Skip to content

Bush Loyalist Gerson defends the flag of obese government | Jen …

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Michael Gerson, a man of questionable character and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, called Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and others including Ron Paul, dishonest and dishonorable in his Friday column for the Washington Post.  He believes that the Obama administration is using necessary means to stop terrorism, and conservatives along with libertarians are crossing a line by connecting the dots in the federal government’s erosion of individual liberty.

Limbaugh commented on Gerson’s opinion piece after having to go through the trash to find it, and Mark Levin responded via Newsbusters and on his radio show that Flag Day.

As an aside, I read a blurb on Friday that Betsy Ross was commissioned by George Washington in May or June of 1776, to sew the newly designed flag.  It seems the General’s order to hoist the Grand Union Flag above his base at Prospect Hill was seen as a sign of respect to King George by the Loyalists, rather than a rally to triumph for the Continentals.

General Washington realized that the Grand Union Flag was too similar to the British Flag.

It occurred to me that we seem to have a problem in the GOP, where some of these Bush Loyalists hang on to their carefully crafted positions, trying very hard to seem similar to enemy.

In Gerson’s piece, he noticeably jumps to defend his Bush era “compassionate conservatism,” and the Federal Government’s status quo.

But asserting that U.S. intelligence agencies are part of a conspiracy that somehow includes a national gun registry, drone surveillance and Lois Lerner crosses a line. It is one thing to oppose the policies of the administration; it is another to call for resistance against a “regime” and a “police state.” It is the difference between skepticism about government and hatred for government. And it raises the question: How is it even possible to love such an Amerika?

Doesn’t he sound like he’s defending the Crown?  I mean, if you oppose something like Obama’s policies, understand where his head is at, and look at the evidence, you would naturally resist them.  Otherwise, why oppose anything?  It’s like in response to being told you are going to get punched in the face , you decide to keep your hands behind your back.

And gee, I don’t know, but it might be in Gerson’s best interest to tone down the rhetoric a bit.  His dichotomy between skepticism and hatred is strained and it breaks the flow of his argument.  Can you hate government yet know it is necessary? Yes.  Can you be skeptical about government and use your God-given right to speak out about it?  Yes.  And as Levin pointed out, can you love your country but hate your government?  Hell yes. But Gerson doesn’t frame it that way, he is saying it is dangerous to hate government.

 This distinction between opposition and resistance is illustrated in attitudes toward the leaker Edward Snowden.  If our country is being run by a regime, then those who expose its machinations are heroes, as some on the right have called Snowden. If the U.S. government is a fallible institution doing its best to protect citizens from terrorist violence..

See, he’s doing it again.  No matter who is in charge of the government, we aren’t supposed to resist it.  No matter what happens as a result of policy, we can disagree with it, but we must lay down and receive.  Love thine abusive government, dammit.

Some libertarians and populist conservatives are not merely attacking Obama; they are slandering U.S. intelligence services. There is no evidence, or even a serious allegation, that the NSA has made political use of data it has gathered. This is not a rogue operation. The NSA, with the permission of a court and under the supervision of Congress, built a searchable digital database.

This part is embarrassing a little bit, because it shows Gerson to be reactionary without provocation.  He jumped to point out that it has no way not ever been alleged yet, that the NSA has used any of its intelligence gathering of the free and innocent American people for political gain or retribution, that the agency has not gone rogue, and it has court backing.

As if the IRS would have just asked the court, its request for prayer content would have been legitimate.

The continuity of anti-terrorism efforts across two administrations, with the bipartisan support of congressional leaders, is an achievement, not a scandal. The introduction of extreme political polarization into this debate could be debilitating. “Do I want somebody in charge of this kind of surveillance,”asks Limbaugh, “who doesn’t like this country as it’s founded?” Partisans on the left will make the same case against the next Republican president.

No, Mike, they won’t, because the left never defends the country as founded.  They believe this country’s founding is illegitimate because it is founded upon the goodness of the individual, and limited government.

And that is why Gerson is so far off his nut.  He is defending big government under the banner of conservatism, and it cannot work.

Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles — in this case, security and privacy — rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.

Balancing privacy with security?  We just found out that we have zero privacy, do we have maximum security as a result? NO! Where is the Chechan butcher right now?

And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism.

NO sir, this is an attempt to treat patriots with contempt under the banner of moderation.  Questioning the abuse of our government is not questioning its legitimacy, and by using the wrong word, perhaps purposefully, perhaps through ignorance, Gerson exposes his real concern.   He is attempting to suggest that it is patriotic to love, trust and obey your government over your blessed country.

Therein lies the parallel between Bush Loyalists and the Obama Administration.  Big government, obese government, is legitimate and worthy of defense because both parties are seeking the ability to exert control over the people.

The flags are too similar.

Because this is still the “last best hope of earth,” not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on it in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable.

Finally, Gerson mentions the country, but uses the blood of patriots to scold those warning of the bill of particulars against the Crown.

The only person dishonest and dishonorable here is Michael Gerson, self-aggrandized, impenitent Loyalist.

 

Article source: http://jenkuznicki.com/2013/06/bush-loyalist-gerson-defends-the-flag-of-obese-government/

Filed in Threat To Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

All Hail The 'Good News' about Medicare 'Bankruptcy …

Sunday, June 9, 2013

The left wing is all atwitter about the annual report of the Social Security trustees that says Medicare won’t go bankrupt1 until 2026 instead of 2024. Or maybe it is 2024 instead of 2022.

Whatever, even as presented in the usual suspect sites such as WaPo and the Times and the Boston Globe, it’s not something worth twittering about. Worse it appears no one on the left looked at the actual report? See the Appendix on Alternative Scenarios. Everything the twitterers say about what year the fund goes bankrupt depends on:

  •  The SRG remaining in place — It won’t 
  • The IPAB being constituted — it won’t be 
  • The draconian Obamacare cuts in Medicare reimbursements to hospitals, SNFs, and cancer clinics and other outpatient facilities — they won’t happen 

That’s not me opining “won’t happen.” That’s what the Trustee report appendix says. The meat of the report has to reflect actual existing law but the appendix on alternative scenarios is where the real opinion is. Bankruptcy is not 10 or 12 years away; it is nigh! (I am not going to bother looking up the meaning of nigh; I think I have it right.) The fund paid more than it took in 2012 but the Treasury “paid” the fund “interest” to make up the difference.  In the worst case scenario, the fund will only get one or two more years of such interest payments.
 
As for twitters claiming that cuts to Part C Medicare health plan rebates by Obamacare contributed to the increase in Part A trust fund longevity as compared to last year, that seems odd. The cuts were made in 2010. Why were they not reflected in the 2011 and 2012 Trustees Reports?

1 Bankrupt has a nice ring to it but that’s not actually the way it works.  The Trustees’ finding concerning which year Medicare “runs out of money” only applies to Medicare payments for admitted inpatient hospital and skilled nursing facility charges and some home health services.  And the Trustees will be able to keep paying those providers after that but only in proportion to the amount the trust fund takes in in Medicare payroll taxes that year. It’s much ado about nothing for the reasons noted above (and in the Appendix of the Trustees report),

Related articles

Trustees say Medicare to be exhausted in 2026

Article source: http://byrondennis.typepad.com/theabcsofmedicare/2013/06/the-good-news-about-medicare-bankruptcy.html

Filed in Bankrupt Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

Trustees Reaffirm That Medicare Isn't Going “Bankrupt”

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Medicare has grown financially stronger in both the short and long term compared to last year, its trustees said in their annual report.

The trustees reported that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund will remain solvent — that is, able to pay 100 percent of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage that Medicare provides — through 2026.  At that point, the payroll taxes and other revenue for the trust fund will still be able to pay 87 percent of hospital insurance costs, as we explain in our updated analysis (see graph).

Policymakers will need to close this shortfall with additional revenues, program changes that slow the growth in costs, or most likely both.  But contrary to claims by some policymakers and pundits, Medicare will not go “bankrupt” or cease to operate after 2026 — as that term may suggest.

In fact, Medicare’s financial outlook has significantly improved, thanks to health reform. The trustees project that the HI trust fund will remain solvent nine years longer than before Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act.  The Medicare hospital insurance program faces a shortfall over the next 75 years equal to 1.11 percent of taxable payroll — that is, 1.11 percent of the total amount of earnings that will be subject to the Medicare payroll tax over this period.  This is much less than the 3.88 percent of payroll that the trustees estimated before health reform.

Medicare does face substantial long-term financial challenges, stemming from the aging of the population and the continued rise in costs throughout the U.S. health care system.  It is essential that policymakers take further steps to curb the growth of costs throughout the health care system as we learn more about how to do so effectively.  In the meantime, we can achieve some additional Medicare savings over the next ten years in ways that preserve its guarantee of health coverage and don’t raise the eligibility age or otherwise shift costs to vulnerable beneficiaries.

Click here for our analysis of the trustees’ report, and here to listen to the audio recording of our related media briefing.

Article source: http://www.offthechartsblog.org/trustees-reaffirm-that-medicare-isnt-going-bankrupt/

Filed in Bankrupt Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

Letters to the editor – May 30, 2013

Thursday, June 6, 2013

LEAVE ALFALFA ALONE

Re: ‘Biotechnology opposition off base’, WP May 2 op-ed.

My childhood was spent pitching thousands of alfalfa hay bales. Alfalfa farming was the family income.

It’s time for me to present an opinion that sheds light on medicago sativa.

I am not opposed to enhanced seed innovation for annuals because the life cycle of the plant is aggressively geared for a single effort to produce a crop of whatever.

I do strongly hesitate and am opposed to the biotechnology focus on modifying one of the most powerful nitrogen-fixers of all legumes.

A well-managed mature crop of alfalfa can extract 240 pounds of nitrogen per acre from the atmosphere in a growing season.

Alfalfa cannot be grown in a hardpan or an underlying rock layer. This perennial legume needs a deep soil because of its massive root system.

No amount of genetic innovation can change the sedimentary geology nor change the physiographic region of where alfalfa can best grow.

A root depth of 20 to 30 feet is average with exceptions of more than 100 feet. This deep rooting ability is the source of its nutritional power.

Alfalfa needs a deep mineral rich subsoil which has not been depleted, hence the iceberg root system which takes many years to develop. It is certainly not a rotational crop.

Harvesting alfalfa before the flowering state would inhibit its nutritional power. Alfalfa’s core mineral is iron, and it is also an excellent source of phosphorus, potassium and magnesium.

These components are optimum when the plant is at bloom and before seeds are developed.

Growing a good crop of alfalfa is a long-term strategy. Managing the first initial seeding with a shade cover crop such as oats is crucial for establishing a healthy root system.

The allelochemics of this plant make it relatively drought tolerant while sheltering other plants during dry spells.

As a trap crop, it draws lygus bugs away from cotton and is an excellent activator for composting. The racehorse stables required the high nutritional value from the hay our family produced.

To present this plant as a new enhanced performer because of the innovations of agribiotech applications, in my opinion, is a well-calculated myth.

Passing off this perennial as a new GM crop with the benefits of an annual is my take on what is not being reported. I’ll plainly suggest this is a plant to be left alone as is.

Dale Peterson,
Horticulture grad,
Thompson Rivers University,
Kinsella, Alta.

THREAT TO MEDICARE

Why are people not more concerned about the push of various groups and individuals for more privatization of our precious medicare?

After (former prime minister Paul) Martin allowed the first private clinic, they have proliferated at an alarming rate. This does nothing to make the cost of medical care more affordable and only adds dissatisfaction be-cause of the shortage of doctors who are willing to work under the allowed system and the long waiting periods involved.

Then the question remains: why are the medical practitioners, who are duly licensed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, so accepting of Big Pharma’s manufacturing of the diseases to fit the latest untested whiz pill they have dreamed up — all in the search for ever larger profits?

Jean Sloan,
Lloydminster, Sask.

IRRADIATION NEEDED?

Re: Food irradiation – last year’s XL Food Inc. beef recall (Irradiation on approval track, WP April 25).

Are we really sure we need irradiated beef? This will cover up hidden problems. Was not broken down washing equipment and very poor hygiene and cleanliness on the kill floor the prime reason for the E. coli outbreak (in Brooks, Alta.)?

If the meat had been irradiated, the broken down equipment and the gross contamination on the kill floor would still be ongoing.

Marion Giesbrecht,
Red Deer, Alta.

CORPORATE RIGHTS

Welcome to corporate Canada and Saskatchewan, where the grain trade has gone from farmer-owned wheat pools and the Canadian Wheat Board to shareholder-controlled multinational corporations including Glencore, Cargill, Richardson and (Archer Daniels) Midland.

Shareholder and state-owned corporations from France, Germany, Australia, India and China along with Potash Corp. and Cameco are raping Mother Earth of resources.

Canada’s mining corporations in El Salvador, Colombia, India and Africa are described as very disrespectful of workers’ human rights. (Prime minister Stephen) Harper’s government has gutted environmental regulations so corporations are unrestricted in pursuit of wealth.

(Premier Brad) Wall’s Saskatchewan government has hired a wealthy American corporation to overhaul our health care, social services and education.

Its lean — mean — scheme is costly to taxpayers and workers’ rights. (It) has taken crown profits and privatized profit-making assets.

Harper has cut PFRA funding and Wall is scheming to privatize the 52 community pastures with a complete disregard shown for any community initiative to save them.

Noam Chomsky and other knowledgeable writers warn that rights obtained in 1215 when people forced King John to sign the Magna Carta and Charter of the Forest, which protected the commons, society’s source of survival, “are being shredded before our eyes.”

Corporations see the commons as commodities for privatization. Rights guaranteed by habeas corpus in 1679, safeguarding our liberty, are dismantled.

Investor rights regime considers those wishing to preserve communities as criminals.

Business encourages citizens to consume unnecessary commodities.

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World predicted a people consumed with boundless credit and cheap goods. George Orwell’s 1984 predicted a world of fear, permanent war and non-negotiating nations dependent on military powers. Sound familiar?

Joan Bell,
Saskatoon, Sask.

NEW EMPEROR

Now that the corporate controlled media has their Liberal darling, we can expect them to adorn him with the robes of an emperor in preparation for anointing him as ruler of the domain after the 2015 federal election.

Those who control the levers of power in Canada are very clever at deceiving voters into believing that they vote for change. In my view, the only difference between the two Canadian right wing parties is that when one is in power, the other is out.

William Dascavich,
Edmonton, Alta.

PST REBELLION

The people of Manitoba are rebelling the hike of PST. A much better and more acceptable method of (taxation) would be a small percentage increase on a personal income basis.

Higher incomes/lower incomes would pay accordingly, but not at the expense of everybody and especially the low income earners, as the PST is an all inclusive tax.

This type of heavy-handed action by the (premier Greg) Selinger government is symbolic of recent arrogant action by Ottawa that circumvented and flouted the existing laws that contributed to the demise of the former Canadian Wheat Board.

The comparison is unmistakable and obvious. Yet, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press (June 13/ 2011), premier Selinger personally launched a campaign to save the CWB, leaving me and many others to believe that he was also perturbed and aware that lawful procedures were being put aside and ignored.

This unethical action further supports my personal view that there are two sets of laws in Canada: one for the general public and one for government to disregard when they desire.

John Fefchak,
Virden, Man.

Dale Peterson,


Article source: http://www.producer.com/2013/05/letters-to-the-editor-may-30-2013/

Filed in Threat To Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

Daily Kos: Right-wing hypocrites call Sebelius, organ networks …

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Just ask Jan Brewer. The Arizona governor and tea party favorite outraged her GOP allies when she supported Obamacare’s expansion Medicaid in her state. When she announced she would accept $1.6 billion in federal funding to provide health insurance to 300,000 of her state residents, Republicans called her a “traitor” and worse. But as in turns out, Brewer didn’t just do the basic moral calculus. When she cut her Arizona’s own Medicaid funding for transplants in 2010, people died.

As ABC News reported on Jan. 6, 2011, “Two Arizona Medicaid recipients denied potentially life-saving organ transplants have died, even as Arizona doctors, transplant survivors and some lawmakers push to restore health care benefits slashed last fall.” That same day, CBS News explained the impact of Brewer’s decision to slice $1.4 million in funding for a host of previously covered transplant procedures in order to help close a billion dollar state budget deficit:

CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy reports at least two people have died since November. Mark Price, a father of six, died waiting for a bone marrow transplant. Now the University Medical Center in Tucson says a man needing a new liver died due to the cutbacks.

A hospital spokesperson said, “We believe that it’s likely that they died because they were unable to get a transplant.”

“There’s absolutely no way you can justify killing people to save really a little bit over a million dollars,” says Ariz. Rep. Chad Campbell (D).

Among those waiting for a double lung transplant was then 27-year-old Tiffany Tate, who like Sarah Murnaghan was failing in the late stages of cystic fibrosis. As she explained:

“If we all don’t get our transplants, all 98 of us are going to die. We deserve a second chance. I didn’t ask for this. I was born with this and I’ve fought my whole life.”

Tate fought and won. But her victory came only after an anonymous donor came forward to pay the $277,000 cost of her surgery and the Arizona legislature restored funding for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of post-op care she’ll need for the rest of her life.

But many others Americans haven’t been so lucky. Even with insurance, the cost of organ transplants can be crippling as surgeries costing up to $500,000 are followed by years of follow-on therapy and expensive prescription drugs. That’s why it so easy to find headlines about the mammoth bills and requests for donations to pay for care. (For examples, visit here, here, here and here.) Even those lucky enough to have insurance through their employer or the individual market (where it is estimated 22 percent of applicants are rejected), the staggering lifetime costs of treatment mean patients quickly hit lifetime benefits caps imposed by private insurers.

The case of 13-year-old Chase McGowen, who received a rare lung-liver transplant provides a case in point. As the University of Texas website reported in “Saving Chase“:

Clinic visits, medications and medical equipment continued to eat away at Chase’s insurance policy. Although the bills haven’t yet been tallied, Carol McGowen figures the $1 million policy ran out sometime during the transplant…

Chase qualified for Medicaid, a federal-state insurance program that will cover at least some post-transplant expenses, because he lived apart from his dad, the family’s sole wage-earner. Whether he will keep the coverage when the family reunites remains to be seen. They can’t afford to lose Medicaid coverage, so perhaps, the McGowens say, Tom McGowen will have to move out of the family home. Perhaps they’ll have to get a divorce. Everything is under consideration, they say, but there are no easy answers. “What we need is to win the lottery,” Tom McGowen said.

Winning the lottery cannot be the basis for deciding who lives and who dies in the richest, most powerful nation on earth. As President Obama has said repeatedly, in the United States health care cannot be “reserved for the lucky.” Under the Affordable Care Act; it won’t. Starting in 2014, private insurers can’t reject Americans due to pre-existing conditions, drop coverage when they get sick, or continue to impose lifetime benefits caps on 105 million Americans. Millions more Americans will gain insurance through the expansion of Medicaid and subsidies for private policies.

For her part, Secretary Sebelius has ordered a review by The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network which sets policies for transplants and works with the nonprofit United Network for Organ Sharing to maintain waiting lists and implement the standards. As things stand, that won’t come in time to help Sarah Murnaghan and other children like her. Due to the limited supply of organs, many other families will suffer heartbreak and loss. But for those Republicans who would reject the expansion of Medicaid, call for the repeal of Obamacare and still look for sinister “death panels” to decry, here’s a little advice.

Look in the mirror.

UPDATE: Politico reported late Wednesday that a federal judge has ruled that Sebelius must “allow 10-year-old Sarah Murnaghan to be moved to the adult lung transplant list, giving her a better chance of receiving a potentially life-saving transplant.” This 2006 New York Times article provides background on the development of and rationale behind the lung transplant standards revised in 2005.  Meanwhile, Medical Daily and The New England Journal of Medicine look at studies showing the challenges of lung transplants in children suffering from cystic fibrosis.

Article source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/05/1213980/-Right-wing-hypocrites-call-Sebelius-organ-networks-death-panels

Filed in Right Wing Attack on Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

Carolla on personal responsibility labeled 'right-wing' | The Daily …

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

During his Tuesday podcast, comedian Adam Carolla hit back at a Styleblazer.com ”Top 10″ list that ranked him No. 2 among “15 celebrities whose politics have made them unpopular,” saying that personal responsibility is now labeled “right wing.”

The list, which was published in March, criticized Carolla for “making sweeping generalizations of a comedic sort, particularly in regards to racial, sexual and gender groups.” But at No. 1 on the list is comedian Dennis Miller, who based on his success doesn’t quite fit the billing of “unpopular,” Carolla pointed out.

“It’s weird because Dennis Miller has a syndicated radio show that’s pretty successful (that he does from his house, by the way, in Santa Barbara) and then he travels around the country and sells out pretty big venues,” Carolla said.

Carolla noted that he and Miller had sold out a venue doing a show together, which also isn’t a trait of unpopularity. But Carolla explained why he thought the “right-wing” label was unfair, and that his views aren’t ideological — they’re traditional.

“I’m not right-wing,” Carolla said. “I just am into people doing homework and working hard and all the things that used to just be. First off, it’s like, I’m not for the Ten Commandments — I don’t need the ten commandments: Don’t kill your neighbor, covet his oxen, or whatever it is. I don’t need commandments — that’s no duh. Work hard, keep the family together, study, get ahead, don’t tell your boss to fuck off, don’t rely on the government for handouts, feed your own kids. These are not wild right-wing platforms. It used to be just called America. It turned into something at a certain point. I don’t know when those views became right-wing. Feed your kid breakfast — would that have been ‘right-wing’ in the ’50s? No. Well it is now.”

Follow Jeff on Twitter

Article source: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/04/carolla-rants-on-personal-responsibility-being-labeled-as-right-wing-audio/

Filed in Right Wing Attack on Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

Obama warns SCOTUS that Medicare payments might stop if …

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

obama has plans for seniors and others deemed not important to society in the heath care mandate. What most Americans don’t know about obama’s czar Ezekiel Emanuals program called ” Complete lives” . This is how obama and the left plan on saving money.

Obama’s Health Rationer-in-Chief

White House health-care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the ‘overuse’ of medical care.

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.

The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House’s health initiative.

“Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions” The Lancet, January 31, 2009

The Reaper Curve: Ezekiel Emanuel used the above chart in a Lancet article to illustrate the ages on which health spending should be focused.

Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.”

True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors’ ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the “overuse” of medical care: “Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness,” he writes. “This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to ‘use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”

In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient’s needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: “Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs.” (JAMA, May 16, 2007).

Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained “to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care.” One sign of progress he sees: “the progression in end-of-life care mentality from ‘do everything’ to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible.” (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

“In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations,” he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line.

“You can’t avoid these questions,” Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. “We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a ‘God committee’ to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions.”

Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: “Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)

In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a “complete lives system” for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. “One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

“However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear.” In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel’s chart nearby).

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: “Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, ‘It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,’ this argument is supported by empirical surveys.” (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).

To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the “major contributor” to rapid increases in health spending is “the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . .” He writes that one drug “used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy.” (JAMA, June 13, 2007).

Medians, of course, obscure the individual cases where the drug significantly extended or saved a life. Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom’s rationing body—the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life.

Dr. Emanuel’s assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: “The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name.”

Associated Press

This is untrue, though sadly it’s parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it’s an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel’s views.

Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. “The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind,” he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. “Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda,” he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. “If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration’s health-reform effort.”

Is this what Americans want?

Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.

2. Obama Eugenics – ObamaCare is Eugenics admits Glenn Beck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGiINxTaBA4

3. GlennBeck Eugenics part1 Short History

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTwRLbgcdOEfeature=related

4. GlennBeck Eugenics part2 Healthcare Czars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puXr_Nq8-twfeature=relmfu

5.Glenn Beck Eugenics part3 Healthcare Tree

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_9KESJh1Afeature=relmfu

6. EXPLOSIVE- THE COMPLETE LIVES SYSTEM by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6IHbdQl42U

7.

Betsy McCaughey on Ezekiel Emanuel-8/31/09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBVCmbSSqeMfeature=related

8. Betsy McCaughey Exposes Obama Healthcare Lies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKD9t-G36wfeature=related

9. Larry Grathwohl interview about William Ayers,Obama’s Mentor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlN2t0oERHk

10. Ezekiel Emanual a member of the notorious weather underground

http://www.obama52.com/backup.htm

Obama John Holdren Ezekiel Emanuel Cass Sunstein …

romanticpoet.wordpress.com/…/obama-john-holdren-ezekiel-emanue…

… businessman and “liberal” activist Tom Ayers-father of Weather Underground …. Harrison Brown; Ezekiel Emanuel and Cass Sunstein’s

Life/Lives Systems …http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/tag/obama-john-holdren-ezekiel-emanuel-cass-sunstein/

11. Ezekiel Emanuel — President Obama’s Special Advisor for Health Policy to the Office of Management and Budget. Nicknamed in the press “Dr. Death” after former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey pointed out Dr. Emanuel’s “healthcare” role assisting the White House in the preparation and administration of federal budget recommendations for guiding healthcare and healthcare initiatives, Dr. Emanuel (again, application of the absurdly ironic name, “God with us”) is a “bioethicist.” He is also hailed as President Obama’s “Rationer-in-Chief.” Generally, Emanuel’s idea of healthcare rationing is to greatly restrict many treatments, medicines, and procedures to anyone over 40 and more particularly to anyone over 65. Dr. Emanuel feels similarly about the newly born until they have attained several years of age at which time he begins to view them in Malthusian terms of potential communitarian utility.

As Lt. Governor McCaughey noted, “In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient’s needs.” This is the man who was personally tapped to guide ObamaCare health initiatives – not only by President Obama and his Chief of Staff… but also by “the other side of Barack’s brain,” Valerie Jarrett.

Mr. Emanuel is yet another in a tedious yet frighteningly long line of unqueried, unquestioned, and unvetted Obama advisors and “czars” about whom nothing can be known until pulled from beneath labyrinths of liberal camouflage by interested citizens, conservative Internet bloggers, and the staffs of conservative talk shows. Mainstream media long ago forfeited its credibility as well as its societal role as the fourth estate.

Dr. Emanuel is a member of the President’s Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (curiously enough authorized under the dazzling rushed-through and unread by a single Congressman, American Recovery and Investment Act… “the Stimulus Bill”) which, if allowed, will make decisions about the validity, “relative strengths and weakness of various medical interventions” as well as give clinicians…information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system. Not improve medical care much less your medical care, but the “system.” It’s called “rationing,” and it will very likely result in unnecessary and preventable early deaths. On a very large scale.

One final point. Due to the ambiguity of the relevant language in the Stimulus Bill as well as in the various ObamaCare “reform” proposals, there will not only be great latitude for interpretation of various laws’ meaning, but these interpretations will require being instituted, oversight, and, of course, regulation. The necessity of regulation allows President Obama’s Administrator of the White House Office of Administration and Regulatory Affairs Cass Sunstein carte blanche to regulate whatever he likes.

Mr. Emanuel is the brother of White House Chief of Staff, and former North Side Chicago Congressman (5th District of Illinois) Rahm (“dead fish”) Emanuel. [9]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ship_of_fools_obamas_intimates.html

Article source: http://therightscoop.com/obama-warns-scotus-that-medicare-payments-might-stop-if-obamacare-is-overturned/

Filed in Right Wing Attack on Medicare | Tagged | Comments Off

Huntsville Hospital cancels raises for about 8,000 employees …

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Huntsville Hospital exterior.JPGHuntsville Hospital’s main campus on Governors Drive. (Huntsville Times file photo) 

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama – About 8,000 Huntsville Hospital employees won’t be getting raises in the coming budget year and will also have to pay more for their health insurance.

CEO David Spillers notified employees on Friday that hospital leaders were forced to make some “difficult decisions” because of flat patient volumes, rising employee health insurance costs – expected to top $50 million next year – and declining reimbursements from Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers.

“It is a very challenging time for the health care industry,” Spillers wrote in a memo to the hospital’s workforce. “People in our country want all the fabulous service and technology we can provide when a loved one is in need. The problem is no one wants to pay us fairly to provide those services.”

Huntsville Hospital CEO David SpillersHuntsville Hospital CEO David Spillers 

“All of this leads us to little choice but to continue to manage our expenses prudently and look for ways to reduce our operational costs.”

Spillers said the following changes will take effect July 1, at the start of the hospital’s new budget year:

  • Salaries will be frozen at current levels, with no possibility of merit increases or cost-of-living adjustments.
  • Employees covered by the hospital’s health insurance plan will see their monthly premiums for both single and family coverage jump by about $40. Spillers said $13.48 of the increase is directly related to Affordable Care Act mandates.
  • The hospital will no longer make a basic annual contribution to employee retirement accounts equaling 5 percent of a person’s salary. However, it will increase its matching contribution to 100 percent of their first 5 percent of salary saved by employees.
  • Beginning with the July 7 pay period, employees will no longer accrue earned time off while taking earned time off. However, some staffers with large ETO reserves who had been required to take three days off each month will have to use only two days of ETO each month in the new budget year.

The changes affect about 8,000 employees of Huntsville Hospital, Huntsville Hospital for Women Children, Madison Hospital and Decatur Morgan Hospital’s Decatur General and Parkway Medical Center campuses.

“None of these decisions were easy to make,” Spillers wrote. “We recognize that they impact you and your families and we wish we did not have to make such difficult choices. We encourage you to keep up your good work and we are confident we will get through this period.

“Huntsville Hospital has been in business for 118 years because of the great care we have provided,” he wrote, “and because we have made wise but difficult decisions in our history.”

Spokesman Burr Ingram said the hospital is dealing with a “healthcare world that has turned upside down,” including $4.5 million in recent sequestration-triggered Medicare cutbacks and patients avoiding hospitals because they can’t afford to pay for the care.

“We’re certainly sensitive to the challenges this puts on all employees, but it’s very clear these are unusual days we’re in,” Ingram said Monday. “The great news is that no jobs are being lost and everybody stays employed.”

Article source: http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/06/huntsville_hospital_cancels_pa.html

Filed in Medicare Cutbacks | Tagged | Comments Off

Interviewing Mark Krikorian On The Rubio …

Monday, June 3, 2013

<!–

–>


Written By : John Hawkins
June 3, 2013

Mark Krikorian from National Review and the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the smartest, most trustworthy people on the Right when it comes to illegal immigration. He knows exactly what’s happening, backwards and forward and that’s why I wanted to interview him about the Rubio/McCain/Obama amnesty bill that’s making its way through the Senate right now.

ADVERTISEMENT


Mark Krikorian

What follows is a slightly edited transcript of our conversation.

How do you think we’re looking on this bill? What are you hearing? Are we on track to beat this thing or not?

There’s still an outside chance to beat it in the Senate, which would be kind of remarkable if that happened. The likelihood of it actually getting through the House is obviously dramatically less. I’m less worried about that part, although what I fear is that the House may pass something small and narrow, but as long as it has the word immigration in it, then Boehner can just get together with Reid and re-write immigration law between the two of them and then send it back saying, “Look, Conference Committee did this. This is what we came up with; vote for it or else.” Most Republicans won’t vote for it, but if Boehner is willing to bring it to the Floor for the Democrats to vote for, with 15 Republicans passing it, then we’re screwed. But it seems to me that’s the thing. In a sense, the whole thing comes down to whether Boehner is willing to destroy the Republican Party or not. It’s kind of melodramatic, but the future of the republic rests on him.

Right before I did this interview, I was looking at a Marco Rubio blast e-mail talking about what an economic boom these illegal aliens would be to the country. That doesn’t seem to ring true to many people in that we’re in a country where 47% of Americans don’t pay income tax. Most people don’t pay into Medicare what they’re going to take out and yet, we’ve been told over and over again that these illegal aliens are taking low paying, difficult, manual labor jobs Americans won’t do. How can these people possibly be a huge economic boom to the country? How can they float Social Security and Medicare? Are these guys going to be a boom or are they going to be a minus to the economy?

There is no way that the claims people make about the benefits of increasing low-skilled immigration can be true. Nobody would be saying, “Let’s close some high schools because we want to have more people with only a sixth grade education. That really benefits America.” It’s a joke. The very fact that they can say this with a straight face without being laughed off the stage is more a testament to the media’s gullibility than anything else. I mean, you expect politicians to engage in brazen lying, but the problem is too many people swallow this stuff and believe it.

Part of the problem is that Rubio has a lot of credibility with conservatives because he was willing to stand up to the Republican establishment initially until he became part of it. So when he comes up with these whoppers, people are much less likely to confront him than I think is healthy. It’s really unfortunate….

How much discretion does the Obama Administration have under this bill? How much discretion does the same group of people that just attacked conservatives with the IRS have under this bill to do what they want?

Almost every requirement in this bill can waived by Janet Napolitano: for instance, the time limits on when people can be legalized, the requirements on criminal activity or even the enforcement triggers. Those basically don’t mean anything if any of them is held up in court, still. …The litigation over the 1986 bill didn’t end until just a few years ago. The ACLU has been quite clear that it intends to sue to stop mandatory e-verify and probably sue to stop a bunch of other things. If, for instance, mandatory use of electronic verification is still in the courts 10 years after the bill passes, it’s entirely possible the Secretary of Homeland Security can just give everybody Green Cards on her own — and there are hundreds of other examples of that kind of discretion.

It’s not too much of an exaggeration to say that this 1,000 page bill after all of the amendments could be boiled down to, “We trust you, Obama; just do the right thing.”

How many illegal aliens would end up being brought into the country with this bill and are we still going to have family chain immigration with it?

Well, there’s a couple of questions there. The first is how many illegal immigrants would qualify? Eleven to twelve million is what people say and it probably is somewhere around eleven or twelve million. …Now not everybody will qualify, but the flip side of that is there is guaranteed to be massive fraud given the way this has been organized. On top of that, believe it or not, a significant number of people who have already been deported get to come back and get amnesty. If you were deported after December of 2011 or any time during this year before the bill was signed, you get to come back if you have relatives here and get your Green Card. Basically it’s the United States government saying, “We apologize for enforcing our own immigration laws. Here, let’s make it up to you with a work authorization.”

Are we going to have chain migration that could turn that 11 – 12 million illegals into 30 million people on a path to citizenship?

Yeah, well, it could over time. … They supposedly got rid of that, but what they did was basically tucked those categories into a new immigration scheme for legal immigration which they’re calling the Merit Based Program. It’s like a points system — something like Canada has where, you know, you fill out a questionnaire and you get points for various characteristics and if you have enough points, you get to come here. Canada does that based purely on human capital characteristics. In other words, what level of education do you have, do you speak one of the national languages, what’s your age? If you’re in an occupation that their central planners have decided is desirable, you get extra points, but it’s all directed toward human capital at least. The point system that these guys have dreamed up has some of that stuff in there, but also has the chain migration categories hidden in there so that you get 10 points if you’re the brother or sister of a U.S. citizen which is the same advantage as you would get as if you had a Master’s Degree. You also get a certain number of points if you’re the adult son or daughter of a U.S. citizen.

The flip side is that they have taken one part of the family immigration program which is limited and made it unlimited — and that is the spouses and minor children of Green Card holders. So, if you’re married when you get your Green Card, then your spouse gets a Green Card, too. …Also, I put air quotes around this “temporary” employment program; this legislation exempts all family members from the numerical caps on those programs. So those numbers increase dramatically under the bill and they all get to work, too. Of course, there’s no change in the citizenship laws. So all the kids that these “temporary” workers have while they’re in the United States are U.S. citizens and then, these very same people who are pushing this bill are going to say, “Well, we can’t make them leave now just because their Visa expired. They have U.S. born kids and look, they’re so cute. Look, they all have to stay; come on.” It’s just ridiculous.

Final question: One of the ways this is being sold is that it’s a way that’s going to fix everything with the Republican Party with Hispanics — that suddenly, all Hispanics are going to vote Republican after this. That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense if you – I mean, after Reagan’s amnesty, the GOP’s numbers with Hispanics dropped. So, what’s going to happen? Is this going to be a big boom for the GOP with Hispanics if we pass this bill?

No, it’s going to be a disaster for the Republican Party for several reasons. One is Hispanic voters and immigrant voters generally are predisposed to be Democrats. They make much heavier use of public services. So, a party that’s interested in tightening up on welfare and government spending is not going to be appealing. They pay much less in taxes. Current illegal immigrants, if you look at their wages — a large majority of them have no income tax liability and that’s not going to change significantly if they’re legalized. So, a party that’s promoting tax cuts is of no interest to them. If anything, it’s quite the opposite.

Hispanics are the biggest supporters of Obamacare. When you ask them about issues like size of government, you know, “Would you prefer higher taxes and more government services or lower taxes and fewer government services?”…… the Pew Research Center found that Hispanic Republicans were more in favor of big government than white Democrats. They also did a separate survey asking people’s attitudes toward capitalism and socialism and Hispanics were the most hostile group to capitalism. They were more hostile to capitalism then self-identified supporters of Occupy Wall Street. Again, none of this makes anybody bad people, but it doesn’t make them natural constituents for the Republican Party.

Now this doesn’t mean that there aren’t a significant minority of Hispanics for whom a conservative small government message would resonate. There are…. but that’s between a quarter and a third of the Hispanic electorate and has been for generations. Republicans probably can do a better job of bumping that percentage up, but when you’re doubling future legal immigration as this bill does, you’re just digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. If you’re going to try to wean Hispanic voters away from the party of socialism, it’s going to take time. It’s going to take an investment of money and effort and it’s going to take ongoing assimilation of the voters themselves over time so that — but, none of that’s going to happen if you have not just ongoing mass immigration, but super-charged mass immigration in the future.

The final point on this is that the specifics of the bill guarantee that Republicans aren’t going to get more Hispanic voters because of the various requirements in this bill. The legalized illegal immigrants have to wait 10 years before they get Green Cards. Now they’re amnestied right away and they’re working and they get a social security account and driver’s license and all that — but Green Cards, which would give them access to welfare and citizenship and other things — that’s postponed for 10 years. Well, guess who’s going to be blamed for it as soon as the ink is dry on this legislation? I guarantee you Obama’s campaign has already got the material put together to demagogue this issue saying, “The Republicans imposed this second class Jim Crow status on you. Vote for us and we will set you free!” It will be a disaster. Republicans in 2016, if they pass this bill, will wish that they got Romney’s 27%.

<!–

–>

Article source: http://www.rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/interviewing-mark-krikorian-on-the-rubiomccainobama-amnesty-bill/

Filed in Right Wing Attack on Medicare | Tagged | Comments Off

Rich Lowry exposes Rachel Maddow's hypocrisy over Obama's …

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Newsbusters caught this earlier today and it showcases Maddow dodging heavily to avoid answering a question that would have killed her argument completely:

Apparently Maddow complained about it later on twitter:

To which Noel Sheppard replied:

Well, maybe if she had answered Lowry’s simple question concerning whether or not she supports the $700 billion of Medicare cuts in ObamaCare she could look forward to praise for her appearance.

Instead, by ducking the issue she exposed herself as a Democrat shill with no business anchoring a television show on a so-called “news network.”

Rich Lowry has since written a short post at NRO saying that he’s been accused of sexism by Maddow fans:

I was on Meet the Press this morning and was astonished that my fellow panelist Rachel Maddow couldn’t say whether or not she supports the Obama Medicare cuts. You can read about and see part of the exchange here. You’ll notice me — I’m the one asking her insistently to answer the question. She even tried to say that she’s not running for anything so she couldn’t answer, even though she has an hour-long nightly TV program devoted to telling us what she thinks. On Twitter, some Maddow partisans are — of course — accusing me of sexism. Please. Rachel always comes to play and she’d be just as tough on someone dancing away from a very basic question. My guess is that she didn’t want to answer because she realized she would then be admitting that she supports more Medicare cuts on current seniors than does Mitt Romney — you know, the guy who supposedly just blew up his campaign over Medicare. Rachel tried to suggest that, in attacking the Obama Medicare cuts, Republicans are criticizing what they themselves want to do. But as Yuval points out here, the Obama Medicare cuts are the typical crude approach that never works. Republicans want to get savings in the program through competition. If we had had more time to get into it, I would have asked Rachel if she supports limiting the growth of Medicare to slightly above GDP growth plus inflation — the goal for savings of both President Obama and of the allegedly Medicare-hating Paul Ryan.

Sexism? How did they even get that from the exchange? I call it the lefty brain syndrome, otherwise known as being intellectually dishonest and partisan all the time.

Article source: http://therightscoop.com/rich-lowry-exposes-rachel-maddows-hypocrisy-over-obamas-700-billion-in-medicare-cuts/

Filed in Right Wing Attack on Medicare | Tagged | Comments Off