Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Union Deal Latest ObamaCare Outrage

Question: In what kind of country are laws applied differently for politically favored constituents?

If you said "constitutional republic" you are half right; just replace "constitutional" with "banana" and you have a fairly accurate description of what Barack Obama's America is shaping up to be.

Consider the "deal" struck between The White House and union leaders on Thursday. According to the Washington Post:

The agreement, forged in a marathon negotiating session that included White House officials and seven prominent labor leaders...

And not, it might be added, captured for posterity by C-SPAN cameras, in spite of the President's oft repeated, oft mocked promise that he would allow Brian Lamb's crew in to broadcast health care negotiations. The Post reports that the agreement:

...would exempt union members from a proposed surtax on expensive insurance plans until 2018, five years after the legislation would take effect.

And what surtax would union members be "exempt" from, exactly? The 40 percent surtax on high-end, or "Cadillac" insurance plans which the Senate, and the President, seem to think necessary to finance their heath care overhaul legislation.

The problem is that many unions have negotiated such sweet insurance plans for their members in collective bargaining; by some estimates, as many as one in four union households are "Cadillac" insurance owners. Those households, if the deal holds, would now be exempt from a tax to be levied on other holders of the same kinds of policies (the vast majority of such policy holders make under $250,000 a year) until 2018, "giving labor leaders time to negotiate new contracts."

Well, how nice for them. And how unlucky for the average, non-union, middle or blue class worker who has accepted such insurance in lieu of higher wages, who is not considered a valuable member of the Obama coalition. Put simply; unions are now promised exemption from an onerous new tax by the Democratic president whom they spent tens of million to help elect.

This is only the latest in a long line of deals made behind closed doors to keep the health care train moving along, deals which have promised exemption for one group or state from fiscal and legal burdens to be born by others. This is basket-case democracy, a troubling sign that power is consolidating in Washington in the manner usually seen in only nominally free, or nakedly unfree, states.

When a nation no longer applies its laws equally, it ceases to be a nation of laws and becomes a nation of men, where faction is pitted against faction, citizen against citizen, and the whims of a few govern the lives of the multitude.

In other words, exactly what our Founders were trying to avoid when they established this great republic.

---

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, White House

Posted by Matt Patterson at 12:02 AM

Monday, January 11, 2010

Two Out of Two Majority Leaders Agree: The Public Can Shove Off

While taking a look, for remembrance sake, at some of the calls this organization made for then-Majority Leader Trent Lott to resign during the Strom Thurmond controversy, I ran into an old blog post that highlights another way (besides putting his foot in his mouth) that Lott, in his day, was like Majority Leader Harry Reid today.

Referring to people outside the Senate who had opinions on a then-pending Supreme Court confirmation, the Washington Post reported the following in 2005:

Lott cautioned that outside groups have a limited ability to influence senators of either party. 'I'll call them when I need to hear from them,' he said. 'As far as I'm concerned, they can all shove off, left and right.'

Doesn't that sound like something Senator Reid could say on health care legislation? And, most likely, is what he really thinks?

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Health Care, Liberals, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:19 PM

Sunday, January 03, 2010

British Government Health System Leaves Boy Legless

Take a look at the pictures of the nine-year-old boy in the story "Meningitis robbed Edward Bright of his legs... then NHS took away his new ones" from Britain's The Sun newspaper, and tell me again that Congress is on the right path when it insists on increasing the government's role in health care.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:58 PM

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Everyone Must Buy a Chevy Malibu

I heard a very good point from radio host Sean Casey on WCBN radio (Baltimore) today on the question of the constitutionality of the health care insurance mandate.

He asked (paraphrase), "would it be constitutional if the federal government said we all had to buy a new Chevy Malibu every year?"

I think that's the fastest explanation of the idiocy of the individual mandate I have heard yet.

One can, after all, build a solid case for mandating frequent purchases of Chevy Malibus: the taxpayers are invested in General Motors and would like their money back; new engines burn cleaner than old engines so it would be (on one level) good for the environment; people in Michigan and elsewhere need jobs and car manufacturing and selling creates them; old Chevy Malibus could be given to the poor, etc.

There are many good reasons to mandate annual purchases of Chevy Malibus, but that wouldn't make a federal requirement that we must do so constitutional, and an individual mandate that we must buy health insurance isn't constitutional, either.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Constitutional Law, Government Health Care, Government Power, Health Care, Media, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:25 PM

Friday, December 04, 2009

Centenarian Told to Wait 18 Months to Get Hearing Aid

The British government's health care system put 108-year-old Olive Beal on an 18-month government waiting list for a new hearing aid.

Longevity apparently does not count for much in Britain's government-managed National Health Service.

Much of 108-year-old Olive Beal's hearing was gone. The one-time suffragette and former piano teacher from Kent, England was unable to enjoy music or hear conversations clearly with her five-year-old analog hearing aid. A modern digital device would improve Beal's hearing - and life - tremendously, but she was having difficulty receiving a replacement.

Beal's granddaughter, Maria Scott, explained: "Her analog hearing aid does not filter out background noise so it makes it very difficult for her to hear clearly. But the digital one would allow her to hear people talking to her and to CDs. She loves music hall numbers."

Beal was administered a hearing test in late July 2007, and a hearing expert recommended a digital hearing device. However, the local health authority, Eastern and Coastal Kent Primary Care Trust, has an 18-month waiting list for new hearing aids provided through the NHS. Despite her age and despite contributing income taxes that fund the government's universal health system into her late 60s, Beal was told she must wait her turn in line. A spokesman for the Eastern and Coastal Kent Primary Care Trust explained: "[P]riority is given to patients who do not have an existing hearing aid..."

Under the government system, Beal would be 110 years old by the time the new hearing aid was scheduled to arrive.

Beal expressed her fear: "I could be dead by then."

Maria Scott added, "I would have thought they would take her age into account as she probably has not got 18 months to wait... Her eyesight is falling [sic], and if she cannot hear then she will be isolated from the outside world."

Fortunately, widespread press attention and concern about Beal's situation prompted Phillip Ball, a private audiologist, to assist Beal voluntarily. Ball said:

"I can see no reason why a lady of her age should be fobbed off by her NHS Trust and told to wait at least 18 months, so I immediately got on the phone to offer my services. I visited Olive this week and she should have a fully functioning digital aid in a matter of days [early August 2007]. She will now be able to hear a great deal better."

A digital hearing device costs approximately 1,000 British pounds (~$1,600) each, and wait times for hearing aids can be over two years in some parts of Britain.

"The new digital hearing aids can really transform people's lives," said Donna Tipping of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, a British charity. "It is an issue of quality of life, with isolation, frustration and withdrawing from society caused by loss of hearing, and it is sad because this is reversible."

As her grandmother is one of Britain's oldest living citizens, Maria Scott added, "I thought a 108-year-old deserved to be treated better than this."

Learn the truth about government-run medicine from the National Center for Public Policy Research's new book, Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care, by Amy Ridenour and Ryan Balis. Complete PDF copies are available free or you can buy a copy now at Amazon.com.

---

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:00 AM

Thursday, December 03, 2009

A Public Option in Health Care Doesn't Mean Low Overhead

One of the arguments proponents of the so-called "public option" in health care reform often make is that health insurance company executives make too much money.

I wonder how many of these people realize that almost 60 administrators in the British government's National Health Service are paid more than the British prime minister?

The prime minister earns 194,000 British pounds (presently equivalent to $322,816 U.S.) a year.

An additional 290 NHS administrators earn more than 150,000 pounds (present U.S. equivalent = $249,600) annually.

But these public sector employees, being public servants, are more dedicated to their jobs than the average money-grubbing private health sector employee, right?

Maybe not. Seems NHS employees call in sick at one-and-a-half times the rate of private sector employees in Britain.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:50 PM

Engineer Left Blind for Three Years Awaiting 20-Minute Operation

85-year-old Richard Adams went blind because the British government's health care system delayed his cataract surgery. Said Adams, "I've been waiting for three years but they don't seem to care. I think they're just waiting for me to die or something."

According to Britain's state-managed health service, cataract surgery is a "common" and "straightforward" operation that usually should last between 15 and 20 minutes. But such a quick turnaround would have been news to Richard Adams of London, who went blind in both eyes while waiting three years for cataract surgery.

The 85-year-old retired engineer and award-winning dancer began losing his vision in 2004. That year, doctors diagnosed Adams with cataracts, but an operation to remove them was not scheduled until March 2007.

His excitement in 2007 at the prospect of getting his sight and livelihood back was short-lived because doctors cancelled the surgery.

"I was over the moon when I found out I had an appointment in March [2007] but when it was cancelled I just went downhill," Adams said at the time.

Stuck in a wheelchair and suffering from asthma as well as kidney stones (also left untreated by the NHS, he said), Adams had difficulty performing everyday tasks. "I never cook anything," Adams explained then. "It always has to be cold things like sandwiches or salad. I can't go to the shops because I can't see where I'm going."

In despair, Adams said his life was "being wasted": "I have all these ideas in my head but I can't see to write and I can't see to draw. All I can do is sit in my house and listen to the TV. I can't see it and I have to turn up the volume because I can't hear well."

Spokesman Mark Purcell of Ealing Hospital, one of several hospitals that refused Adams treatment for his eyes, offered no sympathy. "If [Adams] has a complaint about the standard of care he has received he should write to the chief executive of the Ealing Hospital Trust." (Whether this bureaucratic solution, which asked a blind man to write, was intentionally or inadvertently cruel is unknown.)

Adams was scheduled to receive treatment in late May, but this was little consolation for him. "I've been waiting for three years but they don't seem to care. I think they're just waiting for me to die or something," Adams complained.

Finally, after Adams' plight received attention from the British press, doctors removed the cataracts in one of his eyes in June 2007.

"He was really pleased with the result of the operation," said Roger Woolsey, a family friend. "When I went to visit him he would raise the eye-patch and say: I really can see again."

Tragically, four days after the procedure that restored his sight, Adams died. He had a heart attack after developing blood poisoning in the hospital.

Learn the truth about government-run medicine from the National Center for Public Policy Research's new book, Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care, by Amy Ridenour and Ryan Balis. Complete PDF copies are available free or you can buy a copy now at Amazon.com.

---

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:49 AM

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

"An Animal Would Have Been Treated with More Compassion"

Debra Luck, the widow of Ian Luck, believes the medical staff at the British government's Princess Alexandra Hospital was so neglectful of her late husband's care during his last days that he effectively "was murdered... because people couldn't be bothered to do their job properly."

Ian Luck spent the last weeks of his life in agony because of lack of care at the government-run Princess Alexandra Hospital in Essex, UK, where he died in 2002.

For over five years, Luck's widow, Debra, and nine-year-old son, Ben, fought for answers as to why hospital staff neglected Luck, frequently leaving him to lay in his own vomit and waste and failing to realize the severity of his increasingly-desperate state.

Luck checked in to the Princess Alexandra on June 12, 2002 after being too weak to eat and vomiting heavily. He had suffered for several years from gastric problems, and was treated twice in 2002 for lost fluids because of vomiting and diarrhea. This time, an endoscope discovered an ulcer. Doctors prescribed antibiotics to Luck, gave him fluids and sent him home after a six-day stay.

On June 20, Luck returned to the hospital for a second endoscope exam when the inflammation in his stomach had not cleared up. However, the ulcer ruptured during the procedure, and emergency surgery had to be performed to repair it.

Following surgery, Debra Luck was effectively left to look after his health and comfort.

"No one wanted to help us. Every time we asked for pain relief, or to see a doctor, we were told to wait, or that we didn't know what we were talking about," she said.

Luck's condition continued to decline, but hospital staff showed an utter lack of sympathy. Debra Luck recalled that the staff failed to or were slow to perform basic functions, such as cleaning up after her husband.

"He was vomiting ten times an hour, and there were bowls around his bed to catch it," she said. However, "Often they weren't emptied for more than an hour and they smelled awful. The first time that happened I found a nurse and asked if she could empty them. When she said she was too busy, I offered to do it myself."

Debra Luck began resorting to bringing in clean pillowcases, shirts and pants, and having to change her husband herself. "As fast as I changed him he was sick again. The nurses were not interested in helping me," she said. "An animal would have been treated with more compassion."

Meanwhile, it was not known if the bleeding from the ulcer had stopped. "I made two appointments to speak to a consultant during the course of those ten days," she said, "and both times he didn't turn up. When I tried to talk to junior doctors they were either too busy or didn't know enough."

Frustrated and fearing for her husband's life, Debra Luck attempted to have Ian transferred to a local private hospital. Though the private hospital agreed, staff at the Princess Alexandra rejected the move because Luck was not stable.

On June 28, at the request of a junior doctor, a consultant at last saw Luck. But the consultant failed to follow up on the suggestion that a laparotomy (surgical examination), which might have determined the definitive cause of Luck's bleeding, be carried out. On June 29, a second junior doctor called for a consultant's review, which was never performed.

Two days later, after a particularly agonizing night in which nurses forgot to inject painkillers, Luck began to lapse in and out of consciousness and struggle to breathe. That morning, "He was covered in vomit and had wet himself," remembered Debra. "I changed him, but when I asked for clean surgical stockings the nurse said there were none left in his size... I couldn't change his T-shirt without help... but I was told by the nurse she was too busy and to leave him dirty."

