Hypocrisy…. Part 4

August 20, 2009

UPDATE: Obama’s backdoor deal with Big Pharma. The hypocrisy is candidate Obama vilifying the Big Pharma lobbyist during the campaign. And now, to help pass his ObamaCare he has struck a secret deal with the same Big Pharma lobbyist that he vilified.


The hypocrisy of Obama is unending. I have a number of previous blogs documenting his appointments of tax cheats/evaders into his administration. The biggest ones are Treasury Secretary/head of IRS Geithner and Sebelius the Heath and Human Secretary. Isn’t that appalling? The head of the country’s tax collection agency is a tax cheat himself. After Obama took office, he issued a strict ethics rule but turn around and issued waivers so he could appoint lobbyists.

The latest story about the corruption and hypocrisy of this administration is the windfall profits of two firms that worked for the Obama campaign. These two firms were hired to do the work of promoting ObamaCare one of them was founded by his chief of staff David Axelrod. Obama’s campaign manager and Axelrod’s son still work for that company. The kicker is that the Big Pharma lobby is financing this ObamaCare campaign. I thought Obama is for change and not beholden to any particular interests/lobbying group. While Obama and the Democrats are demonizing the Big Insurance, they are in bed with Big Pharma. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_consultants)

Another one of Obama’s early actions as POTUS was to reverse the abortion-funding policy. By reversing this policy, Obama has funneled U.S tax dollar overseas that will surely increase the access to abortions thus killing more innocent babies. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/obama.abortion/index.html)

And now he is saying (to save his dying ObamaCare), “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death”. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0809/We_are_Gods_partners_in_matters_of_life_and_death.html?showall)

In one hand, he funnels money for the  killing of innocent babies, on the other hand, he profess to value life. 

The hypocrisy of this man is stunning. 


Tragic Healthcare News from Countries with Single Payer Healthcare System

August 18, 2009

I am at a total loss how can someone support a government run single payer healthcare system. These tragic stories are proof that single payer system is an abomination and a failure in providing healthcare let alone a quality healthcare.


 Here are news concerning healthcare tragedies from countries with single payer healthcare system.

 In Britain…

A young mother gave birth on a pavement outside a hospital after she was told to make her own way there.

Mother-of-three Carmen Blake called her midwife to ask for an ambulance when she went into labour unexpectedly with her fourth child.

But the 27-year-old claims she was refused an ambulance and told to walk the 100m from her house in Leicester to the city’s nearby Royal Infirmary.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html#ixzz0OZJoqFRP

In Vancouver, Canada

 Vancouver patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures can expect to wait longer for care, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said Monday.

Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor


In The Netherlands

The Netherlands – Minister Klink recently announced his intention to lower tariffs for mental health treatment by 3.5 percent next year, because GGZ members overspent by EUR 185 million in 2008.

Lower tariffs would mean less income for the GGZ member institutions.
GGZ says the cuts are unjustified. The association is concerned that a number of health care institutions will not be able to cope financially, and that waiting lists for treatment will get longer.

 Read more: http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/Mental-health-care-sector-fights-financial-cuts_53770.html


Finally in France (the model of all healthcare systems)

 France heat wave death toll set at 14,802….

 The bulk of the victims — many of them elderly — died during the height of the heat wave, which brought suffocating temperatures of up to 104 degrees in a country where air conditioning is rare. Others apparently were greatly weakened during the peak temperatures but did not die until days later.

 The new estimate comes a day after the French Parliament released a harshly worded report blaming the deaths on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm 

I thought France has the best healthcare yet they were unable to save those people from heat related deaths?


We get three digit temperatures here in Texas all summer long yet I have never in my entire time living here heard of that many people dying because the heat.


 14, 802 deaths in one summer of heat because the MODEL HEALTCARE SYSTEM IS CAPUT!!!!


