McCain Knew!

Remember the Building 18 scandal?

RichardCYoung.com: No? Well refresh your memory here. We’re talking 2007, and the target is Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. I remember the mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, Walter Reed horror story like it was yesterday, and I am not even a U.S. senator like John McCain or Bernie Sanders, the crack duo who introduced the new veterans health package Tuesday. That’s Tuesday 2014, keep in mind.

I remember the Walter Reed national disgrace in part because of all the publicity Don Imus gave the disgraceful conditions at Reed. And who was a frequent Imus radio guest back in the old days? Well, John McCain. Imus has a legendary kids ranch in Arizona where McCain is, of course, senator. So the two had plenty to gab about on air. Suffice to say, the black mold foulness and overall wretched conditions at Walter Reed were well known to Senator McCain. I do not want to be unfair or unpleasant about a national war hero and a man who ran a strategy packed campaign for president of the United States not long ago but…

OK, so better late than ever, right? Not really. As you may have read, the current national disgrace centers on another VA facility, which happens to be based, darn it, in Arizona, John McCain’s home state. This time we’re talking about a little bit more than belly-up cockroaches and mouse droppings. It is alleged that as many as 40 veterans may have died while waiting for an appointment at the Phoenix hospital.

Seven long years have passed since the nationwide Walter Reed VA scandal before the U.S. Senate wakes up. And who rings the wakeup bell? Why, John McCain. Our American Federal Republic form of government is broken. It is that simple. Europe is in the same fix but multi-party systems in countries like France and England have given voters a way to speak out, and speak out they have as witnessed in the recent European parliament elections. It is long past time we Americans had a similar option.

Related Video: Sanders, McCain Announce Bipartisan Veterans Bill 

VA Chief: 100,000 Vets Were On FAKE WAIT LISTS

Technorati Tags: McCain,VA,Veterans Affairs,John McCain,Bernie Sanders,Military,Healthcare,Arizona,Phoenix,Imus,Scandals,Walter Reed

House Repeals ObamaCare 249 to 189

Yes… the House of Representatives voted 249 to 189 to repeal ObamaCare, but Harry Reid has already said that he has no plans to bring the same bill to vote in the Senate, but Mitch McConnell says they will keep working at it until they do get a vote on repeal.

Please sign John McCain’s Repeal and Replace Obamacare petition below:

My Friends,

Today, the House of Representatives voted in favor of repealing Obamacare, bringing us one step closer to overturning the government takeover of healthcare that was signed into law last year.

The repeal bill will come to the U.S. Senate very soon, giving us very little time to take action in order to pass the repeal. Before the House vote occurred, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the other Senate Democrats vowed to block any repeal in the Senate.

Since supporters of the bill hold a majority in the Senate, we must act quickly and decisively to send a message that a majority of Americans support repealing this healthcare takeover by the government.

That's why I am launching Country First PAC's "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" petition, and I ask that you take a moment today to follow this link and sign this petition.

We must join together to show Senators from both parties that support for this repeal is strong. If Obamacare is not repealed and replaced, it will bankrupt our nation through tax increases and expensive burdens on small businesses. With an estimated price tag of $2.6 trillion over 10 years, this law will leave our children and grandchildren with even more debt. This amounts to generational theft and I pledge to do everything in my power to gather support for the repealing and replacing Obamacare.

But I need to know that you stand with me and the other conservatives in the U.S. Senate. Your signature on my "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" petition will send a strong message to the Senate Democrats that you are opposed to government-run healthcare and support repealing the bill. A one-size-fits-all government takeover of our healthcare system is not what our nation needs and I know you agree with me. This is your opportunity to exercise your rights as a citizen, speaking out for our shared values of smaller government.

The work we do in the final hours before the vote will make all the difference, so I hope you will follow this link right away to add your name to our petition.

After signing the petition, you will have the opportunity to make a contribution to Country First and I ask that you give as generously as you can so we can continue to elect candidates who share our values and priorities. We must work toward electing a majority in the U.S. Senate and expand our majority in the U.S. House.

Your response and support is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

John McCain
Chairman, Country First PAC

P.S. With the Senate scheduled to take up the Obamacare repeal bill next week, I am working to repeal the bill. But I need your support to show my colleagues that support for this repeal remains strong in every corner of the country. Please sign my "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" petition today by following this link. Thank you.

----------

HOUSE APPROVES OBAMACARE REPEAL

In a vote of 245-189, Republicans were victorious in passing a measure to repeal President Obama’s signature health care overhaul law.

The final vote tally includes one no vote — Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who continues her recovery.  In addition, three Democrats voted with a solid Republican voting bloc to repeal the law — Ross (AR), McIntyre (NC) and Boren (OK).

The repeal measure now moves to the Senate where is faces a steep uphill battle against a Democratic majority.

The Associated Press has a full re-cap of the day’s debate:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Eager to honor their campaign pledge, Republicans pushed legislation to repeal the nation’s year-old health care law toward House passage Wednesday despite implacable opposition in the Senate and a veto threat from President Barack Obama.

Passage would clear the way for the second phase of the “repeal and replace” promise that victorious Republicans made to the voters last fall. GOP officials said that in the coming months, congressional committees will propose changes to the existing legislation, calling for elimination of a requirement for individuals to purchase coverage, for example, and recommending curbs on medical malpractice lawsuits.

Republicans also intend to try to reverse many of the changes Democrats made to Medicare Advantage, the private alternative to the traditional government-run health care program for seniors.

Like the repeal bill itself, these other measures will require Senate approval and a presidential signature to take effect, and the prospect is for months of maneuvering on the issue.

For many first-term Republican lawmakers, this day was one they had long waited for, a chance to speak and then vote on the House floor against a bill they had campaigned for months to repeal.

Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C. said the legislation produced by Obama and congressional Democrats was a “job-killing, socialistic” approach to health care. Rep. Frank Guinta of New Hampshire, who defeated a Democratic incumbent last fall, said it was misguided, needing repeal.

“The American people have soundly, soundly rejected the Democrats’ government takeover of health care,” said Rep. Sandy Adams of Florida. Rep. Steve Southerland, also of Florida, said the law imposes a crushing tax burden on businesses, and he predicted “1.6 million jobs will be lost by 2014 due to this mandate” to require many businesses to provide coverage for employees. Both Floridians won their seats by turning out Democratic incumbents.

“This is not symbolic. This is why we were sent here,” added Rep. Michelle Bachmann, of Minnesota, a third term conservative with strong support among tea party activists.

On the short end of the vote, Democrats challenged Republican claims and highlighted politically popular elements of the bill that would be wiped out if repeal took effect.

Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., accused some Republicans of “the height of hypocrisy” by voting to repeal a vast expansion of health care at the same time they had signed up for coverage for their families through a government-organized program available to lawmakers.

Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said that despite claims of employment loss, the economy had added jobs in each of the past 10 months.

In one of the most animated speeches of two days of debate, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said repeal would return power to insurance companies. “Has anybody, any family in America, any single mother, any spouse, any child, any grandparent met a more bureaucratic system than the American health insurance system? There is no more bureaucratic system.”

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid has said the legislation will not see the light of day there, although Republicans will seek ways to force a vote.

The law faces another challenge, well beyond the reach of Obama’s veto pen. Several lawsuits have been filed, and while some judges have upheld the legislation, one recently ruled it was unconstitutional to require individuals to purchase insurance. The Supreme Court is widely expected to have the final word.

In the meantime, Republicans clearly relished the day.

The Obama administration has made a major effort in recent days to emphasize parts of the bill that have met with public approval, including one that permits children to age 26 to remain on their parents’ policies if they do not have on-the-job coverage of their own. Democrats also argue that repeal would short-circuit other changes yet to take effect, including a ban on the insurance industry’s practice of denying coverage or charging sharply higher premiums on the basis of a pre-existing medical condition.

Republicans intend to address the same issues with legislation they say they will bring to the House floor in the coming months, according to officials who have been involved in discussions on the issue, but no details were immediately available.

Last year, for example, the Republicans proposed a 10-year, $25 billion program to help states fund programs in which high-risk individuals could receive affordable coverage.

GOP leaders are working on the assumption that the repeal legislation will not become law, and they intend to draft future bills as changes to the structure that Obama and Democrats put into place.

On one point, they conceded no change was warranted. Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., told reporters on Tuesday seniors would be permitted to keep the $250 they have been promised to help defray the cost of drugs under the Medicare prescription benefit.

The legislation Obama signed last year was sweeping in its scope.

The Congressional Budget Office said at the time that when fully enacted, it would spread coverage to tens of millions who now lack it and – in a forecast rejected by Republicans – reduce federal deficits over the next decade.

Beginning in 2014, millions of Americans would be required to carry health insurance, whether through an employer, a government program, or their own purchase. New insurance marketplaces called exchanges would open in each state, enabling individuals and small businesses to pick from menus of private plans that met government standards. Federal subsidies would help defray the costs.

The Blaze

House Repeals Obamacare 245-189

After a heated midterm election, the Republican-led House easily passed legislation to repeal the nation's sweeping health care law.

The vote was 245-189. There were four Democrats that voted for repeal.

Overturning the law was a major campaign plank for Republicans in the 2010 elections, and many of the House's nearly 100 new lawmakers promised to repeal the law that was pushed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.

House Speaker John Boehner said the law would add nearly $1.5 trillion to the deficit and stifle the growth of some small businesses, which are required under the law to provide health insurance to employees or face penalties. A key issue for Republicans is that the law requires all Americans to have health insurance.

"Let's stop payment on this check before it can destroy more jobs and put us in an even deeper hole," Boehner said. "Then let's work together to put in place reforms that lower costs without destroying jobs or bankrupting this government."

Democrats failed in their procedural attempt to send the repeal bill back to committee for a discussion. Meanwhile, House Republicans are already preparing for four House committees to take the next step in the repeal effort and figure out ways to change the law.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius reminded Americans that "this vote does not change the law" and that her department will continue to implement its provisions.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has vowed to block the measure, and Obama has threatened to veto it.

Reid denounced the House's repeal vote as a political stunt.

"This is nothing more than partisan grandstanding at a time when we should be working together to create jobs and strengthen the middle class," he said in a statement today.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said the House was not engaged in a stunt. "This is not symbolic. This is why we were sent here," said Bachmann, a favorite of the small-government Tea Party movement.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., challenged Reid and Senate Democrats to show their votes and debate the measure if they are so confident of stopping the repeal effort.

"The American people deserve a full hearing," Cantor said this morning. "They deserve to see this legislation go to the Senate for a full vote."

CAPTION

By Charles Dharapak, AP

Obama said he's willing to work with both Democrats and Republicans to improve the law, but "we can't go backward."

The only surprise in Wednesday's vote was how many Democrats would support the repeal effort.

In the end, Democrats Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and Mike Ross of Arkansas were the only Democrats to join 242 Republicans to vote for the repeal legislation.

One issue key to the repeal debate is how much the law costs and the impact overturning it would have on the deficit. USA TODAY's Kelly Kennedy reports Republicans say the law will add $701 billion to the deficit while Democrats say repealing the measure will cost $230 billion.

Yesterday, Cantor sought to ease concerns from seniors who might think they would have to return $250 they received under the law to help pay for prescription drug costs. Democrats such as Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts have said throughout the repeal debate that seniors could be among those affected the most by overturning the law.

Shortly after the law was passed last year, about 2.8 million recipients of Medicare who have a gap in their prescription drug coverage (known as the doughnut hole) received $250 checks to help them defray the cost of medicines.

Asked yesterday whether Republicans would seek to have that money returned, Cantor said no.

"If a repeal bill passes ... the intention is not to require seniors to return the $250 checks they received," Cantor said at his weekly news briefing.

USAToday (Contributing: Associated Press)

McCain’s Dietary Supplement Bill: An Attempt to Implement Codex Alimentarius

A bill recently introduced to the U.S. Senate, the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 (S. 3002), by Senators John McCain and Byron Dorgan is possibly the most direct assault on natural health freedom we have seen for some time. If passed into law, this bill would require all dietary supplement manufacturers, distributors, and holders all the way down to the retail store level to be comprehensively registered. It would also allow for the arbitrary banning of nutritional supplements by the FDA and the introduction of deceitful reporting of adverse events related to them.

The legislation effectively gives the FDA carte blanche to do whatever it wishes in regards to natural supplements.

The cover for this legislation is that it is designed to prevent both intentional and unintentional steroid adulteration of dietary supplements. The trigger, according to McCain, was six NFL players who were accused of doping with supplements tainted with steroids. Even with this being the case, however, the FDA already has the authority to regulate synthetic anabolic steroids via the Anabolic Control Act of 2004 which permits them to do just that. Nevertheless, under the guise of the behavior of six NFL players, an entire market that has been proven not only very safe but very healthy will be essentially regulated out of business. (NHF)

The Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 would require registration of any “business or operation engaged in manufacturing, packaging, holding, distributing, labeling, or licensing a dietary supplement for consumption in the United States,” definitions which could possibly include even retail stores that sell herbal and nutritional products. (DSSA p.2) Currently, under the Dietary Supplements and Non-Prescription Consumer Protection Act, small retailers are not required to register. This, however, will change with the passage of McCain-Dorgan’s bill. (NHF)

The switch from the current practices of Serious Adverse Event Reporting to that of simply Adverse Event Reporting is of concern as well. Existing law requires the reporting of serious adverse events related to the supplement in question to be reported for regulatory and recall purposes. The McCain-Dorgan bill, however, removes the language “Serious Adverse Event” and replaces it with the term “adverse event,” opening up the floodgates for the most ridiculous possible claims of adverse events such as bad taste or even dislike of packaging. This “report everything possible” stance is will vastly increase the numbers of complaints that will hence be used to add credence to the arguments for banning supplements in the future. Not only that, but more government bureaucracies will have to be created in order to organize and sort through all of the incoming “adverse event reports.” (NHF)

Yet the most frightening aspect of this bill is the immediate effects it would have on natural supplements. Currently, due to the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), all supplements on the market prior to October 15, 1994 can lawfully be sold in the United States. However, the legislation being proposed completely reverses this and defines a “new dietary supplement” as one that “is not included on the list of ‘Accepted Dietary Ingredients’, to be prepared, published, and maintained by the Secretary” (DSSA p.5-6). This seemingly slight change in language actually removes the grandfathering in of supplements on the market prior to 1994. These new dietary supplements will also be considered “adulterated” unless “there is a history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that the dietary ingredient when used under the conditions recommended or suggested in the labeling of the dietary supplement….” (DSSA p.5) The registrants are then required to create and maintain a “scientifically reasonable substantiation file” which is to be made available for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to inspect at his/her whim. These products are to be registered at least 75 days prior to market. (NSF)

As quoted above, the bill also mandates that an “Accepted Dietary Ingredients” list should be created by the Secretary of HHS which will replace the current guidelines. Such a list effectively gives the FDA carte blanche to do whatever it wishes in regards to natural supplements. The FDA is given absolute authority to determine what supplements are allowed on the “Accepted Dietary Ingredients” list, thereby granting it the authority to ban any supplement without due process, scientific merit, or even a hearing simply by refusing to place it on the ADI list. (NSF) The FDA will also be able to remove supplements from market even after it has allowed it to be included on its’ list. As the bill states,

“If the Secretary finds there is a reasonable probability that a dietary supplement or a product marketed or sold as a dietary supplement would cause serious, adverse, health consequences or death, or is adulterated or misbranded, the Secretary shall issue a cease distribution and notification order requiring the person named in the order to immediately – cease distribution of such dietary supplement or a product marketed or sold as a dietary supplement; notify distributors, importers, retailers, and consumers of the order; and instruct those distributors, importers, retailers, and consumers to cease distributing, importing, selling, and using the dietary supplement.”(DSSA p.9)

The cost of the recall, of course, will be absorbed by the retailer. (DSSA p.11)

While the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 is an egregious attack on Americans’ freedom of choice, it is also a symptom of an even larger problem. The McCain-Dorgan bill is not just another silly attempt by corrupt politicians to demonstrate that they still have some value to their constituents, but an attempt to implement Codex Alimentarius at the national level and move the United States away from our Common Law heritage. The European Union has already passed similar legislation in the European Union Food Supplements Directive which has decimated open access to natural dietary supplements. Canada has passed laws to the same effect in recent weeks as well.

Brandon Turbeville
Infowars.com - February 24, 2010

Works Cited:

“Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010.” February 2, 2010. http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=2fe2fa5d-636b-4705-97df-8318a24f718f

“Bullet Points on McCain’s Anti-Supplement Bill S.3002.” National Health Federation. http://www.thenhf.com/press_releases/pr_19_feb_2010.html

“McCain Anti-DSHEA Bill a Clear and Present Threat to Health Freedom.” http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=4608

Codex Alimentarius

Having spent the past twelve months investigating Codex Alimentarius, I am deeply disturbed by the almost total lack of awareness (or even interest) with regard to the implications of this pernicious global Commission, particularly amongst those most affected by the excesses of this restrictive legislation. In the words of the National Health Federation[i], the aims and objectives of Codex Alimentarius are as follows: * Only low-potency, “me too” supplements available that will do nothing for your health. * All or most foods genetically-modified. * Beneficial supplements unavailable or sold by prescription only. For many people, this agenda is so outrageous, they cannot believe such goals are achievable; yet this may well be the reality as soon as 31st December 2009, if the Codex Alimentarius Commission continues to disregard input from those who offer a counter perspective to the combined forces of Big Farmer & Big Pharma.

And yes, this is for real… Never Heard of Codex… Well, That Is Exactly What They Want!! – Video

The Drug Story

Western Medicine - Forbidden Cures

Does anyone ever wonder why American medicine is so anti-holistic practices?? Think Rockefeller and progressives~

Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice: An Ethnobotanist Searches for New Medicines in the Amazon Rain Forest

America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty

John McCain Proposes Natural Supplement Regulation Bill

The Mark Of The New World Order – RFID Chips are part of the provisions already passed in the Stimulus Bill that will kick in if ObamaCare passes.

Corporate Threats to our Food Supply

Slavery or Freedom

Agenda 21

ObamaCare Summit Reviews~

Obama Threatens Reconciliation

Weak Attempt to Salvage ObamaCare

By Amanda J. Reinecker

Yesterday, after a temporary lull in the health care debates, President Obama released a "fresh attempt" to salvage his health care overhaul agenda. Though the details will not be released for some time, the ideas at the core of this 11-page outline (embedded in article) aren't really so "fresh." Based largely on the Senate's flawed plan, the "new" proposal is riddled with many of the same harmful taxes, dubious mandates, and unprecedented federal regulatory powers.

But even though the Senate bill serves as its template, the president's proposal does have some new initiatives -- and they add up to $80 billion. This would increase the overall cost of health care "reform" to a staggering $950 billion over ten years, a cost likely to rise as the legislative text is finalized.

Perhaps the most alarming difference is the prospect of a Federal Health Insurance Rate Authority, which would grant federal bureaucrats the power to set and control insurance prices and thus effectively create a government-run health plan. "If government can control both health benefits and health care pricing, that's the proverbial ball game,"writes Heritage health policy expert Bob Moffit. "Private health care is private in name only."

Although President Obama doesn't use the 'reconciliation' word, I can't imagine he meant the following statements as anything other than a threat to use pass Obamacare by reconciliation and let the voters pass judgment at the polls in November.

From the video:
“What I do know is this, if we saw movement, significant movement, not just gestures, then you wouldn’t need to start over because essentially everybody here knows what the issues are, and procedurally it could get done fairly quickly.

“We cannot have another year long debate about this. So, the question I’m going to ask myself and I ask all of you is, is there enough serious effort that in a month’s time or a few week’s time or six week’s time we could actually resolve something? And if we can’t I think we got to go ahead and make some decisions and that’s what elections are for. We have honest disagreements about the vision for the country and we’ll go ahead and test those out over the next several months until November. Alright?”

Krauthammer: "If you win the presidency...you do not become the arbiter of legitimacy in American discourse." Yet... Just how many times today did Obama use the "I'm the president" routine?

Ben Stein Accuses Obama of Treating the Republicans Like Third Graders

By Heather Thursday Feb 25, 2010 3:47pm

Stein Video

Oh my, Ben Stein is apparently upset that the Republicans weren't being treated respectfully enough during the health care summit by the President. Heaven forbid... he called them by their first names. Gasp... the horror Ben. Yeah, those poor little defenseless Republicans who never attack anyone just had to fight back here because big bad Obama was being mean to them. And CNN thinks we're supposed to take anything this clown says seriously. I'm surprised Stein didn't just come straight out and call the President "uppity" because he came pretty close here.

BLITZER: Let's bring in Donna Brazile and Ben Stein, because I want them to weigh in. First to you, Ben. This whole issue of costs, premiums going up, a trillion dollars in extra cost to US taxpayers. Some of it might be offset by some cuts in projected Medicare spending. Where do you come down on this?

STEIN: Well, the 57 percent who are going to get subsidies, where is that money going to come from? That money is going to come from taxpayers. That money is not going to just magically appear. So the costs for everyone is going to go up.

Obviously, the insurance companies are going to cover more people, cover people with preexisting conditions, cover people who have very expensive treatment options involved, without having to charge more to somebody. So, somebody's going to be paying more.

I'm also sort of floored by the whole thing that's going on here, where the president is calling the senators by their first names, as if they were kids in a third grade class. And they're all calling him Mr. President.

But I'm most floored of all by the fact that we've got a very serious jolt about the economy today, and somehow they're talking about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when it looks seriously as if the economy is now heading for a double dip in the recession. The whole thing just has a kind of surrealistic quality.

BLITZER: What was the jolt on the economic numbers that you're referring to?

STEIN: The jobless -- the first-time jobless claims came in considerably higher than was forecast, high enough to make people think that the recovery is faltering. They were expecting 455,000, came in roughly 495,000, very roughly, very roughly. That's a very bad piece of news. Housing sales declined very sharply in the last month, from the month before. This recovery is not getting the traction that it needs. And for us to be fixating on economic issues about health care that are going to be happening in 2016 when the economy is floundering right now puzzles me.

[...]

BLITZER: Ben Stein, first to you. The president, you know, he's fighting right back in the face of some strong Republican comments.

STEIN: Well, I think he's been fighting from the first moment this thing started. I think the idea that it was a bipartisan kumbaya feel-good moment was thrown out right away, as soon as he started and as soon as Senator Reid started and as soon as Speaker Pelosi started, they started with a series of attacks. And the Republicans have come right back with a series of their own attacks.

I will say, however, that I am sometimes moved to tears that in the fact that this great, great country, the greatest country in the world, people do by in large get along quite civilly. But if I may respectfully say so, I think the president could lose some of his condescension towards the people who are not agreeing with him, and nobody would be harmed.

Conrad Says HC Bill Is Dead Unless House Acts First

By Philip Klein on 2.24.10 @ 11:48AM

U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, dealt a blow to the prospects for health care legislation just a day before a White House summit, arguing that the process would be "dead" if the House doesn't act first to pass the Senate bill.
The statement is sure to enflame members of the House, who are reluctant to take a leap of faith and pass the Senate bill without knowing that it will be changed through reconciliation in the Senate.
Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler reports:

"The only way this works is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then, depending on what the package is, the reconciliation provision that moves first through the House and then comes here," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) outside the upper chamber this morning. "That's the only way that works."

I pointed out that House leadership, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has repeatedly insisted they won't take a flier on a reconciliation package--that they will only pass the Senate billafter the smaller side-car reconciliation bill has been all wrapped up.

"Fine, then it's dead," Conrad said.

Conrad added that he wouldn't personally make any promises or symbolic gestures to House members to assure them that the Senate can or will take any action in a reconciliation bill to address House concerns.

"I don't sign any blank check," Conrad said.

As I detailed yesterday, health care already faces a tough road in the House, even assuming that some changes can be made by the Senate. Statements such as this one from Conrad (who as chairman of the Budget Committee would play a key role in any reconciliation strategy) will only fuel more animosity between House and Senate Democrats, and create a dilemma in which neither side wants to act first.

Dems Lose Summit on Substance, Scramble for Nuclear Option?

It is hard to see how the Democrats are doing themselves anything but harm with the health-care summit.

Beyond particular observations about individual exchanges or moments I would say the morning’s session suggests three broad points. First, the Democrats appear to have no particular purpose in mind for this event. They’re not driving anywhere, or making a clear individual case, while Republicans clearly want to get across the point that we should scrap the current bills and start over in pursuit of a few incremental steps. The Democrats may have thought that simply putting the spotlight on Republicans when the subject is health care would make the GOP look bad. But Republicans so far seem prepared enough and focused enough to avoid that, and to make the Democrats look rather aimless by comparison.

Second, the Democrats are going to great lengths to argue that their bill incorporates some Republican ideas—by which they mean that it includes insurance exchanges and the like—suggesting that this means they are moving in the direction of Republicans and toward some middle ground. They fail to see (or to acknowledge) that while some similar mechanisms may be proposed by wonks on both sides, Republicans and Democrats in fact want to move in nearly opposite directions from our current health-care arrangements: Republicans toward a genuine individual market and Democrats toward a greater socialization of costs. That makes a great deal of what Obama and the Democrats said this morning basically meaningless. (This is a point I tried to argue more fully in this space a while back.)

Third, an important part of the Democrats’ problem is that Obama himself is their only star, and this format is not working for him. He certainly seems engaged and well informed (even given a few misstatements of fact, at least one of which John Kyl made very clear.) But he doesn’t seem like the President of the United States—more like a slightly cranky committee chairman or a patronizing professor who thinks that saying something is “a legitimate argument” is a way to avoid having an argument. He is diminished by the circumstances, he’s cranky and prickly when challenged, and he’s got no one to help him. The other Democrats around the table have been worse than unimpressive. The Republicans seem genuinely well-prepared, seem to have thought through the question of who should speak about what rather carefully, and several of them have done quite a good job making their case against the Democrats’ approach. If we were to judge by debating points, Republicans certainly won the morning handily.

It’s easy to dismiss all this by saying no one is watching anyway, but that’s not quite true. The purpose of this spectacle is not so much to move the public as to move Democratic members of Congress—to create some momentum that might last long enough to help wavering Democrats cast a very painful vote. That audience very likely is watching, and they are seeing their leadership fail to make a straightforward case for the Democratic approach to health care, or to respond to the most basic Republican objections about high costs, excessive spending, overregulation, and the effect of this plan on American families. They are managing to lose an argument about health care to Republican members of Congress—no mean feat.

Charles Krauthammer said, “In the last few minutes after 7-hours that the whole summit was a show to justify reconciliation, which is what they wanted to do all along!!”

Please keep up the good fight. The president intimated that his would be the final chapter on this Bill and HC Reform, at least for now. Let us make it is the final chapter of ObamaCare type of reform and that it doesn't pass. Right now they don't have the votes!!!

Related:

• Video Flashback: Dems Howl with Rage Over Nuclear Option | The FOX Nation
• With World Watching Health Summit, Dems Sneak in Bill to Punish CIA
• Democrats Look Beyond Summit to Salvage Health Care Bill
• Health Care Summit: Stage Set for Reconciliation
• GOP Comes to Summit with Issues, Democrats Tissues
• Obama Readies a Fallback Health-Care Proposal
• 2/3 of the HC Bill Passed Already! Hidden in the Stimulus Package that No One in Congress Read… Done Deal!!! – With Back-up Research But they need some kind of actual HC Bill to activate most of these diabolical measures… Wake-up America!

Arrogant Obama Attacks former McCain at HC Summit

Pelosi: It’s Not a Health Care Bill… It’s a Jobs Bill

Accurate quote should be: It’s Not a HealthCare Bill… It’s a Power Grab Bill, America!!

I’m sure there will be many moments from today’s health-care summit that will be worthy of clipping and saving, but this one from our new colleague Greg Hengler may be the strangest one of all. In arguing for the current version of ObamaCare, whatever that is at the moment, Nancy Pelosi claims that it will create four million jobs — or nearly half of all the jobs lost over the last two years:

Let’s put this in perspective. The health-care sector already employs 14.3 million people. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that this sector will add 3.2 million more people in the next eight years, thanks to an aging population. It can do that now because it doesn’t operate under price controls that will come as part of the ObamaCare bill. If Congress passes a bill that forces smaller payments to doctors and hospitals, that will actually impede hiring to meet the demand — and that is exactly what “bending the cost curve downward” means.

Pelosi also claims that passing the House version of ObamaCare would add 400,000 new jobs immediately. Where? Well, those would be the people that the government would have to hire to run their exchanges, manage the federal public option, and enforce individual mandates, among other ObamaCare initiatives. It’s a bureaucratic expansion, the kind of “jobs bill” that will further burden the private sector.

The last 5-minutes of the Summit said it all… Obama intimated that they would do whatever it takes (Saul Alinsky all the way) to get this bill passed without real bipartisan input or compromise and in the end that means reconciliation even if the American people don’t want this bill. The only problem is that right now… Congress doesn’t even have the votes for that. So stay committed and keep up the pressure.

'The Election Is Over' - Sharp Exchange Between Obama and McCain

The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care

Drug Companies Shift Emphasis to Vaccines

The extent to which the recession has cut into high-value research and development jobs in the pharmaceutical industry will be apparent soon as job losses in the industry climb to an additional 12,000.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the British drugs group, will announce plans for further restructuring with the loss of 4,000 jobs, nearly half in the research and development departments.

The job attrition reflects widespread unease among drug companies about the loss of revenues from a small number of blockbuster medicines.

For example, this year GSK will lose patent protection for Seretide, an asthma treatment worth $4 billion.

GSK started reshaping its business in 2007 by focusing on three areas: vaccines, over-the-counter medicines and non-medical products, and emerging markets. GSK diverted investment away from pure research and toward products that enabled the company to catch a greater share of the consumer dollar.

However, GSK is not the first drug company to announce job cutbacks and realignment of their target markets, with a path toward vaccines. Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, and Sanofi Pasteur are just a few of the Big Pharma members that have done this within the past two years.

And while the recession definitely played a part in this, the truth is, plans to switch to the vaccine market were already in place, long before the recession began.

Posted by: Dr. Mercola
Sources:

The Times Online February 1, 2010

The-infoshop.com

Nature.com April 1, 2009

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

If nothing else, this announcement proves what I’ve been saying all along – that, contrary to what they’d like you to believe, vaccine makers are not philanthropists just looking to do benevolent philanthropy for the world with their products.

They are businesses, first and foremost, whose primary goal is to earn profits for their stockholders.

It has become clear to me that there is a major shift occurring. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find new blockbuster drugs so the new emphasis will be on introducing more and more mandated vaccines which provide nearly unending annuities to continue to increase their revenues

You will see more and more vaccines introduced as time goes on.

The Big Picture

Please remember that collectively the drug cartels make over half a TRILLION dollars every year by selling their product. That amount of money yields enormous power and leverage and they are focused on earning even more.

And how do they do that?

By finding a product they can manufacture in massive quantities and sell to infinite numbers of people at whatever price they want to charge. For a long time, psychotropic drugs and therapeutic medicines were the yellow brick road to that Wall Street goal.

Just a few years ago drug giants like Merck, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, and Astra Zeneca were dancing in the land of Oz with blockbusters like Vioxx, Zyprexa, Paxil, and Seroquel. But when the Emerald cities they’d built with these drugs became blighted with a cyclone of lawsuits, their profits quickly began to melt.

Add in pending expirations of patents on key products, and accusations by the European Commission that they purposely delay generic medicines by offering payments to rival manufacturers, and these companies knew they had to change the road they were on, even before the recession hit.

It’s All about the Money

The line up of Big Pharma companies that have been announcing job cutbacks and realignment of their product lines over the past two or three years is impressive:

Novartis announced in December 2007 that it planned to cut 2,500 jobs worldwide by 2010 in an attempt to save $1.6 billion. Citing expiring patents, generic competition, and increased industry costs, Novartis said that poor US pharmaceutical sales had forced this reorganization.

Noting that it had experienced “strong growth” in its vaccines and diagnostics division, Novartis said it planned to expand its presence in emerging markets in Africa, Central Asia and Southeast Asia.

Merck announced job cuts in its US sales force a month ago, saying that the cutbacks were part of its merger with Schering-Plough. In all, the newly married company plans to reduce its global workforce by 15 percent, for a savings of nearly $3.5 billion.

But even before Merck and Schering-Plough became a couple, Merck had already begun making job cutbacks, as part of its 2005 restructuring plan.

A major focus of that plan, Merck told its stockholders in 2005, would be to enter, and become a leader in, emerging markets, which “provide enormous opportunity” for Merck’s medicines and vaccines.

Saying that the company planned to rely less on US markets and more on global initiatives, Merck told Nasdaq in December 2009 that 40 percent of its job cuts would be in the US, as the company moved its market focus to worldwide ventures.

But Merck and GSK aren’t the only ones totake this route: Johnson & Johnson announced in November 2009 that it was cutting 8,000 jobs.

Pfizer said it was cutting 20,000 jobs, or 20 percent of its workforce, as part of its merger with Wyeth; Eli Lilly said it was making a 13 percent reduction totaling 5,000 jobs; Astra Zeneca it was cutting 7,000 jobs, or about 10 percent of its workforce.

But simultaneously with job cut announcements, they all have alluded to, or plainly said, emerging markets are where their new focus lies.

Of course, it’s all about the money and the bottom line – which isn’t a bad thing, since these companies are for-profit entities. But what is this thing, “emerging markets,” anyway, and how do drug companies’ desires to follow emerging markets affect the rest of the world?

Emerging Market ‘Inoculations’

The Wall Street Journal probably said it best when it called this new pharma marketing strategy emerging market inoculations.Referring to Novartis’ purchase of an 85 percent stake in a Chinese vaccine maker, and a similar investment by Sanofi Aventis, the WSJ used this term to describe the drug companies’ plans to expand production and sales in vaccines.

Emerging markets are areas of the world that are beginning to show promise as a profitable venture for many products, including vaccines. And emerging markets – primarily in developing countries in Southeast and Central Asia, and Africa – have been on vaccine makers’ radar for quite some time.

One reason that vaccine makers are interested in these parts of the world is that that’s where most of the world’s deaths from major infectious diseases occur.

World health leaders have long believed that most, if not all, of these diseases could be prevented by vaccines.

The only problem has been that, until recently, making vaccines for undeveloped countries with no money to pay for them, was not exactly a profitable goal for vaccine makers.

In 2001, an article in Tropical Medicine & International Health chastised the pharmaceutical industry for thinking too much about the bottom line, and not investing more in neglected diseases. Accusing them of being more interested on return in investment than in global health needs, the article’s author urged drug companies to re-evaluate their priorities.

It also urged national and international reorientation of public health policies:

“New and creative strategies involving both the public and the private sector are needed to ensure that affordable medicines for today's neglected diseases are developed,” the article said.

The article made several suggestions as to how these new policies could come about, from a legal and regulatory standpoint, as well as from research-and-development and distribution of needed drugs for mainly third-world countries.

And Then Something Changed

Fast-forward to February 10, 2010. Suddenly, third-world countries are exactly where the previously maligned drug companies want to be. In a market study released this month, these companies said that vaccines are the new bottom line.

“The developed world has been the initial focus of vaccine makers due to the better healthcare and higher price levels,” the report said. “However, facing increasingly saturated markets in the West, companies are looking to expand into new geographies, such as Asia's emerging markets.”

You have to purchase it to see the complete study on emerging markets. But GSK has its May 2009 emerging market planposted, free, on the Internet. Listing the top 10 countries that are “big and growing fast,” GSK said these countries represent 85 percent of emerging market potential.

Emerging markets will soon outgrow developed markets by hundreds of billions of dollars, the GSK report says. One way to make that happen will be to “build and capture” the vaccine market, the report explains.

And the way to do that, it goes on to say, is through growing government attention to the public health agenda, capitalizing on birth cohorts for pediatric vaccines, and by concentrating on new vaccine products.

Say ‘Hello’ to Advance Market Commitments

So what happened between 2001, when world health leaders were criticizing drug makers for not making exactly this kind of investment, and the past couple years, when vaccine makers suddenly started beating a path to third-world countries?

I can assure you it wasn’t because the 2001 chastisement shamed them in to it. Rather, I can just about bet next week’s paycheck that it had more to do with the promise of a new bottom line – sales of vaccines through something called Advance Market Commitments – than anything else.

Between 2001 and 2005, several vaccine researchers and market developers responded to the 2001 chastisement by writing numerous articles about why drug companies were getting out of the vaccine business. Declining markets, increased costs, and regulatory issues were the top three reasons.

Fix those problems, and everybody would be happy to concentrate on vaccines for developing countries, the responses all said.

Concerned that developed countries would have little or no resources for addressing serious infectious diseases if vaccine makers continued their pull-out, the World Health Organization and the G8 – the top developed countries in the world – responded with a plan for inducing vaccine companies to stay in the business.

That plan was called Advance Market Commitments. Under AMCs, developed countries make legal, binding agreements to purchase vaccines that are needed in low-income countries. The purchase guarantees a bottom line for the manufacturers. In return, the manufacturers promise to sell those vaccines at reduced prices in the countries where they are most needed.

Dozens of New Vaccines in the Pipeline

Do an Internet search on Advance Market Commitments and you will find a whole new vaccine world you most likely didn’t know existed. Start by going to the WHO website, and by reading its August 2007 draft global policy on AMCs. The document focuses on financing and funding health research and development of drugs, vaccines and diagnostics for neglected diseases.

The WHO acknowledges in this document that private, public and not-for-profit donations and investments have helped fight neglected diseases – infections that are prevalent in mostly low-income, third-world countries. But those investments are not enough, the WHO says. And that is why AMCs are necessary, the WHO says.

It sounds like a good plan: Establish a market that heretofore was considered not profitable and, therefore, not worthy of investing in. Promise incentives to lure vaccine makers in to the research and development of new vaccines. And then, stimulate market competition through increased sales and reduction of costs in vaccine programs.

To show how well it could work, a pilot Advance Market Commitment was launched in February 2007 for pnuemococcal vaccines. In June 2009, the WHO and the GAVI announced that that plan had finally come to fruition. Now, thanks to AMCs, a $70 pneumococcal vaccine can be distributed in desperately poor countries for just $3.50.

Sounds like a win-win situation – at least for vaccine makers and the countries where the vaccine’s going.

Serious Concerns about this Program

The reason I’m wary of this plan is that legally binding, advance market commitments to purchase vaccines that are mostly needed in third world countries could backfire on developed countries that don’t need – or want – certain vaccines.

Think about it: The top neglected diseases that world health leaders want to address with AMCs besides pneumonia are HIV-AIDS, malaria, human papilloma virus (HPV), rotavirus, and tuberculosis.

And what do you see?

Standing out big and clear are HPV and rotavirus – two diseases that are relatively rare in the US and other developed countries. (There are over 100 HPVs; the new vaccines address four HPVs that cause 70 percent of cervical cancer and genital warts. In developed countries, death from cervical cancer is very rare, while in third world countries, it is a leading cause of death in women.)

Yet, these are diseases with new vaccines that, for some reason or other in the past few years, have been recommended by the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for babies (rotavirus) and adolescents (HPV).

While the ACIP only recommends vaccines, states are free to do what they choose, and we all know where that leads: to mandates of vaccines that more and more people are beginning to question the need for.

And that’s why I am leery of vaccine makers who announce they’re on their way to third world countries in an effort to boost their bottom line. I don’t fault any profit-driven business for wanting to do things that will make share holders happy.

But I do question where these ventures are headed.

Many scientific journal reports have already revealed that a malaria vaccine is on the verge of being marketable. It only leaves me wondering if that will be the next one on the ACIP’s list.

So stay tuned.

Dozens of other vaccines are in the pipeline, from one for strep throat to another for simple ear infections. I promise this won’t be the last you hear of AMCs and mandated vaccines in the US – what better way is there to “guarantee” a vaccine market than through mandates to help pay for it?

If ObamaCare is forced through against the will of the American people, medical care and the dangers of uncertainty and profit first will come to the forefront for every patient and their family.

More vaccines that people don’t need or are even harmful; more questionable medications; centralized medical records that will me monitored and controlled by the government with unbelievable powers and loss of freedoms for Americans; and progressive John McCain just introduced an bill for more government regulation of natural remedies and supplements that will only help Big Pharma and reduce options for the average person.

McCain Proposes Natural Supplement Regulation Bill

Avandia Recall… Finally After Senate Report – Just Wait Until the Gov’t really controls healthcare and drugs. Avandia is suspected in the cause of 300,000 heart attacks

Related Links:

Anthrax and War: the Marketing of Disaster

Media Helps Generate Fear Among Public to Demand West Nile Virus Vaccine

Follow the Money on Vaccines

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

McCain proposes Natural Supplement Regulation Bill

I get updates from Dr. Rima from the Natural Solutions Foundation. She has been continually fighting for the freedoms and right for Americans to obtain healthy food (non GMO) and natural supplements if we so desire. She also has continually warned about the prospects of UN like Codex Alimentarius regulations to be forced on the American people. And now, McCain (a Progressive and member of the CFR) has introduced the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010. This bill will encroach and regulate the natural supplement availability to all consumers. This is another attempt to give government (FDA) even more control over our everyday lives. If you take supplements and want to continue the freedom to do so, please act now. Check out McCain's website as well, they are making an example of some athletes who took Ephedra some years ago. Big Pharma has everything to gain from the FDA control over supplements. By giving the FDA authority over the supplement industry it will put many of the manufacturers at risk of going out. Please research and if you agree fight back! I am tired of the government imposing what they think is good for all. Don't we have choices anymore?

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

Senator John McCain is introducing a horrific bill, the "Dietary Supplement Safety [sic] Act of 2010" (DSSA) designed to end your access to high potency supplements by giving the bloated, corrupt and dangerous FDA MORE power to destroy supplement access. This bill is absolutely NOT to be confused with DSHEA, the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (1994), which says nutrients are food and, as food, you can have them in any form - and any amount - you like. If we allow DSSA to pass, we will be living - and dying - under something very much like the European Food Supplements Directive's anti-supplement restrictions, implementing Codex Alimentarius' dietary supplements and nutritional restrictions, to the "T" -- effective as close to immediately as the Fraud and Death Administration can manage it. Listen to the Dr. Rima Reports as Dr. Rima interviews Sarah Schons, MD, a renowned German Immunologist practicing natural medicine in Germany: . Food Supplements are going the way of the dodo in the EU. The US is clearly next unless we act now - in massive numbers, once for each member of your family, at:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26714

Your legal right to access supplements and herbs will, quite frankly, be a thing of the past. As we predicted years ago, the end of the first decade of the new millennium was intended to be when we lost our Health Freedom. Will you let that happen?

For several years, the Natural Solutions Foundation has kept you abreast of the battle for our food, our health, our freedom, indeed, as we documented and discussed in our 2010 Health Freedom War Council last month, our very lives. We have predicted that the FDA's Big Pharma Phriendly policies would bring Codex-style restrictions home to us as "safety" when, in fact, they are nothing short of health tyranny.

Take away high potency nutrients, herbs and other nutritional aids and what do you have? Pharma triumphant and health freedom defeated -- a total rout, and the end of the DSHEA freedoms we rely on. Since the unanimous adoption by Congress of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) we have seen a blossoming of advanced, leading-edge, high potency nutrition sought out by hundreds of millions to achieve and maintain a healthy lifestyle. We've warned these freedoms were under sustained attack. Senator McCaine has just escalated the attack.

Once again, the Natural Solutions Foundation brings you the important stories -- we warned you, within hours of McCain announcing his intent, that this was happening,http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2010/02/mccain-bill-poses-threat-to-dshea-and.html.

We call upon you to act now! By clicking here, http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26714, you are joining those who have acted upon this important information and have begun to awaken the public to this threat. It's time to move to ACTION.
Read more about this dangerous bill here - http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=4608

Here is the Action item which you must take now, once for each member of your family, IF you value your health, your supplements and your freedom.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campai...
We are in active contact with our friends in Congress and with key opinion makers, seeking powerful alliances to stop the McCain bill and its companion "Food Safety [sic]" Bill, s510. It would appear that the ploy (you might call it a "conspiracy") is to combine the two "Food Safety [sick] Bills into one, combining her worst features of each, of course.

We will keep you posted as the story unfolds, but there is literally no time to wait or waste. This MUST be nipped in the bud so deeply that it never arises again! THIS IS WHERE PUSH BACK TURNS INTO TAKE DOWN!

McCain: Pharma Tool, Globalist Fool. But, as foolish as he may be, his bill poses a major threat to you right now! [Question: if pro is the opposite of con, does that mean Congress is the opposite of Progress?]

The only thing they listen to is numbers; we proved that when we Pushed Back with over 2.8 million emails, against the planned, mass, forced "Swine Flu" vaccine -- and the threat evaporated. Let's do it again! Let's set a goal of 1 million emails to the Senate, 1 million emails to the White House and 1 million emails to HHSSecretary Sebelius, 1 million emails to the Senate "HELP" committee where the dangerous companion to McCain's bill, S510, the (sic) "Food Safety Bill" has been stalled since our Push Back campaign in December, will be joined shortly by this latest assault on our freedom.

That's a lot of emails, right? Well, our email system allows you to send an email to your Senator, Pres. Obama, Sec. Sebelius and HELP committee chair Harkin with one click of your freedom mouse.

Further more, take the action once for each member of your family and pass it along to everyone you know who uses, has used, or might some day use supplements. That's how we can make this Push Back effort go viral and become effective Take Down!

We need to inundate the Senate HELP committee, since Tom Harkin said in November, in response to the over 150,000 emails that we generated in one weekend, that "DSHEA … governs the law here, not Codex standards…" and that the provision in S510 allowing FDA to "make recommendations including whether to harmonize with Codex does not signal any intent to move in a different direction on DSHEA…"

Now it's time for Senator Tom Harkin to keep that pledge and stop the McCain Anti-DSHEA Bill!
See: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=4014 for Senator Harkin's comments.
See: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=4608 for the dangerous terms of the McCain bill.

Read what Ron Paul says in The Daily Paul in opposition to this bill here:http://dailypaul.com/node/124135

I found this web site looking at the bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510
Follow the link to MAPLight.org to see if campaign contributions from employees of these organizations are correlated with how Members of Congress voted on this bill.

I am not sure how to read this correct, but it seems like McCain may make a lot of money if this passes. Am I correct?
http://maplight.org/map/us/interest/A1400
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26714