Sunday, November 17, 2013

Amazing Video Captures The Unbreakable Bond Between Twins

Video: Thalasso Bain Bébé Jumeaux - Twin Baby Bath

Examiner: Newborn twins mimic life in the womb… This video provides viewers with a rare insight into what life in the womb has been like for twins. “A video of a unique bath is offering an amazing look at what life must [be] like for twins in the womb, with the babies cuddling and embracing as if they were still in their mom’s belly,” reported Today Moms on Nov. 15, 2013.

The newborn twins mimic life in the womb video received more than 3 million views on YouTube after the video was taken last month at the maternity clinic where Sonia Rochel, a maternity nurse at the Clinique de la Muette in Paris, France, works.

At the time the video was taken, the twins, a boy and a girl, were only a few days old. The bathing technique that the newborn twins experienced is called Thalasso Baby Bath and it was invented by Sonia Rochel.

As the bathing video of the newborn twins shows, the babies are – just like in the womb – in an enclosed basin filled with water. While keeping their noses and mouths above the water level, the newborn twins experience the gentle movement of water as an adult is carefully pouring the water over their foreheads and eyes. In addition to the flowing water, the newborn twins are also gently massaged and relaxing music is played.

Watching the video of the newborn twins, their closeness, their movements, their facial expression, and their feeling of completeness provides viewers with an amazing insight into what life in the womb must have been like for the newborn twins.

Sonia Rochel, who is an experienced nurse, came up with mimicking life in the womb for the newborn twins while she was taking a shower and associated the comfort of the running water with life in the womb.

Even though watching the video of the newborn twins being bathed and gaining an insight into what life must have been like for the newborn twins in the womb is enjoyable, Sonia Rochel is emphasizing that parents should not try to duplicate the bathing at home.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

CoffeeCare

Video: CoffeeCare 

Perspective: New Law – "The Affordable Boat Act" 2014

Louie Gohmert warns about Obamacare ‘Secret Security Force’

Louie Gohmert has revealed yet another section of ObamaCARE that no one seems to have read. Believe it or not, there is a provision within Obamacare that creates an armed “secret security force”. Gohmert thus far as failed to get an answer from DHS as to why this secret security force provision is in ObamaCARE. This sounds like Obama’s brown-shirts. How long before Americans start having to wear patches on their sleves saying ‘healthy’ or ‘sick.’ This is absolutely outrageous.

Video: Congressman Exposes DHS Buildup for CIVIL UNREST & Secret Police Force- "NOT A CONSPIRACY"

Louie Gohmert warns about Obamacare ‘Secret Security Force’

FireAndreaMitchell: Referring to a section of the gargantuan Obamacare law which discusses “the president’s own commissioned and non-commissioned officer corps,” Gohmert drew attention to the notion that under the pretext of a “national emergency,” such individuals could be used to impose some form of medical martial law.
Under the Affordable Care Act, the Ready Reserve Corps is directed to “assist full-time Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.”

“It says it is for international health crises, but then it doesn’t include the word ‘health’ when it talks about national emergencies,” said Gohmert.
“I’ve asked, what kind of training are they getting….I want to know are they are they using weapons to train, or are they being taught to use syringes and health care items?” asked the Congressman, adding that “no clear answers” had been forthcoming on the issue.”

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Cancelled – Stories Behind HC Policy Cancellations Because of ObamaCare

Independent Woman’s Voice:  I want you to meet Edie Sundby.  This photo of Edie is one of our most recent posts over at www.MyCancellation.com:

Cross-Posted at AskMarion: For almost seven years now, Edie has fought and beat back stage-four gallbladder cancer.  The five-year survival rate for that form of cancer is 2% after diagnosis.

Edie has survived cancer with the help of great doctors.  But now, thanks to ObamaCare, her insurance has been cancelled.  And, she can't keep the oncologist that has helped her overcome cancer for seven years running.

You can read Edie's full story here in the Wall Street Journal.

At www.MyCancellation.com, we're collecting the faces of Obama Care's health insurance cancellations.  If you've had your health insurance cancelled by ObamaCare, take a picture of yourself with your cancellation letter and send it to us at letters@mycancellation.com.  (We'll make sure you keep all of your private information private!)

Help us fight Obama Care so that people like Edie don't have to lose their insurance and their doctors because of this destructive law.

Sincerely,

Carrie Lukas
VP for Policy & Economics
Independent Women's Voice

**There is only one way to stop this disaster known as ObamaCare…  We must vote out every one in 2014 who voted for or supports ObamaCare and then we need to put a Constitutional and Fiscal Conservative in the White House in 2016 who will sort out this mess!

And in the meantime, stand together.  Inform yourself.  And if you are healthy… Do not sign up for ObamaCare

Megyn Kelly - Did Obama win election by lying abt Keeping your Healthcare; Still Lying 2 Cover up 

Wake-Up… ObamaCare Eliminates Your Plan by Design

The Dirty Secret Behind ObamaCare No One’s Talking About

In the Meantime Read: Beating Obamacare

Megyn Kelly - Did Obama win election by lying abt Keeping your Healthcare; Still Lying 2 Cover up

Video: Megyn Kelly - Did Obama win election by lying about Keeping your Healthcare; Still Lying 2 Cover up

Embedded image permalink

Wake-Up… ObamaCare Eliminates Your Plan by Design 
The Dirty Secret Behind ObamaCare No One’s Talking About

Book:  Beating Obamacare

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Wake-Up… ObamaCare Eliminates Your Plan by Design

RUSH: The scope of this fraud is incalculable and almost unimaginable.  That's how big it is.

The failure that is going on right now is all part of the plan to force everyone into a single-payer system… that is socialized medicine completely run by the government… Wake-up and stop being played.  The only option is to clean house in the 2014 Election so that we can repeal and replace this socialistic monstrosity with a plan to really help all Americans and retain our freedoms and choices.

Video: RUSH: Americans Had To Lose Their Health Care Plans In Order For ObamaCare To Work

EIB – Cross-Posted at AskMarion: BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Steve in South Bend, Indiana.  Welcome, sir.  It's great to have you here.  Hi.

CALLER:  Yes, good afternoon, Rush.  Thank you for taking my phone call.  Long-time listener, first-time caller.  In fact you mentioned Hillarycare earlier, and it's around 1993 that I think I first started tuning in, when Hillarycare debacle was going down. One thing I might add is, if you recall, C. Everett Koop supported Hillarycare.  In fact, if you remember the red carpet ceremony with Hillary walking into the joint session of Congress, I think she was joined by C. Everett Koop, who lent his weight behind her plan. 

That's not why I called.  Okay, 2010 when Obamacare was passed, they went to the states and wanted the states to offer extended Medicaid.  The promise was that the federal government would pay for it for two years -- and the bait, of course, was that the states did not have to pay for it. It was free Medicaid for two years. But then, of course, once they get everybody hooked into their entitlement then the federal government pulls the rug out from under it.

But everybody's hooked so, you know, the states have to continue it.  What I can foresee, what I predict with Obamacare rollout 2.0 is they're just gonna jack up the subsidies. They're gonna get everybody hooked in who lost their health care by overly subsidizing them, get 'em hooked and -- you know, for a protracted, limited time, a year or two or whatever -- and once theory hooked, they're hooked.  And you just mentioned the taxpayer subsidy would probably be a possibility.  That's what I see happening.

RUSH:  Yeah, well, I think that's what Jay Carney means when he quotes the president as saying he doesn't like people put in a position where they can't afford a better plan.  So here comes subsidies.  That's the Democrat solution to everything, is buy them.  The fact that we don't have the money is irrelevant.  The fact that they're still being lied to is irrelevant.  We'll just buy them.  We'll just buy their love.  We'll just buy their support.  And we'll use the federal Treasury to do it. 

There's a guy who writes a piece in The Politico today named Jonathan Gruber, and he practically admits -- let me read a little excerpt here.  "The White House is 'just reacting to one broken promise by imposing a much larger and harmful one: our promise to insurers that if they priced fairly, we would deliver a broad pool of insured.  If you allow the healthy enrollees to stay out in their old policy, the insurers lose money and the program falls apart.'"

So, in other words, if insurers are allowed to keep their plan, Obamacare will fail.  If you get to keep your plan, if we try to dial back the clock and everybody gets to keep their plan, it won't work, because the insurers will lose money and the program falls apart because they won't stay in business that way, whereas the federal government can.  Jonathan Gruber was quoted.  He didn't write the piece, but he was one of the architects of Obamacare.  He practically admitted that if insurers are allowed to keep their plans, that Obamacare will fail.  Meaning, if you're allowed to keep your plan, Obamacare fails.  This has been my point all week.  You cannot keep your plan and have Obamacare at the same time.  Obamacare, by definition, gets rid of your plan and replaces it with health care run by the federal government. 

Now, the caller is right about Medicaid.  Remember, they tried to off that to the states, and a lot of states said, "Wait a minute, we don't have the money to pay for this."  But Obamacare wanted to off that expense to the states to reduce the overall cost as reported to the CBO. Keep it under a trillion dollars and get it approved and everybody thinks, "Oh, wow, it's a net wash, we're replacing the Iraq war with health care, no loss, no gain."  The whole thing was a lie.  The states said, "We can't afford Medicaid. We can't print money. We can't accept it." 

So now it's coming back, and Obama, the theory is, "Well, we'll just subsidize people," and like the caller said, "We'll get 'em hooked," and once people are hooked with the government paying for things for them, that's it.  But they're subsidizing it with money they don't have.  But that's the story of this whole administration.  There was a stimulus that we didn't have.  A green energy program for money that we didn't have.  We're subsidizing everything Obama is doing with money that we don't have.  But the beneficiaries don't care.  The people getting the money don't care that we don't have the money.  In fact, you tell 'em we don't have the money and they say, "Yes, we do, I just got it." 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  The Gruber quote, just to be clear, he's one of the architects of Obamacare, it's in a Politico piece.  Gruber is reminding people that we cannot go back and give people their old plans.  We will not have Obamacare if we do that.  We can't turn back the hands of time.  We cannot turn back the clock as a fix for all the people that are losing their policy, losing their doctor, we can't just now say, "Oh, okay.  Well, here it is back."  The reason is, the White House is just reacting to one broken promise by imposing a much larger and harmful one.  And the original promise to the insurers, not the insured, the original promise to the insurers, the insurance companies, was that if they priced their policies fairly, that the regime would deliver a broad pool of uninsured that were mandated to buy. 

This is how they hooked the insurance companies in.  These idiots thought that they were guaranteed 30 million new customers. (interruption) Well, they are.  What else explains this?  So they sit there, and of course it's the president, I guess you meet with the president and he tells you something, you automatically believe it.  That's what I don't get.  But anyway, they did, they bought it.  And they were salivating, 30 million new customers and all we've gotta do is price our policies fairly.  Well, now they can't offer what they were offering at the same price because of the new mandates and all that in Obamacare.

The bottom line is, it isn't easy to repair this broken promise, that millions of consumers would be able to keep their insurance coverage.  And, by the way, the Politico, in random act of journalism here, they've gone out and they found a bunch of industry experts to say so.  You can't repair this broken promise.  The reason I'm making a big deal out of this is Jay Carney was asked by AP today if Obama agrees with Clinton.  You know, Clinton said (Clinton impression), "I think he ought to honor his promise. He said that people can keep their plan, I think he should do that."  You can't!  It doesn't work.  The only way you could do that would be a total repeal of Obamacare.  There are just too many mandates and requirements on everybody.  That is why people got canceled in the first place. 

Your insurance company didn't cancel you 'cause they hate you.  They didn't cancel you 'cause they want you to get sick and die.  They didn't cancel you because they're Republicans, they don't care about people.  They canceled you because they couldn't offer what you had at the price you were paying and stay in business, which was the design.  Obamacare, to get where Obama and the Democrats want it to ultimately end, requires that the private sector health insurance industry cease to exist.  This is the first step, is practically requiring them to be unable to provide you with the policy you've always had, because there are other mandates and requirements they have to conform to that makes it impossible to over to you the coverage you had at the price you were paying. 

So the only way to get your plan back is not to fix a broken promise. Now, they may try a subsidy, but the only way is to repeal Obamacare, folks. This is what this architect is basically saying, as is The Politico. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Okay, here's the money quote from Jonathan Gruber: "If you allow the healthy enrollees to stay out in their old policy, the insurers lose money and the program falls apart."  The program is Obamacare.  You cannot have people stay in their old plans and have Obamacare.  It's exactly as I've been saying.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  I don't know, folks.  I still can't get over Clinton telling Obama to honor his commitments and not break his promise.  You know, I famously said, "I hope he fails."  Clinton is admitting Obama failed and demanding that he fix it.  The guy who lied to a grand jury telling the sitting president to be honest. 

Folks, this Politico piece that I just stumbled across here during the program, if I don't mind saying so, is a huge See, I Told You So.  I have been -- and I hate that phrase, by the way, "I've been saying."  You hate it, but I hate it when other people use it because it implies that nobody's listening, and I know you've heard me say this.  It's almost an habitual thing to remind people that they've been told of something. 

I've been trying to make the point now -- I really hammered it yesterday with a caller -- ever since people started bellyaching about losing their policies. I mean, I've practically been pounding my fist on the table here telling people that you have to lose your policy if there is going to be Obamacare.  I don't want to have to go through this again.  By the way, I need to really apologize to you all for being all over the ballpark today.  I'm just really fatigued.  I'm just worn out, tired -- and it's not assisted by being rudely awakened by my kitten

Well, you know, what I mean by that is I'm saying silly things, like, "Why do people not remember?" I know the answer to these questions I'm asking.  I just let my guard down.  I'm asking stupid questions to which I already know the answers.  I'm just basically saying, "Gee, why can't it be some way else?" and I know that that's silly.  You know, wishing for it to be otherwise is silly, 'cause it is what it is.  But this is big.  I'm telling you that's why this lie that he told is so fraudulent. 

You mean, it's impeachable what he's done here, because there's no way anybody was ever going to be able to keep their plan, and yet he made that the number one selling point.  Without that lie he might nota been reelected, and without that lie we might not be saddled with this albatross.  The American people have been deceived and defrauded.  You let Richard Nixon try this and see what happens.

Bernie Madoff is a piker compared to the fraud, including the money, compared to what Obama has done with that one lie, because it was never true.  There was never going to be a way that you or anybody could keep your plan -- and the simplest way to understand that is he's out there telling the entire nation, "If you like your plan, you can keep it," and for the most part, the vast majority of people liked that characteristic of Obamacare. 

That's why they supported it.

Do you think he would have been reelected if he would have told people that this is what was gonna happen?  If he were to campaign now, "You're gonna lose your plan, and the replacement's gonna cost you three times as much, but we have to do it to insure the uninsured," do you think he would have been reelected? Do you think we would have to deal with this?  As Joe Biden once said, "This is a big F---ing deal." 

You were never gonna be able to keep your plan, and the fact that he made it the number one selling point, and that they knew! The Federal Register admited that 93 million people were not gonna keep their plans.  They knew that, and they've known it since 2010, when this all started.  The fact that he made that the number one selling point for this, stop and think for a second. 

If everybody keeps their plan, then what the hell are we talking about? Why do we need Obamacare?  If you like your plan and get to keep it, what's wrong?  The only thing that anybody could say is wrong, well, the insured.  Now, I realize that especially may have not liked their plans because they believed there was something better, and that was the second lie that was told.  "Do you like your plan? You can keep it, but the alternative is gonna be even better for you." 

The scope of this fraud is incalculable and almost unimaginable.  That's how big it is.  So for this Obamacare architect -- a man by the name of Jonathan Gruber, in The Politico today -- to be admitting this is a huge See, I Told You So.  The See, I Told You So is specifically what I drilled home to a caller yesterday, that these canceled policies will never be brought back.  Now, you're gonna hear Democrats talk about reinstating your lost policy.

And you might hear some idiot Republicans talking about wanting to support that, and you might hear the media talk about it. But it's not possible.  Your policy cannot be restated, or restored unless Obamacare is repealed, and that isn't going to happen.  Obama will not do it. Saul Alinsky, that might put the fire out in Hell.  That would never happen. Repealing this thing, that'd be one of the biggest embarrassment ever.  I know that they might delay the individual mandate.

They might try to do a bunch of things here to limit the pain, or to move the pain to after the 2014 elections, but these plans cannot be brought back.  They were canceled precisely because Obamacare doesn't permit them, financially and with regulation.  That's why you've been canceled.  It's not because the insurance companies hate you.  It's not because they want you to get sick and die.  It's not 'cause they're a bunch of Republicans and they're trying to save money.  It's none of that. 

They can't stay in business with your old plan.  They're not gonna be in business anyway by the time this is all said and done.  Now, The Politico piece also has this.  "The Huffington Post reported that the [regime] is considering providing subsidies to those who lost coverage but wouldn't qualify for subsidies otherwise under the law."  So they're gonna buy you off.  You've lost your plan and you can't get it back.

So they're gonna cover the difference with a subsidy.  Now, if you're the Republicans, I don't know how you deal with that. If you oppose that, what can they say about you?  "Well, you want people to starve! Oh, you don't want people to have health care? Oh, you want people in pain?"  Once you get to the point where the federal Treasury becomes the number one weapon before for a political party to stay in power, I don't know how you battle that. I really don't. 

I don't know how you battle that, given how many low-information voters we have, given how many people are already on food stamps and dependent, how many people are already in poverty. I don't know how you re-instill a sense of self-reliance.  And particularly when it comes to health care, I just don't know how you do that.  And that is why I am sounding wistful here in wishing for fantasy, 'cause it is fantasy that people understand and remember how devastating liberalism is.  They just don't. 

They fall for it every time it's pitched to 'em. 

Well, maybe not.  They had to be lied to big time to fall for this. 

END TRANSCRIPT 

Video: Rush Limbaugh to GOP: Don't Let Obama 'Eliminate Pain' by Delaying Individual Mandate

RUSH: Obama Doesn’t Care. He Lied For Power. 

Video: RUSH: Obama Is Sorry You Believed Him

The Dirty Secret Behind ObamaCare No One’s Talking About

Monday, November 11, 2013

Many veterans still wait weeks for mental health care

 

The Department of Veterans Affairs keeps more than a third of new mental health patients waiting longer than its goal of 14 days to begin treatment, internal data show.

Once a Soldier

USAToday:  Thousands of veterans seeking help for the first time for mental health problems are waiting longer than the government's goal of counseling them within two weeks, Department of Veterans Affairs data show.

At a time when an estimated 22 veterans commit suicide daily, the agency in 2013 failed to schedule a third of new mental health patient appointments within 14 days, the data show.

Delays are worse for certain therapies. For example, it takes more than a month on average to begin seeing a VA psychiatrist for therapy or to see one who can assess psychiatric conditions for disability compensation, according to statistics provided by the VA following a request for public records.

In nearly half of 47,700 first-time psychiatric therapy appointments in 2013, veterans waited longer than two weeks, records show. The average time it took to start any type of behavioral health therapy was 15 days.

Overall, the Department of Veterans Affairs failed to meet its 14-day goal in 34% of new mental health appointments in treatment categories including psychiatry, psychology, post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse.

Some of the worst bottlenecks are at large VA hospitals in Orlando, Houston and Los Angeles, where at least two of every five veterans have to wait more than two weeks to see a counselor. In Houston, veterans needing new appointments waited an average of 28 days to receive services.

VA officials say new mental-health patient wait times — while still unacceptably long at some hospitals — improved by 6 percentage points over the course of this year. "We're committed to seeing people as soon as possible," said Mary Schohn, VA director of mental health operations.

She said that any patient who appears suicidal is provided immediate treatment.

The department is working against a rising tide of troubled veterans, particularly from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. By late last year, more than 1,600 new mental health patientswere flooding into VA facilities each week on average.

The department announced last year it would increase mental health staffing by 10% and hiring was completed last June, Schohn said.

USA TODAY reported two years ago that nearly a third of new mental health appointments for veterans were taking longer than 14 days. A year later, the VA inspector general cited a 36% failure rate. Data for the current year show little progress, although the VA says it is wrong to compare current statistics with those from previous years because methods of counting have changed.

Senate and House VA committee leaders reacted sharply to the continuing delays.

"It is unacceptable that even after the hiring of 1,600 new mental health staff, certain VA facilities remain unable to ... treat veterans in a timely manner," said Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., head of the Senate panel. "Consequences of leaving mental health conditions untreated can be dire. Such failures cannot continue."

"VA must embrace an approach to care delivery that treats veterans where and how they want, rather than where and how VA wants," said Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., who chairs the House panel.

VA officials say that once mental health patients begin regular therapy, the department has a 96% success rate of seeing repeat patients on a timely basis.

Schohn said veterans can receive immediate attention for mental health problems by using a crisis hotline (1-800-273-8255) or going to a VA hospital emergency room.

The department for years touted a 95% success rate in initiating mental health treatment for veterans within two weeks. But after a three-year study on calculating wait times, officials now realize their methods of assessing wait times were wrong.

"I felt like we were actually coming to grips with reality," said Mike Davies, VA director of access."We'd heard these stories that patients feel like (they are) waiting longer than the data was saying."

Barbara Van Dahlen, psychologist, and founder and president of Give an Hour, a non-profit group that enlists volunteer treatment for troops, veterans and their families from 7,000 civilian caregivers nationwide, said a quick response to those in need is vital.

"In the private practice world, if somebody calls you and says, 'Hi, I need help,' most ... work incredibly hard to get that person in within a very few days because you want to take advantage of the fact that they're taking that important first step," she said.

The VA's busiest hospital for new behavioral health appointments — the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center in Gainesville, Fla. — scheduled more than 17,000 new appointments in fiscal 2013, and nearly 60% took longer than 14 days. The average wait for a new appointment there in 2013 was more than 32 days, data shows.

The VA published an analysis earlier this year estimating that of a population of more than 20 million veterans, 22 commit suicide each day.

And the plight for older vets isn’t much better.  It is becoming harder and harder for Veterans of any wars to get treatment, especially timely treatment.  Many of our older veterans, needing services of all kinds, are either lost in the paperwork shuffle or are told that there are no funds available.

The Hidden Obamacare Taxes That Will Crush The Middle Class

MoneyMorning: Get ready to be blindsided by a barrage of new taxes. $1 trillion worth...

They'll be coming courtesy of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

And they won't just be affecting those who make over $250,000. The bulk of these taxes will be passed on directly to the middle class.

That's because while a majority of these "stealth taxes" were designed to be taxes on businesses, they're actually transferred directly to ordinary citizens.

They include the investment income surtax, a Medicare payroll tax, even a "tanning tax" on those who utilize indoor tanning services.

"Many of those [hidden] taxes, especially those on hospitals, insurers and medical device manufacturers, will ultimately be passed on through higher health costs," said Michael Tanner an expert on the healthcare law.

In fact, analysts estimate Obamacare will cost the average taxpayer nearly $6,000 in extra taxes as early as next year.

Obamacare Tax Hikes Stoke Outrage

Many of the Obamacare taxes are already in effect, others will hit January 1. But they are already infuriating millions of Americans.

While even Obamacare detractors applaud the requirement that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions and put a stop to lifetime caps on benefits, they say these laudable benefits don't compensate for the bills high cost - especially in new taxes.

According to most experts, Obamacare will create a total of twenty new taxes or tax hikes on the American people.

In fact, the Obama administration has already given the IRS an extra $500 million to enforce the rules and regulations of Obamacare.

The new taxes don't bode well for millions of middle-class Americans. Incomes for the rich have soared this decade but middle class workers have seen their wages stagnate and even drop since the 2008 Great Recession.

Many fear Obamacare with its high insurance costs and new taxes, could provide the middle class a fatal blow.

Of course, the Obamacare plan was primarily designed to decrease the number of uninsured Americans and reduce healthcare costs.

Many experts are saying it will have the exact opposite effect.

That's just one of the reasons why Republicans hope to defund Obamacare before January.

They claim that the taxes and costs needed to pay for Obamacare will crush the middle class and most U.S. taxpayers, as well as trigger job losses in affected industries.

Tax experts say you should try to estimate how much you will have to pay when the law goes into full effect - and take precautions to limit the damage to your bottom line.

One expert, Dr. Betsy McCaughey, a constitutional scholar with a Ph.D. from Columbia University, recently wrote a best-seller showing Americans how they can not only survive Obamacare, but prosper through it.

McCaughey claims to be one of the only people in the country - including members of Congress - who has actually read the entire 2,572 page law.

Her book, titled Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for the New Healthcare Law, breaks the huge bill down into 168 pages of actionable advice.

The book, written in an easy going, easy to read style, shows some startling facts about Obamacare not seen in the mainstream press.

For example, she points to a little known passage in the bill that shows how you could get slapped with a $2,000 fine for not having health insurance - even if you do actually have it.

She also goes into detail explaining how a third of all U.S. employers could stop offering health insurance to their workers.

In one chapter, she shows how ordinary Americans will get stuck paying for substance abuse coverage - even if they never touched a drink or drug in their life.

According to McCaughey's research, senior citizens will get hit the hardest.

Hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery will be especially hard to get from Medicare in the months ahead thanks to Obamacare, according to McCaughey.

She warns seniors to get those types of procedures done now before Obamacare goes into effect January 1.

Book: Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for the New Healthcare Law

The Pets Most Likely to Suffer from Vaccine Adverse Reactions

Story at-a-glance

  • In the second half of a two-part interview, Dr. Becker talks with Dr. Ronald Schultz of the Rabies Challenge Fund about a variety of vaccine-related topics, including the mysterious rattlesnake vaccine, how it actually works, and for what snake in particular.
  • Dr. Becker and Dr. Schultz also discuss the Lyme disease vaccine, and under what circumstances it can prove beneficial, as well as the challenges of diagnosing leptospirosis and improvements in that vaccine in recent years.
  • Dr. Schultz also offers an excellent explanation of the various bordetella vaccines, what dogs really need them and how often, as well as what form of the vaccine he prefers. He and Dr. Becker also discuss the pros and cons of the canine influenza vaccine.
  • Dr. Becker and Dr. Schultz agree that veterinarians should discuss vaccines with pet owners before they vaccinate. And Dr. Schultz offers his view on which pets are most likely to develop an adverse reaction to vaccines.
  • Lastly, Dr. Becker and Dr. Schultz discuss the important work the Rabies Challenge Fund is doing to determine the duration of immunity conveyed by rabies vaccines. The goal is to extend the length of time between rabies vaccines to five years, then, if possible to seven years. The project is in year six of a seven-year study and depends on grassroots funding to conduct the necessary clinical trials. This week only, Mercola Healthy Pets will match every $1 donated by readers with a $2 donation, up to $30,000, to help the Rabies Challenge Fund complete its invaluable work toward reducing the number of vaccines our pets must receive during their lifetime.

Video: Dr. Becker Interviews Dr. Schultz About Vaccines (Part 2) 

Dog and Cat Vaccines are Not Harmless Preventive Medicine

By Dr. Becker – Cross-Posted at Just One More Pet

I’m back with Dr. Ron Schultz for the second half of our vaccine discussion.  Dr. Schultz heads up the Department of Pathobiological Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine. He’s joining me today on behalf of an important project he’s been working on for several years – the Rabies Challenge Fund. The purpose of the fund is to determine the duration of immunity conveyed by rabies vaccines, with the goal of extending the required interval for rabies boosters to five and then to seven years.

If you missed the first part of our discussion on Wednesday, I encourage you to watch that video as well. Dr. Schultz talks about core and non-core vaccines, and the benefits of the feline leukemia virus (FeLV) vaccine and why he believes every kitten should receive it (I must politely disagree on this topic). We also discuss vaccines Dr. Schultz does not recommend, why the whole topic of titering is so confusing, and whether or not he believes cats should be titer tested.

Continuing our discussion of vaccines today, the first thing I asked Dr. Schultz to talk about – because I don’t know much about it myself and get many questions about it – is the rattlesnake vaccine.

How Does the Rattlesnake Vaccine Work, and Is It Effective?

Dr. Schultz explained that the rattlesnake vaccine is actually an aid to prevent death in the event an animal is bitten by a specific type of rattlesnake. He says it does have value in that it can keep an animal bitten by a Western diamondback rattlesnake alive. But he cautions that when the vaccine is used, it’s important for pet owners to know their dog must still be treated for snake bite for two reasons. One, the snake may not have been a Western diamondback rattlesnake, in which case the vaccine offers no protection. Two, the vaccine in most cases will not prevent the venom from causing disease. What the vaccine does is buy time to get the animal treated, and it seems to work well in that regard.

I asked Dr. Schultz if he has concerns about the adjuvant used in the rattlesnake vaccine causing a reaction. He replied that unfortunately, nobody knows very much about the vaccine and in his opinion, it hasn’t been adequately tested. Most of the tests were done with rabbits, mice and other species, but not dogs. It should be tested in dogs. There’s just not a lot of research on this particular vaccine.

Dr. Schultz’s View on Lyme Disease Vaccines

Next I asked Dr. Schultz to discuss his thoughts on Lyme disease vaccines. He explained that there are several of them. There are whole killed organism vaccines of Borrelia burgdorferi, which is the bacteria that causes Lyme disease. And there’s a recombinant vaccine that contains just the important outer surface protein A component.

Dr. Schultz’s recommendation regarding Lyme vaccines depends on where the animal lives. For example, in the Madison area of Wisconsin, there’s currently about a four percent infection rate. But if you travel just 70 miles to La Crosse, there’s about a 70 percent infection rate. And in parts of Long Island, New York, there is a 90 percent infection rate.

So depending on where you live or plan to visit, your dog may have a very high risk of being infected with Borrelia burgdorferi. In high risk cases, Dr. Schultz recommends not only a tick preventive, but also the vaccine. Most of the Lyme disease vaccines are around 60 to 75 percent effective at preventing the organism from causing disease.

I asked Dr. Schultz if he has concerns about reactions from Lyme disease vaccines, and he replied that yes, there are some potential concerns. The Lyme vaccines are bacterial vaccines, and bacterial vaccines always carry a greater risk of adverse reactions, especially reactions of an immediate nature. With both leptospirosis bacterin vaccines and Lyme bacterin vaccines, the nature of the bacteria can cause adverse reactions in some animals. According to Dr. Schultz, these vaccines have the ability to stimulate the IgE antibody in animals, which is responsible for immediate or type 1 hypersensitivity reactions. So bacterins are always more likely to cause an adverse reaction than a live viral vaccine, for example.

If he were to recommend a Lyme vaccine, Dr. Schultz likes the outer surface protein A product better than the whole killed product because the former takes some of the potentially reactogenic antigens out of the formula. But even with that, the vaccine can still cause adverse reactions in some animals.

What About Leptospirosis? Is It a Bigger Threat Today Than in Years Past?

Leptospirosis (and its vaccines) is another confusing subject. There are veterinarians in the Chicago area who are promoting lepto as some kind of new, trendy infectious disease. But lepto has been around forever. Dr. Schultz agrees – there’s nothing new about leptospirosis. And he believes it’s probably no more common today than it was 40 or 50 years ago, despite the hype, which is driven in part by the really poor diagnostics used to detect the disease.

Fortunately, according to Dr. Schultz, there are better detection techniques on the horizon. The current gold standard, he says, “… is about as poor a test as you’ll ever find.” It gives false readings – false positives. Dr. Schultz says he’s seen a high number of supposed lepto cases that are NOT lepto cases thanks to poor diagnostics. Poor diagnostics have added to the general confusion surrounding lepto, and are partly why veterinarians are recommending mass vaccination against the disease.

Dr. Schultz restated that in his view, lepto is no more prevalent today than it was 40 years ago. However, the vaccine has improved tremendously in recent years, because it now contains the 4 serovars that cause lepto in the U.S. In the past, all lepto vaccines contained only 2 serovars. With the old 2-serovar vaccines, Dr. Schultz says there were as many vaccinated dogs with lepto as there were non-vaccinated dogs.

He believes today, the lepto vaccine is probably 60 to 80 percent effective in preventing disease. I asked him if the animal can still transmit or shed the bacteria. He replied there is that potential, but even the shedding is reduced with the 4-serovar vaccine.

Of course, despite the improved effectiveness of the lepto vaccine, there are still concerns about adverse reactions with the first dose, or subsequent revaccinations. Dr. Schultz explains this is another of the bacterins that is more likely to cause an adverse reaction simply as a result of the nature of the organism.

Adverse Reactions to Vaccines Can be Immediate, or They Can Develop Weeks, Months or Even Years Post-Vaccination

So we’ve established that the majority of adverse events occur with bacterin-type vaccines. These vaccines can cause all types of hypersensitivity reactions in some animals. Type 1 adverse reactions typically occur immediately after vaccination and are obviously directly linked to the vaccine.

But as Dr. Schultz goes on to explain, when we have a reaction like the development of autoimmune hemolytic anemia or another autoimmune disease in a genetically predisposed animal, it usually occurs weeks, months or even years after vaccination. Often the offending vaccine in those cases is a live viral vaccine, and it isn’t blamed for causing the disease because there’s a span of time between vaccination and development of the autoimmune disorder.

Many veterinarians will say, in response to the suggestion that a vaccine caused an autoimmune disorder, something like, “What do you mean? There’s no correlation. It was last year when the dog received that vaccine.” And even worse, both Dr. Schultz and I have seen veterinarians tell pet owners their animal’s illness couldn’t be a vaccine reaction even when the two events happen within days of each other.

Dr. Schultz’s Bordetella Vaccine Recommendation

Next I asked Dr. Schultz to talk to us about bordetella vaccines. He explained that the vaccine is available now in a variety of forms. There’s an oral vaccine, which is a live, attenuated bordetella organism. There’s the intranasal form, which is also the live organism. And there’s the injectable form, which is a killed product. Dr. Schultz says he has been able to clearly demonstrate that the live product is the most effective, whether oral or intranasal.

But one of the problems with bordetella is that it is always accompanied by other agents in causing canine infectious respiratory disease complex, otherwise known as kennel cough. There are many infectious agents involved, but the most important one from a bacterial standpoint is bordetella. From a viral standpoint, an impressive number of infectious agents can play a role.

I personally can’t see a reason to use injectable bordetella when there are other safer, non-adjuvanted and attenuated vaccines available. Dr. Schultz points out that one of the reasons the injectable is popular is that it can be used with dogs that won’t cooperate with intranasal or oral administration of the vaccine. He does a lot of work with shelters, and there are many difficult dogs in that population that must receive the vaccine by injection. Some dogs can be muzzled and given the oral vaccine, but often it’s too dangerous for shelter staff to even try to muzzle certain dogs.

In my opinion, the bordetella vaccine should only be given when a dog must be boarded. If you don’t board your dog, or if you don’t plan to have your dog in contact with other dogs (such as at shows and training classes), then my recommendation is to opt out.

However, some kennels require dogs to receive a twice-yearly schedule of bordetella revaccinations. Dr. Schultz believes if you’re taking your pet to a boarding facility that requires bordetella vaccines every six months, you should change to another facility, because the one you’re using has a ventilation or hygiene problem and not an infectious disease problem. “Don’t allow anyone to tell you that you need to get bordetella vaccine every six months. If they do, don’t go there anymore,” says Dr. Schultz.

The Canine Influenza Vaccine – Is It Really Necessary?

I also asked Dr. Schultz about the canine influenza vaccine, which is another vaccine commonly required at boarding facilities and similar businesses. He answered that he’s not sure the vaccine should be required, because canine influenza isn’t a casually transmitted virus. It’s not something the average well cared-for dog will pick up at the local dog park.

Dr. Schultz does caution, however, that if the canine influenza vaccine is to be given, it can’t be administered at the last minute. Dogs that have never received the vaccine need at least three weeks to develop immunity after being vaccinated. And two doses must be given, with a minimum of two weeks separating them. If a dog is receiving annual boosters of the vaccine, it won’t take three weeks for immunity to develop after revaccination.
Dr. Schultz explains that bordetella (as well as other bacterial diseases such as streptococcal infections) and canine influenza together can create severe disease.

Dr. Schultz mentioned that many kennels do require the canine influenza vaccine, so I asked him if that is out of concern about spreading disease, or concern about covering their bases from a liability standpoint. Dr. Schultz thinks much of it comes from a concern that if there were to be an outbreak of canine influenza, the facilities would be found at fault because they didn’t require the vaccine. Fortunately, to date there have only been a few outbreaks of canine influenza in shelters and kennels.

I agree. I feel a lot of those requirements are simply a way to bounce liability away from the business owner. And it’s up to pet owners to determine the true motivation behind the requirement if they choose to board or have their dog groomed at a facility that demands certain vaccines. And as Dr. Schultz points out, if any of the vaccines required by these businesses cause an adverse reaction in a pet, the costs (both financial and emotional) associated with the adverse event are the owner’s responsibility even though the vaccines were required by a third party.

Are Pet Owners Informed About the Potential for Adverse Vaccine Reactions?

As it stands right now, veterinarians must obtain informed consent from a pet owner when we elect not to vaccinate an animal. I asked Dr. Schultz if he believes we should also obtain informed consent TO vaccinate an animal. He replied that he definitely agrees we should. In my opinion, many in the traditional veterinary community are casual vaccinators. They aren’t informing their clients of all the potential ramifications of administering vaccines.

Dr. Schultz agrees that pet owners need to be aware, even though the number of adverse reactions is relatively small. And something he wants to re-emphasize – something that people don’t realize or think about – is that adverse reactions are genetically controlled. When Dr. Schultz talks to breeders, he tells them that if they see adverse vaccine reactions in puppies from a specific combination of mother and father dogs, they should not mate those two dogs again, because the incidence of adverse reactions will increase with each litter and potentially with litters of those litters, and so on. By continuing to mate those two dogs to each other, they will perpetuate the genetic predisposition to adverse vaccine reactions.

Dr. Schultz says, as an example, we might see allergic neuritis or paralysis develop in about 1 in 10,000 vaccinates, yet in a litter of five puppies, three of the five may develop the condition. One of them dies, and two are paralyzed. So the incidence of adverse reactions is not rare in that litter of five, because genetics plays a key role in causing the vaccine adverse reaction.

What Pets Are Most Likely to Have an Adverse Reaction to Vaccines?

There are genetic predispositions among breeds of dogs. As a Boston Terrier owner, I have concerns not just about immediate adverse reactions, but about mast cell tumors, for example. No one is studying the correlation, but I personally believe there’s a strong correlation between vaccinations and mast cell tumors.

Dr. Schultz agrees and thinks that in dogs, we should look at mast cell tumors, histiocytomas and other similar responses at vaccine injection sites. We are aware of feline injection-site sarcomas, but really, any vaccine in a dog or cat that stimulates a proliferative response in cells should be looked at. Particular individuals with a genetic predisposition turn those cells neoplastic, and the animal doesn’t have the suppressor factors necessary to control the disease (tumor) at the cellular level. It’s going to turn into a tumor.

Recognition among veterinarians has been slow in coming, but it’s coming. As Dr. Schultz points out, until fairly recently the veterinary community never considered that a vaccine could cause a lethal tumor in a young, healthy animal. He says it was a great awakening in the mid-1980s for the veterinary profession to realize the potential for adverse events following vaccination, specifically at the time, injection-site sarcomas in cats. But Dr. Schultz believes it’s important to keep in mind that these events are rare, and many veterinarians have never seen one. Other practices see six or eight a year. The frequency isn’t based on the number of cats coming into a particular practice. Which brings us back to the matter of genetic predisposition to adverse events from vaccines.

Other factors that can play a role include an animal’s nutritional status, environmental status, the type of vaccine, the stress the animal feels – all those things and more play into an animal’s immunologic response.

In terms of genetics, one example Dr. Schultz points out is the small breed dog. He says it’s not every small breed, but there are small breeds out there that are genetically predisposed to react to many vaccines. Dr. Schultz says this is a critically important point when it comes to making decisions about giving vaccinations.

If you have a small breed dog that has proven to be hypersensitive to vaccines – or is related to other hypersensitive dogs -- and that dog spends most of his time in the house on someone’s lap, what are the chances he’ll be exposed to leptospirosis? The chances are slim to none, so why would you even think about injecting that dog with a lepto vaccine? Dr. Schultz says vaccine manufacturers don’t want those animals vaccinated due to the risk of adverse reactions.

In terms of recognizing the potential dangers of certain vaccines for certain pets, breed-specific organizations seem to, and of course individual pet owners who’ve lived through horrific experiences do as well. But there are still a large number of veterinarians who seem unwilling to put the puzzle pieces together to protect potentially vulnerable patients.

Dr. Schultz replied that he’s still shocked by the number of practices that are still giving core vaccines annually. As he puts it, “If ever we could get away from this addiction to vaccination just for the sake of vaccination …”.

Dr. Schultz and the Rabies Challenge Fund

The last topic I want to discuss with Dr. Schultz today is one that is close to my heart, the Rabies Challenge Fund. I asked Dr. Schultz to describe the project and its purpose for people who aren’t familiar with it.

He responded that what he and his colleagues Dr. Jean Dodds and Kris Christine have been doing for over five years now is trying to answer the question, can be we get protection from rabies vaccines, and how long can that protection last? Right now there are rabies vaccines that carry either a 1-year or 3-year license. Many of those vaccines are actually the same product – they were just licensed differently. Dr. Schultz is looking beyond the 3-year license by conducting very difficult, very expensive studies to determine how long immunity from a rabies vaccine truly lasts.

This is the way a rabies vaccine is licensed: The USDA requires that a vaccinated group of animals be challenged with the rabies virus at three or five or seven years after the vaccine is given. There must also be a control group of dogs that are unvaccinated. When challenged, a certain percentage of that group must develop rabies to insure the challenge is viable. Of the vaccinated group, 88 percent or more must be protected in order for the USDA to license the vaccine for the number of years protection is provided.

At this time, the Rabies Challenge Fund is at five years with one of the vaccines they are testing, and at three years with the other. They are currently trying to determine whether or not the vaccines will be effective at five years. If those tests show that there should still be protection at five years post-vaccination, the next step will be to do the challenge itself.

Dr. Schultz has two years left on one of the vaccine products and four years left on the other product to determine length of immunity. The work he and his colleagues are doing with the rabies challenge is funded by dog owners. Dr. Schultz says no one is really interested in the work other than caring dog owners, which also includes a number of breed-specific clubs and organizations – basically people who want to give their dogs as few vaccines as necessary – law-abiding citizens who want their pets protected from disease, but don’t want to risk their pet’s health with unnecessary vaccinations.

How You Can Help

The Rabies Challenge Fund study is the first of its kind, and it takes a lot of money to do the work. It’s seven years of research, data collection, and publishing the results. That’s why Mercola Healthy Pets is partnering with the Rabies Challenge Fund to help raise the remainder of the money needed to not only complete the study, but to insure the research is published in a manner that will benefit the most pets.

And of course research is still ongoing. They are in year six, and have year seven still to go. The project depends on grassroots gifts for funding the costs of conducting the requisite vaccine trials. Contributions to date have come mostly from kennel clubs and private individuals. None of the money collected by the Rabies Challenge Fund goes to Dr. Schultz, Dr. Dodds, Kris Christine, or others working on their behalf. Salaries and other overhead costs are not involved, with the exception of expenses for care and testing of the study animals.

I want to extend my thanks to Dr. Schultz for talking with us today and for his work with the Rabies Challenge Fund. Extending the length of time between rabies and other vaccinations, thereby reducing the total number of vaccines animals receive during their lifetime, will be a huge benefit to the health and well being of pets.

Mercola Healthy Pets is proud to partner with the Rabies Challenge Fund to raise money to help improve the lives of animals. This week, for every $1 donated to the Rabies Challenge Fund by a Mercola Healthy Pets reader, we will donate $2, up to $30,000. I hope you’ll join us in helping RabiesChallengeFund.org fund the remaining research needed to complete their seven-year study.

Related:

Do Vaccinations Affect the Health of our Pets?

New Parasite Prevalence Maps Help Pet Owners Prepare

The dangers of vaccines are surfacing for children, people in general, and now pets: New Organization VaxTruth Fights Vaccine Damages

Friday, November 8, 2013

O Gives Oh So Faux Apology…

Video: Broken Obamacare Promises - David Webb - David Rosenberg - 'The Kelly File' - 11-7-13

President Obama said in an interview on Thursday that he’s sorry a number of Americans are being forced to change their health care plans despite previous assurances the Affordable Care Act would allow them to keep their existing plans.

"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," Obama told Chuck Todd during an interview with NBC News at the White House.

"We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this."

Obama’s admission represents the latest evolution on the issue dating back to before the Affordable Care Act was even signed into law in 2010. Up through September of this year, Obama was adamant that the Affordable Care Act would not impact Americans who already had their own health insurance.

But it was not a true apology nor was it an admission that he… they they lied to us.  And it is becoming ever more evident that they did.

"If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything,” Obama said in a speech on September 25th speech in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

But already 3.5 million Americans have had their healthcare plans cancelled, according to the Associated Press. Most of these are individuals who purchased plans directly from insurers, rather than through a workplace. The reason for the cancellations: their plans changed since the signing of the new healthcare law. While Obama was promising that you could keep your plan if you purchased it prior to the signing of the law on March 23, 2010, what he didn't say was that if a provider changed the plan its grandfather status would become void.

Since individual plans change frequently, the chances of individuals being able to keep their plans was always low. In fact, buried in Obamacare regulations dating back to 2010 is a Health and Human Services estimate that 40 to 67 percent of individual plan owners would lose that coverage because of normal turnover in the individual market.

About 80 percent of Americans with health insurance are covered through their employers or a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid. Conservative estimates now project the majority of those 5 percent of Americans who buy their own plans (about 14 million people) will likely have to make some kind of adjustment, sometimes at a higher cost.

The White House and administration surrogates have tried to mitigate criticism by contending some of those individuals will actually end up with cheaper and better plans. Nonetheless, Obama’s failure to include the "grandfather" clause in his if-you-like-it-you-can-keep-it speeches has turned into a growing controversy.

After the law went into effect in October, early reports began to emerge that Americans who buy their own insurance were starting to get letters from insurance companies informing them that their current plans were being cancelled and that they would need to replace their coverage in order to be in compliance with the Affordable Care Act.

White House officials continued to insist that Obama did not “lie” to the American public about the issue. However, throughout October, the administration’s stance continued to evolve.

“What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage," White House Spokesman Jay Carney said on October 28th. “So it's true that there are existing health care plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act."

After four years of sticking to his "if-you-like-your-coverage" promise, Obama recalibrated on Oct. 30. "Ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is, you've got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage because that too was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning," he explained.

Just over a week later, that recalibration has become a faux apology.

And what he didn’t say is that as employers realize that they cannot afford to maintain coverage for their employees, many people will be forced into part-time or business will drop their whole program for everyone… dropping all those people into the exchanges.

Estimates are now as high as possibly 129 million people my lose their healthcare coverage.

And then there is the dirty secret that this is the plan… to force everyone into the exchanges and into a single-payer plan, which is socialize medicine.

Wake-up America.  Many are planning to just pay the the $95 fee and then voting out these Progressive Democrats in 2014 and 2016, replacing them with fiscal conservatives who will repeal this whole power-grabbing program and replace it with something that will help the poor and the middle class.

Related: Dirty Little Secret: Rationing is at Heart of ObamaCare

The earliest sign of autism is in the eyes, study says

Blue Eye

MSN: Scientists think they've found the earliest sign of a child developing autism. Using sensitive eye-tracking software, they measured the eye movements of 110 children starting when they were 2 months old and ending at 2 years old. At around 2 months of age, children who didn't develop autism started looking at people's eyes more. Those who did started looking at people's mouths or at objects instead. Researchers are hopeful that with earlier detection, they can develop more effective therapy. They do warn people though, that the study still needs work. They're examining more children, and they specify that only their eye-tracking technology can detect the difference. It's perfectly fine for children to not look parents in the eye all the time. — By Nick Mangione [Source]

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

CMA Mocks Obamacare In Song: “Over 6 People Served!”

Performers, Carrie Underwood and Brad Paisley at the Country Music Awards take Obamacare to task for its epic failure in their song, “ObamaCare by Morning”.

The hooting and hollering at this event should do your heart good!!  People are getting it.

Video: Obamacare by Morning CMA Awards Carrie Underwood & Brad Paisley

CARRIE UNDERWOOD: Brad, what's wrong?

BRAD PAISLEY: I twerked my back. I twerked it good.

UNDERWOOD: Brad, that's not what twerking means

PAISLEY: Yes it is. Twerking is a medical term, Carrie.

UNDERWOOD: No, no. Twerking is, well, have you ever been to a Luke Bryan concert?

PAISLEY: I thought those were mini-seizures.

UNDERWOOD: No, no. No.

PAISLEY: Oh. Anyway, I think I need to see a doctor.

UNDERWOOD: Hey, do you have that ObamaCare?

PAISLEY: ObamaCare? What's that?

UNDERWOOD: Oh, it's great. It's great.

PAISLEY: What is it?

UNDERWOOD: I started signing up last Thursday and I'm almost done. Let's go to the website and get you signed up.

PAISLEY: Oh, okay.

UNDERWOOD: Let's see here. Let's see. This can't be too hard, right?

PAISLEY: Why is it spinning?

UNDERWOOD: Oh, it does that.

PAISLEY: Okay, but why's it smoking?

UNDERWOOD: Oh, I don't, maybe we should restart it?

PAISLEY AND UNDERWOOD (SINGING): ObamaCare by morning why is this takin' so long?

PAISLEY (SINGING): I'm gonna wind up with hemorrhoids.

PAISLEY AND UNDERWOOD (SINGING): If I sit here till dawn. We'll have cataracts and dementia. Oh this is gettin' on my last nerve. ObamaCare by morning, over six people served.

Health Care Fukushima: 129 Million To Lose Their Plan

IBD: Meltdown: A health care scholar estimates that if ObamaCare is fully implemented, including the employer mandate, 129 million people will not be able to keep their plans. The train wreck has become a nuclear meltdown.

The never-ending and ever-changing story line emanating from the damage control room at the White House has morphed from you can keep your plan, period, to we said you could keep the plan you liked at the rates agreed upon only if we decide it's not substandard.

That, we were told, would only apply to some 5% of Americans. They would get a better plan whether they liked it or not.

It's as if the government decided the car you drove to work was "substandard" and forced you to drive a "better" car like the government-subsidized Chevy Volt.

ObamaCare is kind of like "cash for clunkers" only with fines and penalties thrown in. We fork over more cash in the form of higher premiums and deductibles and get the clunker known as ObamaCare.

The story has changed again as commentators try to split the hair between "intentional deceit" and "lie."

"Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really like that plan, what we said was you could keep it, if it hasn't changed since the law was passed," President Obama said Monday night. Oh, so that was what you meant by "period," Mr. President.

Every insurance plan changes as risk pools and claims vary over time. That's why people have had to renew their policies every year or so.

That is the ultimate Catch-22 of ObamaCare, one that will snare an astounding number of Americans in ObamaCare's tangled web of lies and deceit.

Those who thought their plans were exempted under the "grandfather" clause were sadly mistaken and ignored that phrase throughout ObamaCare — "the Secretary shall determine." Well, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius determined unless your plan was carved in stone tablets for all time, they had to go and changed the regulations.

Now, as the Daily Caller reports, an analysis by health care economist Christopher Conover at the Center for Health Policy & Inequalities Research at Duke University, shows just how wide that web will extend when ObamaCare is fully implemented in 2014.

It also helps explain the delay in the employer mandate — an attempt to cushion the blow.

When ObamaCare is fully implemented, Conover finds, an estimated 129 million people — that's 68% of the 189 million Americans with private health coverage — could lose their previous health coverage due to a combination of factors including the cancellations of existing plans as well as changes and "improvements" to existing coverage that will be required under the new health care law.

Kathleen Sebelius Senate Hearing Obamacare 11.6.2013, Sebelius Admits: It Is possible for convicted felons to become Obamacare navigators

Greg GutFeld: “There have now been more hearings on ObamaCare than people who have signed up for the program”

Below is the full hearing 3 hours - skip to 25 min 55 sec and that’s when the hearing beings.

Enzi questions are shortly before Cronyn.

Cornyn is speaking at 1:53 asking about the navigators possibly being convicted felons. Sherrod Brown follows.   At 1:59:40 is Thune ‘ who explains it is flawed legislation based on the outcome so far.  Predicated on promises which are broken.

She goes into a response that is evasive and misdirecting his question.

Most Americans would forgive it if you said you didn’t tell the truth.Just before 2:05 minutes you see her sitting there very thoughtful looking at her hands. This is a response not seen before – whether someone was talking in her ear or she had a small dose of conscience who knows?

Senator Roberts from Kansas, Sebelius’ home state, asked her to resign.

Video: Kathleen Sebelius Senate Hearing Obamacare 11.6.2013

That’s right folks… ObamaCare navigators could be convicted felons who would access to your personal information…

Video:  Kathleen Sebelius: It's possible for convicted felons to become Obamacare navigators

Video: Kathleen Sebelius Refuses To Answer Whether Obama's Keep Your Plan Promise Was True Or False

Video: Thune at Finance to Sebelius: You've Been Misleading the American People

Video: Senator Roberts Calls For Secretary Sebelius' Resignation in Finance Committee Hearing

Obama Now "Lying About Lies”

Obamacare, Deconstructed [video] 

The Dirty Secret Behind ObamaCare No One's Talking About