Healthcare and YOU

Originally posted at Desk of Brian: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/thehealthcarebillyou

Analysis from WebMD (only from a benefits stand point, NOT cost or taxes etc...)

Beginning immediately:

• Children up to the age of 26 can remain on their parent's plan
• People with "pre-existing" conditions are eligible for a government federally funded "High Risk" insurance plan
• Small businesses could qualify for a tax credit for the cost of premiums
• Insurance plans will no longer have lifetime caps
• Insurance companies can no longer cancel policies if a patient gets sick
• Pre-existing conditions for children cannot be banned or prohibited

Four years from now, 2014:

• Insurance marketplaces, called "Exchanges" will be set up instates to offer competitive pricing on health policies for individuals and small businesses that don’t have coverage
• People with any pre-existing condition would no longer be denied coverage
• All lifetime and annual limits on coverage would be eliminated Medicaid would be expanded to cover more low-income Americans

Also in 2014:

• ANY person who did not obtain medical coverage would pay a penalty of $95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater (that penalty would rise to $695 or 2.5% of income by 2016)
• The bill would exempt the lowest-income people from that insurance requirement
• Medicaid would be expanded to cover those under age 65 with an income of up to 133% of the federal poverty level
• To make coverage more affordable, the legislation would offer premium subsidies for people with incomes more than 133% but less than 400% of the federal poverty level ($29,327 to $88, 200 for a family of four)
• People in their 20s would have the option to buy a lower-cost "catastrophic" health plan

Small Businesses:

• Employers with 50 or more workers would face fines for not providing insurance coverage
• Businesses with smaller workforces, though, would be exempt
• Companies would get tax credits to help buy insurance if they have 25 or fewer employees and a workforce with an average wage of up to $50,000

Large Employers:

• Large employers would run their health plans as they do now, so there won’t be much change. Even though they have more insurance-buying clout, large businesses have seen steadily rising insurance premiums over the past decade without reform, as medical costs have increased. That pattern isn’t likely to change much, at least immediately.

All per WebMD, not me.

Regarding the uninsured, here's the Washington Post's Ezra Klein breaking that down for us:

About a third of the remaining uninsured are illegal immigrants, who are ineligible for coverage through the program. Then there are some folks who have incomes below the individual mandate threshold. Under the terms of the individual mandate, if coverage would cost more than 8 percent of their monthly income, they can skip it. Other people will decide to pay the individual mandate's $750 penalty rather than purchase insurance. Still others will be eligible for public programs such as Medicaid but won't sign up. So the population of the uninsured will be far reduced, and primarily composed of illegal immigrants, the few people who can't afford their insurance and aren't getting subsidies to help them purchase it, and people who have decided to pay the penalty rather than purchase insurance.

I want ever fact and aspect of this proposal to be put forth, so as it self-destructs, we can come back and show them why this failed, why we are NOT supporting go forward with MORE socialized medicine -- it will happen.

It happened with Medicare, Medicaid and even Social Security.

Americans wanted reform, just not this reform. We cannot afford it, it still leaves countless holes, destroys the private insurance companies' ability to do business and put an enormous burden on taxpayers to carry this financial burden.


http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20100322/faq-how-health-care-reform-will-affect-consumers-employers

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/who_is_left_uninsured_by_the_h.html

Stupak tells all : Democrats want government paid abortions

Bart Stupak (D-MI) describing his exchange with Henry Waxman (D-CA) on abortion funding in the health care bill:

"I gave him the language. He came back a little while later and said, 'But we want to pay for abortions.' I said, 'Mr. Chairman, that's -- we disagree. We don't do it now, we're not going to start.'

"'But we think should,'" Stupak said Waxman told him.

"I said, 'Well, I'm sorry but the House has spoken. We had that debate. We won 240-190. You forced the vote, a vote we won fair and square and we're not gonna, this is what it is. If you want to move health care keep current law,'" Stupak continued.

Check out all these stories and more at Desk of Brian: http://www.DeskofBrian.com

Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?

Originally post at DeskofBrian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/obamanowsellingjudgeshipsforhealthcarevotes

It was a dark and stormy night in March as the President hosted the ten House Democrats who voted against healthcare reform. What deals were struck? What agreements were made as President Obama attempts to persuade them to vote yes.

Coincidentally, the White House announced that one of the ten, Jim Matheson, Democrat from Utah, has a brother who will be appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Press release:

“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said. “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering. I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.”

Jim Matheson voted against the healthcare reform in July (as part of the Energy and Commerce Committee) and again in November when the House passed the bill.

The President is determined (from March 3): "..I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for a year, but for decades." and "I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform."

Obama on Scott Matheson:

“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court, both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering. I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.”

In February Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) said that the White House offered him a federal job in an effort to dissuade him from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the state's Democratic primary.

So is it above the reproach to believe that the day after meeting with the Utah Representative to garner support for health care that the brother is promoted?

Sestak was bribed.

Sounds like Chicago politics to me.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-now-selling-appeals-court-judgeships-health-care-votes

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/03/obama-we-owe-the-public-an-up-or-down-vote-on-this-bill-that-the-public-hates/

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/03/brother-of-democrat-whos-undecided-on-obamacare-nominated-for-federal-judgeship/

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100219_Sestak_says_federal_job_was_offered_to_quit_race.html

Healthcare Update from Left, the Summitt & Mother Jones

Originally Published "State of the Nation" by Brandon Jones at Desk of Brian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/healthcareupdatefromleftthesummittmotherjones

"Still, my take is that the summit was basically a draw, but with a slight edge to the Republicans. They didn't have to win, after all. They just had to seem non-insane, and for the most part they did. What's more, Obama missed a chance to provide a punchy, 60-second sales pitch for the Democratic plan." - Kevin Drum, liberal website "Mother Jones"¹

 

To the leftist supporters of Obamacare and the Democrats aligned for the government takeover of one-sixth of our economy, Republicans are just simple obstructionists.

 

Right-wing talking heads will tout the successes of Paul Ryan while the left heard: "The Republicans simply don’t want to pass comprehensive health-care reform." (EJ Dionne at the Washington Post)

 

Let me credit "Mother Jones" for providing such a great synopsis of the left-wing healthcare reformers.

 

Paul Krugman:

 

"So what did we learn from the summit? What I took away was the arrogance that the success of things like the death-panel smear has obviously engendered in Republican politicians. At this point they obviously believe that they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price. And they may well be right."

The belief that government controlling healthcare is a viable option cannot be refuted to Krugman, Dionne, Drum, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or Barack Obama.

25% -- yes, only 25% of Americans wants this reform to be passed. Compared to 75% that supported President Obama's effort one year ago, 50% of the population have come to the same conclusion -- no.

 

Don't reform healthcare like this.

 

Many surveyed agree to scrap the bill, start over, incorporate the "small bill" conservative reformation suggestions, but DO NOT pass the Senate or the House bills.

 

If there was truth and validity to the claims of lies and falsehoods by the Republicans, then the Obama administration wouldn't be pressing Congress to add portability, state line and TORT language to the bills.

 

But hey, those are facts and they don't taste good.

 

Paul Ryan leads the Republicans to victory with the answered fact: the real cost is $2.3 trillion.

 

Paying for it appears to be a problem the Democrats will ignore for now.

 

 

1. http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/healthcare-summit-wrapup-iii



Cartoon from Biggovernment.com: http://biggovernment.com/sgor/2009/11/24/tuesday-funnies-no-support-edition/

Healthcare is coming...even though it may be slavery

To Health care reform opposition, Senate majority leader Harry Reid stated:


"You think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, slow down, it's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough."

Appalling.

