Medicare has a gun to your head

John Stossel at Townhall.com reports on how Medicaid is a drag on our economy that is only going to get worse:
“The government spends around $6 on seniors for every dollar
it spends on children, and yet the poverty rate among children is far
higher,” said Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute
(www.aei.org).
The federal government stiffs the young in favor of the old.
So I told the La Posada seniors that the kids called them
“greedy geezers.” They said, “We’ve paid our dues.” Money was taken
from every paycheck they earned.
But, in fact, the average Medicare beneficiary today collects two to three times more money than he paid in.
“I would argue that this is not only unfair, it’s downright immoral,” says billionaire Pete Peterson.
Peterson is a rarity: a senior who decided he cannot in good
conscience accept Medicare. He and his foundation (www.pgpf.org) worry
about the looming fiscal disaster. When Medicare began in 1965, six
working-aged people paid for each Medicare recipient. Now the figure is
four. It will get worse as baby boomers like me retire.
Medicare is unsustainable.
“There is $34 trillion sitting off the balance sheet, waiting for future generations to pay,” Herzlinger said.
That’s how much more Medicare money government has promised than it has budgeted. It’s the price of about 30 Iraq Wars.
Stossel says that calls to lower health care costs won’t have much effect, according to figures by the Congressional Budget Office. And there is fat chance it will be changed by vote, since seniors are a much more cohesive voting bloc than younger people.

John Stossel at Townhall.com reports on how Medicaid is a drag on our economy that is only going to get worse:

“This program, Medicare, is essentially ripping my generation off,” Zach Hadaway said.

Policy experts say the kids are right.

“The government spends around $6 on seniors for every dollar it spends on children, and yet the poverty rate among children is far higher,” said Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute (www.aei.org).

The federal government stiffs the young in favor of the old.

So I told the La Posada seniors that the kids called them “greedy geezers.” They said, “We’ve paid our dues.” Money was taken from every paycheck they earned.

But, in fact, the average Medicare beneficiary today collects two to three times more money than he paid in.

“I would argue that this is not only unfair, it’s downright immoral,” says billionaire Pete Peterson.

Peterson is a rarity: a senior who decided he cannot in good conscience accept Medicare. He and his foundation (www.pgpf.org) worry about the looming fiscal disaster. When Medicare began in 1965, six working-aged people paid for each Medicare recipient. Now the figure is four. It will get worse as baby boomers like me retire.

Medicare is unsustainable.

“There is $34 trillion sitting off the balance sheet, waiting for future generations to pay,” Herzlinger said.

That’s how much more Medicare money government has promised than it has budgeted. It’s the price of about 30 Iraq Wars.

Stossel says that calls to lower health care costs won’t have much effect, according to figures by the Congressional Budget Office. And there is fat chance it will be changed by vote, since seniors are a much more cohesive voting bloc than younger people.

Mohler: Obama avoids the issue of abortion itself

Alber Mohler says that President Obama, in his address at Notre Dame, talked about talking about abortion but never addressed the issue itself. Rather, he gave some evasive phrases:

Mr. Obama went on to call for “Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.” In the end, the President’s comments were entirely about how Americans should discuss or debate abortion. There was no serious consideration of abortion itself. President Obama merely talked about talking about abortion.

This was a moral evasion and an insult to the importance of the issue. If the President had actually addressed the issue of abortion — if he had actually even offered a defense or rationale for his own position — he would have dignified the issue. Instead, Mr. Obama issued what amounted to a call for civility.

When the President called for Americans to agree that, while differing on abortion, “we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually,” he failed to make clear why this is so. If the unborn baby is not a person who possesses an intrinsic right to life, why is the decision to abort so “heart-wrenching?” If the fetus is just a collection of cells, why the angst? Furthermore, does the fact that a decision is “heart-wrenching” make it right or rational?

Taking issue with Obama’s speech at Notre Dame

Don’t worry, this isn’t demonizing. It’s just taking issue with some of the things the president said Sunday during his commencement speech at Notre Dame. From Wesley Smith at Secondhand Smoke:

President Obama spoke at Notre Dame today, an invitation that created divisions within the Catholic Church that are beyond our scope or concern here. But in reading about the president’s speech, I was reminded of how adept Obama is in saying one thing while doing just the opposite; such as claiming in his speech to support a conscience clause for health professionals on the issue of abortion (which would also apply to assisted suicide, etc.). From the story:

He called for an effort to “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women,” Obama said.

Obama plans to revise a Bush-era “conscience clause,” which would cut off federal funding for hospitals and health plans that didn’t allow doctors and other health-care workers to refuse to participate in care they believe conflicts with their personal or moral beliefs. Women’s health advocates and abortion rights supporters say it creates a major obstacle to family planning and other treatments.

No, Obama–or at least his administration (is there a difference?)plans to revoke the Bush conscience clause, not revise it. That is hardly honoring heterodox thinkers’ consciences.

And if we are going to base policies on “sound science,” how about starting with the biological fact that embryos and fetuses are living human organisms? Alas, during the campaign, then Senator Obama said such determinations are above his “pay grade.” (Not anymore, they’re not.) Pretending that human embryos and fetuses are not “human life” (what are they, Martian?) may not resolve these contentious ethical issues, but if our policies are going to reflect “sound science,” so that we can create policies based on “clear ethics,” then the biological facts should quit being fudged.

No, Mr. President. Killing is killing

As the president comes out today to tell us that we need comprehensive health care reform in our nation, I think this is something we should think on. Who will make reforms for the most defenseless in our country?

John Piper’s response to President Obama on abortion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O68MByaMVdM&feature=player_embedded

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he released this statement,
We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.
To which I say:
* No, Mr. President, you are not protecting women; you are authorizing the destruction of 500,000 little women every year.
* No, Mr. President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom; you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for one million little human beings every year.
* No, Mr. President, killing our children is killing our children no matter how many times you call it a private family matter. You may say it is a private family matter over and over and over, and still they are dead. And we killed them. And you, would have it remain legal.
Mr. President, some of us wept for joy at your inauguration. And we pledge that we will pray for you.
We have hope in our sovereign God.

From the transcript:

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, [President Obama] released this statement,

We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.

To which I say:

* No, Mr. President, you are not protecting women; you are authorizing the destruction of 500,000 little women every year.

* No, Mr. President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom; you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for one million little human beings every year.

* No, Mr. President, killing our children is killing our children no matter how many times you call it a private family matter. You may say it is a private family matter over and over and over, and still they are dead. And we killed them. And you, would have it remain legal.

Mr. President, some of us wept for joy at your inauguration. And we pledge that we will pray for you.

We have hope in our sovereign God.

10 years later: The Hand of Hope

Fox News has an interview with 9-year-old Samuel Armas, who was “born famous” after photograher Michael Clancy took a shot of Armas while Dr. Joseph Bruner was performing prenatal surgery. The picture below is stunning and amazing all at the same time.

HandofHope

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what Armas looks like now:

SamuelArmas

The euphemism of ‘choice’ and why it’s something else

Kevin DeYoung writes a great post today, “Lincoln’s Legacy and the Unborn,” in which he discusses how America’s most popular (arguably) president was not a fan of ‘popular sovereignty,’ which would have allowed each state as it entered the union the choice of whether it would be a slave state or a free state. DeYoung writes:

The connections with the pro-slavery argument and the pro-abortion argument should be obvious. Both argue for choice. Both, at least in their more civilized forms, pretend moral neutrality. And both rely for their inner logic on strikingly similar propositions: blacks are not human persons with unalienable rights; and neither are the unborn. To quote from Lincon’s 1864 speech in Baltimore with only a slight tweak, subsituting ‘choice’ for ‘liberty’: “We all declare for choice; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word choice may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor. While with others the same word may mean for some men [and women] to do as they please with others, and with other men’s labors. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name–choice. And it follws that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names–choice and tyranny.”

In case you’re obsessed about swine flu

Here are some things for you to check out in case you don’t get enough of this on cable television:

Track the Swine Flu Outbreaks on Google Maps

10 Things You Should Know about Swine Flu

The CDC’s Page on the Flu

The WHO’s Factsheet on Influenza

Apparently, when they say women’s rights they don’t mean teenagers

From liveaction.org:

MEMPHIS, April 20–A counselor at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Memphis, TN was caught on hidden camera coaching a 14-year-old girl to lie to a judge so he would not find out about her 31-year-old boyfriend and the girl could obtain a waiver for an abortion without her parents’ knowledge. This is the sixth Planned Parenthood clinic implicated in a developing multi-state child abuse scandal involving the deliberate suppression of evidence of statutory rape.

Great testimony by Kathy Ireland

Kathy Ireland, who rose to fame in the 1980s as a model and was even on the cover of Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue, has gone on to become a successful businesswoman and author. More importantly, though, is that she became a believer in Jesus Christ and has turned her life over to him.

In a recent interview with former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on his Fox News show she explained her growth as a Christian and how she changed from being pro choice to pro life. In all, a very thoughtful testimony.

kathy-ireland-testimony
HT: Justin Taylor

Millions protest abortion. News? What news?

Red Envelope Project World Net Daily got the scoop on The Associated Press and countless other “big” news organizations with this story which you probably didn’t hear about:

The White House mail office has confirmed it received a “deluge” of as many as 2.25 million red envelopes symbolizing the empty promise of lives snuffed out in abortion in a massive campaign that was larger than most White House mailing movements in the last 35 years.

White House mail worker “Steve” has handled letters for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for more than three decades. Every single package and letter destined for the White House goes through his office.

Asked if he has seen a flood of red envelopes bound for the White House, Steve chuckled.

“Uh, yes,” he said emphatically. “Believe me, they made it here.”

Steve said while Obama has been occupied in Europe, his administration has noticed millions of red envelopes on behalf of aborted children.

“Quite frankly, there was definitely a deluge of mail coming through,” he laughed. “I had to handle them all.”

“I’ve been here 35 years, so I’ve seen presidents come and go,” Steve told WND. “This campaign ranks up there with the big ones.”

The Red Envelope Project is an idea sparked in the mind and prayers of a Massachusetts man, Christ Otto, who envisioned in January thousands of red envelopes sent to the White House, a visual expression of moral outrage over the president’s position on abortion.

On the backs of the envelopes, senders wrote a message Otto composed: “This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.”