New Romney-Ryan Ads

A new ad from the Romney-Ryan campaign takes the Democrats' Medicare attacks on Paul Ryan head on. Watch the video below:

Video:  New Romney Ad: Obama Cut Medicare to Pay for Obamacare

"You paid into Medicare for years," the voiceover says. "Every paycheck. Now when you need it, Obama has cut $716 billion from Medicare. Why? To pay for ObamaCare. So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that's not for you."

And Remember:  Nobody 55 or older will be affected by any Medicare changes made, but the program will be bankrupt by 2024 for people younger if nothing is done or changed!  Ryan’s plan will save the program for those under 55-years of age.

The campaign plans a large buy with this ad in important swing state media markets.

  Video: America Deserves Better

President Obama cannot run on his record, so he is committed to tearing down Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Obama’s campaign tried to use the tragedy of a woman's death for political gain. Then, Obama’s top campaign aides were caught lying about it. Doesn't America deserve better than a president who will do and say anything to stay in power, regardless of the truth?

Romney-Ryan: America’s New Dream Team and a Clear Choice – Updated

Technorati Tags: Romney-Ryan,Romney ads,Medicare,ObamaCare,Election 2012,2012 Election,America's Come Back Team,videos

KISSING OBAMACARE GOODBYE - Part 2: The State Battlefield

Video: The Black Eyed Peas - Let's Get It Started

KISSING OBAMACARE GOODBYE - Part 2: The State Battlefield

By: AJ - Hat Tip: MJ

We are going to end Obamacare at the state level by using the KISS principle - Keep It Simple, Stupid, so let’s get it started!

Using simplicity and common sense, we Americans can take this into our own hands and do what we need to do to prove that Obamacare is irrelevant and unnecessary at the state level. All we need is a simple solution, which this article provides, and one state that will pursue this by doing a little homework.

Let me start by telling you what this is NOT… this solution is not reliant on the politicians who foisted this upon us or the spineless politicians doing nothing to end it. It is not dependent upon repeal, courts, nullification, state-wide voting, Constitutional amendments, petitions or polls.

Now let me tell you what this is… it is about picking one or more states that will do some simple homework to prove beyond doubt that the Obamacare law is not applicable in their state. If we do this, we can proactively take control of the narrative to announce that Obamacare is irrelevant because the state is already compliant.

BACKGROUND:

First, Obama and his comrades established that the fundamental basis of Obamacare is to ensure that everyone has healthcare. They claimed that 12 to 30 million people are going without healthcare and these people have a right to it. Has anyone challenged this with actual data that shows who these people really are? Read on and you will find out.

Second, Obama and his comrades claim that the 12 to 30 million phantom people are our poor and disadvantaged. This enables a powerful narrative that the media and left-wing talking heads can push onto the uninformed and ignorant 26% who support Obamacare. Is anyone challenging this narrative with actual truth? Not yet. That’s why, when we convey facts and even show sections of the actual legislation to uninformed people, their bottom line response is, “Well I think everyone should have healthcare”. Again, the false narrative wins the day, the uninformed remain ignorant and they actually believe that these phantom people who want healthcare cannot get it.

Third, the Obama narrative has now advanced to “States need to expand the Medicaid rolls” and some GOP Governors are flatly saying “No”. What these Governors fail to see is where this narrative is going. Medicaid is for the poor and disabled, so the spin masters are setting the stage for their next assertion; “Republicans won’t expand the Medicaid rolls because they want poor and disabled people to die.” When are these GOP Governors going to flatly say that the poor and disabled are ALREADY covered by Medicaid? And tell the truth that expanding the Medicaid rolls is a false narrative.

GOP Governors are playing checkers while Obama and his comrades are playing chess and are a few moves away from checkmate. Instead of responding to Obama’s narrative and falling into his trap, do some homework and speak boldly to create a completely different narrative. In other words, expose the truth.

SIMPLE SOLUTION:

States can take control of the narrative by defining a clear, true and concise narrative that lets people know that, from our poor to our elderly and everyone in between, all who want healthcare can already get it without Obamacare.

Can a state prove this? Yes. I contend that all a state needs to do is gather totals… the total number of people served by each of the categories delineated below. Every provider, insurer and program know how many people they serve in a given state.

Get the totals, add them up and then compare that number with the total population of the state to see how many people are not receiving healthcare from any of these categories. The number will either be zero or a very small percentage of the state population. Then, just a little more homework will reveal that the vast majority of this small segment of the state’s population is actually young, healthy people who choose not to spend their money on it because they don’t need it, they don’t use it and they don’t want it.

Take a very close look at all these programs and healthcare-delivery vehicles (below) that have been in place without Obamacare and before Obama took the Presidency. Look at all the people covered in these categories. A majority of working Americans who already have healthcare plans actually have no idea that all these programs exist and, unfortunately, Obama’s lies sound believable to them when no one counters him with the truth.

• Medicare: for everyone aged 65 and older.
• Medicaid and/or SCHIP (e.g. CA has MediCal and Healthy Families): for everyone who is poor and disabled.
• TRICARE: for service members, retirees and their families.
• Veterans Administration: for Veterans.
• Employer-based: for individuals and families covered through their employer.
• University-based: for University/College attendees (e.g. CA has a mandatory fee that all students must pay which provides healthcare coverage whether they want it or not).
• COBRA: for individuals and families who are in-between jobs/left their job for whatever reason. If they are unable to find new employment and their income remains low (e.g. unemployment), they become eligible for Medicaid, Hospital/Doctor Financial Waivers, and they can go to clinics or even private providers. One size doesn’t fit all and these people have choices.
• Tribes: for individuals and families who are members of an Indian Tribe.
• Clinics: for individuals and families who receive healthcare from community-based/free clinics.
• Private Provider: for individuals and families who choose to pay for their own healthcare through private providers.
• Religious Exemption: for individuals and families who choose to be exempt for religious reasons, which includes people such as the Amish, Muslims, Mennonites and Hutterites (because purchasing insurance violates their religious beliefs).
• Hospital/Doctor Financial Waiver: for individuals who receive free healthcare directly from doctors/hospitals because they submitted a ‘financial hardship’ form.

Don’t forget that Obama and his comrades gave the states another category:

• Obama/HHS Waiver: for millions of Obama’s lobbyists/special-interest friends/campaign contributors who received an Obamacare waiver directly from Obama’s HHS secretary.

After a state gathers the grand total of all the above categories and subtracts it from the state population, the state can create their own waiver in order to protect young peoples’ right to choose and once they are in this new category, everyone is accounted for in terms of healthcare and Obamacare is proven irrelevant and unnecessary because the state is already compliant. Everyone who wants healthcare already has it.

• *Freedom-of-Choice Waiver: this is a new category (if needed) for the majority of young people who seek to exercise their unalienable Right, as granted by our Declaration and Constitution, to choose not to spend their hard-earned money on healthcare because they do not use, want or need it while they’re young and healthy. The Freedom-of-Choice Waiver accomplishes the exact same thing as the waiver granted at the Federal level by Obama – it exempts people who want exemption; therefore, it is completely consistent with Federal precedence.

