Holland Takes Euthanasia to the Extreme

Holland proposes giving over-70s the right to die if they 'consider their lives complete'

By MAIL FOREIGN SERVICE
Last updated at 11:23 AM on 10th March 2010

World first: Holland will consider assisted suicide for over 70s

Assisted suicide for anyone over 70 who has simply had enough of life is being considered in Holland.

Non-doctors would be trained to administer a lethal potion to elderly people who 'consider their lives complete'.

The radical move would be a world first and push the boundaries even further in the country that first legalised euthanasia.

The Dutch parliament is to debate the measure after campaigners for assisted suicide collected 112,500 signatures in a month.

Euthanasia has been available for the terminally ill in Holland since 2002 in cases of 'hopeless and unbearable suffering' certified by two doctors, but this would be a far bigger step.

Supporters say it would offer a dignified way to die for those over 70 who just want to give up living, without having to resort to difficult or unreliable solitary suicide methods.

They might include widows and widowers overwhelmed by grief, those unwilling to face the frailties of extreme old age or people determined to ‘get out while they’re ahead’ and meet death on their own terms.

The assistants who administered the deadly cocktail of sedatives would need to be certified, campaigners said.

More...

• A licence to kill? Assisted suicide case relatives won't be charged if they act out of compassion

And they would have to make sure that patients were not acting on a whim or due to a temporary depression, but from a heartfelt and enduring desire to die.

But critics say there is scope for the elderly to come under untoward pressure from unscrupulous relatives.

Many religious groups oppose any form of suicide on principle.

And the Royal Dutch Medical Association - which played a key role in supporting the nation's euthanasia law - fears patients would use the policy as a way of getting around their own doctors.

Although Switzerland allows assisted suicide in cases where someone is not terminally ill, the Dutch measure would go further.

'Own choosing': Renowned British conductor Sir Edward Downes and his wife Joan died together in the assisted suicide clinic Dignitas in Zurich

In July 2009, British conductor Sir Edward Downes, 85, and his wife Joan, 74, died together at the Dignitas suicide clinic outside Zürich 'under circumstances of their own choosing,' in the words of a family statement.

Sir Edward was not terminally ill, but virtually blind and deaf, while his wife was diagnosed with rapidly developing cancer.

In 2008 former rugby player Daniel James, 23, died at Dignitas. He had been paralysed from the waist down when his spine was dislocated in a training accident.

But Swiss law required Sir Edward and Mr James to hold and drink a lethal draught themselves, while in Holland the dose could be administered by a non-medical assistant.

Marie-Jose Grotenhuis of the Dutch 'Of Free Will' campaign said: 'We've been overwhelmed by the amount of reactions, especially because people took it so seriously and reactions were mostly positive.'

Several European countries allow some assistance to terminally ill people who wish to die. Belgium has followed the Dutch euthanasia model, while Britain and France allow terminally ill people to refuse treatment but stop short of allowing active euthanasia.

Around 2,500 euthanasia cases were reported in the Netherlands in 2009, rising gradually in the past decade as doctors have become more willing to disclose the practice.

Campaigners for the over-70s assisted suicide measure needed 40,000 signatures to force a debate in parliament and will do so after national elections on June 9.

The plan is certain to face resistance and if approved would still need to go through a lengthy process before becoming law.

The legalisation of euthanasia for the terminally ill was preceded by decades of discussion and quiet negotiation that attached stringent conditions and medical supervision.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1256670/Holland-proposes-giving-70s-consider-lives-complete-right-die.html#ixzz0hu6lCgjM

This should be an eye opener for all those pro-ObamaCare people who haven't read the bill or can't read between the lines... Is there really anybody out there that thinks this is okay?? Or that 70 is that old?? Or that healthy people are every useless??

This is what we should be celebrating and shooting for:

2 of oldest people in US die: in NH 114, Mich. 113

Mon Mar 8, 9:34 pm ET

WESTMORELAND, N.H. – Two of the oldest people in the world have died on the same day.

Mary Josephine Ray, who was certified as the oldest person living in the United States, died Sunday at age 114 years, 294 days. She died at a nursing home in Westmoreland but was active until about two weeks before her death, her granddaughter Katherine Ray said.

"She just enjoyed life. She never thought of dying at all," Katherine Ray said. "She was planning for her birthday party."

Ray died just hours before Daisey Bailey, who was 113 years, 342 days, said L. Stephen Coles, a director of the Gerontology Research Group, which tracks and studies old people and certifies those 110 or older, called supercentenarians.

"It's very rare that two of our supercentenarians die on the same day," Coles said.

Bailey, who was born March 30, 1896, died in Detroit, he said. She had suffered from dementia, said her family, which claimed she was born in 1895.

Ray, even with her recent decline, managed an interview with a reporter last week, her granddaughter said.

Ray was the oldest person in the United States and the second-oldest in the world, the Gerontology Research Group said. She also was recorded as the oldest person ever to live in New Hampshire.

The oldest living American is now Neva Morris, of Ames, Iowa, at age 114 years, 216 days. The oldest person in the world is Japan's Kama Chinen at age 114 years, 301 days.

Ray was born May 17, 1895, in Bloomfield, Prince Edward Island, Canada. She moved to the United States at age 3.

She lived for 60 years in Anson, Maine. She lived in Florida, Massachusetts and elsewhere in New Hampshire before she moved to Westmoreland in 2002 to be near her children.

Ray's husband, Walter Ray, died in 1967. Survivors include two sons, eight grandchildren, 13 great-grandchildren and five great-great-grandchildren.

Morris, the Iowa woman now believed to be the oldest U.S. resident, lives at a care center. Only one of her four children, a son in Sioux City, is still alive.

"She has some hearing deficiencies and a visual deficiency, but mentally she is quite alert and will respond when she feels like it and isn't too tired," said her 90-year-old son-in-law, Tom Wickersham, who lives in the same care center.

Wickersham said he visits his mother-in-law — who plays bingo and enjoys singing "You Are My Sunshine" — nearly every day.

Related:

2/3 of the HC Bill Passed Already! Hidden in the Stimulus Package that No One in Congress Read…

12 Surprising Signs That You Will Live To Be 100

Go Granny Go

No Reconciliation

In a desperate bid to ram a government takeover of America's health care system through Congress, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have turned to a parliamentary trick known as "reconciliation" that will allow them to ignore all dissenting voices and pass, against bi-partisan opposition, their bill with only 50 Democrat votes instead of the traditional 60.

The reconciliation process was created in 1974 so that Congress could move quickly on budget matters, but the Left wants to use it to pass their big government agenda -- starting with ObamaCare

Read The Full Article and Please Sign Petition

Reconciliation… Who… What… Why…

What Is "Reconciliation" - And Why Is It A Threat?
During last week's health summit, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid uttered a remarkably dishonest and, in retrospect, ironic statement, claiming that "nobody is talking about reconciliation" to pass the health bill.

It was a dishonest statement because Democrats have been openly floating the specter of passing the health bill using reconciliation since it first became obvious it would have difficulty passing the Senate, including just days before the summit by Sen. Reid himself.

It was ironic because it seems that all the cable news shows, talk radio, blogs and pundits have been talking about since the summit is whether President Obama, Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will use the Senate budget reconciliation process to pass their big government, big bureaucracy health bill.
But what exactly is the reconciliation process? And why, exactly, is it so controversial a move to pass the health bill?

A Tool for Congress to Meet Spending Goals
The budget reconciliation process was created in 1974 as part of the law that created much of the modern rules and organizational structures used by Congress to pass the annual budget.

This new law required Congress to pass a budget resolution every year that would set the parameters by which the various congressional committees would write their specific parts of the total budget bill.

Within these budget resolutions, instructions can be given to specific congressional committees to create legislation that would alter current laws affecting spending and/or taxation in order to conform to the targets set out in the budget resolution.

To enhance Congress’ ability to meet budget resolution targets, these pieces of legislation are not passed under the normal rules of the Senate. Instead, they fall under the “budget reconciliation process” rules which prohibit unrelated amendments to the bills and set a maximum of 20 hours of debate on the floor. As a practical matter, this means only 51 votes are needed to pass a reconciliation bill because the limit on debate overrides the threat of a filibuster.

The Byrd Rule to Prevent Abuse of Reconciliation
While the budget reconciliation process was a success in its principal goal of giving Congress more power to meet the spending and revenue goals of the budget resolution, it quickly became prone to abuse.

Provisions that had nothing to do with meeting budget resolution requirements, even some that directly contradicted them, were passed using the reconciliation process.

To prevent this, the so-called “Byrd Rule,” named after Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, who introduced the legislation, was passed in 1985 and made permanent in 1990.

The Byrd Rule allows any senator to raise a point of order objection to provisions in a reconciliation bill that they consider extraneous to meeting budget resolutions requirements. Then, it is up to the chair – either the Vice President (as President of the Senate) or, more often, the presiding officer of the Senate if the Vice President is not present -- whether that provision stays or is stricken.

However, the chair almost always relies on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian to determine if that objection is legitimate. (Learn more about the parliamentarian here.)

This determination is made based on six tests created as part of the Byrd Rule used to weed out provisions that have nothing to do with raising or reducing taxes or spending. It takes a 3/5 majority vote to override the decision of the presiding officer if he or she finds that a provision violates one or more of these tests. (This Congressional Research Service report is a good primer on the Byrd rule if you want to learn more.)

Reconciliation in Action
Reconciliation has been used for 22 bills, of which, 14 were passed by Republican majorities. Nineteen of those bills were signed into law by the President. Three were vetoed. You can view a chart of these bills here.

Notice the similarity between them? All of these bills were obviously directly related to taxation and spending, and since 1985, have successfully met the Byrd rule tests.

Health Reform Is About More than Federal Spending
This is why passing the left's big government, big bureaucracy health bill using the budget reconciliation process is so fundamentally dishonest and dangerous to Senate precedent.
Leaving aside the bill's merits (which, to be clear, are abysmal), both its defenders and detractors would acknowledge that it is, for better or worse, a fundamental overhaul of the nation's health system, both public and private. It sets new rules and regulations that span the entire healthcare sector. It is much larger in scope and more all encompassing in purpose than simply affecting federal spending and revenues.

This is not to say that the bill would not have some effect on the federal budget. Almost any piece of legislation could meet that meager standard.

The reconciliation process was only intended to be used for legislation directly related to meeting budget resolution spending and revenue goals.

The minor affect the left's health bill would have on the deficit over 10 years (beyond that there is every reason to think it would increase the deficit substantially), even by charitable estimates, cannot be used to justify passing this sort of sweeping legislation using reconciliation.

This is one reason why a number of Democrats, including Sen. Robert Byrd, author of the Byrd Rule and who also helped create the budget reconciliation process in 1974, called the idea of using it to pass the health bill (and cap and trade) "an outrage that must be resisted."

It's also why Robert Byrd objected to President Clinton's efforts to pass Hillarycare in 1993 using reconciliation.

Why should the left's latest big government healthcare grab be held to any different standard?

Welfare Reform vs. the Left's Big Government Health Bill
This week, the left is out in force, pointing to other significant pieces of legislation passed by Republicans using the budget reconciliation process as justification for passing their health care bill. One of the examples they are using is welfare reform.
Since welfare reform was passed while I was Speaker of the House, I am happy to compare the two cases.

First, welfare reform was an integral part of the Republican Congress' efforts to balance the budget, producing immediate savings of over $50 billion dollars between 1997 and 2002. It was originally combined with the balanced budget act that President Clinton vetoed in 1995.

By contrast, for most of the debate over the health bill, the left has constantly boasted about how their bill was "deficit neutral". President Obama repeatedly sought to assure the American people that he would not sign a bill that "added one dime" to the deficit. Medicare cuts were combined with new taxes to pay for the cost of new programs and bureaucracies.

So while real effective health reform would certainly have a positive effect on the deficit, it is clear that the left never intended for their health bill to be primarily a budget bill. Its focus was and still is on getting more people covered. It was only after Democratic leaders began setting the stage for passing the bill using reconciliation that they began emphasizing it as a way to reduce the deficit. (Paul Ryan explains here how their bill uses smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of savings).

Second, when we decided to roll welfare reform into the balanced budget bill in 1995, we never stopped the conference committee efforts to resolve the differences between the versions of the welfare reform legislation that passed in the House and Senate earlier in the year. This continuation of work, along with the active participation of the governors, allowed us to quickly produce the final bill in conference the next year, once it became clear that President Clinton was now finally ready to sign welfare reform.

In contrast, the Democrats have done an end run around the conference committee process that would resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills, instead trying to negotiate their final bill in secret at the White House. This process continues today, with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid exploring different tricks they can use to ram a bill through their respective chambers without first producing a conference bill.
Third, welfare reform was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, with more Democrats voting for it in the House and Senate than opposing it. It was signed by a Democratic President. Bipartisanship was integral to the success of the bill.

Today, Democrats are turning to passing the bill using the reconciliation process precisely because they are rejecting bipartisanship. Republican Scott Brown's stunning election in Massachusetts, thanks largely to opposition to the left's health bill, has meant that the Democrats would need at least one Republican vote to break a filibuster in the Senate. And their bill is so bad they can't get one.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, welfare reform was overwhelmingly popular with the American people. One poll showed that over 90 percent of Americans favored reform, including 88 percent of those on welfare.

As for the left's health bill, after a year of debate and discussion, the American people have overwhelmingly rejected it. A poll we released at the Center for Health Transformation showed that it is opposed by a 2-1 margin. It is a fact that the more Americans learn about the left's plan, both its substance and the corrupt manner in which it has been passed, the more they oppose it.

Three Corrupt Options for the Left
The left's big government, big bureaucracy health bill is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people. It is incapable of obtaining any bipartisan support in the Senate.

Faced with this reality, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should do the responsible thing and scrap the unpopular bill and start over, focusing instead on smaller pieces of legislation that could obtain bipartisan support.

However, they've made it clear they aren't willing to do this. The Democrats are determined to pass a comprehensive health bill no matter how unpopular it is. This means they have to use reconciliation to avoid needing 60 votes to end debate in the Senate.

There are several corrupt options available to the Democrats using reconciliation.

One option would be for the House to pass the exact same health bill the Senate passed in December (thus avoiding the need for the Senate to marshal 60 votes again for a final bill now that Scott Brown is in office) with an understanding that a separate bill with a series of fixes would be passed immediately afterward using the budget reconciliation process in the Senate.

The left argues that technically, this would keep the use of reconciliation fairly narrow. However, the plain truth of the matter is that the Democrats would be using the budget reconciliation process to pass a bill they could not otherwise pass using the normal legislative process. It is a dirty trick that ignores congressional tradition and the overwhelming opposition to the bill from America.

Another option is for the Democrats to try and pass the full health bill in the Senate with 51 votes using reconciliation and then for the House to pass the same bill that emerges from the Senate.
For all the reasons outlined above, this would be an enormously inappropriate use of the budget reconciliation process. But it also means that the left's endlessly complicated bill that creates hundreds of new regulations, new programs, and new bureaucracies would have to survive the Byrd Rule tests, creating the possibility that by the time all the extraneous provisions are removed, the final "swiss cheesed" legislation would be unrecognizable.

For President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to promise to pass a bill when they, in reality, don't know what the final bill will look like, is the height of irresponsibility. (Of course, they passed the stimulus without reading it so it would certainly fit with their precedent.)

How Far Are The Democrats Willing To Go?
Which brings us to a third, more drastic option for the Democrats to get their high tax, big government, big bureaucracy health bill passed.

As explained above, under the Byrd Rule, the vice president of the United States is ultimately responsible for deciding whether a provision in a reconciliation bill is extraneous. It is merely tradition that dictates he follow the advice of the parliamentarian, not a Senate rule.
To avoid their legislation being subjected to Byrd Rule tests, the vice president could choose simply to ignore the advice of the parliamentarian on points of order and rule to keep the extraneous provisions in the final bill. Any senator can appeal these rulings, but the appeal may be defeated with a simple majority vote.

To be clear, no vice president has ever acted in this fashion in the history of the reconciliation process. But no one has ever tried to push this kind of bill through reconciliation before either.
With the American people overwhelmingly opposed to the health bill, not to mention every other part of the left's agenda, and the political environment turning increasingly toxic for the Democrats, President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could decide to make a cynical, calculated political decision.

Faced with the high likelihood of political defeat in November, they could decide it is preferable to pass the bill they want and be defeated rather than to fail to get a health bill (or only a partial bill), and be defeated anyway.

In fact, this seems to be the message Speaker Pelosi was pushing this past weekend , dismissing her caucus' concerns of defeat.

Republicans Must Vow To Replace the Left's Health Bill
If the Democrats are bound and determined to exert all their power and manipulate every rule they can to pass their big government health bill, Republicans may not be able to stop its passage.

We'll find out today as President Obama is set to announce his recommendation on the way forward.

But no matter what President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid decide, the bottom line for Republicans is that they must stand with the American people in opposing this bill.
This doesn't just mean voting against it and using every parliamentary maneuver available to delay its passage.

It also means running on a platform of replacing whatever left-wing health bill the Democrats manage to pass with real health reform that empowers patients and doctors, not bureaucrats, to bring down health costs. And delivering on that promise in 2011 if Republicans gain control of Congress.

And if President Obama is still determined to ignore the will of the people by vetoing the Republican bill after such a clear message from America, it means that the Republican candidate for President in 2012 must run on a platform that includes signing the replacement of the left's big government health bill. After all, no matter what dirty tricks the politician may try to get his way, in America, the people have the final say.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

The President put it all on the line in an address from the White House today. Saying "now is the time," he promised a full-on campaign to pass ObamaCare before Easter. My response? Let the final battle begin! – Mat

Here is the message sent out earlier from Liberty Action:

After weeks of carefully setting up the strategy everyone saw coming all along, Barack Obama has called on Congress to schedule a final "up-or-down" vote on his pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-fiscal sanity version of healthcare reform.

Cleverly avoiding the use of the word "reconciliation,"

Obama made it clear that he's now willing to force a straight party-line vote on his massive trillion dollar takeover of America's medical care system.

Here's exactly how it will work, thanks to a statement made by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) a few hours before Obama's announcement:

The House, Harkin says, will first pass the Senate bill after Senate leaders show House leaders they have the votes to pass reconciliation in the Senate. Then the Senate will apply pre-arranged "fixes" and pass the bill with 51 votes or more.

Of course, Democrat House members have to believe that Senators will address their many concerns through amendment processes if the strategy is to have any chance of working.

And that's the biggest challenge the Democrats face... and our biggest opportunity to stop this bill once and for all!

++ It's still the same 2,000-page, pro-abortion monstrosity.

Using the bully pulpit of the presidency during the "Sham-Wow Summit" last week, Barack Obama pitched a healthcare reform plan that is in essence just a repackaged version of what we've already seen - with a few new bells and whistles.

Obama was never really interested in "finding common ground."

His sole purpose in the "Summit" was to resuscitate his unwanted, pro-abortion healthcare agenda that should have been dead and buried many months ago!

++ Sadly, the continual arm twisting is taking a toll in the House.

I'm deeply concerned that President Obama's power play and the continual bullying by White House operatives could sway moderates in the House into changing their votes in favor of ObamaCare.

A recent survey of 39 House Democrats who earlier voted against ObamaCare found that NINE now say they may switch their votes. And the liberal media is doing everything in its power to paint those who oppose ObamaCare as "obstructionists."

Here's the danger: The President's speech today could mark a momentum shift in favor of ObamaCare - especially if members of Congress do not hear from the majority of Americans who strongly oppose this pro-abortion, anti-family bill.

In fact, I believe the next week is absolutely crucial. We need thousands of patriotic Americans to respond to this last-ditch effort to force ObamaCare down our throats!

++ We MUST take two vital actions right away:

FIRST, please join (or, re-join) our ongoing FAX BARRAGE to flood Congress with a crystal clear message:

"NO TO OBAMACARE!"

I know you may well have sent faxes before. I wouldn't be asking you again if the President had not just launched the final "offensive" in his maniacal effort to pass ObamaCare.

Your faxes will be scheduled to be delivered with thousands of other citizens' faxes as part of a powerful FAX BARRAGE beginning immediately! Go here now to schedule your faxes to Congress:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=25713&CID=310&RID=23710767

SECOND...

Please call your two Senators and your Representative and tell them what you think about the President's latest sales pitch of socialized medicine - a travesty that the vast majority of Americans simply don't want!

Here are the number for South Orange County:

Sen. Feinstein 202-224-3841

Sen. Boxer 202-224-3553

Rep. Campbell 202-225-5611

Timothy, make Congress hear YOUR VOICE! Now more than ever, we must counter the socialist campaign that is reaching its climax. The president is in full campaign mode!

His technology platform is stirring huge numbers to make a "virtual march on Washington."

The next few days are absolutely critical to stop the momentum shift the Obama/Pelosi/Reid power axis is desperately trying to achieve! Please...

Join our intense Liberty Counsel FAX BARRAGE. This strategy has been very effective in the ongoing fight to stop ObamaCare.

There must not be any doubt in our elected officials' minds that their careers will not survive a vote for the so-called "President's Plan" or any other version of ObamaCare. Go here right now:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=25714&CID=310&RID=23710767

If you prefer, we always encourage you to send your own faxes.

We have provided all the information you need to fax Senators and Congressmen here:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=25715&CID=310&RID=23710767

We must respond to the gauntlet the President threw down in today's message! Now as never before, we must actively stand against the abortion mandate, the mandate for personal participation and the fiscal insanity that are at the heart of every version of the ObamaCare bill!

God bless you,

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman

Liberty Counsel

P.S. ObamaCare, whatever version the socialists are parading, can not be tolerated! Despite this latest public relations blitz, the President's proposal is still "smoke, mirrors and gimmicks."

The next few days will be crucial in countering any potential momentum shift brought on by our smooth-talking President.

There must not be any doubt in our elected officials' minds that their careers will not survive a vote for the so-called "President's Plan" or any other version of ObamaCare. Please send your faxes today!

If Obamacare passes it will provide (list from Dick Morris, author of Catastrophe):
• A $500 billion cut in Medicare
• 30 million new patients with no new doctors
• Health care rationing
• Protocols of care to deny costly treatments based on how many "Quality Adjusted Life Years" remain
• Require the uninsured to pay $8500 to buy policies
• Fine them 2.5% of their income if they don't
• And send them to jail if they don't pay
• Tax medical devices like pacemakers and automated wheelchairs
• Force up premiums for all Americans by $2,000 a year
• Add $500 billion to the federal deficit (by 2024)
• Raise income taxes 2.5%
• Raise capital gains taxes 2.5%
• Cut reimbursement to doctors who order too many tests for patients
Please call, fax and write your congressman and Senators today and tell them: Vote NO on ObamaCare or we will vote you out!!


PHONE NUMBERS FOR SWING VOTE CONGRESSMEN:

PLEASE CALL!
DC OFFICE
LOCAL OFFICE

Harry Mitchell
(202) 225-2190
(480) 946-2411

Gabrielle Giffords
(202) 225-2542
(520) 881-3588

Ann Kirkpatrick
(202) 225-2315
(928) 226-6914

Jerry McNerney
(202) 225-1947
925-833-0643

John Salazar
202-225-4761
970-245-7107

Jim Hines
(202) 225-5541
(866) 453-0028

Alan Grayson
(202) 225-2176
(407) 841-1757

Bill Foster
(202) 225-2976
630-406-1145

Baron Hill
202 225 5315
812 288 3999

Mark Schauer
(202) 225-6276
(517) 780-9075

Gary Peters
(202) 225-5802
(248) 273-4227

Dina Titus
(202) 225-3252
702-256-DINA (3462)

Carol Shea-Porter
(202) 225-5456
(603) 743-4813

Tim Bishop
(202) 225-3826
(631) 696-6500

John Hall
(202) 225-5441
(845) 225-3641 x49371

Bill Owens
(202) 225-4611
(315) 782-3150

Mike Arcuri
(202)225-3665
(315)793-8146

Dan Maffei
(202) 225-3701
(315) 423-5657

Earl Pomneroy
(202) 225-2611
(701) 224-0355

Steven Driehaus
(202) 225-2216
(513) 684-2723

Mary Jo Kilroy
(202) 225-2015
(614) 294-2196

Zach Space
(202) 225-6265
(330) 364-4300

Kathy Dahlkemper
(202) 225-5406
(814) 456-2038

Patrick Murphy
(202) 225-4276
(215) 826-1963

Christopher Carney
(202) 225-3731
(570) 585-9988

Paul Kanjorski
(202) 225-6511
(570) 825-2200

John Spratt
(202) 225-5501
(803)327-1114

Tom Perriello
(202) 225-4711
(276) 656-2291

Alan Mollohan
(202) 225-4172
(304) 623-4422

Nick Rahall
(202) 225-3452
(304) 252-5000

Steve Kagen
(202) 225-5665
(920) 437-1954

Senators from your State. or Congress.org - Elected Officials

1-202-224-3121- Congressional Switchboard

1-202-225-3121- Congressional Switchboard

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

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

Reid Admits Health Care Bill Costs $2 Trillion

Reid Admits Health Care Bill Costs $2 Trillion

HARRY REID: "He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn’t it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, were talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. Its a very small percent."

As as we all know… if Harry Reid is admitting to this… the cost is probably even higher and the savings are less. Add that to all the other negatives… This is and will be a disaster!!

Senators and Doctors Speak Out on Fraud and Dishonesty in Baucus Bill

Rep. Shadegg: ‘Soviet Gulag Health Care’ Coming to USA

Obama Hasn’t Closed the Health Care Sale

Flexible Spending Accounts

Congressman John Campbell Co-Sponsored HR 2520 – The Patient’s Choice Act

5 Thoughts on the Baucus Bill

Stop Paying the Crooks

The Healing of America

Catastrophe

Source: True Health Is True Wealth – Cross- Posted: Marion’s Place

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power – Cross-Posted: the Daily Thought Pad

THE BAUCUS BILL IS A TAX BILL

As it now stands, the health care reform plan proposed by Democrats and the Obama administration (the Baucus Bill) would not only fail to reduce the cost burden on middle-class families, it would make that burden significantly worse, says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

For example:

• The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees.
• Nearly 90 percent of that burden will be shouldered by those making $200,000 or less.
• It might not appear that way at first, because the dollars are collected via a 40 percent tax on sales by insurers of "Cadillac" policies, fees on health insurers, drug companies and device manufacturers, and an assortment of odds and ends.

The economics are clear:

• These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.
• Consumers will pay the excise tax on high-cost plans; the Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that 87 percent of the burden would fall on Americans making less than $200,000, and more than half on those earning under $100,000.

Industry fees are even worse because Democrats chose to make these fees nondeductible, explains Holtz-Eakin:

• This means that insurance companies will have to raise premiums significantly just to break even. American families will bear a burden even greater than the $130 billion in fees that the bill intends to collect.
• Premiums will rise by as much as $200 billion over the next 10 years -- and 90 percent will again fall on the middle class.

Senate Democrats are also erecting new barriers to middle-class ascent:

• A family of four making $54,000 would pay $4,800 for health insurance, with the remainder coming from subsidies.
• If they work harder and raise their income to $66,000, their cost of insurance rises by $2,800.
• In other words, earning another $12,000 raises their bill by $2,800 -- a marginal tax rate of 23 percent.
• Double-digit increases in effective tax rates will have detrimental effects on the incentives of millions of Americans.

Source: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, "The Baucus Bill is a Tax Bill," The Wall Street Journal, October 13, 2009

For text:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574471292249934348.html

For more on Health Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=16

Senators and Doctors Speak Out on Fraud and Dishonesty in Baucus Bill

Stop Paying the Crooks

The Healing of America

Catastrophe

Note Back From Congressman John Campbell on Healthcare - He Has Co-Sponsored H.R. 2520, the Patient's Choice Act

Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts on our nation's healthcare policy. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

Enhancing the quality of current healthcare and making affordable healthcare more accessible is one of the most pressing challenges facing our nation. I believe we must allow people to determine their own healthcare plan independent of their employer or the government. This will encourage an active, competitive marketplace that will in turn increase access and affordability.

This approach will resolve the fundamental flaw of our current system of healthcare - the disconnection that now exists between individuals and the price and quality of care. Today, an individual's capacity to get healthcare coverage is dependent upon a third party payee like an employer or the government. This system has, in many ways, reduced the power of the marketplace and forced Americans to become prisoners to health plans dictated upon them.

Congress needs to initiate policies that will encourage personal choice and increase competition, not enact socialized government medicine or price controls. Also, whatever Congress enacts must not bankrupt our country or cause individuals to lose their current health insurance - both which would happen under the current proposals being discussed.

Rather than supporting President Obama's and the Democrats' approach - a government run health care system - I have cosponsored the H.R. 2520, the Patient's Choice Act, introduced by Congressmen Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes and Senators Tom Coburn and Richard Burr. This legislation transforms health care in America by strengthening the relationship between the patient and the doctor; using choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs; and ensuring universal, affordable health care for all Americans. "The Patients' Choice Act" promotes innovative, State-based solutions, along with fundamental reforms in the tax code, to give every American, regardless of employment status, age, or health condition, the ability and the resources to purchase health insurance. The comprehensive legislation also includes concrete prevention and transparency initiatives, long overdue reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, investments in wellness programs and health IT, and more.

We also must work to expand the availability of Health Savings Accounts. Established by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, HSA's allow employees and individuals to accumulate tax-free savings for lifetime health care needs. Individuals are able to make pre-tax contributions towards their health plan deductible, with a maximum annual contribution. Rather than forcing people to pay monthly fees whether or not they use any medical services, this system allows you to save up tax-free funds for when the need for care is necessary. Today, over three million Americans are already taking advantage of this system, of which many were previously uninsured.

In addition, we need to address our nation's broken litigation system that has caused a rapid increase in liability insurance for doctors. The threat of frivolous litigation has caused doctors to begin practicing defensive medicine and is now endangering patient access to the best treatments. In 1975, California passed legislation to limit "pain and suffering damages" to $250,000, and today our access to quality health care is among the nation's best. This common sense policy should be applied nationwide and I have introduced such legislation (H.R. 2975) to do this.
As Congress continues to analyze and discuss this issue, I will be sure to follow it closely and seek to ensure a stronger and more accessible healthcare emerges. We must move towards a system that breaks down the stifling and cost raising barriers of a third party payee system.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Having the benefit of your views is important, and I appreciate you sharing them with me.

I remain respectfully,

JOHN CAMPBELL
Member of Congress

Flexible Spending Accounts

Stop Paying the Crooks

The Healing of America

Catastrophe

Flexible spending accounts - you probably already know if you are following Health Care reform

I just received this email from my employer:

It has been brought to our attention that the U.S. Senate Finance Committee’s proposed health care reform legislation would impose a cap of $2,500 on employees’ flexible spending accounts (Beneflex) for health care. Currently, federal law allows employers to set the maximum amount allowable to be set aside under these tax exempt accounts for health care (there is a $5,000 cap for dependent care which is set by the federal government). RIT has had a maximum amount of $3,000 for these Beneflex health care accounts, and is planning to increase the cap to $5,000 in 2010 in response to employees’ requests for a higher amount to address family needs and circumstances. Under the proposed Senate legislation as currently written, this would not be possible once the new law takes effect.

Working with RIT’s Department of Human Resources, we wanted to make you aware of this proposal and its potentially negative impact on the ability of individuals to set aside an amount in these accounts that best meets their personal and family needs. If you are concerned about this proposed cap on flexible spending accounts for health care, there is a way for you to express your concerns to your congressional representatives and senators.

The following link:
https://ssl.capwiz.com/savemyflexplan/issues/alert/?alertid=13717151

It enables you to send a message electronically to your elected representatives. You can create your own message or adapt some of the suggested paragraphs provided. The message will be automatically sent to your home congressperson and U.S. Senators. It is important that you send the message from your home address, so that your members will know that it is from one of their own constituents.

We understand that health care is a very complex and multi-faceted issue, and one change can impact other parts of the legislation. Since these flexible spending accounts have been widely used by RIT employees, we felt that it was important to bring this issue to your attention at this time.

Stop Paying the Crooks

The Healing of America

Catastrophe

True Health Is True Wealth

Let me get this straight… We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee who…

Let me get this straight... we're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke.

Have we really gone this mad and this far off course??

HealthCare Call To Action – Please Read Immediately!!

They are going to try to put one over on us this week...

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Healthcare Call to Action - Read Immediately!

Call To Action:

From the Desk of: Steve Elliott, President, Grassfire.org Alliance

We just learned that the Senate Finance Committee will vote on its sketchy version of ObamaCare on Tuesday.

It's all part of the Reid/Pelosi/Obama plan to ram through a final healthcare bill that was written behind closed doors with little or no public debate.

But the key first step is getting ObamaCare passed through the Finance Committee on Tuesday. If Chairman Baucus fails on Tuesday, it would be a serious blow to the Democrats' stealth plan. Here's why...

+ + The Stealth Plan to pass ObamaCare

Right now, Baucus is trying to use the Congressional Budget Office report on his bill to get enough Senators on board for passage on Tuesday.

This is key because once two committees pass a bill, Harry Reid can use his procedural power to merge the bills and move his revised version (the one Obama and the Democrats really want) directly to the Senate floor.

Heritage Foundation is reporting that Reid will replace the text of an existing unrelated bill with his version of ObamaCare and force a floor vote. Since his version will be crafted behind closed doors, the public will have little or no time to review before a Senate floor vote!

Then, Nancy Pelosi would take the same bill back to the House, pass it quickly and send it to Obama. With blitzkrieg speed we will have ObamaCare passed and signed into law!

But there's one catch... The Left must get the bill through the Finance Committee on Tuesday.

+ +Action Item #1 - Fax your Senators and the Committee Now!
We literally need to shut down the Senate between now and Tuesday with faxes, phone calls, emails... everything we can muster!

+ +Action Item #2 - Call Key Senators Today!
After you schedule your faxes, please call and let key Senators know where you stand on ObamaCare and the stealth plan to pass this bill despite widespread opposition.

Your Senators Contact Info: Senators from your State.

Finance Committee numbers:

Sen. Baucus (Chair): 202-224-2651
Finance Committee: 202-224-4515
We have listed other Sen. Finance Committee member numbers here:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=22041&CID=122&RID=19625080

+ + Resources for you
I want YOU to have the same information that Senators have.
Here's a link so you can download the CBO "preliminary analysis" that Baucus is manipulating for his purposes. Once you look at it you'll realize that the Democrats are trying to hide the fact that ObamaCare expands government and increases taxes by HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

Go here to download the CBO report:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=22042&CID=122&RID=19625080

Also...
Our ResistNet site has several resources with more information and ways for you to take action...

More resources and talking points:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=22043&RID=19625080!

Fast-contact strategy to flood the Senate with emails:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=22044&RID=19625080

Healthcare bill watchdog group:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=22045&RID=19625080

Thank you for taking action!
Steve Elliott, President Grassfire.org

Recent Related Posts:

Baucus Plan: Devil Is in the Details...

The GOP Is Winning the Healthcare Debate

ObamaCare: Watch Snow and Lincoln

The ‘kill granny’ bill

Click here to read the actual CBO estimate.

GOP Pans Senate Health Bill After Cost Analysis

Eight Thoughts on CBO

There Is No Baucus Bill

The Government Health Care Takeover Tab

Sen. McConnell Statement on CBO Report

The HealthCare Bill: What They Don’t Want You To Know

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s “Boss”? It Is Not Obama… (Try Apollo Alliance Director: Robert L. Borosge)

Apollo Alliance Writing Legislation? Stimulus Bill, Cap and Trade Bill, Healthcare Bill? America Needs To Know!

The 'kill granny' bill

The 'kill granny' bill - By BETSY MCCAUGHEY, NY Post, 10/05/09

As the health-reform bills move through Congress, the prognosis for Medicare patients gets worse and worse.

The Senate Finance Committee bill (generally called the Baucus bill, after Chairman Max Baucus) robs the elderly to cover the uninsured -- like snatching purses from little old ladies. The House bills already cut future funding for Medicare by $500 billion over the next decade. The Baucus bill would slash a similar amount, just when 30 percent more people enter the program as baby boomers turn 65.
The Baucus bill also puts new limits on what doctors can do for patients in Medicare:

* A "race to the bottom" provision (p. 102 of the revised chairman's mark) would take effect each year for the next five years. The provision penalizes doctors who end up in the 90th percentile or above on the cost of what they use to treat their patients, compared with national averages. The intent is to force down the cost of care, year by year. Yet this blunt instrument can't determine which care is actually wasteful -- it will punish doctors for treating high cost patients with complex conditions. Inevitably, it will lower the quality of care.

* Even more devastating is the amendment Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) got inserted into the bill (revised chairman's mark, pp. 102-

3). It gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to define quality, cost-effective care for each medical condition and penalize doctors who spend more on their patients.
The law establishing Medicare in 1965 barred the federal government from interfering in doctors' treatment decisions. Slowly, Medicare regulations have begun unraveling that protection. Now the Cantwell amendment finishes the job.

This is the most extreme change to Medicare ever. Dr. David McKalip, a Florida neurosurgeon and a board member of the Florida Medical Association, predicts: "The only doctors left in Medicare will be those willing to ration care and practice cookbook medicine."
It's reasonable for Medicare administrators to strive to get value for dollars spent. In recent years, Medicare has taken a slow, tight-fisted (and sometimes arbitrary) approach to paying for new drugs or medical devices. But Cantwell aims directly at doctors' decisions.
That's not surprising. President Obama and his advisers vilify doctors for over-treating patients. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and a key Obama health-care adviser, argues that the Hippocratic Oath is largely to blame for the "overuse" of medical care.

In his view, doctors focus too much on the needs of their own patients; they should be taught to ask whether the money they're spending on a patient is worth it. To curb doctors' spending, the stimulus legislation launched a process of sending doctors protocols via computer on what the government deems "appropriate" and "cost-effective" care. Doctors who are not "meaningful users" will be punished financially.

When I warned that this meant the government would be interfering in doctors' treatment decisions, CNN and FactCheck.org said that was untrue. But Dr. David Blumenthal, appointed in March to head the new system of computer-guided medicine, settled that debate. In the New England Journal of Medicine (April 9), he confirmed that "embedded clinical-decision support" (his term for computers telling doctors what to do) would be used to reduce costs, and he predicted that some doctors might rebel against tight controls.
The Baucus bill completes the framework for tying doctors' hands when treating the elderly.

Driving all this is the misconception that doctors spend wastefully on patients who are about to die. Newsweek's recent cover story, "The Case for Killing Granny," argues that "the need to spend less money on the elderly at the end of life is the elephant in the room in the health-reform debate."

Numerous studies prove that is false. In 2006, Emory University researchers examining the records of patients in the year before they died found that doctors spend far less on patients who are expected to die than on patients expected to survive.

The Emory researchers said it's untrue that "lifesaving measures for patients visibly near death account for a disproportionate share of spending." They also found that doctors often can't predict when a patient is in the last year of life.

In any case, the health-reformers' plan to cut spending on patients 65 and older won't simply reduce end-of-life care, it will also eliminate care for patients who are perfectly capable of surviving their illness and going on with life.

The 'kill granny' bill - By BETSY MCCAUGHEY, NY Post, 10/05/09
Betsy McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant-governor.

Posted: True Health is True Wealth

Related Resources:

• People with this Factor Will Live Past 100
• Go Granny Go
• ObamaCare and me – Doctor Zane F. Pollard, MD
• Prescription for Truth – Daniel Hannan From England: HealthCare Worse for Elderly
• Unease in Britain Following Assisted Suicides
• Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors

ObamaCare… Watch Snowe and Lincoln

Watch how Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln vote in the Senate Finance Committee on the Baucus version of the Obama healthcare plan. As Snowe and Lincoln go, so will the Congress.

The Democrats need Snowe's vote desperately, to convince wavering moderate Democrats that they can offer a veneer, however thin, of bipartisanship to the health proposal. If Snowe, their last chance at a Republican vote, opposes the Obama/Baucus proposal, there is no hope of a bipartisan fig leaf for the package.

On the other hand, if Snowe backs the bill, it will send a signal to moderate Democrats that it's OK to join in and the bill will probably attract the 60 votes it needs for Senate passage.
Lincoln's vote becomes critical if Snowe votes no. Lincoln is probably the single most vulnerable Democrat running for reelection in 2010. She is the proverbial canary in the coalmine. If she makes it, so will all the Democrats. Hailing from a conservative Southern state, her poll numbers suggest that she would be in a heap of trouble with a stiff challenger.

If Lincoln defects and joins the Republicans in voting no (as she has done on a number of amendments), she will do a lot to cement her chances to remain a senator, but will open a wound in the Democratic Party. A domino effect will likely set in.

Her Arkansas colleague, Democrat Mark Pryor, will feel exposed by her defection and will probably consider voting no as well. It will be very hard for the son of moderate David Pryor to explain why Lincoln jumped ship but he chose to stay on board.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, encouraged by Lincoln's vote, will probably vote no as well. These negative votes will bring huge pressure on Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat. Nor can the president count on the support of Joe Lieberman (I) of Connecticut, who has warned that, despite his basic support for the concept of the bill, it would be hard for him to back it given the current economic and fiscal crisis.

Once Obama's plan fails to attract 60 votes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will fall back on reconciliation as a strategy and hope for 50 votes. But if the Democrats pass the bill with 50 votes, it will set a precedent they may come to rue. It would basically eliminate the filibuster as a parliamentary tactic and would condemn any future minority party (Democrats in 2011?) to the same irrelevance as afflicts their House colleagues. To be in the minority in a chamber run by a bare majority is not a fun task.

However, if Lincoln votes yes, it will send a signal to all moderates that even the most endangered of their species is willing to risk backing the program and will do a great deal to shore up the president's defenses.
All this means that if the elderly citizens of Arkansas and Maine -- and their families -- want to avoid the evisceration of the Medicare program contemplated in the Baucus/Obama bill, they had better get busy. They need to deluge both senators with urgent pleas to vote against the $500 billion cut in the Medicare program. Neither senator can afford to alienate her elderly constituents, but what do they expect when they vote to take the hatchet to Medicare?
Newt Gingrich found out that cutting Medicare is a ticket to political oblivion. Barack Obama will learn the same lesson. The question is: Will Olympia Snowe and Blanche Lincoln join him?

PLEASE NOTE: I have persuaded the League of American Voters to run ten second advertisements in key states that show an elderly person saying: "Senator _________: Please don't cut my Medicare by $500 billion. I need my Medicare." We need to get these ads on in the key states.

We need to focus attention on the cuts in Medicare. It is slashing services to the elderly that is the key point!

Please click here to donate and give generously. This is the key moment and you can make all the difference in the world. With pressure such as the elderly are bringing to bear, the Senate would not dare pass this benighted plan!

Please keep up the pressure on your own Congressman and Senators as well as on Olympia Snowe and Blanche Lincoln.

United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121

Senators from your State. as well and Snowe and Lincoln

by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann – Authors of Catastrophe. Dick Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton (Dem), is the author of Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race. - DickMorris.com

DFA “senior adviser” Jacob Hacker (above) is an Obamacare architect who laughed at criticism of the plan being a Trojan Horse for single payer coverage. “It’s not a Trojan Horse, right” he retorted at a far Left Tides Foundation conference on health care. “It’s just right there! I’m telling you. We’re going to get there.”

Related Recourses:

Obama Holds “Staged” Doctors’ Summit in Effort to Promote Health Care Overhaul

Spin doctors for Obamacare

3 out of 4 Doctors Flanking Obama at His Staged Event Donated to His Campaign

Guess Who Denies the Most Medical Claims?

The Health Care Bill: What they DON’T want you to know! – Video – Please Watch…

Congressional Leaders (Nancy and Harry) Fight Against Posting Bills Online

Overweight People Smokers Face Fine Under Health Bill

What Will the Year 2109 America Be Like for Babies Living to 100?

ObamaCare: Cut the Elderly and Give to AARP

AARP Series – A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing! – Part II

Are the elderly cost effective?

Stop Paying the Crooks

The Healing of America

Source: Knowledge Creates Power - Cross-posted: Daily Thought Pad

Posted: True Health is True Wealth – Cross-Posted: Marion’s Place

Overweight People, Smokers Face Fine Under Health Bill

Overweight People, Smokers Face Fine Under Health Bill

The Senate Finance Committee approved an amendment to the healthcare bill Wednesday that would allow employers to charge workers with unhealthy lifestyles more for their insurance coverage.

The amendment would permits employers to adjust premiums as much as 50 percent according to the level of workers’ health habits, up from 20 percent now.

“Weight gain and unhealthy lifestyles that focus on smoking and lack of exercise have skyrocketed our healthcare costs," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said in a statement cited by Politico news service.

Ensign, who sponsored the amendment along with and Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said, "These costs could be lowered by focusing on what makes us healthy — through weight loss programs, smoking cessation and preventive care. Voluntary employee participation in these areas should naturally be reflected in lower healthcare costs.”

Opponents, including the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, counter that the new rule may spur insurers and companies to keep basing coverage decisions on pre-existing conditions, even though the bill itself prohibits that.

A consortium of healthcare advocacy groups wrote in a letter: “While we appreciate the amendments’ intent to encourage healthy behaviors, we believe that allowing employers to vary premiums by up to 50 percent of the total cost of employee coverage could lead to discriminatory practices and make health coverage unaffordable for those who need it the most.”

Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who is a doctor himself, says premium differences are important.

“Americans want simple, practical, affordable changes now. . . Changes that offer reductions in premiums for making healthy lifestyle choices,” he wrote in the Little Chicago Review.

By: Dan Weil – Newsmax

Polls Show Details Killing ObamaCare!

The Latest Rasmussen Poll - 56% Opposed To ObamaCare!!!! Other polls as high as 63 opposed to ObamaCare

Only beteween 39 and 41% Favor Government Health Care Takeover - A New Low!

Fox News reports that the bill "has no Republican support and moderate Democrats say the Senate will never go along", but pressure from the White House and Democratic Leadership is tough.

We are starting to win but we need to kill off this beast. Healthcare in America can be improved but what Obama wants to do was wrong and he continues to lie and mislead Americans.

Watch This U-Tube and Then Call White House Monday Oct 5th to tell the president you don't want him controlling your healthcare

Keep up the Pressure!!

Call the United States Capitol switchboard today... every day at (202) 224-3121 until ObamaCare and Cap and Trade our defeated!

Senators from your State.

Call the White House at 202-456-1111 and tell President Obama you have had enough!

Source: Knowledge Creates Power and cross-posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

What Will the Year 2109 America Be Like for Babies Living to 100?

Are the elderly cost effective?

AARP Series: Obamacare: Cut the Elderly and Give to AARP – Part I

AARP Series: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing Part II

Stop Paying the Crooks

The Healing of America

Posted: True Health is True Wealth

Obamacare: Cut the Elderly and Give to AARP

Among the $500 billion in Medicare cuts that will provide the bulk of the financing for Obama's health care plan is a $160 billion to $180 billion cut in the Medicare Advantage program, which offers a range of benefits not available to beneficiaries under basic Medicare.

Medicare Advantage should be Obama's favorite program. It combines all the elements he likes -- premiums are subsidized for low-income elderly, and the companies negotiate low-priced, managed care that emphasizes prevention, treatment of chronic conditions and coordination among doctors. As a result, its costs on the one hand and its premiums on the other are both much lower than with conventional insurance.

Ten million primarily low-income elderly have voluntarily enrolled in Medicare Advantage and realize savings of about $1,000 annually in enhanced benefits over and above what Medicare itself provides. These extra benefits include reductions in out-of-pocket costs and comprehensive drug coverage, vision, dental and hearing benefits, wellness programs (like gym memberships), and disease management and care coordination programs.

Medicare Advantage, which gained momentum during the Bush-43 years, essentially implements all the economies and efficiencies that Obama preaches nonstop. Doctors speak to one another, duplication is avoided, care is managed, and there is an emphasis on prevention.

The alternative to Medicare Advantage is Medicare supplement plans, popularly called Medigap coverage. But these conventional health insurance policies offer fewer benefits at higher premiums. They offer no care coordination, no chronic care management, no pay-for-performance incentives. They have no way to control costs. They just write out checks.

Because Medicare Advantage negotiates payment levels and saves money through bulk purchasing, inpatient costs run 20 percent to 25 percent lower than under Medigap insurance. More patients are handled through outpatient care. X-rays and other radiation cost 10 percent to 20 percent less, and durable medical equipment like wheelchairs, walkers and oxygen bottles run one-fifth less than with conventional insurance policies.

So why is Obama so keen to cut Medicare Advantage?

Here's a clue: AARP (the American Association of Retired Persons) does not sell Medicare Advantage. But it makes a vast amount of money selling Medigap coverage. AARP has had no higher political priority than to curb the Medicare Advantage program and replace it with Medigap insurance. The profit margins on Medigap are greater, and AARP has every intention of exploiting them with Obama's help. His price? AARP backing for his program.

The American Seniors Association (ASA), an alternative to AARP that represents hundreds of thousands of elderly, says, "It is outrageous that Medicare Advantage, a private program with premium assistance for seniors ... has come under attack." Stuart Barton, ASA president, notes that under Medicare Advantage, private healthcare companies "compete to provide care based on a negotiated price."

Obama's deal with AARP represents special interest politics at its worst. He has already negotiated a deal with the big drug companies to get their support for his bill (and their advertising bucks to promote it) in return for guaranteeing that the cuts in their prices and profits will be small. And, by cutting Medicare Advantage, he signed up the AARP too.

Obama plans to slash the premium subsidies to low income elderly for Medicare Advantage coverage. This would drive up the premiums and drive many poor seniors into Medigap coverage. And then, most cynically, he would take the money he saves on shortchanging poor old people and use it to subsidize the policies of people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s who are, by definition, not poor (and thus not eligible for Medicaid).

And all this from a liberal? A Democrat?

by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann – Authors of Catastrophe. Dick Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton (Dem), is the author of Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.

There are several good Republican options available, HR 3400 is one, but the Dems won’t even look at them and as much as Obama likes to look inclusive, he has not met with the Republicans since April and either refuses or ignores any of their attempts to set up a meeting.

(1) SERIOUS tort reform is needed. Medical malpractice needs to be redefined from ordinary negligence (that is, any time anything goes wrong, you can sue) to gross negligence (that is, you can sue only if some ridiculously awful thing has happened, such as the surgeon botched the surgery because he was drunk at the time). Furthermore, since medical drugs, machines, and procedures have to be OK'ed by the FDA, they should carry NO liability whatsoever, as long as they are made up to specs -- if the gov't insists on the power to say what treatments you can have, and the gov't says this or that treatment is OK, then the gov't should accept liability for such treatments. Period.

(2) Medical savings accounts (combined with high-deductible, catastrophic-coverage-only insurance) would bring the market into medical prices, since people would shop for the lowest price to save money for themselves. Remember, the price of two types of medical procedures has been falling while everything else has gone 'way up: cosmetic surgery and laser eye surgery. Why? Because these procedures are not covered by insurance, so people shop for the best price.

(3) Add to this a free market to allow the inter-state purchase and sale of health insurance, which is not allowed now, and portability and the bulk of our problems would be over without destroying our medical system, maintaining freedom of choice, and without allowing a gov’t takeover of healthcare.

Related Resources:

AARP Series: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing - Part II

What Will the Year 2109 America Be Like for Babies Living to 100?

Are the elderly cost effective?

Stop Paying the Crooks

The Healing of America