Who are you, yourself, alone and nameless?

In order to provide us with low-cost, quality healthcare, I request that you seek the following changes to the House healthcare bill:

1. Remove the requirement to purchase health insurance and the penalty for doing so. Someone who doesn't have the room in the budget will not magically create the room if given no choice. However, the penalty and requirement may result in many more families choosing between rent and groceries.

2. Make the adoption of federal standards for private insurance companies voluntary. This will allow people who prefer to pay for routine procedures personally to save money by staying with a catastrophic policy. (Catastrophic insurance plus doctor's visits paid in full are often less expensive than an HMO.)

3. Pledge to finance the public option by paid premiums only. I have no objection if the premiums are decided by income. This plus #1 and #2 will create a situation in which the only people paying into the public plan are those who choose to benefit from it, and you can repeal the Stupak Amendment as a compromise with no complaints from me.

4. As a further compromise, I ask that you add the elements of the Republican plan, being a cap set on malpractice lawsuit payments and opening competition by allowing anyone to purchase insurance from any state. I also advocate replacing the employer mandates and tax breaks with a tax credit offered to families, so that health insurance will no longer be linked to a job.

5. Please do not allow the government to punish doctors financially for treating the elderly. The lower compensation for the top spenders on elderly health care has got to go.

Thank you,

[real name]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573886,00.html

With a historic endorsement from the Mormon church, the Salt Lake City Council unanimously passed a pair of ordinances making it illegal to discriminate against gays in housing and employment.

Tuesday's action was the first time the Utah-based church — which has been steadfast in its opposition to gay marriage — has publicly supported gay rights legislation.

"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573225,00.html

Larry Johnson's record-breaking career as a Kansas City running back is over.

The Chiefs confirmed Monday that they had run out of patience with his off-the-field problems and released Johnson the day he was due to come back from his second suspension in a year.
...

 On Oct. 25, in what turned out to be his final episode with the Chiefs, he posted on his Twitter account several insults to fans, questioned coach Todd Haley's credentials and used a gay slur.

He repeated the slur the next day to reporters and was suspended for two weeks. At Schaffer's urging, the Chiefs cut the financial penalty in half, saving him about $315,000.

Johnson was the subject of an online petition last week calling on the Chiefs not to let him break the team rushing record. He was never a fan favorite and his apology for the online comments came almost exactly one year after issuing a similar apology for alleged incidents involving women in Kansas City night clubs.
*************************************************
Here's where I draw the line. I do not agree with someone being fired for responding apologetically with a refusal to bless a gay marriage when asked to do so four times in a row. However, I do agree with someone being fired for using gay slurs.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572862,00.html?test=latestnews

A manager at a Massachusetts retail store claims he was unjustly fired after he told a colleague he thought her impending marriage to another woman was wrong.
...

"I found it offensive that she repeatedly brought it up," Vidala said. "By the fourth time she mentioned it, I felt God wanted me to express how I felt about the matter, so I did. But my tone was downright apologetic. I said, 'Regarding your homosexuality, I think that's bad stuff.'"

The woman, according to Vidala, then said, "Human resources, buddy — keep your opinions to yourself," before exiting the store.

Two days later, Vidala, who had been employed for just a matter of weeks, received a termination letter citing the company's zero-tolerance policy regarding "harassment" and "inappropriate and unprofessional" comments

...

Vidala said he felt "intentionally goaded" by the manager to comment on her relationship.

"She knew how I felt about homosexuality," he said. "When you talk to someone about something like that, you want their support. She was kind of looking into my eyes for that social cue for me to say, 'I'm happy for you.' But I really couldn't feel happy for her."

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

When I first posted this, I wasn't sure I had anything to say about it. Upon thinking, though, I do.

Consider this for a moment.

Pretend someone's done a cartoon of, say, Mohammed engaged in bestiality. Say someone gets hold of that cartoon, clips it out, and takes it to work with him. He goes up to the co-worker that everyone knows is a Muslim and shows it to him. "What do you think of this?" he asks.

The Muslim co-worker does not reply, so the guy shows it to him another three times, each time demanding to know what he thinks of it. Finally the Muslim... what? Screams at him? Hits him? Shoots him? Declares fatwa on him? No. He says, "I'm sorry, but I find that offensive."

The Muslim is fired for infringement of the company's no-harassment policy.

What would the media reaction be?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/swine_flu_panic_in_perspective.html

I usually see about twenty patients in my office, and at least a few patients in the hospital, daily. Over the past several months, my patient load has increased by one third. Almost all of the increase is due to fears about H1N1 influenza.

/>Patients are coming to the office fearful of "Swine Flu," with symptoms ranging from a slight sniffle to overt pneumonia. After seeing hundreds of cases of "flu" over the past several months and testing all of those who fit the clinical picture of influenza, I have confirmed only three genuine cases of H1N1.
...

What is happening with H1N1? For starters, as mentioned above, people are seeking medical intervention much more quickly and often for symptoms they would have ignored or treated at home with chicken soup and Tylenol in years past. Additionally, proportionately larger numbers of people were initially getting tested, even when they had only the remotest possibility of having the disease. The fact that more people were tested meant that more would be diagnosed.



http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102709/content/01125114.guest.html

RUSH: Now, we've all been told by Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services secretary, how horrible the swine flu is out there; gotta get a vaccine, must take it, horrible, it's deadly, it's bad, it's rotten. So she's on the Today Show yesterday, and the co-host, Matt Lauer, interviewed her, and Matt Lauer said, "Remember in the spring there were some countries, in Mexico, for example, they took much more aggressive steps to curb the spread of the virus, they shut down a lot of public facilities, they discouraged large gatherings of people. Do we have a contingency plan in this country, Madam Secretary? A level of infection where we have a plan like that that we could put into effect?

SEBELIUS: Right now the public health officials weigh toward keeping schools open if there's enough personnel to do that. It's dangerous for kids often to not be in school, to not have a safe place to go, to not get fed on a regular basis, so knowing that we can contain this disease through vaccination and through mitigation, we're trying to lean toward keeping the business going.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/turning_back_obamacare_1.html

Rep. Bachmann, a tax litigator by profession, explained in a way I never heard before why this defeat is necessary.

She cites a University of Arizona economics professor who estimates that fully 30% of private US corporate profits are now owned by the government, thanks to the Obama takeover of AIG, GM, Citigroup, etc. Before Obama's election 100% of corporate profits were private.  If healthcare is taken over by the government add 14% to that figure.  If cap and trade then passes add another 8%.

Sum those figures and suddenly 52% of profits in our country are government-owned.  We will have become a socialist country, not in temperament, or leaning but in fact.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_unions/2009/10/07/269351.html

Mr. Obama issued an executive order in the first weeks of his presidency that would make the requirement, known as a "project labor agreement" or PLA, the norm for all government contracts on large-scale construction jobs. The order is under review and a final rule is not expected for months, but that did not stop the Labor Department from rushing to use a PLA to build its new Job Corps Center in Manchester, N.H.

The PLA executive order replaced a Bush administration order that discouraged the use of such agreements.

...

Critics say imposing the union-friendly rules on the New Hampshire job - the first federal construction contract with such stipulations since President Clinton was in office - will drive up costs, delay the project and force most of the workers to pay union dues and pension contributions for which they likely will never receive benefits.
...

"The administration's decision to discriminate against successful and independent construction firms simply because New Hampshire employees choose to work in a union-free workplace and not bow down to the demands of Big Labor is extremely unfair to our state," the senator said, calling on the administration to revoke the PLA.

"In a time of economic hardship, it is simply absurd to discriminate against local contractors and construction workers for the benefit of national labor unions,"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/the_obamas_violated_first_thre.html

Of course Barack and Michelle Obama failed in Copenhagen.  Their strategy could not possibly succeed.  In their academic arrogance, they thought they could sell a product they clearly do not believe in (the United States) and moreover, they could do so by stressing the benefits to the seller (Chicago) and not the buyer (the IOC).  And to top it off, they committed the faux pas of talking too much about the sales force (themselves) and not about the product or the buyer.
...

I still thought he would at least attempt to sell America and some notion of our logistical competence and love of sports and so on.  I didn't think he would believe it, but certainly thought the teleprompter would sneak in something good about the country for him to read.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/subsidized_health_care_a_view_1.html

A friend of mine sells private health insurance plans.  He told me of the 39-year-old father of two whose family was quoted a monthly insurance premium of $250.

"Are you kidding?" he said, refusing the coverage. "That's almost as much as my boat payment!"
...

Like many of my colleagues in rural communities with few resources, I did care for patients who actually lived in poverty.  For them, luxury meant keeping the utilities on and having clean clothes for a rare visit to the doctor.  In California 's Central Valley , "dirt poor" is not just a phrase.  But these patients, who rewarded me in ways that don't fit in the lines on any tax return, were outnumbered by others who considered health care a lower budget priority than decorated skin and expensive toys.

Individuals in this country have a right to decide how -- and how not -- to spend their money.

But that right does not include accepting entitlements without sharing responsibility.  Doing so contributes to the high cost of care that burdens every unsubsidized patient.

If individuals prefer to buy luxury items rather than pay for their healthcare needs, that preference should not be rewarded while taxpayers struggle to foot their own bills.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-canada27-2009sep27,0,5111855.story

When the pain in Christina Woodkey's legs became so severe that she could no long hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she'd need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she'd have to wait about a year.

So wait she did.

In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. "When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery," said Woodkey, 72. "They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor."

So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days.

"I don't have insurance. We're not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada," Woodkey said. "It's not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I'm happy to say the pain is almost all gone."
...

Hoping to capitalize on patients who might otherwise go to the U.S. for speedier care, a network of technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers has sprung up in British Columbia, echoing a trend in Quebec. In October, the courts will be asked to decide whether the budding system should be sanctioned.

More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests such as MRIs with waits as short as a week or two, compared with the months it takes for a public surgical suite to become available for nonessential operations.

"What we have in Canada is access to a government, state-mandated wait list," said Brian Day, a former Canadian Medical Assn. director who runs a private surgical center in Vancouver.

http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/headline_health/abortion_risk_future/2009/09/20/262396.html

Abortions raise the risk that a woman’s future babies will be premature or underweight, according to a Canadian medical study.

For women who have had more than one abortion, the increased risk of a having a baby with low birth weight is 72 percent, and the risk of a premature birth jumps to 93 percent. In addition, the researchers found that a woman’s number of abortions correlated with the risk of complications during labor.

Fresh off the press!

Posted 17 minutes ago:

http://www.earnedmedia.org/cwa0915.htm

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 /Christian Newswire/ -- This morning, Representative Jerry Nadler (D-New York) announced he will introduce a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  This law defines marriage for federal purposes and ensures that states are not forced to recognize alternate definitions.  DOMA passed overwhelmingly in 1996 by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate.

From my email inbox:

Today, Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) will introduce a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act -- the only federal law protecting the marriage statutes of 44 states. Reports indicate he has at least 69 co-sponsors in this effort to undercut state marriage laws.

We've known this day would come. President Obama has been advocating the repeal of DOMA since his first day in office. Gay marriage activists have debated the strategy and timing for pushing the bill in Congress.

And we're ready. Already, we are more than 500,000 strong as Americans from every walk of life have joined our ranks to stand firm against radical efforts to force same-sex marriage in every state. Our goal is 2 million Americans by the end of 2010. If each of us were to tell just three friends about TwoMillionforMarriage.com, we'd reach our goal in mere days.

Now it's time to speak truth to power! Gay marriage advocates are divided on DOMA -- even Rep. Barney Frank thinks the DOMA repeal bill is overreaching and has refused to support it. Now is our chance to send a clear message to Congress that will galvanize opposition to the DOMA repeal, and help sway those who are on the fence. The message is simple: Don't mess with marriage.

Just a few years ago, gay marriage advocates spoke of "state's rights" and a "gay marriage experiment" in a handful of states. Obviously, they didn't believe a word of it, and today they want to force same-sex marriage on every state in the nation, "like it or not."

Marriage isn't about inside-the-Beltway opportunism, or scoring political points. It's about honesty and integrity. Protecting children and religious liberty.

x-posted from Blog

On September 8th, President Obama is planning to address schools across our nation.

( Why is this a bad thing? )

Now let me put in my "usual disclaimer". Suppose the President merely wants to ask the students to be more charitable? To help others? Isn't this a good thing? Don't we want our children to help others? Yes, we do! We definitely do, and I entirely agree with the goal in mind. What I disagree with strongly is its implementation. Children should be charitable because their parents and community teaches them to be. Charting progress toward charity goals should be done at home, or perhaps in Sunday School. Children should not learn the lesson that they must do whatever their President requests of them. That is the road, not to genuine charity, but to tyranny and despotism.

http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html

CHICAGO—The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.

We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.

About the American College of Surgeons
The American College of Surgeons is a scientific and educational organization of surgeons that was founded in 1913 to raise the standards of surgical practice and to improve the care of the surgical patient. The College is dedicated to the ethical and competent practice of surgery. Its achievements have significantly influenced the course of scientific surgery in America and have established it as an important advocate for all surgical patients. The College has more than 74,000 members and is the largest organization of surgeons in the world.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/sestak_town_hall_protests/2009/08/09/245735.html

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Americans with "honest questions" about health care reform are being squeezed out by the anti-healthcare demonstrators.

"This is clearly being orchestrated and these folks have instructions," he said on CNN's "State of the Union," adding that it's not right for those who are part of that movement to disrupt the meetings.

"When there are a group of people honestly sitting in the middle trying to ask the important questions and get the right answers, and instead someone takes the microphone and screams and shouts to the point where the meeting comes to an end, that isn't dialogue, that isn't the democratic process," Durbin said.

From various town meeting transcripts:

MAN:  My question to you is when congressmen stop at the notion of reading legislation because they aren't qualified or they aren't competent to understand it, how can we be confident that those congressmen are competent to reengineer the entire health care system?

AUDIENCE: (cheering)

SEBELIUS: I am... I am not a member of Congress, have never been one.

AUDIENCE: (grumbling)

SEBELIUS: That's just a fact.  I've just -- I'm just telling you.

MAN: You don't have to have been!
......................
MAN:  What government agency has the government taken over that's run beautifully and makes money?

BISHOP:  Sir, we are not talking --

MAN:  No, no, no! Please tell me.  Please tell me.

BISHOP:  That couldn't --

MAN:  I asked you a question.  Please answer it.

BISHOP: Next! Okay when you stop talking I'll be happy to answer.  No one is talking about the government taking over health care.
.......................
MAN: Representative Ellison, are you willing to put your family on this government system, which is different from the one you currently use? If you are not willing to put your family on the system, why should the rest of us?

ELLISON: All right, next point. (cheers and applause)

MAN: Well, answer the question!
.......................
JEROR: Listen, I'm a registered Democrat, okay?  

HOYER:  Me, too.  

JEROR:  Why would you guys try to stuff a health care bill down our throat in three to four weeks when the president takes six months to pick what he wanted for a dog for his kids?

AUDIENCE: (cheers and applause) 

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/house_GOP_health_bill/2009/07/29/241516.html

The GOP plan was drafted by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., a physician. It avoids expanding the federal role in overseeing the health insurance industry. Unlike Democratic proposals, it would not set up new federally regulated purchasing pools for individuals and small businesses. Instead, it would allow individuals to use the Internet to purchase lower-cost coverage available anywhere in the country. That idea won't please insurance commissioners from states with strong consumer protections, who have argued it will set off a "race to the bottom" that undermines coverage for those in frail health.

The plan would offer tax deductions and tax credits to help make the purchase of health insurance more affordable for individuals. It would provide grants to states to help set up high-risk pools for people with medical problems who are denied coverage by commercial insurers. And it would allow employers to automatically sign workers up for the company's coverage — similar to what's done with 401(k) retirement plans.

The GOP bill would take on medical malpractice, limiting jury awards for pain and suffering and creating new health courts in which a specially trained judge would hear and decide cases involving medical negligence.

It would give doctors what amounts to veto power over recommendations from a new federal board that's been assigned to compare the benefits of new treatments, tests and medications. Recommendations from the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research could not be enacted without the approval of the medical specialty society that would be affected.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_12/news/37125-1.html?type=printer_friendly

Congressional rules for franked mail bar Members from using taxpayer-funded mail for newsletters that use “partisan, politicized or personalized” comments to criticize legislation or policy.

The dispute over Brady’s chart is being reviewed by the franking commission, which must approve any mail before it can be sent. No decision had been made on the matter by press time.

Brady adamantly denied that the chart was misleading and said Democrats are simply threatened by the content of the graphic.

“I think their review was laughable,” Brady said. “It’s ... downright false in most of the cases. The chart depicts their health care plan as their committees developed it.”

“The chart reveals how their health care bureaucracy works, and people are frightened by it,” he added. “So this is their effort to try and discredit” the chart.

Republican Members have made 20 requests to mail a version of the chart to their constituents and have been told that the requests are being delayed while the commission reviews allegations that the chart is misleading.
...
The dispute centers on a chart (view PDF) created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to illustrate the organization of the Democratic health care plan.

At first glance, Brady’s chart resembles a board game: a colorful collection of shapes and images with a web of lines connecting them.

But a closer look at the image reveals a complicated menagerie of government offices and programs that Republicans say will be created if the leading Democratic health care plan becomes law.

UPDATE: Congressman Carter's Twitter confirms this report in the blogosphere: The Democrats are blocking free speech in the House. We can not use the words "Democrats" or "Government Run Healthcare" in official mail.
**************************************************
I say let's show this "government of transparency" what happens when they try to block Republicans from showing us what's really going on. Please feel free to post/spread this on your own blog and/or email, complete with link to the PDF file. After the fiasco surrounding the DVD encryption key, the Democrats should know that you can't just hide things from the citizenry anymore.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_062509/content/01125107.member.html

And the first question that we're referring to here is Dr. Orrin Devinsky. He's a New York neurosurgeon.  He asked this question of President Obama:  "If your wife or your daughter became seriously ill and things were not going well and the plan physicians told you they were doing everything that could be done and you sought out opinions from some medical leaders in major centers and they said, 'There's another option that you should pursue,' but it wasn't covered in your plan, would you potentially sacrifice the health of your family for the greater good of insuring millions, or would you do everything possible as a father and husband to get the best healthcare and outcome for your family?"

( Obama answers Yes )Next question.  Member of the audience.  Jane Sturm: "My mother is now over 105.  But at 100, the doctors said to her, 'I can't do anything more unless you have a pacemaker.'  I said, 'Go for it.'  She said, 'Go for it.'  But the specialist said, 'No, she's too old.'  But when the other specialist saw her and saw her joy of life, he said, 'I'm going for it.'  That was over five years ago.  My question to you is:  Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?"
( Obama answers No )

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/polling_obama_disapproval/2009/06/22/227789.html

More Americans now "strongly disapprove" of Barack Obama's performance as president than "strongly approve," according to the most recent Rasmussen poll.
...

In the Rasmussen poll, the percentage of voters who blame George Bush for the country's economic ills is down eight points from a month ago, to 54 percent, while 39 percent say the country's economic problems are a result of Obama's policies. "A growing number say it's Obama's economy now," Rasmussen observed.

Other Rasmussen poll findings include:

* Only 46 percent of respondents think Obama is doing an excellent or good job with the economy. * Just 30 percent say they trust Obama to handle the economic crisis. * 60 percent of voters now trust their own judgment on economic issues more than the president's. * 51 percent of voters favor an across-the-board tax cut for all Americans to stimulate the economy.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/republicans_and_battered_spous.html

• Do you feel nervous when you're around a liberal?
• Are you scared of disagreeing with liberals?
• Do you remain silent in front of a liberal because you want them to like you?
• Do you try to please a liberal, only to be rebuked for your efforts?
• Do liberals criticize you, or humiliate you in front of other people?
• Do you have to control your behavior or your language to avoid their anger and ridicule?
• Do you feel pressured by them to participate in activities you find offensive?
• Do liberals mock you when your express profoundly held beliefs about capitalism, religion, sex and gender issues?
• Do liberals demand that you think, speak, and even support ideas that are disgusting to you?
• Are liberals always calling you names?
• Do liberals repeatedly and wrongly accuse you of being something you're not, such as racist, homophobic, and uncaring?
• Do liberals tell you that if you changed, they wouldn't have to say these awful things about you?
• Do you believe that if you changed, the liberal would like you more?
• Are liberals jealous because you have made a success of your life?
• Do liberals blame you for everything that goes wrong in their lives?
• Do liberals tell lies about you?
• Do liberals threaten your freedom of movement?
• Do liberals interfere with the way you want to raise, discipline and educate your children?
• Do liberals make you feel like you are wrong, stupid, crazy or inadequate?
• Do liberals attempt to prevent you from doing what makes you happy?
• Do liberals put roadblocks in your way when you try to escape their plans for you?
• Do liberals attempt to control your money, your associations, and your goals?
• Are you expected to do things to please liberals, rather than to please yourself?
• Do you feel that, with liberals, nothing you ever do is good enough?
• Do liberals claim it's your own fault they are attacking you, or claim that they were "just joking" when they hurled epithets at you?
• Have liberals ever scared you by threatening to get even, or to ruin your reputation, or by suggesting that they are the only people standing between you and the pitchforks?