President Obama's propaganda machine to indoctrinate Americans about the benefits of his health care reform law has relied on the "Big Lie" technique. The president has repeated his fabrications at every opportunity counting on the echo chamber in the media to broadcast the fallacies.
Left unchallenged, the misinformation has become accepted fact. Even well-informed people refuse to believe the convincing evidence about the falsehoods perpetuated by the administration. The blame rests with the media, which has failed its duty to fact-check the president.
Americans will soon learn the hard way about the president's deception. Once the law's health insurance mandate goes into affect in 2014, most people will be shocked by the reality of Obama Care. The president hopes Americans have short memories about his promises.
Here are the president's three biggest whoppers about the Affordable Care Act signed into law in 2010:
"If you like your (current health care) plan, you can keep it."
There is absolutely no guarantee and it depends entirely on what your employer does. Companies will have a disincentive to offer health insurance. Employers who decide to forgo offering health insurance will have to pay a tax of $2,000, which is far less than what it costs most major firms to provide health care benefits to each employee.
Take the example of Southwest Airlines. Under Obama Care, the company would expect to pay $414 million annually to provide health care to its employees or it could drop coverage and fork over $111 million in taxes. The financial discrepancy will encourage firms to end employee plans.
House Republicans released a study in May that found 71 of the 100 Fortune companies it surveyed could save $28.6 billion by eliminating health care plans and paying the $2,000 government tax.
No wonder a recent McKinsey and Co. report found 30 to 50 percent of current employers would dump company-sponsored health plans by 2014 when the mandate goes into effect.
The Congressional Budget Office had even worse news. It found as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage under what it calls a "worse case scenario."
Even that scenario may be too rosy. Starting in 2018, a 40 percent excise tax will be slapped on taxpayers who are covered by a high-cost health insurance plan, the so called "Cadillac"coverage offered by many large companies.
Under any scenario, your current health care coverage will not be the same that it is today. That is a guarantee.
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
That assumes your doctor will not opt out of Obama Care. A survey conducted by the non-partisan Doctor Patient Medical Association reported that 83 percent of doctors have considered leaving their current practice over the new health care law.
The disturbing finding comes at a time when the medical profession is forecasting severe shortages of doctors to meet the new demands for health care. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the deficit could be 50 percent worse in 2015 than originally forecast.
A new study published in the journal Health Affairs predicts 16 million people will be added to the rolls of Medicaid in 2014. Medicaid, funded jointly by the federal government and states, serves low-income families. Under Obama Care, millions without insurance today will wind up on Medicaid.
However, the study documents that nearly one-third of doctors today are not accepting new Medicaid patients. This will exacerbate the looming issue of doctor shortages. If the AAMC estimates prove correct, it could mean a scarcity of 91,500 doctors nationwide.
A recent report from the Heritage Foundation says Obama Care will "accelerate the decline in doctor-owned private practices because more physicians will only accept patients who can pay cash." The reason is Obama Care significantly reduces reimbursements to doctors for many patient services.
Chances are good that your doctor will not accept the lower reimbursements. Many physicians only will cater to people who can afford to pay for their own care or they will leave medicine.
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase."
Of all the preposterous claims, this one earns the booby prize for crass dishonesty.
To fund health care, the new law creates 19 new types of taxes and fees over the next decade to raise $500 billion. The billions will be paid by businesses and individuals. According to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, about 73 million taxpayers earning less than $200,000 annually will be saddled with tax increases.
This month the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that nearly six million Americans, mostly middle class, will face tax penalties for failing to carry health insurance coverage once the individual mandate takes effect in 2014.
Even these new taxes will likely fall short of the funding requirements. The original price tag for Obama Care was $944 billion over ten years. In May, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the cost over the next ten years at $1.856 trillion, about $912 billion more than the original forecast.
Obama Care cannot be paid for without taxing Americans of every economic level.
How could the president of the United States think Americans are so gullible?
For Barrack Obama, the answer to that question is obvious. When you have a self-inflated view of your own intelligence, you are convinced everyone else can be easily duped.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Shabby Treatment of Cancer Icon
Nearly three million breast cancer survivors enjoying active lives today owe a debt of gratitude to Nancy G. Brinker. Her promise to her dying sister, Susan G. Komen, inspired a movement to conquer an ugly disease that will strike more than 226,870 women this year, according to the American Cancer Society.
In 1982 when Komen succumbed to breast cancer at age 36, Brinker took upon her shoulders the burden of raising awareness of the disease. She faced a steep uphill struggle. No one talked openly about breast cancer. In fact, some newspapers even balked at using the words in print.
There were precious few resources to assist women with breast cancer. There were no support groups. Mammograms were not considered a mandatory part of women's health care. Only a handful of breast cancer treatment options were available to women.
All that changed thanks to the courageous efforts of Brinker.
Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure was launched in 1982. Under Brinker's tireless leadership, the organization broke the silence surrounding breast cancer. The group lifted the profile of breast cancer and energized scientists to tackle a cure.
Brinker also enlisted the help of breast cancer survivors and activists to hike government funding of breast cancer research. She created the Susan F. Komen Race for the Cure, raising billions of dollars for breast cancer research, screening and treatment. She put breast cancer on the nation's agenda.
Her crusade has produced results. After increasing for more than two decades, breast cancer incidences fell by about two percent a year from 1999 to 2005. Death rates also declined sharply, tumbling to three percent of all breast cancer cases. Once breast cancer was a death sentence.
For all her contributions, Brinker has been savaged by the media and the bullies at Planned Parenthood for a single policy move. Earlier this year, the Komen foundation announced it was reconsidering its financial support for Planned Parenthood, incurring the feral rancor of the pro-abortion crowd.
A firestorm ensued that threatened to cripple the foundation's fundraising. Brinker was personally attacked by the same Planned Parenthood activists who had benefited for decades from her foundation's largess. The ungrateful pro-abortion advocates reacted like spoiled brats.
Twenty-six members of the U.S. House and Senate signed a letter pressuring the foundation to renew its grants to Planned Parenthood. After weeks of blistering media coverage, Brinker was forced to apologize publicly and reverse her foundation's stance.
Despite the restoration of the grants, Planned Parenthood's bullies were not mollified. They continue their relentless campaign of intimidation by boycotting the foundation's chief fund raiser, the annual Race for the Cure, in cities across the country.
That led founder Brinker to step down recently from her role as chief executive of the organization after 30 years at the helm. Because Brinker will retain a management role, the media and the pro-abortion brutes remain unimpressed. They are determined to oust her from the organization.
The controversy should sadden every women. Brinker has done more for women's health than Planned Parenthood or any single person. For her unselfish dedication to the cause, she has endured withering attacks for a single policy decision that was later rescinded. Her apology fell on deaf ears.
Women concerned about cancer cannot remain silent. Nancy G. Brinker gave voice to a movement that changed the course of women's health care. In return, she deserves every women's vocal support, not the verbal mugging administered by Planned Parenthood.
In 1982 when Komen succumbed to breast cancer at age 36, Brinker took upon her shoulders the burden of raising awareness of the disease. She faced a steep uphill struggle. No one talked openly about breast cancer. In fact, some newspapers even balked at using the words in print.
There were precious few resources to assist women with breast cancer. There were no support groups. Mammograms were not considered a mandatory part of women's health care. Only a handful of breast cancer treatment options were available to women.
All that changed thanks to the courageous efforts of Brinker.
Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure was launched in 1982. Under Brinker's tireless leadership, the organization broke the silence surrounding breast cancer. The group lifted the profile of breast cancer and energized scientists to tackle a cure.
Brinker also enlisted the help of breast cancer survivors and activists to hike government funding of breast cancer research. She created the Susan F. Komen Race for the Cure, raising billions of dollars for breast cancer research, screening and treatment. She put breast cancer on the nation's agenda.
Her crusade has produced results. After increasing for more than two decades, breast cancer incidences fell by about two percent a year from 1999 to 2005. Death rates also declined sharply, tumbling to three percent of all breast cancer cases. Once breast cancer was a death sentence.
For all her contributions, Brinker has been savaged by the media and the bullies at Planned Parenthood for a single policy move. Earlier this year, the Komen foundation announced it was reconsidering its financial support for Planned Parenthood, incurring the feral rancor of the pro-abortion crowd.
A firestorm ensued that threatened to cripple the foundation's fundraising. Brinker was personally attacked by the same Planned Parenthood activists who had benefited for decades from her foundation's largess. The ungrateful pro-abortion advocates reacted like spoiled brats.
Twenty-six members of the U.S. House and Senate signed a letter pressuring the foundation to renew its grants to Planned Parenthood. After weeks of blistering media coverage, Brinker was forced to apologize publicly and reverse her foundation's stance.
Despite the restoration of the grants, Planned Parenthood's bullies were not mollified. They continue their relentless campaign of intimidation by boycotting the foundation's chief fund raiser, the annual Race for the Cure, in cities across the country.
That led founder Brinker to step down recently from her role as chief executive of the organization after 30 years at the helm. Because Brinker will retain a management role, the media and the pro-abortion brutes remain unimpressed. They are determined to oust her from the organization.
The controversy should sadden every women. Brinker has done more for women's health than Planned Parenthood or any single person. For her unselfish dedication to the cause, she has endured withering attacks for a single policy decision that was later rescinded. Her apology fell on deaf ears.
Women concerned about cancer cannot remain silent. Nancy G. Brinker gave voice to a movement that changed the course of women's health care. In return, she deserves every women's vocal support, not the verbal mugging administered by Planned Parenthood.
Monday, September 10, 2012
How Obama Can Win In November
Psssst. Press your ear to the computer. Here's a secret no Republican wants to share. It will help Barrack Obama secure a second term. Lean closer. Don't let any Democrats listen in. This is how the president can win the election. Scare the hell out of those receiving government assistance.
Of course, this is not a new strategy for the Democratic Party. Every election cycle the party of donkeys accuses Republicans of trying to shove granny off the cliff or push the poor into a ditch or strip women of their health care benefits. It's what desperate Democrats do.
However, in this election year with dependence on the government at record levels, expect the rhetoric to ratchet up. Nearly one in five Americans receives some form of government financial support. And their numbers are mushrooming under the Obama Administration. That's no coincidence.
When John F. Kennedy was president, 21.7 million Americans were dependent on Uncle Sam. Today, the number of people getting some form of federal aid has nearly quintupled to 100 million recipients, excluding those on Social Security or Medicare.
Figures released by the Democratic-controlled Senate Budget Committee in August calculated there were 80 different means-tested welfare programs administered by the federal government. The roles of food stamp and Medicaid recipients have swollen under President Obama, according to the report.
As a result, the federal government is now spending the most money in the country's history to subsidize Americans. It is the reason 70 percent of the federal budget is dedicated to government assistance programs for housing, health, welfare, food, retirement and student aid.
According to a Heritage Foundation study, it is conceivable that the average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748 annually. That is more than the nation's average disposable personal income of $32,446. Is it any wonder more people prefer the government dole to a job?
The growth in government dependency will continue to explode as more baby boomers retire. In excess of 77 million seniors will begin drawing checks for Social Security in the next 25 years and receiving benefits from Medicare.
But don't blame seniors because they were forced to pay into the bankrupt system. They played by the rules. Sizable numbers will never get back every dime they forked over to a government that borrowed from the Social Security System and left it with nothing but a pile of paper IOU's.
The real moochers are those who contribute zero to fund federal giveaways. About 46 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax, reports the Tax Policy Center. Yet many are receiving government benefits. They are the people President Obama never mentions when he waxes eloquently about taxes and fairness.
In the coming weeks, expect Obama to claim that Romney wants to take away Social Security, force students to pay back government loans, end health care benefits for the sick and dying, jerk food from the mouths of babies and toss the poor out of their government subsidized housing.
If that doesn't tilt the election, the president can always use the ultimate weapon.
Obama can shake his fist and declare: "Under Romney's idea of fairness, nearly every American will have to pay taxes." That will frighten nearly half of all Americans enough to produce a November victory.
To plagiarize President John F. Kennedy, America has too many people who want to know what government can do for them, instead of asking what they can do for their country.
Of course, this is not a new strategy for the Democratic Party. Every election cycle the party of donkeys accuses Republicans of trying to shove granny off the cliff or push the poor into a ditch or strip women of their health care benefits. It's what desperate Democrats do.
However, in this election year with dependence on the government at record levels, expect the rhetoric to ratchet up. Nearly one in five Americans receives some form of government financial support. And their numbers are mushrooming under the Obama Administration. That's no coincidence.
When John F. Kennedy was president, 21.7 million Americans were dependent on Uncle Sam. Today, the number of people getting some form of federal aid has nearly quintupled to 100 million recipients, excluding those on Social Security or Medicare.
Figures released by the Democratic-controlled Senate Budget Committee in August calculated there were 80 different means-tested welfare programs administered by the federal government. The roles of food stamp and Medicaid recipients have swollen under President Obama, according to the report.
As a result, the federal government is now spending the most money in the country's history to subsidize Americans. It is the reason 70 percent of the federal budget is dedicated to government assistance programs for housing, health, welfare, food, retirement and student aid.
According to a Heritage Foundation study, it is conceivable that the average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748 annually. That is more than the nation's average disposable personal income of $32,446. Is it any wonder more people prefer the government dole to a job?
The growth in government dependency will continue to explode as more baby boomers retire. In excess of 77 million seniors will begin drawing checks for Social Security in the next 25 years and receiving benefits from Medicare.
But don't blame seniors because they were forced to pay into the bankrupt system. They played by the rules. Sizable numbers will never get back every dime they forked over to a government that borrowed from the Social Security System and left it with nothing but a pile of paper IOU's.
The real moochers are those who contribute zero to fund federal giveaways. About 46 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax, reports the Tax Policy Center. Yet many are receiving government benefits. They are the people President Obama never mentions when he waxes eloquently about taxes and fairness.
In the coming weeks, expect Obama to claim that Romney wants to take away Social Security, force students to pay back government loans, end health care benefits for the sick and dying, jerk food from the mouths of babies and toss the poor out of their government subsidized housing.
If that doesn't tilt the election, the president can always use the ultimate weapon.
Obama can shake his fist and declare: "Under Romney's idea of fairness, nearly every American will have to pay taxes." That will frighten nearly half of all Americans enough to produce a November victory.
To plagiarize President John F. Kennedy, America has too many people who want to know what government can do for them, instead of asking what they can do for their country.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Drug Wars: How Shortages Threaten Health Care
Imagine you are hospitalized with a life-threatening cancer. Your oncologist recommends treatment with a chemotherapy drug called fluorouracil. The hospital has no supplies of the drug and its regular wholesaler has no inventory on hand. You face a grim future unless the drug arrives soon.
Meanwhile, as the hospital scrambles to locate the drug, unscrupulous firms are inundating the facility with emails and faxes offering the hard-to-get chemotherapy drug at exorbitant prices. The hospital is left with an untenable choice. It can pay an outrageous amount of money, perhaps as much as several hundred times the customary price, or it can wait months for the normal supply chain to catch up with demand.
Confronted with those paradoxical options, many hospitals pay the extortionate markup to take care of their patients.
Unfortunately, this scene is being played out too often in hospitals and health care facilities across the country. This growing trend is documented in a newly issued federal report prepared by congressional staffs. Until now, not much was known about how the gray market companies acquired the drugs when hospitals were unable to obtain them.
The report is entitled, "Shining Light on the Gray Market: An Examination of Why Hospitals Are Forced To Pay Exorbitant Prices For Prescription Drugs Facing Critical Shortages." It was released July 25, but has attracted precious little news coverage in the mainstream media.
That's too bad because Americans need to know hospitals are being bilked out of millions of dollars by these so-called gray market companies which take advantage of regulatory loopholes to reap unconscionable profits.
The explosive report describes how individuals established fake pharmacies for the sole purpose of buying up drugs that were in short supply. Instead of dispensing the drugs to patients, these faux pharmacies peddled the drugs to wholesalers owned by the same individuals or their shell companies. The conniving businesses then sold the drugs with astronomical markups to desperate hospitals.
Using this and similar schemes, these gray market firms marked up some drug prices by as much as 3,000 to 4,000 percent over the conventional contract price. The price-gouging is not illegal, but a handful of companies have been shuttered for violating state licensing laws covering pharmacies and drug wholesalers.
Despite enforcement efforts, drug shortages are becoming more common. Nearly every hospital in the United States (99.5% to be exact) reported at least one serious drug shortage in 2011, often forcing delays in treatments or procedures. Drug shortages quadrupled between 2005 and 2011.
Many drug shortages can be traced to manufacturing problems. When drug makers decide to shut down facilities for quality issues, it interrupts the steady flow of drugs. However, unethical gray market firms exacerbate the problem by quickly snapping up all available supply, creating a crisis.
In many cases, the medications in short supply are administered for cancer treatment. Examples include drugs to treat colon, stomach, breast and pancreatic cancer. The list also includes supplies commonly used in hospital emergency rooms, such as anesthetics for surgery and electrolytes for intravenous feeding.
The price tag for the shortages is staggering and escalating. A 2011 report by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists estimated insufficient supplies of drugs cost the nation's hospitals more than $400 million in a single year. Ultimately, these costs are passed on to insurers, businesses and patients.
The federal report on gray market drug firms is a wake-up call for states. Tougher enforcement is required to make certain pharmacies and drug wholesalers operate within the law. In some cases, stricter licensing requirements are needed to weed out unscrupulous operators.
Americans need to be assured hospitals and health care facilities have adequate supplies of drugs for treatment in medical emergencies. Life is too precious to allow the gray market practice to continue endangering lives and threatening medical treatment.