Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Would Health Care Reform Help You?

Barbara O'Brien

Many obstacles and stumbling blocks remain in the way of health care reform. The House and Senate bills will have to be merged, and then the House and Senate both will vote on the final bill. We don't yet know what will be in the final bill, or if the final bill will be passed into law. Passage will be especially difficult in the Senate, where it will need 60 votes to pass. It is still possible that after all this angst, just one grandstanding senator could kill the whole thing.

But just for fun, let's look at what conventional wisdom says will be in the final bill and see if there is anything in it that will be an immediate benefit to people with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related disease.

It is likely that the final bill will provide additional funding for state high-risk insurance pools. Currently more than 30 states run such pools, which are nonprofit, state-sponsored health insurance plans for people who can't buy insurance because of pre-existing conditions. The biggest problem with such pools is that, often, the insurance they offer is too expensive for many who might need it. Both the Senate and House bills provide $5 billion in subsidies for state high-risk pools to make the insurance more affordable.

Under the Senate bill, beginning in 2014, private companies would no longer be able to deny coverage to adults with pre-existing conditions, nor could they charge higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions. Until then, the state high-risk pools could provide some help.

Closing the Medicare Part D coverage gap - also called the "doughnut hole" - is another potential provision that could help some patients with asbestos-related disease. The "doughnut hole" is the gap between the coverage for yearly out-of-pocket expenses provided by Medicare Part D and Medicare's "catastrophic coverage" threshold.

For example, in 2009 Medicare Part D paid at least 75 percent of what patients paid for prescription drugs up to $2,700. After that, patients must pay for all of their prescription medications until what they have paid exceeds $6,154. At that point, the catastrophic coverage takes over, and Medicare pays for all but 5 percent of the patient's drug bills. The final health care reform bill probably will provide for paying at least 50 percent of out-of-pocket costs in the doughnut hole.

You may have heard the bills include budget cuts to the Medicare program, and this has been a big concern to many people. Proponents of the bill insist that savings can be found to pay for the cuts, and that people who depend on Medicare won't face reduced services. But this is a complex issue that I want to address in a later post.

The long-term provisions probably will include many other provisions that would benefit patients with asbestos-related disease, including increased funding for medical research. Although there are many complaints about the bill coming from all parts of the political spectrum, on the whole it would be a huge benefit to many people.

Read more >>

Friday, November 6, 2009

Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that.  On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan.  The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan.  It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.”  The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan.  The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.

Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy.  The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion.

House Republicans are offering a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.

Read more >>

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Republican Health Care Plan Offers Alternatives To Nationalized Health Insurance

The Republican Leadership in the House of Representatives is offering alternative legislation to H.R. 3962, Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s 1,990 page monstrosity that nationalizes health care, funds abortion and creates 111 new federal bureaucracies.

The Republican bill is 219 pages long. Read the Republican health care bill here: Republican substitute

The Republicans have issued the following summary of their legislation. We are reprinting the summary below:

Republicans’ Common-Sense Reforms Will LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS

Americans want a step-by-step, common-sense approach to health care reform, not Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s costly, 1,990-page government takeover of our nation’s health care system. Republicans’ alternative solution focuses on lowering health care premiums for families and small businesses, increasing access to affordable, high-quality care, and promoting healthier lifestyles – without adding to the crushing debt Washington has  placed on our children and grandchildren. Following are the key elements of Republicans’ alternative plan:

  • Lowering health care premiums. The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number-one priority for health care reform.

  • Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable care for those with pre­existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high- risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all Americans.

  • Ending junk lawsuits. The GOP plan would help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful state laws of California and Texas.

  • Prevents insurers from unjustly cancelling a policy or instituting annual of lifetime spending caps. The GOP plan prohibits an insurer from cancelling a policy unless a person commits fraud or conceals material facts about a health condition. It also prohibits insurance plans from instituting annual or lifetime spending limits.

  • Encouraging Small Business Health Plans. The GOP plan gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do.

  • Encouraging innovative state programs. The GOP plan rewards innovation by providing incentive payments to states that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured.

  • Allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The GOP plan allows Americans to shop for coverage from coast to coast by allowing Americans living in one state to purchase insurance in another.

  • Codifying the Hyde Amendment. The GOP plan explicitly prohibits all federal funds, whether they are authorized funds or appropriated funds, from being used to pay for abortion.