That evening, a junior doctor suspected that Luck had suffered a collapsed lung and ordered a chest X-ray. But Luck went into cardiac arrest during the procedure and had to be resuscitated. By the time family members arrived, Luck already suffered a second, fatal cardiac arrest.

"I actually feel that Ian was murdered," Debra said. "He died because people couldn't be bothered to do their job properly."

Debra Luck contends that the hospital did not carry out necessary tests. "What I've learned since is that his urine and vomit should have been monitored continuously. Both were vital to working out just how ill he was and whether he would need further investigations. The fact that no one kept a record probably added to his lack of correct treatment."

In October 2007, the Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust agreed to compensate Debra and Ben a combined sum of £225,000 (~$366,000), though the National Health Service refused to accept liability for Luck's death.

For her part, Debra Luck remains angry, telling Britain's Daily Mail, "No one has been punished or sacked. No one from the hospital has offered to meet me and tell me how things went so wrong, let alone offered an apology. For all I know, the same appalling standard of care is still acceptable in that hospital. If that is the case, then there will be more unnecessary deaths."

Learn the truth about government-run medicine from the National Center for Public Policy Research's new book, Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care, by Amy Ridenour and Ryan Balis. Complete PDF copies are available free or you can buy a copy now at Amazon.com.

---

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:36 PM

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Britain Investigates Deaths in Government Hospitals

From the Times in Britain, November 28:

An immediate investigation to uncover the true extent of death rates across the [British government's National Health Service] has been ordered by the Health Secretary after scandals at two hospital trusts.

Amid claims that patients are dying due to poor care in at least 27 hospitals around the country, Andy Burnham said that patient safety was paramount and must take precedence above all else.

His comments come after the head of a foundation trust in Colchester, Essex, was sacked over concerns about high death rates, leadership and waiting times.

Failings in patient care had previously been linked to the deaths of between 70 and 400 patients at Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust, also in Essex...

Read the rest here.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:49 AM

Monday, November 30, 2009

Canadian Cancer Patient Fights Bureaucracy in Desperate Fight for Life

To fight advanced colon cancer, Canadian Suzanne Aucoin needed Erbitux, a powerful anti-cancer drug, but the Canadian health bureaucracy said it wouldn't pay. Aucoin traveled to New York to get the drug and to begin treatment on her own. "I am completely disgusted with our health-care system," Aucoin said.

Suzanne Aucoin of St. Catharines, Ontario never imagined that dealing with the Canadian health care bureaucracy would be as tough as battling terminal cancer.

Aucoin had to go to the U.S. for treatment initially denied to her. While ill, she then engaged in a prolonged and complicated fight to get access to a life-extending anti-cancer drug and to recover the exorbitant amount she was forced to spend out of her own pocket on treatment.

In 1999, Aucoin was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Surgeons removed large portions of her intestine and colon. But about four and a half years later, Aucoin became easily fatigued and felt pain in her side. A follow-up visit with her doctors revealed that the cancer had reappeared and spread to her lungs and liver.

In January 2004, Aucoin began chemotherapy treatment for stage IV colon cancer, the most advanced stage. A CT scan showed that chemotherapy had been ineffective at destroying the tumor in her liver. Aucoin's oncologist recommended that weekly doses of the powerful anti-cancer drug, Erbitux, offered her the best hope for staying alive. The problem was the drug - which can shrink tumors in advanced cancer patients - was not publicly-provided or even available for purchase in Ontario.

Worse yet, Ministry of Health officials denied Aucoin's application for out-of-country funding to permit Aucoin to get the potentially life-extending drug in the U.S. However, Aucoin claimed, the government was paying for three other patients with a similar form of cancer to receive treatment abroad. Reviews are on a case-by-case basis, but the health ministry did confirm it paid for some patients to receive Erbitux in the U.S.

"I just find it ridiculous that I have to go to these lengths when the government is glaringly wrong. They have all these inconsistencies, and I'm the one who suffers because of it," Aucoin said.

Despite the government's refusal to fund her treatment, Aucoin began receiving weekly treatments of Erbitux at a cost of $14,000 (USD) a month at a clinic in West Seneca, NY. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Erbitux in February 2004. Thankfully, friends and supporters raised more than $180,000 (CAD) over several years to help pay for her treatment.

"You can't wait with this cancer," she said. "You can't wait for people to make decisions about your health. You can't wait for forms to be filled out. You have to go where the drug is."

In fall 2005, Health Canada - the Canadian agency responsible for evaluating drugs - approved Erbitux. But health officials refused to cover Erbitux and limited the number of patients who could have access.

Fortunately, a loophole existed. In December 2005, Aucoin was the first patient allowed Erbitux under a Special Access Program set up for seriously ill patients. She would have to pay over $6,000 (CAD) a month for treatment, which she received at a Hamilton, Ontario clinic, while the government paid the administrative costs.

"I just want to take care of myself," Aucoin said. "My job is to get well and I feel like my government's letting me down because they're not doing their job."

Following another appeal for out-of-country funding several months later, the government changed its mind and, without explanation, agreed to cover Aucoin's treatment. The decision meant Aucoin would no longer pay out-of-pocket, but she would again need to travel across the border. Oddly, the government directed her to a Buffalo, NY cancer hospital that charged thousands of dollars more for Erbitux than the West Seneca clinic Aucoin used for out-of-pocket treatment. She began treatment at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in April 2006.

Then the Ontario government stonewalled Aucoin's attempt to be reimbursed. In June 2006, health officials denied her application for reimbursement saying the government would "only approve [reimbursement] if it's in a certain setting, i.e., a hospital," not a private clinic. Moreover, Aucoin was not granted funding approval before she went abroad for treatment.

"I am completely disgusted with our health care system," Aucoin said. "I am very discouraged and frustrated by the lack of professionalism, the lack of consistency and the lack of care for me as an individual patient." She added, "I'm not asking for Botox, I'm asking for life-saving treatment."

After losing on appeal and running out of options, Aucoin appealed to Ontario's ombudsman, Andre Martin. Following his investigation, in January 2007 Ontario's health officials finally agreed to pay over $76,000 (CAD) for Aucoin's out-of-country care and for legal expenses. The ombudsman blasted health officials for their "cruel" treatment and "slavish adherence to rules at the expense of common sense."

"I should never have had to deal with this, it takes all my energy to fight cancer," Aucoin said. "It rights a wrong on some levels but you cannot put a price tag on my mental strain and stress."

Tragically, Aucoin lost her fight against cancer. She passed away in November 2007.

Learn the truth about government-run medicine from the National Center for Public Policy Research's new book, Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care, by Amy Ridenour and Ryan Balis. Complete PDF copies are available free or you can buy a copy now at Amazon.com.

---

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:19 PM

Friday, November 20, 2009

Health Care Monsters

"Pelosi and Reid's health care monsters" is the theme of an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun today by National Center Policy Analyst Matt Patterson.

Matt examines the scary goblins in the liberal health care proposals; namely, the Medicare cuts, the economic harm, and the loss of freedom we can expect if the left's proposals win the day.

You can read Matt's piece here.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:48 AM

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Quote of Note: The Core Problem With Government-Run Health Care

"The core problem with government-run health care is that it doesn't make decisions in the best interests of patients, but in the best interests of government."

- Wall Street Journal editorial, "The Health Care Rationing Commission," November 15, 2009

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:50 AM

A Positive Story, For Once

I am often critical of the quality of care offered by government-run health care systems, but the emergency medical care received by this very stoic British truck driver after he was impaled by an eight-foot pole seems almost miraculous.

You have to see the picture. A description wouldn't do it justice.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:00 AM

Monday, November 16, 2009

Report Questions Quality of Care Dementia Patients Receive in British Government Hospitals

A British government report is questioning the quality of care dementia patients receive in hospitals run by the British government-run health system.

Among other things, the report says such patients often are not properly fed.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:52 PM

Canadian Patient Flies to India for Immediate Care

An ailing hip caused Canadian Raghav Shetty so much pain that he could barely walk. Instead of being one of 25,000 patients in Calgary waiting up to two years for surgery or a scan, Shetty traveled to India, his native country, for immediate partial hip replacement surgery.

An ailing hip caused Canadian Raghav Shetty so much pain that he could barely walk. Instead of being one of 25,000 patients in Calgary waiting for surgery or a scan (up to a two-year wait), Shetty traveled to India, his native country, for immediate partial hip replacement surgery.

Flying to a faraway country for medical care did not seem too outrageous an idea for Canadian Raghav Shetty - at least, in comparison to the alternative. The 61-year-old Calgary, Alberta man's bum hip had effectively immobilized him. Yet he faced several years of waiting in distress for surgery in Canada's "universal" Medicare health system.

Shetty had developed severe osteoarthritis in his left hip joint. He was in so much pain that, even with the aid of painkillers, each step was tormenting.

"I'm in extreme pain," he admitted. "I'm stuck at home, I can't work. It is difficult for me to provide financial support to my family and the quality of my life is very bad."

"He can barely walk. He drags his legs everywhere he goes," added daughter, Shilpa Shetty.

Shetty, a 20-year resident of Calgary, discovered the wait for partial hip replacement surgery would be up to two years. At the time, in 2004, some 25,000 patients were on waiting lists for surgery or diagnostic scans in Calgary's hospitals.

Facing a bedridden wait on Medicare, Shetty and his wife, Prema, looked elsewhere for quicker treatment. They discovered a private facility in Chennai, India offering immediate care. The entire out-of-pocket cost for the operation and for both to fly to India would be $15,000 (CAD), but the couple believed waiting up to two years for care locally was not a realistic option.

"I had no choice but to try elsewhere for my surgery due to the long waiting period and severe pain in my hip joint," Shetty said. "I could not walk more than a few meters. Under these conditions, waiting for one to two years was simply not possible for me."

In September 2004, the Shettys traveled to Apollo Specialty Hospital for a successful five-hour surgery. Shetty, an Indian immigrant, said returning to his native country for a medical procedure was not something he would have considered had it not been for the excessive wait.

"Of course, my first choice would have been always Canada," he said. "However, in recent years, the waiting period for major surgeries is too long for patients suffering from severe pain and serious medical conditions."

Daughter Shilpa objected to the tedious wait her father would have endured if he stayed in Canada. "We've given up on our health care system. Why don't they understand that some people are in so much pain that they just can't wait?" she asked. "We don't have any options and can't wait anymore."

Though the long wait forced Shetty to look outside Canada, the health department in the province of Alberta rejected his claim for reimbursement for his care in India. Generally, the government reimburses only such patients who go abroad when treatment is unavailable locally or if the patient's life would be in jeopardy while waiting.

As published in a 2007 Fraser Institute survey, an estimated 5,029 people in Alberta were waiting for hip or knee replacement surgery as of March 31, 2007. According to the same report, nationwide some "estimated 523,600 Canadians had difficulties getting to see a specialist, 200,000 had difficulties getting non-emergency surgeries, and 294,800 had difficulties getting selected diagnostic tests."

Learn the truth about government-run medicine from the National Center for Public Policy Research's new book, Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care, by Amy Ridenour and Ryan Balis. Complete PDF copies are available free or you can buy a copy now at Amazon.com.

---

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:01 PM

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Grandma Got Run Over by Her Health Care Music Video

"They say there's no such thing as free health care, and now me and Grandpa, we believe."

This video is a couple of months old, but it's pretty funny, as warnings about the death-dealing potential of government-run health care go.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:42 AM

Saturday, November 14, 2009

A One Way Ticket Away From Healthyville

An illuminating short video about the perils of government-run health care brought to you by The Independence Institute. Email it to a liberal today.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:30 PM

Friday, November 13, 2009

Britain's National Health Service Denied Sight-Saving Medicine to Its Own Employee

Despite her 18 years of service to Britain's government-run health system, Sylvie Webb had to fight her employer for sight-saving drugs.

An employee of Britain's government-run National Health Service was denied medication that could save her from going blind in one eye.

Sylvie Webb, a widow from Salisbury, England, worked for 18 years as a secretary at Salisbury District Hospital. Yet, despite her situation, Webb discovered that medical treatment under the public health service is anything but universal.

In February 2007, doctors diagnosed Webb, then 58, with the "wet" type of age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) in her left eye. If not treated in a timely manner, wet ARMD "can lead to blindness in as little as three months and people need prompt treatment if they are to minimize the risk of permanent sight loss," according to a statement by the Royal National Institute of Blind People in London.

As such, Webb's medical consultant sought rapid treatment for Webb because her sight was "deteriorating 'day by day,'" as Webb explained, and an infection in one eye can spread to the other good eye.

But to Webb's dismay, for nearly a year her local public health authority, Dorset Primary Care Trusts, refused to provide Webb with the expensive "anti-VEGF" drugs she desperately needed to save her sight. Though two such effective drugs, Macugen and Lucentis, are licensed for general NHS use, the Dorset Trust, which controls funding prescriptions, dragged its feet. Dorset Trust said it has yet to formulate a policy in a "fair and equitable way" to treat Webb's condition and thus it could not provide her with the VEGF drugs.

As Webb explained at the time, "At the time, the PCT [Dorset Primary Care Trusts] said it hadn't got a policy and it would address the situation in April [2007] - but it has now postponed this until June. I'm extremely worried that time is running out for me and other patients."

The prospect of going blind terrified Webb:

"I'm a young woman and want to carry on working, and then I'd like to do all the things I had planned for my retirement. I'm also worried about the health of my other eye. I know I'm at increased risk of getting wet AMD in that eye and this could mean I end up losing my sight. The women in my family live into their 90s; I can't accept the possibility of being blind unnecessarily for the next 35 years."

In May 2007, the Trust agreed to review Webb's case on an urgent basis. But for Tom Bremridge, CEO of the Macular Disease Society in Andover, UK, there is no excuse for Webb being without the available sight-saving drugs she needs. "It is outrageous that in this day and age Mrs. Webb faces losing her sight owing to bureaucratic idleness," he said.

Steve Winyard of RNIB echoed Bremridge's outrage:

"This is disgraceful... It's little comfort for Mrs. Webb that she can't get treatment simply because her PCT has yet to decide a policy. The PCT needs to get its act together and ensure these drugs are available to patients now and without a struggle... There is a moral imperative to save the sight of people where we can."

Finally, in 2008 new health guidelines permitted Dorset Trusts to prescribe Lucentis for Webb. The guidelines published by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the government's health advisory authority, allow for funding for the first 14 injections of Lucentis once wet ARMD is diagnosed in one eye. If additional injections are necessary, the drug's manufacturer, Novartis, will pay for additional treatment.

Webb was delighted that she would at last receive the sight-saving drug. "I'm so relieved that Dorset PCT has finally realized the long-term benefit to me of this treatment and has agreed funding," she said. "I only hope that all patients are given treatment to help save their sight because while this is good news for me, there may be hundreds of others with wet AMD who cannot get the funding they desperately need."

Learn the truth about government-run medicine by reading true stories, such as the one above, from countries with a government-run health care system in the National Center for Public Policy Research's new book, Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care, by Amy Ridenour and Ryan Balis. Complete PDF copies are available free or you can buy a copy now at Amazon.com.

---

Labels: Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:00 AM

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Project 21's Deneen Borelli on "Hannity" on Friday Night

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli will appear on the "Great American Panel" on the Fox News Channel's "Hannity" program at 9:30 PM eastern on Friday, November 13.

Deneen will discuss the progress of health care reform in the Senate, the track record of Obama's "stimulus" spending and how Jim Carrey can't seem to say nice things about capitalism despite being one of the highest-paid actors in Hollywood.

Check your local listings for Fox News Channel on cable. Fox News is available on channel 118 on Fios, channel 205 on Dish Network and channel 360 on DirecTV.

---

Labels: FreeEnterpriseProject, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Media, Project 21, Race, Retirement

Posted by David W. Almasi at 6:54 PM

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Government Health System Penalized Woman for Supporting Her Own Cancer Treatment

Summary: The British National Health Service refused to provide the advanced cancer drug Avastin to Colette Mills, who was willing to pay for it herself. Mills was told that if she paid for the drug the NHS didn't cover because if its cost, the NHS would stop paying for her cancer treatment altogether.

Colette Mills of North Yorkshire, England was up against a rigid National Health Service policy that at the time would have taken away her taxpayer-provided health care if she purchased a life-extending cancer drug beyond the dosage the government provided for her.

Mills fought breast cancer for over a quarter century. Though the last roughly 20 years were "blissfully" clear of cancer, she says, it returned in 2003 and spread throughout her body. The 58-year-old former NHS nurse was given Taxol, a chemotherapy drug, as part of her publicly-financed health care. But, following the advice of her hospital specialist, Mills decided to spend her own money to boost her treatment with the so-called wonder drug, Avastin.

Drug trials show Taxol is perhaps twice as effective when combined with Avastin, and, when coupled, the drugs could slow advanced breast cancer.

Mills believed that combining the drugs "would probably give me a longer life and a better quality of life." She added, "Avastin may only increase your lifespan by six weeks or six months but, believe me, when it's your life, you're not picky."

The rub at the time was even if Mills paid out-of-pocket to supplement her care, the NHS would begin to bill her for the entire cost of treatment because she would be considered a private patient.

"If a patient chooses to go private for certain drugs they elect to become a private patient for the course of their treatment for that condition. That is trust policy," said a statement by South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust, Mills' local health care provider.

Though Avastin was publicly available elsewhere in the UK, South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust would not fund Avastin because of its high cost. In Britain, the wide disparity of drugs and services made available depending on locality is informally termed the NHS 'postcode lottery.'

Mills was willing to pay the estimated £4,000 a month to get the expensive drug and have it administered - but she did not want to be stuck with the tab for her entire treatment. "The costs would increase from £4,000 a month to about £10,000 to £15,000 for all my care. I would need to pay charges for seeing the consultant, for the nurses' time, for blood tests and scans," Mills explained.

Thus, by doing what she thought necessary to improve her chances of survival, Mills would be responsible for paying some £15,000 (~$24,400) to the government. "The policy of my local NHS trust is that I must be an NHS patient or a private patient," said Mills. "If I want to pay for Avastin, I must pay for everything. It's immoral that the drugs are out there and freely available to certain people, yet they say I cannot have it."

The rationale for the bizarre policy that restricted how citizens spent their own money for health care was rooted in the NHS's belief that care should be equal and not based on a patient's ability to pay. "The Government is committed to a publicly funded NHS, free at the point of use and available to all regardless of income," explained a spokesman for Britain's Department of Health. "Co-payments would risk creating a two-tier health service and be in direct contravention with the principles and values of the NHS."

The health care provider, therefore, rejected Mills' request because it considered her buying an extra drug to be an "add on" to her existing NHS treatment. Mills' pleas to the NHS health trust were rejected, and she and husband, Eric, abandoned their challenge.

"I can't go private..." said Mills. "This decision is totally unjust... this drug would prolong my life."

Mills recognized there naturally may be cost prohibitions for some care. But, she argued, "The whole concept of the NHS is that it's free at the point of need. Why should that stop because I want to pay for something?" She also pointed out the NHS's apparent double standard. "It is already a two-tier NHS," said Mills. "I'd had a scan privately when there was a two-week wait on the NHS... If I go to the dentist I can mix my NHS and private treatment."

Professor Karol Sikora, a medical expert who advises the World Health Organization, sided with Mills. "For health bosses to say Mrs. Mills cannot top up her NHS treatment is ideology gone mad. It is medical communism and utterly immoral," she charged. "This is unfair to taxpayers who are entitled to NHS care. If this patient wishes to pay for another drug, that should be her choice."

After considerable public disapproval and an official Department of Health Review, the NHS reversed its supplemental treatment policy in November 2008. Alan Johnson, the then-Health Secretary, announced new guidelines that purchasing private treatment will not mean that patients forfeit their entitlement to NHS services.

Reacting to the policy change, Mills said, "This move by the Government is exactly what I've been fighting for - but it has been a long time coming."

Although the government's change of policy was welcome news for patients like Mills, it came too late for Mills herself - four months after her unsuccessful effort to purchase Avastin herself, her cancer spread to such an extent that it will no longer respond to the treatment.

Learn the truth about government-run medicine by reading true stories, such as the one above, from countries with a government-run health care system in the National Center for Public Policy Research's new book, Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care, by Amy Ridenour and Ryan Balis. Complete PDF copies are available free or you can buy a copy now at Amazon.com.

---

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:36 PM

A Bush By Any Other Name

President Barack Obama is often likened - and clearly sees himself as spiritual successor - to presidential luminaries like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. But he is fast on track to following the footsteps of a less celebrated predecessor - George H.W. Bush.

Candidate Bush accepted his party's nomination at the 1988 Republican National Convention with the immortal, Peggy Noonan-penned promise "Read my lips: no new taxes." When President Bush later agreed to raise taxes as part of the 1990 budget negotiations, he wrecked his re-election chances and became a one-termer.

In September, 2008, candidate Obama promised, "I can make this firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making $250,000 will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

Oops. The health care bill the House passed on Saturday, for which Obama personally lobbied members of Congress, contains - new taxes. Lots of them. New taxes that will effect earners of all income levels, but which will especially hurt small-business owners.

Of course this bill, like all of the health care proposals recently debated by Congress, was instigated by, and created at the behest of, Barack Obama, who promised in his February joint address to Congress, "quality, affordable health care for every American." That he could promise such a bauble while simultaneously vowing not to raise our taxes "one dime" betrays either a stunning economic ignorance - or deep mendacity.

Obama has clearly studied the greats, Lincoln and F.D.R. But he should also have made an examination of the less successful presidents, like George H. W. Bush, lest he repeat their mistakes and suffer their fate in political purgatory.

---

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement, Taxes, White House

Posted by Matt Patterson at 1:15 AM

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Fourteen Hospitals Turn Away Critically-Injured Elderly Man

Summary: Instead of whisking a 69-year-old Japanese bicyclist who collided with a motorcycle to the emergency room, paramedics called 14 hospitals trying to find a facility that at last accepted the critically-injured man. The hospital at which he was taken attempted to transfer him to a better facility, but by this time the man was in such poor condition that he died of hemorrhagic shock.

Rescue workers in Japan called fourteen hospitals before finding one that would take an elderly bicyclist who collided with a motorcycle.

The accident, which occurred at 10:15 pm in the Japanese city of Itami, left the 69-year-old bicyclist, who was not identified, in critical condition with back and head injuries. Paramedics arrived on the scene five minutes after the crash and administered first aid. Yet, for about an hour, they were unsuccessful at locating a hospital to treat the man.

Helpless, the elderly man waited in the ambulance at the accident scene as hospital after hospital rejected treating him, citing unavailable beds, staff shortages and a lack of equipment and specialists. All told, fourteen hospitals in the neighboring prefectures -- i.e., governing districts -- of Hyogo and Osaka refused his entry.

"There were four other emergency calls in the same time frame of that night," explained Mitsuhisa Ikemoto, the fire department spokesman. "[A]s a result, we were unable to find a hospital."

It took a second round of calls for rescue workers to find a hospital. Finally, at 11:30 that night -- 75 minutes after the accident -- they took him to a hospital in Itami, which had initially declined to accept him. Unfortunately, it soon became apparent that the hospital's resources that night were unsatisfactory.

At the time of his arrival at the hospital, the elderly man was already in critical condition from the accident and post-accident delay. When his condition suddenly deteriorated, hospital staff scrambled "to transfer him for better treatment," according to the Associated Press.

Two hospitals rejected that transfer request. By the time a third hospital agreed to take the man, his condition was too poor to permit him to be moved.

He died of hemorrhagic shock at about 1:15 the next morning.

The Associated Press reported that the man "initially showed stable vital signs," and, attributing the assessment to Ikemoto, reported the man "might have survived if a hospital accepted him more quickly." Ikemoto was quoted saying, "I wish hospitals are more willing to take patients..."

Rescue workers also had trouble finding a hospital to treat a 29-year-old motorcyclist who also had been involved in the crash. Despite the motorcyclists' severe injuries, the first two hospitals contacted refused to admit him. The third try succeeded, and the man was taken to a university hospital in Hyogo. Fortunately, two weeks after the accident, he was recovering.

The frustrating, and in one case, tragic experiences of the two accident victims initially denied medical care are not unique in Japan's universal health insurance system.

According to a government survey conducted by the country's Fire and Disaster Management Agency, Japanese hospitals denied admission to some 14,387 emergency patients in 2007. All 14,000-plus patients identified on paramedics' reports were rejected at least three times. Moreover, at least 3.5 percent of these victims had serious conditions, which the survey defined as requiring more than three weeks of hospitalization.

Learn the truth about government-run medicine by reading true stories, such as the one above, from countries with a government-run health care system in the National Center for Public Policy Research's new book, Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care, by Amy Ridenour and Ryan Balis. Complete PDF copies are available free or you can buy a copy now at Amazon.com.

---

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:36 PM

Monday, November 09, 2009

Quote of Note: Government-Run Health Care Results in Fewer Doctors

"Long waits and shortages result from government control of the health sector. There are only so many hospitals, only so many doctors. When government promises that everyone will be treated (ostensibly) gratis, it does not simultaneously conjure more doctors into existence. Instead, doctors face more patients, who are now likely to seek treatment more often because they perceive it to be free. The result is long lines, long waits, substandard care.

But it's worse than that. Not only does the socialization of medicine fail to produce more doctors, it actually shrinks the pool. In our free-market system, being a good doctor can be financially rewarding. This matters, because becoming a good doctor is a long, arduous, expensive proposition. Remove the profit incentive and you are guaranteed to have fewer doctors."

-Matt Patterson, "Government Health Care Adds Insult to Injury," Policy Analyst, The National Center for Public Policy Research, TownHall.com, October 22, 2009

Note: This post was edited after publishing to correct Matt's title. He is a policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research, not a senior fellow.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:30 PM

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Health Care Rally Photos

Max Pappas of FreedomWorks sent over some pictures of today's rally at the Capitol in opposition to liberal efforts to have the federal government take over our health care system.


I'm posting the pictures because this is a tremendous turnout (especially in mid-week, with little notice, on a dank and intermittently-rainy day), and I have no faith whatsoever that the mainstream media will accurately report the full size of the crowd.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:11 PM

Monday, November 02, 2009

So Much for That

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

-Presidential oath of office

When asked if there "is any concern at all about whether it is constitutional for Congress to impose a mandate [that individual Americans must obtain health insurance]," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "no." He also said he had no reason to believe White House lawyers had ever considered the issue.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Constitutional Law, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:58 PM

Sunday, November 01, 2009

British Government Health Service Locks Man in Ambulance

The British government's National Health Service has apologized to a patient and his family after an NHS ambulance driver drove him to an ambulance station and, as the BBC put it "went home and forgot about him."

