President  Barack Obama  resembles the  used  car dealer in  the CARFAX commercial. 

You've probably seen the commercial.  A sleazy used car dealer is attempting to push a customer into buying  an apparent clunker.  The  customer  says he won't buy without seeing the CARFAX which would provide a history of the car so the customer would know what he was getting.

Obama has been pressuring Congress to  adopt  some type of health care related program without the lengthy debate that should precede any major change in health care.  Obama's attempt to force the issue implied a major flaw with the proposal, perhaps something so unpopular that he was afraid people would find out about if the measure wasn't adopted quickly.

Used car salesmen long ago gained a bad reputation as a group because some of them have misrepresented  the condition of the vehicles or the mileage they get.  Southern California used car dealers once supposedly would misrepresent a car's use by saying it had been owned by a "little old lady from Pasadena who only drove it to church on Sundays."  Or at least they did until the Beach Boys released a song about "The Little Old Lady from  Pasadena"  who was "the terror of Colorado Boulevard"  in her " brand new shiny red super stock Dodge."
 
Some of today's used car   dealers will sell cars that have been wrecked or in a flood to unsuspecting customers who don't insist on seeing the vehicle's  CARFAX.

Comparing presidents to used car dealers isn't new.  In the late 60's the question was asked about Richard Nixon, "would you buy a used car from this man?"

Did Obama try to force the issue because his proposal really isn't about providing better access to health care but providing money for the health care industry, including insurance companies?  

Forcing people to purchase insurance whether they want it or not would certainly increase insurance company revenues.  The public option would provide billions more in income for health care providers so that more hospitals can afford to pay administrators such as Michelle Obama $300K salaries.  The public option can make it easier for insurance companies to reject those with medical conditions and let the government pay for treatment. 

Perhaps Obama is worried people will discover the Massachusetts Plan he wants is a clunker that the state is considering a plan to ration health care.      

Obama's attempt to force the issue provided  the atmosphere in which a fear about "death panels" could develop.   The idea may have originated  from  statements by some of those associated with Obama who might play a role in implementing any legislation than specific provisions in the act.   

Contrary to denials by Obama supporters, an increased government role in health care could create virtual death panels.  Having government control access to health care could  create virtual death panels.    If a private insurance denies coverage for treatment of a potentially fatal disorder, the patient has the option of  asking friends and family raise money for the treatment.  If  government  took control of health care,  that option might not be available.   A government  agency decision to deny payment for treatment might become a death sentence because private financing might not be allowed.

I might have purchased a used car from Richard Nixon, at least before Watergate, but there is no way I would buy one from Barack Obama.

During the coming weeks we will be hearing about the nation's best health insurance program.  It doesn't cover  a wide variety of disorders, but it provides complete coverage  for  the type of disorders it covers -- the various forms of Muscular Dystrophy.

The Muscular Dystrophy Association  provides  assistance  in the form of wheelchairs as well as  medical treatment for  those  whose  form of MD can be treated.   The MDA doesn't require patients to have other insurance or make payments.

The MDA isn't the only charitable health organization.   St. Jude's Hospital   provides treatment to children without regard to ability to pay as do the Shriners' Hospitals.

Charitable hospitals once played a major role in American health care until administrators discovered they could make a profit by charging government and private insurance for health care.  The organizations that once funded many of these hospitals gradually allowed the hospitals to become self supporting by charging patients and their insurance companies.

Churches and other charitable organizations need to play  a greater role in providing health care to those who  find it too expensive.   I don't expect  Democrats  to support  this approach because they want to make the federal government  bigger even though  the federal government doesn't  do anything particularly well.  It even has trouble running the post office or fighting wars  in spite of the fact  it  has handled  both functions  since before the current constitution was adopted.

I doubt that the Ferengi Republicans like Rush Limbaugh  will be interested in encouraging charitable organizations,  but perhaps the religious Republicans might.

Incidentally, I emailed some suggestions on health care to the Obama administration earlier this year when it requested input.  I originally wrote it in 1992 and expanded it during the Clinton administration, with occasionally mailings to politicians.  It's a work in progress that I haven't done much with for several years.     I really need to go back through it and do a better job of making the various parts fit together, but with the politicians we have now,  I don't think it's worth the time.

The so-called clunkers  people are being paid to trade for newer  more fuel efficient vehicles are more fuel efficient than many older vehicles including my old '76  Ford station wagon.  Instead of scrapping these vehicles, government  should be encouraging dealers to offer them at bargain prices for those who own older vehicles to trade up to.

Expensive vehicles move down the income ladder after initially being purchased by those with the higher incomes.  The process gradually updates the vehicles owned by everyone.  If some middle aged vehicles are prematurely pulled out of this process, the result will be more older vehicles will have to stay on the streets instead of being replaced.  Older vehicles tend to be less fuel efficient not only because of less efficient designs, but because wear reduces their efficiency.

Sales of used vehicles are an important source of jobs for those who sell them and a source of sales tax money for state and local governments.  Fewer middle aged vehicles mean fewer jobs and less revenue for government.

Building and scraping cars requires a significant amount of energy and resources.  Scrapping vehicles prematurely wastes both.  Parts that cannot be recycled may end up in landfills.

A group of bicyclists are riding across the country raising money to provide the latest NASA developed rehabilitative equipment called secure ambulation modules for military veterans injured in the current conflicts.   My first reaction to seeing the story on a local tv station was "isn't that great".  We have people wanting to devote time and energy to help injured veterans.

After thinking about it for a while,  I wondered why veterans needed outside assistance to fund their medical care.  Don't we have a president who claims he will correct deficiencies in health care?

So why doesn't President Barack Obama provide state of the art health care to federal employees who were "injured on the job?"   Why did he at one point suggest requiring veterans pay for their own treatment for service connected injuries?  Pressure from veterans forced him to back down.

Obama's failure to fully cover current federal employees health care costs and  attempting to reduce the health coverage provided to former  federal  employees with on the job injuries indicates he isn't telling the truth when he says his proposal won't result in reduced  health coverage.

I learned long ago to evaluate politicians according to what they do rather than what they say.   Obama says his proposal will increase health care, but his actions indicate he wants to do the opposite.

I also learned that if something sounds too good to be true it probably is.   I doubt that Obama's promises about health care are worth any more than Bernie Madoff's promises to make his clients richer.
 

I'm not an expert on Senate rules regulating campaign activities.  I would like to know if it is legal for a Senator to use his Senate website to further his presidential campaign.  Barack Obama has decided to use his Senate website to help his presidential campaign  by posting  information  about  the earmarks he has requested as a Senator. 

If tax money is used to fund Senate website activities than Obama's  action is unethical because it forces taxpayers to subsidize his presidential campaign.  The appropriate place to post the list would have been Obama's presidential website.

His disclosure indicates further unethical activity by requesting money for the Chicago Medical Center which increased his wife's salary by nearly  $200,000  after he was elected to the Senate .  Is this  earmark  request  a  payback for a bribe?  His supporters have also potentially benefited from his earmark requests. 

The Senate, or a federal grand jury, needs to investigate this possibility.  This question needs to be resolved before Democrats decide whether to nominate Obama as their presidential  candidate.  If they cannot resolve the legal issues first they may once again have a candidate running for office with a special prosecutor breathing down his neck.