Connect with us


Bernie Sanders’ Canadian guest reveals major malfunction of socialized healthcare



Well, that’s awkward. Senator Bernie Sanders, the champion of single-payer healthcare who plans on destroying the nation’s economy and ending all hope for the civilized world, had a Canadian doctor on his show to discuss the benefits of his master plan. After noting that emergency procedures happen in Canada as they would in the United States, Dr. Danielle Martin revealed the biggest flaw in the system.

It can take months, potentially even over a year to get major procedures that are not deemed “life threatening” such as migraine treatment or hip replacement. That’s fine for those who don’t mind living with excruciating pain for extended periods of time, but the rest of us who would rather just get our ailments fixed, socialized healthcare poses a major problem.

What the Senator, an increasing number of Democrats, and much of the uninformed American voter population don’t seem to realize is that without fail, socialized medicine has been demonstrated to cause major economic problems while reducing the quality of care.


Canadian Doctor Schools Bernie Sanders On His Own Show | Matthew K. Burke, Politistick a minute, why do we need CommieCare if Obamacare is so great? We have been told that Obamacare is wonderful by Democrats for several years now. Sadly, government ruined health care in America and leftists like Bernie Sanders think the cure is even more government control.

Sanders Invites Canadian Doctor To Discuss Single-Payer, Admits To Year Long Wait Times | Matt Vespa, Townhall“If I have a patient who has migraines and I need advice on how to manage it, they might wait several months to see a neurologist for a non-urgent problem like that, or non-urgent surgeries, the classic example being a hip or a knee replacement,” she said. When asked how long those wait times are by Sanders, Dr. Martin said it varies.

Final Thoughts

This isn’t an issue that conservatives should assume to be a loser. Just because logic, case-studies, and common sense tells us this is a monumentally bad idea, never underestimate the selling power of the left and their mainstream media puppets. We have to expose single-payer for what it is. We have to do it often. We have to be loud about it. This needs to just go away.

Christian, husband, father. EIC, NOQ Report. Co-Founder, the Federalist Party. Just a normal guy who will no longer sit around while the country heads in the wrong direction.


Murkowski opposition to Obamacare penalty reeks of irony



Murkowski opposition to Obamacare penalty reeks of irony

Mitch McConnell gets a much deserved bad reputation, but by all means, he is far from the worst Republican Senator. The worst is John McCain, easily. Number two arguably is split between Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins. Lisa Murkowski sports a 22% Liberty Score. The low rank is partially attributable to her lack of support for repealing Obamacare. Murkowski wasn’t even supportive of “Skinny Repeal.” So when Murkowski announced her opposition to the Obamacare individual mandate, I couldn’t help but read that with a certain sense of disgust. In her article published in a local newspaper, Murkowski begins by saying:

have always supported the freedom to choose. I believe that the federal government should not force anyone to buy something they do not wish to buy in order to avoid being taxed. That is the fundamental reason why I opposed the Affordable Care Act from its inception and also why I cosponsored a bill to repeal the individual mandate tax penalty starting as early as 2013. And that is why I support the repeal of that tax today.

If this is true where was she when Conservatives were trying to repeal? It is absolutely disgusting when Senators say they oppose something they voted to keep in place. She does address that in the next paragraph.

Over the course of this year, the Senate has considered bills that would have repealed Medicaid expansion, completely transformed the base Medicaid program, converted the individual exchanges into a block grant program, cut Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid reimbursement for a year, and other measures. All of those bills went far beyond the fundamental problems presented by the ACA and would have unnecessarily taken away access to care from those who need it most.

So basically, she opposes conservative healthcare reform. I’m not Trumpcare was a conservative solution, but we can certainly count her out voting yes on the free market solution. But in this paragraph she shows her pro-abortion colors in a support for Planned Parenthood receiving taxpayer dollars to kill babies and fund democrats. Nevermind that Planned Parenthood is an easily replaceable part in actual women’s health. Murkowski then delves into both a defense and critique of Obamacare. She states that the ACA has helped so many Alaskans and Alaskans pay the highest premiums. She tops it off by saying:

Repealing the individual mandate simply restores to people the freedom to choose. Nothing else about the structure of the ACA would be changed. If you currently get tax credits to help pay for your insurance, you could still receive those credits if you choose to buy an exchange plan. If you are enrolled on Medicaid or received coverage under Medicaid expansion, you could still be enrolled if you choose to be. The only difference would be is if you choose to not buy health insurance, the government would not levy a tax on you.

Let’s for a second, recall that it was the Supreme Court that rewrote the ACA to make the individual mandate a tax. It was clearly a fine, even Obama said it wasn’t a tax. The fine was hardly the worst thing about Obamacare. In fact, the fine is the only possible way Obamacare could work, which is why it was written into law in the first place. Obamacare is a halfway step to a government healthcare system. Without the mandate, rising premiums will further incentivizing people to not buy health insurance causing more rising premiums. It’s a spiral.

Murkowski does delve deeper into healthcare reform touting a bipartisan bill supported by fellow RINO Lamar Alexander, Liberty Score 17%.

Protecting the gains we’ve made with provisions of the ACA while providing greater control to states and options for individuals is why I have been working for bipartisan solutions to the health care challenges we face. Instead of taxing people for not being able to afford coverage, we should be working to reduce costs and provide options. That is precisely what the bipartisan legislation introduced by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, which I have cosponsored, achieves.