The man was found five hours later after a search commenced following his failure to return to his place of residence.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:15 AM

Saturday, October 31, 2009

It Came From Capitol Hill....

Image via Wikipedia

Just in time for Halloween, Nancy Pelosi unveils a terrifying, spine-tingling, stomach-turning behemoth...

H.R. 3962!!

Mammoth tax increases! (cue taxpayer scream)

Hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts! (cue grandma scream)

Massive expansion of Medicaid! (cue states scream)

Oppressive new government mandates! (cue Liberty scream)

1,990 pages of budget busting, mind numbing legalese! (cue my eyes scream)

Read, if you dare: H.R. 3962, the scariest thing to slither out of Capitol Hill... since the Baucus Proposal.

---

Labels: Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Matt Patterson at 12:03 AM

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Radio Day

I'm having another of what I call "radio days," in which I do a lot of radio interviews -- in this instance, on the latest developments in the health care debate.

If you care to tune in, I will be on the following stations (please note, all times given are Eastern):

KURV McAllen, TX
7:11 AM ET

WFLA Tampa, FL
7:23 AM ET

KTRH Houston, TX
7:34 AM ET

WTVN Columbus, OH
7:45 AM ET

WSYR Syracuse, NY
8:06AM ET

KIDO Boise, ID
8:20 AM ET

KVI Seattle
8:35 AM ET

KCOL Fort Collins, CO
9:17 AM ET

WHLO Akron, OH
9:40 AM ET

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Radio, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:56 AM

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Nero Profited While Rome Burned

Looks like the lobbying profession, taken as a group, couldn't be happier that the feds are messing up our health care system so badly.

Notice that the lobbyists quoted in the The Hill story by Jeffrey Young that I linked to above apparently did not want to be identified by name. I guess they still have enough pride to be ashamed of themselves.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Business, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Regulation, Retirement, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:29 PM

Monday, October 19, 2009

Medicare Confusion

I'm a little confused. Maybe you can help me out. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus wants to cut $500 billion from Medicare to cover about 30 million uninsured. That's over 10 years. Handing the entire amount out to the uninsured would work out to about $6,666 annually for each family of four.

That should be sufficient for a health care plan of some kind. Presumably the resultant reduction in cost shifting would lower costs, too. So why does he plan to spend an additional 330 billion?

Hmm... Couldn't be about control, could it?

---

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:10 PM

Friday, October 16, 2009

What's Happening Now

Bob Moffit on a new way the Senate leadership is trying to deceive you.

Roundup of black conservative opinion of NFL-thinks-it-is-too-good-for-Rush-Limbaugh dustup.

Judge tosses out yet another lawsuit trying to set global warming policy in the courts instead of the legislatures.

Is the Honduran constitution negotiable?

Snow in New Jersey on October 15 does not disprove the global warming theory.

Daniel Henninger: Donald Rumsfeld was right.

Obama says the damage from Katrina was caused in part by a "breakdown of government." If gov't came make a hurricane worse, why would we want it to run health care?

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Business, Climate, Courts, Environment, Project 21, Race, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:51 AM

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Tort Reform Would Save $54 Billion in Health Care Expenses

So says the Congressional Budget Office.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Legal Reform, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:56 AM

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Andrew Breitbart is Wondering...

Andrew Breitbart is wondering why a guy named Conor Friedersdorf, who writes for the Atlantic and the Daily Beast, keeps writing about Breitbart but refuses to interview him.

C'mon! Friedersdorf works for the Atlantic, which this month is running a very long cover story complaining about U.S. interrogation techniques without giving roughly equal consideration to the question of how many lives may have been saved by these techniques.

This is the logical equivalent of complaining about the U.S. dropping atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki without examining the possibility that these horrific attacks may have saved more lives than they cost. Did no one from the Atlantic even notice that the other side of the question was entirely missing from its cover story?

(Lest readers think it unfair of me to drag Andrew Sullivan -- who wrote the cover story -- into this, be aware that he injected himself by putting an approving piece on his own Atlantic magazine blog about what Conor Friedersdorf has written about Breitbart.)

MSM writers often fail to fact-check. Just ask Slate's Timothy Noah, or better, the White House staffers who relied on Noah's research when crafting President Obama's recent health care speech to a joint session of Congress.

(Not that the White House speechwriters have the slightest excuse for not checking the original sources themselves.)

When Conor Friedersdorf writes about Andrew Breitbart without giving Breitbart the courtesy of a phone call to give his side of the story, it's really just business as usual for the MSM.

And that, ironically, is in part why so many people choose get their news from Breitbart.

(As a very off-the-subject side note, the Atlantic cover story on torture contains this sentence, intended as part of its condemnation of U.S. interrogation techniques: "But 48 days and nights with no more than four hours' sleep every 24, combined with stress positions, hypothermia, and forced nudity, push these nuances over a line any decent person would acknowledge." Aside from the hypothermia, this is a precise description of the two-month period during which I gave birth to twins.)

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Defense, Health Care, Media, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:02 AM

Thursday, October 01, 2009

What's Happening Now

Tim Cavanaugh: Another fiscal year older, another $1.65 trillion in debt.

Michael van der Galien: Everybody loves clowns, right?

GE gets its payoff.

Jules Crittenden: Intelligence without experience is like knowing how roller skates work without ever having skated. (One guess who he's talking about.)

PhRMA spends $9.4 million more promoting left-wing health care "reform"; forgets left-wing health care means drugs gets rationed.

Patterico tries to get a Washington Post correction. Good luck with that.

British Christian hotel owners charged with criminal offense after discussing religion with Muslim guest.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Defense, Europe, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Media, Religion, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:34 AM

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Quote of Note: In 2007-08, 16.5% of Deaths in Britain Came After Terminal Sedation

"Rarely has the Atlantic seemed as wide as when America's raw debate on the future of health care provoked a near unanimous response from Britain's politicians boasting of the superiority of socialized medicine delivered by the country's National Health Service. Prime Minister Gordon Brown used Twitter to tell the world that the NHS can mean the difference between life and death. His wife added, 'we love the NHS.' Opposition leader David Cameron tweeted back that his plans to outspend Labour showed the Conservatives were more committed to the NHS than Labour.

"This outbreak of NHS jingoism was brought to an abrupt halt by the Patients Association, an independent charity. In a report, the association presented a catalogue of end-of-life cases that demonstrated, in its words, 'a consistent pattern of shocking standards of care,' providing details of what it described as 'appalling treatment,' which could be found across the NHS. A few days later, a group of senior doctors and health-care experts wrote to a national newspaper expressing their concern about the Liverpool Care Pathway, a palliative program being rolled out across the NHS, involving the withdrawal of fluids and nourishment for patients thought to be dying. Noting that in 2007-08, 16.5% of deaths in the U.K. came after terminal sedation, their letter concluded with the chilling observation that experienced doctors know that sometimes 'when all but essential drugs are stopped, 'dying' patients get better' if they are allowed to -- words that put a different complexion on Gordon Brown's August tweet."

-Rupert Darwall, "Life, Death and the NHS," Wall Street Journal, September 14, 2009

For more on life and death on the NHS, download a free PDF copy of our new book, Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Europe, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:16 AM

Saturday, September 12, 2009

A Lot to Worry About in This Story

Doctors in Australia's government-run hospitals are killing patients because they're exhausted, says an Australian doctors' union.

The government's response? Doctors should drink more coffee, and a different branch of government should run the hospitals.

From Reuters:

Exhausted Australian doctors have been told to drink up to six cups of coffee a day to stay awake during extended shifts, building pressure on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to seize control of state-run hospitals.

A document on fatigue management released by health officials in Queensland state recommended doctors ingest 400 milligrams of caffeine to stay awake on the job, or the equivalent of six cups of coffee, after warnings that patients were dying.

"For management to just say go and have a cup of coffee and get over tiredness, it cheapens the whole issue," Australian Medical Association Vice President Steven Hambleton told Reuters.

"We are talking about serious issues here, and this is not just a serious suggestion at all. It can't be a weakness to say you're dog tired," he said.

The recommendation followed warnings from a union representing Queensland doctors this week that public hospital patients were dying because dangerously tired medics were being forced to work up to 80 hours without a break...

You can read the rest here, but before you do, contemplate the following two concepts: "doctors' union" and "strike." Yikes.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:26 AM

Thursday, September 10, 2009

British MP Charges Some Parents Have Been Threatened for Questioning Health System

A Liberal Democrat Member of the British Parliament is charging that some parents in Britain have been told they could lose legal custody of their children because they complained about the British government's National Health Service.

From the Times (UK):

Parents are being threatened with having their children taken into care after questioning doctors' diagnoses or objecting to their medical care.

John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP, who campaigns to stop injustices in the family court, said:

"Very often care proceedings are used as retaliation by local authorities against 'uppity' people who question the system."

Cases are emerging across the UK: The mother of a 13-year-old girl who became partly paralysed after being given a cervical cancer vaccination says social workers have told her the child may be removed if she (the mother) continues to link her condition with the vaccination.

A couple had all six of their children removed from their care after they disputed the necessity of an invasive medical test on their eldest daughter. Doctors, who suspected she might have had a blood disease, called for social services to obtain an emergency protection order, although it was subsequently confirmed that she was not suffering from the condition. The parents were still considered unstable, and all their children were taken from them.

A single mother whose teenage son is terminally ill and confined to a wheelchair has been told he is to become the subject of a care order after she complained that her local authority’s failure to provide bathroom facilities for him has left her struggling to maintain sanitary standards...

Read the entire story here.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Europe, Government Health Care, Government Power, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:19 PM

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

My Take On the President's Speech

In his speech tonight, the President told the stories of several Americans who have had struggles with the American health care system, and unflatteringly compared the U.S. health care system to systems in other 'advanced democracies.' But people who live in those other advanced democracies would love to have the quality and quantity of care Americans routinely take for granted. And the stories the President shared in his speech, touching as they are, are not by any means worse than the stories Ryan Balis and I collected about the trials faced by people in Canada, Britain, Australia, Japan, Sweden and other nations with public systems.

The White House released a guest list of people who were to sit with the First Lady during the speech that included a gentleman whose insurance company delayed a colonoscopy for several months. A few months' delay is commonplace in countries with government medicine. In our collection, we tell the story of a man on Australia's public system who was told he had to wait TWO YEARS for a colonoscopy.

In the section of his speech about Senator Kennedy, the President evoked the sad hypothetical case of an American having to tell a loved one, 'there is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it.' In Britain, it is estimated that 25,000 people die prematurely every year because the British government-run health care system 'can't afford' cancer drugs Americans take for granted. Surely the President knows this.

A few weeks ago, the President famously claimed that a noteworthy expense of the U.S. health system occurs when doctors unethically try to make money by performing tonsillectomies unnecessarily. Although the President's allegation was preposterous, this wouldn't even be a credible lie in many countries with government-run systems, where it can be difficult to even get a tonsillectomy. In one of the stories we've collected and made available for download, a small child in a public health system abroad waited TWO YEARS for a tonsillectomy.

The President complained in his speech that people oppose his public option because of 'politics.' He's just wrong. People oppose his public option, including triggers and government-backed co-ops and any other back door route to government-run health care, because they fear what government-run health care always brings: pain, misery and death. Anyone who doubts this should download a free PDF of our new book and read for themselves what President Obama's co-called 'public option' would really be like.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:13 PM

100 Stories of Personal Struggles with the Health Care System You Won't Hear from President Obama

As the White House has announced that the First Lady will watch the President's health care speech tonight with two people who have had what the White House terms as "struggles" with the U.S. health care system, I remind everyone about our new book, "Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care."

Shattered Lives tells of the struggles 100 people in countries that previously adopted the so-called "public option" (read: government option) on health care have had getting health care services. These are the kind of stories I think we can be confident the President won't reference during his speech tonight.

We are not charging for PDF copies of the book, which readers can download from http://www.nationalcenter.org/
ShatteredLives.html.

Why not download a copy now, and email it to any of your friends or family or are on the fence about the impact of increasing government control over our health system? Or post a link to the book's free downloads page on your Facebook page or blog?

Remember, folks: Government-run health care guarantees you health insurance -- it doesn't guarantee health care.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Congress, Europe, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:55 PM

What's Happening Now

Penny Starr: Obama pitched health care to young people in audience before his national speech to students.

Rich Noyes: How media covered HillaryCare. Look familiar?

Michael Barone: The convenient fantasies of President Obama.

Prohibition coming back -- but in Britain? (H/T JunkScience.com)

When do the hearings begin? (H/T Devon Carlin)

We were wrong, says Commonwealth Foundation.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Education, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, History, Media, Retirement, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:08 PM

The New Obama is A Deficit Hawk (Or So He Claims)

President Obama is saying he won't sign a health care bill that adds "one dime to the deficit":

"There are some principles that, if they are not embodied in the bill, I will not sign it," Obama said in an interview with ABC News' Robin Roberts aired on "Good Morning America" today.

Yet the president declined in the interview to draw a line in the sand on a so-called "public option," offering government-run health insurance to those who cannot find coverage privately.

Asked if the must-sign elements include that option, the president said: "I will give you an example -- if it's adding one dime to the deficit, if it's not fully paid for," then he will not sign the legislation...

Nice words, but if he means them, why has he been working for months for the trillion+ dollar House health care bill?

Surely even a man who spends tax dollars as easily as does our president considers a trillion dollars to be real money.

Or perhaps he's signaling an intention to cut even more from Medicare?

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:10 PM

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

What's Happening Now

"Beyond Petroleum" finds some. What to do?

39 fallacies about health care.

Cash for Clunkers spent $3 billion to save $375 million. More here.

I agree with Elliot Spitzer. Yikes.

GQ runs story connecting Vladimir Putin to terrorism within Russia, then bans story's publication in Russia. Conflicted?

NY Times news story shows jobs being killed when wages are mandated to be higher. Does the Times editorial page read the news section?

Just for fun: A huge snake. (Click on pic to see detail.)

Labels: Foreign Policy, Media, Minimum Wage, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:34 PM

Project 21's Bob Parks to Critique Obama Health Care Speech on BET

Update on post below: BET has decided to schedule Bob for a different panel discussion to be recorded at another time, so he will not be appearing on BET this evening.

Project 21 member Bob Parks is scheduled to appear as a commentator during Black Entertainment Television's coverage of President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, September 9.

President Obama is going to Capitol Hill to push for his foundering socialized health care agenda.

BET's coverage of Obama's speech is scheduled to begin at 8:00 PM and continue until 9:00 PM or 9:30 PM, depending on the length of the speech. Its coverage will be broadcast from the Newseum.

BET is available as a basic service on most cable TV systems. Check your local listings for the channel. On national services, it is channel 329 on Direct TV, channel 124 on Dish Network and channel 270 on FiOS.

---

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Project 21, Race, Retirement, White House

Posted by David W. Almasi at 6:29 PM

Outrage of the Day: ObamaCare Would Tax Some Workers So Others Could Retire Early

James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation highlights once again a genuine travesty included in the President's health care reform proposal, a $10 billion bailout of labor unions.

Sherk writes, in part:

...The most obvious benefit President Obama's health care plan provides to organized labor is a $10 billion taxpayer bailout for underfunded retiree health benefit plans. Many unions negotiate benefit packages that allow workers to retire early and collect health benefits until they qualify for Medicare. Many of these plans they are underfunded because unions mismanaged them.

The healthcare legislation transfers $10 billion to these accounts, in the form of a reinsurance program that pays most of the cost of claims for workers in these plans. Like the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the health care legislation requires all taxpayers -- including low income workers without retirement plans--to pay for benefits for already well-compensated union workers...

To recap:

1) The bailout is intended not for poor or disabled people, but people with jobs who would like to retire before reaching age 65;

2) The bailout would be paid for by taxpayers, most of whom will not enjoy the leisure and other benefits of retiring before 65. Many will not be able to retire even at 65;

3) The unions had funds available to pay for these benefits, but they mismanaged them.

Pathetic.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Labor Unions, Retirement, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:49 PM

Senate Finance Crazy Talk

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, has developed a health care proposal that would cost taxpayers at least $900 billion while making health insurance less affordable.

The plan includes new taxes on health insurance companies. These would, of course, be paid by customers.

Our federal government taxes gasoline heavily as a conservation measure, that is, to reduce the amount of it we choose to buy.

Taxing health insurance makes sense only if you want to deter the purchase of it. It makes no sense whatsoever as a cure to the problem of too many uninsured Americans.

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, Social Security, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:05 AM

Saturday, September 05, 2009

What's Happening Now

Government health care strikes again: 30 a day died in South Africa.

High taxes hurt soccer.

Scotland isn't the only nation releasing terrorists.

If government health care doesn't cure you, Joe Biden will claim it did.

Will Charlie Rangel face criminal charges?

Tom Blumer: "How crazy is it that Ford has to 'negotiate' a new contract with the United Auto Workers union, even though the union has ownership interests in two of its principal competitors...?

A competency question.

Jane Chastain: Cash for Clunkers not good for the environment.

Should government be able to harvest your organs without obtaining consent?

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Labor Unions, Retirement, Scandals, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:12 AM

Friday, September 04, 2009

ABC Won't Air Anti-ObamaCare Ad, But a Double-Standard is in Play

ABC and NBC are refusing to air a commercial critical of Obama's vision to remake health care as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Uncle Sam, but ABC's reasons for doing so don't stand up to scrutiny.

The ad, created by the League of American Voters, features neurosurgeon Dr. Mark J. Cuffe warning about threats posed by government-run health care such as rationing and limits on medical innovation. The commercial can be viewed above or by clicking here.

For reasons of full disclosure, be advised that League executive director Bob Adams is a former National Center for Public Policy Research employee. He did not, however, solicit this posting and my discovery of his link to the organization came after I was already appalled by ABC's duplicity.

According to a report posted on FoxNews.com, both ABC and NBC are refusing to run the ad nationally in its present form. In particular, ABC spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a statement: "The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue... Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News." NBC might accept a revised version of the ad.

The ad is running on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox.

Former Clinton Administration political advisor Dick Morris, who is now helping out the League of American Voters, disputed ABC's assertion of impartiality. He said: "It's the ultimate act of chutzpah because ABC is the network that turned itself over completely to Obama for a daylong propaganda fest about health care reform... For them to be pious and say they will not accept advertising on health care shuts their viewers out from any possible understanding of both sides of this issue."

In fact, during ABC's June 24 White House event in which Obama was able to lay out his health care agenda with virtually no opposition from a small and select audience, the network did air an ad from PhRMA - the pharmaceutical lobby group that is a strong proponent of ObamaCare. It also ran an ad from Health Economy Now, a coalition made up of PhRMA, labor unions and special interest groups that is also backing ObamaCare.

It seems there is a double-standard at ABC as to what constituted partisan activity. And yet they insist they are being objective.

The National Center has been tracking national advertisers of ABC's daily "World News" program all summer as well as its specials on health care and oil. You can find a list of these sponsors and their contact information here. Write or call those sponsors. Tell them what you think of a network that restricts the ability of both sides of an issue to make their case.

In the commercial, Dr. Cuffe warned that what he feared might happen here under Obamacare is already happening in places such as Canada and England. The National Center recently published a compilation of stories of people denied proper and efficient care under government-run health care schemes abroad that can be downloaded for free by going here.

---

Labels: Business, Conservatives, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Retirement

Posted by David W. Almasi at 10:24 PM

Thursday, September 03, 2009

A National Health Service: Costly, Yes, and Powerful, Too

Professor Jacobson over at the Legal Insurrection blog has a good post up on the cost of the British National Health Service, based on a recent article from the London Times.

Something the good professor does not address, at least in that post, are the political repercussions of creating such a large government workforce. By the time a public health system has 1.5 million employees, as Britain's NHS does, the politicians become afraid to enact reforms that affect even some of these workers adversely -- even desperately-needed reforms with plenty of support from the general public.

The U.S. has five times the population of the United Kingdom. Had we made the same decision Britain made 50 years ago and created a National Health Service of our own, all other things equal, it would have 7,500,000 employees today.

Anyone imagine that, had we done so, that either the Republicans or the Democrats would be willing to speak truth to a power block that large?

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:06 AM

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Don't Let Health Care 'Reform' Rain on Your Picnic

The National Association of Manufacturers has a released a new video using a picnic analogy to succinctly illustrate ways we can improve our health care system -- and warning us of the dangers of the so-called "public option."

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:37 AM

The Ad ABC Won't Run

Here's the health care ad ABC refuses to run.

Wondering who ABC News does accept commercials from? Go to our ABC World News Sponsors page to find out.

Hat tip: Bridgett Wagner

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:14 AM

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Postage Stamp Rationing Followup

If you followed with interest our articles from August (here and here) about how the U.S. Postal Service has been rationing stamps, you may want to check out Meredith Jessup's followup to it on the TownHall.com blog, and the comments to her post there.

I find amusing the people who -- on the TownHall.com blog and elsewhere -- complained that the real problem is that we wanted to buy 3,000 stamps in the first place.

C'mon, people! The post office makes its money by selling stamps. Plus, 3,000 letters is a miniscule amount of mail to the postal service.

As noted earlier, at least no one relies on the post office for health care.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Government Agencies, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:43 PM

Thursday, August 27, 2009

What's Happening Now

Here are one million British National Health Service patients who don't use the Twitter hashtag #welovethenhs.

Fire extinguishers are dangerous -- people might use them.

Public health care is SO reliable. </sarcasm>

Making Dan Rather look good: Swedish newspaper admits it had no evidence when it claimed Jews steal organs from Palestinian children, then defends article making the claim.

Cap-and-trade a ball-and-chain.

Unions get a handout in the health care bill. Cheer up: Only $10 billion. (H/T @BridgettWagner)

Betsy McCaughey on Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, friend of 15-to 40-year-olds everywhere.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Regulation, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:02 AM

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

What's Happening Now

Media: Obama's a neologist; Bush was just dumb.

Jokes to play on the President.

Where does YOUR state rank? (H/T Coyote Blog.)

Examiner: If Americans were getting an average of 20 miles to the gallon before Cash for Clunkers, they are getting 20.0046 mpg after it. In a best-case scenario.

All hail Octavia: A novel new national debt relief program.

"Jackass" was the correct term.

Americans want the legal opportunity to opt out of Social Security, 49% - 37%.

Dr. Roy Cordato: And they say private insurance companies are the bad guys.

Evil doesn't die easily.

Think scientists are objective? Read this.

The power to force people to buy stuff is not in the Constitution.

Superman job: Fact-checking the White House.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy, Government Spending, Health Care, Media, Retirement, Social Security, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:33 AM

Monday, August 24, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Krugman Again

The perpetually non-serious (despite his grim look) New York Times columnist Paul Krugman claimed on ABC's This Week that "the argument against the public option is sheer nonsense, we know that, it's nothing except the insurance lobby." (See the last few seconds of video, above.)

So the tens of millions of Americans who ardently oppose a public option (takeover) are insurance companies?

Gee, with millions of insurance companies out there, infesting Congressional town hall meetings, tea parties and whatnot, you'd think we wouldn't need the so-called "enhanced competition" of Krugman and Obama's public "option."

Earlier this month, ObamaCare opponents were racists. Now we're insurance companies. What will we be in September -- potted plants?

Hat tip: Firedoglake.

Download a pre-production PDF of The National Center for Public Policy Research's upcoming new book, Shattered Lives: 100 Stories of Government Health Care, for more on the way waiting lists affect the lives of people living in countries with government-run medicine. Feel free to email a free copy to Krugman.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Outrage, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:39 AM

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Dear President Obama: Please Read This

Join me in urging our President and every Member of Congress to read the article "How American Health Care Killed My Father" by David Goldhill in the September issue of the Atlantic.

Sample paragraph:

I'm a Democrat, and have long been concerned about America's lack of a health safety net. But based on my own work experience, I also believe that unless we fix the problems at the foundation of our health system - largely problems of incentives - our reforms won't do much good, and may do harm. To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government's role exclusively on things that only government can do (protect the poor, cover us against true catastrophe, enforce safety standards, and ensure provider competition); overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy.

Read it all here, pass the link (or this post) on to your Congressman, the White House and to others you know.

Hat tip: Greg Mankiw's Blog.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:18 AM

Outrage of the Day: A Rockefeller Questioning Profits

Senator John D. Rockfeller IV (D-WV) has sent a letter to the top 15 health insurance companies asking them to report how profitable they are. In part because Rockefeller is a Senate Committee chairman, the letters carry with them the threat of an implied subpoena if the companies don't respond.

The day he had the letters sent, Rockefeller said in a statement, "Too often consumers are not getting a fair deal for what they pay, they are not getting the protections they deserve, and the insurance companies are awash in profit."

How does he know? He can't have received any replies yet.

As the Senator's condemnation of the replies before he received them implies, this is grandstanding, not research. Health insurance companies report their profits to various regulators.

Why, if the Senator honestly wanted to know, he could have Googled it. I did.

From the August 5, 2009 Wall Street Journal:

'For every premium dollar that they take in, about 83 cents goes out in medical costs -- doctors, hospitals, and drugs,' says Carl McDonald, health insurance analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. The rest is spent on overhead. Net income comes to just a few cents per dollar of premiums.

More Google results here, here, and here, among many others.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Outrage, Regulation, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:38 AM

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Quote of Note: Median Wait Between Referral to a Specialist and Treatment in Canada is 17.3 Weeks

"In 2008, the median wait time from general practitioner referral to treatment by a specialist was 17.3 weeks in Canada. Despite substantial increases in both health spending and federal cash transfers to the provinces for health care over the last decade or so, that wait time was 45 per cent longer than the overall median wait time of 11.9 weeks back in 1997. It was 86 per cent longer than the overall median wait time of 9.3 weeks in 1993.

"Canada's waiting lists are also, according to the available evidence, among the longest in the developed world. For example, a 2007 survey of individuals published in the journal Health Affairs found that Canadians, as compared to patients in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, the Netherlands, the U.K. and the U.S., were most likely to wait more than one month for elective surgery, six days or longer to see a doctor when ill, and two hours or more for access to the ER."

-Nadeem Esmail, "Medicare Deserves its 'Whipping Boy' Status," The Chronicle Herald, Halifax, Nova Scotia, August 14, 2009

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Quotes, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:54 PM

Friday, August 21, 2009

What's Happening Now

Is national health insurance Constitutional? No. Not convinced yet? Go here then.

"It's almost as if the president has no experience..." Ya think?

What planet is this guy on?

Independence Institute: Medical coverage is like a game show. (90 sec. video)

Write about the Fifth Amendment, get sued.

Death panels are real.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Conservatives, Constitutional Law, Government Health Care, Health Care, Legal Reform, Liberals, Property Rights, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:46 PM

How Rationing Begins

"Whenever anything has a zero explicit price associated with it, consumer demand will increase substantially, and healthcare is no exception. At the same time, bureaucratic bungling will guarantee gross inefficiencies that will get worse and worse each year. As costs get out of control and begin to embarrass those who have promised all Americans a free healthcare lunch, the politicians will do what all governments do and impose price controls, probably under some euphemism such as 'global budget controls.'

"Price controls, or laws that force prices down below market-clearing levels (where supply and demand are coordinated), artificially stimulate the amount demanded by consumers while reducing supply by making it unprofitable to supply as much as previously. The result of increased demand and reduced supply is shortages. Non-price rationing becomes necessary. This means that government bureaucrats, not individuals and their doctors, inevitably determine who will get medical treatment and who will not, what kind of medical technology will be available, how many doctors there will be, and so forth."

-Thomas DiLorenzo, "Socialized Healthcare vs. The Laws of Economics," Whiskey and Gunpowder blog, August 20, 2009

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Quotes, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:33 AM

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Quote of Note: Under Socialized Medicine, Rationing is Inevitable

"As FA Hayek pointed out many years ago in his masterpiece, The Constitution of Liberty, if healthcare is paid for out of general taxation and delivered free at the point of delivery, then in a world of scarce resources - and healthcare is always constrained at any time by the supply of doctors, drugs, etc - then such care must be rationed by some form of bureaucratic/political rule...

...Now a socialist might respond that it is still better for health care to be rationed by some rule they consider to be 'fair' than by the supposed lottery of the market, although in fact, as I would respond, there is, due to the benefits of competition and entrepreneurship, far greater chance that all but the poorest will get better healthcare under a genuine free market in health than under the system of centralised, state-provided healthcare."

-Johnathan Pearce, "Under Socialised Medicine, Tough Rationing Choices are Inevitable," Samizdata.net, August 19, 2009

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Quotes, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:03 PM

What's Happening Now

The British government health care waiting list problem has been solved.

"Racial overtones," says MSNBC, capping its entry into the Stupidest News Clip of the Decade Contest.

British tax dollars at work: National Health Service gives Viagra to man with 30-year history of child sex crimes.

Sweden's largest newspaper claims Israel is kidnapping Palestinians and harvesting their organs. On MSNBC next?

White House deal with PhRMA undermines democracy.

Another polar expedition trapped in ice. Bonus picture of Al Gore's houseboat. Or go here.

Obama has lowest Gallup approval rating at this stage since Truman, except for one President. Find out which.

Ukraine's Got Talent.

Thomas Sowell on death guidance.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Culture, Europe, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Project 21, Race, Retirement, Scandals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:46 AM

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Girl, 17, Faces Paralysis Thanks to Gov't Health Care Waiting List

A young lady in Ireland fears she may be paralyzed for life because Ireland's government-run health care service hasn't gotten around to putting her on the waiting list for the operation she needs -- and the waiting list is a year long.

From the Dublin Herald:

A teenage girl will be left paralysed if she does not get urgent surgery on her spine.

Lauren Browne (17) told the Herald that, despite the seriousness of her situation, she is not even on the year-long waiting list for an operation.

Lauren suffers from idiopathic scoliosis and is struggling to get on the list for the life-changing procedure at Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children in Crumlin, due to severe budget cuts imposed by the HSE.

The operation would drastically improve Lauren's quality of life and the teen runs the risk of becoming paralysed without it.

"I'm not even on the waiting list. I'm on the waiting list for the waiting list. My surgeon told me that I cannot wait a year. My vertebrae is rotating so rapidly that I have the risk of being paralysed if I wait for the surgery that long."

Lauren's quality of life has deteriorated since the diagnosis and she hit out at the HSE for what she feels is its lack of concern.

Lauren said: "The HSE just don't seem to care. Our cases are not qualified as life threatening, but I have no idea how they don't consider this to be life threatening. They have no idea what it's like for me.

"When I was told I would have to wait at least a year, I nearly started crying. It was horrible to hear," she said...

Ah, well, she's 17. Her best years are already behind her, right?

Read the rest here.

Watch for The National Center for Public Policy Research's upcoming new book, Shattered Lives: 100 Stories of Government Health Care, for more on the way waiting lists affect the lives of people living in countries with government-run medicine.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:46 AM

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Thin Skins Across the Pond

There's been a bit of a fuss in Britain the last few days. It's keyed to Americans taking a look at the performance of their government-run health care system, the National Health Service, or NHS, and finding it wanting.

It seems that more than a few Britons are taking this personally, as if our horror at seeing, for example, Britons routinely denied potentially-lifesaving cancer drugs because of their cost is a hostile, anti-Britain sentiment.

Quite the contrary: If we did not like you, we wouldn't be so horrified.

This debate is more than of passing interest to me because this week the National Center for Public Policy Research will release its newest book, "Shattered Lives: 100 Stories of Government Health Care."

The chapter on Britain is the longest.

Beginning soon, we'll be running a story a day from the book in this blog. As we do, I expect I'll also be editorializing a good bit more about what our friends in Britain have said in defense of their own health system, and their attacks on our own.

In the meantime, I recommend this excellent post on the Classically Liberal blog, which contains several stories from Britain.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:11 AM

Monday, August 17, 2009

Is Obama Really Dropping the So-Called Public Option? Not a Chance

The media is making much of the Obama Administration's hints that the President will no longer insist on a so-called "public option" in a health care bill he signs, but the idea of a government-started "co-op" alternative to private health insurance has not been abandoned.

What we have here is the left, finding a block on a road heading left, choosing another read, also heading left.

And heading to government-run health care.

Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute wrote instructively about the co-op "alternative" in June:

A closer look suggests that the only thing intriguing about the co-op alternative is whether it is a completely meaningless construct or simply camouflage for the "Public Plan" option...

...The new co-ops would presumably have to advertise like other insurance companies, build physician networks, pay competitive reimbursement rates, and in general act like, well, every other insurance company. It is suggested that the new federal co-ops would be nonprofits, and therefore would offer better service and lower costs. But many insurance companies, including "mutual" insurers and many "Blues," are already nonprofit companies. If the new co-ops operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother?

And there's the rub. Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises that operate by the same rules as other insurers. This is not really about creating more choices and competition. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op's officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) says, "It's got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option."

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks likes a duck, it's probably a duck.

Moreover, several previous attempts by governments to set up co-ops have, in fact, failed. Perhaps the largest such failure was the Florida Community Health Purchasing Alliance, which was set up by the State of Florida in 1993, and at one time covered 98,000 people. It was unable to attract small business customers and ultimately went out of business in 2000. Does anyone really believe that a Congress that is busy bailing out banks and automobile companies because they are 'too big to fail" is going to sit idly by while one of these new co-ops suffers a similar fate?

If a "co-op" is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, it's simply government-run health insurance by another name. Opponents of a government takeover of the health care system should not be fooled.

A single national co-op with officers and director appointed by the President and Congress and set up to accomplish the objectives of a public option.

Sounds exactly like government-run health care to me.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:14 AM

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Want a Baby? Thanks to Government Health Care, In Britain Becoming a Parent May Depend on Where You Live

Everyone over a certain age knows what you have to do if you want to have a baby -- that is, except in Britain, where for some couples, the route to parenthood lies in changing their home address.

That's because Britain's government-run health care system, the National Health Service, or NHS, decides whether to provide in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures to couples based in part on their home address.

It's a situation known as the "postcode lottery" to ordinary Britons, who have long known that their ability to get knee replacement operations, cancer-curing drugs and other medical services and procedures may be granted -- or withheld -- from them simply because of where they live.

Now, thanks to a survey by a Member of Parliament, it's become clear that its not just quality-of-life and death that may be determined in the postcode lottery, but the opportunity to be born itself.

MP Grant Shapps found that the regional primary care trusts under which the NHS operates have widely divergent rules covering when couples are eligible to receive IVF services, despite the existence of uniform national recommendations set out by the British government's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE.

Under NICE recommendations, women under 40 should be eligible for up to three cycles of IVF on the NHS. Nonetheless, in some areas it was unavailable to women aged 23-39. In others it was available only to women aged 37-39.

In about half of Britain, the NHS declines IVF services to couples in which one partner already has a child. Likewise, in half the country couples are required to have been in a relationship with one another for at least three years before seeking treatment, while in other areas there is a shorter time requirement, or none.

In many parts of Britain couples who smoke are ineligible for IVF, although some regional trusts relent if only the man smokes.

Despite NICE guidelines calling for access to three cycles of IVF on the public NHS system for all women under 40, Britain's Department of Health said only 30 percent of regional primary care trusts provided three cycles, 23 percent provided two cycles and 47 percent one cycle.

Watch for The National Center for Public Policy Research's upcoming new book, Shattered Lives: 100 Stories of Government Health Care, for more on "postcode lotteries" and rationing in countries with government-run medicine.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Government Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives, Social Welfare, Socialism

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:21 AM

Friday, August 14, 2009

Quote of Note: On Hospitals Overseas

"Because I have traveled a great deal in my life, often recklessly so, alone, and to weird places in search of answers to topographical questions of the ancient Mediterranean world, and first-hand observations about battles and campaigns in out of the way places for several books— I have ended up over the last 36 years in a number of socialist hospitals: E-coli poisoning in Athens from tainted strawberries; a cut tendon on my index finger from a barbed wire fence in Sparta (with reaction to live tetanus vaccination); a severed ureter due to an impacted staghorn calculus kidney stone from dehydration of excavating at Corinth; a light case of malaria at Karnak, Egypt; an out of control, strep throat that turned into something more in Izmir, Turkey; a ruptured appendix, surgery, and peritonitis in Tripolis, Libya, and so on.

In each case, the care was terrible. A sole lonely doctor or maverick nurse in two cases saved my life, but on the average the facilities were filthy, and the employees akin to those in the government-run post office or bank. And a strange thing occurred as well: often the staff became mad at the patient: 'Why did you come here with an appendix problem?'; You should have not let your strep get out of control!'; 'If you don't drink water, what do you expect!'; 'See what happens when you don't take all your quinine pills!'."

-Victor Davis Hanson, "On Becoming Europe," Pajamas Media, August 12, 2009

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:47 AM

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

John Mackey: Eight Ways to Improve Health Care

John Mackey, co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods, has eight suggestions for improving health care in today's Wall Street Journal.

They are, quoting Mackey:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems...

• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits...

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines...

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost...

• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Mackey's op-ed is excellent. I strongly encourage folks to read the whole thing.

Here's something else great by John Mackey, circa 2006.

---

This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Vice President David Ridenour. E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement, Taxes

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 10:08 PM

What's Happening Now

Triumph of hope over experience: Pro-Georgian blogger asks Russian government to defend his free speech rights.

Got the flu in Britain? Need medical help? No problem! The government health service will put a 16-year-old on the phone with you.

President Obama claims U.S. private-care doctors remove tonsils too often. That's a problem the family of this 16-year-old in Britain wishes their government health service had.

A picture editorial: ObamaCare is "shovel ready."

A blogger's letter to flag@whitehouse.gov.

The BBC wonders: Why do Hollywood movies about autistic people focus on the very few who have savant abilities? I wonder: Why is BBC surprised to find Hollywood being unrealistic?

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Autism, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:22 AM

Monday, August 10, 2009

Egg on Face of Left, But It's Probably the Right's Fault Anyway

The left-wing Think Progress website reports that the situation of Kenneth Gladney, the "Don't Tread on Me" t-shirt salesman who reportedly was assaulted at a town meeting last week, "underscores the vital need for health care reform" because Gladney "has no affordable health care option available."

Another website the group quotes, the Moderate Voice, says, "If anything was more calculated to make the Right look foolish than this St. Louis incident then I'd love to see it."

Hmmm.... turns out Mr. Gladney has insurance after all. The erroneous report that he didn't appeared in the mainstream media.

But of course the Right is always defending the accuracy of the mainstream media, so the whole muck-up is probably still our fault.

To Think Progress' credit, it updated its blog post with the information that Mr. Gladney does have health insurance.

Nevertheless, something more needs to be said: this debate is not only, or even primarily, about access to health insurance. It is about access to health care. No one argues that Mr. Gladney got that, and promptly, too.

As a new book the National Center for Public Policy Research will soon release, "Shattered Lives: 100 Stories of Government Health Care" aptly demonstrates, prompt (or even any) access to health care is not something people in Britain, Canada, Australia or other nations with government-run health care systems can take for granted.

Insurance they got.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Conservatives, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Media, Retirement, ShatteredLives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:48 PM

Pelosi and Hoyer: "'Un-American' Attacks Can't Derail Health Care Debate"

Here's a link to the op-ed by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD).

It's not very good, and not at all factual (haven't they read the bill?), but as its headline, helped along by Drudge, has made it notorious, I thought folks might like a link.

By the way, who agrees with me that "the promise of affordable health care for all" -- as the Representatives put it -- has not been the most debate domestic issue since the Lyndon Johnson Administration, as Pelosi and Hoyer claim? Just a guess, but I think the honor for that title would go to the abortion debate.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:28 AM

Obama/DNC Health Care Operation Urges Congressional Visits

Someone who lives in Virginia but who did not mention that his name could be used sent me and others the attached two-page flyer from President Obama's health care operation.

(Open each photo in a new tab or window to enlarge it, or download a PDF of the entire document here.)

The person had signed up to be on the Obama email list when Obama was a presidential candidate and received this by email.

In this case, the operation was encouraging this person to visit the office of Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia to lobby Senator Warner in favor of what the flyer calls "the President's health care guarantees."

Notice the flyer bypasses the issue of which, if any, legislation the recipient -- or the Senator -- is encouraged to favor. Recipients are just supposed to ask the Senator for the vaguely good-sounding items listed on the flyer, and leave the details to their supposed betters in Washington.

(For myself, I would never lobby anyone for "no gender discrimination" in health care, as I never used health services more than when I was carrying twins, and I have never once had even a bit of prostate trouble.)

Notice also that Obama's operation wants people to report to them how office visits go (see the section entitled "After Your Visit" on the flyer) and how the staff responds.

I post these pages for informational purposes only. Do with them what you will.

Note: This post was edited after publishing to add the option of downloading a PDF of the flyer.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:00 AM

Saturday, August 08, 2009

What's Happening Now

Who says the Fifth Amendment is dead? A woman set fire to a man's genitals and is charged with endangering private property.

Your Grandpa is the mob. Funny pics. (H/T The American Catholic)

How Cash for Clunkers hurts charities.

More scurrilous allegations that if you disagree with big spending, racism may be the reason. Cynthia Tucker this time.

It can hurt to be a redhead -- literally.

More global warming hypocrites. Again.

Other than the ones in Congress, what is a pantywaist, anyway?

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Race, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:45 PM

Attention Paul Krugman: This Isn't About Obama Being Black

The New York Times' Paul Krugman suggests that the protesters against ObamaCare at townhall meetings are "reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing... than to who he is" -- a black man.

Really? If that's true where were all these protesters during the campaign last year? Has the president changed his ethnicity since then?

This isn't about Obama being black... it's about him being pink.

---

This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Vice President David Ridenour. E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Retirement, White House

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 8:53 AM

Project 21 Members Come Out Swinging Against Krugman Racism Allegation

Members of the Project 21 black leadership group have come out swinging against New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for "scurrilously pinning racist motives on critics of President Obama's health care proposals."

Project 21 has also called on President Obama to condemn "this effort to stifle debate with race-baiting tactics"; as well as "all efforts to derail legitimate public debate."

Krugman's column drew the following specific comments from Project 21 members:

Mychal Massie (Pennsylvania):

"Paul Krugman is the one with race on the brain. Specifically, he is using race in the lowest and most repulsive declinations. He is using it because every other argument to stem the growing tide of condemnation for the proposed health care reform bill has failed. Ergo, when all else fails, parade out the race card and attempt to incite blacks into becoming the useful idiots.

"Opposition to the proposed health care bill isn't based on race. It is based on a people who are tired of Congress and the President spitting in their faces. It is the collective resolve of a people who are tired of being tread upon. One would think a Nobel prize-winner such as Krugman could figure that out."

Mychal Massie is chairman of Project 21.

Joe Hicks (Los Angeles, California):

"I must have somehow missed the articles from Krugman and other liberal and leftist members of the mainstream media that were critical of the activities of ACORN - the radical, leftist group Barack Obama once represented. Somehow, their heavy-handed activities - that many argue bent the boundaries of legality - were just considered to be the organized expression of disadvantaged communities.

"Now the same shameless, clueless writers are trying to convince us that those Americans who rightfully feel threatened by government-run health care and confront Obama's noxious scheme at public forums are somehow the acts of a 'mob.' Krugman reveals his bias by admitting that people are genuinely angry without bringing himself to understand exactly why they are mad. Smearing the rightful anger and concern of everyday Americans as collections of angry, old white folks - or part of the 'birthers' movement - shows the elitist disdain that liberal journalists such as Krugman have for democracy in action."

Joe Hicks is a Pajamas Television commentator and vice president of Community Advocates, Inc. of Los Angeles. He is a former executive director of the Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission and former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Deneen Borelli (East Chester, New York):

"Krugman's commentary shows he is as out of touch as many of our elected officials are with real Americans. What's happening at town hall meetings has nothing to do with race and everything to do with concern over the rapid expansion of government.

"Americans are frustrated that letters, phone calls and e-mails to their elected representatives have had no impact on significant pieces of legislation such as cap-and-trade and stimulus spending. Americans are taking the next logical step by directly voicing their opinions to their representatives at town hall meetings."

Deneen Borelli is a full-time fellow with Project 21. She serves on the board of trustees of The Opportunity Charter School in Harlem, New York and previously served as Manager of Media Relations with the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE).

Bishop Council Nedd II (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania):

"I have nothing to do with the 'birther' issue, but I do have concerns about health care. So do the people in my parishes and in the local diner where I eat every day. Living in central Pennsylvania, these truly are the people portrayed in the Norman Rockwell painting about freedom of speech that Krugman reference in his column. To imply these people are now racists is racist in itself.

"Approximately half of the U.S. population didn't vote for Obama in the first place. Why is Krugman shocked that there is opposition to the Obama health care plan, and that people dare to voice their concern at public meetings? The Obama plan inserts government officials into end-of-life decisions for seniors and those among us with the least. That is not a race issue, that is a privacy issue. The Obama plan has given a whole new meaning to the idea of government for the people. This health plan is a bitter pill shoved down people's throat against their will."

Council Nedd is an Anglican bishop, serving the Diocese of the Chesapeake.

Bob Parks (Athol, Massachusetts):

"Why is it when liberals want to make their points, their knee-jerk reaction is to go racial? Paul Krugman is supposedly a journalist. Before throwing out the race card while speculating, he should give us some attributed quotes. Minus that, what he thinks is irrelevant."

Bob Parks is a Project 21 member and media commentator, and operator of the Black and Right web site.

Jimmie Hollis (Millville, New Jersey):

"I knew the moment Obama became a presidential candidate that anyone disagreeing with him would be called a racist, and that any opposition to his political views would be seen as racism. The left has always played the race card because it works.

"But I am nonetheless happy to see that people on the right and many in the middle are now beginning to speaking out firmly and with passion against policies they oppose. President Obama should speak out and condemn Paul Krugman racial commentary."

Jimmie L. Hollis is a Project 21 member and is retired from the U.S. Air Force, in which he served from 1962-1987.

Geoffrey Moore (Chicago, Illinois):

"This is not about race. It is about government control. The system is not perfect, but there is no need to have the government take over control of the entire health care system. The government has not demonstrated the ability to efficiently control costs and provide good service.

"Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who are not up in arms about their insurance. There are people who are somewhat pleased with the coverage they have. The government getting involved will create enormous expense and waste, while creating more problems than they intend to solve."

Geoffrey Moore is a Project 21 member and a marketing analyst in Chicago.

Project 21's entire statement can be read here.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Media, Project 21, Race, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:32 AM

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

What's Happening Now

It's Obama v. Obama, as Obama White House unleashes ex-ABCer Linda Douglas to rebut a video of Barack Obama.

The British government spends $12 million a year lobbying itself on global warming, but it won't buy Mrs. Fletcher Lucentis.

The White House is looking for some snitches. Michelle Malkin asks: How much is the snitch effort costing us?

The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on Cash for Clunkers, even as it asks the Senate to renew it.

Russian subs have begun patrolling our east coast. Resetting our foreign policy indeed.

John Stossel blogs about Cash for Clunkers. Not a fan.

10 reasons the government should take over health care (NOT).

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, Government Health Care, Government Power, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:11 AM

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

What's Happening Now

Democrat leaders are exploring using a loophole to get health care reform passed. Others -- like me -- call it cheating.

A picture is worth a thousand words: A metaphor for ObamaCare.

Benjamin Franklin would not have supported government health care.

Will a health care bill pass? Charles Krauthammer's prediction.

Consumer Reports magazine is lobbying for government health care. So much for objectivity!

Government health care may mean waiting in line. You think?

Does a "DUI on a horse" charge mean the rider is drunk - or the horse?

Not all the ignorant kids are American. One in 20 British children believe singer Bob Geldof discovered gravity and that the classic book "Pride and Prejudice" was written by JK Rowling. (H/T Adam Smith blog)

A website now tracks the wit and wisdom of Vice President Joe Biden. (H/T Danny_Glover on Twitter)

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Crime, Education, Government Health Care, Health Care, History, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:48 AM

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

House Republicans to Introduce Health Care Plan Thursday

House Republicans will introduce a health care bill tomorrow.

For those with an interest, below is the text of a one-pager describing the bill that the conservative House Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Tom Price, M.D., is distributing on the Hill:

EMPOWERING PATIENTS FIRST ACT

A Solution from the Republican Study Committee for Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care for All Americans

Pillar #1: Access to Coverage for All Americans

Makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all - Extends the income tax deduction (above the line) on health care premiums to those who purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market. And, there is an advanceable, refundable tax credit (on a sliding scale) for low-income individuals to purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market.

Covers pre-existing conditions - Grants states incentives to establish high-risk / reinsurance pools. Federal block grants for qualified pools are expanded.

Protects employer-sponsored insurance - Individuals can be automatically enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan. Small businesses are given tax incentives for adoption of auto-enrollment.

Shines sunlight on health plans - Establishes health plan and provider portals in each state, and these portals act to supply greater information, rather than acting as a purchasing mechanism.

Pillar #2: Coverage Is Truly Owned by the Patient

Grants greater choice and portability - Gives patients the power to own and control their own health care coverage by allowing for a defined contribution in employer-sponsored plans. This also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered.

Expands the individual market - Creates pooling mechanisms, such as association health plans and individual membership accounts. Individuals are also allowed to shop for health insurance across state lines.

Reforms the safety net - Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries are given the option of a voucher to purchase private insurance. And states must cover 90% of those below 200% of the federal poverty level before they can expand eligibility levels under Medicaid and SCHIP.

Pillar #3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure

Institutes doctor-led quality measures - Nothing suggested by the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research can be finalized unless done in consultation with and approved by medical specialty societies. It also establishes performance-based quality measures endorsed by the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (PCPI) and physician specialty organizations.

Reimburses physicians to ensure continuity of care - Rebases the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) and establishes two separate conversion factors (baskets) for primary care and all other services.

Promotes healthier lifestyles - Allows for employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.

Pillar #4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs

Reforms the medical liability system - Establishes administrative health care tribunals, also known as health courts, in each state, and adds affirmative defense through provider-established best practice measures. It also encourages the speedy resolution of claims and caps non-economic damages.

Pays for the plan - The cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies (reduce DSH payments), ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non-defense discretionary spending step down.

An Associated Press story about the legislation, "House Republicans Unveil $700B Health Care Plan" by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, published this afternoon, contains additional details.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:20 PM

Monday, July 27, 2009

What's Happening Now

House leadership tells Republican Congressman he's not allowed to use the phrase "government-run health care."

Patriotic Americans know when to die.

Racism makes Harvey sad.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) says there is no point in Members of Congress reading the health care bill: It's incomprehensible.

Fundamental facts about Honduras.

1932 Hupmobile drivers be advised: Discretion is the better part of valor.

Federal spending by the numbers.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Energy, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Race, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:12 PM

Quote of Note: Bipartisan Approach to Health Care

"The only thing bipartisan about the [health care reform legislation] so far is the opposition to it."

-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on CNN's "State of the Union," July 26, 2009, as quoted by the Associated Press

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:37 AM

Friday, July 24, 2009

What's Happening Now

RedState reports: A top Democratic Congressional staffer says hospice is how the Democrats' health care bill controls health care costs.

MoveOn.org organized a rally in favor of Obama's health care reform legislation outside GOP Senator John Cornyn's Dallas office, but found itself outnumbered by Tea Party patriots as much as 20-1.

Midwives to be paid the same as doctors under the House Democrats' health care bill. America to follow Britain in giving up having a doctor present at births?

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus agree with President Obama about the Cambridge Police Department.

Put some tobacco in a pipe and smoke it, and your government health premiums go up. Put some crack in and smoke it and, hey, no problem!

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:44 PM

Annoy a Liberal Congressman Today

Apparently fearful the American people will see the chart Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) and GOP members of Congress' Joint Economic Committee released about the House Democrats' health care bill, House Democrats are reportedly blocking GOP attempts to mail it to their constituents.

The Democrats say (as far as I know, with a straight face) that they are blocking distribution not because they are censoring criticism, but because the chart is not precisely accurate.

For the record, the Republicans who created the chart say it is accurate. Meanwhile, we can expect the born-again accuracy czars of the House Democrat caucus to start admitting their health plan will lead to rationing, their cap-and-trade bill will kill jobs and that their stimulus bill was about pork and political payoffs.


