Thursday, October 15, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
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:
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?
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
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
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
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Don't expect the media to report this.
image by newsbusters.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
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":
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.
Friday, October 2, 2009
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.