Democrats are supposed to be the intellectuals, capable of debate and that's the response to reform opposition. Moreover, Reid needs to recheck history in which the Republicans NOT the Democrats brought us civil rights.

Yes Republicans are a joke and did nothing for years, but this is a 2,000 page bill that NO ONE has read, we don't have the money for and most polled Americans are opposed to. This bill doesn't fix ANY of the problems, except put insurance out of business.


I will stand by my prediction: we will have a socialize health care takeover bill by the end of the year. NO QUESTION, NO DOUBT.

While every "expert" predicts delay after delay and debate after debate, only one focus lines the backdrop of distractions - get health care done.

The Senate will pass a bill and it will go to the House for a vote WITHOUT changes - this will not require more debate, financial analysis or conference. Nancy Pelosi has the votes and will deliver the bill - all but gift wrapped for the President to sign.

Atleast I wasn't the only one...

Exposing your thoughts, feelings, and opinions to the world for scrutiny can prove to be difficult, if not, outright painful. One such occasion was the assertion that the current Health care Reform Bill is basically a Ponzi scheme. The angry replies bombarded my email after this blog post.

Steve Rosenbaum illustrates in a Huffinton Post article that we are already in a state of "pay it forward" in hopes that our health care will be there when we need it. Meanwhile, the art of denying claims and excluding high risk patients has infiltrated every insurance company and in my opinion, the leading offender: Medicare.

So what's the solution?

A bigger, broader, unconstitutional mandate to require health insurance in a massive bill that will not take effect for 3 years or more.

Rosenbaum presents these solutions:

Doctors Lead Care: Rosenbaum states "doctors seem to be the ones who have the least say in the system. They've got huge risks in insurance claims and their own legal exposure. At the same time, they appear to have less and less of a voice in decisions about how they treat their patients and how they can provide proper care."

Unfortunately it's important to note that the AMA and other organizations protect their own. The old 80/20 rule applies here: most of the abusers of the system and malpractice claims are a minority of repeat offenders.

I agree the physician needs to have more control of care without regard to "what is covered" or having to run unnecessary tests to "cover their behind"


Health Care Court: Rosenbaum suggests creating "a court that can mediate and rule on conflicts between patients and insurance companies"

Rosenbaum presents an argument laced with good intentions but isn't true TORT reform. "Medical Necessity" has been highjacked by Medicare's cost control panels and the recent Mammogram treatment program illustrates how the government will manuever to cut benefits.

Faith in the "record of precedent" within the legal system is admitting that there's a slippery slope of judgments and lawsuits. We'd be moving the problem through more red tape even though the premise sounds good at first.



Choices and Options: "While people may be against the 'public' option that sounds like health care provided by the post office or DMV, the reality is that private options are narrowing, not expanding."

Yes. Rosenbaum's assertion is accurate, but this reform bill will escalate the problem NOT fix it. The caps on premiums, pre-existing coverage requirements and other regulation will spell the death of many small carriers.

Rosenbaum scratches at the surface: catastrophic health care -- but we need to couple this focus with HSA (Health Spending Accounts) and enable more competition to allow interstate commerce to lower prices.


Whether arguing that the current plan is a "pay-it-forward" system or that the current bill is a large scale Ponzi scheme, one thing is clear: the system needs major changes.

As stated previously, this just isn't the bill to fix the problems. The bills in the Senate and the House are just precursors to a one-payer government controlled health care plan.
















http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/health-care-ponzi-scheme_b_266588.html

Ponzi Scheme Healthcare - oooo, Don't Say That!?!?

It first happened months ago, but again this week I faced some odd and interesting ridicule. I made an offhand comment that the "pay it forward" taxation that accompanies this Health Care Bill is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme.

Ouch.

I must of struck a nerve, because the explosion left profanity and liberal brain excrement all over the walls around me.

No surprise, the context matters more than the substance to these "reform" supporters.

Some amalgam of health care bills will pass (sooner than later: I stand pat) and we WILL be taxed on any coverage and some WILL be forced to purchase insurance. The semantics really don't matter because it's all just a precursor to the endgame: single payer government run health care.




What this really is: a Ponzi scheme-like bailout of the health insurance and large corporate hospitals. They've been doing their best to make it sound like we’re buying into health reform, when in fact, we will be depositing fees, taxes et al. for three years to ramp up the insurance overhaul.

Similar to Social Security, we'll be "paying it forward" while the government struggles to manage cost control to prolong bankruptcy. The mammogram policy guidelines highlighted the "death panels" that will be used to reduce coverages for all of us, especially the elderly.

For months, thousands and thousands have been losing their jobs and their health insurance along with their unemployment. Instead of addressing portable insurance, these bills make it more difficult to maintain private insurance policies.

Amongst those thousands (millions?) of unemployed are healthy patients that carried the weight of premium costs to insure the unhealthy. Insurance companies are racing to cut deals to ensure their livelihood.

The puppet masters have cut deals with the "Big Pharma" to maintain Medicare prescription payemnts. The White House supported a Medicare cut of $500 billion to destroy secondary insurance for seniors (except for AARP who struck a separate deal) and Congressmen all carve out special deals for their individual districts (Louisiana, Nevada, New York)

Seantor John Kyl spoke the truth:

"Any private or any publicly traded business that claimed it was making a profit because it booked revenue over 10 years but only booked expenses over six years would wind up in jail. That's what this bill does, that's just many of the frauds and hat tricks in this bill"

Sorry that the dose of the truth just tastes so bad, but Bernie Madoff would be proud of Congress. Good intention health care reform is following the Washington rhetoric instead of demanding proper, well thought out reform.

Ron Paul tackles Michael Moore, healthcare

Thanks to Robert Herriman for sending me this: Ron Paul on Larry King answering to Michael Moore and his views.

Let's just say that this isn't a fair fight.



Health care is NOT a right!

Ron Paul was a doctor, so maybe we should listen to him on health care reform. He explains the free market solutions to fixing managed care and the "mischief" of government.

I Larry King's come back was "half socialism" which Paul refutes the government intervention and the track record of failure. The intervention and big government has ballooned over the last 30 years and Ron Paul is spot on.

Likewise, unlike Moore who is soft on Obama, Paul is critical of both.

I've grown to respect Ron Paul more and more as the most consistent Congressman. He's nicknamed "Dr. NO" for a reason.

Public Option Back - Surprised? You Shouldn't Be.

The latest report from the Senate is that Harry Reid will ensure the public option is added to the current healthcare bill.

In the ABC headline, it reads "Back from the Dead" -- remember, as I've been stating, IT WAS NEVER DEAD, IT'S THE GOAL!

We know the House fulling supports the government takeover and several members of Congress has admitted to their support of the public option. Combine the cheap government plan with the hostile taxes and penalties imposed on the insurance companies and the government takeover will be inevitable.

Reid: "As soon as we get the bill back from CBO, and people have a chance to look at it -- which we'll have ample time to do that -- I believe we clearly will have the support of my caucus to move to this bill and start legislating."

You will hear much about the "public option" and "triggers", possibly "co-ops" -- it is ALL, I repeat, ALL designed to allow a government plan to be implemented and ultimately the default for all of us when the current carriers go bankrupt or our employers discontinue health coverages.

Stay strong, the battle is still looming. Call and write your reps and Senators.

Healthcare Redux

So after taking some time away from the Great Healthcare Battle, we find ourselves in deeper trouble than we ever imagined. Roland Burris, shunned by many after the Rod Blagojevich nomination (and scandal) to replace President Obama's vacant Senate seat, has joined Dennis Kucinich in his clear support for a public option. Kucinich has been HONEST in describing the goal of a one payer system, a complete overhauled government controlled healthcare reformation.

Meanwhile, the corruption and backdoor deals continue.

