Obama’s Dr. Death Tells Indiana to Fund Planned Parenthood

Obama’s Dr. Death Tells Indiana to Fund Planned
Parenthood

June 2nd, 2011

Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

The Obama administration today denied
Indiana’s use of its new state law that would deny millions in taxpayer dollars
to the Indiana affiliate of the nation’s largest abortion business
.

Governor
Mitch Daniels signed the law
, which would cut off anywhere from $2 million
to $3 million the Planned Parenthood abortion business receives in federal funds
via the Indiana government through Medicaid.

Daniels said that “any organization affected by this provision can resume
receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations
that perform abortions.”

However, the Obama administration has told the state it can’t implement the
new law, with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Donald Berwick denying a
request to deny funds saying the federal Medicaid law stipulates that states
can’t exclude providers based on the services they provide.
National
Journal
. “We assume this decision is not unexpected.”

Berwick also said the law makes it so states can’t prohibit access to family
planning, which is provided under federal law. His department released a memo
advising states that they can’t exclude abortion providers from receiving
taxpayer funds via Medicaid.

“Medicaid programs may not exclude qualified health care providers — whether
an individual provider, a physician group, an outpatient clinic or a hospital —
from providing services under the program because they separately provide
abortion services,” Center for Medicaid Director Cindy Mann wrote in the
memo.

Read
more

State of the Union: Mammoth Government is the New Normal

State of the Union: Mammoth Government is the New
Normal

January 27th, 2011

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

In his 2011
State of the Union Address
, Barack Obama gave himself five more years of
trillion-dollar deficit spending, a $678 billion income tax hike, a Social
Security tax increase, and the permanent extension of ObamaCare – and he gave
Republicans medical malpractice reform and a joke about a salmon.
Since his inauguration, the president has gone on a two-year spending orgy
unrivaled since the days of Lyndon Johnson or FDR. Faced with a national
backlash against towering debt, he has come up with a “compromise”: Americans
should accept the big government expansion he has forced down their throats and
move on. This follows the president’s familiar pattern of forcing through costly
and unpopular measures, then promising “discipline” after the fact.
The most reported aspect of the speech was Obama’s pledge to freeze
discretionary, non-military spending at their current levels – exempting such
major programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Homeland
Security.
At the risk of stating the obvious, which perhaps no one has yet stated,
there is no “savings.” As President Obama would say, “Let’s be
clear”: Savings is when you reduce the amount of money you are spending. The
president’s proposal is to spend the same amount of money. The only “savings”
would come from the fact that inflation
unleashed by deficit
spending
and quantitative
easing
will devalue the dollar – but this is hardly a cause for cheer.
History shows that spending freezes rarely freeze anything. The most
ambitious attempt was the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which attempted to
control deficit spending by future Congresses, but many of the same politicians
who voted for the bill decided they would not abide by its terms the next year.
Deficits continued to mount. To give a more recent example, last year Congress
approved slightly more
than half
of the whopping $11.5 billion in spending cuts Obama requested
last year.
The amount of the budget actually affected is rather modest, indeed. It would
apply to approximately
12 percent of the budget
. Alec Phillips, an analyst with Goldman Sachs,
estimates that if every Congress for the next five years holds to current
levels, it would “save” $200 billion. The New York Times noted its
higher estimate of “$250 billion in savings over 10 years would be less than 3
percent of the roughly $9 trillion in additional deficits the government is
expected to accumulate
over that time.” Obama’s plan would cost
half-a-trillion dollars more
than returning
to 2008 spending levels
, as proposed by the most moderate Republicans. Sen.
Rand Paul has proposed a half-a-trillion
dollar spending cut
this year, which includes cutting food stamps
and eliminating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National
Endowment for the Arts. Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan and Senator Jim DeMint
introduced a bill to cut
$2.5 trillion
over ten years, eliminating the aforementioned programs as
well as Amtrak and the president’s “high-speed rail” and rolling back spending
to 2006 levels. Obama’s freeze is small beer in its own terms and hypocritical
when paired with his calls for new spending.
The State of the Union made only passing reference to the greatest budgetary
crisis facing us: out of control entitlements (and most of his “solutions” are
bad ideas; see below). “Mandatory” spending alone exceeds projected federal
revenues – the amount of money the government took in all year. If we eliminated
100 percent of discretionary spending – privatized the Post Office, dismantled
the military, and fired every federal prosecutor and judge – we would still run a
deficit
.
Nonetheless, the president instructed us, “The final step to winning the
future is to make sure we aren’t buried under a mountain of debt.” As though we
are not already buried under a mountain of debt. As though this were not a
mountain of his own making. As though it were not one he wished to greatly
enlarge
.
What Obama intends to freeze is big government. His proposal to hold-the-line
comes after he jacked
up federal spending by 84 percent
. After inflating the federal government
beyond the free market’s carrying capacity, he now wishes to maintain the status
quo.
As usual Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, had the best analysis of Obama’s spending
freeze, calling it “a plan for deficit preservation.” The day
after the State of the Union speech, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
predicted the deficit for 2011 will be….
Read
more
.

Form the blog author I’m Back From a nightmare Please Read

You may not even noticed I was not blogging from July 7 to Aug 18. I had sudden infection of the Gall Bladder. Boy did that hurt. I was in the hospital for 8 days part of it on the critical list. The infection affected other organs. After 8 days in bed very ill (critical list several days I lost all of my muscle tone. They wanted to remove the gall baldder but I am over weight, have Atrial fibrlation, sleep Apnea, I have bad knees so I walk with a walker, I am 76 years old and Asthma so surgery was too riscky,at that point drain was put into the gall bladder to keep everything under control, they put in a Chatheter for urine control They sent me to a Rehab center for 5 Weeks. My infection was cured and my other organs bounced back. I went to grueling Physical therapy and occupaional therapy every day. I’m still not back to my old self yet (a long grind). The surgeon decided to just remove the drain since I had no previous gall bladder problems.

The main reason I’m writing is a warning for overweght people. I am Morbidly Obese I weighed 350 pounds when I entered the Hospital I lost 35 pounds during the process. My Obesity put my life at risk and greatly complicated the rehab. Had I been at a reasonable weight none of this would have been no problem. This frightenend me enough that I’m getting back to the ATKINS Diet ( I lost fom 400 t0 300  a couple of years ago on this ) I know that being Obesity is a fatal disease. I would encourage any of you that are overweight to re-evalute the risk. I almost died from stupidity. I spent 8 days in the hospital in excruciating pain and the rest of the time in continual pain from intense therapy and dealing with catheter problems. I was fortunate to have exceptional Doctors. The rehab center run By Volunteer Of America was outstanding I’m sill weak and will undergo more in home therapy I used up a great deal of my heath benefits and had to pay $125 per day for the last part of my care.

Dont gamble like I did It almost most cost me my life and used up  a lot of my madicare benefits.  If Obama has his way I might have been denied any care at all

Bud

Elderly and Expendable

Elderly and Expendable

Posted By Tait Trussell On June 17, 2010 @ 12:01 am In FrontPage | 6 Comments

The Obama Administration and the President’s pals in Congress have been on a deliberate course to write off America’s senior citizens as a lost cause politically. This decision is based on an internal Democrat study indicating that seniors don’t trust Obama.

The Democrats, in fact, have stiffed the country’s seniors: ranging from multi-billion dollar cuts in Medicare [1] to driving physicians to drop seniors as patients by delaying [2] and cutting federal reimbursements to such medical specialists as cardiologists and oncologists, who treat the biggest killers of seniors–heart disease and cancer.

The disdain toward seniors has included cuts in home health care [3] and payments to hospitals to new taxes on medical devices [4] on which many seniors depend. Add to this: increases in the medicare tax [5] on some working seniors and cancellation of the traditional cost-of-living boost to Social Security checks [6] for 2010 and 2011.

During the stretched-out debate over the new health law, seniors  continually heard that Medicare would be slashed by $500 billion. The final bill’s provisions included $132 billion chopped from Medicare Advantage, [7] the enhanced private version of Medicare in which 25 percent of seniors are enrolled.

Implemented over 10 years, it would chip away at their benefits and worry old folks that lower payments will force health providers to stop taking new Medicare patients.

“From all I have been able to tell so far, it’s going to hurt,” said Dalton, Ga., resident Horton Herrin, 72. The retired Georgia state employee has a private Medicare Advantage plan that is targeted for cuts under the health reform package.

Even though Obama’s 2008 election was historic in many ways his performance among seniors [8] (age 65 and over) provided one of the few low points. Exit pools showed that Obama lost to John McCain among seniors 45 to 53 percent.

According to an important 2009 analysis by Democracy Corps, founded by Democrat strategists [9] Stan Greenberg and James Carville, “The central reason that white seniors did not support Obama is that they feared the type of change he would bring. They remained skeptical about whose side Obama was on, distrusted him generally, and specifically were concerned about this level of experience. These feelings that hold white seniors back from Obama were particularly true among white senior men and seniors without a college degree….”

A recent Rasmussen Poll [10] found that 59 percent of voting seniors favor repeal of the ObamaCare law. Well aware of this skepticism of the President’s policies, Obama is certainly not depending on seniors as part of his political support base.

The latest move irking the aging was when the Senate went on Memorial Day vacation without fixing the cut in payments to doctors for Medicare patients. Seniors didn’t know if their doctor bills would be paid. As American Medical Association (AMA) President [11] James Rohack said: “The U.S. Senate turned its back on our nation’s seniors and physicians who care for them by going on vacation…without making a fix in the federal reimbursement rate for doctors who care for Medicare recipients.”

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) sent letters to doctors informing them that the agency had told Medicare contractors to delay processing Medicare claims for 10 business days. This was to give Congress time to fix the reimbursement legislation. But it left Medicare patients wondering if and when Medicare would pay for a visit to their doctor.

So, some seniors worried from Memorial Day until June 14 when CMS contractors were allowed to begin claims processing [12] since the threatened 21 percent cut to Medicare physicians’ payment rates had been set in the House, but still not determined in the Senate. The American College of Cardiology [13] CEO Jack Lewin branded the Senate’s failure to act “the worst-case scenario for patients and physicians.”

The Administration is further causing seniors to fret in naming a new administrator for Medicare and Medicaid [14] who believes fervently in rationing care. Dr. Donald Berwick, President Obama’s choice to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), is president of the Institute of Healthcare Improvement and professor at Harvard Medical School. “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open,” he has said.

Dr. Berwick made that statement when discussing duties of the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER). That body was part of the original $787 billion stimulus law. CER was created to evaluate the cost of medical treatments and their outcome.  Dr. Berwick is enamored with the British system of health care, particularly the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), which is, as TIME magazine described it: “a rationing panel for British patients.” Dr. Berwick also has been quoted as saying: “I am a romantic about the (British) National Health Service. [15] I love it.”

He also has been quoted as saying “If I could wave a magic want…health care (would be) a common good—single payer (system) a nonnegotiable starting place.” Britain’s CER model “calculates a treatment by quality-adjusted life years, refusing to pay for a treatment…” costing a certain amount that doesn’t “extend a patient’s life by at least one year.”

Of course, Obama hasn’t given up completely on any possible voters in the next presidential race. His Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius sent out a slick four-color folder in May to all Medicare recipients [16] in the U.S. saying the new health law “will provide you and your family greater savings and increased quality care…so that you, and your family, and doctor—not insurance companies—have greater control over your care.”

Republican Senate leaders called it propaganda and inaccurate. They demanded that Sebelius tell who commissioned the message and approved the money to mail it. A request to CMS for the cost of the folder and it mailing is still pending.

The Government Bailouts Must End

Morning Bell: The Government Bailouts Must End

Posted By Conn Carroll On June 14, 2010 @ 9:37 am In Education, Entitlements, Health Care |

Late Saturday night President Barack Obama sent a letter [1] to the leadership of the House and Senate urging them to approve a tax and spending bill currently being debated in the Senate that already would add $80 billion to our nation’s budget deficit. But coming off of last year’s $862 billion stimulus, President Obama is not happy with just another $80 billion in debt for this year. He also requested another $50 billion in deficit spending [2] earmarked for bailing-out state and local governments. Without this “emergency” money, the President claims thousands of government union jobs would be lost. But even among his own party, the President faces an uphill climb. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told The Washington Post [2]: “I think there is spending fatigue.” “Bailout fatigue” is more like it. And the President’s envisioned spending spree is full of both.

The Government Union Bailout [3]: $23 billion of the President’s additional $50 billion in spending would supposedly go to keep teachers in the classroom. This new spending would be in addition to the nearly $100 billion appropriated to the Department of Education by the President’s $862 billion stimulus bill, of which $34.7 billion in education funds remains unspent. Meanwhile, over the past decade student enrollment has increased only 6% while the number of teachers in the classroom has risen 15.8%. But over this same period, studies found a correlation between reduced class sizes and student achievement. More federal funding is unlikely to increase student achievement and will not provide a long-term solution to states’ budget shortfalls. Another bailout from Washington could even exacerbate states’ fiscal problems by creating disincentives for states to tackle out-of-control spending and make real education reforms.

The Medicaid Bailout [4]: $25 billion of the President’s latest spending spree is set to bail-out state Medicaid programs. This would be the fourth time this decade that Congress has bailed-out state Medicaid programs. The cycle is all too familiar. Between 1990 and 2007, Medicaid spending more than quadrupled from $69 billion to $316 billion [5]. Because of these constant bailouts, states have avoided dealing with their mismanagement of the program. More money from Washington will guarantee one thing: states will continue to spend far in excess of what they can afford, and Congress will treat the federal taxpayers like an ATM machine to cover the shortfalls.

The Obamacare Bailout [6]: The President’s signature legislative accomplishment is just barely three months old, but it already is in need of a $400 billion bailout. In an interview with Politico [7] Sunday, the President said of Obamacare: “I strongly believe that the health care bill was the right thing to do … I think it’s going to help us bend the cost curve in ways that will actually help us deal with the deficit, not add to it.” But just one day earlier during his weekly radio address, the President pleaded with Congress [8] to pass a temporary fix in Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors: “Now, I realize that simply kicking these cuts down the road another year is not a long-term solution to this problem. I’m absolutely willing to take the difficult steps necessary to lower the cost of Medicare and put our budget on a more fiscally sustainable path. But I’m not willing to do that by punishing hard-working physicians or the millions of Americans who count on Medicare. That’s just wrong. And that’s why in the short-term, Congress must act to prevent this pay cut to doctors.” So which is it? Did Obamacare “bend the cost curve” in ways that will help the deficit, or is Medicare still on a fiscally unsustainable path? The reality is that Obamacare’s deficit reduction claims were always a complete fraud, and the President’s pitch for a doc fix exposes that fact.

Last week Gallup reported [9] that “Federal government debt” was the issue that most threatened the future well-being of the United States. Our nation’s record deficits are largely driven by the record spending increases of the last decade and the last year in particular. There is a way out of this deficit nightmare: stop spending [10]. If the federal government managed to return to the per-household spending level of the Reagan administration, the budget would be balanced by 2012 without any tax hikes. Or just returning to the per-household spending levels that existed before the current recession would balance the budget by 2019. But first we must stop the bleeding: the government bailouts must end.

Quick Hits:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers