking from other people!
Woman: Yes it is!
Me: (shocked) No it is not. No one else is responsible for your wants and your needs. We are not responsible for you.
Woman: Yes you are! We are all responsible for each other!
Me: No. No we are not.
Woman: Well I just want basic health!
Me: Then buy it! Washington State offers basic health which you can purchase. I bought it when I was right out of college because I was only working part-time and couldn't get other insurance. It is $160 a month.
Woman: You can't get basic health if you own your own home and I make $40,000.
Me: What???!! You make $40,000?! Buy your own damn insurance then!
Woman: I can't!
Me: Then you need to reorder your priorities ma'am. That's not my problem.
Woman: I have two children! My children need to eat!!
Me: Of course they do! Sheesh, that is a priority. Other things are not.
Woman: My mortgage is $1,000 and because of my chronic health condition my health care is $1,500 a month!
Me: Then maybe you need to move somewhere cheaper.
Woman: But that's the cheapest place in Bellevue!
Me: Maybe you need to move. Or sell your house and move into a cheaper rental. Sacrifice. It's called, priorities. You are not entitled to have it all. Make a choice.
Woman: Well I just want to know that if I get cancer I will be covered.
Me: HA! Under this plan if you have a terminal disease you will be the LAST person to get help! This plan, and the people in charge of it, have explicitly said that the young and fit will get the medical allocations first, leaving the old and sick to die!
Woman: And that is okay with me. We spend more money on the last year of life than we do at any other time.
Me: Lady, when a government bureaucrat starts making the decisions about who gets to LIVE and who gets to DIE based on medical resources and cost, then we live in the SICKEST society and I will not be a part of that.
Woman: This isn't about me.
Me: It is ALL about you. You said that at the start. "I want, I need!" I'm done with you . Goodbye.

She literally whined and bounced up and down like a two year-old!! I'm not joking! "I want, I need!" "I want, I need!" Sickening and hilarious at the same time.

I also just saw on Michelle Malkin's site that the Dallas Tea Party Patriots outnumbered a similar demonstration outside of Cornyn's office yesterday too!!

As I always say, "When we show up, we win!!!"

In response to the first comment: Yes, we should all be mindful of the needy and be charitable when possible. But the problem lies in semantics and philosophy. Even if we believe that we are, in some way, "responsible" for others, you have to be careful with your language. This is the language the socialists use to defend their policies. Your philosophy of voluntary charity is completely at odds with their philosophy of forced redistribution and mandatory sacrifice. It is a choice that should be left to each individual, and we can hope that everyone makes the decision to be charitable. So when I told the woman that we are not responsible for her or anyone else, I was fighting her interpretation of that philosophy. I heartily believe in volunteerism and charity. As long as it is voluntary.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Organizing for Obama: In Their Own Words

If this doesn't spur you into action against Obamacare, then I don't know what will. Below is the most recent email from Organizing for America. All emphasis original.

Last week, Republican Senator Jim DeMint tried to rally our opposition by declaring that stopping reform would "break" President Obama. Instead, hundreds of thousands of you rushed forward to stand up for enacting health insurance reform this year.

Then last night, the President delivered a powerful prime-time address about why further delay is simply not an option, and even more support came pouring in.

Now, we're on the brink of a major milestone in building this campaign: One million Americans publicly declaring their support for the President's three core principles for health insurance reform this year.

Our goal is to reach the one million mark before Congress casts the first crucial votes as early as next week. This is just a first step of many we'll take together. But it will send a clear message that the American people will not stand for playing partisan politics with our lives and livelihoods -- and that we won't settle for anything less than the real health insurance reform America so desperately needs this year.

Adding your name right now will have real impact. Not only will you help us hit this key milestone, but we'll run the signatures we collect in local and national newspaper ads and present them in powerful displays at high-profile local events across the country in the crucial days and weeks to come.

We're so close to a million because volunteers all over the country are reaching out online, door-to-door, on the phone and at public events in their community. And every time a new supporter stands up with the President, they in turn reach out
to others and the movement grows.

Less than three months ago, OFA launched our campaign for health insurance reform. In that short time, hundreds of thousands of Americans have joined in by: *sharing a personal health care
*calling their representatives
*going door-to-door talking with their
*calling neighbors in all 50 states
*publishing letters to the
*editor in local newspapers
*hosting or attending a local event, and much more.

For Republican leaders and special interests, the health insurance debate may be a political game. But for millions of American businesses and families, the cost of inaction is economic ruin and deteriorating care for the ones we love. Out-of-control health care costs are breaking the budgets of families, businesses and government -- and every day that Congress refuses to act, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage entirely.

We're working so hard in every part of this country because we understand -- this is no game. Add your name to help us reach one million public supporters this week, and join in this effort to reform health insurance in 2009:

Thank you,


Mitch Stewart DirectorOrganizing for America

What are you doing this weekend to combat Obamacare??!!!

Seriously!!! Check out Obama's Organizing for America events page to see what kinds of events they are planning in YOUR neighborhood! We MUST combat them at this level as well. We cannot keep ignoring the person-to-person communication in the hopes that our neighbors will pick up the information through osmosis or something!

For people around Seattle, go here for the listing of the local events OFA's foot soldiers are planning.

Well? What are you waiting for??!! Get out and talk to the people in your community! For resources and a "how to" see my previous post here.


Taxpayer March in D.C. on 9/12

If you haven't heard of the national Tea Party march in Washington D.C. happening on September 12th of this year, then here's some information for you.

This website is the official place to go for everything you could ever possibly want or need to know about putting together your trip.

Go to the website, browse around, make sure to click on all the button up at the top, and think seriously about whether or not you can go. So far there are 10,000 people who have signed up to go. What if we could get a million?

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Neighborhood Walks Against Obamacare

Scroll for the current calendar of Neighborhood Walks

The first step was calling and emailing our elected officials. The next step involved taking our frustration and anger to the streets by protesting and holding tea parties. And now our next step is taking our knowledge, information, and passion to our neighbors.

This week marks a large, concerted, and astroturfed effort by Organizing for America to reach out into neighborhoods and communities to convince people to support the President's health care plan. Are you going to let them be the only ones talking to your neighbors?? With the MSM neglecting to do their job completely, the only way to get this information to our neighbors is to bring it to them ourselves.

I would love to see as many Neighborhood Walks planned as possible, and I would especially like to see them planned around the already organized canvassing events of Organizing for America. Just imagine a little Obot ringing the doorbell of a house we've already visited!

Tea Party Patriots has put together an amazing "how to" for organizing a Neighborhood Walk. I suggest anyone who is interested in doing all he or she can to fight socialized medicine follow the links below and step up to the plate by organizing a Neighborhood Walk.

Talking points
Sign up forms
Tea Party WA flyer

If you understand how serious this is, then I implore you to take action and organize a Neighborhood Walk (it doesn't even have to actually be your own neighborhood!) as soon as possible. Nancy Pelosi just announced today that she has the votes to bring the bill to the floor. According to the three Republican Representatives from Washington, on a phone conference today, the Democrats could bring it to the floor any time, at a moment's notice. That doesn't leave us a minute to sit back and relax.

Don't forget - when you are organizing your walk, take a look at what Obama's minions are planning in your neighborhood and try to beat them to the punch.

Calendar of Planned Neighborhood Walks:

When: Saturday, July 25
Time: 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Where: Bergen Place Park in Ballard, WA
Meet: At the corner of Leary Ave. NW, 22nd Ave. NW, and NW Market St.
Special instructions: Please go to the resource links above and print out 1 copy of the walking script, 2 copies of the talking points, 2 copies of the sign up sheets, and 2 copies of the Free Our Health Care Now petition. Bring a clipboard if you have one, water, snacks, appropriate clothes for the heat, sunscreen, and good walking shoes. We will bring extra copies for
those without!

When: Saturday, July 25
Time: 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Where: Dale Way Spray Park in Lynnwood, WA
Meet: At the corner of 190th St. SW and 64th Ave. W
Special instructions: Please go to the resource links above and print out 1 copy of the walking script, 2 copies of the talking points, 2 copies of the sign up sheets, and 2 copies of the Free Our Health Care Now petition. Bring a clipboard if you have one, water, snacks, appropriate clothes for the heat, sunscreen, and good walking shoes. We will bring extra copies for
those without!

When: Sunday, July 26
Time: 12:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Where: Everett Farmers Market, Everett Marina, Everett, WA
Meet: In the Marina parking lot, just beyond Lombardi's Restaurant
Special instructions: Please go to the resource links above and print out 1 copy of the walking script, 2 copies of the talking points, 2 copies of the sign up sheets, and 2 copies of the Free Our Health Care Now petition. Bring a clipboard if you have one, water, snacks, appropriate clothes for the heat, sunscreen, and good walking shoes. We will bring extra copies for
those without!


Boycott Simon Property Group - Updated

Scroll for update

Okay, enough. Simon Property Group, the same group that forced the cancellation of the Atlanta 4th of July Tea Party, has now removed a Conservative leaning kiosk at one of their malls in North Carolina. Via Drudge, two people complained about the kiosk, saying that the merchandise was "promoting racism, sexism, and even slavery." Here is a sample of some of the bumper stickers:

  • Work Harder! Obama needs the money.
  • Impeach Obama
  • Al Qaida's 2 favorite days: 9/11/01 and 11/04/08
  • My parents chose life, Thanks mom and dad!
  • Global warming is a hoax!
  • Keep America UNchanged

Another novelty item:

  • IRS 1040 toilet paper rolls

I'm not surprised that one woman and her friend (whom she prodded into writing a letter as well) could slander this man and get him thrown out.

What to do about it? Tweet, blog, write letters about boycotting Simon Property Group properties. Make this go viral. We do not need to be spending money at places like this. As a reminder, the owner of Simon Property is a huuuuuge contributor to Democrat candidates, including millions to Barack Obama.

Go to their website and click on the button at the top that says, "Find a Simon mall or center." Figure out which malls they own, and then boycott them. Don't give your hard earned, hard fought for dollars to a man who runs his mall like North Korea.


From a reader, the Simon Property centers in Washington State:
Northgate Mall, Tacoma Mall, Seattle Premium Outlets (Tulalip), Factory Stores at North Bend, and Columbia Center in Kennewick.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Health Care Battle: The Post to End All Other Posts

This is a very long post, but please try to read it in its entirety. This may be the most important post I have ever written.

Last week I was listening to Mark Levin and he had a guest, Betsy McCaughey, go through some of the more frightening aspects of Obamacare. One person that she mentioned was Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the Chair of the Department of Bioethics at The Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health, and Rahm Emanuel's brother. Ezekiel also just so happens to have been appointed as a health care policy advisor to the White House.
The brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, a noted bioethicist, is advising the Obama administration on health care reform.
Dr. Emanuel is a special advisor to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy. He told me he is "working on (the) health care reform effort."
This is important because of Ezekiel's personal opinions on health care systems, including allocation of medical resources. Betsy McCaughey read a few direct quotes made by Ezekiel either in person or in his published, peer-reviewed journal articles, and I thought I was going to have a heart attack. What follows are quotes taken directly from one such peer-reviewed article, references to specific parts and pages of the health care legislation making its way through Congress, and my own analysis. This morning I also found reference to this article at Free Republic. Thank you to Mark Levin and Betsy McCaughey for introducing these items to me.

Persad, G., Wertheimer, A., & Emanuel, E. J. (2009 January 31). Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. The Lancet, 373, 423-431.
(You can find the online article here.)

Background and summary
This article attempts to analyze eight allocation principles (created by whom?) that can be classified, according to the authors, into four ethical categories. "Interventions" simply mean any medical resource such as hospital beds, vaccines, organs, antibiotics, etc. They discuss each of these principles and categories, positing their solution to the question of distribution of scarce medical resources at the end. They call their solution the "complete lives system." The portions I have selected to share are, in my opinion, the most disturbing. Some of the quotes are the authors' statements supporting or criticizing the various principles, and it is within these arguments that I find the most telling and important information about the minds of these men.

I will now share the opinions of Dr. Emanuel, health care policy advisor to President Obama, taken directly from this article.

We recommend an alternative system-the coplete lives system-which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, saves the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

(Table 1, a table of these princples can be found here. Note the Recommendation column for the principle of Reciprocity, "Include only irreplaceable people who have suffered serious losses." The idea of "irreplaceable" people comes up again later.)
The major disadvantage of lotteries is their blindness to many seemingly relevant factors. Random decisions between someone who can gain 40 years and someone who can gain only 4 months, or someone who has already lived for 80 years and someone who has lived only 20 years, are inappropriate.

[The first-come, first-served principle] allows physicians to avoid discontinuing interventions, such as respirators, even when other criteria support moving those interventions to new arrivals.
On its own, sickest-first allocation ignores post-treatment prognosis: it applies even when only minor gains at high cost can be achieved.

[The sickest-first principle] myopically bases allocation on how sick someone is at the current time—a morally arbitrary factor in genuine scarcity.
When we cannot save everyone, saving the sickest first is inherently flawed and inconsistent with the core idea of priority to the worst-off.

Prioritising the youngest gives priority to the worst-off—those who would otherwise die having had the fewest life-years—and is thus fundamentally different from favouritism towards adults or people who are well-off.
'...treating people of different ages differently does not mean that we are treating persons unequally.'

Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old young woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects.

How to weigh these other relevant considerations against saving more lives—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years if saved, or three 70-year-olds who could only live for 10 years each—is unclear.

...why give an extra year to a person who has lived for many when it could be given to someone who would otherwise die having had few?

In view of the multiplicity of reasonable values in society and in view of what is at stake, social value allocation must not legislate socially conventional, mainstream values.

Prioritising essential health-care staff does not treat them as counting for more in themselves, but rather prioritises them to benefit others. Instrumental value allocation thus arguably recognises the moral importance of each person, even those not instrumentally valuable.

However, where a specific person is genuinely indispensable in promoting morally relevant principles, instrumental value allocation can be appropriate.

For important health-related values, reciprocity might involve preferential allocation to past organ donors, to participants in vaccine research who assumed risk for others' benefit, or to people who made healthy lifestyle choices that reduced their need for resources.
Reciprocity might also be relevant when people are conscripted into risky tasks. For instance, nurses required to care for contagious patients could deserve reciprocity, especially if they did not volunteer.

For instance, former organ donors seem to deserve reciprocity since they make a serious sacrifice and since there is no surplus of organ donors. By contrast, laboratory staff who serve as vaccine production workers do not incur serious risk nor are they irreplaceable, so reciprocity seems less appropriate for them.

Ultimately, no principle is sufficient on its own to recognise all morally relevant considerations. Combining principles into systems increases complexity and controversy, but is inevitable if allocations are to incorporate the complexity of our moral values.
(Table 2, a table analyzing four multiprinciple systems can be found here.) QALYs (quality adjusted life years) to someone who has had few life-years differs morally from giving them to someone who has already had many.

And now we find ourselves at the authors' proposition, the "complete lives system." The multiprinciple system that is supposedly the solution to this pesky problem of distributing scarce medical resources to a population.
[The complete lives system] prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid.

Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfilment requires a complete life.

A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life.

When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable. Some small benefits, such as a few weeks of life, might also be intrinsically insignificant when compared with large benefits.

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.
(The authors' figure depicting this allocation priority can be found below and here.)

Age-based priority for receiving scarce medical interventions under the complete lives system.
...the complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value. Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them.

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious [hateful] discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.

...the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a complete life, however defined, as an important good, and accept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources.

We must first reduce waste and increase spending.

[The complete lives system] empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.

We delare that we have no conflict of interest.

Please go read the entire document for yourself and you will see that none of these quotes were taken out of context, but rather they represent very accurately the mindset of one of the President's top health care policy advisors. And if you think for one minute that this philosophy - letting the old and weak perish - will not be embraced by Obama or the Democratic leadership then you need a real big cup of wake the flood up.

From Obama himself, regarding his own grandmother's health:
"I don't know how much that hip replacement cost," Obama told the Times. "I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she's my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question."

President Barack Obama suggested at a town hall meeting at the White House last Wednesday that some end-of-life education and planning could help save on medical expenses.

I am all for hospice - if the choice is left to the patient! The horrific prospect here is that the choice for acute vs. hospice care would be made by some little government employee, sitting in an office somewhere, totally removed from the patient and his/her loved ones. When hospice is no longer a personal choice, we cease to be a civilized society. My parents are in their 60's and I'll be damned if they will get left behind because Obama and Pelosi and Emanuel no longer consider their "life-years" worthy of the cost of treatment. Bastards. All of them. This is why we should not have ANY government-run health systems at all. Get rid of them all. Let private industry take over every single system.

Do not forget. The ONLY instance in which discussions of allocation, priority, rationing, forced hospice, etc. is applicable is when your health care system is a collectivist, state-run enterprise. When a society's health care options are determined by the state, then the ultimate factor used to make decisions is cost. In a free market system, this desperate fight for resources does not exist, or it at least does not exist in the same way. In a free market there is always, always an option. You can take out a loan, borrow money from friends or family, receive charity and donations... there is some way to make it work. In a collectivist health care system, we all become little stazi; watching our friends and neighbors to ensure they are not using more than "their fair share." Ezekiel's entire journal article is ONLY APPLICABLE in a centralized, government-run health care system.

I can just hear it now, "Oh but with Obamacare we get to keep our private health care, so this won't actually happen to us." Try again.

From Betsy McCaughey's article in the New York Post, published on July 17th, 2009. She references the actual page numbers in the House and Senate bills, unlike the Obama administration's Ministry of Truth referencing Obama's "Three Principles." Sounds like the vague and empty rhetoric of "hopenchange" to me. Here are some highlights from her article, but you must go and read the entire thing yourself.
Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

If you would like to look these pages up yourself, you can find the House bill here, and the Senate bill here.

If you care an inch for real health care, freedom of choice, liberty, privacy, the elderly, the weak, the infirm, any of these, then PLEASE call the Blue Dog Democrats and every Senator and Representative that you can. I'm building a handout that you can print and copy as much as you'd like, to take with you around your community. Starting today the Obots will be out canvassing YOUR neighborhoods. Beat them to it. Take this information with you.

Exit question #1: demand to know if Congress is exempt from this suicidal public health plan, and if they get to keep the plan they have now. I'm sure Ezekiel would deem them all as "irreplaceable."

Exit question #2: where is AARP on this?

Previous: Health Care Battle: Post #1 and Health Care Battle: Post #2