There's no copyright on this chart, so why not annoy a liberal Congressman today by emailing it to all your friends? Click the little envelope or one of the "share" options below to do so easily.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:36 AM

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Race Preferences in Health Care Bill

Project 21 issued this press release this morning:

Obama Health Care Bill Contains Race Preferences

Black Activist Speaks Out Against Proposed Unequal Allocation of Health Resources

For Release: July 23, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110x11

An examination of the 1018-page "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" (H.R. 3200) - the official Obama health care bill - finds several cases in which grant money for medical training can be awarded solely on factors of race and class.

Project 21 member Bishop Council Nedd II, an Anglican bishop and director of the Ecumenical Institute for Health Policy Research based at Valley Forge Christian College, is condemning the addition of racial preferences to the President's legislation.

"The U.S. Supreme Court just struck down racial preferences. So why does a newly-introduced bill want to perpetuate something that has just been declared unconstitutional?" asked Project 21's Nedd. "Racial preferences will not improve health care. They will increase tensions when some people are being unfairly put at the front of the line."

Between pages 878 and 909 of H.R. 3200, in an area related to grants for medical training, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is empowered to grant preference in awarding training grants. For the specialties of "family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, geriatrics and physician assistantship" (pages 878-882); "medical residents on community-based settings" (pages 883-886) and "general, pediatric and public health dentists and dental hygienists" (pages 887-891), it is written that "the Secretary shall give preference to... entities that have a demonstrated record of... training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

Further, the bill amends the Public Health Service Act to give preferences in "advanced education nursing grants" to programs that "increase diversity among advanced education nurses" (pages 892-895). Grants for "enhancing the public health workforce" similarly give preference to "entities that have a demonstrated record of... training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds" (pages 907-909).

A PDF version of H.R. 3200 can be found at http://tw8.us/qW.

Nedd added: "By making racial preferences a shortcut to federal funding, schools will reduce their quest for the best and turn it into a hunt for the right racial numbers. This, in the long run, will hurt the quality of our nation's health care. We need to stop the social experimentation and focus on cost and performance."

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21Index.html.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Project 21, Race, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:03 AM

 

A Travesty, In My Opinion

It seems the White House plans to re-write the health care bill after some version of it passes the House and Senate, then jam the re-written version through Congress before anyone in Congress -- or the public -- has a chance to see what's in it.

Is this the transparency candidate Obama promised?

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Human Rights, Liberals, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:19 AM

Miscellaneous

The New York Times isn't buying everything Obama claimed at his press conference Wednesday.

Another hypocrite politician? Why, he's just like Al Gore.

Pay to play?

Paul Mirengoff says Walter Cronkite "didn't represent the victory of substance over style, but rather the victory of a style that implied substance over substance itself." I agree.

Hey Mr. President: Why no open meetings?

The CBO's integrity at risk?

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Environment, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Media, Retirement, Scandals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:53 AM

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

"It Will Destroy Health Care in This Nation"

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), a doctor in the real world, gives a good description of the majority's health care destruction bill in these comments delivered to his fellow members of the House Education and Labor Committee. Following Price's sharp exchange with Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) over something Price says Speaker Pelosi said and Miller says she didn't, my favorite part is Price saying this: "You know what [the American people] will have access to? They have access to an opportunity to get in line. They'll be able to get in line."

Price also said, flatly, that the House Democrats' bill "will destroy health care in this nation."

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:38 PM

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Speaking of the Government Letting People Die...

Speaking of the government letting people die, here's a story from Fox News last year about a 53-year-old cancer patient in Lane County, Oregon who wanted Oregon's public health plan to help him pay for chemotherapy.

Nothing doing, said Oregon, as the man's cancer was such that chemotherapy stood less than a 95 percent chance of guaranteeing the man would live an additional five years.

Two years or 4 years 11 months of life was not worth the cost of chemo to Oregon.

But don't think Oregon's government-run health plan lacked sympathy. It sent the man a letter offering to foot the bill for physician-assisted suicide.

And no, the letter was not a mistake. It was official policy.

Read "Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care" by Dan Springer for the rest of the story.

Hat tip: Foster Friess.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Human Rights, Retirement, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:46 AM

House Health Care "Reform" Bill Bans Sale of Private Health Insurance Policies

Investor's Business Daily is reporting that page 16 of the House Majority's health care bill bans new health insurance policies from being sold after the bill becomes law.

The editorial says, in part:

It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised - with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers...

...It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.

There's more in the editorial; for copyright reasons I could only excerpt it. Please go to Investor's Business Daily and read "It's Not An Option" immediately. Then ask your friends to do so.

This isn't merely a smoking gun showing the liberals are making a hard push now for socialized medicine, folks. This is a forest fire.

Addendum, 9:30 AM: A private source is telling me that, under the legislation, individual private insurance policies would still be permitted for sale through the government's insurance exchange, but the current system for the purchase and sale of health insurance would be shut down. So, as Matt Drudge would say, developing...

Addendum, 11:57 PM: More explanation here.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Power, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:50 AM

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

The House Majority's Health Plan, Pictured

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) and GOP members of Congress' Joint Economic Committee have released the following chart explaining how the House Majority's health care plan is structured.


There's no copyright on this chart. Why not email it (or this post -- see options below) to a friend?

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:58 PM

The Government's Penalties for Success Are Running Into Its Subsidies for Failure

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) says today in an article by Matt Cover for CNSNews.com that small businesses don't make $280,000 a year, so new health care tax hikes at that level won't harm small business.

Oddly though -- as a commenter on the CNSNews.com website noted -- the Small Business Administration will provide financial assistance to firms making many times that.

If you manufacture cigarettes, for example, you are eligible for Small Business Administration assistance if you have a thousand employees. Setting aside the question of why Congress is subsidizing cigarette manufacturing while penalizing it with sin taxes, can we rationally assume a business with a thousand employees never clears $280,000 a year?

So we appear to have a case in which you are penalized for being rich at the same time you are subsidized for not being rich enough.

But there is a method to Congress' madness, says Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), as reported by Adam Brickley and Fadia Galindo for CNSNews.com. The Congressional majority's health care tax plan is designed to harm small businesses sufficiently to force them to cut their employees' health care benefits, thus forcing those employees onto the public health care plan.

So when it looks like Congress is taxing and subsidizing the same people in a completely nonsensical way, we can rest assured that there is a purpose behind it after all -- the purpose of driving as many of us as politically-possible into a substandard, inevitably insolvent public health care plan.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Health Care, Government Power, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement, Social Welfare, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:36 PM

Have a Disabled Child? Mom Getting Forgetful? Expect ObamaCare to Let Them Die

Longtime conservative activist Foster Friess writes on his Campfire blog of Dr. Zeke Emanuel's plans to limit the health care expenses of "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens..."

In other words, if you are getting old, or not all there mentally, bye bye to you if you need health services that cost money.

Is Dr. Emanuel some powerless nut? If only!

No, he's President Obama's Special Advisor for Health Policy, his brother is the White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel, and Dr. Emanuel laid out these views in the influential British medical journal The Lancet.

Have a severely disabled child? Mom getting forgetful? If this kind of thinking becomes policy (beware: it could), expect ObamaCare to let them die.

Addendum 7/22/09: Mark Tapscott and John Goodman see it the same way.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Government Health Care, Government Power, Human Rights, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:22 AM

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

It's Even Worse When It's The Majority Leader

It is not a very good thing when a Congressman laughs at the notion that Congressmen should read the text of legislation before voting on it.

CNSNews.com's Monica Gabriel and Marie Magleby report today that Majority Leader Steny Hoyer actually laughed when asked by CNSNews.com if Members of Congress should read a government health care "reform" bill before voting on it.

"If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes," Hoyer told CNSNews.com.

If the bill is so unimportant it's not worth the trouble to read (by people who are paid well to read it, no less!), maybe we should just do without.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Power, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:31 AM

Monday, July 06, 2009

Quote of Note: Big Government's Ultimate Impact

"A society of children cannot survive, no matter how all-embracing the government nanny."

-Mark Steyn, "Being Taken Care of Weakens Us," Washington Times, June 15, 2009

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Media, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:20 AM

Friday, July 03, 2009

Quote of Note: Do We Now Need Government for Big Ticket Items?

"Health is potentially a big-ticket item, but so is a house and a car, and most folks manage to handle those without a Government Accommodation Plan or a Government Motor Vehicles System -- or, at any rate, they did in pre-bailout America."

-Mark Steyn, "Being Taken Care of Weakens Us," Washington Times, June 15, 2009

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Media, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:01 AM

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Quote of Note: How to Control Health Care Costs

"When President Obama tells you he's 'reforming' health care to 'control costs,' the point to remember is that the only way to control costs in health care is to have less of it."

-Mark Steyn, "Being Taken Care of Weakens Us," Washington Times, June 15, 2009

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Media, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:12 AM

Monday, June 29, 2009

Quote of Note: Does Preventative Care Save Money?

"Prevention of a disease, we all assume, should save us money, right? An ounce of prevention...? Alas, If only such aphorisms were true we’d hand out apples each day and our problems would be over.

It is true that if the prevention strategies we are talking about are behavioral things—eat better, lose weight, exercise more, smoke less, wear a seat belt—then they cost very little and they do save money by keeping people healthy.

But if your preventive strategy is medical, if it involves us, if it consists of screening, finding medical conditions early, shaking the bushes for high cholesterols, or abnormal EKGs, markers for prostate cancer such as PSA, then more often than not you don’t save anything and you might generate more medical costs. Prevention is a good thing to do, but why equate it with saving money when it won’t?"

-Abraham Verghese, "The Myth of Prevention," Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2009

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:34 AM

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Obama's Team Worried on Health Care Prospects

This Associated Press report is a decent overview of where the health care debate is on the Hill right now, which is to say, no where. At this moment, anyway.

That said, I very much caution those of us who fear an advance of government-run health care with its attendant long lines and rationing not to relax one bit. We've seen with the stimulus package, among other things, that this President and Congress are willing to leap first and look after. That's a recipe for passing something, even if it's horrible, just so they can say they did so.

The left has wanted government-run health care for years and the left-wing of the Democratic Party will not be especially forgiving if this President and Congress don't deliver it. Furthermore, President Obama is aware that a failure to deliver something major for the left on health care will be attributed especially to him (and from what we've seen so far, rightly so, as he's been providing scant leadership to his side). The longer this drags on, the less the White House will care about passing a bill that actually works for America, and more about getting something, anything, approved.

That could be trouble for all of us.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:32 PM

Friday, June 19, 2009

Obama Shouldn't Be Taken Literally, Says White House

Courtesy of the White House itself, we now know why President Obama was willing to break a health care promise before he even made it.

According to the White House, the Associated Press reports, Obama didn't really do that, because Obama's promises "shouldn't be taken literally."

"Promises shouldn't be taken literally" could be the Obama White House's version of the Clinton White House's "depends on what the definition of is is."

Just speak straight, people! (But thanks for warning us that we can't trust you.)

Hat tip: Ramesh Ponnuru at the Corner.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:46 PM

Chaos on Capitol Hill

Roll Call reports that negotiations over climate legislation among Democrats on Capitol Hill blew up last night.

This mimics the disorder among members of the Congressional majority on health care. CNN reported today that that the Democrats' plans to advance government's role in health care may be "on the rocks"; that's our sense of things as well.

Believers in a free market should not become overconfident, however; the left still holds most of the cards, and it has shown in the past that it is willing to pass nearly anything, as long as it is left-wing and/or shovels tax money to groups and individuals allied with the left. The Congressional majority will gladly pass bad, even horrendous, bills on climate and health care (indeed, from what I can see, they are only considering horrendous bills), so the odds against our team remain high.

That said, I'm amazed at the incompetence and lack of discipline going on in leftist ranks on the Hill. Congressional liberals were mostly out of power from 1995-2007 (House liberals were the entire time). They wanted to curb our use of energy and increase government's role in health care decisionmaking during that entire period, so why did they not get together and make plans? Work out drafts and get those drafts scored?

The Republican majority in Congress had its problems, but it sure hit the ground running in 1995.

This makes no sense to me.

P.S. One possibility just occurred to me. Possibly the environmental groups, with their hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, did not expend enough effort to get folks together on their version of climate heaven because they figure, if a climate bill passes, they wouldn't be able to do fundraising on global warming anymore. That's just a guess on my part, though. Could be they've just been incompetent.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:46 PM

Project 21's Borelli to Discuss MSM's ObamaCare Bias Monday on Fox

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli is scheduled to appear on the Fox News Channel's online "Strategy Room" program on Monday, June 22 between 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM eastern.

Deneen expects to discuss the President's seemingly unfettered access to a sympathetic mainstream media as President Obama promotes legislation to increase the role of government in individual health care decisions. In particular, Deneen plans to speak about ABC's hour-long "Prescription for America" program that will air this coming Wednesday.

To access the live Internet broadcast, click here and then click the "STREAM THIS NOW" headline in the center or the page under the photo.

---

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Project 21, Race, Retirement

Posted by David W. Almasi at 5:25 PM

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Daschle: Federal Health Care Plan a No-Go for Now

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's decision to give up for now on a federal public health care plan has to be a blow to the Administration and the left.

Daschle, while retired from the Senate, remains an influential and respected voice in the Democratic party. This can't be happy news for the left.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:00 PM