Video: Krauthammer's Take: If Back End of Healthcare.gov Isn't Fixed, 'All Hell's Going to Break Loose'
Showing posts with label Charles Krauthammer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles Krauthammer. Show all posts
Friday, January 24, 2014
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Charles Krauthammer Says Media Avoiding Abortion Doctor Murder Trial because of what it Reveals about Abortion in America
Here is video of the always great Charles Krauthammer talking about the mainstream media’s near total blackout on reporting about the horrific abortion doctor murder trial in Philadelphia. Krauthammer is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, political commentator, and physician.
Krauthammer said they are avoiding it because of what it reveals about the late-term abortion industry in America.
Related:
Networks Give Rutgers Scandal 41 Minutes, Gosnell Abortion Horrors ‘0’
Official: Inconvenient For Babies To Be Kept Alive After Botched Abortion
Who Would Fail to Help a Baby Fighting to Survive?
Abortion Survivor Blasts Obama
Who Would Fail to Help a Baby Fighting to Survive?
Fallen… House Rejects Sex-Selection Abortion Ban – White House Agrees and Media is Silent
Protecting Babies Who Survive Abortions
What do Beethoven, Justin Bieber and Tim Tebow Have in Common?
New Live Action video shows Planned Parenthood encouraging gender-selective abortion, Medicaid fraud
'Pro-Choice' Americans At Record Low, Poll Finds
Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate
Interesting: Right to Life President: Komen Tied to Abortion Industry
Studies Confirm Women Face Depression After Abortion, Other Problems
Court orders Planned Parenthood to start telling the truth
China: Angry Protests Follow Brutal Seven-Month Forced Abortion
Abortion, Margaret Sanger and Eugenics
Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Day One of the Supreme Court ObamaCare Hearings
The SCOTUS decision is going to be a nail-bitter. Many feel that the individual mandate will be struck down in a 5 to 4 decision; the 4-conservatives on the bench plus Judge Kennedy against the 4-liberals on the bench, which include Sotomayor and Kagen appointed by Obama just for this fight, even though Justice Kagan breaks federal law in order to force ObamaCare on the American people. Ron Paul Suspects Supreme Court Will Rule “Monstrosity” Obamacare Constitutional and Charles Krauthammer said on the first day of hearings that the Supreme Court does not like to overturn or cause the overturning of large pieces of legislation. However, even some of the liberal Supreme Court Judges Appear Skeptical On Obama’s Defense Of ObamaCare We shall see. And unwinding this monster will be a mess no matter what SCOTUS decides or which method with use.
On a side note, we should also remember that during the 2008 campaign, Obama vehemently opposed Hillary Clinton's reform plan because of its inclusion of mandate. Four years later, his administration is in court defending the precise policy he opposed. This was not a minor or superficial distinction between Obama and his former Democratic rival; it was one of the brightest lines Obama drew to separate the two campaigns' (relatively similar) approaches to government expansionism. As this Buzzfeed video demonstrates, this was a point candidate.
Video: Obama Argues Against Obamacare
Monday, August 17, 2009
The "Preventive Care" Myth
WASHINGTON -- In the 48 hours of June 15-16, President Obama lost the health care debate. First, a letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Senator Edward Kennedy reported that his health committee's reform bill would add $1 trillion in debt over the next decade. Then the CBO reported that the other Senate bill, being written by the Finance Committee, would add $1.6 trillion. The central contradiction of Obamacare was fatally exposed: From his first address to Congress, Obama insisted on the dire need for restructuring the health care system because out-of-control costs were bankrupting the Treasury and wrecking the U.S. economy -- yet the Democrats' plans would make the problem worse.
Accordingly, Democrats have trotted out various tax proposals to close the gap. Obama's idea of limits on charitable and mortgage-interest deductions went nowhere. As did the House's income tax surcharge on millionaires. And Obama dare not tax employer-provided health insurance because of his campaign pledge of no middle-class tax hikes.
Desperation time. What do you do? Sprinkle fairy dust on every health care plan, and present your deus ex machina: prevention.
Free mammograms and diabetes tests and checkups for all, promise Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, writing in USA Today. Prevention, they assure us, will not just make us healthier, it also "will save money."
Obama followed suit in his Tuesday New Hampshire town hall, touting prevention as amazingly dual-purpose: "It saves lives. It also saves money."
Reform proponents repeat this like a mantra. Because it seems so intuitive, it has become conventional wisdom. But like most conventional wisdom, it is wrong. Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.
This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."
How can that be? If you prevent somebody from getting a heart attack, aren't you necessarily saving money? The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But, explains Elmendorf, we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case, "it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway." And this costs society money that would not have been spent otherwise.
Think of it this way. Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care.
That's a hypothetical case. What's the real-life actuality in the United States today? A study in the journal Circulation found that for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, "if all the recommended prevention activities were applied with 100 percent success," the prevention would cost almost 10 times as much as the savings, increasing the country's total medical bill by 162 percent. Elmendorf additionally cites a definitive assessment in the New England Journal of Medicine that reviewed hundreds of studies on preventive care and found that more than 80 percent of preventive measures added to medical costs.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't be preventing illness. Of course we should. But in medicine, as in life, there is no free lunch. The idea that prevention is somehow intrinsically economically different from treatment -- that treatment increases costs and prevention lowers them -- is simply nonsense.
Prevention is a wondrous good, but in the aggregate it costs society money. Nothing wrong with that. That's the whole premise of medicine: Treating a heart attack or setting a broken leg also costs society. But we do it because it alleviates human suffering. Preventing a heart attack with statins or breast cancer with mammograms is costly. But we do it because it reduces human suffering.
However, prevention is not, as so widely advertised, healing on the cheap. It is not the magic bullet for health care costs.
You will hear some variation of that claim a hundred times in the coming health care debate. Whenever you do, remember: It's nonsense -- empirically demonstrable and CBO-certified.
And Just like there is no way to cover an additional 20 to 47 million people, depending on whose numbers you use, without increasing the cost $1.6 Tillion+, it is naive to think that we can pay for that without increases in taxes and/or rationing healthcare… or both! Add to that a doctor shortage and rampant inflation because of immense government debt and you have a crisis. And when there is a crisis, the rationing will begin out of need… QULY. Ask anyone who lives in Britain, Canada or anywhere else with a socialistic or government-run healthcare system… there are shortages and rationing. And where do you start… with the elderly, the very very young and the handicapped. Just ask the people living in Oregon under a government-run state healthcare system… There is rationing!!!
By the way, there really are only about ‘5’ million uninsured Americans and Legal Aliens that do not qualify for other programs or who do not have the money for insurance but choose to use it for other things, not 47 million!! We could make some simple sensible changes to the system we have… the best medical coverage in the world, and absorb those 5 million without destroying our medical system and turning over our lives to the government. ObamaCare is like “throwing the baby out with the bath water”, a crazy unnecessary idea!
Related Resources:
- Prescription for Truth – Daniel Hannan From England: HealthCare Worse for Elderly
- Woman in Oregon Told Healthcare Would Not Pay for Cancer Treatment But Would Pay for Assisted Suicide… Welcome to Government Controlled Healthcare
Source: Knowledge Creates Power
Posted: True Health Is True Wealth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)