CNN is reporting that the White House is going on the offensive when it comes to Health Care Reform. My question is; since when is this news?

As the Senate debate over health care reform gets underway, the administration is planning to "push back on the distortions and misinformation... being circulated by interest groups and opponents." The new offensive includes a video featuring Vice President Joe Biden and the presidents of the American Nurses Association and the American Association of Family Physicians.

(Who do Americans trust more on health care reform, asks Biden in the video: doctors and nurses, or "special interests"?)

Sorry Joe, doctors and nurses are NOT the ones who will make the health care decisions under the proposed legislation. The Health Care Commissioner is going to determine what care is cost effective. Nice try Joe Biden...

I didn't see any "special interest groups" at any of the town hall meetings. When people throw around the term "special interest group" it's meaningless. Why would one use such an ambiguous term anyway --why not just name some groups outright? Could it be that the special interest groups are straw men?

I have special interests. I call it --looking out for my (and my family's) best interest! I don't believe that surrendering my health care choices to government bureaucrats would be in my family's best interest!

There is a simple reason that the White House is going on the offensive when it comes to health care reform. A majority of educated Americans (educated on the issue of health care) don't want a government run system. Those who do support a government run system do so out of ignorance. That is why the health care reform push is so strong, and nearly all from the government. The Obama administration knows that the longer health care reform is debated in public, the more the American people dislike their plans.

It's simple, where is the ground swell for the health care overhaul? I have yet to see any grass roots support for government run health care reform. Sure you have large gatherings of union employees, but there is no "real" ground swell. Nobody is running around saying, increase my taxes, and take away my health care choices! In essence that is what's going to happen if this legislation passes.

Remember last week the announcement that women under 40 should not get mammograms.

To calculate an individual's estimated risk, see the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool at http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/ on the Internet.

Go ahead and click the link above. You will go to area of the National Cancer Institute's site where they have the "Risk Calculator." Anyone who doesn't think that these statistics will be used in government health care decision making is very naive.

I had a relative ask, "Jeff what do you think about the findings? Do you think the age of 40 is really accurate?" My response was simple. Ask any women in her 30s who was diagnosed with breast cancer. Family history means nothing for the first person in a blood line who is diagnosed with cancer! If family history is factored when trying to determine risk; Family history is also factored when trying to exclude risk "avoid unnecessary testing."

Rationing is a serious issue. For anything finite rationing must take place. There is rationing in the current health care system. Currently rationing is based on an individual's ability to pay (and their insurance) if they have any. The proposed government run system would rely on government funds and statistical data to determine who is "worthy" of care. There will not be enough government money to cover everyone, so you must have rationing. The difference, if the government can't afford your procedure, you don't get it. You also might not be able to pay for the procedure --even if you have the money. Remember the "Health Care Commissioner?" The commissioner is going to determine which procedures are effective for all areas of health care, public and private!

To say that there will be no rationing is a flat-out lie. Are government funds infinite?

There is no need for misinformation when the proposed legislation is NO GOOD!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

For those following the "Climategate" story, I have some questions...

- I wonder why scientists (who claim to have made such a great discovery) would destroy their data?

- Where did the raw data come from in the first place? In order to prove that the planet is warming, you need past data. With a theory based on past data, how can you completely destroy the data? Did these guys just look at a bunch of old Farmers Almanacs and then burn them?

- I wonder how (without redefining the word) anything can be considered scientific without supporting data. Without source data you have no science.

By the standards of Phil Jones and Michael Mann, All I have to do is simply make something up and claim that the supporting data was destroyed. Oh, and nobody can question my "findings"... Because the data has been destroyed... I'm not sure why though, because I need it... Hmm...

I have an idea. Consider this; if the greenhouse effect works as described here, wouldn't temperatures be higher at night as a result? If the atmosphere is absorbing energy and radiating heat, wouldn't it continue to radiate heat at night was well as in the day? It can't just be hotter during the day, and not at night, if that were the case where did the heat energy go? If it's hotter during the day it should be hotter at night if there are gasses absorbing heat energy and releasing it over time. Right?

The Man Made Global Warming "believers" state that the mean global temperature shows an increase. The problem with the mean temperature is that there has been no mention of what particular "mean" was used to calculate the supposed increase. Here are a few of the means I have read about: Arithmetic, Geometric, Harmonic, Generalized, Power, f-mean, Weighted arithmetic, Truncated, Interquartile and Fréchet means...

If there were increased daytime temperatures they would offset lower nighttime temperatures. I would like to see nighttime temperature data. How come this has never been pointed out?

For all those people who think that the sun has little to do with fluctuations in global temperature, just think about nighttime... Look at the temperature swing there!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Wow, I think this is probably the most idiotic thing I've seen this year. Kids pay close attention now...

That's right people, if you fly on planes you will cause polar bears to die. What a crock. All of this comes during the midst of this story.

Washington Post -- Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world's foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.

University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how many of the stolen items were authentic.

In one e-mail from 1999, the center's director, Phil Jones, alludes to one of Mann's articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Mann said the "trick" Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. "It's hardly anything you would call a trick," Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this and other exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, out of sympathy for Jones.

Neither Jones nor Santer could be reached for comment.

Here is some info about Phil Jones, and Michael E. Mann.

At this point it is not known if "hackers" got a hold of the emails, or if there was a whistle blower. In either case it is clear that Jones and Mann are worried about these emails, and rightly so.

Remember to keep your eye on the outcome of this. You will find that the media will most likely attack whoever outed the emails. It is doubtful (to me) that anyone --including Jones, and Mann-- will dispute what was in the emails. What would they say? "Oh we were faking, faking the temperatures...Yeah that was it..."

Remember Cap and Trade. Tax people now, as "encouragment" to switch to some more expensive alternative energy source. Since when have taxes been used to encourage anything? Hmm...

I've got it! Taxes are going to save the planet!

How long can the hoax of "man-made" Climate Change, Global Warming or even Global Cooling last?

Check these links for more on Climate Change/Global Warming...

How's that Man Made Global Warming / Climate Change Doing These Days?

Man Made Global Warming, Cap and Trade. Things that make you go Hmm...

"Cap and Trade" your life away...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

A link to the Senate legislation can be found here.

I'm only going to delve into two parts of this ridiculous legislation. The Senate version of the plan includes new rules for HSAs (Health Savings Accounts).

page. 1997

1 SEC. 9003. DISTRIBUTIONS FOR MEDICINE QUALIFIED
2 ONLY IF FOR PRESCRIBED DRUG OR INSU-
3 LIN.
4 (a) HSAS.—Subparagraph (A) of section 223(d)(2)b>of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by add-
6 ing at the end the following: ‘‘Such term shall include an
7 amount paid for medicine or a drug only if such medicine
8 or drug is a prescribed drug (determined without regard
9 to whether such drug is available without a prescription)
10 or is insulin.’’.

Internal Revenue Code
Section 223. (d)(2)

(2) Qualified medical expenses
(A) In general

The term “qualified medical expenses” means, with respect to an account beneficiary, amounts paid by such beneficiary for medical care (as defined in section 213 (d) such individual, the spouse of such individual, and any dependent (as defined in section 152, determined without regard to subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof) of such individual, but only to the extent such amounts are not compensated for by insurance or otherwise.

Internal Revenue Code
Section 213 (d)

(d) Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) The term “medical care” means amounts paid—

(A) for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body,

(B) for transportation primarily for and essential to medical care referred to in subparagraph (A),

(C) for qualified long-term care services (as defined in section 7702B (c)), or

(D) for insurance (including amounts paid as premiums under part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, relating to supplementary medical insurance for the aged) covering medical care referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) or for any qualified long-term care insurance contract (as defined in section 7702B (b)).

In the case of a qualified long-term care insurance contract (as defined in section 7702B (b)), only eligible long-term care premiums (as defined in paragraph (10)) shall be taken into account under subparagraph (D).

To sum it up, you can only use your HSA account (tax free) to purchase prescription drugs. So, that means no more Aspirin, Midol or Pepto Bismol with a tax benefit. You know, this goes hand in hand with the proposed 2.5% excise tax on medical devices in the House Plan. The legal description of "medical device" means a 2.5% excise tax on just about anything that's not food and in any way medically related. Hmm...

They also go after FSAs (Flexible Spending Accounts).

page. 1999

1 SEC. 9005. LIMITATION ON HEALTH FLEXIBLE SPENDING
2 ARRANGEMENTS UNDER CAFETERIA PLANS.
3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 125 of the Internal Rev-
4 enue Code of 1986 is amended—
5 (1) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j) as
6 subsections (j) and (k), respectively, and
7 (2) by inserting after subsection (h) the fol-
8 lowing new subsection:
9 ‘‘(i) LIMITATION ON HEALTH FLEXIBLE SPENDING
10 ARRANGEMENTS.—For purposes of this section, if a ben-
11 efit is provided under a cafeteria plan through employer
12 contributions to a health flexible spending arrangement,
13 such benefit shall not be treated as a qualified benefit un-
14 less the cafeteria plan provides that an employee may not
15 elect for any taxable year to have salary reduction con-
16 tributions in excess of $2,500 made to such arrange-
17 ment.’’.
18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
19 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after
20 December 31, 2010.

Wow the change just doesn't stop! Under this plan, you can only put up to 2,500 dollars into an FSA while still having your money maintain a tax exempt status. Currently there is no IRS limit on medical FSAs. FSAs come in handy when planning for a medical procedure, say knee surgery or hip surgery. A pre-funded medical FSA would essentially be a tax free interest free loan. So, the government has to put an end to that!

I had a conversation about this just the other day. I mentioned that the FSAs and HSAs would be some of the first things to go. At the very least the tax advantages of both FSAs and HSAs will have to be limited to encourage people not to use them anymore. After all HSAs and FSAs promote individual responsibility. You can't support individual responsibility when your policy removes it...

Can anyone explain how taxing individuals more will decrease the cost of health care, or help more to people have access to health care? If the cost of health care goes up, health care becomes less accessible right?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Here is a link to the health care bill passed by the house H.R.3962.EH.

Affordable Health Care for America Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.3962.EH]

In this legislation there is an excise tax on "Medical Devices." Check out page 346.

page 346.

18 SEC. 552. EXCISE TAX ON MEDICAL DEVICES.
19 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 31 of the Internal Rev-
20 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
21 following new subchapter:
22 ‘‘Subchapter D—Medical Devices

page 347.

1 ‘‘SEC. 4061. MEDICAL DEVICES.
2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby imposed on the
3 first taxable sale of any medical device a tax equal to 2.5
4 percent of the price for which so sold.

page 348.

9 ‘‘(c) OTHER DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—
10 For purposes of this section—
11 ‘‘(1) MEDICAL DEVICE.—The term ‘medical de-
12 vice’ means any device (as defined in section 201(h)
13 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) in-
14 tended for humans.

Hmm just what is a medical device? Let's check "The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."

SEC. 201. [21 U.S.C. 321]
CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS 1

(h) The term "device" (except when used in paragraph (n) of this section and in sections 301(i), 403(f), 502(c), and 602(c)) means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is--

(1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them,

(2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or

(3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes.

WOW, that tax covers just about everything doesn't it. When you hear the term "medical device," you think of hospital equipment right? This excise tax covers everything from toothbrushes, to tampons!

It should be apparent to most by now, if the Obama administration says anything, expect the exact opposite.

Remember the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) report? The house version of the health care bill is not going to achieve any of it's "said" purposes. The legislation will not make health care cheaper, and it will not expand insurance coverage to everyone. That being the case, why pass it? Why try and sell the American people legislation which is based on a false premise? Why push that legislation through at the last minute, before the American people (or members of the House) could read it? I thought this was supposed to be good for America. If that were the case what's the rush? Most of the benefits wouldn't be available until five years from the date the bill becomes law.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.