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

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Centralized, Authoritarian Government FAIL


A preview of coming attractions.

To the Congress:

The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.

The “War on Poverty” started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”; it hasn’t worked and our entire country is broke.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you’ve had 44 years to get it right; they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.

Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the “Stimulus”, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009… none show any signs of working, although the unions appear to have found a new patsy: the American taxpayer.

And finally, to set a new record:

Cash for Clunkers” was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took good dependable cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress’ generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that “services” you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?

20% of our entire economy?

With all due respect,

Are you out of your frickin’ minds?



Image: FAILblog.

Friday, October 09, 2009

Bright side of the health plan...


Dennis writes:

Let me get this straight.  We're going to pass a health care plan that:
  1. Was written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it
  2. Passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it
  3. Signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes
  4. With funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't  pay his taxes
  5. Overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and
  6. Financed by a country that's nearly  already broke
What could possibly go wrong?
 




Linked by: Patterico. Thanks!

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

The Puppet Masters


What did the unions get for the $400 million they spent electing Barack Obama?

Stimulus Bill :: AFL-CIO: President Obama pitched the largest single spending program in American history: the $789 billion stimulus bill, which was passed on Feb. 14, 2009. It was 1,100 pages and available online 13 hours before debate. Its stated goal was to combat unemployment and cap it at 8%. It’s now around 10%, which means it was an utter failure. And the economy is still in the crapper. Upon taking office, Obama signed Executive Orders which reversed prior labor policies and allowed only unionized construction companies to use stimulus funds.


Trade War :: United Steelworkers: President Obama broke an eight-decade, Democrat-Republican partnership that promoted free trade. While proclaiming his allegiance to global trade policies, he slapped a 35% tariff on tires made in China, an act which threatens to touch off a catastrophic global trade war and has potentially devastating consequences for the poor. Obama gift-wrapped the tariff as a reward to the unions and the hard left, protectionist wing of the Democrat Party. And even Bill Clinton thinks the decision is ridiculous.


Killing School Choice :: Teachers Unions (NEA and AFT): President Obama, at the behest of the monopolistic teachers' unions, killed the successful Washington DC Voucher program. The program offered $7,500 vouchers to 1,700 low-income families, 99% of whom were black or Hispanic. Even though there were more than four applicants for each slot and despite uniformly spectacular results (kids were "reading nearly a half-grade ahead of their peers who did not receive vouchers"), Obama and the Union Democrats destroyed the program.


Nationalizing GM and Chrysler :: UAW: Bankruptcy laws were designed to handle the kinds of situations that GM and Chrysler were in earlier this year. Instead, President Obama decided to abrogate bankruptcy law, nationalize the auto companies and payoff the auto unions with at least $81 billion in taxpayer funds. Even The Washington Post pilloried his actions ("Government Motors: GM's new owner (the Obama administration) should stop bullying the company's bondholders."). And, based upon their most recent business results, both companies appear destined for the scrap heap and the taxpayers likely out of luck at the tune of $810 for every household in America.


Cap-and-Trade :: National Farmers Unions: President Obama and his far left supporters in Congress passed Carbon Cap-and-Trade (the ill-named "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009"). Aside from raising hundreds of billions in new tax revenue for the federal government, the bill helps promote "climate exchanges". The various farmers unions uniformly support "a national, mandatory carbon emission cap and trade system to reduce non-farm greenhouse gas emissions." Unions hope to profit from climate exchanges, which would aggregate farm-related carbon credits, described in Bloomberg News' "Farmers Want Obama to Make Carbon a Cash Crop Under Climate Law". The 1,200-page bill passed on June 26, 2009 and was available online only 15 hours before the vote.


Health Care Reform :: SEIU: The "Big Cahuna" for the unions is the socialized medicine program that Obama and the left are attempting to cram down the taxpayers' throats, bill unseen. The SEIU itself contributed $85 million to Obama's campaign and among their rewards would be millions of medical civil servants (and millions of new, dues-pahttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=6034478ying members). The WSJ's September 10, 2009 op-ed ("Read the Union Health-Care Label -- Get ready for Detroit-style labor relations in our hospitals"), describes the bill opening "the door to implement forced unionization schemes" by reclassifying in-home health-care (and child-care) contractors as union members.


Employee Free Choice Act :: SEIU: Little more than a month ago, in a speech to the AFL-CIO convention in Pittsburgh, President Obama stated he was "standing behind" the Employee Free Choice Act (the EFCA, also known as "Card Check"). The bill would make it much easier for labor unions to coerce and even intimidate workers into joining unions. Put simply, the EFCA is a transparent mechanism for forced unionization. Study after study confirm that the bill would cost millions of jobs. A March 2009 analysis puts the figure at 5.2 million lost jobs if Card Check restrictions were placed on businesses.


Name an Obama policy position and I'm betting you'll find a union or ACORN (but I repeat myself) standing right behind it. Find a union and you'll find an Obama policy position. During his presidential oath, Obama swore to uphold the Constitution. I fear that he really meant the SEIU's constitution.


Reference: Obama puts union strings on federal jobs (Times) and Obama, labor's lackey (LA Times)

Music Video: The Day ObamaCare Died


Papa B sent this one in:

Instant Classic!



You'll be humming this all evening.


Sunday, October 04, 2009

The federal health care database that will hold all of the most sensitive, personal medical data for 300 million Americans


In August of 2008, a Consumer Reports investigation revealed that the federal government is among the worst offenders when it comes to data breaches.

CR analyzed records of publicly reported data breaches compiled by the nonprofit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and found that more than 230 security lapses by federal, state, and local government from 2005 through mid-June 2008 resulted in the loss or exposure of at least 44 million consumer records containing Social Security or driver license numbers and other personal data.

In late 2006, the House Committee on Government Reform issued a report entitled "AGENCY DATA BREACHES SINCE JANUARY 1, 2003". The conclusion of the report was as disturbing as it was terse.

Taken as a whole, the agency reports outline hundreds of instances of data breaches involving sensitive personal information since January 1, 2003. The reports show a wide range of incidents, involving employee carelessness, contractor misconduct, and third-party thefts. The number of individuals affected in each incident ranges from one to millions. However, in many cases, the agency does not know what information was lost or how many individuals potentially could be affected. Few of these incidents have been reported publicly, and it is unclear in many cases whether affected individuals have been notified or whether remedial action has been taken.

Data held by Federal agencies remains at risk. In many cases, agencies do not know what information they have, who has access to the information, and what devices containing information have been lost, stolen, or misplaced. In addition, in almost all of the reported cases, Congress and the public would not have learned of each event unless the Committee had requested this information.

Finally, each year, the Committee releases information security scorecards. This year the scores for many departments remained low or dropped precipitously. The federal government overall received a D+.

Among the incidents the report described:

• A laptop containing personal information on 30,000 applicants/LEADS, recruiters, and prospects fell off a motorcycle belonging to a Navy recruiter.

• A CD containing 30,000 veterans’ names and addresses was lost by a Government Printing Office subcontractor.

• A thumb drive containing personal records on approximately 207,570 enlisted Marines who served between the years of 2001 to 2005 was lost. A notification letter was sent to the affected individuals and the Marine Corps.

• A systems administrator discovered potential unauthorized access to the Air Force Personnel Center Assignment Management System containing personal information on 33,000 military members.

Other, more recent incidents of note include:

Sensitive information on about 1,000 patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other military hospitals was exposed in a security breach, sparking identity theft concerns and an investigation by the Army.

The IRS hired a firm that had experienced several serious data breaches of customer information to manage and secure sensitive data.

Feel better about that giant database of sensitive health care information that the tax-and-spend Democrats want to create when they nationalize health care?

The feds holding your family's most personal information?

What could possibly go wrong?


Update: Clarice Feldman writes: "What, indeed? And then there's the inclination of so many to spy on their political opponents and their families."

Top Ten Bizarre Aspects of ObamaCare


With David Letterman back in the news, a top ten list is in order. Let's illustrate the panoply of weirdness that are the health care bills working their way through Congress.

10. Doctors who treat the oldest patients will be fined by the government: The government will create a "hit list" of doctors who are in the top 10% of Medicare costs per patient nationwide. Those doctors on the list automatically lose 5 percent of their total Medicare reimbursements, which are already abysmally low. Because the most aged patients are the most costly to treat, doctors will shy away from treating the oldest segment of the population for fear it will relegate them to the hit list. Put simply, this stricture will dramatically reduce access to health care for our most vulnerable seniors.

