Docs 4 Patient Care

Think the American Medical Association is the end-all when it comes to what doctors in the U.S. believe? Think again. The AMA represents less than one-quarter of all doctors in the U.S. Further, the AMA is about politics, not medicine.

That is why there are groups like FACS and Docs 4 Patient Care. These groups make sure that the AMA doesn't come out and fraudulently claim to speak for all physicians.

In fact, here is what D4PC stands for:

•There is no logical reason to hastily pass this legislation by a predetermined deadline. We have one chance to get this right. •Bring "all" stakeholders together to help assure a meaningful and sustainable reform by considering many recommendations and proposals. •Adopt a patient-centered approach to healthcare reform that empowers patients and promotes freedom of choice. •Use the power of government to assist the uninsured obtain health coverage through modification of the tax code, such as tax credits and vouchers. •Reduce high insurance premiums by opening up patient risk pools across the entire nation, thereby, diffusing risk. •Allow the individual/family to be the "owner" of the policy making their health care coverage portable and available if they lose their job or move to a new place of employment. This will eliminate exclusion from the new employer's plan for a “pre-existing” health issue and also eliminate a waiting period to qualify for enrollment. •Encourage and expand Health Savings Accounts. Tax-Free savings vehicle for planned and/or unexpected medical expenses. •Tort Reform. The costs to our healthcare system secondary to the practice of defensive medicine are over $100 billion annually, or $2,000 per family. •Insurance Reform. Guarantee insurability due to pre-existing illness. Eliminate Insurance company antitrust exemption.

Further, there will be a D4PC rally on September 10, 2009 in Washington D.C. at the Senate Upper Park. (That's just north of the Capitol Building.)

You can check out their website on-line here:

Docs 4 Patient Care

And their Mission Statement on-line here:

D4PC Mission Statement

So, How Is The Glenn Beck Boycott Going?

Not too well it seems. Right about now, the executives at GEICO, Progressive and a whole bunch of other companies are lamenting the fact that they have now lost out on a market of a potential 3 million viewers, and they are missing it in the middle of a recession.

From TV By The Numbers:

Though a little scandal might alienate advertisers, it’s pure ratings gold. Last night Glenn Beck had over 3 million viewers at 5pm, second only to O’Reilly for the night. But, Beck had more 25-54 viewers than O’Reilly (888K to 876K). I don’t watch or really even care about the cable news wars, but still…wow. Even though Beck airs before primetime, when there are fewer people watching TV, he had the most 25-54 viewers in the cable news world for the night. ... 5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64) Glenn Beck– 3,040,000 viewers (888,000) (1,385,000) Situation Room—688,000 viewers (141,000) (271,000) Hardball w/ Chris Matthews—536,000 viewers (139,000) (217,000) Fast Money—215,000 viewers (55,000) (80,000) Prime News–267,000 viewers (97,000) (109,000)

Those companies might want to rethink the boycott before their competitors come in and take advantage of the mistake.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Big Beck: Goes Over 3 Million Viewers, Beats O’Reilly In Demo: Cable News Ratings For Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Robert Seidman
TV By The Numbers
August 27, 2009

A Spy 'Outing' Game For Real

So, where are all the libs who were rallying around Valerie Plame a few years ago? They were all screaming about how horrible it was that Plame got "outed" as a CIA agent.

For some reason, all those same libs are now silent (I would say shamefully silent) about John Adams Project defense lawyers for the terrorists who will truly "out" current CIA operatives and expose their families as well. Whereas Valerie Plame showed how much her privacy had been violated by posing for the cover of Vanity Fair, a nationally circulated magazine, the current outings will put agents and their families in danger of reprisals from the terrorists themselves.

(I wonder if Barack Obama realizes this and if so, does he even care? He seems to care more about the terrorists than he does about American lives.)

Writing for the Washington Times, John Armor has the following:

First, the Plame Affair. According to the mainstream media, that was about the "outing" of a CIA "covert operative" in violation of federal law. But that law applies only to people who had been a covert operative "within five years." The only person who identified her as a CIA covert operative within five years of her service was her husband, who let the cat out of the bag in a Who's Who entry. Mrs. Plame was not outed by anyone, per the law.

That's right. Even Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald admitted that there was no violation of Federal law in the Plame case. But, he overstepped his bounds when he went after Scooter Libby on what were obviously trumped-up charges.

Read on:

However, the fraud of the Plame blame game does not detract from the real purpose of the CIA-protective law. It's designed to protect covert CIA agents from being killed by enemies who would do so in a heartbeat if they knew who these agents are. That brings us to the current situation. The defense counsel for certain Guantanamo Bay detainees is receiving help from the John Adams Project, a combined effort of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. According to numerous accounts, these defense lawyers have John Adams Project researchers taking photos of CIA covert operatives. And these lawyers have already shown these photos to their clients in Guantanamo Bay and are now seeking the legal right to release the photos to the public.

If the Plame affair were so infuriating to the libs, then they should be surrounding the Justice Department right now demanding that these photos never get released. Because, unlike the Plame situation in which Valerie was never in any danger, the agents that will be outed by this investigation will most certainly be in danger as will their families.

Clearly, The ACLU couldn't care less about the safety of these people! If anyone from the ACLU wishes to refute this, please feel free to leave a response.

Armor goes on to say:

More likely these photos were taken in the home communities of these agents, placing not only them, but their families and neighbors in the cross hairs of murderers. And that is precisely why the law that never actually applied in the Plame Affair, does apply today. It may be that just showing the photos of the CIA agents to their clients turns the assistants who photographed them and the lawyers who passed them on, into criminals themselves. Beyond that, there is the matter of what happens if these photos are offered as evidence in a trial.

The choice here is clear. If you support protecting innocent Americans, you will be against letting the ACLU out these agents. If you support the terrorists, you will agree with putting these agents and their families at risk by releasing these photos.

I will always go with protecting Americans. It's clear that the ACLU and other libs want the opposite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

A Spy 'Outing' Game For Real
John Armor
Washington Times
August 26, 2009

Cruel And Neglectful Care Of One Million British Patients Exposed

There must be something in the water over in the United Kingdom these days. Lately, there seems to be no end of news items exposing how poorly the socialized health care system they have is serving its intended goals. That is to say, NHS is shaping up to be a huge failure.

From Rebecca Smith of the Telegraph UK:

In the last six years, the Patients Association claims hundreds of thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel' treatment. The charity has disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff. The Patients Association said the dossier proves that while the scale of the scandal at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust - where up to 1,200 people died through failings in urgent care - was a one off, there are repeated examples they have uncovered of the same appalling standards throughout the NHS.

Those who read my blog on a regular basis know very well what the mention of Mid-Staffordshire refers to.

And I cannot stress enough that if this had happened here in the United States, it would be the lead story for CNN and the front-page headline for the Washington Post and New York Times for at least a month-running.

Here are some more examples of how a socialized haelth care system would treat its patients, especially those for whom care is to be rationed:

Pamela Goddard, a piano teacher from Bletchingley, in Surrey, was 82 and suffering with cancer but was left in her own excrement and her condition deteriorated due to her bed sores. Florence Weston, from Sedgley in the West Midlands, who died aged 85, had to remain without food or water for several days as her hip operation was repeatedly cancelled.

Treatment of seniors under any socialized health care sytem is especially bad, and would still be bad under a U.S. socialized health care system.

Socialized health care has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried. We do not want to bring that disaster here to America.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

'Cruel And Neglectful' Care Of One Million NHS Patients Exposed
Rebecca Smith
The Telegraph
August 27, 2009

Man Collapses With Ruptured Appendix ... Three Weeks After (British) NHS Doctors 'Took It Out'

The hits just keep on coming from Great Britain's National Health System (NHS). In this case, a man went in for an apendectomy, and a month later, after his appendix had supposedly been removed, his appendix ruptured, endangering his life and leaving him in intense pain.

From Daniel Bates at the UK Daily Mail:

After weeks of excruciating pain, Mark Wattson was understandably relieved to have his appendix taken out. Doctors told him the operation was a success and he was sent home. But only a month later the 35-year-old collapsed in agony and had to be taken back to Great Western Hospital in Swindon by ambulance. To his shock, surgeons from the same team told him that not only was his appendix still inside him, but it had ruptured - a potentially fatal complication. In a second operation it was finally removed, leaving Mr Wattson fearing another organ might have been taken out during the first procedure.

Wow! Such efficiency in socialized medicine, isn't there? But, all sarcasm aside, this is yet another in a long line of oversights (many of which resulted in the death of the patient) inflicted by the NHS on the people of Great Britain.

More:

The blunder has left Mr Wattson jobless, as bosses at the shop where he worked did not believe his story and sacked him. ... Following the second operation his incision became infected and he was admitted to hospital for a third time for treatment. He said: 'I had a temporary job at a sports shop but when I took in two medical certificates saying I had my appendix out twice they didn't believe me. 'Now I'm helpless. I can't go out and find a job, I can't go to interviews, I can barely walk and am in constant pain. Before the first operation they told me I had to have my appendix removed and when I woke up afterwards they said it had been a complete success.

So, not only did the NHS doctors have to go in a second time, but the second incision got infected too?

If this had happened in the United States, Mr. Wattson would be on the verge of becoming very rich due to the lawsuits that would be filed against the doctors and hospital.

So, what did the NHS overseers have to say about the whole, sorry affair?

Paul Gearing, deputy general manager for general surgery at Great Western Hospital NHS Trust, said: 'We are unable to comment on individual cases. 'However, we would like to apologise if Mr Wattson felt dissatisfied with the care he received at Great Western Hospital.'

No, I don't think it was "dissatisfaction" Mr. Wattson was feeling. It was intense pain because the NHS medical system that was supposed to take care of him failed miserably, just like a typical socilized medical system.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Man Collapses With Ruptured Appendix ... Three Weeks After NHS Doctors 'Took It Out'
Daniel Bates
UK Daily Mail
August 26, 2009

More Reasons Why We Do Not Want Socialized Medicine

My son was born in December of 2008. We had the plans made long beforehand. And since it was to be an induced labor, we already had the hospital, staff and emergency contingencies all lined up before we even left home that morning. For us, it was no more difficult than planning a vacation.

When I contrast that experience with what I read in the following news story, I thank God that my family and I live in America and not Great Britain.

From Jenny Hope and Nick McDermott of the UK Daily Mail:

Thousands of women are having to give birth outside maternity wards because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds. The lives of mothers and babies are being put at risk as births in locations ranging from lifts to toilets - even a caravan - went up 15 per cent last year to almost 4,000. Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from hospitals because they are full.

Again, I have to point out that if something like this ever happened in the United States, it would be the lead story on CNN and the front page story in the Washington Post and New York Times for at least a month.

While it is true that not all births occur in hospitals (babies have their own schedules regardless of what the parents planned), the fact that women in labor are being turned away by hospitals even though Great Britain's National Health Service promises timely care for all, is a scandal all unto itself.

More:

Additionally, overstretched maternity units shut their doors to any more women in labour on 553 occasions last year. Babies were born in offices, lifts, toilets and a caravan, according to the Freedom of Information data for 2007 and 2008 from 117 out of 147 trusts which provide maternity services. One woman gave birth in a lift while being transferred to a labour ward from A&E while another gave birth in a corridor, said East Cheshire NHS Trust. Others said women had to give birth on the wards - rather than in their own maternity room - because the delivery suites were full. Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said Labour had cut maternity beds by 2,340, or 22 per cent, since 1997. At the same time birth rates have been rising sharply - up 20 per cent in some areas.

Shut their doors to women in labor? Women giving birth in toilets?

Is that the utopia of socialized medicine that was promised to the British people?

I dare say it isn't. And I also say that I don't want such government-run travesties over here on this side of the pond.

Read on:

'It shows the incredible waste that has taken place that mothers are getting this sort of sub-standard treatment despite Gordon Brown's tripling of spending on the NHS.

They tripled spending and they still turn women in labor away from hospitals? Where did all that money go? Who accounts for it all?

Yet another reason why we absolutely do not want socialized medicine in the United States.

You can access the complete atory on-line here:

The Babies Born In Hospital Corridors: Bed Shortage Forces 4,000 Mothers To Give Birth In Lifts, Offices And Hospital Toilets
Jenny Hope and Nick McDermott
UK Daily Mail
August 26, 2009

And here is another horror story for good measure:

Father Turned Away From Hospital With Pregnant Wife Delivers Baby On Bathroom Floor - And Saves His Daughter's Life
UK Daily Mail
August 18, 2009

The Whole Foods Alternative To Obamacare

This is a story that should have been circulated widely by Old Media. But, since it undercuts socialized medicine as envisioned by Barack Obama, they simply sat on it in the hopes that no one else would notice it. Good thing we have a blogosphere to do the job that Old Media absolutely refuses to do.

John Mackey, the co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Inc. has a nice eight-point plan for health care reform. It was published in the Wall Street Journal back on August 11, 2009. Here are the eight points:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). • Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. • Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. • Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. • Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. • Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. • Enact Medicare reform. • Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Six of these eight points are self-evident as to why we need to act on them. There are two that bear study: Tort reform and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

Here is how Mackey describes the HSAs:

The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness. Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

In other words, under this plan, if you go to a doctor just for a simple annual check-up, you would pay for it directly out of your HSA thereby relieving the insurance company of the administrative burden of processing such a small claim. And 90% of health insurance claims are in the small claims area of the spectrum. This would result in massive savings for the insurance company. But, at the same time, you will be covered if anything catastrophic happens to you. Another advantage here is that once you max out your HSA at $2,500, any money that would have gone into that account now goes into your own pocket. Thus, you now have a financial incentive to live a more healthy lifestyle.

The HSAs also go hand in hand with repealing government mandates as to what should be covered. That is something that should be left entirely up to the customer.

Tort reform is an essential part of health care reform as well. The problem here (and one that Barack Obama is deliberately ignoring) is that you have lawyers like John Edwards who seek to get rich quick off of medical lawsuits. Those lawsuits produce a great deal of fall-out that we (those who pay insurance premiums) ultimately pay for. All of those court costs get passed on to us in the form of higher premiums. (In fact, many women in the Carolinas were no longer able to afford OB-GYN care because the Edwards lawsuit drove OB-GYN insurance premiums higher than they could afford to pay.) But John Edwards and his ilk don't care that we have to pay higher prices so long as they themselves are able to get rich off of us. Also, doctors tend to do more tests than are necessary in an effort to stave off potential lawsuits. Those tests are then charged to insurance claims thereby driving costs even higher.

Included in tort reform should be a "loser pays" provision so that when frivolous lawsuits are brought against insurance companies, those costs don't get passed on to consumers.

I like this plan very much and will be writing letters to all my Congressional Reps asking them to support it. I suggest you do the same.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Whole Foods Alternative To ObamaCare
John Mackey
Wall Street Journal
August 11, 2009

The Real Ted Kennedy Legacy

I know that for the next several days that people are going to heap praise after praise on Ted Kennedy. They call him the "lion" (I would say "liar") of the Senate and other such things, but what has he really accomplished?

Apart from being one of the most vocal proponents of just about every left-wing, socialistic policy ever put before Congress, there isn't very much. Most of what he helped to put in place, for example the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which resulted in toxic assets causing a credit market freeze, will be done away with over time as people come to realize that such policies do way more harm than good.

So, what will Ted be remembered for?

