Please Note:

This blog simply desires to share the truth, (and not just politically) and the truth is out there for those who seek it, we just blog about it, hence, Revelations of Truth!

Friday, September 18, 2009

What is REALLY the purpose??

What is the real purpose of the Obamacare health reform plan?

Make no mistake about it:

The purpose of this plan is to ensure dependence on government and a financial windfall for his cronies, including trial lawyers, and has nothing to do with concern about the cost of medical care or about the health or lives of American citizens.

11 Lies told to sell Obamacare -
Point and Counterpoint

By Dr. Frank S. Rosenbloom, M.D.

Mr. Barack Hussein Obama has gone back on the trail in an attempt to sell his health care reform to the nation. Mostly of the attendees that have been shown at these town hall meetings are hand-picked and sympathetic.

Mr. Barack Hussein Obama continues to repeat the same falsehoods regarding health care reform, each needs to be addressed specifically. I hope to address more in the future.

1. We need health care reform.

ANSWER: [ This is a Lie ] We do not need health care reform. We have the best health care system in the world. We need health insurance reform.

2. Free market health insurance has caused our current problem.

ANSWER: [ This is a Lie ] It is the government that has caused the current problem. We have not had free market health insurance in this country since 1965. [Since the de facto coup d’etat of the US Government with the Kennedy Assassination by the Rockefellers, Rothschilds / Federal Reserve owners, and the Johnson War on Poverty ] It is not possible to consider our system of medical payment free market when the government controls $.60 of every dollar spent on health care.

3. The evil and greedy health insurance companies have caused prices to

ANSWER: [ This is a Lie ] Again, it's the government that has caused prices to skyrocket. Medicare and Medicaid are the 800 pound gorilla and insurance companies are the fleas on the gorilla. Nothing can be done by private insurance companies, that hasn’t been done by Medicare and Medicaid. The federal government opens the door and the private insurance companies follow. It is the [ intentional ] government manipulation of the free market, that has caused our current health insurance problem. The out of control medical costs in Britain and Canada , as well as in Massachusetts and other states that have tried government health care, prove this point.

4. Nearly 50 million Americans are without health care.

ANSWER: [ This is a Lie ] Nearly 13 million Americans are without health insurance. No one in the United States is without health care. Government regulations prohibit patients from being turned away from hospitals, which must provide medical care to anyone. The huge number that the Obama administration has used is highly inflated.

5. A government option will lower costs and improve quality of care.

ANSWER: [ This is a Lie ] A government option will increase costs and reduce quality of care. In every instance so far government involvement in medical services has caused prices to increase. Medicare spending has increased at a rate greater than 10 times that which was projected. Medicare and Medicaid will be broke in less than nine years. Adding another entitlement program will cause economic disaster. The Congressional Office of Management and Budget has stated that the president's plan is unaffordable. Further, the necessary rationing in order to even begin the program will reduce quality of care.

6. If you like your insurance and your doctor you can keep them.

ANSWER: [ This is a Lie ] The same things were said at the inception of Medicare. Medicare was supposed to be a supplemental insurance plan for retired people. It now covers the disabled as well and those over the age of 65, who are now ineligible for any other type of primary medical insurance. The government option will become the only option. Therefore, it's not an option and in the end hospitals, doctors, and all health care companies will be working directly and only for the government.

7. Government medical insurance is more cost efficient.

ANSWER: [ This is a Lie ] Government medical insurance is less efficient. The government, by force of law, transfers administrative costs to the private sector. Hospitals and doctors' offices must assume the burden of administration under threat of criminal penalty. This unfunded administrative burden transferred to private individuals and private insurance is then added to the cost of the supposedly free-market healthcare system.

8. The government option is necessary in order to prevent loss of insurance
by individuals with medical problems.

ANSWER: [ This is a Lie ] Government regulations make it mandatory for hospitals to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay. The government can certainly pass a simple regulation making it illegal for medical insurance plans to be canceled due to illness on the part of the insured. This would be a simple solution but of course would not increase government control over our lives.

9. The government option would ensure treatment for sick individuals who would otherwise have lost health care insurance. It would prevent lifetime limits on medical care.

ANSWER: This is blatantly untrue. There are definitive limits to Medicare that are not being publicized. For example, a review of Medicare regulations shows it will pay up to a maximum of 90 days in the hospital for each medical incident. After that, a patient must be in a rehabilitation facility for 60 days in a row in order for Medicare to begin another cycle of payment. Similarly, there are limits on most other Medicare services. While private medical insurance may have a total lifetime limit on the amount that can be spent, there is almost never a limit on the number of days in the hospital.

10. A government option will not result in rationing.

ANSWER: [ This is a Lie ] The major government options already in existence employ rationing every day. Prohibitively difficult preauthorization, statements of medical necessity, convoluted and complicated paperwork, and often impossible to meet requirements result in rationing on a huge scale. Furthermore, delay in payment, denial of payment for services already rendered and other tactics reduce access to medical care on a widespread basis. The government may not call this rationing but it is an insidious form of rationing that will be an integral part of any government plan. Medicare misuses and abuses its funding and is guilty of literally stealing from hospitals and physicians.

As an example of this thievery, due to a change in the corporate status of my practice I was required to apply for a new national provider identification number (NPI) in March of this year. Within several weeks, without exception, all of the private insurance companies had registered the number and were paying on claims. After five months and exhaustive work of over 140 hours by my office staff Medicare and Medicaid had still not paid on a single claim. Finally, on August 14, Medicare made their first payment on claims that were five months old. Yet, if we do not build Medicare within three months of the date of service, Medicare will not pay us at all. Government regulation and control permeates the entire medical system.

11. A government option will simplify the payment for medical services.

ANSWER: [ This is a Lie ] The government has always made things more complicated and expensive. This is part of their rationing system. The government has a habit of requiring new provider numbers every couple of years that must be used for all claims, including private insurance claims. When these are instituted, payment can be delayed for as long as six months. To see how "simple" the federal government makes medical claims, what follows are my required identification numbers.

UPIN # G16766
OMAP # 079496
Medicare # R0000BLCGY (PTAN) OLD
Medicare # R1473 04
(PTAN) **NEW** R147303
Railroad Medicare # 110162014
NEW Tax ID # 264520277
OLD Tax ID # 911768627
DEA # BRxxxxxxx (Hidden to prevent use)
Clia # 38D0933946
NPI # 1306924691 (individual)
NPI Group # 1235371485

Every point Mr. Barack Hussein Obama has made regarding his health plan is either a gross misrepresentation or an outright lie. The purpose of this plan is to ensure dependence on government and a financial windfall for his cronies, including trial lawyers, and has nothing to do with concern about the cost of medical care or about the health or lives of American citizens.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Thousands march in D.C. to protest Obama spending

People EVERYWHERE are finally WAKING UP and seeing Obama for the liar that he is! They are seeing through Obama's lies about his terrible so-called health reform plan!

Nafeesa Syeed - Associated Press Writer - 9/12/2009 2:40:00 PM

WASHINGTON - Tens of thousands of protesters fed up with government spending marched to the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, showing their disdain for the president's health care plan with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick" and "I'm not your ATM."

The line of protesters clogged several blocks near capitol, according to the D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. Demonstrators chanted "enough, enough" and "We the People." Others yelled "You lie, you lie!" and "Pelosi has to go," referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Throngs of people waved U.S. flags and held signs reading "Go Green Recycle Congress" and "I'm Not Your ATM." Men wore colonial costumes as they listened to speakers who warned of "judgment day" - Election Day 2010.

Richard Brigle, 57, a Vietnam War veteran and former Teamster, came from Paw Paw, Mich. He said health care needs to be reformed _ but not according to President Barack Obama's plan.

"My grandkids are going to be paying for this. It's going to cost too much money that we don't have," he said while marching, bracing himself with a wooden cane as he walked.

FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, organized several groups from across the country for what they billed as a "March on Washington."

Organizers say they built on momentum from the April "tea party" demonstrations held nationwide to protest tax policies, along with growing resentment over the economic stimulus packages and bank bailouts.

Armey and other speakers directed their ire at Pelosi - Armey took a photo, telling the crowd he wanted to be able to prove to her they were there.

"If it's necessary, we'll come back here next year," he said.

Many protesters said they paid their own way to the event - an ethic they believe should be applied to the government. They say unchecked spending on things like a government-run health insurance option could increase inflation and lead to economic ruin.

Terri Hall, 45, of Starke, Fla., said she felt compelled to become political for the first time this year because she was upset by government spending.

"Our government has lost sight of the powers they were granted," she said. She added that the deficit spending was out of control, and said she thought it was putting the country at risk.

Race also became an issue when a black Republican leader denounced African-American politicians that she said had an "affinity" for socialism.

"I'm outraged prominent black politicians use the race card" to cover up their failed policies, said Deneen Borelli.

Lawmakers also supported the rally. Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said Americans want health care reform but they don't want a government takeover.

"Republicans, Democrats and independents are stepping up and demanding we put our fiscal house in order," Pence, of Indiana, told The Associated Press.

"I think the overriding message after years of borrowing, spending and bailouts is enough is enough."

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., also spoke at the rally. DeMint said he'd had enough of "Alice in Wonderland" politicians promising more programs at the risk of financial disaster.

"The president has warned us if we disagree with him he's going to call us out," DeMint said. "Well, Mr. President, we are out."

Norman Kennedy, 64, of Charleston, S.C., said he wants to send a message to federal lawmakers that America is "deeply in debt." He said though he'd like everyone to have free health care, he said there's no money to pay for it.

"We want change and we're going to get change," Kennedy said. "I want to see fiscal responsibility and if that means changing Congress that will be a means to that end."

Other sponsors of the rally include the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and the Ayn Rand Center for Individuals Rights. Other scheduled speakers included actor Stephen Baldwin and C. Boyden Gray, who worked under the administration of George H.W. Bush.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Actual Court Statements--LOL!

Court Statements

Need a good laugh!?

This is hilarious and remember, most of our politicians are attorneys.

These are from a book called "Disorder in the American Courts", and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.


ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!

ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.

ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.

ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?

ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.

ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?

ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's twenty, much like your IQ.

ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?

ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: getting laid

ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?

ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.

ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male.

ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNES S : All of them.. The live ones put up too much of a fight.

ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?

ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.

ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?

And the best for last:

ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Hilarious! Another apology made overseas!

Only this one you will love!!

And on one day, on one fateful day...

Our nation, as a whole, will have to apologize to the rest of the world,

for the mistake of the U.S. presidency that is Barack Hussein Obama.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Jesus the socialist?

I don't know about you, but if you have at all being vocal about your opposition to government run healthcare, then you have probably experienced something similar.

Some very vocal yet highly ignorant individuals have approached me with the line that I was not being Christ-like because I was supporting denying people their health care. They went on to say, among other things (clearly revealing their lack of knowledge of the facts)
"Isn’t caring for our less fortunate brothers and sisters a Christian value?"

Excuse my while I vomit, will you. Since when do YOU know ANYTHING about Christian values? How conveniently to constantly deny Christ and mock Christians and yet, you hypocrite, have no doubt spewing out nonsense claiming to know that government run health care is the solution!


Jesus the socialist?

Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 9/1/2009 8:55:00 AM

Peter HeckAt a recent Congressional town hall meeting I attended, I was astounded by the positions being taken by the outnumbered group of advocates for socializing American medicine.

The Founding Fathers – a group whose distrust and skepticism about the size and scope of the national government is epic – were surely doing back flips in their graves as seemingly intelligent Americans willfully stood up and championed the notion of handing over their healthcare to bureaucrats in Washington. Regardless of your political leanings, it was a chilling sight to see a group of citizens standing and applauding the loss of their own freedom.

But more bizarre than that was a sign that had been placed on a pro-ObamaCare table near the front of the stage. It simply read: "Jesus would vote yes."

Now, I should preface these remarks by acknowledging the possibility that I misunderstood the sign. A listener to my radio show suggested to me that perhaps "Jesus" -- pronounced "Hay-Soos" in Spanish -- was referring to an illegal immigrant who would undoubtedly vote in favor of a plan guaranteed to further saddle American taxpayers with the burden of paying for those unwilling to obey the law. But with as thoughtful as that insight is, given all the recent attention the left has been showing Jesus the Savior recently, I think it's fair to assume the Son of God was the intended reference.

There are a couple initial observations that need to be made before we address the core, "Jesus as socialist" madness. First, for a movement so petrified by any perceived confluence of faith and politics, the left has kicked the Bible-banging into high gear recently.

Liberal talker Ed Schultz called socializing healthcare a "moral obligation" and said Christian ministers "should be leading their congregations to support this president on healthcare reform." What?! I thought we weren't allowed to "legislate morality?" And haven't folks like Schultz been telling ministers for years to avoid politics in the pulpit, lest they violate the sacred "separation of church and state" doctrine?

But even President Obama got into the act. Convening a group of ministers on a conference call, the president told them that his healthcare plans accomplish the "core moral and ethical obligation that we look out for one another...that I am my brother's keeper, my sister's keeper." He went so far as to suggest those who resist his plans are "bearing false witness" against him. Thou shalt not oppose thy Obama.

Frankly, I welcome this discussion. It is important to be conscious of what Jesus would do, and it's encouraging that even those on the left who reject his teachings and commands at least acknowledge his character and testimony. But all of us should tread very lightly when it comes to putting words into Jesus' mouth. No matter how long and close of a relationship with Christ one has, we should be beyond cautious (and painfully aware of our own fallibility) when it comes to any attempt to speak for Jesus beyond the plain words of scripture. When in doubt, let the red letters speak for themselves.

For that reason, it has never been my contention that Jesus would have opposed a socialized healthcare bill in the United States. That certainly doesn't mean he would have supported it; rather, that the ministry of Christ was undeniably focused on the individual – our personal responsibilities, not the duties of civil government.

To take those personal commands and extrapolate outward until you encompass a government mandate is the height of irresponsibility and demonstrates contempt for the sanctity of scripture.

Ed Schultz went on to state: "When Jesus walked the face of the earth, he was feeding the hungry, he was clothing the poor, and healing the sick. He didn't ask anyone for their health insurance card. And he didn't heal anybody for profit." Well, that's true. But for the sake of making a political push, Schultz is utterly distorting Christ's work.

First, Jesus performed his miracles of feeding the 5,000 and healing the lepers to foster belief in his claim to be the Son of God. Second, he performed such acts to model personal compassion for us. If Jesus was really teaching that taking profit for one's work is evil, we all have some serious problems...including Ed Schultz. Schultz gets paid nice money for enlightening those who gather to hear him speak. But Jesus never took a penny for his teaching. By Schultz's logic, apparently the only profession that can rightly charge for their work is carpentry.

This torturing of the text is exactly what happens when we let our politics inform our faith, rather than the other way around.

Here's what we can know: Jesus commanded his followers to "do for the least of these." He commanded us as individuals to be generous, giving, compassionate, and charitable. What remains for us to decide is whether turning over those personal responsibilities and making them the domain of the federal government is the best way to fulfill them. If experience is any guide, the answer to that question is incontrovertibly, "no."


So there you go, perfectly said, it is OUR personal responsibility as individuals to care for one another and not shrugging off that responsibilty to the government.

The church used to be the place where people looked to get help--putting the responsibility of caring for one another on the people as individuals in the Church.

When the government takes over, why should anyone do anything, after all, the gov't will take care of them, right?

Take care of them how? Well, through general relief, welfare, foodstamps, section 8 housing, etc. Everyone knows what an utter failure those programs are at wasting money and creating dependant people, and crippling them to ever want to do anything for themselves. These programs should be temporary bridges of help, not permanent solutions.

And now healthcare is going to be added to the list above? I can see the lines now of people wanting "free healthcare" for anything and anything even a stubbed toe, because " Hey, I don't have to pay for it", Doctors leaving medicine- fed up of all the government bureacracy, simple procedures having to go through all their protocols to get "approved" by the government, long waits for everything like in other countries with socialized medicine. Yes, Good times, good times!