True Health Is True Wealth!!: Government Takeover of Healthcare

Showing posts with label Government Takeover of Healthcare. Show all posts

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Opt Out - The Exam - Creepy Uncle Sam

Video: Opt Out – The Exam – Creepy Uncle Sam… ObamaCare

You need Adobe Flash Player to watch this video. Download it from Adobe.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Defund ObamaCare

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Obamacare's Worst Feature? It's Wedded To 50-Year-Old Assumptions About Health And Insurance

Forbes: It’s ironic that at the very moment that Obamacare is poised to spend nearly $2 trillion to expand traditional insurance coverage to about 30 million uninsured, new synergies between genomics companies and providers, advanced diagnostics for remotely monitoring patient treatment and detecting serious illness at earlier stages, and a wave of mobile health apps are unraveling old assumptions about how care should be delivered and financed.

Top-down controls on health-care spending and bureaucratic panels embedded in Obamacare will inevitably clash with the emerging bottom-up, patient- and consumer-focused market for personalized health solutions at affordable prices. If anything, science and smartphones will lead us to devolve more responsibility and discretion to individual patients and physicians for producing better health outcomes—making government guidelines (however well-meaning) for how care is delivered and who must deliver it outdated before the ink is even dry.

Everyone wants better health. But the impact of health insurance and health care in maintaining health is not clear, at least not in our current hospital and labor-intensive health-care system – where interventions occur only after someone becomes sick. (Indeed, an overview of the literature shows no evidence that health insurance benefits the non-elderly.) Prevention is a distant second order priority, and certainly not well reimbursed.

While recognizing that our current system is deeply dysfunctional, Obamacare’s architects doubled-down on previous government interventions: adjusting payment rates (especially for Medicare providers), adding new insurance subsidies and regulations, and tweaking the delivery system (through Accountable Care Organizations) with new, bureaucratized pay for performance formulas. The scale may be more ambitious but, in one or another variation, we’ve tried many of these approaches before and the results of current experiments are are not terribly encouraging. As one provider put it, there’s “an awful lot of sticks and not a lot of carrots” in the current approaches.

It not surprising that Washington wants more control and standardization in health care pricing and delivery. But while industrial policy – regulated delivery systems at regulated prices – has fallen out of favor in most other sectors of the U.S. economy (like trucking, airlines, and telecommunications), in health care it remains stubbornly resilient.

Why? Washington’s view of health care remains deeply entrenched in mid-century assumptions about health and illness. Health care via industrial policy makes sense if illness is an Act of God to which all are equally vulnerable and a known quantity of health care can be delivered to everyone at a fixed price. If these assumptions are true, the largest payer – the government – can set the rules of the road, from which all (or almost all) benefit.

That was a reasonable picture of medicine well into the 20^th century, as the table below shows, when infectious diseases dominated U.S. deaths. But by 1950, heart disease and cancer had displaced infections as the nation’s most potent killers. (“Diseases of early infancy” was still the fourth-leading cause of death in 1950. By 2010, they had dropped off the table entirely.)

Changes in Causes of Death (number of deaths per 100,000)

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2168836/Cause-death-American-100-years.html

Today, more than 75% of all U.S. health-care costs are due to chronic conditions (like heart disease) with a strong behavioral component – i.e., smoking, diet, exercise, etc. A sedentary life revolving around high calorie food may be many things, but it’s not an Act of God.

The picture gets even more complex when you break down life expectancy by geographic and racial factors – as Harvard researchers did in 2006. They found not one America, but eight, divided by lines that don’t map neatly to income or race. Asians in the U.S., it turns out, live longer than any other cohort, and have for the last few decades. The second longest-lived group were Midwestern whites with lower than average income. Overall, Harvard researchers noted that the “gap between the highest and lowest life expectancies for race-county combinations in the United States is over 35 years.”

The mix of genetics, income, education, and culture implied by the “Eight Americas” is dizzying. How to raise life expectancy for the group with the poorest life expectancy (urban black males) is, indeed, a worthy topic of public policy discussion—but is it one that should be dominated by health insurance or health care? And what ethnic-cultural-genetic life expectancy mélange should we adopt for our national standard?

Optimistically, Obamacare tasks doctors, especially primary-care physicians, with creating “medical homes” for patients, hopefully addressing the variation in health outcomes and reducing costs associated with managing serious chronic illnesses.

But is that a realistic assumption: Asking physicians to do more, with more patients in their already overcrowded offices? Mixing together healthy patients (who will demand more preventive care because it’s free) with chronically ill patients who need complex behavioral interventions delivered by a team of physicians and related caregivers? Is that a recipe for efficiency or confusion and overspending?

Add to this the fact that many “pay for performance” and best practices promoted under the ACA will inevitably focus on rewarding and grading providers on medical-process metrics— dispensing generic drugs to patients after a heart attack, for instance.

On the whole, this isn’t a bad thing where the drugs work well—but it will likely discourage creative thinking and development of non-medical, non-traditional provider strategies for improving health, because they don’t fit neatly into current reimbursement models. And a generic-first strategy will do little for the disease areas where existing treatments only work well for a fraction of the population – and thus much more medical innovation is needed.

Source: Brian B. Spear, Margo Heath-Chiozzi, and Jeffery Huff, “Clinical Applications of Pharmacogenetics, Trends in Molecular Medicine (May 2001)

Obamacare has no shortage of noble aspirations, but it could’ve used a much stronger dose of humility. Government programs work well (for the most part) when standardization and scale are the most salient values. Build enough Sherman tanks to beat the Nazis. Dig enough sewers to beat cholera. Mandate childhood vaccinations before any child sets foot in a school.

They are much less likely to be successful when individual preferences, culture, geography and genetics make it difficult to prescribe one correct intervention to prevent expensive complications much later. Even the FDA recognized this in its latest user-fee re-authorization—moving away from blanket determinations of “safety” and “efficacy” standards for drug approval and towards adopting a flexible “risk and benefit” analysis that will necessarily vary by disease state, intended population, and a patient’s personal tolerance for risk.

Even our most basic measurements of health are becoming more nuanced. Take, for instance, a recent article in the L.A. Times pointing out that Body Mass Index scores—largely used to measure U.S. obesity rates and predict future health risk—may, for some people, lead to the wrong recommendations. Over large populations, BMI may be a good predictor of health outcomes. But “as a measure of personal health, a wealth of recent research has underscored that the BMI can be a pretty poor predictor.”

The Times notes that recent studies suggest that for some people higher BMIs may have some health benefits; and that when some lean people develop diseases, like diabetes or cardiovascular disease, they’re more likely to die than if they had higher BMI scores. Basically, “weight status and metabolic health are imperfectly correlated,” with about 10.5% of obese adults “metabolically healthy” and 8% of normal weight adults “metabolically unhealthy.”

In short, our understanding of health and disease is becoming ever more complicated and personalized, raising enormous challenges for regulators who want to set bright lines for what insurers must cover or what services doctors should and shouldn’t provide.

Government doesn’t do nuance well. The Soviet Union was good at building guns and rockets, but terrible at supplying consumer goods, like toilet paper. Markets, by contrast, are very good at customized solutions. Provided that there is a large enough market, for-profit companies will help doctors and consumers develop personalized health programs including exercise, diet, and drug regimens tailored to our mix of genes and foibles.

In fact, they’re already doing this. If you look around, the people who will be developing the future of customized health solutions are likely app developers and consumer-savvy companies like FitBit and Nike who are already invested in the quantified-self movement. And as wearable, or swallowable, diagnostics get smarter, cheaper, and more powerful, health care will continue to accelerate away from hospitals and doctor’s offices and into your living room (via the “tricorder” envisioned in Qualcomm’s X-Prize).

Health apps for 99 cents, and concierge doctors at $100 a month, can focus on prevention, wellness, and disease detection, and slashing health-care costs to a fraction of the cost of the current system. Retail clinics in Wal-Mart or Walgreens will gladly monitor our health while we buy toilet paper or toothpaste, keeping us out of expensive hospitals and shifting insurance towards catastrophic coverage for the few risks that remain truly unpredictable and threaten to bankrupt us when they strike.

