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.

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.

Very Bad Medicine: a Surgeon’s Historical Perspective on Nationalized Healthcare

By Daria Anne DiGiovanni


When my Blog Talk Radio co-host Stephen Rhodes and I sat down to interview Dr. Alphonse J. DiGiovanni, M.D., General and Vascular Surgeon last week (yes, Dr. Al also happens to be my dad) about the Obama Administration’s forceful push to nationalize medicine, I already had a fairly accurate understanding of the points the good doctor would make in defense of the free market, and the best healthcare system in the world.

Among other troubling things, socialized medicine would jeopardize doctor-patient privilege by giving government bureaucrats the power to interfere with the proper course of treatment (e.g. usurping the doctor’s authority to recommend a particular procedure or operation deemed necessary for the patient’s health); potentially force mothers-to-be to abort pregnancies determined to have fetal abnormalities (and pay doctors more money to intimidate parents into choosing abortion); and deny elderly patients recommended care simply because the state decides it is not worth the time and money to preserve a life that’s nearly over anyway.

Dr. Al eloquently opined on all of the above, but he also offered a history lesson as to how it all began, having been in practice since 1965. And just to set the record straight, he is not some wealthy physician born with a silver spoon in his mouth, fighting for a doctor’s right to make a lot of cash. Contrary to what liberals want Americans to believe, not every doctor was once a child of privilege. My father was born to Italian immigrant parents who came to the USA well into their 30s, in order to create a better life for their children. His dad was a humble tailor with a third-grade education; his mother a seamstress who only made it as far as the sixth grade.

The third of only four surviving sons, Alphonse was a hard-working, gifted student and athlete with a dream of playing professional baseball. When a shoulder injury forever shattered that worthy goal, my father turned to his second love—medicine, maintaining excellent grades throughout high school, college and medical school while simultaneously managing three jobs to finance it all. So when he speaks of the horrors of socialized medicine, it is not because he hates poor people; indeed it is because he knows from experience that when the government encroaches upon any industry, the results are bad for everyone.

Doctor, can you give us a bit of history as to how this all began?

“Actually, the first intrusion of government into medicine was the Foran Bill in 1947, which came on the heels of England’s development of national healthcare when they regrettably rejected Winston Churchill. In retrospect, I am glad the Foran Bill did not pass; but at the time I was a real liberal. I’d gone to a public high school for gifted students—Central High School in Germantown, Philadelphia where the social sciences division was totally left. All I got was how bad the Republicans were, and how good the Democrats and FDR were. That was when I first heard the term trickle-down economics, long before that criticism was leveled at Ronald Reagan.

“In college, I participated in a debating session in which I had to argue in favor of the Foran Bill, but as I immersed myself in study, I began to realize what the cons were. I still thought it was good for the country but my attitudes really changed over time with Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan’s impassioned speech on his behalf. That was very telling for me, and it absolutely changed my outlook.

“Then along came the first successful government intrusion into medicine in the form of the Medicare Act of 1969, which was President Johnson’s aim for his historical legacy. And they managed to pass it by throwing an incredible amount of money at hospitals, who were then allowed to triple and quadruple their fee structures. So not only hospitals, but physicians were very well paid, thus blunting all of the adversarial components, as people who were once opposed to it softened. That is how they were able to pass Medicare.

From 1969 to the present-day, there’s been a progressive reduction in fee structures. And from what little is known about Obama’s plan, he is not going to throw the money into it that Johnson did—his plan is cradle-to-grave, purely socialistic. And there won’t simply be rationing of care for the elderly and disabled, but for everyone.”

What about Obama’s plan most concerns you?

“Well, I can’t really discuss specifics, because there’s not a whole lot of information out there yet. All we know at this point is that it is a general scheme of nationalization. And by the way they are attempting to speed it up and get it out there by August. My feeling is that they must already have their objectives in place, since this is a monumental undertaking. In general, I view socialized medicine as a gigantic game of Monopoly in which the government prints out a lot of money and masks the socialistic component in a euphemistic term—a ‘one-payer’ system. I would caution all Americans to be on the lookout for that.”

Are there any medical groups protesting this passage of this potential bill?

“Although it’s been fairly quiet up to this point, I think the response is going to pick up steam and medical organizations will begin to exert their influence on their representatives in D.C. As for the AMA, they’ve been tilting left for many years and are thus worthless, in my opinion.

“I base that on my own experience as a physician in Pennsylvania. Back when malpractice laws were established, the state asked me to give money to capitalize the system, not the insurance itself. It was determined that as a specialist, I owed $2,168, simply to capitalize; that amount was not the insurance premium itself.

“Originally, they’d wanted every doctor in PA to contribute $500, but the problem was that general practitioners and pediatricians balked at paying that much. Therefore, they were permitted to give just $250, while specialists like surgeons were required to cough up $2,168 to make up the difference. Again, that figure does not represent the premiums, which were very high.

“In 1965 when I went into practice, several values of liability coverage were available to suit an individual doctor’s needs. But all of that changed, and eventually it became mandatory that you had to purchase at least $1 million in coverage. Now at first, that didn’t seem so unreasonable, but by 1995 I’d already paid my annual $40,000 premium when they announced in October of that same year that I owed a supplementary charge of $16,000. By 1996 I’d had enough and decided to shut down my surgery practice.”

If you look at Great Britain, the doctors ration in the form of quota. And once that quota is satisfied, they are free to go on vacation. Can you elaborate on that?

“Sure, the British government assigns monetary priorities on healthcare; therefore so much allocated for certain services. And when that fund is used up, that’s it: the doctors have the prerogative to walk away and say ‘I am not going do this procedure again until next year,’ regardless of what is in the best interest of the patient. It’s not very good for anyone, the doctors or the patients.
“It also varies, what services you may get, depending upon surpluses. In Germany for example, their colonoscopy fund was used up in August. So if you needed a colonoscopy, you had to wait until the New Year to get one. You were basically put back at the end of the line, with no consideration of the urgency of your particular medical situation.

“And another thing they do in Great Britain is make patients wait to be seen by a doctor in ambulances in the parking lot, if they are unable to be looked at within four hours. Can you imagine leaving a patient out in the parking lot like that? It’s deplorable. The other negative aspect I hate to admit on the part of my profession is that this system also creates lazy doctors. The free market by nature rewards those who work hard and produce quality work, and this is also true in a free-market-based healthcare system: take away incentives and quality suffers. Again, that is ultimately bad for both patients and doctors.”

What about the effects on would-be doctors considering a career in medicine?

“When you get into these excessive costs, salaries will become stagnant. Over time, the pay scale will be reduced. One of the saddest byproducts of this is that I have many, many colleagues who have discouraged their own children from going into medicine because of the looming disaster, should Obama get his way. Most of the doctors I know are really devoted people who care about doing the very best job they can—not simply based on monetary rewards but because in a free system, they have the motivation do so.”

Do we really have a healthcare crisis?

“You know, one of my biggest problems with this whole debate is this notion that poor people are denied healthcare. This is simply untrue; no one that presents themselves to an emergency room is ever denied care because of their inability to pay. What it should be rightly termed as is a crisis in health insurance, which is due to many factors, including the overly litigious society we are living in and the negative influence of trial lawyers; the inability of consumers to cross state lines when purchasing the plan that best meets their needs; and of course, the growing number of illegal immigrants that overburden hospitals, especially in border states—an issue our government repeatedly refuses to address.

“Further that ‘47 million uninsured’ is a bogus figure I’ve been hearing about for the last twenty years. It does not include young people who choose not to purchase insurance, people who are in-between jobs and thus transitioning into new plans; and the inflationary impact of Medicare, which has made insurance unaffordable for many. There again, far from being a solution, government interference has only created an even bigger problem.”

Doctor, what are some of the moral implications of nationalized healthcare, aside from the rationing of services?

“Well as you know from Daria, I have a son with Down syndrome who is an absolutely beautiful, beautiful person. At the time of his birth in 1959, we didn’t have the diagnostic tests to determine abnormalities like Down’s ahead of time, but even if we had, we never would’ve terminated my wife’s pregnancy. Over thirteen years ago, my daughter Carolyn had a scare with her firstborn son when it was determined he was at a high risk of being a Down syndrome baby, but as it turned out, my grandson Christopher was born perfectly healthy.

“What I fear the most with a nationalized system is that doctors will be pressured to talk patients into having abortions when such diagnostic tests determine the presence of some sort of abnormality, whether it be Down syndrome or anything else. Further, the government could resort to actually paying doctors more money to perform abortions in these situations. Then at the opposite end of life, there’s a high probability that we as a nation could start engaging in euthanasia, based on someone else’s subjective idea of ‘quality of life.’ So it is very troubling from a moral perspective. Who among us is God? Who among us is perfect and empowered to decide who lives or dies? That sounds very much like Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler to me.”

Finally doctor, what can the average person do to fight this trend?

“I would encourage all Americans to make an effort to get educated, to really understand the dire implications of a nationalized system. Just look at Canada and other places, where even heads of state choose to come to America when they need major surgery. Everyday citizens from Canada regularly cross the border when they’re told they have to wait six months just to have a test.

“There’s a reason why we have the best healthcare system in the world. So get the facts and don’t just blindly accept the media spin. Then lobby your representatives in Washington. On the flip side, I believe it is now imperative for all doctors to inform their patients about the realities facing all of us should this horrendous bill pass. They have got to get over their fears of what their patients might think, and start speaking out. All of us have so much to lose if we don’t.”


Link: http://www.dariaanne.wordpress.com/

Entitlement Mania

By: Laura Adelmann



Is there something about our culture that makes an ever growing number of Americans feel that they should be getting everything they want, with no real effort on their part? What happened to the values of working hard and saving, starter homes and delayed gratification? It seems they’ve disappeared from the landscape and it’s a trend that should concern us all.

Once upon a time, actions had consequences. If you didn’t have the money to buy a house, you didn’t buy a house. Then along came your friendly neighborhood government and made lenders give you money because everyone should be able to buy a house, no matter their financial situation. Fannie and Freddie loaned with abandon. People put no money down, took out variable rate mortgages and the loan defaults began. Everyone now has to pay for that pandering error in judgment with lower housing values and harder to get credit.

Social Security is another program that leads to government dependence. It was created at a time when the life expectancy was much shorter and it was a safety net, not a retirement plan. It has now become for many their only retirement plan. Why save for your golden years when you can spend now and the government will provide you a paycheck when the time comes.

And, don’t forget welfare or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families as it's more politely called. People used to take care of each other in hard times. We relied on family and church if things were dire. Then along came welfare and people learned that the more children you had the more money you received. Clinton tried to end that downward spiral by reforming the system, but the truth of the matter is that many life-long welfare recipients moved to Social Security in the form of means tested Social Security Insurance benefits (SSI.) They are deemed disabled, and there is little monitoring of their continued eligibility. Others spend their time and energy trying to find new ways to stay on benefits rather than using the assistance as a step up to independence. Welfare creates very few success stories. The cost of this program continues to expand, with no end in sight and no new reforms in the wings.

Finally, since it seems we haven’t learned that entitlements drain the life out of both their recipients and the economy, we have our President eager to dabble in healthcare reform. Rather than consider the example of Medicare, a program that grows more and more expensive each year, the President appears to subscribe to the idea that a government run option will reduce healthcare spending. He has already expanded SCHIP, the health insurance program for children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. He will likely offer a government insurance option. Soon, to cut costs, rationing would start and again those entitled to this “free” insurance would suffer. Soon, so would the rest of us in the form of higher taxes and fewer and fewer private options until we are all in the same boat, our lives subject to what the government tells our doctor is appropriate treatment.

Social Security, welfare, misguided housing reforms have all trained people to look to the government for what they should provide for themselves. As our country’s entitlement programs grow ever larger and Obama seeks to add yet another large bureaucratic monstrosity in the form of healthcare reform, we must remember that entitlements depend on taxpayers to fund them. But what Congress and the President fail to realize is that the more they hand out to people, the fewer people will be out there working and paying the taxes that fund their "voter outreach." Entitlements will become unsustainable. It’s better to pull the plug now, while the patient still has a chance on his own.

Link: The Random Blog Post Generator Service

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/

FREE TO CHOOSE ABORTION, NOT FREE TO CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH CARE: OBAMA'S OBSESSION WITH DEATH

Image by Ted Abbott via Flickr

by Kathy Barkulis


What will it take for ordinary Americans and politicians to wake up to the cold reality of nationalized health care as proposed by President Obama? Will it take a medical crisis in your own family? Will it take a medical crisis in your own personal life? Will it take an anonymous board of people appointed by the government deciding whether you can have life saving medicine or surgery? What has to happen to you before you say "ENOUGH"? It is easy to close your eyes when you and your family are healthy, but are you sure this will always be the case? And why is it that the choices Obama wants us all to have, are choices of death, and not choices of life?

So far, President Obama has not told the American people how he will pay for his grand experiment. They hinted at a national VAT tax, adding 20% on to the cost of goods at the manufacturing level, which will be passed down to consumers. They also hinted at taxes on soft drinks, beer, wine, cigarettes, etc., none of which will cover the entire cost of this plan, but will surely increase the cost of living to middle class Americans. This is the group Obama promised would have no new taxes. While I don't believe you can put a price tag on your healthcare, and easy access to it, I do believe we need to be told how it will be paid for.

But the most egregious aspect of Obama's "Medicare For All" plan is the federally appointed "health board" that will make decisions for the health care of Americans. Obama has insisted that citizens can choose to take the government plan or keep their own private insurance. But did you know that Obama plans to force private insurers to adopt the decisions of the federal health board, or face steep tax consequences? The reality of that situation will be that private insurance companies will not be able to provide health care at any cost, and employers will gladly hand over the responsibility to the government. Only the very rich will be able to afford effective and all inclusive health care. There will be no ability for insurance companies to compete with a "free" government plan. Before you can say "Pap Smear," the whole country will be under the umbrella of a nationalized system that rations out health care like a short order cook rations out hash. The rich will always get the health care they want under Obama's plan, and the rest of us will just get the health care Obama thinks we "need."

It's ironic that the Democrats, and Obama, shout from the rooftops about a woman's right to choose abortion, but none of them want Americans to have the right to choose their health care. Oh they say you'll have the right to choose your health care, but when you read their plan, there will be no choice for you and your family. They are planning to game the system so that you will have no choice left but to take the government plan. In the eyes of President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, it is better for all Americans to have a generic and highly bureaucratized health plan, than for some to have no health plan. Yet, even that argument is a lie. Right now, hospitals cannot refuse medical care to an American brought into their hospital for emergency treatment. And often they don't refuse care to non-Americans either. Just walk into any hospital emergency room in the country on any given day and look at how many people are qued up for treatment. The taxpayers already pay for that privilege, but we will pay far more under Obama's plan.

So I ask you again. What will it take for you to stand up and protest a nationalized health care system where a federal health board will decide what kind of medical treatment you get? Will it be your down syndrome child who needs a new heart valve? Will it be your mother who needs a hip replacement? Will it be your husband who needs an experimental drug for a rare disease? And will it take a federal health board to refuse that treatment for your family members? If so, it will be too late by then to do anything about it.

YOU MUST SPEAK OUT NOW. You can start by calling the four Republicans who plan on voting yes for Obama's health care plan. They are:

Chuck Grassley 202-224-3744
Olympia Snowe 202-224-5344
Orrin Hatch 202-224-5251
Susan Collins 202-224-2523

CALL THEM NOW and voice your opposition. CALL THEM EVERY DAY. Send their names and phone numbers to everyone you know.

Then, send them letters voicing your opposition using email and snail mail.

Second, write letters to the editors of your local newspapers. Send those letters repeatedly until they get published. Tell everyone you know to do the same.

Third, call radio talk shows and make your opinion known.

Fourth, and most important, call and fax members of Congress voicing your opposition. Crash their switchboards. You can go on-line and get phone numbers of Senators and Congressmen on http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ and many other websites, such as C-span.

Talk to your friends and relatives about this issue, and urge them to take action. Start the conversation by asking them this question: IF I FOUND OUT I HAD A RARE FORM OF CANCER THAT A GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN REFUSED TO TREAT, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SELL YOUR HOME TO RAISE MONEY FOR ME TO SAVE MY LIFE? During the silence that occurs after you ask that question, ask them instead to speak out in opposition of this plan by calling Congressmen and Senators. Ask them to write letters.

Apathy is not an option anymore. Our lives, and that of our families are on the line.

PRESIDENT OBAMA CAN'T HAVE CONTROL OF OUR HEALTHCARE UNLESS WE GIVE IT TO HIM WITHOUT A FIGHT.






Link: http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/free-to-choose-abortion-not

Health Care Cafe

By: Kelli Krauss

I find it hard to believe that the same government body that was unable to properly run their own restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops is now suggesting they take over health care for all Americans. In 2008, Congress voted to privatize the running of their dining areas after four decades of taxpayer bailouts. This is proof of how efficient the government is.

Obama's first pick for HHS Secretary, Tom Daschle, wrote a book about health care and it is so telling of how those on the left want to control it. He states in the book that a Federal Health Board should be created to make decisions on proper treatment for the masses.

I don't know about you, but the last group of people that I would want to be in charge of making health care decisions for me or my family would be some bureaucratic arm of the government. Those decisions should be made by the doctor and the patient.

Recently a doctor wanted to start a program where he would charge an individual $70 a month for any number of visits they needed. Sounds like a great plan right? Not to the government or the insurance lobby. That doctor is not allowed to offer such a plan.

Tort reform also needs to be addressed to solve the health care problem. If a doctor has to pay an astronomical amount in malpractice insurance, what happens to his operating costs? It goes up and that gets passed along to us. As long as we have an environment where people can sue a doctor for absolutely anything, we will have a problem with health care. Former Vice Presidential candidate, John Edwards, made his millions from these types of frivolous lawsuits.

There are many reasons why we have health care problems in the United States and there are many ways in which we can solve them. I promise you though, government take-over of it, is not the answer.

Put down that bottle of pop!

By Carmen Grant

Or pick it up if you want to fund Obama's new health care plan. The Obama administration is searching for ways to fund the proposed health care initiative. One way is to slap a federal tax on soda beverages. The revenue from the taxes would pay for part of the cost in setting up health-insurance coverage for all Americans. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount. The tax already faces strong opposition from the beverage industry and devoted soda drinkers.

Soda linked to obesity and diabetes

Research shows that drinking sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes, and other health problems like bad teeth. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest who states that "soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of," Mr. Jacobson said.

Stop obesity, or fund health care?

Supporters of this soda tax are sending mixed messages. They say this is a good way to raise funds for health care, and to get people to stop drinking so much soda. Do they want people to stop drinking soda, or do they want them to keep drinking it to bring in the revenue for Obama's health care goals? In addition, the tax will be placed on standard sugary beverages and not diet sodas, which a 2005 study at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and separate studies released in 2007 at the University of Alberta in Canada and the University of Massachusetts found that diet soda drinkers were more likely than regular soda drinkers to be obese. In retrospect, the government wants to tax standard soda drinkers when the more obese soda consumers are those that drink diet soda, which won't be taxed.

Tax food, tax life

I propose a tax on Twinkies, chocolate, ice cream, and lattes. I also propose a subsidy for gym memberships, taking the stairs, and walking to work. Tax everything that makes us fat and, in turn, give me health care and initiative to be healthy. Force us into submission. Instead of educating about being healthy and allowing for the choice, tell us what to eat and drink and how to live life. Wow, liberty is sweet. I wonder if they'll tax that too.

Obama's Healthcare Express

By: Laura Adelmann



The train wreck that is socialized medicine is speeding towards us and it seems that there is little being done to stop it. It seems Democrats plan to use budget reconciliation, a procedure normally used to reduce spending, to ram healthcare through without meaningful debate. Clinton was tempted to use budget reconciliation to pass Hillarycare, but the story is that Sen. Byrd enlightened him to the fact that it would not be a proper use of the process. Clinton agreed. Hillarycare was also killed, in part, by the strong opposition of the healthcare industry. Doctors, hospitals, insurers voiced their dissent.

Where is the dissent this time? It seems that the clamor for "free" healthcare is drowning out the sane voices that are pointing out the pending disaster. Obama paints his plan as a public alternative for those not covered by Medicare, Medicaid or private insurers, and that if you are happy with your current insurance you can keep it. But, when the government competes against the private sector, it will most likely win. Not because it's better, but because government can run at a deficit.

Private insurers must be profitable or they go out of business. All government has to do is keep providing enough coverage to keep people happy until the private insurers tank and then they can start rationing and dictating your healthcare because then there will be no alternative.

Governments don't go out of business, they just provide shoddy service and tax you more for it. I regularly hear people comment that they would pay more taxes if it would provide universal healthcare in this country. Really? How much more? Will 50% of your income be too much? 70%? Every government program runs inefficiently and costs more and more over time. How many years will we have to live with this mistake before we realize that it's a failure everywhere it's been tried?

Are We Headed Toward Socialism or Are We Already There?

There are many people, mostly on the right, that have felt that President Obama would take this country in the direction of socialism. For those liberals who enjoy visiting my site, I am sure you are laughing at that statement. However, I would like for you to consider a few things.

This past election season made it very apparent that although we do not have state owned television stations, they are now state run. The press are no longer objective questioners of the government looking out for the people. Instead they are a cheer leading section for the President and the Democratic party.

As the financial "crisis" loomed, even President Bush threw free market enterprise out the window. President Obama looks to continue with that direction. The next step with the TARP funds is a gigantic leap towards nationalizing our banking system. When you begin to interfere with how private companies operate their businesses, you are making a choice away from the free market system and heading towards socialism.

Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) was interviewed this past week and stated that the so-called Fairness Doctrine was being discussed and would most certainly make a return. She stated that radio stations must be held accountable for their content. Again, this is a private industry that is being told what they can and cannot share with their public audience.

Health care reform has been a project of the Democratic party for generations. It appears that this may have a chance at becoming a reality. No one disagrees that we should help people receive affordable health care coverage, but it's how we chose to make that happen that divides us. Within the new stimulus package, it appears that some of the first steps toward nationalized health care are already in the works.

Finally, one last thought to consider. In the state of Oregon, lawmakers are struggling to meet budgets. Instead of looking to cut costs, there is actually a bill in the works that would tax drivers on how many miles they drive. How exactly would the government know how far you drive? The state government would require that you install a GPS device on your car that would tell the gas pump how many miles you have driven and tax you on the amount. The government would actually have a way to track your every move.

If state run television. nationalize banking, nationalized health care, silencing the opposition, and tracking it's citizens isn't socialism, then you would also enjoy living in China. I hear they are hiring.