Take control of the narrative Governors! Do your homework! Don’t fall into the latest trap. Expanding Medicaid rolls is a false flag. Our poor and disabled are already on Medicaid and, in fact, many who are not poor and can afford healthcare are on the Medicaid rolls already. We don’t have $100 million a year in Medicaid fraud, waste and abuse by accident. So don’t take the bait! Medicaid rolls don’t need expanding because our poor and disabled already have Medicaid. So get out there and spread the truth!

While we’re on the subject of going on offense and getting the truth out there, notice that Obama’s campaign rhetoric includes sound-bites that give the false impression that Obamacare will give people whatever healthcare they want – for free – and up to now, his lies remain unchallenged.

Know this… Obamacare does not address the quantity or quality of healthcare; it merely asserts that once the federal government controls our healthcare, a 15-member panel and about 159 new government agencies will decide the quantity, quality and location of treatment IF they allow you to have it.

Who is challenging Obama about the federally controlled Medicare program that, by far, denies more claims for the people it serves than any other form of healthcare coverage? Quantity or quality is not even part of the debate when talking about Obamacare because Medicare already shows us what happens when the federal government controls healthcare. Get out there and spread the truth about this!

Make no mistake, Obamacare does not make healthcare a “right”, it takes away our right to choose and it forces our young people to pay into a monstrous system that destroys the best healthcare system in the world, transforms citizens into serfs, creates another massive redistributive system that seizes the fruits of our labor and gives the federal government control of our finances and our lives. As Mark Levin says, it forever changes the relationship between government and citizen.

So… which states will remain on defense and constrain their public responses to the false narratives and clichés thrown at them by Obama and his comrades?

And… which states will do their homework, gather the totals and create the media firestorm that will stop Obamacare dead in its tracks?

Which state will be the first to prove that Obamacare is irrelevant in their state because they are already compliant and everyone who wants healthcare already has it?

Which state is ready to go on offense and protect individuals and businesses in their state from Obamacare?

Let’s get it started! If states do their homework, take control of the narrative and spread the truth, we’ll be kissing Obamacare goodbye in short order.

Video:  OCCUPIED! - Obama's Un-Affordable Health Care TAXES and CONTROL ACT

Reference:

Killing Obamacare Before It Kills Us – Part 1: The Political Battlefield

Obamacare Now Estimated to Cost $2.6 Trillion in First Decade

Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare

A State Revolt Against ObamaCare Emerges

Ohio takes tough health law stance

Gov. Scott: Florida will not implement insurance exchanges or expand Medicare

Rick Perry joins Republican governors who won’t implement Obamacare

List of 27 States Suing Over Obamacare

Obamacare Bill 4872

Thanks Obamacare: 83% of Doctors Surveyed Say They May Quit

Obama Gets Civilian Army In Healthcare Bill

Obamacare Now Estimated to Cost $2.6 Trillion in First Decade

Lawyers Have Already Drafted 13,000 Pages of Regulations for New ObamaTax Law

Huckabee: GOP Sweep Needed to Repeal Obamacare

“Death Panel” Three Years Later

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Medicare,Medicaid,SCHIP,TRICARE,COBRA,Veterans Benefits,HHS waivers,HHS,Freedom of Choice Waiver,ObamaTax,ObamaCare Exemptions,ObamaCare Religious Exemptions,doctor shortages,Affordable Care Act,ObamaCare surprises,repeal and replace ObamaCare

The 2012 Check List for America’s Survival

Many people make resolutions to start the year, but I think a list of things that must be done to protect and preserve the Republic should be tallied…

1. President Obama must be defeated in 2012 and the obstructionist Democratic Party must lose power in the Senate to ensure both houses of Congress will be Republican and in a position to initiate real change.
2. The Environmental Protection Agency must be reined in with increased Congressional oversight and legislative limits on its rule-making capacity. Having fulfilled its 1970 mandate to clean the nation’s air and water, it should be scaled back to the maintenance of these functions.
3. Americans, despite the administration’s efforts to redefine and distract us, must keep clearly in mind the threat of Islam to the nation and the world. A Middle East in turmoil lays ahead for 2012.
4. To jump-start the economy, taxes and spending must be reduced across the board. A tax on consumption, rather than income would be a good start. Only 49% of Americans currently pay income taxes, the lowest in decades.
5. Obamacare must be repealed should the Supreme Court fail to rule that the Commerce Clause takes precedence over its requirement that Americans must purchase health insurance or be fined for not doing so.
6. A serious restructuring of Social Security and Medicare must be undertaken. Older Americans who have paid into the system—it is involuntary—must be ensured their benefits will be paid, but younger citizens should have the freedom and responsibility to structure their own retirement and health plans.
7. Access to the nation’s vast reserves of coal, natural gas, and oil should be increased and encouraged. Oil companies should be encouraged to build more refineries via tax credits and removal of “environmental” obstacles.
8. Congress needs to identify and fund the repair to the nation’s aging infrastructure.
9. Utilities should be encouraged via tax credits and other incentives to expand the national “grid” for the distribution of electricity.
10. Term limits for Senators and Representatives should be added to the U.S. Constitution in the same fashion the presidency is limited. Salaries, pensions, and perks should be capped. A permanent political class is a danger to citizens.
11. The Federal government should be downsized with the elimination of the Departments of Education, Labor, and Energy, along with the Environmental Protection Agency. These powers should be returned to the individual States. (10th Amendment)
12. The nation’s military which has been significantly reduced in size and structure should be expanded with attention to the upgrade and increase of its naval fleet and aircraft.
13. Congress should reject and rescind all legislation based on “global warming” or “climate change” as the former has been demonstrated to be a hoax and the latter is meaningless insofar as the climate is beyond the control of humans.
14. The United States should significantly reduce its contribution to the United Nations and refuse to ratify any of its treaties.
15. Tort reform should be instituted to reduce the costs of health care.
16. The corporate tax rate should be significantly reduced from its present rate, one of the highest in the world, to increase expansion, new jobs, and competitiveness.
17. Public service unions should be illegal. The federal government does not permit such unionization and neither should states.
18. National Public Radio should no longer be funded. The “government entities” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be eliminated.
19. The federal government should be restricted or significantly limited from the acquisition of more of the nation’s landmass.
20. Strenuous efforts must be undertaken to reduce the national debt and deficit. A devalued dollar impoverishes everyone.

These are just a few changes which, if implemented, would go a long way to reducing the ills associated with a federal government grown too large, subject to crony capitalism, and corruption.

As John Adams said, “Let us disappoint the men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country.”

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Alan Caruba  -  Most recent columns

Alan has a daily blog called Warning Signs. His latest book is Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy.

Alan can be reached at acaruba@aol.com  -  Canada Free Press
Older articles by Alan Caruba

And prepare yourself for the worst and to help others!! – Preparedness and Survival

Obama “Fixed” Medicare…With Rationing

A Shovel Ready Project

Posted on June 24, 2011 by Guest Writer  John Goodman

While charges and counter-charges about Medicare are flying back and forth in Washington, hardly anyone seems to have noticed that Medicare’s financial problems have already been solved. They were solved by the health reform bill enacted last year, what some people call ObamaCare.

So why isn’t this front page news? Why aren’t people dancing in the street? Why isn’t the Obama administration boasting about this accomplishment far and wide? Probably because Medicare’s financial problems are slated to be solved by the unconscionable

rationing of health care for the elderly and the disabled, which will lead to the equivalent of death panels for senior Boomers and some disabled persons! Please stop laughing at Sarah Palin, she’s telling you the truth, and stop listening to the mainstream media and AARP, they aren’t!!

The most recent Medicare Trustees report conveys the same message as the last one: On the day that Barack Obama signed the health reform bill, Medicare’s long-term unfunded liability fell by $53 trillion. That sum is about three times the size of the entire U.S. economy. And, it gets better. Once the Baby Boomers work their way through the system, Medicare spending will grow no faster than the payroll taxes, premiums and general revenue transfers that pay for that spending.

So what does this mean for senior citizens who rely on Medicare? No one knows for sure. But it almost certainly means they will get less health care.

Last August, the Office of the Medicare Actuary predicted that within nine years Medicare will be paying doctors less than what Medicaid pays. Think about that. In most places around the country Medicaid patients have extreme difficulty finding doctors who will see them. As a result, they end up seeking care at community health centers and in the emergency rooms of safety net hospitals. In a few more years seniors will be in that same position — with this difference. From a financial point of view, the seniors will be perceived as less desirable customers than welfare mothers. Also, by that point one in seven hospitals will have to leave the Medicare system.

As Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster (page 282) said in the 2010 Medicare Trustees’ report, “Well before that point, Congress would have to intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result.”

But suppose Congress didn’t intervene. Suppose that the law continues on the books exactly as it is written.

Consider people reaching the age of 65 this year. Under ObamaCare, the average amount spent on these enrollees over the remainder of their lives will fall by about $36,000 at today’s prices. That sum of money is equivalent to about three years of benefits. For 55-year-olds, the spending decrease is about $62,000 — or the equivalent of six years of benefits. For 45-year-olds, the loss is more than $105,000, or nine years of benefits.

In terms of the sheer dollars involved, the planned reduction in future Medicare payments is the equivalent of raising the eligibility age for Medicare to age 68 for today’s 65-year-olds, to age 71 for 55-year-olds and to age 74 for 45-year-olds. But rather than keep the system as is and raise the age of eligibility, the reform law instead tries to achieve equivalent savings by paying less to the providers of care.

What does this mean in terms of access to health care? It almost certainly means that seniors will have extreme difficulty finding doctors who will see them and hospitals who will admit them. Once admitted, they will certainly enjoy fewer amenities (no private room, no gourmet meal choices, and no cable TV perhaps) as well as a lower quality of care. We will have a two-tiered health care system, with the elderly getting second class care.

All these problems will be exacerbated by what ObamaCare does in the rest of the health care system. In just two years, 32 million people will become newly insured. If economic studies are correct, they will try to double the amount of health care they have been consuming. In addition, almost everyone else (including most above-average income families) will be forced to obtain more generous insurance than they have today. With more coverage for more services these people will also try to greatly expand their consumption of care. Yet the health reform act did not create one new doctor or nurse or other paramedical personnel to meet this increased demand.

We are about to experience a system wide rationing problem, which will be reflected in longer waits at doctors’ offices, emergency rooms and clinics and delays in getting almost every kind of care.

In such an environment you will be at a real disadvantage if you are in a health plan that pays doctors less than what private plans are paying. The disadvantaged patients will be the elderly and the disabled on Medicare, poor families on Medicaid, and (if Massachusetts is any guide) people who are newly enrolled in government subsidized health plans.

And here is the final tragic irony: The most vulnerable population are the ones whose access to care is likely to decrease the most under a health care act that was widely touted at the time of its passage as a humanitarian measure~

John Goodman is President and CEO/Kellye Wright Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

This article originally appeared on Conservative Battleline Online and is reprinted with permission.

h/t to A at  Sovereignty in Colorado  -  re-posted at Floyd Reports and at True Health Is True Wealth

And the items covered in this article are only the tip of the iceberg of what is wrong about ObamaCare!

There is only one solution to this and that is to repeal and replace ObamaCare in its entirety and well as the people who engineered and passed it!!

In True Alinsky Fashion… the Left Accuses the GOP of What They Are Planning

If you are not familiar with Saul Alinsky and his book that is a Bible to our present administration,  Rules for Radicals, its time…  The Obama White House and election committee will use Alinsky Methods, Cloward and Piven’s blueprint, Cass Sunstein’s Nudging and if necessary the tactics of their friends, like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn of the Weather Underground to promote their globalism, their Progressive goals and to steal the 2012 election if America does not wake up!!

It is ObamaCare that will through the Grandma over the cliff and in front of the death panel through rationing, but one of the Rules for Radicals is to turn the focus from yourself and from what you plan to do onto your adversary or opponent.

AARP is in the bag for the administration, but they are using their power and database to scare seniors into voting the opposite of what will save them and their healthcare… Medicaid and Medicare.  ObamaCare is big money for AARP!

Video:  Commercial shows Paul Ryan "Throwing Grandma over the cliff" commercial

How moral is it to create an anti-GOP political ad showing "Grandma thrown off a cliff" asks Neil Cavuto, today, interviewing  progressive advocate and creator of that ad, Erica Payne, Agenda Project Founder, "when you know that the plan being discussed exempts those  55 and older?"  Cavuto's outrage was enough to make him resurrect the "Death Panels".  Read Rest of Article Here

Democrats Abandon Donald Berwick's Nomination to Top Medicare and Medicaid Post

According to Politico, President Obama will be forced to abandon his controversial nomination of Donald Berwick as the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Politico reports that “Senate Democrats have given up on confirming Don Berwick as CMS administrator in the wake of a letter from 42 Republican senators opposing the nomination,” as “there's no way for Berwick to get the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate.”

As with his various “czars,” President Obama had previously circumvented the Senate confirmation process (despite having a Democratically controlled Senate) to install Berwick in his post. He had done so by issuing a “recess appointment,” but that appointment expires at the end of this year.

As I wrote last spring, the Berwick nomination is one of the clearest indicators of where we are headed if ObamaCare is not repealed:

As everyone knows by now, Obamacare would raise, not lower, health costs. This is the consensus view of the CBO, Medicare’s chief actuary, and the American people. However, another consensus view — shared by nearly everyone outside of the Obama White House and the Democratic Congress — is that the number one goal of health policy should be to cut costs. So, if you combine a health care overhaul that won’t cut costs, with a pressing need to cut costs, where are we headed?

President Obama’s pick to fill the top post at Medicare and Medicaid provides a strong indication. We’re going down the only cost cutting road that government can travel. More exactly, we’re heading toward a nation-defining fork in the road. In one direction lies repeal; in the other, rationed care. In one direction, liberty; in the other, consolidated power.

President Obama’s pick to head the massive Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Donald Berwick, is a Harvard doctor with a stated fondness for nationalized medicine. He plainly wasn’t picked for his large-scale executive or managerial experience. He’s currently a professor, a pediatrician, and the CEO of a nonprofit whose website reports it has “a staff of over 100 dedicated and talented people.” No, he was presumably picked because he and President Obama see eye-to-eye: Both share the same academic approach to problem-solving, both think our health-care system should be run through Washington, and both support a strong degree of bureaucratic control over questions of life and death. If confirmed by the Senate, he would become head of an agency with a budget larger than that of the Department of Defense.”

Lest anyone think I was exaggerating, Berwick has written that the British health-care system is “more likely to succeed” than the American one; that he feels “an optimism about the [British] NHS [National Health System] that is hard to find in the UK nowadays”; that he thinks “nationalized health care was a wise choice in 1948 and that it remains so now”; that “the social budget” — the social budget! — “is limited”; and that “[t]he decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” This is who President Obama wants to have running Medicare, Medicaid, and significant portions of ObamaCare.

It looks like the Constitution’s confirmation process will serve as a bulwark against President Obama’s desires in this instance, although it’s unlikely that his next nominee will hold views that are radically different from Berwick’s or his own. (That new nominee almost certainly will, however, have been more careful about publicly expressing those views). But Obama’s failure to get his Berwick nomination through the Democratic Senate doesn’t change the fact that Obama chose someone like Berwick in the first place, or the fact that he circumvented the usual process to install him in the short-term. Nor does it change what the Berwick nomination tells us about the direction in which Obama thinks ObamaCare would and should take American health care.

Related:

Berwick – Another Radical

Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

Sunday, 26 Dec 2010 06:41 PM

During the stormy debate over his healthcare plan, President Barack Obama promised his program would not "pull the plug on grandma" and Congress dropped plans for death panels and "end of life" counseling that would encourage aged patients from partaking in costly medical procedures.

Opponents of Obama's plan, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, dubbed such efforts as "death panels" that would encourage euthanasia.

But on December 3rd, the Obama administration seemingly flouted the will of Congress by issuing a new Medicare regulation detailing -- "voluntary advance care planning" that is to be included during patients' annual checkups. The regulation aimed at the aged "may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," The New York Times reported.

The new provision goes into effect Jan. 1, 2011 and allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death. Critics say it is another attempt to limit healthcare options for the elderly as they face serious illness.

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner said during the healthcare debate that, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

Specifically, the measure was known as Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009. It was not included in the final legislation, however. It allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.

Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, a pro-life Christian educational ministry, told the Times was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.

“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”

The rule was issued by Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, according to The New York Times. He is a longtime advocate for rationing medical procedures for the elderly.

Before being tapped by Obama to his Medicare post, Berwick had long applauded Britain's National Health Service, which uses an algorithm to determine if the aged are worthy of additional expenditure for medical care and advanced treatments.

Berwick has argued that rationing will have to eventually be implemented in the U.S, stating, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Seniors appear to be a major target for precious resources under the Obama healthcare plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama plan cuts nearly $500 million in Medicare benefits to seniors as the federal government adds 30 million uninsured Americans to private and public health care systems.

The cost of caring for the elderly has not been lost on Berwick.
“The chronically ill and those towards the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here… there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place,” he said.

During the heated healthcare debate, supporters of the Obama vigorously denied rationing for seniors would take place and scoffed at "death panel" critics like Palin.

Last month, however, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman told ABC News that rising Medicare costs could only be dealt with by "death panels and sales taxes."

He added: "Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the [death] panel that was part of the healthcare reform.’"

Read more: Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

The NY Times Concedes Governor Palin “Forced [Obama] Onto the Defensive.”

The NY Times concedes that Governor Palin put Obama “onto the defensive” with “death panels” (emphasis added):

Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate, and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, led the criticism in the summer of 2009. Ms. Palin said “Obama’s death panel” would decide who was worthy of health care. Mr. Boehner, who is in line to become speaker, said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.” Forced onto the defensive, Mr. Obama said that nothing in the bill would “pull the plug on grandma.”

Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin been able to force the New York Times to concede that he or she put Obama on the defensive? Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin destroyed a liberal policy to such an extent that the Democrat Party is afraid to publicize what it is doing and can only get it implemented through channels outside of the legislative arena?

“Death Panels” Regulation Begins Obama’s Rule by Fiat

by Ben Johnson – Posted at

In a foretaste of outrages to come, the Obama administration managed to sneak out a federal regulation paying doctors to provide “end of life counseling” to those covered by ObamaCare. The Medicare rule, which Congress never voted on, may encourage thousands to forego lifesaving treatment. This move is a voluntary precursor to the inevitable rationing engendered by socialized medicine. Many conservative media outlets have objected to the pro-death aspects of this decision. However, they have ignored a vital aspect of this story: the way he implemented the policy. This federal regulation inaugurates Obama’s two-year strategy to rule by executive order. The New York Times reports:

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Although the NYT just discovered this, Steven Ertelt at LifeNews.com reported the regulation nearly a month ago. (We covered it at the time.) For once, the Times included some salient facts along with its whitewash of the administration’s activities.

This program will be overseen by the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Donald Berwick, a fanatical believer in limiting (read: denying) care. The paper quotes Berwick as saying, “Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault. In economic terms, it is waste.” Berwick added advanced directives were one of “several techniques” that led “to both lower cost and more humane care.” There is no question they lead to lower costs, in addition to providing an economic stimulus to tombstone carvers, morticians, and cemetery plot salesmen.

The Times reports the regulation was pushed by two Congressional Democrats: Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Sen. Jay Rockefeller IV of West Virginia. This backing unintentionally reveals the measure’s greater significance: The liberals could not ram a death panels provision through even the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress, so Obama is imposing it with the stroke of a pen, without a single vote. The New York Times admits this is the wave of the future:

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.

This author first exposed Obama’s plan to rule by executive order, in October. The following month, the Center for American Progress released a lengthy report compiled by Sarah Rosen Wartell calling for the president to implement a “progressive” agenda by fiat over the next two years. In its foreword, CAP president and CEO John Podesta called on Obama to rule through:

• Executive orders
• Rulemaking
• Agency management
• Convening and creating public-private partnerships
• Commanding the armed forces
• Diplomacy

Just last week, the inside-the-Beltway Bible Politico featured an article by John F. Harris and James Hohmann which concluded, “Republican gains in Congress make it essential for [Obama] to use new avenues of power,” including regulations and executive orders.

The Left is irresistibly drawn to collecting as much unbridled power as possible, because its agenda is so unpopular it could never receive sufficient popular support to pass an election. Since the November election, Obama, Reid, and company have followed the authoritarian path I predicted. I wrote in November, “Look for an aggressive agenda in the lame duck session of Congress, focused especially on passing the DREAM Act and repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” Harry Reid unleashed precisely these two measures (and passed one of them) in his lame duck power grab, cramming in a bid to pass a $1.27 trillion budget besides. Next, I wrote, “After January, Cabinet agencies will issue regulations at a faster clip.” This follows that prediction. Finally, I wrote, “Obama will rule increasingly through executive orders and appeals to the United Nations.” If this regulation means anything, it means we have not seen anything yet.

How fitting one of the first expressions of Obama’s new strategy was a measure to let people die. He seems to have the same fate planned for the U.S. Constitution.

AARP Series : Obamacare: Cut the Elderly and Give to AARP - Part I

Among the $500 billion in Medicare cuts that will provide the bulk of the financing for Obama's health care plan is a $160 billion to $180 billion cut in the Medicare Advantage program, which offers a range of benefits not available to beneficiaries under basic Medicare.

Medicare Advantage should be Obama's favorite program. It combines all the elements he likes -- premiums are subsidized for low-income elderly, and the companies negotiate low-priced, managed care that emphasizes prevention, treatment of chronic conditions and coordination among doctors. As a result, its costs on the one hand and its premiums on the other are both much lower than with conventional insurance.

Ten million primarily low-income elderly have voluntarily enrolled in Medicare Advantage and realize savings of about $1,000 annually in enhanced benefits over and above what Medicare itself provides. These extra benefits include reductions in out-of-pocket costs and comprehensive drug coverage, vision, dental and hearing benefits, wellness programs (like gym memberships), and disease management and care coordination programs.

Medicare Advantage, which gained momentum during the Bush-43 years, essentially implements all the economies and efficiencies that Obama preaches nonstop. Doctors speak to one another, duplication is avoided, care is managed, and there is an emphasis on prevention.

The alternative to Medicare Advantage is Medicare supplement plans, popularly called Medigap coverage. But these conventional health insurance policies offer fewer benefits at higher premiums. They offer no care coordination, no chronic care management, no pay-for-performance incentives. They have no way to control costs. They just write out checks.

Because Medicare Advantage negotiates payment levels and saves money through bulk purchasing, inpatient costs run 20 percent to 25 percent lower than under Medigap insurance. More patients are handled through outpatient care. X-rays and other radiation cost 10 percent to 20 percent less, and durable medical equipment like wheelchairs, walkers and oxygen bottles run one-fifth less than with conventional insurance policies.

So why is Obama so keen to cut Medicare Advantage?

Here's a clue: AARP (the American Association of Retired Persons) does not sell Medicare Advantage. But it makes a vast amount of money selling Medigap coverage. AARP has had no higher political priority than to curb the Medicare Advantage program and replace it with Medigap insurance. The profit margins on Medigap are greater, and AARP has every intention of exploiting them with Obama's help. His price? AARP backing for his program.

The American Seniors Association (ASA), an alternative to AARP that represents hundreds of thousands of elderly, says, "It is outrageous that Medicare Advantage, a private program with premium assistance for seniors ... has come under attack." Stuart Barton, ASA president, notes that under Medicare Advantage, private healthcare companies "compete to provide care based on a negotiated price."

Obama's deal with AARP represents special interest politics at its worst. He has already negotiated a deal with the big drug companies to get their support for his bill (and their advertising bucks to promote it) in return for guaranteeing that the cuts in their prices and profits will be small. And, by cutting Medicare Advantage, he signed up the AARP too.

Obama plans to slash the premium subsidies to low income elderly for Medicare Advantage coverage. This would drive up the premiums and drive many poor seniors into Medigap coverage. And then, most cynically, he would take the money he saves on shortchanging poor old people and use it to subsidize the policies of people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s who are, by definition, not poor (and thus not eligible for Medicaid).

And all this from a liberal? A Democrat?

by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann – Authors of Catastrophe. Dick Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton (Dem), is the author of Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.

There are several good Republican options available, HR 3400 is one, but the Dems won’t even look at them and as much as Obama likes to look inclusive, he has not met with the Republicans since April and either refuses or ignores any of their attempts to set up a meeting.

(1) SERIOUS tort reform is needed. Medical malpractice needs to be redefined from ordinary negligence (that is, any time anything goes wrong, you can sue) to gross negligence (that is, you can sue only if some ridiculously awful thing has happened, such as the surgeon botched the surgery because he was drunk at the time). Furthermore, since medical drugs, machines, and procedures have to be OK'ed by the FDA, they should carry NO liability whatsoever, as long as they are made up to specs -- if the gov't insists on the power to say what treatments you can have, and the gov't says this or that treatment is OK, then the gov't should accept liability for such treatments. Period.

(2) Medical savings accounts (combined with high-deductible, catastrophic-coverage-only insurance) would bring the market into medical prices, since people would shop for the lowest price to save money for themselves. Remember, the price of two types of medical procedures has been falling while everything else has gone 'way up: cosmetic surgery and laser eye surgery. Why? Because these procedures are not covered by insurance, so people shop for the best price.

(3) Add to this a free market to allow the inter-state purchase and sale of health insurance, which is not allowed now, and portability and the bulk of our problems would be over without destroying our medical system, maintaining freedom of choice, and without allowing a gov’t takeover of healthcare.

Related Resources:

What Will the Year 2109 America Be Like for Babies Living to 100?

Are the elderly cost effective?

Stop Paying the Crooks

The Healing of America

HEALTHCARE DEBATE: 10 Questions Politicians Won't Answer

1. Why do we need to increase spending on health care by at least $1.6 trillion and steal prosperity from our children and grandchildren when we spend nearly twice per person what other industrialized nations spend on health care?

2. What programs will you cut and whose taxes will you raise to pay for health-care reform?

3. What earmarks or pet projects that you have sponsored will you sacrifice to help finance the cost of health-care reform?

4. Will you vote for a public option that requires taxpayer-funded abortion?

5. If the public option is so wonderful, will you lead by example and vote for a plan to enroll you and your family in the public option?

6. Will you vote for a plan that will allow a board of politicians and bureaucrats to override decisions made by you and your doctor?

7. If you support a “comparative effectiveness” board, what qualifies you, as a politician, to practice medicine? Have you delivered health care to a single person, much less entire classes of people you claim to represent, such as the poor, the uninsured, or children?

8. How will a government-run public option perform better than other failing government programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Indian Health Care?

9. If increasing spending on health care was the solution, why hasn’t it worked yet?

10. Are you more committed to doing reform right or quickly? Would you consider backing a thoughtful alternative to the public option? If so, which one?

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY SENATOR TOM COBURN HERE:

Go to this link and you can contact your representative directly; that way you can tell them to stop this MADNESS! Make sure they know YOU vote!

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/officials/congress/

There will be a place to enter your zip code, then a place to click to write your representatives directly; it is all free..

Dick Morris, the author of Catastrophe, who spends several chapters on Obamacare in his book, says to keep up the pressure.  Call them, email them, and write them a snail mail letter and then both fax it and put a stamp on it and mail it.  Do it all and do it more than once… and then to go a Town Hall or ObamaCare Tea Party and both speak out and be seen.  Talk to and email your friends.  Organize a local meeting.  And remind your Congressman, Senator, and the White House that you vote and will remember how they vote and listen to the American people on Obamacare, stimulus, uncontrolled spending, Cap and Tax, illegal immigration, and the list goes on!!

Call the United States Capitol switchboard today... everyday at

1-(202) 224-3121

or

1-(202_-225-3121

(202) 225-0100 - Speaker of the House Pelosi

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
http://speaker.house.gov/contact or http://www.speaker.gov/contact

and visit: www.house.gov/writerep

Senators from your State.

Call the White House at 202-456-1111 and tell President Obama you have had enough!

Enlarge Chart: Republicans unveil chart depicting bureaucratic nightmare of Dem government-run health care... Developing...

HR-3200 - full report

Breakdown Articles of HR-3200

• DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE 1000 PAGE HEALTH CARE PLAN BY AND ATTORNEY & DEAN AND PROFESSOR OF LAW
• *Letter to Your Congress Person on Health Care (Obamacare) HR3200
• *A Look at What is Really in the Health Care Bill (HR 3200): Chilling!

Click Here To Find A Town Hall Near You!

Source:  True Health and True Wealth

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Seniors Left Behind?

by Ken Connor

One of the most controversial issues of the current health care reform debate is the concept of health care rationing—allocating medical care according to predetermined criteria that dictate how much and what kind of care a given patient will receive under a government-run system. Setting aside the comparative merits of various reform proposals on the table in Congress, Americans—particularly the elderly—should be wary of any plan that would limit access to health care based on the arbitrary and discriminatory criteria of age.

As many have pointed out in the course of the ongoing national discussion on health care, America's population is aging rapidly, placing a growing strain on entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. Health care costs continue to rise, and America's younger population cannot long foot the bill for elderly retirees and their significant health care requirements. This conundrum (caused not by taxpayers but by decades of gross government mismanagement of taxpayer dollars) seems to have bred an underlying antipathy towards seniors, the undisputed "resource hogs" of public health care. This feeling of resentment is exacerbated by an increasingly utilitarian view of human life that sees no value in prolonging one's twilight years, especially on the public dime.

This situation makes proposals for "comparative effectiveness" research seem like a pretty good idea. Who, after all, wants to waste their taxpayer dollars on treatment for old folks who are going to die soon anyway? Wouldn’t it be better to allocate the bulk of our health care resources towards more productive members of society while reducing the spectrum of costly options available to seniors and the terminally ill among us?

But do Americans really want government bureaucrats dictating access to care based on their perception of one’s worth to society? This question goes to the heart of the problem with rationing: a stranger far from the scene decides who gets care and who doesn't. The person making these decisions knows neither the patient nor the healthcare provider, yet he or she is charged with the responsibility of allocating scarce resources among a demanding population rather than providing the best possible care.

Instead of allowing the market to dictate cost and availability, the buck will stop with the government. Instead of allowing doctors to work dynamically with their patients to tailor a health care approach best suited to the individual in question, the government will use its regulatory power to force physicians into applying narrow "quality of life" criteria when evaluating treatment options for society's elderly citizens. This utilitarian approach to life and death is already affecting seniors in North America, in places like Canada (no surprise there), Texas, and Wisconsin.

A health care system that bases its fiscal solvency on rationing undermines the fundamental American values of self-determination and choice. This nation has always been known as a land of opportunity and innovation. For hundreds of years, people have traveled from all over the globe at risk to life and limb just for a chance to build their own dreams here in America. This includes the opportunity to live a full and free life, even into one's golden years of retirement and senior citizenship. But what criteria will America's elderly citizens have to meet in order to retain access to the best health care if our leaders institute a Brave New World of "comparative effectiveness" in health care? Age? Productivity? Societal "usefulness?" Level of sentience?

The elderly often don't score well along these lines, and once American society becomes comfortable with the idea that certain members may be deemed less worthy than others in the eyes of the government, we have rendered the heart and soul of our Constitution meaningless. Once we decide that the elderly are expendable, not worth their share of society's resources and attention, we are setting a dangerous precedent that opens the door for government bureaucrats to assign other vulnerable members of the human community to the same second-class status.

The idea that senior citizens are less deserving of the best medical care our system has to offer smacks of gross ignorance and ingratitude. Among the ranks of America's elderly are countless American heroes—veterans of numerous wars, entrepreneurs, farmers, businessmen, teachers, scientists... men and women who have worked hard and paid taxes their whole lives. Our society wouldn't be what it is today without their contributions, and they deserve just and equitable treatment as they live out their final years.

As the August recess commences and our leaders head home for some straight talk with their constituents at Rotary Clubs, community centers, and town halls, hopefully they will recognize that America's seniors are vital members of our nation's communities and integral to our democratic way of life. If Uncle Sam is determined to assume the mantle of responsibility for health care in America, the elderly should not automatically be relegated to the back of the bus.

Medicare Fraud Arrests… Finally - APHouston TX USA

Federal agents escort suspects out of the FBI offices Wednesday, July 29, 2009 in Houston. Federal authorities arrested more than 30 suspects, including doctors, and were seeking others in a major Medicare fraud bust Wednesday in New York, Louisiana, Boston and Houston. (No doubt ACORN related) (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan)

Related Resources:

• Prescription for Truth – Daniel Hannan From England: HealthCare Worse for Elderly
• GovernmentCare’s Assault on Seniors
• Obamacare for Illegal Aliens – While Granny Gets Duty to Die Lecture
• Meet Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel: Deny Coverage to Elderly and Disabled for the Greater Good
• Obama’s Rogues Gallery: Ezekial Emanuel – Goodnight Grandma
• Complete Lives System by Ezekial Emanuel
• Ezekiel Emanuel, architect of ObamaCare..please read
• Meet Your Science Czar
• Ghoulish Science Plus Obamacare Equals Health Hazard
• Absolutism Redux – Review of the Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever
• Useless Eaters
• Kennedy: Let’s Ration Healthcare
• ObamaCare For Seniors: Sorry, You’re Just Not Worth It
• Who Will Tell Michael J. Fox He Needs to Die?
• America Senses Something Isn't Right
• Senator Grassley (and Others): Democrats Want to Nationalize Healthcare
• The Ultimate Resting Place of Socialized Medicine
• *Letter to Your Congress Person on Health Care (Obamacare) HR3200
• *A Look at What is Really in the Health Care Bill (HR 3200): Chilling!
• Dick Morris Says Obamacare Will Replace Medicare – What to do to Save Health Care
• The Community Organizer Doesn’t Like People Organizing
• Reparations By Way of Health Care Reform
• Obama in 2007 Said He Wanted to Eliminate Private Health Insurance
• Kristol: Kill It, And Start Over
• ACORN CRACKED: Exposes ACORN"S Push for Socialized Medicine
• Catastrophe
• American Progressivism
• Liberal Fascism
• The Second Bill of Rights
• Culture of Corruption
• Liberty and Tyranny

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Dick Morris Says Obamacare Will Replace Medicare

Dick Morris is worried that complacency among citizens could result in a disastrous healthcare overhaul costing Americans for generations to come.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Morris was asked if he thinks Democrats will do what Senator Chuck Schumer has alluded to: ram health reform through without any Republican support using a process called “reconciliation.” That requires only a simple majority instead of 60 votes.

“Yeah, I think they’re going to try it. I think there’s no chance that they’ll get 60 votes, there’s no chance of any real Republican support,” Morris said. “They’re going try and jam this thing through, and of course, it will pass the House because they march in lockstep.”

See Video: Dick Morris warns that complacency could destroy America’s healthcare system - Click Here Now

“So it is absolutely crucial for us to be aggressive and active in taking the steps to fight it,” he said.

The key is spreading information about the mammoth healthcare bills, Morris said, and mobilizing the conservative grassroots.

“Newsmax.com has a lot of the information; my website DickMorris.com does as well. We need to run ads in all of the states that swing-state senators live in, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Indiana, Connecticut, whole bunch of those states, and really force those senators to vote as their constituents want.”

“The fact that public opinion is moving against this legislation does not guarantee its defeat, because he (Obama) can still ram this thing through.”

Morris notes that senior citizens will pay the biggest price under the overhaul.

“This healthcare reform proposal really is the repeal of Medicare,” Morris said. “That’s really what it comes down to, because they’re going to provide medical care to 50 million new people without expanding the number of doctors or nurses,” he says.

“You can’t do that; you can’t just write a check for more healthcare, got to have more doctors or more nurses to administer it,” he added. “That means there’s going to be less health care for each person and that will force rationing.”

What will endanger the elderly most, Morris said, is the rationing of heart and hip operations – which comprise the bulk of elder care.

“Rationing involves a decision that is supposedly rational as to who should get care and who doesn’t get it,” Morris explained. “And inevitably that’s going to mean saying no to the elderly, no to people that want hip transplants, no to people that need new knee surgery, or no even to people who have bypass surgery.”

Morris cites the medical care system in Canada as an example of why socialized medicine doesn’t work.

“In Canada, where they have a system like this . . . there is an eight-week wait for cancer radiation: you have cancer, you have to wait eight weeks. There’s an eight month wait for colonoscopies and as a result the incidences of colon cancer in Canada is 25 percent higher than in the United States,” he said. “The top drug we use to treat colon cancer, Avastin, is not permitted in Canada and the result is 41 percent of Canadians who get colon cancer die of it as against only 32 percent in the United States. Sounds horrific, but those are the stakes,” Morris said.

And remember the Dems are set on covering the illegal aliens, meaning a younger illegal will get the treatment before a senior who has paid into the system all their life, if rationing goes into affect.

Since Democrats have enough votes to pass the overhaul without any Republican support, why are they trying to win some GOP votes?

“They’re worried about needing Republican support because they know how unpopular this thing is going to be when it’s adopted and after it’s taken effect, and we’re not just talking about the medical portion, we’re talking about the tax hikes, too,” Morris said. (Probably big tax hikes).

“So they want to be able to say this was a bipartisan bill, don’t blame the Democrats, Republicans put it over the top, too, just like they do with the stimulus package now where they got three Republicans to come on board. But I don’t think the Republicans are going to bite on this one.”

See Video: Dick Morris warns that complacency could destroy America’s healthcare system - Click Here Now

FOUR STEPS TO SAVE HEALTH CARE

SEE THE NEW TV AD DICK SAYS CAN DEFEAT OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE TAKEOVER -- CLICK HERE!

August is THE crucial month! While the Senators and Congressmen are home in their districts, let's give them a barrage of attacks on Obama's proposals to deform our health system! Even as public opinion has turned against the plan, he still has sixty votes in the Senate and an ample margin in the House to pass it. Unless we unleash a FIRESTORM of public outrage, the bill will pass! And your own personal health care will never be the same.

Here's how to fight it:

1. Arm yourself with the facts: Read Chapter 4 in Catastrophe, "Obama's Health Care Catastrophe", which details how Obamacare will destroy American health care and explains what has happened in Canada!

2. Donate Money: The League of American Voters is running an advertisement Dick wrote in the swing states with key Senators. Give them as much as you can to run these ads.

Click here to see the ad and donate online!

To send checks by mail:

The League of American Voters
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Suite 1114
Riviera Beach, FL 33404
FedEx if possible! Time is of the essence.
We need to run these ads this month!

3. Email your friends, family and associates: We need a massive outpouring of public opinion. Email your Christmas card list, your colleagues from the office, your friends, and your family. Bring them the facts about health care and Obama's dangerous proposals. Think particularly of anyone you know in the following states

(where the key Senators live):

a. Maine (Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snow)
b. New York (Senator Kirsten Gillibrand)
c. Virginia (Senator Mark Warner and Jim Webb)
d. Indiana (Senator Evan Bayh)
e. Ohio (Senator John Voinovich)
f. North Carolina (Senator Kay Hagan)
g. Florida (Senator Mel Martinez)
h. Louisiana (Senator Mary Landrieu)
i. Arkansas (Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln)
j. Nebraska (Senator Ben Nelson)
k. South Dakota (Senator Tim Johnson)
l. Iowa (Senator Chuck Grassley)
m. North Dakota (Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan)
n. Montana (Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester)
o. Wyoming (Senator Michael Enzi)

4. Write or call your Senators and Congressman: Then sit down and write (by hand if possible) a letter to each of your Senators and your member of Congress. If you are not sure who your Congressman or Senators are, go to these links to find out:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Simply address the letter to:

Your Senator or Congressman:
US Senate or US House of Representatives, Washington DC 20510 (Senate) or 20515 (House)

Sending a letter by snail mail is much more effective than by email.

They haven't really caught up with the 21st Century in Washington. So buy a real live postage stamp and mail your letters directly. Use the info from Catastrophe in your letter. Explain how your personal health care and that of our family will be adversely affected.

Even if your Senator or Congressman is a liberal Democrat or a Republican, write then anyway. It can influence the atmosphere in Washington. Senators and Congressmen talk and the more mail they get, the more public opinion weighs on them all. Even the ultra-liberals.

You can call Congress at (202) 224-3121.

Believe us. It works. Write today!

Stand-up… Speak-up, America!!

(Gibbs says Obama Will Not Read HC Bill)

After President Obama promised last week that he would sit down with any and all Republicans and any other Congresspeople and Senators that wanted to and review the Healthcare Bill line by line, Robert Gibbs said today that President Obama would not read the Healthcare Bill.

Let us hope that he will have to read it multiple times as congressional leaders to to the White House and hold Obama to his word that her would review any of the present bills and final bills with them!!

It is a disgrace and an insult to the American People that anyone would pass sign bills like Cap and Tax, Healthcare Reform and multi billion and trillion dollar Stimulus and Budget Bills without reading them!!!!

Related Resources:

• Grass-roots revolts in Texas and Pennsylvania Against Obamacare
• Obama in 2007 Said He Wanted to Eliminate Private Health Insurance
• Catastrophe

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Copy of ObamaCare Health Plan

Here is a copy of the ObamaCare health plan.
You better read it because you will be forced to live with it!

Members of Congress will be exempt from being forced into this plan. They will have their own. The liberals, Democrats and some Republicans - while forcing you to join the plan - refuse to include themselves. Members of Congress will have a better plan which gives them freedom you will be denied.

You can read an updated and revised overview of HR 3200 compiled by Liberty Counsel.

OR, READ THE FULL HEALTH CARE BILL (HR 3200) ON THE PATRIOT UPDATE WEB SITE!

Your Senators and Representative will soon be home for the August recess of Congress. Get a car load of friends and go meet with your Senators and Representative. Find out where he or she is holding Townhall meetings. Go to those meetings and ask for some answers! Some of them may try to avoid discussing ObamaCare. Don't let them! Find your Senators and Representative local offices here.

Whether Red or Blue, we’re still screwed… like the poor American Indians on Reservations, whose Healthcare the government has been managing for years.

Source: Patriot Update

Doctors Boo Obama In Chicago… Analysis: Tough Road Ahead

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama isn't used to hearing boos.

For all the young president's popularity, the response he got Monday from doctors at an American Medical Association meeting was a sign his road is only going to get rockier as he tries to sell his plan to overhaul the nation's health care system.

The boos erupted when Obama told the doctors in Chicago he wouldn't try to help them win their top legislative priority — limits on jury damages in medical malpractice cases.

But what could they expect? If Obama announced support for malpractice limits, that would set trial lawyers and unions — major supporters of Democratic candidates — on the attack. Not to mention consumer groups.

Every other group in the health care debate has a wish list and a top priority. Insurers don't want competition from the government. Employers don't want to be told they have to offer medical coverage to their workers. Hospitals want to stave off Medicare cuts. Drug companies want to charge what the market will bear.

Obama can't give all of them what they want. Instead, he's got to figure what's just enough to keep as many groups as possible on board — without alienating others. It's a fine line for him — and sometimes for them.

"It's a coalition issue," said Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health, an expert on public opinion and the politics of health care. "No major group is able by itself to sink health reform. But if numbers of them come together for different reasons, it could really hurt the direction the president wants to go in."

The doctors were only Obama's first house call. He'll be making his case to the other groups — and to the nation at large — in an increasingly energetic campaign to get a bill passed by the end of his first year in office.

AMA insiders shouldn't have been surprised by Obama's upfront refusal to consider malpractice caps.

The group couldn't get that idea passed by a Republican Congress and president a few years ago. Some states have such curbs, but anyone who can count votes knows the chances for national limits are slim to none with Democrats in charge of Congress.

Instead, Obama left the door open to some kind of compromise on malpractice.

The president said he's willing to explore alternatives to taking doctors to court. In the past, he supported special programs in which hospitals and doctors are encouraged to admit mistakes, correct them and offer compensation. Studies have shown the approach can work, because doctors' refusal to acknowledge mistakes is one reason many families file suit.

Doctors have special reasons to be wary of the president's plans to overhaul the health care system.

Not long ago, doctors' decisions were rarely questioned. Now they are being blamed for a big part of the wasteful spending in the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system. Studies have shown that as much as 30 cents of the U.S. health care dollar may be going for tests and procedures that are of little or no value to patients.

The Obama administration has cited such findings as evidence that the system is broken. Since doctors are the ones responsible for ordering tests and procedures, health care costs cannot be brought under control unless they change their decision-making habits.

"Change is scary," said Dartmouth University's Dr. Elliott Fisher, a doctor turned costs researcher. "I think there is a fear of loss of autonomy, that someone is going to tell you what to do." Fisher collaborated on research that showed wild differences in health care spending around the country — and no signs of better health in the high-cost areas.

But Obama did not blame the doctors. Instead, he tried to woo them, much as he has done with recalcitrant foreign leaders.

"It's the equivalent of international diplomacy. He's got to make them feel like it's possible to have dialogue about what the future looks like," said Blendon. "I think he's starting out with the AMA, but before the summer's over he's going to reach out to a lot of the other groups."

Obama assured the doctors that his plan would provide them with objective information on what treatments work best, with new computerized tools to better manage their patient case loads, and with support for harried solo practitioners to form networks.

He promised that Washington would not dictate clinical decisions. And he asked the doctors to imagine a world in which nearly every patient has insurance coverage and they can devote their full attention to the practice of medicine.

"You did not enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers," Obama said. "You entered this profession to be healers — and that's what our health care system should let you be."

That line got him an ovation.

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR – 2 hours ago - reports on health care policy for The Associated Press.

Obama needs to take time and give Congress and the American People time to examine all the options and do the needed research about American Healthcare Reform, not push through another nightmare (costing 1 Trillion Dollars over 10-years), like the TARP and Omnibus Bills without reading or researching with the gun of immediacy to all our heads. Obama also needs to stop rewarding the organized labor, who spent $80 Million dollars getting Obama and the Democrats elected. Doing something just to fulfill your uninformed campaign promises is not a good enough reason to spend another Trillion Dollars and to do this wrong!! This time around is everyone's job to get this right and to stand up to the Obama Administration and Congress to get it right, or let it go until we have our ducks in a row and can afford the needed decisions. - Ask/Marion – Daily Thought Pad

--------------------

OBAMA BOOED BY DOCTORS IN ILLINOIS TODAY

Seems pretty funny to me that doctors booed the Obama and it was told by CNN today and it's not on the internet yet. Doctors in Illinois didn't like what he had to say and it was big on CNN. Thought I'd look into the Liberal side and see what was happening.

Oh, and what he meant about having it costing less as it goes along - is the Government going to make sure the elderly get their coverage or operations or whether they will tell them to go home and die is that what they mean about costing less as it goes along. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

Seems a lot of doctors feel this will be offensive to them - and NO CAPS on the way people sue doctors looks to me that less men or women will want to be doctors in the future.

By: Teatime1 on AARP.org/blog

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Resources and Posts:

• House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes (Update-2)
• How To Stop Socialized Health Care
• Democrats Set to Rush Through Government-Run Healthcare
• Big Pharma and the FDC: Suppress the Science, Ban the Natural Substances, Sell Drugs
• Understanding the House Democrat’s Health care bill
• What a Week With Healthcare
• Kennedy Healthcare Plan Meets Resistance – Full of Pork
• Healthcare: You Think Michael Moore Will Contribute? Don’t Hold Your Breath
• Here Comes Rationing Healthcare
• Rights, Responsibilities and Healthcare
• British HealthCare - Don't Treat The Old!! - And Senator Coburn Warns Same For USA
• Universal Health and Old People
• Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
• Conservatives for Patient's Rights
• Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties
• Socialized Medicine in cartoon form.
• Voters Steer Europe to the Right – Why… Because Socialism Isn’t Working
• Progressivism – The Progressive Movement Is A Cancer – How We Got Here
• Progressives Dream To Re-Make America
• American Capitalism Gone With A Whimper – Pravda