This is where Obamacare goes most wrong – throwing hundreds of billions of dollars in new subsidies at the insurance market while also pushing insurance into categories called “bronze, silver, gold, and platinum” – with the powerful implication that the more we spend on premiums for broad and expansive insurance, the better the health care we’ll have.

Critics may say that the high-tech medical future I sketch is all well and good, but doesn’t detract from our obligation to offer health insurance coverage to the poor and sick who can’t afford even basic care today. And I agree.

But this gets to the heart of how we structure health insurance markets: we should offer insurance coverage that encourages both innovation in health care delivery and protection against ruinously expensive events. Ironically, our current system offers much more tax-subsidized coverage to middle and upper income Americans than the very poor.

For the vast majority of people, the vast majority of time (who only have small or routine health expenses) high monthly premiums just flush money down the drain. (The same could be said for the open-ended tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, which drives up health care costs and puts downward pressure on wages and other employee compensation.)

Spending less on subsidies for wealthy and middle class Americans, would free up money for better coverage for the very poor. And some states, like Indiana, have already merged coverage for the poor with health savings accounts that promote responsibility and better health – the same framework we want everyone to have. (Thankfully, this experiment will survive Obamacare, at least for another year.)

As consumer oriented health care diagnostics proliferate and become even more inexpensive, savvy patients and consumers will gladly pay the modest penalties to stay out of Obamacare’s mandated insurance schemes, because they’ll save thousands of dollars along the way. And the growing acceptance of high deductible plans will encourage consumers to stop thinking of insurance as the only way to pay for health care, and stop thinking of health as something that just comes from a doctor’s office.

Two trends will eventually converge to kill health care as industrial policy: the first is that we simply can’t pay for it, at the state or federal level, without crippling the rest of the economy. The second is that advances in science and technology will make health care solutions increasingly personalized, throttling one-sized fits all health care schemes.

The demise of health care via industrial policy should be welcomed by the Left—because less spending on health care will mean more money available for other social priorities like education, infrastructure, and basic medical research on diseases where we don’t have any good prevention or treatment tools (like Alzheimer’s). In the long run, improving job, housing, and education prospects in America’s inner cities – making them better places to live and work and raise children – may do more to improve minority health outcomes than spending more money, for instance, on Medicaid coverage.

This doesn’t mean that government won’t still have a role to play. Enough subsidies will still flow to make sure health savings accounts and high-deductible plans are accessible to those who need help buying even basic coverage. Government should also aggressively move to rollback state and federal regulations that protect incumbent providers and hospital monopolies from lower cost innovators. (The University of Chicago economist John Cochrane has a great paper on regulatory roadblocks to health care competition and innovation here.)

And Obamacare doesn’t get everything wrong. It allows for HSAs, and even allows physicians who offer direct primary care services, like Qliance, to offer insurance on state-health insurance exchanges, with catastrophic policies wrapped around as a backstop. That’s the right model, even if Obamacare includes them only as an afterthought (and blunts additional incentives for insurance innovation through burdensome regulations like the Medical Loss Ratio.) There’s also plenty of room to attack anti-competitive federal and state health care regulations (like provider licensing) without dismantling Obamacare first.

Obamacare’s worst feature is that it locks in mid-century ideas of what medicine and health insurance should be. Ironically, America moved on a long time ago and continues to move forward, even if we still pay for things the same way we did in 1965.

Eventually, our laws (including Obamacare) will have to catch up with our new medical reality—more diverse, more complex, and yes, more consumer-focused than ever before.

INVESTORS NOTE: Some of the biggest insurers offering HSAs, who stand to benefit from consumer-driven health care include United Health (NYSE:UNH); Aetna (NYSE:AET); and Wellpoint (NYSE:WLP). Hardware manufacturers like Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), and more recently Samsung (KSE:005930.KS), may see a strong upside from the wearable diagnostics market. Meanwhile, Nike (NASDAQ:NKE) and FitBit (which is privately owned but recently received a $43M investment) already have a strong stake in this sphere.

You be the judge…

Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%

Yet Another White House Obamacare Delay: Out-Of-Pocket Caps Waived Until 2015

Labor Unions: Obamacare Will 'Shatter' Our Health Benefits, Cause 'Nightmare Scenarios'

Not Qualified For Obamacare's Subsidies? Just Lie -- Govt. To Use 'Honor System' Without Verifying Your Eligibility

Democrats' New Argument: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Doubles Individual Health Insurance Premiums

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare costs,ObamaCare problems,ACA,Forbes,socialized medicine,Big Brother,insurance companies,health insurance,government takeover of healthcare,Defund ObamaCare

Friday, February 24, 2012

A 50 Year old Commercial from Ronald Reagan

Video: A 50 Year old Commercial from Ronald Reagan

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Leaving America behind

James Cameron has announced he is leaving America and moving to New Zealand. His motive? He likes New Zealand.

Someone else is planning to leave America too. His motives are much different.

Who is it?

It is me.

That may come as a huge shock to many people, but I have begun planning an exit strategy from America. I’m not doing it yet.

You might ask yourself why I would do such a thing?

One word. Obamacare.

Anyone who is a baby boomer or older who is not now looking at this option is being foolish. As Obamacare kicks in, care for seniors is going to go. Sarah Palin railed against “death panels” and people laughed. They may want to stop laughing because those death panels are being set up.

As of now, the magic age is 72.

If you are rushed to the hospital with a serious illness, you have a big problem. Let’s say you have a stroke. If you are over 72, the presumption is going to be that the American medical system is now only going to give you comfort care. We will not treat your serious illness only make you comfortable.

Serious medical conditions can be treated if an ethics board meets and decides it is appropriate to treat you. Imagine you are rushed to the hospital and you are over 72 years old. Right now, if they get you to the hospital quickly, there are treatments that can be given that will stop a stroke and even prevent some of the massive damage a stroke can do. But you cannot get that treatment, if you are over 72 unless the medical ethics board meets and agrees that you should.

Think about this for a second. Seconds count in these kinds of emergencies. How the hell are you going to get a board together to vote when you only have minutes to act? How are you going to do it if it is at 3 AM?

Obamacare represents the final step from freedom to tyranny. In a free society, the society does everything it can to protect life. The citizens own the government. In a tyranny, the government owns the citizens and they are treated just like any other commodity. Their value is calculated and if the cost of the treatment, at least according to a bureaucrat, exceeds the value of the person then there is no treatment.

I’m 52 and I am now waiting. I am hoping the Supreme Court totally strikes down Obamacare. If not, Obama will veto any attempt to repeal it. The Republicans have not shown any willingness to even try to repeal it. We can only hope that the next president vetoes it if the GOP candidate is elected. But I wonder if some of them might just adjust it instead of vetoing it completely, leaving the door open and perhaps the rationing part in tact?

If the Supremes do not save America, I am working on my exit strategy. Fortunately, at least for the moment, I have twenty years to figure it out.

The good news is there are countries that will be willing to accept wealthy American retirees and offer the kind of medical care we have grown accustomed to. Unfortunately, there will be many Americans who will not be able to escape and will be killed by the same government that is now killed the best health care system in the world.

Let’s hope we can all grow our income before we need it.

By Judson Philips – Tea Party Nation

Monday, May 2, 2011

"Dhimmitude" on Page 107 of ObamaCare Bill - What Does It Mean?

New Word For The Day - "Dhimmitude" - What Does It Mean?

Obama used it in the health care bill.

Now isn't this interesting?

Dhimmitude -- I had never heard the word until now, nor did barely anyone unless they read the ObamaCare Bill. Type it into Google and start reading. Pretty interesting. It's on page 107 of the healthcare bill. I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists. It is a REAL word.

Word of the Day: Dhimmitude

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.

ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States. Does anyone find that odd… and frightening? Folks, this is exclusively an Islamic concept under Sharia Law. So exclusive they had to make up an English word to define the concept. Why would our government start interjecting Sharia Law concepts into new broad and sweeping legislation like health care reform that would control the US population? ....Anyone?

Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking", and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.

How convenient. So a Christian (Jew, Buddhist, Aethiest, etc) , will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of their assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because they refuse to buy health insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan and all other U.S. Muslims will have no such penalty and will have 100% of their health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-Muslims paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Sharia Law definition of... Dhimmitude. This is not a Western Civilization concept.

Dhimmit has two purposes: To enrich Muslims AND to drive conversions to Islam. "Sure, I'll be a Muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?" (not for me, I will suffer first). So… are you asking yourself, why would our president and the people who wrote the healthcare bill put this in there???

I recommend sending this post to your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it -- quickly!

This really is happening in your country. A fraction at a time.

Wake up America ! They're coming in the back door.

To check it out on Snopes click here: Health Insurance Exemptions.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Declaration of Health Care Independence

In order to retain the Blessings of Liberty as secured to us by our Founding Fathers and as expressed in our Constitution, We the People reject the imposition upon us of a new, Washington-controlled system of government-run health care. We demand Constitutional protection of the right to make our own health decisions and our own health care choices free of government denials, bureaucratic red tape and greater intergenerational debt.

A Washington takeover of American health care will:

Deny fundamental personal and economic liberties and indisputably violate the Principle of Limited Government as established by the Constitution;
Impose increased costs and taxes upon individuals, families and businesses, as well as taxpayers at the federal, state and local levels;
Irreparably cripple the American economy, at the cost of jobs, businesses, productivity, and quality of life;
Create an inescapable new tax by imposing individual and employer mandates;
Institutionalize a massive, ever-expanding federal bureaucracy that is impersonal and impractical;
Empower bureaucrats to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship, undermine the quality of care, limit choice, and increase the cost of health care.

We have appealed to the decency of the elected majority to respect the rights of all Americans, but their leaders have been deaf to the Voice of the People. We are appalled by their cavalier disregard of the Constitution and of the demands of the People. We are repulsed by their blatant political bribes and kickbacks.

We, the People and Representatives of the United States of America, therefore, do solemnly Publish and Declare that health care reform, as a matter of principle, must:

Protect as inviolate the vital doctor-patient relationship;
Reject any addition to the crushing national debt heaped upon all Americans;
Improve, rather than diminish, the quality of care that Americans enjoy;
Be negotiated publicly, transparently, with genuine accountability and oversight;
Treat private citizens at least as well as political officials;
Protect taxpayers from funding of abortion and abortion coverage;
Reject all new mandates on patients, employers, individuals, or states;
Prohibit expansion of taxpayer-funded health care to those unlawfully present in the United States;
Guarantee Equal Protection under the law and the Constitution;
Empower, rather than limit, an open and accessible marketplace of health care choice and opportunity.

This document was prepared by Rep. Michelle Bachmann and has been signed by at least 100 members of the Congress to date. If you agree with this Declaration of Health Care Independence, please let your elected officials know by adding your name to the petition.

Michelle Bachmann--Dems will implement TRICK to pass healthcare Reform!!!

THE BACHMANN BULLETIN

Democrats will Implement "Trick" to Pass Health Care Reform

Washington, Feb 10 - Well, so much for a bipartisan strategy session on health care. Despite calls from the White House about bringing Republicans to the table to get their ideas into the debate, it looks like Democrats have already decided on a plan to pass their original legislation. Legislation Americans have soundly rejected from coast to coast.

Speaking at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's senior health care adviser Wendell Primus said that Democratic leaders in Congress will implement a legislative "trick" to pass their very unpopular version of health care reform.

Mark Tapscott with the Washington Examiner writes that Congress Daily, which originally published the story, is a subscription-only publication, but provided a link to LifeNews.com, which provided these details:

"In comments reported by Congress Daily, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top health care aide Wendell Primus admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate's pro-abortion, government-run health care bill.

"Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.

“'The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill.

“'There's a certain skill, there's a trick, but I think we'll get it done,' Primus said."

Why propose a televised, bipartisan meeting on February 25th if the underlying plan has been to pass the Democrats' original health care proposal all along? Well, it's simple. President Obama wants to give the appearance of bipartisan cooperation without really caring at all. It's one PR stunt after another with this White House, and this latest action is a clear assault on the intelligence of the American people.

The Democratic leadership of this Congress and White House simply refuses to take no for an answer when it comes to a government takeover of your health care. They simply refuse to consider any idea being proposed by me or any of my Republican colleagues. Is this the leadership you want in Washington, or more importantly, the leadership you deserve?

Michelle Bachmann

As everyone suspected the entire ploy of having a bipartisan meeting on healthcare was just a ‘dirty trick’… a complete sham! The Dems have shut the GOP out of the entire process, bribed their own party and told both the GOP and the American Public that they will not start over and put together a simple bipartisan reform of healthcare, which is all we need. Why? Because this was never about healthcare or healthcare reform… it was always about a progressive government takeover of 1/6 of the economy and major information and decisions in all our lives.

Please contact your Senator and Congressman today, plus as many additional members of Congress as you can. Do not let this bill pass, especially not in this manner~

Senators from your State. or

1-202-224-3121- Switchboard

1-202-225-3121- Switchboard

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

Senator Akaka Daniel D Hawaii 202-224-6361 202-224-2126
Senator Alexander Lamar R Tennessee 202-224-4944 202-228-3398
Senator Barrasso John R Wyoming 202-224-6441 202-224-1724
Senator Begich Mark D Alaska 202-224-3004 202-228-3205
Senator Bennet Michael D Colorado 202-224-5852 202-228-5036
Senator Bennett Robert R Utah 202-224-5444 202-228-1168
Senator Bingaman Jeff DNew Mexico 202-224-5521 202-224-2852
Senator Bond Kit R Missouri 202-224-5721 202-224-8149
Senator Boxer Barbara D California 202-224-3553 202-224-0454
Senator Brown Sherrod D Ohio 202-224-2315 202-228-6321
Senator Brownback Sam R Kentucky 202-224-4343 202-228-1373
Senator Burr Richard R North Carolin 202-224-3154 202-228-2981
Senator Burris Roland D Illinois 202-224-2854 202-228-3333
Senator Cardin Benjamin D Maryland 202-224-4524 202-224-1651
Senator Chambliss Saxby R Georgia 202-224-3521 202-224-0103
Senator Coburn Tom R Oklahoma 202-224-5754 202-224-6008
Senator Cochran Thad R Mississippi 202-224-5054 202-224-9450
Senator Collins Susan R Maine 202-224-2523 202-224-2693
Senator Corker Bob R Tennessee 202-224-3344 202-228-0566
Senator Cornyn John R Texas 202-224-2934 202-228-2856
Senator Crapo Mike R Idaho 202-224-6142 202-228-1375
Senator DeMint James R South Carolina 202-224-6121 202-228-5143
Senator Dodd Christopher D Connecticut 202-224-2823 202-224-1083
Senator Durbin Richard D Illinois 202-224-2152 202-228-0400
Senator Ensign John R Nevada 202-224-6244 202-228-2193
Senator Enzi Michael R Wyoming 202-224-3424 202-228-0359
Senator Feinstein Dianne D California 202-224-3841 202-228-3954
Senator Gillibrand Kirsten D New York 202-224-4451 202-228-0282
Senator Graham Lindsey R South Carolina202-224-5972 202-224-3808
Senator Grassley Charles R Iowa 202-224-3744 202-224-6020
Senator Gregg Judd R New Hampshire 202-224-3324 202-224-4952
Senator Hagan Kay D North Carolina 202-224-6342 202-228-2563
Senator Harkin Tom D Iowa 202-224-3254 202-224-9369
Senator Hatch Orrin R Utah 202-224-5251 202-224-6331
Senator Hutchison Kay R Texas 202-224-5922 202-224-0776
Senator Inhofe James R Oklahoma 202-224-4721 202-228-0380
Senator Inouye Daniel D Hawaii 202-224-3934 202-224-6747
Senator Isakson Johnny R Georgia 202-224-3643 202-228-0724
Senator Johanns Mike RNebraska 202-224-4224 202-228-0436
Senator Kaufman Ted D Delaware 202-224-5042 202-228-3075
Senator Kirk Jr. Paul D Massachusetts 202-224-4543 202-224-2417
Senator Kerry John D Massachusetts 202-224-2742 202-224-8525
Senator Kohl Herb D Wisconsin 202-224-5653 202-224-9787
Senator Kyl Jon R Arizona 202-224-4521 202-224-2207
Senator Lautenberg Frank D New Jersey 202-224-3224 202-228-4054
Senator Levin Carl D Michigan 202-224-6221 202-224-1388
Senator Lieberman Joseph ID Connecticut 202-224-4041 202-224-9750
Senator Lugar Richard R Indiana 202-224-4814 202-228-0360
Senator Martinez Mel R Florida 202-224-3041 202-228-5171
Senator McCain John R Arizona 202-224-2235 202-228-2862
Senator McConnell Mitch R Kentucky 202-224-2541 202-224-2499
Senator Menendez Robert D New Jersey 202-224-4744 202-228-2197
Senator Merkley Jeff D Oregon 202-224-3753 202-228-3997
Senator Mikulski Barbara D Maryland 202-224-4654 202-224-8858
Senator Murkowski Lisa R Alaska 202-224-6665 202-224-5301
Senator Nelson Bill D Florida 202-224-5274 202-228-2183
Senator Reed Jack D Rhode Island 202-224-4642 202-224-4680
Senator Risch Jim R Idaho 202-224-2752 202-224-2573
Senator Roberts Pat R Kansas 202-224-4774 202-224-3514
Senator Sanders Bernie I Vermont 202-224-5141 202-228-0776
Senator Schumer Charles D New York 202-224-6542 202-228-3027
Senator Sessions Jeff R Alabama 202-224-4124 202-224-3149
Senator Shaheen Jeanne D New Hampshire 202-224-2841 202-228-3194
Senator Shelby Richard R Alabama 202-224-5744 202-224-3416
Senator Snowe Olympia R Maine 202-224-5344 202-224-1946
Senator Specter Arlen R Pennsylvania 202-224-4254 202-228-1229
Senator Thune John R South Dakota 202-224-2321 202-228-5429
Senator Udall Mark D Colorado 202-224-5941 202-224-6471
Senator Udall Tom D New Mexico 202-224-6621 202-228-3261
Senator Vacant Vacant Minnesota 202-224-5641 202-224-1152
Senator Vitter David R Louisiana 202-224-4623 202-228-5061
Senator Voinovich George R Ohio 202-224-3353 202-228-1382
Senator Warner Mark D Virginia 202-224-2023 202-224-6295
Senator Whitehouse Sheldon Rhode Island 202-224-2921 202-228-6362
Senator Wicker Roger R Mississippi 202-224-6253 202-228-0378
Senator Wyden Ron D Oregon 202-224-5244 202-228-2717

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

NO HEALTHCARE TALKS UNTIL GOVERNMENT- RUN HEALTHCARE IS D.O.A. AND OFFICIALLY OFF THE TABLE!

REQUEST BY REPUBLICANS - THEY ARE ON TO OBAMA'S INTENTIONS!

TO ALL SENATORS:

The People have spoken JUST SAY NO to talks or at least the onset of negotiations until the existing bills for government takeover of healthcare are scrapped!!!!!

You may have to attend the meeting and bring your ideas, but you need to stand your ground and insist the process starts from scratch. Perhaps bringing along piles of letters like these will help Obama see that as usual, he has misread the will of the people??

The majority of Americans want nothing to do with the government takeover of healthcare, commonly known as ObamaCare!!!

We want sensible bipartisan corrections to our present system of healthcare. We do not want a government takeover and creation of an entire new system.

Most Americans ‘want’:

All the bills floating around, passed or not, by the House or Senate involving or related to HC scrapped. They also want hidden provisions for the bills that were hidden in other legislation reversed.

(a.) Comprehensive Tort Reform

(b.) Portable Health Insurance allowing all HC insurance companies to be sell in all 50-states and all Americans to be able to shop around and purchase insurance from any of those companies.

(c.) A stop to exclusion for previous conditions by insurance companies.

(d.) An investigation and serious overall to stop fraud and waste by insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans and Reservation Health Services.

(e.) Natural, holistic and alternative procedures and meds to be included in the system (which are generally cheaper and often times a long term solution).

(f.) Other logical non-freedom stealing or non-government involved related programs, revisions and common sense reform that we elect and trust you to give us.

(g.) A simplified overhaul of the system we have that is overhauled in a transparent way and posted online for everyone to read, at every phase, for a minimum of 5-days before a vote.

Most Americans ‘do not want’:

(a.) Government controlled or government run healthcare in any form or version over and above what we already have in the programs mentioned above in (d.)

(b.) Major reductions in healthcare services for seniors

(c.) A centralized medical record database of health records that are either controlled by or the federal government has access to.

(d.) Illegal aliens covered by any government programs or funds other than true necessary emergency room services.

(e.) Any special deals, especially for Andy Stern and the unions.

***We also do not want: the government telling us, our doctors or our families which services we may have and when we are too old to have them. We do not want the government having access to our medical records, financial records or our bank accounts. We do not want our records put on RFID chips that are injected into us. We do not want government representatives having the right to show up at our homes and intercede with the way we raise our children to any greater extent than they already are for emergency situations. In fact we do not want most of the things that are or have been written into the various ObamaCare Bills.

The majority of Americans want you to stand up for us against the Progressives in Congress and in the White House and stop this takeover of American Healthcare and we in turn will support you for re-election.

Please do not fall into the trap that is being set for you by Obama/Reid/Pelosi. After all the secretive deals and negotiations plus the total lack of transparency to develop bills they cannot pass with their supermajority they now intend to feature you as obstructionists and the party of NO.

BUT ‘JUST SAYING NO’ TO BIPARTISAN NEGOTIATIONS UNTIL THE OBAMACARE BILLS ARE SCRAPED IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT YOU TO DO!!

IF OBAMA REALLY CARED ABOUT THIS COUNTRY HE WOULD BE FOCUSING ON JOBS, STARTING OVER ON HEALTHCARE REFROM WITHOUT BEING ASKED, ABANDONING CAP AND TRADE AND GETTING SOME REAL ADVICE ON FOREIGN POLICY.

MOST PEOPLE FEEL OBAMA’S GOAL IS TO DESTROY AMERICA AND I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU REALIZE THIS BY NOW, OR AT LEAST CONSIDER IT.

Obama cannot be trusted; he is just doing this upcoming meeting for show. He does not respect you the GOP and non-progressive sensible moderate Democrats and Independents or the American people… especially the American People.

JUST SAY NO. HE DOESN'T DESERVE ANY RESPECT AND HE IS LOST HIS CREDITABILITY WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE YOU STAND UP AND SAY NO AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT YOU LIKE WE HAVE DONE IN NJ, NY, AND NOW MA AND ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA ARE AWAKE AND AWARE OF MR. OBAMA'S AGENDA, AND WE ARE ALL COMMITTED IN GETTING THIS COUNTRY BACK ON TRACK AND SO SHOULD EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU!!!

GOB BLESS AMERICA!!!

Feel free to use this letter or write your own. Then please send it to each of the Republicans. Do not send it to Obama or hostile Dems. Obama is going to pull a fast one at this meeting and we don’t want to help him with a heads-up.

Below are the Take Action NOW List of Phone and Fax Numbers that I have in list form. Here are a couple links to double check #’s: Senators from your State. or
http://www.theorator.com/senate.html

Thursday, August 13, 2009

REP. TOM PRICE ADMONISHES GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia admonishes the Democrat government-takeover of health care. Support a real reform for health care. Congressman Price was a 25-year practicing doctor before running for office.

tom.house.gov rsc.price.house.gov (July 16, 2009)

Video: Rep. Tom Price Admonishes Government Takeover of Health Care

There are former doctors in both the House and the Senate. There are present and former Congressman, Senators and Governors that have experience with healthcare reform and there are companies like SafeWay, whose CEO’s testified before Congress. There are also Senators, Congressmen and others with common sense. None of their ideas are being listened to were used as part of any of the Healthcare Reform Bills that I have seen.

Stand-up America and don’t let the present bills pass. As Daniel Hannan of Britain and representative to the EU parliament says, “Once we put socialized medicine into affect there is almost no going back.

True Health Is True Wealth!!