While I support repealing the individual mandate, I strongly support enacting the bipartisan compromise Alexander/Murray legislation into law as fast as possible to stabilize our markets, provide more control to states and more choices to individuals.

Murkowski goes on full betrayal of her promise to her constituents. Instead of opposing Obamacare, she is actively sponsoring it’s “rescue” sponsoring the Murray/Alexander plan. Sometimes there’s beauty in compromise. This is not one of those times. Murkowski went back on what she promised to do. Even now, she states no opposition to Obamacare, merely it’s core mandate. To hear her oppose the penalty is seething with irony. So while Republicans may have her vote on their latest tax reform bill, any Obamacare repeal efforts will need her replacement in 2022.

Further Reading

Alexander-Murray Health Care Deal Shouldn’t Go Through other words, the Alexander-Murray deal is a solution to an overblown problem. The deal is being sold as a short-term fix, appropriating funds through 2019. But in all likelihood it would wind up being permanent, like most government spending, with Congress simply renewing it when its time runs out.

In exchange for appropriating the Obamacare funds, Republicans would get . . . nothing much. No Hyde Amendment–type protections are included on the CSR subsidies, for instance, meaning the funds could go to insurance plans that cover abortions.

Continue Reading


I feel more for a four year old girl with leukemia than a U.S. Senator with brain cancer



I feel more for a four year old girl with leukemia than a US Senator with brain cancer

I really do.  Because while John McCain may be suffering, he will get the treatments that he needs, and on our dime.  However in the case of Collette Briggs, a four-year-old with leukemia, she may not get that treatment thanks in part to ObamaCare (the Un-Affordable Care Act)  being allowed to do damage to our health care.  What does McCain want to do?  He’ll do nothing about it in spite of all the talk of repealing ObamaCare.  He is more interested in sticking it to Donald Trump (regardless of what you and I think of him) than actually helping the American people get relief from this rotten public-private experiment in health care.  There were two different repeals, and both were rejected by this Maverick Republican.

If this girl dies before McCain does, one has to wonder if she would speak against McCain at his final judgment.  Some Christians believe that would happen, and more.  Personally, I think God himself would handle it all.

These public-private partnerships may have worked better in media (think PBS, NPR), public transportation (like your local bus system) and yes, sadly, many corny capitalist projects at all levels.  When it comes to health care, it just does not work.  Either we embrace free-market capitalism in health care or we go the way many socialists want us to go.  A “Single Payer” government monopoly… even if that would send Briggs to an early grave as well.  But this ObamaCare is a proven failure.  Shame on you Arizona for allowing McCain to stay in office for as long as he has.  Now he is likely to die in office as Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd have.   Our founders would be in total disgust.

Further Reading

How Fewer Obamacare Options Hurt a 4-Year-Old good intentions. Remember bad results.

The Washington Post recently published a heart-wrenching story of two Virginia families caught up with the consequences of a damaged, declining, and increasingly noncompetitive health insurance market.

Little Collette Briggs, 4, suffers from an aggressive case of leukemia, and the Briggs family for two years has depended upon the medical professionals at a hospital that specializes in pediatric cancer care.

Continue Reading


The Obamacare Debacle: Why we need a second political party




Sometimes you simply hope that your predictions will be wrong and that events will miraculously turn out differently; unfortunately, this is not one of those times. Most people with a modicum of common sense anticipated that the Republicans would now take the blame for the troubles of Obamacare, and that has come to pass.  The aphorism ‘You broke it, you bought it’ comes to mind, and while somewhat unfair to the situation, perception is reality in the world of politics.

Tear it down and start over.

While not endeavoring to reign blows upon a deceased equine, this is why the Republican party needed to keep its promise on Obamacare. It’s also the reason why it’s time to sweep away the old and begin anew with a brand new second major political party. That phrase was deliberately used because it has become quite evident that the Republican and Democratic parties have started to merge in far too many ways.

The Obamacare debacle is a prime illustration of this unfortunate merging. O’Sullivan’s First Law explains this to a fair degree since the denizens of a certain party will – over time – want to keep the bureaucratic levers of power with the false idea that they can have it run more efficiently. Besides the simple expedient of term limits, a new party could start anew with a mandate to avoid this political trap.

An illustration from the world of engineering seems more than appropriate in this instance. There are times when a machine or structure has become so riddled with worn out or failed components that it is far better to simply scrap or tear it down and build something from scratch. The aphorism is to start with a clean sheet of paper such that the old assumptions and constructs are swept away in favor of something entirely new and innovative. “We’ve always done it this way” is replaced with questioning skepticism with regard to what works, and what doesn’t.

Existing components that have proven to be of service can be utilized in the new construct but only if they meet certain criteria, not simply because they are carried along with everything else of the old. By the same token, members of the old party can become a vital part of the new but only if they are up to the task.

The final word on the Republican party.

It is more than likely that the people responsible for that bureaucratic mess will use it to good political advantage against those who opposed it in the first place. We should be getting rid of governmental interference in the free market, but instead will see a complete control with national socialist healthcare [i.e., the ‘single payer’ deception].

There is no other choice than to limit the damage now with a new party that will stay true to conservative principles. The results of the alternative are too horrible to contemplate.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.