9. Democrats have combined free health care for illegal immigrants with measures to increase the number of illegals in this country: All GOP efforts to amend the health care bills to require a photo ID, a Social Security number and similar measures have been defeated on party lines. This is consistent with a June report ("If the American people found out...") that "[pro-illegal immigration group] La Raza said if they get this, they don't even care about amnesty, because they've fixed it so that one family member can apply for all extended family members."

8: Seniors will receive hefty tax hikes for care: Medical devices are taxed by the Baucus bill in order to raise about $4 billion annually. So much for the promises that the middle class won't see their taxes raised. These newly taxed devices include pacemakers, hip joint replacements, gastrointestinal tubes, artificial hearts, hearing aids, heart defibrillators, powered wheelchairs, etc. In other words, the taxes will hit seniors hardest, make procedures less affordable, and punish the device manufacturing sector.

7: Choose to self-insure? You'll face a year in prison: Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold [confirmed] the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance: Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty.

6: Taxes for everyone with health care insurance will increase: To pay for the $1 trillion cost of the bill, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wants either an income surtax on the wealthy or higher taxes on "Cadillac" health plans (e.g., most comprehensive plans, including those of union members). Again -- so much for the promises that the middle class won't see their taxes raised.

5: Nearly half of all doctors would consider quitting if ObamaCare becomes law: Two out of three doctors oppose the bills under consideration in Washington. And hundreds of thousands of doctors would take an early retirement or shut down their practices if the bills become law. Lastly, "72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost."

4: Health care companies are under a "gag order" and can not criticize the bill: In an absurdly illegal repudiation of the First Amendment, "the federal government has now told all companies that provide Medicare Advantage to seniors to stop communicating with their clients about the effects of that legislation — even telling them what they can and cannot post on their websites. This gag order [is] enforced through an agency of the federal government at the request of a Senator... Citizens, either as individuals or grouped together in companies, have a fundamental right to talk about legislation they favor or oppose. That is the core of the First Amendment’s protections on speech. Unfortunately, this is part of a troubling trend of efforts to dismiss the concerns raised by the American people over the past few months."

3: President Obama says that the health care bill is a job-creating stimulus package: The President stated that small businesses would especially benefit because they 'could buy health insurance through an exchange... 'where they can compare the price, quality and services of a wide variety of plans'... [and the] government would subsidize health insurance for many businesses and individuals."

2: 47% of households pay no taxes -- and their ranks are growing: Thus, government-run health care is the greatest wealth transfer in history. The 53% of tax-paying households will therefore subsidize the 47% who pay no taxes. And: with the "$787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks," the 47% number is certain to grow.

1: By a margin of nearly 2-to-1, Americans don't even want government-run health care: Gallup's latest polling confirms what the 9/12 celebrations, the "tea parties" and other grassroots movements should be telling the bureaucrats in Washington. That is, "89% of Republicans, 64% of independents, and 61% of Americans overall say Americans themselves -- rather than the government -- have the primary responsibility for ensuring that they have health insurance."

That won't stop the Statists, of course, so vote accordingly in 2010.


Linked by: Maggie's Farm. Thanks!

Thursday, October 01, 2009

Keeping your doctor under ObamaCare: yes, it's just this easy


Courtesy of the Senate Joint Economic Committee comes this chart, entitled "Keeping your doctor under the Senate Finance Proposal" (click to zoom):


What could possibly go wrong with this elegant design?


Saturday, September 26, 2009

Obama Lied, Your Coverage Died


In his September address to Congress, President Obama stated that if you "already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."


Senator Orrin Hatch decided to have Democrats put their money where their mouths are by proposing the following amendment:

The purpose of this amendment is simple. If the secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that more than 1 million Americans would lose the current coverage of their choice because of this bill, then this bill would not go into effect.

...Here is the roll call of the Democrats' votes [on the amendment]:

BAUCUS: Roll call has been requested. Quickly call the roll.

CLERK: Mr. Rockefeller.

ROCKEFELLER: No.

CLERK: Mr. Rockefeller, no. Mr. Conrad.

CONRAD: No.

CLERK: Mr. Conrad no.

Mr. Bingaman.

BINGAMAN: No.

CLERK: Mr. Bingaman no.

Mr. Kerry.

(UNKNOWN): No by proxy.

CLERK: Mr. Kerry no by proxy.

