Clueless Emma

Redistribution of Health: ObamaCare’s Tax Disguised as Morality : Smart Girl Nation

Blatantly ignoring the Constitution, the liberals on Capitol Hill passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, citing moral obligation and the right of all individuals to equal access of health care. President Obama’s visual aids at town hall meetings, rallies, and conferences included a few desperate individuals torn between paying their home mortgages or paying their health care bills. A closer examination of the bill that passed Congress, however, reveals a different picture. The moral obligation to provide individuals with affordable health care, or to help Americans afford or keep their current health care, evidently only applies to the select few the liberals in Congress want to help.

via smartgirlnation.com

Law will make doctor deficit more acute | statesmanjournal.com | Statesman Journal

Primary care physicians already are in short supply in parts of the country, and the landmark health overhaul that will bring them millions more newly insured patients in the next few years promises extra strain.

via www.statesmanjournal.com

ObamaScare

Tanning Taxes Start Now

ObamaScare Begins

Ironically timely email from Amazon in my mailbox this morning: The Vision of Hell

Dear Amazon.com Customer,

As someone who has purchased or rated books by Dante Alighieri, you might like to know that The Vision of Hell. by Dante Alighieri. Translated by Rev. Henry Francis Cary, M.a. and With the Seventy-Five Designs of Gustave Doré. is now available.  You can order yours for just $20.77 by following the link below.

The Vision of Hell. by Dante Alighieri. Translated by Rev. Henry Francis Cary, M.a. and With the Seventy-Five Designs of Gustave Doré. Dante Alighieri Price: $20.77

Michelle Malkin » Consequences: Stupak stripped of “Defender of Life” award

via michellemalkin.com

Conservative News: Ann Coulter - My Healthcare Plan - HUMAN EVENTS

Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don't have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan! It's a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let's all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term "free market." Nearly every problem with health care in this country -- apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors' waiting rooms -- would be solved by my plan. In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance. We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete. The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today. That's the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, sex-change operations, and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week. President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn't afford the $6,700 premiums, and now she's got cancer. Much as I admire Obama's use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio's state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited OB/GYN visits, among other things. It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics -- you know, things like cancer. The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies. Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice. Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers Viagra, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms "Harry Reid" and "Viagra" in the same sentence. I promise that won't happen again.) Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market. Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things such as major illness, accidents and disease. (Again -- things like Natoma Canfield's cancer.) This would, in effect, transform medical insurance into ... a form of insurance! My bill will solve nearly every problem allegedly addressed by ObamaCare -- and mine entails zero cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a free market in health insurance would produce major tax savings as layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, get fired. For example, in a free market, the government wouldn't need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding "pre-existing conditions." Of course, an insurance company has to be able to refuse NEW customers with "pre-existing conditions." Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It's the same reason you can't buy fire insurance on a house that's already on fire. That isn't an "insurance company"; it's what's known as a "Christian charity." What Democrats are insinuating when they denounce exclusions of "pre-existing conditions" is an insurance company using the "pre-existing condition" ruse to deny coverage to a current policy holder -- someone who's been paying into the plan, year after year. Any insurance company operating in the free market that pulled that trick wouldn't stay in business long. If hotels were as heavily regulated as health insurance is, right now I'd be explaining to you why the government doesn't need to mandate that hotels offer rooms with beds. If they didn't, they'd go out of business. I'm sure people who lived in the old Soviet Union thought it was crazy to leave groceries to the free market. ("But what if they don't stock the food we want?") The market is a more powerful enforcement mechanism than indolent government bureaucrats. If you don't believe me, ask Toyota about six months from now. Right now, insurance companies are protected by government regulations from having to honor their contracts. Violating contracts isn't so easy when competitors are lurking, ready to steal your customers. In addition to saving taxpayer money and providing better health insurance, my plan also saves trees by being 2,199 pages shorter than the Democrats' plan. Feel free to steal it, Republicans!

via www.humanevents.com

Welcome to the Back-Scratching Economy

"Back-scratching has always existed in business, of course, but in the business world it’s typically been practiced with private dollars by those who voluntary opted to participate (read: shareholders). In the new back-scratching economy, however, the payments are made with tax dollars in full view of the electorate, which is expected to stomach the redistribution of their savings to institutions like OneUnited along with socialized healthcare, "responsible" homeowners who don’t pay their mortgages or other politically-motivated interests with only one justification: "the public good."It’s a frightening harbinger for free markets, capitalism and individual rights."

Jonathan Hoenig is managing member at Capitalistpig Hedge Fund LLC.

Obamaspeak. Refute that, Leftist lemmings.

Fear, Lies, and Loathing Halloween 2009

Michelle Obamascare

From Michelle Malkin:

"The White House, Democrats, and MoveOn liberals are spreading health care sob stories to sell a government takeover. But there’s one health care policy nightmare you won’t hear the Obamas hyping. It’s a tale of poor, minority patient-dumping in Chicago — with First Lady Michelle Obama’s fingerprints all over it."

More Here

Stossel on Health Care Reality

GOVERNMENT CHEESE

Oh, But Won't it Be Great When These Same Yahoos Are in Charge of Everyone's Health Care?

As vets await checks, VA workers get $24M bonuses

Stop the Abortion Mandate!

Obamacare: Rhetoric Vs Fact

Dear Clueless Emma,

President Obama told the American people in his weekend address he wanted to "start dispelling the outlandish rumors" about the Democrats' risky health care experiment.

I couldn't agree more with the President.

There is no place for outlandish rumor or outrageous rhetoric in the debate for the affordable and accessible health care reform we all want.

Below are some facts that will help you counter the dishonest rhetoric Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and liberal special interest groups are disseminating in their attempt to silence dissent:

• Rhetoric: President Obama Promises Americans Can Keep Their Current Health Care Coverage. "You know, the interesting thing is we've actually been very clear on what we want. I've said I want to make sure if you have health care you are going to keep it..." (PBS's "The Newshour With Jim Lehrer," 7/20/09)

• FACT: Analysis Shows Over 88 Million People To Lose Current Insurance Under Government Health Care Takeover. "Under current law, there will be about 158.1 million people who are covered under an employer plan as workers, dependents or early retirees in 2011. If the act were fully implemented in that year, about 88.1 million workers would shift from private employer insurance to the public plan." (John Shelis, Vice President, Lewin Group, "Analysis Of The July 15 Draft Of The American Affordable Health Choices Act Of 2009," 7/17/09)

• Rhetoric: President Obama Pledges Americans Can Keep Their Doctor. "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor...We're not going to mess with it." (President Barack Obama, Remarks At White House Press Conference, The White House, 6/23/09)

• FACT: Mayo Clinic Says Government-Run Health Care Will Force Doctors To Drop Patients. '[L]awmakers are on track to approve across-the-board federal payment reductions of $155 billion over 10 years for hospitals ... Mayo and similar health systems object to the sweeping cuts. 'Across-the-board cuts will be harmful to everyone and we think it is particularly bad to penalize the high-value organizations,' said Jeff Korsmo, executive director of the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center. 'We will have to violate our values in order to stay in business and reduce our access to government patients.'" (Phil Galewitz, "'Model' Health Systems Press Case For Medicare Fix In Reform," Kaiser Health News, 7/20/09)

• Rhetoric: President Obama Promises No Additional Taxes On Middle Class. "What I've said is, and I have stuck to this point, I don't want to see additional tax burdens on people making $250,000 a year or less." (NBC's "Today Show," 7/21/09)

• FACT: Democrats' Plan Imposes 2.5% Tax On Uninsured Individuals. "The penalty assessed on people who would be subject to the mandate but did not obtain insurance would equal 2.5 percent of the difference between their adjusted gross income (modified to include tax-exempt interest and certain other sources of income) and the tax filing threshold ..." (Douglas W. Elmendorf, "Preliminary Analysis Of The Insurance Coverage Specifications Provided By The House Tri-Committee Group," Letter To Chairman Rangel, 7/17/09)

The Republicans want an honest and open debate about how to reform health care, but it is the Democrats who do not want to have a legitimate discussion on the issues. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their liberal special interest cronies are resorting to calling concerned citizens who have questions about their health care schemes "astroturf," "un-American," and even "political terrorists."

One White House aide went so far to say "if you get hit, we will punch back
twice as hard" when coaching Senate Democrats on the ways of "Chicago land politics."

It's time for the President to practice what he preached on the campaign trail and respect all voices in the health care debate.

Help the RNC spread the facts about the Obama Democrats' dishonest rhetoric and stop their efforts to silence dissent by forwarding this email to your friends, and if you can, make a contribution of whatever you can afford to the RNC today.

And for more information about Obama's government-run health care experiment, go to www.BarackObamaExperiment.com. Shannon, there's too much at stake for Democrats and their left-wing allies to dominate the debate on health care reform with misinformation, name calling and scare tactics. Please help Republicans fight back today!

Sincerely,

Obamascare Posters Via The People's Cube

Cash For Clunkers ObamaCare Edition

How much is your old family member worth? Turn them in to the nearest Planned Grandparenthood Center and find out! Receive cash prizes and free healthcare entitlements!

As part of a new incentive tied to Obama's upcoming healthcare reform, the network of Planned Grandparenthood Centers are to begin running ads, themed "Double Cash for Your Old Coot." The push offers a cash incentive or zero-percent financing on top of free government plans for all families whose trade-in old-timers qualify for the government's program known as "Cash for Clunkers," up to a maximum of four grandparents over 70 years of age.

From The People's Cube

You wanna buy some Healthcare, Komrad?

 

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day: Take Two Aspirin And Call Me When Your Cancer is Stage 4

Isn't food important? Why not "universal food coverage"? If politicians and employers had guaranteed us "free" food 50 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the "food crisis" in America, and you'd be on the phone with your food care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries was covered under your plan.

Instead of making health care more like the DMV, how about we make it more like grocery stores?  Give the poor and tough cases health stamps and let the rest of us buy health care -- and health insurance -- on the free market.

Ann Coulter

Mike Reagan on B Hussein's collectivist health plan

Most doctors are overworked, many are underpaid. The number of doctors is increasing at a woeful 1 percent a year, and the number of available nurses has been flat for years. With an increasing population -- and one that is aging as baby boomers move into their 60s -- who is going to provide health care to 45 million more Americans, even if we make the wildly optimistic assumption that we could afford to pay for it?

Well, if you are not scared yet, you should be. Let me tell you how the so-called experts would solve this conundrum. It is not pretty. In fact it is so ugly that no one wants to discuss it publicly. Certainly not the Obama administration, or the Democratic-controlled Congress, but also not the private insurance companies -- the ones that once opposed the Clinton health care plan but now apparently see government as the almighty solution.

Apparently the agreed-upon approach is to give health care to 47 million new beneficiaries without massive new costs by being “more efficient” in allocating the currently available health care assets. Well, efficiency is good, right? Not necessarily.

Here is what this “efficiency” would mean in stark terms: severely restricting health care services to our elderly, and the severely and terminally ill. “Efficiency” here means providing services to millions of young and healthy, who do not need much of it, and cutting health care to seniors and the severely ill who “statistically do not have as much to lose by not getting good health care.”

In other words, the administration believes that those of above 60 will not live nearly as long, no matter what health care we receive, as a healthy 25-year-old, so why “waste” doctors, nurses, drugs, hospitals and surgeries on us? Health care resources, in cold, hard, inhumane computer calculations, are more “efficiently” used letting the elderly die years earlier after a less-healthy retirement.

My father was a supporter of Medicare. He worked tirelessly to insure that the insolvency which we were facing in Medicare funding when he became president was resolved in favor of continued quality Medicare services for our senior citizens. He cared. He knew that we owe a debt to our seniors that cannot and should not be denied in the name of so-called “efficiency.”

We all want a health care plan that is best for all citizens, but we must do better than the current proposals being floated by Democrats in Congress and the White House. Go to Reagan.com and stand with me in opposing any health care plan that increases taxes, buries us in debt, or which reallocates health care away from the elderly and ill.

---

Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network.

Rush on Current Events June 11, 2009

Hate-Promoting Left Seizes Chance to Falsely Blame Right for Violence This museum shooter admires Hitler's National Socialists. He hates neocons -- Republican Jews -- both Bushes, and thinks 9/11 was an inside job. That sounds leftist! (Rush 24/7 Members:  Listen) » Right-Winger?  Rev. Wright on Obama: “Them Jews Aren’t Going to Let Him Talk to Me” » FBI Raids Office:  Shooter May Have Targeted the Conservative, Neocon Weekly Standard   "After eight years of hatred and vitriol -- assassination movies and books about Bush -- for liberals to claim that the atmosphere is now more violently anti-Obama is simply preposterous. If you want to see real hate, I can tell you were to find it. It's called M-S-N-B-C." -Rush   Obama Administration Moves to Cap Pay All Across Private Sector That means your job, and your salary -- while raising your taxes. (Rush 24/7 Members:  Listen)

Obama Lies About Health Care: It's an Uncomfortable Thing to Accuse Him of Doing Of course he wants socialized medicine, and the power to force you to live "healthy." This "single-payer" plan means everybody pays and gets less. (Rush 24/7 Members:  Listen) » Charen:  Health Care Bill is the Ball Game » WSJ:  More Opposition Forms to Gov't Insurance » Nobody Talks About the Abuse: Austin ER's Got 2,678 Visits From 9 People Over 6 Years   "We never talk about those of our fellow citizens who aren't angels, who are spoiled-brat, slothful, hypochondriacs who abuse the health care system and cost everybody a whole bunch of money. We only hear that everybody is sick all the time and every doctor's visit is justified." -Rush    Palin Told Ya So: Obama Gov't Grants Miranda Rights to Terrorists The White House spokesman doesn't deny it. (Rush 24/7 Members:  Listen) » Fox:  Reading of Miranda Rights to Detainees Draws Criticism

ObamaScare: Prepare!

Michelle Malkin

Representative Richardson Votes NO on HB 2009

...1. Health care reforms will cost a fortune. Section 9 of HB 2009-C instructs the governing board of the OHA in sub-paragraph (b.) to “develop and submit a plan to the Legislative Assembly by December 31, 2010, to provide and fund access to affordable, quality health care for all Oregonians by 2015.” It goes on to instruct the board in sub-paragraph (c.) to “develop a program to provide health insurance premium assistance to all low and moderate income individuals who are legal residents of Oregon.” (Underlining added for emphasis.)

Oregon has more than 500,000 uninsured legal residents. To “provide and fund” “quality” health care for them would cost between $2-4 billion per year, for starters. Factor in the costs of providing additional doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. to give health care service to an additional ½ million patients, and you are talking about real money. In addition, sub-paragraph (c.) states OHA’s governing board is to “provide health insurance premium assistance to…moderate income individuals….” In past committees, supporters of HB 2009-C have expressed support for subsidized health care for those earning 300% or even 350% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).

To see the 2009 FPL chart, click here. From the FPL chart you can see that at 250% of the federal poverty level, a family with three children could be earning $64,475 and still qualify for taxpayer subsidized health care under HB 2009-C’s “moderate income” instruction. If moderate were defined as 300% FPL, that same family could be earning more than $77,000 and still qualify for taxpayer subsidies.

To me there is something wrong when those who qualify for subsidized benefits can be earning more than the taxpayers who pay for them. While I feel strongly that society has a duty to care for those who cannot care for themselves, we do a grave disservice to both the taxpayers and the recipients when the government assumes responsibility to provide health care or other benefits that individuals can and should provide for themselves. Besides, as the FPL goes up, so does the number of those eligible to receive the health care benefits. When the government provides health care, the costs do not go away, they merely get shifted for taxpayers to pay. To be successful, any health care reform must be financially sustainable, and it must be politically acceptable to 51% of the voters—because of the provisions of Section 9 (b.) and (c.), I believe HB 2009-C fails on both counts.

2. Creates the Oregon Health Czar. The Director of the Oregon Health Authority is given extensive powers to regulate the health insurance industry. In addition, Section 26 of HB 2009-C specifically exempts activities of insurers working under the direction of the OHA or DCBS from Oregon laws precluding conspiracies, monopolies, and price fixing. Such laws were implemented to protect citizens from abuse. That abuse can come from government agencies, just as it can come from corporate rogues. Exempting insurers from those safeguards merely because they are working under the OHA can have significant negative, unintended consequences.

3. Oregon Health Authority has a substantial conflict of interest. The OHA is a key regulator in Oregon’s health insurance industry. Section 10 (h.) of HB 2009-C states the following: “In consultation with the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services, [OHA shall] periodically review and recommend standards and methodologies to the Legislative Assembly for: (A) Review of administrative expenses of health insurers; (B) Approval of rates; and (C) Enforcement of rating rules adopted by the Department of Consumer and Business Services;” Then, in Section 10 (k.) it goes on to state: “[OHA shall] develop, in consultation with the Department of Consumer and Business Services and the Health Insurance Reform Advisory Committee, one or more products designed to provide more affordable options for the small group market.

Thus, OHA and DCBS will work together in reviewing rate approvals of private health insurers. Unless there are rules implemented to insulate OHA from access to private insurers’ data relating to administration, rating and profitability, a grossly unfair competitive advantage will exist. Not only will OHA purchase, administer and manage all Oregon health insurance plans for employees, prisoners and vulnerable citizens, OHA will also be developing and marketing its own policy or policies of health insurance benefits. This will place OHA in direct competition with the private sector insurance companies that it helps regulate.

4. OHA will force private insurers to either quit or become surrogates of the state. HB 2009-C gives the OHA tremendous power to control, intervene and regulate private health insurance companies. OHA can control private insurers’ rates, while OHA markets its own health plans in direct competition for market share. Such a “stacked deck” against private insurers will likely result in one of the two following scenarios.

(1.) The private insurers will be forced by either unfair competition or excessive regulation to abandon the Oregon health insurance market. The OHA health plans would then be the last game in town. In that event, Oregon will have government health insurance by default.

2.) The private insurers will adjust operations to financial realities, redesign health benefit plans, rates and underwriting to OHA’s dictated requirements. The private insurers will accept the profit margins OHA allows, and, essentially, become subservient to the state health care system. In that event Oregon will have government health insurance through its private insurer surrogates.

Either way, the free market for health care disappears, and state health care bureaucracy fills the void.

5. The federal government is likely to preempt state health care reforms. Notwithstanding the above arguments in favor or against HB 2009-C, on June 4, 2009, President Obama released the President’s own version of government health care reform, on a national level. The President calls for everyone to be insured, either with a policy of their own choice or government coverage. His plan would require the estimated 50 million Americans (including uninsured Oregonians), to receive health coverage. The price tag is about $1.5 Trillion, to start. Criticism of the President’s plan also applies to HB 2009-C. If the government creates its own plan and has the power to give it an artificially low price, it will effectively and quickly drive the private insurers out of the market. With competition gone, America and Oregon will have government run h ealth care whether the citizens wanted it or not.

In conclusion, HB 2009-C is not yet law. It will be debated in the House and Senate on June 8th or 9th. If it passes and is signed into law, it will cost the taxpayers $6.1 million over the next two years. When the Legislature reconvenes for the 2011 session, if the federal government has not preempted health care with a national health plan, the ground work will be laid for full implementation of the OHA. We all will be interested in seeing how much it will cost for the government to provide universal access to health care for all Oregonians by 2015. Even more interesting will be the discussion of how that cost will be paid. As mentioned above, I believe HB 2009-C will cost too much, will drive private insurers out of the market and will leave Oregonians with an unwanted, unsustainable and ill-conceived government run health care system. For these reasons, I voted against HB 2009-C in two Ways and Means comm ittees and I will vote against it on the Floor of the House. Since my position in the current session is often over-ridden by the majority, I expect HB 2009-C to be passed and become law. I have shared with you my opinions on the upside potential and downside risks of HB 2009-C. Time will tell whether my hopes for its potential or my concerns over its risks were correct.

Sincerely, 
 
Dennis Richardson
State Representative

How long do patients really have to wait for surgery in Canada?

British Columbia--click on body part and then specify for wait times. And remember, the government gets to decide which condition is an "emergency" and which can simply wait. But I'm sure government is completely trustworthy.

Hat tip> Victoria Taft Tweet

DiCaprio and Winslet raise money to save life of Titanic survivor

GLENN: Oh, that's right, my friends. From behind my cardboard microphone, the March to Socialism which is in bookstores now, the audio book. Dateline: London. Titanic stars Leonardo diCaprio and Kate Winslet have pledged now to help the last survivor of the sinking of the ocean liner Titanic, Millvina Dean. She was just a couple of months old when the ship sank. She's 97 years old now, the last survivor. Dean has been living in the English city of Southampton since she broke her hip about three years ago. Gee, I wonder what happened. Did she get robbed or something? Stars say that they have thrown their support behind a fund which would subsidize Millvina Dean's nursing home fees. Wait a minute. Why is ‑‑ I have to ‑‑ Stu, is this in San Diego? Are you sure there is not in America? It's not in ‑‑ huh. I can't imagine why Leonardo diCaprio and Kate Winslet are being forced to step in and help pay for healthcare. I mean, it's nice and everything but it's socialized healthcare. There's no need. It's the greatest system on God's green Earth. There's nobody that wants for anything!

According to the report, Dean had to sell several Titanic mementos in order to raise cash as she struggles to keep up with nursing home fees.

There's no nursing home fees. Stu, this is wrong. This is universal. Everybody gets ‑‑ and she gets a lollipop at the end of the day every day.

STU: I bet the report comes from some capitalist journalism newspaper.

GLENN: Oh, I bet it's from Big Doctor. She's 97 years old. She's been paying into the system for at least 50 years. I'm sure she's feeling now like those taxes were well spent. Hey, thanks for the contribution; we normally save your life but you're kind of old now. I mean, wouldn't it make sense to spend money, you know, on somebody younger than you? You've led a good life. Maybe you can kick the bucket tomorrow. Our bad. Got to run. DiCaprio and Winslet started the Millvina Fund and launched it in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Interesting story about Northern Ireland, especially when it comes to healthcare. I mean, do they have enough? Sure. In Northern Ireland they have four health boards. Wow. One, no. Two, uh‑uh. Three can't even cover it. They have four health boards, and they have 19 health and social services trusts and 15 local health and social care groups and four health and social services councils which are all involved in the commissioning and provision of health and social services and yet all of those can't help the poor little old lady just try to stay in the nursing home. "Just let me breathe one more day." An iceberg couldn't kill this woman... but universal healthcare is about to.

Glenn Beck

Montana may force doctors to assist with suicide

A Montana trial court has ruled that citizens have a "right" to assisted suicide, according to the state constitution. That case, Baxter v. Montana, has been appealed to the Montana Supreme Court and the Christian Legal Society and the Christian Medical Association have teamed up on a friend of the court brief asking the court to reverse the decision or at least find and equal right for medical providers to NOT participate. Unlike Oregon and Washington states where assisted suicide was enacted through the legislature, Montana offers no conscience protections for health care workers who don't want to kill their patients. Casey Mattox, litigation counsel with the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law & Religious Freedom, has more on the wide-reaching impacts of this case.

Swine flu on the way! Best HURRY to pass socialized healthcare, no need to read the bill! Doesn't this seem just a bit too predictable?

Both the House and the Senate are expected to vote TODAY on
the budget resolution that includes over $2 trillion in
tax increases in the next 10 years and fast-track provisions
for socialized healthcare.

I'm asking you to take action in two important ways:

+ + Action Item #1 -- Flood The Phone Lines!

We must let these members of Congress know that we oppose
the tax increases and the fast-tracking of socialized healthcare.

Call your two Senators:

Sen. Wyden      202-224-5244

Sen. Merkley      202-224-3753

Call your Congressman:

Rep. Schrader     202-225-5711

Also, call these 12 key Senate Democrats who have opposed
fast-tracking and urge them to oppose the rules trickery
in the budget:

Senator Mark Begich    202-224-3004
Senator Robert Casey    202-224-6324
Senator Mary Landrieu    202-224-5824
Senator Max Baucus    202-224-2651
Senator Daniel Inouye    202-224-3934
Senator Mark Pryor    202-224-2353
Senator Amy Klobuchar    202-224-3244
Senator Carl Levin    202-224-6221
Senator Blanche Lincoln    202-224-4843
Senator Robert Byrd    202-224-3954
Senator Evan Bayh     202-224-5623
Senator Ben Nelson    202-223-6551

+ + Action #2: Send Your Faxes

If you haven't done so already, send your faxes now.

We have redirected our FaxFire to target the 12 Senate Democrats
who are on record opposing the fast-track provisions -- along
with your two Senators and your Representative.

Go here to send your faxes:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=18656&CID=112&RID=18675652

As always, if you would prefer to send your own faxes, please
do so! We provide all the contact information and sample
letters for your convenience at the above link.

The back-room deal struck by Obama and his cohorts on Capitol
Hill to fast-track socialized healthcare is an outrage.
Sen Judd Gregg compared it to Hugo Chavez' strong-arming tactics.

Please alert your friends and take action!

Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org

P.S. Our research team has prepared a more detailed explanation
of how Obama and the Democrats are using rules trickery to
stifle debate and fast-track socialized healthcare. To access
that report, go here:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=18657&RID=18675652

Socialized Healthcare being fast-tracked this week!

We have just been alerted that House and Senate leaders are moving
very quickly to put socialized healthcare on a fast-track THIS WEEK
as part of the revised Obama budget.

Members of the House-Senate conference have struck a deal with
Harry Reid and the Obama team to require just a simple majority
vote in the Senate to pass Obama's massive socialized healthcare
plan.

Our contacts are also warning us that Obama's oppressive $2 trillion
global warming Carbon Tax also may be fast-tracked!

Clueless Emma, your grassroots pressure forced the Senate to remove
this procedural trickery from the Obama budget just a few weeks ago.
But now a handful of Congressmen and the Obama team are sneaking the
fast-track language back in the budget!

+ + We have just a few hours to stop socialized healthcare
       and the oppressive Carbon Tax!

The House-Senate conference is meeting NOW and Obama's supporters
want to pass the revised budget this week in time for the conclusion
of Obama's first 100 days in office.

THIS IS A TOTAL OUTRAGE!

Democrats know they cannot get 60 votes in the Senate to pass
socialized healthcare or the Carbon Tax, so they are manipulating
the process to require only 50 votes later this year.

+ + Fax Congress Now And Say "No" To Fast-Tracking
       Socialized Healthcare and the Carbon Tax

We have set up our FaxFire to target the eight members of the
House-Senate conference along with your two Senators and your
Representative.

          We must flood these offices with faxes TODAY and
          tomorrow. Go here to schedule your faxes for
          immediate delivery:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=18579&CID=112&RID=18675652

As always, if you would prefer to send your own faxes, please do so!
We provide all the contact information and sample letters for your
convenience at the above link.

+ + Classic Political Misdirection

Here's how this all happened...

A few weeks ago you helped Grassfire expose the Obama budgets
$2 trillion in new taxes and the plan by Democrats to fast-track
pet socialistic programs. The Senate removed the fast-track
language and it seemed to many that we had won this part of
the debate.

As a result, the liberal media -- and even the conservative media --
dropped the issue.

Then, after the Spring recess, Rahm Emanuel went to Harry Reid's
office and struck a deal to put the fast-track provisions back in.

Now, we have just hours to stop this. So...

After you send your faxes...

Please call these key members of Congress:

Call your two Senators:

Sen. Wyden      202-224-5244
Sen. Merkley      202-224-3753

Call your Congressman:

Rep. Schrader     202-225-5711

Again, this is classic D.C. back-room politics. We must take a
stand. Please schedule your faxes and make your phone calls.
Then, alert your friends.

Thanks for taking a stand at this crucial time.

Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org

P.S. If we lose the battle over socialized healthcare, more than
half of all Americans will earn their living off the government!
This is the tipping point -- the point of no return -- when our
country will become a socialist state like much of Europe.

Grassfire.org Alliance is a non-profit 501(c)4 issues advocacy
organization dedicated to equipping our 1.5 million-strong network
of grassroots conservatives with the tools that give you a real
impact on the key issues of our day. Gifts to Grassfire.org are not
tax deductible.

+ + Comments? Questions?

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=18580&CID=112&RID=1867565

SCHIP hits the fan again

In 2007, after President Bush proposed a $5 billion increase in SCHIP, the House voted for a $50 billion increase but receded to the Senate's proposed $35 billion, which became the definition of moderation. That compromise, which Bush successfully vetoed, at first would have extended SCHIP eligibility to some households with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty line (up to $83,000 for a family of four), and more than $30,000 above the median household income ($50,233). So people with incomes higher than most people's became eligible for a program supposedly for low-income people. Call that compassionate arithmetic.

The new expansion, which is vengeance for Bush's veto, is mission gallop: It will make it much easier for some states to extend SCHIP eligibility to children from families earning up to $84,800. Furthermore, to make "poor" an extremely elastic concept, generous "income disregards" are allowed. Families can, depending on their state's policies, subtract from their income calculation what they spend on rent or mortgage or heating or food or transportation or some combination of these. So children in some families with incomes well over $100,000 will be eligible.

Grace-Marie Turner, a student of health-care policies, says this SCHIP expansion is sensible -- if your goal is quickly to get as many people on public coverage as possible and to have children grow up thinking that it is normal for them to get their health insurance from the government. That is the goal.

PAUL WELLSTONE MENTALHEALTH AND ADDICTION EQUITY ACT OF 2007, H.R. 1424 MANDATES COVERAGE OF SINFUL LIFESTYLE CHOICES

Tomorrow the House of Representatives is set to vote on the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, H. R. 1424. This bill places federal mandates on private insurance companies and employers who choose to offer mental health coverage as part of their group health plans.

This legislation incorporates in the bill the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and uses it as the basis for coverage of mental health conditions.

Given the broad range of mental health disorders under the DSM-IV, private business employers could be forced to compromise their religious or moral objections, without any conscience clause protections, to cover disorders such as exhibitionism and pedophilia.

H.R. 1424 overreaches the government's role by forcing employers to provide health insurance programs to pay for treatment plans to remedy changeable behavioral and lifestyle choices that many find objectionable.

Action:p

1. Please call the 29 Representatives listed below at 202-225-3121 and urge them to reconsider their co-sponsorship of this legislation because it would force employers to fund treatment of "sexual orientation" disorders such as those in "hate crimes" legislation.

Marion Berry (D-Arkansas)
Christopher Carney (D-Pennsylvania)
Brad Ellsworth (D-Indiana)
Bart Gordon (D-Tennessee)
Mike McIntyre (D-North Carolina)
Charlie Melancon (D-Louisiana)
Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota)
Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina)
Rodney Alexander (R-Louisiana)
Spencer Bachus (R-Alabama)
Jo Bonner (R-Alabama)
Shelley Moore-Capito (R-West Virginia)
Vernon Ehlers (R-Michigan)
Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri)
Robert Latta (R-Ohio)
Ric Keller (R-Florida)
Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio)
John McHugh (R-New York)
John Mica (R-Florida)
Timothy Murphy (R-Pennsylvania)
Charles Pickering (R-Mississippi)
Jim Ramstad (R-Minnesota)
Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio)
Christopher Smith (R-New Jersey)
John Sullivan (R-Oklahoma)
Fred Upton (R-Michigan)
Zach Wamp (R-Tennessee)
Frank Wolf (R- Virginia)
Don Young (R-Alaska)

2. Please call your Representative at 202-225-3121 and ask him to oppose H.R. 1424.

CHELSEA CLINTON TRIES TO SUPPORT HER MOM. SCORE IN MY GRADEBOOK: CHILLARY= ZERO; EVERYONE ELSE=ONE

“[My mother] and Senator [John] Edwards are committed to universal healthcare,” she said. “Senator [Barack] Obama [D-Ill.] is committed to what we call ‘virtual’ universal healthcare which would make it an option for people to buy into the system. What my mother argues is that if you don’t mandate that everyone have healthcare, the healthy people may not buy into the system, which means that the average cost of insuring people is a lot higher.”

Oh, my, Chels. Not helping.

A CANADIAN ON UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE

...Here in Canada, health care is almost completely public and syndicalized, with disastrous results. Everywhere that public health care exists, it results in lower technology, higher waiting lists, and higher costs for society. And yet many Americans, and other people around the world, have not experienced it and do not understand why taking away health care from private competition is such a bad idea.

There is a pervasive assumption about public health care, that it is "one-speed", "universal" and equitable. This is used as a justification that overrides all practical consideration. After all, as long as everyone "gets the same chance", any amount of disadvantage is irrelevant, at least in democracy-based thought. So they refuse to permit private hospitals, which would relieve some pressure off the public system and ensure a better service. Given the importance of public health, such negligence is criminal.

This is perverse thinking, but the premise itself is utterly wrong. Public health care is not "universal". The masses are stuck with a sub-standard health care system, and the rich pay to go to the United States, or other countries, for better treatment. Doctors also leave in droves because of the lower salaries and bad working conditions. The system is only universal insofar that the state has universal control either way (through immigration control, if you leave). If the United States sabotages its own health care system by socializing it, the same thing will happen.

I've made some bold claims, which people who do not live in Canada, the UK, Sweden, or a country where socialized medicine is prominent, might doubt. But Canada is a good example of its failure, since it is the country that monopolizes health care the most. Also, Canada spends the most on health care of all OECD nations (on an age-adjusted basis). But it has inferior technology available.

"Although Canada is the fifth highest among OECD countries in terms of total spending on health (as a percentage of GDP), it is generally among the bottom third of OECD countries in availability of technology. (...) The local comparison is equally unfavourable. CT scanners, nuclear medicine facilities, MRIs, lithotriptors, positron emission tomography (PET), specialized intensive-care facilities, and cardiac catheter labs are all less likely to be found at a community hospital in British Columbia than at a similar hospital in Washington or Oregon. Angioplasty and transplant facilities are mainly restricted to the University teaching hospitals in British Columbia, while they are more widely dispersed in the two American states.

Go To Page: 1 2 3   

Francois Tremblay