- Home
- It's a Conspiracy
- Obama Addresses Congress on Healthcare
Obama Addresses Congress on Healthcare
- By Tom Gow
- Posted 10/1/2009
- It's a Conspiracy
- Print Article
— President Harry Truman, message to Congress, November 19, 1945
“Like it or not ... socialized medicine may well be on its way to America.”
— Wall Street Journal, 11/25/2008
In a nationally televised address to Congress on September 9, 2009, President Barack Obama delivered an eloquent plea to enact major new healthcare “reform” legislation. With a well prepared presentation the president sought to overcome growing public anxiety over his agenda and disarm his critics. He smoothly highlighted and then dispatched prominent concerns, insisting that irresponsible interests had distorted his plans with fear-mongering for short-sighted gain.
With this article we seek to correct several of the misleading statements in the President’s address and recall some important history.
• President Obama: “It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform.”
Correction: In Teddy Roosevelt’s day (he passed away in 1919) there was no health care system to reform. The miracle of modern medicine including antibiotics was still decades in the future. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt agreed to run for a third term as president on the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party ticket, which split the Republican vote, enabling Woodrow Wilson to get elected. The Progressive Party did advocate national health insurance in its platform, although the Socialist Party had endorsed a compulsory system as early as 1904. In fact, it is the incremental socialist success in involving the federal government in health care that has created a system in need of genuine reform.
•
President Obama:
“If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will be spending more on
Medicare and Medicaid than every other program combined. Put simply, our health
care problem is our deficit problem, nothing else comes close.... Now, here’s
what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our
deficits, now or in the future.”
Correction: The first statement is an
incredible admission. But it is even more incredible in the context of the
president’s claim that Medicare and Medicaid were great social accomplishments
and of his commitment to expand government intervention.
In the face
of those financially disastrous programs, the president still says he wants to
finish the job that previous presidents started or attempted. Unfortunately,
earlier administrations gave us the costly system that has gotten us in
trouble. And they did so under pressure from socialist crusaders acting in the
name of reform.
So how does
the president propose to enable all Americans to afford the rising cost of
healthcare without adding to the deficit? He turns to traditional socialist
rhetoric about how more regulation can curtail obscene private-sector profits
(while forcing companies to do what is unprofitable). At the University of
Maryland a week later, the president told his audience:
“We’re going to eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars of
waste and fraud and subsidies to insurance companies that pad their profits but
don’t do anything to make seniors healthier.”
Dr. Edward
R. Annis, past president of the A.M.A., tells a much different story in his
outstanding 1993 exposé Code Blue: Health Care in Crisis:
“All of the current problems in the medical marketplace —
hyperinflation, millions of uninsured Americans, excessive administrative costs
— carry a “MADE IN WASHINGTON” label. Yet the truth remains hidden to most
Americans.”
The real
answer to how the government would have to manage the expense of universal
healthcare is through rationing of services (in effect, offering healthcare
that is affordable, just not all that available). In the early 1990s, the New
York Times even
warned its readers that “rationing is coming.” And with rationing, the
bureaucrats will adopt unwelcome guidelines to determine who gets what.
Guidelines
for rationing An early
example of those guidelines was the QALY formula developed in 1972 by Dr. James
Bush of the University of California-San Diego. An acronym for
“quality-adjusted life years,” QALY rankings had already been used by health
planners in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand by1992, according to the New
York Times
(November 24, 1992).
According
to the same New York Times article, “[E]conomists and ethicists say it, or something
very much like it, will almost certainly be used soon to rank treatments in the
United States.” During the Bill Clinton administration, the Hillary Clinton
health care task force commissioned an “ethics panel” to “lay out a values
framework to guide health care reform and hold it accountable.”
The
identity of the panelists was kept secret, but one of the members who openly
published his views was Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at
the University of Minnesota. The October 18, 1992 New York Times summarized Caplan’s views on organ
transplants: “Morally, Dr. Caplan said, the goal is to increase the number of
lives saved, and that is achieved by giving organs to the healthier people on
the list — and skipping the sickest.”
Without
much fanfare, federal guidelines have already pushed U.S. hospital
administrators into restricting hospital stays for the seriously ill, often
contrary to the attending physician’s wishes and regardless of the patient’s
ability to pay.
Collectivists
must drool over the opportunity such a system would provide government
bureaucrats to play favorites and blackmail would-be opponents.
•
President Obama:
“More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after
a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile
of medical bills in their later years. And that’s how Medicare was born. And it
remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the
next.”
Correction:
The nation never
stood up and demanded Medicare, although many socialist crusaders, such as
tyrannical labor boss Walter Reuther, were actively working to create that
illusion. When the issue came up during the Kennedy administration, an
avalanche of mail from concerned citizens and doctors descended upon Congress
beating the proposal down decisively — for the moment.
However, in
the wake of the assassination of the young president, the bill’s socialist
proponents seized upon the natural sympathy for the slain president to identify
Medicare as Kennedy’s wish and push it into law. Dr. Edward Annis, a leader in
the fight against Medicare at the time who had engaged both Senator Hubert
Humphrey and Walter Reuther in spirited televised debates, observed:
“The Socialist
party of America, where the plan for national health insurance was hatched,
never garnered more than 6 percent of the popular vote for its specious
programs. But through the cunning of the Americans for Democratic Action, aided
by an assassin’s bullet, King-Anderson became the law of the land known as
Medicare.”
Camouflage
for real agenda For
decades, Establishment Insiders and their allies on the left have repeated many
of the same myths and pretexts to advance their socialized medicine power grab.
One of the most useful pretexts has been the humanitarian — that government
must intervene to stop an unfolding human tragedy. That pretext was used
successfully to get government’s foot in the healthcare door with Medicare and
Medicaid in 1965.
But the
pretext for Medicare was a fraud, as Dr. Thomas Dorrity subsequently observed
at a hearing before the U.S. Subcommittee on Health, on June 10,1977:
“Let me remind this committee that when politicians,
bureaucrats and labor bosses were promoting Medicare, they argued that most
people over sixty-five were being denied medical care because they couldn’t pay
for the care they needed. But Members of Congress were publicly challenged to
produce names of elderly people in that situation. It was promised they would
get the care they required without charge. Local medical societies advertised
free medical care for the elderly, with confidentiality guaranteed, who needed
care but felt they couldn’t pay for it.
“Out of the eighteen million people who were then over
sixty-five, a scattered handful sought care from those appeals — and the
Members of Congress produced no names.”
Likewise
the case for Medicaid was not genuine. In his Code Blue: Health Care in
Crisis (Regnery,
1993), Dr. Annis offered perspective from his early experience practicing
medicine in Miami:
“During my tenure as surgical chief at Mercy Hospital [1953
to ca. 1963], I was sent countless cases of indigent patients who required treatment
outside my specialty, and not once did my fellow doctors fail to provide the
care needed — without charge.”
“In those days there was no bureaucratic regimentation,
there were few forms to fill out, malpractice premiums were affordable, and
overhead costs of running a practice were reasonable.... Medical care was
affordable to the average person with rates set by the laws of the marketplace,
and care was made available to all who requested it regardless of ability to
pay.”
Yet despite
the widespread availability of steadily improving health care in the U.S.A. and
the poor track record of socialized medicine in other nations, the decades-old
world socialist drive to have governments take control of this industry
continued.
As the
history and origins of this drive show, the humanitarian pretext is just that —
a pretext. The real objective of the sponsors, behind the deception, has always
been about power. The drive for socialized medicine has nothing to do with
helping people, but everything to do with establishing a useful steppingstone
to full socialism.
Our concern
over the renewed “reform” drive is not just about what the consequences will be
for healthcare of every American, but even more so what this increasing
dependence on government for basic needs would portend for the future of
freedom.
Orchestrated
demand Creating
the appearance
of a groundswell of grassroots demand for government action has long been a
favored tactic of the Left. And it has been used repeatedly in support of
national health care. As an example, the Washington Times recently obtained a document
detailing the strategies and tactics for a series of demonstrations to be held
in major cities during September. According to the September 19th Times:
“Health Care for America Now (HCAN), which is backed by a
coalition of labor unions and liberal groups including ACORN and MoveOn.org,
organized the protests to target insurance companies and drafted the plan,
which describes the demonstrations as part of its ‘insurance enemies’ project....
“The [HCAN] field plan says the protests should attract
media coverage that ‘creates villains or enemies that serve as a contrast with
our side; validates the need for affordability and the public health insurance
option; [and] forces the other side to respond.’”
The plan
also called for each protest to showcase “victims” or, in the words of the Times, “people who have either lost
insurance, can’t afford it or were denied coverage because of pre-existing
medical conditions.”
In Code
Blue, Dr. Annis
recalled another example of orchestration from his own personal experience:
“Owing to my vocal reputation following the Smathers vs.
Pepper campaign, I received calls from both the Florida Medical Association and
the Dade County Medical Association asking that I represent the profession at a
congressional hearing. Patrick McNamara, a chief of the pipe fitters’ union in
Detroit who had been elected to the U.S. Senate, was conducting hearings around
the country to investigate alleged medical neglect of older Americans in
support of a renewed socialization effort in Congress. The first hearing was
scheduled for Boston; Miami was next. This promised to be a regular road-show
with the unions orchestrating the acts.”
Before the
Miami hearing, Senator McNamara sent an advance man, Sidney Spector, to town to
drum up witnesses “who would testify to their neglect at the hands of the
private medical profession.” Witnesses were prepped on what to say and how to
act. Dr. Annis continued with his story:
“On the first day of the hearings, McNamara called his star
witness, a sweet gentle, elderly lady who lived in a Protestant nursing home.
She testified that her only source of income was Social Security.... In
response to a carefully worded question from McNamara, she said that if the
need arose, she would not be able to pay for a hospital or a doctor.”
Unfortunately
for the Senator’s agenda, Dr. Annis was more familiar with the state of medical
care in the Miami area. When he had an opportunity to make his statement, Dr.
Annis was able to ask the star witness a couple of questions. He asked the lady
about a previous hospitalization and surgery. She admitted that she had not
been billed by the hospital nor by another doctor, and then she blurted out,
“Dr. Annis, you and Dr. Martin never billed me for my surgery either!”
Because of
the history of concealing the off-camera orchestration, one should always be
skeptical that reported “spontaneous” demonstrations and protests are genuine
and the same regarding heart rending stories.
In fact,
the Left has been well organized to lobby for universal national health care
for decades. One such organization, the Chicago-based Physicians for a National
Health Program, was launched in 1987 by cofounders David Himmelstein, M.D. and his
wife Stephanie Woolhandler, M.D. Both cut their activist teeth in radical
politics during the civil rights movemenat. Dr. Woolhandler was passionately
involved in the Anti-Vietnam War movement for several years, but shifted her
area of “social” activism, earning her masters degree in public health at the
University of California at Berkley. And both became medical professors at
Harvard.
In drumming
up support for their cause, the two were interviewed for the Humankind radio
series, written and produced for Public Radio. The interview was promoted as
“Two Harvard Medical professors critique our current system and offer a better
vision — Universal Healthcare.” Two of the quotes displayed prominently on the
Humanmedia website summarize the professors’ message:
“When we see huge amounts of money taken out of the health
care system and wasted on excessive salaries, on unnecessary care and
particularly on the administrative and overhead costs of medicine, it actually
means that we’re not going to be able to meet our number one moral priority
which is to provide health care for everyone.” —
Stephanie Woolhandler, M.D.
“We’re in a new age of robber barons and the robber barons
of this era include people who are making ridiculous amounts of money for medical
care.” —
David Himmelstein, M.D.
We are
witnessing a well coordinated deception with many voices delivering the same
message, but creating the impression that the messages are independent. Among
the voices, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing her part in echoing the line.
At the end of July, she stated: “The glory days are coming to an end for the
health insurance industry.” [Salt Lake Tribune, August 2, 2009]
•
President Obama (a week later addressing an audience at the University of
Maryland): “We are
the only nation on Earth that leaves millions of people without health
insurance. We spend more [on health care] than any country on Earth, and we are
not any healthier for it.”
Correction: Many of the propaganda lines
regarding healthcare go back decades. The president’s statement attacking
American healthcare could easily have been lifted from a 1970 CBS
“documentary.” In that year, CBS launched a major assault on the free-market in
medicine with a two-part series broadcast on April 20 and 21. The broadcast
included the charge: “... the world's wealthiest nation is far from being the
healthiest....” CBS claimed
that America was spending five times as much for healthcare as twenty years
earlier yet falling short of what other nations were achieving. The punch line
was the CBS claim that “other Western nations have long since solved this
problem with national health systems.” A completely fraudulent charge!
CBS was
cleverly vague regarding the nations compared and the criteria. For example,
how much of America’s health problems are due to unhealthy lifestyles (smoking,
poor nutrition, drug habits) over which physicians have little control?
In
addition, much of the inflation in healthcare costs was due to the infant
program CBS was advocating. At the time of the CBS broadcast, Medicare and
Medicaid had been in operation for only five years, but their sponsors clearly
intended that those programs would be the foot in the door for a complete
government takeover. A few months following the broadcast, the late patriot
leader Robert Welch analyzed the CBS message:
“What CBS visibly wanted was to make the American people
feel that the doctors of our country had no social conscience, had not been
doing their jobs properly, and could not be trusted to have any concern for the
improvement of either their own services or of medical service as a whole. And
that consequently, like irresponsible children, they should be herded into a
vast corral, under the tutelage and control of a Guardian Bureaucrat.”
The CBS
program cleverly planted this thought:
“It may be, as
some have said, that the organization of medicine is too important to leave to
doctors.” Clearly,
this drive was organized long before President Obama embraced it. What is
urgently needed to counter it is responsible action that exposes the true game
plan for socialized medicine — the objectives, strategies, and tactics.
Moreover, to hold up any promise of success, such action also needs to be
organized, under sound leadership.
We invite
all concerned Americans to join with us in creating public understanding about
the renewed threat of socialized medicine and in mobilizing that understanding
to apply pressure on Congress. Our campaign is just part of a new nationwide
drive to restore the fundamental constitutional limits on government that have
made the American dream possible.
Specific
recommendations for action:
• Email
links to this article
to others with your comments.
• Share
hard copies of our Special Report — an interview with a veteran in the fight against socialized medicine —
Dr. Max Chartrand.
• Visit
and direct others
to our “Say ‘No’ to Socialized Medicine” campaign
page.
• To gain a
better understanding of the bigger picture — both of the problems facing our
nation and their solution — please read the short booklet The Marxist Attack on the Middle
Class and then the
full-length book Organize for Victory! Both also include recommendations for further
action.
Spread The Word
Featured Articles
Congress: Just Vote the Constitution!
- By Tom Gow
- Posted 08/17/2010
- It's a Conspiracy
Several decades ago, one committed constitutionalist in Congress insisted that two groups were to blame for the huge federal deficits – Republicans and Democrats, or if you will, liberals and [even most] conservatives. Indeed, the leadership of both parties has long carried the socialist ball.
Hew Hampshire Kills Con Con
- By Don Fotheringham
- Posted 07/31/2010
- Constitution Corner
Part Four: Dr. Chartrand on the Recently Passed HealthCare Reform Bill & Why Survival of the Nation and Its Constitution Depend on Repeal
- By Paul Smith
- Posted 07/15/2010
- It's a Conspiracy
Recent Articles
Not Perfect, But Excellent
- By Don Fotheringham
- Posted 06/10/2008
- Constitution Corner
Honest Establishment Newsman Affirms Conspiracy
- By Tom Gow
- Posted 03/12/2008
- It's a Conspiracy
The story of Hermann Dinsmore demonstrates how it is still possible in our information-rich society for supposedly well informed individuals to be unaware of critical information adverse to the Conspiracy.
Who Owns the Bill of Rights?
- By Don Fotheringham
- Posted 03/6/2008
- Constitution Corner
Since the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has challenged the federal government's warrantless surveillance of telephone calls and emails. In this context, the ACLU properly employs the Bill of Rights as a force against federal usurpation. Is this the same ACLU that applies the Bill of Rights against the states in matters of religion, firearms, voting, and due process? It's nice to pick your situation and apply your ethics at random, but when the ACLU goes to court, do they protect your rights or do they help centralize federal power?
The Great American Swindle
- By Tom Gow
- Posted 11/19/2007
- It's a Conspiracy
War Powers
- By Don Fotheringham
- Posted 11/2/2007
- Constitution Corner