Fact-checking Obama on Healthcare

August 13, 2009


Fact-checking Obama on Healthcare Tuesday, August 11, 2009 8:21 PM

By: David A. Patten

Several statements that President Barack Obama made at his town hall meeting at Portsmouth High School in New Hampshire on Tuesday merit closer inspection. Among them:

Nobody will lose their current plan: “Now, the way we have approached it, is that if you’ve got healthcare under a private plan, if your employer provides you healthcare or you buy your own healthcare and you’re happy with it, you won’t have to change.”

Fact: A nonprofit healthcare research organization, the Lewin Group, concluded in a study commissioned by the Heritage Foundation that more than 88 million Americans would lose their current insurance under the 1,018-page plan originally submitted to Congress. “It is hard to argue against the facts,” Nina Owcharenko, deputy director of the Center for Health Policy Studies for the Heritage Foundation, tells Newsmax. “The Lewin Group estimates more than 88 million could lose their current employer-based coverage under the House bill. Other estimates, by the Congressional Budget Office and Urban Institute, although lower than Lewin, still find millions of Americans could lose their current coverage.”

Obama objects to special interests: “But let’s face it, now is the hard part – because the history is clear – every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests fight back with everything they’ve got.”

Fact: Actually, pharmaceutical companies and health insurance firms have tried hard to work with the administration to shape the proposals coming out of Congress. “In stark contrast to the healthcare reform debate in the 1990s,” reports The Hill, “the health insurance industry has refrained from launching attacks on Obama or the plans working their way through Congress. Insurance lobbyists have been very active on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue trying to shape the legislations, but so far the industry has not used its considerable resources to stop the process, despite numerous Democratic proposals it opposes.” Robert Zirkelbach, communications director for the America’s Health Insurance Plans trade organization, tells Newsmax: “The inconvenient fact is that our industry strongly supports healthcare reform and we actually proposed last year the insurance market reforms and consumer protections that people are talking about today.”

Obama on prescription drugs: “Now, in terms of savings for you as a Medicare recipient, the biggest one is on prescription drugs, because the prescription drug companies have already said that they would be willing to put up $80 billion in rebates for prescription drugs as part of a healthcare reform package. Now, we may be able to get even more than that.”

Fact: The White House admitted last week that a New York Times report that the administration had cut a backroom deal with the pharmaceutical companies was accurate. The administration desperately wanted to show that private companies were supporting its healthcare initiatives, so it offered the drug companies a deal: If they would sign onto the plan and agree to $80 billion in cuts, the administration would guarantee it would not allow Congress to go back to them for further reductions in drug prices. Former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote in a Salon.com column that he was “appalled” that Obama – who promised a new type of government independent of lobbyists – had cut a secret deal with Big Pharma. “We’re on a precarious road – and wherever it leads, it’s not toward democracy,” Reich wrote. Footnote: Obama’s secret deal with the drug companies was exposed after the companies sought assurances, due to suggestions that they might be asked to make even deeper cuts despite the White House agreement. Obama’s statement that “we may be able to get even more than that” will resonate in corporate boardrooms, as CEOs evaluate whether they can trust the White House to live up to its end of any bargains.

Obama spins ‘public option’: “Now, the only thing that I have said is that having a public option in that menu would provide competition for insurance companies to keep them honest.”

Fact: Obama’s effort to distance himself from the increasingly unpopular public option plan – which originally meant a publicly subsidized and operated healthcare insurance option – is complicated by his prior statements. Before he began his presidential run in earnest, Obama favored universal, single-payer (government) health insurance. In a June letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., posted on Obama’s Organizing for America Web site, Obama stated: “I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the healthcare market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.” In July, when his chief of staff suggested the public option might be jettisoned, Obama released a statement reaffirming his commitment to the proposals then on the table for government-subsidized healthcare, saying it was “one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest.”

Preventive care saves money: “And finally – this is important – we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – (applause) – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. That makes sense, it saves lives; it also saves money – and we need to save money in this healthcare system.”

Fact: No one can dispute that catching diseases as early as possible is a laudable goal. But the president’s assertion that preventative healthcare will generate savings and reduce healthcare costs – as logical as it may sounds – is a myth. Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, recently addressed this point in a seven-page letter posted on CBO.gov. “Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.” While that finding may seem counterintuitive, Elmendorf explains: “To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. Even when the unit cost of a particular preventive service is low, costs can accumulate quickly when a large number of patients are treated preventively.” Again, that’s not to suggest that preventative care isn’t a good idea. But the unfortunate reality is it will drive healthcare costs up, not down.

Obama promises reform won’t increase the deficit: “First of all, I said I won’t sign a bill that adds to the deficit or the national debt. OK? So this will have to be paid for.”

Fact: The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of healthcare at more than $1 trillion over 10 years. The proposals made to reduce that cost – such as raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000 per year – have yet to make the bill deficit-neutral. The CBO estimates it will increase the deficit by $239 billion over the next decade. But even if Obama and congressional Democrats find a way to bridge that gap, the real cost of the current proposals comes after year 10. Based on CBO estimates that the net new costs of the program will increase by 8 percent per year, The Wall Street Journal estimates that by 2020, red ink generated by current proposals will tally over $188 billion – per year. The Journal adds, “As for the spending, when has a new entitlement ever come in under budget?”

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Universal or Single Payer Healthcare System will deny Americans the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

August 2, 2009

Universal/Publicly Funded/Single Payer Healthcare Systems will deny every Americans their rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.


Every American knows that each of us has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence declared that on July 4, 1776.


The current proposal for health care reform by Obama and the Democrats contains provisions and mandates that will ensure that the American health care system will slide into a universal publicly funded or single payer system. That is the very goal of Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Contrary to the promises of the president, many Americans who has employer sponsored health insurance will be dumped into the government run system. There is no denying this fact.


How can a Universal/Publicly Funded/Single Payer Healthcare Systems deny Americans their rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?


Most of us know by now that in order for the government to reduce the cost healthcare rationing must occur. Rationing is inherent to any Universal/Publicly Funded/Single Payer Healthcare Systems. Just ask any citizen of countries that have that kind of healthcare system. Furthermore, long waiting periods are also widespread in Universal/Publicly Funded/Single Payer Healthcare Systems. Again, ask any citizen of countries that have that kind of healthcare system.


Has anyone heard of the 2005 Canadian Supreme Court case Chaoulli v. Quebec.?


In 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled by majority that the long waiting periods that are widespread in Canada’s public healthcare system is “an implicit form of rationing”.


The provision in the Canadian healthcare legislation prohibiting Canadians from obtaining private healthcare insurance was also found to be an “infringement of the rights protected” under Canadian Charter (their constitution) interests under s. 7 are enumerated as life, liberty and security of the person.


Here are some of the excerpts from the ruling:


     The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.  The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness. [112] [123]

The breach of s. 7 is not justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter.  The government undeniably has an interest in protecting the public health regime but, given that the evidence falls short of demonstrating that the prohibition on private health insurance protects the public health care system, a rational connection between the prohibition on private health insurance and the legislative objective is not made out.  In addition, on the evidence, the prohibition goes further than would be necessary to protect the public system and is thus not minimally impairing.  Finally, the benefits of the prohibition do not outweigh its deleterious effects.  The physical and psychological suffering and risk of death that may result from the prohibition on private health insurance outweigh whatever benefit — and none has been demonstrated here — there may be to the system as a whole. [154-157]


Canadian Charter interests under s. 7 are enumerated as life, liberty and security of the person.  The trial judge found that the current state of the Quebec health system, linked to the prohibition against health insurance for insured services, is capable, at least in the cases of some individuals on some occasions, of putting at risk their life or security of the person.  The courts can use s. 7 of the Canadian Charter to pre‑empt the ongoing public debate only if the current health plan violates an established “principle of fundamental justice”.  That is not the case here. [164] [200]


All of this can happen in our country if we let these socialistic goals of reforming our healthcare system. I am not against reforming our healthcare system but not this way.


Universal or Single Payer Healthcare System is contrary to the values of the American people.


Universal or Single Payer Healthcare System will deny all Americans their unalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.


Read Chaoulli v. Quebec here: