The NHS Rationing Crisis

Any liberal who, during the ObamaCare debate, extolled the virtues of a single payer system like the NHS has reason to be discomfited with the newest development in British public health care. In a bid to save money, hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsillectomies are all being rationed by the NHS.

More specifically, according to The Independent:

* Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.

* Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems "substantially" affect their ability to work.

* Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering "chronic continuous pain", ulceration or bleeding.

* Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.

* Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in "exceptional circumstances" and after monitoring for six months.

Some ObamaCare proponents hope and believe it's an intermediate step to imposing a single payer health care system on the United States.  To the extent that's true, the NHS disaster is a a valuable reminder that, after Republicans set about trying to fix the Obama economy, its top priority should be fixing the looming disaster that is ObamaCare.

By Carol Platt Liebau - an attorney, political commentator and guest radio talk show host based near Los Angeles. Author of Prude

Source:  TownHall

Related:  Uproar Over ObamaCare’s ‘Rationing Panels’ Intensifies 

*Age 78 will be the cutoff for many types of surgeries or procedures, no matter how healthy the person is otherwise, if ObamaCare is not repealed!

More Fruit, Fewer Fries: Michelle Obama Might Have Taken the ‘Happy’ Out of McDonald’s Happy Meals

A child could once feel excitement over hearing a parent utter those beautiful words: “honey, we‘re going to McDonald’s for a Happy Meal.” But those carefree days are over and that sense of childhood wonderment and abandon is about to be seriously curbed by a new McDonald’s policy that cuts an order of fries in half, throws apple slices, raisins and pineapple chunks around as if they were ketchup, and just generally makes Happy Meals “healthier,” and, less happy. And even though the apples are reportedly not well-received by customers, guess what? McDonald’s is forcing the fruit in its Happy Meals anyway. Whether you want it or not.

And what’s more, politics, perhaps even the White House itself, could be to blame.

The changes reportedly come on the heels of an outright Happy Meal toy ban in San Franciscoand threats that other cities and counties will follow suit. The toys, allege legislators, are McDonald’s way of luring children to indulge in the unhealthy treat. Yes, health advocates, who‘ve long seen fast food as the bane of the nation’s existence, have gotten their way yet again.

So after all the years of satisfied customers “lovin’ it,” it is political pressure, including First Lady Michelle Obama’s war on childhood obesity, that reportedly forced McDonald’s hands. CNN reports that Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University, said McDonald’s had to change its menu because of political and community “pressures”:

“I see this as a positive development,” he said.  “The companies have recognized the pressures from the public, the community and parents to offer healthier choices for children.  They’ve begun to respond.   There have been criticisms of what they serve children for many years. In the past years, the pressure has intensified, the White House concern about childhood obesity is one source of that pressure.”

And not skipping a beat, the First Lady has already commended McDonald’s for making “progress today by providing more fruit and reducing the calories in its Happy Meals.  I’ve always said that everyone has a role to play in making America healthier, and these are positive steps toward the goal of solving the problem of childhood obesity.”

According to reports, the fast food giant will offer apple slices, half-portions of french fries and the beverages of choice will now include 1% milk and fat-free chocolate milk.

Ironically, since introduced, the apple slices are apparently not even popular in the Happy Meals with only 11 percent of customers — be them children or adults — opting for the fruit.  Regardless, McDonald’s is making the fruit a default item in the Happy Meal.

So whether you want apples or not, you are going to get them.

Worse still:

“McDonald’s has been engaging suppliers, government and non-government organizations to determine ways it could play a role in helping society address today’s obesity concerns,”  the company’s press release said.

Engaging government and non-government organizations? We are still talking about a burger-joint, whose mascot is a red-nosed clown, right?

Still, whether driven by PR or genuine concern for children’s welfare, McDonald’s is seemingly gun ho for the healthy changes, promising to launch even more menu revisions including additional fruit and vegetable options over…the next ten years? CNN writes:

The fast food giant also pledged to reduce sodium 15% across the board in its menu by 2015.  It recently reduced sodium by 10% in most of its chicken offerings, including the Chicken McNuggets.

McDonald’s also vowed to reduce added sugars, saturated fat and calories through varied portion sizes, reformulations and innovations by 2020.

“Reformulations” and “innovations” are perhaps not words one likes to associate with appealing, tasty foods.

But in the end, kids can rest assured, sort of — in an effort to prevent children from getting too confused when being presented with the almost unrecognizable Happy Meals, McDonald’s claims the staple burger or McNugget of choice will essentially remain the same.

You can watch a local news report explaining the healthier Happy Meals below:

Video:  McDonalds Making Changes to Happy Meals

McDonald’s: another casualty in the Nanny State’s war on personal choice, or is the fast food giant bringing this on themselves? Will the new, and perhaps not improved, McDonald’s menu affect your decision to patronize the long-time burger institution?

Remember when? Take a walk down Happy Meal memory lane:

Video: Remember when? Take a walk down Happy Meal memory lane

Source:  The Blaze

Best suggestion I’ve heard all day… put a picture of Meeechelle-O in each Happy Meal & that'll cure childhood obesity almost immediately...  If it doesn’t stop the kids from eating, it will stop the parents from buying them!!

Comments:

POLITICALJUNKIE09

Posted on July 26, 2011 at 11:58pm

Thank you, Michelle Obama. We are too stupid to count calories ourselves, thank GOD we have you!!!

RATIONAL MAN

Posted on July 27, 2011 at 12:34am

Now we will have to super size and order on the side.
Just like everything else the Obamas want, it costs us more money!
The morons probably don’t realize we can super size.
And don’t realize that we know that we had that choice before the White House porker got involved…………

IN THE RIGHT

Posted on July 26, 2011 at 11:54pm

Gee, our First “Lady” (a tranny) can eat French fries with gravy while in Africa on OUR dime yet she and her husband the Communist think they can dictate what retailer can serve and the taxpaying public can eat?

I guess fast food restaurants better stock up on coconuts, bananas, okra, and watermelons if this silly legislation goes into affect

*Nobody is arguing that obesity or childhood obesity isn’t a problem, but telling parents and people who are just barely making ends meet what they can do and buy for themselves and their kids is over the line!  Wake-up America.

UPROAR OVER OBAMACARE‘S ’RATIONING PANELS’ INTENSIFIES

So long death panels. Hello “rationing” board.

An independent panel authorized by President Barack Obama’s health care law to control excessive Medicare cost increases is drawing heavy fire from Republicans. The Independent Payment Advisory Board may not be appointed for another couple of years, and remains in suspended animation to see if the brouhaha dies down. Nearly every health industry lobbying group is pushing for an Obamacare repeal, as are some consumer advocates. GOP lawmakers call it a rationing panel, and at least one has suggested seniors will die from its decisions.

IPAB has the power to force Medicare cuts if costs go up beyond certain levels and Congress fails to act. Although Medicare’s long-term finances are troubled, it’s unclear if short-run costs will rise enough over the next decade to trigger the board’s intervention. If that happens, the law explicitly forbids IPAB from rationing care, shifting costs to retirees or restricting benefits.

Yet the uproar is getting louder.

“Senior citizens will lose control over what they actually get in Medicare,” GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann told conservative bloggers in Minneapolis last month, “because a politically appointed 15-member board that‘s unelected and unresponsive to the will of the people called IPAB will make the decisions about what care we get and what care we don’t.”

After their own plan to essentially privatize Medicare for future retirees ran into trouble, Republicans became more vocal about IPAB. At a press conference of the GOP Doctors Caucus, Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey suggested the board could leave a trail of bodies.

“Under this IPAB … a bunch of bureaucrats decide whether or not you get care, such as continuing on dialysis or cancer chemotherapy,” said Gingrey, an ob-gyn physician. “I’ll guarantee you, when you withdraw that, the patient is going to die.”

But IPAB — an unusual delegation of power by Congress — may exist only on paper for a long while. The administration seems in no rush to set it up.

Just this spring, Obama had proposed beefing up IPAB to squeeze more out of Medicare. But as opposition grew, and prominent House liberals and AARP voiced their own objections, the administration downplayed that idea. In recent testimony before two House committees, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius described IPAB as just a “backstop” and a “failsafe.”

“If Congress is actually paying attention to the bottom line of Medicare, IPAB is irrelevant … and it never triggers in,” she said.

Obama hasn’t made any moves to set up the new agency, said Sebelius, but has only consulted about possible board candidates. Those members would have to be confirmed by the Senate, a fight the administration may be unwilling to pick when it can’t even get Medicare chief Don Berwick approved.

“The more interesting question is whether it will ever get off the runway,” said economist Robert Reischauer, one of the public trustees overseeing Medicare finances. “Can they find 15 people willing to serve under the conditions laid out in the legislation? Will the Senate confirm them?”

It wouldn’t be the first time cries of rationing forced Democrats to pull back. During the congressional health care debate, Sarah Palin denounced a plan to have Medicare pay for voluntary end-of-life consultations between patients and their doctors. Although the “death panels” accusation was discredited, the idea got dropped.

Rationing is a criticism Americans respond to, said Reischauer. “They are fearful that health reform might include limitations on their ability to access any care they consider worthwhile.”

HHS spokeswoman Erin Shields said comments such as Gingrey’s amount to “scare tactics” and IPAB is “absolutely prohibited” from rationing. It could recommend savings that don’t involve cuts, she said.

Backers say the board is meant to counterbalance a Congress addicted to spending, unable to turn down lobbyists for hospitals, doctors, drug companies, nursing homes, power wheelchair companies and other businesses that depend on Medicare, and whose executives and employees make political contributions.

“The system now is that people come up here that work the Congress like crazy, lobbyists making millions of dollars,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., one of IPAB’s biggest supporters. “The Congress often doesn’t know how to say no. And the Congress has the practice of never saying no. And costs go up.”

Dispassionate experts can do a better job, Rockefeller contends. Some of his colleagues don’t like IPAB “because they don’t get to … do the big connection with the lobbyist,” he added. Under the law, Congress can override the board’s recommendations with its own savings, as long they add up to the same total.

Critics say their concerns can’t be dismissed as easily as that, because IPAB is an attempt to cap Medicare spending. A stingy approach could stifle promising new medical innovations. And if IPAB leads to steep payment cuts, doctors and other providers will be reluctant to take Medicare patients, limiting access even without explicit rationing.

The early evidence is not particularly alarming.

For example, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service tried last fall to estimate the impact of projected IPAB cuts and came up with about $60 per year, per beneficiary from 2015-2019. Annual Medicare spending during that period was estimated to increase from an average of $13,374 per enrollee in 2015 to $15,749 in 2019.

Updated cost projections from other government offices differ on whether IPAB cuts will be required in the short run. The Congressional Budget Office says no. But Medicare’s Office of the Actuary says yes, in 2018 and 2019. Under the law, it’s the actuary who makes the call.

That’s keeping critics on edge.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Related:

Review:  The New World of ObamaCare

NEW REPORT RECOMMENDS FREE BIRTH CONTROL FOR ALL WOMEN UNDER HEALTH CARE LAW

Insurance companies should provide free birth control, sexually transmitted infection counseling and HIV screening to all women under the new health care law, a new report from the independent Institute of Medicine said Tuesday.

Under the institute’s recommendations, all Food and Drug Administration - approved birth control methods — including the “morning after pill” — and sterilization procedures would be completely covered for women of reproductive ability as preventive health services, with no co-payments or deductibles.

Women would also receive insurance-covered breastfeeding consulting and equipment, gestational diabetes screening, human papillomavirus testing and domestic violence counseling, all at no cost.

In making its recommendations, the report cited the number of unintended pregnancies in the U.S., the risk such pregnancies pose to the mother and baby, and the direct medical costs involved:

Women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to receive delayed or no prenatal care and to smoke, consume alcohol, be depressed, and experience domestic violence during pregnancy.  Unintended pregnancy also increases the risk of babies being born preterm or at a low birth weight, both of which raise their chances of health and developmental problems.

The Department of Health and Human Services commissioned the panel to help it determine coverage regulations, but is not required to adopt any of its recommendations. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is reviewing the report and will make a final decision soon, according to a statement.

Sebelius called the report “historic” and “based on science and existing literature.”

“Before today, guidelines regarding women’s health and preventive care did not exist,” Sebelius said.

Both the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Planned Parenthood applauded the panel’s recommendations.

“I’m really taken and pleased with the concept of making contraceptive methods available to women in general,” said Dr. James Martin Jr., ACOG’s president. “It’s just a shame that so many pregnancies in this country are unplanned and unwanted.”

“Covering birth control without co-pays is one of the most important steps we can take to prevent unintended pregnancy and help keep women and children healthy,” said Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president for medical affairs at Planned Parenthood in a statement.

At the same time, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops came out in strong opposition to the recommendations. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said there is “an ideology at work” behind the report, because “most Americans surely see that abortion is not healthy or therapeutic for unborn children, and has physical and mental health risks for women.”

“Without sufficient legal protection for rights of conscience, such a mandate would force all men, women and children to carry health coverage that violates the deeply-held moral and religious convictions of many,” DiNardo said in a statement.

Remember the promise that abortions and sterilizations would not be covered under ObamaCare with taxpayer money?!?

Review: The New World of ObamaCare

Originally Posted 0n August 5th 2010

By now most Americans are familiar with the broad outline of ObamaCare: Everyone is required by law to purchase health insurance, with a tax penalty assessed upon those who fail to comply. Insurers may not refuse to cover those with pre-existing conditions nor charge them higher rates. The federal government is expanding its role in providing health insurance. And did I mention that all of this is supposedly going to reduce both healthcare costs and the federal deficit?

Of course, with a law that is over 1900 pages long and contains hundreds of mandates, it may be months or even years before all the ramifications of the law are understood. Some of the mandates are already widely known, such as the requirement that chain restaurants post nutrition information about their menu items or the 10-percent tax on tanning salon services. However, it may very well be that the less widely known portions of the law are also the most dangerous, which may explain why they were kept out of public view in contravention of candidate Barack Obama’s repeated assurances that the entire healthcare debate would be conducted in public and broadcast on C-Span. (19-months later people are still finding out what is in that bill.)

Among the obscure but dangerous provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the official — and disingenuous — name for ObamaCare) are numerous provisions that, said Art Thompson, CEO of the JBS, “will intrude on every aspect of life in America, from cradle to grave.” They include everything from a national healthcare strategy to home visitations by government agents, possibly including forced immunizations, to “Community Transformation Grants” — all designed to alter Americans’ lifestyles to conform to the whims of bureaucrats in Washington.

The law itself is (probably intentionally) vague about how all these mandates are to be carried out; the details are left mostly to federal agencies that are much less accountable to the voters than Congress. Therefore, many of the suggestions in the following paragraphs as to how these mandates will play out are based not on explicit language in the legislation itself, or (obviously) the yet-to-be-issued regulations, but on an informed understanding of how governments can turn seemingly beneficent laws into tools of oppression. If anything, much of what is suggested in this article is actually less radical than what President Obama and fellow Democrats have said they wish to accomplish, namely a single-payer* health insurance scheme at the federal level.

Obama himself, in a 2003 speech, said that he’d “like to see” the United States adopt a “single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan.”

His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, of course, attempted to foist a single-payer government healthcare system on Americans back in 1993 and ’94. Many other Clinton administration figures are prominent members of the Obama -administration.

Revolutionary Appointee

Obama’s recently appointed head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Donald Berwick, who Obama snuck in as a recess appointment after even the Dems abandoned his appointment, has openly praised the British National Health Service for not leaving healthcare to “play out in the darkness of private enterprise.” Berwick added that “any healthcare that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent healthcare is by definition redistributional.”

Berwick is also a proponent of government rationing† of healthcare, saying, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Tellingly, Obama took the occasion of a Senate recess to appoint Berwick, bypassing Senate confirmation hearings that would surely have publicized Berwick’s socialized-medicine bona fides and possibly have sunk his nomination.

Thus, it is almost impossible to be too alarmist about the intentions of Obama-Care and its proponents. When government controls the healthcare system from top to bottom, it is naturally going to attempt to manipulate every aspect of people’s lives in order to keep costs down; and for those who become ill despite the state’s best efforts to force them to be healthy, care can — and will — be denied. This is already happening in Berwick’s beloved British healthcare system, where, for example, life-saving drugs are withheld from patients because the government deems them too costly — and then threatens patients who try to purchase the drugs out of their own pockets with the loss of all their healthcare benefits (see “Paying Patients Test British Health Care System,” the New York Times, Feb. 21, 2008).

Massive New Bureaucracy

Perhaps the most ominous of the obscure-but-dangerous provisions in Obama-Care is found in Sections 3011 through 3015. This portion of the law instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “establish a national strategy to improve the delivery of health care services, patient health outcomes, and population health.” Along with the strategy, the law requires “a comprehensive strategic plan to achieve the priorities” established by Congress. The strategic plan includes “agency-specific strategic plans to achieve national priorities,” “annual benchmarks for each relevant agency,” and “strategies to align public and private payers with regard to quality and patient safety efforts.” In short, the federal government is going to micromanage the healthcare sector in an effort to achieve its desired outcomes, and it is going to force private insurers to participate in this micromanagement — part of the price they will pay for having Uncle Sam hand them a captive market.

In order to implement the national strategy, the law instructs the President to “convene a working group to be known as the Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality.” This new bureaucracy includes senior-level representatives from 23 named federal agencies “and any other Federal agencies and departments … as determined by the President.” Among the agencies included in the working group are the Department of Commerce, the Coast Guard, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Labor, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Education — a strong indication that this is concerned with far more than simply ensuring that patients are treated well.

Likewise, Section 4001 of the act instructs the President to “establish, within the Department of Health and Human Services, a council to be known as the ‘National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council.’” President Obama issued an executive order to carry out this provision on June 10.

The council is chaired by the Surgeon General and consists of senior-level representatives from 12 named federal agencies and “the head of any other Federal agency that the chairperson determines is appropriate.”

The purposes of the council include: (1) to coordinate “prevention, wellness and health promotion practices”; (2) to “develop a national prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health care strategy”; (3) to “provide recommendations to the President and Congress concerning … changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition”; and (4) to propose policies “for the promotion of transformative models of prevention, integrative health, and public health on individual and community levels across the United States.” There will be “a list of national priorities” and “specific science-based initiatives” to “address lifestyle behavior modification” with regard to “smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance use disorder, and domestic violence screenings.”

“It’s a horror even to think that they would put that in there, that they are going to start regulating personal behavior,” Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), himself a physician, told The New American. “But these people believe in it, and this is why it’s so bad to allow government to get inside the door.... They get their foot in the door, and then they say, ‘Oh, we’re paying for it, so we’re going to tell you how to live.’”

In other words, ObamaCare has just turned the United States into one giant psychiatric laboratory, and Americans are the rats stuck inside and subjected to “behavior modification” until we stop smoking (wonder if this applies to the President, who still hasn’t kicked the habit), take our vaccines and stop eating Twinkies, take up jogging, quit ingesting substances that the big pharmaceutical companies can’t patent, and tell Uncle Sam when we stopped beating our wives. Is this really what all those folks clamoring for healthcare reform wanted? If so, it serves as further proof of H.L. Mencken’s maxim that “democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Section 4101 provides for grants for school-based health centers, which will offer “comprehensive health assessments, diagnosis, and treatment of minor, acute, and chronic medical conditions” and “mental health and substance use disorder assessments, crisis intervention, counseling, treatment, and referral to a continuum of services including emergency psychiatric care, community support programs, inpatient care, and outpatient programs.”
Will parents’ rights be respected in all this? Will their children be treated without their knowledge?

The “primary function” of existing school-based health centers “is to circumvent parental involvement in the important area of directing a child’s healthcare,” Gregory Hession, a Massachusetts attorney specializing in family and juvenile law, said in an e-mail. The programs “sexualize children with condom giveaways, homosexual advocacy programs, and age-inappropriate instruction to children, even very young ones, about sexual activity,” said Hession. “These clinics even allow and promote statutory rape” and refer students to abortion clinics and provide transportation to the clinics, Hession added, pointing out that all of this is done “in complete secrecy.”

And what of mental health assessments? Hession stated that much of the mental health screening that already takes place in schools appears to be “fostered by psychiatrists with financial ties to large drug companies that offer psychotropic drugs which are almost invariably prescribed for any small perceived personality problem,” the result being “that many children are now required, as a contingency for attending school, to take powerful psychotropic drugs for such invented maladies as attention deficit disorder.”

With school-based health clinics already engaged in such unsavory practices, federal funding and mandates can only lead to even worse, and more widespread, abuses.

Government Into Almost Everything

Nothing less than the “transformation” of communities is the modest goal of Section 4201, which creates a grant program for state and local governments and nonprofit organizations “to reduce chronic disease rates, prevent the development of secondary conditions, address health disparities, and develop a stronger evidence-base of effective prevention programming.” Each grantee must develop a “community transformation plan” which may include such things as:

1. creating healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle, emotional wellness, and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases;
2. creating the infrastructure to support active living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment;
3. developing and promoting programs targeting a variety of age levels to increase access to nutrition, physical activity and smoking cessation, improve social and emotional wellness, enhance safety in a community, or address any other chronic disease priority area identified by the grantee;
4. assessing and implementing worksite wellness programming and incentives;
5. working to highlight healthy options at restaurants and other food venues;
6. prioritizing strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, including social, economic, and geographic determinants of health; and
7. addressing special populations needs, including all age groups and individuals with disabilities, and individuals in both urban and rural areas.

Imagine telling the Founding Fathers that the federal government would someday be concerning itself with restaurant menus and workplace stress! They would have laughed you right out of Philadelphia. Yet here we are, with the feds doing just that and much, much more.

Just what is “emotional wellness,” and how is the government going to see to it that people attain it? Surely it isn’t by cutting bureaucracy and spending, bringing the troops home, and reducing taxes, though those are the surest ways to make (almost) everyone happier.

President Obama, in a 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College, stated his support for a national smoking ban if local bans fail to snuff out the habit. It makes sense, then, that his signature achievement would include language plainly calling for “smoking cessation.” When Uncle Sam is footing the bill for Americans’ healthcare, they’d better do as he says or else. Indeed, the British Health Secretary, in charge of that single-payer system that Berwick so adores, ruled in 2007 that smokers would henceforth “be denied operations unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand,” according to the Daily Mail; their doctors would be in charge of enforcing the rule by making them take blood tests to prove they’ve not lit up for the last month. Surely the ObamaCare administrators can come up with some similarly clever ways of coercing Americans to can their Camels.

Then there’s that business about “reducing disparities.” The intention, undoubtedly, is to see to it that those who do not have health insurance receive it — and that those who have too much of it, as Washington sees it, are forced to make do with less; hence the tax penalties applied to so-called Cadillac plans. Subsidizing insurance for some will only encourage them to make more use of the healthcare system, putting upward pressure on prices and hastening the day that Berwick and others of his ilk begin rationing care for them. Punishing those with the best insurance plans will ensure that some of those individuals are unable to afford the care they need, which is just rationing by other means. The result: We all end up in the mushy middle, with just as much care as the government deems necessary to keep us from being too much of a strain on the system. For those who do become too ill and therefore too expensive for the government to keep, denial of treatment is an easy fix.

Individuals who use community health centers funded by the government may also be given a government-sanctioned “individualized wellness plan” under Section 4206, which establishes a demonstration project for this purpose. Undoubtedly this will be declared a success, and soon all Americans can expect a Washington-mandated plan for their lives, to control such things as alcohol and tobacco use, weight, blood pressure, nutritional supplement usage (but only those supplements “that have health claims approved by the Secretary”), stress, and exercise.

Invading Homes and Schools

One need not go to a health clinic to be subjected to federal healthcare intrusions, either. At least two portions of the act actually provide for government agents to come into individuals’ homes to see to it that they are obeying Washington’s directives.
The first of these is Section 2951, entitled “Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Programs.” This section requires all states to perform a needs assessment that identifies at-risk communities and “the quality and capacity of existing programs or initiatives for early childhood home visitation.” States can then apply for grants to establish early childhood home visitation programs.
The programs will target high-risk communities first, with “high-risk” defined as “eligible families who reside in communities in need of such services,” followed by eligible families with low incomes, pregnant women under 21 years old, “a history of child abuse or neglect … or interactions with child welfare services” (not evidence of actual abuse, mind you; just a visit from government agents on an anonymous tip will suffice), “a history of substance abuse,” “users of tobacco products” (light up and expect a visit from your friendly neighborhood G-man), “children with low student achievement,” “children with developmental delays or disabilities,” or “individuals who are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces.” That just about covers everyone.

“This section of the law is designed to circumvent the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and give government agents a plausible excuse to enter homes without a warrant, with the ultimate goal of reporting the family to child protective services,” said Hession. The child-protection agents then have every incentive to take children from their families, as evidenced by the fact that over half a million children are now in child protection agency custody in the United States.

The law lays out specific desired outcomes for individual families, many of which sound good. Who could oppose improvements in mothers’ and babies’ health, children’s development, parenting skills, school readiness and academic achievement, crime and domestic violence rates, and family economic self-sufficiency? The detailed regulations established by federal and state bureaucrats to accomplish these general outcomes, however, may not be so benign.
For example, what specific “improvements in parenting skills” might government agents wish to impose on those they visit? Will spanking children or even speaking sharply to them be permitted? What if parents try to inculcate specific moral or religious precepts in their children? Hession noted that homeschoolers and parents who believe in corporal punishment are already among the most targeted by state child protection agencies.

It is already known that government programs to improve school readiness are of little benefit. Gains made in Head Start, the most famous of these programs, do not last much beyond first grade. Why, then, would anyone expect the government to be able to offer parents expert advice on how to prepare their children for school?
Worse yet, how will “school readiness” and “child academic achievement” be measured? What will happen to families whose children fail to meet the government’s arbitrary standards? As the Birch Society’s Art Thompson perceptively pointed out,

The idea of school readiness and academic achievement provides the excuse for government agents to nullify parental prerogatives for private and home schooling. Since they can test the preschool children, mold the tests of how and what the children should be taught, they can use this information to try and force you to send your children to government institutions.

In fact, school readiness is one of the key reasons boosters of universal pre-kindergarten cite for their support of extending government schooling to an earlier age. Among those who favor universal pre-kindergarten are Hillary Clinton — she of “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child” and the anti-parental-rights Children’s Defense Fund — and President Obama. Prima facie evidence that it’s a bad idea.

Government has been the greatest enemy of “family economic self-sufficiency,” having replaced fathers with welfare checks and having taxed Americans to the point that both parents frequently must work outside the home just to make ends meet. Government benefits from families who are dependent on it because those same people will almost always vote for even bigger government, as inner-city voting patterns demonstrate.

It is of little comfort that the law requires that states provide assurances that “the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary.” As Hession said, existing “family visitation programs are about as voluntary as the current IRS tax system, which continues to assert that it is based on voluntary compliance.”
Even if it were the case, at least for now, that families are not required to admit government agents into their homes under this program, given that the target families at the beginning (most likely single mothers, according to Hession) are likely to have less education and fewer resources to fight back, how likely are they to resist a bureaucrat who offers them a check or other assistance just for answering a few questions? Once they are caught in the state’s web, how easily will they be able to extricate themselves? After all, one of the desired outcomes for individual families is that they be more easily referred to “other community resources and supports … consistent with State child welfare agency training.” Then how long will it be until the program is expanded to other families and made mandatory? The dangers here are immense.

As if that weren’t bad enough, Section 4204 actually provides for home visits from government functionaries for the purpose of providing immunizations (a demonstration program for the time being but with the intent “to continue and expand such program”).
The recent H1N1 hoopla demonstrates how the government, with the enthusiastic backing of vaccine manufacturers, can manufacture a health crisis and then use it to encourage or even force people to be vaccinated. The Washington Post reported on June 4 that two separate reports from Europe “accused the [World Health Organization] of exaggerating the threat posed by the virus and failing to disclose possible influence by the pharmaceutical industry on its recommendations for how countries should respond.” That exaggeration of the so-called pandemic and the WHO’s accompanying recommendations led many Americans to be vaccinated needlessly, including some who were coerced by the government, such as healthcare workers in New York.

Now imagine that same scenario playing out under a program in which the federal government gives grants to states to (1) provide “immunization reminders or recalls for target populations,” (2) educate “targeted populations and health care providers concerning immunizations in combination with one or more other interventions,” (3) subsidize immunizations, (4) promote immunizations, (5) provide for “home visits” that may include “provision of immunization,” and (6) create an electronic database for all states to access immunization records — all provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. How easy it would be for governments to find out who hasn’t volunteered to be vaccinated and to show up at the recalcitrant citizens’ homes to give them their shots right then and there! How profitable it would be for vaccine manufacturers!

Indeed, Dr. Paul said that “one thing that we have found in the past is some of the strongest proponents of massive inoculations” have been funded by pharmaceutical companies. The decision to immunize or not to immunize, he said, “should be strictly a decision made by the doctor and the patient, and never by public health officials.”
Paul expressed particular concern that ObamaCare will come between doctors and patients. Decisions about treatment, he said, “will be made not by other M.D.’s, but they will be made by people who are pushing a pencil.... And there will be rationing of care … by those people in Washington, the bureaucrats who are looking at a bottom line and not understanding the situation.”

People Control, Not Healthcare

From page 1 to page 906, ObamaCare is chock full of expensive, intrusive, and downright scary programs such as these. The law gives the federal and state governments virtually unlimited power to interfere in Americans’ lives, even within the confines of our own homes. (Hession noted that the act “is marbled with requirements that can be accomplished only by entry into private family homes.”) It destroys individual self-reliance and, through a variety of provisions such as school-based health clinics and home visitation programs, the family unit. These are the foundations of the American Republic; without them the United States will become a society of helpless, dependent sheep with neither the desire nor the will to resist the state’s relentless encroachments on our liberties.
These problems cannot be fixed merely by modifying a clause here and a proviso there. ObamaCare needs to be repealed in full before it can metastasize into a full-blown single-payer system. State-by-state nullification should also be undertaken. Then we can work on dismantling the rest of the federal healthcare behemoth. These are the only cures for what ails the American healthcare system.

* “Single payer” is the innocuous code for government-run, bureaucrat-controlled, nationalized, socialized medicine.
† Although “rationing” may have a more negative connotation than “single payer,” it is nonetheless euphemistic. What it means in healthcare is that treatment will be determined not by the physician according to the needs of the patient, but according to formulas and edicts issued by the government and carried out by administrators and bureaucrats.  And now matter how you want to look at it that means death panels.

*Muslims are exempt from ObamaCare and therefor the home visits and parental oversight because of a practice called “Dhimmitude” on page 107 of the ObamaCare Bill.  Do you know what that means?  Please check it our if you don’t.

Originally Posted at the New American  -  WRITTEN BY MICHAEL TENNANT

Check out H.R. 3962 yourself:  ObamaCare

National Ice Cream Day (Month) – Did You Eat Away?

Former President Ronald Reagan made many wonderful contributions to this country, one of them being his creation of National Ice Cream Day, which falls on July 17 this year.

In 1984, Reagan dubbed July as National Ice Cream Month and the third Sunday of the month as National Ice Cream Day. Calling ice cream the “perfect dessert and snack food,” the Gipper encouraged all Americans to observe the special day with “appropriate ceremonies and activities.” Though anti-obesity advocate first lady Michelle Obama might feel uneasy about National Ice Cream Day, we invite you to indulge a little this afternoon.

According to a proclamation (Proclamation 5219, to be exact)  if you are a patriot, you will go out and eat yourself a big helping of the cold stuff. In his official 1984 proclamation, Reagan declared:

Ice cream is a nutritious and wholesome food, enjoyed by over ninety percent of the people in the United States. It enjoys a reputation as the perfect dessert and snack food. Over eight hundred and eighty-seven million gallons of ice cream were consumed in the United States in 1983.The ice cream industry generates approximately $3.5 billion in annual sales and provides jobs for thousands of citizens. Indeed, nearly ten percent of all the milk produced by the United States dairy farmers is used to produce ice cream, thereby contributing substantially to the economic well-being of the Nation’s dairy industry.

So true. Other important facts about ice cream: more ice cream is sold on Sunday than any other day of the week. The most popular flavor of ice cream in the U.S is vanilla (27.8%), followed by chocolate (14.3%), strawberry (3.3%), chocolate chip (3.3%) and butter pecan (2.8%). The most ice cream (per person) is eaten by children aged 2-12 and adults 45+. The average number of licks to consume a single scoop cone is about 50. It is delicious.

In honor of the late president and the tasty treats that cool us down during humid summers, scroll through our slideshow of ice cream pictures (see stills below). If you plan on purchasing some ice cream later today, look at our selection of photos for ideas on what to order.

(And remember the Gipper’s love for Jelly Bellys…  )

h/t to  The Daily Caller and Gothamist

Michelle Obama’s campaign to raise awareness about rising obesity, especially in children, is a good program for the First Lady to tackle.  Encouraging our young people to get away from the electronics and get outside to play, participate in sports or just enjoy the outdoors is also a good idea. Legislating what we can eat and threatening to take kids away from their parents because they are overweight is appalling, un-American and certainly un-constitutional.

Bring on the education and awareness, but food police and usurping parental rights in not okay.

Perhaps improving the economy and providing jobs would be a better focus than punishing parents who are barely making ends meet and trying to feed their families?!?  And if people had more income, they could make better food choices and purchases.  How about getting the additives that make us all fat and make us want to eat more out of the food as well, stop the government from subsidizing fast food, and how about banning the GMO foods completely? Those would be a great addition to the campaign!  And that Mrs. Obama would really be a worthy cause!

In the meantime… a little fun, happiness and dessert helps our attitude.  Beside the decline in jobs, income and discretionary income Americans have had a lot to digest and deal with since 9.11 (10 years now) and comfort food is often what the doctor orders… unless you are on ObamaCare!

Learning to Make Gelato for New Theatre Project

Happy 2nd Birthday Sundae at Farrell’s Ice Cream Parlor  -  My Auntie was telling me how she spent her 16th B-Day at the Farrell’s on Van Nuys Blvd with 16 Friends and that when they delivered the two Zoo’s they dropped one on one of her guests.  Mad me smile!   

So if you missed National Ice Cream Day on the 17th… enjoy some today!  It has been a hot summer!!  And the key to healthy eating… is everything in moderation, even some good desserts!

Posted by Ask Marion  -  Photos by the UCLA Shutterbug 

Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal

Root Canals Can Have Devastating Effects on Health

(NaturalNews) Is it wise and prudent to have a root canal? There are issues with root canal therapy that everyone should know before deciding to have one.

There has been recent research that presents valid proof of systemic illnesses that are a direct result from latent infections lingering in filled roots. These conclusions are based on research performed by Dr. Weston Price over a 25 year period in the beginning of the twentieth century.

The research done by Dr. Weston Price discusses how root canals can cause bacteria to become trapped inside the structure of teeth. This can be the cause of many diseases that can be traced to one single source.

A high percentage of chronic degenerative diseases may actually originate from root canals. The most common diseases are circulatory and heart disease. The next common diseases are those involving joints and arthritis.

The allegation is that there was a series of events that led to important information being hidden about seventy years ago by a group of doctors who didn't fully understand the "focal infection theory."

What is the focal infection theory… and how is it connected to root canals?

The focal infection theory says that germs from a central focal infection (decaying teeth, roots, inflamed gum tissues, and tonsils, can metastasize to the heart, eyes, kidneys, lungs, or other organs and tissues. This then spreads the same infection to these new areas. This theory has been proven extensively and is regarded as fact.

Focal infection states that the bacteria can move into surrounding tissues and travel to other locations in the body through the bloodstream. This new location may be an organ or tissue and the new colony will be a new infection for the body.

Currently, however, patients and doctors have been led into complacency by believing that infections are not as serious because of antibiotics. This is simply not true. In the situation of root-filled teeth, the no longer alive tooth does not have blood being supplied to its interior. This means that antibiotics will not reach this area and will not fight any bacteria that exist there.

Dr. Price performed many experiments while conducting his research. One such experiment involved removing an infected tooth from a woman who had severe arthritis. Dr. Price took the infected tooth and implanted it under the skin of a healthy rabbit. Incredibly, within 48 hours the rabbit had severe arthritis as well.

The claim is that all root-filled teeth contain bacteria or other infective agents. It doesn't matter what technique is used or what material is used.

Another important point is that the main part of teeth that appear solid is called "dentin." While this appears solid, it is actually made up of tiny "tubules." In healthy teeth, these tubules will transport a fluid that nourishes the inside of the tooth. A root-filled tooth does not have any fluid circulating through it anymore, but the tubules remain. The bacteria that are present in this area of the root-filled tooth seem to be out of reach of antibiotics. The tiny organisms hiding in the tubules move further in to the interior of the tooth to stay and then multiply.

One more factor that plays an important role in this situation is the fact that large bacteria are common in the mouth. These bacteria will change and adapt to changing conditions. They can shrink to fit small areas and they can also survive on small amounts of food. The organisms that must have oxygen are able to mutate and then survive without oxygen. Because of this adaptation, these organisms can become pathogenic and are able to produce serious disease.
Today's scientists are able to confirm the research conducted by Dr. Price all those years ago. Recent research has shown strains of "streptococcus," "staphylococcus," and "spirochetes" existing in root canals.

Root canals will not make everyone sick. However, current belief is that every root canal filling will leak and this leakage will allow bacteria to invade the structure. The variable between those who become sick with a degenerative disease and those who do not seems to be the strength of a person's immune system. People who are in good health will be able to control the organisms that escape from their teeth and infiltrate other areas of the body.

This is because the white blood cells and other fighters are not constantly busy with other diseases. The immune system is able to prevent new bacterial colonies from taking over other tissues in the body. Over time, however, most people who have had root canals seem to develop various types of systemic symptoms that were not previously present.

If an extraction is necessary, it is now apparent that merely extracting the tooth is not enough. It has been determined that bacteria are present in the tissues and bone just adjacent to a tooth's root. The new recommendation is slow-speed drilling with a burr to remove 1 millimeter of the entire bony socket.

If the tooth is dead and can't be saved, then the best course of action would be to have a root canal with a material called  "Biocalex." "Biocalex" eliminates many of the dangerous bacteria and will cause fewer complications. If this fails, it may be necessary to extract the tooth. It would be best to find a biological dentist for this procedure. Many biological dentists have alternative methods that can save a tooth in some cases.

Sources:  http://www.healingdaily.com/exercis...  -  Root Canal Cover-Up by George Meinig

You Are What You Eat: 7 Food Additives That Are Secretly Making Us FAT

I'm here to tell you that the food industry is lying to you. There are many "safe" food additives on the market that really are NOT SAFE!! Yes, you heard me right AND I will give you a small list of them below to prove it. These food additives are literally making you sicker, robbing you of your youth, and making you gain weight!

Food additives are man-made, synthetic chemicals used to preserve foods, make them taste better, add supposed nutritional value and get this... THEY BYPASS YOUR HUNGER MECHANISM MAKING YOU CRAVE MORE AND EAT MORE FOOD! Now, let's think like the food industry for a second... If people, eat more food and increase in size, then they will crave more food and then we can sell them more food! It's a great way to make money if you really think about it. Very unethical, but brilliant. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THIS IS HAPPENING!Look around at the American population. Do you really think that it is coincidence that 70% of the US is obese? By 2030, the Journal of Obesity is predicting that 90% of the United States will be obese.

Will You Be A Victim Too?

The sad part about this whole situation is the fact that the general public has no idea that they are being lied to. This reminds me of a quote...

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it" - Adolf Hitler

The media is using psychological marketing tactics to make you believe that foods that are "fat free" are healthy and helping you to lose weight.

Please, please, please don't trust everything that you hear. Especially from the news, commercials, TV, radio, etc. Their job is to capture your attention and sell you things. Whether it be their belief systems or weight loss pills.

Alright, sorry about all the ranting and raving. I just get so emotional about this topic because I see people everyday in my office who suffer because they have been lied to.

The Worst Ingredients On A Food Label

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS): This is a man made sweetener that is cheaper to produce and actually sweeter than sugar. There are actually new commercials touting how healthy HFCS is. They are trying to say that it is safe and natural.

Let me ask you this: Can you squeeze corn syrup from corn? Can mom make high fructose corn syrup at home? NO! It's a lie! Remember the quote above? HFCS is anything but natural and will actually shut off your hunger mechanism allowing you to eat without feeling full which will MAKE YOU FAT!

It is associated with blood sugar problems (ATTENTION Moms: Childhood obesity, and Juvenile Diabetes is on the rise! So is ADD/ADHD. HFCS is a huge culprit!) depression, fatigue, B vitamin deficiency, indigestion and tooth decay.

HFCS is found in soda, candy, condiments, cereals, breads, etc.

Mono Sodium Glutamate (MSG): MSG is a food flavoring that is notorious in Chinese foods. It is also hidden in a variety of other foods and goes by many different names: hydrolyzed vegetable protein, hydrolyzed plant extract, plant protein extract, sodium caseinate, yeast extract, texturized protein, autolyzed yeast, hydrolyzed oat flour, natural flavorings and calcium caseinate to name a few... there are dozens more names.

MSG is the MOST addictive substance known to man and makes you want to eat more and more! It is called an excitotoxin because it excites your brain cells to the point that it actually makes them explode and die. Sound like something good to put in you and your kids bodies?

Watch out.. it is found in everything from fast food, to kids snacks, drinks, chips, etc., allergic reactions. (80% of people are shown to be allergic to MSG)

MSG causes headaches, itching, nausea, brain, nervous system, reproductive disorders, high blood pressure.

Artificial Sweeteners: Splenda (sucralose), Nutra-Sweet (aspartame), Equal (aspartame), SweetNLow (saccharin) , sorbitol, maltodextrin, dextrose, and acefulsame are all falsely representing weight loss foods. They are very toxic to your body and will bypass your hunger mechanism, causing you to crave more food. Stay away from anything labeled fat free, lite, no fat, no calories, calorie free, sugar free, reduced sugar and reduced fat. Most of these foods have been filled with artificial sweeteners. READ YOUR LABELS! Is having no calories in your "diet" drink worth the risk?

By Dr. Michael Allen  -  Fitness Instructor & Fat Loss Factor™ Founder

Rare Syndrome Causes British Teen to Sleep for Days at a Time

Two years ago, a bizarre ordeal unfolded for Louisa Ball and her family. The then 15-year-old girl initially came down with flu-like symptoms. While it seemed like a normal occurrence (after all, everyone gets sick from time to time), Ball subsequently contracted a rare syndrome called “Sleeping Beauty Sickness” (Kleine-Levin Syndrome). As a result of the affliction, the young girl sleeps — very literally — for days at a time. MSNBC has more:

Doctors don’t know what causes it or how to cure it — only that it strikes teenagers and goes away by itself after eight to 12 years…

…victims worldwide may number no more than 1,000. The victims live normally for weeks or months at a time, with normal sleep patterns and normal energy levels. Then, with little warning, they’ll go to sleep for days or weeks at a time. So far, Louisa’s longest bout in bed has been 13 days.

KLS stumps modern medicine and has yet to be successfully treated. Researchers claim that the disorder effects the hypothalamus, which is the part of the brain responsible for regulating appetite, sleep and libido. Thus, the disorder triggers sleep, aggressiveness and hyper sexuality.According to ABC News:

Mood stabilizers like lithium and hormone therapies help those with KLS around the edges, but they don’t ward off the extreme sleep.

“[When I wake up] I’m always confused as to what day it is, because I don‘t know how long I’ve slept for,” Louisa said. “And then when I realize, I’m like, ‘Wow, that’s a long time!’”

While some outlets first began to report on Ball’s ordeal back in early 2010, ABC’s Nightline covered the medical dilemma this week. Watch the fascinating report, below:

Video:  Sleeping Beauty Disorder  - 17-Year-Old Sleeps for a week at a time

This bizarre illness certainly impedes the young girl’s life, as she regularly sleeps through exams, family vacations and other important moments that most teenagers typically treasure. She and her family anxiously await the day when KLS no longer causes such saddening disruptions.

Source:  The Blaze

The Expanding Catalogue of Obamacare Fables

Is there a health insurance horror story disseminated by the White House and its allies that ever turned out to be true? Obamacare advocates have exercised more artistic license than a convention of Photoshoppers. Now, a prominent sob story shilled by President Obama himself about his own mother is in doubt. It's high past time to call their bluffs.

The tall-tale-teller-in-chief cited mom Stanley Ann Dunham's deathbed fight with her insurer several times over the years to support his successful push to ban pre-existing condition exclusions by insurers. In a typical recounting, Obama shared his personalized trauma during a 2008 debate: "For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that."

But there was something fundamentally wrong with Obama's story. In a recently published biography of Obama's mother, author and New York Times reporter Janny Scott discovered that Dunham's health insurer had in fact reimbursed her medical expenses with nary an objection. The actual coverage dispute centered on a separate disability insurance policy.

Channeling document forger Dan Rather's "fake, but accurate" defense, a White House spokesman insisted to the Times that the anecdote somehow still "speaks powerfully to the impact of pre-existing condition limits on insurance protection from health care costs" -- even though Dunham's primary health insurer did everything it was supposed to do and met all its contractual obligations.

No matter. Expanding government control over health care means never having to say you're sorry for impugning private insurers. Democrats have dragged every available human shield into the contentious debate over Obama's federal takeover of health care. Personal anecdotes of dying family members battling evil insurance execs deflect attention from the cost, constitutionality and liberty-curtailing consequences of the law. The president's Dunham sham-ecdote is just the latest entry in an ever-expanding catalogue of Obamacare fables:

-- Otto Raddatz. In 2009, Obama publicized the plight of this Illinois cancer patient, who supposedly died after he was dropped from his Fortis/Assurant Health insurance plan when his insurer discovered an unreported gallstone the patient hadn't known about. The truth? He got the treatment he needed in 2005 and lived for nearly four more years.

-- Robin Beaton. Also in 2009, Obama claimed Beaton -- a breast cancer patient -- lost her insurance after "she forgot to declare a case of acne." In fact, she failed to disclose a previous heart condition and did not list her weight accurately, but had her insurance restored anyway after intense public lobbying.

-- John Brodniak. A 23-year-old unemployed Oregon sawmill worker, Brodniak's health woes were spotlighted by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof as a textbook argument for Obamacare. Brodniak was reportedly diagnosed with cavernous hemangioma, a neurological condition, and was allegedly turned away by emergency room doctors. Kristof called the case "monstrous" and decried opponents of Democrats' health care proposals as heartless murderers. The truth? Brodniak not only had coverage through Oregon's Medicaid program, but was also a neurology patient at the prestigious Oregon Health and Science University in Portland (a safety-net institution that accepts all Medicaid patients). Kristof never retracted the legend.

-- Marcelas Owens. An 11-year-old boy from Seattle, Owens took a coveted spot next to the president in March 2010 when Obamacare was signed into law. Owens' 27-year-old mother, Tiffany, died of pulmonary hypertension. The family said the single mother of three lost her job as a fast-food manager and lost her insurance. She died in 2007 after receiving emergency care and treatment throughout her illness. Progressive groups (for whom Marcelas' relatives worked) dubbed Marcelas an "insurance abuse survivor." But there wasn't a shred of evidence that any insurer had "abused" the boy or his mom. Further, Washington State already offered a plethora of existing government assistance programs to laid-off and unemployed workers like Marcelas' mom. The family and its p.r. agents never explained why she didn't enroll.

-- Natoma Canfield. The White House made the Ohio cancer patient a poster child for Obamacare in 2010 after she wrote a letter complaining about skyrocketing premiums and the prospect of losing her home. After Obama gave Canfield a shout-out at a health care rally in Strongsville, Ohio, and promised to control costs, officials at the renowned Cleveland Clinic, which is treating her, made clear that they would "not put a lien on her home" and that she was eligible for a wide variety of state aid and private charity care.

Since Obamacare passed, the amount workers pay in health care premiums has soared an average of nearly 14 percent; thousands of businesses have sought waivers in search of relief from the law's onerous mandates; medical device makers have slashed jobs and research; and the private individual health insurance market is in critical condition. Post-Obamacare truth is bloodier than pro-Obamacare fiction.

By Michelle Malkin Posted on TownHall

Related:

Turns Out Obama’s Story About His Mother’s HealthCare Struggle Is Inaccurate

Drug Company Gets Special Fix

CBS News report
US Congress Is In The Pocket Of US Corporations

Jun 29 2011 CBSNews.com -- Before leaving town for 10 days last week, the House of Representatives found time to pass an amendment designed to help a single drug company. And, as Nancy Cordes reports, this type of special fix is par for the course in Congress.

Video:  Drug Company Gets Special Fix

Rattlesnake Bite

This is very graphic... Just a warning.. But very interesting...

Ya'll need to forget about those itty, bitty snake-proof boots and find yourself a full snake-proof SUIT.., AND HAT!!!

My fellow friends and family,

We have killed 57 rattlesnakes on two separate ranches this year. 24 @South bend & 33 @ Murray , since mid May. Not one has buzzed! We provoked one fair sized boy with a stick and he coiled & struck at the stick a couple of times before he buzzed up and rattled. The purpose of this explanation is that I have been hearing the same from fellow ranchers and hunters in regards to the lack of warning with rattlesnakes.

I had lunch with a friend today and he offered a theory about the fact that these buggers aren't rattling anymore He raised pigs for years and reported that when he would hear a rattlesnake buzzing in the sow pen, the sows would bee line to it and fight over the snake. For the uninformed, pigs love to eat rattlesnakes.. Therefore, the theory is they are ceasing to rattle to avoid detection, since there are plenty of pigs roaming the countryside. I have a neighbor ranching lady who was bitten 3 weeks ago 2 times by the same snake without any warning....she spent 5 days in ICU, after 22 vials of anti-venom she is back at the ranch and still may lose her foot or worse yet her lower leg.

The days of perceived warning are over. Keep your boots on and use a light when out and about. As you all know, one can pop up just about anywhere! You may wish to forward this to anyone that would be interested.

The ranch where this big rattler was killed is outside the city of Coleman which is located in (West Texas) near Abilene . Oh, for reference, the guy stands 6'-2". Seems there's been a boom in the snake population there.

Story of a Rattlesnake Bite Suffered near Yosemite

On July 21, just after my 13th birthday, I was bitten by a Northern Pacific rattlesnake (the snake was originally identified as a Western Diamondback rattlesnake but that species is not found near Yosemite ). I was on a trail in a hiking area near Yosemite National Park, California . The bite occurred when I was sitting on a small boulder at a distance of 4.5 miles from the trail head with my cabin group at camp.

I had my arms dangling at my side and a five foot long rattlesnake bit me in the middle of my left palm. From this point, an amazing rescue took place, taking four hours to transport me the 4.5 miles to the trail head

The camp director had previously called the hospital and a helicopter was waiting at the trail head. During the 30 minute helicopter ride I was going in and out of consciousness, having trouble keeping my eyes open.

We arrived at the Modesto hospital, where the doctor in the emergency room decided that my case was too severe to treat at that medical center. He told me this, which was the last thing

I heard before going unconscious.

Although I was unconscious for approximately the next 24 hours, I have heard about the following events from my parents.

I was taken from the Modesto hospital to the UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento , the trauma center for Northern California . My snake bite was determined to be too severe for Modesto to deal with. At the UC Davis hospital I underwent a fasciotomy, which involved the doctors cutting open my arm from the palm up to about the middle of my biceps. This was to relieve the extreme pressure that had built up in my arm from the rattlesnake venom, making my arm as hard as a rock until the fasciotomy.

I spent the next 35 days in the UC Davis hospital, had eight surgeries performed for cleaning out the dead tissue from my arm, and finally had a skin graft from my leg to close up my arm, which had remained open for 30 days after the fasciotomy until the skin graft surgery. That is 10 surgeries in total at UC Davis.

I was released from the hospital on August 24, had four months of intense physical therapy, and flew to Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina for a follow-up surgery. This was a vascular flap surgery, during which they took a chunk of skin and muscle from my back, attached its blood vessels to the ones in my arm using microsurgery, and then stitched it to my arm. Although 2 emergency surgeries were required within 24 hours on account of blood loss, the vascular flap was a success, and after six more months of physical therapy, my hand had a significant improvement in mobility from when I left UC Davis and could move each finger only 2-3 millimetres.

My hand now has fully mobility and is about 80% as strong as it was before, thanks to my Dad and I resuming our rock climbing after a one year break due to the lack of strength in my left hand. I use it for about 90% of the things I used to do with my left hand (I am right handed). 13 surgeries, $700,000 worth of helicopter flights, surgeries, and hospital stays (paid by my insurance), and 20 months later, I am very happy with the outcome of this experience and my good fortune of getting through all this without any significant loss.

This is the reason you don't ever want to be bitten by a rattlesnake!

TURNS OUT OBAMA‘S STORY ABOUT HIS MOTHER’S HEALTHCARE STRUGGLE IS INACCURATE

A new book by New York Times reporter Janny Scott sheds new light on the life of Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, including her final years. Scott found while assembling information for “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” that Dunham in fact did have health coverage for her ovarian cancer, based off Dunham’s own past correspondence.Washington Examiner’s Byron York:

“Dunham decided to stay in Jakarta, where she underwent an appendectomy. But the pain did not go away, and Dunham feared, correctly, that she was terribly ill. In January 1995 she left Indonesia to go home to Honolulu, where she was diagnosed with advanced uterine and ovarian cancer. She began a regime of surgery and chemotherapy.

That is the time during which Obama says his mother battled insurance companies to cover her illness. But Scott, who had access to Dunham’s correspondence from the time, reveals that Dunham unquestionably had health coverage. ‘Ann’s compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment,’ Scott writes. ‘Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”

Often in his 2008 campaign and throughout his push for national healthcare reform, Barack Obama retold a compelling story of his mother’s struggle against non-budging insurance companies for care in the final years of her life before the cancer over took her.

Additional Discussion today on Radio:

Obama caught in a massive lie

So has the President been caught in a massive lie? Apparently author Scott Wright has been doing some research on stories he told on the campaign trail, and he has found some contradictory information – primarily that a story he told on the campaign trail about his mother’s cancer coverage was exaggerated, to say the least.

“For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in a hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a preexisting condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.

“There is something fundamentally wrong about that.  It’s a lie,” Pat said. “Her insurance company covered her completely for the problem that she was suffering.”

“That is weird.  According now to the records in January 1995, she left Indonesia to go to Honolulu where she was diagnosed with an advanced uterine and ovarian cancer.  She began a regimen of surgery and chemotherapy.  This is the time which womb says his mother battled the insurance companies to cover her illness.  But Scott, an author of a new book who has access to Dunham’s correspondence from the time reveals that she unquestionably had health coverage.  Ann’s compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance which covered most of the cost of her medical treatment,” Glenn read.

Glenn emphasized that she came from another country to the United States and received her medical care. Pat added that she was actually misdiagnosed in Indonesia, where she was said to have appendicitis.

“ Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly leaving Ann only to pay the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which she said claimed to be several hundred dollars a month.  Scott Wright said Dunham, who wanted to be compensated for those costs as well as for her living expenses.  She filed a separate claim under her employer’s disability insurance policy.  It was that claim with the insurance company Cigna that was declined in August 1995 because as Cigna investigators said, her condition was known before she was covered by the policy.  Dunham protested the decision and informed Cigna that she was turning the case over to my son, an attorney, Barack Obama.  Cigna did not budge,” Glenn continued.

“September 1995 Dunham traveled to New York for an evaluation at renowned Memorial Sloan‑Kettering.  She returned to Hawaii, began a new course of treatment.  She died in November.  A dozen years later her son turned ordeal into a campaign pitch for national healthcare.  But the story Obama told Scott Wright was abbreviated.  The abbreviation was to leave out the fact that she had health insurance and it paid for her treatment.  Though he often suggested that she was denied health coverage because of a preexisting condition.  It appears from her correspondence in her own writing that she was only denied disability coverage.  That’s a different story altogether but one that nobody in the press seems to care.”

What are some other Obama healthcare related lies that have been exposed?

“One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about.  They delayed his treatment and he died because of it.”

But as Pat pointed out, it has been revealed that the man received treatment, his coverage was paid for, but he passed away anyway.

Glenn and Pat then went through a series of hyperbolic statements wherein the President implied that doctors were removing amputating feet from diabetics or needlessly removing tonsils for money. Obama, of course, did not provide concrete examples.

Video Discussion:  Beck on Radio – Obama Caught in a Massive Lie

But maybe O just comes by it naturally: Evidence of Deception Reaches White House  as Well as New Book on Obama Senior

h/t to the Blaze  -  Cross-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth