Allow The Physicians To Speak...

Learn what physicians think about the real issues. On Sermo, physicians collaborate on everything from patient care and medical ethics to healthcare reform and practice management. We’ve highlighted some of their most vibrant discussions on the Sermo Blog.

From the Founder: A Squandered Opportunity

Like so many physicians and citizens, I find myself frustrated, saddened, and more than anything scared by what is playing out in the healthcare reform effort. While I believe people understand the concept that the ends justifies the means, one cannot help but wonder what the ends are at this point.

The subversion of our democratic system violates every lesson we learn as school children about separation of powers in the government. If this bill is so good for the public, then why do opinion polls overwhelmingly say that the public is not in favor of this and why are some legislators doing things that can only be described as extraordinary?

The worst thing? I hope this bill passes.

It is our last best hope at ANYTHING meaningful occurring. That being said, I think the damage is done. This is no longer about the goal, it is about the process. The proponents HAVE to pass the bill. It has become a self fulfilling prophesy. Rationality and what is "best" for our country have long since left the conversation. Unfortunately, true healthcare reform will be just the first casualty here. The healthcare system, the broader economy, and ultimately our nation will pay the price. We have squandered the opportunity of a lifetime for the benefit of a tiny number of special interests. On this point, I truly hope that I am wrong.

Almost two years ago, the Sermo community called for healthcare reform with over 12,000 physicians signing the open letter. This community went on to predict that the AMA would fail physicians in their moment of need, pointing out that the AMA's business model made them beholden to the government and insurance companies, not physicians. Finally, this community consistently pointed to the key elements needed in meaningful healthcare reform (not one of which is in the bill). Lately, this community has been making perhaps the most alarming prediction of all:

• Physicians are opting out of medicine in alarming numbers.
• We are opting out of Medicare/Medicaid in even larger numbers.

Ultimately, it will be our patients that pay the price. As our nation holds its collective breath on the eve of this historic vote, we all should all remember that.

Daniel Palestrant, MD

Founder & CEO

Sermo, Inc.

View comments from the Sermo physician community

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Enacting A Lie

It's tough to keep up with all the various angles on this issue, but I will say I adore this editorial, and their staff knows a whole lot more than little old me...

Enacting A Lie

Posted 03/22/2010 06:53 PM ET

Health Overhaul: Sunday's vote exposed the ugly truth that ObamaCare is not really about health care at all. It's all about who pays for it and who controls it — in effect a massive wealth-redistribution scheme.

Those who believe this will lead to some medical nirvana will likely be disappointed. Fact is, this poorly designed monstrosity will lead to lower-quality care, higher costs, fewer practicing physicians, higher taxes and fewer jobs.

We've done more than 150 editorials in the past year or so documenting these problems. Democrats surely understand them. Yet, despite a recent CNN poll showing that 59% of Americans oppose ObamaCare, Congress approved it anyway.

Why? Because it's not really about health care. It's the largest wealth grab in American history, masquerading as health care "reform," another step in the socialization of Americans' income in the name of "fairness" and "spread(ing) the wealth around," as Obama himself has put it.

That's why we call the program a lie.

The idea behind all this, simply put, is control. This is a vast expansion of government that will require as much as $3 trillion in added spending over a decade. All claims of deficit neutrality are a joke.

This is socialization through the tax code. That $3 trillion has to be paid for. As we showed last week, the health care bill levies $569.2 billion in new taxes over the next 10 years alone.

At the same time, as noted by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, it will increase U.S. budget deficits by $562 billion.

Who'll pay all these taxes? Those deemed "rich" by Democrats, and businesses. Specifically, the bulk of the money comes from a special 3.8% Medicare tax on 5 million people earning more than $200,000 a year. That tax is imposed on capital gains, dividends, rents, royalties and interest — that is, investment income.

Obama already has proposed boosting these taxes in his budget. So the top tax take on dividends and cap gains will rise to 23.8% from 15%, an increase of nearly 59%, while top rates on interest and rents will soar from 15% to nearly 44%, a 193% jump.

About 50% of this higher-taxed group reports small business or partnership income. So don't be fooled: These aren't taxes on the "rich," but on small businesses and jobs.

In ObamaCare, the taxes will be ruinous. Unlike real insurance, where individuals pay to cover their risks, this program covers everyone — including 32 million uninsured — and pays for it by a "mandate" ( read: "tax" ) and by taking money from other people to subsidize those who can't pay. And this just scratches the surface of the new taxes — we literally don't have room to list them here.

Hmm. Taking money from one group, and giving it to another. That's called welfare — or, perhaps, health-fare. It's not insurance.

Once the new program is finished wrecking what remains of the private health insurance industry — as it ultimately will — we'll be stuck with the government declaring that "the market doesn't work" and forcing all of us into a single-payer government plan.

That's what those Democrats who back "Medicare for all" want — to kill what's left of the private market for health care, which has created the best medical system on earth, and use "reform" to expand an already-bankrupt Medicare system.

The math behind this is ugly. Medicare's long-term liabilities now total $89 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office. Based on projected deficits, the just-passed health reform will take that to $136 trillion.

It will take a lot more than the "rich," as defined today, to make up such unfathomable tax shortfalls. That's when they'll come for the rest of us — poor, middle-class and rich alike — and we all will be paying vastly higher taxes for vastly inferior medical care.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

'Nuff Said!

America Hanging by A Thread - Rush

America Hangs by a Thread Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: Today, as we start the radio program, America is hanging by a thread. So we have to see what we can do with a thread. At the end of the day, our freedom has been assaulted. This is the kind of change that people did not think they were going to get when they voted for Barack Obama. Freedom must win the day. Great to have you here. We'll be talking to you about all of this, 800-282-2882 is the number. The e-mail address: ElRushbo@eibnet.com. You have to deal with reality here, and that means focusing on the future. Now, there are some people who want to look back at the past and say, "How did we get here?" and that's all fine and dandy, but we know how we got here. Barack Obama was elected president. If you want to go back any further than that, we can, but we are here because Barack Obama was elected president. We are here because the Democrat Party has a majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives. There's a lot of anger at Bart Stupak today. Bart Stupak was always going to vote for this. The thing that Bart Stupak needs to be hounded out of office for is for misleading an entire nation and giving an entire nation a big, fake feint job that he and his cohorts were somehow going to do something to stop this on the basis of a false premise, anyway. I want you to hear a piece of audio from Stupak. This is October 24th in Cheboygan, Michigan. He held a town hall meeting. This is Internet quality, here. He held a town hall meeting, and he told a questioner, one of his voters, that if he liked everything but the abortion funding he would vote for it. He said this last October. STUPAK: If everything I want [is] in the final bill, I like everything in the bill except you have public funding for abortion -- and we had a chance to run our amendment and we lost. Okay, I voted my conscience, stayed true to my principles, stayed true to the beliefs of this district. Could I vote for health care? Yes, I still could. RUSH: And he did. He was always going to, as were the moderate Democrats. There were some of them that were given a chance to vote "no" because they had enough of a majority last night. But up until four o'clock yesterday afternoon, theoretically, Pelosi did not have the votes. I'm asking myself what kind of country are we today. We're not a representative republic. The will of the people was spat upon yesterday. The will of the people is of no concern to the people who now have power and authority from the White House all the way down to Capitol Hill. The will of the people is something to be crushed. So we're not a representative republic. You can't even say, loosely defined, we are much of a democracy. We have to restore these things. We have to do this by getting rid of these people at the ballot box. We must get them out of office. That's the only thing here. I hear people talking about repeal, and that's great, but there's something that has to happen before we can do that. We can't repeal this thing as we sit here today. We don't have the votes. We didn't have the votes to stop it; we're not going to have the votes to repeal it. We have to start winning elections. But I'm going to tell everybody in the Republican Party that's running around talking about repeal: It had better be more than a campaign slogan. You better mean it. Don't declare something as principle and then play it like a $5 poker chip like Bart Stupak did. Stupak has humiliated and disgraced himself. He lied because he held out the hope to millions of Americans that this travesty would not happen. Bart Stupak has not only humiliated and disgraced himself; he has as big a role in destroying this country as it was founded as Barack Obama does. Last night, Bart Stupak damaged the already crippled Democrat Party more than he knows, more than they know. That executive order? Totally laughable. Stupak just wanted his "Notice me!" moment. Stupak is no different than Neville Chamberlain, who came back with that little letter from Hitler, "Oh, yeah, Hitler says no war between his country and ours." Churchill said, "Well, you're a fool."

Well, Stupak got his executive order which is worthless and can be rescinded, but it does not have the ability to counter statute. So whatever's in the Senate bill -- and there is federal funding for abortion in the bill; and folks, make no question: The lies that we have been told about what's in this bill, what's not in this bill, it is an utter disaster. If you want we can spend some time today going through some of these individual items, which we've been doing for a year-and-a-half. The point is, the American people have awakened and they finally have seen what statists look like and what they do and how they act. Even McCain, who as recently as a year ago wanted to "walk across the aisle" and work with these people, said today he's upset just looking at how happy they are at what they've done. Of course, it need not have happened had we... Well, I don't even want to go there. Focusing on the past is only relevant in terms of how we learn from it and not make the same mistakes in the future. So yep, we repeal -- fine and dandy -- and we take these lawsuits. These lawsuits are an uphill climb. We can't rely on lawsuits to win the day. I mean, they need to be filed and they need to be argued, and we need to push back in every direction, but the focus has to be on defeating Democrats in November in these midterm elections. We have the people. We have the intellectual arguments. We have the commonsense arguments. We have history. But they won yesterday. They won because they held Congress and the presidency, and therein lies the lesson: We need to defeat these bastards. We need to wipe them out. We need to chase them out of town. But we need to do more than that. We need to elect conservatives. If there are Republican primaries, elect conservatives and then defeat the Democrats -- every last one of them -- and then we start the repeal process. And by "repeal," I mean use every single legislative and bureaucratic tactic we can muster to obstruct, derail, and defeat them. Just saying "repeal" does not make it happen. We're going to have to turn out en masse in November and stop these people. As you have seen, the law will not stop them, the Constitution will not stop them, hoping that they will do the right thing will not stop them because their definition of "the right thing" has nothing in common with ours. They must, my friends, be hounded out of office. Every single Democrat who voted for this needs to know, safe district or not, that they are going to be exposed and hassled and chased from office. We now have leftist radicals in charge of your health care decisions rather than doctors. I got up today and I said, "We're hanging by a thread," and there's a difficult balancing act on this program today: Dealing with the reality of what has happened, which can't be candy coated, with the need to fight on. The need to fight on and the urging to fight on must have some substance to it and not just be rhetoric and language and lingo. It has to have some substance behind it, because we really are facing the prospect that our country will never be the same after yesterday, if this stands. It will never be the same, and a majority of the American people understood it. A majority of the American people understand it and know it and are outraged by this. Americans are now eagerly awaiting their insurance premiums to be reduced by $2,500 a year. Obama has been promising this since his presidential campaign of 2008. Americans are now eagerly awaiting for all of the uninsured to magically have health insurance. The American people are now waiting for their premiums to magically go down and for their access to go up. I was listening to some of the Democrats in the media last night. Juan Williams on Fox was just excited. "Oh, my God, this is so wonderful! It's so wonderful! No more preexisting conditions! No more preexisting conditions! Everybody gets insurance," and I'm saying, "Does anybody not understand economics here?" We're not even talking about an insurance business anymore. What's happened here is not insurance. Insurance is you insure yourself against a catastrophe, something that might happen to wipe you out. This is not insurance. This is simply the insurance companies being captivated or taken over by the government and having their behavior mandated for the express purpose of putting them out of business. Under this bill, as I told you last week, you don't have to buy insurance. You can wait until the accident or the illness happens and then buy it that day, and they have to sell it to you. No matter what. If you get terminal cancer and the doctor gives you three months, they have to sell you your coverage. Except you're not going to have to buy it. If you can't afford it, we -- all your neighbors -- will. No insurance company can stay in business doing this. It's the same thing with preexisting conditions. No preexisting conditions? The liberals keep talking about automobile insurance companies. What happens to you if you have an automobile policy, you're driving around, and you have an accident and you do a lot of damage? Hey, guess what? You are a higher risk. Your auto insurance premium goes up, right? Why shouldn't that happen with health care? Why shouldn't it? (whining) "It's not fair? No, it's not fair!" Well, it won't now. It won't now. So, yeah, preexisting conditions are going to be covered, but who's going to pay for this? Insurance premiums are going to skyrocket in the next couple of years until they are out of business and the government steps in to take over with the...public option. Which is just waiting a couple of months, couple of days, couple years down the tracks. It's just waiting to happen, because this bill mandates the destruction of the private health insurance business.

END TRANSCRIPT

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Senate Health Care Bill Raises Health Care Costs, Kills Jobs, and Weakens the Economy

from the Heritage Foundation

On the eve of the House of Representatives push to jam through the misguided and highly unpopular Senate health care bill, , the President continues to try and convince the American people that the health care bill would reduce cost while showing his commitment to creating jobs and improving the economy. The raw facts make it clear that he cannot keep either of these promises. For example:

• The President claims the health care proposals would reduce health care spending. The reality is health care spending would increase. According to the latest Congressional Budget Office report of the Senate bill, health care spending under the Senate bill would increase by $210 billion over the next 10 years. This is similar to the results found by the President’s Chief Actuary which estimated an increase of $222 billion. While CBO predicts spending would decrease in the second decade, history shows spending rarely, if ever, goes down on government health programs. Medicare is hurtling toward a financial crisis, and Medicaid is breaking state budgets.
• The President claims the health care proposals would reduce premiums. The reality is premiums will go up for many under the Senate bill. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated premiums in the non-group market would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 than they would be with no bill and cost would likely fall higher on young and healthy families. In addition, this is before the government specifies and locks into place new federal benefit mandates that will no doubt further increase premiums for all Americans. There is little or no experience of government officials reversing these trends.
• The President claims the health care proposals would cost under a trillion. But, that figure excludes major health care provisions – like filling the Medicare “donut hole”, fixing Medicare reimbursement to physicians, and creating a new long-term entitlement program – pushing the price tag to over $2 trillion. Only in Washington does spending more money equal saving money.
• The President claims the health care proposals would reduce the deficit. Unlike CBO’s restricted scope of analysis, the independent analysis by the Lewin Group estimates that when taken in its entirety, which means accounting for the expected $200 billion plus boost in Medicare reimbursement for physicians, the proposal would actually add to the deficit, not reduce it.
• The President claims he is committed to improving jobs and the economy. Based on his own policies, the opposite is true. The Senate bill would result in 620,000 fewer job opportunities and would increase the national debt by $755 billion through its lethal combination of mandates, taxes, and government spending. As Heritage analysts have pointed out, “Because investment is what drives productivity and economic growth, less investment–even if only slightly less–leads to lower productivity, slower economic growth, weaker wages and salaries, and lower household wealth.” Even worse, his own proposal to “fix” the bill adds a new tax on investment income that would result in 115,000 lost job opportunities and disposable income is estimated to be $17.3 billion less per year than it otherwise would be.
• The President claims he will “fix” the bill. Although he promised to ensure no federal funding would be used for abortions and eliminate the repugnant special deals, House passage of the Senate bill would lock these into place, and they could only be undone through a highly uncertain reconciliation process to “fix” the bill in the Senate. Not only is taxpayer funding of abortion not fixed, it is expanded under the Senate bill. Moreover, the ugly special state deals at the expense of the taxpayers still remain.

