Bureaucratization of Breast Cancer Screening?

Late last night, Governor Palin posted a Facebook note regarding new recommendations that have come out this week regarding cervical cancer screening and mammography. I think she raises some good points:

We need answers: Is early screening not saving lives? Why do doctors’ groups disagree? Did costs play any role in these decisions to change the recommendations on breast and cervical cancer screenings? We need assurances that everything we’ve heard this week about fewer tests for women’s cancers is a result of patient-focused research and providing the best care for the right reasons, and not because of bureaucratic pressure to control costs.

For clarification's sake, it should be noted that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that made the cervical cancer screening suggestions is a professional organization not a government-related panel. However, we must still ask the questions that the Governor is suggesting regarding new recommendations that have come out. We must make sure that the recommendations are based on "patient-focused research" and strong science.

To me, the recommendations that cause the greater concern are the mammography recommendations that came out earlier this week from the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. This report states that women between the age of 40-49, who are not at increased risk for breast cancer, are no longer recommended to have mammograms. I found their reasoning to be a bit weak. The report states that beginning mammography for women at age reduces breast cancer mortality by 3%. However, the report cited that the net benefits of mammography for women aged 40-49 were "small", and they cited that potential harms of mammography were anxiety, false positives, and unnecessary biopsies. While I understand their concern with these potential harms, a reduction of cancer mortality of 3% seems sufficient to me for screening to be recommended. I've been doing some analysis at work recently on breast cancer in Illinois. Between 1996 and 2005, 915 Illinois women between the ages of 40-49 were diagnosed with breast cancer. If these recommendations were in place at the time, many of these women would likely have been diagnosed with breast cancer at a later stage.

To be fair, the Department of Health and Human Services is not supporting these recommendations. However, we still need to be aware of such reports. The U.S. Preventive Service Task Force, although independent, is funded by the U.S. government--a bureaucratic panel if you will.

The Disclaimer states on the report:

Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the U.S. government. They should not be construed as an official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

However, in the financial support section of the report it says, "[t]he U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF."

This Congressionally funded task force set forth recommendations, that, for the time being at least, were not adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services. However, what if a government-centered health care passed, and they were looking for ways to cut costs? Could they potentially find support for a certain recommendation regardless of its true validity, adopt the recommendation, and subsequently drop insurance coverage for a certain procedure in order to cut costs? Also, as this task force is "independent" but overseen by the government,there is reason to be cautious in accepting what they say as there is potential for nefarious governmental influence.

I don't say this to be an alarmist or conspiracy theorist. We just must be cognizant of what the potentials are. At the same time, we have to look at such reports rationally ourselves to make sure they are based on strong science. Changes in recommendations and treatments do not necessarily mean rationing will occur. However, we must evaluate the information floating around out there, and we must be aware of the potential for interaction between such government-supported panels and the government itself. As Governor Palin said, "we need answers". Don't be afraid to ask questions.

Sarah Palin: Cancer Screenings: Rational Advice or Rationed Care?

Following is the complete transcript of Governor Palin's Facebook post on cancer screenings, why cancers specific to women receive sub-standard attention, and the relation of screenings to the current health care debate:

It was a breath of fresh air to finally hear the Democrats admit to their health care bill as “a lot of show and tell and razzmatazz,” (see Democrat talking points, in reference to my book). At least now we’re all on the same page when discussing the problems with their monstrous government health care “reform” plan (Palin, 2009, ¶1).

Now, tonight, more disconcerting news – the New York Times reports of new guidelines to scale back cervical cancer screenings. The recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists comes on the heels of another recommendation to limit breast cancer screenings with mammograms. There are many questions unanswered for me, but one which immediately comes to mind is whether costs have anything to do with these recommendations. The current health care debate elicits great concern because of its introduction of socialized medicine in America and the inevitable rationed care. We need to carefully watch this debate as it coincides with Capitol Hill’s debate and determine whether we are witnessing the early stages of that rationed care before the Senate bill is rushed through as well (Palin, 2009, ¶2).

Another question is why these women-focused cancers are seemingly receiving substandard attention at a time when proactive health and fitness should be the message. Every woman should encourage rigorous debate to ensure that our collective voices are heard. We are paying attention to Washington’s health care proposals, and we want to hear what helps patients the most (Palin, 2009, ¶3).

We need answers: Is early screening not saving lives? Why do doctors’ groups disagree? Did costs play any role in these decisions to change the recommendations on breast and cervical cancer screenings? We need assurances that everything we’ve heard this week about fewer tests for women’s cancers is a result of patient-focused research and providing the best care for the right reasons, and not because of bureaucratic pressure to control costs (Palin, 2009, ¶4).

Obviously the first thought that comes to mind when hearing of these new recommendations from bureaucratic panels is “rationed care.” It’s fair – and healthy – to ask if that’s what Washington has in mind with a government-controlled takeover of a health care system (Palin, 2009, ¶5).

- Sarah Palin

References:

Palin, S. L. H. (2009, November 20). "Cancer screenings: Rational advice or rationed care?" Facebook, Sarah Palin. Retrieved November 20, 2009 from: http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin#/notes/sarah-palin/cancer-screenings-rational-advice-or-rationed-care/178333423434

President Obama Plays Santa Claus

What? Don't like this photo op at the Osan Air Base in South Korea? The president does.

According to the Washington Post today...

Obama arrived on the base 3:19 p.m. local time (1 a.m. Eastern Standard Time), and received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cell phones to snap pictures.

"You guys make a pretty good photo op," the president said.

Standing on a riser wearing a blue suit and red tie, with a cluster of troops and a large American flag behind him, Obama expressed "the gratitude of the American public" and said his meetings in four countries over eight days in Asia will help deliver a "safer more prosperous world for all of us."

Now, I'm certainly not against President Obama being treated with respect, or even honor, by the troops he is supposedly leading. It serves them well to not lose courage in the face of what they come against each day.

What does disturb me is President Obama's practice of throwing out little quips, that at first glance seem innocent, but really are just a continuation of flagrant comments that often represent how he truly feels...and that he doesn't have enough common sense to keep to himself!

The troops are a photo op. Hmmm. Cute.

On this same trip the president made another comment as he left. Let's see if the troops keep smiling when the empty suit doesn't keep his empty promise.

He got a huge cheer when he told them he was increasing military pay. "That's what you call an applause line," he said, before boarding his jet and taking off at 4:11 p.m.

Take that promise into consideration when you read part of the president's response in an interview with Major Garrett posted yesterday.

I think it is important though to recognize that if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the US economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.

Wow. I'd say some magic is in due order with the US budget. I do hope the troops get a pay increase. They deserve it. But please explain to me how such a thing is going to happen when the government is buying out banks and car companies and planning to spend billions and billions that we don't have yet on a health care plan "we the people" don't want anyway (remember, part of that budget is based on penalties) ?!

Move along to your next promise, Mr. President. We won't hold our breath in hope for a change.

Here's a true friend to the troops.

(H/T mikepfs for the Post article)
Image from Reuters

Sarah Palin: Pelosi "Health Plan" Should Be DOA

Per Gov. Sarah Palin's Facebook Page:

Today at 8:40am

We need to be vigilant in investigating the ramifications of the Pelosi Health Care Bill. Some provisions sound so outrageous as to be considered impossible to fathom, but they’re right there in the bill in black and white. For instance, page 297 of the bill explains the punishment for not purchasing government mandated health insurance. If you don’t buy what the government considers “acceptable health care coverage,” you’re going to be hit with a tax of at least 2.5% of your income. And if you don’t pay that new tax, you could be fined as much as $250,000 and sentenced to up to five years in prison.

But here’s the thing: they have to make the penalty for opting out very harsh in order to force us to buy coverage. The only way to keep this government run health care plan afloat is for everyone to buy into it – especially young and healthy people. That means that they will have to penalize citizens if we choose not to buy a plan that will cost a minimum of about $15,000 per family per year.

The bill that came out of the Senate last month – the Baucus Bill – does just the opposite. It calls for a much lighter penalty ($750 maximum) for people who don’t buy government approved health coverage, making it cheaper to pay the fine than to pay for the coverage. (And with a recession on, who can blame families for not wanting to pay $15,000 for a government mandated health care plan?)

But here’s the kicker: the bill also forces insurance companies to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Think about what that means. A lot of people – especially young and healthy people – will just pay the penalty instead of purchasing coverage because they’ll figure that it’ll always be there if they get sick, as government has promised. That’s what will happen, and when it does it will totally undermine the very concept of “insurance” – which is basically a group of people pooling their resources over time to cover themselves for a rainy day, paying while they’re healthy so that they’re covered when they’re sick. Those who are healthy now pay for those who are sick. If your insurance pool only contains sick people, it’s a bust. And that’s what this government plan will be. Without all of those young and healthy people paying into the pool and defraying the costs, the government will have to pony up more and more money, and who knows how long the whole crazy plan will last before it goes broke – and our country with it!

That’s where we are with this bureaucratic mess: either the government penalizes people so harshly that they could be hit with huge taxes and even possible jail time, or the government makes the penalty a slap on the wrist and undermines the plan from the get-go. Forcing individuals to buy health insurance seems unconstitutional, yet Congress wants to foist it on us anyway. Proponents of government controlled health care will say, “But we’re made to buy car insurance and home insurance, what’s the difference with health insurance?” It’s apples and oranges. Auto insurance is a state law requirement, and people can always choose not to drive. Banks might require you to have home owner’s insurance, but again, you choose to own a home, just as you choose to drive. You have no choice at all when it comes to this federal government health care insurance mandate.

There are other ways to reform health care without violating our Constitution and our personal liberties. Let’s get back to discussing market-driven, patient-centered, result-driven solutions, like, for example, allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, tackling existing government waste and fraud, and reforming medical malpractice laws (tort reform) to stop unwarranted lawsuits that force doctors to order unnecessary procedures just to cover themselves.

Please let your Senators know that the Pelosi Bill should be dead on arrival. Once we go down this big government path, it will be virtually impossible to reverse course. Let’s fight for the reform that makes sense for Americans before it’s too late.

- Sarah Palin

Don't Copy Europe's Mistakes Video

Posted on Gov. Sarah Palin's Facebook Page:

Sticks and Stones, President Obama!

While I was writing last night about the nightmarish "fully paid" budget lotto of the health care bill just passed in the House, I provided a link to an article at ABCnews.com that quoted some of President Obama's speech to the House Democrats, given before the vote.

I posted this bit of "encouragement" from the president to his fellow party members.

Obama reportedly told his fellow Democrats in that meeting that he knew they might face opposition from their constituents for this vote.

"It's tempting to say, 'I'm tired, it's hard, I'm getting beat up back in the district, it's just not worth it,'" Obama said, according to a source in the meeting. "If we do not get it done this year, we will not get it done anytime soon."

My point was how purposefully alienated the president is to what the citizens of America want. And I do mean purposefully. He essentially told the Democrats to ignore what their constituents voted them in to do in the first place, which is represent their desires!

After hearing rumors that the president actually turned to divisive name calling against Tea Party attenders, I searched the net, but found nothing. I figured either links were being washed or it never happened.

The president's meeting with the Democrats was closed door. Bits and pieces from those willing to spill the beans are all we get. You know, part of all that transparency we were promised.

Anyway, this morning I received a tweet that had a link to what I was looking for. An article from NYTimes.com has the president's comment and the source that leaked it.

The comment?

According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

All American Blogger author Duane Lester poses the question if the president was intentionally using a sexual slang term with the name "teabag" when referring to the health care protestors. Whether the president did or not, (And he does have a habit of word "slips", don't forget the lipstick pig and Special Olympics!) the fact stands that he went to derogatory name calling to ridicule, intimidate, and create division among Americans.

Unfortunately, President Obama continues to campaign. And while a candidate's words on the trail are often turned against his opposition in not so kind ways, once that person is elected...especially to the office of President of the United States...he is expected to act and speak with respect toward those he has been elected to serve.




I saw this on "special" for seven bucks at Kmart the other day. Let me print the quote for you, in case you can't read it. I know you wouldn't want to miss the president's "wisdom".

"There is not a liberal America and a conservative America, there's the United States of America."

(H/T to Duane Lester)

Healthcare Lotto, Anyone?

I was amazed to read that the health care bill just passed in the House is deficit free. That's right. No worries. It's all paid for. Impressive, dontcha think?

I set out to find out how this miracle transpired. I mean, the statement released by President Obama shortly thereafter the successful vote was clear. (emphasis mine)

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.

Get out! Fully paid for?!

So, how did that happen? Well, first off, you kind of have to change around the grammatical tense of it all...because it isn't actually fully paid for yet. That's just a really, really big fat assumption. But more about that later.

The Congressional Budget Office, a self-proclaimed non-partisan organization that delves into financial issues surrounding bills that float around “the hill”, wrote a letter to Representative John D. Dingell (D-Michigan, dean of House) to give him the lowdown on the cost of H.R. 3962. It's posted online, and the White House administration is flaunting similar info found in the letter. Well, parts of it.

By the way, according to the NY Times, Rep. Dingell said yesterday,

“Today’s may be a tough vote, but it was in 1935 when we passed Social Security.”

Wow...now there's an awesome long term success story to compare this with.

