• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • About Brian
  • The Podcast
  • Blog
  • Videos
  • Books
    • Climate Cult – NEW!
    • ClimateGate
    • Eco-Tyranny
  • Contact
Brian Sussman

PODCAST

BLOG

Rumble

Politics

How Obamacare Became Law

I originally posted this piece on November 21, 2013.  However after yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling it began trending, so I’m reposting:

It was the trickiest legislative move ever accomplished in the Congress.  Here’s my best play-by-play:

Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010.  If you recall, Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic majority in the House of Representatives was unable to pass their version of a healthcare law. Because all revenue bills have to originate in the House, the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a military housing bill. They essentially stripped the bill of its original language and turned it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka Obamacare.

The Senate at that time had 60 Democrats, just enough to pass Obamacare.  However after the bill passed the Senate, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died.  In his place, Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown.  That meant that if the House made any changes to the bill the Senate wouldn’t have the necessary number of votes to pass the amended bill (because they knew no Republicans would vote for Obamacare).  So Senate Leader Harry Reid cut a deal with Pelosi: the House would pass the Senate bill without any changes if the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version of Obamacare.  This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010. So the House passed PPACA, the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act. At this point PPACA was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the Reconciliation Act from the House.

Confused?

We all were.

And it got worse.

Remember that the Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act since Republican Scott Brown replaced Democrat Ted Kennedy.  Therefore in order to pass the Act Senate Democrats decided to change the rules.  They declared that they could use the “Reconciliation Rule (this is a different “reconciliation” than the House bill).  This rule was only supposed to be used for budget item approvals so that such items could be passed with only 51 votes in the Senate, not the usual 60.  Reconciliation was never intended to be used for legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare. But that didn’t stop them.

So both of the “Acts” were able to pass both houses of Congress and sent to President Obama for his signature without a single Republican vote in favor of the legislation.  The American system of governance was shafted.  To quote Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings of the House Rules Committee during the bill process: “We’re making up the rules as we go along.”

 

The Great Unraveling

This post is a must read for anyone who is deeply concerned that America and the world are headed in the wrong direction.  If you’re unaware of the unraveling of the fabric of global society then I beg you to continue reading.  Hopefully you will be enlightened as to the state of our terrestrial ball.  If your position is that my assessment is wrapped in hyperbole then be damned by your attitude and I’ll pray for you anyway.

Roger Cohen wrote a poignant editorial in the New York Times entitled, The Great Unraveling. It is the most powerfully insightful opinion piece I have ever read.

I’ll quote portions and add a few of my own comments. Cohen begins addressing the most barbaric enemy the U.S. has ever faced: fundamental Islam.

It was the time of unraveling. Long afterward, in the ruins, people asked: How could it happen?

It was a time of beheadings. With a left-handed sawing motion, against a desert backdrop, in bright sunlight, a Muslim with a British accent cut off the heads of two American journalists and a British aid worker. The jihadi seemed comfortable in his work, unhurried. His victims were broken. Terror is theater…

He next addresses the resurrected Russian Bear.

It was a time of aggression. The leader of the largest nation on earth pronounced his country encircled, even humiliated. He annexed part of a neighboring country, the first such act in Europe since 1945, and stirred up a war on further land he coveted. His surrogates shot down a civilian passenger plane. The victims, many of them Europeans, were left to rot in the sun for days. He denied any part in the violence, like a puppeteer denying that his puppets’ movements have any connection to his…

Cohen next takes to the United Kingdom.

It was a time of breakup. The most successful union in history, forged on an island in the North Sea in 1707, headed toward possible dissolution…

My beloved United States of America follows.

It was a time of weakness. The most powerful nation on earth was tired of far-flung wars, its will and treasury depleted by absence of victory. An ungrateful world could damn well police itself. The nation had bridges to build and education systems to fix… The nation’s leader mockingly derided his own “wan, diffident, professorial” approach to the world, implying he was none of these things, even if he gave that appearance. He set objectives for which he had no plan. He made commitments he did not keep…

He painfully continues.

It was a time of hatred. Anti-Semitic slogans were heard in the land that invented industrialized mass murder for Europe’s Jews…

It was a time of fever. People in West Africa bled from the eyes.

And Roger Cohen concludes.

It was a time of disorientation. Nobody connected the dots or read Kipling on life’s few certainties: “The Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire / And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.”

Until it was too late and people could see the Great Unraveling for what it was and what it had wrought.

I am so sad to think of the future my children and grandchildren will inherit without men and women of good character standing up for the truth and praying for a divine intervention.

A most important 29 minutes

No one in America is without excuse. We all have access to witness the final message given by the most prolific Christian evangelist of the past 100 years.

Billy Graham has spoken for the last time. He turned 95 last week. His health is declining, but his passion is as strong as ever.

Billy’s message of salvation through Jesus Christ has restored the lives of millions of people. Alcoholics have been sobered, drug addicts set free, homeless made whole. Hurting, lonely, and empty souls found hope. Sinners have been forgiven.

In many ways, Billy’s final sermon is his finest.

In terms of the meat of his finale, there is nothing new. We are sinners–all of us. Jesus died a horrible death on a cross as a sacrifice for our sins. He is the way, truth and life. Apart from receiving him we cannot be guaranteed eternal life.

But there is something new in this last message. He intertwines the life stories of two younger people who, sadly, represent their generation well. They were both shipwrecked and without hope until they were confronted with the cross.

As I explained in a previous post, I had the honor of interviewing Billy Graham in 1982. I was the host of a Reno television segment entitled, Night Scene. Graham had brought his crusade to town and I sat down with him for a 45-minute, one-on-one interview. Afterward he surprised me with a personal letter in which he referred to me as his “fellow co-worker for Jesus Christ.” I was so humbled.

Several years later I literally bumped into Billy at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC as he was waiting by himself in a hallway prior to speaking. Though he did not recall my name, he knew me immediately. I mention this to highlight his sincerity real concern for the individual.

I’ve taken a fair amount of heat recently for publicly explaining that America’s only hope is a genuine spiritual awakening. I was not at all surprised to learn that Billy’s last message also highlights this same resolution.

Please take 29 minutes to view this powerful, life changing film:  http://myhopewithbillygraham.org/programs/the-cross/

Billy Graham to deliver most important message

I interviewed evangelist Billy Graham in the Eighties while working for KOLO-TV in Reno. Because of our common faith in Jesus Christ we hit it off immediately. Following the 45-minute interview he sent me a wonderful letter of encouragement which I’ve treasured all these years later. He may be the most humble man I’ve ever met. Interestingly I literally bumped into him in Washington DC several years later and he actually remembered me.

The following article was posted this week at World Net Daily:

On his 95th birthday Nov. 7, the most famous Protestant evangelist of the 20th century will give what could be his final and most important message to the world.

In the months leading up to the unprecedented event, Billy Graham has declared in an exclusive interview with WND that signs of the end of the age are “converging now for the first time since Jesus made those predictions.”

In his new book, “The Reason for My Hope: Salvation,” Graham wrote the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is “near” and the United States “can’t go on much longer in the sea of immorality without judgment coming.”

Now, in a trailer to “The Cross,” the primary program in the My Hope America with Billy Graham evangelistic outreach, Graham said that with “all my heart I want to leave you with the truth.”

“We have been going down the wrong road for a long time,” Graham told WND. “Seemingly, man has learned to live without God, preoccupied and indifferent toward him and concerned only about material security and pleasure.

“And yet mankind is also adrift morally and spiritually, confused and fearful because he does not know where he is or where he is going. He lives in a world dangerously torn by hate and violence and conflict, and yet he feels powerless to do anything about them. He also knows his own heart is driven by destructive passions and motives he cannot seem to control or change.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/billy-graham-to-give-final-most-important-message/#I6cLdpKkCyC59OmZ.99

Why socialists and communists crave nationalized healthcare

The following is an enlightening article penned in 2008. It illustrates why power hungry dictators, despots, rulers and regimes desire to control the distribution of healthcare. The author, Anna Ebeling, was born, raised, and educated in the former Soviet Union. 

The utopian ideal of equality of circumstances has captured people’s imagination since ancient times. If only everybody could have the same of everything the world would be different. There would be no envy, no crime, no poverty, no greed, and no unhappiness. From Plato to Karl Marx, many thinkers looked to the state for the creation of that heaven on earth. In our own times, this dream has remained alive in the form of the welfare state, and today it shows itself most distinctly in the appeal of government-managed health care.

Isn’t it obvious, many ask, that government can supply medical care more fairly and less expensively than the selfish profit-oriented free market? Let us remind ourselves that in the Soviet Union the road to medical-care hell was paved with the same good intentions. In October 1917, the Marxist dreams of coming to political power came true in Russia. Now that everyone was to be equal in all aspects of their lives, people would no longer die in the streets from illness. Free medical care would be available for all, rather than reserved only for the “greedy rich.”

But what did the Bolsheviks destroy and what did they create?

In Old Russia, medical care was a consumer-oriented business. Doctors’ incomes and their standard of living were totally dependent upon professionalism and reputation in the wider community. Patients decided which doctor to use, which hospital to go to, and which pharmaceutical products to trust. Doctors worked hard to establish their reputation, an important part of which came from providing charity care for the poor. As in the West, all Russian doctors upon graduation from medical school took the Hippocratic Oath, in which they swore never to reject anyone who needed medical assistance—and as a rule they were loyal to their oath.

In Russian urban areas, there were charity hospitals and out-patient care for the poor and their families. In rural areas, peasants would often pay doctors with a chicken, potatoes, bread, or in the form of domestic services—or received their medical treatment for free. Under the private medical system in Old Russia, doctors were able to earn a comfortable living and therefore could afford to be generous in supplying charity services to those who were in need.

Expectations of high income, along with the status of being a member of a respected profession, generated strong competition for acceptance into medical schools. The best were accepted as students, and the most qualified were hired as professors. At the beginning of the 20th century, the quality of Russian medical care and medical research was internationally recognized. Was it a perfect system? Of course not. But contrary to the socialist myth-makers, medical care in Imperial Russia was widely available and provided in a fairly cost-efficient manner. Both the profit motive of the competitive marketplace and the spirit of charity assured the provision of quality medical services throughout Russian society.

This, then, was the system the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy. Unfortunately, many Russian intellectuals, including medical doctors themselves, were infected with the socialist disease. Seeing so much poverty in a still underdeveloped Russia, many doctors turned their back on the free market and came to believe that government management could create a better society through planned equality of living conditions, education, and certainly medical care. Thus, guided by wrong ideas, the members of the medical profession helped to destroy with their own hands a health-care system that, while certainly not perfect, provided people with skilled treatment, regardless of their income or social background.

Equality for All

In 1917, like everything else, medical services were nationalized by the new socialist government. Gradually, small medical practices disappeared and a network of big, factory-like hospitals and out-patient clinics were established all around the country. Everyone was registered in both out-patient clinics and hospitals according to their government-assigned residence. Patient choice was completely taken away by the Soviet State, which took full responsibility for centrally planning each individual’s medical expenses and health care.

With the elimination of private expenditures for health services, the form and amount of medical care were now dependent upon the budgetary priorities of the State. All members of the medical industry were put on low fixed monthly salaries and were mandated to examine and treat an overwhelming daily quota of patients. Medical research became dependent upon inadequate annual budgetary allocations from the government. Doctors’ and nurses’ incomes no longer depended on their professional skills or the number of patients they treated. Total unionization of the medical profession made it practically impossible for anyone to be fired. Without markets and prices determining the value and availability of health care, the government imposed a rationing system for medical services and pharmaceutical products.

Specialized services (mammograms, ultrasounds, and so forth) were available only in a few select hospitals where the doctors were supposed to treat patients as well as participate in research. For example, in the case of brain or cardiovascular surgery and treatment, there were only a few specialized hospitals available in the entire country. People sometimes died waiting in line to be admitted for these treatments.

Medical care became a producer-oriented industry, instead of the consumer-oriented market that it had been in Old Russia. But even the State cannot kill the market, just as the State cannot repeal the laws of God and nature. The market was simply driven “underground,” and thus became the black market. The black-market response to State-rationing occurred immediately. Doctors’ services and pharmaceutical products (both domestic and foreign-made), as well as access to medical-testing equipment, became available for bribes. Unfortunately, only the wealthy elite could afford expensive black-market medical services, while the poor majority could no longer count upon charity.

In the world of “free” medical care in the Soviet Union, people often had to have connections to obtain many of the medicines prescribed by physicians to save their family members and friends. Indifferent and often hostile nurses and orderlies had to be bribed to change a patient’s bedpan or to provide ordinary attention that any American would take for granted during a stay in a hospital.

Hospital wards were crowded and far from antiseptically clean. Anesthetics and basic painkillers were frequently unavailable. The crying of patients in pain could sometimes be heard from outside a hospital by passersby.

Some Are More Equal than Others

Not surprisingly, those in the political elite did not want to be treated in the medical system provided for “the people.” One of the greatest myths about the Soviet Union was its supposed equality for all. No society was so divided into privileged groups and classes as was Soviet society. Where an individual stood in the political hierarchy of the Communist Party and the bureaucratic structure of the socialist economy determined his access to all the essentials as well as the luxuries of life.

Special hospitals were created all around the Soviet Union. These were reserved for the members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, the Council of Ministers, the local and regional Party elites, and so forth. The “servants of the people,” as a result, received a qualitatively different level of medical care than “the masses.” The privileged few had access not only to Soviet-made drugs and medications but also to Western European and American medicines and equipment, which could never be within the reach of the ordinary “proletarian” patient.

Affirmative Action, Soviet Style

The nature and quality of medical education were affected, as well. Bribes and connections determined both the hiring and admission processes in medical schools. Skills and professionalism mattered very little, and service to the community did not matter at all.

This poor medical care was reinforced by the fact that entrance into higher education in the Soviet Union was dictated by a system of affirmative action that had been introduced shortly after the triumph of the Socialist Revolution in 1917. At first belonging to a social class —worker, peasant, or intellectual—determined the entry quotas into colleges, universities, and technical schools. But the Soviet affirmative action system was soon expanded to include gender and ethnic classifications as well. A young person’s professional and career opportunities were greatly influenced not by his individual merit but by whether he was, for example, a Russian, an Uzbek, a Georgian, a Lithuanian, a Jew, or somebody else. Every class, gender, and ethnic group had its own quota for admission and hiring into institutions of higher learning.

Connections, bribes, class, gender, and ethnicity heavily determined who were admitted into and graduated from medical schools throughout the Soviet Union. Thus the supplies of hospitals, physicians, medical equipment, and pharmaceuticals all became victims of socialist central planning and political priorities just like everything else in the “workers’ paradise.” At the end of the 20th century, Russia was infamous for having one of the worst health-care systems in the world.

In bitter situations, Russians often respond with jokes and anecdotes. In one of them, an American and a Soviet doctor are talking. The American says, “Dear colleague, our profession is imperfect. You treat the patient from one disease and he dies from another.” The Soviet doctor replies, “No, dear colleague, this is not the case with me. Mine die from whatever I treat them.”

It is easy to say that the present system is imperfect and a radical change will make it perfect in a relatively short period of time. But there are always lessons from history from which to learn. Sometimes, your neighbor’s history warns you which path never to follow.

Read more: http://www.fee.org/library/detail/socialized-health-care-the-communist-dream-and-the-soviet-reality/#ixzz2jobMEAgr

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 6
  • Page 7
  • Page 8
  • Page 9
  • Page 10
  • Page 11
  • Go to Next Page »
Brian Sussman
Rumble
Brian Sussman

About Brian

Husband, Dad, Patriot, Hall of Fame Broadcaster, Certified Meteorologist, and follower of "The Great I Am.

More about Brian...

Email Newsletter

Sign up for our e-newsletter for latest events and news.

Please enter your name.
Please enter a valid email address.
Subscribe
Something went wrong. Please check your entries and try again.

© 2023 Brian Sussman. All Rights Reserved. Site Map.

Website by Consistent Image Web Design