Part1: The Case Against Obamacare

While reading analysis on Obamacare on the website http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18208 I came across some very stunning information.

1)Right there on page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).

The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

With Exceptions such as:
2)Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it.

3)Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

I thought Obama said we could keep our health insurance plan, I guess NOT for as people switch from one job to another this would force Americans to participate in Obama's public-option.

As a critic of the Obama health care Govt. single-payer public option, here is further evidence of how this plan will take away individual freedom:

Drawn by a public option that will be 30 percent to 40 percent cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program.
That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers; this could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law, says IBD.

This legislation would effectively kill off health savings sccounts, which is what Democrats have wanted for years. Health savings accounts would give individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less control. But, with Obama's public-option(which is not an option at all) it would give a huge amount of control to the government in regulating our health care needs.


Obamacare=Government Control=Rationing of medical Care

Here is the text by Investors Business Daily:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482329


Additional Troubling Evidence Regarding Impact of Single-Payer Health Care(Like Canadas):

1)Canada's mortality rate is 25% higher for breast cancer

2)Canada's mortality rate is 18% higher for prostate Cancer

3) Canada's mortality rate is 13% higher for colorectal cancer, and . . .

4)50% of all diabetics have trouble with high blood pressure. It is controlled in 36% of cases within the United States, but only in 9% of cases in Canada

Do Other Countries With a Single-Payer Health Care System Have Greater Access to Care?

1)Britain has only one-fourth as many CT scanners per capita as the U.S

2)one-third as many MRI scanners

3)The rate at which the British provide coronary-bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only one-fourth the U.S. rate

4)hip replacements are only two-thirds the U.S. rate

But, the U.S. Tops in:

5)The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients between the ages of 45 and 84, and nine times higher for patients 85 years or older.

Further Grim Reports in Long Waiting Periods for Medical Procedures Under a Single-Payer Option, Which is what Obama's Health Care Reform Bill actually is.

"Overall, nearly 1.8 million Britons are waiting for hospital or outpatient treatments at any given time. In 2002-2004, dialysis patients waited an average of 16 days for permanent blood-vessel access in the U.S., 20 days in Europe, and 62 days in Canada. In 2000, Norwegian patients waited an average of 133 days for hip replacement, 63 days for cataract surgery, 160 days for a knee replacement, and 46 days for bypass surgery after being approved for treatment. Short waits for cataract surgery produce better outcomes, prompt coronary-artery bypass reduces mortality, and rapid hip replacement reduces disability and death. Studies show that only 5 percent of Americans wait more than four months for surgery, compared with 23 percent of Australians, 26 percent of New Zealanders, 27 percent of Canadians, and 36 percent of Britons."

I am thankful to http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Socialized+failure:+dissecting+health-care+data+from+Britain,+Canada,...-a0199802195 with supplying me with some health care information, also.

These are some of the reasons I note as why I am against Obamacare. It is not an option, but in fact the Govt. so called option would be forcing Tyranny on us all. This is not what our founding fathers fought for in the American Revolution. Our founding fathers fought for their freedom against tyranny, the kind that Obama is proposing. I will continue addtional updates regarding the health care issue.