Mrs. Lincoln.

LINCOLN: No.

CLERK: Mrs. Lincoln no.

Mr. Wyden.

WYDEN: No.

CLERK: Mr. Wyden no.

Mr. Schumer.

(UNKNOWN): No by proxy.

CLERK: Mr. Schumer no by proxy.

Ms. Stabenow.

STABENOW: No.

CLERK: Ms. Stabenow no.

Ms. Cantwell.

CANTWELL: No.

CLERK: Ms. Cantwell no.

Mr. Nelson.

NELSON: No.

CLERK: Mr. Nelson no.

Mr. Menendez.

MENENDEZ: No.

CLERK: Mr. Menendez no.

Mr. Carper.

(UNKNOWN): No by proxy.

CLERK: Mr. Carper no by proxy.

The Democrats are perfectly well aware that millions of Americans will lose the coverage they have under their proposal, whatever form it finally takes. In fact, that's their objective: in the long run--President Obama has said it may take 10 to 20 years--they intend to force all of us to lose our private health care and be forced into a socialized medicine system.

I know it seems hard to believe, but Obama lied about your coverage. If this cluster**** passes, your plan is toast.


Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Open wide and say ahhhhhhhhh!


The health care battle is joined. The Democrats are threatening the use of a procedural gimmick to ram socialized medicine down taxpayers' throats without debate. They are threatening insurance companies like Humana with legal action for daring to speak out about massive cuts to Medicare.

And the White House was caught bribing artists to create state propaganda using taxpayer funds.

And the Democrat Party's public relations arm -- also known as the mainstream media -- is laying down covering fire. It began with a mid-summer New York Times op-ed (what else?) by Nicholas Kristof exclaiming the virtues of the Canadian health care system using the anecdotal experiences of one woman.

Of course, Kristof studiously ignored Canadian medical publications like the fascinating bestseller Management of MRI Wait Lists in Canada (Health Care Policy, 2009), the abstract for which reads: "Excessive wait times for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies are a major problem in the Canadian healthcare system."

And Kristof carefully omitted trivial matters like cancer survival rates. The United States is number one in the world -- for all of its citizens, insured or not. U.S. females have a 63% of living five years or more after a cancer diagnosis versus 56% of European women. Men have a larger advantage: 66% to 47%.

The average survival rate for all cancers is 60 percent in the United States compared to 55 percent in Canada. That five percent would mean the world to you if, heaven forbid, one of your parents -- or one of your children -- received that diagnosis.

We can gain valuable insights into the Democrats' plans for socialized medicine using Tom Daschle's book as a guide. Daschle, Obama's first choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services, authored Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis. The book was endorsed by Barack Obama.

The book proposes the establishment of a "board" to set standards for health care. This board would be modeled after the Federal Reserve and the SEC, overseeing every aspect of care for public health systems. Thus the board would automatically come to administer all health care in the country -- an unelected set of bureaucrats deciding every aspect of medical care.

Presumably Daschle recommends the Federal Reserve-SEC-Politburo-style central planning model, because it's functioned so smoothly during the current financial 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.”

In June, USA Today reported that Democrats plan to use just that approach. "The biggest tax break in America — tax-free health benefits from employers — could be scaled back to pay for President Obama's overhaul of the nation's health care system."

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. And it would never be able to match the inherent pricing advantages of a publicly-funded plan.

Using this approach, 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 whether your parents or your children or you live or die. They'll use statistics and actuarial tables and computers in Washington, DC to figure out which treatments are most affordable, where in the queue you'll be placed and how rationing will work.

The book states 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, of course, 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."

If it were your spouse or parent or child involved, wouldn't you want something done?

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", Democrats want to prevent our representative democracy from interfering with the Kremlin of Health Care.

By hiding the details of the program, the FHB will be unaccountable to the American people. Which is why the Democrat-Statists are always in a hurry. With the Stimulus bill that no one read. The massive, deficit-ballooning budget bill. The choking deficit spending that quadrupled 2008 levels. And socialized medicine. They want to rush that through before the American people even have a chance to read the bill. That's how much they care about you.

No, they care about power. Acquiring more power. And taking more of your liberty and more of your money to distribute to the unions and the community agitators.

Freddie Mac: bankrupt. Fannie Mae: bankrupt. Social Security: bankrupt. Medicare: bankrupt. Medicaid: bankrupt. The Postal Service: bankrupt. Amtrak: bankrupt.

This illustration is my depiction of our future health care system should the Statist-Democrats get their wish.


Related: The Obamacare Payoff to Unions. Image: Darleen Click. Based upon: Tony Blankley's "Daschle-Obama health care possibilities". Hat tip: Mark Levin.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Harry Reid gives GOP direct warning on healthcare; I give Harry Reid a direct warning: start looking for outplacement services


The Hill reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry ("Loser") Reid is now issuing direct threats to Republicans ("Reid gives GOP direct warning on healthcare").

Reid told Republicans that he would prefer to pass healthcare reform under regular order but warned that he would not hesitate to use budget reconciliation if the legislation stalled in committee. The Senate Finance Committee began marking up a sprawling healthcare reform bill on Tuesday morning.

...Reid then spelled out how healthcare would pass under budget reconciliation proceedings, giving his colleagues a clear picture of what they face if they fail to reach bipartisan agreement.

“On reconciliation, under the order, there’s only 20 hours of debate,” Reid explained...

Here's a warning for you, Reid. Consider it career counseling. Or, rather, end-of-career counseling.

Go ahead, make my day. We will spend whatever it takes, call as many Nevada voters as we can, write and email as much material as it takes (your pathetic record on the economy since taking over in 2006, for starters) to defeat you in 2010.

Does the year 1994 ring a bell? Well, the outrage now dwarfs that of '94. Americans aren't ready for Dear Leader's brand of socialism. Not by a long shot.

You want to overhaul one-sixth of the economy, against the wishes of the American people, with 20 hours of debate?

Hey, Reid: call an outplacement service. Now. Before the rush.


Sunday, September 20, 2009

PrisonCare


Due to its lax illegal immigration policies and easy access to welfare -- factors that indisputably increase crime rates -- California now spends more on its prisons than on the entire 10-campus University of California system.

In 2001, California spent $680 million on medical services for its prisoners.

In 2004, California spent in excess of $1 billion for prisoners' health care services.

Last year, California spent $3 billion on health care for its prisoners.

In other words, over the last eight years, health care costs for California's single-payer prison system have more than quadrupled.

In a June speech, President Obama justified a government takeover of the entire health care system with an observation on rising costs. He stated, "...more and more Americans are forced to worry about not just getting well, but whether they can afford to get well. Millions more wonder if they can afford the routine care necessary to stay well. Even for those who have health insurance, rising premiums are straining family budgets to the breaking point—premiums that have doubled over the last nine years..."

Compare and contrast: over the last eight years, costs for California's single-payer prison health care system -- controlled by Democrats for decades and heavily laced with unions at every level of government -- have increased more than four times.

The costs of premiums for the private health care system -- with all of its innovation and access to the latest drugs, diagnostic tests, advanced equipment and research, have only doubled in nine years.

Government can't possibly run things better than the free market. And California's prison health care system is just a microcosm of what we can expect.

And something else for seniors to consider: the costs for their care will compete with the health care costs of the federal prison system. And, if California is any indication, the prisoners' medical needs may come before seniors. There's only so much of taxpayers' money to go around.

Welcome to PrisonCare. It's the Democrat Utopia of California translated to the entire United States.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Visualizing the Baucus Bill


Brian at Snapped Shot is a freaking genius:

The four most prominent words in the "new and improved" Democratic healthcare proposal, as put forth by Senator Baucus.

I snagged the full bill text from the useful dolts at the New York Times, after getting an evil idea from Eddie Bear (748 times, by my count). After replacing all variations of "require" (required, requires, requiring) with "REQUIRE," an interesting pattern developed:


What can I say? The Democratic Party lives to "require" things upon you.

Indeed. Isn't that The Way of the Statist™?

Mandate after mandate. How much water your toilet can flush. The size of the car you drive. How much electricity you can use. What kind of light bulbs you can buy.

Even how much care your parents should receive as they grow older... once they nationalize the health care industry (according to the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which is not a death panel, you right-wing nuts!).

In good times and bad, the Democrats seize more liberty, more private property from you -- the American taxpayer -- to pay off their backers: ACORN, the unions, the trial lawyers.

You can either keep taking it and taking it and taking it. Or you can vote this egregious lot out in 2010.