National Rifle Association claims bias news reporting


My immediate posting plans include tonight’s post on news bias, two or three posts on “Global Warming,” a few more posts on “Healthcare Nationalized,” and then a short series on gambling/Video Poker. A somewhat restricted Video Poker activity has recently been legalized in Illinois—a “painless” method to raise more taxes, I mean money, for the Illinois General Assembly to waste, I mean spend. Of course, these plans could change.

I became a member of the National Rifle Association for the first time earlier this year. I don’t own a firearm personally but it is obvious that the libertines want to violate, ignore, rewrite this portion of the Constitution—Amendment II—as they have many other portions of the Constitution. I received the following late last week.

The letter as received and put into my format:

“Fifteen years ago, you and I and the NRA (National Rifle Association—my addition) were facing a firestorm of attacks from Washington, D.C. and from the national media.

Clinton Administration officials, anti-gun members of Congress, and the gun-hating media were all demanding that we give up our Second Amendment rights—claiming that law-abiding gun owners should take the blame for violent crime.

At the end of that battle, Congress enacted a sweeping ten-year ban on hundreds of semi-automatic firearm models based only on the way they looked.

Now, our enemies are at it again. And this time, they’re playing for much bigger stakes.

Now, they’re not simply blaming us for the heinous acts of violent criminals, they’re blaming us for an all-out war—a drug war in Mexico that the Mexican government seems powerless to stop.

As you know, drug lords in Mexico have in recent months been killing each other at a record pace—competing to protect their $30-billion-a-year, across the border illegal drug trade.

Armed with fragmentation grenades, grenade launchers, full-auto machine guns and their own fleets of ships, airplanes, and private armies, the drug cartels have virtually unlimited firepower and unlimited financial resources at their disposal. And their brutal turf wars are costing thousands of lives each year.

But instead of placing the blame on billionaire drug criminals in Mexico, American politicians and the American media are using this tragedy to further their own anti-gun political agenda here in the U.S.—blaming law-abiding Americans and our Second Amendment freedoms for the chaos and bloodshed taking place south of the border.

And they’re demanding a ban on hundreds of models of firearms—including virtually EVERY semi-automatic pistol, rifle, and shotgun for sale in America today.

In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this past March, Senator Dianne Feinstein claimed that Mexico’s drug crime problem was our fault because our gun laws are not strong enough to keep guns away from Mexican criminals.

[Dianne Feinstein [D] California
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/ (Website)—my addition]

What’s more, she issued a patently false statement that ‘90%’ of the firearms used by Mexican drug cartels are coming across the border from the United States.

A few days later, the Brady Campaign released a report entitle ‘Exporting Gun Violence: How Our Weak Gun Laws Arm Criminals in Mexico and America’—a 28-page rant blaming our firearms industry, the NRA and American gun owners for Mexico’s violent crime problem.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano have all chimed in with their own bogus claims that our Second Amendment rights are somehow at the heart of Mexico’s drug wars.

CBS News Anchor Katie Couric and NBC’s Andrea Mitchell have both echoed the phony ‘90%’ figure—either without checking the facts or as a deliberate effort to mislead the American people.

ABC News—pouring gas on the fire by showing footage of fully-automatic machine guns that have been virtually banned in the U.S. for 75 years—has likewise endorsed this ‘Big Lie’ to convince the American people that licensed U.S. firearms dealers are pumping guns into the Mexican drug wars.

And CNN News—with its bizarre and ridiculous claims that Mexican drug lords are buying missile and rocket launchers from mom-and-pop gun stores here in the U.S.—has gone far out of its way to abet gun-banners in their efforts to mislead the American people on this issue. (Don’t tell me CNN News now wants to take away my right to buy missile and rocket launchers at my local “Stop Crime Now Gun Store.” If only we could!—my addition)

CNN even gave Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke a column on their ‘news’ website—where he claimed that U.S. gun sellers supply the drug cartels with ‘95 to 100 percent’ of their guns, and demanded not only gun bans, but gun show shutdowns, the release of confidential gun trace information to gun-ban lawyers, and a federal gun rationing program that could only be enforced through gun registration. (Why not ration guns? After rationing healthcare, the government will no doubt have reason to keep guns out of the hands of people who are given a pill to temper the pain rather than a life saving procedure—my addition.)

Now, this bogus claim—that our Second Amendment rights are the cause of Mexico’s drug wars—has been repeated in scores of big-city newspapers like the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, on countless T.V. and radio broadcasts across the country, and in hundreds of internet and magazine articles. (That’s the concept of the “Big Lie.” If enough “important” people and organizations repeat it often enough, many people are bound to believe it. For example, “If you like your insurance company and/or your doctor, you’ll be able to keep them.” Or, “The Republicans don’t have a healthcare alternative.” Or, “We can bend the cost curve and increase coverage, increase the number of people covered, decrease the cost, and not have any rationing.” Or, “The MURDER of unborn babies will not occur under this plan. That’s why it isn’t necessary to have an amendment that specifically bans the MURDER of unborn babies.” Or, “Trust me!” Or, “Change you can believe in!”—my addition)

But every single one of these claims is false. Instead of trying to save lives in Mexico, anti-gun extremists are trying to use these tragedies to destroy freedom in America.

The real truth is, only a small fraction of the guns being used in Mexico’s drug wars are coming from the U.S.

The Mexican government has recovered hundreds of thousands of guns, but they’ve turned over only a small fraction of those guns to the U.S. government for tracing. Clearly, the Mexican government is picking and choosing the guns it turns over for examination by American authorities!

So it’s no surprise that many of these guns originally came from the United States—including many that were sold to the Mexican army by the U.S. government!!!

In fact, in the last six years alone, more than 150,000 members of Mexico’s army have deserted their posts—many taking their firearms with them and then joining the drug cartels or selling their guns to the drug lords.

And with billions of dollars in cash at their disposal, Mexican drug kingpins don’t rely on so-called ‘straw buyers’ or illegal gun purchases in the United States.

The truth is, Mexico itself is an international arms bazaar, where guns and war materiel are trafficked almost openly by Russian crime organizations, the Chinese government, former Warsaw Pact nations, and international black market arms syndicates.

Yet, every single day, in newspapers, on the radio and especially on the T.V. networks, I still see the same bald-faced lies trotted out to the American people…

…That 90% of the guns used in Mexico’s drug wars are coming from the United States…That American gun owners are somehow responsible for Mexico’s crime problems… (Everyone knows that all world problems are directly caused by the United States and its desire for oil, natural resources, power, and control. If not for the United States, we’d have a utopian world with the governments of the world taking care of all our needs and wants. We could do anything we want and all will be perfect—my addition.) And that Mexican drug kingpins can’t and won’t be stopped unless Americans like you give up your Second Amendment rights!

Unless you and I take immediate action to fight back, and force the media and the politicians to stop lying to the American people, we could be headed for the biggest Second Amendment disaster of our lifetimes.

And we could see Congress move forward toward banning virtually every semi-automatic firearm for sale in America today, including many you may now own.

That’s the reason I’m writing to you today—to ask you to join this fight right now, before our enemies spin this issue so far out of control that we can’t stop a massive gun ban from moving through the U.S. House and Senate.

I’m asking you to get personally involved in this battle against those who are cynically manipulating Mexico’s tragedies to achieve their own political aim (“Never let a crisis [real or imagined—my addition] go to waste” according to Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Hussein Obama’s Chief of Staff—my addition.)—a ban on virtually every semi-automatic pistol, rifle and shotgun available in America today.

And I’m asking you to help me fight back against these ‘blame freedom’ and ‘blame America’ lies and distortions that are coming from Obama administration officials, gun-hating members of Congress, big city newspapers and especially the T.V. networks including ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN News. (Do people still actually watch these programs?—my addition)

That’s the reason for the four postcards enclosed with my letter—already addressed to the top corporate officials at these four networks.

The truth is, fewer and fewer Americans are watching the major news networks each and every year. And part of the reason is that the American people—especially America’s 80 million gun owners—no longer trust these networks to tell them the truth!!!

By mailing your postcards, you can send a powerful reminder to the T.V. networks—that they’re not fooling anyone with their extremist anti-Second Amendment bias, and that if they continue to LIE to the American people, they’ll continue to have fewer and fewer viewers every year!!! (But, the one’s they’ll have left will be eager to hear the lies so they won’t change the minds of anyone!—my addition)

So please take a powerful step to protect our Second Amendment rights by signing, stamping and mailing these postcards as soon as you can.”

“… A battle that pits you and me and the NRA against the Mexican government, anti-gun politicians in Congress, Obama administration officials like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder, and Big Media propagandists who have abandoned the truth in favor of their own personal political goals. (There is a reason why the sale of firearms increased dramatically after the election of Barack Hussein Obama and it has NOTHING to do with racism!—my addition)

Time and time again, you and I and the NRA have found ourselves with our backs to the wall in battles no one thought we could win.

But time and time again, members like you have rallied around our Second Amendment cause and given us the resources we needed to defeat freedom’s most powerful political enemies.

That’s why I love this great Association—because the power of the NRA isn’t in our building, it’s in the hearts and homes of millions of patriotic Americans like you who, fighting together, are nearly impossible to defeat.

You can ask any politician in Washington D.C.—friend or foe—and he or she will tell you the same thing … that NRA’s strength is our members, plain and simple.

It won’t be easy and it won’t be quick.”

“Please, mail your cards and take the first step toward exposing the lies of Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, the gun-ban lobby, anti-gun members of Congress, and especially the gun-hating T.V. networks who are working day and night to turn our fellow Americans against us.”

“Thank you very much for your participation and support in this epic battle.

I look forward to hearing from you, and I’m grateful every day for your commitment to protect and defend our Second Amendment rights.

Sincerely, Wayne La Pierre
Executive Vice President”

The addresses on the four postcards are as follows:

“Mr. David Westin
President, ABC News
77 West 66th Street
New York, New York 10023

Mr. Sean McManus
President
CBS News
524 West 57th Street
New York, New York 10019

Mr. Jim Walton
President, CNN/U.S.
Time Warner Inc.
1 CNN Center
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Mr. Steve Capus
President, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112

Each postcard has the following statement:

Dear Mr. (The name of the specific President—my addition)

You should be embarrassed by your network’s phony ‘news’ stories claiming that Mexico’s drug lords are obtaining ‘90%’ of their guns from American gun stores. The truth is, the Mexican government has recovered hundreds of thousands of guns, but it has turned over only a small fraction of those guns to the U.S. government for tracing. I know that viewership for your news programming is down significantly in the past few years, and there is little wonder why. If you want to reverse this trend you should stop repeating gun-ban propaganda and start telling America the truth.

Sincerely,”

The mass media, Barack Hussein Obama’s worldly creator and enabler!

“Healthcare Nationalized” for less costs—NOT a chance!


I was a member of a school board in Arizona for four years. How much a school board could spend was determined by a formula provided by the State of Arizona. By law, a school board could not spend above that amount for the fiscal year. If it did, the next fiscal year the school district had to include the debt as part of the next year’s budget—paying it off in one year—and had to include a similar amount in the budget to be paid to the State as a penalty for going over the budget the previous year.

For example, if the district was $200,000 over budget, the next year $400,000 was budgeted to pay off the debt and pay the penalty. Obviously, school districts tried very hard NOT to go over the budget!

When I first became a board member, one of the first items I was told, in relation to our financial situation, was that our cafeteria program, which was operated by the district, cost $200,000 more to operate than income received through the program. The school board decided to put the operation of the cafeteria program in the hands of a private company. We did so and, as a result, we had an extra $200,000 that was available for educational purposes.

Of course, our cafeteria employees were not happy with that decision. However, it was better for the school district’s purpose—to educate the children of the community. Government bodies do NOT exist to provide employment for the community.

I mention this because of information contained in tonight’s post. This post like the previous one has information obtained through a link provided by http://www.championnews.net/. Tonight’s post:

“‘Healthcare Reform’: Of course, what is about to be considered in the House is NOT reform. It is a proposal for the federal government to TAKE CONTROL of healthcare in this nation—either immediately or ultimately.”

“Progressives Want You to Believe Government Can Do Health Care For Less
By Bill Zettler
Posted: August 6, 2009

Pelosi, Reid: Twenty-two Cents a Day Profit By Insurance Companies a Rip-off.

On July 30th, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called health insurance companies ‘villains’ and ‘immoral’ and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated ‘There is no business in America that makes more money than the insurance industry.’ (Strange! In the last two years, the same Democrats were saying the same thing about the oil companies and Senator Durbin of Illinois was talking about a “windfall” profits tax as Democrats were holding committee meetings to prove that such a tax was necessary. IT DID NOT HAPPEN! What will be the next industry that makes more money than any other industry?—my addition) One day later the largest health insurer in the country, Wellpoint, reported financial results for the second quarter 2009 which showed their profit was 22 cents per day per insured person.

[Nancy Pelosi [D] (California—8th District) [Speaker of the House]
235 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
http://www.pelosi.house.gov/ (Website)

Harry Reid [D] Nevada [Majority Leader and Democratic Conference Chair]
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
http://www.reid.senate.gov/ (Website)

Richard J. Durbin [D] Illinois (Majority Whip)
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
http://www.durbin.senate.gov/ (Website)—my addition]

Of course the major media outlets ignored these complete falsehoods uttered by the two Democratic leaders. It seems whatever is said by progressives is taken at face value by their fellow travelers in the media.

If Pelosi and Reid want to improve health care maybe they should consider giving health insurers TARP money to do so. After all Citigroup which received $45 billion in TARP funding had a profit six times Wellpoint’s profit and Goldman Sachs which received $10 billion had a profit five times Wellpoint’s.

Obviously, Mr. Reid is not very good at math.

Senate Can’t Run A Lunch Counter But Think They Can Run Health Care for 300 Million People.

In June 2008, the Senate finally turned over the Senate lunchroom to the private sector. This was after the various Senate dining establishments had lost $18 million since 1993. Senate aides and even Senators themselves flocked to the privately run House dining areas where selection and prices are far better than the Senate’s. Plus the House facilities have paid more than $2 million in profits back to the government since 2003.

Senator Diane Feinstein blamed ‘noticeably sub par’ food and service for the losses. In the last 10 years fewer than 20 new items had been introduced in the Senate restaurants.

[Dianne Feinstein [D] California
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/ (Website)—my addition]

In addition all the Senate’s restaurant employees were federal employees meaning higher pay and benefits and no chance of being laid off. When the changeover to a private vendor was announced, Senate Democrats insisted no one would be fired and current workers would keep their salary and federal pension unless they chose to leave in which case they would receive a $25,000 severance payment.

Now imagine a federal health insurance bureaucracy and its 100’s of thousands of employees compared to the 100 or so in the Senate lunchroom. Better pay, better benefits and better pensions than the people they replace in the private health insurance industry. And virtually zero chance of being laid off regardless of costs or inefficiencies.

So how are Pelosi and Reed going to increase employee salaries, benefits, pensions and job security by federalizing the health insurance industry and at the same time lower the cost of health care for all Americans? (Deficit spending, increased taxes, and/or rationing!—my addition)

And like the Senate lunch counter under federal control won’t the health care service we receive under federal control be ‘noticeably sub par?’ (Oh, yes!—my addition)

This plan makes as much sense as having the Post Office take over Fed Ex and UPS.

Bill Zettler is the owner of a computer-consulting firm in Illinois and a contributor to ChampionNews.net. Click here to read more by Mr. Zettler.”

Just how trustworthy is the Barack Hussein Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress? Do you trust them with your healthcare decisions? Do you trust them with your life? “Trust me! I know what’s best for you!” says the man who supports the MURDER of unborn babies. RIGHT!?!

“Healthcare Nationalized” and the “uninsured”


“‘Healthcare Reform’: Of course, what is about to be considered in the House is NOT reform. It is a proposal for the federal government to TAKE CONTROL of healthcare in this nation—either immediately or ultimately.”

How many uninsured people are there in the United States? One of the major arguments advanced by the Democrats for the urgent need to change the present healthcare system is that there are approximately 46 million Americans who are uninsured. However, I have never heard or seen any breakdown of who those 46 million Americans are and/or why they are uninsured. The unspoken implication seems to be that 1) these Americans can’t afford healthcare insurance and 2) they, therefore, are not receiving needed medical care. Therefore, for their benefit, we must “nationalize” the entire healthcare system.

First, using 46,000,000 as the number of uninsured Americans and 300,000,000 as the total population for the United States, that 46,000,000 represents 15.3% of the United States population. That percentage is less than the percent of adult Americans who are smokers which is now given as about 20% of the adult population. Should the entire healthcare system be nationalized to cover the 15%+ of the population who are supposedly not insured? That seems a little drastic to me. Are there other options available?

Second, as I have pointed out before, anyone basically can get medical assistance by simply walking into any emergency room in the country. Generally, emergency rooms are required by law to treat anyone who enters the building. When Senator Durbin of Illinois and other talking heads for such drastic changes in our system talk about the $2,000± hidden tax now built into our system, this process is basically what they are referring to. Since emergency rooms must treat all patients, including non-paying patients, they must recoup that loss someway. They do so by charging paying patients, most of whom have insurance, more for the services provided. What Senator Durbin and others don’t tell you is obvious—this system has resulted because of Congressional law. The services are required but they are not totally reimbursed so the paying customers cover the costs. The government created the very problem that they now claim must be fixed by nationalizing healthcare. Does that make sense to you?

