Monthly Archives: June 2011


Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is now a household name because of injudicious conduct involving his Twitter account.

But for those of us who closely followed the creation and ultimate passage of the “health care reform” called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more popularly known as Obamacare, Weiner was already something of an icon.

During the health care debates, seniors were a strong source of opposition to the agenda of the Democrats. Many people understood that accomplishing Obamacare’s goals would inevitably require the rationing of health care, especially among older Americans. As this series continues, you’ll hear from Democrats in their own words what they thought regarding that matter. One critical point of controversy was the fact that Obamacare cuts $500 billion dollars from Medicare over ten years.

Though I’m highlighting Weiner’s involvement here, when it comes to the legislative approach of the Democrats since President Obama was inaugurated, Weiner is the rule, not the exception.

The Democratic leadership of the 111th Congress felt justified in imposing its will upon Americans and taunting them. But long before former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi strutted to the proceedings carrying her cartoonish oversized gavel, Weiner was expressing sentiments that were commonplace among his colleagues. A full year before that fateful day, the Democrats were already beginning to face tough questions about their legislative intentions and their attitude toward the public.

Responding to such questions, Weiner said this (on May 21, 2009):

“There are, however, issues where I seek to lead my neighbors
rather than follow…On these issues, I’ll incorporate what they’ve said to the best of my ability with my own instincts, vote accordingly, and then work as hard as I can to explain my decision to them.”

Like others who brought us Obamacare, only one year after it was passed, Weiner was working hard to get New York a WAIVER from it.

Weiner has clearly stated his uncertainty about his personal behavior recently. Was he also that uncertain about Obamacare?

On June 6, 2011, at his press conference, Weiner offered this regarding his personal conduct:

“I don’t know what I was thinking. This was a destructive thing to do. I’m apologetic for doing it.”

It’s too bad he won’t say the same thing about his biggest professional mistake.

But because of decisions by Weiner and congressional Democrats, Medicare is now in real jeopardy.

Do you trust Medicare to them?



On the way home yesterday, I was listening to a conversation between radio host Sean Hannity and a caller from California. The caller was making the case that health care provided by the state should be a right, even for illegal immigrants. When asked by Hannity where the Constitution provided for that, the caller suggested that it didn’t matter if it wasn’t in the Constitution. When Hannity reminded the caller that the Constitution is our legal framework, the caller said what he wanted was in “the Word of God.”

The caller spent little time trying to make the connection between his grievance and the “Word of God” to which he referred. Instead, he promptly made the second of two points he had initially declared he would make. He said that no matter what, we were never going to make any progress on health care until we committed ourselves to stop spending money on treatment for the terminally ill. According to him, we know what “terminally ill” is, and we can’t afford to spend money trying to treat people in that condition. To that caller, it’s a waste of resources.

If you doubt whether the caller was serious, don’t. I can tell you with certitude that the cessation of care for the terminally ill is not a new idea. Today, some very powerful people in and around the federal government are on board with an initiative to restrict such care. Some are rather enthusiastic about it.

They are on record saying that.

In fact, some of these people and their ideas were very influential in the creation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA “Obamacare”).

That leads me to discuss the phenomenon of “Mediscare.”

Mediscare is the name for the strategy used by Democrats to suggest that any attempts by Republicans to reform Medicare (even to save it, as is the current situation) are attempts to end Medicare.

Bear in mind that any changes proposed by Republicans are just that—proposals.

But also remember that the PPACA cuts $500 billion from Medicare…and while Democrats control the Senate and White House, “Obamacare” is not merely a proposal…it is LAW.

Moving forward, I will bring you the ideas of Republicans—in their own words.

I will also bring you the intentions and attitudes of those who created “Obamacare” in theirs.

Who has the “Mediscare” advantage?