Attention Main Stream Media. Regarding Obamacare… I Told You So!

Gulag Bound  -  By: C. Steven Tucker -  Cross-Posted at the NoisyRoom and at AskMarion

Back on August 3rd, 2013 I wrote a piece exposing what I stated then will soon happen to millions of Americans if we do not support the Tea Party and Republican lead effort to defund Obamacare. In that piece, I stated when President Obama promised – “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan and no one will take it away from you, period” he was not telling the truth. Watch President Obama make this false promise below:

Video: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama

Below I will link to some real world examples of what is beginning to happen because the Obamacare “Health Insurance Exchange Marketplaces” opened on 10/1/13 and were funded (once again) by Republicans in the most recent Continuing Resolution on the evening of October 16, 2013.

Below I will link actual policy termination letters from four of my existing clients who hold individual health insurance policies from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois. The last names and policy numbers have been redacted in order to protect the privacy of these clients per 1996 HIPAA law.

• Click here to download Stephen’s Obamacare termination letter.
• Click here to download Robert’s Obamacare termination letter.
• Click here to download Kathleen’s Obamacare termination letter.
• Click here to download Michael’s Obamacare termination letter.

Please also note that in every case, the PPACA compliant ‘replacement plans’ offered to these clients are priced higher and in most cases much higher than what they are paying now. However, they’re not just priced higher, they expose these clients to a much higher out of pocket risk each year. Up to $12,700 for a couple and a family. Below are the outlines of coverage for each PPACA compliant alternative plan offered to these clients:

• The Blue PPO Bronze 005. Click here to view the outline of coverage.
• The Blue Bronze PPO 006. Click here to view the outline of coverage.
• The Blue Choice Silver PPO 003. Click here to view the outline of coverage.
• The Blue Choice Bronze PPO 005.Click here to view the outline of coverage.
• The Blue Choice Bronze PPO 006. Click here to view the outline of coverage.

Notice the out of pocket costs with each of those plans? Every one of them has a higher out of pocket risk to this client than the risk his family assumes now and all of them are more expensive than what he pays now. With the exception of the “Bronze PPO 006? plan which more than DOUBLES his family’s out of pocket risk exposure on his current “HSA 100%” plan.

Secondly, here is a sample copy of a letter that my Humana individual and family policy holders are now receiving. They too are now being forced into the Obamacare exchanges either on 12/31/2013 or on 12/31/2014 depending on when they purchased their health plan. Notice that this client’s Obamacare replacement plan will triple his premium.

Thirdly, here is a sample copy of a letter that my Aetna clients are already receiving. These clients are now losing their individual and family health insurance plans. They too will be forced into an Obamacare compliant plan as of 12/30/2013 or 12/31/2014 where the cheapest – “Bronze” plan – will expose a couple or a family to a $12,700 out of pocket risk exposure each year for in network covered charges.

Fourthly, about a month after I penned my original piece on August 3rd, other Blue Cross associations all over the country began sending our their policy termination letters. You can see the Independence Blue Cross policy termination letter if you click here.

Click here to read another policy termination notice and Obamacare compliant replacement letter from Regence Blue Shield of Nebraska. Pay particular attention to $12,700 annual out of pocket expense risk that this family will now face when they are forced to switch to an Obamacare compliant “Bronze” plan on 12/30/2013. Notice that their premium doubled as well.

One thing you can be sure of, all Individual and Family health plans sold in Illinois by Blue Cross Blue Shield, Humana and Aetna after March 23, 2010 a.k.a. ‘non-Grandfathered’ plans will be terminated and replaced with an Obamacare compliant plan either by 12/31/2013 or by 12/31/2014 depending on when you purchased the plan. Also, since the aforementioned June of 2010 ruling was a federal ruling, this will be the case for any carrier who offers plans inside the exchanges in all other states as well.

Millions of individual and family health insurance plans have already been terminated and 16 million more Americans will soon lose their individual health insurance plans because of Obamacare.

• CBS: A charter member of the Main Stream Media finally reports on 2 million Americans who have already lost their health plans:

Video: CBS: Over 2 Million Americans Have Already Received Insurance Cancellations Due To ObamaCare

• CBS: They finally report on the true cost of Obamacare approved health insurance:

Video: CBS: ObamaCare Website Dramatically Underestimating Costs For Consumers

• CBS News: Also reporting on hundreds of thousands losing their health insurance plans because of Obamacare:

Video: CBS: ObamaCare Forcing Hundreds Of Thousands To Lose Health Insurance Coverage

• CBS News: “Obamacare resulting in dropped coverage and higher premiums:

Video: CBS: ObamaCare Resulting In Dropped Coverage And Higher Premiums

• NBC News: Consumers facing sticker shock and policy cancellation notices due to Obamacare:

Video: NBC: Consumers Facing Sticker Shock Due To ObamaCare

• Kaiser Health News: Thousand of consumers getting insurance cancellation notices due to health law changes.

• NBC News: Thousands getting health insurance cancellation notices.

• NBC News: Half a million Californians losing their health insurance plans because they don’t comply with Obamacare.

• The worst part about all of this is that NBC News is now reporting that President Obama knew, as early as July of 2010 that millions of Americans would lose their health insurance plans because of his health care law: 

Video: NBC: Obama Administration Knew ObamaCare Would Terminate Half Of Individual Plans

Below is a photocopy of a page of the federal register that proves that the Obama administration knew in 2010 that millions of Americans would lose their Individual & Employer Sponsored health insurance plans because of Obamacare. This regulation was written on purpose so that millions of existing policy holders would be forced to purchase health insurance inside the exchanges instead. The forced addition of millions of these policyholders – all who were assured by president Obama that they could ‘keep their plan‘ – will lower the cost or further subsidize the high cost of insuring sick people who will most certainly be purchasing subsidized health insurance inside the exchanges. In other words this was a deliberate action taken by HHS and a direct violation of the president’s promise.

President Obama is also falsely referring to these canceled plans as “substandard plans” from the ‘old market’. Nothing could be further from the truth. These plans were designed in large part by his health care law. All individual plans sold since 9/23/2010 already include 8 out of the 10 “Essential Health Benefits” that he states must be “added’ in January of 2014 in order to make them ‘better’. In fact, my clients who selected Maternity coverage with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois already have 9 out of the 10 “Essential Health Benefits”. Yet the President’s health care law requires that these plans must also be terminated and replaced with even more expensive plans in 2014. The evidence in this post prove that these plans are far from ‘substandard’ plans from the ‘old market’.

Remember, president Obama also promised rates would go down by $2,500? Watch him make that promise here:

San Jose Mercury News: Two time Obama voters shocked to receive policy cancellation notices and massive premium increases.

Video: Obama Says His Healthcare Plan Will Save Families $2,500

You can run your own Obamacare compliant rates by clicking on my Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois quote engine below:

If you’re not in Illinois, you can run your own Obamacare approved rates using my Humana quote engine here:

Please note: There is one major difference between my online quote engines and the “Health Insurance Exchange Marketplace” at HealthCare.gov. Mine actually work!

Months after I penned that original article – on August 3, 2013 – a flagship member of the main stream media – NBC – finally confirmed in their article entitled “Thousands get health insurance cancellation notices“ that I was indeed speaking the truth and not a ‘fear-mongerer’, ‘racist’ or ‘liar’ as I have been labeled repeatedly by our ‘friends on the Left’ since writing that piece.

Several days before NBC finally confirmed I was right. A newspaper in California detailed the anger and frustration by two time Obama voters who were also losing their health plans and facing an increase in their family premium of $10,000 a year. You can read that California newspaper clip if you click here.

Oh and it’s not just individual and family policy holders who are losing their health insurance policies because of Obamacare. It’s employer sponsored group policy holders as well. Click here to see a copy of the California Farm Bureau Federation group policy termination letter sent to their insured members. The CBO is predicting that 14.5 million Americans will lose their health plans after 2014. I disagree. I am predicting more than 40 million Americans will lose their employer sponsored health insurance plans. I discussed why for the Fox Business television network. View the video on the Fox Business web site by clicking here:

Worse yet, those whom we count on to provide us with the care we need are also losing their health insurance plans because of Obamacare. Here is a letter that doctors and dentists in Illinois received all over the state. They too will be losing their health insurance plan as of 12/31/2013.

All of these policy holders are being forced to forfeit their existing plans and agree to accept an Obamacare compliant plan (along with the premium increases required) by December 31, 2013 or December 30, 2014 depending on when you purchase your plan. I discussed this for the Fox Business television network on 09/30/2013 the day before the Obamacare “Health Insurance Exchange Marketplace” opened.

Video: C. Steven Tucker Fox Business TV Network 09 30 13

Why is this happening now?

I will use the state of Illinois as an example. Governor Quinn had originally expected 16 health insurance carriers to offer products within the Illinois Obamacare exchange. Only 6 carriers have chosen to sell plans within the exchange. They are as follows:

• Humana
• Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois
• Aetna
• Coventry
• Land of Lincoln Health
• The Carle Foundation, a nonprofit hospital network based in Urbana

Since these carriers have chosen the option to offer a “Medal” (Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum) product within the exchange, individual/family health insurance plans that they have already sold in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 must be terminated and replaced with a plan that conforms to the design of the “Medal” plans sold inside the exchanges. Either on 12/31/2013 or 12/31/2014 depending on when the plan was purchased. These new replacement plans must include all 10 of the federally mandated “Essential Health Benefits” and they must conform in design to the deductible and other out of pocket expenses that will be included with the “Medal” plans sold inside the exchanges.

There are however two large insurance carriers that are staying out of the new Obamacare “Health Insurance Exchange Marketplace” in Illinois and most other states. Those carriers are United HealthOne and Assurant Health.

Although these two carriers must still adopt all 10 of the new federally mandated “Essential Health Benefits” and they must also offer guaranteed insurability (no preexisting conditions) to all applicants during ‘Open Enrollment” periods in 2014. The deductible and coinsurance arrangements that they offer to their clients can be different than the standard deductibles and coinsurance arrangements that will be offered in the exchanges until December 30, 2014.

This means that their prices will be inherently lower than the “Medal” plans sold inside the exchanges. And, the out of pocket expenses don’t have to be $12,700 out of pocket for a couple of a family as is the case with the cheapest “Bronze’ plan sold inside the Obamacare “Health Insurance Exchange Marketplace”. This is most especially true for individuals with MAGI – Modified Adjusted Gross Incomes – higher than 400% above the Federal Poverty Level. Those income levels would be anyone who makes less than the following income levels:

• $46,960 for an individual
• $62,040 for a couple
• $78,120 for a family of three
• $92,200 for a family of four
• $110,280 for a family of five
• $126,360 for a family of six

Those Americans will receive NO taxpayer funded ‘subsidy’ to artificially lower the high cost of the expensive Obamacare Qualified Health Plans that will be sold within the new ‘Health Insurance Exchange Marketplace”.

Because these two carriers are staying out of the Obamacare exchanges around the country. They are both able to make the following commitment to potential new policy holders. If you purchase a health insurance plan from either of these carriers prior to 2014 you will not lose or have to change that health plan and you will not receive a premium increase until December 30, 2014. You will also be able to design your own plan with your own deductible, your own co pay and other policy features that after 2014 will be designed by the federal government.

Watch United HealthOne make this promise here.

Run your own quotes from United HealthOne by clicking on their logo below:

Read Assurant Health’s promise here.

Run your own quotes from Assurant Health by clicking on their logo below:

It’s not just health plans that have been terminated. Health insurers have also been terminated.

It’s not just health plans that have been terminated. We’ve lost 13 carriers as well. In July of 2013 we lost the 13th individual health insurance carrier since Obamacare passed. See this insurance company’s exit letter here. The other individual health insurers who have pulled out of the individual health insurance market since the passage of Obamacare are as follows:

1. American National
2. American Republic > 35,000 people LOST their health plans when American Republic exited the market. Hundreds of jobs were lost as well.
3. American Medical Security
4. American Community Mutual
5. Standard Life & Accident
6. Principle Financial
7. nHealth
8. World Insurance
9. Unicare
10. Guarantee Trust Life < One of my clients in Naperville, Illinois who received that letter lost her plan during Breast Cancer treatment!
11. Coventry
12. Physicians Benefit Trust
13. Independence Holding Group

Obamacare is creating a massive insurance monopoly. These smaller carriers that I used to be able to offer to my clients, the carriers with the good prices are now gone. They are being gobbled up by the larger carriers. We now have only a handful of health insurance carriers left in the country. Think about it, you know this. Look at the exchange plans and see if you can find more than 5 carriers who are offering plans.

Eliminating health insurance carriers and creating a taxpayer funded monopoly is not ‘competition’. It is a monopoly and nothing drives up prices like a monopoly. Period.

Article originally published on C. Steven Tucker blog, October 22, 2013

**The only good thing about being right when nobody listens to you, is to be able to eventually say, “I told you so”.  The problem with ObamaCare and the whole Obama presidency is that it is and has been so devastating to our country and freedom in general that it isn’t even fun or rewarding to be able to say it!  AskMarion~

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.

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.”

RUSH: GOP Will Be Tricked Into Saving ObamaCare

Audio: RUSH: GOP Will Be Tricked Into Saving ObamaCare

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

Wake-Up… ObamaCare Eliminates Your Plan by Design 

The Dirty Secret Behind ObamaCare No One’s Talking About

Book:  Beating Obamacare

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

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.

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