If you only know… it will scare you, too!

December 18, 2009

If you just know…it will scare you!

Some details of the Health care bill:

  • The Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost.
  • An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill — composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members — will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program.
  • Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients’ access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production.
  • It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns.
  • And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.
  • Section 6301 of the Reid bill creates new comparative effectiveness research (CER) programs.
  • CER panels have been used as rationing commissions in other countries such as the United Kingdom, where 15,000 cancer patients die prematurely every year according to the National Cancer Intelligence Network.
  • CER panels here could effectively dictate coverage options and ration care for plans that participate in the state insurance exchanges created by the bill.
  • The Reid bill depends on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in no fewer than 14 places.
  • This task force was responsible for advising women under 50 to not undergo annual mammograms.
  • The administration claims the task force recommendations do not carry the force of law, but the Reid bill itself contradicts them in section 2713.
  • The bill explicitly states, on page 17, that health insurance plans “shall provide coverage for” services approved by the task force.
  • This chilling provision represents the government stepping between doctors and patients.
  • When the government asserts the power to provide care, it also asserts the power to deny care.

Source: Dr. Tom Coburn, “The Health Bill Is Scary; Government guidelines would likely have forbidden the test I used to discover Sheila’s cancer,” Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2009.

For text:


The mandates in the Health care bill:

Insurance coverage mandates refer to the restrictions each state sets on which type of policy can be sold legally within that market.  For example, fourteen states now require all insurance plans sold to cover infertility treatments, regardless of the patient’s need or desire for these services.  Other states ban the sale of insurance plans unless they include coverage for massage therapy, obesity surgery, pastoral care, and wigs.

Needle-phobic consumers cannot buy plans without acupuncture coverage, and teetotalers must pay for plans that include inpatient drug rehabilitation, says Dr. Linda Halderman, a General Surgeon and policy adviser in the California State Senate.

What effect do mandates have on the cost of health insurance?

  • According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, just 12 of the most common insurance mandates currently in place raise premium rates by as much as 30 percent.
  • The State of California forces over 50 such mandates on the employer-provided (group) insurance market, but not on individual plans; consequently, it costs three times more for California employers to offer insurance than if a plan is privately purchased.

In mandate-heavy states, consumers are denied the option of buying low-cost, basic health insurance plans to cover major illness or injury.  They cannot choose to save money by paying out of pocket for ten-dollar pneumococcus pneumonia vaccines and ninety-dollar mammograms, thereby reserving health insurance for significant expenses, explains Halderman.

In those states, insurance is not insurance at all — it is expensive, prepaid health care.  In other words, when Hummers and Ferraris are the only vehicles sold, people on Toyota budgets can’t afford transportation, says Halderman.

Source: Linda Halderman, “Senate’s Solution: Consumer Choice Is Dead on Arrival,” American Thinkers, December 16, 2009.

For text:


The possibility of losing your health savings account:

For an individual government mandate to compel the purchase of health insurance, another government requirement for something called “guaranteed issue” must first be enacted.  “Guaranteed issue” forces every insurance company to sell health insurance to every applicant regardless of age, health history, lifestyle or risk factors. 

In theory, this appears sound.  If health insurance companies can’t “just say no” to high-risk applicants, no one will be left without access to coverage.  Unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences trumps this logic.  Under guaranteed issue mandates, “access to coverage” becomes “access to higher premiums,” says Dr. Linda Halderman, a General Surgeon and policy adviser in the California State Senate.

For example:

  • In New Jersey and Massachusetts, unlike in California, laws were passed to force every insurance carrier to sell plans to every individual applicant; individual insurance premiums in New Jersey and Massachusetts are three times higher than those in California.
  • Washington State tried guaranteed issue, but with no way to mitigate risk, insurance carriers in the state suffered severe financial losses related to high-risk patients; they then exited the individual market; no individual health insurance plans were accessible to Washington residents at any price.
  • Sen. Hillary Clinton was not a New Yorker in 1993, the year New York State forced guaranteed issue on the health insurance market; as a result, rates for a third of all those insured increased by 20 percent to 59 percent, causing 500,000 New Yorkers to cancel their health insurance plans.

The Heritage Foundation published a 1998 study evaluating the 16 states in which the most aggressive health insurance mandates and regulations were passed between 1990 and 1994.  The goal of these individual, employer and insurance industry mandates-including individual mandates, guaranteed issue and price fixing of premiums-was to increase access to coverage and decrease the uninsured population in a given state.  The effects were than compared with the 34 states that had not enacted such regulations:

  • The two groups of states shared nearly equivalent rates of uninsured residents before the reforms.
  • But by 1996, the sixteen states with the most aggressive reforms (including New Jersey, New York and Washington) experienced a growth rate in their uninsured population eight times higher than the 34 states without such mandates.
  • Additionally, the percentage of the population covered by private or individual insurance declined.

Source: Linda Halderman, “Senate’s Solution: Consumer Choice Is Dead on Arrival,” American Thinkers, December 16, 2009.

For text:




ACORN Will help shape Obama’s Presidential Agenda!

September 14, 2009

In December 2007, Obama spoke in a forum organized by ACORN. Obama was asked for a promise if ACORN  can “count on you in the first 100 days to sit down with you” as a payoff for campaigning for Obama and Obama said this:

Yes. But let me even say before I even get inaugurated. During the transition, we are going to be calling all of you in to help as shape the agenda. We are gonna be having meetings all across the country with the community organizations so you have input into the agenda of the next presidency of America.

Watch for yourself:

Now… in 2009 this is what ACORN is up to:

ACORN Prostitution Investigation videos


Which presidential policies ACORN’s advice and input were sought by Obama presidency?

You just have to wonder…..unbelievable!


From 47 million down to 30 million….. YOU LIE!

September 12, 2009

On August 10, at a town hall meeting, Obama referred to the “46, 47 million people without health insurance in our country…”

And on July 23, Obama said, “This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don’t have any health insurance at all…”

But on his September 9 speech to the joint session of Congress the number of uninsure is down to 30 million.

Was he lying to the American people on July 23 and on Aug 10?

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. 

Waiting Time/Lists in Canada’s Universal Publicly Funded Healthcare System

July 30, 2009

Waiting Time/Lists in Canada’s Universal Publicly Funded Healthcare System

A study on the “waiting time/lists” on the Canada’s universal publicly funded healthcare by Kao-Ping Chua of the AMSA in 2005-2006 revealed that Canadians wait for weeks to get treated or wait for weeks to get on a waiting list.

Huh? A wait on the WAITING LIST? Yup! No kidding.

Kao-Ping Chua concluded:

 – A small population of Canadians goes to the US for treatment. (probably the rich Canadians)

 – Canadians experience problems with waiting lists more than Americans.

 – Some Canadians experience more waiting periods than other Canadians, depending on the region.

The interesting parts of this study are the evidence that undeniably proved that waiting lists and longer waiting periods exists in the Canada’s universal publicly funded healthcare system. Many Single Payer/Universal Healthcare proponents, including those with phd, claims Canadians are happy with their healthcare system. That is true as long as the Canadians stay healthy and do not get sick. Once they get sick, they stay sick for a while or go to the USA for treatment.

Here are the averages waiting periods by medical conditions and by region, as Kao-Ping Chua reported:

In British Columbia Canadians wait:

– 9.3 weeks for orthopedic surgery

– 2.7 weeks for vascular surgery

– Endarterectomy (removal of arterial blockage) 3 weeks (hope no heart attack while waiting)

– 9.4 weeks for cataract removal surgery

 – 5.1 weeks for gall bladder surgery

 – 21.8 weeks for hip replacement

– 28.3 weeks for knee replacement

In Manitoba CT scan average wait is 10 weeks (lowest is 3 weeks and highest is 18 weeks) OMG! CT scans are used to diagnose a myriad of diseases mainly cancer. Holy cow! A Canadian has to wait 10 weeks for a CT scan needed to see if he has cancer or not. What if he was found to have cancer after 10 weeks of wait? Do you think the cancer has gotten worst during the waiting period? ALBSOLUTELY!!

Canadian government do not have a standardize system of collecting data on waiting time/lists. Why would they collect and keep data that would show the sorry system of universal publicly funded healthcare?

Because of that, patients self-report their experiences.

Statistics Canada, a non-partisan organization compiled these stats on how long Canadians wait based on Health Services Survey:

– 95% of Canadians wait an average of 4.3 weeks for non-emergency surgery

– 95% of Canadians wait an average of 4.0 weeks to see a specialist

– 95% of Canadians wait an average of 3.0 weeks for non-emergency CT, MRI or angiography

Waiting time for Canadians to see a doctor:

– Average wait between visiting a general practitioner and consultation with a specialist: 8.4 weeks

 – Average wait between visiting a specialist and receiving treatment: 9.5 weeks

– Average wait time for CT scans: 5.2 weeks; MRI: 12.6

 Holy cow!…again!!!! A maximum of 30.5 weeks just to find out a Canadian is dying of brain tumor!!!!!

Kao-Ping Chua also cited a cross-national survey comparing the difficulties faced by Americans vs. Canadians:

– 53% of Canadians said it was difficult to see a specialist. US is 40%

– 86% of Canadians said long wait period to see a specialist. US is 40%

– 24% of Canadians have difficulty seeing a regular doctor. US is 14%

Which health care system is better again?

 You can read the report here: http://www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf

In 2008 the Canadian Breast Cancer Network published a report card on how long Canadian Women wait for breast cancer diagnosis and treatment and drugs. Here are the results:

 – Abnormal screen to diagnosis is 7 weeks

– Surgery up to 12 weeks

– Radiation is 4 weeks

 – Chemotherapy is 12 weeks

Is that acceptable, Miss American Woman?

The study also reported how long American women wait for breast cancer diagnosis to treatment. I am sad to disappoint the fans of Canada’s universal publicly funded healthcare system and the phds out there. The Canadian Breast Cancer Network found no evidence to substantiate if there is a waiting period for American women. Here is what the report said:

Unlike Canada, wait times do not appear to be a major preoccupation in the US. We found very little literature on this topic, even for recipients of Medicare or Medicaid. Because the US does not have a universal publicly funded health care system, access in terms of wait times may be not perceived as a problem by those who can afford to pay for health care, while those who cannot afford to pay simply do not use health care services.

Did the report imply Canadians wait longer because of a universal publicly funded health care system? (WOW! What a revelation?!!!)

How about the breast cancer drugs? How long a Canadian woman must wait before she can have access to the drugs that are already available in the US?

Here is what the Canadian Breast Cancer Network reported:

Total time elapsed between the manufacturer’s first application to Health Canada and final inclusion on a provincial or local formulary can be between 3–5 years or longer.

For those who can afford to pay for drugs out of their own pocket or who are covered by private insurance, wait times for access to drugs can be shorter. Those who do not want to wait for chemotherapy drugs to be included on the formulary in Ontario can also pay privately for some chemotherapy drugs that can be administered at a cancer treatment centre by a physician. In this case, the patient would pay for the drug, but not the use of treatment centre facilities or the doctor’s fee. This is controversial because it allows wealthier patients faster access to care.

Did the report imply universal publicly funded healthcare system does not solve the inequity in healthcare between the rich and the poor? (Hello! Mr. President!!!)

You can read the report here: http://www.cbcn.ca/documents/pdf/ENG_CBCN_fin_book.pdf


Obama Thinks Americans are Stupid…Part II

June 11, 2009

I blogged about this already back in May 12, 2009 and now a New York Post article “BAM’S DOUBLE TALK” published June 11, 2009 asked this question:

“How dumb does President Obama think the American people are?”

Read the article here: http://www.nypost.com/seven/06112009/postopinion/editorials/bams_double_talk_173700.htm

Once again, Obama is doing more double talking. This time it is the PAYGO system. Since Obama and Democratic controlled congress has been taking heat from the trillion dollars worth of spending pushing the deficit to record level, they are now trying to ACT LIKE there are taking steps to be fiscally responsible. Isn’t that a bit too late, Mr. President?

Obama said:

 “Paying for what you spend is basic common sense. Perhaps that’s why, here in Washington, it’s been so elusive.”

 Did the “smartest president ever” just figured that out?

Apparently so because if he knew that before he run up 1.8 trillion dollars of deficit this year alone, wasted $787 billion of non-stimulating package, earmarked $635 billion in “health care reform” down payment bill, would he have sign off in doubling the nations debt to 10.6 trillion dollars?

Just like NY Post said:

“One thing politicians prove every day: Talk is cheap. Everything else is expensive.”

My Letter to the President

April 20, 2009

Dear Mr. President,

Responsibility is like a shadow. You cannot get rid of it nor can you have somebody else shoulder them for you.

I can proudly say that I have been a responsible person. I work, pay my bills, take care of my family and provide for them. 

I help my fellow human beings as much as I can and I enjoy doing it. I either donate a small amount of money or my time or both.

But there is one thing I will not do. And that is put someone else’s irresponsibility and mistakes on my shoulders.

I am not willing to pay higher taxes to support wasteful spending.

I will not pay higher taxes to bail out failed corporations.

I will not pay higher taxes to pay irresponsible people who spent or borrowed more than they can afford to pay.

I will not pay higher taxes to pay for reparations for slavery.

I did not run those companies that failed…..

I did not tell those people to spend and borrow more than they can afford….

My ancestors were not even born during the era of slavery. As a matter of fact, my ancestors were not born in ….America….….

So, Mr. President, do not blame me for the irresponsibility of others and do not force me to pay higher taxes.


I did not set any policies that harmed or killed anyone….

I did not go over to other countries and try to exploit them or colonized them….

I did not go to other countries to drop bombs in them…


So please, Mr. President, stop apologizing for me because I did not do any of those things.

To follow your example, Mr. President……


I was not even born when all those bad things happend……

I was not aware of those people making bad loans and spending more they can afford…..

I did not know that those companies were doing funky business…. 

So, Mr. President, I am not responsible just as You are not responsible for anything….. 

Hope you understand,