Replacing ObamaCare: True Insurance

By Daniel Anderson on April 30, 2012 -  FreedomWorks

Consider this: Why does your job offer health insurance, but not auto insurance? Certainly, you need to be healthy to come into work, but most Americans also need a car to get to work. For that matter, why doesn’t your job offer home or life insurance? What makes health insurance a common, nearly-ubiquitous benefit of employment in the United States?

The prevalence of employer group-based health insurance in America is a result of World War II. During the lead-up to the war in the Great Depression, there was an enormous surplus of labor relative to demand. However, as millions of Americans were sent overseas to fight in World War II, the labor pool shrunk dramatically. At the same time, the demand for labor skyrocketed as the federal government poured enormous resources into war production, creating a massive industry that desperately needed workers.

Given these conditions, businesses would normally raise wages in order to attract workers. However, the federal government also imposed wage controls on many American industries. In order to get around these wage controls, businesses began to offer health insurance to lure in prospective employees, along with other “fringe benefits.”

Following the war, Congress created a tax code that rewarded employer group-based health insurance. If businesses provided their employees with health insurance, that insurance benefit would not be taxed. However, if businesses simply raised their employees’ wages, the wages would be taxed. Understandably, most businesses decided to offer health insurance to their employees instead of raises.

In this way, the federal government largely created the employer group-based health insurance system. This system is unique to the United States. Every other developed country has some form of government health care, whether it’s truly socialized medicine such as in Britain, or a single-payer system like in Sweden. Our system is a result of both the unforeseen consequences of government involvement in business, and the natural American aversion to big government.

For most Americans, employer-based health care works. A March 28th Reason-Rupe poll found that:

• 87% of Americans are covered by health insurance

• 63% of Americans with health insurance are covered by employer group-based plans

• 23% of Americans with health insurance are covered by Medicare or Medicaid

• 58% of Americans are satisfied with their overall health care

• 23% of Americans are dissatisfied with their overall health care

So, the vast majority of Americans have health insurance coverage, a majority of Americans with health insurance receive it through their employer, and a majority of Americans are satisfied with things as they are.

What does this mean?

Simply put, there’s little reason to dramatically alter health insurance in America as things stand. Unfortunately, the provisions in ObamaCare will force a radical, fundamental shift in health care from employer group-based health insurance to health insurance exchanges controlled by the federal government. ObamaCare won’t destroy the employer group-based system, but it will change the basic dynamics of the health insurance market.

Still, while the polling numbers strongly support the continuation of the employer group-based system, not everyone is happy with it. After all, more than a tenth of Americans lack coverage, and nearly a quarter of Americans are dissatisfied with their overall health care.

What’s the best way to respond to those numbers? Congress could follow the ObamaCare route: mandating insurance and expanding federal control of health care through government health plans. For most Americans, this unconstitutional and expensive path toward addressing the problem is unacceptable.

The solution to helping people left behind by the employer group-based health insurance system isn’t an expansion of the government group-based health insurance system. Instead, we ought to encourage true, individual insurance.

What are some of the benefits of true insurance? The main benefit is portability. For most Americans, losing or leaving their jobs means losing their health insurance as well, since the two are connected. This increases the hardship of the unemployed, while simultaneously discouraging entrepreneurial Americans from leaving their jobs and their health insurance in order to start their own businesses.

But if you purchase health insurance separately from your job, like you purchase auto or homeowner’s insurance, that insurance now stays with you regardless of your employment status. The portability of true, individual insurance helps to calm some of the anxieties that come with unemployment while also freeing up America’s entrepreneurs to start businesses and to create jobs.

True insurance’s portability also helps to deal with the problem of pre-existing conditions in health care. The problem of pre-existing conditions should not be overstated, as it only afflicts about 1% of Americans. Still, it was a key impetus behind the push for ObamaCare, and all health care policy experts who hope to implement reform must address it. While by no means a silver bullet, the ability to keep the same insurance provider throughout several jobs, and possibly throughout your entire career, helps to alleviate the pre-existing conditions problem.

Most people acquire their “pre-existing condition” during their adult life, while in the workforce. When that happens, their insurance will most likely cover the new condition, similar to other ailments. But once these people change jobs, they now suddenly have a “pre-existing condition.” The portability and continuity of true insurance would do a great deal to reduce the number of Americans who have trouble accessing health care due to their pre-existing conditions.

Finally, true insurance provides Americans with greater choice and freedom with their health care. In a sense, when you apply for a job today, you’re also applying for that job’s health plan. Unfortunately, you don’t really know the details of the health plan until you’ve already taken the job and the plan.

What if you purchase true, individual insurance? You can pick a plan that the right premium and deductible. You can ensure that the plan covers the things you want covered. In short, you can get a plan that appeals to you, instead of being forced into your employer’s pre-packaged plan, which may or may not cost what you would prefer or cover what you want covered.

So, there are several major advantages to a true insurance system. How do we encourage its growth? The most important step to growing the true insurance market is to equalize tax treatment of the employer and true insurance systems. Full deductibility of all health care expenditures would help to level the playing field in the insurance market, thereby increasing patient choice.

The employer group-based health insurance system works for most Americans, but it’s not perfect. For those Americans who would prefer something different, we ought to forgo government group-based health insurance like in ObamaCare in favor of encouraging true, individual health insurance.

TAKE ACTION: Urge your Members of Congress to cosponsor the Patient OPTION Act!

Men for Women Now – Noreen Fraser Foundation

The day after Mother’s Day is Men for Women Now Day… A day to encourage all women to make their appointments for mammograms add pap smears.

Go to: http://www.noreenfraserfoundation.org/ and send someone you love a celebrity Mother’s Day Card and reminder.

The mission of the Noreen Fraser Foundation (NFF) is to raise funds for women’s cancer research. NFF supports translational cancer research aimed at developing new prevention methods, diagnostic tools and non-toxic therapies to treat women’s cancers. Our hope is that until there are CURES, women’s cancers will become manageable diseases controlled with targeted therapies that protect patients’ quality of life. The Noreen Fraser Foundation is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization

Illegal aliens get top notch health care, say immigration officials

Illegal aliens get top notch health care, say immigration officials, but if you even mention it saying the word illegal could cause you to be charged with a hate crime… if the left has their way.

by Jim Kouri  Originally posted on April 5th, 2012

This is article 248 of 252 in the topic Immigration

Illegal aliens captured by ICE agents are entitled to a comprehensive health care program. Photo credit: DHS/ICE

If a Mexican national wishes access to a full array of healthcare services, all they need do is cross the border into the United States and make certain they’re captured by agents from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE).

Providing quality healthcare to illegal aliens who are in ICE’s custody is an important and challenging task — one that Assistant Director for ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC) Dr. Jon Krohmer claims is taken very seriously, officials at the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement on Tuesday.

The ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) ensures the safe and humane conditions of confinement for aliens detained in ICE custody. This includes the provision of reliable, consistent and appropriate health services.

IHSC, which falls under ERO, is comprised of more than 900 Public Health Service-commissioned officers, federal civil servants and contract support staff. Their mission is straightforward: to serve as the medical authority for ICE on a wide range of medical issues, including the agency’s comprehensive detainee health care program, according to DHS officials.

However, at this point only estimated costs for this healthcare program are available and vary between $50 million and $150 million per year.

ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC) provides direct care to approximately 15,000 detainees housed at 21 IHSC-designated facilities throughout the nation. In addition, IHSC oversees the medical care provided to an additional 17,000 detainees at non-IHSC staffed detention facilities across the country. Whenever necessary, it authorizes and pays for off-site specialty and emergency care, consultations and case management, according to ICE.

“A detainee’s health care begins the moment they walk through the facility’s doors,” said Dr. Krohmer. “Within the first 12 hours of their admission, all detainees undergo a preliminary health screening, which includes an evaluation of the individual’s medical, dental and mental health status and within the next 14 days, a more detailed physical examination takes place.”

Because so many of these detainees are either new arrivals in the country or haven’t had access to health care in the past, Dr. Krohmer said it is not unusual for serious health problems to be diagnosed at these screenings.

“We’re finding out about health issues that even they didn’t even know about and in most cases are able to begin treatment,” he said.

However, some observers find Dr. Krohmer’s findings disturbing.

“I’m more concerned with illegal aliens who may enter the U.S. carrying a serious — even deadly — disease that may be highly contagious. Why don’t IHSC physicians and medical staff concentrate on screening immigrants coming from nations that may have serious health problems?” asks former NYPD police officer and emergency medical technician Nick D’Amato.

The continuity of care not only lasts during the individual’s period of detention, but also throughout their removal to their country of origin. Before any detainee boards a plane to be removed from the United States, they must first undergo an evaluation to make sure they are fit to fly, according to officials.

In order to continually upgrade the quality of medical services they deliver, IHSC not only actively complies with the Performance Based National Detention Standards, but is also instrumental in the standard’s continuous upgrades and improvements. “My staff and I are aware that detainee health care is an ever-evolving issue and that just like in the general population, health care priorities are constantly changing,” said Dr. Krohmer. “We are working to develop a more systematic approach to our health care system within the detention facilities.”

For instance, ICE recently streamlined the treatment authorization request. This application — used to formally request a specialized medical procedure that falls outside the scope of what IHSC can provide — is now typically reviewed and approved within 24 hours.

Krohmer added that plans are underway to forge a more uniform health care system among the IHSC facilities, enabling them to work together more cohesively.

“Sounds to me like illegal aliens are getting better health care than American citizens who are poor or homeless and can only receive emergency medical treatment at hospitals. It’s a disgrace,” said Mike Baker, a political strategist and attorney.

Taxpayers Fund Illegals' Sex-Change, Abortion Services

Is This Where All the Ritalin Went? - Why Are They Drugging Our Soldiers?

Is This Where All The Ritalin Went?

According to an op-ed entitled “Why Are We Drugging Our Soldiers?” in the New York Times by Richard A. Friedman, “the number of Ritalin and Adderall prescriptions written for active-duty service members increased by nearly 1,000 percent in five years.” Might this explain, in part at least, the shortages of Ritalin and Adderall that have plagued students nationwide?

Since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been a large and steady rise in the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder among our troops. One recent study of 289,000 Americans who served in those countries found that the rates of the disorder jumped to 22 percent in 2008 from just 0.2 percent in 2002.

Given the duration of these wars and the length and frequency of deployments, when compared with other wars, perhaps such high rates of PTSD are not so surprising. Prolonged exposure to a perilous and uncertain combat environment might make trauma common.
But there is another factor that might be playing a role in the increasing rates of the disorder, one that has escaped attention: the military’s use of stimulant medications, like Ritalin and Adderall, in our troops.

There has been a significant increase in the use of stimulant medication. Documents that I obtained in late 2010 through the Freedom of Information Act, and have recently analyzed, show that annual spending on stimulants jumped to $39 million in 2010 from $7.5 million in 2001 — more than a fivefold increase. Additional data provided by Tricare Management Activity, the arm of the Department of Defense that manages health care services for the military, reveals that the number of Ritalin and Adderall prescriptions written for active-duty service members increased by nearly 1,000 percent in five years, to 32,000 from 3,000.

Stimulants are widely used in the civilian population to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder because they increase focus and attention. Short of an unlikely epidemic of that disorder among our soldiers, the military almost certainly uses the stimulants to help fatigued and sleep-deprived troops stay alert and awake. (A spokesman for Tricare attributed the sharp rise to “the increased recognition and diagnosis of A.D.H.D. by medical providers.” However, while there is greater recognition of the disorder, the diagnoses are concentrated in children and adolescents.)…

[continues in the New York Times]

 

Why Are We Drugging Our Soldiers?

Jon Han -  By RICHARD A. FRIEDMAN - Published: April 21, 2012  at the LA Times – h/t to MJ

SINCE the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been a large and steady rise in the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder among our troops. One recent study of 289,000 Americans who served in those countries found that the rates of the disorder jumped to 22 percent in 2008 from just 0.2 percent in 2002.

Given the duration of these wars and the length and frequency of deployments, when compared with other wars, perhaps such high rates of PTSD are not so surprising. Prolonged exposure to a perilous and uncertain combat environment might make trauma common.

But there is another factor that might be playing a role in the increasing rates of the disorder, one that has escaped attention: the military’s use of stimulant medications, like Ritalin and Adderall, in our troops.

There has been a significant increase in the use of stimulant medication. Documents that I obtained in late 2010 through the Freedom of Information Act, and have recently analyzed, show that annual spending on stimulants jumped to $39 million in 2010 from $7.5 million in 2001 — more than a fivefold increase. Additional data provided by Tricare Management Activity, the arm of the Department of Defense that manages health care services for the military, reveals that the number of Ritalin and Adderall prescriptions written for active-duty service members increased by nearly 1,000 percent in five years, to 32,000 from 3,000.

Stimulants are widely used in the civilian population to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder because they increase focus and attention. Short of an unlikely epidemic of that disorder among our soldiers, the military almost certainly uses the stimulants to help fatigued and sleep-deprived troops stay alert and awake. (A spokesman for Tricare attributed the sharp rise to “the increased recognition and diagnosis of A.D.H.D. by medical providers.” However, while there is greater recognition of the disorder, the diagnoses are concentrated in children and adolescents.)

Stimulants do much more than keep troops awake. They can also strengthen learning. By causing the direct release of norepinephrine — a close chemical relative of adrenaline — in the brain, stimulants facilitate memory formation. Not surprisingly, emotionally arousing experiences — both positive and negative — also cause a surge of norepinephrine, which helps to create vivid, long-lasting memories. That’s why we tend to remember events that stir our feelings and learn best when we are a little anxious.

Since PTSD is basically a pathological form of learning known as fear conditioning, stimulants could plausibly increase the risk of getting the disorder.

The role of norepinephrine in the enhancement of memory was demonstrated in an elegant experiment led by Larry Cahill at the University of California, Irvine. He randomly gave a group of subjects either propranolol, a drug that blocks the effect of norepinephrine, or a placebo just before they heard one of two stories: an emotionally arousing one or a neutral one. He then tested their memory of the stories a week later and found that propranolol selectively impaired recall of the emotionally arousing story but not the neutral story. The clear implication of this study is that emotion raises norepinephrine, which then enhances memory. Block norepinephrine and you can impair emotional memory. With PTSD, a shocking combat situation elicits a hard-wired fear response — the flight-or-fight reaction — with intense emotional arousal and a surge of norepinephrine in the brain. This burns in the memory of the traumatic experience. It also promotes fear conditioning, a form of learning in which previously neutral stimuli in the environment — sights, sounds and smells, for example — become linked with a trauma. So, for a soldier injured in a bomb blast, anything like the sound of an explosion or the odor of burning is now a potent conditioned stimulus that can evoke the trauma and trigger symptoms of PTSD, like a flashback or startle reaction.

Because norepinephrine enhances emotional memory, a soldier taking a stimulant medication, which releases norepinephrine in the brain, could be at higher risk of becoming fear-conditioned and getting PTSD in the setting of trauma.

This possibility is supported by both animal and human studies. In rats, tiny injections of norepinephrine into the amygdala, a region of the brain that encodes fear, can enhance fear conditioning. And Marieke Soeter at the University of Amsterdam recently conducted an experiment in which college students were shown a picture paired with a small electric shock. Before viewing the pictures, subjects were randomly given yohimbine, a drug that releases norepinephrine in the brain, or a placebo. When students were tested 48 hours later, those who had received yohimbine had greater fear-associated learning and had a harder time “unlearning” the fear — when presented with the picture in the absence of a shock — than those students who had taken the placebo.

The study implies that soldiers exposed to elevated norepinephrine levels from taking stimulants are also at risk of relapse when re-exposed to the initial stressor. And because the treatment of PTSD involves unlearning fear responses, soldiers exposed to stimulants during trauma could well be more resistant to treatment.

And in fact, blocking the effects of norepinephrine with beta blockers can stop fear-conditioning and possibly even prevent post-traumatic stress disorder.

Roger Pittman, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, led a small study in 2002 in which he randomly assigned emergency-room patients to either the beta blocker propranolol or a placebo within six hours of their experiencing a traumatic event. After one month, subjects who took the propranolol had significantly fewer symptoms of PTSD than subjects who took the placebo.

Does all of this prove that stimulants promote the development of post-traumatic stress disorder?

No. Because two things are correlated doesn’t mean there is a causal link. There are other factors that might play an important role, like incurring a traumatic brain injury, which is a known risk factor for the disorder, and growing steadily during these wars.

Still, it is an open question whether the use of stimulants in combat does more good than harm. The next step should be a rigorous epidemiologic study of a possible link between stimulants and PTSD in our troops.

Richard A. Friedman is a professor of psychiatry and director of the psychopharmacology clinic at Weill Cornell Medical College.

Related in Opinion

• Op-Ed Columnist: A Veteran’s Death, the Nation’s Shame (April 15, 2012)

This Daily Habit Can Damage Your Brain, Disrupt Your Bones, and Stain and Pit Your Teeth

Story at-a-glance

• On March 15, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 253-23 in favor of mandating infant fluoride warnings on all water bills in fluoridated communities. The bill will now go to the Senate
• According to the text of the bill, the warning would read, in part: “According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if your child under the age of 6 months is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance of dental fluorosis.” But dental fluorosis is not “just cosmetic.” It can also be an indication that other tissues, such as your bones and internal organs, including your brain, has been overexposed to fluoride as well
• A repeated theme in recent cases where communities successfully removed fluoride from their water supply is the shifting of the burden of proof. Rather than citizens taking on the burden of proving that fluoride is harmful and should be removed, champions in positions of some authority have managed to end water fluoridation in their communities by demanding that any fluoride product used must be able to prove its compliance with the regulations, laws, and risk assessments already required for safe drinking water

By Dr. Mercola

The largest state legislature in the U.S. recently passed a bill mandating infant fluoride warnings on all water bills in fluoridated communities. On March 15, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 253-23 in favor of the bill.

Thanks to a 13-2 recommendation from the House Resources, Recreation, and Development committee, there was no debate over the bill on the House floor. The bill will now go to the Senate. According to the text of the billⁱ , the warning would read:

"Your public water supply is fluoridated. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if your child under the age of 6 months is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance of dental fluorosis. Consult your child's health care provider for more information."

Why Infants Should Not Drink Fluoridated Water

Two years ago, a study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association found that fluoride intake during a child's first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and warned against using fluoridated water in infant formulaⁱⁱ.

Dental fluorosis - a condition in which your tooth enamel becomes progressively discolored and mottled - is one of the first signs of over-exposure to fluoride. Eventually, it can result in badly damaged teeth, and worse... It's important to realize that dental fluorosis is NOT "just cosmetic."

It can also be an indication that the rest of your body, such as your bones and internal organs, including your brain, have been overexposed to fluoride as well. In other words, if fluoride is having a visually detrimental effect on the surface of your teeth, you can be virtually guaranteed that it's also damaging other parts of your body, such as your bones. After all, bone is living tissue that is constantly being replaced through cellular turnover.

Bone building is a finely balanced, complicated process and fluoride has been known to disrupt this process ever since the 1930s.

While generally supportive of water fluoridation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does admit that using fluoridated water to mix infant formula may not be in the best interest of your baby's developing teeth. According to their websiteⁱⁱⁱ:

"Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing ... enamel fluorosis."

The CDC also states:

"In children younger than 8 years of age, combined fluoride exposure from all sources - water, food, toothpaste, mouth rinse, or other products - contributes to enamel fluorosis."

The lack of formal and easy-to-find warnings about the hazard of using fluoridated water to make infant formula has, and continues to be, a major source of contention. New Hampshire will set a marvelous example for other states if their bill mandating infant fluoride warnings on water bills in fluoridated communities is enacted.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

In writing this article, I was in contact with Jeff Green, National Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, who kindly shared a couple of other success stories with me. A repeated theme in some of the recent cases where communities successfully removed fluoride from their water supply is the shifting of the burden of proof. Rather than citizens taking on the burden of proving that fluoride is harmful and shouldn't be added, a more successful strategy has been to hold those making claims accountable for delivering proof that the specific fluoridation chemical being used fulfills their health and safety claims, and is in compliance with all regulations, laws, and risk assessments already required for safe drinking water.

"It's important to accentuate that these strategic actions focused on the accountability for the actions surrounding the selection and use of the specific substance, rather than just opposition to the public policy where supporters routinely find cover for their actions," Green says.

The word 'Champion' may elicit reverie-like thoughts of a bygone era, but Champions—while rare—can still be found today. A true Champion can be defined as a person in a position of some authority who can reasonably make a probing request, and, most importantly, has the authority to declare that a distorted response—one that does not answer questions directly, or a non-response, simply isn't good enough.

Frank Mora, previous Chairman of a joimt water board in the State of New York, is one example of such a Champion. While neither 'easy' nor 'fast,' Mora's dedication to the ethics of stewardship eventually led to the discontinuation of the addition of fluoride to their water supply in October 2009. The water board, who originally supported the public policy of fluoridation based on endorsements, rejected the use of the hydrofluosilicic acid fluoridation chemical without taking any stance on whether or not it might do harm... Rather the rejection was based on the Board's inability to confirm the compliance of the product with already established laws and regulations for safe drinking water.

Ironically, water fluoridation continued for about a month after the Board made their decision. The reason for this was because the hydrofluosilicic acid they still had on hand would have to have been disposed of as hazardous waste. The cost of proper disposal was considered excessive, so they used up their last reserves before discontinuing it. It's rather amazing to consider that the hazardous waste facility was more committed to identifying the contents and contaminants of the product before they would accept it for treatment than water departments are before adding it to our drinking water!

Endorsements Versus Due Diligence...

A town in Tennessee also found a Champion in its Mayor Robinson, and the town, while keeping its resolution to fluoridate intact, unanimously ended its use of its chosen hydrofluosilicic acid fluoridation substance a couple of years ago, and as of yet have not found a product that is compliant. According to a press release dated June 10, 2011:

"The shift was to a process of sequentially challenging various authorities to dig deeper into the factual basis for endorsements and assurances, and to provide specific documents.

... The Town exchanged letters with the Tennessee Municipal League Risk Management Pool (TML) explaining the Town's inability to extract information on the content and impurities of the product, the refusal of the chemical supplier to provide specific documents required for compliance with law, and evidence that contaminants such as lead and arsenic are admittedly a part of the product. This resulted in TML's lawyerly response that they wouldn't be able to answer with any certainty what liability coverage the Town could count on until TML received a claim.

Not good enough.

"A point that had to be considered," said Robinson, "is that all of these endorsements, and even assurances and guidance from health agencies, doesn't alter the fact that we as the water operator are the only ones that can select and ultimately be responsible for the benefits or harm from consumption of the product. So while it might be nice to take potshots from the sideline, or to repeat the assurances from someone who has no accountability, if we are going to take our role as stewards of the water supply seriously, we don't get to substitute endorsements for due diligence."

What You Might Find if a Champion Performs Due Diligence

Mayor Robinson makes an excellent point, which is that the stewards of the water supply cannot simply substitute endorsements of safety, effectiveness, and regulatory compliance for the public policy, for due diligence on the actual product used. Questions must be asked, and answers must be provided. Ditto for proof in terms of documentation. If it's all on the up-and-up, this should be a fairly straight-forward process. However, those who have taken on the task of performing due diligence on the actual fluoridation chemical have been surprised by the lack of responsiveness and clarity from the very sources of the safety claims. In addition, in the case of the joint water board in New York, they couldn't even get a single straight answer from the chemical manufacturer about their own product.

This isn't surprising when you consider that there's virtually no evidence supporting the safety or effectiveness of the fluoridation chemical used.

"I don't believe we would have known how to navigate through this process without guidance from someone who is fully informed of all of the regulations that should be considered in our decision-making, as even though we are in the business of delivering water, we were not aware of all of the factors, which were not divulged by the sources we usually rely upon," stated Robinson.

First of all, swallowing fluoride provides little or no benefit to your teeth. It works topically, and not particularly effectively at that. According to the findings of a groundbreaking 2010 study published in the journal Langmuir^iv, the benefits of even topical application of fluoride are highly questionable. The study discovered that the fluorapatite layer formed on your teeth when you apply fluoride is a mere six nanometers thick. To put that into perspective, you need 10,000 of these layers to get the width of a strand of your hair! Scientists now question whether this ultra-thin layer can actually protect your enamel and provide any discernible benefit, considering the fact that simple chewing will quickly eliminate it.

Secondly, swallowing fluoride exposes every tissue in your body to both a drug and a toxic substance.

There is pharmaceutical-grade fluoride, which is used in certain drugs, and adding it to the public water supply equates to forcing a medication on the entire population, without regard for dose or frequency. However, pharmaceutical grade fluoride is not typically what's added to water supplies... No, the fluoride added to municipal water supplies is the toxic byproduct from the fertilizer industry—a rarely-discussed fact that effectively nullifies most if not all studies pertaining to fluoride—they simply have not studied the correct type of fluoride being added to our water.

Another eye-opening fact is that a pea-sized dollop of fluoridated toothpaste contains about the same amount of fluoride as a large glass of water. The difference is that if you swallow more than a pea-sized amount of toothpaste, you're instructed to immediately contact Poison Control, while there are no warnings issued for fluoridated water, even though there's no way to control the dose any given person will receive on any given day or throughout their lifetime.

Often Overlooked

Advisory from Jeff Green: One element to be addressed is that many of us who are first exposed to issues such as this enter into a world of anger at injustice, where we see the problem so passionately and so clearly that we carry the burden of proof and are in a hurry to tell others to set it right, viewing anyone who does not immediately agree with our view as opposition that must be overwhelmed with facts and a list of "shoulds."

In this state we look angry, and are easily characterized as a zealot, probably because we are. Asking someone without our passion to join us may not be that inviting.

Should we expect that this would be any different when speaking to authorities and asking them to act?

If you are able to suspend your anger at injustice, able to switch your focus from stating the problem to addressing solutions, there are avenues available.

If you would like to elevate your discussions from the argumentative "he said, she said" to letting the facts declare themselves, and you are in a position of authority from which you can champion the performance of due diligence, contact us for access to guidance and further information.

If you are capable of being an advocate of safe drinking water and would like to assist in identifying a champion for due diligence in your community, contact us for approaches and further information.

10 Facts About Water Fluoridation Everyone Should Know

1. Bottle-fed infants receive the highest doses of fluoride as they rely solely on liquids for food, combined with their small size. A baby being fed formula receives approximately 175 times more fluoride than a breast-fed infant
2. There is not a single process in your body that requires fluoride
3. A multi-million dollar U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) -funded study found no relation between tooth decay and the amount of fluoride ingested by children
4. Water fluoridation cannot prevent the oral health crises that results from inadequate nutrition and lack of access to dental care
5. Water fluoridation is a violation of your individual right to informed consent to medication
6. Forty-one percent of all American children aged 12-15 are now impacted by dental fluorosis, rising to more than sixty percent of children in fluoridated communities
7. The chemicals used to fluoridate water supplies are largely hazardous by-products of the fertilizer industry and have never been required to undergo randomized clinical trials for safety or effectiveness by any regulatory agency in the world
8. The U.S. FDA classifies ingested fluoride for purposes of reducing tooth decay as an "unapproved drug"
9. Ingesting fluoride has been found to damage soft tissues (brain, kidneys, and endocrine system), as well as teeth (dental fluorosis) and bones (skeletal fluorosis). There are also 24 studies demonstrating a strong relationship between fairly modest exposure to fluoride and reduced IQ in children
10. Fluoridation discriminates against those with low incomes. People on low incomes are least able to afford avoidance measures, such as reverse osmosis filters or bottled water

Dr. Mercola - April 24 2012

References:

---

• ⁱ HOUSE BILL 1416-LOCAL, AN ACT relative to a required fluoride statement
• ⁱⁱ Journal of the American Dental Association October 14, 2010; 141(10):1190-1201
• ⁱⁱⁱ CDC May 28, 2010
• ^iv Langmuir. 2010 Dec 21;26(24):18750-9

Source: New Hampshire State Legislature

Barney Frank: Obamacare Was a 'Mistake'

As far back as Fall 2011 Liberals were saying: Obamacare was a mistake

Via Noel Sheppard at News Busters comes word that Chris Matthews asked panelists on some round table show he runs, “What has been President Obama’s biggest mistake in his two and a half years so far?” Readers already knew the answer. Obamacare. Barack Obama wasted political capital on this half-baked attempt to have the government take over health insurance. I have said this repeatedly. But now it is dawning on the political insiders that maybe instead of playing hardball with the opposition, Barack Obama should have tried to swing a few Republican votes his way.

From News Busters, the transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This week we want to do something slightly different with our “Tell me Something” segment. Let me ask you all, all four of you, what has been President Obama’s biggest mistake in his two and a half years so far? Howard.

HOWARD FINEMAN, HUFFINGTON POST: Chris, on things under his control, not the wars so much because they were built in, his decision to spend all of his political capital in a year and a half of his time on the health-care reform law I think was his biggest political mistake.

MATTHEWS: Wow. Smart statement.

And then there was this exchange with another panelist:

DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST: I would agree with Howard. The idea of launching a major change in social legislation without having a consensus in the country and in Congress about what that should look like was a mistake. That’s just not how a president makes good policy.

MATTHEWS: Wow.

Wow indeed. What does Obama have to run on next year? The economy? Foreign policy? I suppose. One thing he cannot run on is the centerpiece of his domestic policy: Obamacare. Suddenly Obamacare vindicated the late Roberto Goizueta — the CEO who gave the world New Coke.

h/t to Don Surber  -  September 6, 2011

Forbes:

Well now Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), who is retiring from the House this year, now says that President Obama made a “mistake” in pushing for his signature health law. “I think we paid a terrible price for health care,” he told Jason Zengerle of New York magazine. “I would not have pushed it as hard. As a matter of fact, after [Republican] Scott Brown won [Sen. Kennedy’s old seat in Massachusetts], I suggested going back. I would have started with financial reform but certainly not health care.” But Frank’s reasoning carries pitfalls for conservative reformers as well as liberal ones.

Frank explains that it’s difficult to enact reforms that threaten to disrupt the arrangements of those who already have health insurance and are happy with the care they get. “Obama made the same mistake Clinton made,” says Frank. “When you try to extend health care to people who don’t have it, people who have it and are on the whole satisfied with it get nervous.” (h/t Jim Geraghty.)

Obama, says Frank, over-interpreted his mandate from the 2008 election. “The problem with health care is this: Health care is enormously important to people. When you tell them that you’re going to extend health care to people who don’t now have it, they don’t see how you can do that without hurting them. So I think he underestimated, as did Clinton, the sensitivity of people to what they see as an effort to make them share the health care with poor people.”

Let’s leave aside Frank’s accusation that the reason Obamacare is unpopular is because the middle class doesn’t want to “share the health care with poor people.” (The middle class does plenty of sharing already.)

Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman and the Washington Post’s David Ignatius also both agree with the majority of Americans that socialist ObamaCare was President Downgrade’s biggest mistake.  See Video

Wouldn’t it be fascinating if media members that helped this President pass ObamaCare against America’s wishes came to the conclusion this was his biggest mistake?

On Sunday’s “The Chris Matthews Show,” the Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman and the Washington Post’s David Ignatius both told a somewhat startled host that Obama spending so much of his time and political capital on passing healthcare reform was his worst decision to date. 

Love Chris Mathews at the end, “wow.”

Two other Democrats not runing re-election came out this week and announced that voting for ObamaCare was a mistake.  And even AARP admitted that supporting ObamaCare was a mistake for its members. Members' premiums up 8-13% for just next year. Spokesman on Fox twisting and squirming, admitting supporting ObamaCare might have been a mistake.

But before Republicans start chortling at Barney Frank’s admission of Obamacare’s unpopularity, it’s worth remembering that the overall problem he identifies makes sweeping market-oriented reforms difficult too.

That’s why, for example, Democrats go on about Republicans supposedly “ending Medicare as we know it,” even though that is patently dishonest, and why the new Republican plan for Medicare, endorsed by Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, (1) doesn’t affect anyone over the age of 55, and (2) retains an option for people to stay on traditional Medicare if they so choose.

Many Republicans have aggressively pushed the critique that Obamacare prevents people from keeping their current arrangements, if they like them. But that critique would also apply to any plan that, say, eliminated the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance, in order to help fund universal coverage (an idea favored by people like me).

If Republicans are lucky enough to gain power in November, they will face two challenges. Democrats will instinctively push back on any changes to our three health-care entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer tax exclusion. In addition, much of the conservative base does not appreciate that health care reform is urgently needed, because conservatives tend to be the people who are happiest with their current arrangements.

What’s the solution? The solution has two parts. First, any proposals to replace Obamacare must be implemented gradually, over time, so as not to overly disrupt the arrangements that many Americans like. Secondly, the solution ought to be bipartisan, by pairing free-market reforms with expansion of coverage (a liberal priority).

For all the partisan bluster right now, if Obamacare is overturned or repealed, it’s hard for me to see centrist Democrats voting against a significant expansion of coverage sponsored by Republicans, out of spite. But I could be wrong.

Good Reminder: Michigan Rep Rogers video statement on why we should say no to Obamacare

Video: Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C.

Congressman Rogers' makes his opening statement on Health Care reform legislation (ObamaCare) in 2009 that was then under debate in Congress

h/t to Patricia Gillenwater & Michael Carpenter

Berries…

Berries are delicious, but they're also kind of delicate.  Raspberries in particular seem like they can mold before you even get them home from the market.  There's nothing more tragic than paying $4 for a pint of local raspberries, only to look in the fridge the next day and find that fuzzy mold growing on their insides. 

Well, with fresh berries just starting to hit farmers markets, we can tell you that how to keep them fresh!  Here’s a tip I’m sharing on how to  prevent them from getting there in the first place: 

Wash them with vinegar!!

When you get your berries home, prepare a mixture of one part vinegar (white or apple cider probably work best) and ten parts water.  Dump the berries into the mixture and swirl around. Drain, rinse if you want (though the mixture is so diluted you can't taste the vinegar,) and pop in the fridge.  The vinegar kills any mold spores and other bacteria that might be on the surface of the fruit, and voila!  Raspberries will last a week or more, and strawberries go almost two weeks without getting moldy and soft.

So go forth and stock up on those pricey little gems, knowing they'll stay fresh as long as it takes you to eat them.

You're so berry welcome!

h/t to Deonia Copeland

Americans Eat the Cheapest Food in the World, But What is It Really Costing?

Story at-a-glance

• In 2010, Americans spent just over 9 percent of their disposable income on food (5.5 percent at home and 3.9 percent eating out); this is less than half or more of most any other country on the planet
• The “faster, bigger, cheaper” approach to food production that the United States has mastered is unsustainable and is contributing to the destruction of our planet and your health
• Easy access to cheap, poor-quality food is contributing to the rising rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and other chronic disease
• Nearly all cheap processed foods in the United States contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients and come from confined animal feeding operations, which contribute to environmental destruction, animal cruelty and the spread of antibiotic-resistant super-germs
• To protect your health and the environment, strive to make 90 percent of your diet non-processed, whole organic foods; it may cost more to eat this way initially, but the amount it will save you in the long run is immeasurable

By Dr. Mercola

In 2010, Americans spent just over 9 percent of their disposable income on food (5.5 percent at home and 3.9 percent eating out).ⁱ

This is a dramatically lower percentage spent just decades ago in the early 1960s, when over 17 percent was spent on food, and even more of a “bargain” compared to 1930, when Americans spent over 24 percent of their disposable income to feed their families.

When you compare what Americans spend to what people in other countries spend, you’ll also notice some great disparities.

On the surface, having cheaper food may seem like an advantage, but in reality while Americans may be saving a few dollars on their meals, they’re paying big time in terms of their health, and the health of the planet.

No Place on the Planet Has Cheaper Food Than the United States

As reported in TreeHugger, professor Mark J. Perry stated on his Carpe Diem blog:ⁱⁱ

“... compared to other countries, there's no other place on the planet that has cheaper food than the U.S. The 5.5% of disposable income that Americans spend on food at home is less than half the amount of income spent by Germans (11.4%), the French (13.6%), the Italians (14.4%), and less than one-third the amount of income spent by consumers in South Africa (20.1%), Mexico (24.1%), and Turkey (24.5%), which is about what Americans spent DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION, and far below what consumers spend in Kenya (45.9%) and Pakistan (45.6%).”

Unfortunately, the “faster, bigger, cheaper” approach to food production that the United States has mastered is unsustainable and contributing to the destruction of our planet and your health. Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma and a number of other bestsellers, said it best:

"Cheap food is an illusion. There is no such thing as cheap food. The real cost of the food is paid somewhere. And if it isn't paid at the cash register, it's charged to the environment or to the public purse in the form of subsidies. And it's charged to your health."

In other words, pay now or pay later. American food may be cheap, but that’s about the only “compliment” it deserves, because when you rely on cheap food, you typically get what you pay for.

Why are So Many Americans Fat and Sick?

In many cases, easily the majority, it is due to dietary factors! Millions of Americans live in "food deserts" where fresh produce is hard to find but processed food and fast food is available everywhere. If your meals consist of $1 burgers and super-size drinks, your diet may be cheap, but it is also excessively high in grains, sugars, and factory-farmed meats. This is a recipe for obesity, diabetes and heart disease, just to name a few calamitous conditions that befall those who consume the standard American diet!

You have the U.S. government to thank for this cheap food, as farm subsidies bring you high-fructose corn syrup, fast food, animal factories, monoculture, and a host of other contributors to our unhealthful contemporary diet. A report comparing federal subsidies of fresh produce and junk food, prepared by U.S. PIRG, a non-profit organization that takes on special interests on behalf of the public, revealed where your tax dollars are really going, and it's quite shocking.

If you were to receive an annual federal subsidy directly, you would receive $7.36 to spend on junk food and just 11 cents to buy apples. In other words, every year, your tax dollars pay for enough corn syrup and other junk food additives to buy 19 Twinkies, but only enough fresh fruit to buy less than a quarter of one red delicious apple.

Heart disease is a direct reflection of poor dietary choices. Heart disease costs us $189.4 billion per year. However, statistics show that by 2030, these costs will triple, resulting in a mind-bending $818 billion!ⁱⁱⁱ Meanwhile, as TreeHugger reported:

“If Americans continue to pack on pounds, obesity will cost us about $344 billion in medical-related expenses by 2018, eating up about 21 percent of healthcare spending, according to an article in USA Today.^iv Not to mention the unseen health issues associated with a genetically modified and pesticide-bathed food system.”

What's the "Cost" of a Food System Based on Genetically Modified Foods?

The damage is quite simply immeasurable. Nearly all processed foods in the United States contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients, particularly Bt corn and Roundup Ready soy. These crops and other GM varieties are now planted on nearly 4 billion acres of land throughout 29 countries, as their makers (primarily Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta) continue to praise their worth. These companies, which have created patents and intellectual property rights so that they now control close to 70 percent of global seed sales, extol the virtues of GM crops as though they are a panacea for ending world hunger and solving the food crisis.

But in fact, as a report coordinated by Navdanya and Navdanya International, the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture, The Center for Food Safety (CFS) and others, has stated, GM crops are surrounded by false promises and failed yields, to the extent that they are now destroying the food system with superweeds, superpests and more.

Scientists have discovered a number of health problems -- like changes in reproductive hormones, testicular changes and damage to the pituitary gland -- related to genetically modified foods, however these studies have been repeatedly ignored by both the European Food Safety Authority and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). GM foods are typically regarded as equivalent to their conventional counterparts. This, however, is flawed logic because GM foods contain foreign genes that have never before been introduced into the food supply, and are universally contaminated with toxic GMO-specific herbicide residues.

Behind Virtually Every Cheap Burger is a CAFO

It cannot be ignored that the animals raised on confined animal feed operations (CAFOs) pay one of the highest prices for Americans’ cheap food. The typical CAFO can house tens of thousands of animals (and in the case of chickens, 100,000) under one roof, in nightmarish, unsanitary, disease-ridden conditions.

Animals raised at CAFOs are treated like objects, not animals -- stuck in cages, overcrowded, often covered in feces -- which is not only hard to watch, but also hard to stomach. It is not at all unusual for animals to be abused in these circumstances; the very conditions in which they live are abuse in their own right. For those who aren't aware, about 80 percent of all the antibiotics produced are used in agriculture -- not only to fight infection, but to promote unhealthy (though profitable) weight gain in animals. Unfortunately, this practice is also contributing to the alarming spread of antibiotic-resistant disease -- a serious problem that is costing tens of thousands of Americans their lives.

CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses, but the only reason CAFOs are able to remain so "efficient," bringing in massive profits while selling their food for bottom-barrel prices, is because they substitute subsidized crops for pasture grazing.

Factory farms use massive quantities of corn, soy and grain in their animal feed, all crops that they are often able to purchase at below cost because of government subsidies. Because of these subsidies, U.S. farmers produce massive amounts of soy, corn, wheat, etc. -- rather than vegetables -- leading to a monoculture of foods that contribute to a fast food diet. As written in "CAFO: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories":^v

"Thanks to U.S. government subsidies, between 1997 and 2005, factory farms saved an estimated $3.9 billion per year because they were able to purchase corn and soybeans at prices below what it cost to grow the crops. Without these feed discounts, amounting to a 5 to 15 percent reduction in operating costs, it is unlikely that many of these industrial factory farms could remain profitable.

By contrast, many small farms that produce much of their own forage receive no government money. Yet they are expected somehow to match the efficiency claims of the large, subsidized megafactory farms. On this uneven playing field, CAFOs may falsely appear to "outcompete" their smaller, diversified counterparts."

As it stands, the book notes that "grazing and growing feed for livestock now occupy 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet. If present trends continue, meat production is predicted to double between the turn of the 21st century and 2050." Does this sound like a good deal to you?

Allocating More Money to Your Food is Investing in Your Most Valuable Asset...

You... and your family (including those who are yet to be born)! If you want to optimize your health, you simply must return to the basics of healthy food choices. And, as more and more people begin to grasp this concept and demand healthy, unadulterated foods, the more must be produced, one way or another. There is just no way around it -- if you want your family to be healthy, someone in your household, or someone you pay, must invest some time in the kitchen preparing your food from scratch, using fresh, whole ingredients.

Avoiding processed food requires a change in mindset, which is not always an easy task. It CAN be done, however. Rather than looking at processed foods as a convenience that tastes good or saves money, try thinking of it as:

• Extra calories that will harm your body
• A toxic concoction of foreign chemicals and artificial flavors that will lead to disease
• A waste of your money
• Likely to lead to increased health care bills for you and your family
• Not something to give to children, whose bodies are still developing and in great need of nutrients

Your goal should be to strive for 90 percent non-processed, whole food. Not only will you enjoy the health benefits—especially if you buy mostly organic—but you’ll also get the satisfaction of knowing exactly what you’re putting into your body, and that in and of itself can be a great feeling. It may cost more to eat this way, but then again it might not. (And in the long run the amount it will save you in the long run is immeasurable.)

You may be surprised to find out that by going directly to the source you can get amazingly healthy, locally grown, organic food for less than you can find at your supermarket. This gives you the best of both worlds: food that is grown near to you and sold with minimal packaging, cutting down on its carbon footprint and giving you optimal freshness, as well as grown without chemicals, genetically modified (GM) seeds, and other potential toxins.

Restaurants are able to keep their costs down by getting food directly from a supplier. You, too, can take advantage of a direct farm-to-consumer relationship, either on an individual basis by visiting a small local farm or by joining a food coop in your area. To find these types of real foods, grown by real farmers who are eager to serve their communities, visit LocalHarvest.org.

Simple Strategies to Eat Well Without Spending More

There are many strategies available to stretch your food dollars while feeding your family healthy foods. Rather than wasting money on expensive cereal boxes and bags of chips, put your money toward foods that will serve your health well, such as raw organic dairy, cage-free organic eggs, fresh vegetables and fermented foods you make at home (fermented foods are incredibly economical because you can use a portion of one batch to start the next).

The following strategies will also make it easier to eat well on a tight budget:

• Identify someone to prepare meals. Someone has to invest time in the kitchen to prepare your meals, or else you will succumb to costly and unhealthy fast food and convenience foods. So it will be necessary for either you, your spouse, another family member or someone you pay to prepare your family's meals from locally grown healthful foods.
• Become resourceful: This is an area where your grandmother can be a wealth of information, as how to use up every morsel of food and stretch out a good meal was common knowledge to generations past. Seek to get back to the basics of cooking -- using the bones from a roast chicken to make stock for a pot of soup, extending a Sunday roast to use for weekday dinners, learning how to make hearty stews from inexpensive cuts of meat, using up leftovers and so on.
• Plan your meals: If you fail to plan you are planning to fail. This is essential, as you will need to be prepared for mealtimes in advance to be successful. Ideally this will involve scouting out your local farmer's markets for in-season produce that is priced to sell, and planning your meals accordingly. But, you can also use this same premise with supermarket sales or, even better, produce from your own vegetable garden.

  You can generally plan a week of meals at a time, make sure you have all ingredients necessary on hand, and then do any prep work you can ahead of time so that dinner is easy to prepare if you're short on time in the evening.

  It is no mystery that you will be eating lunch around noon every day so rather than rely on fast food at work, before you go to bed make a plan as to what you are going to take to work for lunch the next day. This is a simple strategy that will let you eat healthier and save money, especially it you take healthy food from home in with you to work.

• Avoid food waste: According to a study published in the journal PloS One, Americans waste an estimated 1,400 calories of food per person, each and every day.^vi The two steps above will help you to mitigate food waste in your home, and you may also have seen my article titled 14 Ways to Save Money on Groceries. Among those tips are suggestions for keeping your groceries fresher, longer, and I suggest reviewing those tips now.
• Buy organic animal foods. The most important foods to buy organic are animal, not vegetable, products (meat, eggs, butter, etc.), because animal foods tend to concentrate pesticides in higher amounts. If you cannot afford to buy all of your food organic, opt for organic animal foods first.

References:

---

• ⁱ USDA Economic Research Service, Food CPI and Expenditures
• ⁱⁱ Carpe Diem July 3, 2010
• ⁱⁱⁱ Huffington Post April 21, 2011
• ^iv USA Today November 17, 2009
• ^v CAFO - The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories
• ^vi PLoS ONE 4(11): e7940

Source: Treehugger March 24, 2012

Related Links:

How to Save Up to 89% on Your Organic Food

Why is it Suddenly Cheaper to Eat Out?

The Drug Industry May Be Bad, But THIS Industry May Be Even Worse for Your Health

Nothing to Do With Health Care! It's All About New Taxes and Tax Collection

What Does the IRS Know About Obamacare That We Don't? and Why Do They Need 16,500 New IRS Agents to Enforce Obamacare 

April 10, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I got an e-mail note from a friend. "Hey, Rush, why are the markets plunging? Volume is at a four-year low." So I looked up there. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 149. That's no big deal. We're still at 12,700, but volume, trading is down. The amount of activity going on in the stock market is at a four-year low. I don't know. I guess they read that Obamacare is gonna add to the deficit. Maybe these people up there just figured that out for the first time today. Folks, today's report did remind me of one thing about Obamacare that I had almost forgotten. Not only does Obamacare create a new tax on the uninsured and employers who don't provide insurance -- that's the fine -- and the requirement to buy it.

That's the requirement to buy health insurance or pay a fine if you don't. Now, the regime has gone back and forth on whether or not they're gonna call that a tax. When they call it a tax is at the Supreme Court. They say, "Hey, this is not a mandate. This is not violation. We have the power to levy taxes." But it also puts a new tax on people who have insurance already, people who have what Obama calls "high-end insurance." Even they have to pay a tax under Obamacare. Everybody gets soaked here, and that's why there are 4,000 new IRS agents to secure compliance with a piece of legislation that everybody thinks is about making them well when they get sick.

And I think the question should be asked frequently: "What do 4,000 IRS agents have to do with making sick people well?" Why are they even needed? And the regime, by the way, just this week (or maybe it was Friday, I forget which) confirmed that the 4,000 agents are being hired and $500 million is being diverted from somewhere to hire them.

RUSH: Investor's Business Daily -- or I guess it's just now Investors.com -- has an editorial on the army of IRS enforcers. "After foisting its 2,700-page health law on the public, the White House now plans to enforce its detested mandate by siccing the IRS on unwilling citizens. All that stands in the way is 'the consent of the governed.' Back in 2009, when ObamaCare was being debated in Congress, then-House Minority Leader John Boehner warned that the takeover of the health care system could only lead to armies of enforcers from the Internal Revenue Service forcing Americans to buy insurance of the government's choosing.

"Boehner recognized that this so-called reform would inevitably trigger major public resistance. Boehner was mocked as an alarmist by Obama's Democratic allies. But in reality, he was right, and nobody knew it better than the Obama administration itself. That's why the behemoth ObamaCare bill sneakily left out the detail that it intended to hire 500 Internal Revenue Service agents to enforce the unpopular mandate, while 300 other IRS operatives would be added to push 'free' benefits to the indigent to ensure their complete dependence on the state."

I've mistakenly been using the number 4,000. That's a financial figure related to this. It's 500 agents. Actually, now I'm getting confused. I know the number 4,000 is in there somewhere. But whatever, 500 plus an additional 300 IRS operatives to run out and ostensibly alert the poor, "Hey, there are free benefits here for you." And there's this brilliant observation in the Investors.com piece. "When vast numbers of people refuse to obey a law, there's a problem with the law." And, by the way, how can you even say that something 2,700 pages is a law? It's impossible for the average American to know how to comply with this law and not be in breach of it. Regardless, IRS agents, what do they have to do with making the sick get better? What in the world could IRS agents have to do with that? What role is the IRS going to play in curing illness and disease? What role?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It is 4,000 agents. This Investor's Business Daily has a typo in it. I've looked at a bunch of different sources and, by all accounts, the best estimate is the IRS is gonna hire at least 4,000 more agents. The Washington Examiner had it. "IRS Seeks 4,000 Agents, $303 Million for Obamacare." What does the IRS know about Obamacare that we don't?

RUSH: There is another lie that Obama keeps repeating, and this is it. It's a direct quote: "What drags down our entire economy is the growing gap between the ultra-rich and everybody else." Direct quote. And this stems, ladies and gentlemen, from his belief that the founding of this country was unjust and immoral, and it's gone on for 200-plus years. And now finally, a little over three years ago, we started -- finally! -- to get it right. It's gonna take a while. And the big problem with this country since its founding is "the gap between the ultra-rich and everybody else." And the founders were ultra-rich and they set up a system to maintain that for themselves and their family and everybody else in their group, and at the same time make it impossible with this you're-on-your-own economy.

Because most people, on their own, are incompetent. Most people, on their own, will be walked all over. Most people, on their own, are weak and helpless. This is how the left looks at people. But quite simply, this is preposterous. There are no facts to back up this assertion that what drags down the economy is "the growing gap between the ultra-rich and everybody else." What drags down the economy is Obama. What drags down the economy is the government looting the private sector, transferring wealth from people who produce it to themselves and government and then giving it to people that they ultimately want to vote for them.

When you loot the private sector, when you make it smaller, you are by definition reducing the size of our economy and its potential to grow. In fact, you might say that the opposite is true. If anything, you need very rich people to drive the economy, which some of our news media have even admitted in previous random acts of journalism. And the most recent example I could give you is the Christmas season when they lamented (and they were rubbing their hands together) that the luxury segment was suffering. Remember that? The rich just were not going to Neiman Marcus or Saks or wherever they go.

Luxury sales were down, and this was bad for all of the sensible reasons. It was gonna hurt future employment. It was gonna hurt overall economic growth. So they do engage in random acts of journalism now and then. There's no capitalism without capital, and there's no capital without the rich. Everybody has had a story today on the health care law adding $340 billion to the deficit -- except the New York Times. I looked. AP's got it and Reuters has it. Everybody's got it and is breathless talking about it as though it's some sort of big news. I looked at the New York Times website; it's not there. I Googled the words to find it. Not there. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place.

I wanted to see what the New York Times had to say about the fact that Obamacare blows up the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. 'Cause it is news to people. Amazingly, this is news to people. So I went to the Washington Post, and, lo and behold, there it is! I have it right here (shuffling paper). In my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, I have it. And they actually report this fraud, this massive fraud perpetrated on the American public by Obama and virtually every Democrat in Congress. It's outrageous what Obamacare does to the economy, to doctors, patients, private health insurance companies. We've talked about it before, but the New York Times has nothing. In fact, by the way, Jay Carney, the spokeskid at the White House...

You know, I know Jay Carney and his wife, Claire Shipman. Claire Shipman is a reporter for ABC News. She used to be at CNN. Jay Carney used to be at TIME Magazine. He's now at the White House. But before he was at the White House, he was at Biden's office. He might have been the spokeskid for Biden or something else in Biden's office but he moved up the chain when Robert Gibbs left. Gibbs left to go earn some money while there still is some. (interruption) Gibbs? Oh, okay. I guess he earned enough money while there is some to earn and he left that and went back to the campaign now. Oh, okay.

Anyway, Carney when he was at TIME Magazine, called me one day to ask me a question about a story he was working on. I wasn't in, but they left a message for me to call back. So I did. I called back, and he picked up the phone. He said, "You return your own calls?" I said, "Yeah." "Wow!" He was really impressed that I didn't have a secretary to place my calls for me. What I didn't tell him was that I don't really do the phone much. And then I saw him once at a Washington Redskins game in the owners box back in that season where I spent five games with ESPN. The opener ESPN covered, we did the ESPN pregame show, and Dan Snyder invited the ESPN crew to his suite to watch the game.

Claire Shipman and Jay Carney were there. I said hi. They're very nice people. Now he's the spokeskid for Obama. From TIME Magazine to the White House, and I'm sure when this ends he goes back to some magazine. Anyway, yesterday Carney was asked about the IRS agents. At the White House press briefing, Wendell Goler at Fox said, "Hey, Jay, there's a report in The Hill that says a couple hundred million dollars of IRS money been used to fund aspects of Obamacare, and there's some Republicans on the Hill who feel that this is improper given that there is already a fund for implementation of Obamacare. Can you react to their criticism?"

CARNEY: This is about, uh, enabling the IRS to provide the, uhhh -- essentially the -- the -- the tax breaks to small businesses and individuals, uh, to assist them, uh, in acquiring health insurance. Or in the case of small businesses, providing health insurance.

RUSH: Okay! So there, ladies and gentlemen, is our answer! Four thousand IRS agents, according to Obama's spokeskid, to help small business and individuals in acquiring health insurance. Did you know that? Did you know that you were going to get "assistance" from the IRS in complying with the mandate? Did you know that, folks? That you are gonna have "assistance" from the IRS to acquire health insurance? Yeah, the IRS is gonna come and they're going to help you! It says here, small businesses... The IRS is gonna essentially tell you of the tax breaks. The IRS is gonna come along and they're gonna knock on your door. I don't know how they're gonna find you but they will if you haven't bought health insurance.

If you haven't abided by the mandate, they'll find you and say, "Hey, you know what? You're missing out on some tax breaks here! We're from the IRS, and the president has sent us to advise you of the tax breaks that are involved here in Obamacare. And we're here to help you in acquiring health insurance, because our records show that you don't have any. And the law is that you must have some. We're here from the IRS to help you get your health insurance. Or, if you are a really small business, we're here to help provide health insurance." So the regime has admitted, in whatever words Carney used, that the IRS is the enforcement mechanism. And that you can expect to get a friendly visit from the IRS to help you have health insurance, to help you get your tax breaks, to help you provide health insurance.

You know, you're from the Acme small business, and your primary customer is the Coyote, and the Coyote has had a bunch of trouble catching the Road Runner and none of what you have sent the Coyote is working, and every from Acme fails. You ever watch the Road Runner? Okay. So you're having trouble making ends meet at Acme, and here comes the IRS, and they knock on your door. "Hi. We see that you don't have health insurance. We're here to help you get it." What is your reaction going to be? And what happens if you don't buy it?

What if the IRS comes in and you don't like the menu of services being offered by the IRS, and if you say, "I'm sorry. I appreciate your concern but I really don't need or want health insurance"? What happens to you then? Well, what happens is, you are going to be fined. You will pay a fine. And early on in Obamacare, the fine is not very much money. It's much less than what a policy would cost you. And if I may be bluntly honest, that is by design, too, folks. The fine is seductively low in cost. Anybody who is young or has a small business would choose, if it's legal, to pay the fine instead of buying health insurance. (interruption)

I don't think most people will tell the IRS agent, "Take your health insurance and shove it."

I don't think that's gonna happen, Snerdley. That's why it's the IRS that has been hired to help citizens get their health insurance. I don't think that citizens are going to tell the IRS to pound sand here. What instead will happen is the IRS will present all of the wonderful options available, and here's the cost of your average policy, and here's the cost of the fine. Well, the fine is gonna be so much cheaper, at first, than the health insurance policy, and if it's legal to pay the fine and the IRS will wave good-bye and leave, you'll do that. That's by design, folks. It's by design. The fine is purposely priced much lower for the first two or three years.

Now, what happens when all of these people choose the fine instead of the policy? Well, who is hurt then? Insurance companies. Now, remember, the insurance companies were among the early adopters for Obamacare because of the mandate requiring people to buy health insurance, that was a godsend. That made most insurance companies forget Republican versus Democrat, liberal versus conservative. All they saw, and applauded, was a powerful force like the government making everybody buy their product. My ship has come in and I'm at the dock. If you're an insurance company, this is the greatest day of your life. The federal government, in association with the IRS, is making everybody by health insurance. Whoa.

If you sold Happy Meals, wouldn't you love it if every American had to buy a Happy Meal? Wouldn't you support that if you were McDonald's? If you were General Motors and an order came down that everybody has to have a Volt, would you care if it was Josef Stalin who issued the order? No. You'd sit there and go, "Right on." So the insurance companies, folks, didn't care. They forgot whether they were Republicans or Democrats, liberal or conservative. They didn't even think about the future of country. They just saw, "Man, everybody hates us. We're insurance companies, but now, doesn't matter, they've been ordered to buy our product." Yes, they have. But guess what the insurance companies weren't told? There's an opt-out, a much cheaper opt-out. You pay a fine.

So all of these 30 million, whatever the number is uninsured, pay the fine instead of buy the policy. What happens to the industry of private insurance? Just like the coyote falling off the cliff trying to catch the road runner using an Acme product, bam. The insurance industry ceases to exist. And then, after three years, folks, the fines all of a sudden become more expensive than the policy. Doesn't take long. This is all in Obamacare. This is in the plan after three years, four years, whatever, it doesn't take long. The fines end up costing much more than the policy, which means you will then, as a matter of economics, buy the policy, 'cause you have to now, remember, the mandate.

But now, where do you go? Because the private health insurance industry has been dealt a potentially fatal blow. It doesn't exist because all these people could opt-out and pay the fine instead. So the real objective is finally realized. The only place you can go when you have to, by law, have insurance, is a state-run exchange like an office at your county building where the DMV is or whatever. You go in there, you buy your health insurance. It's gonna be the only place you can go. And if you don't, after all this, if you don't, then someday soon, knock on the door. You look through the peephole and it's the IRS there to help you get your health insurance and to tell you about all the tax breaks.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, the fine for companies is 8% of the employee's salary. That's their option. The fine for not buying insurance under Obamacare is 8% of the employee's salary. Now, it ain't gonna stay at 8% for very long, but that's what it is the first couple of years. Well, what are they gonna do? Companies are gonna pay the fine. You lose your health insurance. They're gonna pay the 8% fine and you're on your own, in an economy that Obama says being on your own never worked. So where you gonna go? Now, that 8%, by the way, that doesn't last long, but it's enough to get the ball rolling to get all these companies to give up their health insurance programs, kick you out, get rid of you. That's all part of the plan to make the government the sole vendor for health insurance.

END TRANSCRIPT

All Audio & Video »

Related:

Obamacare Has Nothing to Do With Health Care! It's New Taxes and Tax Collection in 2,700 Pages

Maybe Sen. McCaskill Can Tell Us Why We Need Thousands of IRS Agents to Provide Health Care

Smokers Deserve a Medal for Funding Health Care Programs for Kids, Not Government Persecution

Austin’s Fluoridated Water Supply is Poisoning Our Children

Infowars.com | Should Austin’s infants and children be drinking our tap water when it tastes moldy and more like the bottom of Lake Austin than healthy, pure water? 

But this should be a concern for all Americans, fluoride is added to the water systems of more water districts throughout American than not and with more and more people moving to Texas and Austin specifically, it could be a direct problem for more and more people moving there!

Video:  Austin's Fluoridated Water Supply is Poisoning Our Children

Should Austin’s infants and children be drinking our tap water when it tastes moldy and more like the bottom of Lake Austin than healthy, pure water? According to the Environmental Working Group, Austin’s tap water exceeds the EPA’s health limits for chlorinated compounds, lead, and coliform bacteria.

Also, many may not be aware that City Council distributes a one size fits all medication, fluoride, through our water supply. Because of the distribution method for fluoride, children and adults get the same amount in a glass of water.

And, because there is no dose adjustment or control for size, weight, height, or sensitivity, fluoride causes multiple side effects such as dental fluorosis, hypothyroidism, osteosclerosis and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) has issued a powerful Resolution against fluoridation.

In addition, the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) of the fluoride chemical, hydrofluorosilicic acid, that is added to Austin’s water supply, recently included a health warning for children.

Related:

How Prolonged Ingestion of Fluoridated Drinking Water Damages The Brain

How to Detox Fluorides from Your Body

Don’t Drink the Water

Dumbing Down Society Part I: Foods, Beverages and Meds

Aluminum + Fluoride = Alzheimer’s and Dementia

FLUORIDE TRUTH hits the TV in AUSTRALIA

Additional related posts at Infowars.com:

1. CDC adjusts fluoride poisoning of America’s water supply to a lower level
2. Pinellas County Commission votes to stop putting fluoride in water supply
3. ADA study confirms dangers of fluoridated water, especially for babies
4. Mobile fluoride vans to target communities that voted to remove chemical from public water supply
5. World Health Organization: Fluoridate Water-Supply Population-Specifically
6. New Hampshire bills would ban foreign substances & fluoride from water supply
7. Fluoridated water now reaches nearly 70% of U.S. population
8. World Fluoridated Water Map
9. Too Much Fluoride in the Drinking Water
10. Calgary removing fluoride from water supply
11. Judge ok’s adding fluoride to city’s tap water supply – despite overwhelming public opposition
12. Teenagers want fluoride-free water