Archive for July, 2009

Is This What You Want?

Excerpts from the “Life Insurance selling Magazine” article, “To your good health: Of TV shows and children’s games”, by

Published 7/1/2009

Included in the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” (aka “The Stimulus Bill”) was $1.1 billion to fund The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. When he was at The Brookings Institute, Obama budget director Peter Orszag became interested in a Dartmouth study indicating that despite wide regional disparities in payments for similar conditions, there was no corresponding improvement in outcomes. Additional fuel for the Council came from Senator Tom Daschle’s book, Critical: What We Can Do About The Health-Care Crisis, where he argues for a council similar to the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which goes by the acronym “NICE.”

If the Federal Council in the stimulus bill is the beginning of this idea, NICE is the realization of what it could — and most likely will — become. A group of presidential appointees will begin reviewing treatments to decide which are more — or less — effective. This sounds innocuous and like the biggest no-brainer in the history of the universe, doesn’t it? A frequently-cited example of the type of review that the Council might undertake would be to determine whether drugs and “watchful waiting” are a better treatment than surgery for back-related issues. Who could argue that expensive and risk-laden surgeries should only be done if they can be proven to be more effective than non-invasive treatments?

A discussion of how the Council’s work might be brought into practice quickly leads to concern. For the moment, ignore those who, rightly in my view, believe that giving government access to our electronic personal health records in tandem with this Council’s guidelines will ultimately create the medical equivalent of Big Brother. We need only look at NICE to see the likely outcome.

NICE guidelines center on cost effectiveness, not around quality of care. How long will it take for Americans to realize that our version of NICE will likely mirror our cousins across the pond? To help everyone along, I suggest that you invest eight minutes of your time to watch a video clip about my friend Beth Ashmore. Some of you know Beth as a former president of the National Association of Health Underwriters, though you may not know her mother’s story. It is a shocking, firsthand account of what could be in store for us if we project the path of our current initiatives.   Watch the video here:

Critics in the medical community are becoming concerned about the Council’s effect on their ability to practice medicine and the potential effect on their physician-patient relationships. Their concern centers on the research from the Council leading to a “one-treatment-fits-all” set of rules and that the government would become the third party in the exam room, so to speak.

Many of us recall the admonitions made nearly two decades ago about “accountants at HMOs making medical decisions.” Absent a discussion of “medical necessity,” the HMOs were excoriated for enforcing the terms of a voluntary contract between employers and the HMO — terms which were known in advance. We’ve all heard the arguments about employees being the ones in that particular crossfire, and to a great extent that is true.

This is not the whole article. You can read the entire article here, at the Life Insurance Selling magazine.

Jul 19, 2009 | 0 comments | View Post

The Democrats Still Don’t Like HMOs

Obama, Reid take dead aim at Medicare HMOs

By Jeffrey Young

Posted: 01/14/09 07:00 PM [ET]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had no qualms expressing his low opinion of private health insurance plans in Medicare.

“Medicare Advantage is gone,” Reid said last week during an interview with The Hill.

He didn’t mean that literally, his press office later clarified. But Reid, like his fellow congressional Democrats and President-elect Obama, wants to scale back the program through which HMOs and other health plans provide benefits to more than 10 million people, or almost one-fourth of the 45 million people on Medicare.

Likewise, Obama singled out Medicare Advantage as an example of “programs that don’t work” during an appearance on ABC News’s “This Week” on Sunday.

Jul 19, 2009 | 0 comments | View Post

The Democrats Don’t Like HMOs

Democrats Continue Heavy Push for HMO Reform

By Helen Dewar and Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 24, 1999; Page A8

Democrats yesterday intensified efforts in both houses of Congress to grab the offensive on legislation to regulate health maintenance organizations — an issue that both parties see as critical for next year’s elections.

Senate Democrats halted action in their chamber for a second day to force Republicans to schedule votes, while House Democrats started circulating a petition to bring their bill to a vote over the objection of GOP leaders.

"We’ll get votes," vowed Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.). "It is either that or we’ll sit on the Senate floor looking at each other."

As of late yesterday, Republicans and Democrats were still at odds over procedures to schedule votes in the Senate. And, in the House, the Education and the Workforce Committee postponed action on a GOP managed-care bill because Republicans could not agree on its provisions.

Both parties have bills aimed at providing new protections for patients in managed-care plans, including new processes for review of patient grievances. But they differ in critical details, including the extent of government regulation and whether patients or survivors should be able to sue their health plans. Democrats generally favor more regulation than Republicans and want to expand access to lawsuits, while most Republicans would curtail them.

For their first vote, Senate Democrats want to focus on another key difference: who decides a patient’s treatment. They are pushing for immediate action on a proposal to require that doctors, rather than health plan officials, be empowered to decide what is "medically necessary" for a patient. The Senate Republicans’ bill is silent on that point, although it allows appeals to health professionals when treatment is in dispute. Critics argue that the Democrats’ proposal could drive up costs and threaten the financial viability of HMOs.

Jul 19, 2009 | 0 comments | View Post

Americans Really Believe Taxes are Not Going Up With The Government Health Plan?? – Yeah R-R-Right!!

From Rasmussen Reports

8% Say Health Care Reform Likely to Mean Higher Taxes for the Middle Class

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of U.S. voters say it is at least somewhat likely that taxes will be raised on the middle class to cover the cost of health care reform. Fifty-six percent (56%) say it’s very likely.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 15% of voters think it’s unlikely that the cost of health care reform will require raising taxes on the middle class.

Those who earn between $20,000 and $75,000 per year believe even more strongly that health care reform will require raising taxes on the middle class.

On a related topic, voters have mixed feelings about taxing wealthier Americans to help pay for health care reform as House Democrats are now proposing. Forty-eight percent (48%) favor raising taxes on those who earn more than $250,000 per year to pay for health care reform, but 44% oppose such a move. Surveys over the years have consistently shown that when politicians talk of taxing the rich, many middle class voters assume their own taxes will go up as well.

Currently, 39% of voters expect their own taxes to increase during the Obama Administration.

A bill now being considered in the House of Representatives places a one percent (1%) surtax on individual incomes above $280,000, which rises to 1.5 percent for those making between $400,000 and $800,000 a year. Both could double by 2013 if insufficient savings are found to cover the additional spending envisioned in the health care reform plan. On incomes above $800,000, the surtax is 5.4%.

Under the plan, taxpayers will not be able to use mortgage interest or charitable contributions to reduce their surtax liability. Eighty percent (80%) of voters say wealthy Americans are at least somewhat likely to give less money to charity if their deductions are reduced, up 14 points from April.

Just 13% believe the wealthy are not likely to cut back their charitable giving.

Earlier this year, 51% of voters said Obama’s plan to raise taxes on those who earn more than $250,000 a year would be good for the economy. Thirty-one percent (31%) disagreed and said it would be bad for the economy.

But voters in general consistently favor tax cuts over increased government spending.
In a poll conducted before House Democrats unveiled their current version of a reform plan, 49% of voters opposed the health care reform plan being developed while 46% favored it.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party say health care reform is Very Likely that to raise middle class taxes. Only 37% of Democratic voters agree.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Democrats like the idea of taxing wealthier Americans to help fund health care reform. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliated voters are opposed.

Text emphasis added by Freedom Finder

Jul 19, 2009 | 0 comments | View Post

More Proof of Global Warming

From Nashuatelegraph.com

Perspectives Columns

Published: Friday, July 17, 2009

Global warming warrants cool reception

Deroy Murdock, Scripps Howard News Service

As cap-and-trade advocates tie their knickers in knots over so-called "global warming," Mother Nature refuses to cooperate. Earth’s temperatures continue a chill that began 11 years ago.
As global cooling accelerates, global-warmists kick, scream and push their pet theory – just like little kids who cover their ears and stomp their feet when older children tell them not to bother waiting up for Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.
Consider how the globe cooled last month:
• June in Manhattan averaged 67.5 degrees Fahrenheit, 3.7 degrees below normal – the coldest average since 1958. The National Weather Service stated July 1: "The last time that Central Park hit 85 in May . . . but not in June was back in 1903."
• In Phoenix, June’s high temperatures were below 100 degrees for 15 days straight, the first such June since 1913. In California’s desert, Yucca Valley’s June average was 83.5, 8.5 degrees below normal. Downtown Los Angeles averaged 74.5 degrees, five below normal.
• Boston saw temperatures 4.7 degrees below normal. "This is the second coldest average high temp since 1872," veteran meteorologist and Weather Channel alumnus Joseph D’Aleo reports at Icecap.com. "It has been so cool and so cloudy that trees in northern New England are starting to show colors that normally first appear in September."
Looking abroad, D’Aleo noted: "Southern Brazil had one of the coldest Junes in decades, and New Zealand has had unusual cold and snow again this year."
• New Zealand’s National Climate Centre issued a June 2 press release headlined: "TEMPERATURE: LOWEST EVER FOR MAY FOR MANY AREAS, COLDER THAN NORMAL FOR ALL."
• South African officials say cold weather killed two vagrants in the Eastern Cape. Both slept outdoors June 26 and froze to death.
Simmer down, global-warmists retort. These are mere anecdotes, hand-picked to make them look silly.
Well, one would be foolish to challenge space-born satellites that gauge Earth’s mean temperatures – cold, hot and average. Here again, evidence of global cooling accumulates like snow drifts.
"There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998, and global cooling for the past few years," former U.S. Senate Environment Committee spokesman Marc Morano writes at ClimateDepot.com.
Citing metrics gathered by University of Alabama, Huntsville’s Dr. Roy Spencer, Morano adds: "The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveal yet another drop in Earth’s temperature . . . Despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled 0.74 degrees F since former Vice President Al Gore released ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in 2006."
Earth’s temperatures fall even as the planet spins within what global-warmists consider a thickening cloud of toxic carbon dioxide.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, consistently and reliably has measured CO2 for the last 50 years. CO2 concentrations have risen steadily for a half-century.
For December 1958, the laboratory reported an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 314.67 parts per million. Flash forward to December 1998, about when global cooling reappeared. CO2 already had increased to 366.87 PPM. By December 2008, CO2 had advanced to 385.54 PPM, a significant 5.088 percent growth in one decade.
This capsizes the carbon-phobic, global-warmist argument. For Earth’s temperatures to sink while CO2 rises contradicts global warming as thoroughly as learning that firefighters can battle blazes by spraying them with gasoline.
So, to defeat so-called "global warming," there is no need for the $864 billion Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the Kyoto Protocols, elaborate new regulations, or United Nations guidelines. Instead, let the cold times roll.
It is one thing to have a national debate about a serious problem, with adults differing over which solution might work best. Reasonable people, for instance, can dispute whether growing federal involvement would heal or inflame our health-care system’s serious maladies.
But as so-called "global warming" proves fictional, those who would shackle the economy with taxes and regulations to fight mythology increasingly resemble deinstitutionalized derelicts on an urban street corner, wildly swatting at their own imaginary monsters.

Deroy Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

Jul 19, 2009 | 0 comments | View Post

It Doesn’t Matter What the Republicans Think, Say or Do

Hopefully, everyone knows by now there is a totally huge Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress.  The extended wing of the Democrats, the Major Media (shouldn’t really be in caps; its just for emphasis), though, as well as President Barack Obama, want you to believe the Republicans have a say in the matter.

If the Republicans agree, its bipartisan.  That’s how it can be bi-partisan.  It doesn’t matter if the votes are there either way. If the Republicans don’t agree, they’re “obstructionists”, and “we’re going to pass (whatever) bill anyway”.

Kinda makes you think the Republicans mean something doesn’t it?  Its the new Bi-Partisanship we were promised

Jul 15, 2009 | 0 comments | View Post

We Have to Put More of Someone Else’s Money into Health Care

“We can’t continue to put more and more money into health care,” said Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who runs the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Interpreted as:

So let’s put more money of the wealthy’s money into health care.  Isn’t that the way of the Socialists Liberal Democrats?  The wealthy, who fund everything in in America are expected to “GIVE” more of their money.

“We cannot go home for recess unless the House and the Senate pass bills to reform and restructure our health-care system.”

Interpreted as:

Let’s fix the best health care on the planet into something that can and will be second or third-rate at best.

The House is also proposing a mandate on Americans above a certain income level: People would be penalized as much as 2.5 percent of their income for failure to buy health insurance. Most employers would be required to insure their employees or pay a penalty equal to as much as 8 percent of their payroll.

interpreted as:

Let’s really put if to people for being successful and mandate something that may in fact be illegal to mandate!!

If you aren’t paying attention to this nonsense you will be forced to pay attention because it WILL affect you eventually.  If they can tax the upper income level for not having health insurance, how long before they tax you?

I may be wrong, but between 9 and 17 million of the “uninsured” are in this country illegally!

One of the original ideas of this legislation was to save money.  How can it save money if its going to cost more money?

 

Freedom Finder

Jul 15, 2009 | 0 comments | View Post

Any More Questions as to Where “global warming” is headed?

 

An excerpt from a TIMESONLINE article of July 8, 2998:

Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About ‘Global Governance’

 

Climate Depot Exclusive

Friday, July 10, 2009By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.

“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth’s temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor’s Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)

Gore’s call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac’s call in 2000.

The above is an excerpt from the full article. I added the bolding.

Read the full article

Freedom Finder

Jul 12, 2009 | 0 comments | View Post

Sarah Palin misses the Juneau 4th of July celebration – What has President Obama missed?

Sarah Palin didn’t participate in the city’s July 4th Parade or a 50th anniversary statehood celebration.

That’s one of the criticisms being written about her after governor Palin issued a statement that she would be stepping down as the Governor on July 6th.

How about President Obama?

 

  • He failed to host an event for the National Day of Prayer.
  • Nor did he have time to accept the invitation to convey greetings and a few remarks to the couple hundred thousand who came to Washington, as they do every January, for the March for Life.
  • After joining the Foreign Relations committee missed two of three Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Afghanistan.

President Obama however, did host a reception at the White House celebrating LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Pride Month.

Guess we didn’t hear about these events too much from the media, did we?

 

Freedom Finder

Jul 05, 2009 | 1 comment | View Post