Saturday, February 27, 2010


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

How will the president's plan affect payroll taxes?

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

How will seniors be affected by the Medicare payroll tax?

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

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

For text: Heritage Foundation

Thursday, February 25, 2010

ObamaCare Summit Reviews~

Obama Threatens Reconciliation

Weak Attempt to Salvage ObamaCare

By Amanda J. Reinecker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ben Stein Accuses Obama of Treating the Republicans Like Third Graders

By Heather Thursday Feb 25, 2010 3:47pm

Stein Video

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Conrad Says HC Bill Is Dead Unless House Acts First

By Philip Klein on 2.24.10 @ 11:48AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dems Lose Summit on Substance, Scramble for Nuclear Option?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Arrogant Obama Attacks former McCain at HC Summit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama… Little Change On His Side… But Demanding Major Concessions from GOP

“Baby steps don’t get you where we want to go”, said to Obama and the true underlying stand of the President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid the Dems is that in the end they are going to push their agenda, if the GOP doesn’t make major concessions that that majority of the American people don’t want.

President Obama, trying to make the Republicans look like the party of “NO” one last time, said they would move forward with or without them. Translation: We will do whatever we need to do, implying reconciliation, if the GOP does not make dramatic concessions. Is that really what bipartisan compromise is all about??

President Obama admitted that he has a plan two… a scaled down version of healthcare reform that might be both more palatable to the American People and closer to a bipartisan bill… but Democratic leaders (Pelosi and Reid) have convinced him not to go down that road, but instead to make another attempt the Obama/Pelosi/Reid ideological takeover of both U.S. healthcare and one sixth of the American Economy using reconciliation an option that was created for and intended to be used for budget bills and measures, not social legislation that will transform America… and the Dems know that, but choose to ignore it, just as they choose to ignore the will of the majority of their constituents and the American People.

Karl Rove said that this summit was going to be Kabuki theatre… and sadly it appears he was right!!

Snorefest 2010 – Obama’s HealthCare Summitt

So the healthcare debates have finally come to C-SPAN, but Glenn was correct in predicting it would essentially be a bunch of political grandstanding. Which makes for some pretty boring television as politicians read their talking points. In particular, this exchange between McCain and Obama was a lowlight. McCain painfully demonstrated why he got dominated in the election. Is this just another dog and pony show, or can something good actually come out of these talks? Glenn talks about it on radio today. ( Transcript, Insider Audio)

Guess We Might Be In Trouble… But Let’s Try to Scam the GOP and the American People Anyway!!

Amazingly, Reid said at today's Summit that nobody has talked about using reconciliation except for the GOP... HMMM?!? Amazingly it sounded that was what President Obama was saying during his final 5-minute... join me or else speech!?!

"You can put lipstick on a pig... but it is still a pig... and this bill is a pig!!"

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

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

Related: 2/3 of the HC Bill Passed Already! Hidden in the Stimulus Package that No One in Congress Read… Done Deal!!! – With Back-up Research But they need some kind of actual HC Bill to activate most of these diabolical measures… Wake-up America!

A Better Way to Reform Health Care

The critical problem is rising costs. The solution is more competition and greater individual control over health spending. Here's how.


Today, President Obama will host members of Congress from both political parties at the White House to discuss health reform. He has already put on the table an ambitious plan that takes elements from the bills already passed by the House and Senate and adds others, such as an agency to control health-insurance premiums.

The fundamental question participants must address is whether to use the president's plan as a starting point for negotiations, or to scrap it and start over.

Our recommendation: scrap it and start over. Its key elements—mandates, heavy-handed insurance regulation, and entitlement-based, middle-income subsidies—must go. None of them address health care's fundamental problem: high and rising costs. Instead, the various versions of health reform put forth by the president and his party are based on expanding health-insurance coverage. The inevitable consequence will be to exacerbate the cost problem. And the American public knows it.

To bring down costs, we need to change the incentives that govern spending. Right now, $5 out of every $6 of health-care spending is paid for by someone other than the person receiving care—insurance companies, employers, or the government. Individuals are insulated from the reality of what their decisions cost. This breeds overutilization of low-value health care and runaway spending.

View Full Image


To reduce the growth of costs, individuals must take greater responsibility for their health care, and health insurers and health-care providers must face the competitive forces of the market. Three policy changes will go a long way to achieving these objectives: (1) eliminate the tax code's bias that favors health insurance over out-of-pocket spending; (2) remove state-government barriers to purchasing and providing health services; and (3) reform medical malpractice laws.

We estimate these three changes will reduce health-care costs by over $100 billion per year and permanently reduce the number of uninsured by up to 13 million.

The tax code's favorable treatment of employer-sponsored health insurance over out-of-pocket health-care payments means that, for most families, buying health care through an employer is 30%-40% cheaper than buying it directly. The best way to address this clear bias is by making all health spending—including out-of-pocket payments, purchases of individual insurance, and purchases of COBRA coverage—tax-deductible.

Such a policy would be especially helpful to individuals facing the high cost of chronic illness and the unemployed who have lost their employer coverage. It could be accomplished with a single, sweeping policy change. It could also be achieved by expanding Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Spending Accounts, which also level the tax playing field between insured and out-of-pocket spending. That is, they make the tax treatment of insured and out-of-pocket spending more similar.

Many health-policy analysts have argued that counting employer-sponsored insurance premiums as taxable income would be a more effective way to undo the current tax code's bias toward employer-sponsored health insurance. In theory, we agree.

But the fate of the so-called tax on Cadillac insurance plans only serves to underscore the wisdom of leveling the playing field by making all health-care spending tax deductible. The beneficiaries of these high-priced plans, such as labor unions and public-sector employees, lobbied intensely and largely against the tax, and the president's plan defers the tax until 2018. The end result is the essential elimination of the plan's only tangible improvement to incentives.

There are two additional steps to reforming private insurance markets. First, individuals must be allowed to buy health insurance offered in states other than those in which they live. The current approach of state-by-state regulation has raised costs by reducing competition among insurance companies. It has also allowed state legislatures to impose insurance mandates that raise prices, while preventing residents from getting policies more suitable for their needs.

Second, reasonable caps on damages for pain and suffering need to be established in medical malpractice cases. Caps on these kind of damages reduce costs and decrease unnecessary, defensive medicine.

These three policies offer advantages over the president's plan. Instead of raising health-care costs, they fundamentally change incentives among individuals, insurers, and providers to gradually slow the growth in costs by reducing inefficient demand without sacrificing quality and innovation. Instead of radically changing health care overnight, they take an incremental approach, respecting the tremendous uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of different approaches to rein in costs.

And instead of massively increasing government spending, our policies have only a negligible federal budget impact. We estimate that the three policies will reduce federal revenues by approximately $3 billion per year; a small amount of the government's $2.2 trillion revenue intake.

Why is the budget impact so small? Taken together, the policy changes outlined here will produce a substantial decline in health-insurance premiums. Premiums will fall as workers opt for health plans with higher copayments. Insurance companies will lower premiums in the face of stiffer competition. And doctors will practice less defensive medicine.

As tax-deductible, employer-sponsored health-insurance costs decline, workers' taxable wages will rise so as to leave total labor compensation unchanged. The increased tax revenue collected on higher wages nearly offsets the revenue loss from the new health care tax deduction.

It is also important to increase access to health care—but this should not be confused with increasing access to health insurance, and it cannot be achieved without getting costs under control. There are several ideas for improving access worth considering: removing artificial barriers to entry for physicians and within specialty groups, allowing states greater flexibility with Medicaid, providing tax credits for health spending, and expanding programs that provide services directly, such as Community Health Centers. The city of San Francisco has a promising alternative along these lines called Healthy San Francisco. It restructures the existing health-care safety net system (both public and nonprofit) into a coordinated, integrated system.

Despite the claims of some partisans to the contrary, the president's plan is failing because it does not speak to the concerns of the majority of Americans. Instead of addressing the high and rising costs of care, it proposes mandates, invasive regulation, and unaffordable new entitlements. This will not bring health-care costs down—it will only make this problem worse.

Mr. Cogan, a senior fellow at Sanford University's Hoover Institution, was deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. Mr. Kessler is a professor of business and law at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

February 17, 2010

Petitions to Stop ObamaCare Delivered to Congressman Phil Gingrey: Second copy of petitions headed for Washington D.C. this week!

From Left to Right: Mark Turner, Congressman Phil Gingrey, and Brandon Vallorani. Mark and Brandon are holding nearly 150,000 names and addresses of Americans who want to stop the government takeover of our health care.

54% of the people want the ObamaCare Bill(s) scraped. 67% are tired of this entire one-sided charade. And only 43% want any form of HC (starting over from scratch) to be anywhere on the table this year.

YES! Walking Your Dog Counts!

YES! Walking Your Dog Counts!

Just how effective can walking your dog be when trying to lose weight? Pretty effective, according to a University of Missouri-Columbia study in which participants lost an average of 14 pounds by walking a dog 20 minutes a day, five days a week for 50 weeks. The study shows that you can still see weight-loss results without power walking or jogging. A routine stroll could be just the trick!

There are two reasons why walking your dog can be more effective than walking by yourself:

• People tend to be more faithful to their furry friends than they are to their own fitness regime.

• The mere fact that walking a dog requires a set schedule forces you to follow it.

• Walking your dog gives you just the kind of discipline and motivation you need to lose weight!

So grab a leash, get your dog, and start walking! Looking to pick up a little extra cash? Pick up a couple dog walking jobs… and see your health improve and the pounds melt away.

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth – Cross-Posted: Just One More Pet

Delicious Desserts Without The Guilt

Perhaps one of the hardest things about committing to eating healthy is saying goodbye to high-calorie, overly processed sweets. But that doesn't mean you can't satisfy your sweet tooth with healthy, low-calorie desserts! Here are a few healthy desserts that are so delicious you'll forget they're good for you.

• Get your sugar fix and daily serving of fruit with this simple treat. Cut an apple or peach in half. Spray it lightly with canola oil spray. Sprinkle it with brown sugar and grill until soft and fragrant.

• Chocolate-covered fruit is always a delight, and it's simple to make. Just melt dark chocolate in a microwave or in a small pan over low heat. Pour it onto strawberries or bananas. Let it chill in the fridge until the chocolate hardens.

• Believe it or not, ice-cream sandwiches can still be yours. Place a scoop of fat-free vanilla ice cream or frozen yogurt between 2 graham crackers. Wrap in plastic wrap and freeze until firm.

Sensa Staff

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Video Flashback: Dems Howl with Rage Over Nuclear Option

Nuclear Option in trouble… Why??? Because in order to use reconciliation, the bill must go back through the House first, and Pelosi doesn’t have the votes…

Video Flashback: Dems Howl with Rage Over Nuclear Option | The FOX Nation

Joe Biden: "I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."

Posted using ShareThis

Guess We Might Be In Trouble… But Let’s Try to Scam the GOP and the American People Anyway!!

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Physician: Two-thirds of ObamaCare passed in stimulus package

A nationally-recognized physician has written a stunning article in which she says that two-thirds of the government takeover of healthcare is already law under the provisions of the stimulus package approved by Congress last year.

She further asserts that the bill that is now being debated, which Obama unleashed yesterday morning, is the dreaded 'third rail' that will effectively seize the remaining third of the industry that is not under government control.

(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)..

While most citizens, including conservatives such as this writer, were focused on the avalanche of proposals with which Obama and company bombarded Congress last year, apparently the fact that hidden within the massive trillion-dollar stimulus package, which most Congressmen and Senators never bothered to read, was a key healthcare provision that was overlooked.

The stimulus bill laid down two-thirds of the government takeover of healthcare by creating a national database for the health information of all Americans, thus ditching the time-honored principle of privacy, and by approving a provision that will mandate healthcare rationing based upon the ultimate cost and value of treating certain citizens.

Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet lays out in frightening detail what has already happened and what is to come in the proposed 'third rail' that Obama proposed yesterday.

That 'third rail' is the takeover and control of the health insurance industry.

Once this third component is approved, which Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid declared would be done regardless, the destruction of the U.S. Healthcare System will be complete and the foundation will be laid upon which to build an entirely new structure, complete with rationing for the elderly and severely ill and disabled, taxpayer funded abortions, a national database that contains ALL of your formerly private medical information, not to mention the key component of the President's plan that all citizens be required to purchase insurance or else face heavy penalties by the government.

Why is this called 'the third rail?' Those who are familiar with the subway system in large cities know that the commonly accepted adage for subway passenger safety is 'avoid the third rail.' That is the rail that carries the electrical current and is the one that will kill you.

America as a nation is about to step on the third rail. Two-thirds of the best healthcare system in all of the world has been destroyed by Obama and the Democrats with their 'stimulus bill.' The upcoming third rail is a killer. It will change everything from top to bottom.

Given that politicians cannot be depended upon to stop the onslaught of attacks on individual liberty and free markets, the only ones left to stop the marching hoof-beats toward Marxist slavery are the individual citizens.

Source: February 23, 2:40 PM * Conservative Examiner * Anthony G. Martin

Monday, February 22, 2010

The Breast Whisperer

MOTHER’S MILK Freda Rosenfeld, a lactation consultant, works with a client and her 6-week-old baby.

By ELISSA GOOTMAN - Published: February 19, 2010

AMY BRILL, a writer who lives in Windsor Terrace, survived nine months and six days of pregnancy, then 40 hours of labor. But after a few days of nursing, she was in excruciating pain, crying every time her baby latched on. Ms. Brill’s pediatrician wrote out a phone number as if it were a prescription. “Call this woman,” he said. “She’s seen every new mom in Brooklyn.”

Not quite, but over the last five years this woman, Freda Rosenfeld, has seen some 2,000 new moms, some of them multiple times, and many with multiple babies at once.

Ms. Rosenfeld is part medical professional, part therapist and part sleuth; a hand-holder, tongue-coaxer, savior of sore nipples. At 52, she wears her chestnut hair in an ageless ponytail and bangs, dressing in long denim skirts — the better to get spit up on — and cruises the borough with a “got breastmilk?” bumper sticker on her minivan.

A certified lactation consultant, she swoops in at one of the most vulnerable moments in many women’s lives, charging $200 ($160 if you come to her) for help with what is supposed to be the most natural and instinctive of acts but often is simply not.

“Once you go home from the hospital, you’re on your own with this little alien creature, and you have to figure out how to keep it alive,” Ms. Brill, 39, recalled of her daughter’s birth 16 months ago. “So you put it on your nipple and wait for it to eat, and hope all is right. But you really have no idea. Are they doing it right? Are they not doing it right? Are they eating enough? Are they starving?

“It really, really hurts to have someone sucking on your nipple like 10 times a day, partly because there is a right way and a wrong way,” Ms. Brill said. “So you call Freda, and she comes in and saves your life.”

About 74 percent of American mothers tried breast-feeding their newborns in 2006, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That was up from 58 percent in 1985 and 27 percent in 1970. But many struggle to make it work and give up — by three months, a third of infants were exclusively breast-fed in 2006; by six months, 14 percent.

Enter the lactation consultant. Ms. Rosenfeld was certified in 1990; there are now some 20,000 worldwide, including 582 in New York State.

She has coached novices so anxious they tried to schedule a session before giving birth (“Just enjoy being pregnant,” she counseled) and Hasidic women suddenly unable to nurse baby No. 7, 8 or 9. She has succeeded with babies with Down syndrome, despite their poor muscle tone, and with adoptive mothers, using a gizmo called a supplemental nurser to bring in their breast milk (“Isn’t that cool?” she marveled). She has rooted out problems like reflux and thyroid disorder, and stroked thousands of tiny tongues in service of “the perfect suck.” She prescribes teas and herbs to increase milk supply, along with exercise regimens for newborn mouths, and sometimes recommends that a doctor clip a baby’s frenulum, the tissue beneath the tongue. In 2007, she worked with 80 sets of twins.

“I get paid to be neurotic and hold babies,” she said. “Who could ask for more?”

A century ago virtually all American mothers nursed their babies, but by the 1950s, formula was the norm. Then a group of breast-feeding evangelists formed La Leche League to teach what they saw as a lost art, promoting its health and emotional benefits. Their efforts were helped by the natural childbirth movement of the 1970s.

As more women tried nursing, more women had problems nursing, and La Leche volunteers — many of them mothers who found breast-feeding as natural as breathing — could not always solve them. The International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners was formed in 1985; since then, its exam has been translated into 20 languages and administered in 87 countries (more than 4,000 people took it last year).

Theirs is a beleaguered profession, on the one hand dismissed by doctors like Michel Cohen, a celebrated New York pediatrician who mocked the tongue exercises in his 2004 book “The New Basics,” on the other challenged by uncredentialed freelancers seizing on the demand for breast-feeding advice.

“These books are so black-and-white, and life is so gray,” she said en route to a client one bitter winter day. “It’s like, if this is happening, try Chapter 6, but if you really think it’s more this, try Chapter 7, because Chapter 6 might be, I don’t have enough milk, but Chapter 7 might be, my baby’s colicky, and Chapter 9 might be, like, reality check, what should I expect from a newborn? Who would want to read a book that big?”

Over the years, Ms. Rosenfeld has become less dogmatic about lactation land mines like the F-word — formula. Her credo: Rule 1, enjoy the baby. Rule 2, feed the baby.

“She doesn’t lose the mom in the process, she respects her need for sleep, etc.,” said Amy Glaser, a pediatrician in Park Slope. “But she also doesn’t give up until the mom is ready.”

After calling in a state of near panic, the Park Slope mother pulled up in front of Ms. Rosenfeld’s Victorian in the Ditmas Park section of Brooklyn. She would have been there sooner, but in the mix of sleep deprivation and flooding hormones, she had gotten confused between the $160 fee and the address, initially heading to 160 Marlborough Road.

Ms. Rosenfeld laughed, unfazed.

The baby boy, 10 days old, was crying uncontrollably every afternoon. The mother, 31, feared that a breast reduction had diminished her milk supply. Memories of the agony she felt nursing her daughter, now 2 1/2, were flooding back. “It was not a labor of love at all,” said the mother, who asked not to be named.

Ms. Rosenfeld began her customary checklist: Fertility drugs? Epidural? ( “No” might prompt a “You go, girl!”) Medications?

She put the baby on a tiny butcher’s scale, watched him nurse, weighed him again: he was several ounces heavier. Then she slipped on a glove and examined his little mouth. He pushed his tongue out past his lip, a good sign. She squeezed his cheeks, tapped his lower lip: baby mouth yoga.

After an hour, Ms. Rosenfeld advised the mother to drink two cups of raspberry leaf tea each day, starting at noon. To keep a log of her diet, to weed out possible triggers of digestive issues for the baby. To do the tongue exercises before each feeding to “open his suck,” and burp him before, during and after. And to nurse for no longer than 12 minutes on the first side, 18 on the second.

“In the hospital they’re saying let him nurse for 45 minutes,” the mother interjected, exasperated. “It makes a person a little crazy to hear two very different things from two professionals.”

Rule 1, enjoy the baby. Rule 2, feed the baby.

“If you’re going to be sitting there and not enjoying nursing because you’re counting and you’re this-ing and you’re that-ing, then what have I given you?” Ms. Rosenfeld asked. “I may have given him breast milk, but I haven’t given you an awesome breast-feeding experience, and that’s what I’m here to do.”

Aside from a year studying in Israel and another in Ohio with her husband, Howard Wallick, who works in real estate, Ms. Rosenfeld has spent her whole life in Brooklyn; she knows alternate-side parking regulations well enough that she schedules appointments in certain neighborhoods at odd times, like 10:10 or 11:35.

A religious Jew, she starts each day with morning prayers, followed by yoga and 20 minutes jumping on the trampoline in the basement. Her face is makeup-free, usually framed by dangly earrings. When things get tense in a session, she lightens the mood by cooing, making faces and uttering ridiculous nicknames like “Bu-ja-boo!”

Having raised eyebrows as a teenager by going vegetarian and swearing off soda, Ms. Rosenfeld took a job after graduating from Brooklyn College at a nutrition center for low-income women, where her devotion to breast-feeding began. “To me, the breast-feeding was not just about better health for the baby, it was about these young girls realizing their baby is important,” she said. “I had 14-year-olds, and here was my opportunity not just to make these babies healthier but to make these mothers caring parents.”

In the decades since, she has taken classes with speech therapists to better understand the mechanics of the mouth. She picks up tips from crazed mothers and calm mothers, women with serious medical problems and women with whom she has to throw up her hands and explain, “Sometimes babies just cry.” She taught a woman with one functioning arm to nurse one-handed and has, with clues that manifest themselves in breast-milk production, detected thyroid problems and retained placenta.

“Some people call themselves consultants simply on the basis that they have two breasts and maybe had a baby,” said Felina Rakowski-Gallagher, who owns the nursing supply store Upper Breast Side. “The consulting numbers have tripled in terms of people who just put their shingle out there.”

And while Ms. Rosenfeld is lionized in online forums, she has her detractors. Lisa Eisdorfer said she was disappointed in her session with Ms. Rosenfeld and gave up nursing a couple of months later, frustrated that she could not produce enough milk for her twins.

“Her name is just everywhere within the twins world and outside of it,” Ms. Eisdorfer said. “I know that she has helped a lot of people, but just not me.”

In any case, she is one of several consultants in New York with cultlike followings, some charging as much as $350. Catherine Watson Genna, based in Queens, is also the author of two well-regarded breast-feeding guidebooks, while Beverly Solow, known in certain Manhattan precincts as the Goddess of Lactation, runs several crowded support groups each month.

Ms. Rosenfeld, who relishes the good anatomical pun, said that if she were to write a book it would be called “You Suck,” but that she preferred homing in on individual cases to dispensing generalizations.

“A hundred years ago, a lot of babies we have today were not born,” she noted. “Forty-five-year-old women having babies, that didn’t happen then; now it does, and sometimes if it’s because of fertility drugs, they’re not going to have milk. I worked with a 1-pound 14-ounce baby who’s a beautiful, delicious child right now. A hundred years ago, that baby would have never survived.”

Typically, new mothers have one session in the weeks after coming home from the hospital, with follow-ups by e-mail or phone. Some call long after they get the hang of nursing, for pediatrician recommendations (“Does it have to be a Russian doctor?” Ms. Rosenfeld asked a Russian-born client the other day), advice on whether to vaccinate, even sleep training. One client recently e-mailed to ask Ms. Rosenfeld’s philosophy on night lights.

She has had celebrity clients, though sometimes Ms. Rosenfeld, who watches only one television show at a time ( “Law & Order” recently made way for “Bones” ) does not recognize them, and other times she pretends not to, because they are, as she put it, “here as a mom.” Once, though, after a client left, she broke into a gleeful chant: “I had an Oscar winner in my house! I had an Oscar winner in my house!” (No, she would not name names.)

The only trouble she had nursing her own children — now 17, 20 and 22 — was giving it up.

“My oldest stopped nursing on his first birthday, and I was crushed,” Ms. Rosenfeld said. “And my husband said, ‘You believe in baby-led weaning!’ ” The youngest hopped into their bed at age 2 and declared, “ ‘I don’t think I need to nurse anymore, Mom.’ I was like, ‘O.K., go ahead, break my heart.’ ”

Was she drinking? Was she starving? Was that a gulp or just a murmur? Was that an “I’m famished” cry or an “I’m tired” cry? And how do you burp a baby, anyway?

These were some of the questions Abby Sher found herself asking, often in a frenzy of tears, after the blissful first week of her daughter’s life ended and the reality of Week 2 set in. “Especially in Brooklyn, it’s like, ‘This is going to be another challenge that I do all naturally!’ ” she recalled thinking. “ ‘And I know other people have challenges, but not me, because I do yoga!’ ”

Ms. Sher, a writer and performer who lives in Fort Greene, dragged her husband to a breast-feeding class, where they watched videos. “He was like, ‘That was fun,’ ” she said. “ ‘Now can we please call that nice lady that we heard about?’ ”

Ms. Rosenfeld did not diagnose any disorder or perform any magic — she watched Ms. Sher nurse, plopped the baby on the scale, and showed the couple some exercises. Rule 1: Enjoy the baby. Rule 2: Feed the baby.

“It was a lot of saying things that we just needed to hear: ‘She’s O.K., she’s eating, she’s going to grow, she’s beautiful,’ ” Ms. Sher explained. “She’s really just somebody everyone should be near after giving birth. It’s almost like she’s breast-feeding you.”

Leba Ringel, a Hasidic birthing coach, nursed eight children successfully, but when her ninth was born in 1998, she found her milk had dried up because of medication she took for pneumonia during her pregnancy. Ms. Rosenfeld taught Mrs. Ringel how to use a supplemental nurser — a tube taped to the nipple that dispenses formula, teaching the baby to suck for sustenance and, in the process, building up the mother’s supply. Mrs. Ringel, 51, not only now recommends Ms. Rosenfeld to her own clients, but also pays for a consultation with her each time a daughter or daughter-in-law gives birth for the first time. (Three so far.)

“ ‘Freda’ is a household word in our house,” she said.

Ms. Rosenfeld has consulted via e-mail with mothers as far away as Chicago, Hawaii and Switzerland, and has peered into the cultures of the world from her perch in Brooklyn. One small discovery: The belief that almonds enhance breast-milk production is cross-cultural.

“I’ve had Inuits from Alaska, I’ve had a couple from Nepal, I’ve had Japanese, Chinese — they all say almonds,” Ms. Rosenfeld mused. “Can I prove it? No. But I like almonds, so why not?”

Marijuana use by seniors goes up as boomers age

By MATT SEDENSKY, Associated Press Writer 59 mins ago

Perry Parks, 67,  takes a puff of marijuana at his home in Rockingham, N.C.,MIAMI – In her 88 years, Florence Siegel has learned how to relax: A glass of red wine. A crisp copy of The New York Times, if she can wrest it from her husband. Some classical music, preferably Bach. And every night like clockwork, she lifts a pipe to her lips and smokes marijuana.

Long a fixture among young people, use of the country's most popular illicit drug is now growing among the AARP set, as the massive generation of baby boomers who came of age in the 1960s and '70s grows older.

The number of people aged 50 and older reporting marijuana use in the prior year went up from 1.9 percent to 2.9 percent from 2002 to 2008, according to surveys from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The rise was most dramatic among 55- to 59-year-olds, whose reported marijuana use more than tripled from 1.6 percent in 2002 to 5.1 percent.

Observers expect further increases as 78 million boomers born between 1945 and 1964 age. For many boomers, the drug never held the stigma it did for previous generations, and they tried it decades ago.

Some have used it ever since, while others are revisiting the habit in retirement, either for recreation or as a way to cope with the aches and pains of aging.

Siegel walks with a cane and has arthritis in her back and legs. She finds marijuana has helped her sleep better than pills ever did. And she can't figure out why everyone her age isn't sharing a joint, too.

"They're missing a lot of fun and a lot of relief," she said.

Politically, advocates for legalizing marijuana say the number of older users could represent an important shift in their decades-long push to change the laws.

"For the longest time, our political opponents were older Americans who were not familiar with marijuana and had lived through the 'Reefer Madness' mentality and they considered marijuana a very dangerous drug," saidKeith Stroup, the founder and lawyer of NORML, a marijuana advocacy group.

"Now, whether they resume the habit of smoking or whether they simply understand that it's no big deal and that it shouldn't be a crime, in large numbers they're on our side of the issue."

Each night, 66-year-old Stroup says he sits down to the evening news, pours himself a glass of wine and rolls a joint. He's used the drug since he was a freshman at Georgetown, but many older adults are revisiting marijuana after years away.

"The kids are grown, they're out of school, you've got time on your hands and frankly it's a time when you can really enjoy marijuana," Stroup said. "Food tastes better, music sounds better, sex is more enjoyable."

The drug is credited with relieving many problems of aging: aches and pains, glaucoma, macular degeneration, and so on. Patients in 14 states enjoy medical marijuana laws, but those elsewhere buy or grow the drug illegally to ease their conditions.

Among them is Perry Parks, 67, of Rockingham, N.C., a retired Army pilot who suffered crippling pain from degenerative disc disease and arthritis. He had tried all sorts of drugs, from Vioxx to epidural steroids, but found little success. About two years ago he turned to marijuana, which he first had tried in college, and was amazed how well it worked for the pain.

"I realized I could get by without the narcotics," Parks said, referring to prescription painkillers. "I am essentially pain free."

But there's also the risk that health problems already faced by older people can be exacerbated by regular marijuana use.

Older users could be at risk for falls if they become dizzy, smoking it increases the risk of heart disease and it can cause cognitive impairment, said Dr. William Dale, chief of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

He said he'd caution against using it even if a patient cites benefits.

"There are other better ways to achieve the same effects," he said.

Pete Delany, director of applied studies at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, said boomers' drug use defied stereotypes, but is important to address.

"When you think about people who are 50 and older you don't generally think of them as using illicit drugs — the occasional Hunter Thompson or the kind of hippie dippie guy that gets a lot of press maybe," he said. "As a nation, it's important to us to say, 'It's not just young people using drugs it's older people using drugs.'"

In conversations, older marijuana users often say they smoke in less social settings than when they were younger, frequently preferring to enjoy the drug privately. They say the quality (and price) of the drug has increased substantially since their youth and they aren't as paranoid about using it.

Dennis Day, a 61-year-old attorney in Columbus, Ohio, said when he used to get high, he wore dark glasses to disguise his red eyes, feared talking to people on the street and worried about encountering police. With age, he says, any drawbacks to the drug have disappeared.

"My eyes no longer turn red, I no longer get the munchies," Day said. "The primary drawbacks to me now are legal."

Siegel bucks the trend as someone who was well into her 50s before she tried pot for the first time. She can muster only one frustration with the drug.

"I never learned how to roll a joint," she said. "It's just a big nuisance. It's much easier to fill a pipe.

I am sitting here laughing at this article… Duh… Are any of us surprised?? The boomers were the ‘loadie generation’… hippies and flower children now grown old. They now have aches and pains as well as some serious illnesses, money challenges they weren’t counting on and if ObamaCare passes they probably figure if they are loaded all the time, they might not notice when some government “death” panel headed up by the likes of a Nancy Pelosi decides for them that it is time for them to take their last toke… ah breathe… ;-) THISTW~

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement... response to the partisan health care proposal posted online by the White House for discussion at the upcoming bipartisan health care summit:

“The President has crippled the credibility of this week’s summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected. This new Democrats-only backroom deal doubles down on the same failed approach that will drive up premiums, destroy jobs, raise taxes, and slash Medicare benefits.

“This week’s summit clearly has all the makings of a Democratic infomercial for continuing on a partisan course that relies on more backroom deals and parliamentary tricks to circumvent the will of the American people and jam through a massive government takeover of health care.

“The best way to protect families and small businesses in this time of economic uncertainty is to start over with a step-by-step approach to health care reform focused on lowering costs, and that’s exactly what Republicans are fighting for. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the Republican bill reduces premiums for families and small businesses by up to 10 percent. The Republican bill reduces premiums by implementing common-sense reforms such as allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines. Despite their rhetoric to the contrary, none of the Democrats’ proposals – including the President’s – provides this much-needed reform in a manner that can actually be effective.

“Republicans are also standing with the American people by calling for health care reform to protect human life and not use taxpayer money to fund abortion. The Republican bill would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion, which the President’s proposal would allow. Pro-life Democrats in the House have already pledged to vote against this provision. Health care reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it – and the American people agree.”


Bottomline – The New ObamaCare Bill and the Plan Behind It – Please Read

What MSM Won’t Tell You: Doctors Are Challenging Government Healthcare – and the AMA

Obama Writing Health Bill to Skirt GOP Filibuster

Michelle Bachman – Dems Will Implement TRICK to pass HC Reform!

Ibuprofen May Help Stave Off Parkinson's

Finding suggests need to look closer at the disease as inflammatory, expert says, “ Ibuprofen may help stave off Parkinson’s, ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s Disease.”

WEDNESDAY, Feb. 17 (HealthDay News) -- Regular use of ibuprofen, a common anti-inflammatory drug, significantly lowers the risk for developing Parkinson's disease, Harvard researchers report.

People who took three or more tablets a week showed a 40 percent lower risk than those who didn't take the common pain reliever, their study found.

Study author Dr. Xiang Gao, an instructor and epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, said the findings are important for anyone at increased risk for Parkinson's because most people with the disease eventually become severely disabled.

"There is thus a need for better preventive interventions," Gao said. "In this context, our findings regarding the potential neuroprotective effect of ibuprofen, one of the most commonly used analgesics, on Parkinson's disease may have important public health and clinical implications."

Parkinson's is a disease that affects nerve cells in the brain that control the movement of muscles. It affects an estimated 1 million people in the United States, men far more often than women. The exact cause is unknown, but experts believe it's a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

Gao said that though the drug levodopa is the current standard treatment for Parkinson's, much more is needed. He is scheduled to present the findings in Toronto at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in April.

The findings came from an analysis of data on 136,474 people who did not have Parkinson's at the start of the study. In a six-year span, 293 were diagnosed with the disease. Those who took the largest doses of ibuprofen were less likely to have developed Parkinson's than were those who took smaller amounts of the drug, the study found.

No other pain reliever was found to lower the risk for Parkinson's.

Dr. Michele Tagliati, an associate professor of neurology and director of the Parkinson's Disease Center at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, described the results as somewhat surprising and said they emphasized the need for further study.

Bottomline - The New ObamaCare Bill and the Plan Behind It – Please Read

The NEW ObamaCare Bill Announcement (Today) Monday

Obama Is Introducing a NEW Socialized Healthcare Bill Today - Socialized Health Care MUST STILL Be Stopped - Select Here to STOP THE SECRET DEAL: SEND YOUR FAXES NOW! AmeriPac will send all your faxes for you from the link above for a fee… or you can do it yourself… BUT please call and fax today and tomorrow.

ALERT: Did you think that, because Barack Hussein Obama has called for a "bipartisan healthcare reform summit" on Feb. 25th that the Democrats were serious about starting over and including the Republicans' ideas in their plans?

WRONG! According to the liberal bastion New York Times, "President Obama will put forward comprehensive health care legislation intended to bridge differences between Senate and House Democrats ahead of a summit meeting with Republicans next week, senior administration officials and Congressional aides said Thursday."

But that's not all they're reporting: Democratic officials said Obama's proposal was being written so that it could be attached to a budget bill as a way of averting a Republican filibuster in the Senate. The procedure, known as budget reconciliation, would let Democrats advance the bill with a simple majority of 51 rather than a 60-vote supermajority. (This is their underhanded way of getting around the will of the people and the election of Scott Brown.)

Pelosi said, "We (Liberal Democrats) will go through the gate," "If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own..." (GOOD?)

Obama Is Introducing a NEW Socialized Healthcare Bill Monday -
Socialized Health Care MUST STILL Be Stopped - Select Here to STOP THE SECRET DEAL: SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!

Translation Democrats will shove ObamaCare down every Americans throat like it or not, it will happen and Obama is pushing it through.

Dick Morris Is Right About A Liberal Democrat Secret Plan for ObamaCare

Morris has revealed a two part Democratic Deal to Defraud America.

  • First, the House will pass the Senate ObamaCare bill and Pelosi will not allow amendments or modifications.
  • Second in secret behind closed doors, Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members -- but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.

Morris continued and said, a Senate source cautions: "Senators more than House members and both more than ordinary people, lie."
This is outrageous and exactly what voters in Massachusetts voted against. FAX NOW AND OFTEN AND MAKE CALLS TO CONGRSSS. We need your continued help more than ever as Socialized Health Care MUST STILL Be Stopped.

The deal is secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate's Democratic caucus that they will make "fixes" to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama's John Hancock.

(The bill Obama rolled out today, does not include a public option. Do not be fooled, it will be added later. The framework for many of the more radical portions of ObamaCare have already been passed as part of other bills and will kick in as soon as “any kind of HC bill” is passed or will be added later, at the Dem’s will!)

According to Morris's source, Reid will provide to Pelosi a letter signed by 52 Democratic senators indicating they will pass the major changes, or "fixes," the House Democrats are demanding. Again, these fixes will be approved by the Senate only after Obama signs the Senate bill into law.

Obama Is Introducing a NEW Socialized Healthcare Bill Monday -
Socialized Health Care MUST STILL Be Stopped -

By all measures Obama is on track to be the worst president in American history. He only has himself to blame for his dismal record AMERICA IS BROKE on his watch with:

  • Record national debt greater than the gross domestic product of the world
  • Government take over of the auto industry
  • Fannie Mae
  • Freddie Mac
  • Bailouts
  • Liberal policies
  • TARP
  • $700 Billion Federal Stimulus
  • $1.2 Trillion Federal Reserve Rescue
  • $6.4 Trillion Tax and Spend Budget to Redistribute Wealth
  • +10% Unemployment

Next Up ObamaCare and it will destroy Health Care in America

This is a fight for the very heart of America. We can WIN this fight! With Senate Republicans now forcing Democrats to "ping-pong" the ObamaCare bill back and forth between the two Houses, we can capitalize on the divisions within the Democrat Party itself! If we can STOP Reid and Pelosi from getting enough votes in either House -- that means THE BILL WOULD DIE!
We CAN still win, by keeping the Democrats from getting the votes they need to pass ObamaCare... but we can't do it without YOUR help!


TAKE ACTION: We don't have much time before the liberal Democrat leaders in the House and Senate begin their backroom deal-making to work all of their deals and compromises, in hopes of getting enough votes to pass ObamaCare. We have to start NOW in letting ALL of these people who are supposed to be representing US in Washington, that we are NOT going to put up with this -- and that they MUST LISTEN TO US and KILL THE BILL!

BE ENCOURAGED -- remember that the majority of the American people are WITH US. With every passing day, more and more citizens -- left AND right -- are expressing their opposition and outrage over this monstrous bill. And remember, Obama, Pelosi and Reid wanted to pass ObamaCare months ago. Thanks to YOUR efforts, we've been able to STOP that from happening -- WE CAN'T GIVE UP NOW!

We CANNOT let the radical liberals in Congress -- and the White House -- force this plan for socialized health care on the American people! That's why we've set up our website to enable you to send a strong message to every single member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, OPPOSING this outrageous plan.

For about what it would cost you in time and telephone charges, you can send Blast Faxes to Democrats, Republicans, Independents -- EVERYONE in BOTH houses of Congress, DEMANDING that they REJECT this socialized health care plan NOW!

This fight CAN BE WON! Please, take action right away to STOP this bill in the U.S. Congress!


Alan Gottlieb
Chairman, AmeriPAC

Send your faxes right away to make sure every single Senator and Representative gets a STRONG message, to REJECT the socialized plan of "ObamaCare" NOW -- Thank you!


Please make checks payable to AmeriPAC:
American Political Action Committee (AmeriPAC)
PO Box 1682
Dept Code 3660
Bellevue, WA 98009-1682


What MSM Won’t Tell You: Doctors Are Challenging Government Healthcare – and the AMA

Obama Writing Health Bill to Skirt GOP Filibuster

Michelle Bachman – Dems Will Implement TRICK to pass HC Reform!

As everyone suspected the entire ploy of having a bipartisan meeting on healthcare was just a ‘dirty trick’… a complete sham! The Dems have shut the GOP out of the entire process, bribed their own party and told both the GOP and the American Public that they will not start over and put together a simple bipartisan reform of healthcare, which is all we need. Why? Because this was never about healthcare or healthcare reform… it was always about a progressive government takeover of 1/6 of the economy and major information and decisions in all our lives.

Please contact your Senator and Congressman today, plus as many additional members of Congress as you can. Do not let this bill pass, especially not in this manner~

Senators from your State. or - Elected Officials

1-202-224-3121- Switchboard

1-202-225-3121- Switchboard

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

Senator Akaka Daniel D Hawaii 202-224-6361 202-224-2126
Senator Alexander Lamar R Tennessee 202-224-4944 202-228-3398
Senator Barrasso John R Wyoming 202-224-6441 202-224-1724
Senator Begich Mark D Alaska 202-224-3004 202-228-3205
Senator Bennet Michael D Colorado 202-224-5852 202-228-5036
Senator Bennett Robert R Utah 202-224-5444 202-228-1168
Senator Bingaman Jeff DNew Mexico 202-224-5521 202-224-2852
Senator Bond Kit R Missouri 202-224-5721 202-224-8149
Senator Boxer Barbara D California 202-224-3553 202-224-0454
Senator Brown Sherrod D Ohio 202-224-2315 202-228-6321
Senator Brownback Sam R Kentucky 202-224-4343 202-228-1373
Senator Burr Richard R North Carolin 202-224-3154 202-228-2981
Senator Burris Roland D Illinois 202-224-2854 202-228-3333
Senator Cardin Benjamin D Maryland 202-224-4524 202-224-1651
Senator Chambliss Saxby R Georgia 202-224-3521 202-224-0103
Senator Coburn Tom R Oklahoma 202-224-5754 202-224-6008
Senator Cochran Thad R Mississippi 202-224-5054 202-224-9450
Senator Collins Susan R Maine 202-224-2523 202-224-2693
Senator Corker Bob R Tennessee 202-224-3344 202-228-0566
Senator Cornyn John R Texas 202-224-2934 202-228-2856
Senator Crapo Mike R Idaho 202-224-6142 202-228-1375
Senator DeMint James R South Carolina 202-224-6121 202-228-5143
Senator Dodd Christopher D Connecticut 202-224-2823 202-224-1083
Senator Durbin Richard D Illinois 202-224-2152 202-228-0400
Senator Ensign John R Nevada 202-224-6244 202-228-2193
Senator Enzi Michael R Wyoming 202-224-3424 202-228-0359
Senator Feinstein Dianne D California 202-224-3841 202-228-3954
Senator Gillibrand Kirsten D New York 202-224-4451 202-228-0282
Senator Graham Lindsey R South Carolina202-224-5972 202-224-3808
Senator Grassley Charles R Iowa 202-224-3744 202-224-6020
Senator Gregg Judd R New Hampshire 202-224-3324 202-224-4952
Senator Hagan Kay D North Carolina 202-224-6342 202-228-2563
Senator Harkin Tom D Iowa 202-224-3254 202-224-9369
Senator Hatch Orrin R Utah 202-224-5251 202-224-6331
Senator Hutchison Kay R Texas 202-224-5922 202-224-0776
Senator Inhofe James R Oklahoma 202-224-4721 202-228-0380
Senator Inouye Daniel D Hawaii 202-224-3934 202-224-6747
Senator Isakson Johnny R Georgia 202-224-3643 202-228-0724
Senator Johanns Mike RNebraska 202-224-4224 202-228-0436
Senator Kaufman Ted D Delaware 202-224-5042 202-228-3075
Senator Kirk Jr. Paul D Massachusetts 202-224-4543 202-224-2417
Senator Kerry John D Massachusetts 202-224-2742 202-224-8525
Senator Kohl Herb D Wisconsin 202-224-5653 202-224-9787
Senator Kyl Jon R Arizona 202-224-4521 202-224-2207
Senator Lautenberg Frank D New Jersey 202-224-3224 202-228-4054
Senator Levin Carl D Michigan 202-224-6221 202-224-1388
Senator Lieberman Joseph ID Connecticut 202-224-4041 202-224-9750
Senator Lugar Richard R Indiana 202-224-4814 202-228-0360
Senator Martinez Mel R Florida 202-224-3041 202-228-5171
Senator McCain John R Arizona 202-224-2235 202-228-2862
Senator McConnell Mitch R Kentucky 202-224-2541 202-224-2499
Senator Menendez Robert D New Jersey 202-224-4744 202-228-2197
Senator Merkley Jeff D Oregon 202-224-3753 202-228-3997
Senator Mikulski Barbara D Maryland 202-224-4654 202-224-8858
Senator Murkowski Lisa R Alaska 202-224-6665 202-224-5301
Senator Nelson Bill D Florida 202-224-5274 202-228-2183
Senator Reed Jack D Rhode Island 202-224-4642 202-224-4680
Senator Risch Jim R Idaho 202-224-2752 202-224-2573
Senator Roberts Pat R Kansas 202-224-4774 202-224-3514
Senator Sanders Bernie I Vermont 202-224-5141 202-228-0776
Senator Schumer Charles D New York 202-224-6542 202-228-3027
Senator Sessions Jeff R Alabama 202-224-4124 202-224-3149
Senator Shaheen Jeanne D New Hampshire 202-224-2841 202-228-3194
Senator Shelby Richard R Alabama 202-224-5744 202-224-3416
Senator Snowe Olympia R Maine 202-224-5344 202-224-1946
Senator Specter Arlen R Pennsylvania 202-224-4254 202-228-1229
Senator Thune John R South Dakota 202-224-2321 202-228-5429
Senator Udall Mark D Colorado 202-224-5941 202-224-6471
Senator Udall Tom D New Mexico 202-224-6621 202-228-3261
Senator Vacant Vacant Minnesota 202-224-5641 202-224-1152
Senator Vitter David R Louisiana 202-224-4623 202-228-5061
Senator Voinovich George R Ohio 202-224-3353 202-228-1382
Senator Warner Mark D Virginia 202-224-2023 202-224-6295
Senator Whitehouse Sheldon Rhode Island 202-224-2921 202-228-6362
Senator Wicker Roger R Mississippi 202-224-6253 202-228-0378
Senator Wyden Ron D Oregon 202-224-5244 202-228-2717

This latest action has now become the charade that even the liberals can’t deny is Obama telling the American people “I am an ideologue and I will do anything to fulfill my agenda… no matter what the will of the people or how I have to go around the Constitution.”

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Stop Using 'Natural' Deodorants Until You Read This

deodorantSome of the most popular natural deodorants are the "crystal" deodorant stones and sprays. But most people don't know that these crystal deodorant products contain aluminum.

The crystal deodorant stones are made from alum. The most widely used form of alum used in the personal care industry is potassium alum. The full chemical name of potassium alum is potassium aluminum sulfate.

The reason that most people try to avoid aluminum in deodorant is because of its possible link to Alzheimer's disease. There is some strong evidence of a link -- for instance, in 1988 a truck driver accidentally dumped 20 tons of aluminum sulfate in to a town's drinking water.

Now, over 20 years later, they are finding a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s in the people of this town.

Incidentally, the article linked below notes that, “many doctors such as popular web guru and natural health expert Dr. Mercola suggest avoiding aluminum as much as possible.”

Posted by: Dr. Mercola

Comments by Dr. Mercola:

Let’s get this straight. Even though aluminum is widely distributed in the earth’s crust, it is NOT needed in ANY amounts in your body. All evidence to date points to aluminum as a poison that serves no beneficial role in your body and should be avoided.

Aluminum is widely recognized as a neurotoxin, which has been found in increased concentrations in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease.

Unfortunately, if you use antiperspirants or some deodorants, you are most likely exposing yourself to aluminum.

Aluminum salts can account for 25 percent of the volume of some antiperspirants.

A review of the common sources of aluminum exposure for humans found that antiperspirant use can significantly increase the amount of aluminum absorbed by your body. According to the review, after a single underarm application of antiperspirant, about .012 percent of the aluminum may be absorbed.

Multiply this by one or more times a day for a lifetime and you can have a massive exposure to aluminum -- a poison that is not meant to be in your body.

Antiperspirants work by clogging, closing, or blocking the pores that release sweat under your arms -- with the active ingredient being aluminum. Not only does this block one of your body’s routes for detoxification (releasing toxins via your underarm sweat), but it raises concerns about where these heavy metals are going once you roll them (or spray them) on.

In some cases, it is clear that they may be wreaking havoc directly on your brain. In 1988, for instance, a truck driver accidentally poured 20 tons of aluminum sulphate into a tank containing drinking water.

Some 20,000 people in the village of Camelford were exposed to the chemical for several weeks, and then went on to develop a rare form of early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, along with showing the presence of high levels of aluminum in their tissues.

Deodorants and Antiperspirants Linked to Cancer

Alzheimer’s disease is not the only reason to ditch your aluminum-containing antiperspirant and deodorant, as this heavy metal has also been linked to cancer.

A 2006 study found that aluminum salts can mimic the hormone estrogen, and chemicals that imitate that hormone are known to increase breast cancer risk. Animal studies have also found that aluminum can cause cancer.

Given that antiperspirants are used on your armpits, the aluminum salt concentration is highest near your breast tissue. Further, when women shave under their arms it can result in a higher aluminum-salt absorption rate due to the damaged skin.

In a 2007 study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, researchers tested breast samples from 17 breast-cancer patients who had undergone mastectomies. The women who used antiperspirants had deposits of aluminum in their outer breast tissue. Concentrations of aluminum were higher in the tissue closest to the underarm than in the central breast.

Aluminum is not normally found in the human body, so this study was a pretty clear sign that the metal was being absorbed from antiperspirant sprays and roll-ons.

It’s worth mentioning that deodorants are not the same thing as antiperspirants. Deodorants may actually be less problematic than antiperspirants, as they work by neutralizing the smell of your sweat and by antiseptic action against bacteria, but do not prevent sweating.

However, many deodorants also contain aluminum, along with chemicals called parabens, which have also been linked to breast cancer. So, you’re clearly better off avoiding both antiperspirants and deodorants.

Supposedly “Safe” Crystal Alum Antiperspirants

“Crystal” deodorant stones are a popular natural deodorant alternative, often used by health-conscious shoppers looking to avoid the aluminum and other chemicals common in most antiperspirants and deodorants.

However, if you’re looking to avoid aluminum, crystal deodorants may not be your best choice.

While many claim to be aluminum-free, they are referring to aluminum chlorohydrate, aluminum chloride, aluminum hydroxybromide or aluminum zirconium.

These types of aluminum are widely used in antiperspirants and deodorants. The aluminum is taken into sweat ducts in the top layer of your skin where they act as a plug, stopping the flow of sweat to your skin’s surface.

There is evidence, however, that this aluminum is absorbed into your body where it may cause serious damage.

The aluminum in crystal deodorant stones is a different type of compound known as an alum, the most common form being potassium alum, also known as potassium aluminum sulfate.

Potassium Alum or Ammonium Alum are natural mineral salts made up of molecules that are too large to be absorbed by your skin. They form a protective layer on your skin that inhibits the growth of odor-causing bacteria. These deodorants are recommended by many cancer treatment centers.

But while this may be a better alternative to most antiperspirants and deodorants on the market, it is not completely aluminum-free.

I’ll share with you my top tips for staying odor-free naturally shortly, but first I want to explain why I stopped using any antiperspirants or deodorants over 25 years ago … and suggest you also do the same.

Final Recommendation:

Please note that this recommendation is for antiperspirants only, not deodorants. Many confuse the two. Nearly all antiperspirants use aluminum or alum-based salts to achieve their sweat reduction effect.

It is an absolute no brainer for you and your family to avoid all conventional aluminum-based antiperspirants. The evidence is very clear that these are absorbed and will contribute to aluminum in your body.

Regarding purportedly safe “alum” based antiperspirants found in most health food stores, the companies that produce these claim that the mineral salts are too large to be absorbed and thus provide no danger. However, we have been unable to uncover any solid evidence that supports this claim so it would seem prudent to avoid using them.

While these crystals are probably better than using a conventional antiperspirant, they are clearly not aluminum-free and it still poses a possible Alzheimer's risk and contributes to background toxicity in your body.

It would seem best to exercise the precautionary principle at this time and avoid these crystal-based alum antiperspirants.

Personally, I have not used antiperspirants for over 30 years, once I realized that they were actually causing the stains in the underarm area of my shirts and that wasn’t due to my own sweat. That was a major clue to me to avoid them.

All I do is use simple soap and water and that seems to work well enough that my friends and relatives do not tell me I have any offensive body odor. I typically will wash under my arms in the morning and after I workout.

This approach has served me well for over three decades, however if you find you need a more aggressive approach, then try a pinch of baking soda mixed into water as an effective all-day deodorant.

Additionally, there are many non-aluminum or alum-based alternatives in your local health food store that would likely serve your needs, but I would encourage you to at least TRY going without before making your mind up.

Remember you will need to check the label not only for “aluminum” but also for potassium alum or potash alum, as the full chemical name of potassium alum is potassium aluminum sulfate.

Related Links:

Does Your Antiperspirant Cause Cancer?

Do You Still Use An Antiperspirant?

Concern Over Deodorants & Breast Cancer