Finally, how accurate and how relevant is the statement that there are 46,000,000 uninsured Americans that must be helped by government interference? The following article is from a link provided by http://www.championnews.net/. The article:

“Are There 46 Million or 6 Million Needy Uninsured Americans?
By Bill Zettler
Posted: August 6, 2009

How Many ‘Needy Uninsured’ Americans Are There? Are non-citizens Americans?

As with many issues supported by the press and progressives facts on the ground do not match the rhetoric being espoused. This is exceptionally true of the so-called Health Care debate.

The standard argument heard on TV and by politicians is this: there are 46 million uninsured Americans. We hear this statement over and over from liberals and conservatives alike. It is not true.

1) The Census Bureau collects health care information each year from all people residing in the US whether citizen or not.

What these health care statistics show is about 10 million non-citizens are included in the 46 million total, meaning the real number we see everyday from the news media and the political class should be 36 million American citizens without health care.

Now you may think non-citizens deserve equal coverage but that is a different argument than whether ‘Americans’ are uninsured. And, of course, by law they do receive free coverage via emergency rooms.

2) How Many People Are Covered But Tell The Census They Are Not—the ‘Medicaid Undercount.’

And even that 36 million number is too high because there are two other groups currently counted as uninsured by the Census Bureau that in fact are not uninsured. The first of those is called the ‘Medicaid Undercount’ and represent people who tell the Census taker they are not covered when indeed they are by one state/federal program or another. This is estimated between 6-7 million so we will be conservative and use 6 million.

This gets our ‘needy uninsured’ count to 30 million.

3) How Many People Are Eligible For Government Medical Care But Have Not Signed Up?

The second group is those eligible for federal medical care programs but who have not signed up either because they are unaware of their eligibility or just haven’t done so because they have not been sick. Although there is some disagreement on the exact numbers involved, this group represents at least 9 million and perhaps as many as 15 million of the currently counted 46 million. The Kaiser Family Foundation in a 2007 study estimated 11 million in this group. To be conservative we will use 9 million.

That gets our ‘needy uninsured’ count down to 21 million.

4) What About The 15 Million Who Can Afford Insurance But Don’t Want To Pay For It?

Analyzing the census statistics reveals millions more who are counted as part of the ‘46 million uninsured’ who do not need taxpayer funded health care. This would include 7 million of the 9.1 million households with incomes of over $75,000/yr and at least 4 million of the 8.4 million who make between $50,000 and $75,000/yr.

The largest statistical group in the Census count at 18.3 million is the 18-34 year olds. They are the healthiest and least expensive to insure (less than $50/mo for catastrophic coverage) and 70% do not have children. At least 4 million of this group can afford their own insurance.

If you can afford to pay for health insurance but make a conscious decision not to do so then you should not be counted in the 46 million.

That gets our ‘needy uninsured’ count down to 6 million.

Are There Other Federal Programs That Provide Care for The Uninsured?

The Health and Human Services Dept has a program called ‘Health Center Program’ which subsidizes 1,000’s of medical clinics throughout country. They provide complete medical care including: checkups, treatment, child-care, immunizations, dental, mental health, prescriptions, pregnancy care etc. on an ability to pay basis.

Any American citizen can go to one of these clinics. In 2007 they treated 16 million including 6 million uninsured patients, which we won’t even count in our analysis.

Six million people means about 2% of Americans (6,000,000 / 300,000,000 = .02—my addition) are ‘needy uninsured’ i.e. those without affordable health care compared to 14% without auto insurance. This may be a problem but it is not a crisis. (And as I’ve said already, anyone can walk into an emergency and they basically MUST be served whether or not they have insurance—my addition)

The true crisis is the lack of honesty and leadership in the political class and the media. (And yet we are going to allow these same people to make our medical decisions for us? IS that a definition for insanity?—my addition)

The first requirement of public policy is honest and accurate information to base the policy upon. There is a serious problem with a political system that willfully and knowingly bases public policy on false information. (It’s called governmental FRAUD! Who polices the government?—my addition) Public policy based upon false assumptions (Also known as LIES!—my addition) will certainly be failed policy and that is exactly what we have with the current health care proposals in Washington.

Bill Zettler is the owner of a computer-consulting firm in Illinois and a contributor to ChampionNews.net. Click here to read more by Mr. Zettler.

(The numbering 1-4 in the above article was done by me—my addition)

Sources: (Footnotes were not provided in the article—my addition)

Census Bureau, Current Population Survey 2007

‘Demographic Snapshot of Young Adults 18-34’, Rumbaut, et al, 2007

Congressional Budget Office testimony, Orzag 2007

‘Medicaid and The Uninsured’, 2007, Kaiser Family Foundation, ‘Explanations of the Medicaid Undercount’, Univ. MN, Davern, et al, 2007

Insurance Research Council”

Just how trustworthy is the Barack Hussein Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress? Do you trust them with your healthcare decisions? Do you trust them with your life? “Trust me! I know what’s best for you!” says the man who supports the MURDER of unborn babies. RIGHT!?!

“Healthcare Nationalized” and competition


One of the arguments now being heard from the Democrats in Congress and President Barack Hussein Obama, who are pushing the nationalization of healthcare, is that the addition of government provided healthcare insurance will provide competition within the industry. My dictionary has a couple of definitions for competition and the Democrats, as far as I can tell, give no definition for their concept of competition. Therefore, I will use the following definition: “competition: 1: the act or process of competing: rivalry: as (a) the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition; Merriam-Webster, Incorporated; Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A. © 1995; page 235.

The third party, of course, is the American consumer. The other parties include all insurance companies that provide healthcare insurance and the new proposed additional party—the federal government offering an insurance alternative in “competition” with the presently existing insurance companies.

I don’t know how many different insurance companies presently offer healthcare insurance coverage throughout the United States. Presently, insurance companies are generally regulated State by State with some federal requirements. Thus, there are, at least, fifty-one regulatory sets of rules. Taking a quick look at the Peoria area “AT&T Real Yellow Pages,” there are four HMO’s and two health plans listed under the heading of health. Also, there are thirteen pages of companies listed under the heading of insurance many of which offer health insurance but certainly not all.

I would argue that presently there is competition in the field of health insurance. Any basic restricts on said competition is more because of State and federal regulations rather than because of restrictions that occur under a free market system.

I admit that insurance companies are not perfect and that there certainly are problems in the field—many of which though are government created. I’ve had both positive and negative experiences with insurance companies. After a renter’s child tried to burn down my rental property, I fought for over a year to receive what I considered a fair reimbursement. I’ve also had fair and quick payment for covered damage. And of course, at the beginning of this blog is a warning in relation to Farmers Insurance Group.

However, do any of the present problems with health insurance companies merit the injection of the federal government into the competitive mix? And, will such injection increase or decrease competition?

For our purposes though, let’s take the position that there is a need to increase competition. Will the addition of the federal government as a health insurance provider accomplish that end?

An obvious axiom of a free market system is that no company can continue to exist over a period of time without making a profit. The profit motive is a compelling component of the free market system. However, that profit motive is not a negative but a positive for the system. Profit is a motivation to offer “the most favorable terms” in order to obtain the business of the consumer.

However, by definition, the federal government is NOT motivated by the profit motive. Thus, it doesn’t matter to the government if its enterprise—health insurance in this instance—makes a profit or not. Therefore, the federal government can set its prices lower and/or provide greater coverage than any free market insurance company. This lower price and/or greater coverage, however, are not the result of efficiencies within the field. The federal government can and, obviously, does choose to use deficit spending to provide prices and/or greater coverage that are not possible by a company that can’t exist without a profit. In yesterday’s post the social security system collected 32% of the 2007 fiscal year budget. Yet, 38% of the 2007 fiscal year budget was spent on social security programs. Deficit spending theoretically can go on as long as necessary until every free market company is driven from the field. Where is the competition?

However, that is not all. If one actually examines the 1017 page bill before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the bill provides that the federal government will determine the rules for healthcare and healthcare insurance within the country. For example, some of the sections of the bill include the following:

00) SEC. 101. REQUIREMENTS REFORMING HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETPLACE.

01) SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
Subtitle B—Standards Guaranteeing Access to Affordable Coverage

02) SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.

03) SEC. 112. GUARANTEED ISSUE AND RENEWAL FOR INSURED PLANS.

04) SEC. 113. INSURANCE RATING RULES.

05) SEC. 114. NONDISCRIMINATION IN BENEFITS; PARITY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER BENEFITS.

06) SEC. 116. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.
Subtitle C—Standards Guaranteeing Access to Essential Benefits

07) SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

08) SEC. 124. PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTION OF BENEFIT STANDARDS.
Subtitle D—Additional Consumer Protections

09) SEC. 131. REQUIRING FAIR MARKETING PRACTICES BY HEALTH INSURERS.

10) SEC. 132. REQUIRING FAIR GRIEVANCE AND APPEALS MECHANISMS.

11) SEC. 136. STANDARDIZED RULES FOR COORDINATION AND SUBROGATION OF BENEFITS.

12) SEC. 141. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CHOICES COMMISSIONER.

13) SEC. 154. CONSTRUCTION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

14) SEC. 312. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE.

15) SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.

16) `SEC. 801. ELECTION OF EMPLOYER TO BE SUBJECT TO NATIONAL HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.

17) SEC. 1122. MISVALUED CODES UNDER THE PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE.

18) SEC. 1141. RENTAL AND PURCHASE OF POWER-DRIVEN WHEELCHAIRS.

19) SEC. 1147. PAYMENT FOR IMAGING SERVICES.

20) SEC. 1149. MEDPAC STUDY AND REPORT ON BONE MASS MEASUREMENT.
Subtitle C—Provisions Related to Medicare Parts A and B

21) SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS.

22) SEC. 1152. POST ACUTE CARE SERVICES PAYMENT REFORM PLAN AND BUNDLING PILOT PROGRAM.

23) `SEC. 1866D. CONVERSION OF ACUTE CARE EPISODE DEMONSTRATION TO PILOT PROGRAM AND EXPANSION TO INCLUDE POST ACUTE SERVICES.

24) SEC. 1153. HOME HEALTH PAYMENT UPDATE FOR 2010.

25) SEC. 2243. COORDINATION OF DIVERSITY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCY PROGRAMS.

I’ve always argued that if those involved in a discussion with me allowed me to define the terms used in the argument, I’d never lose an argument. The same is true for setting the rules of the game. By definition, the federal government WILL NOT be acting independently—one of the basic concepts in competition. How can any free market company realistically compete with the very entity—the federal government—that is defining and determining the rules of the competition? In the long run, THEY CAN NOT!

This so-called competition, to use a sport’s example, would be similar to the New York Yankees playing a baseball game against the University of Arizona baseball team at Yankee stadium with the umpires being on the Yankee’s team and a requirement that the game will not end until the Yankee’s are winning. It IS NOT COMPETITION! It is a guarantee that ultimately the federal government will be the ONLY provider of healthcare insurance and eventually of healthcare in the nation. The bill is stacked against the free market system and in favor of GOVERNMENT CONTROL!

As I wrote in yesterday’s post: “Yet, the federal government believes it is necessary to spend even more money to take control of and ‘save’ healthcare from the clutches of the evil free enterprise system. Given our past experiences of the federal government ‘saving’ us through previous programs, just how confident are you that the government will ‘save’ us by taking control of healthcare? But wait, President Barack Hussein Obama has promised us ‘change you can believe in.’ If you believe in MORE government control, and MORE taxes, and MORE deficits, and MORE rationing, you will receive ‘change you can believe in!’

The fiscal year 2007 budget deficit—$0,162,000,000,000 in the red. The projected deficit for the fiscal year 2009 budget after 2+ years of a Democratic controlled Congress and approximately 7 months of a Barack Hussein Obama Administration—$1,500,000,000,000 in the red! Over a TRILLION dollars more!!! CHANGE that you can BELIEVE in?!?

Do you STILL believe that NONSENSE?”

“Healthcare and the 2007 fiscal year federal budget

My last post dealt with the 1992 fiscal year budget for the federal government. Fast forward 15 years to the 2007 fiscal year budget for the federal government. The following information including the above pie chart is from page 91 of the 2008 1040 Instructions booklet published by the federal government Cat. No. 11325E. The federal government’s 2007 fiscal year runs from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007. The government reduced the amount of information provided in 2007—not discussing the different income categories and only briefly discussing four of the six outlays categories. The information as given in the booklet:

“Major Categories of Federal Income and Outlays for Fiscal Year 2007

On or before the first Monday in February of each year, the President is required by law to submit to the Congress a budget proposal for the fiscal year that begins the following October. The budget plan sets forth the President’s proposed receipts, spending, and the surplus or deficit for the Federal government. The plan includes recommendations for new legislation as well as recommendations to change, eliminate (almost never happens—my addition), and add programs (almost always happens—my addition). After receipt of the President’s proposal, the Congress reviews it and makes changes. It first passes a budget resolution setting its own targets for receipts, outlays, and the surplus or deficit. Next, individual spending and revenue bills that are consistent with the goals of the budget resolution are enacted. (Or, the President proposes and the Congress disposes. Congress is the Constitutional body that determines the amount collected and the amount spent—not the President!—my addition)

In fiscal year 2007 (which began on October 1, 2006, and ended on September 30, 2007), federal income was $2.568 trillion ($2,568,000,000,000—my addition) and outlays were $2.730 trillion ($2,730,000,000,000—my addition), leaving a deficit of $0.162 trillion ($0,162,000,000,000—my addition).

[Notice: The federal government discussed the 1992 fiscal year budget in terms of billions of dollars. Now, the discussion is in terms of trillions of dollars. In fifteen years the budget INCOME increased from $1,090,500,000,000 to $2,568,000,000,000—a 235.488% increase in income in 15 years. In fifteen years the budget OUTLAYS increased from $1,380,900,000,000 to $2,730,000,000,000—a 197.697% increase in outlays in 15 years. Thus, even though federal income increased significantly over 15 years, federal spending increased to an even greater extent in dollar terms. And yet, the yearly deficit decreased. The deficit in 1992 was $0,290,400,000,000 and “just” $0,162,000,000,000 in 2007

$2,730,000,000,000 Total Federal outlays MINUS
$2,568,000,000,000 Total Federal income

$0,162,000,000,000 in the red for fiscal year 2007—my addition.]

Footnotes for Certain Federal Outlays

1. Social security, Medicare, and other retirement: These programs provide income support for the retired and disabled and medical care for the elderly.

2. National defense, veterans, and foreign affairs: About 20% of outlays were to equip, modernize, and pay our armed forces and to fund the Global War on Terror and other national defense activities; about 3% went for veteran benefits and services; and about 1% went for international activities, including military and economic assistance to foreign countries and the maintenance of U.S. embassies abroad.

3. Physical, human, and community development: These outlays were for agriculture; natural resources; environment; transportation; aid for elementary and secondary education and direct assistance to college students; job training; deposit insurance, commerce and housing credit, and community development; and space, energy, and general science programs.

4. Social programs: About 13% of total outlays were for Medicaid, food stamps, temporary assistance for needy families, supplemental security income, and related programs; and the remaining outlays were for health research and public health programs, unemployment compensation, assisted housing, and social services.”

Some observations:

1) The 2007 fiscal year federal budget which begins in October of 2006 and runs through September of 2007 was the last federal budget that was passed by a Republican controlled Congress with a Republican President. The Democrats gained control of both Houses of Congress in the November 2006 elections. Congress writes (or rewrites) and passes the federal budget.

2) Comparing the percents of income received and income spent in 2007 as compared to 1992 leads to the following on the income side of the budget:

A) individual income taxes:
individual income taxes in 1992 was 35%
individual income taxes in 2007 was 43%
The % of individual income tax collected increased significantly by 8%.

B) social security, Medicare, unemployment, and others
social security, ect. in 1992 was 30%
social security, ect. in 2007 was 32%
The % of social security and others collected increased by 2%.

C) corporation income taxes
corporation taxes in 1992 was 07%
corporation taxes in 2007 was 13%
The % of corporation taxes collected increased significantly by 6%.

D) excise and other taxes
excise and other taxes in 1992 was 7%
excise and other taxes in 2007 was 6%
The % of excise and other taxes collected decreased by 1%.

E) Money borrowed to cover budget costs
Money borrowed in 1992 was 21%
Money borrowed in 2007 was 06%
The % of money borrowed significantly decreased by 15%.

3) Comparing the percents of income received and income spent in 2007 as compared to 1992 leads to the following on the outlays side of the budget:

A) Social security, Medicare, and other retirement
The % of social security and others in 1992 was 33%
The % of social security and others in 2007 was 38%
The % of social security and others outlays increased by 5%. Thus, not only did the total amount of expense for social security and others increase significantly but the % spent in relation to amount collected also increased. The amount collected increased by only 2% while the amount spent increased by a larger 5%. The deficit between the amount collected and the amount spent increased in both dollar amount and also by a larger percentage difference.

B) National Defense, veterans, and foreign affairs
The % of national defense and others in 1992 was 24%
The % of national defense and others in 2007 was 23%
The % of national defense and others outlays decreased by 1%. Thus, even with the War on Terror and two conflicts being fought, the % of the federal budget spent on national defense actually deceased from fifteen years previously. How did that happen?

C) Social programs
The % of social programs in 1992 was 17%
The % of social programs in 2007 was 19%
The % of social programs outlays increased by 2%. Thus, the % spent on social security, Medicare, and other retirement and social programs now account for 57% of the total national budget—increasing by 7% from 1992 when it was 50%.

D) Net interest
The % of net interest in 1992 was 14%
The % of net interest in 2007 was 09%
The % of net interest outlays decreased by 5%. Thus, although the amount of net interest spent has increased in dollar terms, the % has decreased as a total amount of the federal budget. We have increased our spending significantly in the area of social security and others and social programs.

E) Physical, human, and community development
The % of P, H, & CD in 1992 was 10%
The % of P, H, & CD in 2007 was 09%
The % of P, H, & CD outlays decreased by 1%. The change seems not to be very significant as a percentage change.

F) Law enforcement and general government
The % of law enforcement & government in 1992 was 02%
The % of law enforcement & government in 2007 was 02%
The % of law enforcement and general government outlays remained the same.

In summery, both national defense, veterans, and foreign affairs spending and physical, human and community development spending decreased by 1% over the last fifteen years as a % of the total federal budget. Spending on net interest decreased by 5%. Law enforcement and general government stayed the same. Social security, Medicare, and other retirement and social programs increased by 7%.

Yet, the federal government believes it is necessary to spend even more money to take control of and “save” healthcare from the clutches of the evil free enterprise system. Given our past experiences of the federal government “saving” us through previous programs, just how confident are you that the government will “save” us by taking control of healthcare? But wait, President Barack Hussein Obama has promised us “change you can believe in.” If you believe in MORE government control and MORE taxes and MORE deficits, and MORE rationing, you will receive “change you can believe in!”

The fiscal year 2007 budget deficit—$0,162,000,000,000 in the red. The projected deficit for the fiscal year 2009 budget after 2+ years of a Democratic controlled Congress and approximately 7 months of a Barack Hussein Obama Administration—$1,500,000,000,000 in the red! Over a TRILLION dollars more!!! CHANGE that you can BELIEVE in?!?

Do you STILL believe that NONSENSE?

/

“Healthcare and the 1992 fiscal year federal budget


As a tax consultant and a confirmed “packrat,” I keep all of the tax booklets I use over the years. The following information including the above pie chart is from the back page of the 1993 1040 Forms and Instructions booklet published by the federal government as Package 1040-5 Cat. No. 12117M. The federal government’s 1992 fiscal year runs from October 1, 1991 through September 30, 1992.

“Major Categories of Federal Income and Outlays for Fiscal Year 1992

On or before the first Monday in February of each year, the President is required by law to submit to the Congress a budget proposal for the fiscal year that begins the following October. The budget plan sets forth the President’s proposed receipts, spending, and the deficit for the Federal government. The plan includes recommendations to change, eliminate (almost never happens—my addition), and add programs (almost always happens—my addition). After receipt of the President’s proposal, the Congress reviews the proposal and makes changes. It first passes a budget resolution setting its own targets for receipts, outlays, and the deficit. Individual spending and revenue bills are then enacted consistent with the goals of the budget resolution (Or, the President proposes and the Congress disposes. Congress is the Constitutional body that determines the amount collected and the amount spent—not the President!—my addition)

In fiscal year 1992 (which began on October 1, 1991, and ended on September 30, 1992), Federal income was $1,090.5 billion ($1,090,500,000,000—my addition) and outlays were $1,380.9 billion ($1,380,900,000,000—my addition), leaving a deficit of $290.4 billion ($290,400,000,000—my addition).

Federal Income

Income and social insurance taxes are, by far, the largest source of receipts. In 1992, individuals paid $476 billion in income taxes ($476,000,000,000—my addition) and corporations paid $100.3 billion ($100,300,000,000—my addition). Social security and other insurance and retirement contributions were $413.7 billion ($413,700,000,000—my addition). Excise taxes were $46.6 billion ($46,600,000,000—my addition). The remaining $55.0 billion ($55,000,000,000—my addition) of receipts were from Federal Reserve deposits, customs duties, estate and gift taxes, and other miscellaneous receipts. (These figures do not total $1,090.5 billion ($1,090,500,000,000—my addition) due to rounding.)

[So, in descending order the amount of money collected was:

1) $476,000,000,000 individual income taxes
2) $413,700,000,000 social security and others
3) $100,300,000,000 corporation taxes
4) $055,000,000,000 other
5) $046,600,000,000 excise taxes—my addition]

Federal Outlays

About 79% of total outlays were financed by tax receipts and the remaining 21% were financed by borrowing. Government receipts and borrowing finance a wide range of public services. The following is the breakdown of total outlays for fiscal year 1992:

1. Social security, Medicare, and other retirement: $469.7 billion ($469,700,000,000—my addition). These programs were 33% of total outlays. These programs provide income support for the retired and disabled and medical care for the elderly.

(So,

$469,700,000,000 social security, etc. outlays MINUS
$413,700,000,000 social security, etc. income

$056,000,000,000 in the red for fiscal year 1992 when comparing income and outlays for social security, etc.—my addition)

2. National defense, veterans, and foreign affairs: $348.6 billion ($348,600,000,000—my addition). About 21% of outlays were to equip, modernize, and pay our armed forces and to fund other national defense activities; about 2% went for veteran benefits and services; and about 1% went for activities, including military and economic assistance to foreign countries and the maintenance of United States embassies abroad.

3. Net interest: $199.4 billion ($199,400,000,000—my addition). About 14% of total outlays were for net interest payments on the public debt.

4. Physical, human, and community development: $139.5 billion ($139,500,000,000—my addition). About 10% of total outlays were for agriculture, natural resources and environmental programs; transportation programs; aid for elementary and secondary education and direct assistance to college students; job training programs; deposit insurance, commerce and housing credit, and community development; and space, energy, and general science programs.

5. Social programs: $235.6 billion ($235,600,000,000—my addition). The Federal government spent 10% of total outlays to fund Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, supplemental security income, and related programs. About 7% was spent for health research and public health programs, unemployment compensation, assisted housing and social services.

6. Law enforcement and general government: $27.4 billion ($027,400,000,000—my addition). About 2% of total outlays were for judicial activities. Federal law enforcement, and prisons; and to provide for the general costs of the federal government, including the collection of taxes and legislative activities.

These pie charts show the relative sizes of the major categories of Federal income and outlays for fiscal year 1992.”

[So, in descending order the amount of money spent was:

1) $469,700,000,000 Social security, Medicare, etc.
2) $348,600,000,000 National defense, veterans, etc.
3) $235,600,000,000 Social programs
4) $199,400,000,000 Net interest
5) $139,500,000,000 Physical, human, and etc.
6) $027,400,000,000 Law enforcement and general government —my addition]

At the top of the list, Social security, Medicare, and other retirement expenses! Third on the list, social programs including Medicaid and other assistance programs generally going directly to selected families usually through State government. Much of this expense is directed toward the so-called “War on Poverty” started in the 1960’s. We are still “fighting” that “war” today with seemingly little success.

So, in the 1992 fiscal year:

$1,380,900,000,000 Total Federal outlays MINUS
$1,090,500,000,000 Total Federal income

$0,290,400,000,000 in the red for fiscal year 1992

However, not to worry. That deficit was for the 1992 fiscal year with a total outlay of $1,380,900,000,000. Already for this year’s deficit we have reached $1,270,000,000,000 which is not quite as large as the entire budget for 1992. However, not to worry. The entire deficit for all of this year is projected to be at least $1,500,000,000,000 which, if reached, will be greater than the entire federal budget for 1992. However, not to worry. We have not yet begun to over spend for the newly proposed nationalized healthcare program championed by the Barack Hussein Obama Administration.

Does anyone in the government actually care about deficit spending?

“Healthcare Nationalized” and the MURDER vote revisited


On SRN (radio) News this morning—Saturday, August 22, 2009—it was stated that President Barack Hussein Obama declared that the MURDER of unborn babies is NOT MANDATED by the “Healthcare Reform” bills before Congress. This, of course, is true—it is not mandated. I’ve not seen anything written by anyone that says it is mandated. However, it doesn’t have to be mandated to occur and President Barack Hussein Obama conveniently does NOT mention that undeniable FACT!!!

On my post of August 17, 2009 entitled “Healthcare and MURDER—the Waxman revote on the Pitts Amendment,” I posted the proposed amendment to specifically PREVENT the MURDER of unborn babies that was defeated by a 29-30 vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I noted that the amendment originally passed and then had a revote where all 30 of the no votes were from Democrats. At the conclusion of the post, I wrote the following:

“The argument will be heard that nothing in the bill specifically allows the MURDER of unborn babies. This is true. It is also TRUE that, if it is not intended to occur, then there is no reason to VOTE AGAINST the Pitts Amendment. The vote against the Pitts Amendment is an admission that the Democrats fully expect the MURDER of unborn babies to be allowed after the passage of the bill. After all, major supporters and campaign workers for Democrats ARE people and organizations that promote, benefit from, and profit from the MURDER of unborn babies. Rest assured, if the Pitts Amendment or something similar is not added to the bill, the MURDER of unborn babies WILL be ALLOWED! It is pay back to their MURDERING supporters!

Barack Hussein Obama supports the MURDER of unborn babies. The Democratic Party, in general, supports the MURDER of unborn babies. And an out-of-control Supreme Court has immorally “legalized” the MURDER of unborn babies. If the bill is passed, MURDER WILL happen if NOT SPECIFICALLY PREVENTED!!!”

I also received a comment about that post concerning one of the Republican Congressmen who voted to prevent the MURDER of unborn babies. I am posting that comment with my brief reply.

The Comment:

“MickeyWhite said...

Marsha Blackburn Loves the United Nations, and the U.N. Hates Guns! Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman. She is no conservative. See her unconstitutional votes at: http://bluecollarrepublican.com/blog/?p=614

Mickey

Supplemental Appropriations:

The Fiscal 2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 2346) would provide an additional $96.7 billion in ‘emergency’ funding for the current fiscal year over and above the regular appropriations. Included in the funds for H.R. 2346 is $84.5 billion for the ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, $10 billion for foreign aid programs, and $2 billion for flu pandemic preparation. The House passed H.R. 2346 on May 14, 2009, by a vote of 368-60 (Roll Call 265).

The spending is over and above what the federal government had already budgeted, the United States never declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the spending (e.g., foreign aid) is unconstitutional. Marsha Black voted FOR this bill. (Source: The New American—July 20, 2009)

4:02 PM”

My response:

Marsha Blackburn [R] (Tennessee—4th District)
217 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
http://www.blackburn.house.gov/ (Website)

I posted her name as a Republican who voted for the amendment to prevent the MURDER of unborn babies. I don’t know her positions on major issues other than this particular vote.

If she is indeed a RINO—Republican in name only—the place to defeat her is in the primary by running a good, conservative candidate and then WORKING throughout the district to get that candidate elected. In this process it is important to know her votes on the important issues in committee, on amendments on the floor, and the final floor vote both originally and any needed vote on a bill that has been rewritten because of differences between the original House and Senate bills. That takes work and persistence.

There are more conservatives in this country than there are liberals. Most of the Democratic members of Congress are more liberal than their constituency. One of the problems is that we are being outworked by a small groups of libertines—homosexuals and baby MURDERERS among them—who are passionate and persistent about their policy positions. Far too many voters, although they oppose the policies, are NOT willing to work for their beliefs and are NOT nearly as passionate for them.

To take back the nation, we must do the same—passionately working hard for our positions—and NOT give up when the going gets tough which it will. We, as a nation, also need to return to the concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY instead of the current craze for entitlement and the concept that “I’m not responsible; I’m not to blame.” We need to return to Biblical morality and values. If we don’t, it doesn’t matter what we do to stop such things as nationalized healthcare and cap and trade. These are symptoms of our sickness—NOT the sick. It can be done but we need to get to work now because at some point it WILL be too late.

That was my sermon for the day. Tonight’s post:

Tonight, I am posting a short article about that revote. I am doing so, in part, because a link is provided about the Democratic amendment that, the claim was, was the Democratic proposal to prevent the MURDER of unborn babies. The article as put into my format is from http://www.lifenews.com/. The article:

“Washington, DC (LifeNews.com)—The House committee that is considering the main House health care restructuring plan defeated a pro-life amendment Thursday night that would stop any mandate for abortion coverage. The vote saw Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon change his vote, allowing for its defeat.

The panel’s vote and re-vote came along with a vote for a phony measure that abortion advocates said would stop abortion funding in the health care bill, but would actually do otherwise.

Reps. Joe Pitts, a Pennsylvania republican, and Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, combined for a bipartisan amendment to prevent mandated abortion coverage in the essential benefits package.

The amendment said abortions could not be a required basic benefit of any government or private plan.

The House Energy and Commerce committee initially approved the amendment on a 31-27 vote.

However, Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who is the committee chairman, switched his vote from nay to yea at the last minute, so he could call for a re-vote later in the night.

A few hours later, when Waxman brought up the amendment for reconsideration, it failed by a vote of 30-29 with Waxman switching sides along with Gordon, who has a pro-abortion voting record on other issues. Also, a Democrat who hadn’t voted the first time, Rep. Zack Space of Ohio, voted against the amendment under reconsideration.

Rep. Joe Barton, a pro-life Texas Republican who is a member of the committee, talked about the vote switch and the defeat of the pro-life Pitts-Stupak amendment.

‘The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s majority Democrats managed to have it all ways on the abortion issue Thursday night, at first opting to make abortions available under the government’s ‘public-option’ health plan, then deciding to disallow them as a basic benefit, and finally reversing that decision just before midnight,’ he said.

Barton said the Pitts-Stupak amendment was ‘designed to prohibit the kinds of abortion services that traditionally have been excluded from government sponsorship.’

The congressman also commented on the Capps amendment, that pro-life groups are condemning.

[Lois Capps [D] (California—23rd District)
1110 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
www.house.gov/capps (Website)—my addition]

He said her proposal ‘created a murky accounting mechanism that effectively permitted the government’s ‘public option’ insurance plan to contain coverage for elective abortions.’

‘Capps argued that it continued traditional bans on federal funding of abortion services, but [Stupak] refuted that stand, saying the proposal abrogated long-standing ban,’ he said.

Making abortion services not only available, but ‘cheaper and more affordable? That’s not a principle I can endorse,’ Stupak said of the Capps amendment.”

The FACT is that the MURDER of unborn babies does NOT have to be mandated to have it occur. To prevent the MURDER of unborn babies, a provision of the bill MUST specifically MANDATE that the MURDER of unborn babies WILL NOT OCCUR!!!

“Healthcare Nationalized” and three videos


I received the following Friday morning and am posting it tonight, rather than my planned post, to give you an opportunity to view and vote on the following videos. I have not seen the videos. The e-mail received and put into my format:

“Dear Friend,

President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are working hard to garner support for a huge restructuring of our entire health care delivery system, but experience shows that more government control is not the answer.

That’s why Let Freedom Ring has created three videos that highlight the problems with government-run health care and we want to know which video you think is the best. These videos show what a government-run restaurant would be like, the importance of testing this health care plan before it becomes the law of the land, and how politicized health care will affect Grandma and Grandpa. You can watch all three of our health care videos at http://notsosure.org.

After you watch them, vote for your favorite. After all of the votes are tallied, we’ll send the video with the most votes to the White House. The deadline for this contest is September 8, 2009—the day members of Congress and the U.S. Senate come back from their August recess. Please take a few minutes today to watch these videos and vote for your favorite.

Sincerely,
Colin Hanna
Let Freedom Ring USA

P.S. The deadline for this video contest is September 8. I hope you will take some time today to watch the videos and vote for your favorite. NotSoSure.org is a project of Let Freedom Ring USA that focuses on voters and interested citizens who were drawn to Candidate Obama’s messages of ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’ are now beginning to have doubts about the policies proposed by President Obama.”

“Healthcare Nationalized and “the complete lives system”—WHAT IS YOUR AGE!


A very RELEVANT source: “Earlier this year, Dr. Emanuel wrote an article that advocated what he called ‘the complete lives system’ as a method for rationing health care. You can read it here.”

The chart above is from an article in “Lancet” entitled “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions.” NOTE: One of the three authors is Ezekiel J. Emanuel who according to my last two posts is an advisor to President Barack Hussein Obama. And according to my last post is a brother to his Chief of Staff—Rahm Emanuel. The article contains spellings that are “English” rather than “American.” I did not change the spellings. The article contains footnotes throughout. I included the footnotes in the body of the article but do not provide the actual source material information so footnoted.

The article promotes what they identify as “the complete lives system”—“We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.” (I wonder what the ages of the authors are and will they submit to their own recommendations!—my addition) I quote some of the material but certainly not all. The article, itself in full, is accessible through the links given in the two previous posts. Note two things:

1) the core argument is that medical services out of necessity MUST be rationed although the term is never used, that I could find.

2) If Doctor Emanuel is an active advisor of President Barrack Hussein Obama, he no doubt is pushing the adoption of this proposal in ANY approved “Nationalized Healthcare” system—in practice even if not written into the law.

By the article’s own statement, “the complete lives system” is what the authors recommend.

“Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions

Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, Ezekiel J Emanuel

Department of Bioethics, The Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (G. Persad BS, A. Wertheimer PhD, E. J. Emanuel MD) Correspondence to: Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Department of Bioethics, The Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 20892-1156, USA, eemanuel@nih.gov

Source:

Lancet 2009; 373: (pages—my addition) 423–31
http://www.thelancet.com/ Vol 373 January 31, 2009

Section of Lancet: Department of Ethics

Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

In health care, as elsewhere, scarcity is the mother of allocation.1 Although the extent is debated,2,3 the scarcity of many specific interventions—including beds in intensive care units,4 organs, and vaccines during pandemic influenza5—is widely acknowledged. For some interventions, demand exceeds supply. For others, an increased supply would necessitate redirection of important resources, and allocation decisions would still be necessary.6 (How about that! Here they actually consider supply and demand principles. I wonder why the Congress and the President are ignoring the same supply and demand principles as they advocate more coverage, more complete coverage, and at an “affordable” cost. Could it be because those three occurrences are impossible at the same time under supply and demand principles without RATIONING?—my addition)

Allocation of scarce medical interventions is a perennial challenge. During the 1940s, an expert committee allocated—without public input—then-novel penicillin to American soldiers before civilians, using expected efficacy and speed of return to duty as criteria.7 During the 1960s, committees in Seattle allocated scarce dialysis machines using prognosis, current health, social worth, and dependants as criteria.7 How can scarce medical interventions be allocated justly? This paper identifies and evaluates eight simple principles that have been suggested.8–12 Although some are better than others, no single principle allocates interventions justly. Rather, morally relevant simple principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three existing systems and then recommend a new one: the complete lives system.

Simple allocation principles

Eight simple ethical principles for allocation can be classified into four categories, according to their core ethical values: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness (table 1). We do not regard ability to pay as a plausible option for the scarce life-saving interventions we discuss. (Do you think that all those rich entertainers and other rich individuals who supported Barack Hussein Obama realize this? Of course, they can always go to Europe!—my addition)

Some people wrongly suggest that allocation can be based purely on scientific or clinical facts, often using the term ‘medical need’.13,14 There are no value-free medical criteria for allocation.15,16 Although biomedical facts determine a person’s post-transplant prognosis or the dose of vaccine that would confer immunity, responding to these facts requires ethical, value-based judgments.

When evaluating principles, we need to distinguish between those that are insufficient and those that are flawed. Insufficient principles ignore some morally relevant considerations. Conversely, flawed principles recognise morally irrelevant considerations: inherently flawed principles necessarily recognise irrelevant
considerations, whereas practically flawed principles allow irrelevant considerations to affect allocation. Principles that are individually insufficient could form part of an acceptable multiprinciple system, whereas systems that include flawed principles are untenable because they will always recognise irrelevant considerations.” (page 423)

“The complete lives system

Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles (table 2): youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value.5 As such, it prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of distributive justice: ‘individual human lives, rather than individual experiences, [are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate.’1,75,76 Although there are important differences between these thinkers, they share a core commitment to consider entire lives rather than events or episodes, which is also the defining feature of the complete lives system. (Where would Congressmen fall under this system? Is this why Congress refuses to become part of the proposed system?—my addition)

Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants (figure). Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. (Don’t be an infant or not yet born!—my addition) Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfilment requires a complete life.77 As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, ‘It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does’;78 this argument is supported by empirical surveys.41,79 Importantly, the prioritisation of adolescents and young adults considers the social and personal investment that people are morally entitled to have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the results of an unjust status quo. Consequently, poor adolescents should be treated the same as wealthy ones, even though they may have received less investment owing to social injustice. (Except they won’t be, at least in some cases, because of prognosis!—my addition)

The complete lives system also considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. (Who decides this? A GOVERNMENT bureaucrat!—my addition) Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses.42 (The lame, the sick, the “deformed,” the “mentally disabled?”—my addition) When the worst-off can benefit only slightly (Who decides this?—my addition) while better-off people could benefit greatly (Who decides this?—my addition), allocating to the better-off is often justifiable.1,30 (Often?—my addition) Some small benefits, such as a few weeks of life, might also be intrinsically insignificant when compared with large benefits.8 (Is this not playing GOD? When you bring your young child into an emergency room and nurses and doctors start discussing the child’s “complete lives system” evaluation, are you going to accept their conclusions—we can’t operate because his/her “complete lives system” evaluation is too LOW! Are you not yet scared by the present proposal before Congress?—my addition)

Saving the most lives is also included in this system because enabling more people to live complete lives is better than enabling fewer.8,44 In a public health emergency, instrumental value could also be included to enable more people to live complete lives. Lotteries could be used when making choices between roughly equal recipients (Trust your health fate to chance rather than to a bureaucrat!—my addition), and also potentially to ensure that no individual—irrespective of age or prognosis—is seen as beyond saving.34,80 (Contradictory!—my addition) Thus, the complete lives system is complete in another way: it incorporates each morally relevant simple principle. (These authors concept of ethics and morality seem to be different than mine. For example, should a convicted murderer be ranked above someone else because he is 25 years old and the other person is 75 years old? Do you think that they support or oppose the MURDER of unborn babies? How about the MURDER of unborn, “imperfect” babies such as those with Down syndrome?—my addition)

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated (figure).78 (Notice, the curve starts very low for the very youngest, and then drops sharply between 50 and 60 years of age! And they don’t even show the curve past about 75 years old!—my addition) It therefore superficially resembles….” (page 428)

Are you scared NOW!

Trust our government—WHY?


“August 12, 2009, Vol. 4, No. 32

Trust the Government
By Newt Gingrich

How much is one additional year of your life worth?

Or one more year of life for your father or your wife? For your child?

In Great Britain, the government has settled on a number: $45,000.

That’s how much a government commission with the Orwellian acronym NICE has decided British government-run health care will pay for one additional year of life for a British subject.

Think it could never happen here? Then you need to pay closer attention to what Washington is planning for your health care.

British Government Bureaucrats Literally Decide If your Life Is Worth Living

The British single-payer bureaucrats arrived at the price of an additional year of life in the same way they decide how much health care all British people will get, through a formula called ‘quality-adjusted life years.’

That means that if you’re sick in Great Britain, government bureaucrats literally decide if your life is worth living and, if so, how much longer and at what cost.

If it’s more than $45,000, you’re out of luck

A Well-Connected White House Advocate for Allocating Health Care Based on Perceived Societal Worth

In the highest levels of the Obama Administration there is a theory of how to ration health care that is troublingly reminiscent of the British system of ‘quality-adjusted life years.’

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is a key health care advisor to President Obama and the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Earlier this year, Dr. Emanuel wrote an article that advocated what he called ‘the complete lives system’ as a method for rationing health care. You can read it here.

The system advocated by Dr. Emanuel would allocate health care based on the government’s perception of the societal worth of the patients. Accordingly, the very young and the very old would receive less care since the former have received less societal investment and the latter have less left to contribute.

‘Forestall[ing] the Concern that Disproportionate Amounts of Resources Will be Directed to Young People with Poor Prognosis’

‘The Complete Lives System’ would also consider the prognosis of the individual.

Quoting Dr. Emanuel: ‘A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognosis.’

When fully implemented, Dr. Emanuel’s system, in his words, ‘produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.’ (I plan to post the curve with my next post—my addition.)

‘Chances that are attenuated’ is a nice way of saying the young and the old are considered less worthy of health care and, under this system, will get less.

Once Government Becomes the Provider of Health Care, Personal Decisions Become Public Decisions

The point is not that a health care rationing system like the one favored by Dr. Emmanuel will be implemented in the United States tomorrow.

The point is that, as in the British system, once government becomes the single payer or even the main payer of health care, what were once intensely personal decisions become public decisions. And as costs rise, government will look for ways to contain them.

The inevitable result of this pressure to control costs will be rationing, whether it occurs during this administration or the next. At some point, the government will be forced to deny care to those who don’t meet the latest ‘quality-adjusted life years’ cost-benefit analysis.

So the decision on what treatment to pursue that once would have been made by you and your doctor is now made for you by a bureaucrat using a formula—a formula to literally determine if your life is worth saving.

The Camel’s Nose Under the Tent of Health Care Rationing

Societies don’t arrive at this point overnight.

British health care was nationalized soon after World War II, but NICE, the health care rationing agency, wasn’t created until the late 1990s as a way to control costs.
Today NICE routinely denies Britons life-prolonging drugs that are deemed not ‘cost effective’—drugs that are widely prescribed in America to treat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and other serious conditions.

The result, studies show, is that Great Britain’s cancer survival rates are among the worst in Europe and lag behind the United States.

In America, Rationing Begins with Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER)

In our country, the road to dehumanizing, bureaucratic health care rationing begins with something called comparative effectiveness research (CER). It sounds completely innocent. In practice, CER means comparing different treatments for diseases to see which works best. And what doctor or patient would object to that, right?

[From H. R. 3200 page 501 and beyond:

“TITLE IV—QUALITY

Subtitle A—Comparative Effectiveness Research

SEC. 1401. COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH.

(a) IN GENERAL.—title XI of the Social Security Act is amended (NOTICE: This is an amendment to the Social Security Act—my addition.) by adding at the end the following new part:

“PART D—COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH

“COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH

“SEC. 1181. (a) CENTER FOR COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH ESTABLISHED.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the ‘Center’) to conduct, support, and synthesize research (including research conducted or supported under section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically. (AND managed is a key concept here—my addition.)

“(2) DUTIES.—The Center shall—

“(A) conduct, support, and synthesize research relevant to the comparative effectiveness of the full spectrum of health care items, services and systems, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, medical and surgical procedures, and other medical interventions;

“(B) conduct and support systematic reviews of clinical research, including original research conducted subsequent to the date of the enactment of this section;

“(C) continuously develop rigorous scientific methodologies for conducting comparative effectiveness studies, and use such methodologies appropriately;

“(D) submit to the Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission, the Secretary, and
Congress appropriate relevant reports described in subsection (d)(2); and

“(E) encourage, as appropriate, the development and use of clinical registries and the development of clinical effectiveness research data networks from electronic health records, post marketing drug and medical device surveillance efforts, and other forms of electronic health data.

“(3) POWERS.—

“(A) OBTAINING OFFICIAL DATA.—The Center may secure directly from any department or agency of the United States information necessary to enable it to carry out this section. Upon request of the Center, the head of that department or agency shall furnish that information to the Center on an agreed upon schedule. (How many new bureaucrats will be necessary to obtain this data?—my addition)

“(B) DATA COLLECTION.—In order to carry out its functions, the Center shall—

“(i) utilize existing information, both published and unpublished, where possible, collected and assessed either by its own staff or under other arrangements made in accordance with this section,

“(ii) carry out, or award grants or contracts for, original research and experimentation, where existing information is inadequate, and

“(iii) adopt procedures allowing any interested party to submit information for the use by the Center and Commission under subsection (b) in making reports and recommendations.

“(C) ACCESS OF GAO TO INFORMATION.—The Comptroller General shall have unrestricted access to all deliberations, records, and nonproprietary data of the Center and Commission under subsection (b), immediately upon request.

“(D) PERIODIC AUDIT.—The Center and Commission under subsection (b) shall be subject to periodic audit by the Comptroller General.

“(b) OVERSIGHT BY COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH COMMISSION.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish an independent Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (in this section referred to as the ‘Commission’) to oversee and evaluate the activities carried out by the Center under subsection (a), subject to the authority of the Secretary, to ensure such activities result in highly credible research and information resulting from such research.

“(2) DUTIES.—The Commission shall—

“(A) determine national priorities (Too bad the government doesn’t establish priorities in their yearly budget!—my addition) for research described in subsection (a) and in making such determinations consult with a broad array of public and private stakeholders, including patients and health care providers and payers;

“(B) monitor the appropriateness of use of the CERTF described in subsection (g) with respect to the timely production of comparative effectiveness research determined to be a national priority under subparagraph (A);

“(C) identify highly credible research methods and standards of evidence for such research to be considered by the Center;

“(D) review the methodologies developed by the center under subsection (a)(2)(C);

“(E) not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this section, enter into an arrangement under which the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences shall conduct an evaluation and report on standards of evidence for such research;

“(F) support forums to increase stakeholder awareness and permit stakeholder feedback on the efforts of the Center to advance methods and standards that promote highly credible research;

“(G) make recommendations for policies that would allow for public access of data produced under this section, in accordance with appropriate privacy and proprietary practices, while ensuring that the information produced through such data is timely and credible;

“(H) appoint a clinical perspective advisory panel for each research priority determined under subparagraph (A), which shall consult with patients and advise the Center on research questions, methods, and evidence gaps in terms of clinical outcomes for the specific research inquiry to be examined with respect to such priority to ensure that the information produced from such research is clinically relevant to decisions made by clinicians and patients at the point of care;

“(I) make recommendations for the priority for periodic reviews of previous comparative effectiveness research and studies conducted by the Center under subsection (a);

“(J) routinely review processes of the Center with respect to such research to confirm that the information produced by such research is objective, credible, consistent with standards of evidence established under this section, and developed through a transparent process that includes consultations with appropriate stakeholders; and

“(K) make recommendations to the center for the broad dissemination of the findings of research conducted and supported under this section that enables clinicians, patients, consumers, and payers to make more informed health care decisions that improve quality and value.

“(3) COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The members of the ….”

The real question on this “Comparative Effectiveness Research” section is this: Do you TRUST the government? I do NOT. I will never trust a government which condones MURDERING unborn babies as a right, which believes that homosexual behavior should receive special protections, and which tries to remove GOD from the public arena. I also don’t TRUST a President who, within one month of office, issues an executive order allowing the MURDER of unborn babies around the world and calls protests against those MURDERS “stale and tired arguments.” Unless, of course, GOD is “stale and tired.” HE IS NOT!—my addition]

The problem is that, in the context of a government-run health care system, comparative effectiveness research becomes a way to find a cheaper, one-size-fits-all approach to medicine that will limit health care choices for patients.

But don’t just take my word for it. Congressional Democrats included $1.1 billion in the Stimulus Bill for CER. Report language explaining the bill noted that the treatments found to be ‘more expensive’ as result of the research ‘will no longer be prescribed’ and that ‘guidelines’ should be developed to manage doctors.

Congressional Democrats also killed several amendments to the current health care bill that would have prevented CER from being used to ration care. (To learn more about the common-sense amendments to the bill that have been blocked, click here).

The Government Has Determined You Must Take the Blue Pill

President Obama innocuously described the intended result of comparative effectiveness research like this: ‘If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that’s going to make you well?’

Listen to what the President is saying here. He’s saying that the government is capable of determining which pill works best for you and should therefore only pay for that pill.

But this one-size-fits-all approach goes against everything modern medicine is learning about the genetics of the human body. Different individuals and members of different ethnic and age groups (And there are gender differences too—my addition.) respond differently to treatments. More and more, treatment of diseases like cancer is highly individualized and based on a genetic analysis of both the patient and her disease. Science is leading us in one direction and the administration and the Congress are taking us in the other.

What if you get sick and your doctor says you need the red pill, but the government has determined that the blue pill is what works best for its budget? In a single payer health world, what do you do then?

Creating a Commission to do the Dirty work

Government bureaucrats limiting health care choices is terribly unpopular of course, which is why politicians use terms like ‘comparative effectiveness research’ instead of ‘rationing.’

Another method Washington uses to avoid complicity in health care rationing is the creation of government boards or commissions—like Britain’s NICE—to do the job for them.

President Obama has expressed his support for using the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), a commission created to advise Congress on Medicare, to achieve cost savings under health care reform.

Because the commission’s decisions could only be over-ridden by a joint resolution of Congress, it would be virtually unaccountable to the people—and nervous members of Congress could blame the commission for unpopular decisions.

Combine this kind of a commission with the ‘complete lives system’ advocated by White House health care advisor Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and you end up with a government rationing board literally determining which Americans should live and which should die.

Just Trust the Government

Supporters of government-run health care dismiss these worries as alarmist. They argue that because their big government health care bill doesn’t overtly call for rationing, it is somehow illegitimate to talk about this danger.

But it is always legitimate to consider the long-term consequences of a government program. By refusing to have an honest debate of this issue—to explore honestly the consequences of the ‘painful choices’ that all supporters of government health care say must be made—their argument boils down to nothing more than this:

(As I’ve said before, economically it is impossible to add millions of new members to the system, increasingly add more benefits, and make the whole system affordable without increasing taxes, creating greater deficits, and/or rationing healthcare. Just look at Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid! All three—increased taxes, deficits, and rationing—have happened to all three programs and the government is still talking about “fixing” these three programs. Now they want to ad a fourth system to cover everyone else in the United States! It’s economic insanity! Barack Hussein Obama DOES NOT HAVE enough magic wands. Wait! He does NOT have any magic wands!

Trust him? During the campaign didn’t he declare that like everyone he wanted to see less MURDER of unborn babies although he supported these same MURDERS? Then, in less than one month after taking office, he signed an executive order to pay for the MURDER of unborn babies in other countries while declaring he was not going to listen to the same “tired and stale arguments” against such MURDERS. Trust Barack Hussein Obama? Trust a person who supports and promotes the MURDER of unborn babies? NEVER!!!—my addition)

Trust the government.

Trust the politicians who are passing 1000-page bills they haven’t read. (And don’t understand!—my addition)

Trust the leaders who are demonizing the citizens seeking to express their disagreement by calling them ‘un-American.’

Trust the advisors who advocate sacrificing the weak and the old and then hide in the shadows.

Trust the government to know what’s best for the most intimate, most personal part of you and your family’s life: your health. (Actually, it is your spiritual life!—my addition)

Go ask a British citizen if it’s worth it.

To just shut up and trust the government. (Trust us! We are MURDERERS of unborn babies, but TRUST US!—my addition)

Your friend,
Newt Gingrich”