Sunday, September 30, 2012

So it begins: Obamacare forcing states to cap, cut prescription drug benefits for seniors and the poor

But they're the party of compassion, don't ya know:

A new report from Kaiser Health indicates states are now moving in the direction of capping or cutting prescription drug benefits.
Illinois Medicaid recipients have been limited to four prescription drugs as the state becomes the latest to cap how many medicines it will cover in the state-federal health insurance program for the poor.

Sixteen states impose a monthly limit on the number of drugs Medicaid recipients can receive and seven states have either enacted such caps or tightened them in the past two years, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KHN is a program of the foundation). The limits vary across the country. Mississippi has a limit of two brand-name drugs. In Arkansas adults are limited to up six drugs a month. Since June, Alabama has had the nation’s stingiest Medicaid drug benefit after limiting adults to one brand-name drug. HIV and psychiatric drugs were excluded. On Aug. 1 the state will relax the limit to its previous level — four brand-name drugs — after the restriction saved more money than expected and the state received money as part of a settlement with a pharmaceutical company.

Other states with Medicaid drug limits are Arkansas, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.


Rationing issues in Obamacare have long been a concern of pro-life groups. Although the death panels — the voluntary advanced care planning that pro-life advocates have been concerned about because it could have doctors financially motivated to promote less medical care and lifesaving treatment — occupied most of the debate, the National Right to Life Committee says other provisions cause concern.

Joe Biden really was right for once. If your life depends on these prescription drugs, Obamacare really is a big f***in' deal.

Hat tip: BadBlue

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

What do Beethoven, Justin Bieber and Tim Tebow Have in Common?

A professor in a college ethics class presented his students with a problem. He said, ‘A man has syphilis and his wife has tuberculosis. They have had four children: one has died, the other three have what is considered to be a terminal illness.

The mother is pregnant. What do you recommend?’ After a spirited discussion, the majority of the class voted that she should abort the child.

‘Fine,’ said the professor. ‘You’ve just killed Beethoven.’

Pattie Mallette was sexually abused as a child and, by age 14, was already using drugs and alcohol. When her hardships became too much to bear, she attempted suicide by throwing herself in front of an oncoming truck.

Video: Justin Beiber’s Mom on NBC

Then, while staying in a psychiatric hospital during one of the darkest points of her life, she discovered God through a friend and became a Christian. This conversion, she said, gave her peace of mind.

But, after just six months, she relapsed back into bad behavior and, at age 17, discovered she was pregnant. Because of her young age and difficult situation, many people encouraged her to end her pregnancy.

Mallette, however, insisted abortion was never an option.

Today her son Justin Bieber can sing to millions of fans and inspire them as a living example of the sanctity of human life.

She has recently told her courageous story in her new book: Nowhere but Up: The Story of Justin Bieber's Mom.

Doctors told Tim Tebow’s mother Pam to abort her son after she became ill because the pregnancy, they said, could endanger her life. Pam refused, instead asking God that she have a healthy baby. He answered her prayers with a future star football player.

Decisions to keep babies in circumstances in which many might opt for an abortion resulted in Beethoven, Justin Bieber and Tim Tebow.

Every abortion stops a beating heart. Every abortion ends a life. Every abortion robs the world of someone who could have made a real difference to the lives of others.

And every abortion robs a person of the opportunity to live life. Note: Dr. Peter Saunders is a doctor and the CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a British organization with 4,500 doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. This article originally appeared on his blog. He is also associated with the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK.


Baby With 3 Percent Chance to Live Heads Home, Mom Refused Abortion

60% of firms to kill health insurance or charge more under Obamacare

Photo - The Examiner - A majority of small business owners and manufacturers are mulling drastic changes to comply with Obamacare, with 21 percent set to drop health insurance to workers altogether and 38 percent planning to make employees pay much more.

In a poll done for the National Association of Manufacturers and National Federation of Independent Businesses, 59 percent said that they will have to consider changes once the full law kicks in because increased costs will jeopardize their operations. According to the poll, 67 percent expect Obamacare to raise healthcare costs.

The fears about spending more on health care are adding to growing concerns among small businessmen and women about staying in business, said the poll from Public Opinion Strategies.

Pollster Bill McInturff noted that the combination of a bad economy, greater regulations and increased economic uncertainty have forced 24 percent of the firms polled to lay off workers, 23 percent to tap their own savings to stay open and 11 percent to kill health coverage for workers.

"The climate in Washington is a concern to them," said McInturff. Dan Danner, president of NFIB added: "Why would I invest in this environment?"

The polled were so down on President Obama and Congress that many said they wouldn't start a business today. Asked if they would start a new business, 55 percent said no. Among the reasons they cited were high taxes, health care costs, regulations and an uncertain economy.

Said McInturff, "The data paints a bleak picture, with a majority of respondents saying in the last three years, the national economy is in a worse position for American businesses and manufacturers." What's more, he found, businesses see little evidence that the economy will brighten soon.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Strassel: Axelrod's ObamaCare Dollars

Emails suggest the White House pushed business to the presidential adviser's former firm to sell the health-care law

WSJ: Rewind to 2009. The fight over ObamaCare is raging, and a few news outlets report that something looks ethically rotten in the White House. An outside group funded by industry is paying the former firm of senior presidential adviser David Axelrod to run ads in favor of the bill. That firm, AKPD Message and Media, still owes Mr. Axelrod money and employs his son.

The story quickly died, but emails recently released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee ought to resurrect it. The emails suggest the White House was intimately involved both in creating this lobby and hiring Mr. Axelrod's firm — which is as big an ethical no-no as it gets.

Mr. Axelrod—who left the White House last year—started AKPD in 1985. The firm earned millions helping run Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. Mr. Axelrod moved to the White House in 2009 and agreed to have AKPD buy him out for $2 million. But AKPD chose to pay Mr. Axelrod in annual installments—even as he worked in the West Wing. This agreement somehow passed muster with the Office of Government Ethics, though the situation at the very least should have walled off AKPD from working on White-House priorities.

It didn't. The White House and industry were working hand-in-glove to pass ObamaCare in 2009, and among the vehicles supplying ad support was an outfit named Healthy Economy Now (HEN). News stories at the time described this as a "coalition" that included the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the American Medical Association, and labor groups—suggesting these entities had started and controlled it.

House emails show HEN was in fact born at an April 15, 2009 meeting arranged by then-White House aide Jim Messina and a chief of staff for Democratic Sen. Max Baucus. The two politicos met at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and invited representatives of business and labor.


Reuters:  Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod

A Service Employees International Union attendee sent an email to colleagues noting she'd been invited by the Baucus staffer, explaining: "Also present was Jim Messina. . . . They basically want to see adds linking HC reform to the economy. . . . there were not a lot of details, but we were told that we wd be getting a phone call. well that call came today."

The call was from Nick Baldick, a Democratic consultant who had worked on the Obama campaign and for the DSCC. Mr. Baldick started HEN. The only job of PhRMA and others was to fund it.

Meanwhile, Mr. Axelrod's old firm was hired to run the ads promoting ObamaCare. At the time, a HEN spokesman said HEN had done the hiring. But the emails suggest otherwise. In email after email, the contributors to HEN refer to four men as the "White House" team running health care. They included John Del Cecato and Larry Grisolano (partners at AKPD), as well as Andy Grossman (who once ran the DSCC) and Erik Smith, who had been a paid adviser to the Obama presidential campaign.

In one email, PhRMA consultant Steve McMahon calls these four the "WH-designated folks." He explains to colleagues that Messrs. Grossman, Grisolano and Del Cecato "are very close to Axelrod," and that "they have been put in charge of the campaign to pass health reform." Ron Pollack, whose Families USA was part of the HEN coalition, explained to colleagues that "the team that is working with the White House on health-care reform. . . . [Grossman, Smith, Del Cecato, Grisolano] . . . would like to get together with us." This would provide "guidance from the White House about their messaging."

According to White House visitor logs, Mr. Smith had 28 appointments scheduled between May and August—17 made through Mr. Messina or his assistant. Mr. Grossman appears in the logs at least 19 times. Messrs. Del Cecato and Grisolano of AKPD also visited in the spring and summer, at least twice with Mr. Axelrod, who was deep in the health-care fight.

A 2009 PhRMA memo also makes clear that AKPD had been chosen before PhRMA joined HEN. It's also clear that some contributors didn't like the conflict of interest. When, in July 2009, a media outlet prepared to report AKPD's hiring, a PhRMA participant said: "This is a big problem." Mr. Baldick advises: "just say, AKPD is not working for PhRMA." AKPD and another firm, GMMB, would handle $12 million in ad business from HEN and work for a successor 501(c)4.

A basic rule of White House ethics is to avoid even the appearance of self-dealing or nepotism. If Mr. Axelrod or his West Wing chums pushed political business toward Mr. Axelrod's former firm, they contributed to his son's salary as well as to the ability of the firm to pay Mr. Axelrod what it still owed him. Could you imagine the press frenzy if Karl Rove had done the same after he joined the White House?

Messrs. Axelrod and Messina are now in Chicago running Mr. Obama's campaign. Mr. Axelrod, the White House and a partner for AKPD didn't respond to requests for comment on their role in HEN, the tapping of Mr. Baldick, and the redolent hiring of AKPD. Until the White House explains all this, voters can fairly conclude that the President's political team took their Chicago brand of ethics into the White House.

Write to

A version of this article appeared June 22, 2012, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Axelrod's ObamaCare Dollars.


ObamaCare Disarray as 2013 Nears… Beware!

Ryan to Newsmax: Obama Turning Medicare into 'Piggybank' for Obamacare

What Are The Chances? Obama, Jarrett, and Axelrod, All Connected to Communist Frank Marshall Davis

The 1997 speech that launched Obama – Chapter III

Thursday, September 20, 2012

ObamaCare Disarray as 2013 Nears… Beware!


National arts and crafts retail chain Hobby Lobby is facing backlash after filing a lawsuit opposing the HeathCare Mandate, with the owners claiming that it goes against their Christian Values. (AP)

Fox News:

A Christian-owned chain of hobby shops is facing a bitter backlash after suing the Obama administration over new requirements to provide insured employees with contraceptive and abortion coverage.

Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby filed the suit Sept. 12 in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, alleging that the ObamaCare mandate violates the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The suit followed similar suits by Catholic colleges and a Denver-based company whose owners also objected to the mandate on religious grounds. While a judge has not yet ruled on Hobby Lobby's suit, a Facebook page calling for a boycott of the company, which operates 500 stores in 41 states, has appeared online, and several other forums have featured posts urging customers to steer clear of Hobby Lobby.

“I’m boycotting Hobby Lobby!” reads the heading of one posting on image posting site Flickr. “Even if you're pro-life this kind of action stinks to high heaven! If things like this can be allowed then what's next?!,” the user added.

“They’re being told they have two choices. Either follow their faith and pay the government half-a-billion dollars or give up their beliefs."

- Lori Windham, attorney for Hobby Lobby

Others have taken to social media to protest against Hobby Lobby, with a “Boycott Hobby Lobby” page on Facebook.

“I've been to two Hobby Lobby parking lots today and they were fairly empty. I used to have trouble finding a parking spot!” read one posting from the administrator of the Boycott page. “I think the boycott is catching on! I do not think they are getting the reaction they hoped for.”

Hobby Lobby owner David Green is a devout Baptist who owns one of the world's largest collections of Biblical artifacts. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Green in his suit, argued that compliance with the offending portion of the health care law that the nature of their suit is “would force religiously-motivated business owners like plaintiffs to violate their faith under the threats of millions of dollars in fines.”

Lawyers argued that company employees are well aware of Green's views and their bearing on the company.

“The Green family’s business practices ... reflect their Christian faith in unmistakable and concrete ways,” the complaint states. The company employs full-time chaplains; close all store locations on Sundays and monitors all marketing and operations to make sure that it is consistent with their beliefs.

Failure to comply with the mandate could subject the company to as much as $1.3 million in daily fines, according to Becket Fund attorneys.

"They’re being told they have two choices: Either follow their faith and pay the government half a billion dollars or give up their beliefs," Lori Windham, an attorney from the Becket Fund, told "We believe that’s a choice no one should have to make.”

David Green could not be reached for comment, but in a recent USA Today Op-Ed, he blasted the Obama administration for imposing mandates he believes he cannot comply with.

“Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy," Green wrote. "Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It’s not right.”

The company does not object to providing coverage that includes birth control pills, but refuses to provide or pay for two specific abortion-inducing drugs such as the so-called "morning after" pill, because Green's "most deeply held religious belief" is that life beginning at conception, the family said in a statement released through its attorneys.

As for the boycott, the company's founders believe customers have the right to vote with their feet.

"The Green family respects every individual's right to free speech and hopes that others will respect their rights also, including the right to live and do business according to their religious beliefs.," the statement said.

Hobby Lobby is believed to be the first non-Catholic company to file an objection to the healthcare mandate. The Newland family, the devoutly Catholic owners of Denver-based Hercules Industries filed a similar suit this past summer and won a court injunction that ruled that they are not obligated to follow the mandate.

“I think the law and precedent set by this case is very strong for Hobby Lobby and the Green Family,” Windham said.


ObamaCare's cuts to hospitals will cost seniors their lives

Received this from a friend and fellow Classmate of mine. This is his son he's talking about...

Our son was the Radiology Department Director for the largest hospital in Phoenix, for 15 years. Two years ago, a conglomerate, which was taking over hospitals around the country, via hostile buyouts, "acquired" his. The first order of their new business was to remove all the highest paid staff, replacing all with lower paid new hires.

Being of such educated stature, he was able to take his choice of several other hospital employment offers from around the country. He nearly chose Fairbanks but wisely moved just North to Paysen Arizona. Again, Radiology Department Director. Just two years ago, that community facility serving a large area just South of Flagstaff was busy and thriving financially. Today, he is unemployed again! The hospital is losing money in huge amounts. Why? Arizona has been forced to revise it's program for servicing medicare/medicade recipients, cutting care to thousands of low income and elderly patients.

The use of the radiology department's x-ray and other rooms are nearly stilled! This is certainly just one of thousands of medical facilities and doctors that are already feeling the effects of "OBAMACARE"…

ObamaCare's cuts to hospitals will cost seniors their lives

By Betsy McCaughey  -  Published September 12, 2012

President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they've known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he's cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don't be bamboozled. It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been  enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008  show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011  found that heart attack patients  were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more.  For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds "Medicare spending per beneficiary" as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim.  The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks.   Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer -- slashing payments to hospitals -- won’t hurt patients,  but the evidence shows that’s untrue.

Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "Obama Health Law What It Says And How To Overturn It."


CBO Raises Estimate of Those Hit By Obama Health Care Tax & ObamaCare in Disarray

THIS isn't allowed even on Bourbon Street

There is only one way left to repeal, replace ObamaCare and reform healthcare and that is if we fire Obama in November and Hire Mitt Romney!

Cross-Posted at Ask Marion

CBO raises estimate of those hit by Obama health care tax & Obamacare in Disarray

CBO raises estimate of those hit by Obama health care tax

"Congress‘ official scorekeeper said Wednesday that 30 million people will be uninsured when President Obama’s health care law goes fully into effect, including six million Americans who are expected to pay a tax penalty — about two million more than originally forecast when the law was passed in 2010..."  Read More Here

The Emerging Obamacare Truth Is Disarray

"The temporary "high risk" pools that Obamacare created, to provide a way for those with pre-existing health conditions to get insurance immediately, are undersubscribed yet way over budget. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the $5 billion allocated to these pools could enroll 200,000 consumers. They envisioned enrollment growing to more than 400,000. But only 77,877 have signed up as of July, yet the program is way over its budget. More than a quarter of these state-based risk pools are short on cash.

· The CLASS Act, which was supposed to provide consumers government-financed long-term care insurance has been abandoned, blowing an $86 billion dollar hole in Obamacare's cost estimates. The CLASS Act was never financially viable. Its costs would have outstripped revenue as soon as it was in full operation. But since it took in money five years before it started to pay out benefits, budget gimmickry let Mr. Obama capture that revenue and use it to finance Obamacare. In abandoning the measure, the President's own health secretary called the scheme "unsustainable."

· The crown jewel of Obamacare's effort to contain healthcare costs, the creation of Accountable Care Organizations, is so unwieldy that major provider groups have said they won't participate. The idea is to consolidate doctors, turning them into employees of large systems, and then pay these systems lump sums of money to take care of groups of patients. A letter from 10 major medical groups that previously ran similar programs said, "it would be difficult, if not impossible" to accept the financial design created by Obamacare. In another rebuke, an umbrella group representing premier medical organizations said 90 percent of its members wouldn't partake.

· New regulations Obamacare puts on insurers have been so unworkable that the Obama team has had to dole out 1,231 waivers. These exemptions are granted when the Obamacare rules are projected to raise healthcare premiums more than 10 percent, or create a "significant decrease in access to healthcare benefits." These waivers haven't been doled out consistently. Entities winning the preferences are over-represented by plans offered by unionized businesses and other administration allies.

· Obamacare can't even settle on an affordable definition to the term "affordable" -- creating the prospect that millions of middle class families will get priced out of coverage. According to a recent editorial in the New York Times, "the people left in the lurch would be those who had lower incomes but were not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid." Because of the way Obamacare defines what's "affordable" to these families, many working-class people would be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and yet they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law..."  Read More Here

Six million will pay health law penalty: study

"The CBO on Wednesday said the penalty of $695 or 2.5% of household income under the law formally known as the Affordable Care Act increases the number of those facing the penalty than originally was projected in April 2010, shortly after the law’s passage. The law contains an individual mandate requiring all Americans to have insurance or pay a penalty.

Now, 2 million more people will be penalized and pay an additional $3 billion in fines than originally projected, according to the report, conducted by the CBO along with the Joint Committee on Taxation." Read More Here

h/t to MJ

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Big Brother Is Here: All Sitcoms Have Been Asked (Told) To Incorporate ObamaCare Into Their Plots… USSR… We Are There!

Hollywood Could Soon Feature Pro ObamaCare Themes | Modern Family, Greys Anatomy

(Photo: AP) – The Blaze

The New York Times is reporting that California is resorting to unconventional methods of convincing its residents of the “benefits” of what is known as “ObamaCare.” While advertisements are usually clearly stated as such, apparently Americans could soon see pro-health care reform messages in some of the nation’s most popular television shows.

The New York Times explains:

Realizing that much of the battle will be in the public relations realm, the [California Health Benefit Exchange] has poured significant resources into a detailed marketing plan — developed not by state health bureaucrats but by the global marketing powerhouse Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, which has an initial $900,000 contract with the exchange. The Ogilvy plan includes ideas for reaching an uninsured population that speaks dozens of languages and is scattered through 11 media markets: advertising on coffee cup sleeves at community colleges to reach adult students, for example, and at professional soccer matches to reach young Hispanic men.

And Hollywood, an industry whose major players have been supportive of President Obama and his agenda, will be tapped. Plans are being discussed to pitch a reality television show about “the trials and tribulations of families living without medical coverage,” according to the Ogilvy plan. The exchange will also seek to have prime-time television shows, like “Modern Family,” “Grey’s Anatomy” and Univision telenovelas, weave the health care law into their plots.

“I’d like to see 10 of the major TV shows, or telenovelas, have people talking about ‘that health insurance thing,’ ” said Peter V. Lee, the exchange’s executive director. “There are good story lines here.” [Emphasis added]


The article does not say whether Lee, who refers to the overhaul as “that health insurance thing,” has read the roughly 2,500 page bill that Americans will soon have to conform to.

Hollywood Could Soon Feature Pro ObamaCare Themes | Modern Family, Greys Anatomy

In this publicity photo released by ABC, Rico Rodriguez, left, and Sofia Vergara are shown in a scene from Modern Family."

The New York Times continues:

The exchange itself has so far been financed by three grants, worth $237 million, from the federal government. Most of the money is committed to consultants, including Accenture, which has a $327 million contract to build and support the initial operation of the enrollment portal.

[...]Despite the full-throttle approach here, another uncertainty is the outcome of the presidential race. Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, has vowed to repeal the health care law and restructure Medicaid, not only scrapping the planned expansion but making the program much leaner. Even without a repeal, Republicans could undo the federal subsidies and other financing for the law if they won the presidency and even a narrow majority in the Senate.

“If the federal funding stopped,” Mr. Lee said, “we would be at a ‘press reset’ button.” [Emphasis added]

Apparently only 17% of California voters in an August 20 Field Poll said they were familiar with the specifics of the insurance exchange that will soon be a major component of the health care system, though 54% said they supported the new legislation.

“The fact that very few people have heard about us isn’t an issue,” Mr. Lee said confidently. “Come back in a year.”


(H/T: NewsBusters)


Saturday, September 15, 2012

Suit: Roberts' ruling a poison pill for Obamacare

Calling mandate, penalties a 'tax' creates huge constitutional problem


The penalties Americans will be required to pay under Obamacare for going without health insurance were declared constitutional in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that hinged on Chief Justice John Roberts’ assertion that the assessments are taxes.

But a legal challenge to the federal government takeover of health-care decision-making says that’s a problem, because Harry Reid created the Obamacare legislation, with all of its new “taxes,” in the U.S. Senate.

The Constitution

any tax bills to begin in the House.

The demand for an explanation is being raised in an amended complaint filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing a man who believes the new bureaucracy isn’t legal.

“If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked,” said Paul J. Beard II, the principal attorney for the organization.

When lawmakers passed the Affordable Care Act, with all of its taxes, “Did they follow the Constitution’s procedures for revenue increases?” Beard asked.

The Supreme Court wasn’t asked and didn’t address this question, he noted.

“The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts,” he said.

PLF explained that under the Supreme Court’s decision in June, the Affordable Care Act now charges a “tax” on Americans who fail to buy health insurance.

But Reid introduced the tax plan in the Senate, not the House, as the Constitution’s Origination Clause requires for new revenue-raising bills, in Article I, Section 7, the legal team argued.

The plaintiff in the case is Iowa small business owner Matt Sissel, who chooses to pay for medical expenses on his own. He objects “on financial, philosophical, and constitutional grounds to be ordered by the federal government to purchase a health care plan he does not need or want, on pain of financial penalty.”

“I’m in this case to defend freedom and the Constitution,” said Sissel. “I strongly believe that I should be free – and all Americans should be free – to decide how to provide for our medical needs, and not be forced to purchase a federally dictated health care plan. I’m very concerned about Congress ignoring the constitutional roadmap for enacting taxes, because those procedures are there for a purpose – to protect our freedom.”

He served in the Army National Guard until 2008 and spent two years in Iraq as a combat medic. He received the Bronze Star and now owns an art business in Iowa City.

“It’s dispiriting to see our lawmakers treat the rules set out in the Constitution with disrespect, as if they’re just suggestions, or as if members of Congress are too important to follow them,” he said.

His lawsuit was filed before the Supreme Court opinion was released by Roberts, but it was on hold while that case from the National Federation of Independent Business and 26 states was pending.

The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case alleged that a mandate to buy insurance was a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and the Supreme Court agreed. But Roberts’ opinion simply changed the “penalty” as it was enacted by Congress to a “tax” and deemed it constitutional for that reason.

Reid took a House-passed bill that helps veterans buy homes, eviscerated it and inserted the Obamacare language.

“When we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about dry formalities and this isn’t an academic issue,” said Beard. “The Founders understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy, as Chief Justice John Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause as a vital safeguard for liberty. They insisted that the power to initiate new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who are most directly accountable to voters – members of the House, who are elected every two years by local districts.”

The Sissel complaint is being amended to challenge the entire law on that basis.

The amended complaint explains that Roberts specifically approved the “shared responsibility payment,” which the Obama administration said was not a tax, as “a tax.”

“The chief justice explained the apparent inconsistency in concluding that the ‘shared responsibility payment’ is a tax for constitutional purposes, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.”

His logic was that while Congress did not have the power to require citizens to buy insurance, it could require them to pay a tax.

But Roberts’ holding that the payments are taxes “raises new questions about the tax’s conformity with other constitutional provisions,” which the court left unresolved, the legal filing said.

“Despite the fact the act raises considerable revenues, it originated in the Senate, not the House,” the brief argues. “The Affordable Care Act was not the result of a lawful amendment of H.R. 3590, because the subject matter of the one had nothing whatsoever to do with the other.”

The Obamacare law already was under attack in the courts for its “mandate” that employers pay for abortifacients for employees. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Christian organizations that say the mandate violates freedom of religion.

In a Michigan pending case, the government insisted it has the authority to “substantially burden the exercise of religion” on two conditions.

If it is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Stop Junk Food Marketing to Kids

Video:  Stop Junk Food Marketing to Kids

By Dr. Mercola

Junk food is contributing to skyrocketing rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, and even strokes -- and not just among adults.

Food and beverage companies spend $2 billion a year promoting unhealthy foods to kids, and while ultimately it's the parents' responsibility to feed their children healthy foods, junk food ads make this much more difficult than it should be.

A new campaign, We're Not Buying It, is now underway to help expose deceptive marketing to children, debunk industry claims, and highlight the latest research, in the hopes of ending this assault on today's youth, and I'll explain how you can get involved, too, below.

Does Your Child Recognize the "Golden Arches"?

Most toddlers recognize the sign of McDonald's "golden arches" long before they are speaking in full sentences.


Because they are often raised on French fries, fast-food hamburgers and orange soda, or if "raised" is a bit of a stretch, are taught that French fries, chicken fingers and soda is an acceptable meal. Have you noticed that even in "regular" restaurants the kids' menu options are almost always entirely junk food like pizza, macaroni and cheese or fried chicken strips?

Of course kids will probably prefer these foods if that's what they're offered; these foods are manufactured to taste good, and most kids aren't going to opt for a spear of broccoli over a French fry -- until they're old enough to understand the implications of the choice, and assuming you have taught them about the importance of eating healthy foods along the way.

In many ways society is set up against you on this one. As The Interagency Working Group on Foods Marketed to Children (IWG) reports:

  • The fast-food industry spends more than $5 million every day marketing unhealthy foods to children.
  • Kids watch an average of over 10 food-related ads every day (nearly 4,000/year).
  • Nearly all (98 percent) of food advertisements viewed by children are for products that are high in fat, sugar or sodium. Most (79 percent) are low in fiber.

So even under the best circumstances, your kids will probably be exposed to the latest "cool" kid foods, and this is what marketers are banking on. Then, when you go to the grocery store, your child will have a meltdown if you don't give in and buy the cereal with their favorite cartoon character on the box, or the cookies with brightly colored chips. If you're a parent, it's certainly easier to just give in, but it's imperative to be strong as shaping your child's eating habits starts very early on …

Your Child's Taste Preferences are Created by Age 3

Research shows when parents fed their preschool-aged children junk foods high in sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, it had a lasting impact on their taste preferences. All of the children tested showed preferences for junk foods, and all (even those who were just 3 years old!) were also able to recognize some soda, fast food and junk food brands.

The researchers concluded what you probably already suspect: kids who were exposed to junk food, soda and fast food, via advertising and also because their parents fed them these foods, learned to recognize and prefer these foods over healthier choices. This does have an impact on their health, as nutrients from quality foods are critical in helping your child reach his or her fullest potential!

One study from British researchers revealed that kids who ate a predominantly processed food diet at age 3 had lower IQ scores at age 8.5. For each measured increase in processed foods, participants had a 1.67-point decrease in IQ.

As you might suspect, the opposite also held true, with those eating healthier diets experiencing higher IQ levels. For each measured increase in dietary score, which meant the child was eating more fruits and vegetables for instance, there was a 1.2-point increase in IQ.

The reality is, the best time to shape your kids' eating habits is while they're still young. This means starting from birth with breast milk and then transitioning to solid foods that have valuable nutrients, like egg yolk, avocado and sweet potatoes. (You can easily cross any form of grain-based infant cereal off of this list.)

From there, ideally you will feed your child healthy foods that your family is also eating -- grass-fed meats, organic veggies, vegetable juice, raw dairy and nuts, and so on. These are the foods your child will thrive on, and it's important they learn what real, healthy food is right from the get-go. This way, when they become tweens and teenagers, they may eat junk food here and there at a friend's house, but they will return to real food as the foundation of their diet -- and that habit will continue on with them for a lifetime.

This is What Happens When You Let Marketers Dictate Your Kid's Diet …

The state of most kids' diets in the United States is not easy to swallow. As IWG reported:

  • Nearly 40% of children's diets come from added sugars and unhealthy fats.
  • Only 21% of youth age 6-19 eat the recommended five or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day

This is a veritable recipe for disease, and is a primary reason why today's kids are arguably less healthy than many prior generations. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure -- these are diseases that once appeared only in middle-age and beyond, but are now impacting children. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that by 2050, one in three U.S. adults will have diabetes -- one of them could be your child if you do not take steps to cancel out the messages junk-food marketers are sending and instead teach them healthy eating habits.

Make no mistake, the advertisers are doing all they can to lure your child in.

In fact, last year the food and beverage industry spent more than $40 billion, yes billion, lobbying congress against regulations that would decrease the marketing of unhealthy foods to kids. You can do a lot of persuading with $40 billion, which may explain why food manufacturers are allowed to get away with so much -- like putting pictures of fruit all over product packaging when the product actually contains no fruit.

A 2011 study by the Prevention Institute even found that 84 percent of food packages that contain symbols specifically intended to help people choose healthier foods did not meet even basic nutritional standards! In fact, 57 percent of these "Better-for-You" children's foods were high in sugar, 95 percent contained added sugar, and 21 percent contained artificial colors. So you need to be very wary when buying any processed foods for your kids, even the "healthy" ones, as they will most certainly contain large amounts of fructose with very little to offer in the way of healthy nutrition.

Help Fight Back Against Junk-Food Marketers and Stand Up for Kids' Health

The Prevention Institute's "We're Not Buying It" campaign is petitioning President Obama to put voluntary, science-based nutrition guidelines into place for companies that market foods to kids. You can sign this petition now, but I urge you to go a step further and stop supporting the companies that are marketing junk foods to your children today.

Ideally, you and your family will want to vote with your pocketbook and avoid as much processed food as possible and use unprocessed raw, organic and/or locally grown foods as much as possible. Your children should be eating the same wholesome foods you are -- they don't need bright-blue juice or deep-fried "nuggets" any more than you do.

If you and your kids are absolutely hooked on fast food and other processed foods, you're going to need some help and most likely some support from friends and family if you want to kick the junk-food lifestyle. Besides surrounding yourself with supportive, like-minded people, you can also review my article "How to Wean Yourself Off Processed Foods in 7 Steps" or read the book I wrote on the subject, called Generation XL: Raising Healthy, Intelligent Kids in a High-Tech, Junk-Food World.

Finally, my nutrition plan offers a step-by-step guide to feed your family right, and I encourage you to read through it now. You need to first educate yourself about proper nutrition and the dangers of junk food and processed foods in order to change the food culture of your entire family. To give your child the best start at life, and help instill healthy habits that will last a lifetime, you must lead by example. Children will simply not know which foods are healthy unless you, as a parent, teach it to them first.

Monday, September 10, 2012

Abortionists don’t need a doctor’s license: bill rammed through California Senate

Just when you think it can’t get worse…  Abortionists don’t need a doctor’s license: bill rammed through California Senate

by Kathleen Gilbert  -  Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:38 EST

SACRAMENTO ( - The California Senate last week rammed through a bill allowing abortionists to practice without a doctor’s license, which now awaits approval from Governor Jerry Brown. 

Senate Bill 623, introduced by Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, extends a program run by the University of California at San Francisco, in which nurse practitioners, midwives, and doctors’ assistants are trained to perform abortions without any further training in medicine. Kehoe argues the bill is necessary because there aren’t enough doctors performing abortions in California.

The Life Legal Defense Foundation, a Napa-based group that has been calling on the UCSF program to expose its records, notes the revolutionary take on abortion was crammed into an unrelated bill at the end of the legislative session after previous attempts at passage failed.

“This bill was originally created to regulate boat paint,” said LLDF Executive Director Dana Cody. “Now it’s regulating and destroying human lives.”

Sen. Kehoe had unsuccessfully attempted to pass a broader measure earlier this year that was killed in committee. Rather than opening abortion to non-physicians generally, the latest bill focuses on extending a UC-San Francisco program that lawyers say has used a legal loophole to pursue the unorthodox training.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

The program was the subject of pro-life lawyers’ Writ of Mandate demanding disclosure with a public records request for complete information. Lawyers say the public is not being told which abortionists are conducting the training, and whether women are being put at risk by non-doctors performing the invasive surgery.

“There have been numerous attempts to resist records requests, leaving us wondering what they have to hide,” said Katie Short, Legal Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. LLDF has issued a fact sheet about the push to lower standards for an abortion license.

It notes that Planned Parenthood has teamed with USCF and that the non-physicians in the program are, for the most part, selected from among individuals already employed at Planned Parenthood.

California affiliates of the abortion group, along with NARAL Pro-Choice America, had made a public push for dropping license requirements earlier this year.

Meanwhile, California’s Catholic bishops are decrying the “hastily concocted ‘gut and amend’ bill,” saying the previous attempts “failed, in part, because the ‘success’ touted by the project sponsors had not been professionally reported or peer reviewed.” 

They also lamented that the program has already resulted in 8,000 abortions.

“With SB 623, the sponsors and managers of that project will be ‘rewarded’ with more time and more money so they can not only ‘do their homework,’ but also continue training yet more mid-level medical practitioners, who have already performed more than 8,000 abortions,” the bishops said in an action alert.

Comment:  You know … California gets all they deserve… MOVE THE HELL OUT OF CA PATRIOTS!!! Victoria B.

h/t to Warbird and MJ

ObamaCare Summed Up in One Sentence

Video:  Obamacare Summed Up in One Sentence

So, let me get this straight. This is a long sentence. We’re going to be gifted with a healthcare plan that we’re forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people without adding a single doctor but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes — [laughter] — same sentence! — with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government that has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese — [laughter] — and finally, financed by a country that’s broke.

h/t to MJ

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Biden, Obamas tell health care tall tales at Charlotte convention

Barack Obama's father, also named Barack Obama, and mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. (Photo: AP)

Daily Caller:

Vice President Joe Biden, first lady Michelle Obama and President Barack Obama all told a story during the Democratic National Convention about battles the president’s mother waged with health care companies as she fought a terminal illness in 1995. But the version of events presented Thursday night differs dramatically from others, including those of at least two biographers and Obama’s own previous account.

“Barack had to sit at the end of his mom’s hospital bed and watch her fight cancer and insurance companies at the same time,” Biden said.

The first lady added to the story, observing from the podium that “watching your mother die of something that could have been prevented — that’s a tough thing to deal with.”

“When my mother got cancer,” the president echoed during a video played inside the Time Warner Cable Arena before his entrance, ”she wasn’t a wealthy woman and it pretty much drained all her resources.”

But in 2004, the president told the Chicago Sun-Times that he wasn’t present during his mother’s final days at all.

“The biggest mistake I made was not being at my mother’s bedside when she died,” he said then. ”She was in Hawaii in a hospital, and we didn’t know how fast it was going to take, and I didn’t get there in time.”

David Maraniss, who later authored the best-selling book “Barack Obama: The Story,“ wrote in The Washington Post in 2008 that Obama did not visit her.

“He was into his Chicago phase, reshaping himself for his political future, but now was drawn back to Hawaii to say goodbye to his mother,” Maraniss reported. ”Too late, as it turned out. She died on Nov. 7, 1995, before he could get there.”

The story Democratic convention-goers heard in Charlotte, N.C., however, was not intended as a tragic remembrance, but to convey the tragedy of suffering in a hospital without health insurance.

This narrative, too, is contradicted by history: Stanley Ann Dunham, the president’s late mother, did have health insurance to cover her uterine and ovarian cancer, through her job with Development Alternatives Inc. of Bethesda, Md.

“Ann’s compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment,” according to Dunham’s biographer, New York Times journalist Janny Scott.

“Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”

Scott also wrote that Dunham’s compensation package for her work in Indonesia included $82,500 — about $132,000 in today’s dollars — plus a housing allowance and a car, making that amount well within her means.

The story told from the podium Thursday in Charlotte has been a persistent refrain from Obama and his surrogates since his presidential candidacy began in 2007. His campaign produced an ad that year for the Iowa caucuses in which Obama claimed his mother was ”more worried about paying her medical bills than getting well.”

“She wasn’t thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality,” he told an audience in Santa Barbara, Calif., during a 2007 campaign swing. “She had been diagnosed just as she was transitioning between jobs. And she wasn’t sure whether insurance was going to cover the medical expenses because they might consider this a pre-existing condition.”

“I remember just being heartbroken,” the future president said then, “seeing her struggle through the paperwork and the medical bills and the insurance forms. So I have seen what it’s like when somebody you love is suffering because of a broken health care system. And it’s wrong. It’s not who we are as a people.”


Fact Check: First Lady's False Fairy Tale of Struggle

DNC-Backed, $100K-Earning Union Member Hits Romney 

Friday, September 7, 2012

Natural Remedies to Relieve Stress and Anxiety


It seems there is always something new that causes us more stress and anxiety. You can try these natural remedies to relieve your stress and anxiety.

Stress and anxiety can be very damaging to our mental and physical health and in today’s world there are all kinds of reasons for stress and anxiety.

In ancient times, when people were under stress it was either fight or flight. Our bodies are made up to change physically and mentally when under stress that causes us to think of fight or flight. Except in today’s world we usually cannot fight or flight, so we sit still while under stress which causes even more stress to build up. If that anxiety and stress continues for too long without resolve, you can actually have a nervous breakdown.

Stress can actually cause us to gain weight. It is now known that stress causes belly fat to accumulate. Stress causes our blood pressure to rise; neither of these health conditions are good for our health. It is important we find ways other than fight or flight to relieve stress, here are some natural remedies to relieve stress.

Exercise as a Natural Remedy to Relive Stress and Anxiety

Exercise is one of the best ways to relieve stress, as long as exercise is okay with your doctor.

  • Going for a fast 30 minute walk can really relieve tension, anxiety and stress.
  • Riding an exercise bike for 10 minutes or longer is great.
  • Join an aerobics class and work up a sweat
  • Yoga is great to relieve stress
  • Tai chi, an ancient exercise is slow and very calming, it has been called moving meditation and can be done by anyone of any age.
  • Get a punching bag, a great natural remedy to relive stress and anxiety.

For more specific stress relieving exercises read Ways of coping with stress

Limit Caffeine

Too much caffeine like coffee, pop, energy drinks and some teas can increase your stress level. It is odd, but many people actually drink more coffee when under pressure or stress which of course leads to more anxiety and stress.

If you were to eliminate caffeine from your daily diet, you would be surprised at how calm you will feel during the day, all day, even during stressful times. Many think they just cannot do without that morning, afternoon and evening cup of coffee.

Start by limiting yourself to a couple of cups in the morning only and no more for the rest of the day. And then try to quit drinking coffee and all other drinks that have caffeine in them.

Lavender for Stress and Anxiety Relief

The essential oil of lavender has been used for centuries for healing purposes. One of these health reasons is for its calming effects during times of stress and anxiety.

You can take a hot bath with the lavender oil added to the water, you can put a few drops of the lavender oil on your pillow which will help you sleep, have a lavender potpourri in your home and you can have a massage with it.

Bach Rescue Remedy

As with all natural remedies, they can work wonders for some people and not work at all for others. Rescue Remedy made by Bach Flower Remedies is one I have tried myself during times of anxiety and high stress and it actually did have a calming effect on me.

I tried the spray version and you just spray twice on your tongue and it could relieve your stress and calm you. You can find this natural remedy in your health food stores.

Eat a Light Diet

A simple natural remedy is to change your diet. Eating meals that are high in fat and or fried foods can cause the blood pressure to rise and increase stress during stressful times. Eating a lighter diet will help your digestion, keep your blood pressure from rising and possibly help you feel less stress.

A lighter diet means eating less and lighter foods like more vegetables and legumes in place of a large serving of meat or fried foods.

Meditation and Breathing

Learn to meditate. It is not hard to learn and with practice, meditation is a great way to relieve stress. Learning deep breathing techniques can also relieve stress.

Vitamin B Complex Relieves Stress

A good multivitamin that has plenty of the B vitamins or just a B complex vitamin every day is very good for the nerves and can relieve stress and anxiety. If your diet is lacking in some or all of the B vitamins, that could be one reason you have so much anxiety or stress.

Talk Therapy

Talk therapy can really help reduce negative thinking which turns into worrisome thoughts which almost always causes undue stress. There are three types of talk therapy; cognitive, behavioral and interpersonal. To relieve stress, cognitive therapy should be the best. Talking with a trained professional can show you how to stop the negative thoughts and relive the stress. You can talk more freely with a talk therapist than you might with a friend or relative and it is much better than talking to yourself.

Valerian as a Natural Remedy to Relieve Stress

Valerian has been used for centuries to help with insomnia and relieve stress and anxiety. Germany’s E Commission has approved valerian as an effective sedative. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration has categorized valerian as GRAS (generally regarded as safe).

Valerian is a plant and the root of this plant is what is used for the natural remedy. You can buy valerian in the form of a tincture, as a tea or in a powdered form in capsules. You can make your own tea by pouring 1 cup of boiling water over 1 teaspoon of dried valerian root and let that steep for 5 – 10 minutes. You can also buy commercially prepared valerian root tea bags at your local health food store.

In some people valerian actually has the opposite effect, causing more anxiety and restless, so be aware of this. Something else to be aware of, valerian does not smell very good, it doesn’t taste bad though.

There are possible drug interactions with valerian and you should not take valerian if you:

  • Tricyclic depressants like Elavil
  • Do not take valerian if you have had alcohol
  • Barbiturates
  • Xanax or Valium
  • Anticonvulsants
  • Any drug that is for insomnia like Ambien, Sonata, Lunesta or Rozerem
  • Antihistamines
  • Statin or other blood pressure lowering medicines
  • Possibly some antifungal drugs

To be safe, you should ask your doctor about taking valerian if you are on any medications.


Stress and anxiety are becoming so common today that some might take it as a normal way to live, but you don’t have to. There are numerous natural remedies to relieve stress and anxiety and these remedies should be tried before turning to medications.

Copyright Sam Montana October 2, 2010


Valerian - University of Maryland Medical Center

Article photo by Maga-Chan

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Eat Orange Fruits and Vegetables

If you have a family history of heart disease or cancer, you may find eating more orange colored foods to be beneficial to your health. A study suggested that by eating orange colored fruits and vegetables one is less likely to die of either of these two diseases. This is because orange fruits and vegetables such as carrots and pumpkin are “high in the anti-oxidant alpha-carotene”.pumpkins

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Some Baby Foods are Worse Than Junk Food


baby food, infant food, baby cereal, junk food, nestle, gerberSome baby foods contain as much sugar and saturated fats as chocolate cookies or cheeseburgers.

A survey of more than 100 foods for babies and toddlers found examples that were 29 percent sugar, and others that contained trans fats, which have been linked to heart disease.

The Children’s Food Campaign, part of food and farming campaign group Sustain, examined the nutritional content of 107 baby and toddler foods. Only half the products were low in saturated fat, salt and sugar.

So, what about organic baby food — is it your safest choice?

Maybe not…

Katharine Wroth of Grist was curious about her organic baby food options, so she took a look at several types of baby food.

She found that, among other results, Earth’s Best had an extensive selection, but also had high sodium levels. Gerber Organic was easy to find, but came in plastic containers. Organic Baby was from a good company, but was sometimes hard to find.

Plum Organics had BPA-free packaging, but a high price and limited flavor options. Happy Baby had the same advantages and the same problems. Little Lettice comes from a company that uses local ingredients and doesn’t ship outside the region, but that means it is only available in Massachusetts.

In the final analysis, the frozen baby foods tasted better than the jarred ones, but they would be prohibitively expensive if they were all you bought. However, they also noted that there is one option that is affordable, tasty, and healthy: making your own.

As shocking as these findings are, I’m still not surprised. As the food industry is notorious for flooding the market with unhealthy foods – why should you believe the baby food sector is that much different?

Just What Are You Feeding Your Baby?

The results of a survey of more than 100 foods for babies and toddlers found that one brand of dry biscuits contained a staggering 29 percent sugar!

Other weaning biscuits were found to contain unlabeled trans fat, which is known to increase LDL, also known as "bad" cholesterol, while lowering levels of HDL, or "good" cholesterol. It can also cause clogging of arteries, type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems, and can increase the risk of heart disease.

Many food companies use trans fat instead of oil because it reduces cost, extends storage life of products and can improve flavor and texture.

None of these reasons have anything to do with benefitting the health of your child.

Yet despite all the science available on the dangers of trans fats, when a researcher from the Children’s Food Campaign (CFC) spoke to one of the baby food manufacturers, asking about the trans fats in their products, he was told that they were “pretty sure” that there were no trans fats in their baby biscuits, but that they would check with a nutritionist.

They called back two days later and admitted that their biscuits do contain trans fats, but assured the CFC researcher that “trans fats aren’t any worse than saturated fats and that it is the whole diet that matters.”

The CFC researcher was also told that tiny amounts of trans fats “do not pose a health risk, and that if there was any concrete evidence that trans fats were dangerous, they wouldn’t be allowed.”

That’s the kind of ignorant nonsense you have to contend with from many sources within the food industry, but rest assured, they are completely wrong.

As far back as 2002, the Institute of Medicine concluded there is no safe level of trans fat.

Said Christine Haigh, joint-coordinator of the Children’s Food Campaign,

“The results of this survey are staggering. Many foods marketed for babies and young children are often advertised as “healthy”.
In reality, in terms of sugar and saturated fat content, some are worse than junk food. In particular, failing to correctly label products that contain dangerous trans fats is outrageous.”

Infant Formulas and Processed Baby Food Do Not Equal Healthy Babies

Hopefully, you already know that the absolute healthiest food for your baby is breast milk. Unfortunately, many mothers and their infants are paying a hefty price for advertising promoting powdered baby formulas over breastfeeding. The United Nations even blames the manufacturers of formulas and their deceptive marketing practices for the drastic decline in breastfeeding across the world, which is negatively impacting the health of millions of babies.

Nestle continues to be one of the main culprits in dissuading mothers from breastfeeding. Campaigners first called for a boycott of Nestle back in 1977 to try to limit their dirty marketing techniques in some of the poorest of countries. Thirty years later, it is crystal clear that it has done nothing to stop them, even though they are still one of the most boycotted brands in the world.

Unfortunately, infant formulas are still a popular choice here in the United States as well.

I strongly advocate breastfeeding if at all possible. If for some reason you're unable to breastfeed, however, please read my previous article, Healthy Alternative to Conventional Infant Formula, for advice on how to make homemade baby formula and infant “starter foods.”

And while on the subject of formula, please avoid soy infant formulas at all costs!

What are some of the problems associated with soy formula?

Well, for starters it can:

Soy formula can also contain potentially high concentrations of aluminum and manganese.

It is generally given to infants who aren't breastfeeding and have trouble taking regular cow-milk-based infant formulas. While I am no fan of these formulas either, they tend to be safer than soy formula.

However, the cow-milk-based formulas are derived from pasteurized milk, and if you haven't heard by now, pasteurized milk is not good for you or your baby. Fortunately, you can use raw milk to produce a terrific infant formula, but, again, remember that breast milk is ALWAYS best.

Is Organic Baby Food as Good as Homemade?

Just as organic food in general has become more popular, the demand for organic baby food has increased as well. In 2007, parents were spending $116 million on organics for their babies, a 21.6 percent increase from the previous year alone. But that’s still a tiny slice of the $3.6 billion baby food industry as a whole.

But are organic baby foods the ideal choice?

One mother’s independent evaluation shows you may still end up feeding your child ingredients he or she does not need at that tender young age, such as excessive amounts of salt.

Now, whereas an adequate intake of sodium is required for optimal growth of fat, bone and muscle tissues, you will not get these health benefits from regular processed salt, but from natural unprocessed salts – which you can bet your bottom dollar is NOT what’s used in most processed baby food, organic or not.

You may also expose your infant to toxic contaminants like BPA from plastic containers, even if the content itself is agreeable.

When you make homemade baby food however, you have complete control over the ingredients; no unresolved questions about potential additives, preservatives, mysterious “natural flavors,” etcetera.

Yes, it may require a little more time—but in the end, it’s up to you to decide what the health of your family is worth to you.

Simply cooking a squash or sweet potato, mashing it up and putting it into an ice cube tray is an easy way to have ready-made multiple servings available for the rest of the week.

Egg yolk is another healthy food that requires little preparation. According to the Weston A. Price Foundation, egg yolk should be your baby's first solid food, starting at 4 months, whether your baby is breastfed or formula-fed. Egg yolks from free-range hens will contain the special long-chain fatty acids so critical for the optimal development of your child’s brain and nervous system.

However, the egg whites may cause an allergic reaction so they’re best avoided until your child is at least one year old.

Here’s a simple, healthy recipe you may want to try:

  • 1 organic egg from a pasture-fed (free-range) hen
  • 1/2 teaspoon grated raw, frozen organic liver (optional)
  • pinch natural unprocessed salt

Boil the egg for 3 1/2 minutes. Place in a bowl and peel off the shell. Remove the egg white and discard. The yolk should be soft and warm, not hot, with its enzyme content intact. Sprinkle with a small amount of natural salt.

If you wish to add liver, grate it on the small holes of a grater while frozen. Allow to warm up and stir into the egg yolk.