Why not PAY FOR HEALTH CARE instead of paying for HEALTH CARE INSURANCE PREMIUMS?

Obama's health care proposal is, in effect, the repeal of the Medicare program as we know it.  The elderly will go from being the group with the most access to free medical care to the one with the least access.    Indeed, the principal impact of the Obama health care program will be to reduce sharply the medical services the elderly can use.  No longer will their every medical need be met, their every medication prescribed, their every need to improve their quality of life answered.

It is so ironic that the elderly - who were so vigilant when Bush proposed to change Social Security - are so relaxed about the Obama health care proposals.  Bush's Social Security plan, which did not cut their benefits at all, aroused the strongest opposition among the elderly.  But Obama's plan, which will totally gut Medicare and replace it with government-managed care and rationing, has elicited little more than a yawn from most senior citizens.


 It's time for the elderly to wake up before it is too late!

In our new book, Catastrophe, we explain - in detail and in depth - the consequences the elderly of Canada are feeling from just this kind of program.  Limited colonoscopies have led to a 25% higher rate of colon cancer and a ban on the use of the two best chemotherapies are part of the reason why 42% of Canadians with colon cancer die while 31% of Americans, who have access to these two medications, survive the disease.

Overall, the death rate from cancer in Canada is 16% higher than in the United States and the heart disease mortality rate is 6% above ours'.
Under Obama's program, there will be a government health insurance company that gets huge subsidies of tax money.  It will compete with private insurance plans.  But the subsidies will let it undercut the private plans and drive them out of business, leaving only the government plan - a single payer - in effect.

Today, 800,000 doctors struggle to treat adequately the 250 million Americans who have insurance.  Obama will add 50 million more to their caseload with no expansion in the number of doctors or nurses.  Indeed, his plan will likely reduce their number by lowering reimbursement rates and imposing bureaucrats above them who will force medical decisions down their throats.   Fewer doctors will have to treat more patients.  The inevitable result will be rationing.

And it is the elderly who rationing will most effect.  Who should get a knee replacement a 40 year old or a 70 year old?  Who should get a new hip, a young person or an old person?  Who should have priority in the operating room a seventy year old diabetic who needs bypass surgery or a younger person?  Obviously, it is the elderly who will get short shrift under his proposal.

But the interest groups that usually speak up for the elderly, particularly AARP, are in Obama's pocket, hoping to profit from his program by becoming one of its vendors.  Just as they backed Bush's prescription drug plan because they anticipating profiting from it, so they are now helping Obama gut the medical care of their constituents.

It is high time that the elderly of America realized what the stakes are in this vital fight to preserve Medicare as we know it and keep medical care open, accessible, and free to those over 65.  It is truly a battle for their very lives.

CBO to Obama: "Your healthcare plan sucks"/Biden Confirms It

Well, CBO punked Obama again.  I would say they are good at it but the reality is that Obama's policies are so stupid as to make him an easy target.

Today's punking comes in testimony by the CBO Director to Congress.  Basically, CBO says that Obama's spending on healthcare, which is designed to lower overall costs, won't work.  Costs will more likely go up.

This is a shocker of a shocker (sarcasm).  Anyone who has taken Economics 101 could have predicted this.  Subsidizing healthcare will cause people to demand more of it... and when demand goes up while supply stays the same or goes down, prices go up.  Duh.

 Of course backers of the bill brought out that deeply philosophical, patented Obama defense... It's better than doing nothing.  Except, CBO says that doing nothing actually costs less.  Doh!

But, that logic is totally consistent with Obama Administration views on everything and confirmed by none other than Joe Biden himself today.

Actual quote:

“And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”
 
“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.
 
“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

Again, we get that strange Obama logic.  Biden says that current government spending by Obama (increased over Bush Admin spending) is unsustainable.  Therefore, we have no choice but to spend more, which will somehow save us from bankruptcy.

I think those Mayans were on to something with that end of the world in 2012 prediction.  It's hard to imagine how bad things can get when these guys are already this stupid after only six months.

Time To Go, Grampa

With "controlling costs" a primary goal of Obamacare, and half of all medical costs coming in the last six months of life, "rationed care" takes on a new meaning for us all.

London's Telegraph reported Sunday that the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, known by its Orwellian acronym NICE, intends to slash by 95 percent the number of steroid injections, such as cortisone, given to people who suffer severe and chronic back pain.

"Specialists fear," said the Telegraph, "tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as 500 pounds each for private treatment."

Now, twin this story with the weekend Washington Post story about Obamacare's "proposal to pay physicians who counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical treatment they would prefer near the end of life and how to prepare instructions such as living wills," and there is little doubt as to what is coming.

The Post portrayed the controversy as stoked by "right-leaning radio" using explosive language like "guiding you in how to die" and government plans to "kill Granny." Yet, is not the logical purpose of paying doctors for house calls to the terminally ill, whose medical costs are killing Medicare, to suggest a pleasant and early exit from a pain-filled and costly life?

Let us suppose the NICE plan in Britain is adopted. And an 80-year-woman, living alone, with excruciating persistent back pain, is visited by a physician-counselor. What is he likely to advise? What conclusion would Grandma be led to by a doctor who sweetly explains what treatment she may still receive, what is being cut off, and what her other options might be?

What other options are there?

Examples of how to "die with dignity" are at hand.

Three weeks ago, Sir Edward Downes, the world-renowned British orchestra leader, who was going blind and deaf, and his wife of 54 years, who had terminal cancer, ended their lives at a Zurich clinic run by the assisted suicide group Dignitas. They drank a small amount of liquid and died hand in hand, their adult children by their side.

This is the way of de-Christianized Europe. For years, doctors have assisted the terminally ill in ending their lives. Indeed, it has been reported that indigent, sick and elderly patients who could not make the decision for themselves had it made for them.

In America, we have a Death with Dignity Act in Oregon and such suicide counselors as the Hemlock Society, which itself took the cup in 2003. Now we have Compassion & Choices, which counsels the elderly sick on a swift and painless end. Before he took to ending the lives of patients who were not terminal, but sick and depressed, Dr. Kevorkian had his admirers. Not infrequently, one reads of nursing homes where the infirm and elderly have been put to death.

Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life.

To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God's commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one's cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one's parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

In Weimar Germany, two professors published "The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life," which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and "empty shells of human beings." Hitler's Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea -- of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life -- has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to "bend the curve" of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are -- what do you think is going to be Option A?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-poll28-2009aug28,0,7306834.story

Please contact your congressman and senators to pass h.R.1708 ending the medicare disability waiting period. If you work your whole life and become disabiled you get social security disability but you have to wait two years to get medical insurance, americans are dieing because of this two year wait.

Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.
Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run system wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront under private plans. This is complete nonsense.
The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out an old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact of life because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But there is a big difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and champagne every night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real. Genuine rationing occurs when someone else controls access--how much of a particular good I can consume.
By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a scale unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits over $1 billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will evaluate the relative merits of various treatments. That in itself wouldn't be so objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board will then "direct financing" toward approved, standardized treatments. In short, doctors will find it much harder to prescribe newer or non-standard treatments not yet deemed effective by health care bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines of the British system, where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a new miracle drug, until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified managed care plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison with this.
Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health care debate. It is high time he started showing some.

We Can Win on Healthcare
 


 

Few if any political proposals in our lifetime will impact our lives in such a personal way as the government takeover of health care sought by the President and Democrats in Washington. If health care reform is taken down the wrong path, it will end in nothing short of disaster.

This is a make-or-break moment for Americans and the history of our great nation. And it is a battle we can win.

Two paths for health care reform are possible. One preserves and bolsters the ability for patients to control their own health care and make medical decisions independently with their doctors. The other leads to a government takeover of the health care industry that will permanently place Washington between you and the care you seek.



As a physician, I have always fought for patient-centered health care reform that promotes six principles of care: accessibility, affordability, quality, choices, innovation, and responsiveness. Surely none of these principles are improved by greater involvement of the federal government. Unfortunately, Democrats in charge have largely (and predictably) ignored the ideas of Republicans and are marching forward with a government-centered health care plan.

One of the most basic precepts of medicine is that you cannot effectively treat the problem until you get the diagnosis right. Yet Democrats have terribly misdiagnosed the disease in American health care. As with nearly everything, they have decided the problem in our health care delivery system is a shortage of government intervention.

Having personally navigated the federal health care system of our first “public option” -- Medicare -- I can tell you firsthand that the government only distances patients from access to the best care. Restrictive coverage rules, endless bureaucratic delays, and inadequate financing structures leave patients without the choices we should expect in a 21st century health care system.

The real problem with American health care is that too many patients have a third-party in between them and their care, be it a Washington bureaucrat, an employer, or an unresponsive insurer. Just as the pressure of competition can empower a consumer, our goal must be to put patients in charge of their health care so that insurers are accountable to them, not the government or another third-party.

The President’s government-run plan will not fix this problem; rather, it will cement it by permanently making Washington the all-powerful middle man in the delivery of medical services. The Democrats’ taxpayer-subsidized plan will push private insurance providers out of business and catch millions of Americans in its net. According to a new estimate, 114 million Americans who currently carry personal, private health insurance will be forced onto the government plan.

As the experience of many nations around the world has proven, a government-run system will ration care. Medical decisions that should be made by patients in consultation with their doctors will instead be made by unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington. People who have never treated a patient in their lives will decide the procedures to which you should have access. Vital treatments will be delayed or even denied.

And make no mistake: there will be no turning back, no reversing the government intrusion that Democrats desire. Medicare began as a public option and now holds 97% of the market share. This new government-run health care plan will permanently swallow up the personal, private care that so many Americans enjoy. The issue and threat to American medicine is deadly serious.

Yet, there remains hope. We can win this debate. Just like fifteen years ago, Americans reject what the President and his allies are promoting. A recent Washington Post poll showed that only 37% of Americans, informed of its effects, support the President’s government-run plan.

Democrats hold sizable majorities in both chambers of Congress, but what makes this nation so great remains true: ultimately the people’s voice carries the most weight.

We can succeed. We can stand up for patient-centered health care and send the President’s fatally flawed idea to the ash heap of history. It will not happen, however, without your help.

It is my hope that you will recognize the seriousness of the threat to the care you, your family, and generations of Americans will receive. And what’s more, I hope that you will ask, “What can I do?” The conservative movement is only as powerful as its ability to affect the direction of our nation for the better. We have proven ourselves time and again, but this must be our moment.

As Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, I invite you to engage in this historic debate. All representatives and senators must know that America does not seek a government takeover of health care. In our communities and in Washington, conservatives must speak out. Speak to your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, even strangers. Online and in person. Tell them that we support a health care system which puts patients, not bureaucrats, in charge. Write, call, email, blog. Fight. Everyday.

We can win this. In fact, we must win this fight. And when we do, I hope you will feel the accomplishment of having fought right along side us for the advancement of American health care and freedom.

The President and Congress are both working to pass a new health care system that gives the most benefits to the most people. Health Care premiums are so expensive today, and most plans do not offer the coverage that people need to live healthy life. Studies have shown that healthier citizens help the economy.

If you would like more information on affordable health insurance, visit http://www.texashealthinsuranceoptions.com today!