Obama Administration Tramples On First Amendment: Issues Gag Order To Insurance Companies

I got laid off from my job last Wednesday and have been busy doing things like getting doctor appointments for my family before my medical benefits run out at the end of the month as well as trying to find a new job with benefits so that I don’t have to come up with a way of paying off a $1200/month COBRA payment on limited income.

Anyway, I know I’ve missed a few pretty big news stories since then, but I will try to get them in here as soon as possible.

Right now, I’d like to look at the latest action by the Obama administration. As I recall, Obama said he wanted a good debate about health care reform. If so, then why is he trying to silence those who want to get good infomation out to the people that will be most affected by it?

From the Washington Post:

The federal government has ordered health insurers to stop telling Medicare beneficiaries that proposed health reform legislation could hurt seniors and jeopardize their benefits. The government might take enforcement action against insurers that have tried to mobilize opposition to the legislation by sending their enrollees “misleading and confusing” messages, a senior official of the Department of Health and Human Services said in a memo Monday.

The “messages” in question very correctly note that under HR3200, Medicare benefits to seniors will be reduced. Obama and the Democrats have already publically admitted this in their attempt to show that socialized medicine will not add to the defecit.

So, why the gag order? Why worry about the insuarance companies repeating exactly what Obama and the Democrats have already said?

Proposed health reform legislation would sharply reduce funding for Medicare Advantage plans, and the insurance industry has been battling to prevent that from happening. The bill unveiled last week by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, would directly cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by an estimated $123 billion over 10 years, and it would indirectly reduce funding for those plans by another $15.6 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

And Obama does not want people to know about this? This leads to an even bigger question. Why stifle the debate? Why suppress the very same information that Obama and the Dems have publically acknowledged?

Unless the ultimate goal is to control the debate by controlling the information, nothing else makes sense.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Insurers Criticize Administration ‘Gag Order’
David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post
September 22, 2009

New Obama Rule Would Force Pro-Life Doctors To Perform Abortions

So, where are Doug Kmiec and Chris Buckley now? They were pretty vocal about their “conservatives who support Obama” mantra back during the campaign. They especially liked the attention they recieved as a result.

But now, for some reason, these two are very silent when it comes to the issues that they were certain they had nailed down. Doug Kmiec was convinced that Obama would respect the views of the pro-lifers that Kmiec got to vote for Obama.

Kmiec was nothing more than a useful idiot to Obama since Obama has shown nothing but disdain for and disrespect to pro-lifers whom Kmiec convinced would find a new, elevated status if they voted Democrat last November. How so? Obama’s latest proposed rule change would force pro-life medical professionals into performing procedures they find morally objectionable.

Tonight at 9:00 p.m., the Andrea King Show will have Dr. Joe DeCook, Vice President of AAPLOG, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Here is what he has to say:

“The administration’s new efforts to overturn the HHS regulation could mandate practices such as abortion or shut down many of the 557 Catholic hospitals around the country that treat millions of US hospital patients. “Revoking the regulation is the first step in removing a doctor of his or her rights to make a decision based on conscience and as a result placing that decision in the hands of the government. This issue will not only effect faith-based institutions, but could cause a dire situation for the entire medical profession.”

Of course. You can’t have government-run health care if doctors are free to make their own decisions independent of government influence.

The Obama administration has opened the HHS regulation – also known as “conscience clause” – for public comment until April 9, 2009.

You can access this information on-line here:

Andrea King Show

You can send your comments asking the Obama administration not to trample on the beliefs of those medical professionals who hold pro-life views by visiting the following website:

Recently Posted HHS Rules And Notices

Or sending an email to:

proposedrescission@hhs.gov

I’d like to know where Doug Kmiec stands on this issue and if he still stands by his assertion that Obama would somehow be good for the pro-life movement.

Letters to Senators Webb And Warner About The Porkulus/Spendulus Spending Bill

Here is the text of a letter that I will be faxing/emailing this morning to Senators Webb and Warner, both liberal Democrats from Virginia. Feel free to copy/paste the letter and fax or email it in yourself. Contact information is provided below.

Dear [Senator], I am writing this letter to ask you to vote “Nay” on S. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This bill was a bad idea from the beginning. It will cost $1.3 trillion that we do not have, and $1.3 trillion that our children and grandchildren will have to work to pay off. And, given the new revelations of health care provisions (which have nothing to do with stimulating the economy) that were stealthily inserted into this bill, it is even more imperative that you vote against it. In particular, I am referring to Title VII, the subsection titled “Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality.” It states: “That the funding appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative clinical effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies, including through efforts that: (1) conduct, support, or synthesize research that compares the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions and (2) encourage the development and use of clinical registries, clinical data networks, and other forms of electronic health data that can be used to generate or obtain outcomes data: Provided further, That the Secretary shall enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine, for which no more than $1,500,000 shall be made available from funds provided in this paragraph, to produce and submit a report to the Congress and the Secretary by not later than June 30, 2009 that includes recommendations on the national priorities for comparative clinical effectiveness research to be conducted or supported with the funds provided in this paragraph and that considers input from stakeholders: Provided further, That the Secretary shall consider any recommendations of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research established by section 802 of this Act“ This is very dangerous wording and will lead us to the socialized health care systems that have wreaked havoc on the people of Canada and Europe. Essentially, it allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a standard of who and what can be treated by doctors and hospitals and who and what cannot. In other words, it will permit the Federal Government to approve or disapprove of a doctor’s recommended treatment of a patient. It will effectively allow the Federal Government to over-ride a doctor’s decision. Given the fact that these bureaucrats will have little to no medical training themselves, that alone is reason enough to oppose this bill. Further, this provision was hidden in this bill for a specific reason. Tom Daschle, the tax-evading former HHS appointee, wrote in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis, that he supported the failed socialized medicine plan of the Clintons in 1994 and said that its failure was due to delay. (In actuality, the American people do not want the government making medical decisions for them.) Hence, Daschle wrote “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it. The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.” Thus, this socialized medicine provision was written in to the bill during some late-night session when the cameras were not rolling and the Republicans had been locked out of the proceedings. Please vote “Nay.” On this bill and help to preserve quality health care for Virginia and America and to protect our children and grandchildren from a debt that they had no hand in creating. Thank you.

Senator Webb’s contact information:

Fax: 202-228-6363
On-line contact: Contact Senator Webb

Senator Warner’s contact information:

Fax: 202-224-6295
On-line contact: Contact Senator Warner

Taxes? Dems Want To Raise Them But Not Pay Them

If there is anyone out there who still thinks that the Democrats are some sort of paragon for ethics reform, please send me an email. There is a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like you to buy.

First Timothy Geithner and now Tom Daschle. What is it with Dems and their refusal to follow the same rules that Joe and Jane Average American have to follow? Why do the Democrats assume that they are somehow better than the rest of us and therefore don’t have to abide by the same laws we do?

Daschle owed $128,203 dollars in back taxes and was working on avoiding having to pay them.

Writing for Town Hall, Kevin Freking has the following:

Tom Daschle’s former Democratic colleagues were rallying to his defense after he met behind closed doors with the Senate Finance Committee to discuss problems with back taxes and potential conflicts of interest, but lawmakers promised he will face more questions.

The Dems are rallying to his defense, but would they have done the same thing if Daschle were a Republican? No. That would require integrity.

More:

Those questions will focus on tax issues, such as the $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest that he paid last month, said the aide. Daschle will also be questioned about the potential conflicts of interests he would face because he accepted speaking fees from health care interests, said the aide, who asked not to be identified because the aide was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. Daschle also provided advice to health insurers and hospitals through his work at a law firm. Daschle began the day apologizing for his failure to fully pay his taxes from 2005 through 2007. He capped it off that way as well after meeting with the committee behind closed doors.

Once again, the Dems have shown us the hypocrisy that dominates thier logic. They have one very low standard for themselves and one very high standard for everyone else. People are beginning to notice.

But it won’t matter. The Dems are not in the habit of listening to the American people. They simply go their own way regardless of how unethical or illegal their actions are.

The parting shot:

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, noted the Geithner nomination in saying she suspected tax problems would not prevent Daschle from becoming the next health secretary. “If the guy who is overseeing the IRS can get away with a tax problem, how are you going to hold up the health and human services secretary over taxes?” she asked.

The answer is: Geithner never should have been confirmed to begin with.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Daschle Faces More Questions In Nomination Bid
Kevin Freking
TownHall.com
February 3, 2009