Friday, November 27, 2009

Howard Dean: Healthcare bill will hurt America

This audio clip from Howard Dean (most famous for his career-breaking "Yeeeeaaahhhhhhgggg!!!", but he is also a medical doctor and was the former Democrat National Committee Chairman), has shocked both sides of the aisle with his recent, revealing comments on the current Obama-Pelosi-Reid-backed Healthcare Reform Legislation.

He admits that "There isn't any insurance reform left in [the current Healthcare Reform bills in the House and Senate] to speak of." He admits that they are nothing more than a Trillion Dollar bail out of insurance companies that will begin un-insuring Americans, make them pay three times as much for healthcare as they do today, and foot our children with the bill for decades to come.

From his own words:

"There isn't any insurance reform left in this bill to speak of." [...]

"What this is is a giant bail out. This is a bail out that makes AIG look cheap. $60 Billion goes to the insurance companies under this bill. Now, if we can get a public option, I think that's okay. But if you don't have a public option, why would we want to stick the tax payers with yet another bail out? They bailed out the banks, they bailed out AIG; this is a TRILLION DOLLAR BAIL OUT." [...]

"I would vote to kill this bill if it does not have a public option, because that is doing harm to the nation....This is a harmful bill to the nation if it does not have a public option because its going to take $Trillions over several decades from our kids. The Republicans are right about the rhetoric of the bill....You're gradually going to start uninsuring people because we're not going to have the money to maintain the system. This does nothing to control costs. "



Listen to the interview here:


I think it's also very revealing that he is very willing to pass this self-described destructive legislation if it gives government control over the healthcare industry. He's concerned when Democrats get nothing out of it, but when they get more POWER, he is willing to stick it to Americans and their children as collateral for empowering his friends in the government. Don't you see what is going on America?!

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Healthcare Reform Bills: Expensive Ponzi Schemes, says Senators


Calling the Senate health care bill a package that Ponzi schemer "Bernie Madoff would really envy," Republican Sen. Jon Kyl said Sunday that the legislation to be debated in December is long on promises but short on accounting.

"When they claim a savings ... in the first 10 years, that's because they start collecting taxes in 2010 they don't start spending money till 2014," said Kyl, helping to kick off the debate senators voted a day earlier to start on the $848 billion package

"Any private or any publicly traded business that claimed it was making a profit because it booked revenue over 10 years but only booked expenses over six years would wind up in jail. That's what this bill does, that's just many of the frauds and hat tricks in this bill," Kyl said on "Fox News Sunday."

Coburn said he sees three problems with the current bill.

"One, 61 percent of health care in this country is already run by the government. Name one that works well," he said, calling Medicare "highly inefficient" and going broke.

"Number two is, this -- this bill creates 70 new government agencies with thousands of new bureaucrats ... with 1,597 different instances where the secretary's mandated to write rules and regulations. ... The third point that I would say is we can fix all these problems, but we have a government-centered approach that is already failing instead of a patient-centered approach. ...There's 11 studies out as of this morning that said both the House bill and the Senate bill will raise premiums, not lower them," he continued.

[Source: Fox News]


The two more of the biggest concerns about the healthcare bills in the Senate and House are:

Mammograms: A government panel recently changed the recommendations for women to receive cancer-screening mammograms from every year starting at 40 to every other year after 50. It is expected that the government will use this to deny coverage to women needing mammograms before 50. Doctors, health officials, celebrities and women and around the nation are outraged at this blatant action to put political expediency above the lives of thousands of American women. Countless women are coming forward to explain that if they had not had a mammogram in their 40s, they would not be alive today. Read more here...

Abortions: The House was able to pass their version of healthcare reform by inserting an amendment banning the use of taxpayer funds for abortion (except in the cases of rape/incest and endangerment of the life of the mother). Democrat leaders, including Obama himself, are plotting to remove the ban in the final bill. This means that, if passed, Obama-Reid-Pelosicare will pay for abortions on demand with tax money collected by hard-working Americans -- whether they think abortion is great or morally tantamount to murdering innocent children. Read more here...

Saturday, November 21, 2009

$300 Million for Landrieu's Vote ( D- LA). Healthcare Reform May Pass Senate


This blog previously reported the $200 million in loan forgiveness for veterinarians that was included in the House health care reform bill to secure the vote of Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY). Now, Harry Reid is spending $100 $300 million to buy the vote of Senator Mary Landrieu (D Louisiana.) They have inserted two pages of text into the bill to describe states eligible for a $100 $300 million extra Medicaid subsidy. The language excludes all states except Louisiana. Democrat Mary Landrieu, who had been wavering in her support for Obamacare, has unsurprisingly suddenly pledged her support to pass the legislation.

More at "The $100 Million Health Care Vote" (ABC) and Bluegrass Pundit.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Harvard Medical School Dean "Fails" Health Care Reform Bill


Once again, one of the people who knows the most about the health care system declares the current health care reform legislation to be a disaster waiting to happen.

From the Wall Street Journal:
Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care.

Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that's not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system. The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.

In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.

[...]

We should not be making public policy in such a crucial area by keeping the electorate ignorant of the actual road ahead.
Read the entire article here.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Democrat Health Care Reform: Support Drops the More You Know About It

There is some surprising information hidden in a recent AP poll. Overall, the poll found 43 percent oppose the health care plans being discussed in Congress, while 41 percent are in support. However, when the consequences of these choices were put in the poll questions, the results dramatically changed.
When poll questions were framed broadly, the answers seemed to indicate ample support for Obama's goals. When required trade-offs were brought into the equation, opinions shifted — sometimes dramatically.

In one striking finding, the poll indicated that public support for banning insurance practices that discriminate against those in poor health may not be as solid as it seems.

A ban on denial of coverage because of pre-existing medical problems has been one of the most popular consumer protections in the health care debate. Some 82 percent said they favored the ban, according to a Pew Research Center poll in October.

In the AP poll, when told that such a ban would probably cause most people to pay more for health insurance, 43 percent said they would still support doing away with pre-existing condition denials, but 31 percent said they would oppose it.

Support for banning coverage because of pre-existing medical problems declined by almost 40% when it was explained to people that their health insurance costs would likely increase because of this change. Support for mandatory health insurance coverage flipped when people understood there would be a federal penalty for those who failed to take insurance.
For example, asked if everyone should be required to have at least some health insurance, 67 percent agreed and 27 percent said no.

The responses flipped when people were asked about requiring everybody to carry insurance or face a federal penalty: 64 percent said they would be opposed, while 28 percent favored that.

Both the House and Senate bills would require all Americans to get health insurance, either through an employer, a government program or by buying their own coverage. Subsidies would be provided for low-income people, as well as many middle-class households.

This poll seems to indicate the public is poorly informed about the consequences of passing Obamacare. Once the trade-off are made clear, support for the Democrats health care reform bill collapses. Unfortunately, the state run media will continue to shill for Obamacare and do a poor job of educating the public.

[Reposted from Bluegrass Pundit]

Monday, November 16, 2009

Pelosi vs. Catholic Church: Abortion is Against Catholic Doctrine

This video is humorous, but the message is clear: Despite what Nancy Pelosi says, the Catholic Church has been strongly opposed to ending the life of unborn children since the first century. This is why the Church's leaders have come out so strongly against the Democrat's Health Care Reform bill. Every Catholic that follows the church's catechism is opposed to abortion. Those who are not are either ignorant of or in rebellion to their faith.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IepLtfNSM7I

Friday, November 13, 2009

Abortion Funding Expected in Final Healthcare Bill

Hours after pro-life members of Congress managed to get a measure included in Nancy Pelosi's ObamaCare bill to keep taxpayers from funding abortion, pro-abortion advocates were vowing to push abortion in the final bill. (link, link) More than 40 pro-abortion Democrats wrote a letter to Pelosi demanding that the abortion mandate be included in the final bill.

Pro-life groups believe it is all part of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi plan to keep the bill moving forward and then push the real ObamaCare bill at the congressional conference committee when the Senate and House bills are reconciled. Conservative groups claim that the plan all along has been to use ObamaCare as a tool for a massive expansion of government power that includes oppressive mandates on all Americans - including the mandate that taxpayers pay for free abortions on demand.

There is plenty of evidence to suport their claims. Throughout the process, pro-life initiatives have been ignored and pro-life members of Congress are facing unrelenting pressure to "cave in" and support ObamaCare with its abortion mandate.

One pro-life Democrat said, "Speaker [Pelosi] is not happy with me," and then went on to say he is willing to lose his seat in Congress if that is a consequence of voting for life!

The strong-arm tactics are expected to increase dramatically over the next few crucially important days. The Liberty Counsel has launched this citizen petition to stop the ObamaCare Abortion Mandate.

[Adapted from a GrassFire alert]
The best argument I've heard on why abortions should not be done (outside of situations where the mother's life is in danger, or rape/incest) was given by this 12 year-old girl.
She experienced a lot of persecution for giving this speach too. Read the story here.

Monday, November 9, 2009

VIDEO: HMOs are Bad, But Socialized Medicine is Much Worse

This chilling video interviews one doctor who practiced in Canada's government-run single-payer healthcare system, and another woman who's father died because of it.



2-year waiting periods, surgery denials due to old age, "death" panels, people dying because the it took too long to get in to see the specialist . . . All of these are regular realities of the socialized medicine system. Despite it's great faults, the free market system avoids these horrible outcomes for most people. Let's fix it so it can help even more people, not destroy it so all people get the same horrible healthcare!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUOjqzqKN6g&feature=player_embedded

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Stupak Anti-Abortion Amendment Has A Huge Loophole

Nancy Pelosi managed to gather enough votes to pass the almost 2000 page House health care reform bill (H.R.3962) by allowing the Stupak Amendment. Many blue dog Democrats would not vote for Pelosicare because because it covered abortion with health care reform funds.

According to the New York Times:

To save the health care bill she (Pelosi) had to give in to abortion opponents in her party and allow them to propose tight restrictions barring any insurance plan that is purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions.


How tight are these restrictions? Here is a screen shot from a pdf of the Stupak Amendment.



The Amendment says no funds may be used to fund abortion or any health care plan that includes abortion unless there is a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

This certainly sounds like a strong prohibition, except for the rape or incest clause. Usually Democrats try to leave a huge loophole by sticking in an exception for "mother's health." This could be interpreted to include mental health. Under the The Mental Health Parity Act most of the distinctions insurance companies can make between mental health and physical health have been removed. At first glance, this loophole seems to be be missing from the Stupak Amendment. That is until you look up the definition of "physical disorder." A physical disorder (as a medical term) is often used as a term in contrast to a mental disorder, in an attempt to differentiate medical disorders.

Wikipedia says:

A physical disorder (as a medical term) is often used as a term in contrast to a mental disorder, in an attempt to differentiate medical disorders which have an available objective mechanical test (such as chemical tests or brain scans), from those disorders which have no objective laboratory or imaging test, and are diagnosed only by behavioral syndrome (such as those in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM manual. Most familiarly, this is a term used as opposed to supposed "purely" mental disorders.
This looks like a back door to the old mental health abortion loophole when the "mother's health" term is used. Many people claim there is no distinction between physical and mental disorders. There is already a court ruling defining bipolar as a physical disorder and not a mental illness.

The Case: Fitts v. Fannie Mae[1]

The ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia involves an employee of a major mortgage company who developed bipolar disorder and whose employee disability insurance provider stopped paying disability benefits after 24 months on the grounds of bipolar disorder being a ‘mental illness’. The policy provided cover until the age of 65 for physical disability. Ms. Fitts had worked for the company for 13 years before she was first diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1995. The employee- Ms. Jane Fitts, successfully brought a case against both the employer and the insurer arguing that bipolar disorder did not clearly fall in the category “mental, emotional or nervous diseases or disorders of any type”. The court awarded "prejudgment interest on all sums due her and the costs of this action".
Based on the language of the Stupak Amendment and the above court ruling, a suicidal woman diagnosed as bipolar could qualify for abortion funds under H.R.3962. Democrats only need to get a liberal judge to issue more court rulings defining depression and other mental health problems as physical disorders. Then, the abortion floodgate is open. This is a loophole you can run a herd of donkeys through. There is even the possibility the abortion restriction would be declared as unconstitutional even if abortion coverage doesn't get added back in later. Partial birth abortion laws have already been declared unconstitutional if they don't include the "mother's health" loophole.

[Source: Bluegrass Pundit]

$200 Million to buy NY Rep Slaughter's Vote for Healthcare Reform

This is an interesting video of an exchange between Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), who is questioning why over $200 million in loan forgiveness for veterinarians was included in the health care reform bill, and Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY), who needs to placate veterinarians opposition to a bill (HR 962) she supports banning preventative animal antibiotics. Hmm...The dots are easy to connect here.