Writing for ABC News, Susan Donaldson James has this:

In the summer of 1969, consiglieres of the former John F. Kennedy administration -- Robert McNamara, Arthur Schlesinger and Ted Sorensen, among others -- convened in Hyannisport to write the apology that would save the young Sen. Ted Kennedy from himself. Only days before, Kennedy had left the scene of a fatal car crash on the small island of Chappaquiddick on Martha's Vineyard, taking the life of 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne. The second-term senator waited nearly 10 hours to report the accident and offered virtually no explanation other than he "panicked." ... The details of the July 19 accident were salacious: a Regatta Weekend reunion party at a friend's cottage with all married men (except one) and six women -- the "boiler room girls" -- who had worked together on Robert Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. After a day of sailing and heavy drinking, Kennedy drove his black Oldsmobile sedan off a small wooden bridge into Poucho Pond, trapping Kopechne in seven feet of water. Edward Moore Kennedy -- only 38 and up for re-election the following year-- had violated one of the cardinal rules in politics: "Never get caught with a dead girl or a live boy."

Many details of the scandal remain unresolved. Why was Kennedy's wife not allowed to hear the speech his handlers crafted for him after Kopechne was killed? Why was the Kopechne family paid off for their silence?

That is what Ted Kennedy will be remembered for. And it is a bad legacy that he leaves behind.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Chappaquiddick: No Profile In Kennedy Courage
Susan Donaldson James
ABC News
August 26, 2009

Obama Administration To Give Terrorists More Fodder For Propaganda

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder decided to move forward with prosecutions against CIA interrogators who protected American lives by extracting information from terrorists. Apparently, Obama doesn't think it was right for those CIA interrogators to get that information.

So, Eric Holder has appointed John Durham, a Justice Department prosecutor, to go after those interrogators and bring them to trial.

From CBS News:

Holder has appointed John Durham, a Justice Department prosecutor, to determine whether or not any laws were broken during the interrogations.

First, let us remember the Valerie Plame affair in which Plame (a CIA analyst who was not in a covert status at the time) was allegedly "outed" by someone in the Bush Administration. The libs and Dems went crazy screaming about how Plame and her husband were having their privacy violated, even as they both posed for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.

Now, this investigation will most certainly "out" several CIA agents who are not only covert, but will now have their families exposed as well. That is a treasure trove of information for a terrorist to have. While some CIA interrogators may have threatened to kill a terrorist's children, terrorists actually go out and kill innocent children.

So, to all you liberal Dems, why is it okay to "out" these interrogators and expose their families to terrorist reprisals but you came to the defense of Valerie Plame who wasn't even in a covert status? I don't think any amount of hypocritical reasoning will ever be able to justify that.

But even more far reaching is how the terrorists are going to use this as propaganda against us and stir-up even more anti-American sentiment in order to bring more fanatical recruits to their cause of killing as many innocent Americans as possible.

And here is something interesting:

President Obama has said that he does not want to prosecute the former Bush administration officials who created the interrogation policies. But Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has added that the Attorney General's investigation into the legality of the interrogations is independent of the administration.

Didn't Obama say that we should look forward and not back? Apparently, Holder didn't get that memo. And given Gibbs' response to the whole thing, it looks as though Obama doesn't have any idea of what is going on over at Justice or how that department is forcing him to break one of his own pledges. Or Obama is pushing for these prosecutions while trying to keep his hands clean at the same time. I think this last possibility is most likely.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Admin. Official Criticizes CIA Probe
Dana Chivvis
CBS News
August 25, 2009

If It Weren't For Hypocritical Double-Standards ...

... leftist liberals would have absolutely no standards at all.

From Philip Elliot of the Associated Press:

President Barack Obama and his family began a weeklong vacation on this Massachusetts island with a message to the reporters who have crowded the New England villages: Chill out and don't expect much. Pleading for privacy, the White House said Obama would have no public events while vacationing on Martha's Vineyard with his family and close friends. Aides also asked that the journalists not take pictures of the Obamas' two young daughters, age 8 and 11, when they aren't with the president.

I fully expect the leftist news organizations like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Washington Post, and New York Times to fully comply with Obama's request, just as they completely disregarded any expectation of privacy on the parts of Gov. Sarah Palin and her family in Alaska and President Bush whenever he was in Crawford, Texas.

Hypocrisy. Nothing more than arrogant hypocrisy.

Obamas Begin Martha's Vineyard Vacation
Philip Elliot
Associated Press via Yahoo News
August 24, 2009

Tom Daschle: Conflict Of Interest On Health Care

Remember during the campaign when Obama said that he would clamp down on lobbyists and not use any in his administration? He has already broken that promise several times, usually as a means of politically paying off his allies who helped get him elected. But it still doesn't excuse the broken promise.

Well, this broken promise has come back and bit Obama again. Now, it is with Tom Daschle, the former HHS nominee who was scuttled when it came to light that Daschle had failed to pay certain taxes. Today, Daschle is a very well-payed lobbyist for Alston & Byrd and has the ear of the President on the contentious issue of health care.

From the New York Times:

Mr. Daschle never left the picture. With unrivaled ties on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, he talks constantly with top White House advisers, many of whom previously worked for him. ... Now the White House and Senate Democratic leaders appear to be moving toward a blueprint for overhauling the health system, centered on nonprofit insurance cooperatives, that Mr. Daschle began promoting two months ago as a politically feasible alternative to a more muscular government-run insurance plan. It is an idea that happens to dovetail with the interests of many Alston & Bird clients, like the insurance giant UnitedHealth and the Tennessee Hospital Association.

The conflict of interest here is as bright as the sun on a cloudless day.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Daschle Has Ear Of White House And Industry
David D. Kirkpatrick
New York Times
August 22, 2009

One Paragraph Summation Of The Health Care Proposal

I don't know who authored this, but it really says it all:

Let me get this straight. We're going to maybe have a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?

I wish some reporter would ask this question of Congress and the President.

Health Care Debate Exposes The True Barack Obama

And it is not the Obama who was elected in November of 2008.

Writing for the New York Daily News, Michael Goodwin notes the following:

Where is the appealing man we elected? Where is that Barack Obama? Let's find him quick because the whole nation is paying the price for this impostor's irrational exuberance. Or hubris. Americans, more of them every day, are growing disenchanted with the expansion of government and the massive pile of debt. Yet the President, certain he can change their minds if only he talks to them again, keeps trying to sell bigger as better. The public's not buying it. And as a measure of the nation's mood, a recent poll was practically cruel: Nearly half think the President is on television too much. Ouch.

Where is the Barack Obama and the Democrats who promised to be uniters? Why were they replaced by the Barack Obama and Democrats who falsely accuse Town Hall protesters of being "Nazis" or "un-American" or "radical?"

Why are the Dems and Obama ignoring this:

That the novelty is wearing thin is obvious. The danger is that the health care fiasco turns him into an unpopular and ineffective President. Those who say it can't happen should study a recent New York Times/CBS poll. Among the lowlights: * Sixty-nine percent believe Obamacare will hurt the quality of their own health care. * Seventy-three percent believe they will have less access to tests and treatment. * Sixty-two percent believe Democrats' proposals would force them to change doctors. * Seventy-six percent believe Obama's changes will mean higher taxes for them. * Seventy-seven percent expect their health care costs to rise.

It's crazy what is happening in D.C. and the White House right now.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Health Care Debate Confirms This Is Not The Barack Obama We Elected
Michael Goodwin
New York Daily News
August 19, 2009

The Audacity Of Arrogantly Proclaiming A Partnership With God

You know, if a Republican or a Conservative Christian ever made a remark like Obama made yesterday, it would be a front-page news story for two-weeks while every major leftist news outlet in the nation would repeat it as a "macaca" moment. But for reasons that the average rational American is already keenly aware of, the press is giving Obama a pass on this one.

Here is what he said while addressing about 1000 Jewish Rabbis during a conference call:

In a morning conference call with about 1000 rabbis from across the nation, Obama asked for aid: "I am going to need your help in accomplishing necessary reform," the President told the group, according to Rabbi Jack Moline, who tweeted his way through the phoner. "We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama went on to say.

I am not aware of any other President in the history of the United States of America who ever had the arrogance or the impudence to elevate himself to the same level as Almighty God the Father.

But this quote also validates what Gov. Sarah Palin said when she expressed her concerns that Obamacare would result in "death panels" that would stand in judgement of her parents or her Special Needs son, Trig. If man were to elevate himself to the level of God, man would then have the power to arbitrarily decide life and death. History has shown (as recently as Nazi Germany) that man should not assume such power.

As I said, if a Conservative ever made a comment like this, Old Media would do everything in its power to crucify the person making it. But, because Obama is a leftist/Socialist and Old Media usually plays cheerleader for him, you will read almost nothing about it in major newspapers or even mentioned on network broadcast news shows.

You can access the original article on-line here:

'God's Partners In Matters Of Life And Death'
Adam Kredo
Washington Jewish Week
August 19, 2009

Cash For Clunkers Gives Good Preview Of Government Efficiency In Health Care

Several car dealerships in New York have withdrawn from the "Cash for Clunkers" program. Why?

Dan Strumpf of Associated Press has this:

"(The government) needs to move the system forward and they need to start paying these dealers," said Mark Schienberg, the group's president. "This is a cash-dependent business." The program offers up to $4,500 to shoppers who trade in vehicles getting 18 mpg or less for a more fuel-efficient car or truck. Dealers pay the rebates out of pocket, then must wait to be reimbursed by the government. But administrative snags and heavy paperwork have created a backlog of unpaid claims.

Some reports show that only 4% of CARS claims have been paid out over a two-month period.

Can you imagine if only 4% of health care needs were tended to in a two-month period? Cash for Clunkers is giving us a good preview of how difficult it would be to get good, quality health care from a government-run system.

You can access the original article on-line here:

NY Dealers Pull Out Of Clunkers Program
Dan Strumpf
Associated Press via Breitbart
August 19, 2009

AARP Loses Members Over Health Care Stance

I've been away at the beach for the past few days, but now I've returned and am ready to jump back into the fray.

This article in USA Today caught my eye for a couple of reasons. First, it demonstrates how the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is more of a lobbying firm than it is a representative organization. Second, it highlights an aspect of the failures of the American public education system ever since the libs took control of it back in the 60's and 70's.

Let's look at the first point. From the Associated Press:

About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday. The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all.

And it is not just the cuts in Medicare that are of concern. Seniors are also concerned about the "end of life" provisions in Section 1233 of HR3200 and about the "outcome-based measures" of Section 1162 of HR3200 which could be used as justifications for denying health care to seniors based on their "productivity" as citizens.

Although AARP has said they will not support a plan that reduces Medicare benefits, they have yet to come out and point to any specific language in any bill as a reason for refusing support. Further, they have refused to threaten witholding of support as a means to pressure any lawmakers.

So, let's look at my second point above. You may have noticed that at many of the Town Hall meetings across the United States that a great many of those voicing their opposition to socialized health care are, in fact, seniors. I was discussing this with a friend of mine and he noted that the older crowd seemed to know the legal mechanism better than the younger crowd.

This made sense to me. I began learning about the Constituion in the 4th grade and learned how bills were passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. These laws were then tested in the courts to make sure they didn't violate the Constitution. This was back in the early 70's.

Ever since the left has taken over the education system here in the U.S., such lessons are becoming more and more scarce. That is one of the reasons you see such an age disparity at the Town Halls and probably a good reason why Arlen Specter scolded his own constituents saying, "I am not required to be here!" only to have the crowd angrily boo at him. Apparently, Specter was expecting his crowd to be of the younger set who was not as well-educated about the Constitution. He was wrong.

I hope this debate continues for several more months. It is the best thing to happen to America since the end of World War II.

You can access the original article on-line here:

AARP Loses Members Over Health Care Stance
Associated Press via Usa Today
August 18, 2009

The Senate Version Of The Socialized Medicine Bill Exempts Congress From Socialized Health Care

You can look at it on-line here:

Affordable Health Choices Act

Strange name since it limits choice rather than expands it.

I haven't had a chance to go through it yet, but something worth noting here in Section 3116 on Page 111. Subsection (a)(5) defines an "Eligible Individual." It says the following:

(5) QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified individual’ means an individual who is— (v) not eligible for coverage under— (III) the Federal employees health benefits program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.

Similar language exists on Page 116 under the "Qualifying Coverage" subsection.

What is the upshot of all this? It means that Congress will be exempt from the provisions of this bill. Instead of Congress holding itself to the same standards that they will be voting for other Americans, Congress and Federal Employees will get to keep the sweetheart deals offered under the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) Program.

Sure wish we regular Joe and Jane Average Americans could get onto that one.

If this socialized medicine plan is so great, why doesn't Congress jump onto it? Why do they feel the need to exempt themselves from it?

Mr. Deeds Goes Confederate

Creigh Deeds is nothing short of a God-send for the GOP in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Republicans could not have asked for a more idiotic candidate for Bob McDonnell to run against.

When the arguments about the economy were not working, Deeds wanted to make abortion his winning issue. Having forgotten (and then remembering) that 51% of Americans now identify themselves as pro-life, he quickly changed his focus from that to the Confederate flag.

It all started when someone found a picture and then proclaimed that Bob McDonnell was flying a Confederate flag at the Virginia Outdoor Sportsman Show.

Well, Joe Abbey, the Deeds campaign manager ultimately lost his job because of it.

From Erick Erickson over at Human Events:

Why? Because the story blew up in their faces. The confederate flag in question was at the adjacent booth, “which was selling confederate flags and other paraphernalia, though the angle of the photo makes it appears as if the flag was McDonnell’s,” the Washington Post reports.

But this gets even better. The Washington Post reminded everyone of something that Deeds said in 1999:

According to a 1999 Roanoke Times article, Deeds told legislators during that debate that: “I grew up in a house with a portrait of the Confederate flag on the wall. I grew up in a house with a portrait of Robert E. Lee on the wall over my bed.”

Now Deeds only wants to talk about increasing taxes on Virginians in the middle of a recession.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Mr. Deeds Goes Confederate
Erick Erickson
Human Events Online
August 14, 2009

Obama Official Linked To Racially Charged Boycott Of Glenn Beck

An interesting news bit. From Michelle Oddis over at Human Events:

A racially charged activist group called “Color of Change” founded by Van Jones, a special advisor to the Obama Administration, is trying to silence popular radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck by calling for a boycott of Beck’s TV advertisers. On July 28th, Beck made a comment on the Fox & Friends morning show about Obama’s reaction to the arrest of Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. During the discussion of “Professor-Gate,” Beck connected the President’s past association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Obama’s comment that Cambridge police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, acted stupidly. Though Beck acknowledged most of the Obama administration is in fact white, he concluded that the President’s world experience made him a “racist.”

The five advertisers are: SC Johnson, Progressive Insurance, Geico, Procter & Gample and Nexus Lexis.

These five companies must be run by idiots to succumb to such a dumb ploy. All they are going to do is lose revenue through reduced sales while their competitors, who will take advantage of the advertising slot openings will enjoy increased sales.

Why would anyone want to decrease their market during a recession? Any company that dumb is a company that I would not want to be doing business with anyway. Plus, playing the race card is a sure way to generate negative publicity for themselves, while simultaneously generating curiosity about Glenn Beck's show.

TV and radio hosts like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have such high ratings that they are turning advertisers away. This will only hurt the companies engaging in the boycott. It will not hurt Glenn Beck.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Official Linked To Racially Charged Boycott Of Glenn Beck
Michelle Oddis
Human Events Online
August 13, 2009

Democrat Senators: Cap And Trade Should Be Delayed Until Next Year

I wholeheartedly agree. Let's postpone debate on Cap-And-Tax until the 2010 election year. It will be one of the next big fights after we've defeated Obamacare.

From Daniel Whitten and Simon Lomax of Bloomberg:

The U.S. Senate should abandon efforts to pass legislation curbing greenhouse-gas emissions this year and concentrate on a narrower bill to require use of renewable energy, four Democratic lawmakers say. “The problem of doing both of them together is that it becomes too big of a lift,” Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said in an interview last week. “I see the cap-and-trade being a real problem.”

Lincoln isn't the only one. Anyone who has read the Cap-And-Tax bill knows that it will cause energy prices to "skyrocket" which is exactly what Obama said he wanted to see happen.

More:

Ben Nelson of Nebraska and North Dakota Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan joined Lincoln in suggesting that the climate measure be put off. “We should separate the energy bill from the climate bill,” Conrad told reporters this month. ‘It needs to be done as soon as we can get it done,” he said, referring to the energy legislation. Climate legislation would require 60 votes in the Senate. Most Republicans have said they oppose the cap-and-trade measure, and at least 15 of the Senate’s 60-member Democratic majority have said the House-passed version would hurt the economy and needs to be revamped to win their support.

You have to wonder if all the pressure we are putting on Congress over socialized medicine is starting to force some sanity on these people.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Climate Change Measure Should Be Set Aside, U.S. Senators Say
Daniel Whitten and Simon Lomax
Bloomberg.com
August 14, 2009

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel Tries To Tap-Dance His Way Out Of His Own Writings

Jake Tapper isn't a hard-core leftist, but he is easily manipulated by the left. Tapper looks at the responses that Dr. Emanuel gives for the recent criticism of his writings about rationing of health care and the "complete lives" philosophy for determining who gets what health care and how much.

According to Tapper at ABC News:

One of the passages written by Emanuel and used as evidence by Palin and others that he would favor withholding medical care from those who aren’t productive members of society include a 1996 contribution to the Hastings Center Report, in which he said that under the “civic republican or deliberative democratic” construct, “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason." Is he saying, as Palin and others have suggested, that those who aren’t “participating citizens” should have no guarantee to health care? “No,” Emanuel says, “and I think I made it pretty clear I wasn’t endorsing that view, I was analyzing that perspective and what it might mean in practical terms. The rest of the text around that quote made it made it pretty clear I was trying to analyze it and understand it, not endorse it.”

But, from the text of Where Civic Republicanism And Deliberative Democracy Meet as published in a 1996 Hastings Center Report, we see the following:

Thus, it seems there is a growing agreement between liberals, communitarians, and others that many political matters, including matters of justice- and specifically, the just allocation of health care resources--can be addressed only by invoking a particular conception of the good. ... Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

Nowhere did Dr. Emanuel say that his thinking was hypothetical. This last paragraph excerpt made it pretty clear what his stance on the issue is. His conception of "the good" is policies that "ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic." In layman's terms, that means that only those who are deemed "productive" should be getting medical coverage.

Tapper goes on to present another misleading explanation of the January 31, 2009 article published in The Lancet that Dr. Emanuel co-authored:

The oncologist suggests that his words are being twisted because opponents “don’t have a solution” to the health care reform debate. “Maybe the only tactic is to sow fear and use whatever means you have to attack whether that’s grounded in reality or not... If you don’t have good arguments you use whatever you got, I guess, to say things that are distortive and untrue.” He says “there have been previous attempts to come after me and after some of my colleagues, but this is certainly on a completely different scale and magnitude. I’ve never been mentioned on Sunday shows in this light and certainly never on the floor of Congress. The distortions are much larger than I’ve ever seen or would have believed could happen.”

But, let's see what he wrote in that article and whether or not it jibes with his current claims:

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated. ... Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect.

No twisting there at all. Dr. Emanuel is clear and unambiguous as to what he believes. And the following graph shows where he believes resources should be rationed:



(Source: Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions; Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, Ezekiel J Emanuel; The Lancet, January 31, 2009)

You can clearly see where Dr. Emanuel believes that the very young and the very old should fall in the priority curve. We can assume that such low priorities will also be held for Special Needs patients as well.

You can cross reference this with Sections 1162 and 1177 of HR3200. The parallels are undeniable.

When Gov. Palin voiced her concerns about Trig and her parents being denied medical care based on their "productivity," she was very justified.

Conculsion: Dr. Emanuel can spin and tap-dance all he wants. But he cannot run and hide from what he has written and published. And we should not allow him to even try.

People work hard their entire lives to ensure that their families are taken care of and to ensure that they themselves are taken care of in their twilight years. HR3200 would only serve to undo all that work and allow the government to come in and change the plans that people had made for themselves years before.

Democrats Stack Town Hall Meeting With Fake Doctor

Would someone please tell me why the Dems are out there screaming that the anger and concerns being expressed at Town Hall meetings by constituents is somehow "manufactured" and yet, the Dems have no problem sending in an imposter to impersonate a physician?

This is just like 1972 when John Kerry brought in imposters to impersonate Vietnam Veterans during his Winter Soldier scam.

From Meredith Jessup at Town Hall:

During Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee's town hall meeting ... a doctor stood to voice her support for the proposed health care plan. ... When prompted, Dr. Roxana Mayer told the congresswoman she had been practicing medicine for four year and told the Houston Chronicle that she was a "pediatric primary care physician."

But, her story didn't stand up to a quick background check:

Turns out, the name "Dr. Roxana Mayer" doesn't appear in the database maintained by the Texas Medical Board, a registry of all licensed doctors in the state. But the name "Roxana Mayer" does show up on Barack Obama's website as a Texas Delegate for Obama--a small bit of information the Chronicle was aware of, but didn't report in its story.

If the Houston Chronicle was so quick to believe this woman's lies, I wonder if the editors there would be will to purchase a bridge in Brooklyn from me.

But this gets better.



Mayer was accompanied to the Town Hall by Maria Isabel, an Obama devotee whose campaign office displayed a Che Guevara flag.




You can access the complete story on-line here:

Playing Doctor For ObamaCare
Meredith Jessup
TownHall.com Blogs
August 13, 2009

Statement From The American College Of Surgeons Regarding Disinformation Being Spread By Barack Obama

Maybe someone should report Barack Obama to the White House snitch line for this. After all, he did say that we should report anyone spreading disinformation.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 Dear Dr. The following statement from the College was issued to media across the country today: Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama CHICAGO--The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight. Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service. Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon's decision to remove a child's tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what's right for the patient. We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President's remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients. We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care. About the American College of Surgeons The American College of Surgeons is a scientific and educational organization of surgeons that was founded in 1913 to raise the standards of surgical practice and to improve the care of the surgical patient. The College is dedicated to the ethical and competent practice of surgery. Its achievements have significantly influenced the course of scientific surgery in America and have established it as an important advocate for all surgical patients. The College has more than 76,000 members and is the largest organization of surgeons in the world. Sincerely, L.D. Britt, M.D., FACS, Chair of the ACS Board of Regents John Cameron, M.D., FACS, President of the American College of Surgeons Andrew Warshaw, M.D., FACS, Chair of the ACS Health Policy and Advocacy Group Christian Shalgian, ACS Director, Division of Advocacy and Health Policy

More Items Found In HR3200, The Socialized Medicine Bill

Among the following items, you will find some repeats of what was noted before. But this list is even more comprehensive. It was compiled by Liberty Counsel, a Civil Liberties Law Firm.

If it seems like too long a list to read, believe me, reading the entire text of HR3200 would take longer.

You can access this listing on-line here:

Obama Administration’s Health Care Plan HR 3200 Currently Under Consideration In The House Of Representatives
Liberty Counsel
July 29, 2009

Here are the items:

• Sec. 113, Pg. 21-22 of the Health Care (HC) Bill MANDATES a government audit of the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self-insure in order to “ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure”! • Sec. 122, Pg. 29, Lines 4-16 - YOUR HEALTH CARE WILL BE RATIONED! • Sec. 123, Pg. 30 - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE deciding what treatments and benefits you get. • Sec. 142, Pg. 42 - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice! • Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51 - HC will be provided to ALL NON-US citizens. • Sec. 163, Pg. 58-59 beginning at line 5 - Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID health care card will be issued! • Sec. 163, Pg. 59, Lines 21-24 - Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. • Sec. 164, Pg. 65 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations (ACORN). • Sec. 201, Pg. 72, Lines 8-14 - Government is creating an HC Exchange to bring private plans under government control. • Sec. 203, Pg. 84 - Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private Health Care plans in the exchange. • Sec. 203, Pg. 85, Line 7 - Specifications of benefit levels for plans means that the government will define your HC plan and has the ability to ration your health care! • Sec. 205, Pg. 95, Lines 8-18 - The government will use groups (i.e., ACORN & AmeriCorps) to “inform and educate” (sign up) individuals for government plan. • Sec. 205, Pg. 102, Lines 12-18 - Medicaid-eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No freedom to choose. • Sec. 223, Pg. 124, Lines 24-25 - No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “administrative of judicial review” against a government monopoly. • Sec. 225, Pg. 127, Lines 1-16 - Doctors – the government will tell YOU what you can make. “The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished during the year.” • Sec. 312, Pg. 145, Lines 15-17 - Employers MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. • Sec. 313, Pg. 149, Lines 16-23 - ANY employer with payroll $400,000 and above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll. • Sec. 313, Pg. 150, Lines 9-13 - Businesses with payroll between $251,000 and $400,000 who do not provide public option pay 2-6% tax on all payroll. • Sec. 401.59B, Pg. 167, Lines 18-23 - ANY individual who does not have acceptable care, according to government, will be taxed 2.5% of income. • Sec. 59B, Pg. 170, Line 1 - Any NONRESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay for their health care.) • Sec. 431, Pg. 195, Lines 1-3 - Officers and employees of HC Administration (government) will have access to ALL Americans’ financial and personal records. • Sec. 441, Pg. 203, Lines 14-15 - “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it says that. • Sec. 1121, Pg. 239, Lines 14-24 - The government will limit and reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income and poor are the ones affected. • Sec. 1121, Pg. 241, Lines 6-8 - Doctors, it does not matter what specialty you have; you’ll all be paid the same. “Service categories established under this paragraph shall apply without regard to the specialty of the physician furnishing the service.” • Sec. 1122, Pg. 253, Lines 10-23 - The government “validates work relative value units” (sets value of doctor’s time), professional judgment, methods etc. (defining the value of humans). • Sec. 1131, Pg. 265 - Government mandates and controls productivity for private HC industries. “Incorporating Productivity Improvements into Market Basket Updates that Do Not Already Incorporate Such Improvements.” • Sec. 1141, Pg. 268 - The government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs. • Sec. 1145, Pg. 272 - Treatment of certain cancer hospitals: Cancer patients and their treatment are open to rationing! • Sec. 1151, Pg. 280 - The government will penalize hospitals for what government deems preventable readmissions (incentives for hospital to not treat and release). • Sec. 1151, Pg. 298, Lines 9-11 - Doctors, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission and the government will penalize you for that action. • Sec. 1156, Pg. 317, Lines 13-20 - “PROHIBITION on physician ownership or Investment.” Government tells doctors what/how much they can own. • Sec. 1156, Pg. 317-318, Lines 21-25, 1-3 - “PROHIBITION on Expansion of Facility Capacity.” The government will mandate that hospitals cannot expand (“number of operating rooms or beds”). • Sec. 1156, Pg. 321, Lines 2-13 - Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input required. • Sec. 1162, Pg. 335-339, Lines 16-25 - The government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures. Rationing. • Sec. 1162, Pg. 341, Lines 3-9 - The government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans (Part B), HMOs, etc. This will force people into a government plan. “The Secretary may determine not to identify a Medicare Advantage plan if the Secretary has identified deficiencies in the plan’s compliance with rules for such plans under this part.” • Sec. 1177, Pg. 354 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people! “Extension of Authority of Special Needs Plans to Restrict Enrollment.” • Sec. 1191, Pg. 379 - Government creates more bureaucracy – “Telehealth Advisory Committee.” HC by phone or the Internet – dial 1 for your health care advice? • Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 4-12 - Government mandates Advance (Death) Care Planning consultation. Think Senior Citizens and end of life. END-OF-LIFE COUNSELING. SOME IN THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED RATIONING HEALTH CARE FOR THE ELDERLY. • Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 17-19 - Government WILL instruct and consult regarding living wills and durable powers of attorney. Mandatory end-of-life planning! • Sec. 1233, Pg. 425-426, Lines 22-25, 1-3 - Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death. • Sec. 1233, Pg. 427, Lines 15-24 - Government mandates program for orders for life-sustaining treatment (i.e. end of life). The government has a say in how your life ends. • Sec. 1233, Pg. 429, Lines 1-9 - An “advanced care planning consult” will be used as patient’s health deteriorates. • Sec. 1233, Pg. 429, Lines 10-12 - “Advanced Care Consultation” may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans - from the government. • Sec. 1233, Pg. 429, Lines 13-25 - The government will specify which Doctors (professional authority under state law includes Nurse Practitioners or Physician’s Assistants) can write an end-of-life order. • Sec. 1233, Pg. 430, Lines 11-15 - The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life, according to preset methods (not individually decided). • Sec. 1302, Pg. 468, Lines 16-21 - “Community-Based Home Medical Services means a nonprofit community-based or state-based organization.” • Sec. 1302, Pg. 472, Lines 14-17 - PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION: One monthly payment to a community-based organization. Like ACORN? • Sec. 1308, Pg. 489 - The government will cover Marriage and Family therapy. This will involve government control of your marriage. • Sec. 1308, Pg. 494-498 - The government will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating and rationing those services. • Sec. 1401, Pg. 502 - Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. Big Brother is watching how your treatment works. • Sec. 1401, Pg. 503, Lines 13-19 - The government will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic medical records. “The Center may secure directly from any department or agency of the United States information necessary to enable it to carry out this section.” • Sec. 1401, Pg. 503, Lines 21-25 - The government may secure data directly from any department or agency of the US, including your data. • Sec. 1401, Pg. 503, Lines 21-25 - The “Center” will collect data both “published and unpublished” (that means public & your private information). • Sec. 1401, Pg. 506, Lines 19-21 - An “Appointed Clinical Perspective Advisory Panel” will advise The Center and recommend policies that would allow for public access of data. • Sec. 1401, Pg. 518, Lines 21-25 - The Commission will have input from HC consumer representatives. • Sec. 1411, Pg. 524, Lines 18-22 - Establishes the “Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund.” More taxes for ALL. • Sec. 1441, Pg. 621, Lines 20-25 - The government will define “NEW Quality” measures in HC. Since when does government know about quality? • Sec. 1442, Pg. 622, Lines 2-9 - To pay for the Quality Standards, government will transfer money from “qualified entities” (government Trust Funds) to other government Trust Funds. More Taxes. • Sec. 1442, Pg. 624, Lines 19-23 - Qualified Entities: “The Secretary shall ensure that the entity is a public, nonprofit or academic institution with technical expertise in the area of health quality measurement.” • Sec. 1442, Pg. 623, Lines 5-10 - “Quality” measures shall be designed to assess outcomes and functional status of patients. • Sec. 1442, Pg. 623, Lines 15-17 - “Quality” measures shall be designed to profile you, including race, age, gender, place of residence, etc. • Sec. 1443, Pg. 628 - The government will give “Multi-Stake Holders” pre-rulemaking input into selection of “quality” measures. • Sec. 1443, Pg. 630-31, Lines 9-24, 1-9 - Those Multi-Stake Holder groups include unions and groups like ACORN deciding what constitutes quality. • Sec. 1444, Pg. 632, Lines 14-25 - The government may implement any “Quality measure” of HC services that bureaucrats see fit. • Sec. 1444, Pg. 632-333, Lines 14-25, 1-9 - The Secretary may issue nonendorsed “Quality Measures” for physician and dialysis services. • Sec. 1251 (beginning), Pg. 634 to 652 - “Physician Payments Sunshine Provision” – government wants to shine sunlight on Doctors but not government. “Reports on financial relationships between manufacturers and distributors . . . and between physicians and other health care entities.” • Sec. 1501 (beginning), Pg. 659-670 - Doctors in Residency – government will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you’ll live. • Sec. 1503 (beginning), Pg. 675-685 - Government will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, including teaching hospitals. • Sec. 1601 (beginning), Pg. 685-699 - Increased funding to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. (Like the government with an $18 million website?) • Sec. 1619, Pg. 700-703 - If your part of HC plan isn’t in the government’s HC Exchange but you qualify for federal aid, you don’t have to pay. • Sec. 1128G, Pg. 704-708 - If the Secretary determines there is a “significant risk of fraudulent activity,” on HC provider or supplier, the government can do a background check. • Sec. 1632, Pg. 710, Lines 8-14 - The Secretary has broad powers to deny HC providers and suppliers admittance into HC Exchange. Your doctor could be thrown out of business. • Sec. 1637, Pg. 718-719 - ANY Doctor who orders durable medical equipment or home medical services is REQUIRED to be enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare. • Sec. 1639, Pg. 721 - Government MANDATES that Doctors must have face-to-face with patient to certify patient for home health services. • Sec. 1639, Pg. 723-24, Lines 23-25, 1-5 - The same government certifications will apply to Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s health plan: Your kids). • Sec. 1640, Pg. 723, Lines 16-22 - The government reserves right to apply face-to-face certification for patient to ANY other HC service. • Sec. 1651, Pg. 734, Lines 16-25 - Proposes, for law enforcement sake, that the Secretary of HHS will give Attorney General access to ALL medical data. • Sec. 1701 (beginning), Pg. 739-756 - The government sets guidelines for subsidizing the uninsured (and you have to pay for them). • Sec. 1704, Pg. 756-761 - The government will shift burden of payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) to states (your taxes). • Sec. 1711, Pg. 764 - The government will require preventative services - including vaccinations (no choice). • Sec. 1713, Pg. 768 - Government-determined Nurse Home Visitation Services (Hello union paybacks). • Sec. 1713, Pg. 768, Lines 3-5 - Nurse Home Visit Services – Service #1: “Improving maternal or child health and pregnancy outcomes or increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.” Compulsory ABORTIONS? • Sec. 1713, Pg. 768, Lines 11-14 - Nurse Home Visit Services include determinations of economic self-sufficiency, employment advancement and school-readiness. • Sec. 1714, Pg. 769 - Federal government mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Abortion and government control intertwined. • Sec. 1733, Pg. 788-798 - Government will set and mandate drug prices, therefore controlling which drugs are brought to market. (Goodbye innovation and private research.) • Sec. 1744, Pg. 796-799 - Establishes PAYMENTS for graduate medical education. The government will now control your doctor’s education. • Sec.1751, Pg. 800 - The government will decide which Health Care conditions will be paid. Say “RATION!” • Sec. 1759, Pg. 809 - Billing Agents, clearinghouses, or other alternate payees are required to register. The government takes over private payment systems too. • Sec. 1801, Pg. 819-823 - The Government will identify individuals “likely to be ineligible” for subsidies. Will access all personal financial information. • Sec. 1802, Pg. 823-828 - Government sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another bottomless tax pit. • Sec. 4375, Pg. 828-832, Lines 12-16 - Government will impose a fee on ALL private health insurance plans, including self-insured, to pay for Trust Fund! • Sec. 4377, Pg. 835, Lines 11-13 - Fees imposed by government for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes. • Sec. 440, Pg. 837-839 - The government will design and implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids and families that are expecting children. • Sec. 1904, Pg. 843-844 - This Home Visitation Program includes the government coming into your house and teaching/telling you how to parent! • Sec. 2002, Pg. 858 - The government will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000 (That’s Billions). • Sec. 2201, Pg. 864 - The government will MANDATE the establishment of a National Health Service Corps. • Sec. 2201 - “Fulfillment of Obligated Service Requirement” • Sec. 2201, Pg. 864-875 - The NHS Corps is a program where Doctors perform mandatory HC for 2 years for partial loan repayment. • Sec. 2212, Pg. 875-891 - The government takes over the education of Medical students and Doctors through education and loans. • Sec. 340L, Pg. 897 - The government will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps to ensure an adequate supply of public health professionals. • Sec. 340L, Pg. 897 - The Public Health Workforce Corps shall consist of civilian employees of the United States as Secretary deems necessary. • Sec. 340L, Pg. 897 - The Public Health Workforce Corps shall consist of officers of Regular and Reserve Corps of Service. • Sec. 340M, Pg. 899 - The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians. Will animals have heath care too? • Sec. 2233, Pg. 909 - The government will develop, build and run Public Health Training Centers. • Sec. 2241, Pg. 912-913 - Government starts a HC affirmative action program under the guise of diversity scholarships. • Sec. 2251, Pg. 915 - Government MANDATES cultural and linguistic competency training for HC professionals. • Sec. 3111, Pg. 931 - The government will establish a Preventative and Wellness Trust fund, with initial cost of $30,800,000,000 (Billions more). • Sec. 3121, Pg. 934, Lines 21-22 - Government will identify specific goals and objectives for prevention and wellness activities. More control of your life. • Sec. 3121, Pg. 935, Lines 1-2 - The government will develop “Healthy People & National Public Health Performance Standards.” They will tell us what to eat? • Sec. 3131, Pg. 942, Lines 22-25 - “Task Force on Community Preventive Services.” More government? Under the Offices of Surgeon General, Public Health Services, Minority Health and Women’s Health. • Sec. 3141, Pg. 949-979 - BIG GOVERNMENT core public health infrastructure includes workforce capacity, lab systems, health information systems, etc. • Sec. 2511, Pg. 992 - Government will establish school-based “health” clinics. Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted! • Sec. 399Z-1, Pg. 993 - School-Based Health Clinics will be integrated into the school environment. More government brainwashing in school. • Sec. 2521, Pg. 1000 - The government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?

Feel free to print this out and take it to a Town Hall meeting to ask your Congressional Reps about it. I'm certain that the Democrat members of Congress (like Arlen Specter (D-PA)) will accuse you of spreading false information.

Is Sarah Palin At Least Close To Being Right About "Death Panels?"

In order to answer that question, we need to look into HR3200 and analyze what is written in the relevent sections that may pertain to Special Needs patients or the elderly and how those sections may be used to deny care to members of those groups.

Sec. 1177 on page 354 of HR3200 (America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009). The title reads: "EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS TO RESTRICT ENROLLMENT." That section essentially makes it legal to turn away patients like Trig Palin.

Sec. 1162 of HR3200, under which on page 335 the government will be empowered to approve treatments that are established by "outcome-based measures." This loop-hole will be used to deny care to elderly and Special Needs patients as some of the measures considered will include "patient mortality and morbidity following surgery" and "health functioning (limitations of activities of daily living)."

Sec. 1123 that begins on page 424 of HR3200. Under that section on page 430 is written:

The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items— (i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems; (ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting; (iii) the use of antibiotics; and (iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.

Although the above references subparagraph (A)(ii), subparagraph (A)(i) essentially gives the government control over any medical orders relating to the covered individual.

From what I've read of HR3200, Gov. Palin is closer to getting it right than any of her detractors are. In fact, I have yet to see any of her detractors actually reference anything in HR3200 to prove her wrong about the government possibly denying care to the elderly and Special Needs patients.

Media Treatment Of Sarah Palin: Where In Her Quote Did She Say "Could Kill My Down Syndrome Baby?"

Leftists never cease to amaze me with their blind alligiance to anyone who comes out with a leftist screed, even if such screed is proven to be a lie.

All over the Internet, you read about idiots repeating, like trained parrots, the same lie over and over. Somewhere, someone twisted the facts and claimed that Sarah Palin said that Obama's "death panels" could kill her Down Syndrome baby.

Well, let's test that claim by comparing it with the actual statement that Sarah wrote on Facebook:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Yes, she did use the words "death panel." But that is the limit of the truth in the leftist claims. Nowhere in the above quote did she say "kill my Down Syndrome baby" or anything about killing her grandparents.

But that doesn't matter to leftist liberals. They simply follow their leaders like sheep without even bothering to check out whether they are being told the truth or not. Then, these same "enlightened" progressives go out and repeat the lie like mindless trained parrots.

We should note that Gov. Palin did say the following: "based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

In that, her concerns are extremely valid as I pointed out in the following post:

And Speaking Of People Carrying Swastikas
84rules
August 6, 2009

In that post you will find the writings of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, advisor to Barack Obama on health care issues, who embraces a health care policy known as the "complete lives system" in which infants, elderly and special needs patients are deliberately denied medical treatment so that others (i.e. more productive people) will always have adequate care.

If any libs out there want to argue this point or argue the misquote, please feel free to leave a thoughful response. I'd love to hear from you.

The Dirty Little Secret In The Socialized Medicine Bill (HR3200)

Chuck Norris has a little gem in Town Hall today. He found a little secret embedded in the socialized medicine bill (HR3200).

Check it out:

It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills. The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

Now, the first question that comes to my mind is: "Why would a health care reform bill have a provision like this?"

Read on:

Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?

It is to impose values on parents and their children. In short, it is a government take-over of the nursery.

Since there are those hard-core leftists out there who will try to claim that this program is voluntary, read this:

To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."

In essence, the authors of this socialized medicine bill are stating that low-income parents are most likely not good parents and thus will have the intervention of government in their homes, whether they want it or not.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Dirty Secret No. 1 In Obamacare
Chuck Norris
TownHall.com
August 11, 2009

A Preview Of Universal Health Care: Oregon Woman Denied Medicine, Offered Assisted Suicide Instead

One of the beautiful things about living in the United States is that with 50 states, we can compare and contrast varying policies to see how well they work or how miserably they fail. We can also predict how national policy will play out by observing how a similar policy affects a particular state.

Oregon is a state that has Universal Health Care. According to KVAL of Eugene, Oregon:

Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time. "I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do." Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved. Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.

So, why was it not approved by a state that promised Universal Care?

One critic of assisted suicide calls the message disturbing nonetheless. "People deserve relief of their suffering, not giving them an overdose," said Dr. William Toffler. He said the state has a financial incentive to offer death instead of life: Chemotherapy drugs such as Tarceva cost $4,000 a month while drugs for assisted suicide cost less than $100.

And here is the real kicker:

[Dr. Som] Saha said state health officials do not consider whether it is cheaper for someone in the health plan to die than live. However, he admitted they must consider the state's limited dollars when dealing with a case such as Wagner's. "If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone," Saha said.

There is a sinlge word to describe the above situation: RATIONING.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Health Plan Covers Assisted Suicide But Not New Cancer Treatment
Susan Harding
KVAL.com
July 31, 2008

Nancy Pelosi And Steny Hoyer Come Out Against First Amendment Rights

Just when I thought that the Democrats couldn't do or say anything more stupid or hypocritical than what they've already done or said, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer had to open their mouths and go and prove me wrong.

First, let's go back a few years and remember what other Dems have said about voicing opposition to Washington D.C. In 2003, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) proclaimed the following:

Dissent is patriotic!

Now, I was not aware that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) were in disagreement with then Sen. Clinton's sentiments. Neither one made the slightest peep about it when Clinton made her statement.

But today, when Joe and Jane Average American are protesting several facets of HR3200, the socialized medicine bill, dissent, in their eyes, has become "un-American."

Here is their joint opinion column from USA Today:

'Un-American' Attacks Can't Derail Health Care Debate
Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer
USA Today
August 10, 2009

From which you will note the following:

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

First off, the facts are the side of the protestors. We've shown this in the following blog entries:

A Look At Some Itmes In The Socialized Medicine Bill
84rules
August 5, 2009

Fact Checking Obama's Socialized Health Care Claims
84rules
July 23, 2009

Congressional Budget Office: Nationalized Health Care Will Increase Costs, Not Reduce Them
84rules
July 17, 2009

You'll notice that niether Pelosi nor Hoyer ever mentioned any of this. In their USA Today column, they simply repeated the same old tired talking points that have been proven to be false over the past eight months.

Second, the opposing views are not being drowned out. The American people are tired of hearing the same old lies about health care over and over and over again. When they hear those same old tired lies, they become angry and begin shouting back.

We know what it will cost and that it won't be cheaper. It will be more expensive as the CBO has shown us.

We know that 47 million people are not covered with health insurance. But we also know that at least a third of those are illegal aliens, most of the rest are people that can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it and the rest have access to Medicare.

We know that the quality of health care will go down as it has in every other country that has adopted socialized medicine.

When we hear lies, we get mad.

And instead of admitting the facts, Pelosi and Hoyer try to hide them by calling those who would expose the facts "un-American."

I don't see how any Democrat could ever point with pride towards these two hypocrites and say, "They are our leaders!".

Obama's SEIU Thugs Attack A Black Conservative

Okay, this should show exactly how the Dems in Congress are nothing but thieving liars. For the past week, Dems like Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been lying to the press about angry mobs, violent protesters and swastikas.

The truth is, what we have been seeing is a grassroots movement in which people were rightfully asking their Congressional delegations if they've read what's in HR3200 (the socialized medicine bill), whether the government that let Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security go broke can run a socialized medicine system, and whether or not Congress will limit its own health care plan choices to only that which is provided to Joe and Jane Average American under this bill.

For their efforts at trying to communicate their concerns to Congress, the Democrats have labeled the American people "radical" and leveled false charges against them.

Well, the violent angry mobs didn't start until the Dems unleashed the SEIU thugs against Joe and Jane Average American. In a page right out of the Nazi Brown-Shirt playbook, Dems from the White House and Congress called on their union thugs to go after the peaceful opponents of Obamacare.

Here is an example what happened in St. Louis:

Obama's SEIU Thugs Attack A Black Conservative

Those of us on the right want answers from Congress and we want our concerns to be heard. Those on the left want to stifle the debate, even if it means visiting violence on people exercising their First Amendment rights.

Look for more violence from left-wing street agitators like SEIU and ACORN as this debate heats up. Despite Obama's claim that he is some sort of "uniter," he will not ever condemn the violent Nazi-style tactics of his leftist minions.

BTW, if you want to see photographic examples of the "angry mob" and "violent protesters" that Pelosi, Reid and company have been leveling false charges at, look here:

Meet The Mob
Dana Loesch
The Dana Show
August 6, 2009

(If you hapen to spot any swastikas in the audience, please point them out to us.)