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.

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

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.