True Health Is True Wealth!!: BRITISH HEALTHCARE

Showing posts with label BRITISH HEALTHCARE. Show all posts

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Will Sick Babies Be Starved to Death Under Obamacare?

Doctor describes “horror” of Britain’s socialist healthcare system

Paul Joseph Watson - Infowars.com - November 30, 2012

A physician has told the British Medical Journal about the “unique horror” of watching a newborn baby shrivel up and die under a cost-cutting system of socialized healthcare that withdraws feeding tubes from sick and disabled babies, a method that could be replicated in the United States under Obamacare.

After speaking with doctors who have blown the whistle on how babies are being starved and dehydrated to death in British hospitals, an investigation by the Daily Mail has revealed that the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway end of life regime is being used to kill disabled newborns and young children. It was previously thought that the method was only being used on elderly and terminally ill adult patients.

The method has been criticized as a form of euthanasia because its primary purpose is to kill off patients quicker so as to free up more hospital beds and resources.

One physician spoke of how parents who gave permission for their babies to be put on the ‘pathway to death’ were making the decision without properly considering the abhorrent reality of what dehydration and starvation does to the human body.

“I know, as they cannot, the unique horror of witnessing a child become smaller and shrunken, as the only route out of a life that has become excruciating to the patient or to the parents who love their baby,” the doctor writes. “I reflect on how sanitised this experience seems within the literature about making this decision.”

The doctor also dismissed the myth that the baby does not suffer during the process.

“Survival is often much longer than most physicians think…..Parents and care teams are unprepared for the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical appearance as severe dehydration ensues,” he wrote.

“Some say withdrawing medically provided hydration and nutrition is akin to withdrawing any other form of life support. Maybe, but that is not how it feels,” he wrote, describing the mixture of “compassion, revulsion, and pain” the care team had to experience in watching the baby slowly die.

Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice paediatric nurse, also revealed how parents are being coerced into agreeing to put their children on the LCP, and that she “Witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give him liquids by tube. His death was agonising for him, and for us nurses to watch. This is euthanasia by the backdoor.”

“I have also seen children die in terrible thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die,” added Lloyd.

Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), now under independent investigation by order of government ministers, is a process whereby a doctor identifies a patient who is likely to die and that patient is then heavily sedated while treatment is withdrawn, “including the provision of water and nourishment by tube.”

The investigation into LCP will “look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions” to put patients on the ‘pathway to death’.

In a recent exposé, Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Kent, revealed that of the 450,000 patients who die annually under the care of the NHS, 130,000 of them were on the Liverpool Care Pathway.

“If we accept the Liverpool Care Pathway we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated with 29 per cent of NHS deaths,” Pullicino said.

The Telegraph’s Gerald Warner notes that LCP represents “euthanasia by the back door.” Other doctors such as Dr. Peter Hargreaves have highlighted the fact that patients taken off LCP have gone on to live for “significant amounts of time.”

Because death occurs on average within 33 hours of a patient being put on LCP, the cost difference between two days of morphine and treatment of a condition for months or even years means the NHS is literally euthanising people to save money.

“In fact, Hargreaves noted, some patients may exhibit signs of dying when their bodies are merely reacting to sedation combined with dehydration and then “be wrongly put on the pathway.” Once a patient is sedated under the LCP, University of London geriatrics professor P.H. Millard told the Telegraph, “it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better.”

“Pullicino echoed many of these sentiments, saying that “patients are frequently put on the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition,” that “predicting death” at a specific time “is not possible scientifically,” and that, as a result, “very likely many patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.”

Could a similar system of euthanasia become commonplace in America under Obamacare?

President Obama has repeatedly expressed his support for the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a group of doctors that would make decisions on cost cutting measures under Obamacare. Opponents of government-run healthcare have dubbed this a system of “death panels” that would have the power to refuse treatment to the elderly or severely ill patients, a de-facto form of mandatory euthanasia.

Last month, Obama adviser Steven Rattner acknowledged that rationed healthcare would be part of Obamacare, brazenly stating, “We need death panels.”

The idea that “death panels” would be introduced through Obamacare as a means of rationing healthcare was also discussed during an Aspen Institute conference in 2010 when Obama supporter Bill Gates argued that money should not be spent on treating the elderly.

During a question and answer session, Gates implied that elderly patients undergoing expensive health care treatments should be killed and the money spent elsewhere.

Gates said there was a “lack of willingness” to consider the question of choosing between “spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient” or laying off ten teachers.

“But that’s called the death panel and you’re not supposed to have that discussion,” added Gates.

This eugenicist mindset was also evident in a paper published earlier this year in the Journal of Medical Ethics by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne which argued that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy.

Allowing patients to die via the horrifically slow and painful method of dehydration and starvation is not just restricted to the elderly and sick or disabled babies.

In a series of best-selling books, author and bioethics expert Wesley J. Smith has exposed how adults in the United States who regain consciousness after being comatose and are able to exhibit physical and emotional responses are also being starved and dehydrated to death.

If America mimics Britain’s notoriously bad socialized healthcare system, thousands upon thousands of sick babies will likely be left to die excruciatingly painful deaths in the name of cost-cutting measures that amount to nothing less than a cruel and inhumane death sentence.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,death panels,Sarah Palin was right,watch the other hand,Big Brother,repeal and replace ObamaCare,Socialized Medicine,Britain,babies,sick babies,seniors,elderly,special needs

Friday, July 29, 2011

The NHS Rationing Crisis

Any liberal who, during the ObamaCare debate, extolled the virtues of a single payer system like the NHS has reason to be discomfited with the newest development in British public health care. In a bid to save money, hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsillectomies are all being rationed by the NHS.

More specifically, according to The Independent:

* Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.

* Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems "substantially" affect their ability to work.

* Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering "chronic continuous pain", ulceration or bleeding.

* Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.

* Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in "exceptional circumstances" and after monitoring for six months.

Some ObamaCare proponents hope and believe it's an intermediate step to imposing a single payer health care system on the United States. To the extent that's true, the NHS disaster is a a valuable reminder that, after Republicans set about trying to fix the Obama economy, its top priority should be fixing the looming disaster that is ObamaCare.

By Carol Platt Liebau - an attorney, political commentator and guest radio talk show host based near Los Angeles. Author of Prude

Source: TownHall

*Age 78 will be the cutoff for many types of surgeries or procedures, no matter how healthy the person is otherwise, if ObamaCare is not repealed!

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Support Whole Foods Markets and Free Speech

AUG 15 2009 POSTED BY GARYFOUSE - Cross-posted by Gary Fouse fousesquawk

wholefoods081707

My fellow blogger, Hamilton Roberts, has alerted me to a boycott that is being formed by left-wing ObamaCare proponents against Whole Foods Markets. Why would they boycott a market? Because their CEO, John Mackey, has just written an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal opposing government health care. Here is the article dated August 12 below:
———————————————————————————

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare

By JOHN MACKEY

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” —Margaret Thatcher

With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people’s money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.
Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

• Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America~

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

—Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc. Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15.
——————————————————————————-
In response, some left-wing group called Meetup.com is organizing boycotts and pickets at Whole Foods locations. There is one scheduled August 16 in Austin, Texas.

Here is their blurb:
——————————————————————————–

“Whole Foods is NOT a company that cares for communities and they have built their brand with the dollars of deceived progressives. No more. My $ will no longer go to support Whole Foods’ anti-union, anti-health insurance reform, right-wing activities.

John Mackey, CEO and co-founder of Whole Foods wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on 8/12/2009 quoting Margaret Thatcher and suggesting that healthcare is a commodity that only the rich, like him, deserve.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

Whole Foods has the right to cheat and lie and be as hateful and selfish as they wanna be.
We also have the right to starve them of our $.”

Austin Boycott Meetup Sunday, Aug 16
http://www.meetup.com/Boycott-Whole-Foods/
——————————————————————————

Here is Whole Food’s response:

Whole Foods Market: Response Statement: John Mackey’s Op/Ed in the Wall Street Journal

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=120455171970

“We would like to thank our customers and shareholders who have let us know their thoughts regarding John Mackey’s op/ed in the Wall Street Journal. Many people, including John, feel passionately about this important issue.

First off, whether you agree with John or not, our 50,000+ Team Members who live and work in your communities will continue to work hard every day to bring you the best natural and organic products available. We hope you will continue to give us the opportunity to serve you.

While there are differing points of view on this issue, John believes certain aspects of the current proposals before Congress would jeopardize our company’s ability to continue providing our sustainable health insurance plan. Whole Foods Market pays 100 percent of the premiums for our full-time (over 30-hours) Team Members, about 89% of our workforce. Additionally, those Team Members get to vote for their new plan options every three years. John does not want to see that changed.

Finally, John absolutely does care about his fellow citizens who do not have health insurance, and he is in favor of health care reform. He believes that the proposals he put forth will provide access to sustainable health insurance for more people.

We recognize that there are many opinions on this issue, including inside our own company. As we all sort through this together, we thank you for sharing your opinions with us.”
—————————————————————————

To tell you the truth, I had never heard of this chain nor of Mr Mackey. But I think it would be a great idea to show our support of free speech under the assault of these “progressives” (far-leftists), who want to punish Mackey and his company for expressing his opinion. If you have one of these stores in your area, drop by and buy a few items. We should do the same thing here we did with Trader Joe’s when they were under attack by pro-Palestinian loons for selling Israeli products. We made their sales skyrocket and Israeli goods were flying off the shelves.

Let’s publicize this issue and help out Whole Foods.

*You can send a message to Whole Foods main office telling them you support the free market and free speech: <a href=”http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/company/service.php'>http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/company/service.php'>http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/company/service.php'>http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/comapny/service.php”>http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/company/service.php</a>

Boycotting Whole Foods

Greta Van Susteran says she would frequent Whole Foods for the principle of Freedom of Speech alone. I don’t know MacKey, but he sounds like kind of a nice guy – I would have -- to go to his grocery store."

Support Whole Foods and Freedom of Speech and shop at Whole Foods to save 50,000 people’s jobs. MacKey pays for medical insurance for all his employees and families including same sex partners. He is not some right-wing zealot and he supports medical reform… Just Not the President’s Program, since when is that a crime?

On Greta Wire: Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)

"Going to hear this it's on FaceBook. 18000 People on FaceBook are calling for a boycott of the nationwide grocery store chain whole foods. It has to do -- the debate over health care. Now apparently the CEO of Whole Foods who says we do need health care reform, but is not as liberal as some of their progressive clientele. They are just spreading lies. Anchor Brian on Fox Business Network joins Greta. Brian wrote a piece of the Fox Blog entitled: Freedom of Speech is Not So Free for Whole Foods.

"Well you know. The irony of this story Greta is that if John MacKey who's the CEO of Whole Foods who started the company in Austin Texas and has been running it for about thirty years ago had stated his position in the journal at a previous time when we were talking about health -- this would've been considered radical reform. MacKey said we don’t need the president's plan, a government involved plan, but here eight ideas, as a successful CEO that I have. Tort reform, allowing insurers across state lines, self directed ideas, etc, and yet he is being vilified by some of the more liberal followers out there of the president's plan. They are, as you said, waging war against Whole Foods 18000 bullies on FaceBook -- a boycott. FaceBook there's a web page set up. And they're calling him, get this: “a right wing zealot."

"In 2007 MacKey said he had enough money to live comfortably so in 2007 he cut his salary down to one dollar a year. And gives any -- all proceeds from the stock options to charity. That does not sound like a guy who wants to try to stick it to the people when it comes to health -- he said he had a different idea and that was what was in The Wall Street Journal."

"MacKey a self described libertarian, I don't know maybe that is what angered some people not only is really only taking a dollar a year but the company has a 100,000 Dollars -- need based fund for Whole Woods workers that they offer. Domestic partner same sex benefits. Overall this had been considered a relatively progressive company. Now he comes out and says -- The government run plan is not the way to go here are some ideas I have and he is just absolutely -- being slaughtered. On the left side of the Blogosphere. Actually I imagine his reaction is probably confused as confused as yours and minus."

"I don’t even know this guy – or if his ideas are good but -- something to be admired about someone who -- who sees a problem. And says here are a few really good ideas and -- says he thinks are really good ideas. And then for have a few-- having to dare to differ, with a particular segment,they come on to try to kill -- kill a business that hasn't done anything wrong -- employs lots of people. And says, from from what I can read, you know he seems to be a pretty generous guy."

"You know Ira wrote a blog on the Fox Business web site called free speech may not be so free for whole foods they hired 8200 people last year they have 50000 employees. Let's say Greta that this boycott all right gain some traction right; let's say that it does and let's say that it is successful by the protestor’s Definition. And it hurts Whole Foods; who's gonna get hurt? Is John MacKey gonna get hurt? He's got enough money; it’s the workers. The rank and file working at Whole Foods are the ones who are going to get hurt. You made an excellent point in your…

-- Rick Santorum moments ago listening in that. It's not as if you don't want health care reform. It's if you don't necessarily agree with the president's plan. You might be labeled wrong or a bad person.

Source: Knowledge Creates Power – Cross Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Eugenics Started in America in 1907 and Spread To the World – Segment One of Five

Sometimes there are facts and information that we need to know about and consider for ourselves… This is part of 5… of that kind of information.

Part 2 – Who Surrounds Obama and Who Does He Listen To?

Part 3 – Discussion of QALY Quality Adjusted Life Year

Part 4 – Healthcare Benefits Advisory Committee Determines What’s Covered

Part 5 – Obama Administration’s Healthcare Advisor’s Personnel Tree

O's Healthcare Plan in a Nutshell

Craig List Advertisements Recruiting MOBs for Cash for Hire

Related Resources:

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Woman in Oregon Told Healthcare Would Not Pay for Cancer Treatment But Would Pay for Assisted Suicide… Welcome to Government Controlled Healthcare

On Fox News’s O'Reilly Factor 8/10/09 a story was put forward about a lady that had cervical cancer and was denied the cancer drugs by the state (they have universal healthcare) and she was told they would pay for the drugs that would terminate her life.

Say you got cancer. Say your doctor found a treatment that could prolong your life for years. It wouldn’t cure the cancer, but it would slow it down, giving you precious time. Say the state refused to pay for your treatment, yet told you they would pay for doctor-assisted suicide.

Welcome to the Oregon Health Plan.

Perhaps, in order to find out what we can look forward to under a single-payer plan, we should look to one of our very own states: Oregon. The Oregon Health Plan (OHP) is a government run health care system for low-income residents. To be included in the plan, you currently have to win a lottery — literally. Sounds relatively simple, right? Basic care is included with little to no co-payments.

But things aren’t all butterflies and flowers in the Oregon Health Plan, nor is the health care system in place in Oregon going well. Patients who are treated under the OHP or Medicaid get the joys of rationed health care. And if you are unlucky enough to be stricken with cancer, or need a major operation to save your life, the state’s response is to tell you to just die already. And they mean that literally.

Consider the case of Barbara Wagner. She is a lung cancer patient whose doctor prescribed her a revolutionary new chemotherapy treatment, one that slows the growth of the cancer and could possibly prolong her life by years. To most people, this would be good news. To the OHP, it meant just another drain on the system. They denied Ms. Wagner’s claim, and instead offered to pay for doctor-assisted suicide. Wagner, of course, was understandably outraged.

“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” read the letter notifying Wagner of the health plan’s decision.

Wagner says she was shocked by the decision. “To say to someone, we’ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it’s cruel,” she told the Register-Guard. “I get angry. Who do they think they are?” An OHP doctor tried to explain:

Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, which administers the Oregon Health Plan, attempted to defend the health plan’s decision. “We can’t cover everything for everyone,” he said. “We try to come up with polices that provide the most good for the most people.” Shaffer then addressed a priority list that had been developed to ration health care. “There’s some desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile,” he said, “or where the potential benefit to the patient is minimal in relation to the expense of providing the care.”

Under Obama’s government run health care plan, could the rest of the country be headed the same way? Be sure to read the whole thing.

Source: American Issues Project

Video: Oregon says no to chemotherapy, offers assisted suicide instead
HotAir.com ^ | 8/3/09 | Ed Morrissey

We knew it would come to this when Oregon insisted on passing its assisted-suicide laws. It doesn’t take much for assisted suicide to go from a humane option to a cost-saving device, especially when the state pays for the medical care. One patient in Oregon got a letter that made this all too clear, when in the same letter rejecting her request for life-extending chemotherapy, Oregon offered her “physician-aid-in-dying”. In other words, Oregon offered their customer a heapin’ helping of death:

Video: Oregon says no to chemotherapy, offers assisted suicide instead

The doctor interviewed by the news station seems offended at the suggestion that Oregon would decide to save a few bucks by denying expensive health care and offering a case of hemlock in its place. However, saving money was the raison d’etreof single-payer systems, and the incentives all drive towards that decision. Single-payer systems have to handle medical services as a shortage market, rationing them by using “comparative effectiveness” paradigms to determine who gets medical attention, and who gets “physician-aid-in-dying” instead of it.

The woman who drew the short end of the stick in this case wonders who these people think they are. They think they know better than us who needs to live and die. Has that lesson still not been made clear?

Update: I got this link yesterday and the KATU page is undated, but this story is from 2008, which I didn’t realize until I got an e-mail about it. I wrote about this last June, and I simply didn’t recall it.

Posted on Mon Aug 03 2009 07:35:40 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) by Crazieman

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

True Health Is True Wealth!!

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Will Sick Babies Be Starved to Death Under Obamacare?

Friday, July 29, 2011

The NHS Rationing Crisis

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Support Whole Foods Markets and Free Speech

AUG 15 2009 POSTED BY GARYFOUSE - Cross-posted by Gary Fouse fousesquawk

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Eugenics Started in America in 1907 and Spread To the World – Segment One of Five

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Woman in Oregon Told Healthcare Would Not Pay for Cancer Treatment But Would Pay for Assisted Suicide… Welcome to Government Controlled Healthcare

YOU: Beautiful Inside and Out And Breakthrough - Great Gifts!!

Order Featured Site Selections and Others Here Today...

Healthy Reading Corner

Newest Reading Recommendations

Blog Archive

Keep World AIDS Day Alive All Year Round~