Did the Democrats Hide a $283 Million Dollar Bribe in the Health Care Bill? (via Breitbart)

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Must Read: Health Care is Not a Right

A long, but very good article on government-run healthcare. It's worth taking the time to read.
Introductory Note by Lin Zinser: In today's proposals for sweeping changes in the field of medicine, the term "socialized medicine" is never used. Instead we hear demands for "universal," "mandatory," "single-payer," and/or "comprehensive" systems. These demands aim to force one healthcare plan (sometimes with options) onto all Americans; it is a plan under which all medical services are paid for, and thus controlled, by government agencies. Sometimes, proponents call this "nationalized financing" or "nationalized health insurance." In a more honest day, it was called socialized medicine.

Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea--which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical--it does not work--but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan--not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it--to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.

What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with--and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at McDonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights--and only these.

Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want--not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit--to a certain type of action on your part and its result--not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anythingg, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.

That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history--and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.

Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents--rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.

You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it--period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens--to their individual rights--to their real rights--in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?

The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights--and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism is clearly evident in any field at all--you don't need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.

How would these alleged new rights be fulfilled? Take the simplest case: you are born with a moral right to hair care, let us say, provided by a loving government free of charge to all who want or need it. What would happen under such a moral theory?

Haircuts are free, like the air we breathe, so some people show up every day for an expensive new styling, the government pays out more and more, barbers revel in their huge new incomes, and the profession starts to grow ravenously, bald men start to come in droves for free hair implantations, a school of fancy, specialized eyebrow pluckers develops--it's all free, the government pays. The dishonest barbers are having a field day, of course--but so are the honest ones; they are working and spending like mad, trying to give every customer his heart's desire, which is a millionaire's worth of special hair care and services--the government starts to scream, the budget is out of control. Suddenly directives erupt: we must limit the number of barbers, we must limit the time spent on haircuts, we must limit the permissible type of hair styles; bureaucrats begin to split hairs about how many hairs a barber should be allowed to split. A new computerized office of records filled with inspectors and red tape shoots up; some barbers, it seems, are still getting too rich, they must be getting more than their fair share of the national hair, so barbers have to start applying for Certificates of Need in order to buy razors, while peer review boards are established to assess every stylist's work, both the dishonest and the overly honest alike, to make sure that no one is too bad or too good or too busy or too unbusy. Etc. In the end, there are lines of wretched customers waiting for their chance to be routinely scalped by bored, hog-tied haircutters some of whom remember dreamily the old days when somehow everything was so much better.

Do you think the situation would be improved by having hair-care cooperatives organized by the government?--having them engage in managed competition, managed by the government, in order to buy haircut insurance from companies controlled by the government?

If this is what would happen under government-managed hair care, what else can possibly happen--it is already starting to happen--under the idea of health care as a right? Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing?

Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.

You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.

Some of you may ask here: But can people afford health care on their own? Even leaving aside the present government-inflated medical prices, the answer is: Certainly people can afford it. Where do you think the money is coming from right now to pay for it all--where does the government get its fabled unlimited money? Government is not a productive organization; it has no source of wealth other than confiscation of the citizens' wealth, through taxation, deficit financing or the like.

But, you may say, isn't it the "rich" who are really paying the costs of medical care now--the rich, not the broad bulk of the people? As has been proved time and again, there are not enough rich anywhere to make a dent in the government's costs; it is the vast middle class in the U.S. that is the only source of the kind of money that national programs like government health care require. A simple example of this is the fact that all of these new programs rest squarely on the backs not of Big Business, but of small businessmen who are struggling in today's economy merely to stay alive and in existence. Under any socialized regime, it is the "little people" who do most of the paying for it--under the senseless pretext that "the people" can't afford such and such, so the government must take over. If the people of a country truly couldn't afford a certain service--as e.g. in Somalia--neither, for that very reason, could any government in that country afford it, either.

Some people can't afford medical care in the U.S. But they are necessarily a small minority in a free or even semi-free country. If they were the majority, the country would be an utter bankrupt and could not even think of a national medical program. As to this small minority, in a free country they have to rely solely on private, voluntary charity. Yes, charity, the kindness of the doctors or of the better off--charity, not right, i.e. not their right to the lives or work of others. And such charity, I may say, was always forthcoming in the past in America. The advocates of Medicaid and Medicare under LBJ did not claim that the poor or old in the '60's got bad care; they claimed that it was an affront for anyone to have to depend on charity.

But the fact is: You don't abolish charity by calling it something else. If a person is getting health care for nothing, simply because he is breathing, he is still getting charity, whether or not any politician, lobbyist or activist calls it a "right." To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil. It is charity still--though now extorted by criminal tactics of force, while hiding under a dishonest name.

As with any good or service that is provided by some specific group of men, if you try to make its possession by all a right, you thereby enslave the providers of the service, wreck the service, and end up depriving the very consumers you are supposed to be helping. To call "medical care" a right will merely enslave the doctors and thus destroy the quality of medical care in this country, as socialized medicine has done around the world, wherever it has been tried, including Canada (I was born in Canada and I know a bit about that system first hand).

I would like to clarify the point about socialized medicine enslaving the doctors. Let me quote here from an article I wrote a few years ago: "Medicine: The Death of a Profession."

In medicine, above all, the mind must be left free. Medical treatment involves countless variables and options that must be taken into account, weighed, and summed up by the doctor's mind and subconscious. Your life depends on the private, inner essence of the doctor's function: it depends on the input that enters his brain, and on the processing such input receives from him. What is being thrust now into the equation? It is not only objective medical facts any longer. Today, in one form or another, the following also has to enter that brain: 'The DRG administrator [in effect, the hospital or HMO man trying to control costs] will raise hell if I operate, but the malpractice attorney will have a field day if I don't--and my rival down the street, who heads the local PRO [Peer Review Organization], favors a CAT scan in these cases, I can't afford to antagonize him, but the CON boys disagree and they won't authorize a CAT scanner for our hospital--and besides the FDA prohibits the drug I should be prescribing, even though it is widely used in Europe, and the IRS might not allow the patient a tax deduction for it, anyhow, and I can't get a specialist's advice because the latest Medicare rules prohibit a consultation with this diagnosis, and maybe I shouldn't even take this patient, he's so sick--after all, some doctors are manipulating their slate of patients, they accept only the healthiest ones, so their average costs are coming in lower than mine, and it looks bad for my staff privileges.' Would you like your case to be treated this way--by a doctor who takes into account your objective medical needs and the contradictory, unintelligible demands of some ninety different state and Federal government agencies? If you were a doctor could you comply with all of it? Could you plan or work around or deal with the unknowable? But how could you not? Those agencies are real and they are rapidly gaining total power over you and your mind and your patients.

In this kind of nightmare world, if and when it takes hold fully, thought is helpless; no one can decide by rational means what to do. A doctor either obeys the loudest authority--or he tries to sneak by unnoticed, bootlegging some good health care occasionally or, as so many are doing now, he simply gives up and quits the field. (The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, Ayn Rand, NAL Books, 1988, pp. 306-307)
Any mandatory and comprehensive plan will finish off quality medicine in this country--because it will finish off the medical profession. It will deliver doctors bound hands and feet to the mercies of the bureaucracy.

The only hope--for the doctors, for their patients, for all of us--is for the doctors to assert a moral principle. I mean: to assert their own personal individual rights--their real rights in this issue--their right to their lives, their liberty, their property, their pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence applies to the medical profession too. We must reject the idea that doctors are slaves destined to serve others at the behest of the state.

Doctors, Ayn Rand wrote, are not servants of their patients. They are "traders, like everyone else in a free society, and they should bear that title proudly, considering the crucial importance of the services they offer."

The battle against socialized medicine depends on the doctors speaking out against it--not only on practical grounds, but, first of all, on moral grounds. The doctors must defend themselves and their own interests as a matter of solemn justice, upholding a moral principle, the first moral principle: self-preservation.

Concluding Note by Lin Zinser: In addition, we must join the doctors in their defense and in our own. Hospital administrators, nurses, physical therapists, health insurance companies, and patients must speak out against these plans, on moral grounds, as a matter of justice. If the doctors become slaves, so will we all.

Leonard Peikoff is a philosopher living in Southern California, and is the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute, and the author of The Ominous Parallels and of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, the definitive presentation of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. He is currently at work on his third book, The DIM Hypothesis.

[Taken from WestandFirm.Org]

Friday, November 6, 2009

Please Do This!

Go to this site and quicky send off a comment to your representative:

http://highnoonforhealthcare.org/
House Speaker Pelosi has said that she wants to push for a floor vote today (Saturday). Let's flood them with our mind!

AMA Obamacare Endorsement Sparks Doctor Revolt

The American Medical Association's much-touted endorsement of the House health care reform bill has triggered a revolt among some members who want the endorsement withdrawn.

Some members are outraged that the group's trustees made the endorsement without the formal approval of the organization's House of Delegates.

On Monday, delegates will vote on a resolution offered by some members that, if approved, will withdraw the AMA’s endorsement of the bill.

(FoxNews)

Thursday, November 5, 2009

What Government Healthcare Does to Patients


I received an email today from a patient who was making an appointment to see a neurologist. She and the secretary were about to schedule the appointment for early next month. At this point, the patient mentioned that she was going to use Medicare to cover the visit. The secretary immediately pushed the appointment back to February 2010.

This is reality, folks. Doctors and their staff are hassled and under-reimbursed by Medicare. This secretary knew it and unfortunately the consequences of government mismanagement were pushed onto this patient who did nothing wrong except turn 65. Expanding the government's hand in healthcare is only going to result in more of the above situations. Fewer doctors will treat government covered patients unless forced, in which case we will end up with fewer doctors in general. Ultimately, patients will be the ones hurt the most. Contact your representatives and encourage them to do the responsible thing and stop any bill that expands government power in in your doctor's office.

Simon Cowell Saves Girl From Socialized Medicine

While U.S. lawmakers quarrel over whether a "public option" is just what America needs to get moving in the direction of socialized medicine and catch up with the rest of the world, the verdict is clear from across the pond.

Stepping in when Britain’s socialized medical system failed, American Idol judge Simon Cowell donated nearly $160,000 to help save the life of a cancer-stricken little girl.

From London’s Daily Mail:

The pop Svengali donated the money for 18-month-old Sophie Atay–from Birtley, Gateshead–to fly to the US for pioneering treatment at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital in New York.

He acted after learning the youngster’s family launched a last-ditch appeal for 500,000 to pay for the treatment last week after they were told Sophie was suffering from a rare form of neuroblastoma and needed treatment within days. [...]

She had received the best treatment that UK hospitals had to offer but if specialist doctors can see her within the next seven days, her chances of survival will rocket from 20 per cent to 90 per cent.

Does this convince anyone else that European-style socialized medicine may not be the best choice for America? Their systems can't afford the latest technology and training that ours can, not to even mention their draconian rationing/death panels. Where will they go after we become like them? Where will we go?

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Alternative Healthcare Plan for Elderly: Shoot Polititians and Go to Jail

Be left on a floating iceberg to die? Not American senior citizens! My grandma sent me this.

Senior Health Care Solution

So you're a senior citizen and the government says no health care for you, what do you do?

Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. Your are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives. Of Course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head, and all the health care you need! New teeth, no problem. Need glasses, great. New hip, knees, kidney, lungs, heart, a sex change operation? All covered. And who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. Plus, because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income taxes anymore.

What a country!

Sunday, November 1, 2009

UPDATE: Pelosi Says "Endgame" is near for Democrat's Healthcare Reform

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal is calling Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page government takeover of healthcare the "worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced."

The Journal says it will create an "unrepealable middle class entitlement" that will cause taxes to "rise precipitously" and will result in "all medicine" being "rationed via politics." The CBO cost estimate is coming in at $1.055 trillion and that's just scratching the surface. The Journal says "ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that."

In case there was any doubt left that ObamaCare is a massive, tax-increasing power grab, consider what Grassfire unearthed about the words used in Pelosi's bill:

--181 instances of "penalty" or "penalties"
--214 times "taxes" or "tax" is recorded
--82 usages of "fee" and "fees"

..A total of 486 times any form of the words penalty, surcharge, tax, fine or fee are used!

--422 instances of "require," "requires" or "required"
--78 times the words "obligation" or "obligated" occur
--219 usages of "regulation(s)"
--106 times "impose, imposed or imposes" are used

..A total of 609 times any form of the words impose, require, mandate, obligation, license or regulation are used

"This is about the endgame now ... There's no philosophical difference."
--Nancy Pelosi


The clandestine, back-room dealings has meant that Americans have been unable to even see the text of the ObamaCare bill -- yet the deal is being cut right now to pass their "Stealth” bill. We are now bracing for a floor vote in the House as soon as Thursday or Friday.

Many conservative groups are organizing massive protests, including the newly-unified Tea Party Patriots.

Single Payer, or Public Option? Where Obama's "Competative" Healthcare Bill is Going

This video from verumserum reveals the truth about the "public option" promised in the Healthcare Reform ("Obamacare") bill being pushed through congress.


http://www.youtube.com/v/7p_mUwzoYcc&hl=en&fs=1&

More here . . .

Thursday, October 15, 2009

ALERT: Democrats to Violate Cogressional Rules to Pass Unpopular Single-Payer Health Care Bill


In an effort to circumvent a full house vote, democratic leaders announced that the healthcare legislation might be packaged with other budget bills which would allow the legislation to pass with 51 votes as opposed to the 60 that's normally required.


"They're doing this because they know they don't have the 60 votes required," argued Sean Hanity. "It's pretty clear that's the only reason. So, to get this all straight, they don't allow members to read the bill before voting and now they're circumventing the legislative process to accomplish their goals. It seems the liberals have forgotten what the word democracy actually means."

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

10 Questions for Obama about Health Care Reform

Today or soon, Congress is set to pass the Baucus version of the Health Care Reform bill; a version that no one, not even Congress, knows what's in it because it will be written after it is passed! (See Wall Street Journal article)

It goes without saying that millions of Americans are very concerned. The results of the nationwide poll conducted over the past two weeks at the website www.toptenhealthcarequestions.com has come up with the following top ten questions concerning Americans over the current version of Democrat Health Care Reform
"We asked the American people to select the top ten unanswered health care questions from a list of over thirty questions. Over 44,000 Americans voted in our poll, and today, we're announcing the results:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ebl_OFEaU8&feature=player_embedded


Here is the text of the questions:

#10 (1540 votes) :
At a town hall meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina on July 29 you said " I will be available to answer any question that members of Congress have. If they want to come over to the White House and go over line by line what's going on, I will be happy to do that." A month ago, Congressman Phil Roe sent you two letters asking you for a time and place to conduct this line by line review. You've not responded to him. Do you intend to honor your promise and sit down with Congressman Roe and hold a serious line by line review of proposed health care legislation or was your July 29 statement merely an insincere political gesture ?

#9 (1626 votes) :
The Administration has repeatedly represented to the American people that the proposed health care reform plan will be deficit-neutral. Referring to the Administration's plan, the Congressional Budget Office Director recently said "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount." Official CBO estimates for the Administration's proposals have, in fact, indicated additional deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years. Why should the American people trust the Administration's numbers rather than those of the C.B.O. on this point? Related Article

#8 (1863 votes) :
The health care reform bill currently pending before the Senate Finance Committee includes over $100 billion in cuts to Medicare. The Administration promises that the cuts to Medicare will not reduce health care benefits to seniors. The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently told senators that the cuts in the bill WILL reduce health care benefits to seniors. Why should seniors trust the Administration more than the nonpartisan C.B.O. on this point? Related Article

#7 (2264 votes) :
You have accused the opponents of this Healthcare plan of using "lies" and "scare tactics" and spreading "disinformation." During your speech on Sept 9, you state that "One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hand't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, AND HE DIED BECAUSE OF IT". In truth, the man, Otto Raddatz, began chemo and was preparing for a stem cell transplant. During a routine review by the insurer, it was found that he had not disclosed having gallstones and an anuerysm. Mr. Raddatz had never been told about the gallstones or been urged to treat them. His sister, appealed to the Attorney General, who reversed the decision within two weeks and Mr. Raddatz had the transplant and lived another 3 and half years. -an indication that the company's decision to rescind his treatment didn't cause his death. Mr. Raddatz didn't die from being denied treatment, but your speech stated so. How can you accuse critics of creating lies about the healthcare proposal when on several occasions your own words have been found to be untruthful?

#6 (2278 votes) :
The Administration argues for a government-funded health insurance plan on the grounds that more competition is necessary in order to reduce health care costs. In response to a question from CNN's Wolf Blitzer as to why the Administration's health care reform plan does not include also interstate competition as a means to reduce costs, David Axelrod responded that "[Interstate competition] is not endemic to the kind of reforms that we're proposing" At least one study has concluded that interstate competition would be likely to reduce health care costs and reduce the number of uninsured. If competition can be expected to reduce costs and increase coverage, why is interstate competition not 'endemic' to the Administration's proposed reforms? Related Article Related Article

#5 (2335 votes) :
You indicated in your interview with George Stephanpolus that if people did not buy insurance that they would be fined a penalty fee but you insisted that it is not a tax. However, on page 29 of the Senate bill that Mr. Stephanopoulus refers to, it states that the fee will be an "excise TAX." How do you expect Americans to believe you have a grasp and knowledge of the healthcare legislation and are able to run it, when it is apparent that you had not even read the bill? Not even 29 pages of it.

#4 (2423 votes) :
The Administration has repeatedly claimed that its health care reform plan will not cover illegal aliens. The Congressional Research Service recently issued a report contradicting the Administration's position, stating "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently participating in the Exchange." Is the Congressional Research Service in error? If so, where is the error? Related Article

#3 (2640 votes) :
You have said you will pay for healthcare by savings through "waste and fraud". By this statement then you are indicating that if you are able to quantify the amount in order to turn it into savings, you must be able to identify where it is. If that is true, why aren't you stopping the waste and fraud now since you can identify it instead of waiting until some unknown deadline? Don't you think this would engender some trust from the American people that you are making an effort to save money or that you know how to?

#2 (2890 votes) :
Why won't government employees and elected officials be covered under a nationwide health care plan? Your employer, the American taxpayers, would like to drop your family's existing coverage and force you into the public option that you so energetically endorse.

#1 (3238 votes) :
Mississippi has adopted lawsuit abuse reform (tort) in their state and has reduced their healthcare premiums by 42% in the last year due to this reform. Gov. Barbour estimates America can save almost 100-200 billion dollars a year implementing just this one reform. Other than the fact that Tort Attorneys and their groups donate heavily to the DNC and did to the Obama campaign, is there a good reason or explanation you can give the American people as to why you have put the Tort attorneys' interests ahead of the healthcare interests of the citizens of this country?

Baucus Bill to Skyrocket Insurance Premiums

Health Insurance companies engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to examine the impact of the Baucus Health Care reform bill on private insurance premiums. The results are startling. The audit examined the impact of four key changes in the health care reform legislation and found private health insurance premiums will rise by 111% over the next 10 years if these provisions are enacted.


Here is what this means in dollar values.
This analysis shows that the cost of the average family coverage is approximately $12,300 today and could be expected to increase to approximately:

  • $15,500 in 2013 under current law and to $17,200 if these provisions are implemented.
  • $18,400 in 2016 under current law and to $21,300 if these provisions are implemented.
  • $21,900 in 2019 under current law and to $25,900 if these provisions are implemented.

This analysis shows that the cost of the average single coverage is $4,600 today and could be expected to increase to:

  • $5,800 in 2013 under current law and to $6,400 if these provisions are implemented.
  • $6,900 in 2016 under current law and to $7,900 if these provisions are implemented.
  • $8,200 in 2019 under current law and to $9,700 if these provisions are implemented.

Democrats and the White House claim this analysis is unfair because it does not consider subsidies to the poor and lower middle class. Of course, not everyone will receive these subsidies. The insurance industry responds that subsidies don't change the fact prices will increase.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

UK Public Option = Death Sentence: The Truth About Single Payer/Socialized Medicine


In Great Britain, the elderly are being denied treatment and left to die. Read how one woman had to fight to save her mother. Do you really want a system similar to this in America?

From Times Online:
AN 80-year-old grandmother who doctors identified as terminally ill and left to starve to death has recovered after her outraged daughter intervened.

Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after medics ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics and denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron had been placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease the last days of dying patients.

Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been condemned to death on the Liverpool care pathway plan. They argue that while it is suitable for patients who do have only days to live, it is being used more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying.

Fenton’s daughter, Christine Ball, who had been looking after her mother before she was admitted to the Conquest hospital in Hastings, East Sussex, on January 11, says she had to fight hospital staff for weeks before her mother was taken off the plan and given artificial feeding.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Tort Reform Would Save $54 billion over 10 years, Says Congressional Budget Office

President Obama said in his health care address to a joint session of Congress that he would consider including tort reform in his plan. Sen. Orrin Hatch asked the CBO for an analysis. The CBO found medical malpractice reform would save the government $54 billion over 10 years. There five different versions of health care reform legislation in Congress now. The amount of tort reform in the the bills is zero. There 43 million reasons President Obama won't push for tort reform. Fox News reported:

Medical malpractice reform would reduce the annual federal deficit, saving the government $54 billion over 10 years, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

The finding bolsters one of Republicans' top health care reform proposals, and provides them with momentum to press for tort reform to be included President Obama's sweeping health care legislation.

"I think that this is an important step in the right direction and these numbers show that this problem deserves more than lip service from policy-makers," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which is to vote on its version of health care reform on Tuesday.

"Unfortunately, up to now, that has been all the president and his Democratic allies in Congress have been willing to provide on these issues," Hatch said in a written statement. "I look forward to having a continued comprehensive dialogue on this critical issue with CBO."

Many doctors pay $100,000 to $250,000 a year in malpractice insurance even if they've never had a judgment against them. Neurology leads the list of high-cost malpractice insurance. Obstetrics isn't far behind.

Supporters of tort reform argue that expense doesn't just drive up the price of medical care, it also leads to defensive medicine, meaning doctors order all sorts of tests they wouldn't otherwise order just to make sure they won't get sued.

Opponents of medical malpractice reforms say it is unfair to limit awards to individuals legitimately injured by a doctor's negligence.

Obama said last month in his address to a joint session of Congress that he would consider including tort reform in his plan.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

CNN Promotes Obamacare with Children Singing

In yet one more shameless collaberation of liberal media and educators, CNN brought school kids to their set to sing the praises of Obamacare. Part of the lyrics say, "Obama says everyone needs Health Care now..." The song is set to the music of the Miley Cyrus tune "Party in the USA."

VIDEO: School Kids Sing for Health Care Reform on Set of CNN

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Medicare has Highest Claim Rejection rate, Usually Twice the Rate of Private Insurance

Obama and the Democrats' plan is essentially to expand Medicare to cover all Americans. He falsely claims he wants to do this because insurance companies reject too many claims. But it turns out Medicare actually has the highest rejection claim rate. (Not a surprise to anyone who works with Medicare).

Don't expect the media to report this.

image by newsbusters.

More here...

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Media Trumpets Bogus Stat To Push Socialized Healthcare

Associated Press, Reuters, ABC, Boston Globe, SF Chronicle... they are all screaming about this new study from the Harvard Medical School that finds 45,000 people die annually from lack of health insurance.


Such a stat surely comes down to subjectivity. Who determines whether lack of health insurance could have saved someone? Barack Obama got caught in several lies about people who he claims could have been saved by health insurance.


This stat is 2 and a half times higher than the most recent serious study. Apparently death rates have more than doubled in the last six years.


This also contradicts the Census Bureau stats on health insurance.


The Organization behind this study has a mission:

Our Mission: Single-Payer National Health Insurance



Leading the study is Dr. Andrew Wilper, who also made these headlines with his "studies":
  • Millions of chronically ill, lacking insurance, can't get needed

  • Uninsured Americans Carry Large Chronic Disease Burden

  • Many U.S. adults with chronic illness are uninsured Physicians

  • U.S. prisoners sicker than believed and have poor access to care

  • One-Third of Uninsured Are Chronically Ill

  • Harvard Study Finds Dangerous Increase in Emergency Department Waits Nationwide

  • Millions With Chronic Disease Get Little to No Treatment

  • More...


    She sent this action alert: "Tell President Obama that single-payer health reform is the only practicable way to achieve his stated goal of universal, comprehensive coverage at an affordable price... Only single payer can rein in costs. Lesser reforms, with or without a “public option,” won’t fix our broken system."


    The other author of the study, David Himmelstein, is even more zealous about pushing socialized healthcare.


  • He said there is no good way to pay doctors except with a single-payer system: "There are a variety of bad ways of paying doctors, but no particularly good ones. "

  • Even the Massachusetts model isn't good enough he writes because it still relies on "profitability."

  • 62% of bankrupties are caused by insufficient healthcare he finds in a study

  • He pushes a single-payer system on PBS

  • He pushes a single-payer system in this study, and finds that most Americans agree.
  • Friday, October 2, 2009

    Learn From California's Mistakes!

    Mercury News makes a great point about learning from history:

    The similarities are "downright eerie," in the words of one expert: A popular and charismatic leader launches a yearlong blitz to remake the health care system. Reformers early on brim with excitement about the prospects for change, but enthusiasm wanes over time as Republican opposition hardens and special interests take aim.

    One attempt — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's gambit in 2007 to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Californians — died in a legislative committee amid worries that the state couldn't afford the multibillion-dollar price. Now, with similar political dynamics at work, Democratic President Barack Obama is trying to succeed where his Republican counterpart in the nation's largest state fell short.

    Saturday, September 26, 2009

    Why are so many doctors against the single payer healthcare plan

    This article by our own cura te ipsum (who is a currently practicing physician) has been #1 on the google search "doctors against universal health care" for quite some time, generating hundreds of views.
    Liberals have asked me, “But you’re a doctor, why wouldn’t you want healthcare to be provided to everybody?” This is the reason:

    If the government cannot provide comprehensive and efficient healthcare on a smaller scale i.e. Medicare or Medicaid, how can it provide sufficiently for every American? Take a look at government healthcare so far. Medicare is a broken system. It was bankrupt by 1972. Since then physicians who accept Medicare have had to face ever-worsening financial garnishment on reimbursements forcing many doctors to stop treating Medicare patients altogether.

    Primarily, elderly patients are seeing restrictions on the amount of care they can receive and with the aging of the baby boomers, demand will increase and this is only going to get worse. Furthermore, the overwhelming financial expense of universal healthcare will eventually result in the some type of healthcare rationing. How is this possible? President Obama has already been laying down the framework for the Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) council. This means that all your care is analyzed in a computer database to compare cost effectiveness against other types of care (I doubt my patients would like their medical history to be part of this national experiment). If at any point the computer says your care is too costly, the treatment options available to you will likely be diminished. You may even incur penalties if you engage in any sort of “risky” behavior such as overeating or riding a motorcycle.

    The CER also involves bureaucrats influencing doctor’s decisions by initiating a process that can result in non-reimbursement for care. When this happens, and reimbursement doesn’t match the effort or quality care that a doctor gives, there is little incentive to provide better quality care. Obama warned that physicians will have to "tighten their belts”. If you want to know what that looks like, just ask the U.K. They drove many of their doctors, especially their dentists, to other countries where they could get reasonable reimbursement for their time and education. When doctors leave and fewer students go to medical school, the country is left with a provider shortage. This reduces timely, quality care and causes further rationing, which also drives up the cost of getting drugs (especially expensive ones like those for cancer). This has already been seen in other countries. Here is a couple examples of what the UK and Canada have to say about their socialized medicine. Click here for hundreds of examples.

    The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets
    Hope and Mcdermott, August 26, 2009 [Daily Express (UK)]

    Couples Face an IVF Postcode Lottery
    - Katherine Fenech, August 6, 2009 [Daily Express (UK)]

    Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE
    - April 29, 2009 [Daily Mail (UK)]

    Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage
    - David Rose, April 23, 2009 [Times Online]

    Surgery postponed indefinitely for 1,000 Kelowna patients
    - Cathryn Atkinson, April 8, 2008 [Globe and Mail]

    Majority of Que. dentists quit health-care system
    - March 27, 2008 [CTV.ca]

    Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report
    - October 15, 2007 [CBC News (Canada)]

    [Many, many more typical news articles from countries with socialized health care programs here.]

    Wednesday, September 23, 2009

    Effects of Obamacare on Medicare Censored : Humana ordered to stop telling seniors how their benefits will be cut under Obama's health care plan.

    Humana recently sent out mailers to their senior clients, warning them that the obvious result of the government's planned $500 billion in medicare cuts will be a reduction in their benefits. The Humana mailer focused squarely on the Medicare Advantage program.
    "While these programs need to be made more efficient, if the proposed funding cut levels become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable," it said.

    It urged seniors to sign up with Humana for regular updates on the health care legislation, and encouraged them to contact their lawmakers in Washington.
    Obama's HHS office took offense at Humana exercising their free speech rights with the truth and ordered the company to immediately halt any such mailings, and remove any related materials from its Web site. In the letter, the government also said it may take other action against Humana.
    Here is a screen shot of the mailer. Click image for a larger view.

    PDF of full mailer is here.
    Although there is nothing misleading about this mailer, HHS alleged that seniors were so senile they would mistake the mailer for an official Medicare communication.

    The HHS did not, however, have any problems with AARP's bulletin to their members that incorrectly claims that Medicare benefits will not be affected.

    Not only is this a blatant disregard of the first amendment, but it is an example of the Obama administration abusing its power by silencing the counter-arguments of its critics. If Obama and the Democrat's plan really is better, it should stand up to the scrutiny and debate of both sides. Silencing the arguments of one's opponents is a tactic of a totalitarian government, not a democracy.

    Tuesday, September 22, 2009

    Detailed Analysis of Democrat's Health Care Reform Bill

    The more the American people learn about the government takeover of health care proposed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her congressional allies, the more they oppose it. Tucked in the more than 1,000-page bill House Democratic leaders put together are hundreds of provisions that will increase health care costs, hurt small businesses, destroy jobs, lead to rationing patient care, raise taxes on families and small businesses, create a massive new federal bureaucracy, break President Obama’s promises, and provide giveaways to special interests.

    A document compiling these proposed hurtful measures with their references in the bill can be found at http://docs.google.com/View?id=dtd6rhs_5gczwjfgj


    The whole document is much to long to post here, but here are the categories listed
    • Despite what President Obama and congressional Democrats say, their bill would increase health care costs rather than lower them by pushing a government takeover of health care.
    • The house Democrat's bill would inevitabley lead to rationing of care, such as we see in every other government-run medical system.

    • Patients and doctors, not government bureaucrats, should make medical decisions. But the House Democrats’ bill puts bureaucrats in charge.

    • In the midst of an economic recession when thousands of jobs are being lost, the last thing families and small businesses need are higher taxes. Yet the House Democrats’ bill would do just that.

    • The House Democrats’ bill includes numerous provisions supposedly designed to “control costs” but in fact it is largely just more of the same.

    • Small businesses don’t fare well under the House Democrats’ bill, whether it is new tax hikes, new fines, or new government mandates.

    • The House Democrats’ Bill Will Result in Federally Mandated and Subsidized Coverage of Abortion

    • The House Democrats’ bill eliminates choices for patients, undermining their rights at the expense of government bureaucrats.

    • The House Democrats’ bill breaks a number of President Obama’s promises.

    • Written with the help of special interests, it’s easy to understand why the House Democrats’ bill provides numerous giveaways to special interest groups and their allies.

    • The House Democrats’ bill gives uncheck power to a new “Health Care Choices Commissioner.” This is extremely troubling given the large scope of responsibility given to the Commissioner. In fact, the Commissioner is so powerful that the title is referenced 182 times in the House Democrat’s bill.

    • The House Democrats’ bill erodes the ability of small businesses and other employers to exercise their rights and obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to provide benefits tailored to their own workforce.

    • The House Democrats’ bill creates a massive new federal bureaucracy littered with new federal agencies, new programs, and new bureaucrats.

    Read all the specific references to this summary at http://docs.google.com/View?id=dtd6rhs_5gczwjfgj

    $67 Billion in Medicare/Medicaid Fraud - Problems with our Current Health Care

    From Elaine Meckler of the Nevada County Tea Party Patriots:

    How can there be $67 billion in Medicare/Medicaid fraud and waste? Do you know that $1 billion equals $1,000 million. How does this atrocity happen? Obviously, it just didn’t occur yesterday. Our current administration inherited a portion of it and this dire situation continues to grow and grow and grow. Did everyone involved put their head in the sand and just hope it would go away? Who is responsible? I don’t know how it got so out of hand, but I can guess. What I do know is that it has to stop. Kathleen Selibus is now Secretary of Health and Human Services in the current administration. I looked on the internet but couldn’t find out what qualifies her for this position. I would think that one of the qualifications would be that the chosen individual has an extensive medical background. What are the criteria for putting someone in charge of healthcare other than the President nominating her.

    I am asking that the current administration get a handle on this horrible situation today, not tomorrow or in the future. There is no reason to have to wait for healthcare reform to start getting this intolerable mess under control. Fraud and waste are a bane on our society. If you or I committed any type of crime including fraud, embezzlement, theft, robbery, or just plain trickery, we would be arrested and thrown in jail.

    I want individuals who work for the government run programs to be accountable. I want all agencies, contractors, insurance companies and doctors to be accountable. I am tired of everyone blaming everyone else. Medicare/Medicaid should be a program that helps seniors and people in need to deal with their medical issues. It should not be a program for thieves, swindlers and people just out to make a buck from other people’s pain.

    Thursday, September 17, 2009

    Americans Prefer Healthcare Status Quo to Obama-Democrat Health Care Reform


    A recent poll shows what we already know, an overwhelming percentage of Americans prefer our American Health Care System (with all it's known faults) to the monstrosity of bureaucracy and draconian rationing Obama and his Congress are concocting.

    More Americans would rather Congress do nothing than pass Obama's plan: 46 percent to 37 percent of people polled say they prefer the current health care system to the one the president has proposed.

    Similarly, more people oppose — 48 percent — the health care reform legislation being considered right now than favor it — 38 percent. While most Democrats — 65 percent — favor the reforms, majorities of Republicans — 79 percent — and independents (55 percent) oppose them.

    This is not surprising given less than one in four Americans (22 percent) think they would be better off under the reforms, and many (60 percent) think they will probably have to make changes to their health coverage despite Obama's assurances that they will not have to. In addition, a sizable majority (67 percent) thinks the president's plan will increase the national deficit.

    By more than three-to-one, Americans say if they were sick they would rather be covered by a privately-run health insurance plan (62 percent) than a government-run plan (20 percent).


    (Poll Data) Poll conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from Sept. 15 to 16. The poll has a 3-point margin of error.


    Now I don't think this means that Americans don't want health care reform. I think it clearly shows that Americans don't want any single payer/universal/socialized/European-style health care program run by the government. We are a democracy, that means that the government is supposed to do what the people want. The people want changes in our Health Care system that will allow for better, more efficient coverage more more people without losing our quintessentially American system of free enterprise. That system has allowed our health care o be the envy of the world; the place where they go when they want quality health care. Americans clearly don't want to change that.

    I would also add that this poll also shows that 60% of Americans (R 76%, I 60%, D 48%) think the country is more divided since Obama has become president vs. 27% (D 38%, I 23%, R 13%) who disagree.

    Friday, September 11, 2009

    Rationing: Problems with Obama / Democrat's Health Care Reform Plan


    While Obama and Democratic leadership have said again and again there will be no health care rationing under the Health Care Reform bill they are pushing, there are several reasons for us not to believe their claims:


    Every other government-run health care program has had health care rationing, sometimes quite severe. Here are some examples from the UK. (Thanks curateipsum)

    Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for NHS
    - Lyndsay Moss, February 13, 2007 [The Scotsman]

    Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report
    - October 15, 2007 [CBC News (Canada)]

    Grads fail to slow doctor shortage
    - Jennifer O'Brien, May 21, 2005 [London Free Press]

    Hundreds on waiting list as hospital pleads for help
    - August 23, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald]

    Women in labour turned away by maternity units
    - John Carvel, March 21, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]

    Dental patients face care lottery
    - March 26, 2008 [Metro(UK)].

    Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing
    - Sarah-Kate Templeton, August 24, 2008 [The Times])
    In Canada, a famous American actress died because their health care system couldn't afford the necessary equipment.


    Our current government-run health care programs already give rationed, second-rate care. Medicare, veteran's hospitals, Medicaid; every one of these and many more currently government-run health care programs run under massive deficits. Partly this is because the government, as always, spends a lot more on bureaucracy and overhead than the private insurance companies; partly it is because the people these programs serve pay little or none of their own health care costs. Because of the lack of money, these programs notoriously ration and limit care to those under their care.


    The Obama administration is already planning health care rationing. 180 degrees from what they are claiming, it is clear that rationing will be an integral part of Health Care reform. Section 1233 of the Health Care Reform Bill (HR 3200) calls for "end of life consultation" meetings with senior citizens that have been dubbed Death Panels by concerned seniors everywhere. And then there is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is a key healthcare advisor to President Obam:
    As an example, he and his coauthors proposed a system of valuation that could take into account that "[a] young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses.

    In a 1996 article in another journal, Dr. Emanuel similarly hypothesized that "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.
    [LA Times]

    While Forbes and the New York Times try to minimize the seriousness of health care rationing, the Wall Street Journal says the obvious truth: Health care rationing will be politicized. Care will be given to the people and groups that will be of the most service to the government at the expense of the others. This puts the government in control of your health care--over your life or death, not you and your doctor. That is tyranny.
    There was an error in this gadget