Anyway, here's where some of the excitement comes in. The White House requests that you PAY NO ATTENTION to the last line. (sarc and emphasis mine)

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010–2019 period. In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

Gee. It all seems so simple. What could lead to “substantial uncertainty”?

Now, I'm not a statistician, but chances are, somewhere among those 2000 Pelosian pages, there lies a bit of...I don't know...Healthcare Lotto? Maybe we'll win...maybe we won't!

In that same letter, the CBO lays out where the expenses lie.

Grand total over the ten years of 2010-2019 is $1,058 billion:

$1,052 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges (and related spending),
increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP),
and tax credits for small employers

$6 billion in other effects on revenues and outlays associated with the coverage provisions

Starting the plan and financing it those ten years will be through “spending changes” (not specified), $167 billion in collections of penalties paid by individuals and employers (calculated punishments?), income tax surcharge on high-income individuals, plan premiums, and “other provisions” (not specified).

Keep in mind that the CBO also has pointed out that not every expense can be accounted for...there will be additional costs that other federal agencies will incur to handle the new program. The IRS and HHS will all need additional funds to function.

CBO has not completed a comprehensive estimate of the discretionary costs that would be associated with H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager’s amendment. Total costs would include those arising from the effects of H.R. 3962 on a variety of federal programs and agencies, as well as from a number of new and existing programs subject to future appropriations.

But really. We have nothing to worry about. It is “fully paid”. Whew. Oh, and don't worry about the years after 2019...that's when those "slight reductions", albeit substantially uncertain reductions, in the federal deficit kick in, and also...

The legislation would require that the premiums for the public plan be set to fully fund expenditures for medical claims, administrative costs, and a contingency reserve.

Hmmm. It does sound like it could get pricey later on.

But your state will help out...

New requirements in the Medicaid program also would result in an increase in state spending.

I am reminded of Gov. Sarah Palin refusing certain stimulus funds offered to Alaska because of the far reaching (into the pockets) consequences of those programs started with said funds. Looking to the future, she saw our children furrowing their brow and swinging the hammer, not to build a home for themselves, but to pay off the debt being loaded onto their shoulders today.

She knew better. Our elected leaders should know better.

Our first president knew better. In his Farewell Address to our nation on September 19, 1796, President George Washington wrote words of encouragement and admonition. And ever since 1896, the longest standing annual Senate tradition of reading it out loud occurs around his birthday. I wish the Senators would pay attention. Consider this timely advice.

“...avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”

Ungenerously. Plain selfishness, in other words. My husband explains often in his sermons that the opposite of love is not hate. It is selfishness. Every immoral and unethical act can be anted up to selfishness.

Another excerpt from Washington's address gives every hint to me that what we are seeing among our elected leaders is selfishness.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.

They do not care what “We the People” want. They are creating a ridiculous number of positions for unelected czars, thereby erasing checks and balances; buying out private markets; and bowing at the feet of intimidation...thinking all of that will boost their own significance and ensure their future careers.

But as Gov. Palin remarked just today, “Sunday's coming.”

How ironic that on the site of the White House Office of Management and Budget, a quote from President Obama is highlighted today,

“A budget is more than simply numbers on a page. It is a measure of how well we are living up to our obligations to ourselves and one another."

And yesterday? FromABCnews.com,

Obama reportedly told his fellow Democrats in that meeting that he knew they might face opposition from their constituents for this vote.

"It's tempting to say, 'I'm tired, it's hard, I'm getting beat up back in the district, it's just not worth it,'" Obama said, according to a source in the meeting. "If we do not get it done this year, we will not get it done anytime soon."

Huh! Just doesn't sound very obligatory, does it? Maybe that's why the House bill title page says, "...and for other purposes." Hmmm.

Lotto image credit.
HR title image credit.
Piggy bank image credit.
Washington image credit.

Video: "DNC Quit Making Things Up"

Commentary:

Governor Palin posted this video on her Facebook wall today, November 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM EST.

References:

"AdoringPalin" (2009, November 2). "Quit Making Things Up DNC." YouTube, AdoringPalin. Retrieved November 2, 2009 from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCHsP6iXr7U

Brief Analysis of "Good Intentions Aren't Enough"

Governor Palin astutely described the Law of Unintended Consequences as it applies to health care, in her post "Good Intentions Aren't Enough."

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" may be hackneyed, but it is apropos in this instance. She delineates precisely how in paragraphs three and four, in discussing all the negative consequences of "Obama-care," in particular and top-down, big-government, micro-managed programs in general. In paragraph three she describes how fines would actually discourage people from buying health care coverage, leading to even more uninsured. In paragraph four, she discusses out-of-control debt, and increased costs, the greatest burden of which will be borne by the intended beneficiaries: those earning under $200K (Palin, 2009, ¶4).

In paragraph 11, Governor Palin advances two free market solutions intended to work in concert with one another: permit consumers to buy health insurance across state lines, and provide tax vouchers for those who buy their own health insurance (Palin, 2009, ¶11). Though not mentioned in this posting, Governor Palin has in the prior postings advocated for medical malpractice liability reforms.

Ronald Reagan would be very proud of his successor if he were alive today....

References:

Palin, S. L. H. (2009, October 17). "Good intentions aren't enough with health care reform." Facebook, Sarah Palin. Retrieved October 18, 2009 from: http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=app_2347471856#/note.php?note_id=155230603434

CNN has lost it's mind... School kids singing with Miley's song.

I can't understand if CNN understands that The Cyrus family may sue?

Either way.... get this out to others. CNN needs to be shut down.

My experience with a type of universal healthcare.

When I was an early pre-teen, I remember my Mom coming down with pneumonia one day and it took 4 months to get rid of. From then on out she had it almost half the year if not more. The doctors did not know what was wrong with her and could only give her medications that would not help. Around the same time, my Dad was told he had angina and was given only nitro for the heart pains he was feeling as the misdiagnosed him even when I was a small child.


At this early age I was dealt with the reality that not just one parent could die, but both due to doctors who didn’t know or care at the time. This was also a problem as my parents were going to the air force hospital at the time and it was under the supposed universal care.

By my early teens, I was going to school full time, cleaning the house, cooking the meals, had a full time job after school and was trying to keep my brother on track as both my parents worked but were to exhausted to do anything but sleep.

In my late teens, my Mom was on the verge of death. Her eyes wee so sunken into her head due to exhaustion and lack of sleep and the fact she couldn’t breathe due to the congestion in her chest that she didn’t have long to live. I told my Dad I was taking Mom to a real hospital and that he needed to stay up and keep an eye on my brother. Dad was too tired to even notice I was gone with Mom and I told my brother to be good and gave him a 20 for the pizza I ordered him that was being delivered. As I brought my Mom into the normal hospital, they refused to see her as she didn’t have the insurance (even though the air force did if you brought them to an Emergency room) as this was before the laws were you couldn’t send people away and sent her to the Air Force hospital. As I drove her there all I could do was stew. I was mad at the doctors who wouldn’t see through the problems.

I reached the E.R., and took my Mom in. The look on my face was pure undiluted rage and my Mom looked as though she was about to pass out due to lack of oxygen. The nurse who knew me by name as she had seen my Mom before was slacking behind the desk as usual. I screamed at her to get an oxygen tank … and the look of surprise got her up and grabbed not just a tank but the doctor on call for that night. I told him in no uncertain terms that my Mom would NOT leave this hospital until they ran every test imaginable to find out what was wrong with her. He said they couldn’t’ do that without admitting her, and I said … pointing straight at her ... “Does she look like she can go anywhere without passing out”? He got the picture I wasn’t going to play the waiting game.

At that moment in time they reached the head Doctor for the hospital, who came down as they said I was making a scene. It was so bad that other patients were urging the doctor and nurse to take my Mom before them. She was now gray, there was not much oxygen in her lungs even with a oxygen tank. The Head came and spoke to me, almost dragging me out. I smacked his hand away and screamed, “LOOK AT MY MOTHER” in which he turned and saw her and then screamed at the Doctor and the Nurse. “Why are you standing there, this woman can’t breathe and you call me down here because you can’t figure out what to do with her daughter who is worried? You both are on the verge of losing your jobs!” The head then called a lung specialist to come in as they intubated my Mom and realized that there was too much mucus. They had to do a chest tube to get some of it out.

When the lung specialist finally showed up… you could see people flying around and things happening. Somewhere in the mix, a heart specialist came in and I was then not told anything of what was going on. I called my Dad and told him to come in. Mom was to be medicated to let her sleep and until Dad showed no information could be given.

Come to find out, Mom had serious heart problems due to rheumatic fever as a teenager and that the mitral valves in the heart were not pumping blood out of her lung and she was slowly suffocating. Two weeks later she left for Seattle as balloons were not up here yet to be used for this type of surgery.

Why do I tell you this? Because I know first hand what universal healthcare can do and what is always skipped as people think it is something simple and no one looks at the history.

Whether it is HR 3200, or the new HR 3400, it is still universal healthcare.

Do you want this for your Children or Grandchildren? I don’t think so either. No one should have to go through what I went through as a kid. And for those who wonder, this is one of many times I had to deal with the healthcare for both parents.

You Lie Verified White House Style

Clarification or getting one past the boss (i.e. the American people)?

As usual, when the White House wants to avoid week long consternation about something they want to pass or include or change or clarify, they accomplish it by slipping something under the door at closing time. And what a wretched time to pull such a stunt.

Friday night, September 11, in the tank NBC correspondent Mike Viqueira passed along some White House health care proposal changes that would verify that Congressman Joe Wilson was indeed, correct.

The White House tonight is providing the below clarification on what the president's health-care proposals would mean when it comes to the issue of illegal immigrants.

After searching the White House website and finding no such information, I was at first critical. It would seem that such news should be posted at large for the public to notice the wonderful changes, wouldn't it? But, silly me, I simply forgot that's not how this administration works. It's best to slip any damaging info through the online gutters first and let the media do the dirty work. If a formal announcement was made, that would only justify those of us with, horror of horrors, doubts and questions.

Today, for the first time as far as we know, the administration is backing a provision that would require proof of citizenship before someone could enroll in a plan selected on the exchange.

In this specific case, it prevents anyone else from saying that illegal immigrants are entitled to apply for coverage in "The Plan".

"What? Illegal immigrants covered? Pshaw! No way! See, right there? Oh, and Joe Wilson is a liar." So what in the world am I talking about? Check out a bit of the piece released Friday evening by MSNBC on their site First Read. By the way, First Read claims they are "The first place for key political news and analysis." Hmmm...I guess so...we sure ain't gonna get it from the White House first.

The bullet points sent tonight by the White House:

• Undocumented immigrants would not be able to buy private insurance on the exchange. Those who are lawfully present in this country would be able to participate.
• Undocumented immigrants would be able to buy insurance in the non-exchange private market, just as they do today. That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps.
• Verification will be required when purchasing health insurance on the exchange. One option is the SAVE program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) which states currently use to make sure that undocumented immigrants don't participate in safety-net programs for which they are ineligible.
• There would be no change in the law that requires emergency rooms to treat people who need emergency care, including undocumented immigrants. There is already a federal grant program that compensates states for emergency room costs associated with treatment of undocumented immigrants, a provision sponsored by a Republican lawmaker.

Notice the little dig at Republicans in the last bullet? Ha! Oh my, what love in the supposed Big Tent of this administration. And honestly, I have no problem with a human being receiving emergency treatment. What kind of animals do the White House think we who are Republicans are? Never mind. Don't answer that. Well, now that you know that speaking out like Congressman Joe Wilson did is not a terrible thing, but dagnabbit, an effective thing, let him know on his site or his Facebook page! Because you see, also posted Friday on the First Read site was this tidbit from NBC's Kelly O'Donnell.

Aides to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say that if embattled GOP Rep. Joe Wilson does not apologize for his outburst directed at the president on the House floor next week, the House will likely introduce a "resolution of disapproval."

But it looks like Rep. Wilson isn't budging. A tweet posted at 9:33 am EST today looked like this.


Good for you, Joe! As I've mentioned before, the Founding Fathers didn't hash everything out quietly and with good manners. You think what happened in that joint session was "out of order"? Go back and read up on some history...you'll find kickin' and snortin' like you wouldn't believe. Remember, this administration is the one that pretends that those protesting the current health care proposals are lying health care haters to be ignored. And while even the MSM acknowledged the massive number of people that showed up on the Washington Mall yesterday (2 or 2.5 million?), the White House will give it little, but most likely, no attention.

The president's comment the other night in his speech of his open door policy is a joke. It swings open only to those willing to do his bidding.

Lastly, in remembrance of Speaker Pelosi's reaction to Rep. Wilson's declaration of truth, let's watch this video posted on YouTube by someone who must get it.

Sarah Palin: Response to the President's Health Care Speech

Per Gov. Sarah Palin's Facebook Page:

After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.

Many Americans fundamentally disagree with this idea. We know from long experience that the creation of a massive new bureaucracy will not provide us with “more stability and security,” but just the opposite. It's hard to believe the President when he says that this time he and his team of bureaucrats have finally figured out how to do things right if only we’ll take them at their word.

Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere “bickering” or “games.” They are not an attempt to “score short term political points.” And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use “scare tactics” when in the next breath he says that “more will die” if his proposals do not pass.

In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” -- so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.

In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat .... gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council -- an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost ... the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives....” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.

It was heartening to hear the President finally recognize that tort reform is an important part of any solution. But this concession shouldn’t lead us to take our eye off the ball: the Democrats’ proposals will not reduce costs, and they will not deliver better health care. It’s this kind of “healthy skepticism of government” that truly reflects a “concern and regard for the plight of others.” We can’t wait to hear the details on that; we look forward to working with you on tort reform.

Finally, President Obama delivered an offhand applause line tonight about the cost of the War on Terror. As we approach the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and honor those who died that day and those who have died since in the War on Terror, in order to secure our freedoms, we need to remember their sacrifices and not demonize them as having had too high a price tag.

Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a “victory” is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn’t always the answer; now hear us -- that’s what we’ve been saying all along.

- Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin: Response to the White House

Per Gov. Sarah Palin's Facebook Page:

I'm pleased that the White House is finally responding to Republican health care ideas instead of pretending they don't exist.[1] But in doing so President Obama should follow his own sound advice and avoid making "wild misrepresentations".[2] Medicare vouchers would give everyone on Medicare the chance to decide for themselves which health plan to use, rather than leave that decision to government bureaucrats. Such proposals are the kind of health care reform that Republicans stand for: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven.

The White House talking points leave the rest of my arguments unanswered. They don't respond to the idea that all individuals should get the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; that we must reform our tort laws; and that we should allow Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The White House also fails to respond to the Nyce/Schieber study indicating that wages will fall if the government expands coverage without reducing health care inflation rates.

One last thing: after President Obama's speech tonight, listen for which pundits use the words "false", "scary", and "risky" in describing the proposals I put forward. That's how you'll be able to tell who the White House counted as "allies" worthy of receiving its talking points.

-Sarah Palin

[1] See http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/White_House_talking_points_blast_Palin.html.
[2] See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16obama.html.

The White House Tries to Dance with Sarah Palin

Yeah, so, you'll have to read those tweets below in reverse order if you want the complete context. I'm not turning them around for you. Don't whine. I've got four kids. I can take it.

OK, just to fill you in with a little background...that Twitter user below, WestWingReport, is with the press at the White House..or in the press...or pressing...I don't know. How about embedded?

Anyway, WWR tweets updates on what the president is doing and gives White House tidbits now and then...unbiased for the most part that I can tell so far. But I'm keeping my eye on him...or her...just to make sure. Today WWR has been tweeting a few statements by a "Senior Administration Official" on the upcoming healthcare speech tonight by President Obama.

It's all been predictable to an extent, since we know that the president will try to push the public option...in a hurry. But what I found interesting is that tweet #5; the "official" throws a little, "Hey! The GOP and Palin agree! We have healthcare problems!", as if that point makes taking whatever President Obama throws in the ring completely acceptable. What??

I don't need to rehash what Gov. Palin has already outlined concerning what needs to be done to get healthcare on the right track; just read the latest Facebook postings. But I do want to point out that she doesn't "...need a title to make a difference, to help people," to quote her.

And since the White House is now just getting that fact, they are doing a little song and dance to combat it. So heads up! Be vigilant to the new attack the White House is attempting to snooker the masses with...that Sarah Palin is on their side.

Yeah...their bad side.

1. WestWingReportThe senior administration official says although the President will "go into detail" tonight, much of it "won't be a surprise" #healthcare20 minutes ago from web
2. WestWingReportThe official emphasizes "The President believes the public option is the way to go." It is a "means to an end, not the end itself." #hcr24 minutes ago from web
3. WestWingReportThe official emphasizes: "The President believes the public option is the best way to bring competition" to #healthcare25 minutes ago from web
4. WestWingReportThe official says the President tonight "Will bring clarity" to the issue of providing #healthcare "security & stability" to Americans.26 minutes ago from web
5. WestWingReportThe senior official points out that "Even the GOP, even Palin, admits there is a #healthcare crisis in the U.S."27 minutes ago from we
   
   
6. WestWingReportThe official: August wasn't as bad for the White House as people think re: #healthcare. July/August-that's when there was slippage28 minutes ago from web
   
   
7. WestWingReportRoosevelt Rm. brief: A Senior Administration Official says the President's #healthcare address will discuss "not the forest but the trees"29 minutes ago from web

Image of Gov. Sarah Palin media stock

Written Testimony Submitted to the New York State Senate Aging Committee

As per Gov. Sarah Palin's Facebook page:

Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz
Chair, New York Senate Aging Committee
Legislative Office Building
Room 307
Albany, NY 12247

September 8, 2009

RE: H.R. 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and Its Impact on Senior Citizens

Dear Senator Diaz,

Thank you for asking me to participate in the New York State Senate Aging Committee’s hearing regarding H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” You and I share a commitment to ensuring that our health care system is not “reformed” at the expense of America’s senior citizens.

I have been vocal in my opposition to Section 1233 of H.R.3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.”[1] Proponents of the bill have described this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. That is misleading. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.”[2] During those consultations, practitioners are to explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services.[3]

To understand this provision fully, it must be read in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.”[4] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As one commentator has noted, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to ‘bend the curve’ on health-care costs?”[5]

As you stated in your letter to Congressman Henry Waxman of California:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign.[6]

It is unclear whether section 1233 or a provision like it will remain part of any final health care bill. Regardless of its fate, the larger issue of rationed health care remains.

A great deal of attention was given to my use of the phrase “death panel” in discussing such rationing.[7] Despite repeated attempts by many in the media to dismiss this phrase as a “myth”, its accuracy has been vindicated. In the face of a nationwide public outcry, the Senate Finance Committee agreed to “drop end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”[8] Jim Towey, the former head of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, then called attention to what’s already occurring at the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, where “government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.”[9] Even Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, a strong supporter of President Obama, agreed that “if the government says it has to control health care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.”[10] And of course President Obama has not backed away from his support for the creation of an unelected, largely unaccountable Independent Medicare Advisory Council to help control Medicare costs; he had previously suggested that such a group should guide decisions regarding “that huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives….”[11]

The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a “death panel.” The work of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama’s health policy advisor and the brother of his chief of staff, is particularly disturbing on this score. Dr. Emanuel has written extensively on the topic of rationed health care, describing a “Complete Lives System” for allotting medical care based on “a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”[12]

He also has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”[13]

Such ideas are shocking, but they could ultimately be used by government bureacrats to help determine the treatment of our loved ones. We must ensure that human dignity remains at the center of any proposed health care reform. Real health care reform would also follow free market principles, including the encouragement of health savings accounts; would remove the barriers to purchasing health insurance across state lines; and would include tort reform so as to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending connected to the filing of frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 3200 is not the reform we are looking for.

Thank you for calling attention to this important matter. I look forward to working with you again to ensure that we keep the dignity of our senior citizens foremost in any health care discussion.

Sincerely,

Governor Sarah Palin

1 See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
2 See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
3 See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
4 See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
5 See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html
6 See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200
7 See http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434
8 See http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/54617-finance-committee-to-drop-end-of-life-provision
9 See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html
10 See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html
11 See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1
12 See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
13 See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_

Has Lieberman been on Facebook?

Foxnews.com is reporting that Sen. Joe Lieberman is calling for the brakes on the healthcare debate:

An independent senator counted on by Democrats in the health care debate showed signs of wavering Sunday when he urged President Obama to postpone many of his initiatives because of the economic downturn.

"I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. "There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms."

You go, Joe! We're very happy you see it a lot like Sarah Palin, as she noted on Facebook.

"We need to address a REAL bipartisan reform proposition that will have REAL impacts on costs and quality of patient care."

"There should be no health care reform without legal reform. There can be no true health care reform without legal reform."

Anyone remember this picture from this year's elite Alfalfa Club dinner? Hard to credit the genius who took the picture, since the press were not allowed entry, and photos are a no-no. Still, doesn't Sen. Lieberman look just tickled to death to talk to Gov. Palin?





Oh well, while we're at it...let's look once more at Sarah "Barracuda" Palin and Meg "The Staple" Stapleton making an entrance.

(Photo by DENNIS DRENNER / McClatchy-Tribune, January 31, 2009)

And I tell ya, I am sooooo glad to hear that this may be on hold. Last night, I drove through town and lo and behold, a sight came before me that had me begging my husband to turn around so I could make sure I was seeing straight. A pharmacy had been bought out by a group I had never heard of before, well, kind of...





I think I'll just stick to Walgreens.

There is no joy in Mudflats...

Dan Riehl reports that upon hearing the news that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) said the Senate will never pass a government-funded public health insurance option, and it was futile to continue to "chase that rabbit" -- President Obama...

"...was rumored to have been spotted roaming the White House in a stupor late last night searching for his faux-Greecian, paper mache columns cursing, my kingdom for a Facebook account! Woe is me, oh woe...."  

Riehl says "one fast ball over the plate from Sarah Palin" and the mighty Sox Fan has fanned. Dan goes on to paraphrase Shakespeare, but we were inspired to have our way with some lines from Thayer:

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy at Mudflats — mighty Barack has struck out.

- JP