Keep It Up Mobsters!

By Kelli Krauss

Cheers to the American people who have come out of the woodwork to oppose the monstrosity of a health care bill currently supported by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. There is nothing more exhilarating to watch than the wheels of democracy in motion with real Americans taking their representatives in Congress to task.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has called you Nazis, un-American, and your movement “AstroTurf.” Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, refers to you as “evil-mongers.” The President of the United States wants you to “get out of the way” and would like you to be reported to the White House for spreading misinformation. Representative John Dingell thinks you are racists and likened you to sheet wearing KKK members of the 1960’s. You are ridiculed by Senator Barbara Boxer because you dress nicely. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that your concern and anger is “manufactured” and “not completely indicative of what's going on in America”; and NBC News says you are “dumber than Joe the Plumber” and just upset because we have a black President. The arrogant, out-of-touch leaders in Washington D.C. and most in the main stream media just keep turning their noses up to you and the majority of Americans in this country.

During a town-hall-meeting, Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican turned Democrat from Pennsylvania, when trying to respond to the genuine concern of his constituents about this health care bill, was about as inspiring, interesting and persuasive as a can of white paint. There was no substance to his remarks and he sounded bored and defeated. The regular everyday Americans who were there to ask questions sounded more informed and passionate than he did. Other Representatives and Senators have expressed outrage at the fact that you are informed and against the government take-over of our health care. They show disdain for you and want you to just be grateful that they took time out of their busy schedule to listen to you.

I am so proud of my fellow Americans who are making their voices heard. Unlike First Lady Michelle Obama who said “for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country” when her husband became the Democrat nominee for President, this is one of many times that I have been proud of my country. To see so many standing up in opposition to Obama and the Democrats desire to take over our health care, the courage to speak out loudly about it, and the strength to take ridicule from those who don’t understand is inspiring.

Keep it up well dressed mobsters!! We need to stay the course, hold our elected leaders accountable and let them know that we do pay attention; we are concerned; and they cannot do as they please with our country. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

Chuck Norris Doesn't Just Read Books

By Theosebes

Google “Chuck Norris” and the first site that comes up is the website Chuck Norris Facts. He has become a phenomenon on the Internet because of his tough guy image and the jokes pertaining to all things “Chuck Norris.”

Chuck Norris doesn’t read books,he just stares them down until he gets the information he wants out of them.

Yet unlike Al Franken: an actor playing the part of a politician; Chuck Norris has read the Health Care bill and knows what he is talking about.

“While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.”

According to Townhall.com, Mr. Norris did read the bill and found this interesting fact:

“It’s outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading “home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.” The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, “well-trained and competent staff,” would “provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains … modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices,” and “skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development.”

It appears that Hillary Clinton’s village to raise America’s children again is sneaking in through the backdoors of our homes via the Obamacare bill. I for one don’t like Clinton's and Obama’s version of a village and don’t intend to live there or let them raise my children. Their parenting skills are supremely lacking when it comes to running an efficient White House- hold, laying on the backs of our children ninety nine trillion dollars of debt. I don’t want them teaching my children math skills, as they appear to have none themselves. I don’t want them teaching my children how to read, as neither appears to have read the Stimulas Bill nor the Health Care Bill. I don’t want them telling my children who God is, as neither seems to understand the Bible. And I would thoroughly disapprove of the babysitters they want to send into my home according to this bill to coach me on how to raise my most treasured possession.

We already see burned out social workers who have no love for the children they purport to “help.” We see teachers who once had a love for kids stumble in and out of the classroom doing the job, without the motivating love behind it. These are the type of babysitter who will be trained to assess whether or not we as American parents are doing it correctly, by their playbook.

Obama and Hillary both ascribe to the “It takes a village mentality”, but their village is more global than American and the U.N. Treaty on Children is the means to the end. According to an article at Huffington Post, “democrats, from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to California Sen. Barbara Boxer, chair of a Senate subcommittee on human rights, have advocated pushing for Senate ratification of the treaty, which requires two-thirds approval in the 100-seat chamber.” The Obama administration is looking to ratify this treaty.

As pointed out by Warren Mass in his article Obama May Revive Anti-family UN Child Treaty “like all UN conventions — is not based on the premise stated in our Declaration of Independence that rights are God-given and, therefore, unalienable (inherent and not subject to government restriction). As with the UN Charter itself, and the constitutions of many other nations, the convention presumes to grant rights. Any governmental entity that does this also presumes the converse power to restrict or suspend those same rights.” This administration does not see our children as belonging to American families, but as to the world. They desire to push their ethics onto the lives of all Americans, no matter what vehicle it takes, a Healthcare Bill or a U.N. Treaty, and they will not cease or desist until their agenda has permanently changed the landscape of our Nation and individually, our private homes.

My God-given rights as a parent, by virtue of the children God gave me, are not for the government to take away. I can not stand by and allow what I know is best for my children on a day to day basis, to be stripped away by a government that seems to only desire a nation that won’t back talk and will consent to every agenda. Washington D.C., Obama and the Democrats believe they can create a “Changed Nation” by getting to the hearts and minds of our kids. And they are right, they can. By taking away the rights of parents to love and choose what is best for their families, the government becomes the facilitator of cloned American children, all raised under one standard. This standard is not “One Nation Under God”, but rather “We are the world, we are the children.” The standard that has thrown God, the Bible and prayer out of so many crucial places in America will be the one in place when the babysitters come to check on our parenting skills. And if I, as a parent, get in the way of the babysitter, I will be deemed an unfit mother and placed in timeout, indefinitely.

As Chuck Norris pointed out, “Government needs less of a role in running our children’s lives and more of a role in supporting parents’ decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right — and government support — to parent them without the fed’s mandates, education or intervention in our homes.”

Another claim on children, by another government, was Hitler’s Youth. According to History Learning Site, movements for youngsters were part of German culture. The Hitler Youth was a logical extension of Hitler’s belief that the future of Nazi Germany was its children. The Hitler Youth was seen as being as important to a child as school was. Another dictator also saw the benefit in capturing the minds of children. As stated also in the Norris article, Josef Stalin once declared, “Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” These men were smart and so are the Progressives who rule our country today. They know that they can create permanent Change by leaving an indelible mark on our nation’s children, through education and re-education of the American parents.

Perhaps this is why the fight against this bill is so impassioned, as deep down, we recognize a take over of things we holder dearer to us than just Health Care reform. The take over is our freedom to be Americans, to raise our families in God-fearing homes if we so choose and to teach our children what “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” means historically, not progressively. The fight is far from over, but if we have women and men, like Chuck Norris, ready and willing to take a stand, at all costs for our children and the country they will inherit, we can win and return it to our foundational roots.

Health Care Reform is the House Built on the Sand

By Theosebes

“My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what's broken and build on what works.” Really? Then why did the American people have to sit through an hour long gilded sales pitch for the 1,018 page health care reform package? There was nothing simple stated during the Presidential Press Conference regarding health care reform. Nothing to help the American people lean back and say, “This is simple and it makes dollars and sense.”

The average American, when faced with a problem that seems insurmountable, tackles each issue one step at a time. If the house is falling apart, the owner with common sense looks at what absolutely needs fixing so that he may continue to live in his house as he works to correct that particular problem. If the plumbing fails, one calls the plumber, not the bank to do a complete home makeover.

Our servants in Washington, the Congress and the President, should learn from those they serve and make one fix at a time. According to an analysis by Republican staff of the House Ways and Means panel, the deficit from the health care reform bill would be $760 billion by 2024, the end of the first 10 years of full benefits coverage. It would be $1.6 trillion by the end of the 2020s.

This is not how a well run American household handles expenses. They look at the absolute need before them, and spend the appropriate money to fix the immediate problem before tackling the lesser of the needs. Health care needs a fix, but not reform.

Obama’s very language, “Health Care Reform” demonstrates that he is waiting with the wrecking ball, to demo the already standing structure that has many durable and worthwhile features in order to redecorate according to his ideological tastes and beliefs. There is no thoughtful blueprint laid out to see what is worth saving, what needs a little new paint, and what represents the leaking faucet that must be replaced. There is no prioritizing as to what is absolute necessary, but only, “When it comes to the cost of our health care, then, the status quo is unsustainable. Reform is not a luxury, but a necessity. I know there has been much discussion about what reform would cost, and rightly so.”

Obama’s dream home is not a home in which America can afford to live. But like many who were caught up in the Real Estate boom, pulling equity from their over inflated homes, pouring it into a dream home reform project that they couldn’t afford and then losing it in foreclosure, so also is this Administration and Congress doing to our Country. They have no vested interest in the people, but are like the lenders in years past who at all costs, disregarded ethics and morals, sold mortgages to individuals they knew on paper couldn’t afford the ink they were signing with, all for the sake of power and prestige.

The irony is that the President, responding to a question from the Press Corp said, “I have the best health care in the world, I want to see that every American has good health care.” We the people may sit on his porch and have what he terms as “good” while those living in the White House and the Congressional Houses in Washington D.C., get the “best” insurance. If We the People are their employers, if they work for us, then how is it, that we get stuck with the crumbs off the king’s table? How is it that we, the rightful owners of the White House and the Houses of Congress are not even invited to the meal to participate in the discussion?

The Biblical parable about the wise and foolish man can speak to this very issue. In Matthew 7, Jesus talks about building a house, and though He was speaking about spiritual issues, it applies to the kind of decisions that men make and the effects those decisions have on the lives that they influence. The President, by virtue of his position affects Americans through his decisions. Judge for yourself, are the leaders of this country building a house on a rock or the sand? Do their decisions represent wisdom or is there great foolishness in their positions that will cause America to crumble in years to come?

^{24
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. 28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.}

Health Care Reform is just one of the houses being built on the sand. It will cause a huge collapse and the fall will be great.

Wise up America!

Free Healthcare?

By Jenny Erikson

There are two types of “free.” Free as in freedom, and free as in beer.

Some things are essentially free. Rainbows, wildflowers, hugs and kisses from loved ones, and sometimes, a beer from a friend who says, “Don’t worry about it, I’ve got this one.”

As Americans, we are free citizens. It’s right there in the Declaration of Independence, a document that laid out the reasons why it was important for the colonies to break away from Britain’s “unwarrantable jurisdiction.” The Constitution lays out our freedoms; we are free to chose our own religion, to speak our minds, to assemble and petition, to own firearms, to raise our children as we see fit, to vote for a representative government, and we are even free to drink that free beer.

There has been a lot of discussion recently about socialized or “free” healthcare being introduced to the United States. Free healthcare? Where in the world are we going to find enough doctors (who, by the way, are trying to pay off an average of $140,000 in medical school debt each) willing to work for free in order to make sure that every American (or illegal immigrant pretending to be an American) has healthcare?

As a stay-at-home-mom, I work my tail bone off everyday. I’m the maid, the nanny, the chef, the chauffeur, the counselor, the life coach, the activities director, the secretary, the referee, and sometimes if my husband is lucky, I’m other things as well. I do it all for free, without being paid, because of my unbreakable and unending love for my family. But as much as I love my family, it is hard to do it all for free. Really hard. So I have to ask myself, “If it’s hard for me to work for free for my family, whom I love and cherish more than anything on the planet, how hard is it going to be for doctors to work for free for people they don’t even know?”

Free healthcare is an impossibility. There is no such thing as free beer. Your friend paid for it. Maybe he did it because it was his turn to buy, or maybe out of generosity or appreciation for your friendship. But he didn’t do it because the bartender said, “Sir, you make twice as much money as this man, so it is only ‘fair’ that you buy his beer for him.”

That’s what our government is trying to do regarding healthcare. It isn’t going to be free, because someone is going to have to pay for it (estimated cost is 1-1.5 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.) Doctors and nurses need to be paid, along with the scientists that develop new drugs, the engineers that build medical equipment, the architects that design hospitals, and even the janitors that keep the toilets clean. Taxes are going to skyrocket. Everything will be taxed, from the CO2 we breath out (double tax if that breath included nicotine), to sodas, and of course, to incomes.

It isn’t going to be free either, with “legislation that would require all Americans to have health insurance, prohibit insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions and place other restrictions on the industry.”

I’m a grown up. I like my freedom. I like choosing my doctor, and I like that doctors can refuse patients. I like being free to choose my car, my vocation, my religion, my food, and my home. I like that all Americans have those freedoms, even if they choose differently than me. It’s precisely that freedom that makes our nation great. An entrepreneur is free to make or improve something, investors are free to fund it, and consumers are free to purchase it.

Our government is sliding down the slippery slope of oppressive power. Obama wants to tell us what to eat, what to drive, how to run our companies, and what medical treatments we may receive. Oh sure, we’ll still have a “choice,” but the taxes will be so crippling that it will “necessarily bankrupt” us. As history has shown us over and over, everybody’s a loser in a tyrannical state. The Cubans aren’t driving 50 year old cars and dying of malnutrition because they like it that way.

Jennie is a conservative Republican chick with a strong opinion and a smart mouth who loves her husband and kids with the ferocity of twenty tigers fighting over a meatball.

Americans Are the Real Naysayers on Healthcare

By Nichole Hungerford

“For those naysayers and cynics who think that this is not going to happen, don’t bet against us...We are going to make this thing happen because the American people desperately need it.” Emphasis not added!

This threatening statement made by President Obama comes amidst a Rasmussen poll demonstrating that as of today, 49% of Americans now at least somewhat oppose the Democratic healthcare reform proposal while 46% are at least somewhat in favor of it. This is a fairly dramatic change from a poll taken just two weeks ago where 50% were for, and 45% were against the proposal.

So, are conservatives winning the argument on this crucial issue? Are people beginning to see through the Obama deception? It is no surprise that in his most recent statements, Obama again exploits the crisis lie, characterizing the state of healthcare as a “desperate need.” In fact, Americans enjoy unparalleled healthcare, the vast majority of Americans are happy with their coverage, and all this with the added benefit of not having to suffer the appalling atrocities of socialized medicine. Of course, none of Obama’s radical agenda would ever stand a chance of being enacted without the guise of a “crisis” obscuring it, which is why he inevitably sounds the alarm on every issue that will expand the power of the federal government and the presidency. At this point, however, it sounds as if Obama is going to have to force this project on an unwilling populace who, let’s be honest Mr. President, are the real "naysayers" on this issue.

Dependence Day

By Kelli Krauss

Upon celebrating the 4th of July, the birth of our nation under the Declaration of Independence in 1776, I couldn't help but wonder what direction our nation is free-falling to. Our Founding Fathers risked everything to fight for a country that they believed in. A free country. A country where "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." When America finally won her Independence from Britain, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written with the purpose of limiting government. We fought for Independence and they knew that we needed to preserve it. We needed to create a country where the strong arm of the government could not interfere with our right to live free. Are we still that country? The country that stands for freedom and an individual's right to earn a good life? I am not so sure anymore. There are more and more people out there that think they deserve a good life and that the government should provide it. The current Democratic controlled Congress and President Barack Obama are only too happy to comply with this.

Since his inauguration on January 20th, President Obama and Congress have been spending tax payer money uncontrollably, have taken over a portion of the auto industry, are setting the stage to control and regulate more of the banking industry and Wall Street, and now they want to take over the health care system and pass a Cap and Trade bill that will raise prices for all Americans on everything from heating your home to things you purchase at the store. If the Cap and Trade bill passes in it's current form, a government agency will be created that will inspect your house before you can sell it and tell you what improvements need to be made to meet government "green" regulations. Just as medical decisions should be made by a doctor and the patient, shouldn't improvements on a home be made between the buyer and the seller based upon an independent home inspection? Not according to the current administration and those running Congress. They know what is best for every American.

Our President couldn't even get off the fence to come out with a strong stand on Iran, the election and the protests for freedom. First he said,"We're still waiting to see how it plays itself out...." and that "The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way we are going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States." I am sure to the people protesting, there was a difference. To many who were protesting, it was not so much that Mousavi himself didn't win, it was the idea that Ahmadinejad could take an election illegally. Obama claims he didn't want to "meddle" in Iran's problems, but by making these comments and belittling what the people there were protesting, he did. If there was no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi and both regimes would be hostile to the U.S. anyway, then why be so timid and not condemn the actions of the government?

It was only after coverage of the protests increased and the tragic shooting of a 26 year old woman by the Iranian Basij Militia while exiting a car, that President Obama decided to speak with stronger criticism on the actions of the Iranian government, "When a young woman gets shot on the street when she gets out of her car that's a problem." Mr. President, it is more than a problem, it is murder.

Now to the complete other end of the spectrum, when the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras had their military remove the leftist leaning President Zelaya, Obama came out quick. He claimed immediately that it was "not legal" and that Zelaya should be reinstated as President. In fact Zelaya was corrupt, had mismanaged finances of the government and was trying to circumvent the Constitution of Honduras by extending his term of office. The Congress agreed with the Honduran Supreme Court's ruling that Zelaya was in violation of the their Constitution and the military complied by removing Zelaya. As Hans Bader stated in his article, Will Obama blackmail Honduras into installing a bullying would-be dictator?, "The Honduran military's role in enforcing the court order does not make it a "coup" any more than federal troops' role in enforcing the court-ordered integration of the Little Rock public schools in 1957 constituted a military occupation or takeover."

What is scary is that Obama stated that the "U.S. will stand on the side of democracy" so to him, Zelaya represented democracy! In taking this stance, President Obama has now found himself agreeing with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and every other leftist dictator and leader in Latin America. I applaud Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for taking issue with the Obama administration on it's reaction to Honduras.

In a letter to Obama, Ros-Lehtinen stated "the U.S. stance from the onset appears to have been focused on supporting one individual, President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, irrespective of the Honduran constitution, rule of law, and democratic institutions. ... [T]here has been no apparent attempt by the U.S to discern the truth about the status of democratic and constitutional order in this Central American country, before making summary conclusions and issuing condemnations based on incomplete information." She ended the letter by saying she hoped the Obama administration "will not have the U.S. response hinge on unconfirmed reports and accusations by sources with a vested interest in ensuring a particular outcome that may, or may not be in the interest of the United States."

The Senate will soon start confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who President Obama has nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States. She has stated, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." I argue that she does not see all people equally. She first sees ethnicity, then gender, and then the law, which she wants to create. In 2001, she said this, "Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." Anyone who is a judge and makes it clear that they will be bringing their bias to the bench based on their heritage, gender and experiences, should not be anywhere near the Supreme Court.

Our country is changing. It is changing because we are being led by a man who lacks the knowledge of what freedom and democracy is, to be President of the United States of America. If the United States doesn't stand up to the government of Iran and doesn't give the people of Iran the message that we stand solidly with them in their struggle for freedom; if our leader doesn't see that in Honduras, the wheels of democracy were actually working in the ousting of Zelaya; if our President and Congress force government controlled health care and continue to take over industry after industry; if our government sees fit to impose taxes and create another federal bureaucracy to make the country "green", and if a judge gets confirmed to the Supreme Court who clearly doesn't see all people equally and sees her role as one to create law and not interpret it justly, where is our freedom headed?

The American people need to understand that if actions are not taken to stop the current trend of government interference in our lives and it's inability to stand up for the struggles of freedom in the world, we may be longing for the days of celebrating our hard fought-for Independence because we will be mourning our complacent birth of Dependence. Dependence on a government that thrives on power. The power to tell you what is right for you. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, " That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.S. Cautious on Calling Honduras a "Coup" (cbsnews.com)


• Obama Keeps Shredding the Constitution (obamaexposure.com)

The Medicare Trust Fund Will Run Out of Money in 8 Years. So, Lets put More People into the Program?

By Jill Serbousek

The news coverage on Healthcare reform and Medicare can be very confusing these days. The current administration continues to tout Medicare as a model for reform. Then other reports discuss the fact that Medicare cannot be sustained without the help of the private insurance industry, who supplements a percentage of the Medicare bill. In the same Chicago Tribune article that reported the grim news about Medicare’s impending insolvency, I also found this quote: "Medicare is central to the effort to promote high-quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a member of the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees.

Here are a few of my questions:

1. Does Medicare really provide high-quality care? Compared to other countries, the answer is most likely YES. Compared to private insurance? Doubtful. Medicare pays a pre-negotiated “flat fee” based on a Diagnostically Related Group or DRG. So, if you were having surgery, the hospital and surgeon will get a fixed amount to care for you. This means that they will work hard to make sure that the cost of your care fits into that fixed/flat payment. Would your younger, non-Medicare, friends receive the same care? Maybe, maybe not. Since there is no flat fee to work with, the doctor may be more willing to utilize newer technology, in many cases, more current standard of care. Even if you pay more for your Medicare coverage, as do patients who are in a higher earning category are required to do, your care will be dictated by the same pre-negotiated flat fee for your condition/procedure. In fact, those patients will pay 2 to 3 times the amount in the Part B premiums than their lower earning counterparts, for the same care. For basic healthcare needs, Medicare is probably adequate in quality. Not sure that I would characterize it as “high” quality, knowing that the flat fee forces a rationing of technologies utilized.

2. Does Medicare provide “affordable” care? It depends on who you listen to, and who you are talking about. The Sebelius quote implies that Medicare provides affordable care, so much so that it should be offered to “all Americans.” She is most likely referring to the affordability to patients. However, there are reports that estimate up to 89% of Medicare recipients have a supplement because it’s commonly known that Medicare will only pay for about half of a retiree’s healthcare costs, leaving large gaps. So, who is Medicare affordable and cost-effective for? The government? It appears that way since they are using the program to pay for only half of the participants needs.

3. If 89% of Medicare participants need a Medicare Supplement to pay for up to half of their healthcare costs, and Medicare is going broke, how does it make the program a great “model” for reform? This is the big question. I’m still doing research. Still trying to figure out why the politicians think that expanding Medicare or coming up with a Federal Health plan is a good idea. Once thing I am sure about, my confidence in the success of a federal plan is low…..

Resources worth reading:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/09/medicare-2009-p.html

http://www.online-health-insurance.com/health-insurance-resources/HFHC/content/medicare-supplements.htm



About Jill Serbousek:
Jill has been a marketing executive in the Medical Device industry for the past 20 years. First at Johnson & Johnson, then at Medtronic’s Spinal and Biologics business. She is a recognized expert, writer and frequent speaker on both web marketing and social networking in healthcare. Jill lives in Memphis, TN .

Link: http://www.healthandsharing.com/

Six Reasons Government-Run Health Care Is Bad for America, by Guest Blogger Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ)

Washington politicians are rushing to dramatically change America’s entire health care system in the few weeks remaining between now and Congress’s traditional August recess. They intend to create a vast, new government-run plan for hundreds of millions of Americans. This government takeover of private medicine will have devastating consequences. Here are some of the worst:

1. Your benefits will be taxed. We’ve heard the promise time and again, “Your taxes won’t go up one cent,”…unless you have health insurance. Now, Congressional Democrats are proposing to tax the employer-provided benefits most Americans rely on for their medical care. Health insurance already costs too much. Taxing the health care benefits of hardworking Americans will increase its cost even more and drive additional Americans onto a government health care program.

2. If you like what you have, you will lose it. A new government-run plan will destroy your private health care coverage. While proponents of such a plan claim they will allow people to keep what they have, a government-run program will destroy private care, making it uncompetitive and more and more expensive. Millions of Americans who currently have private insurance will be forced onto a government plan.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a member of the House Democrat leadership, in a moment of unguarded candor, recently acknowledged their goal: “[N]ext to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option saying: it wouldn’t let private insurance compete, that a public option would put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer … he was right!” [emphasis added].

3. Your care and drugs will be rationed. In every country with government-run health care, government health boards decide who is allowed to have what drugs, procedures, and treatments. For instance, Medicare patients were recently informed they would be denied virtual colonoscopies.

Resources will be stretched thinner than ever before, and patients will be denied care to keep costs down. In anticipation of this, the stimulus package included a $1.1 billion research provision so that, “those items, procedures, and interventions… that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed” [emphasis added].

4. You will be placed on wait lists. Government care not only means rationing, it means bureaucracy and delays. In Massachusetts, the model state for universal coverage, one clinic has a wait list of at least 1,600 people—about four months—for an initial appointment. As one Canadian judge wrote, “Access to a waiting list is not access to health care.” What good is government coverage if all it gets you is a spot on a waiting list?

5. The quality of your care will plummet. Government insurance comes with strings attached for patients and doctors—and the incentives are all wrong. Already, Medicare rewards doctors for the volume of care provided, not for outcomes. If you get well, the doctor sees you less and his income decreases. This government model gives incentive to cram more patients and appointments into every day because quantity, not quality, are what counts. Just imagine: your doctor’s office or hospital will become more and more like the DMV.

6. You will have less choice and freedom. Government has expanded to an unprecedented size. It has taken over banks and car companies and sunk our nation into unthinkable debt. Every day, we see Washington creeping into our bank accounts, our minivans, and now even our doctors’ offices. Obamacare will mean losing one of our most intimate freedoms—the freedom to choose our medical care.

Thomas Jefferson vs. ABC News

By: Kelli Krauss

"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave right now in agony to see the country that he believed in and stood so strongly for, be mocked by ABC News running an infomercial for the President and his health care plan out of the White House. This is surely not what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights and ensured the freedom of the press.

ABC is set to air all their news shows from the White House for one day and they will be dedicated to promoting Obama's health care plan. In order to make sure that you are convinced and sold on it, a prime time special called "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" will also be aired that evening. In a town-hall-style setting, President Obama will answer questions presented by the audience members who will be selected by ABC News. ABC has refused a request by the RNC to have a representative of the party's plan on during the Obamathon and has also refused to let paid ads air during the program showing any opposing viewpoint.

Many are accusing ABC News and anchor Charles Gibson, and rightly so, of selling Obama's socialized health care plan "without any opportunity for opposing views." This is on the heels of a new study that shows ABC News coverage of President Obama's health care plan is favorable by a ratio of 3 to 1.

At what point did the press turn from the true whistle-blowers and finders of truth, of reporters on fact and not propaganda to the mindless, spineless drones they are now. There is a reason that the big three networks ABC, NBC and CBS viewership continues to fall as a news source. In the cable news arena, FOX consistently beats out the other news channels in prime-time. Now apparently this hurts President Obama's feelings as he stated in an interview with CNBC, " First of all, I've got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration."

When CNBC's John Harwood quickly identified the station as FOX News, the President responded,"Well, that's a pretty big megaphone, and you'd be hard-pressed, if you watched the entire day, to find a positive story about me on that front." He obviously doesn't watch FOX all day because they have opposing viewpoints on constantly and many of them are very positive of the President and his agenda.

Obama felt comfortable in continuing with this, "We welcome people who are asking us some, you know, tough questions, and I think that I've been probably as accessible as any president in the first six months–press conferences, taking questions from reporters, being held accountable, being transparent about what it is that we're trying to do. I think that, actually, the reason that people have been generally positive about what we've tried to do is they feel as if I'm available and willing to answer questions, and we haven't been trying to hide them all."

Accessible? Accountable? Transparent? This President and administration have been anything but. His so-called press conferences were nothing but teleprompter sightings with questions from reporters who were preselected. That's what I call accessibility. The only person that Obama holds accountable for anything is Bush. He whines and blames the Bush administration every chance he gets. The only transparency that Obama and his administration have displayed so far is letting the public know what restaurant and Broadway show he and his wife went to on date night.

Let's not forget his comment at the White House Correspondents dinner, "Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me, apologies to the Fox table." Joke or not, he knows who in the media serve as his "megaphone."

We are supposed to feel confident in a fair analysis of Obama's health care plan because ABC claims that they, and they alone will pick the people to take part in the town-hall-style question and answer session. They will ensure that the President will have to answer tough questions. This is the equivalent of a kid in school getting a copy of the math exam the night before it is given. There will be no tough questions for Obama and I am confident that ABC will make sure of that.

Grab a Calculator the Math is Getting Fuzzy

By: Jill Serbousek

I admit to needing a calculator when doing math problems that involve multiple digits. I even resort to using a spreadsheet because my calculator isn’t great when doing problems in the trillions. So, as I read through the news reports, government reports and analyst summaries, I actually attempt to keep up with them on the math. Sometimes the methodology and assumptions are tough to understand, but the math should make sense right? The hardest part is that they never give you all of the numbers that are needed to reproduce their answers. Often the ‘denominator’ or some key factor is missing. When this occurs, I try to track down the source reports that are referenced. This is typically when I get really concerned…..

Here are some of the “facts” currently being discussed:

• An additional “$1 trillion over 10 years will be needed to cover the uninsured”, however, according to the Congressional Budget Office “36 million people would still be uninsured.” I need help understanding this one. Why would we change our entire healthcare system to compound the cost and not even take care of those that were supposed to receive help?

• Obama stated that the government could save $106B by cutting federal payments to hospitals. Wouldn’t cutting federal payments further hinder the Medicaid program’s success in caring for it’s participants?

• “…cost control (is) a coequal objective, just as important as the expansion of insurance coverage…” according to Rahm Emmanuel. Nobody will argue that reducing/controlling costs should always be a focus. However, I have yet to read an article where the government is willing to evaluate the costs that they directly impose on the healthcare industry. According to Christopher Conover, in 2004 the government imposed nearly $340B per year on regulation of the healthcare industry. I’m sure that this number has been increasing. His report also points out that almost half of this is wasteful. Hmmm… a great example of how regulation leads to increased costs. Why isn’t the government looking more closely at the cost/benefit of how they directly impact the overall costs?

• Another major cost factor that is being treated as the ‘elephant in the room’ is the cost of defensive medicine. It is unrealistic to reduce the cost of healthcare without also evaluating how the legal system drives up the cost of care with increased number of diagnostic tests, medical malpractice insurance, litigation, etc. Obama actually dipped his toe in the water with this topic, but took a cap on malpractice awards off the table. (Which, according to the reports, received a loud “boo” from the audience) Of course, he is a lawyer. Plus, one of the largest lobbying groups in America, who uses 95% of their PAC funds for the Democratic party, is the American Association for Justice. This is a fund for trial lawyers and law firms. You can learn more about all of the lobbying groups in America at Open Secrets’ website. This is an awesome and informative site.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/toppacs.php?Type=C&cycle=2008

• Speaking of the costs that “defensive medicine” adds to the system, it was shocking to me that the whitehouse’s healthcare economic report does not even address the cost of defensive medicine or government regulatory costs in their self-proclaimed “comprehensive” cost report on healthcare. Not even a mention. As if the entire cost of care and coverage is the fault of doctors, insurance companies and industry. Obama had the chance to recognize that defensive medicine is the reason why doctors order “more diagnostic tests than necessary” when he spoke to the American Medical Association this week. However, he chose to blame those alleged “unnecessary” tests on the doctor’s “financial incentives.” That is a VERY broad and unproven allegation. Just ask a doctor, any doctor in the United States, about their practice costs. They will ALL tell you that the threat of being sued is their biggest worry, and the insurance to help them if this happens is one of the largest, if not largest costs. Guess who this cost is passed to? The consumers/insurance companies who pay for the doctor’s services. We simply cannot reform healthcare costs without looking at legal costs associated with medicine.



About Jill Serbousek:
Jill has been a marketing executive in the Medical Device industry for the past 20 years. First at Johnson & Johnson, then at Medtronic’s Spinal and Biologics business. She is a recognized expert, writer and frequent speaker on both web marketing and social networking in healthcare.
Jill lives in Memphis, TN and sits on the Board of Directors for several important organizations in the Memphis area, including: National Civil Rights Museum, The Church Health Center, Memphis Academy of Science and Engineering Charter School and The Leadership Academy.

Bottom line: Other Countries Cut Out Services to Reach their Low Cost Status

By: Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD

Will a single payer health care system hold down the increasing cost of health care in the United States? President Obama and other proponents of this socialized form of health care argue that it will. Of course there are many ways to debate this question, but much objective evidence suggests that it will not. Let’s look at this from two perspectives. First, what does the comparative cost data between the United States and government controlled health care systems (such as Canada) tell us? Second, what are the financial implications of this “less expensive”, government controlled health care system for the American taxpayer?

Most international comparisons of health statistics are based on data collected by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). According to the OECD, the United States spends more for its health care than any other country on earth, whether analyzed as dollars per person or percentage of GDP. One problem with these statistics, however, is that not all countries report their cost data using the same guidelines.1 Thus, often the statistics are comparing apples to oranges; or put another way, garbage in = garbage out! For example, Germany includes the cost of nursing care in their cost statistics, Great Britain does not.2 Other countries count hospital “beds” whether it is occupied and staffed or not, others only count it if both are true.3 Obviously, cost data for these countries will vary depending upon what they include and do not include.

A study by Gerald Anderson et al, published in Health Affairs attempted to more accurately assess health care costs across international borders.4 To do this, these authors calculated the average annual increase in the percentage of per capita spending on health care by OECD countries. As seen in the figure below, health care spending in nearly all of the studied OECD countries grew at about the same rate as the US, or greater! In fact, according to these researchers, the real expenditures for hospital and physician services actually decreased in the US during the 1990’s, putting the US well below the mean for other OECD countries. When you consider that the US has greater access to health care and technology, less rationing, and a host of health care stressors not seen in other countries (e.g. a higher rate of homicide, obesity, and AIDS), these results argue strongly for the “strength” of our current health care system.

Average Annual Real Growth in Per Capita Health Spending 1960-1998:
United States 2.6
United Kingdom 2.5
Canada 0.8
Australia 2.7
New Zealand 2.6
Germany 2.3
Netherlands 2.6
Japan 3.5

The figure above does show that the increase in per capita health spending was much less in Canada than any other country. What is not seen in the figure, however, is that it did this by cutting services to the extent that patient access to care was compromised. For example, block grants to Canadian provinces for health care were cut in 1986, 1989, and (cut IN HALF) in the second half of the 90’s.5 Provinces, in turn, cut funding to hospitals, cut physician fees, limited purchases of new technology, and removed coverage of some services from provincial insurance plans.5 As a result available hospital beds were reduced by 1/3 (6.6/1000 to 4.1/1000) between 1987 and 1995. 6 In Saskatchewan alone, over 50 hospitals were closed. In 2002 it was reported that the Canadian health care system was underfunded by over 5 billion dollars annually!7 Throughout this period, satisfaction with the Canadian health care system fell precipitously.

A strong argument can be made, therefore, that cost increases will not be held down by a government run health care monopoly. Moreover, it also seems likely that access to health care and health care technology will become more restricted. If the Canadian experience is repeated in the US, Americans will not be happy! The second question we wanted to address, was how much will this “less” expensive, (and inferior) health care system really cost the American taxpayer?

Estimates of the cost of the socialized health care system proposed by President Obama are not being disseminated yet, as all deliberations of his health care task force are being kept quite secret. (Wait, didn’t he campaign on a policy of transparency?) However, we can get an idea by examining the impact of policies enacted during the first 100 days of his administration. According to a study conducted by USA TODAY, it will cost EVERY American household $55,000 just to cover the commitments already made by the Federal government, and this doesn’t include the “big ticket” items such as “universal medicare”!8 The US government took on $6.8 trillion in new debt in 2008, and no end is in sight. That means that, right now, the US would already need to set aside $63.8 trillion in a lump sum to pay obligated benefits that won’t be covered by future taxes. (That’s a half million dollars debt for every household in America.) Where do you suppose that money is going to come from? When all the sleight of hand ends, it comes down to this, you either raise taxes, cut benefits (as seen in Canada above), or both. The more I study the “model” systems which President Obama’s health care policies are based upon, two things become very clear: 1) the quality of health care in the US will become significantly inferior to its current state, and 2) it will cost the American taxpayer MORE, not less! As a surgeon, my recommendation for or against surgery for every patient is based upon a realistic analysis of risk vs benefit. (In neurosurgery, you can’t afford to live in a fairy tale.) If the American public were my patient, I most certainly could not recommend proceeding down the reckless pathway proposed by our current President and his administration.

1 OE CD Health Ststems: Facts and Trends 1960-1991, “Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1993.”
2 Goodman, John C., Musgrave, Gerald L., Herrick, Devon M., Lives at Risk, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, New York, 2004, pp 78.
3 Hensher, M., Edwards, N., Stokes, R., “The Hospital of the Future: International Trends in the Provision and Utilization of Hospital Care”, British Medical Journal 319:845-848, 1999.
4 Anderson, Gerald F., “Health Spending and Outcomes: Trends in OECD Countries 1960-1998.”Health Affairs (May-June) 2000. pp 150-157.
5 Gray, Gwen, “Access to Health Care Under Strain: New Pressures in Canada Amend Australia”, Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 23:905-947, 1998.
6 Possehl, Suzanne R., “Northern Plights”, Hospitals and Health Networks 71:56-60, 1997.
7 Spurgeon, David, “Canadians Need to Spend C$5bn More a Year on Health Care”, British Medical Journal 325: 1058, 2002.
8 Cauchon, Dennis, “Leap in US Dept Saddles Taxpayers”, USA Today, Friday, January 30, 2009.


Richard G. Fessler, M.D., PhD is a professor of Neurosurgery at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. He is very active in the research and development of new surgical techniques that are designed to provide patients with less blood loss, faster recoveries and improved outcomes over traditional spinal surgery. You can learn more about Dr. Fessler’s work at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine by visiting

http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/news/past-years/2008/2008L-January/fessler.html

Obama's New Healthcare Ally?

By: Laura Adelmann



President Obama has been saying for months that you can’t fix the economy without first fixing healthcare. Originally a supporter of single-payer government healthcare, Obama states that he now believes private insurance should remain, but in competition with a public government-run option. Obama has a very interesting partner in pushing his plan: ABC News.

On June 24, if you tune in to ABC, the news will be broadcasting from the White House, followed by a primetime special “Prescription for America.” This program will be a townhall style question and answer session with the President. ABC claims this program will present both sides of the healthcare debate. However, the only party who will be answering questions and using prime network time to sell his views will be Barack Obama.

Faced with a seemingly one-sided sales event for Obama’s healthcare agenda, Ken McKay, Chief of Staff for the Republican National Committee wrote to the head of ABC News. He requested the opportunity to share the Republican’s healthcare reform ideas. He was rebuffed.

ABC News claims that the audience who will question Obama on his healthcare agenda will be chosen exclusively by ABC. ABC suggests that this will somehow present both sides of the issue. ABC fails to realize that asking a challenging question of the President is not the same as having the opportunity to answer that question and the time to persuade Americans that government healthcare is what we need.

Considering the government takeover of GM and the President’s desire to expand the Fed to take over companies whose survival it deems necessary, it should come as no surprise that the media, already carrying water for Obama since day one, now seems to be serving as his propagandists. Conservatives need to call their congressmen, write to their local newspapers and talk to friends and family. All we can do is fight when the media appears to have taken sides.

Link: The Random Blog Post Generator Service

Never Waste a Crisis - Next Up: Health Care

By: Kelli Krauss

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.” These are the words of Barack Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. It appears that the President, his administration and a willing Democratic Congress are using Emanuel's rule to push through their agenda, without questions, at the expense of the American people.

After Barack Obama became President, he quickly worked to pass his stimulus bill, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He claimed that "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future," He pushed for such fast action that neither he nor Congress had time to actually read the bill, or maybe they didn't care to, that spent $787 billion dollars. The White House estimates that the government will create a record $1.8 trillion budget deficit this year which is more than four times last year's all-time high.

Since the passage of the stimulus bill, our economy has continued to decline and our unemployment rate is now at 9.4 percent, a 25 year high. Under Obama's plan, the unemployment rate was supposed to peak at 8 percent. The answer President Obama has come up with now is to spend more money even faster, though he admitted in an interview, "Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far."

Then came the announcement that Supreme Court Justice David Souter will retire in October. Once again, it must be a crisis because President Obama has set a deadline for a vote on nominee Sonia Sotamayor by the start of the Senate's five-week recess in August, and Senator Leahy has obeyed. Leahy announced the confirmation hearings will begin on July 13.

Apparently Senator Leahy made the announcement of the confirmation hearings before letting the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee know the date had been set. The Republicans had urged for the hearings to be set for September since there are ten times as many cases to review than Justice Roberts had. Hearings in September would allow plenty of time for Sotomayor to prepare to take over in early October.

Senator Jeff Sessions has now asked Sotomayor to provide more detail on her questionnaire because some of her answers were incomplete. "The least we can expect is complete and full answers," commented Senator Sessions and six other Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed and joined Sessions in his written request to Sotomayor. The Democrats are following the rule, hold the hearings quickly, while answers are incomplete and no one has time to comb through her records because it's a crisis and, "they are opportunities to do big things."

So now to health care. President Obama is now making the rounds and campaigning (the thing he does best) on fast passage of a health care bill. He said, "We can't afford to put this off," in a meeting with Senate Democrats. "This window between now and the August recess I think is going to be the make-or-break period. This is the time where we've got to get this running."

Once again, we find ourselves with our President lecturing us on the need for fast action. Are we to move so fast again that there will be no time to actually read the bill? What happened to the promised 5 days of bills being out on the internet for the public to browse before being signed? Obama has said that rising health care costs are unsustainable for families, businesses and governments and wants immediate congressional action on a health care bill so it can be passed by the end of the year.

With the current administration, we can expect everything to be a crisis. Immediate action to a crisis with this administration and the Democrats in Congress, enables them to pass legislation or Supreme Court nominees, without any real debate or questions. This just shows that in the arena of ideas and solutions, the Obama administration and the Democrats have none.

So I leave you with Rahm Emanuel's words again, “Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.” When will the American people wake up and pull the blanket of wool, that Obama and the Democrats have so intricately weaved, off of their eyes?

Debunking the Myths about Health Care in America

Image by prudencebrown121 via Flickr

By John H. Peloza M.D.

Special Book Review

In “The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care. A Citizen's Guide,” Ms. Sally C. Pipes surgically exposes the misleading arguments of those who support government run national health care. In a time when Americans seem to believe in the competence of government to solve the health care “crisis,” she gives the reader ample reason to think again. There are many examples of how poor government solutions perform in reality as compared to theory and at what cost in both financial and human terms. Ms. Pipes acknowledges the main problems with the U.S. health care system being access and affordability. She clearly demonstrates why this exists and how to address it in a responsible, effective, and workable manner relying on free markets rather than the heavy hand of unresponsive and bureaucratic government central planning.

Each chapter exposes and debunks a commonly held myth about U.S. health care. Myth 1 starts by reviewing whether or not Government Health Care is More Efficient. The author clearly proves that the notion of the government being able to deliver efficient and high quality healthcare to the American public is nonsense. Ms. Pipes demonstrates that government’s administrative costs are passed on to the private sector, price controls lead to doctor shortages, waiting lists, and rationing of care as well as stifling innovation. U.S. government medicine (Medicare, Medicaid, the VA system) with its incomprehensible regulations and bureaucracy is rife with fraud and waste. In Myth 10, Government-Run Health Care Systems in Other Countries are Better and Cheaper than America’s, the author further illustrates the life-threatening limitations of health care systems in Britain, Canada and France compared to care in the United States. The author also explains how crude measures of health care quality like infant mortality and life expectancy are obtained by researchers and manipulated. She clearly points out that when reviewing how well a health care system serves sick people, which is the true quality metric, the United States excels. For example, Cancer patients have much higher survival rates in the United States than any other country and the U.S. also leads the world in research and innovation in pharmaceuticals and medical technology. In Britain, a government agency (National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness – NICE), explicitly limits patients access to the latest and most effective drugs and technology by manipulating data with pseudoscientific cost effectiveness analysis. In the case of life threatening illnesses, “cutting costs, cuts lives.” In France, the government-run health care system is so stretched beyond their limit that a simple heat wave in August 2003 took the lives of 15,000 elderly patients because of a shortage of doctors and hospitals. In Canada, a dog can get a hip replacement “in under a week and in which a human can wait two to three years.” In a landmark decision overturning the ban of private health insurance in the Canadian province of Quebec, Chief Justice McLachlin stated, “access to a waiting list is not access to health care.” Calculating only health care costs without considering value provides meaningless data.

Other chapters are just as devastating to the proponents of socialized medicine. Myth 3: Forty-Six Million Americans Can’t Get Health Care points out popular “sound-bites” that have been especially misleading and misrepresented in the media. Of course, the misrepresentation of the actual data has also been politically useful. The truth is that only eight million (not 46 million) Americans are without health insurance for over one year, and all people residing in the U.S. have access to health care by law. It is against the law for an Emergency Room to refuse care to a person. The 46 million factoid includes non-U.S. citizens (more than 10 million), people with incomes greater than $50,000/yr (18 million, of those almost 10 million have incomes greater than $75,000/yr) who choose not to purchase health insurance, and 14 million low-income Americans who qualify for generous government assistance but do not enroll. The fastest-growing segment of the uninsured population is households making more than $75,000/yr. There are uninsured Americans, and we need to consider this fact, but the number is drastically less than cited by the media and politicians.

There are seven other myths that are explained in similar detail in the book: We’re Spending Too Much on Health Care, High Drug Prices Drive Up Health Care Costs, Importing Drugs Would Reduce Health Care Costs, Universal Coverage Can Be Achieved by Forcing Everyone to Buy Insurance, Government Prevention Programs Reduce Health Care Costs, We Need More Government to Insure Poor Americans, and Health Information Technology Is a Silver Bullet for Reducing Costs. The underlying problem in health care is government policies and regulations that interfere with the normal function of a free market. In fact, according to a report published in 2004, the medical industry spends over $340 Billion each year on government regulation. This is a huge amount that is not even being considered for cost reductions or efficiencies. A cost that simply shows up in the price of drugs and medical services passed on to the patient.

But this book is not only about the diagnosis of health care problems in the United States. It also offers solutions to these issues so that we can lower costs and achieve universal choice in health care and universal coverage. As you might expect, this requires much less government and a freer market. Ms. Pipes cites the example of a free market in health care, Lasik eye surgery. Costs have dropped about 40% over the years and quality has improved significantly. The free market reforms include changing the tax code to allow individuals to purchase health insurance with either refundable tax credits or allow income tax deductions for health care expenditures. Other reforms include reducing costly government mandates and regulations, allow the purchase of insurance across state lines, expand Health Savings Accounts, support retail health clinics, implement tort reform, and provide vouchers for the working poor and chronically uninsured.

This book is important in the health care debate. It exposes the factually incorrect and misleading arguments made by proponents of government-run health care and the devastation wrought by well-intentioned policies. Ms. Pipes gives the reader ammunition when confronting the seductive siren song of free, quality health care for all administered by the thoughtful, caring, and competent bureaucrats from the Department of Motor Vehicles. I highly recommend that you purchase this must-read book and read it’s eye opening conclusions.

Link: http://www.healthandsharing.com/