Why the Health Bill Makes No Sense

So it's come down to this -- desperate Democratic leaders strong-arming members on the worst bill ever before they go home to explain to constituents why they decided to commit political suicide. We've said just about all we've had to say on this issue -- actually dating back to 1993-94, when we wrote nearly 100 editorials in opposition to HillaryCare. Since January of last year, we've weighed in 150 more times against the latest version of socialized medicine. But to review, here are just 15 reasons why a government takeover of the finest medical system in the world makes no sense at all:

1. The people don't want it! This, we would think, should have some bearing on decision-making. Yet the Democrats forge ahead without consent of the governed. In the latest Rasmussen poll, 53% opposed the Democrats' reform while 42% were in favor. More than four in 10 "strongly" opposed; just two in 10 "strongly" favored. This jibes with other surveys, including our own IBD/TIPP Poll, taken since last year.

2. Doctors don't want it! A survey we took last summer of 1,376 practicing physicians found that 45% would consider leaving their practices or taking early retirements if the Democrats' reform became law. In December, the results were validated by a Medicus poll in which 25% of doctors said they'd retire early if a public option is implemented and another 21% would stop practicing even though they were far from their retirement years. Even if the bill doesn't have a "public option," nearly 30% said they'd quit the profession under the plans being considered.

3. Half the Congress doesn't want it! Not a single Republican backed the health care bill that cleared the Senate on Christmas Eve 60-39. House passage was by a slim 220 to 215, and the lone Republican "aye" has since switched to "no." Columnist Michael Barone says other changes would put the House vote today at 216-215 in favor, and he has doubts Democrats can even muster 216.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her job of securing yes votes even more difficult last week when she told a meeting of county officials that "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it." Members of Congress aren't waiting: They've already exempted themselves from whatever they inflict on us.

4. People are happy with the health care they've got! Polls show that 84% of Americans have health insurance and that few are displeased with what they've got. Last month, the St. Petersburg Times looked at eight polls and reported that satisfaction rates averaged 87%.

5. It doesn't even cover the people they set out to cover! Supporters of government-run health care say there are as many as 47 million Americans — 9 million to 10 million of them illegal aliens — without medical insurance. The Democrats' plans, however, will put only 31 million of the uninsured under coverage.

6. Costs will go up, not down! Democrats say their plans will cost less than $1 trillion over the first decade. But analyst Michael Cannon at the Cato Institute puts the cost at $2.5 trillion over the first 10 years. Even if we go with the government's lower estimates, the cost is already on the rise. A new estimate by the Congressional Budget Office puts the cost of the Senate bill at $875 billion over 10 years, $4 billion more than its original projection. Imagine how fast costs would soar if one of the bills became public policy.

7. Real cost controls are nowhere to be found! The Democrats are offering no meaningful tort reform that will help push down the high malpractice insurance premiums that are a burden to doctors and their patients. Nor are they considering any other cost-saving provisions, such as allowing the sale of individual health plans across state lines or easing health insurance mandates.

8. Insurance premiums will rise, not fall! One goal of nationalizing health care is to lower costs, to bend the spending curve downward. Yet, as Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin acknowledged Wednesday, that won't be the case.

"Anyone who would stand before you and say, 'Well, if you pass health care reform, next year's health care premiums are going down,' I don't think is telling the truth," he said from the Senate floor. "I think it is likely they would go up."

An analysis completed by the CBO at the request of Sen. Evan Bayh confirms Durbin's suspicions. Insurance coverage in the individual market will "be about 10% to 13% higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law," it concluded.

9. Medicare is already bankrupting us! The Medicare trust fund, which has unfunded obligations of $37.8 trillion, will be insolvent in 2017. How can lawmakers justify another entitlement that will cost trillions when they can't pay for existing liabilities?

10. There aren't enough doctors now! Last month, 26% of physicians responding to a Web poll on Sermo.com, which calls itself "the largest online physician community," said they had been forced to close, or were considering closing, their solo practices. Providing coverage for an additional 31 million Americans when the number of doctors is shrinking won't improve our health care.

11. The doctor-patient relationship will be wrecked! The latest IBD/TIPP Poll, taken just last week, found that Americans, by a wide 48%-26% margin, believe the doctor-patient relationship will decline if the Democrats' plan is passed.

12. Medical care will also deteriorate! IBD/TIPP has also found that 51% of Americans believe care would get worse under government control. Only 10.5% said they felt it would improve. In our doctor poll, 72% disagreed with administration claims that the government could cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

13. Rationing of care is inevitable! Health care is not an unlimited resource and must be rationed, either by the individual, providers or government. In Britain and Canada, where the government does the rationing, medical treatment waiting lists are sometimes deadly and quite often excessively long.

For instance, late cancer diagnoses in an overcrowded public health care system cause up to 10,000 needless deaths a year in Britain. The reasons cited for the late diagnoses include doctor delay, delay in primary care, system delay and delay in secondary care.

14. Private health insurers will be destroyed! Added mandates and price controls will force many insurers to simply get out of the health plan business because it will no longer be profitable.

15. It's probably unconstitutional! One way to help bring down the number of uninsured is to demand that those without coverage buy health plans. But the government has never passed a law requiring Americans to buy any good or service. Constitutional scholars say any such mandate would likely draw a legal challenge.

SOURCE





Top Democrat Implies Obama Not ‘Telling the Truth’ about Health Care Premiums

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Wednesday contradicted President Barack Obama on whether the health care reform bill will lead to a decrease in health care premiums. Durbin claimed that rates would go up, while the president said the rates would go down. “Anyone who would stand before you and say well, if you pass health care reform, next year's health care premiums are going down, I don't think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up, but what we are trying to do is slow the rate of increase,” Durbin said, speaking on the Senate floor.

Compare Durbin’s remarks to what President Barack Obama said during a speech at Arcadia University in Glenside, Pa., on Monday: “Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next decade because we’re spending our health care dollars more wisely,” the president said. “Those aren’t my numbers. Those aren’t my numbers --they are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress for what things cost,” Obama added.

But as CNSNews.com reported, the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the final Senate health care bill indicates that it would impose a mandatory $15,000 annual fee on middle-class families that earn greater than 400 percent annually of the federal poverty level. That means $88,200 for a family of four.

Among the five basic facts that the CBO analysis cites about the bill is that “Your family insurance plan – if your employer drops your coverage and you are forced to buy it on your own – will cost about $15,000 per year when the legislation is in full force in 2016.”

SOURCE





Dems seek agreement, quick vote on health care

Under White House pressure to act swiftly, House and Senate Democratic leaders reached for agreement Friday on President Barack Obama's health care bill, sweetened suddenly by fresh billions for student aid and a sense that breakthroughs are at hand. "It won't be long," before lawmakers vote, predicted Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She said neither liberals' disappointment over the lack of a government health care option nor a traditional mistrust of the Senate would prevent passage in the House.

At the White House, officials worked to maximize Obama's influence over lawmakers who control the fate of legislation that has spawned a yearlong struggle. They announced he would make a campaign-style appearance in Ohio next week to pitch his health care proposals, as well as delay his departure for an Asian trip later in the month.

With Democrats deciding to incorporate changes in student aid into the bill, Republicans suddenly had a new reason to oppose legislation they have long sought to scuttle. "Well of course it's a very bad idea," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "We now have the government running banks, insurance companies, car companies, and they do want to take over the student loan business." He said it was symptomatic of Democrats' determination to have the government expand its tentacles into absolutely everything."

At its core, the health care bill is designed to provide health care to tens of millions who lack it and ban insurance companies from denying medical coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. Obama also wants the measure to begin to slow the rate of growth in medical costs nationwide. Most people would have to get insurance by law, and families earning up to $88,000 would receive subsidies.

Whatever the outcome, there was no doubt the issue would reverberate into this fall's elections, with control of Congress at stake. The health care bill appeared on the cusp of passage in early January, but was derailed when Senate Republicans won a Senate seat in Massachusetts, and with it, the strength needed to sustain a filibuster and block a final vote.

In the weeks since, the White House and Democrats have embarked on a two-part rescue strategy. It calls for the House to pass legislation that cleared the Senate in December, despite numerous objections, and for both houses to follow immediately with a second bill that makes changes to the first. The second, fix-it bill would be drafted under rules that strip Senate Republicans of the ability to require Democrats produce a 60-vote majority.

Obama outlined numerous requested changes several weeks ago, many of them designed to satisfy the concerns of House Democrats. They would increase subsidies for lower income families who cannot afford insurance; give additional money to states that provide higher-than-average benefits under Medicaid, and gradually close a coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug program used by millions of seniors.

Congressional officials said all three issued would be addressed in the fix-it bill, although other administration requests remained in doubt. The president wants creation of a commission with authority to force savings in Medicare and Medicaid, for example, and is seeking the deletion of items sought by individual senators. Those were among the issues still in dispute after days of secretive talks involving the White House and House and Senate leaders.

The decision to add far-reaching student aid changes to the bill had its roots in obscure parliamentary rules governing the Senate's debate of the legislation. But House Democrats and the White House quickly seized on it as a way to advance a top administration priority that lacks the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate otherwise. The measure would require the government to originate student loans, closing out a role for banks and other private lenders who charge a fee. Obama proposed taking the savings and plowing it into higher Pell Grants that go to needy college students. Officials said that under current estimates, the change would free as much as $66 billion over a decade, although Pelosi indicated she wanted it spread beyond Pell Grants to other education programs.

At a news conference, the speaker confessed to being disappointed that the legislation would not include a government-run health care option, but said other parts of the legislation would hold insurance companies accountable. The tussle over a public option roiled Democrats for months, but has subsided in recent weeks. "We've crossed that bridge," said Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J. "Those people who were saying 'public option' are muted right now. That's done. It's not going to happen. They've hit the mute button."

At a closed-door meeting of the rank-and-file, House Democratic leaders sought to allay concerns that Senate Democrats might simply refuse to pass the fix-it bill after the House swallows the measure it doesn't like. Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., said party leaders told the House caucus they have "a firm commitment" from the Senate to do its part.

SOURCE





Dereliction of Duty

How many flavors of crazy is it for President Obama and Democrat leaders to continue the forced march toward a vote on a health care bill despised by the majority of Americans? The New York Times lays out what's happening: "Leaving a meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, lawmakers said they had received few details about what would be in the [health care] legislation, on which they may be asked to vote in the next week or two".

Got that? This is legislation that would remake fully 1/6 of the US economy, and the House members who are being pushed to vote on it aren't even sure about what's in its final version. How, under any circumstances, can voting in favor of this -- given the rush, the uncertainty about the bill's contents, not to mention its effects (and including the widespread, fierce opposition to it) -- be anything other than a dereliction of duty?

Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen warn that passing the legislation will be a political disaster for the Democrats. Frankly, the point is so obvious that it's frightening that it needs to be made.

But the bigger problem now, for Democrats, is that their interests and President Obama's diverge. Many Blue Dogs can save themselves (and their party) if they take a principled stand against ObamaCare. But the President needs this victory -- in a sense, just to stay in the game. Without it, he's revealed as politically impotent. With it, he can at least comfort himself with his "historic" expansion of the welfare state.

Overall, though, the President's in trouble either way this goes. Even if he wins, he's paid a heavy price. First, he's lost the trust of the American people by his willingness to say anythign to get the bill passed; second, he's shown himself willing to ignore the expressed wishes of those he governs; and third, he's revealed himself as arrogant enough to believe that opponents are too stupid to understand what's in the bill -- but once ObamaCare is foisted upon them by the "platonic guardians" in The White House and on Capitol Hill, the ignorant rubes will love it.

A President can come back from political defeat. Recovering after losing the trust of the people is much more difficult.

SOURCE






Health-Care Hell

by Jonah Goldberg

The time for talk is over. So proclaimed the most talkative president in modern memory. I can't remember when Barack Obama said that. Maybe it was during the first "final showdown" on health care. Or maybe it was the third. The fifth? It's so hard to tell when pretty much every week since the dawn of the Mesozoic Era, Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid has proclaimed that it is now Go Time for health-care reform. So you'll forgive me if I'm somewhat skeptical about the possibility that the health-care reform debate is about to come to an end.

The president recently said, "Everything there is to say about health care has been said, and just about everybody has said it." But wait. If everything, pro and con, has been said about the subject, by everybody, that means someone isn't telling the truth, right? I mean, if you've said X and not-X, that means you've probably said something that isn't true.

That, at least, is the impression I got this week listening to Obama make his closing arguments for health care at rallies in Pennsylvania and Missouri. It's telling that the president -- long in favor of a single-payer system -- is selling his health-care plan on the grounds that it will increase "choice" and "competition," reduce "government control" and "give you, the American people, more control over your own health insurance."

You know your sales pitch for a government takeover of health care hasn't worked when you have to crib rhetoric from free-market Republicans. And that's after you've already tried to pin your plan's unpopularity on the ignorance of the American people.

Obama's talking points track reality about as well as the screenplay for "Avatar." Indeed, the same week he was hawking competition, choice and less government, Obama backed a new Health Insurance Rate Authority that would do even more to cement big health insurance companies into their new role as government-run utilities.

This latest gambit is of a piece with the White House's demonization of the health-insurance industry. I have no love for that industry myself, but let's get some perspective. As of August, the health-insurance industry ranked 86th in terms of profit margins -- behind anemic industries such as book publishing (38th) specialty eateries (71st) and home furnishing stores (84th), according to data compiled by Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute.

Insurance companies account for less than 5 percent of American health-care spending -- less than hospitals (31 percent), doctors (21 percent) and medicine (10 percent). But because health-insurance companies are unpopular, Democrats are beating up on them, even though if Democrats are serious about containing costs, the cuts will have to come from those other slices of the pie.

But enough with the substance. The health-care debate ceased being about substance a long, long time ago. Fair or not, the Democrats' plan is unpopular, period. There is simply nothing Obama can say that will change that fact before Democrats vote for it. That hasn't stopped him from talking out of every side of his mouth. But outside the Obama bunker, no serious pollster, pundit or pol in Washington disputes this basic point: Obama cannot take the stink off this thing.

And that's why the Democrats are contorting themselves like a yoga swami in a hatbox trying to figure out how to pass it. (Note: If it were simply popular among Democrats, it would have passed months ago.) The latest idea involves the "Slaughter Solution" -- named after House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter -- which would allow the House to fix-and-pass the Senate version of the bill without ever voting on the senate version, or something like that.

But here's the thing: There is no "over" to this debate. Obama, Pelosi & Co. have demonstrated time and again that no deadline is final if it means losing. Meanwhile, if ObamaCare passes, Republicans will run on a promise to repeal it, and that means we'll be debating health-care reform at least through 2010. Then, depending on how the election goes, the repeal debate will become part of the legislative process. That will in all likelihood carry the debate into the 2012 presidential election. In other words, there will be time for talk as far as the eye can see.

Now, part of me thinks this is too cruel a future to contemplate. I can't remember whether it was pederasts or mattress-tag removers, but I'm pretty sure someone in Dante's Inferno is condemned to spend eternity listening to a C-SPAN panel on community rating, preexisting conditions and rate pools. But it's a better prospect than losing. That's one point that has bipartisan support.

SOURCE





Baby twins put in NHS hospitals 50 miles apart

Because of very limited facilities for premature births

The parents of two-month-old twins have criticised the NHS for placing their poorly daughters in separate hospitals, 50 miles apart. Stephanie Dawson, 25, and her partner Martin Collins, 38, have to take a 121-mile trip to visit Ruby and Krystal Dawson-Collins, which they said leaves them with just 10 minutes with each daughter.

The twins were born at just 26 weeks in Maidstone Hospital, Kent, weighing 1lb 9oz and 2lb 4oz respectively. They were suffering from Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome, where one twin gets more blood in the womb than the other. Following their birth by Caesarean section on January 18 they were transferred to a specialist neonatal unit at St Peter's Hospital in Chertsey, Surrey. After a few days Krystal was deemed well enough to be transferred to Pembury Hospital in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, and split up from her sister.

Her parents, who do not have a car, said they were struggling to visit each baby while still caring for their two other children Mitchel, 10, and Kym. They said that even with the help of friends and family the distance means they can only see their frail daughters twice a week as they cannot leave their Maidstone home until they have collected Mitchel from school. Mr Collins said: "We only get about 10 minutes with each of them, a quick update and a stroke of their heads, before we have to get going.

"It is so awkward getting up through Pembury then into Surrey. "I would have thought it was better for them to be together and it would be easier for us if they were in one place, even if that was in Surrey. "It's like no one realises we are miles away and don't have a car. It is a real struggle, but for the sake of our family, we cannot lose it."

A spokesman for the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust said the girls needed very specialist care only provided in a handful of hospitals in the South East. He said: "We recognise this is a tough time for Stephanie and Martin and are helping them in any way we can."

Dr Paul Crawshaw, clinical director for paediatrics at the Ashford and St Peter's NHS Trust, Surrey, said the separation was a short-term situation. He said: "We always regret the separation of twins and are well aware of the difficulties it is causing the family. "We hope to get them reunited in the very near future."

SOURCE

Obamacare’s Two Americas

Here’s the worst thing you probably haven’t heard about President Barack Obama’s health care plan, which he and his allies are about to force through the Congress despite enormous opposition from the American people: it makes everything onetime vice presidential nominee John Edwards once said about the class divide of “two Americas” come true.

The dirty little secret of this plan—which wouldn’t be a secret if opponents of this legislative package weren’t distracted by a dozen other wrongheaded policies in it—is that it will bring a major and irreversible upheaval to America’s labor markets. In a time of economic tension, this plan will displace millions of workers and push more people into becoming contract employees, resulting in increased instability for working families.

One of the many original stated goals of the White House’s health care reforms was the promise that you can keep your health plan if you like it. However, the White House wanted to give businesses much-needed relief from burdensome health costs. Like the desire to create a new entitlement while reducing the budget deficit, these aims are nearly impossible to reconcile, so Obama chose a path that accomplishes neither.

The president’s plan penalizes an employer for not providing insurance, but the government will subsidize the health care of workers without employer-provided insurance. This effectively allows workers to receive the same compensation package they get today, but with government footing the health-benefits part of the bill, so employers have no need to make up the difference in cash.

The economic benefits of that subsidy far outweigh the penalties—for low income workers, it can result in an enormous difference of over $17,000 per year.

It’s obvious what will happen under this plan: it will not make economic sense for any small business which employs lower-income workers to offer health insurance. And any small business which does so will almost certainly fail, burdened by higher costs than their competitors.

This dilemma could be solved by making the penalties more draconian, but that too would cause business failures, and as with the individual insurance mandate, too steep a penalty would make the plan even more coercive and unpopular.

As John Goodman of the nonpartisan National Center for Policy Analysis recently described it, “High-paid workers with employer-paid insurance will cluster in some firms, while average- and below-average-wage workers will cluster in others. Overall, ObamaCare will create irresistible economic pressure to restructure the entire labor market.”

The only likely outcome of this plan will be for companies to drop coverage entirely. Younger, lower-income workers will be eligible for a subsidy and forced into the health exchanges. That will compel them to do something that doesn’t make economic sense. Most young workers don’t use health care much—unless you give them an incentive to over-consume care by paying for it up front for them.

There’s a final step here, though, that’s critical to understand: once those younger and lower-income workers are forced into a system that eliminates rational decision-making, they are made beholden to these taxpayer funded subsidies, and face massive penalties if their income rises such that they lose the subsidies. The marginal tax penalty for an individual moving up from to $40,000 a year to $45,000 is massive, as also for families earning $95,000 versus $90,000, creating an artificial cliff that dramatically penalizes success.

Thus a new picture of Obamacare emerges: it will force people to pay for what they don’t want and purchase what they don’t need, in a massive expansion of the size and power of government. The entire proposal functions not as a method of improving care or lowering premiums but as a massive regressive tax falling disproportionately on the young and those on the lower end of the income scale. And once in place, it will trap its supposed beneficiaries in ways that cannot be undone.

Combine this regressive tax with a massive increase in spending via a government entitlement which will only grow, and you have a recipe for long-term economic stagnation and the permanent enshrinement of two Americas into our national social policy.

SOURCE






ObamaCare Nuclear Option Deal Close

Behind closed doors, the Obama Administration, House and Senate Democrat leaders are cutting a secret deal on ObamaCare. They have come up with a way to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare in the House without any House members having to vote directly on the bill. Now The Hill is reporting that the House and Senate Parliamentarians are helping to advise Democrats on how to pass ObamaCare. When will the self proclaimed most ethical Congress in history start acting ethical and honest? This 111th Congress has proven, to date, to be the most secretive, non-transparent and devious Congress in recent history.

I explained in a blog on The Foundry yesterday the unethical procedure being used to pass ObamaCare:

House members have come up with a unique way to structure a vote that attempts to avoid the House voting on legislation before it goes to the President. First, the House Budget Committee will report out a reconciliation bill. It is unclear as to whether the Stupak Amendment will be added. This reconciliation measure would be reported for consideration by the House of Representatives as a whole. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) would then package the Senate passed Obamacare bill and the House reconciliation measure into one measure. The House rules committee will report out a rule that will allow the Senate passed Obamacare bill to pass the House without a vote.

This seems to be a violation of the constitutional requirement of Article 1, Section 7. The Constitution states in part “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States.” The House will avoid a direct vote on the Senate passed ObamaCare by passing a self-executing rule that deems ObamaCare to be passed, if the House approves the rule setting up debate on ObamaCare. Under the rule if the reconciliation measure passes, then the Senate passed ObamaCare bill will be deemed to have passed the House without a vote.

There is precedent in the House for self-executing rules. In 2007, the House to pass a self-executing rule during the debate on a War Supplemental. Also, during the budget process over the past few years, the House has inserted language into the annual budget resolutions that ”deems” as passed a debt limit increase. This type of rule allows the debt limit to pass the House without a vote and as similar rule would allow teh Senate version of ObamaCare to pass without a vote.

Late last night, The Hill reported that “Democrats Nearing Deal on Reconciliation”:

House and Senate Democratic leaders and White House officials were optimistic Wednesday evening that they were nearing a deal on a reconciliation package that would smooth the way for them to finally complete health care reform. Congressional leaders and senior administration officials met in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) office late in the day to hammer out a deal on reconciliation, meant to act as a sidecar of adjustments to the original $871 billion Senate-passed health care reform bill.

This meeting was not transparent and not open to the public. Pelosi was behind closed doors in order to cut a deal on a reconciliation measure that the House may consider in the next week or two. Yet again, Democrat leaders have used a closed door secret procedure to craft legislation to impose on Americans.

House Democratic leaders will walk their rank and file through portions of the package in a Thursday morning meeting, a leadership aide said.

This means that only Democrat elites have been part of this negotiation. Not until later today will the House Democrat caucus be allowed to see the reconciliation measure. Republicans need not apply, because they will not be allowed to see the reconciliation measure, until Democrats say so. And for your average American who will have to live under this new health care government run regime, you are not allowed to participate in the legislative process at all.

Reid declined to talk specifics as he exited the meeting. But he sounded optimistic that Democratic leaders were on the verge of a deal on the reconciliation package. “We are making progress. A lot of decisions were made,” Reid said. “I really do believe that the goal we’ve been seeking for such a long time — health care reform — is going to be done. We don’t have it all worked out, but we made a lot of progress.” Reid refused to speculate on a deadline for reaching a deal. President Barack Obama has said he’d like Congress to get health care done this month, and lawmakers are set to head out on a two-week recess beginning March 26.

This story in The Hill indicates that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is involved in the negotiations. We know that no Republican Senators were allowed to participate in this negotiation. There is a big shocker at the end of this story in The Hill.

Sources said the House and Senate Parliamentarians also attended the meeting to advise on reconciliation rules.

Stop the press! If this report is true, this could be a major scandal for the House and Senate Parliamentarians. They are supposed to be dispassionate umpires. Any appearance of the Parliamentarian gaming the system to aid one side to beat the rules should be denounced by all sides.

This was a very political and partisan strategy meeting with representatives of the White House, Democrat Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Leader Reid. Even if these Parliamentarians were not cheating the system by giving Democrats tips on how to bend the rules, the secrecy of the meeting should have been reason enough for the Senate Parliamentarian and his House counterpart to run for the exit. If Republicans lose every procedural objection during the reconcilation debate, they have a strong argument that the parliamentarians should recuse themselves from this proceeding because of a strong appearance of impropriety.

SOURCE





The Slaughter solution?

I've been dubious that Nancy Pelosi lacks the juice to muscle Obamacare through the House, but her enforcers must be running into a wall. Minority Leader John Boehner's blog introduces us to the aptly named Slaughter solution via this Congress Daily report (PDF). Boehner's blog reports:

The twisted scheme by which Democratic leaders plan to bend the rules to ram President Obama's massive health care legislation through Congress now has a name: the Slaughter Solution.

The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter's scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply "deeming" the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House.

Is this some kind of a joke? At NRO, Daniel Foster explains that the joke may be on us. This must be one of the cases described by Brecht in which it is time for the government to dissolve the people and elect another.

JOHN adds: What we're seeing in Washington is appalling, but there is a bright side--the craziness is proof that the Democrats don't have the votes for Obamacare in the House. They've pulled out all the stops, pushed every chip they have into the center of the table, and they still don't have the votes. Will they get them? I don't think anyone knows. Normally I would take the cynical view and say, Sure, if they twist enough arms, in the House they can ultimately do what they want. But they've done pretty much everything they can think of, and they don't have the votes yet. So what reason is there to assume that one more stratagem will put them over the top?

If the Dems do try the Slaughter solution, I think we can deem Congress to be Republican after November.

SOURCE






The Nuclear Option A Neutron Bomb Aimed at the Democratic Majority

What they do today will be used against them in the future -- but they are now so fanatical that they have cast caution to the winds. The GOP backed off a nuclear option over GWB's judicial appointments. They probably won't do likewise in future if Pelosi has her way now. But it's typically Leftist to have no thought for the future. Like children, they must have what they want now

It’s looking more and more likely that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will trigger the so called nuclear option to push through their health care legislation for the benefit of the American people; the very same people whom overwhelmingly have rejected it and its big government solutions to rising medical costs.

Her fanatical desire to pass this legislation has overwhelmed her ability to reason critically, as is evidenced by recent interviews in which she is quoted as saying, “Representatives are not in Washington to self perpetuate their political careers.” While Mrs. Pelosi may inhabit a very safe district, her words have probably come as quite a surprise to a number of her less safe Democratic colleagues. Hopefully she will give them enough advanced warning to begin in earnest the search for a new career.

It has become something of an urban legend among the Democrats that it was their inability to pass health care reform in the first Clinton administration that was responsible for their loss of the Majority in the House. In other words, the American people were deeply upset by the Democrats’ inability to deliver on legislation that would greatly increase their taxes and add mountains of new regulations to an already over regulated health care industry.

This is simply a major misread of history on their part. A more plausible reason for their rebuke and loss of Majority in the following Midterm elections were the Clinton tax increases and the arrogance of their members, as exemplified by the check kiting scandals of the house. This same arrogance was last displayed by members of the Republican party shortly before they lost their Majority status in the midterms in 2006.

Their fall back reasoning to vote for this legislation is no better. The idea that voters will seek retribution against the legislators who first cast a yes vote for the bill, and then once it became clear that nobody wanted it voted against it, is just silly. Do they really believe that if you vote for a bill that is hated by the majority of the public twice somehow you are safe? Have they never heard the old saying that “two wrongs don’t make a right?”

Before the Democrats trigger their Nuclear option, they should review their college physics text books one last time and realize that at it’s essence the Nuclear option, like the bomb it is named after, is an uncontrollable chain reaction. This Nuclear option has all the makings of a Political Neutron Bomb for their party; a tactical nuclear weapon designed to eliminate people but leave buildings intact. The Democratic Leadership should take a deep cleansing breath, remove their ideological 3D health care shades and have a look around. Somehow in the mass confusion that has been characteristic of this torturous process of producing health care legislation they have overlooked the Bright red rings outlining the bulls eye that this monstrosity has imprinted on their political careers.

SOURCE







GOP's Ryan Dissects ObamaCare, Lays Out 'Roadmap' To Health

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., took the national stage last month as he cut down Democratic health care plans point by point. If the GOP should win back the House In November, Ryan will become chairman of the House Budget Committee. And he has lots of ideas. He recently updated his "Roadmap for America's Future" to address many issues, including the budget deficit, entitlement programs, the tax system and health care.

IBD recently sat down with Ryan to discuss his ideas. In Part One he discusses ObamaCare's flaws and how his "Roadmap" would improve our health care system.

IBD: President Obama said his overhaul will "bring greater competition, choice, savings and efficiencies to our health care system."

Ryan: It will do the opposite of all three of those. It will mean less competition and less choice because it narrows the options consumers will have to get health insurance. It puts everybody on a glide path to go into an exchange where people will have three choices of policies — gold, silver and bronze. It standardizes health insurance and takes underwriting out of health insurance, which is how many insurers compete. At the end of the day you'll have a few big insurers selling different versions of the same color. With the kinds of mandates and rules they impose on insurers, the small and medium-sized insurance companies simply can't compete because they don't have the economies of scale. What you'll simply have are these handful of really large insurers simply becoming claims processors for federally run health insurance.

One example. There is a medium-sized insurer in Milwaukee that has 2,200 employees, 1,600 in Milwaukee. They sell in the individual market and they have the biggest share of policies with health savings accounts. If this bill becomes law, they'll have to close because of the rules and regulations. That means they lay off the 1,600 people in Milwaukee and send out cancellation notices to their 1.3 million policyholders.

The only ones that will survive are the really big companies. That will make prices go up. And what's so insidious from an entitlement standpoint is it's an open-ended entitlement that says to everyone who makes under $100,000, if your health care expenses exceed 2% to 9.8% (depending on income level), don't worry, taxpayers will pay the rest of it. That is an invitation of cost explosion.

IBD: Let's move to your Roadmap. On health insurance, you want to replace the employer-tax exclusion with a refundable tax credit of $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families. They can use it to buy insurance and pocket the difference.

Ryan: They should be able to pocket the difference because it is important to have a shopping incentive like that to put price pressure in the right place.

IBD: People fear that they won't be able to keep their employer-based coverage under ObamaCare. Doesn't the tax credit have the same weakness — you give people with employer-based coverage a tax credit in place of the tax exclusion, but there is no guarantee that the employer will keep that coverage?

Ryan: First, many employers who offered their employees health insurance 10 years ago don't anymore. More and more employers are dropping it anyway. So more and more people don't get health insurance from their jobs and they get no tax benefit. Let's end the discrimination against people who don't get health insurance through their jobs.

Second, I'm just de-linking the tax deduction for employees from the job and reattaching it to the individual. The employers still have the same tax incentive to provide health insurance to their employees.

I'm saying since more employers are dropping health insurance, since more people are changing jobs, losing jobs, going into business for themselves, make that tax benefit their property and not the property of employers.

IBD: John McCain proposed a similar plan in the 2008 presidential campaign. Obama attacked him because eliminating the exclusion, in effect, raised taxes, though only on upper-income earners. How can you deal with similar attacks?

Ryan: What's funny is Obama is doing it now under his bill. The president is proposing to take away the tax exclusion, at least for a certain segment of the market, and then use that money to spend on programs. That really is a tax increase. By contrast, I'm exchanging one tax benefit for another. You lose your exclusion, but you get it back as a tax credit.

I would argue that the current tax exclusion doesn't make any sense because we are subsidizing the wrong people. The people in the highest tax bracket get the biggest tax break for health insurance.

IBD: But how do you get around the political problem, that you're raising taxes?

Ryan: I'm not worried about the political problem. Economists from the left and right will tell you that one of the greatest sources of health inflation is this tax-exclusion system. It creates this third-party payer system that divorces consumer — the patient — from prices. You have to deal with that.

The vast majority of Americans will get a tax cut under my plan, on average about $1,400. If you don't have health care from your job, you'll get $5,700 more for your family for health care. Yes, people in the top tax bracket would not get as much from this system. But the people in the middle and lower brackets will get more, and they are the ones having a hard time buying health insurance. If we are trying to help get insurance to the uninsured and help middle-class families afford health insurance, the Roadmap is a far better way to do it.

IBD: Explain the state health insurance exchanges that the Roadmap would create. Also, why would they have to offer a plan that meets "the same statutory standard used for the health benefits given to members of Congress"?

Ryan: So, within the exchange, among the plans they have to offer is one like the standard Blue Cross option in the federal employee system. That way, people trapped in those states with extraordinarily high-cost plans can get basic insurance. If they want to buy more expensive insurance with all the bells and whistles, that cover acupuncture and hair plugs, they can still do so. It accomplishes much the same objective of interstate shopping, which I favor.

IBD: What if some people think that even the basic congressional plan is still bells and whistles? What if they want even less coverage?

Ryan: Then with interstate shopping they can go find a better plan. The point is not to create a floor, but to create an option that's not now available in many states.

IBD: The Roadmap would also reform Medicare. Starting in 2022, it would give seniors $11,000 annually to purchase private insurance. But critics have suggested that seniors don't have the sophistication to find cost-effective insurance.

Ryan: That's a paternalistic, arrogant and condescending notion. The seniors I represent sure analyze these things, they have children that look out for their best interests, and there are plenty of groups and service clubs that can help seniors.

But Medicare has a $38 trillion hole right now. It is unsustainable. What my plan says, if you are retired or above age 55, we're not going to make any changes. You're going to get Medicare as it exists now. But we've got to face up to the fact that Medicare will not be there for later generations.

For those under age 55, we put it on a path toward sustainability, and it works like the plan I get from the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. I get a list of plans that have been pre-certified by the Office of Personnel Management. I get a payment from my employer, the federal government— the taxpayers — and I apply that payment to the plan that works for me and my family.

That's what I propose for Medicare, with three changes. More support for low-income people to cover their out-of-pocket costs with a medical savings account. Less support for the wealthy because they can afford more on their own. Risk-adjusting the payments so as people's health deteriorates, they get more money to get affordable coverage. And seniors can select among a list of pre-certified Medicare plans.

That wipes out the unfunded liability and makes Medicare permanently solvent. That's been scored by Department of Health and Human Services actuaries and the Congressional Budget Office as achieving that.

SOURCE






Australia: Senior Citizen waits months for 'urgent' brain surgery

They're letting this guy walk around with a time-bomb in his head

A PENSIONER has been set a date for brain surgery after accusing Queensland Health of "playing God" and forcing him to wait more than 200 days longer than he should have for the urgent operation. The state opposition seized on the case of 70-year-old Hans Hagen, who understood himself to be on a category-one waiting list for more than seven months. That's despite him being listed as in need of surgery within 30 to 60 days.

Opposition health spokesman Mark McArdle tabled in parliament a copy of a letter from Mr Hagen to Health Minister Paul Lucas. It outlined the way his case had been handled since he was recommended for the aneurysm-correcting surgery in September last year. In it, Mr Hagen accuses Queensland Health of "playing God with my life". "My predicament is especially extreme as my life is threatened by two medical problems either of which could kill me without warning," Mr Hagen wrote. "Hence, I am at a loss to understand why my surgery has been delayed for such a long time."

He said he'd been told by Queensland Health staff that the extended wait was because he'd been reclassified to category two.

Mr McArdle demanded in question time that the health minister "explain to Mr Hagen in person why he has been waiting 267 days for urgent brain surgery".

Queensland Health district executive Dr David Theile said Mr Hagen had on Monday been scheduled for surgery in April. "Princess Alexandra Hospital apologises to the patient for any confusion about the surgical category assigned to him," Dr Theile said. "However, the hospital does not agree that his surgical condition, as has been published, is high risk." It is understood Mr Hagen's GP believed he was a category one patient, when specialists had classified him as category two.

Dr Theile said the hospital had been working with Mr Hagen since February to prepare him for surgery. "This has included consultations with specialist clinics in the hospital and privately as arranged by Mr Hagen's GP," Dr Theile said. "The hospital is sorry if this delay has caused concern for Mr Hagen, but he has expressed his satisfaction with his proposed surgery date with the hospital in communications today."

SOURCE

Dear America, Admit That You’re Stupid! Love, Nancy

The founding fathers debated bills for weeks. They then wrote them, referred them to committee’s of style and prose, brought them back to the floor, debated them again, wrote newspaper articles about them, went home to their districts to discuss them, and finally passed them — or not — after much deliberation.

Today’s Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wants us to just pass a bill so that later we can “find out what is in it.” Here’s what the zombie from San Francisco said about Obamacare yesterday:

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

Why can’t we know what’s in the bill before you pass it, Nancy? Or are you afraid that once people find out the horrors contained in this abortion of a bill they might not want it passed? In fact, by nearly every accounting the American people don’t want this communist take over of one-sixth of the economy to proceed.

Of course, communists and socialists don’t care what the people have to say about anything. They, after all, know best, right? That’s why Nancy and her coven in D.C. just want us to shut up and let them pass this witch’s brew.

So let this Congress lumber forward like the living dead to pass a bill that will materially alter the relationship that citizen has to government in these great United States. Let Nancy “Fright Night” Pelosi destroy the United States as we know it… On second thought, let’s not. Call your Congressman and Senator today and tell them you do not want this destructive bill passed in your name.

SOURCE






Obama Wants to Exploit Physicians not Listen to Them

Doctors Treated to Abuse at White House and by Democrats in Congress

Americans recall how Obama amazed the nation with his straw-man characterizations of doctors who perform unnecessary amputations and tonsillectomies out of greed. What people don’t know is how doctors have been mistreated behind closed doors by the White House and by Democrats in Congress.

Here are two stories that show the kind of abuse doctors have been subjected to in Obama’s Washington. The first sordid tale was reported by Matt Latimer at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government. I will follow excerpts of that story with an El Marco exclusive peek at how one group of doctors who support Obama was subjected to Rahm Emanuel’s beastly behavior in the White House. But first here’s Latimer’s account of doctors treated badly by congressional Democrats.

Attempting to enact his big-government health care scheme, President Obama and his supporters frequently claimed that a “majority” of doctors supported his health-care plans. When the American Medical Association – which had opposed HillaryCare – signed onto Obama’s plan last year, the organization seemed to make the President’s case. Most people assumed that the AMA represented most of the doctors in the country. But in fact, the AMA represents less than 20 percent of all physicians in the United States. And yet as the organization’s leadership moved more to the left, it held a near monopoly on media attention on issues pertaining to public health. No longer.

As the AMA has become increasingly politicized in recent years – issuing a statement in support of climate change, for example, in 2008 – a new group of doctors has risen to challenge them.

Docs4PaitientCare: Founded by Dr. Hal Scherz, a prominent Atlanta physician, the group of doctors expressed concern that like so many other professional groups, the AMA’s leadership have been thoroughly “Washingtonized” – caring more about the pleadings of other lobbyists on K Street, White House invitations and Capitol Hill committee appearances than the professions they are supposed to represent. As doctors have taken a battering over several decades from insurance companies, HMOS, and government agencies, Scherz says the AMA was a bystander. “As the insurance companies become more and more impossible and government intrusion keeps growing, we’ve seen our delivery of care to our patients compromised and our incomes decrease,” he said. But it was the AMA’s support for ObamaCare that really troubled Scherz and others in his field.

Many doctors run small businesses and by nature are entrepreneurial. Why then, he wondered, would the AMA favor ObamaCare’s regulatory and taxation burden? Why would they want a multitude of government panels interfering with the decisions doctors usually make with their patients about care and treatment? Recognizing that the AMA was compromised, Scherz decided to organize his own group in opposition to the Obama plan.

Wearing their scrubs and white jackets, the doctors drew attention as they walked the halls of congress and spoke at rallies on Capitol Hill. Often just showing up in the offices of members of the House and Senate, they would manage to get appointments with the members themselves or key staff members.

Joyce Lovett MD, an African American female pediatrician, got the doctors into a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus. A debate opened up over the health care plan and soon the doctors were text-messaging their colleagues visiting other offices around the capitol for reinforcements. As the room began filling up, the doctors, doing well in the back and forth of debate, seemed to be changing some minds. At that point, a worried Black Caucus leader and diehard partisan, John Conyers, broke up the meeting, saying the doctors were more interested in embarrassing the first black president than in achieving real reform. Unused to this sort of political attack, the astonished doctors told other caucus members how they felt after taking time from their practices and patients to come all the way to Washington only to hear a member of Congress insinuate they were racists. One caucus member privately dismissed Conyers’ “old ways of thinking,” suggesting that the CBC might be ready for fresh, and more innovative, leadership.

Playing the race card against any American, black or white, who criticizes Obama is part of a strategic Democrat/MSM assault on free speech and dissent. This has become a standard Democrat debating tactic, and is but one example of how liberals are unwilling to compete in the arena of ideas.

With a flurry of recent headlines shedding light on Rahm “Dead Fish” Emanuel’s aggressive personality, a conversation I had last week with a doctor in New Jersey took on added relevance. The doctor, whom I have known since the late ’70s, related to me an incident told to him by a medical colleague who is a large financial supporter of Obama. A supporter, that is, until his recent invitation to the White House knocked the lenses out of his rose-colored glasses.

He told how he was invited as part of a group of other Obama stalwarts in the medical profession for what he mistakenly believed was an opportunity to offer input to the President’s ongoing health care initiative.

The colleague related how this group of doctors was seated in the White House and waited patiently as Obama’s TelePrompTers were assembled in front of them. When, after a long wait, Obama finally appeared, he delivered one of his trademark TelePrompTer performances lasting about five minutes. Obama thanked the doctors, via TelePrompTer, for their support, and then left the room. This is where it gets interesting.

Rahm Emanuel was left behind to face the doctors. When the doctors related to Emanuel that they thought they had been invited not merely to support Obama, but to advocate for doctors and patients, Rahm exploded with a verbal tirade. He was described as rude and abusive as he proclaimed that the doctors had been invited for one reason only, to show support for Obamacare. He made it clear that they were expected to be advocates for the administration’s policies.

The entire experience was profoundly disturbing to the doctor who experienced Emanuel’s bullying outburst. When he returned to his home state, he no longer supported Obama, who he now saw in a new light. He now considers Obama to be a “complete phony”. As for Rahm Emanuel, he vehemently described him as “a very dangerous personality” and “a dangerous menace to our country”

So doctors who oppose Obamacare run the risk of being called racists and docs who support Obamacare are told to shut-up and toe the line. Hows that hopey and changey thing going America?

When the Obama White House stages a media event using doctors as props, the intent is to create the illusion of support from the medical profession as a whole. One has to wonder if the doctors story cited above gives us a glimpse of the AstroTurf process for vetting Docs to appear at Obama events.

On Oct 5, 2009 one such Rose Garden event was staged and the NY Post published some embarrassing facts and photos:

President Obama rolled out the red carpet – and handed out doctors’ white coats as well, just so nobody missed his hard-sell health-care message.

In a heavy-handed attempt at reviving support for health-care reform, the White House orchestrated a massive photo op to buttress its claim that front-line physicians support Obama.

A sea of 150 white-coated doctors, all enthusiastically supportive of the president and representing all 50 states, looked as if they were at a costume party as they posed in the Rose Garden before hearing Obama’s pitch for the Democratic overhaul bills moving through Congress.

The physicians, all invited guests, were told to bring their white lab coats to make sure that TV cameras captured the image. But some docs apparently forgot, failing to meet the White House dress code by showing up in business suits or dresses. So the White House rustled up white coats for them and handed them to suited physicians who had taken seats in the sun-splashed lawn area.

All this to provide a visual counter to complaints from doctors that pending legislation is bad news for the medical profession.

What the media won’t tell you is that some of the doctors were former members of the “Doctors for Obama” organization. Oh, but it’s renamed after the election “Doctors for America”, which is part of “Organizing for America”, which was renamed from “Obama for America”, which was/is Obama’s campaign machine.

One of the Obama administrations early accomplishments was making the word AstroTurf a commonly understood term in America. Previously AstroTurf was an obscure term like “teabagger” known mainly by the small number of the liberal-left who were practitioners of it. Long associated with Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod, AstroTurf as now employed by Obama’s White House is something voters are learning to recognize and reject.

SOURCE (Some good pix at the link)







Silver bullet from U.S. states kills 'mandatory' Obamacare

36 legislatures fight for citizens' rights to opt out of health-coverage demand

At least 36 state legislatures are considering legislation that would allow citizens to opt out of a key component of President Obama's health-care "reform" – an "individual mandate" requiring that all Americans have health insurance.

Both the House and Senate health-care bills require Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The House bill establishes a fine based on percentage of a person's income, while the Senate version creates a penalty as a flat fee or percentage of income, whichever is higher. Those refusing to get insurance could be found guilty of a misdemeanor crime, punishable by another fine or even jail time.

Join nearly 100 members of Congress and 13,000 Americans in rejecting federal government health-care mandates on patients, employers, individuals and states – sign on to the Declaration of Health Care Independence.

"The president's proposal adopts the Senate approach but lowers the flat dollar assessments, and raises the percent of income assessment that individuals pay if they choose not to become insured," a White House plan released in February states.

States rejecting 'individual mandate'

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, formal resolutions or bills have been filed in opposition to the individual mandate in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Also, as of March 4, Virginia became the first state to enact a new statute section titled, "Health insurance coverage not required." In Arizona, voters will cast ballots on a constitutional amendment in November 2010 that would "preserve the freedom of all residents of the state to provide for their own health care."

Lawmakers suggest approval of the legislation may spark a legal battle over states' rights versus the federal government's reach of power. The Boston Globe reported the measures could set the stage for "one of the greatest tests of federal power over the states since the civil rights era."

"The administration is trying to shift from a government by social compact, agreement between elected officials and citizens, to a government where the leaders tell the subjects what to do," Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, chief sponsor of the measure in his state, told the Globe. "That is not what the American Revolution was about."

The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, has sparked nationwide interest with its model "Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act: How Your State Can Block Single-Payer and Protect Patients' Rights." ALEC warns that forcing patients to enroll in one-size-fits-all plans would cause massive increases in spending and force policymakers to ration care as a cost-containment measure.

Is mandatory insurance constitutional?

Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer told the New York Times in September 2009 that lawmakers in his state have proposed a state constitutional amendment to protect citizens from government interference in their private health decisions. "All I'm trying to do is protect the individual's right to make health-care decisions," Emmer said. "I just don't want the government getting between my decisions with my doctors." He said an amendment wouldn't prohibit anyone from participating in a federal health program. It would simply prevent them from being forced to enroll. "[T]ell me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the federal government has the right to provide health care," Emmer said. "This is the essence of the debate."

During the Democratic presidential primary, Obama took a jab at Hillary Clinton over the individual mandate. "The main difference between my plan and Sen. Clinton's plan," he said, "is that she'd require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she'd 'go after' your wages if you don't."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, the federal government has never mandated that Americans purchase any good or service. In 1994, the CBO studied the individual mandate in Clinton's universal health-care plan and found that it was an unprecedented requirement. "A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action," the CBO report stated. "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government."

Opponents say the individual mandate is unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government power to fine citizens for refusing to purchase goods and services. Ken Klukowski, senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, explained in a Politico commentary why there is no constitutional basis for the individual mandate. "People who decline coverage are not receiving federal money, so that mandate can't fall under the spending part of the Tax and Spending Clause," he wrote.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes excise and capitation taxes, and the 16th Amendment created the income tax. However, Klukowski contends that government health insurance cannot be considered an excise, capitation or income tax. "It can't be an excise tax because that's a surcharge on a purchase, and here people are not buying anything," he explained. "It can't be a capitation (or 'direct') tax because that is a tax on every person in a state and must be equal for every person in the state; this would be a levy that some people would pay and others would not. And it can't be an income tax because that must be based on personal income, not purchase decisions."

He added, "All that's left is the Commerce Clause. And the people who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would not be engaging in commercial activity, so there's no interstate commerce. That, in fact, is the government's problem with them: Those people refuse to take the money or play the game."

Likewise, the Congressional Research Service recently reported that determining whether an individual mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause "is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service."

Klukowski wrote that if Obama wants a plan that forces Americans to purchase insurance, he will need to "persuade the nation to adopt a constitutional amendment creating a right to health care." He added, "You might have better odds of getting struck by lightning."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and outspoken critic of the individual mandate, told CNS News that if Congress can force Americans to buy health care, or mandate the purchase of anything, "we've lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us."

SOURCE







Real competition among health plans

The flash point of last year’s health care debate was the public option. The proposal, which calls for a government-created health insurer to compete with private insurers, was praised by President Barack Obama and its liberal supporters as a way of “keeping insurance companies honest.” Conservatives criticized it as a slippery slope to a government-run single-payer system.

The public option appeared to be dead when Senate leaders decided not to include it in their health care reform bill. But prominent liberals have recently called for the Senate to add it to the new reform proposal. More than 100 House Democrats, 37 Senate Democrats and major progressive groups like MoveOn.org and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee have urged that the public option be added through reconciliation. The public option now has “a new pulse,” says the liberal website Talking Points Memo.

So far, arguments have been largely theoretical. Or they refer — positively or negatively — to government-run health care systems in foreign countries. A better comparison, however, might be to a “public option” Washington created in another part of the insurance industry.

Since September 2008, the government has infused billions into an insurer that provides coverage for cars, homes and business assets. Once this insurer got government funding, it began slashing premiums for many of the insurance policies it sells. Its private-sector competitors have cried foul, but new customers keep signing up.

Chances are that most readers have heard of this insurer — just not referred to as a “public option.” Rather, it is known by its initials: AIG. Though the primary argument for the government to pour more than $180 billion into American International Group’s coffers was to save the financial system from the company’s bad mortgage bets, the infusions have given the company an advantage over its rivals in its daily businesses. In the months after the bailout, The Wall Street Journal reported, “AIG at times has slashed insurance prices — by more than 30 percent in some cases — to fend off rivals and to keep or win contracts.”

AIG cut premiums by 34 percent, for example, to underbid three other firms and win renewal of a policy with the U.S. Olympic Committee, the Journal reported. It pried away a rival’s contract covering the city-owned airport in Mesa, Ariz., by bidding about 30 percent less. The company assuaged concerns about safety and soundness by pointing directly to the government infusion that, it says, “strengthens [AIG’s] capital positions.”

Rival insurers have complained loudly. So have trade groups like the American Insurance Association. But AIG’s competitors aren’t the only ones concerned. The Government Accountability Office and the insurance department of Pennsylvania are investigating whether the company has been charging inadequate amounts for the risks involved in its policies since it received bailout money. In a preliminary report, the GAO said it had not “drawn any final conclusions about how the assistance has impacted the overall competitiveness” of the market but did find that “AIG’s insurance companies have likely received some indirect benefit” from not having the parent company’s credit rating downgraded.

On the liberal website The Huffington Post, Don McNay, a personal finance columnist, decried AIG’s apparent use of its subsidies to distort the insurance market. “Undercutting the market,” he wrote, “is a bigger issue than the $165 million in bonuses. If AIG loses millions, or billions, in the future due to its ‘overly aggressive pricing,’ we are going to be picking up the tab.”

Indeed, liberals often complain about companies that use an advantage to allegedly engage in “predatory pricing,” even if it results in short-term benefits for consumers. They claim that airlines, discount retailers and other businesses that slash prices will drive out smaller competitors.

Though the Supreme Court concluded, in 1986, that “there is a consensus among commentators that predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful,” it is a different story when the government gives one firm a direct subsidy or regulatory advantage.

Yet liberals have abandoned their fears of underpricing driving out competitors when it comes to a public option in health insurance. Another Huffington Post contributor, Sahil Kapur, argued that “if private insurers don’t survive” competition from the government plan, “it’s because they were ripping off customers or operating inefficiently.” A concern about unfair competition, he declared, “implicitly prioritizes the well-being of providers over consumers.”

Yet everyone eventually loses when the game is rigged through a subsidized insurance competitor — whether it’s AIG or the public option. Private insurers folding or leaving the market for a particular type of insurance means less innovation in pricing and risk prevention, leading to fewer options and higher costs for most consumers.

And if a price war engendered by subsidized competition meant premiums were inadequate to cover risk, the government might be faced with a bigger insurance tab. The quality of coverage could also suffer. Choice, in turn, would be limited even more.

Of course, competition isn’t the end goal of some public option advocates, who most likely see the public option as a way station for a single-payer system like Canada’s. But if that’s the case, why not have an honest debate, as Washington Post economist Robert Samuelson suggests, between single payer and “genuine competition among health plans over price and quality”?

To bring real competition, let customers buy health insurance across state lines and remove provisions of the tax code favoring employer-based health insurance. But let’s not bring the “too big to fail” model, which proved such a disaster for the financial industry, into our health care system, under the guise of the public option.

SOURCE





British toddler died of meningitis after five doctors failed to spot symptoms

A toddler who died of meningitis after five doctors failed to spot he was suffering from the disease was "completely failed by the medical profession", his family said.

An inquest heard 21-month-old Oliver Martin was rushed to hospital by his mother, a district nurse, when he fell seriously ill at home. He was displaying several of the major symptoms of meningitis, including a rash that disappeared when pressed, high temperature, pale complexion and lethargy. But the hearing was told the illness was "at the back of the mind" of the first doctor to examine Oliver who thought he was suffering from chicken pox.

He was subsequently seen by a further four other doctors - but was not given antibiotics until eight and a half hours after his arrival at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. By then it was too late, and Oliver, of Welford, Northants, died of meningococcal septicaemia, a type of blood poisoning caused by the same bacteria as meningitis, a short time later.

Oliver's mother, Louise Martin, 27, was too upset to attend the inquest at Leicester Town Hall. But speaking afterwards, his aunt, Susan Wilson, who sat through the evidence, said: "He was failed from the moment we walked through the door. "His treatment was disgusting. The medical profession let him down. I'm very, very angry. "The Government tells us through their leaflets to trust our instincts and not take any chances, to get children to hospital and get antibiotics. "And Oliver did - but eight-and-a-half hours later, and by then it was too late.

"If his mum had kept him at home and given him a dose of Nurofen, which is basically what the hospital did, she would be on a child neglect and manslaughter charge now. "But what have the Leicester Royal Infirmary got? Nothing. We've not even had an apology. "If this inquest prevents this happening again, then it will have been worthwhile."

Leicester City Coroner Catherine Mason, who recorded a narrative verdict, criticised "poor" communication between staff at the hospital which meant vital information about Oliver's condition and symptoms was not passed on when his case was handed over. She added: "Had earlier treatment been given Oliver may still have died, but on the balance of probabilities his chances of survival would have been better."

The inquest heard Oliver was taken to the hospital by his mother at around 10am on May 13 last year, and first seen by Accident and Emergency doctor Kalmjit Kaur. She noted a number of possible diagnoses, including meningitis, but suspected it was more likely he was suffering from chicken pox. Crucially, she chose not to administer antibiotics - and instead decided Oliver's condition should simply be monitored.

He was later moved to the children's ward, where concerned nurses tried to get the duty paediatric registrar, Dr Manjith Narayanan, to re-examine him. But he failed to do so for over an hour because he had been told at the start of his evening shift that Oliver's condition was "not serious". He said: "If I had been given all of the information I would've come out of the hand-over, gone to see him straight away and given him antibiotics." Doctors eventually suspected meningococcal septicaemia and ordered a course of the anti-viral drugs at 6.30pm. But Oliver died at around 10pm.

Kevin Harris, the acting medical director at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust said: "We accept the coroner's verdict following the inquest into Oliver Martin's death. "We would like to express our sincere condolences to his family for the upset and distress caused. "If Oliver's family have any questions following the verdict we would welcome the opportunity to discuss these with them." [In other words: So sad, too bad]

SOURCE






Australia: Widow sues government over faulty ambulance equipment -- equipment KNOWN to be faulty

A woman is suing the Queensland government for $1.62 million over claims faulty ambulance equipment contributed to her husband's death. In a statement of claim filed this week in the Brisbane Supreme Court registry, Carmal Corsie and her three children allege the government was negligent in failing to ensure crucial equipment was working properly when an ambulance came to collect Iain Corsie on March 23, 2007.

According to the claim, the ambulance was called to the family's Mitchelton home after Mr Corsie, 38, suffered pains in his chest and arm. Mrs Corsie claims ambulance officers checked his condition and determined he was having a heart attack. They used a Heartstart 4000 monitor/defibrillator to conduct an ECG before he was allowed to walk to the ambulance.

Court documents claim the defibrillator malfunctioned while en route to the hospital, and that the paramedics elected to divert to the ambulance station to find a replacement piece of equipment. Shortly afterwards Mr Corsie lost consciousness and died.

The Corsie family claims it later learned the defibrillator had malfunctioned in late February and then failed to pass an equipment check the day before Mr Corsie's death. Court documents allege the machine was not serviced or taken out of use.

The family is suing the government for $1.62 million, claiming it was negligent in failing to ensure proper, working equipment was available to treat Mr Corsie. They also allege the ambulance took an unacceptable 19 minutes to arrive at their address after being called, and then should have travelled directly to hospital instead of making a detour to the station. "If the defendant had not been negligent, the deceased would not have died," the claim states.

SOURCE

A doctor savages Obama's healthcare reform plan

Dr Wolf is a distant relative of Obama's

"Primum nil nocere."First, do no harm. This guiding principle is a bedrock of medical care. Sadly, those politicians who would rewrite our health care laws do not live in the same universe as do the doctors and health care professionals who must practice it.

Imagine if, like physicians, politicians were personally held to the incredibly high level of scrutiny that includes civil and financial liability for any unintended consequence of their decisions. Imagine if they were forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars each year on malpractice insurance and still faced the threat of multimillion-dollar lawsuits with every single decision they made. If so, a government takeover of health care would be the furthest thing from their minds.

Obamacare proponents would have us believe that we will add 30 million patients to the system without adding providers, we will see no decline in the quality of care for the millions of Americans currently happy with the system, and -if you act now!- we will save money in the process. But why stop there? Why not promise it will no longer rain on weekends and every day will be a great hair day?

America has the finest health care delivery system in the world. Let's not forget that and put it at risk in the name of reform. Desperate souls across the globe flock to our shores and cross our borders every day to seek our care. Why? Our system provides cures while the government-run systems from which they flee do not. Compare Europe's common cancer mortality rates to America's: breast cancer - 52 percent higher in Germany and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom; prostate cancer - a staggering 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway; colon cancer - 40 percent higher in the United Kingdom.

Look closer at the United Kingdom. Britain's higher cancer mortality rate results in 25,000 more cancer deaths per year compared to a similar population size in the United States. But because the U.S. population is roughly five times larger than the United Kingdom's, that would translate into 125,000 unnecessary American cancer deaths every year. This is more than all the mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, cousins and children in Topeka, Kan. And keep in mind, these numbers are for cancer alone. America also has better survival rates for other major killers, such as heart attacks and strokes. Whatever we do, let us not surrender the great gains we have made. First, do no harm. Lives are at stake.

Obamacare: Fixing price at any cost

The justification for Obamacare has been to control costs, but the problem is there is little in Obamacare that will do that. Instead, there are provisions that will ration care and artificially set price. This is a confusion of costs and price.

As one example, consider the implications of Obamacare's financial penalty aimed at your doctor if he seeks the expert care he has determined you need. If your doctor is in the top 10 percent of primary care physicians who refer patients to specialists most frequently - no matter how valid the reasons - he will face a 5 percent penalty on all their Medicare reimbursements for the entire year. This scheme is specifically designed to deny you the chance to see a specialist. Each year, the insidious nature of that arbitrary 10 percent rule will make things even worse as 100 percent of doctors try to stay off that list. Many doctors will try to avoid the sickest patients, and others will simply refuse to accept Medicare. Already, 42 percent of doctors have chosen that route, and it will get worse. Your mother's shiny government-issued Medicare health card is meaningless without doctors who will accept it.

Obamacare will further diminish access to health care by lowering reimbursements for medical care without regard to the costs of that care. Price controls have failed spectacularly wherever they've been tried. They have turned neighborhoods into slums and have caused supply chains to dry up when producers can no longer profit from providing their goods. Remember the Carter-era gas lines? Medical care is not immune from this economic reality. We cannot hope that our best and brightest will pursue a career in medicine, setting aside years of their lives - for me, 13 years of school and training - to enter a field that might not even pay for the student loans it took to get there.

Giving power back to people

I believe there is a better way. The problems in the American health care system are not caused by a shortage of government intrusion. They will not be solved by more government intrusion. In fact, our current problems were precisely, though unintentionally, created by government.

World War II-era wage-control measures - a form of price controls - ushered in a perverted system in which we turn to our employers for insurance and the government penalizes us if we choose to purchase insurance for ourselves. You are not given the opportunity to be a wise consumer of health care and compare prices as well as quality in any meaningful way. Worse still, your insurance company is not answerable to you because you are not its customer. It is answerable to your employer, whose interests differ from your own.

Insurance companies have been vilified for following the perverse rules that government has created for them. But it gets worse. The government, always knowing best, deploys insurance commissioners across the land to dictate what the insurance companies must provide, whether you want it or not, and each time, your premiums increase. Obamacare will make all of this worse, not better.

One of America's founding principles is our trust in the people and their economic freedom to rule their own lives. We should decouple health insurance from employers and empower patients to be consumers once again. Allow them to determine the insurance plan that best meets their families' needs and which company will provide it. This will unleash a wave of competition that will drive costs down in a way that price controls never have. Eliminate the artificial state boundary rules that protect insurance companies from true competition and watch as voters demand that their state insurance commissioners get the heck out of the way. Innovative companies will drive down costs similar to how Geico and Progressive have worked for automobile insurance. And it won't cost taxpayers a trillion dollars in the process.

This free-market approach has worked for everything from high-definition TVs to breakfast cereals, but will it work for medicine? It already is. Take Lasik eye surgery, for example. Because patients are allowed to be informed consumers and can shop anywhere, doctors work hard for their business. Services, availability and expertise have all increased, and costs have decreased. Should consumers demand it, insurance companies - now answerable to you rather than your employer - would cover it.

Between Barack and a hard place

I have personally trained and practiced in both the government-run and free-market segments of American medicine. The difference is vast. Patients see this for themselves, and this may be why, according to a recent CNN poll, they oppose Obamacare nearly 3 to 1. I am with them. It is difficult for me to speak publicly against the president on his central issue, but too much is at stake.

I wish my cousin Barack the greatest of success in office. But I feel duty-bound to rise in opposition to Obamacare. I must take a stand for my patients, my profession and, ultimately, my country. The problems caused by government will not be solved by growing government. Now that this new era of big-government takeovers has spread to our health care system, it's not just our freedoms or our wallets that are at stake. It's our lives.

SOURCE





Hill Democrats brush back White House health deadline

As House Democratic leaders struggle to round up the 216 votes needed to pass President Obama's health care plan, they have all but set aside the March 18 deadline set by the White House and are hinting the debate could extend well past the upcoming Easter recess. A delay would likely make it even more difficult for the Democrats to pass a bill.

"I believe that if members of Congress go home for two weeks, they will hear from the American people what they really think about the bill and they will be less likely to vote for it when they come back," Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democratic leaders have yet to begin negotiating with approximately one dozen pro-life Democrats who comprise one of the biggest obstacles in the House. Hoyer also discounted the deadline put forward last week by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. "None of us have mentioned the 18th, other than Mr. Gibbs," Hoyer said.

Hoyer said Democrats are still wrangling with how to pass the Senate health care bill in the House and then follow with a smaller bill that makes corrections to the Senate bill. House Democrats are refusing to back the Senate bill unless it is done concurrently with a second bill that would purge several special deals cut for certain senators as well as an excise tax on expensive insurance plans. Hoyer called a pre-Easter vote "an objective, not a deadline."

Without some kind of concurrent passage of both bills, it will be nearly impossible for House Democratic leaders to come up with the votes because House Democrats don't trust the Senate to follow through with the corrections bill once the Senate health care bill is signed into law by Obama. The Senate would have to take up the second bill under budget reconciliation rules in order to pass it with just 51 votes, which could be difficult and politically dangerous, depending on what's in it. But senators on Tuesday said they are committed to taking up the second bill.

"I can tell you this," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said. "Nobody wants to stab the House in the back. Every one of us understands the position the House is in. I guess what we ask is that the House understand our position as well."

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who voted for the Senate version, said the national polls don't matter as much as the sense he gets from his constituents. The majority in Nebraska, he said, "do not" support the Democratic health care plan, but will decide whether to back it as soon as the bill is written and given a price tag by the Congressional Budget Office. "I'm not going to say I'm going to support something I haven't seen," Nelson said.

SOURCE





Obama's Reconciliation Lie

Less than one week ago, President Obama stood before an assembled audience of hand- picked sympathizers on healthcare reform at the White House and called on Congress to pass his healthcare reform package into law... again.

Having spent his entire year long presidency singularly focused on passing a massive, trillion dollar, federal government takeover of the healthcare industry in America, and failed -- Obama had a couple of choices going forward. With an American public now solidly against his healthcare proposal, and his Democrat margins in both houses of Congress now a wee bit slimmer, Obama was forced to choose between either a) substantially altering his healthcare proposal to make it more palatable and bipartisan as he claims is his goal, or b) forging ahead with virtually the same heavy-handed government takeover package and hope to woo skeptical Americans and Democratic lawmakers by the sheer force of his personality.

In Obama’s speech – a rather short one for him of only 21 minutes – he made it clear that he is opting for Plan B. Obama stated: “No matter which approach you favor, I believe the U.S. Congress owes the American people a final vote on healthcare reform. We have debated this issue thoroughly. Not just for the past year, but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a super-majority of 60 votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the children’s health insurance program, that was used for cobra health coverage for the unemployed, and by the way for both Bush tax cuts, all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.”

In other words, he plans to utilize budget reconciliation to pass ObamaCare, which requires only a simple majority in both chambers. And Obama appealed to history, citing five specific examples of major legislation that was passed using reconciliation.

Here’s the only problem with Obama’s appeal: every bill he cited was passed with bipartisan support. This is, of course, precisely the opposite of what is occurring on ObamaCare, where the minority party is unanimously opposed to the entire package. In fact, reconciliation has been used nearly 20 times since it’s origination in 1981, but never once in a completely partisan fashion to pass major social legislation. Not once.

A quick review of the actual legislation Obama cited shows example after example of bipartisan support. Both Bush tax cuts were passed with Democrat votes in both chambers. Cobra was enacted in 1986 with a Republican controlled White House and Senate and a Democrat controlled House. Landmark welfare reform was passed by a Republican controlled Congress (with 125 Democrat votes from both chambers) and signed into law by President Clinton, as was the Children’s Health Program in 1997 within the Balanced Budget Act.

Republican claims that Obama’s intended use of reconciliation to pass his version of healthcare reform is unprecedented (what the word really means, not how Obama uses it) and hyper partisan is absolutely true. It would be complimenting Obama to say he was being merely disingenuous in his stated reason for using reconciliation.

In the same speech noted above, Obama portended to take the high road by maintaining “I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right” and saying he would “provide the leadership” the American people so desperately want on healthcare reform. Perhaps Obama is genuine in stating he does not know how this will play politically, but Americans seem to know instinctively, and they are not calling it leadership, they’re calling it a lie.

SOURCE






Canadian Health Care System Bad Model for USA

During an interview prior to the health care town hall meeting hosted by U.S. Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) this morning in St. Charles, Mo., I spoke with Joe DeVincent, a government retiree from nearby Wentzville, about the prospects of government-run health care (a.k.a., “ObamaCare”). He expressed deep reservations about ObamaCare based, in part, on his own daughter’s experience as the wife of a Canadian citizen living north of the border.

“She doesn’t like it at all,” he said. “You can’t see doctors when you want to see doctors. The few doctors that are even practicing there, their business is just so full…

“One time, my wife and I went with her to see her primary care physician. She had an appointment, and it took three hours to get in. The waiting room was just so jammed, because nobody one can see doctors there.

“The doctors only work until they’ve made a certain amount of money. When they make that amount of money, they don’t get paid anymore,” he continued. “We definitely don’t need this system in the United States.”

The problem is so bad, he said, that his daughter has been forced to come to the United States on more than one occasion.

A fix, he said, would be new legislation that gave everyone the same coverage. “If they want to put a health plan in, make it everybody, including Congressmen, senators, the president, everybody falls in that plan. Then, they’ll put one in there that’ll work.”

Asked if he thought it would ever happen, he was doubtful. “It’ll never happen. They’re gonna take care of themselves and, if this goes in, we’re gonna suffer.”

SOURCE






Dead body was left on bed next to me for eight hours: Patient tells of horror on packed NHS ward

An NHS patient has spoken of her horror after the body of a woman was left in an adjacent bed for up to eight hours. Sarah Stevenson, 64, said staff left the corpse on a packed ward from 1pm until after 8.30pm. Two other patients who died on the same day were also left for several hours behind thin curtains on the ward where Mrs Stevenson was being treated for pneumonia, she said. The three bodies were finally removed in front of distressed families and young children during visiting hours.

Bosses at Heartlands Hospital, in Birmingham, last night apologised. They said the wait was caused by delays in bringing specialist equipment to remove the bodies, but denied they remained for as long as eight hours.

Mrs Stevenson, a great-grandmother from Small Heath, Birmingham, was admitted to hospital on February 15 with suspected pneumonia. She was given a bed on a single-sex ward and was placed in a bay next to another woman. Two days later, at around 1.10pm, she noticed the woman had died. She told a nurse but says the body was not taken away until after 8.30pm. All that divided Mrs Stevenson - whose daughter is a nurse - and the patient was a thin curtain.

She said: 'At about 1.10pm the woman in the bed opposite me, a lady in her late-50s or early-60s, died and I had to alert the nurse that she had passed away. 'Another one died at around 2pm and the third a while later. I was upset because I was so ill myself and to lie next to a dead body all day was my worst nightmare. I don't think they showed the patient any dignity in death. My daughter is a nurse so I know bodies are only supposed to stay on the wards for a maximum of four to six hours, but it was nearly eight hours before they came to take her to the mortuary. 'It was appalling and it should never take that long. The nurses were pushed to the limit and couldn't control a lot of what was going on.'

Mrs Stevenson, who has been married and divorced twice and was a stay-at-home mother to her three children and four step-children, was discharged on February 22. Her allegations came after a damning survey revealed the Third World conditions on overcrowded NHS wards, despite the budget being tripled under Labour over the past ten years.

A survey of 900 nurses this week showed patients are routinely treated in kitchens, corridors, mop cupboards and TV rooms because wards are full. Four in ten told the Nursing Times that patients' dignity and privacy were not protected, while many spoke of chaotic mixed-sex wards where emergency buzzers were left out of reach. The shocking series of anecdotes followed a series of NHS scandals including the unnecessary deaths of up to 1,200 patients at Stafford Hospital.

The Heart of England Foundation Trust has launched an investigation into Mrs Stevenson's claims. Spokesman Charlotte Calder said: 'Three patients did die on the ward on the same day but two of those were further away from Mrs Stevenson. 'One terminally ill patient did unfortunately die in the bay where Mrs Stevenson was being treated. 'It was felt that it would be more respectful to prepare the deceased patient in the bay with the curtain drawn. 'The transfer of this patient took four and a half hours - longer than normal - due to the clinical condition of the deceased patient and the need for specialist equipment.

'We are sorry that this may have disturbed and caused Mrs Stevenson distress. 'Our stance is that no patient's body had been left on the ward for more than five hours but we are investigating the matter.'

SOURCE




NHS 'wasted £21bn tackling life gap between rich and poor'

Billions of pounds may have been wasted on a high-profile Government pledge to reduce the gap in life expectancy between rich and poor, a watchdog revealed yesterday. A total of £21billion - more than a fifth of the entire National Health Service budget - has been set aside to cut inequalities in this financial year alone. But an Audit Commission report says it can't find any evidence that it provides value for money.

The health of people in England has improved since Labour started pumping billions into the NHS, but the health of richer people has improved far more quickly than those in deprived areas. Instead of the Government meeting its much-vaunted goal of reducing health inequalities, the gap has widened.

Ministers pledged that by 2010, they would reduce by 10 per cent the gap in life expectancy at birth between people living in the bottom 20 per cent of the most deprived areas and the population as a whole. But the report has found that 'stark problems remain'. The report said: 'It is hard to see an obvious link between spending and improvement, or get any clear view of value for money. 'Progress in reducing inequalities, and in some aspects of health such as that of very young children, has been disappointing, even if general progress on, for example, life expectancy and other broad measures has been very positive. 'Without such a link, it is hard to argue that higher spending - even if it were an option - would itself result in significant gains.'

The report said problems such as teenage pregnancy 'have proved challenging, despite some progress'. 'New problems have emerged, for example obesity,' it added. 'Problems with alcohol have grown. If today's trends continue, NHS hospitals in England will admit one million patients with alcohol-related conditions in 2011.' A Government target to reduce teenage conceptions by 50 per cent by 2010 has also failed dismally. The rate has fallen by only 13 per cent and in some regions, it has soared by almost 50 per cent.

NHS spending in England rose from £40billion in 1999/2000 to £98billion in 2009/10, the report said. But it is hard to know how much has been spent on reducing health inequalities, or what the impact has been. The report said: 'There needs to be more ruthless targeting of money and services and close attention to outcomes. This requires much clearer sight of what is being spent and much sharper evaluation of its impact.'

The report did congratulate ministers on meeting targets to cut deaths from heart disease and stroke by 2010. It said life expectancy was on the up, and infant death rates were going down.

Andy McKeon, the commission's managing director for health, said: 'We know the health of the nation is improving. But variation in the health of people living in different parts of the country remains stark.'

A Department of Health spokesman said: 'We are pleased the Audit Commission recognises that life expectancy is the highest it has been and infant mortality is at an all-time low, but more needs to be done to narrow the gap between disadvantaged areas and the rest of England.'

SOURCE