Ruff times

Howard J. Ruff has a new book coming out about getting by in the age of Obamanomics.  On his web page, click on the title, he has a free chapter. You can get the book, too.


He seems to be one of those who can back away from the death of what we know and adapt and profit from the coming socialism.  


I will invest what little I have to profit from blood in the streets, but that's it. Time for the highway.  If you read Chapter 5, below, you will see there is not much for me here anyway, as old people will be drained off. I seem to be old to the brave new world. I guess it makes sense to let the old ones die off because they can identify fascism.

HOW TO PROSPER IN THE AGE OF OBAMANOMICS: 

A Ruff Plan for Hard Times Ahead 

BY 

HOWARD J. RUFF 

CHAPTER 5 

THE PHONY SOCIALIST HEALTH-CARE CRISIS: 

 The Biggest Power-Grab of All 

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all

away.—Barry Goldwater

We are inevitably following the rest of the world into the fetid swamps of a massive

national health-care (sick care?) program. It will dwarf all current expenditures on Social

Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by trillions of dollars—and they are already burying us! It’s

the ultimate socialist grab for power.

The average politically ignorant American who ignores or knows nothing about history

will say, “Why not? Other countries do it? Why not us?”

Why not? For the simple reason that it doesn’t work in other countries and it won’t work

here.

The consequence of national health-care will be rationing. When we discover we can’t

afford to do everything that was promised, we will have to ration it by price and time. The only

way for Obama to keep his promises about the lower cost of health-care is by price controls,

which will make it cheaper, yes, but you’ll have to wait in line for service, often for months.

Seniors will be denied care that costs too much, like chemotherapy or heart-bypass surgery.

All the health-care promises that are being made are impossible to keep. Some

government agency will determine whether or not it is cost effective to use an expensive new

drug or procedure that might cure you, but if in their cold-blooded opinion it costs too much, you 

will not be allowed to buy it personally at any price. Bureaucrats alone, not doctors, will make

those life-and-death decisions.

Soon your family doctor will give up the health-care business because he can’t cope with

all the government forms, he’ll be swamped by trying to help too many patients, and the

government keeps underpaying him. He will have to work harder for less money, so who could

blame him for quitting?

The doctor shortage will only get worse when fewer and fewer students are willing to

become doctors because it’s not worth the return on investment medical school requires.

Sick Care 

Honestly, we’re not really talking about health-care; we’re talking about “sick care,” even

in America. Our system isn’t designed to keep you healthy; even our current system only helps

you if you get sick or injured.

It’s like laws against guns. People buy guns to protect themselves because the police will

only help you if a crime has already been committed. Law enforcement will do little or nothing

to help prevent the crime.

It’s the same thing with your doctor. How many of you have ever gone to your doctor for

a serious health checkup—to find out if you have a problem that could be treated in its early

stages? Some of us do, but most don’t. Maybe that’s because health insurance has trouble paying

for it.

Lessons from Canada 

A U.S. national health-care program will mimic Canada’s, where patients needing urgent

treatment or surgery often have to wait for months—or they go to America, if they can afford it.

In Canada and several European countries, it is against the law to get around the national

health-care system by paying a private practitioner. You have no choice, unless you are rich

enough to go to America.

Dennis Gartman makes the following points in his newsletter,

www.thegartmanletter.com. He says:

If you think government-controlled health-care is a good idea, consider this: 

In the U.S. 93 percent of those diagnosed with diabetes receive treatment 

within six months. In Canada, only 43 percent do! 

For those seniors needing hip and knee replacement, 43 percent of Canadians 

get it done in six months ... in the U.S., 90 percent do  

In the U.S. there are 71 MRI or CT scanners available per every million 

people. In Canada, there are but 18.

Heaven help you if you have something really wrong in Canada. If that’s the case, you’ll run

south of the border faster than you can reach a specialist anywhere there.

I don’t want some nameless bureaucrat deciding who gets to live or die in the name of his

scientific and federal orthodoxy. Obama and the majority in Congress are planning bureaucrat

rationing for our future, and senior citizens will suffer the most. As a senior, I have a target on

my back.

Obama’s Assault on Seniors 

As this is written, legislation now being rammed through Congress—HR-3200 and

Senate Health Committee Bill—will pressure the elderly to end their life prematurely and doom

baby-boomers to painful later years.

Democrats in Congress want to pay for the $1.6 trillion health bill with new taxes and a

$500-billion cut to Medicare. The Congressional budget office estimates only one percent of

Medicare cuts will come from “reform” aimed at eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse. That

means the other 99 percent has to come from cutting benefits.

Comparative Effectiveness Research 

The assault against seniors began with the stimulus package that became law in February,

2009. Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for “Comparative Effectiveness” research,

which means “limiting care based on the patient’s age.” The cost of treatment (about $50,000 a

year) is divided by the number of years that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula

leads to denying life-extending treatment for elderly patients who have fewer years to benefit

from care than younger patients.

When Comparative Effectiveness appeared in the stimulus bill, Representative Charles

Boustany, Jr. (R:LA), a heart surgeon, warned that it would lead to “denying seniors with

expensive illnesses any life-giving care.” He and Senator John Kyl (R:AZ) proposed to no avail

amendments which would have barred the federal government from using the research to

eliminate treatments for the elderly or to deny care based on age.

Nancy Pelosi and White House Budget Chief, Peter Orszag, asked Congress to delegate

its authority over Medicare to a newly created body within the executive branch. This was

obviously designed to circumvent the democratic process and avoid accountability to the public

for cuts in benefits.

Medicare Cutbacks 

Medicare is running out of money. The problem is there are too many seniors compared

with the smaller number of workers supporting the system with payroll taxes. Inevitably, less

money and more patients will necessitate rationing.

The Congressional Budget Office wants to inch up the eligibility age one month per year

until it reaches age 70 in 2043. Wealthy seniors may also be required to pay more.

Until now, Medicare has made living to a ripe old age a good value. ObamaCare will

undo that. Already, in Oregon, the state denies some elderly cancer patients care that would

extend their lives. Instead, the state pays for “physician-assisted-suicide counseling.”

The House bill being pushed by the President ensures seniors are given end-of-life

options, including refusing them care when state law allows it. On page 425 of the Health-care

Bill under consideration by the House of Representatives, it says in black and white that

everyone on Social Security (which includes all senior citizens and Social Security recipients)

will go to mandatory counseling every five years to learn (among other things) about how to

choose a way to end your suffering and your life.

The Inescapable Truth 

Americans need to see past the Washington lies. Health-care reform leads to only one

place—bigger government, higher taxes, and health-care rationing.  The facts are: the only way

to slash $500 billion from Medicare is to drastically cut health-care for seniors; care will be

denied based on age; the oldest and sickest will be cut first; and paying for your own care, if you

can afford it, will not even be an option.

If you are over 65, be afraid.

Be very afraid!

If you think health-care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.