First we learned how the Obama administration had garnered the $80 billion support from "Big Pharma" for a promise to NOT lower the Medicare prescription fee schedule. So, the drug companies will provide support because their profit margins are guaranteed.

Then we learned that half a trillion, yes $500 billion, will be cut from Medicare, most specifically, targeting the secondary insurance Medicare Advantage. Was it a surprise to hear AARP supporting the bill that will reduce benefits for their own membership? No surprises here as Medigap is AARP's version of Medicare Advantage so AARP's profits and interests will be protected.

The Max Baucus bill became under attack while denying the taxation and penalties drive the cost savings. The Baucus bill became high profile because it cost LESS than the $1 trillion price tag bouncing around. Soon we learned that the taxes and penalties would take effect IMMEDIATELY while the plan would not start until 2013.

Seven years of coverage on ten years of funds - of course it would be less!

Over the weekend further examination revealed that four states (Rhode Island, Oregon, Michigan and Nevada) have some special benefits carved out for their state budgets. There is a five year umbrella protecting those states from increased costs to their Medicaid programs.

Harry Reid's own state, Nevada, headlines the states that get a free pass on the backs of the other 46 states.

Furthermore, Chuck Shumer added language to protect New York's "Cadillac plans" from rate hikes as well. The current bill taxes these expensive plans to fund the healthcare reform's expanded coverages.

So the ABC's of Healthcare has resulted in the same ole CDE's: corruption, deceit and earmarks.

Earmarks? Yeah, didn't I mention any of those.

Let's continue with Harry Reid who wants to ensure that the Nevada Cancer Institute, a cancer treatment center with no particular national reputation, reaps "a big gain in federal reimbursements as part of the health-care overhaul."

Blanche Lincoln, considered a swing vote in the Senate, proposes Medicare coverages for home infused therapy "championed by a medical entrepreneur in her state."

Read the above comments in its entirety here from the NY TIMES!!!

Hope and Change hasn't reached the Senate. Evidently as the same ole players are pilfering through our money - this time in healthcare reform.

Nancy Pelosi is INSANE!

AP Headline: "Pelosi makes case for government-run health option"

Nancy Pelosi is tellnig, no warning, us all that the public option is coming. My response was: "Of course it is." How do you argue the need to eliminate the uninsured without some sort of new entitlement insurance program.

What makes my brain swell is Pelosi's rationale!

"Anyone who had any doubts about the need for such an option need only look at the behavior of the health insurance industry this week. The idea that we would have health insurance reform without a public option becomes less likely."

The behavior of the insurance industry?

Before we get to the AP translation of Pelosi speak, let me say that the insurance companies turned on healthcare reform when they found out the details. See, under the Senate Bill you have to pay a nominal fee if you don't have insurance. This originally was upwards of $8,000 but now appears to peak at $750 in 2017.

So young and healthy individuals would be better served to pay the fee and only get insurance when they needed it. Therefore, the insurance companies would NOT be getting premiums from these individuals over their healthy years.

The AP translates Nancyisms for us: (from the article) "She was referring to an industry-funded study earlier that said insurance premiums would rise under health overhaul legislation advanced by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this week. Pelosi also referenced an insurance industry ad campaign targeted at seniors."

Hey, Nancy the PREMIUMS WILL INCREASE! Seniors will lose billions and billions!

Maybe the insurance companies don't like statements like this: "There are some things we'd like to see happen to the insurance companies that they might not like."

So Pelosi made a case - from the headline, a case for what? How retarded the leaders on Capitol Hill have become?

The Senate Finance Committee wrote the language, the tax provisions etc...that WILL cause prices to rise and seniors to lose benefits and PELOSI'S insight is we need a public option and blame the insurance industry.

In July Pelosi said this:

"It's almost immoral what they (insurance companies - my addition) are doing. Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure. They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."

Maybe "Big Insurance" will wake up and realize that the intent here is to...

PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS!

I see it. You see it. Why can't they?



1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

Taxing Healthcare Benefits - It's coming

It's exhausting to continue the fight against the government takeover of healthcare. No matter what speech, sound bites or quote you hear, the one thing that is clear: the government, White House and Congress, intend on pushing a socialized universal health insurance program into our lives.

The current bill confirmed many of the rumors about taxation and penalties (I covered them here: http://brandon7221.blogspot.com/2009/10/cram-ram-healthcare.html )

No the evolution of the healthcare reform digs deeper and sharper.

Under the original proposal, a 35% excise tax would be imposed on employer-provided coverage in which premiums exceed $8,000 a year for individual coverage and $21,000 for family coverage. This would include premiums for medical, dental and vision care; employer contributions to health reimbursement arrangements and health savings accounts; and employee contributions.

Tax us for having good insurance.

Oh wait, it gets worse!

Under the revised Baucus package, the excise tax is modified in several ways. First, the tax would be increased to 40%. In addition, the $8,000 and $21,000 thresholds would be increased by $750 for individual coverage and $2,000 for family coverage for retirees covered in employer plans who are age 55 and older.

NOW they will tax the employer NOT you or me!

How long will we have employer health insurance?

Well there's this amendment, proposed by Sen. John Kerry, requiring employers with 26 or more employees to offer health care coverage, pay at least 60% of the premiums for individual and family coverage, and abide by certain other requirements. Those that fail to do so would be assessed an annual fine of $750 for each full-time employee not covered and $375 for each part-time employee not covered.

Is your head spinning yet? It should be.

I'm sick of hearing and writing about healthcare, but we are under siege. We are being forced onto a government plan, going to lose our benefits at work, or worse, much much worse, watch small businesses go bankrupt trying to keep pace.

Healthcare: The Infant Mortality Lie & Battling the LHS

It doesn't always take long to have a controversial response to a blog post. My recent post:
http://brandon7221.blogspot.com/2009/10/modest-cuts-of-medicare-advantage-just.html

My opinion is simply: we, as a society, have to do what's in our means to protect our weakest citizens, particularly the elderly and the children. In my opinion, there was a purposeful divergence by the Liberal Healthcare Supporter(LHS) to attack me and my stance AGAINST healthcare reform.

Many of my debates over the topic have revealed that most supporters have good intentions, but don't realize what's ACTUALLY in these bills. Utopian perspectives on fixing healthcare have shown me that most everything, including those "evil" Republicans, want the system improved, but only a few understand the magnitude of the changes that are proposed.

Anyway, back my battle with the LHS, who needs to cling to this idea: the US is the wealthiest country on the planet, but aren't #1 compared to countries with socialized medicine. So our conversation swung toward the point I made earlier and the LHS pounced: why is the infant mortality rate higher in the US than in Europe?

It's likely you could face this swing in a similar argument so let's peel back the onion to find the truth. This is from a piece by Dr. Halderman in 2008 that summarizes many of the falsehoods surrounding Infant Mortality Data¹:

• According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g>
• Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage” and does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates.
• 37-41 weeks. In Belgium and France — in fact, in most European Union countries — any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not “count” against reported infant mortality rates.
• Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth.
• Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.

These facts are not Dr. Halderman's data, just a great consolidation and presentation. She's one doctor speaking out repeatedly against the current reform bills, but be warned, speaking out gets you labelled, so she must be a "right-wing extremist" or in the tank for the big insurance companies.

How about if we look within our own country: Utah has a rate of 4.5%, here in Florida it's 7.2%, nearby Mississippi 11.4%, and DC ranks the worst at 14.1%². Do they have socialized medicine in Utah? We certainly don't here in Florida.

There are a lot of economic, race and education issues that drive this huge discrepancy between US states. So, how can we compare the US to other countries that don't count births based on weight, length, or gestational age?

Remember abortions are NOT part of any of these calculations. There are over a million abortions every year in the US alone and over 2.5 million in Russia. It's always hard for me to keep my cool discussing infant mortality with the LHS when over 5.5 million children are aborted every year.

5.5 million abortions.

Are we supposed to adopt the policies in Asia of NOT counting a new born who passes in the first 24 hours of his or hers life? Will a government run health insurance better serve to resolve this problem - if so, how?

My word of encouragement is this: be ready to face healthcare supporters that have their minds made up, especially those LHS. Whether healthcare is viewed as a right, better than the status quo or they are simply an Obama fanatic, little is known in these bills, but I vow to you the end game is this: one government socialized system.

One theme is all of the healthcare bills and that is the efforts to put pressure on private insurance, control aspects of their business or regulate them out of business.

From the President's letter to supporters:

"The heart of my plan is simple: bring stability and security to Americans who already have health insurance, guarantee affordable coverage for those who don't, and rein in the cost of health care."

Stability, security, guarantee and rein in: all translate to control, control, regulate and control.

After the control and government takeover of healthcare occurs, will the infant mortality be brought down?

I don't think so.

1. Dr. Linda Halderman: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-doctor-is-in-infant-mortality-comparisons-a-statistical-miscarriage/

2. http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank17.html

MoveOn & Leftists attack their Own over Healthcare

Yesterday 3 Democrat Senator in the Senate Finance Committee dared to vote AGAINST the public option in the healthcare reform. MoveOn.org (and other left leaning organizations) immediately released attack ads against these Senators: Kent Conrad (D-ND), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Max Baucus (D-MT)

This ad (http://healthcarecantwait.com/) by The Progressive Change Campaign Committee & Democracy for America is one example -- this one attacks Baucus: who's the chair of the committee.

Wow, how quickly they turn on their own.

Dissension is only appropriate if it's against Republicans. You MUST the MoveOn political agenda or they WILL come after you.

So, where's the President on this?

Well, he's in Denmark politicking to bring the 2012 Olympics to Chicago. But he's not likely to do more than a offer a few comments without any actions. The White House has mentioned this problem in the past and delivered a few PR friendly "stop it please" sound bites, but MoveOn is calling the shots.

“Senator Conrad is out of step with the country and his political party and needs to be held accountable by his constituents. MoveOn.org’s 5 million members expect the Democrats in Congress to deliver on the promise of change that got them elected.” -- Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org.

Just a Townhall protesters were called racists over healthcare and now Democratic Senators waffling over the "public option" are viewed as betraying their agenda. A single payer, government plan must be implemented to appease these groups.

Get in their way and they will come after you.

Healthcare Debate: Now It's Auto Insurance?

The Salesman-in-Chief changed his rhetoric again this weekend. President Obama now likens his healthcare proposal (i.e. takeover) to mandated auto insurance.

"That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance." -- President Obama.

Huh?

I heard this stance once before from a healthcare supporter, comparing required health insurance to auto insurance.

Well, both have the same words in them, but other than that, where's the similarity?

Auto insurance is liability insurance to protect others and protect you from others. Health insurance is to protect you and your family. Driving a car is a privilege, so should we require everyone to have auto insurance even if they don't drive? If you don't want to pay auto insurance, don't drive.

Millions of people use public transportation, ride a bicycle or find other means as an alternative to driving their own vehicle.

I think the President, like many of his supporters, are desperate to push healthcare through. The government's goal of a one payer system is obvious and admitted by some (Dennis Kucinich) and they'll try anything to convince Congress that they can get re-elected after voting for Obamacare.

Healthcare fearmongering has taken over the Democratic platform as we've endured: healthcare is a right, healthcare is like auto insurance, backdoor deal between Obama and "Big Pharma", manipulated uninsured data, demonized doctors and insurance companies -- the result is still the same: government takeover of healthcare.

Obama was billed as the smartest President ever, but in this case his analogy is all wrong.