Mandating health Insurance - Obamacare

[American Patriot]

Guess "they" don't get it do they?

[vector7]

03/29/2010
Opposed to Obamacare? Then You Must Be a Racist


by Pat Sajak

Frank Rich spent many years as the theater critic for the New York Times, where, at worst, his venom could cause a Broadway production or two to close down.

Now, however, Mr. Rich opines on political and social issues for the Times, and, while the results are usually mildly amusing (even if unintentionally so), his reach has grown a bit, so the damage he causes can travel beyond the footlights. I’m not sure why anyone turns to Rich for political analysis—heck, you might as well read the rantings of a TV game show host—but the Gray Lady continues to pay him for his weekly column, and, at the rate she’s bleeding money, that’s no small sacrifice.

Anyway, Mr. Rich has apparently been able to get to the bottom of the vocal opposition to the “healthcare reform” bill that was recently gently shepherded through Congress.

It turns out, according to his well-crafted analysis, that it’s not the bill that’s got people in an uproar; rather, what we’re facing is the death rattle of a dwindling cadre of white, racist, sexist, homophobic males terrified by the ascent of people of color, women and gays.

As the ever-tolerant Rich reasons: “The conjunction of a black President and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.”

So that’s it. It’s just a bunch of scared, white males who would yelp about anything this gang came up with. As Rich makes clear, this is merely a replay of the opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1964. You get it? If you express opposition to the bill, you’re a racist, sexist homophobe.

Mr. Rich is shocked by the level of anger in the land, and he fears for the safety of our elected officials, much as I’m sure he did during the George W. Bush administration. He calls on Republican leaders to distance themselves from the more radical voices among them, echoing the demands I’m sure he made of the Democrats during the last campaign.

Welcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing “Cats”. (He liked it, by the way.) This was a particularly shameful column, and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology. Are they right? Are they wrong? Let’s discuss it. Let’s debate it. Let’s yell and scream if we want to. But would it be too much to ask that we approach the matter based on its merits and leave the psychobabble to Dr. Phil?

Mr. Sajak is the host of "Wheel of Fortune" and PatSajak.com.

[vector7]

DOCTOR'S ORDERS
N.Y. Times columnist: Death panels will save 'a lot of money'

Paul Krugman tells 'Roundtable' economists agree it's 'going to be major'

---

Posted: March 30, 2010
9:02 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Left-leaning New York Times economic columnist Paul Krugman says the so-called "death panels" established by President Obama's trillion-dollar nationalized health-care plan will end up saving "a lot of money" for the government.

The comments from Krugman, who also writes on the New York Times blogs, came during a discussion of "Obamacare" on the ABC News Sunday program "This Week."

"People on the right, they're simultaneously screaming, 'They're going to send all the old people to death panels,' and 'It's not going to save any money,'" he said.

Another panelist interjected, "Death panels would save money," to which Krugman responded:

The advisory panel which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we are not going to pay for it. That is actually going to save quite a lot of money. We don't know how much yet. The CBO gives it very little credit but, but most, most of the health care economists I talk to think that's going be a really, uh a really major cost saving.

The video has been posted on the Conservatives4Palin website, and it was Palin who was among the first to denounce the "death panel" concept in the Democrats' government-run health care plan. That's the idea that appointed government officials who under the plan will have access to medical records will determine if a treatment will be provided to a needy patient. Theoretically, that could be a death sentence for a patient denied a treatment.

In the United Kingdom and other nations where such government procedures already are in place, the survival rates for such afflictions as breast cancer or prostate cancer are lower than in the U.S. Critics say it is partly because of denial or delay of treatment.

WND columnist Jane Chastain wrote about the issue shortly before the congressional vote.

President Obama

"This bill sets up an Independent Medicare Advisory Board, which is to recommend cuts for the sole purpose of limiting the amount of resources going to Medicare patients. Some have called it a 'Death Panel,'" she wrote.

"You may think this is harsh, but if this bill passes, many seniors will die prematurely because the recommendations of these unelected bureaucrats will go into effect. Congress is not required to act on them!"

"Obama … wants Granny to believe that she will be able to receive that operation or treatment that could save or extend her life. Nothing could be further from the truth!

There is a reverse incentive in this bill that actually penalizes Granny's primary-care physician if he or she is in the top 10 percent of doctors who refer patients to specialists. This puts a wedge between Granny and the doctor she trusts to act in her best interest."

Richard Poe, a New York Times best-selling author, documented in a previous report for WND how the government's plan to cut health-care costs will, in effect, cut health care itself for some.

"The only question is whose" health care will be cut, Poe wrote. "The numbers make clear that most of these cuts will have to come at the expense of those who need health care the most – the elderly, the disabled and the gravely ill."

He cited Obama's acknowledgement that "older, sicker societies pay more on health care than younger, healthier ones."

"He is right," Poe wrote. "According to a 2006 study by the Department of Health and Human Services, five percent of the U.S. population accounts for nearly 50 percent of health care spending in America. Who are those five percent? Most are people over 65 years of age with serious, chronic illnesses.

"By contrast, the study notes, half of the U.S. population 'spends little or nothing on health care… with annual medical spending below $664 per person.' These, of course, are mostly healthy young people – people without serious, chronic illnesses," Poe wrote.

"Obviously, Obama will not meet his cost-cutting targets by reducing care to healthy young people. They are already spending next to nothing. It is the old, the dying and the chronically ill whose health care he will cut. The numbers make this clear," Poe said.

Some of the "old, the dying and the chronically ill" appear to be catching on. According to a report from Fox News, an estimated 60,000 members of AARP, which endorsed "Obamacare," have turned in their cards and canceled their memberships in recent weeks.

Poe elaborated on his concerns about the president's plan.

"How will Obama cut costs? His June 13 radio speech gave some hints. Obama said his plan would provide 'incentives' to doctors to 'avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments and tests that drive up costs,'" Poe wrote.

"And what sort of treatment does Obama consider 'unnecessary?' In an ABC News special June 24, he implied medical treatment might be wasted on elderly people with grave illnesses, citing his own grandmother as an example," he said.

Obama concluded, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

Poe also documented how such health care limits already are being used overseas, including the U.K., where "British elders are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses."

Further, "death" boards already are operating in Oregon, where officials with the state Health Plan agreed to refuse a patient life-extending cancer drugs but volunteered to pay for her to commit suicide.

He reported Barbara Wagner of Springfield, Ore., was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005. Chemotherapy and radiation put her cancer into remission. But the cancer returned in May 2008.

Wagner's doctor prescribed Tarceva, a pill which slows cancer growth. There was a good chance it might extend her life by a few weeks or even months.

At age 64, Wagner had two sons, three daughters, 15 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Every moment she could spend with her loved ones was precious, he noted.

But Oregon's health officials nixed the plan. Her Tarceva treatment would cost $4,000 per month. Wagner was going to die anyway, so why waste the money?

Wagner received a letter stating that the Oregon Health Plan would not approve any treatment for her "that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of the disease. …" However, if Wagner opted for physician-assisted suicide, Oregon would be happy to pick up the tab, said the letter.

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon and costs only about $50.

[vector7]

Why do Democrats Plan on Euthanizing between 180,000 and 405,000 Americans?

By Jim Byrd Friday, April 2, 2010

Democrats squandered Trillions, Jailed Thousands, Shattered Lives, Destroyed Business

A Harvard study revealed that 45,000 Americans die each year because they do not have health insurance. “Having no health insurance means an early death to almost 45,000 people in the United States annually – almost two-and-a-half times the number previously estimated,” according to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention states that 2.4 million people die each year in the United States. Medicare insures 75% of those who die. Is Medicare responsible for killing 1.8 million Americans each year? Using the same logic employed by the Democrats that not having health insurance is a cause of death would dictate that Medicare is responsible for 75% of all deaths each year. This would make Medicare the number one killer in the United States.

Dick Durbin has the number of people dying from no health insurance at 25,000 per year. His math: “Today, 70 Americans will die for lack of health insurance, 70. And when the Republicans tell us, ‘Go slow, start over, take your time,’ we’ve got to add it up. It’s 70 a day. How much time can we take?”

Harry Reid has the number at 105,000 per year. His math: “Two Americans die every ten minutes because they do not have health insurance.”

I would challenge anyone to produce a death certificate stating that the cause of death was “uninsured.” This health care bill is not about health insurance or health care, as neither were improved, but, two weeks after the bill was signed into law, the more defective aspects of each industry have been amplified. If this bill was a legitimate fix for health care via insurance, then the ensuing macabre conclusions hold true about the Democratic Party.

Assuming logic and commonsense are disregarded so the Harvard study that professes having no health insurance means an early death to almost 45,000 people is an absolute, then the Democratic Party plans to eradicate 45,000 Americans per year until the year 2019. These 45,000 unfortunate victims dying each year from lack of health insurance are now going to be rescued by the Democrats with the passage of the health care bill, but with a minor caveat: they will need to hang-on for another 4 to 9 years before the omnipresent panacea of government insurance can rescue them from the clutches of the Grim Reaper. Not medical science, not world-class doctors, not state of the art hospitals, but this behemothic gaggle of imbeciles, the current United States federal government, is going to save these lives by mandating the purchasing of health insurance for coverage in a medical industry, that when the Democrats are finished correcting, physicians will be letting blood, pulling teeth, and giving haircuts in their short robes. But as an obvious altruism by the Democrats, the Medicare cuts in the bill will decimate that little niche so badly that the elderly will be forced from the program, thus saving those abandoned by their government from a 75% chance of death by Medicare.

To sell their plan, the Democrats and Obama paraded victim after victim in front of anyone who would listen, telling their stories of having no health insurance and its effect on their lives. It was one sob story after another. But, when dealing with Democrats, the stories are not always as they seem. With just a perfunctory investigation, most of the victims had access to insurance and chose not to capitalize on it, or were dropped from their insurance for reasons they caused, but all had access to medical care regardless of their standing with their insurance companies. There are legitimate cases, but not one was presented by the Democrats.

The urgency of this health care bill was unprecedented, and the Democrats’ concern and passion was so deep for these victims that the bill had to be passed posthaste, at the expense of the Constitution, which after short dialogues defending their authority, the Democrats do not understand the document anyway. However, as intentionally designed, this bill will not save even one victim on parade, at the minimum, for four years, and will not save their other uninsured brethren until 2019. Beginning in 2014, those who don’t have health insurance now because they cannot afford it will be forced to purchase the insurance they cannot afford now, at a much higher premium, to save them from the certain death of being uninsured, or go to jail.

The facts:
2014

* Requires individual mandate to obtain health care coverage
* Provides subsidies for families earning up to 400% of the poverty level or, under current guidelines, about $88,000 a year, to purchase health insurance
* Establishes state health insurance exchanges
* Employers with more than 50 employees must offer coverage
* Employers with more than 200 employees would be required to auto-enroll all new employees in health care plans
* Employers permitted to offer employees rewards of up to 30% of the cost of wellness programs
* State pilot program for wellness programs

By 2019

* Expands health insurance coverage to 32 million people. But still leaves 24 million uninsured, according to the CBO

So, what have we learned in the two weeks since the passage of the bill? By the year 2019, the Democrats will have squandered trillions of dollars, done irreparable damage to the economy, perpetuated job losses, decimated the health insurance industry, decimated the health care system, jailed thousands for not buying mandated insurance, ripped the Constitution asunder, still only cover only half of those without health insurance, and the Democrats, according to their math, will have euthanized approximately 405,000 Americans because of the mathematical trickery they used to pass the bill. According to the CBO, 42% of the estimated total of uninsured in 2019 will still be uninsured, or 24 million people walking about with a death sentence for lack of insurance. A number that, after it is all said and done, is equal to the number of uninsured now. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have set in motion a spending spree that will, by the year 2019, leave this country with a debt of 82% of GDP. Barack Obama and his Democratic lap dogs’ legacy will continue to spend 1.72 million dollars per minute for the next ten years with no effective difference in the number of uninsured. Again, this is not about health care. Hope and Change.

[Ryan Ruck]

Health Law Bans New Doctor-Owned Hospitals, Blocks Expansion of Existing Ones

April 12, 2010

The new health care overhaul law, which promised increased access and efficiency in health care, will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds, says a group that advocates physician involvement in every aspect of health care delivery.

Physician-owned hospitals are advertised as less bureaucratic and more focused on doctor-patient decision making. However, larger corporate hospitals say doctor-owned facilities discriminate in favor of high-income patients and refer business to themselves.

The new health care rules single out such hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Existing doctor-owned hospitals will be grandfathered in to get government funds for patients but must seek permission from the Department of Health and Human Services to expand.

To get the department’s permission, a doctor-owned hospital must be in a county where population growth is 150 percent of the population growth of the state in the last five years; inpatient admissions must be equal to all hospitals located in the county; the bed-occupancy rate must not be greater than the state average, and the hospital must be located in a state where hospital bed capacity is less than the national average.

The rules fall under Title VI, Section 6001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The provision is titled “Physician Ownership and Other Transparency – Limitations on Medicare Exceptions to the Prohibition on Certain Physician Referral for Hospitals.”

More than 60 doctor-owned hospitals across the country that were in the development stage will be canceled, said Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America (PHA).

“That’s a lot of access to communities that will be denied,” Sandvig told CNSNews.com. “The existing hospitals are greatly affected. They can’t grow. They can’t add beds. They can’t add rooms. Basically, it stifles their ability to change and meet market needs. This is really an unfortunate thing as well, because we are talking about some of the best hospitals in the country.”

The organization says physician-owned hospitals have higher patient satisfaction, greater control over medical decisions for patients and doctor, better quality care and lower costs. Further, physician-owned hospitals have an average 4-1 patient-to-nurse ratio, compared to the national average of 8-1 for general hospitals.

Further, these 260 doctor-owned hospitals in 38 states provide 55,000 jobs, $2.4 billion in payroll and pay $509 million in federal taxes, according to the PHA.

In one ironic aspect, President Barack Obama’s two largest legislative achievements clashed. The Hammond Community Hospital in North Hammond, Ind., got $7 million in bond money from the federal stimulus act in 2009. It will likely be scrapped because of the new rules on physician-owned hospitals, according to the Post-Tribune newspaper in Merrillville, Ind.

Doctor-owned hospitals have long been a target of the American Hospital Association, which represents corporate-owned hospitals as well as non-profit hospitals.

An AHA study from 2008 says that physician-owned hospitals “lessen patient access to emergency and trauma care;” “damage the financial health of full-service hospitals and lead to cutbacks in service;” “are not more efficient than full service community hospitals;” “use physician-owners to steer patients;” “cherry pick the most profitable patients;” and “provide limited or no emergency services.”

One AHA fact sheet asserts that physician-owned orthopedic and surgical hospitals costs are 20-30 percent higher than average hospitals. Further, these hospitals lead to higher profits just for doctors, the AHA asserts.

“We don’t cherry pick patients, period, end of story. We take patients based on their need for care, not on their ability to pay,” Sandvig said. “It [the health care reform] puts control outside the hand of physicians and patients and into bureaucrats’ hands really.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is one of many organizations suing to have the law declared unconstitutional on the grounds that the federal government cannot compel someone to buy a product.

While the provision on physician hospitals is not part of the lawsuit, it will affect it, said Dr. Jane Orient, AAPS executive director.

“If the law is declared unconstitutional, then the prohibition is part of the bill,” Orient told CNSNews.com. “There are vested interests in getting rid of physician-owned hospitals because they do a better job and are more affordable.”

The provision in the legislation and efforts opposing these hospitals can be simply explained from Sandvig’s view.

“It’s anti-competitive. I think it’s pretty clear,” Sandvig said. “We’re a model that makes sense that’s affecting innovation. We’re trying to do something better than it has been done. Anytime you do that, there’s going to be a clash between the existing and the new. Unfortunately, it’s a real David and Goliath battle.”

[American Patriot]

“It’s anti-competitive. I think it’s pretty clear,” Sandvig said. “We’re a model that makes sense that’s affecting innovation. We’re trying to do something better than it has been done. Anytime you do that, there’s going to be a clash between the existing and the new. Unfortunately, it’s a real David and Goliath battle.”

Oh, come on, Obama and the Left aren't Socialists! Geez you paranoid fools.

FRAC 'EM ALL!

[Ryan Ruck]

Student Loan Boost Passes With Health Care Bill

March 22, 2010

Uninsured Americans were not the only ones to benefit from legislation passed Sunday night in a historically controversial vote on health care.

The U.S. House also passed a broad reorganization of college aid that increases grants for millions of students.

Passage moves President Barack Obama closer to winning yet another of his top domestic policies.

The bill, which passed on a vote of 220–211, eliminates a student loan program that relies on private financial institutions, and switches to direct government lending. The savings would pay for $36 billion in Pell Grants.

The bill also provides more than $4 billion to historically black colleges, including Bethune-Cookman University. Community colleges would also receive a share of the money.

The legislation was paired with the expedited health care bill, a marriage of convenience that helped the prospects of each measure.

The Senate will take up the measure this week.

[American Patriot]

AHA? American Homebrewer's Association.

I'm a member

[Brian Baldwin]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2496593/posts

In a new twist on lawsuits against Obamacare, TN attorney Van Irion filed a national class action in Federal court. The suit challenges Obamacare on the basis that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate health care. Mr. Irion is asking the courts to re-evaluate the Commerce clause precedent, arguing that current precedent in effect destroys the intent of the Constitution and specifically the 10th Amendment.
(PRWEB) April 19, 2010 -- Over 10,000 Americans have joined a lawsuit against Obamacare (http://obamacareclassaction.com). In a new twist on lawsuits against Obamacare, TN constitutional attorney and congressional candidate (http://www.van4congress.org/) Van Irion filed what is shaping up to be a national class action in Federal court April 8th. The suit challenges the constitutionality of Obamacare on the basis that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate health care. Mr. Irion is asking the courts to re-evaluate the legal precedent related to the Commerce clause, arguing that current precedent in effect destroys the intent of the Constitution and specifically the 10th Amendment.

The lawsuit is a unique take on legal actions against the recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is the first suit that allows any US citizen to join as a plaintiff and is the only suit to directly attack the legal precedent of the Commerce clause and therefore the Constitutionality of Obamacare. Greta Van Susteren, who has been following lawsuits related to Health Care Reform on her show “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren (http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/)”, will interview Van Irion this week during the 10pm time slot.


“The lawsuit quickly became so popular among grassroots movements, that we set up a website to take plaintiff information and allow people to follow the progress of the case,” said Irion, The site name is Obamacare Class Action, or “OCA”, and can be found at http://www.obamacareclassaction.com. The form that captures the necessary information asks for name, address and email address. Phone number and company name is optional, but gives US companies the option of signing on as a corporate plaintiff. “Once the complaint is amended to include all the plaintiffs that have signed on, each name will be listed,” said Irion. “At that point, we expect to have tens of thousands of plaintiffs.”

Since filing suit on April 8th, the site has added 1,000 plaintiffs (http://obamacareclassaction.com/join.php) a day on average, although Irion says that rate is increasing as more people hear about the opportunity to join. “This is truly the ‘People’s Suit’. It is their name on the complaint, versus the President, Pelosi, Reid and the U.S., saying that the Obamacare legislation is wrong. It is unconstitutional and must be overturned. The chance to take this to court with a team of constitutional attorneys making the points they have been shouting for over a year is something Americans have been looking for,” said Irion. "I am one of those that have been pointing out the unconstitutionality of Obamacare and am thrilled to have the opportunity to take on this fight.”

The complaint was filed in Federal Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, Chattanooga, case file number 1:10cv-71. For more information about Van Irion, visit Van4Congress (http://www.van4congress.org/) or Law Office of Van R Irion PLLC (http://www.irionlaw.com/).

I've already joined the lawsuit and am going to send out links to their site to all non TAA friends I have. Hope you guys do the same.

[vector7]

Friday, March 26, 2010

ObamaCare Surprise: Long-Term Care Provision Could Cost Americans $2000 A Year Unless They Opt Out - Video 3/26/10



Here is a Fox News report on an almost totally unreported program tucked into the ObamaCare Law. It is a Long-Term Health Care Program that people will automatically be enrolled in by their employers unless they opt out. Those who are in, will have a premium of $146 a month (some say more) deducted from their paychecks. This will create a whole new huge Government program that the Federal Government will manage and pay out when people need Long-term care, either at home or in a nursing home.

While Congress spent the last year debating how to provide health insurance for the uninsured, a little-known provision slipped into the heath care law that could cost some Americans upwards of $2,000 a year.

The Class Act, otherwise known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act, is the federal government's first long-term care insurance program.

Under-reported and the under the radar of most lawmakers, the program will allow workers to have an average of roughly $150 or $240 a month, based on age and salary, automatically deducted from their paycheck to save for long-term care. . .

Here's how the program will work:

-- The federal government will approach employers next year about alerting workers to the proposed deduction.

-- The deduction will work on a sliding scale based on age. Younger workers will be charged less, older workers more. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the average monthly deduction at $146. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services put it higher, at $240.

-- After a five-year vesting period, enrollees who need help bathing, eating or dressing will be eligible to take out benefits, estimated to be around $75 a day for in-home care. . . . . .

"This creates a whole new bureaucracy that is going to break this country," Nunes said. "In the early years there will be money in it, but at the end of the day there won't be enough money to cover the problems because there will be too many people in the program." . . . MORE

More of the joy of ObamaCare. Click here for an index of more consequences of ObamaCare.

[vector7]

LA clinic begins giving free care at sports stadium arenas

By The Associated Press
Tuesday, April 27, 2010 at 1:51 a.m.

LOS ANGELES — A free health clinic was expected to opens its doors Tuesday to thousands of patients clamoring for dental, vision and medical care.

The Los Angeles Sports Arena has been transformed into a health clinic that will run from April 27 to May 3, with its floor lined with more than 100 dentist chairs and 40 medical examination areas to treat patients.

Patients registered in advance to see doctors at the event, which is being run by the Tennessee-based nonprofit group Remote Area Medical. The clinic expects to serve about 1,200 patients a day.

Patients registered in advance for the clinic and were given nontransferable wristbands.

Many patients come to get specific ailments cared for, but all are given full medical examinations by doctors to screen for illnesses and problems.

"People come in because they have a toothache and they know they have a toothache, but they may not know they have hypertension or they're developing diabetes," said event producer Don Manelli. "We're about doing the good medicine. The idea is this is a free medical clinic but we're not compromising quality of care."

To help patients get follow-up care they may need, Manelli said the clinic has organized a volunteer phone bank to make appointments with a network of 130 community health clinics.

It's estimated that 6 to 8 percent of patients will need follow-up care, Manelli said.

Remote Area Medical held an eight-day clinic at The Forum in Inglewood in August that drew more than 6,000 patients, but thousands more had to be turned away.

In recent years, the group has expanded its focus from rural areas in the Third World to address growing needs domestically, with 60 percent of its clinics within the United States, Manelli said.

[vector7]

Big Brother to track your medication compliance with electronic transmitters in pills

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Now that the U.S. government has achieved its monopoly over health care, new technologies are in the works that will allow the government to remotely monitor and track whether ordinary citizens are complying with taking medications prescribed by conventional doctors. One new technology described at the U.S. Senate Committee on Aging
allows "pills to be electronically outfitted with transmitters" which would track the patient's compliance with medications and broadcast that information back to government health care enforcers who check for "compliance and efficacy."
"Emerging technologies allow pills to be electronically outfitted with transmitters to communicate with the user's wristwatch that shows that the pill has been consumed," said University of Virginia professor Robin Felder at the committee meeting. "Broadband connectivity of these devices would allow the electronic medical record to be updated with regard to medication compliance and efficacy."

This would allow government health operators, for example, to know whether you've taken all your prescribed psychiatric medications. If you veer from the course of pharmaceuticals prescribed by your doctor, health care enforcement agents could be dispatched to your door to make sure you start taking your pills.

Parents who currently attempt to protect their children from toxic medical therapies such as chemotherapy could be closely monitored by government medical enforcement agents. If you try to flush dangerous pharmaceuticals down the toilet instead of actually taking them, the lack of an electronic tracking signal will let your health care observers know you didn't really take the pills.

Get ready for E-Care

It's all part of a new push called E-Care which involves a number of medical devices that monitor you in your home and report back to government authorities. A blood pressure monitoring device, for example, could report your blood pressure to your government-approved doctor. A blood sugar monitoring device could determine if you've eaten too much sugar and order you to take more diabetes pills to try to compensate.

Big Government, you see, doesn't just want to monopolize health care; it wants to monitor your compliance with it. If you depart from their system of pharmaceuticals, you may be found unfit as a parent, for example. Or possibly just declared insane (which gets you drugged with psych meds).

Big Brother snooping in on your diet

One of the ultimate goals of this remote monitoring technology is to install a blood monitoring chip in your arm that would sample and run diagnostic tests on your blood every few minutes. While this could be used in a positive way to detect early signs of cancer or liver problems, for example, it could also be used to snoop on the dietary habits of everyday citizens.

If you take too much vitamin C, for example -- beyond what is allowed by CODEX -- it could trigger a monitored alert that causes government-run medical operatives to force their way into your home and confiscate your "non-compliant" vitamins.

If your vitamin D levels rise high enough to actually prevent cancer, they could have you arrested for "spending too much time in the sun" and thrown into a hospital with no windows to, as they claim, "Protect you from skin cancer."

These are some of the very practical realities that could theoretically emerge in the dystopian medicalized society that seems to be getting closer with each passing day.

We're monitoring you for your own good

This isn't science fiction: It's modern medical fact. As CNSNews reports, "...Areas of interest include medicines that can tell a doctor if they have been taken on time [and] wireless monitoring of nutritional information..."

Of course, as with all privacy-invading monitoring devices, government will argue that monitoring you is "for your own good." You can expect an RFID chip to be implanted in your arm, too, containing your entire medical history. So every time you pass near an RFID reader at a government-controlled facility (airports, schools, interstate toll booths, etc.), your entire medical history can be scanned and assessed for a variety of metrics.

Combined with the blood analysis chip implants, this would give health enforcement authorities a way to find and arrest "dangerous" people -- such as people who aren't taking enough antidepressants, for example. Or people who show signs of consuming herbal medicines. All these people could be tracked down, arrested and then forced to consume medications before they are released back into the public.

TIA for your body

The program is basically Total Information Awareness at the personal biology level. Big Brother wants to monitor your biochemistry, you see, to make sure you remain compliant with its pharmaceutical and junk foods agenda.

It's not enough for the government to monitor your phone calls, scan your emails and watch you sunbathing on your back porch with spy satellites; now they want to snoop into your bloodstream and monitor what you've been eating, drinking or swallowing.

"This device here connects to other devices that measure a patient's blood pressure and glucose [sugar] levels." said U.S. Senator Ron Wyden. "It wirelessly uploads this data to an electronic medical health record that is monitored by a health care professional." (A government-mandated health care enforcer, in other words.)

With this technology, they could even monitor your moods by tracking fluctuations of hormone levels. They will know when you're happy, when you're angry, when you're having sex, when you're sleeping. All this information will be at the fingertips of government health care enforcers who are, of course, working to further the Big Pharma agenda of medicating everyone from cradle to grave.


Remote administration of medications

But it gets even worse. Part of this E-Care technology involves the remote administration of medications directly into your bloodstream. A supply of medication chemicals can be worn on your body (like a wristband, for example), and when it receives a remote command from your health care enforcers, it can inject another dose of some chemical into your bloodstream.

These chemicals could be anything -- antidepressants, tranquilizers, antipsychotics, statin drugs, chemotherapy drugs and so on. So now you've got remote government medical operatives who can essentially control your biochemistry as if you were a robot in a Big Government reality game.

If they are about to come to your house and take away your children because you refused to give them vaccines, for example, they could first remotely inject you with tranquilizers so that you will be "calm, docile and compliant" upon their arrival.

This now puts the government in control of your mind through the remote administration of mind-altering chemicals.

"What we're talking about, folks, is using a device like this one," said Senator Wyden during the committee meeting. "It attaches to the patient's skin and is loaded with drugs that are administered in the exact way that the doctor prescribes -- wirelessly."

Except it's not really the way the doctor prescribes; it's the way the government prescribes. Because now Big Government is running health care and telling doctors exactly what to do. So government is determining what chemicals get administered to you, and before long they'll be able to administer those chemicals wirelessly.

Did you get your happy chemicals today?

At the click of a mouse, in other words, Big Government could mass medicate the entire nation. Imagine the entire population being dosed with "happy chemicals" in the days before an important vote. Or imagine the population being medicated with "anger hormones" following some staged false-flag attack, all designed to create outrage so that the politicians can sweep in with yet more "solutions" that destroy civil liberties.

This may be what's coming, which is why establishing a government health care monopoly was so important in the first place. Without the government monopoly and the IRS penalties for non-compliance, there would be no way to force everybody into participating in such a system. But now, health care run by Big Government has opened the door for us all to be chipped, monitored and medicated without our knowledge and against our will.

It's a brave new world after all, it seems. Maybe the drug-dispensing implants will start administering soma to us all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_...)

Sources for this story include:
US Senate Special Committee on Aging
http://aging.senate.gov/hearing_det...

CNS News
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64663

[vector7]

Obama’s Budget Director: Powerful Rationing Panel (Not Doctors) Will Control Health Care Levels

[American Patriot]

This would allow government health operators, for example, to know whether you've taken all your prescribed psychiatric medications. If you veer from the course of pharmaceuticals prescribed by your doctor, health care enforcement agents could be dispatched to your door to make sure you start taking your pills.

I will NOT put anything in my body that is "mandated".

KISS MY ASS!

[vector7]

Obama Names Rationing Czar to Run Medicare

Wednesday, May 26, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey

Listen to Commentary Podcasts


Dr. Donald Berwick (Photo from Harvard University School of Public Health Web site)

Dr. Donald Berwick of the Harvard Medical School does not like free enterprise, but he does like rationing.

Two years ago, in England, he delivered a talk celebrating the 60^th birthday of Great Britain’s National Health Service, the bureaucracy that runs that nation’s socialized medical system.

He apparently entertained some fear that day that the Brits might turn back to free enterprise. So, in his address (as reprinted in the July 26, 2008, edition of the British Medical Journal), and as reported this week by Matt Cover of CNSNews.com, he offered British socialists some words of advice.

“Please,” he told them, “don’t put your faith in market forces—it’s a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can. I find little evidence that market forces relying on consumers choosing among an array of products, with competitors fighting it out, leads to the health care system you want and need. In the U.S., competition is a major reason for our duplicative, supply driven, fragmented care system.”

To Berwick, America’s health care system is not the model for the world. Great Britain’s is. In his view, it is vital for the Brits to hold high the flame of socialized medicine so the world can follow its lead.

“I hope you will never, ever give up what you have begun,” said Berwick. “I hope you realize and affirm how badly you need—how badly the world needs—an example at scale of a health system that is universal, accessible, excellent and free at the point of care—a health system that, at its core is like the world we wish we had: generous, hopeful, confident, joyous and just.

“Happy birthday,” the ebullient doctor told the British health care socialists. If you have not noticed already, this man has a crush on collectivism. “Cynics beware,” he said. “I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it.” This love extends to approbation for rationing health care and using the health care system to redistribute wealth.

“You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach,” Berwick told the Brits. “You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too little of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them.”

And they get to play Robin Hood in lab coats. “You could have protected the wealthy and the well,” he said, “instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker, and that any health care funding plan that is just must redistribute wealth.”

Last June, after President Barack Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus law that included funding for a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, thus pre-positioning the federal infrastructure that would be needed to guide federal health care rationing decisions under a new national health care system, Berwick gave an interview to Biotechnology Healthcare that was brought to light this week in a report by Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com.

Berwick explained that there are three steps to “comparative effectiveness research.” The first is to determine whether a therapy works or not. The second is to determine how well the therapy works compared to other therapies. The third is to do a cost-benefit analysis.

“If a new drug or procedure is effective, and has some advantage over existing alternatives,” Berwick said, “then does the incremental benefit justify the likely additional cost?”

Now, in a free country where people freely chose to pay for their own health care with their own money, this is a good question for any prudent consumer. It is exactly that “free market force” that Berwick implored the British socialists not to put their faith in.

But in a country where the government has taken regulatory and fiscal control of the health care system—where the state is subsidizing most people’s care—and where government bureaucrats make the decisions about who gets what treatment, this question is not the animating moving force behind the invisible hand of the market, it is the dark materialistic spirit behind the iron hand of a life-and-death tyranny.

In the socialistic health care system that Berwick envisions—and that President Obama signed into law two months ago—life-and-death rationing is inevitable. “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care,” Berwick told Biotechnology Healthcare, “the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

President Obama has nominated Berwick to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the federal agency that runs these two massive proto-socialist health care programs. If confirmed, he will oversee the massive cuts that Obamacare mandated in Medicare.

He will do the cost-benefit analysis on your life or on the life of a loved one. Unless, of course, too many incumbent senators make the self-diagnosis that a vote to confirm would result in the premature end of their sickly political lives.

[Ryan Ruck]

Rasmussen: Obamacare Repeal Support Rises To 63%

May 24, 2010

Democrats may be celebrating holding a seat in a Pennsylvania district by eight points with a 2-1 registration advantage, but a new Rasmussen poll shows that as whistling past the graveyard. Support for repealing ObamaCare has risen by seven points in the last week, hitting its highest level ever at 63%. Opposition to the idea of repeal dropped seven points, for a total of a fourteen-point swing in eight days:

Support for repeal of the new national health care plan has jumped to its highest level ever. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.

Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.

Currently, just 32% oppose repeal.

The White House has attempted to front-load the rollout of ObamaCare with its most popular elements in an attempt to change the narrative. Not only has that effort completely failed, it also leaves Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi with little ammunition left with which to fight in the upcoming general election. Despite their bravado, Democrat Mark Critz won PA-12 by running against ObamaCare, not in support of it, in a momentarily successful triangulation against a tough Republican challenge from Tim Burns — one that will be repeated in November.

Not only has support grown for repeal overall, it has also grown broadly in the electorate. Majorities of both men (65%) and women (62%) want ObamaCare repealed. Majorities in every age demographic want it repealed as well, including a shocking 70% of 18-29YO voters, which normally form the base of Barack Obama’s age-demographic support. That includes a 47% plurality that strongly supports repeal, suggesting that younger voters have finally realized that ObamaCare uses them to subsidize insurance premiums of older Americans.

In other demographics, the news is equally bad. Only the lowest income earners don’t want repeal, and that’s just by eight points, 40/48. Solid majorities support repeal in every other income bracket, and “strongly supports” doesn’t get below 48% in any of them. Seventy-two percent of independents want it repealed, and even 36% of Democrats support repeal — 17% of them strongly.

The more people discover about ObamaCare, the more they want an end to it. What does it say about the chances of Democrats in the midterms when support for their one legislative accomplishment (32%) gets outstripped by the number of Democrats who want it reversed (36%)? I’d expect to hear a lot about the Lily Ledbetter Act in October, because thanks to their singular focus on the ObamaCare hobby horse, Democrats have nothing else on which to run.

[Ryan Ruck]

Keep Your Health Plan Under Overhaul? Probably Not, Gov't Analysis Concludes

6/11/2010

Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare.

Small firms will be even likelier to lose existing plans.

The "midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013," according to the document.

In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law.

The 83-page document, a joint project of the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the IRS, examines the effects that ObamaCare's regulations would have on existing, or "grandfathered," employer-based health care plans.

Draft copies of the document were reportedly leaked to House Republicans during the week and began circulating Friday morning. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., posted it on his Web site Friday afternoon.

"It's been passed around the staffs here on Capitol Hill. Congressman Posey thought it was important enough to share," said spokesman George Cecala.

In a statement, Posey said the document showed that the arguments in favor of ObamaCare were a "bait and switch."

"The president promised repeatedly that people who like their current plans can keep them, but now the details of their plan actually confirm what many suspected all along, most Americans will lose their current health care plan," Posey said.

A White House official told IBD: "This is a draft document, and we will be releasing the final regulation when it is complete. The president made a promise to the American people that if they liked their health care plan, they can keep it. The regulation, when finalized, will uphold that promise."

However, the source conceded: "It is difficult to predict how plans and employers will behave in the coming years, but if plans make changes that negatively impact consumers, then they will lose their grandfather status."

It's unclear how the document leaked out. An HHS spokeswoman confirmed that the department was working on a draft paper about grandfathered plans but said it hasn't been made public yet.

A House Republican staffer said the rumor was that the document had been erroneously posted on the Office of Management and Budget Web site earlier in the week and somebody spotted it before it was taken down. IBD has not been able to confirm this report.

Under the new health law, current employer-based health plans will be grandfathered — that is, they will not have to follow many Obama-Care provisions that take effect on Jan. 1, 2014. These include benefit mandates, caps on out-of-pocket expenses and limits on age-based premiums.

But they forfeit that grandfathered status if they make changes to the plans by 2014. If so, firms may have to adopt new plans or drop coverage and pay the penalty.

No Longer A Grandfather

But the term "grandfathered" is loosely defined by the new law; specifics have been left up to the bureaucracies. One key question is, how much flexibility would employers have in changing their coverage before it is no longer considered grandfathered?

Under the regulations in the document, a plan is no longer considered to be grandfathered if:

• It eliminates benefits related to diagnosis or treatment of a particular condition.

• It increases the percentage of a cost-sharing requirement (such as co-insurance) above its level as of March 23, 2010.

• It increases the fixed amount of cost-sharing such as deductibles or out-of-pocket limits by a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010, that is more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points.

• It increases co-payments from March 23, 2010, by an amount that is the greater of: medical inflation plus 15 percentage points or medical inflation plus $5.

• The employer's share of the premium decreases more than 5 percentage points below what the share was on March 23, 2010.

Analyzing data on employer-provided plans from 2008 and 2009, the report stated: "Many employers who made changes between 2008 and 2009 that would have caused them to relinquish grandfather status did so based on exceeding one of the cost-sharing limits."

In total, 66% of small businesses and 47% of large businesses made a change in their health care plans last year that would have forfeited their grandfathered status.

"These rules will ensure that up to 69% of employees — and 80% of workers in small business — will lose their current plan within three years," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., a physician. "The reality is this: 58% of Americans want ObamaCare repealed because they fear they will lose their health care — and even their jobs — once this law is fully implemented."

[Ryan Ruck]

White House Moves To Keep Employers From Dropping Insurance

6/14/2010

The White House on Monday outlined broad new rules designed to prevent employers from dropping health insurance benefits for their workers or shifting huge new costs onto them.

The regulations empower the administration to revoke the so-called grandfather status of businesses that shift “significant” new burdens onto employees — a considerable penalty that would subject those plans to all the consumer protections in the Democrats’ new healthcare reform law.

Unveiling the rules Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters that the changes will make good on one of the administration’s central promises during the contentious debate over reform: “If you like your doctor and your plan, you keep it,” she said.

Democrats exempted existing health insurance plans from a number of provisions of the new law as a concession to the insurance industry and business community. For example, grandfathered plans — those up and running when the legislation became law in March — don’t have to offer an insurance product without a cost-sharing requirement. Businesses, particularly large companies, prefer that arrangement because they don’t have to make sweeping changes to their existing plans.

The new rules say that employers can make “routine and modest” adjustments to their premium, deductible and co-pay requirements, Sebelius said, but “significant” cost hikes or benefit cuts would cost them their exempted status. The goal is to ensure that grandfathered plans “don’t use this additional flexibility to take advantage of their customers,” she said.

“We don’t want a massive shift of cost to employees,” Sebelius said.

Officials expect the new rules to have the greatest impact on the roughly 133 million employees at large companies, whose insurance offerings tend to remain more stable than at smaller businesses. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told reporters Monday that the new rules will help “minimize market disruptions.”

Republicans, however, are not convinced. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Monday that the rules would force more than half of the U.S. workforce out of their current health plan — which “flatly contradicts” Democrats’ promises during the debate.

“Here’s one more promise the administration has broken on healthcare,” McConnell said.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), senior Republican on the Finance Committee, echoed that message, calling the rules “more proof” that, under the new law, “you actually can’t keep what you like.”

“Change is coming for a lot of people,” Grassley said in a statement, “whether they want it or not.”

The new rules came on the same day analysts at PricewaterhouseCoopers issued a report projecting that employers’ healthcare costs will jump by 9 percent in 2011. The authors predict that employers next year will shift more costs onto workers, hiking deductibles and replacing co-pays with co-insurance policies.

The White House was quick to push back against the report, pointing out that the employer surveys on which it was based were conducted before the Democrats’ reform bill was passed. Also, the analysts noted that the new reform law, much of which takes effect in 2014, had only a “minor” influence on next year’s cost trends.

Asked about the report Monday, Sebelius conceded that many people will wonder why all the benefits of the health reform law don’t begin immediately. Still, she added, the survey “argues the case that we could absolutely not afford to do nothing.”

“People are being absolutely priced out of the marketplace,” she said.

[Ryan Ruck]

Don't Jack Up Health Costs For Workers, Government Warns Employers

June 14, 2010

The Obama administration had a message Monday for employers who want to keep federal bureaucrats from rewriting the rules for their company medical plans: Don't jack up costs for workers, and you won't have to worry about interference from the new health care law.

"What we don't want is a massive shift of costs to employees," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

She announced a new regulation that spells out how health plans that predate the health overhaul law can avoid its full impact. Meant to deliver on President Barack Obama's promise that people who like their current health coverage can keep it, the rule sets limits likely to become increasingly important as medical costs keep rising.

Plan changes that would cause a health plan to lose its "grandfathered" status and trigger new federal requirements include:

Dropping coverage for a particular health problem, for example, diabetes.

Increasing the proportion of insurance paid by workers, for example from 20 percent of the hospital bill to 25 percent.

Cutting back the share of premiums that the company pays by more than 5 percent.

Significantly increasing annual deductibles or co-payments paid by workers. For example, if an employer raises a $1,000 deductible by $500 over the next two years.
Story continues below

Workplace coverage is the mainstay of the nation's health insurance system, and will remain so under the new law. Consumer advocates said the regulation gives employers the flexibility to make needed changes, while protecting workers.

"If a plan changes in some significant way, or if it increases cost-sharing amounts, then that results in a very different plan — and it should not be grandfathered in," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group that supports the overhaul law.

Employers are wary.

"It's a big unknown," said Steve Wojcik, vice president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents human resources managers at major companies. "It definitely sets boundaries where plans have been used to considering all kinds of changes to both improve quality and control costs."

For example, Wojcik said it's unclear whether a plan would lose its protected status by making a change such as requiring counseling and dieting before approval of weight-loss surgery. And converting from traditional health insurance to a policy with a health savings account might lead to problems because the latter have significantly higher deductibles.

The administration's own analysis suggests it may not be easy for current plans to keep their special protected status. By 2013, two-thirds of small employer plans will have to relinquish their "grandfathered" status, along with 45 percent of large company plans, according to regulators' projections. Those plans will have to comply with a range of federal requirements on benefits.

The rule, effective immediately, is "a key part of a balanced approach" that will "provide Americans who like their plans with stability," Sebelius said.

It won't be a free ride for workers, said Wojcik. "Part of the bargain is that employers will be facing higher costs," he said. "The percentage share of the premiums will remain the same, but costs are going to go up for both sides in terms of dollars."

[vector7]

Still want Government Healthcare?

VA hospital may have infected 1,800 veterans with HIV

By the CNN Wire Staff
June 30, 2010 10:57 a.m. EDTJune 30, 2010 10:57 a.m. EDTJune 30, 2010 10:57 a.m. EDTJune 30, 2010 10:57 a.m. EDT


Hospital may have exposed vets to HIV

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Missouri VA hospital sends letters to more than 1,800 patients at risk
• Patients may be at risk to contract hepatitis and HIV
• Congressman from Missouri angry and calling for investigation
• Hospital says problem stems from handwashing dental instruments

RELATED TOPICS

• Missouri
• Veterans' Affairs
• HIV and AIDS

(CNN) -- A Missouri VA hospital is under fire because it may have exposed more than 1,800 veterans to life-threatening diseases such as hepatitis and HIV.

John Cochran VA Medical Center in St. Louis has recently mailed letters to 1,812 veterans telling them they could contract hepatitis B, hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) after visiting the medical center for dental work, said Rep. Russ Carnahan.

Carnahan said Tuesday he is calling for a investigation into the issue and has sent a letter to President Obama about it.

"This is absolutely unacceptable," said Carnahan, a Democrat from Missouri. "No veteran who has served and risked their life for this great nation should have to worry about their personal safety when receiving much needed healthcare services from a Veterans Administration hospital."

The issue stems from a failure to clean dental instruments properly, the hospital told CNN affiliate KSDK.

KSDK: VA dental patients at risk of infection

Dr. Gina Michael, the association chief of staff at the hospital, told the affiliate that some dental technicians broke protocol by handwashing tools before putting them in cleaning machines.

The instruments were supposed to only be put in the cleaning machines, Michael said.

The handwashing started in February 2009 and went on until March of this year, the hospital told KSDK.

The hospital has set up a special clinic and education centers to help patients who may have been infected. However, Carnahan said he feels more should be done and those responsible should be disciplined.

"I can only imagine the horror and anger our veterans must be feeling after receiving this letter," Carnahan said. "They have every right to be angry. So am I."

This is not the first time this year a hospital has been in hot water for not following proper procedures.

In June, Palomar Hospital in San Diego, California, has sent certified letters to 3,400 patients who underwent colonoscopy and other similar procedures, informing the patients that there may be a potential of infection from items used and reused in the procedures.