Vermont plots course for single-payer health care system

Here we go… down the road to single-payer… socialized medicine… the plan all along~

Nov. 26, 2013: A doctor speaks to patients at his office in Peoria, Ill.Reuters

Fox: WASHINGTON –  While all eyes are on the ObamaCare rollout, an ambitious health care experiment is going forward in Vermont that would create a government-run alternative know as a "single-payer" system -- and it's starting to attract more attention from liberals frustrated with the Affordable Care Act's implementation.

Democrats' faith in ObamaCare has been shaken by the technical failures of the federal and state insurance exchanges as well as, in some cases, premium increases. In Vermont, however, they see a potential first step toward the kind of national government-run health care system some have advocated for years. Filmmaker Michael Moore, in a column last week blasting ObamaCare, said Vermont's plan could "change everything."

But critics say the proposal goes too far and would kill thousands of jobs. "It’s not practical,” Vermont state Rep. Patti Komline, who voted against the plan, told FoxNews.com. “There are too many complications involved.” 

A single-payer plan would largely sideline the insurance industry, and instead set up a government-managed insurance system to collect all health care fees and pay out all health care costs.

Full implementation of Vermont’s single-payer plan could be held up for another three years, at least. In order for Green Mountain Care to fully launch in 2017, the health care exchange would have to get approval from the federal government to use federal money to fund the state program.

State law would also require Vermont to define the benefits of the single-payer program and provide a three-year budget that clocks in less than current health care costs.

University of Virginia public policy professor Raymond Scheppach said it will take another half decade to determine whether Vermont’s controversial plan even works and if there are any real benefits associated with it. He also says that regardless of outcome, Vermont’s political makeup differs from other states and therefore would not provide an accurate view of what’s to come.

The single-payer debate recently resurfaced in national headlines following the Dec. 31 op-ed piece in the New York Times by Moore. In it, Moore called ObamaCare “awful” and said liberals have avoided speaking in public about the problems with it because they didn’t want to provide the president’s critics with additional ammunition.

Moore went on to sing the merits of a single-payer system and said that the real problem with ObamaCare is that it is a “pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go.”

Supporters say the single-payer system would cut down on the administrative waste and complications associated with having multiple billers and billing systems. Opponents say such a widespread overhaul would be bad for business.

Vermont became the first state in the country to lay the groundwork for single-payer health care. Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, signed the plan into law in May 2011.

The initiative, which was approved by the Democratic-controlled House and Senate, promises to extend coverage to all of Vermont’s 620,000 residents, of which around 47,000 residents are uninsured and 150,000 are underinsured.

"This law recognizes an economic and fiscal imperative," Shumlin said during a press conference when he signed the bill. "We must control the growth in health care costs that are putting families at economic risk and making it harder for small employers to do business.”

The exchange, Green Mountain Care, will set reimbursement rates for health care providers and streamline administration into a single, unified system.

Some experts say a revised system would save an estimated $580 million annually, and $1.9 billion by 2019. But the single-payer system’s creator, Harvard economist William Hsiao, says it could generate even greater profits for Vermont.

Hsiao predicts his plan would save the state 25.3 percent a year in total health care spending, lower household and employer health care spending, boost job growth and create a higher economic output for the state.

The savings, he said in a 2011 Health Affairs article, would come from tort reform for malpractice suits, better governance and lower administrative expenses. Vermont would rack up $4.6 billion in savings during the first five years of the program which he says would be used in part to cover the state’s uninsured as well as to expand benefits and services.

Vermont’s health care spending runs about $5 billion annually, with costs rising between 6.5 percent and 8.5 percent in recent years.

But not everyone is on board with the plan. It is still unknown how Vermont will pay for the plan and whether that money will come from additional taxes on its residents.

Komline says despite the plan's passage, she doesn’t see Vermont residents warming up to the idea of a single-payer system any time soon. She also said that Vermont, because of its small size and political makeup, is open to influence from special interest groups.

“It doesn’t take much money for special interest groups to come in and influence votes,” she said. “That’s why Vermont was among the first to legalize pot and same-sex marriages.”

Calls to the governor's office for comment were not returned. 

Here comes Obama’s solution to the disastrous Affordable Care Act: National Health Care a.k.a. the Single Payer System

SICK & SICKER: ObamaCare Canadian Style–Please Take the Time to Watch This

This presentation of the movie SICK & SICKER is sponsored by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons. However, instant downloads, DVDs and screening packages are available at http://www.sickandsickermovie.com or by calling 310-795-2509.
Where will ObamaCare lead America?

Logan Darrow Clements shows what happens when "the government becomes your doctor" using licensed news footage from Canadian TV, interviews with doctors, patients, journalists, a health minister, a Member of Parliament, a doctor who went on a hunger strike as well the producer's own Canadian relatives. Clements even rents a hospital to show the mismatch between supply and demand in a medical system run by politicians. SICK and SICKER puts ObamaCare on ice with cold hard facts from Canada. (widescreen, color, 50 minutes)

This is an important watch, if you haven’t seen it, and timely since the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing arguments right now on overturning the entire law as well as just the individual mandate.

Video: SICK & SICKER: ObamaCare Canadian Style  - Please take the time to watch

Video: Obama Argues Against Obamacare

--> Listen to Audio of Supreme Court over Obamacare <--

Day One of the Supreme Court ObamaCare Hearings  -  Day One ObamaCare Hearing Summary

First words leaking from the court room after day two is that Judge Kennedy appeared to be leaning toward overturning the mandate based on his questions.  -  Day Two ObamaCare Hearing Summary to come… Please check back later.

March 23rd Second Anniversary of ObamaCare… March 26th a Future Day in American Infamy?

The 5 possible fates of 'ObamaCare'

h/t to MJ

Australian children-sterilized without parental consent under new eugenics law

(NaturalNews) If you have ever seen the famous 1975 movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, you likely recall several disturbing scenes in which mental health patients are given frontal-lobe lobotomies, or the iconic scene where actor Jack Nicholson's character undergoes electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Today, these horrific forms of so-called mental health treatment are considered to be cruel relics of the past, but a new bill in Australia proposes that young children be given these treatments without parental consent, and even be permitted to undergo sterilization procedures without parental consent.

The Government of Western Australia's Mental Health Commission (WAMHC) has basically conjured up a proposal for new mental health legislation that bypasses parental involvement in the mental health treatment process, and instead tasks children under age 18, and of any age, with making the decision about whether or not to be sterilized, or whether or not to have their brain tissue destroyed with psychosurgery procedures. If a "mental health professional" can convince children that they need such treatments for their own good, in other words, than Australia's youngest members of society will be open game for the eugenicist agenda.

It almost sounds like the plot of a sick movie, but it is all true and fully documented right in the WAMHC Mental Health Bill 2011, which you can access here: http://www.mentalhealth.wa.gov.au

Eugenicists want to sterilize Australian children without ever telling the kids' parents

In the twisted minds of those who have seized positions of power all over the world, separating children from their parents and performing medical experiments on them in secret is a fully acceptable form of "medicine." And this form of child abuse is exactly what WAMHC has proposed in its new mental health bill.
Pages 135 and 136 of the bill (pages 157 and 158 of the PDF) cover the issue of sterilization, explaining that if a psychiatrist decides that a child under 18 years of age "has sufficient maturity," he or she will be able to consent to sterilization without parental consent. It also goes on to say that parents will never be notified that the sterilization procedure occurred, as only the "Chief Psychiatrist" will be privy to this information.

It sounds an awful lot like the euthanasia programs that emerged in Germany during the 1930s, when Nazis began secretly sterilizing individuals with physical or mental disabilities as part of "Operation T4" (http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/people/victims.htm). This eugenics program was later intensified, of course, when German physicians at Nazi death camps routinely sterilized men, women, and children, and later killed them, as part of the Nazi regime's utterly revolting ethnic cleansing experiments (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/aumed.html).

Medical 'authorities' want to arbitrarily commit children to mental institutions, indefinitely restrain them, and force them to undergo brain-damaging procedures

All of this gets worse, however, with other language scattered throughout the bill that would allow psychiatrists to involuntarily and indefinitely detain children who are "suspected" of having a mental illness. And during their detainment, such children can be forced to comply with drug, restraint, and seclusion protocols, as well as be forced to undergo permanently-damaging procedures like psychosurgery or ECT.

Worse, those who would be permitted to detain these children in the first place, deemed as "authorized mental health practitioners," are so loosely defined that virtually anyone could be authorized by the Chief Psychiatrist to abduct supposedly "mentally ill" children and commit them to mental institutions against their will and their parents' will.

Mental Health Commission is only accepting comments on the bill until March 9, 2012

The language in Australia's Mental Health Bill 2011 truly is horrifying, but not necessarily surprising. Similar efforts to undermine parental authority are taking place both in the U.S. and around the world.
California Gov. Jerry Brown, for instance, recently signed into law Senate Assembly Bill 499, which allows for children as young as age 12 to be vaccinated with the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil, Hepatitis B, and various other sexually-transmitted disease (STD) vaccines without parental consent (http://www.naturalnews.com/033848_Merck_legislators.html).

But our friends "down under" need your help today in spreading the word about this deadly legislation, and sending comments of opposition to Australia's Mental Health Commission as soon as possible.

You can send your comments by email to:

contactus@mentalhealth.wa.gov.au
You can send your comments by "snail" mail to:
GPO Box X2299
Perth Business Centre, W.A. 6847
Australia

If you live in Australia, you can also contact the Mental Health Minister, the Health Minister, and your local Member of Parliament by visiting:
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/memblist.nsf/WAllMembers

The deadline to submit a comment is March 9, so be sure to submit your comment before then. And remember, health freedom issues, whether domestic or abroad, eventually affect all of us if left unchecked. This is why it is important to combat tyranny and injustice anywhere and everywhere it may be found.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.mentalhealth.wa.gov.au

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035185_Australia_sterilization_children.html#ixzz1oYeAUpot

Source: Natural News - Thursday, March 08, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer – h/t to MJ

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035185_Australia_sterilization_children.html#ixzz1oYg47Lko

Don’t kid yourself people… If Obama is re-elected and/or ObamaCare stands, America is next!! Election 2012 is your last chance to stand-up.  Make Obama a one-term president and demand that ObamaCare is repealed and replaced.

Shock Article: Bioethicists Suggest Killing Someone With ‘No Autonomy Left’ Is Not Morally Wrong

What has Glenn Beck so fired up that he said on his radio show “If this doesn’t wake your a** up this morning, then nothing will?” How about this quote from prominent bioethicists comparing killing a human being to pulling weeds from a garden.

Two bioethicists — one from Duke University, the other from the National Institute of Health — bring up the question “What makes killing wrong?” in the latest issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Using their definition of killing, the authors conclude if the person is “universally and irreversibly disabled” and has “no abilities to lose” then killing them to take organs for donation in order to save the lives of others should not be considered morally wrong.

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong from Duke University (Photo: Duke University)

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a professor of practical ethics from Duke, and Franklin Miller, a senior faculty member in the NIH Department of Bioethics, state in their abstract ”What makes an act of killing morally wrong is not that the act causes loss of life or consciousness but rather that the act causes loss of all remaining abilities.“ They argue that if no abilities remain then the ”dead donor rule,” which is the ethical practice that a person must be declared dead before removing vital organs, should apply to patients whose hearts have stopped and are being removed from a respirator.

This discussion has been ongoing for several years and continues with this article. BioEdge, a publication discussing bioethical news, brings a few segments from the subscription-only journal in which Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller publish their opinion. BioEdge reports that the authors are seeking to make a case for organ donation after cardiac death when a person is taken off of a respirator. Once off the respirator, the person’s organs would be immediately harvested, but even at this point, BioEdge states, Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller believe the person is not yet dead because there is the possibility that his or her heart could start beating again.

Miller has written on this topic before for the New England Journal of Medicine. Here’s some of what was written in his co-authored piece from 2008 “The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation:”

Over the past few years, our reliance on the dead donor rule has again been challenged, this time by the emergence of donation after cardiac death as a pathway for organ donation. Under protocols for this type of donation, patients who are not brain-dead but who are undergoing an orchestrated withdrawal of life support are monitored for the onset of cardiac arrest. In typical protocols, patients are pronounced dead 2 to 5 minutes after the onset of asystole (on the basis of cardiac criteria), and their organs are expeditiously removed for transplantation. Although everyone agrees that many patients could be resuscitated after an interval of 2 to 5 minutes, advocates of this approach to donation say that these patients can be regarded as dead because a decision has been made not to attempt resuscitation.

In the more recent Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller article, BioEdge reports the authors as stating that “these patients are not known to be dead at the time of organ procurement.”

Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller argue that the dead donor rule is already being violated in many cases and that recognizing this violation and stopping organ donation in these conditions would drastically reduce an already limited number of donor organs for those in need. They suggest sidestepping this issue by rethinking the “norm of killing.” BioEdge has more from the authors:

“[T]he dead donor rule is routinely violated in the contemporary practice of vital organ donation. Consistency with traditional medical ethics would entail that this kind of vital organ donation must cease immediately. This outcome would, however, be extremely harmful and unreasonable from an ethical point of view [because patients who could be saved will die]. Luckily, it is easily obviated by abandoning the norm against killing.”

[...]

“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”

BioEdge clarifies that the authors seeks to better define just what is considered killing. It adds that the authors suggest killing someone with “no autonomy left” cannot be considered “unfair” or disrespectful because it “if it does her no harm.”

Franklin Miller of the National Institute of Health. (Photo: NIH Department of Bioethics)

While Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller make this argument, BioEdge reports in a separate article that several doctors have called for a moratorium on donated organs in the event of cardiac death until the issue is resolved from an ethical standpoint. The doctors state this opinion in the journal Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine.

In the abstract, these doctors calling for a moratorium write:

Many believe that the ethical problems of donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been “worked out” and that it is unclear why DCD should be resisted. In this paper we will argue that DCD donors may not yet be dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD may violate the dead donor rule.

[...]

Moreover, some arguments in favor of DCD, while likely true, are “straw-man arguments,” such as the great benefit of organ donation. The truth is that honesty and trustworthiness require that we face these problems instead of avoiding them. We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death. These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent. These are tall orders, and require open public debate.

The issue, however, isn’t an isolated incident. The Blaze has recently published articles about a disabled man in the U.K. who is seeking the “right” to die and a 3-year-old whose parents were told she couldn’t have kidney transplant because she was “mentally retarded.” And last year, we posted the disturbing video of a British advice columnist who said if a child were disabled a loving mother would “put a pillow over its face” to smother it. Watch that clip:

Related:

Eugenics in Action

ObamaCare… This Will Knock Your Socks Off!!