  • Promoting healthier lifestyles. The GOP plan promotes prevention & wellness by giving employers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles.

  • Enhancing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The GOP plan creates new incentives to save for future and long-term care needs by allowing qualified participants to use HSAs to pay premiums.

  • Allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ policies. The GOP plan encourages coverage of young adults on their parents’ insurance through age 25.

Scorecard: Speaker Pelosi’s Government Takeover vs. GOP Common-Sense Solutions

 

Speaker Pelosi’s Bill

GOP Alternative

Job Losses

Up to 5.5 million

0

Medicare Cuts

$500 billion

0

Tax Increases

$729.5 billion

0

TAKE ACTION:

  1. Urge your Representative to vote YES on the Stupak/Pitts amendment and NO on the passage of PelosiCare, ObamaCare Or HarryCare in the Senate. No legislation must be passed that creates a socialized health care system in America.
  2. Call the Capitol Hill Switchboard: 202-224-3121 and ask for your Representative’s office.
  3. Please forward this to ten friends!
  4. SUPPORT TVC’S IMPORTANT WORK!

Additional Resources:
Stop The Harry-Kari Of Our Health Care System
Attend A Rally Against ObamaCare (Government-Run Health Care)
Republicans Decloak Health Care Plan
30-46 Million Uninsured? No!

Read more >>

PelosiCare Vote Looms This Weekend!

By TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

Democrat leaders in the House are rushing through a vote on Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s 1,990-page health care bill this Saturday. (Pelosi’s bill nationalizes health care and creates 111 new federal bureaucracies!)

Pelosi dropped her bill (H.R. 3962) just last week and expects legislators to have read, absorbed and understood the 1,990 pages of legalese in it.

Pro-Life legislators have zeroed in on sections in the bill that will be used to mandate abortion coverage as part of a government-run health care program.

Pelosi’s bill currently authorizes federal funding for abortion in the public option and subsidies for private insurance that includes abortion through affordability credits.


TAKE ACTION:

  1. Urge your Representative to vote YES on the Stupak/Pitts amendment and NO on the passage of PelosiCare, ObamaCare Or HarryCare in the Senate. No legislation must be passed that creates a socialized health care system in America.
  2. Call the Capitol Hill Switchboard: 202-224-3121 and ask for your Representative’s office.
  3. Please forward this to ten friends!
  4. SUPPORT TVC’S IMPORTANT WORK!

Democrat Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) is offering an amendment that will still permit abortion in the government-run program but would force providers to contract out administrative functions related to paying for elective abortions.

TVC Executive Andrea Lafferty delivered a box of petitions against socialized health care to Ellsworth's office on November 4 -- just days before the vote on Pelosi's plan to nationalize health care.

TVC Executive Andrea Lafferty delivered a box of petitions against socialized health care to Ellsworth's office on November 4 -- just days before the vote on Pelosi's plan to nationalize health care.

As pro-life New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith has stated: “Today we see yet another phony amendment designed to subsidize and expand the abortion industry cloaked in deceptive language. The new language makes clear that abortion will be included in the public option. Under the new arrangement, instead of an HHS employee issuing blood money checks for elective abortions, HHS will pay a contractor to issue checks for abortion on demand. It is a distinction without a difference. The public should not be fooled nor should any pro-life Democrat.”

According to Smith, the Ellsworth amendment “… amounts to the federal government taking out a ‘contract’ on the unborn. For the first time ever an elaborate government program will be created to pay contractors to pay abortionists for the dismemberment, chemical poisoning, and in utero starvation of innocent unborn children.”

Smith and other pro-life Members of Congress are pushing for a vote on the bipartisan Stupak/Pitts amendment that will permanently prohibit funding for abortions and plans that include abortion coverage.

TVC supports the Stupak/Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, but still opposes passage of PelosiCare or any other liberal plan to nationalize our health care system.

TAKE ACTION:

  1. Urge your Representative to vote YES on the Stupak/Pitts amendment and NO on the passage of PelosiCare, ObamaCare Or HarryCare in the Senate. No legislation must be passed that creates a socialized health care system in America.
  2. Call the Capitol Hill Switchboard: 202-224-3121 and ask for your Representative’s office.
  3. Please forward this to ten friends!
  4. SUPPORT TVC’S IMPORTANT WORK!


Additional Resources:
Stop The Harry-Kari Of Our Health Care System
Attend A Rally Against ObamaCare (Government-Run Health Care)
Republicans Decloak Health Care Plan
30-46 Million Uninsured? No!

Read more >>

Sunday, October 25, 2009

The myth about the high profit margin of the health insurance companies

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

As the table above of Profit Margins by Industry shows (data here for the most recent quarter), the industry “Health Care Plans” ranks #86 by profit margin (profits/revenue) at 3.3%. Measured by profit margin, there are 85 industries more profitable than Health Care Plans (included here are healthcare plan providers as Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, HealthSpring, etc.).

It is more profitable to brew beer than to provide health care.

Actually to operate a brewery is the most profitable business ever 25% profit margin!!! Dang!


Read more >>

FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat

By CALVIN WOODWARD

Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry. In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.

The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

They may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. A look at some claims, and the numbers:

THE CLAIMS

_"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers'"obscene profits."

_"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

_"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.

THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

Read more >>

Does this call for a national emergency?

By Alain

Wow. National Emergency. Special Government Powers enabled.

Obama declares swine flu a national emergency


Swine flu emergency! What does that mean?

For the FLU?

I mean really, lets look at a simple statistical comparison here...

SWINE FLU (aka H1N1)

Health authorities say more than 1,000 people in the United States, including almost 100 children, have died from the strain of flu known as H1N1, and 46 states have widespread flu activity. (More Here)

Ok, now lets look at a bigger killer that currently ALSO bears the label "pandemic"...

HIV AND AIDS (Just in the USA)

  • Number of people living with HIV: 1 200 000 [690 000 - 1 900 000]
  • Adults aged 15 to 49 prevalence rate: 0.6% [0.4% - 1%]
  • Adults aged 15 and up living with HIV: 1 100 000 [690 000 - 1 900 000]
  • Women aged 15 and up living with HIV: 230 000 [140 000 - 400 000]
  • Children aged 0 to 14 living with HIV: N/A
  • Deaths due to AIDS: 22 000 [9 000 - 54 000]
  • Orphans due to AIDS aged 0 to 17: N/A

Source: Epidemiological Fact Sheet on HIV and AIDS, 2008

I don't hear anything about needing a NATIONAL EMERGENCY for AIDS? even though it is by FAR a greater threat, a larger killer, than this FLU...

Or maybe, Next month he will expand his National Emergency to cover AIDS also, or who knows, maybe the common cold?

Lets hear what you think about this?

Read more >>

Swine flu emergency! What does that mean?

Is president's proclamation formality, or institution of Obama martial law?

By Drew Zahn

Obama declares swine flu a national emergency


Does this call for a national emergency?

President Obama announced today that he has declared a "national emergency" over the H1N1 virus, a phrase with an ominous sound, but with little explanation offered by most of the news media.

The Associated Press, for example, merely stated that the declaration removes "bureaucratic roadblocks" and enables officials to "bypass federal rules." Other news outlets were even vaguer, saying the declaration waived federal requirements, but not saying what those requirements govern.

In the void of information, Internet rumors were quick to flame, centering on concerns over how the Obama administration might use the declared emergency to suddenly expand government power.

"Obama just declared H1N1 a national emergency," wrote a reader in an e-mail, "Here we go with martial law."

An article by Kurt Nimmo of InfoWars took the worry a step further, wondering if the White House's declaration engaged certain measures of the National Emergencies Act:

"In the weeks ahead," Nimmo writes, "we may witness a move toward martial law, forced vaccination and internment of those who refuse."

But even if there really is a plot to manipulate the H1N1 virus scare into enforcing a sweeping expansion of federal power, today's "national emergency" falls far short of martial law.

In fact, the laws enacted by the president's proclamation do little more than clear administrative hurdles for quicker processing of Medicare payments, and the very provisions of the National Emergencies Act that the president cited in his proclamation actually limit the power his administration can take.

The proclamation signed by the president states:

I, Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act … do hereby find and proclaim that, given that the rapid increase in illness across the nation may overburden health care resources and that the temporary waiver of certain standard federal requirements may be warranted in order to enable U.S. health care facilities to implement emergency operations plans, the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in the United States constitutes a national emergency.

Section 201 of the National Emergencies Act, however, simply requires the president to inform Congress in writing when a national emergency is declared – which he did today, after signing the declaration last night.

Section 301 forbids the president from taking up any powers of the National Emergencies Act save those he lists in the proclamation of emergency, requiring him to "specify the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act."

And what powers did Obama specify?

"I hereby declare," the proclamation states, "that the secretary [of Health and Human Services] may exercise the authority under section 1135 of the [Social Security Act]."

Section 1135, in turn, allows the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, to review on a case-by-case basis applications from health care providers who wish certain restrictions be waived.

According to an explanation prepared by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, those restrictions that can be waived include:

  • Certification requirements for some doctors to be paid by Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP programs

  • Pre-approval requirements for some services

  • Requirements that doctors be licensed in the same state they're practicing in order to get federal payments

  • Sanctions against moving patients to alternate facilities

  • A handful of other requirements governing how medical providers are paid.

In fact, the most ominous provision of a Section 1135 waiver may be alterations to HIPAA privacy regulations.

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services explains that under a declared emergency, facilities granted a Section 1135 waiver no longer need to obtain a patient's agreement to speak with family members or friends involved in the patient's care, no longer need to distribute a notice of their privacy practices and no longer need to honor the patient's right to request privacy restrictions or confidential communications.

"For example," an HHS document on HIPAA explains, "an individual may request that her health care provider call her at her office, rather than her home. A health care provider must accommodate an individual's reasonable request for such confidential communications."

With a Section 1135 waiver granted by the CMS in a declared emergency, however, the provider need not accommodate the request in the example of calling the patient at her office.

President Obama justified the national emergency proclamation with the following words:

By rapidly identifying the virus, implementing public health measures, providing guidance for health professionals and the general public, and developing an effective vaccine, we have taken proactive steps to reduce the impact of the pandemic and protect the health of our citizens. As a nation, we have prepared at all levels of government, and as individuals and communities, taking unprecedented steps to counter the emerging pandemic.

Nevertheless, the 2009 H1N1 pandemic continues to evolve. The rates of illness continue to rise rapidly within many communities across the nation, and the potential exists for the pandemic to overburden health care resources in some localities.

Thus, in recognition of the continuing progression of the pandemic, and in further preparation as a nation, we are taking additional steps to facilitate our response.
Read more >>

Obama declares swine flu a national emergency

By PHILIP ELLIOTT

Does this call for a national emergency?


Swine flu emergency! What does that mean?

President Barack Obama declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, giving his health chief the power to let hospitals move emergency rooms offsite to speed treatment and protect noninfected patients.

The declaration, signed Friday night and announced Saturday, comes with the disease more prevalent than ever in the country and production delays undercutting the government's initial, optimistic estimates that as many as 120 million doses of the vaccine could be available by mid-October.

Health authorities say more than 1,000 people in the United States, including almost 100 children, have died from the strain of flu known as H1N1, and 46 states have widespread flu activity. So far only 11 million doses have gone out to health departments, doctor's offices and other providers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials.

Administration officials said the declaration was a pre-emptive move designed to make decisions easier when they need to be made. Officials said the move was not in response to any single development.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius now has authority to bypass federal rules when opening alternative care sites, such as offsite hospital centers at schools or community centers if hospitals seek permission.

Some hospitals have opened drive-thrus and drive-up tent clinics to screen and treat swine flu patients. The idea is to keep infectious people out of regular emergency rooms and away from other sick patients.

Hospitals could modify patient rules — for example, requiring them to give less information during a hectic time — to quicken access to treatment, with government approval, under the declaration.

It also addresses a financial question for hospitals — reimbursement for treating people at sites not typically approved. For instance, federal rules do not allow hospitals to put up treatment tents more than 250 yards away from the doors; if the tents are 300 yards or more away, typically federal dollars won't go to pay for treatment.

Administration officials said those rules might not make sense while fighting the swine flu, especially if the best piece of pavement is in the middle of a parking lot and some medical centers already are putting in place parts of their emergency plans.

The national emergency declaration was the second of two steps needed to give Sebelius extraordinary powers during a crisis.

On April 26, the administration declared swine flu a public health emergency, allowing the shipment of roughly 12 million doses of flu-fighting medications from a federal stockpile to states in case they eventually needed them. At the time, there were 20 confirmed cases in the U.S. of people recovering easily. There was no vaccine against swine flu, but the CDC had taken the initial step necessary for producing one.

"As a nation, we have prepared at all levels of government, and as individuals and communities, taking unprecedented steps to counter the emerging pandemic," Obama wrote in Saturday's declaration.

He said the pandemic keeps evolving, the rates of illness are rising rapidly in many areas and there's a potential "to overburden health care resources."

The government now hopes to have about 50 million doses of swine flu vaccine out by mid-November and 150 million in December. The flu virus has to be grown in chicken eggs, and the yield hasn't been as high as was initially hoped, officials have said.

"Many millions" of Americans have had swine flu so far, according to an estimate that CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden gave Friday. The government doesn't test everyone to confirm swine flu so it doesn't have an exact count. He also said there have been more than 20,000 hospitalizations.

Read more >>

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Democrats Dying to Kill Us With Obama-Care

By Don Feder

The left has always wanted to exercise absolute control over the lives of the American people – mind you, for our own good.

It wants to control what we think, through public education, Hollywood and its trained-poodle news media. It wants to dispose of our property, through confiscatory taxation. It wants to raise our children, run our businesses, and plan our retirement.

But now, with Obama-care, it’s reaching for the gold ring – the power to decide who lives and dies, the power to play God.

If you’re elderly and ailing, if you’re young and disabled, if you require special treatment, if it deems your quality of life low or your social utility wanting, the left is dying to kill you. If Congress and this administration have their way, it will have that power very soon.

I’m talking about the rationing of medical services – the inevitable consequence of Obama-care. It’s not just that the politicians will be driven to it. If our health care system is nationalized, they will welcome it.

I’m not going to raise the specter of death panels, or speak to you about “comparative effectiveness,” or Section 1232 of the House health-care bill, which requires “end-of-life counseling” for Medicare patients every five years – and more often if they’re terminally ill.

I will not describe how socialized medicine has worked in the United Kingdom or Canada. In Britain, beyond a certain age, if you need a hip-replacement or cataract surgery – tough. The Canadians already have what Obama wants for America. So why are they coming here for life-saving operations? Why aren’t we going there?

No one knows the contours of the final abomination the House and Senate will vote on – perhaps in a matter of days. And the Democrats won’t let us see it in advance.

You know what? It doesn’t matter. If you want to see the shape of things to come, listen to the voices emanating from the shriveled heart of the Party of Plunder.

The Democrat Party increasingly resembles a wholly-owned subsidiary of billionaire George Soros, who funneled $25 million into its coffers in the 2003/2004 election cycle alone.

In a 1994 speech, America’s most prominent proponent of doctor-assisted suicide rhetorically asked: “Can we really afford to care for the dying properly? The number of people dying in the United States currently stands at 2.2 million annually. Increases in cancer and AIDS and the aging of the Baby-Boomers will cause this figure to climb faster than the population… (But) aggressive, life-prolonging interventions, which may at times go against the patient’s wishes, are much more expensive than proper care for the dying.” Well, beat me with a euphemism!

What’s “proper care for the dying”? Certainly, nothing that costs much – as far as the architects of Obama-care are concerned. Not a ventilator, not a feeding tube, not CPR – just enough drugs to keep them quiet.

Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel is health-policy advisor to the Office of Budget and Management, and brother to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, who once disclosed, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Dr. Emmanuel says that in health-care reform (so-called), “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control for show and public relations than for true change.” At last, an honest Democrat.

The good doctor believes medical care should not be wasted on those who are “irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.” As an example, he cites patients with dementia. Well, they could always run for Congress in Massachusetts.

What about patients with terminal cancer or the 66-year-old who’s suffered a massive stroke or a severe heart-attack? On the other end of the life spectrum, what about severely disabled children or those with Downs syndrome? Will they be judged incapable of becoming “participating citizens” and assigned to an institution, there to receive minimal care till they die?

By the way, among the things Dr. Emanuel cites as medical luxuries are private rooms in hospitals, physicians offices “conveniently located” with nearby parking, and “attractive waiting rooms.” What about Band-Aids, aspirin and eye-drops?

Then there’s Robert Reich, Clinton’s Labor Secretary. In a 2007 speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Reich told his audience he would speak to them as if he was an honest candidate who “did not care about becoming president.”

Regarding health care reform, his message would be, “particularly to you young, healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more. And by the way, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life…It’s too expensive… so we’re going to let you die.” Here’s a really honest Democrat.

Reich continued: “Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government… to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents.” How about as long as your parents – or grandparents?

And now for a word – or two – from a really, really honest Democrat.

Writing in The Huffington Post (The Daily Worker was less dogmatic), on September 24, former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, a senior statesman of the Democratic Party, patiently explained to dolts like you and me: “No modern society can afford to give each of its citizens all the health care that is ‘beneficial.’ The health care system can no more afford to do everything ‘beneficial’ for every patient than the education system (BTW, another government-run disaster) can do everything ‘beneficial’ for every student.... We are delivering and the public is expecting more medicine than we can possibly afford to maintain.”

We can’t afford to give citizens? We are delivering more medicine than we can possibly afford? We’re not going to give you? Reserved for “participating citizens”?

We used to live in a country called “America.” It was a place where politicians and bureaucrats didn’t tell us what we could and couldn’t have when it came to medical care. If we could afford it, we paid for it. If we couldn’t, there was always welfare or charity to help out.

Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, just down the road in Concord, “their flags to April’s breeze unfurled,” once “the embattled farmers stood: And fired the shot heard round the world.” If they were alive today, you can probably guess where they’d be pointing their muskets.

In 1984, Lamm gave an unexpurgated version of his Huffington Post column, when he told the Colorado Health Lawyers Association: “Like leaves falling off a tree forming the humus in which other plants can grow, we’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts, so that our kids can build a better life” – or, in the words of another Democratic theorist, let them die and “decrease the surplus population” I think Obama has found his first health insurance czar.

Here’s the bottom-line of Obama-care. Take an 85-year-old man who fought for his country in World War II or Korea, who paid taxes and obeyed the law all of his life, who built a home and raised children who in turn grew up to become productive citizens, and who started a business that eventually employed dozens or even thousands of people.

He doesn’t get end-of-life treatment, so those resources can be redirected to illegal aliens and taxpayer-funded abortion. He’s given a few drugs to die on quickly and quietly, so Nancy Pelosi can have her Botox treatments and Rosie O’Donnell will get liposuction.

If you’re a liberal (excuse me, a “progressive”) rationing is the answer to your prayers. Not only will it save money on end-of-life care by letting the elderly die quickly, it will also avert a coming demographic crisis for Social Security and Medicare, with the worker/beneficiary ratio constantly shrinking and the proverbial trust fund a myth.

Do you think that those who are pushing the Freedom of Choice Act – who want to eliminate any restrains on abortion – and who let Terri Schiavo die of dehydration – do you think they will really have any qualms about pulling the plug on Granny?

What then must we do? What is our assignment?

You who have gathered here today are the Minutemen. You are the soldiers of the Continental Army leaving bloody footprints in the snow during Washington’s retreat across New Jersey in December of 1776. You are the 5th Corps of the 20th Maine Infantry charging the Confederate lines at Gettysburg. You are the Doughboys of the Argonne. You are the boys of Easy Company dropping behind enemy lines on D-Day.

But what can we do, you ask? The party of death controls the White House, has super-majorities in Congress and owns the media (news and entertainment).

I’ll tell you what you can do: You can take to heart the words of Winston Churchill to the students of Harrow School in 1941: “Never give in – never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty… . Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

And you can draw strength from the last stanza of The Star-Spangled Banner: “Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’ And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O’er the land of the free (Do you hear that, Mr. Obama, ‘the land of the free’?) and the home of the brave!”

Thank you and God bless you.

Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.

Read more >>

Monday, October 19, 2009

How Much Obamacare Costs the Average Family - (That Means YOU!)

by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Whether or not you now have health insurance, Obama’s health care bill will cost you dearly.

If you don’t have insurance, you will be required to buy it. The legislation specifies how much you will have to pay for the coverage before any subsidy kicks in. All during the campaign, Obama kept speaking about affordable coverage. Now it appears that his definition of “affordable” might be a bit elastic.

If your household income is $66,000 a year, slightly above the national average, Obama’s health care bill will require you to spend 12 percent of your income -- about $8,000 a year or almost $700 a month -- to buy health insurance before you get any federal subsidy.

Even those making less will have to reach deep into their meager resources to satisfy Obama’s statutory requirement. Families scraping by on only $44,0000 a year will have to pay 7 percent of their income (about $3,000) on insurance. Even those making just $33,000 will have to ante up 4.5 percent of their income (about $1,500) for health insurance. The required payments reach so far down the scale that those who are living at the federal poverty level of $22,000 will have to shell out 2 percent of their totally inadequate incomes ($440) for insurance.

That Obama is charging premiums to those living at or on the border of poverty is absolutely incredible! And this from a candidate who pledged that he would not tax the middle class!

If you have insurance, you will get hit by his proposed 40 percent tax on insurance premiums.

When the tax -- and the legislation -- takes effect in 2013, all families making about $120,000 or more in combined household income (14 percent of all families or one in seven) will have to pay the tax.

By the next year, 2014, the tax will hit every family making more than $100,000 (about 18 percent of all families or one in six).

By 2019, 10 years hence, the tax will reach down to affect every family making more than $75,000 a year (31 percent of families or one in three).

The tax will take 40 percent of all premiums above $21,000.

So if you don’t have insurance, you will be socked with a mandate to buy coverage and pay a hefty proportion of your income to do it; and if you have insurance, you will be hit with an excise tax on the coverage.

(In theory, it is the insurance companies that have to pay the tax, but the Senate Finance Committee “assumes” that they will pass the tax along to their policyholders).

These costs make a mockery of Obama’s oft-repeated pledge to avoid any tax increase that would impact those making under $250,000 a year. He finances about half of his health care plan on the backs of the elderly by cutting Medicare and inducing scarcity and the other half by premium taxes and insurance purchasing mandates on the middle and lower middle class.

Read more >>

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Harry Reid Suggests Health Care to Cost $2 Trillion

The number just keep getting bigger...

        800 BILLION,

1 Trillion,

2 TRILLION...

When does it end?

HARRY REID: "He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesnt it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, were talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. Its a very small percent."

Read more >>

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

‘The fact is, this proposal will never come before the Senate’

McConnell Statement on Finance Committee Proposal
from the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

‘The fact is, this proposal will never come before the Senate’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Tuesday regarding the Finance Committee vote on partisan health care reform:

“Sen. Snowe called me this morning to let me know that while she continues to have serious, substantive policy reservations with this proposal, she wanted to keep the process moving. I share her concerns about the direction of this bill once it leaves the committee, and her call for transparency before we vote to proceed to any bill on the floor.

"The fact is, this proposal will never come before the Senate. But what we do know is that the bill written behind closed doors here in the Capitol will be another 1,000-page, trillion-dollar Washington takeover. We know it will slash a half-trillion dollars from seniors’ Medicare, add new taxes and raise premiums. That’s not reform.”

Read more >>

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Camels, Government and Health Care

By E. Ralph Hostetter

What on earth could Americans learn from the combination of camels, government and health care? Ask any Bedouin and he will answer quickly: "If the camel gets his nose in your tent his posterior will follow."

Comparably speaking, if government gets its nose into private health care a government health-care bureaucracy will follow, including the promise: “I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.”

America is rated, overall, as having one of the greatest private health-care systems in the world. People from many foreign nations, ranging from kings to ordinary citizens, flock to the United States for care. The late King Hussein of Jordan spent a period of time each year at the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota, getting his annual health check-up.

One of the issues that has come forth is the cost of providing private health care for the elderly. The last year of life is the most costly health-wise. Today’s elderly came of age in the late 1920s, ’30s and ’40s and are expected to cause a surge in elderly medical care. Tom Brokaw, of NBC News, in his book THE GREATEST GENERATION, describes those Americans in this manner:

“They came of age during the Great Depression and the second World War and went on to build America — men and women whose every day lives of duty, honor, achievement and courage gave us the world we have today.”

It would be inconceivable even to think about a national health-care system which would exclude or reduce benefits to any of those American patriots.

As an example of government-controlled health-care systems, we have only to look at the national health-care programs practiced by our neighbor to the North, Canada.

The Canadian Parliament enacted the 1984 Canada Health Act, which established the framework for its national health-care insurance system. It outlawed most private insurance for essential health care and provided the vast majority of Canadian citizens with free medical services. Canada's health-care expense amounts to $172 billion a year. Canadians pay about 33% of gross domestic product in taxes, compared to 28% for Americans. The increased tax for Canada is mostly for free health-care. In addition, the province of British Columbia charges residents an extra health premium of $54.

The main complaints against the national health-care system are the delays that citizens experience waiting for appointments, treatments and surgeries, some amounting to four to six months, even a year.

Canadians are availing themselves of American medical services just across the border. Many of these cases reach American television audiences.

A case in point is that of Canadian citizen Shona Holmes. Shona was suffering from crushing headaches and vision problems. Her family doctor recommended she see an endocrinologist and a neurologist. It was going to take four months for one specialist and six months for the other. She couldn't wait that long and sought medical help at the Mayo Clinic in the United States. She was diagnosed as having a brain tumor which was pressing on her optic chasm that needed to come out immediately. She was sent to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where the operation was performed at a cost of $100,000. A second mortgage and borrowed money from family and friends covered the cost.

The United Kingdom is facing “serious flaws” in its nation’s health-care program, according to BBC News Reports. A headline reads: “Babies born in hospital corridors and lifts.”

Another report reads: “People in the U.K. face longer waits for non-emergency surgery and struggle to see GPs at out-of-hours compared to other Western countries.” This is worse than Germany, the Netherlands and New Zealand, and comes amid mounting criticism of the arrangements within Britain’s National Health Service. The BBC says: “The U.K. also has the worst record of waiting times with 15% having to wait for more than six months for elective treatment. “Canada was the next worst with 14% and the Netherlands was best with 2%.”

Maternity units in the U.K. are particularly hard pressed. “Thousands of babies are born in accident and emergency departments and along National Health Service corridors. Almost 4,000 women in England (in 2008) gave birth in a location other than a designated hospital labour bed.”

National health care has its own particular set of problems in different nations around the world. The United States does not have those problems with its private health care system. The Congressional Budget Office reported on October 7 that the present health-care legislation now before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee predicts that national health-care costs would cost U.S. taxpayers $829 billion over the next 10 years. The Finance Committee is the last of the Congressional panels to consider health-care legislation before debate begins in the House and Senate.

Over the past two weeks, the Finance Committee has considered several hundred amendments to the extensive health-care bill. Committee members increased the bill’s overall price tag by including an exemption for senior citizens from higher taxes on medical expenses. This health-care measure is the only proposal being seriously considered that would cost less than $1 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

There is an old, time-tested quotation that is very appropriate at this juncture: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

E. Ralph Hostetter, a prominent businessman and publisher, also is an award-winning columnist and Vice Chairman of the Free Congress Foundation Board of Directors.
Read more >>

Forced Inoculations? Sebelius: Americans must get swine flu vaccination

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius appealed anew Wednesday for widespread inoculation against a surging swine flu threat, calling the vaccine "safe and secure."

Sebelius unconditionally vouched for the safety of the vaccine, saying it "has been made exactly the same way seasonal vaccine has been made, year in and year out."

Appearing on morning news shows to step up the Obama administration's campaign for vaccinations, Sebelius said that "the adverse effects are minimal. ... We know it's safe and secure. ... This is definitely is a safe vaccine for people to get."

Sebelius was asked on CNN about surveys showing many parents were wary of getting their children vaccinated for fear the vaccine has been too hastily prepared and wasn't safe. She replied that it was targeted specifically at the H1N1 virus and was "right on target with an immune response."

The HHS secretary appeared as new cases of the flu, particularly among younger people, have been appearing recently. Some 600 people have died so far from the flu in this country, and the government has targeted roughly 90,000 sites to receive the swine flu vaccine by the end of this month.

"This flu is a younger person's flu," Sebelius said on NBC's "Today" show. "Kids have no immunity to the flu ... children are great carriers of bugs and viruses."

Because of the danger of easy transmission, especially in school and day-care settings, Sebelius said, "We strongly urge parents to take precautionary steps. Flu kills every year ... and we've got a great vaccine to deal with it."

"There's going to be plenty of vaccine," the secretary said. "It's rolling off the production lines right now ... ahead of schedule, and that's good news... By the end of October we should have a substantial amount available and begin to vaccinate a wider population of folks."

Said Sebelius: "There's no question the disease is out there, which is why today we're rolling out PSAs (public service announcements) ... to make sure people take steps to help prevent the spread of the disease, and in the meantime we will push the vaccine out as quickly as we get it off the production lines."

Appearing on CBS's "The Early Show," she said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the President's Advisory Committee on Immunizations have identified five target populations: pregnant women, health care workers, children with underlying health conditions ages 6 months to 24 years, older Americans with underlying health conditions.

"That's a lot of people," Sebelius said. "That's about half the population."

"By the end of this week," she added,"we'll begin to have injectable vaccine also available. We're dealing with five production companies. That's very good news. But the vaccine will become available as the lines clear up. So as soon as we have any vaccine available, we're pushing it out to 90,000 sites around the country. The early going is a little bumpy but we'll have a good supply by October."

Read more >>