Has Anybody Ever Noticed That Chris Matthews Is a Moron?

The following is from Robert Stacy McCain:

The TV in my office is an old 13" portable and the only cable news channel I can get is MSNBC. So I'm sitting here working on an article for the American Spectator (subscribe now) and the TV's on MSNBC, where they're doing the preview for President Obama's health-care press conference.

The panel is Howard Fineman of Newsweek, Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews. First of all, one notices in their discussion is an absolute absence of balance or objectivity. The fundamental premises, unspoken but clearly shared by all the participants, is that health care "reform" is necessary, that something must be done, that what the president has proposed is generally the kind of "reform" needed, and that therefore the only thing to be debated is, "How can the president get Congress to agree to his proposal?"

In other words, it is an entirely false debate. And, just before they went to a commercial break, Matthews said something extraordinarily stupid, even for him:

Something must be done about health care, he said, "or this society's not going to hold together."

Eh?

Of course, we all remember the tragic HMO riots of 1999, the deadly terrorist attacks by the pharmaceutical lobby, the ongoing carnage in urban America caused by rival gangs of health-insurance lobbyists. The prospect of more such violent turmoil is surely what Matthews had in mind.

Keith Olbermann is an evil maniac, but at least he is not as consistently jaw-dropping stupid as Matthews.

Why The Big Hurry?

"I need $800 Billion and I need it now."

That's how Obama began his term in office early this year. Governor Mitch Daniels described this tactic as "shock and awe statism": startle the punters with outrageous demands; then tell them you want them met immediately. "Don't bother reading the bill, just give me the money. Trust me." It was really a breathtaking performance. He almost got away with it.

Almost.

Sure, he got the dough. But now you hear the rumble of doubts congregating in the background. Any real stimulus does ... what? It stimulates. And what has the President's "stimulus" given us (apart from higher taxes coming to a paycheck near you)? Take your time . . .

Now, Obama is trying a repeat performance with the way we provide health care in this country. Remember that rumble I mentioned? It's beginning to grow. You may need earplugs, soon.

Yesterday, Obama had the temerity to insist that his plan to nationalize health care be passed RIGHT NOW, before Congress recessed in August. Then he compounded the temerity by insisting that "the deadline isn't being set by me. It's being set by the American people."

Really? Sez who?

Obama's haste is a trademark. It's likely part of Rahm Emmanuel's policy of not letting a good crisis go to waste.

Obama's gambit conceals a cynical and unflattering view of the electorate. "Pass this humongous, multi-trillion dollar bill to nationalize and ration health care right now or it will never pass."

Right you are, Prez.

The reason for the big hurry is Obama's recognition that were his plan to impose socialized medicine subject to normal scrutiny, it would be subject to what the internists among you would describe as a political analogue of reverse peristalsis: the public would vomit it back into the laps of Pelosi, Kennedy and Reid.

There is a larger question about Obama, that I'm not sure anyone has asked. Back when he was campaigning, some commentators assured us that, despite his hard-left associations, pronouncements, and instincts, Obama was really a pragmatist who would govern from the center. Any evidence of that, yet? As the rats desert the ship and his poll numbers plummet, one wonders whether Obama will muster the political canniness that saved Bill Clinton. Clinton's great asset was his utter lack of conviction about anything beyond his own political survival. Given his druthers, he would have liked to enact HillaryCare, expand welfare and other social programs, and pay for it all by raising taxes. But political reality intervened and he wound up enacting a boatload of Republican-inspired legislation from welfare reform on down. Will Obama opt for a similar skin-saving expedient?

I'm not holding my breath.

Quote of the day

I'm not sure the original source of this quote, but here it is:

"For all his successes, Reagan couldn't make a dent in the main pillars of the welfare state and even consented to a payroll tax hike to subsidize a failing Social Security system. When Republicans swept into Congress in 1994, during the short period in which they actually tried to rein in government, they were able to pass modest welfare reform, but unable to touch Medicare. Obama envisions himself as a transformational liberal leader, whose programs, like FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, live on long after he's gone. He's well on his way to achieving his goal..."

What We Learned From Obama's Prime Time Speech

So, Obama has asked for and been given by the networks the same number of PRIME TIME PRESS CONFERENCES as President Bush had in 8 years in office. This one was to campaign for his take over and socialization of the health care system. What did we learn from this hour of propaganda?

1) Obama is a broken record. He starts every speech he's ever made with the same words... "I took office amid the worst recession in half a century.... Our financial system was on the verge of collapse ... We have been able to pull the economy back from the brink." In short, he's blaming the previous administration for everything that is bad in America, again, and at the same time, claiming victory in fixing everything. This, in spite of rising unemployment which is going higher than his own administration predicted it would after passing the Generational Theft Act.

2) He's claiming that he's "created and saved jobs" in spite of no evidence to support that.

3) Obama is proud of and touting cuts in military spending.

4) He repeatedly complained that he "inherited enormous deficits," as if that excuses crating even bigger deficits. He also denied that the Generational Theft Act and ObamaCare would increase the deficits. In fact, he tried to make the case that both of these acts will reduce the deficit. That, of course, doesn't pass the laugh test, but if you tell a lie often enough....

5) He wants to pay doctors on the "quality" of care delivered, not the "quantity" of care. What that means is, doctors will be reimbursed based on what kinds of tests, what kinds of advice and what kinds of prescriptions they deliver. But they won't be paid for seeing lots of patients. While he offered no specifics, you can certainly extrapolate his speech and imagine the ramifications: "Doctor, you are going to make more money if you recommend abortions and birth control for children, you might make lots of money. If you see 100 sick patients in a given day, you might make nothing.

6) While hiding things from the public, he touted a "greater transparency" than the previous administration.

7) We learned absolutely no details about the coming health care proposals. Partly because Obama doesn't know any details, either.

Universal Health SCare: A Path To Euthanizing the Elderly

Here's something that should raise a red flag to all Americans, but especially seniors.. Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, titled "Advanced Care Planning Consultation," requires senior citizens to meet at least once every 5 years with a doctor or nurse practitioner to discuss dying with dignity.

The section requires that they talk to their doctor, not a lawyer, about living wills, durable healthcare powers of attorney, hospice, etc. Given the progressive intelligentsia already being on the record in favor of euthanizing the elderly, it is no small leap to see where the Democrats are headed with this.

Those 5 year counseling sessions that the elderly are supposed to attend can occur more frequently when a person has a chronic or terminal disease.

Page 428:

17 "(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury.

Laid Off Labor Union Activists Sue Labor Union for Unfair Labor Practices

See if you can follow this one...

As it helps push for legislation that would make it easier for workers to organize, the country's fastest growing union is engaged in its own labor dispute with employees it is seeking to lay off.

The Service Employees International Union, considered the most influential union in the nation, has notified the union that represents about 220 of the SIU's national field staff members and organizers that it is laying off 75 of the employees.

In return, the workers union, which goes by the somewhat postmodern name of the Union of Union Representatives, has filed charges of unfair labor practices against the SEIU with the National Labor Relations Board. The workers union's leaders say that the SEIU is engaging in the same kind of practis that some businesses use: laying off workers without proper notice, contacting out work to temporary-staffing firms, banning union activities and reclassifying workers to reduce union numbers.

While the SEIU would sue or strike against businesses that do the same thing, SEIU officials say the layoffs are part of a long-running plan to reallocate resources. The dispute comes at an awkward moment for the SEIU, which is helping lead the push for the pro-labor Employee Fee Choice Act, also known as "card check."

Officials have made it clear that the laid-off employees will not be guaranteed jobs at local chapters.

Oh, the delicious irony.

The Preventive Medicine Con

I just ran across a blog written by a physician that explains much better than I ever could why Obama's justification of using preventive medicine to bring down the cost of health care is a con. It won't work.

It's a fairly lengthy post, but worth the read.

The Preventive Medicine Con.