THIS VIDEO IS A GUIDE TO THE ORIGINAL HEALTHCARE BILL H.R. 3200.  H.R. 3962 is the actual bill that passed, but virtually everything the public and the GOP fought against was just moved, buried and hidden somewhere else in the new bill or is a contingency to be added later.  Just like the circus created over not funding abortions with taxpayer money quickly proved to be all smoke and mirrors, after being one of the pivotal points of compromise to get the bill past… at any cost. It was all a game of smoke and mirrors. Remember Nancy Pelosi’s famous statement: “You have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”, and we certainly are… virtually everything that was in H.R. 3200!

Recently we are finally reading news report and article after article about things that someone has finally found and verified that is hidden in the ObamaCare Bill.  You can bet that all the negative things in this video and more are part of the revised bill H.R. 3962.  It really is the gift from Hell that just keeps on giving…

Please watch this video:

Video:  Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200 - Key Points

Update With Video: THIS IS A GUIDE TO THE ORIGINAL HEALTHCARE BILL H.R. 3200. Yes the healthcare bill HR3962 passed. Now it's up to us to do all we can to repeal it!! This video is based on HR3200 but it is very closely related to HR3962 with the exception that HR3962 is deemed to be worse! If we don't get this bill thrown in the trash where it belongs we can expect to see much if not all of what this video shows us. THE PDF.OF THE BILL HR3200 NOTED AT THE END OF THE VIDEO IS NO LONGER VALID. HERE IS THE UPDATED LINK TO THE PDF. http://candicemiller.house.gov/pdf/hr3200.pdf

I am well aware of the typo in this video, I apologize but It's too late to fix it now.

Healthcare is only a powerful stepping stone to their government takeover plan. Open your eyes America, they don't care what "we the people" want or need, they simply want control.
Aug. 2009

Original Bill (Video): This is a point by point description (A guide not the actual reading of the bill!) of the Government Healthcare plan taken from the ACTUAL proposed bill H.R.3200 http://candicemiller.house.gov/pdf/hr3200.pdf

Though not opposed to healthcare reform most Americans do not want this KIND of reform which is a dangerous UN-AMERICAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL We want reform that makes sense and that is helpful for all not a destructive death warrant for the unborn and the elderly. We want government to stay out of our personal life decisions period. This is America !!

Here is the link to H.R. 3590: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/PDF/hr3590.pdf

Docs 4 Patient Founder and president Hal Scherz, M.D., released the following statement today regarding the US Preventative Services Task Force recommendation to stop the routine PSA screening of men:

"On Thursday, the US Preventative Services Task Force issued their recommendation that routine PSA screening of men looking for prostate cancer was no longer indicated. So said the chairperson of this group, pediatrician Virginia Moyer, of Baylor School of Medicine. There were no urologists on this committee- the universally recognized experts on the treatment of prostate cancer.

"This is the same body that issued the controversial recommendations to stop routine mammography.

"It is unlikely that this task force took into account that in the years that PSA screening has been routinely done, that mortality from prostate cancer has dropped significantly. Over 32,000 men die BECAUSE of their prostate cancer every year, and it is the second most common cancer in men, with a particular predilection for African Americans. It is important to note that the death rate from prostate cancer in England, where routine screening is not performed in order to save money, is dramatically higher than in the US.

"It can only be concluded that this task force is doing the bidding of the federal government, under the guise of science and evidentiary medicine, to justify the intent to covertly ration care. This attempt to put bureaucrats between patients and doctors is precisely why groups like the Preventative Task Force needs to be exposed for what it is and marginalized. Patients make the best decisions about their care along with the good counsel from their own personal doctors- in this case urologists, not pediatricians."

This is just one example of many of the beginning of the cutting back process of services and procedures.

The Supreme Court will hear the case against ObamaCare in the upcoming session and each of the GOP candidates has sworn to overturn this bill by Executive Order and whatever means necessary to undo it  if they are elected in 2012, and then put forth a  real healthcare reform bill or program. If one of those two things does not happen and ObamaCare is allowed to go into affect, it will destroy our Republic!  This was never about healthcare for the poor or better health care for all, it was about the Progressive Movement getting control of one-sixth of the U.S. economy and ‘control’… over you!

Supreme Court could rule on healthcare law early next year

In this photo from 2009, "tea party" activists protest the Democratic healthcare initiative in a rally at Griffith Park in Los Angeles. The Supreme Court could rule on the law's constitutionality as soon as early next year. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times )

By David G. SavageWashington Bureau

5:34 p.m. CDT, September 26, 2011

Reporting from Washington—

The Obama administration set the stage Monday for the Supreme Court to rule early next year on the constitutionality of the president’s healthcare law by declining to press for a full appeal in a lower court.

The Justice Department announced it will forgo an appeal to the full U.S. 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Such an appeal to the 10-member court could have taken months and delayed a final decision from the high court until at least 2013.

In a 2-1 ruling in August, a panel of the 11^th Circuit became the first appellate court to declare unconstitutional the new requirement that all Americans have health insurance.

Now, the administration can appeal directly to the Supreme Court and ask the justices to schedule the case to be heard and decided during the term that begins next week and ends in June. If the court follows that schedule, the justices will hand down a ruling on President Obama’s signature legislation just as the election campaign moves into high gear.

At issue for the court is whether Congress can use its power to “regulate commerce” to require that all Americans who have taxable income certify by 2014 that they have health insurance. If not, they must pay a tax penalty that begins at $95.  

The two judges based in Atlanta concluded Congress had overstepped its power by regulating the behavior of persons who do not wish to buy insurance. This refusal to buy is not commerce, the judges said.

The administration’s lawyers say this requirement is a reasonable and necessary regulation to prevent freeloaders from taking advantage of the taxpayers. Under current law, hospitals must spend tens of billions of dollars each year to provide emergency care to persons who lack insurance or the ability to pay. The new healthcare law also requires insurers to offer coverage to persons who have preexisting medical conditions.

The ruling in Atlanta grew out of a lawsuit filed by Republican officials in 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business. They also balked at the law’s requirement that states expand their Medicaid program of providing healthcare for low-income persons.

The business federation said it was pleased with Monday’s decision forgoing the drawn-out appeal in the lower court. “NFIB is excited that all indications point to the government going directly to the Supreme Court to hear our case and commends the administration on their decision,” said Karen Harned, executive director of the group’s legal center.

The justices may also want to consider a new issue that could delay a final ruling. This month, the U.S. 4^th Circuit Court, based in Virginia, threw out a challenge to the healthcare law by citing a federal law that bars disgruntled taxpayers from going to court until they have paid the disputed tax and filed for a refund.  Applying that rule, the judges said no court can rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act until after 2014, when the first taxpayer pays the penalty.

However, several other courts, including the 11^th Circuit, said the penalty is not a “tax” and,  therefore, is subject to challenge before it takes effect. 

Source: Los Angeles Times

Similar article at:  POLITICO 44

The Justice Department is expected to ask the court to overturn an August decision by a panel of three judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the law’s requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. The suit was brought by 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business, and several individuals.

Since the ruling, the Justice Department had until Monday to ask the entire 11th Circuit to review the case. Administration lawyers didn’t file the paperwork by the 5 p.m. deadline, so the ruling would stand unless the Justice Department asks the Supreme Court to step in.

The petition isn’t due until November, and the administration could get an extension.

Opponents of the law had expected the government to ask for the so-called en banc hearing to delay a ruling by the Supreme Court.

“The president and solicitor general deserve full credit for refusing to employ delaying tactics in this pressing constitutional controversy,” said Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown Law professor who is working with the plaintiffs.

But former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who has worked on briefs in support of the legislation, said the move should be read as a sign of confidence from the administration.

“This confirms what I had already concluded: That the government is confident that it’s going to prevail in the Supreme Court and would like to have a decision sooner rather than later,” Dellinger told POLITICO.

The issue of the constitutionality of the individual mandate has been widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The key question has been the timing. The Justice Department’s apparent decision to ask the Supreme Court to review the case greatly increases the chances the issue will be heard in the 2011-12 term, which begins Monday.

The Supreme Court now has several strong reasons to accept the case. The court rarely declines requests from the government to take a case, especially in situations in which a circuit court has struck down a piece of a high-profile law.

There is also a split between the appeals courts. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the mandate, the 11th Circuit has ruled it unconstitutional, and the 4th Circuit has ruled that a tax law prevents it from issuing a decision on the mandate until at least 2014.

“The odds are pretty significant the court will take the case now,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, which has filed briefs in support of the law.

But a Supreme Court ruling in the middle of a presidential election could carry serious political risks, since a decision upholding or striking the mandate has the potential to galvanize either Republicans or Democrats.

If the court accepts the case before January, it is likely to be put on the calendar to be heard in the spring. A decision would likely be postponed until June.

The 26 states and the NFIB have said they would work quickly to file briefing papers to ensure the case can move quickly.

The Justice Department did not explain its decision, but there were strong reasons for it not to pursue the en banc hearing.

There are only five judges appointed by Democrats on the 11-judge circuit, and one them has already ruled to strike down the mandate. So far, many judges have ruled along the party lines of the president who nominated him or her. So it’s unlikely the government would have gotten a better response out of the full panel.

It’s also possible that the 11th Circuit wouldn’t have agreed to re-hear the case.

This article first appeared on POLITICO at 5:34 p.m. on September 26, 2011.

SHOCK CLAIM: New rule would give government everybody's health records...

New Rule Would Give Government Everybody’s Health Records

Obamacare HHS rule would give government everybody’s health records

By: Rep. Tim Huelskamp | 09/23/11 3:29 PM - OpEd Contributor

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has proposed that medical records of all Americans be turned over to the federal government by private health insurers.

It’s been said a thousand times: Congress had to pass President Obama’s  health care law in order to find out what’s in it. But, despite the repetitiveness, the level of shock from each new discovery never seems to recede.

This time, America is learning about the federal government’s plan to collect and aggregate confidential patient records for every one of us.

In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients.

(See Proposed Rule:  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment, Volume 76, page 41930. Proposed rule docket ID is HHS-OS-2011-0022 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-15/pdf/2011-17609.pdf)

The HHS has proposed the federal government pursue one of three paths to obtain this sensitive information: A “centralized approach” wherein insurers’ data go directly to Washington; an “intermediate state-level approach” in which insurers give the information to the 50 states; or a “distributed approach” in which health insurance companies crunch the numbers according to federal bureaucrat edict.

It’s par for the course with the federal government, but abstract terms are used to distract from the real objectives of this idea: no matter which “option” is chosen, government bureaucrats would have access to the health records of every American - including you.

There are major problems with any one of these three “options.” First is the obvious breach of patient confidentiality. The federal government does not exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to managing private information about its citizens.

Why should we trust that the federal government would somehow keep all patient records confidential? In one case, a government employee’s laptop containing information about 26.5 million veterans and their spouses was stolen from the employee’s home.

There's also the HHS contractor who lost a laptop containing medical information about nearly 50,000 Medicare beneficiaries. And, we cannot forget when the USDA's computer system was compromised and information and photos of 26,000 employees, contractors, and retirees potentially accessed.

The second concern is the government compulsion to seize details about private business practices. Certainly many health insurance companies defended and advocated for the president’s health care law, but they likely did not know this was part of the bargain.

They are being asked to provide proprietary information to governments for purposes that will undermine their competitiveness. Obama and Sebelius made such a big deal about Americans being able to keep the coverage they have under ObamaCare; with these provisions, such private insurance may cease to exist if insurers are required to divulge their business models.

Certainly businesses have lost confidential data like the federal government has, but the power of the market can punish the private sector. A victim can fire a health insurance company; he cannot fire a bureaucrat.

What happens to the federal government if it loses a laptop full of patient data or business information? What recourse do individual citizens have against an inept bureaucrat who leaves the computer unlocked? Imagine a Wikileaks-sized disclosure of every Americans’ health histories. The results could be devastating - embarrassing - even Orwellian.

With its extensive rule-making decrees, ObamaCare has been an exercise in creating authority out of thin air at the expense of individuals’ rights, freedoms, and liberties.

The ability of the federal government to spy on, review, and approve individuals’ private patient-doctor interactions is an excessive power-grab.

Like other discoveries that have occurred since the law’s passage, this one leaves us scratching our heads as to the necessity not just of this provision, but the entire law.

The HHS attempts to justify its proposal on the grounds that it has to be able to compare performance. No matter what the explanation is, however, this type of data collection is an egregious violation of patient-doctor confidentiality and business privacy. It is like J. Edgar Hoover in a lab coat.

And, no matter what assurances Obama, Sebelius and their unelected and unaccountable HHS bureaucrats make about protections and safeguards of data, too many people already know what can result when their confidential information gets into the wrong hands, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Republican Tim Huelskamp represents the first congressional district of Kansas.

Source: the Washington Examiner

*This is exactly the type of thing that GOP Candidate and Congressman Ron Paul warned about in the GOP Orlando debate.  Massive data bases for medical records and National ID Cards in the hands of the U.S. Government will ultimately be used to spy on “We the People” and then against us.

Just look at the situation with GM (Government Motors’) OnStar Tracking Systems that continue to track you… even after cancellation of the service.

OBAMA'S HEALTH PLAN -- TAXES, TAXES EVERYWHERE

The White House recently released President Obama's health care reform proposal. The plan incorporates a mixture of the many tax increases passed by the House and Senate, hiking taxes by almost $750 billion over ten years. This is on top of $1.3 trillion in other tax increases the President recently proposed in his 2011 budget. Not that there is ever a good time to raise taxes, but doing so as the economy is still emerging from a deep recession is particularly ill-advised and will likely prolong full recovery. Moreover, the President's proposal deviates from his stated goal to address the soaring spending and debt problem the nation faces by piling on massive new spending and taxes, says the Heritage Foundation.

How will the president's plan affect payroll taxes?

• President Obama accepted the Senate's plan to break long-held policy by raising the Hospital Insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax on high-income earners to pay for a new and unrelated health care entitlement.
• He then doubled-down on this dangerous new precedent by separately applying the HI tax to investment income for the first time.
• The tax code already taxes investment too much; higher taxes still on dividends, interest and business income increases the cost of capital which will further depress investment and thus job creation (ironic to propose this at the very time the President wants employers to create jobs).

How will seniors be affected by the Medicare payroll tax?

• President Obama's proposed tax hike on investment will hammer seniors particularly hard because their investment income is a major supplement to their pension and Social Security checks.
• Seniors also sell assets to raise income, so raising the tax on capital gains further reduces their resources.
• Lastly, raising the taxes on capital income and capital gains will lower asset values.
• Nearly 30 percent of all stocks are held in retirement savings plans; most of the seniors that rely on the income from these plans for their livelihood are not "fat cat" investors that have been the target of other populist tax hikes.
• They are people that spent their working years saving money for their own retirement in mutual funds, 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings vehicles; this would just punish them for a lifetime of careful planning and saving.

Source: Curtis Dubay, "Obama's Health Plan -- Taxes, Taxes Everywhere," Heritage Foundation, February 24th, 2010.

For text: Heritage Foundation

Healthcare: Does Canada Do It Better?

John Stossel:  “Government-run health care may mean waiting in line for care!”

Link to Report (7.31.09):  http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerindex?id=8227482 

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

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

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

On June 26th, John Stossel said:  “Government Controlled Health Care Means Waiting in Lines, Serious Drawbacks (in his previous special):

Canadian Health Care:  A Viable Model? - http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7903062

President Obama said that the government is going to "fix what is broken about health care in America." It sounds like a great idea, but often what sounds good has unintended consequences.

John Stossel discovers some dead-serious drawbacks to socialized medicine.

When the government takes over, many critics say that you may not get the care and breakthroughs you need to save your life.

"The only way they can get costs down under a government-run system is to control the amount of money that is spent on health care," says Sally Pipes of thePacific Research Institute, who was born in Canada, and is wary about government taking the reins of health care in the U.S.

"We are going to have denied care, lack of access to the latest technology, and long waiting lists, just like people do in Canada and Great Britain," she warns.

In those countries, the government pays for all health care, and bureaucrats put limits on spending in order to control costs. They determine how much doctors can be reimbursed and put caps on the amount of money that can be spent on treatments.

The result of all this cost-cutting? People wait for care.

In England, shortages of dentists have caused hundreds of people to wait in line just for an appointment. The queues can be so long that some people have resorted to pulling out their own rotting teeth, using vodka and pliers as tools. One British hospital even tried to save money by not changing bed sheets. Instead of washing them, a British newspaper reported that the staff was encouraged to simply turn the sheets over. At any given time in Great Britain, there are over half a million people waiting to get into a hospital for treatments.

But Obama has said he doesn't want a government takeover of health care.

"When you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care," he told the American Medical Association last week, "know this -- they're not telling the truth."

A national shortage of general practitioners means that 1.7 million Canadians don't have access to a regular doctor to go to for routine care. (ABC News Photo Illustration)

Public vs. Private Plans: Cost, Care, Competition

Canada and Great Britain have what's called a "single-payer" health care system: the government pays for everyone's health care using tax revenue. It's true that Obama says he doesn't want a health care system exactly like that.

Instead, he says he wants to set up a public insurance program run by the government that will compete alongside private insurance plans. However, critics warn that a plan like this won't allow private insurers to compete on a level playing field. They say the government will keep costs down for their public plan by setting payment rates for doctors below the market level, the same way that Medicare does now.

"What will happen in the long run is that private insurers will not be able to compete with the government on price," Pipes predicts, "so they will leave the market."

Critics like Pipes say that when the size and power of a government plan grow large enough, public insurers will crowd private insurers out of the health care market and American health care will become a de facto government-run system, like Canada or Great Britain.

"People line up for care. Some of them die. That's what happens," Dr. David Gratzer says of Canada's health care system.

Gratzer, a Canadian doctor, thought Canada's government health care system was great -- until he started treating patients.

"The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy. Waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house," he explained.

"You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! You just have to wait six months," he continued. "You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air. You've just got to wait six months."

Many ER doctors in Canada agree that the system is broken. They say hospitals face a consistent shortage of bed space, and patients often have to wait.

While people in America also wait in emergency rooms, the wait is different in Canada. When patients go to the ER for treatment and are found to be sick enough to enter the hospital, they have to wait in the emergency room for an average of 19 hours before they can be given a hospital bed.

"We can't send these patients to other hospitals that have capacity because there is no other hospital in the area that has capacity," said Dr. Eric Letovsky, an ER doctor from Ontario. "Every other emergency department in the country is just as packed as we are."

Serious Drawbacks to Canadian Model

A national shortage of general practitioners in Canada means that 1.7 million Canadians don't have access to a regular doctor to go to for routine care.

The town of Norwood, Ontario, has only one family doctor available to serve the entire community. To ration the patient list, the town clerk holds a lottery once a month, drawing a few names out of a box that contains all of the people hoping to get on the doctor's patient list. She calls the lucky winners, but everyone else must continue to wait.

Serious Drawbacks to Canadian Model

A national shortage of general practitioners in Canada means that 1.7 million Canadians don't have access to a regular doctor to go to for routine care.

The town of Norwood, Ontario, has only one family doctor available to serve the entire community. To ration the patient list, the town clerk holds a lottery once a month, drawing a few names out of a box that contains all of the people hoping to get on the doctor's patient list. She calls the lucky winners, but everyone else must continue to wait.

It's true that America's partly-private, profit-driven system is expensive and sometimes wasteful, but that pursuit of profit has allowed our health care system to offer rapid delivery, great doctors, and incredible lifesaving discoveries.

"This is the country of medical innovation. This is where people come when they need treatment," said Gratzer.

Thousands come from countries with government-run health care to take advantage of the advanced care in the United States. The famous Spanish tenor Jose Carreras didn't get treated for cancer in Spain -- he went to Seattle. King Hussein of Jordan came to America for treatment. So did Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

"Literally, we're surrounded by medical miracles. Death by cardiovascular disease has dropped by two-thirds in the last 50 years," said Gratzer. "You've got to pay a price for that type of advancement,"

The reality is that there are always trade-offs in life. Although government "universal coverage" promises great things like equal care and that no one need worry that an illness will bankrupt them, government control also means waiting in lines and sometimes going without care.

Innovations like birth control pills, cholesterol medication, robotic limbs, and many other things, would not have happened without the possibility of big profit, said Grace Marie Turner of the Galen Institute.

"I want companies to come up with cures for Parkinson's, cures for cancer, cures for Alzheimer's. Unless there is a reward for them to do that, we're not going to have those new medicines," she said.

Some of the best, most innovative treatments and most rapidly-delivered care happens through this pursuit of profit. Even in Canada, you'll find one area where they offer easy access to cutting edge technology.

CT scans and MRIs, hip and knee replacements: available 24 hours a day and without a wait.

"If I see a patient that's torn a cruciate ligament in that patient's knee, we can generally have the patient scheduled for within probably a week," said Canadian Dr. Terri Schiller.

But you have to bark or meow to get that kind of treatment. Schiller is a veterinarian and her practice makes a profit treating cats and dogs.

Want a CT scan in Canada? Private veterinary clinics said they can get a dog in the next day. For people, the waiting list is a month.

"Many clients will come here with their pets and as they're leaving, it's, 'Next time, I get sick, I want to come here. I don't want to go to the regular hospitals,'" said Schiller.

Posted:  True Health Is True Wealth

Get Both Sides of the National Healthcare Story…

Thanks to the generous support of grassroots Republicans and Independents nationwide, the RNC exceeded Their Goal of raising over $100,000 to help counter ABC's one-sided infomercial for government-run health care.

Fellow Americans

Though the television network (ABC and some NBC affiliates) have denied requests to air ads counter to President Obama's government-run health care "reform" plans, they can't keep us off the air. (Ask yourself… what kind of media refuses to run both sides... and why is the administration so afraid to have us hear both sides??)

We are using the grassroots donations we received to spread our message against the one-sided, big government mantra being pushed by the Obama Democrats here in Washington --

watch it now!

Since when in America do we not get to hear both sides to make an informed decision???

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Related Resources:

• Canadian Healthcare Coming Soon to the USA

CANADIAN HEALTH CARE: COMING SOON TO THE USA

The Obama health care proposals will lead to Canadian style socialized medicine -- and here are some of the consequences:

* A 16% higher cancer death rate in Canada
* An eight week wait for radiation therapy for cancer patients
* 42% of Canadians die of colon cancer vs. 31% in the US
* Cutbacks in diagnostic testing
* The best meds for chemo therapy are not available
* No way out of the system; you can't even pay for services yourself – in fact Canadians now come here to circumvent their system

Why is health care so bad north of the border? Because there are too few doctors to treat everybody and cost savings -- which slice medical incomes -- drive doctors out of the profession. When Obama calls for a 21% cut in Medicare fees to physicians and a $2500 cut in health costs per capita, that is exactly the kind of downward spiral in medical care quality he will bring to the United States. By making too few doctors cover too many patients, he will cut the quality of care to everybody.

As Obama's proposals make their way through Congress, it is vital that we all get up to speed on what is happening in Canada, so we can stop it from happening here. It is through word of mouth that we need to spread the information to undermine public support for the changes Obama would bring.

That's why we wrote Catastrophe. That's why we hope you read it!

Thanks, Dick

CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To

Fight Back Before It Is Too Late!!! Call/Fax/and Email your Congressperson and Senator (Daily)… Talk to Your Friends, Grab a Picket Sign, Organize a Tea Party and come 2010 and 2012 Vote for “Real Change” and American Freedom!!

ABC infomercial on Healthcare is a Diversion!

It's the way the Obama administration works -- forget about how you get it done, just get it done. Since support is fading for Cap & Trade, as it's essentially one of the biggest tax increases in history, the administration and the media are making a big deal (and rightfully so) out of the ABC infomercial happening tonight. While you are enraged about that, Cap ‘n’ Trade slips in through the back door, unnoticed and unharmed. Watch for Glenn to shine the spotlight on this issue for the rest of the week on radio and at 5pm on the Fox News Channel. – Glenn Beck

Also NBC is refusing or air commercials that are anti-the Obama Healthcare Program… showing the other side. That is censorship. That is Big Brother Politics! That is socialism or much much worse. Wake-up America!! Stand-up America, before it is too late!!

--------

Canadian Women Testifies Before Congress On Negatives of Canadian Healthcare

Canadian Shona Holmes is up to her eyeballs in debt after having to flee her country's supposedly "free" public health system to seek life-saving medical treatment in the United States.

After being diagnosed with a brain tumor, the Ontario woman was told she would have to wait five months or more to see a specialist in order to schedule surgery, which would come months after seeing the specialist. Her condition quickly began to deteriorate, causing her to lose her vision and forcing her to consider treatment outside Canada's health care program despite being told "nightmare stories about American health care."

She got the treatment she needed in the U.S., but racked up more than $100,000 in out-of-pocket health care expenses. One of the reasons, she says, is because provincial law bars their citizens from purchasing health insurance.

"I owe money to everyone I know," she lamented, citing the second mortgage she had to take out on her house and her husband who is now working two jobs to repay debts to their family and friends.

She has filed a constitutional challenge to her province because it prohibits the sale of private health care or insurance, yet put her life in danger by being unable to provide care in a timely manner. "I'm not the type to be unprepared," she said. "I would have bought insurance if I could have."

"Most people say I must have had the financial resources to get this treatment, but I just had no other options, I had to get it," she told Hot Button over coffee in downtown Washington.

She was in town to testify to Congress about her struggle with public health care. Mrs. Holmes said she had an obligation to warn Americans about the perils of a public health care system, in light of the push from President Obama to implement such a program. She's agreed to appear in advertisements for Patients United Now, a campaign that opposes Mr. Obama's plan.

"My agenda, if I have one, is to tell them be careful what you wish for," she said.

Source: Washington Times

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Media Blasts Oprah for Supporting Alternative Medicine

This is just a preview of what is to come in the world of government-run healthcare overseen by the ‘Health Czar’. Have you ever seen a scarier more unflattering photo of Oprah?? Even being Obama’s Muse hasn’t helped her from attacks in this arena which brings us to the obvious question… how will they treat the rest of us????

In January of this year, Oprah Winfrey invited Suzanne Somers on her show to talk about health tips. The 62-year-old actress uses bio-identical estrogen cream and progesterone on her other arm two weeks a month.

According to Somers, the bio-identical hormones are identical to the ones created by the human body, unlike conventional hormones, which are made from mare’s urine.

The result has been a media firestorm condemning both Somers and Oprah, including the hit piece in Newsweek linked below. The authors of the piece, Weston Kosova and Pat Wingert, argue that bio-identical hormones are just as synthetic as conventional hormones -- although they don’t much discuss the fact that conventional hormones are actually different from the 17-beta-estradiol made by your body, while the bio-identical hormones are 17-beta-estradiol itself.

The real reason for the attacks on bio-identical hormones?
As Somers points out, many doctors, scientists and media figures make a good deal of money off of the pharmaceutical industry.
And one thing you won’t see mentioned in the Newsweek article is the fact that Pat Wingert is the co-author of a pharmaceutically biased book on hormones and menopause, and that Newsweek is heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies.

This resembles an incident a few years ago when the cattle industry actually sued Oprah Winfrey just for talking about Mad Cow Disease.

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

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

The authors of this Newsweek article clearly had a bone to pick with alternative medicine of all kinds. Newsweek does not just ridicule Suzanne Somers for her endorsement of bioidentical hormones, they blast Jenny McCarthy’s stance on vaccine adjuvants being a culprit in causing autism, and even criticize Dr. Christiane Northrup for warning Oprah’s audience of the HPV vaccine and recommending dietary and lifestyle changes to enhance their natural immunity instead. In their article they counter this advice with the statement,

“It is true that of the millions of women who have received the vaccine, 32 have died in the days or weeks afterward. But in each case, the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration investigated the deaths and found that they were coincidental and were not related to the shot.”

This is the kind of blanket dismissal one could only expect from those who have not bothered to do any serious investigations of their own on a topic.

And as for the idea that your thoughts and beliefs may have the slightest to do with your physical health? Ridiculous, according to these two authors.

Apparently they’ve never heard of epigenetics.

Dr. Bruce Lipton, a forerunner in the field of epigenetics and The New Biology, has carefully documented how emotions are one of the most important factors in your health. According to his research, the controlling factor in deciding what your genes express -- in deciding how your future health will play out -- is not your genes, your family history or even the strength of your immune system. It is YOUR MIND.

These are the kind of myopic viewpoints you have to contend with when dealing with conventional medicine, big pharma, and their mouthpieces. But that doesn’t mean they’re any more right, or any less ridiculous, than the people and alternative strategies they try to dismiss with little more than parroted catch-phrases.

Is an Organized Smear Campaign Underway?

Now, Oprah has been targeted by big industries before, such as when she dared talk about Mad Cow disease on her show – a topic that brought her a lawsuit by the meat industry.

But Oprah is not the only one in the crosshairs of what can only be described as an organized smear campaign against alternative medicine.

There’s a disturbing trend taking shape, with a recent onslaught of media articles seeking to put a bad spin on various complementary, alternative medicine and natural medicine options. The misinformation campaign is shifting into higher gear. Is it a very deliberate and concerted media strategy?

Could there be any coincidence that this is all occurring just as the government is preparing health care reform? What would happen If much of alternative medicine was determined illegal?
Robert Zieve, MD, who gave me many of these links, believes that it smells like a witch hunt.

Recent headlines include:

• Contaminants lurk in many ‘natural’ products. Tests find some herbal supplements may be doing more harm than good.

• Cancer patients turning to alternative remedies. 60 percent seek natural ‘cures’ despite warnings from doctors.

• Doctors eager to try ‘mystical mumbo jumbo’. Alternative remedies gain acceptance despite lack of evidence.

• Many ‘natural’ products make dubious claims. A product with "natural" ingredients may be no better for you than one with artificial ingredients, but a lot of us still trust advertisements that suggest as much.

• Reality check on supplements, remedies. Americans increasingly turn to alternative medicine. But does it really help?

• $2.5 Billion spent, no alternative cures found. Big government-funded studies show most work no better than placebos.

• Alternative heart disease treatment probed. Government investigating whether patients were told enough about risks.

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

Dr. Deepak Chopra responded to the Oprah bashing with this Alternet article, where he states,

"The criticism the medical establishment is directing at Oprah through this article only exposes their own frustration in having squandered their credibility with the public. They hope that if they can successfully attack Oprah's immense credibility, then they can magically get some of that credibility back for themselves. However, if people still trusted the health care industry to act in their best interest the way they did decades ago, then it would be unnecessary to brand Oprah for "crazy talk" simply because she occasionally provides a forum for ideas outside of mainstream medicine.
The medical profession is burdened with a host of problems that Oprah addresses with more candor and force than the AMA. She promotes wellness and prevention, two areas that drastically need improvement. She brings up creative solutions to problems that medical science is baffled by, such as the healing response itself and the role of subjectivity in patient response. These are issues that few M.D.s are willing to explore, yet she has done so for decades.
... What this tells me is that medicine needs Oprah and other patient advocates who are demanding that official medicine heal itself. To accuse them of lacking medical credibility is a red herring. Patients aren't supposed to know more than their physicians. The fact that they often do, at least insofar as alternative treatment goes, is both a sign of hope and cause for distress."

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

Is Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) Dangerous?

It has been overwhelmingly proven that conventional hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which science, as little as ten years ago, massively touted, has now been shown to be very dangerous. So there’s no argument there.

Studies looking at the long-term usage of synthetic estrogen have revealed many negative side effects, including heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, high blood pressure and vaginal bleeding. But perhaps most strikingly, just one year after millions of women quit taking hormone replacement therapy, incidents of breast cancer fell dramatically—by 7 percent!

The following prescriptions now carry black box warnings and need to be avoided:

1. Premarin. Premarin is an estrogen extracted from Pregnant Mare’s Urine. We now know it is associated with an increased risk of heart disease.

2. Estrogen Therapy. Estrogen, which is extracted from Premarin, was effective in combating some menopausal symptoms but proved to have serious, negative side effects, such as the increased risk of breast cancer and an increase in insulin levels.

3. Provera. This drug is a progestin or a synthetic form of progesterone, which probably makes it even more toxic than Premarin. Its well-documented, negative side effects include blood clotting.

But to lump bioidentical hormones in with the rest, and attributing the same dangers to them as their synthetic versions is likely unjustified.

The Truth About Bioidentical Hormones

Bioidenticals, unlike synthetic hormones or natural ones from animals, are natural hormones that are bioidentical to your own.

The bioidentical hormone that is prescribed 80 percent of the time is estriol. It’s natural -- not a drug -- and you get it at compounding pharmacies.

And, although the article above states there are no conclusive clinical studies showing that bioidenticals are any less risky than synthetic hormones, the FDA also admits it’s unaware of any adverse effects of bioidentical hormones.

The fact is that estriol has been used safely for decades, and I believe it’s particularly useful when your ovaries have been removed or you’ve had a hysterectomy. Dr. Johathan Wright, who I’ve interviewed for my Expert Inner Circle program, is a pioneer in bioidenticals, and you can see what he has to say about their value in this short video.

The crux is that natural estriol can’t be patented, so there are no major profits to be made, and hence it gets little attention.

The FDA Effectively “Banned” Estriol, But May Approve an Unsafe Prescription Instead

Although not an FDA-approved drug, the FDA has proposed to allow estriol-containing prescriptions to be filled if they’re accompanied by an Investigational New Drug (IND) application, if and when a physician believes it’s in his patient’s best interest.
However, the IND places a significant financial burden on physicians, most notably by requiring them to submit applications to an Institutional Review Boards (IRB).
This process effectively bans most prescriptions for estriol.

Meanwhile, the FDA is in the process of considering the approval of Trimesta, a knock-off of natural estriol. Clearly, the FDA has never been concerned with estriol being used in an unsafe manner -- they were concerned that their drug-company buddies were not getting their fair share of the profits.
Aside from the obvious bias, this is even more troubling because Trimesta may not be a safe version of natural estriol.
According to Dr. Jonathan Wright, the problem with Trimesta is that it’s taken in pill form. Taking this hormone orally is known to be a greater risk factor for endometrial cancer than taking the hormone transdermally (through your skin).
As Dr. Wright said:

"...When the inevitable findings of excessive endometrial cancer are ultimately disclosed, you can bet the blame will fall on the bio-identical hormone itself -- and not on the oral route of administration, which is known to be more risky."

Do You Need Hormone Replacement?

The issue of hormone replacement generally does not come up until the classic symptoms of menopause strike. Menopause occurs when you stop producing estrogen and progesterone, and your periods cease. This can occur naturally, or be induced by a hysterectomy or by having your ovaries removed.

Typical menopausal symptoms include:

• Hot Flashes

• Vaginal Dryness

• Menstrual Irregularities

• Depression

• Mood Swings

• Weight Gain

Short- and long-term strategies can help you control these symptoms. The best approaches are preventive and involve diet and exercise. But in some cases where diet and lifestyle changes are not enough to counteract the more troublesome symptoms of menopause, bioidentical hormones may be able to help.

However, you’ll want to make sure you get your hormonal levels checked properly before embarking on any kind of hormone supplementation program.

I recommend you review Michael Borkin’s article, Women’s Hormones, for more in-depth information about the many variables involved in your sexual and overall health.

Oftentimes the cumulative physiological effects of stress can cause disruption of the natural rhythms and balancing mechanisms of your hormones, which can compromise your overall health as well as your sexual and reproductive health.

Both estrogen and progesterone are necessary in the female cycle, and their balance is key for optimal health. Many women have an imbalance of these hormones, regardless of their age. And if you have insufficient levels of progesterone to counter excessive estrogen, this imbalance can be further exacerbated by chronic stress.

So your answer might not necessarily lie in using hormones, but rather addressing your stress levels so that your body can normalize your hormone levels naturally.

Alternatives to Hormone Replacement

Prevention is always the best cure, and diet and exercise are as powerful in the prevention of future menopausal symptoms as for most other health concerns. Eating right for your nutritional type and exercising regularly can go a long way to keeping your hormones balanced as you age.

Consuming plenty of phytoestrogens (plant-estrogens) such as licorice and alfalfa before menopause can also help moderate your day-to-day estrogen levels so that when menopause comes, the drop won’t be so dramatic.

Beware, however, that soy is not a good option. In fact, non-fermented soy products are likely to damage your health even further.

You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D levels are optimized. Vitamin D has gotten the short shrift, thanks to fears abouttanning and skin cancer, but Vitamin D is a must for gene regulation and optimal health. For more information, I recommend you watch my one-hour video lecture on this essential nutrient.

As for supplements, these have been shown to be beneficial in tempering symptoms of menopause:

• Polyphenols. Certain polyphenols have been shown to have some HRT-like benefits without the drawbacks, and are associated with a lowered risk of heart disease. Royal Macha seems to be an amazing adaptogenic herbal solution for menopause that has helped many women. Be sure to avoid the inexpensive ones, as they typically don’t work. Get the real deal from Peru.

• Omega 3 fats. You’ll also want to get plenty of omega-3 fats. A high quality animal-based omega-3 supplement, such as krill oil, can be far more effective and beneficial than fish oil.

• Black Cohosh may help regulate body temperature and hot flashes.

Implementing these lifestyle changes will help control symptoms of menopause, such as hot flashes, without resorting to hormone replacement.

Source: Mercola.com

I myself have gone to Suzanne Somers’ Doctor’s Clinic and used the bio-identical hormones. I never felt better and there are no side affects. And for anyone who has doubts… I would say just look at Suzanne and compare her to just about any other 62-year-old woman. If the positive affects aren’t obvious… get glasses! -Ask Marion~

Posted: Ask Marion – True Health Is True Wealth

Related Resources:

• Ageless: The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones
• Newsweek Attacks Oprah Winfrey and BioIdentical Hormones
• Why Does the FDA Maintain a Conspiracy of Silence about the Health Benefits
• The Drug Story
• Western Medicine - Forbidden Cures
• The Neglected Nutritional Research of Dr. Weston Price, DDS
• Sanoviv Medical Center
• Big Red Juice
• Act (Natural) Energy Drink & Suzanne Somers’ Sip of Sunshine

Another Fine Example Of Government Healthcare

No sooner than I had written a story about government "care" than a reader sent me the following story, written by Kimberly Hefling and Ben Evans, of Associated Press.

"Fewer than half of Veterans Affairs centers given a surprise inspection last month had proper training and guidelines in place for common endoscopic procedures, such as colonoscopies... even after the agency learned that mistakes may have exposed thousands of veterans to HIV and other diseases.

The findings, from the VA's Inspector General and obtained by Associated Press, suggest that errors in colonoscopies and other minimally invasive procedures, performed at VA facilities, "may be more widespread than initially thought."

What?

If this was a private hospital, the outcry would be deafening. The lawsuits would already be stacked ten feet high. Insurance premiums for those doctors would rise like a hot air balloon.

You would already be hearing the stentorian tones of network television announcers asking why and how such a tragedy could happen.

But there is no outcry, because the defendant is the government, and as everyone knows, even when the government makes a mistake, and in this case a HUGE mistake, "NOTHING" is the most likely outcome.

"The VA's response was that there was no way to tell whether the infections suffered by veterans came from VA procedures. Their experts said that most, or all, of the infections probably already existed. Six veterans had HIV, thirty four had hepatitis C and thirteen had hepatitis B.

All from one hospital?

For all those out there that think the government can run healthcare, think again. The present system, no matter its flaws, has checks and balances. The government has no checks and balances, and zero accountability. There is no report of anyone losing their job in this entire scandal. Not only that, but there is no plan in place to make sure this doesn't happen again, and if bureaucrats draft one, there will be enough holes for them to weasel out of any situation that gets sticky.

The best thing you can do for yourself and your family is to practice preventative medicine, and to make sure that you don't have to go into the system, because you are in excellent health.

One of the ways you can do that is by taking Omega Oil Supplements, pharmaceutical grade fish oil and pharmaceutical grade CoQ10 and multiple vitamin and nutrient supplement.

With my best wishes for your optimum health,

Dr. Bill

Dr. Bill is the nom de guerre of William Thomas Stillwell, M.D., FACS, FICS, FAAOS, FAANAOS, FAAPGS. He is a licensed, board certified orthopaedic surgeon, with nearly a quarter century of clinical experience, and has served as Chairman of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center, Smithtown, New York until he retired in 2003, Associate Professor of Clinical Orthopaedic Surgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook (1987-2003), Assisitant Professor before that, and Instructor of Clinical Orthopaedic Surgery at the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Columbia University (1982-1999).

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

How to Stop Socialized Health Care

Five arguments Republicans must make…

It was a sobering breakfast with one of the smartest Republicans on Capitol Hill. We can fix a lot of bad stuff President Barack Obama might do, he told me. But if Mr. Obama signs into law a "public option," government-run insurance program as part of health-care reform we won't be able to undo the damage.

I'd go the Republican member of Congress one further: If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state. To prevent this from happening, there are five arguments Republicans must make.

Getty Images

The first is it's unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That's competition enough. The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore this. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 -- nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition's benefits.

Second, a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs. For example, Medicare pays hospitals 71% and doctors 81% of what private insurers pay.

Who covers the rest? Government passes the bill for the outstanding balance to providers and families not covered by government programs. This cost-shifting amounts to a forced subsidy. Families pay about $1,800 more a year for someone else's health care as a result, according to a recent study by Milliman Inc. It's also why many doctors limit how many Medicare patients they take: They can afford only so much charity care.

Fixing prices at less than market rates will continue under any public option. Sen. Edward Kennedy's proposal, for example, has Washington paying providers what Medicare does plus 10%. That will lead to health providers offering less care.

Third, government-run health insurance would crater the private insurance market, forcing most Americans onto the government plan. The Lewin Group estimates 70% of people with private insurance -- 120 million Americans -- will quickly lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage. They'd be happy to shift some of the expense -- and all of the administration headaches -- to Washington. And once the private insurance market has been dismantled it will be gone.

Fourth, the public option is far too expensive. The cost of Medicare -- the purest form of a government-run "public choice" for seniors -- will start exceeding its payroll-tax "trust fund" in 2017. The Obama administration estimates its health reforms will cost as much as $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It is no coincidence the Obama budget nearly triples the national debt over that same period.

Medicare and Medicaid cost much more than estimated when they were adopted. One reason is there's no competition for these government-run insurance programs. In the same way, Americans can expect a public option to cost far more than the Obama administration's rosy estimates.

Fifth, the public option puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors. If you think insurance companies are bad, imagine what happens when government is the insurance carrier, with little or no competition and no concern you'll change to another company.

In other words, the public option is just phony. It's a bait-and-switch tactic meant to reassure people that the president's goals are less radical than they are. Mr. Obama's real aim, as some candid Democrats admit, is a single-payer, government-run health-care system.

Health care desperately needs far-reaching reforms that put patients and their doctors in charge, bring the benefits of competition and market forces to bear, and ensure access to affordable and portable health care for every American. Republicans have plans to achieve this, and they must make their case for reform in every available forum.

Defeating the public option should be a top priority for the GOP this year. Otherwise, our nation will be changed in damaging ways almost impossible to reverse.

By Karl Rove

About Karl Rove - Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.

Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.

Or, you can send him a Tweet @karlrove.

Related Resources and Posts:

• Democrats Set to Rush Through Government-Run Healthcare
• Understanding the House Democrat's Healthcare Bill
• Healthcare: You Think Michael Moore Will Contribute? Don’t Hold Your Breath
• Here Comes Health Care Rationing
• Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
• British Healthcare – Don’t Treat The Old – And Senator Coburn Warns The Same For USA
• Rights, Responsibilities and Healthcare
• Universal Health and Old People
• Social Medicine is Great*! (as long as you don’t get sick)
• Conservatives for Patient's Rights
• Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties
• Socialized Medicine in cartoon form.
• Voters Steer Europe to the Right – Why… Because Socialism Isn’t Working
• Progressivism – The Progressive Movement Is A Cancer – How We Got Here

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth