Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Hypocrisy: Pro-Choice Females to turn over Control of their Bodies to 'Federal Health Board' Bureaucrats


Democrats want control over you. That used to mean control over your material wealth, your labor, through oppressive taxation and regulation.


Now it means they will decide your fate. The fate of your body.

All of you pro-choicers out there: where are you?

I assume you're going to stand up against national health care?

The issue of abortion notwithstanding, what about our bodies? What about this "Federal Health Board"?


This is the mechanism that Tom Daschle and Barack Obama intend to set up, as Daschle's book spells out in excruciating detail.


Such a board would decide what kind of medical treatment will be provided in this nation.


What kind of medical treatment you and I will get.

How can a few, a board of hack central planners, know what kind of medical benefits your children need when they're rationing who gets what?

They can't. You're about to turn these decisions over to a handful of bureaucrats, who will be called "experts."


A board of bureaucrats -- not you -- will decide the healthcare fate of your children. You won't. They will.

Let me ask you: will they make a better decision than you? No, of course not.


As for affordability, they'll take care of that too. There will be less new technology, fewer breakthrough drugs, less hospitals, less doctors and less nurses. It will become much more affordable, because you will be waiting in line. And who will pay the price? You will... through lower-quality healthcare and treatments approved by a central planner, a bureaucrat.

How do we know this? Because we have examples in the UK and Canada, where waits for MRI scans can be six months long and many children never see a dentist.


Welcome to Socialism! Welcome to Barack Obama's America!

Linked by: Instapundit, Free Canuckistan, Too old to work and Evil Conservative Radio. Thanks! Based upon: The brilliant Mark Levin, 1/12/2009.

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Line o' the Day: Katrinacare!


The same government that mishandled Katrina, created the current mortgage crisis, and failed to monitor Mr. Madoff is now going to run our health care. All of this in order to cover a minority of uninsured (mostly illegal alien) patients. Brilliant!

-- Don Surber (via Larwyn)

Saturday, December 06, 2008

The Disastrous Daschle-Obama strategy to "fix" health care


Tom Daschle is President-elect Obama's choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services. But what sort of Secretary would he be? What positions might he take on "universal" health care, malpractice and tort reform, and other issues?

Insights into Daschle's approach may be gleaned from his book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis, which was endorsed by Barack Obama. The details that emerge from a careful reading of the book are ominous at best.

Daschle first proposes the establishment of a board to set standards for health care. The board would be modeled after the Federal Reserve and the SEC, overseeing every aspect of care for public health systems. Thus the board would administer Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Health Administration, etc., or roughly one third of all health care in the country.

Apparently this board is desperately needed because there aren't enough bureaucrats overseeing medical affairs in Washington. And Daschle recommends the Federal Reserve-SEC central planning model, presumably because it's working so well to manage our current fiscal crisis.

On Page 179, Daschle writes, “The Federal Health Board (FHB) wouldn’t be a regulatory agency, but its recommendations would have teeth because all federal health programs would have to abide by them.” Although the FHB would have no official oversight of the two thirds of health care delivered through the private sector, Daschle asserts that Congress could easily change that aspect of the Board: "[Congress] could... link the tax exclusion for health insurance to insurance that complies with the Board’s recommendation.”

Got that? Health insurance that doesn't comply with the Board's strictures would lose its tax-free status.

By doing so, Congress would utterly and completely destroy America's private-sector health care system because no health insurance program could survive if it were denied the tax deduction.

Thus, the FHB would effectively control the operation and practices of every doctor, every nurse, every drug company, every hospital, every health insurance company, every third-party administrator, etc.

On page 199 Daschle helpfully describes who the "losers" would be in his centrally managed system: "Doctors and patients might resent any encroachment on their ability to choose certain treatments, even if they are expensive or ineffectual compared to alternatives. Some insurers might object to new rules that restrict their coverage decisions. And the health-care industry would have to reconsider its business plan." Put simply, government bureaucrats would decide every aspect of their operations.

Daschle says that the FHB will force and end to the "technology arms race", which he asserts health care systems use "to attract aging baby boomers with the latest diagnostic imaging machines." These are, strangely enough, the same machines that Daschle says "help(s) doctors estimate the spread of cancer or the extent of cardiac disease without surgery." (Page 125)

Daschle believes those tests often lead to treatment; and there's far too much of that going on. To prove his point, he spotlights a study of 828 angiograms in which a third were likely to benefit patients, 50% might or might not, and 14% were not likely to offer a benefit. Thus 86% of patients might benefit, but Daschle claims the approach is too wasteful: "When the test revealed a narrowing of the artery, however slight, cardiologists couldn’t resist doing something about it." Isn't that what they're supposed to do, Tommy?

In other words, the Obama-Daschle plan proposes to have the Federal Health Board dictate to cardiologists -- and all other Doctors -- which treatments can be rationed to whom. I somehow doubt that Daschle and his cadre of FHB bureaucrats would ever be denied treatment, though.

Daschle also offers a stunning criticism of the current private sector health care system: "Many patients with insurance want any care that might do some good, and plenty of doctors will oblige them." (Page 122)

Anticipating a massive outcry over this Politburo-style approach, he recommends two legislative tactics for creating the Federal Health Board. First, the bill must be passed in the first year of Obama's presidency, when he is most popular. Second, the bill must omit any details of the program. It must be nebulous and vague: "[the] Federal Health Board should be charged with... filling in most of the details. This independent board would be insulated from political pressure.” By "political pressure", Daschle means our representative democracy should not be permitted to interfere with the Kremlin of Health Care.

By hiding the details of the program, the FHB will be unaccountable to the American people.

* * *

With the Obama-Daschle plan for nationalized health care, the same government bureaucracy that brought you the massively underfunded Social Security system and Medicare, as well as the disastrous Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will now be running an even larger chunk of the U.S. economy.

Three guesses how this magnificent approach will turn out. And the first two don't count. Just picture the Hindenburg exploding and you should have a suitable illustration of the future of health care.

Based upon: Tony Blankley's "Daschle-Obama health care possibilities". Hat tip: Mark Levin.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Who are the 47 million uninsureds?


The answers -- from InsuranceNewsNet -- might surprise you.

70% of the uninsured are in families with at least one full-time worker. 10% have at least one part-time worker. The rest are retired or unemployed.

8.4 million are eligible for government programs but don't know they are, don't know how to sign up or don't have access to the documents that are required.

10.2 million are noncitizens. About 80% of them are legal residents, but many have low-income jobs and can't afford or don't have access to insurance.

9.2 million have household incomes of $75,000 or higher. Some are healthy and don't want coverage. Others can't get it because of preexisting conditions.

7.5 million are aged 19-24 and either have no access to health care, lack money to pay for it or don't think they need it because they are in good health.

Let's not even mention that anyone -- anyone -- can walk into an emergency room and get treated without any insurance whatsoever.

Let's add these up.

 8,400,000 eligible for government programs
10,200,000 aliens
 9,200,000 have incomes of $75,000 or higher
 7,500,000 are aged 19-24, many of whom have elected not to be covered.

...Carry the one... the bottom line is that 35.3 million of the 47 million uninsureds fall into one of the four buckets.

Am I missing something, or does this sound like a lot less dire of a problem than is portrayed by Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself, again)?

Monday, April 28, 2008

The train-wreck up north


"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care" --Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, Supreme Court of Canada (Chaoulli v. Quebec)

Last year, the Canadian government issued a series of reports to address the outcry over long wait times for critical tests, procedures and surgeries. Over a two year period:

  • Wait times for knee replacements dropped from 440 to 307 days.
  • Wait times for hip replacements dropped from 351 to 257 days.
  • Wait times for cataract surgeries dropped from 311 to 183 days.
  • Wait times for MRIs dropped from 120 to 105 days.
  • Wait times for CT scans dropped from 81 to 62 days.
  • Wait times for bypass surgeries dropped from 49 to 48 days.

These "improvements" are unheard of in the United States. Waiting 48 days for a bypass or 105 days for an MRI could very well be a death sentence.

The public has fought for 50-plus years to build a publicly funded Medicare system that they’re now telling us isn’t quite working for them. -- Health Care in Canada Round Table 2005

A Commonwealth Fund 2005 International Health Policy Survey (slide 16) showed that 41% of patients in the UK and 33% of patients in Canada waited more than 4 months for non-emergency surgery,. Only 8% American patients waited more than 4 months for surgery.

Meanwhile, in Hamilton, Ontario, hospitals are receiving an infusion of cash to cut wait times for diagnostic procedures and certain surgeries, which have become intolerable.

And these are precisely the type of government-controlled health-care systems proposed by the Democratic candidates. Not only are they destined for failure, they will cost thousands of lives. And with the UK and Canada as examples, everyone can see the train-wreck coming.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

What Democrats won’t tell you about Healthcare reform

 
Namely, that frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits are one of the biggest causes for the rapid rise in healthcare costs. Why won’t Democrats tell you that? Because trial lawyers uniformly back Democrats in order to fight tort reform and maintain their multi-billion dollar revenue stream.

Watchdog site Trial Lawyers Inc. defines the term “tort tax”:

While [aggressive lawsuits have] been a bonanza for Trial Lawyers, Inc., it has been a drain on the American economy and a serious threat to the livelihood and lifestyle of many Americans. America’s tort system costs over $200 billion annually; even assuming that the underlying lawsuits have merit, much of this cost is wasteful and excessive—at least $87 billion, according to the president’s Council of Economic Advisors.

The overall cost of this “tort tax” on our economy over the next ten years will be more than $3.6 trillion... almost triple the size of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts combined.

Meritless lawsuits:

...Trial Lawyers, Inc.'s medical-malpractice lawsuits are legion: of the 46,000 members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 76 percent have been sued at least once, 57 percent at least twice, and 41.5 percent three times or more. And the litigation industry tends to file far more cases than actually have merit: nearly half of malpractice suits — 49.5 percent — are dropped, dismissed, or settled without payment. Indeed, in a study of medical-malpractice cases filed against New York hospitals, the Harvard Medical Practice Group found that in the majority of medical-malpractice claims, the plaintiff exhibited no medical injury whatsoever; the plaintiff was injured by doctor negligence only 17 percent of the time.

The High Costs of Malpractice Liability:

So if Trial Lawyers, Inc.'s suits against doctors are wide-ranging, and often meritless, just how much do they cost? By 2003, medical-malpractice liability costs in the United States had reached an astounding $26 billion annually. That staggering sum represents a 2,000 percent increase over costs in 1975. At 12 percent per year, the growth rate in medical malpractice costs since 1975 is four times the rate of inflation and twice the rate of medical-care inflation.

In jury trials, million-dollar verdicts are now the norm. Fifty-two percent of all awards exceed $1 million while the average award now weighs in at $4.7 million...

The Investments:

...PAC donations from the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA)—Trial Lawyers, Inc.'s government-relations "home office"—are perennially among the nation's highest to the Democratic Party.[224] Democrats receive 93 percent of ATLA's contributions, which helps explain why every Democratic senator opposed the president's medical-malpractice reform bill in the last Congress.[225]

PAC gifts, however, only scratch the surface of litigation-industry giving, which Trial Lawyers, Inc.'s leaders and their firms bundle and distribute directly to candidates. Senator John Edwards's presidential campaign was almost wholly funded by the lawsuit industry..

Ann Coulter adds:

...the Democratic Party treats doctors like they're Klan members. They wail about how much doctors are paid and celebrate the trial lawyers who do absolutely nothing to make society better, but swoop in and steal from the most valuable members of society.

Maybe doctors could get the Democrats to like them if they started suing their patients.

It's only a matter of time before the best and brightest students forget about medical school and go to law school instead. How long can a society based on suing the productive last?

(Has anyone else noticed the nonexistence of a charitable organization known as "Lawyers Without Borders"?)

[My ex-roomate, now a Doctor] makes $380 for an emergency appendectomy, or one-ten-thousandth of what John Edwards made suing doctors like her, and one-fourth of what John Edwards' hairdresser makes for a single shag cut.

Edwards made $30 million bringing nonsense lawsuits based on junk science against doctors. To defend themselves from parasites like Edwards, doctors now pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical malpractice insurance every year.

If we're going to reform healthcare, I’d suggest we start with the trial lawyers and cap every single form of medical malpractice lawsuit.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Francisco Castro is still dead. Or not.

 
Earlier today, Snapped Shot spotted a press release from the AP that appears to anticipate the death -- not the just-announced retirement -- of Fidel.

Fausta has a great roundup of news and links. Don't miss her shredding of the BBC's writers, who appear to be auditioning for a slot on the SNL staff with their snort-worthy satire.

Friday, February 08, 2008

Line o' the day: Joe Stalin breaks out in a grin

 
3 Wood, writing at Jammie Wearing Fool, wins our ultra-prestigious Line o' the Day Award.

Here's an indication of how Hillary looks at America:

"How Hillary's plan affects:

Look who is missing from that group. White males, of course.

When you read through those sections, the class envy and special interest group pandering is enough to make you sick. These people see the country as a combination of special interest groups, all of whom are dependent upon handouts from Big Brother.

Somewhere, Joe Stalin is smiling.

Not to mention: Karl Marx and Trotsky have engaged in a sultry, erotic waltz.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Nationalized Healthcare Success Story #4,323

 
London's Daily Mail:

Dentists are under pressure not to treat children as the NHS cannot afford to fund their care...

Health trusts want dentists to concentrate on targeting adult patients who have to pay for treatment, according to a pressure group.

The claims, to a Commons health select committee, come as figures show that one in three children has not visited a dentist for up to two years...

Kids lose their baby teeth anyhow - what's the big deal?

Monday, February 04, 2008

Hillary vows to tax citizens who don't buy HillaryCare™

 
Gateway Pundit heralds the rise of U.S. Socialism in the form of HillaryCare v2.0. The New York Times and ABC News report:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan...

"We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that (garnishing wages) or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

It's especially disturbing since Hillary won't even allow the release of millions of documents related to her first, aborted attempt at nationalized health care. Millions of those documents remain hidden from public view.

I think a better name for HillaryCare, in the unlikely event it comes to pass, would be ClusterCare™.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Judicial Watch: the personal destruction of HillaryCare v1.0

 
Judicial Watch pried a small number of 1993 documents from the Clinton Library related to the first version of HillaryCare. The revelations are astounding -- and are now rippling through the blogosphere at the speed of light.

Furthermore, the Clintons are blocking the release of the motherlode:

The National Archives admits there may be an additional 3,022,030 textual records, 2,884 pages of electronic records, 1,021 photographs, 3 videotapes and 3 audiotapes related to the Task Force that are being withheld indefinitely from the public. On November 2, 2007 Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the National Archives to force the release of all the Task Force records.

What's contained within the tiny number of documents that have been released?

Selective Spying


Michelle Malkin:

Spying on jihad suspects? Bad.

Spying on health care opponents? Good.

• A June 18, 1993 internal Memorandum entitled, “A Critique of Our Plan,” authored by someone with the initials “P.S.,” makes the startling admission that critics of Hillary’s health care reform plan were correct: “I can think of parallels in wartime, but I have trouble coming up with a precedent in our peacetime history for such broad and centralized control over a sector of the economy… none of us knows whether we can make it work well or at all…”

• A “Confidential” May 26, 1993 Memorandum from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Hillary Clinton entitled, “Health Care Reform Communications,” which criticizes the Task Force as a “secret cabal of Washington policy ‘wonks’” that has engaged in “choking off information” from the public regarding health care reform. The memorandum suggests that Hillary Clinton “use classic opposition research” to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton Administration from Task Force deliberations and to “expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists” in order to deflect criticism. Senator Rockefeller also suggested news organizations “are anxious and willing to receive guidance [from the Clinton Administration] on how to time and shape their [news] coverage.”

• A February 5, 1993 Draft Memorandum from Alexis Herman and Mike Lux detailing the Office of Public Liaison’s plan for the health care reform campaign. The memorandum notes the development of an “interest group data base” detailing whether or not organizations “support(ed) us in the election.” The database would also track personal information about interest group leaders, such as their home phone numbers, addresses, “biographies, analysis of credibility in the media, and known relationships with Congresspeople...”

Featuring "real" people with "real" stories


Jammie Wearing Fool:

Judicial Watch ... managed to wrangle [a few documents] from the Clinton Library on the topic of Hillarycare circa 1993. Specifically, some of the documents detail ... how to deal with the First Lady's detractors. And the tactics discussed (including ... "expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists") are of a flavor that can best be described as Clintonian.

Impeach the credibility of opponents:

* Avoid partisan targeting. Demonstrate that opponents are advocates of delay or inaction, regardless of party affiliation. Moderate Republicans must be broken from conservative ranks.
* Expose opponents as "professional lobbyists" with values and interests divorced from average Americans (document salaries, perks, ideological extremism, and provide all to the media.
* Use classic opposition research to expose their selfish and short-sighted motivations, and obstructionist tactics (collect mailings, track ad campaigns, investigate expenditures, and provide to the media)...

Apply pressure on undecided Congressional votes with intensive message delivery through their home state or home district media outlets.

...[Adviser Paul Starr's] punctuation here is comically revealing:

Result: Three-four days of saturation local coverage in all targeted states and/or districts, tied to national events with network coverage - all featuring "real" people with "real" stories.

...If the modern day Clinton machine is aptly characterized as one of meticulous scripting, triangulation, and... lets face it, ham-fisted sock puppetry, Senator Rockefeller may deserve some credit for showing them the ropes.

Non-partisan: The National Health Policy Council is the most obvious existing organization to be expanded for this purpose...

Advantages:

* ... A high-profile announcement of the decision to take this "aggressively non-partisan approach" would be extremely helpful in building public confidence and support...
* General public would recognize this as a clear attempt to break through partisan politics and gridlock.

NOTE: Just so you understand, I have been involved with NHPC, as honorary chair, for nearly two years. I can attest to their effectiveness and their breadth both geographically and politically. I have considered other existing organizations, but I believe NHPC would serve you needs best, in part because I know that the people involved are prepared to do anything you would ask of them.

Politicizing the White House


Ed Morrissey:

The Bush administration has taken plenty of heat over their alleged politicization of the White House, especially in the roles Karl Rove has played in the past two terms. The release of the memos from the 1993 Health Care Task Force might put that in some perspective. The HCTF anticipated a tough debate over its proposal to nationalize American health care, and it proposed some specific remedies -- including using the DNC to conduct intelligence operations... A February 1993 memo to Hillary Clinton from Alexis Herman and Mike Lux proposes that the HCTF -- a White House policy group -- enlist the DNC for several purposes, discussed on page 5:

C. The DNC Role

The DNC clearly has a critically important role to play in the campaign. I would suggest the following roles ...

3. The DNC can be instrumental for us in intelligence gathering and opposition research. Their staff will hear talk about things that may never reach us inside these walls...

...The HCTF foresaw using the DNC to "gather intelligence" on political opposition -- a way to gain information to intimidate or extort their critics. It's bad enough when electoral campaigns do this, but having the White House use the DNC for these purposes doesn't border on abuse of power but invades it with a vengeance.

And this memo came to Hillary Clinton a mere two weeks after her husband's inauguration...

Ed concludes with a call for Hillary to release all of the records. The tiny fraction that have come to light reveal a stunning disregard for the separation of Clintons' office from their political party. But I suppose we already knew that.

Influencing a gullible mainstream media


Jammie Wearing Fool:

For this option to work best, we would recommend the following:

1. The summit would be a two day event structured similarly to the economic summit except with Mrs. Clinton running it. The
President should come by to open or close the event, but should not be there most of the time.

2. It should be held outside of Washington, D.C.

3. This should be an event where the average people dealing with the health crisis get their chance to speak up. Although individual health care providers should be invited to speak, no one who is head of or lobbyist for a trade association or other
interest group should be asked to speak.

4. There should be at least two or three people with specific horror stories, but there should also be several middle class
people with decent benefits who are feeling squeezed and worried.

5. Small business people should be prominently featured. There should also be at least one Fortune 500

6. Senior citizens should be there, and should be encouraged to talk openly about their insecurities about potential changes in medicare and their choice of doctors.

If these fears are expressed, and we deal with them head on, we will gain immeasurably.

Hillary's contribution to the debate: the politics of personal destruction


Don Surber provides the executive summary.

I'd like to say in 15 years, Hillary has changed her tactics. But the same strategy of demonization and class warfare continues — against Obama now, against Republicans later. It's called the politics of personal destruction. In 35 years, that's the one change she's brought to the nation.


More: EIB, Michelle, Ed Morrissey, Don Surber, Hot Air, Jammie Wearing Fool and Suitably Flip have more.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

HillaryCare™ Update: Wait for UK dentists now at 2 years

 
Another success story for socialized medicine. London's Daily Mail reports that "seven million patients can't find a dentist on the NHS for two years."

More than seven million patients have been unable to see an NHS dentist for almost two years.

Most of those denied access have paid for private care instead, says Citizens Advice.

But almost three million have gone without treatment altogether, claims the charity.

The figure includes thousands of children and is much higher than Government estimates...

Greedy British. How many teeth do they think a person needs?

Thursday, January 03, 2008

A sickening punchline

 
GM Roper provides some frightening health care news and commentary.

England's NHS (National Health Service) is considering the rationing of health care. This is nothing new and has been talked about numerous times as the Democrats and their leftish friends push for a National Health Care policy in these United States.

Tom Smith writing at The Right Coast notes that "There's something very strange going on in the UK. It's getting to the point where it's not even funny anymore." How right you are Tom, and it is only a peek at what will happen in the US if we impose NHC on ourselves.

As a health care provider I offer mental health services to all and sundry. I choose not to accept commercial insurance, but I am willing to complete the paperwork for a patient to send to his insurance company and receive reimbursement. The insurance is a contract between the patient and the company, not me. The only health insurance that I am willing to accept is Medicaid because I believe that the poorest among us also deserve quality care...

Seventy-five years ago, this issue wasn't even on the horizon. Most folk paid their medical bills via payments, barter or per visit on the spot. Then came the unions insisting that health insurance be a part of the negotiations and bingo, employer provided health insurance became the norm.

As time went on, more and more employers gave in to the idea, and as tort lawyers lobbed onto suing health care providers as a way to get rich quick (does John Edwards come to mind? Hmmmm?) a number of docs and other health care providers began ordering every imaginable test so that no one could say they weren't being zealous in their care of the patient. This of course has driven medical care costs through the roof, and subsequently health insurors began rationing care based on sometimes nothing more than a whim. For example, I once had an insurance company authorize only 3 sessions for a depressed patient and that was the limit, despite the patient's history of suicidal thinking. I was able to get that decision overturned, but only after many, many hours of negotiations and documentation. And people wonder why I don't take insurance anymore. Hah, I'd rather take 1/2 of my regular fee in cash than get the full fee after several hours of insurance required stuff...

What's the punchline?

Comptroller General of the United States David Walker recently gave a speech [stating]:

"...The Medicare program alone represents about $34 trillion of our current $53 trillion fiscal gap. If there is one thing in particular that could bankrupt America, it’s runaway health care costs. And don’t forget, the first "baby boomers" will begin to draw their early retirement benefits under Social Security in a couple of weeks! And, just three years later, they will be eligible for Medicare. When "baby boomers" begin to retire in big numbers, it will bring a tsunami of spending that, unlike most tsunamis, will never recede..."

Read the whole thing. And try not to get sick.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Hillary: the gift that keeps on taking

 
Hot Air caught a startling ad from the gal who would be queen.

Hillary’s Christmas ad says nothing at all about Christmas. The gifts make the connection, of course, but check out what the gifts are: universal health care, bring the troops home, etc. All of the gifts are funded in one way or another with your money. ...she’s portraying herself as a thoughtful gift-giver by taking your money and giving it back to you in the form of expensive government programs, some or all of which you might not actually want or need.

Or even work, for that matter. I've captured the ad using super-slow-motion. The results were surprising. There appear to be subliminal messages inserted by, I'm guessing, the Clinton campaign. Let's watch.

I'm Hillary Clinton and I must say that I adore Christmas - it's my favorite time of year. Next year, I hope to give a lot of gifts that the current administration is too cheap to pay for.

We'll provide superb, free healthcare for everyone, just like in the U.K. and Canada!

We'll pay billions to invent amazing new sources of energy!

We'll increase taxes on the "rich" even more, redistributing wealth to primarily folks who don't want to work!

And we promise to create brand new federal bureaucracies for programs nobody's even asking for, like "Universal Pre-K"!

Since we can't compete with them in the marketplace of ideas, we'll silence conservative talk radio hosts using the "Fariness Doctrine."

We'll take care of our enemies, especially the domestic ones.

And, it goes without saying, we'll have thousands of secret earmarks for any special interest that can fill our campaign coffers! Remember: lobbyists are our friends!

I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this message. Peasants.

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit