Notice how many of them are no longer in Congress? And We the People still hate it, more now than before it was passed. It’s time for Republicans and those Democrats who like their cushy perks of Office to abort ObamaCare.
Archive for the ‘Health Care’ Category
Posted by DNW on 2014/11/18
A reminder that big business and the free market are not the same thing, as we see the Lords of Crony Capitalism collaborate with Welfare State Diktat, and declare it “Good”.
“Insurers and the government have developed a symbiotic relationship, nurtured by tens of billions of dollars that flow from the federal Treasury to insurers each year,” said Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
So much so, in fact, that insurers may soon be on a collision course with the Republican majority in the new Congress. Insurers, often aligned with Republicans in the past, have built their business plans around the law and will strenuously resist Republican efforts to dismantle it. Since Mr. Obama signed the law, share prices for four of the major insurance companies — Aetna, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth — have more than doubled, while the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has increased about 70 percent.”
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/02
An “women’s health clinic” (read: abortion mill) got closed down because it grossly failed its health inspection. A Planned Parenthood abortion mill in Northeast Ohio got a big, fat fine because it failed its health inspection.
It’s not like it was a surprise what they needed to do. They have all the regulations available to them. It’s an open-book exam. And, apparently, an open-and-shut case.
(I’m allowed to mix my metaphors because my brother’s the University English professor, not me.)
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/20
In light of Senate Democrats’ 100 percent vote to allow abortion on demand until the day a child is born, in an attempt to stop the various States from enacting any restrictions or protections, I have decided to reprint an article I wrote in 2012.
My name is Gianna Jessen… I was aborted, and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California, and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.
A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mother’s womb. The baby then gulps the solution. It burns the baby inside and out, and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.
This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE… in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me the abortionist was not yet on duty and had me transferred to the hospital.
I should be blind, burned… I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy.
When I was diagnosed with this, all I could do was lie there. They said that was all I would ever do! Through prayer and hard work by my foster mother, I was walking at age 3 ½ with the help of a walker and leg braces. At that time I was also adopted into a wonderful family. Today I am left only with a slight limp. I no longer have need of a walker or leg braces.
…Death did not prevail over me… and I am so thankful!
Teen Breaks has more stories from abortion survivors. Teen Breaks is ready, willing, and able to help teens out. You don’t have to be pregnant, or even a girl, to reach out to them. They’re there to provide a loving environment, information, and a community of support for you as you are bombarded by pressures and life’s travails. If you’re a “cutter”, cutting yourself to regain a sense of control or to zone out or to get relief from life’s stresses, you’re not alone. 1 in 200 teen girls have done it. Teen Breaks is there for you, ready to help you.
Click above to chat live or text “TEEN” to 313131.
Claire Culwell’s April 2010 story from Stand For Life:
Putting a Face To What You’re Fighting ForBy Claire Culwell
A year ago, when I was 21 years old, I met the woman who gave birth to me. I had always dreamed about the day I would meet her, and it NEVER involved the most significant part of it all…learning that I was an ABORTION SURVIVOR. She was 13 years old when she became pregnant with me and the only option she knew of (according to her mother) was abortion. She proceeded to go to an abortion clinic nearby where she had an abortion. A few weeks later she realized she was still pregnant and decided to go to an out-of-state late-term abortion clinic to have a second abortion. During her examination at the late-term abortion clinic, she was told that she had been pregnant with TWINS. One was aborted, and one survived. She was also told that it was too late to have even a late-term abortion. She decided to give me up for adoption when I was born two weeks later. If you ask her now, she will tell you that if she had known the results of abortion vs. adoption, she would have gone straight to the adoption agency instead. Putting me up for adoption (and giving me the best family I can imagine) was a life-changing decision for all of us.
Because of the abortion, I was born 2 ½ months premature and weighed 3 lbs 2 oz. I was on life support and had to stay in the hospital for 2 ½ months until I could be brought home. My hips were dislocated and my feet were turned (because during the abortion, the sac that held my body together was broken) and when I was brought home I had 2 casts on my feet and a harness. I was put in a body cast for 4 months, and I didn’t walk until I was over 2 years old. It still affects me even today.
[continue reading at the above link]
And Claire Culwell’s amazing 2011 video:
Posted in abortion, Character, Christianity, Culture, education, Elections, Health, Health Care, Law, Liberal, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Pro-Life, Real Life, society, truth, Youth | Tagged: Claire Culwell, crisis pregnancy services, cutting yourself, Gianna Jessen, Harry Reid, Option Line, Pro-Life, Senator Bob Casey, Teen Breaks, teen pregnancy, US Senate | Comments Off
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/19
The Editor of The First Street Journal found another lying Democrat. There are some rules of writing that say when a word is defined in part by a qualifier, the qualifier is unnecessarily redundant; therefore, it is unnecessarily redundant to add the qualifier “lying” to the word “Democrat”. Democrats win elections by lying. There is a good chance that Democrats would never have more than a small minority position in most State Legislatures and the US government without their lies. Republicans want to throw granny over the cliff. Republicans have a war on women. Republicans are all racists. Heck, the race card has been so overplayed as to not mean anything anymore. Democrats have fought for all the Civil Rights Laws we have in this country. The long list of proven Democrat lies could go on forever. So what’s so important that the Editor of The First Street Journal would point out another Democrat lying? It’s the Pro-Life nature of the Democrat. Or, rather, it’s the lie that he’s in any way Pro-Life at all.
Well, we have just found out how pro-life Senator Casey really is. The pro-abortion forces introduced S. 1696, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is designed to eliminate state restrictions on abortion, through the entire nine months of pregnancy. It was in response to restrictions imposed in states like Texas, where abortion clinics are required to meet rigorous safety and health standards. The Texas law1 is designed, unquestionably, to reduce the number of abortion clinics in the Lone Star State, but it was also in response to “Dr” Kermit Gosnell’s little shop of horrors. When it came time to actually vote on S. 1696, the devout Roman Catholic, pro-life Senator Casey, who represents the state in which “Dr” Gosnell was “practicing,” voted for the bill, as did every other Democrat in the Senate.2
With that vote, Senator Casey just told us, through deeds, that his words are nothing but lies. Senator Casey could have attempted to provide some “moderation,” some bit of pro-life sentiment, which he claims to have, by voting against the bill, because, in the end, the bill is both symbolic and meaningless: its chance of passage by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is infinitesimally small.
If you’re Pro-Life, you cannot vote Democrat. Because Democrats are only Pro-Life to get your vote. Afterward, they are pro-abort in every sense of the word. But you also have to be careful which Republican gets your vote. Because there’s more than one Republican who is pro-abort. And no Democrat wants you to see the photos to the left, because that might make you vote against the Democrat and against abortion on demand.
Posted in abortion, Character, Christianity, Conservative, Culture, Elections, Health Care, history, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Pro-Life, society, truth | Tagged: Democrisy, Pro-Life, Pro-Life photos, Senator Bob Casey, US Senate | 2 Comments »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/16
I contributed to help make the Gosnell movie happen. You can, too. Go to www.gosnellmovie.com and you can help make an important movie happen. Hot Air has some important news about who is blocking the attempt to crowdfund, and two actors who have made youtube videos in support of the crowdfunding.
Edit: For those who have not heard of the heinous mass murderer Kermit Gosnell (and mainstream media and Hollywood like it that way), read what I wrote and Dana wrote back in 2011. Fair warning: have a strong stomach (preferably empty).
Posted in abortion, Character, crime, Culture, Health Care, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Pro-Life, society | Tagged: Gosnell movie, infanticide, Kermit Gosnell, Kickstarter, left-wing media agenda, mass murderer | 3 Comments »
Posted by DNW on 2013/11/12
It’s a striking fact that the predicate of Obamacare, i.e., the premise of a redistributionist implementation of what John Rawls approvingly called, a “commitment to a shared fate” is simply, and unequivocally, fascist.
This “shared fate” social obligation, is the very principle behind Obamacare; and is rhetorically traceable among others, to the Fascist in Chief himself.
Hyperventilating lefty professors, so fond of directing the charge of “fascist” at others for whatever rhetorical effect they imagine they can leverage out of it, will continue to busily construct their self-serving political taxonomies based on wish-fulfillment listings of the supposed attributes essential to a fascist attitude and polity. These attributes, they claim, invariably involve hostility to foreigners, or the arts, or minorities.
Yet a libertarian polity or anarchist system of association with a population that manifests these three traits on average, would not thereby be transformed into a fascist solidarity or corporatist state. Something more “positive” must be added without which the fascist state cannot logically or coherently be said to officially exist.
Recall here Obama’s problem with our current charter of negative (negatively defined) liberties. The problem as he sees it, is that it defines what you are free from, not what you must do for whom, or what you are entitled to expect from others.
The individual mandate with its across the board legal transformation of freeborn men and women into social resources unconditionally available to the government for the support and maintenance of a redistributive social solidarity state, is that necessary addition. It’s what the fascist left seeks to implement. And as such it’s the manifest essence of the fascist concept.
Recall that this Obamacare individual mandate claim upon the individual is not temporary, nor based upon the necessity of a repulsion of foreign invaders by all citizens, nor upon the need to distributively protect all from some contagion that knows no distinctions of person. It is instead, based upon the presumption of one’s open-ended duty to sacrifice one’s own opportunities and life choices in order to indemnify others against the costs and consequences of being themselves.
It’s emotionally difficult – despite the occasional rhetorical exercise by those like myself warning of a possibility to the contrary – for many of us, myself included, to face the fact that people whom one has heretofore considered as probable moral fellows, are not in fact anything of the kind. Obamacare has now brought this into the sharpest relief.
They, its advocates, have now willingly and overtly become people who in active and current fact, as well as in prior principle, operate off the principle that they will now recognize no limit to their claims upon other human beings for the sake of that secularized social sodality regime which they crave, and which they feel will benefit themselves through the coerced access they gain to your life energies and expenditures.
It, sadly, is therefore not at all hyperbolic to state that the Democrats in Congress who voted for Obamacare and the individual mandate were seeking to institute or to further an already incipient social fascism in the United States. The Democrats should just rename themselves the Fascist Party, and have done with it.
This Obamacare state of affairs has long been the obvious goal of left-wing ideologues: to construct a default situation wherein there preexists a sociopolitical presumption that the individual exists for the utility of others.
The Democrat party has now explicitly advanced and endorsed this premise through Obamacare. Whether the impulse further progresses to the social or state ownership of some or all productive resources or tools of production, as in full blown socialism, is besides the point. The point is that man has now been made by law, and by virtue of his mere existence, into a social resource upon which the state has a legally unlimited claim.
The definitional lines are drawn, and the sides chosen. How friends and relatives will react to being told to their faces that they are fascist, remains to be seen. My guess is that they could not care less what they are, or are called, as long as they get what they want out of others.
They like it that way.
And that, is not a matter of mere politics, but includes something that might almost be seen as a “spiritual dimension”.
Note: I wrote this out earlier today on the fly, and hit “post” rather than “save”. I’ve made a few of what I think should be improvements in clarity and precision. The labored language … well, that, I can do nothing about. LOL.
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/11/08
BFD, BO says I’m sorry. He’s sorry all right, he’s a sorry sack of Bovine Feces. He’s not going to roll back the clock, but he wants to “help”. If OBUMMERCARE is help, no thanks, you’ve helped screw this country enough. If BO was that so damn sorry, he should resign in DISCRACE for being the worst piece of Bovine Feces every to inhabit the Dark House. By not resigning, his words are more hollow than his head. Do us all a favor QUIT NOW. Your apology means NOTHING, Not A Damn Thing since you and your court jesters knew Obummercare was CRAP three Years ago.
Exclusive: Obama personally apologizes for Americans losing health coverage
By Chuck Todd, NBC News
President Obama said Thursday that he is “sorry” that some Americans are losing their current health insurance plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act, despite his promise that no one would have to give up a health plan they liked.
“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he told NBC News in an exclusive interview at the White House.
“We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”
In a wide-ranging interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, President Obama discusses implementation of the Affordable Care Act, rollout of the healthcare website, NSA spying, Iran and keeping Joe Biden as his running mate.
Obama’s comments come 10 days after NBC News’ Lisa Myers reported that the administration has known since the summer of 2010 that millions of Americans could lose their insurance under the law.
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/11/05
The By-Stander President has said over and over “if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it, Period. if you like your doctor you can keep him, Period.” I believe these statement in plain everyday English and Diction to make a clear declarative statement that do stand on their own. These need no interpretation or explanation to be understood. Obama has said this and recorded over 20 times. Now lets look at Malfeasance.
mælˈfizəns/ Show Spelled [mal-fee-zuhns] Show IPA noun Law.
the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust). Compare misfeasance ( def 2 ) , nonfeasance.
Now at least 20 times or more Obama has said this: “If you like your plan, you can keep it PERIOD”
Now, within the last few days, Obama has taken the word “Period” or end of statement and turned it to another New Lie. Now Obama has dropped PERIOD and now has a new qualifier since people have lost their insurance and doctor. The worst is a woman being treated for FOUR YEARS for Cancer lost her plan and can not find another one to replace it.
It is clear the President has Lied, Misled, stretched beyond all recognition THE TRUTH.
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Meaning of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”
by Jon Roland, Constitution Society
The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word “high”. It does not mean “more serious”. It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.
Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject’s fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.
Perjury is usually defined as “lying under oath”. That is not quite right. The original meaning was “violation of one’s oath (or affirmation)”.
The word “perjury” is usually defined today as “lying under oath about a material matter”, but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is “violation of an oath”. We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter “j” is the letter “i” in Latin.
periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.iurator, oris, m., a swearer.iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.per, … IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, … under pretense of, by the pretext of, ….
Posted by DNW on 2013/09/27
A Question: Why is it expected by some that so-called Obama Care will collapse of its own accord, when its designers and promoters recognize no limits to their ability to coerce or draw upon you in order to fund and prop it up?
How exactly does that work?
Is there some length to which the progressives currently threatening social violence if their ill-begotten and legally bastard dream of punitive equity is not endowed, will henceforth refuse to go?
Is there some extractive limit beyond which, those who nonchalantly admit they recognize no limits, will not legislatively trespass if their spawn appears undernourished?
For those who think so, what real world evidence do they have to support this hope?
Posted by DNW on 2013/09/25
Posted by DNW on 2013/09/21
I’m working today and while doing so I’ve been accessing the Internet.
I don’t know why exactly, but possibly because after hearing about the House Republican’s courageous act of defunding Obama Care, I glanced at one of Perry Hood’s typically puling exercises in social justice pimping.
I then decided to revisit and review the fact situation premises underlying the arguments we’ve all seen concerning “national” health care costs by doing a couple of searches. Just for the sake of Auld Lang Syne …
My first search was on the topic of uncompensated emergency care. I Googled: “Percentage of US health care expenditures on uncompensated emergency room treatment”.
There, in the results window I found links that informed me that emergency room treatment accounted for only about 2 cents of every dollar expended on medical treatment in the United States.
Emergency care represents less than 2 percent of the nation’s $2.4 trillion in health care expenditures while covering 136 million people a year.i ii
Emergency departments are open 24 hours a day and provide “one-stop shopping” with all the hospital’s resources – such as diagnostic testing and consultation by other medical specialists – in one place.
The most pressing economic issue in emergency medicine is uncompensated care: the lack of adequate reimbursement for emergency medical care has led to the closure of hundreds of emergency departments.
The focus on preventing so-called “non-urgent” ER visits distracts policymakers from the real cost savings in reducing hospital admissions.
Emergency departments are critical to our communities and must be adequately funded.”
We also learn that,
“About half of all emergency services go uncompensated, according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).iv The typical ER treats 1 in 5 patients without insurance or a clear method for reimbursement. The CDC reported that 19 percent of all emergency patients in 2009 were uninsured.”
“Nearly half (44 percent) of emergency physicians responding to a poll say fear of lawsuits is the biggest challenge to cutting emergency department costs. More than half (53 percent) say this fear is the main reason for ordering the number of tests they do.viii Every additional diagnostic test adds to the overall cost of care.”
See also this American College of Emergency Physicians link
So, at first glance anyway, only about 20 percent of 2 percent of the money spent in the US on medical treatment is spent on the uninsureds’ emergency room treatment. Though, this burden is costly enough, and damaging enough, to the facilities treating these patients.
Next I began to check on structural issues related to demographics. Say for example, on the cost of behavioral problems to the US economy. But that was not really a fruitful avenue. We learn of course that fat kids are a large (pun intended) and growing (same) problem and that they will likely experience a host of chronic conditions which will eventually …
Oh. Yeah, “Chronic care”
Wonder what that costs “us” as a portion of what “we” spend?
Google: “Chronic condition expenses as a percentage of American medical costs”
And this my friends really set me back on my heels. I couldn’t believe it. Though I cannot now explain why I hadn’t known it earlier.
We debate insurance reform, and malpractice reform, and we talk of defensive medicine. But what are the real causes of this social phenomenon are we being held political hostage to? Is it really primarily due to greedy doctors and profiteering insurance companies, inflated drug costs, scheming lawyers, and proliferating defensive medicine?
We speak in terms of “social costs”. What of social use? Is the demand itself unreal? What of actual use and spending, and of who is doing the using and spending?
” … Half of the population spends little or nothing on health care …”
it turns out that,
” … 5 percent of the population spends almost half of the total amount [spent]…”
What? How can this be? Feeling dizzy too? But why should we stop there when there is so much more to learn …
” … In 2002, the 5 percent of the U.S.community (civilian noninstitutionalized) population that spent the most on health care accounted for 49 percent of overall U.S. health care spending …”
” … the 50 percent of the population with the lowest expenses accounted for only 3 percent of overall U.S. medical spending, with annual medical spending below $664 per person. … those in the top 5 percent spent, on average, more than 17 times as much per personas those in the bottom 50 percent of spenders”
” … The elderly (age 65 and over) made up around 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2002, but they consumed 36 percent of total U.S. personal health care expenses. The average health care expense in 2002 was $11,089 per year for elderly people but only $3,352 per year for working-age people (ages 19-64 …”
” … people in the highest 5 percent of the distribution of medical expenses were 11 times as likely to be in fair or poor physical health as people in the bottom half of that distribution (45 percent vs. 4 percent) …”
” … 21 percent of people in the top 5 percent [those with the highest medical expenses] were in fair or poor mental health, compared with 3 percent of people in the bottom 50 percent [of medical expenses]”
Chronic, crazy, (and a modest percentage of the) elderly account for half of that infamous 16 percent or so of the GDP being spent on health care. This then is half of the “crisis” that has been driving a formerly free people into the clutches of an Obama Care mandate, and toward the degraded status of “Property of the State”.
I’m going to quit writing now; before I say something really, really cruel …
You can read and judge for yourself. As for me, I am done researching for today.
Oh you can bet your bottom dollar on this though. Once the government really gets its say, and those figures are considered, as they already have been by many in the Single Payer system movement, there will be death panels.
And what will the left do? That is to say the same left that earlier mocked Palin?
They will shrug and ask, “What did you fools expect?”