Author: Nina Owcharenko

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Fox News' Bret Baier Chats with Barry

Hat tip to Investor's Business Daily

Leadership: After his interview with Fox News, it's obvious why President Obama hasn't held a real press conference in eight months: He has no intention of explaining the legislative lunacy he has loosed on America.

Some may call Bret Baier impolite, or "disrespectful of the office," as some put it, for the way the Fox anchor kept interrupting Obama during the interview Wednesday evening. But we'd call him thoroughly professional.

For the first time we can recall, someone actually tried to get some straight answers from the man who is trying to ram through a radical "reform" of a medical system that nearly nine of 10 Americans think is fine the way it is.

Too bad Baier didn't have more time, because the few minutes he got elicited little more than talking points from a politician so slippery he makes another Democrat known for his slickness sound inarticulate by comparison.

As it was, Baier had to butt in repeatedly in a futile effort to get simple answers to basic questions that centered mostly on the fairness of the process being used by Congress to take over a sixth of the economy without so much as a direct vote.

Why all the trickery to pass a bill that's so good? Baier asked in behalf of what he said were the 14,000 viewers who sent him questions. "I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate," the president sniffed.

Then there was the president's brush-off when Baier asked about the contents of the bill that only Thursday saw the light of day. Are all the special deals still in there — the Cornhusker Kickbacks, the Louisiana Purchases, etc?

"By the time the vote has taken place, not only I will know what's in it, you'll know what's in it, ... " the president assured — sort of. But for the record, he said he's all for giving Louisiana millions of dollars because the state had gone through a "national emergency" — just like Hawaii when an earthquake hit.

We're still checking on that Hawaii reference. But even if there's been no such quake, we doubt the media would make much of the gaffe. This isn't George W. Bush, after all.

Which brings us back to the main point here: The media performance so far in the Obama presidency, and especially in covering health care, has been shameful.

Here we are on the verge of passing the most important piece of domestic legislation of our time and no one seems to know what's in it, how much it'll cost and what it'll really do. Seems to us that the man who's pushing it hardest would be a good one to ask.

But as Bret Baier found, good luck with that.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

A Dainty Letter To Your "Dear Congressman"

Dear Congressman,

May I encourage you to oppose government-run health care and any legislation which might broaden the federal government's control over my health care. Current health care legislation will result in lost health insurance, lost jobs, and insurmountable debt for the American people and will push us deeper into recession.

Nobody has ever attempted this level of centralized planning. The federal government does not have my trust to run a program as big as the economy of France. I disagree with how this whole tdebacle has been handled, behind closed doors, with favors and insidious, outright bribes. The way this is being done feels criminal, especially this Slaughter shenanigan.

I agree with the WSJ, who said yesterday, this gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution. If this "reform" is truly about "controlling costs," why did the democrats rig the estimate on the first decade of costs by delaying the program's start by five years?

Is anyone listening to the CBO? How about the admission from the State Treasurer of Taxxachusetts advising that the USA will be bankrupt in four years if this leviathan is implemented. Hello?!

Why hasn't tort reform be front and center? Why hasn't opening up competition across state lines be part of the proposal?

The federal government should NOT be funding abortions or health care for illegal immigrants. No matter what the democrat leadership says about this, I don't trust them. And I don't trust the government to interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.

Lastly, how are we going to pay for this monstrosity? Answer me! The country cannot afford another huge program and you know it; you saw how Moody's warned yesterday about preserving debt affordability, right?

Last week S&P warned our triple A credit rating was at risk. The only way the U.S. will rise to the financial challenges we face is if we stop spending money we don't have, and that means voting no on this healthcare bill.

I hope that you fight against health care legislation that would drive up costs, diminish quality and limit access. It is just not right, especially not in a republic, to cram this down our throats. There's a reason the congressional switchboard was nearing overload Wednesday. Folks don't want this!

The Washington Post reported Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it. That's a joke, right? Who does she think she is, Tony Soprano? So now you want to go from passing bills without reading them to passing bills without even voting on them? Are the democrats on crack?

Please listen to us and vote no.

Sincerely,

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Massachusetts State Treasurer slams Dems on Health Care - Says it will Bankrupt USA

Considering his state of Taxxachusetts (MA) has tried socializing health care, this non-endorsement should raise eyebrows.

By Jessica Van Sack | Wednesday, March 17, 2010 | http://www.bostonherald.com

State Treasurer Tim Cahill, taking swipes at both Gov. Deval Patrick and President Obama, boosted his bipartisan chops yesterday, telling Herald columnist Howie Carr on WRKO, “I voted for John McCain, believe it or not.”

Cahill, saying he was barred from the 2008 Democratic National Convention because he wouldn’t endorse either Obama or Hillary Clinton, said, “My own party basically voted me out.”

“I was afraid of what we had already been getting in Massachusetts, and at that point in 2008, I was aware that it wasn’t working,” he said. Separately yesterday, Cahill accused Obama of “propping up” the Bay State’s health plan with federal aid in order to help push the Democrats’ plan through Congress.

“The real problem is that this . . . sucking sound of money has been going into this health-care reform,” Cahill said. “And I would argue that it’s being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through.”

Gov. Deval Patrick argues the state’s universal health care program has added 1 percent to the budget, but Cahill said the real impact is buffered by federal dollars.

Meanwhile, Republican Charles Baker’s campaign said Patrick “has consistently failed to address rising health-care costs in Massachusetts.” Baker, the former Harvard Pilgrim CEO, advocated for years for greater transparency on the part of medical service providers.

Cahill called on congressional Democrats yesterday to go “back to the drawing board,” saying he fears they will “bankrupt” the country.

Patrick’s campaign yesterday used Cahill’s health-care smackdown in its latest fund-raising pitch, e-mailing supporters that Cahill “is advocating policies that could put that access, and their health, in jeopardy.” Patrick, whose administration held a hearing on health-care costs yesterday, said exorbitant premium increases and medical service costs need to be curbed through legislation he has proposed.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

I Remember Mad Magazine as a Kid!

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Why Health Bill Makes No Sense

Why Health Bill Makes No Sense

So it's come down to this — desperate Democratic leaders strong-arming members on the worst bill ever before they go home to explain to constituents why they decided to commit political suicide.

We've said just about all we've had to say on this issue — actually dating back to 1993-94, when we wrote nearly 100 editorials in opposition to HillaryCare. Since January of last year, we've weighed in 150 more times against the latest version of socialized medicine.

But to review, here are just 15 reasons why a government takeover of the finest medical system in the world makes no sense at all:

1. The people don't want it! This, we would think, should have some bearing on decision-making. Yet the Democrats forge ahead without consent of the governed. In the latest Rasmussen poll, 53% opposed the Democrats' reform while 42% were in favor. More than four in 10 "strongly" opposed; just two in 10 "strongly" favored. This jibes with other surveys, including our own IBD/TIPP Poll, taken since last year.

2. Doctors don't want it! A survey we took last summer of 1,376 practicing physicians found that 45% would consider leaving their practices or taking early retirements if the Democrats' reform became law. In December, the results were validated by a Medicus poll in which 25% of doctors said they'd retire early if a public option is implemented and another 21% would stop practicing even though they were far from their retirement years. Even if the bill doesn't have a "public option," nearly 30% said they'd quit the profession under the plans being considered.

3. Half the Congress doesn't want it! Not a single Republican backed the health care bill that cleared the Senate on Christmas Eve 60-39. House passage was by a slim 220 to 215, and the lone Republican "aye" has since switched to "no." Columnist Michael Barone says other changes would put the House vote today at 216-215 in favor, and he has doubts Democrats can even muster 216.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her job of securing yes votes even more difficult last week when she told a meeting of county officials that "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it." Members of Congress aren't waiting: They've already exempted themselves from whatever they inflict on us.

4. People are happy with the health care they've got! Polls show that 84% of Americans have health insurance and that few are displeased with what they've got. Last month, the St. Petersburg Times looked at eight polls and reported that satisfaction rates averaged 87%.

5. It doesn't even cover the people they set out to cover! Supporters of government-run health care say there are as many as 47 million Americans — 9 million to 10 million of them illegal aliens — without medical insurance. The Democrats' plans, however, will put only 31 million of the uninsured under coverage.

6. Costs will go up, not down! Democrats say their plans will cost less than $1 trillion over the first decade. But analyst Michael Cannon at the Cato Institute puts the cost at $2.5 trillion over the first 10 years. Even if we go with the government's lower estimates, the cost is already on the rise. A new estimate by the Congressional Budget Office puts the cost of the Senate bill at $875 billion over 10 years, $4 billion more than its original projection. Imagine how fast costs would soar if one of the bills became public policy.

7. Real cost controls are nowhere to be found! The Democrats are offering no meaningful tort reform that will help push down the high malpractice insurance premiums that are a burden to doctors and their patients. Nor are they considering any other cost-saving provisions, such as allowing the sale of individual health plans across state lines or easing health insurance mandates.

8. Insurance premiums will rise, not fall! One goal of nationalizing health care is to lower costs, to bend the spending curve downward. Yet, as Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin acknowledged Wednesday, that won't be the case.

"Anyone who would stand before you and say, 'Well, if you pass health care reform, next year's health care premiums are going down,' I don't think is telling the truth," he said from the Senate floor. "I think it is likely they would go up."

An analysis completed by the CBO at the request of Sen. Evan Bayh confirms Durbin's suspicions. Insurance coverage in the individual market will "be about 10% to 13% higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law," it concluded.

9. Medicare is already bankrupting us! The Medicare trust fund, which has unfunded obligations of $37.8 trillion, will be insolvent in 2017. How can lawmakers justify another entitlement that will cost trillions when they can't pay for existing liabilities?

10. There aren't enough doctors now! Last month, 26% of physicians responding to a Web poll on Sermo.com, which calls itself "the largest online physician community," said they had been forced to close, or were considering closing, their solo practices. Providing coverage for an additional 31 million Americans when the number of doctors is shrinking won't improve our health care.

11. The doctor-patient relationship will be wrecked! The latest IBD/TIPP Poll, taken just last week, found that Americans, by a wide 48%-26% margin, believe the doctor-patient relationship will decline if the Democrats' plan is passed.

12. Medical care will also deteriorate! IBD/TIPP has also found that 51% of Americans believe care would get worse under government control. Only 10.5% said they felt it would improve. In our doctor poll, 72% disagreed with administration claims that the government could cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

13. Rationing of care is inevitable! Health care is not an unlimited resource and must be rationed, either by the individual, providers or government. In Britain and Canada, where the government does the rationing, medical treatment waiting lists are sometimes deadly and quite often excessively long.

For instance, late cancer diagnoses in an overcrowded public health care system cause up to 10,000 needless deaths a year in Britain. The reasons cited for the late diagnoses include doctor delay, delay in primary care, system delay and delay in secondary care.

14. Private health insurers will be destroyed! Added mandates and price controls will force many insurers to simply get out of the health plan business because it will no longer be profitable.

15. It's probably unconstitutional! One way to help bring down the number of uninsured is to demand that those without coverage buy health plans. But the government has never passed a law requiring Americans to buy any good or service. Constitutional scholars say any such mandate would likely draw a legal challenge.

Can we all go home now?

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Blastin' Away With Yoli

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Thank You Jim Bunning

In 1957, Bunning led the American League in victories with 20.

Why I took a stand

‘If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.’

By Jim Bunning

I have been serving the citizens of Kentucky for nearly 24 years in Washington. During that time I have been a member of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. I have taken thousands of votes in relation to spending the taxpayers' money. I will be the first one to admit that I have cast some bad votes during my tenure, and I wish I could have some of them back. For too long, both Republicans and Democrats have treated the taxpayers' money as a slush fund that does not ever end. At some point, the madness has to stop.

Over a month ago, Democrats passed and President Obama signed into law the "Pay-Go" legislation. It calls on Congress to pay for bills by not adding to our debt. It sounds like a common sense tool that would rein in government spending. Unfortunately, Pay-Go is a paper tiger. It has no teeth. I did not vote for the Democrats' Pay-Go legislation because I knew it was just a political dog-and-pony show to get some good press after some political setbacks. Since the Pay-Go rule was enacted, the national debt has gone up $244,992,297,448.11 (as of Wednesday, that is).

Why now?

Last week, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked to pass a 30-day extensions bill for unemployment insurance and other federal programs. Earlier in February, those extensions were included in a broader bipartisan bill that was paid for but did not meet Sen. Reid's approval, and he nixed the deal. When I saw the Democrats in Congress were going to vote on the extensions bill without paying for it and not following their own Pay-Go rules, I said enough is enough.

Many people asked me, "Why now?" My answer is, "Why not now?" Why can't a non-controversial measure in the Senate that would help those in need be paid for? If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.

America is under a mountain of debt. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a hearing last month that the United States' debt is unsustainable. We are on the verge of a tipping point where America's debt will bring down our economy, and more people will join the unemployment lines. That is why I used my right as a United States Senator and objected.

Only in Washington

After four legislative days of impasse, I reached a supposed deal with Majority Leader Reid to have an up-or-down vote on a pay-for amendment that would fully fund the legislation and not add to the debt. Only minutes before the vote, Democrats used a parliamentary maneuver to set aside my amendment and not vote on the actual substance of it. Only in Washington could this happen. The Democrats did not want to vote on my amendment because they knew they were in the wrong and ignored their own rules. Hypocrisy again rules the day in Washington.

I have 40 grandchildren, and I want them to grow up in a country where they have all of the same opportunities I had as a child. I fear that they will not have those opportunities if Washington continues on its course of spending without paying for it. We are at over $12 trillion in debt. I know many Americans sit around their kitchen table and make the tough decisions. It is time for the politicians in Washington to do the same.

Position: Pitcher
Teams: Detroit Tigers, 1955-1963; Philadelphia Phillies, 1964-1967, 1970-1971; Pittsburgh Pirates, 1968-1969; Los Angeles Dodgers, 1969
Jim Bunning was the consummate intelligent professional pitcher. Recent research ranked him high among 20th-century pitchers in consistency, in terms of how seldom he missed a start. At the time of his retirement, only Walter Johnson had registered more career strikeouts, and Bunning had accomplished his feat while allowing only 1,000 walks in a 17-year career, making him one of the best strikeout-control pitchers of all time.

Jim Bunning is a Republican senator from Kentucky.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Pecans, Cholesterol, and Cancer

Pecans

Pecans do indeed have it all. In addition to being one of the most elegant, versatile, and rich-tasting nuts you can put on your plate, they offer up a package of health benefits that’s very impressive. In fact, the 2005 Dietary Guidelines from the U.S. Department of Agriculture recommend eating 4 to 5 servings of nuts each week.

The Mayo Clinic conducted a study which found that all nuts are nutrient dense and naturally cholesterol free. Not only are nuts cholesterol free but, studies have suggested that eating pecans may help reduce LDL cholesterol levels, leading to a reduction in the risk of heart attacks and coronary artery disease. The serving size for nuts is about one ounce, which equals about 15 pecan halves. Pecans are a great staple for vegetarians, because one serving of pecans can take the place of the protein found in an ounce of meat.

Pecans are also a rich source of oleic acid, the same type of fatty acid found in olive oil. Researchers from Northwestern University in Chicago recently found in laboratory tests that oleic acid has the ability to suppress the activity of a gene in cells thought to trigger breast cancer. While this area of study is still in its early stages, the researchers say it could eventually translate into a recommendation to eat more foods rich in oleic acid, like pecans and olive oil.

Researchers from Loma Linda University in California and New Mexico State University in Las Cruces , New Mexico , have confirmed that when pecans are part of the daily diet, levels of “bad” cholesterol in the blood drop. Pecans get their cholesterol-lowering ability from both the type of fat they contain and the presence of beta-sitosterol, a natural cholesterol-lowering compound. Eating 1 ½ ounces of pecans a day, when its part of a heart-healthy diet, can reduce the risk of heart disease. Moreover, a study published in the June 2004 issue of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry found that pecans, hazelnuts, and walnuts contained the highest antioxidant levels of all nuts tested.

The same natural compound that gives pecans its cholesterol-lowering power, has also been shown to be effective in treating the symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), a non-cancerous enlargement of the prostate gland in men. About two ounces of pecans provides a dose of beta-sitosterol found to be effective. In addition, a recent laboratory study from Purdue University found that gamma-tocopherol, the type of vitamin E found in pecans, has the ability to kill prostate cancer cells while leaving healthy cells alone. Last but not least, despite the widely held belief that “nuts are fattening,” several population studies have found that as nut consumption increased, body fat actually decreased.

excerpted from The Wholefood Farmacy http://19.wholefoodfarmacy.com/2005/wwa072606.asp

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Enquirer - Edwards - Indictments?

The National Enquirer is reporting that the dishonorable and disgraced former presidential candidate John Edwards is about to be indicted by a federal grand jury investigating his campaign expenditures.

In another shocker, close sources say Edwards' estranged wife Elizabeth could help send the former presidential candidate to jail!

Edwards, the liar and disingenuous two-time Presidential loser upon whom the Democrat Party in 2004 hung their White House hopes, is being investigated by the feds, including the FBI and IRS, for possible campaign violations related to paying his mistress Rielle Hunter. Top Democrat officials still maintain that, "we didn't know."

The grand jury has been meeting since April 2009, and insiders say an indictment is imminent.

"John is terrified that he's going to be indicted," a friend told The ENQUIRER.

"While he believes he's done nothing illegal in trying to hide his extramarital affair with Rielle and their daughter," except for perhaps his repeated denials and bald-faced lies to the American public insisting the child wasn't even his, "he thinks the Feds are going to make an example of him."

The Raleigh-based grand jury has been looking into whether payments Edwards made to mistress and former campaign videographer Rielle Hunter broke campaign laws. Former Edwards staffer and tell-all book author Andrew Young alleges more than $1 million was paid out to conceal the relationship, according to WRAL.com:

"I heard one of the jets to get Rielle out of the country cost $55,000 to $60,000," Young told WRAL News.

Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, heiress to the fortunes of 19th century industrialist Andrew Mellon and the founder of the Warner-Lambert pharmaceutical company, gave Edwards at least $700,000 to cover expenses for Hunter, according to Young. He said Texas lawyer Fred Baron, who was Edwards' campaign finance chairman, funded other expenses.

"We were living in a house that I co-signed with Fred that was $20,000 a month," Young said, noting that his family went into hiding with Hunter in California in 2007.

And to think this fink ran in the Democrat Presidential primaries in 2008 giving Hillary Clinton and Barry Soetoro a serious run for their respective Party's money! With a straight face, no less.

Still, late-night comedians still dig at the lying Edwards.

"John Edwards has finally admitted that he is the father of his mistress's baby. He says he is so ashamed, he can hardly look at himself in the mirror. On the bright side, that alone frees up an extra four hours of the day for him." --Jimmy Fallon

Excerpted from an article by: Julie Mason Examiner White House Correspondent

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

Hooray for Hoosier Healthcare

Indiana's Republican Governor Mitch Daniels explains the brilliance of Hoosier Healthcare. It works! And, one has to wonder, is anyone in Washington listening?

excerpt - In Indiana's HSA, the state deposits $2,750 per year into an account controlled by the employee, out of which he pays all his health bills. Indiana covers the premium for the plan. The intent is that participants will become more cost-conscious and careful about overpayment or overutilization.

It turns out that, when someone is spending his own money alone for routine expenses, he is far more likely to ask the questions he would ask if purchasing any other good or service: "Is there a generic version of that drug?" "Didn't I take that same test just recently?" "Where can I get the colonoscopy at the best price?"

The Indiana experience confirms what common sense already tells us: A system built on "cost-plus" reimbursement (i.e., the more a physician does, the more he or she gets paid) coupled with "free" to the purchaser consumption, is a machine perfectly designed to over-consume and overspend. It will never be controlled by top-down balloon-squeezing by insurance companies or the government. There will be no meaningful cost control until we are all cost controllers in our own right.


(Click on bold headline for complete story)

The Greatest Hoax of the 21st Century...so far.

Does Uncle Al get to keep all that money and his fraudulent Nobel prize?

Story excerpted from Pat Buchanan's article at Townhall.com

...If Piltdown Man and his American cousin Nebraska Man were the hoaxes of the 20th century, global warming is the great hoax of the 21st. In a matter of months, what have we learned:

-- In its 2007 report claiming that the Himalayan glaciers are melting, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied on a 1999 news story in a popular science journal, based on one interview with a little-known Indian scientist who said this was pure "speculation," not supported by any research. The IPCC also misreported the supposed date of the glaciers' meltdown as 2035. The Indian had suggested 2350.

-- The IPCC report that global warming is going to kill 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields 50 percent has been found to be alarmist propaganda.

-- The IPCC 2007 report declared 55 percent of Holland to be below sea level, an exaggeration of over 100 percent.

-- While endless keening is heard over the Arctic ice cap, we hear almost nothing of the 2009 report of the British Antarctica Survey that the sea ice cap of Antarctica has been expanding by 100,000 square kilometers a decade for 30 years. That translates into 3,800 square miles of new Antarctic ice every year.

-- Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009 hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the warmers said this validated their theory.

You can't have it both ways.

-- The Climate Research Center at East Anglia University, which provides the scientific backup for the IPCC, apparently threw out the basic data on which it based claims of a rise in global temperatures for the century. And a hacker into its e-mail files found CLC "scientists" had squelched the publication of dissenting views.

What we learned in a year's time: Polar bears are not vanishing. Sea levels are not rising at anything like the 20-foot surge this century was to bring. Cities are not sinking. Beaches are not disappearing. Temperatures have not been rising since the late 1990s. And, in historic terms, our global warming is not at all unprecedented.

Dennis Avery of Hudson Institute wrote a decade ago that from A.D. 900 to 1300, the Earth warmed by 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit, a period known as the Little Climate Optimum.

How horrible was it?

"The Vikings discovered and settled Greenland around A.D. 950. Greenland was then so warm that thousands of colonists supported themselves by pasturing cattle on what is now frozen tundra. During this great global warming, Europe built the looming castles and soaring cathedrals that even today stun tourists with their size, beauty and engineering excellence. These colossal buildings required the investment of millions of man-hours -- which could be spared from farming because of higher crop yields."

Today's global warming hysteria is the hoax of the 21st century. H.L. Mencken had it right: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

The Unfinished Virtual Border Fence...

The perceptive comments following this exceptional piece by Jeffrey Anderson in the Washington Times on the progress of our Virtual Fence being built along the Mexican border expose the inherent problem: apparently common sense and resolve are not part of the implemented Congressional solution.

The fence is not finished. Still. After three years...not finished. Why not? Well, let the threads ( the comments of interested readers) tell the story.

• There are laws in place to stop the flow of illegal aliens. Congress lacks the backbone to use them. Load them up one bus at a time and send them back. It will take several years but it can be done. You might throw in a member of Congress with every tenth bus. This PC crap has got to stop.

• Well, maybe we can think of it as a jobs bill instead. That'll get it rolling!
  

• It is important to remember those responsible for our border problems are our reps in Congress and the White House not Mexicans. We should retroactively fine all those who have served in elected office who have allowed the current border situation to exist.
  

• Sad reality is our economy is doomed if we keep allowing illegals in. Of course any government who sees "opportunity" in serving as many as possible who have not paid their way and pretends they are merely being compassionate fails to see the enormous damage done in the bigger picture. Entitlements are crippling the United States, not empowering. Just ask anyone who has had to wait 8 hours in the Emergency Room with what turns out to be a major gallbladder attack before being seen simply because the ER is stacked up with little kids with runny noses (and their uninsured non-English speaking parents). This is only ONE major cause of California's economy tanking so hard.

• We don't have this fence problem with Canada...so the problem in Mexico isn't the people so much as it is the country...therefore it would also seem to me that our International agreement with Mexico must change to encourage Mexico to improve its infrastructure and provide a better living for its own people...NAFTA isn't working! You can't offer health care, free housing, welfare checks, and food to "reward" people if they get here...but put a fence up to stop them...where is the logic in any of this?

• The illegal aliens are ALSO responsible for their own behavior. It is illegal for these people to sneak into America; the fact that they pay someone to sneak them in shows they know it is illegal to come to America in the manner they chose. The U.S. Congress is responsible for a less than vigorous border security. If America secured our Southern Border the way Mexico secures their Southern Border (walls, fences and military troops), we would not have 25 Million Mexicans illegally living in America. www.NoPoliticalLemmings.com

(Click on bold headline for complete story)