Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan


The surgeon general is a government health educator sometimes called “the nation’s doctor.” It at times has been a high-profile position, such as in the 1980s, when Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop became the government’s leading spokesman on the emerging AIDS epidemic.

The post has faded into relative obscurity in recent years. Last year, both the Institute of Medicine and Trust for America’s Health called for the surgeon general to play a more prominent and powerful role.

It would appear that our new Surgeon General is stricken with the fatal disease of affirmative action because of the following speech she gave in her speech this week in Atlanta, Georgia.

Being a retired professional I know the value of education and he knowledge that one must have to practice the healing arts. The skills and minds of our health care professionals are determined by two things and one of them is not the color of ones skin!

It takes a GOD given gift to have the hands of Brain Surgeon or a highly skilled Oral Surgeon, and a mind that can learn all the intricacies of the human body and the knowledge of diagnosis and treatment to begin the practice of a healing art.

I say “practice” because when one finishes his doctors training he is just a safe beginner.

A professional is the Antonym for the word beginner, but that is what doctors of all types and colors must realize they are. A continuous student of the art and practice of the healing art! Doctors who quit learning are bound to become a threat to the public!
If all one thinks about is to balance the numbers of the ratio of one particular race to the over all population of any field, much less the healing arts, they are following a path to destruction of that profession or business that they want to balance.

The ability to learn is an innate ability that is not given to those who we seek for our health care, but a GOD given talent. There is no way we can balance the disparity of people of color by setting quotas and goals to recruit more people of color.

The sole determinate should be who has the ability to learn and the skill to run the gauntlet of higher education required to be a health care provider! Color of ones skin should not even be put on the application for admittance to a health care professional school.

The new U.S. Surgeon General on Thursday called for stepped-up efforts in increasing the number of minority physicians.

She should have called for the destruction of the strangle hold the Teachers Union has on Public Education by restoring the government grants for those children in the inner cities who are outstanding students can attend magnet schools or private schools that provide a real education not just the political correctness and diversity that I believe are the main objectives of Public education today!

In what was one of her first speeches to a large crowd since she was sworn in Nov. 3, Dr. Regina Benjamin noted that the proportion of U.S. physicians who are minorities is only 6 percent — the same proportion as a century ago.

“There’s something wrong with that,” said Benjamin, speaking at a conference on health disparities at a hotel in downtown Atlanta.

The numbers come from a 2004 estimate of the percentage of U.S. physicians that are black or Hispanic. AFRICAN-AMERICANS and Hispanics account for roughly 28 percent of the U.S. population, according to 2008 figures from the U.S. Census Bureau.
In a 27-minute speech, Benjamin told health leaders in the audience to encourage young minorities to pursue careers in medicine or other ambitions.

If people like Dr. Benjamin really want more people of color to succeed in any field of life she should join those of us who believe the Public School system is just dumbing down the youth of America so they can be spoon fed by the political class. Her thrust should be to improve education of the all people by returning to the three “Rs”and basic abilities to read, write and do calculations in math. Then the “cream will rise to the top” and those who have the ability to persue professional education will get just that. Not by setting quotas. We have seen what a disaster that has produced in all forms of public life!
The tragedy that occurred last month on an Army base caused by an apparent terrorist doctor who was not only educated but promoted to Major despite the fact that many people knew he was a potential for trouble. Was a perfect example of political correctness and affirmative action gone wrong!

An article in todays internet version of the Guardian Newspaper of London reveals just what can happen if Americans allow our politicians to turn over our health Care to a bunch of bureaucrats.( and do not expect to see this information in any newspaper or on TV in the USA!)
 This article is a frightening portent of what is to come if we allow the Democrats to ram their socialized medicine Bill through Congress to satisfy one of Obama's campaign promises!
The true scandal of NHS hospitals failing to comply with basic safety standards is revealed in today's Observer. Research that ranks every general hospital in England against a range of safety measures has named 12 NHS hospital trusts judged to be "significantly underperforming".


This is despite the fact that last month the Care Quality Commission, the health service regulator, judged overall care at eight of the trusts to be good or excellent. Today's study by Dr Foster, an NHS partner organisation that collates and analyses healthcare data, also highlights 27 trusts with unusually high death rates. Almost 5,000 more patients in their care died in the past year than was expected.

Revelations of such widespread safety failings will send shockwaves through the NHS, already reeling from scandals at two trusts last week. Poor nursing care, filthy wards and hundreds of unnecessary deaths were exposed at Basildon and Thurrock University NHS Hospitals Foundation Trust, and the chair of the NHS trust in Colchester was fired.

Now the new data proves that key safety failings are occurring in 11 more hospital trusts across England. They include Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare Trust, South London Healthcare Trust, Weston Area Health Trust, Hereford Hospitals Trust, Lewisham Hospital Trust and University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire Trust. Eighteen were found to have death rates the same or higher than at Colchester. Ministers want to know why seven in particular have had persistently high death rates over five years.

The Department of Health yesterday ordered the CQC to investigate if any other trusts needed urgent attention. The CQC said it was "monitoring closely a number of other trusts", but had no evidence there was another case in England where it would take action of the kind taken at Basildon.

John Black, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, last night told the Observer that patient safety had been neglected by hospitals too busy meeting NHS-imposed financial targets: "Too many hospitals are too concerned with meeting financial targets at the expense of clinical standards, and we are seeing patients suffering as a consequence."

Today's research exposes systemic failures in large parts of the NHS during the last financial year and finds:
¦ 39% of trusts failing to investigate unexpected deaths or cases of serious harm on their wards.
¦ At least 209 incidents in which "foreign objects", such as swabs and drill-bits, were left inside patients after surgery.
* At least 82 cases in which medical staff operated on the wrong part of the patient's body.

It finds that 5,024 people died after being admitted for "low-risk" conditions such as asthma or appendicitis, of whom 848 were under 65. A proportion of those deaths will be linked to safety errors.

The Conservatives reacted by promising a complete overhaul of the regulation system, which rated Basildon "good" only weeks ago. Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said: "Labour's failed health inspection regime is more interested in targets than patients." He also questioned the timing of the Basildon announcement. Officials knew of the hospital's failings weeks ago but decided to publicise them last Thursday, just days before the Dr Foster research was due to be published in the Observer".


The NHS in London defines Health Trusts thusly: "Hospitals are managed by acute trusts, which make sure that hospitals provide high-quality healthcare, and that they spend their money efficiently. They also decide on a strategy for how the hospital will develop, so that services improve.


Acute trusts employ a large part of the NHS workforce, including nurses, doctors, pharmacists, midwives and health visitors, as well as people doing jobs related to medicine – physiotherapists, radiographers, podiatrists, speech and language therapists, counsellors, occupational therapists, psychologists and healthcare scientists. There are many other non-medical staff employed by acute trusts, including receptionists, porters, cleaners, specialists in information technology, managers, engineers, caterers and domestic and security staff.

Some acute trusts are regional or national centres for more specialised care. Others are attached to universities and help to train health professionals. Acute trusts can also provide services in the community, for example through health centres, clinics or in people's homes. All the above are run by bureaucrats!

Americans wake up before we trash the best health care in the World and turn the doctor patient relationship into a patient/ bureaucrat relationship!

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

INSIDERS WHO ARE PRIVY TO OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PITCH TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TONIGHT SAY THAT HE WILL PUSH HARD FOR THE "GOVERNMENT OPTION".
And in his proposal he will include a fine for those families that do not have health insurance that reportedly is as follows.

Democratic plans call for requiring most Americans to carry health insurance. Failure to comply could cost families as much as $3,800 a year, according to a new Senate proposal.

The president is likely to say tonight that a government-run insurance plan, known as the "public option," will not provide a level of subsidies that give it an unfair advantage over private insurers, according to aides familiar with the speech preparations.
This of course is a bold faced lie. When the government runs a health plan as they have done with Medicare for decades. They do not have to worry about deficit spending! The tax payer is always there! Private insures cannot compete with a deficit spender health care scheme. To exist private insurance companies, and there are 1300 company's that sell health insurance, must pay taxes and make a profit, unlike the Federal govt.


Under a new Senate plan, people who earn between 100% and 300% of the poverty level (or between about $22,000 a year and $66,000 a year for a family of four) would face fees ranging from $750 to $1,500 a year.

For taxpayers with incomes above 300% of poverty, the penalty starts at $950 a year and reaches as high as $3,800 for families. Nearly 12 million people fit in this category, according to the National Institute for Health Care Management.

The idea behind the penalty is that those who can afford insurance but don't buy it are imposing costs on the entire health system. Under the proposal, nearly 12 million people who currently have no insurance could be subject to such fines, according to figures compiled by the National Institute for Health Care Management.

Starting next year, the plan also calls for annual fees of $6 billion on health-insurance providers, $4 billion for medical-device makers, $2.3 billion on drug makers and $750 million on clinical laboratories. The fees would be levied on individual companies based on market share. Insurers also face an excise tax of 35% for any health plan worth more than $8,000 a year for individuals and $21,000 a year for families.If this is not undermining the private insurers nothing is!!

Karen Ignagni, chief executive of America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry lobbying group, said the new fees would make it more difficult for health insurers to contain rising costs. "Our members are talking about that being at odds with the goal of cost containment," she said.

Congressional leaders, meanwhile, breathed new life into a proposal for a legislative mechanism to trigger a public plan if private insurers fail to reduce health-care inflation or cover the uninsured.This in my opinion is a trigger aimed at private insurers that is intended to clear the competition for single payer health insurance--SOCIALISM!!

There is little doubt that if the government expands the pool of covered people with the present number of doctors and nurses. There will eventually be a need to ration care.
Obama talks about people and families going bankrupt because of large uncovered catastrophic illness or accident. What he does not address is the number of people who will die because of the rationing of care to the elderly and infirmed because of cost containment.

The United States had over 17,000 people killed by drunk drivers in 2008, and many of those drunk drivers had no automobile insurance.
But the striking difference between the fine for a first time drunk driver averages $250 -$500 in the State of Florida.Yet the Democrats in Congress and Obama plan to fine a family or person for not having health insurance from each year from an estimated $700 to $22,000!

This is the beginning of taxation disguised as fines for failing to confirm to the "common good". This is an other example of the attitude of totalitarian rule that Obamamaniacs have in store for the American public in their CHANGE That We Can Believe In!

I do not think that intimidation and fines for non-conforming to government mandates is the path our founders put us on when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights? It sounds more like the road to tyrannical control over the average American that the elite politicians and their wealthy supporters will never have to be forced to participate!

In May of 2005 the Left wingers were up in arms because a Republican had the temerity to suggest that American citizens could help fight drug addiction.
The following post was listed on the web site AlterNet with the title "SPY Vs Spy"!

"A senior congressman, James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is working quietly but efficiently to turn the entire United States population into informants--by force. Sensenbrenner, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman, has introduced legislation that would essentially draft every American into the war on drugs. H.R. 1528, cynically named "Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act," would compel people to spy on their family members and neighbors, and even go undercover and wear a wire if needed. If a person resisted, he or she would face mandatory incarceration. Here's how the "spy" section of the legislation works: If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" about them, you must report the offenses to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance in the investigation, apprehension and prosecution" of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence, and a maximum sentence of 10 years.

Taking time to talk to your relative about treatment instead of calling the police immediately could land you in jail. In addition to turning family member against family member, the legislation could also put many Americans in danger by forcing them to go undercover to gain evidence against strangers. Even if the language that forces every American to become a de facto law enforcement agent".

Now fast forward to today, and check out the directive that is posted on the Democrat web site,"Obama White House" and you will find that the left is asking Americans to do the same thing that Hitler told German children they should do if they heard any negatives about Der Fuhrer from their parents!

"At RedState.com. Here's the headline: "If you oppose Obamacare, even in casual conversation, the White House wants to know about it." Jeff Emanuel put this up 1:45 this afternoon. "If you see anybody publicly opposing President Obama’s plan to implement a government-centric overhaul of the health care system, the White House wants you to report that person (or persons) ASAP.
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to Flag@WhiteHouse.gov."

And they opposed the Patriot Act!!

So the White House is asking its supporters, these Obama groupies that hang on their website, if they get an e-mail, they hear anybody talking about fishy stuff, disinformation about the health care plan, send their name, send a copy of their e-mail to the White House.

The problem with this claim of disinformation about health insurance reform, control of personal finances to end of life care, the White House has gotta understand, people have read the House of Representatives bill. It's all in there! None of this is being made up.

There's a parallel going on in the world right now to this bunch that's running this country and the parallel is Iran. They supposedly had a fair election. The people of Iran didn't think it was fair. They think it was a fraudulent election and they started protesting in the streets. Even the people of Iran, this was too much to swallow, the mullahs were just putting one over on them, they wanted a reform candidate to win, they didn't like any of this, they didn't think Ahmadinejad was the legitimate winner, they started protesting, and what was the result"? Death in the streets!!

Apparently, it is not enough to resort to Sal Alinsky' method of targeting your enemies and then demonizing them, as Speaker Pelosi has so adroitly demonstrated by calling the Health Insurance industry the villains, and those who oppose the health Care bill as part of a MOB!! She's got to be the most distrusted politician in the country. And the competition for that dubious distinction is something fierce among he fellow Democrats!

Now they want their diminishing supporters to snitch on any one who has the temerity to question Obama's programs. After all they are just paid mob participants in an organized effort to bring down Obama. SAYS THEM!!

9:27:05 AMThe London Telegraph site on the Internet has this to say about Americans reaction to his attempt to "ram" through Obama Care.
"A USA Today/Gallup survey suggested that six months into his presidency, his popularity was lower than George W Bush's at the same stage of his tenure.

Amid rising unemployment and falling confidence in his economic plans, Mr Obama's job approval rating has dropped by nine points since January to 55 per cent, a point below his predecessor in mid-2001.


The Washington Post also showed Obama's job approval falling below 60 per cent for the first time since he was sworn in as the nation's first black president, with a marked drop in the last month.

The president is facing criticism about how he is going to pay for $1 trillion plans to reform the US health care system. Half of respondents in one poll disapproved of his health care policy compared with just 44 per cent who approved".

If voters at home do not already realize that Obama and the Democrats in Congress are pushing to add to the voter supporters by pushing Amnesty for illegals. This quote from the Congressional Record will illustrate how far they are willing to push US that believe in the rule of law!
"Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee defeated an amendment that would have prevented illegal aliens from using the so-called "public health insurance option." Every Democrat on the panel voted against the measure!

And to top it off the National Review is reporting; "Immigration analyst James R. Edwards Jr. reported last week that "no health legislation on the table requires federal, state or local agencies -- or private institutions receiving federal funds -- to check the immigration status of health-program applicants, so some of the money distributed via Medicaid and tax credits inevitably would go to illegal aliens." Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee plan creates a new preference for illegal aliens by exempting them from the mandate to buy insurance.
So illegals are given an exemption that allows them to not be forced into Obama Care that we citizens will not have. Who do the Congress "potentates" represent?

How do these arrogant, presumptuous politicians believe they can know enough to plan for the rest of us? Who do they think they are? Under cover of helping uninsured people get medical care, they live out their megalomaniac social-engineering desires, thus putting our physical and economic health at risk in the process.

When will the American people say "Enough!"?

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" RONALD REAGAN

The way Obama is trying to ram his health Care socialisation is by telling us that if Congress does not pass by the end of summer, children will die and many people
will go bankrupt---FEAR!!
If you an get by the intimidation and fear generated by Obama and look at just what the Progressive Socialists want to slip by US. You will find some of the demands,in fact most of the proposed legislation is about control!!
In a blog short enough not to turn off any potential reader. I can not list all the negatives , but I will list a few that should make you get really angry if you are not inclined to Socialism!

"CNS News editor in chief Terence Jeffrey also reports that "the legal use of tobacco products is the only vice for which insurance companies will be able to charge their customers higher premiums," adding, "a person could have been admitted to hospitals three times for heroin overdoses, or been pregnant five times out of wedlock, or been treated for venereal diseases at least once per year for the past five years, but none of these factors could be used to charge that person a higher insurance premium." Jeffrey further notes that the bill calls for improved immunization coverage, including the use of "reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits" to accomplish it. Yes, home visits.

Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers." Private individual coverage will be outlawed by attrition.AND YOU WILL HAVE TO PROVE TO THE IRS THAT YOU HAVE AN APPROVED HEALTH CARE PLAN OR YOU WILL BE FINED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND ENROLLED IN THE OABAMA CARE! If you do not believe me read pages 150-156 of the plan.

During the presidential campaign, Republicans, including candidates Fred Thompson and John McCain, warned about the tax implications of electing Obama president. They were right. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) announced late last Friday that Congress would pay for health care by hiking taxes on the households earning more than $350,000 per year and individuals earning $280,000. The hike would put New York's top bracket at nearly 60 percent. Rangel predicts revenue of $540 billion over 10 years. Democrats' ultimate goal is to have the highest income earners pay for health care for everyone else. But even the liberal Washington Post editorialized, "There is simply no way to close the [funding] gap by taxing a handful of high earners."

To cover part of this deficiency, Democrats propose cutting tax breaks for hospitals because they don't provide enough charitable care to earn them any longer. According to the American Hospital Directory, fewer than half of the 5,482 hospitals in the country actually pay federal, state or local taxes. That will change. Furthermore, the hospital industry agreed this week to take $155 billion less in payments from the government, leaving the money to cover the uninsured.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) added an amendment to the bill that would require all health insurance companies to provide unspecified "preventive care and screenings" for "pregnant women and individuals of child-bearing age." Asked if this would include abortion, Mikulski sidestepped: "It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate." Source: Patriot Post

To say that this will help all Americans is nothing less than a bold faced misrepresentation! They(DEMS.) say that there are 47 million uninsured. What they do not tell you is that over 20 thousand of this group make over 50 thousand dollars year, are under 40, in good enough health that they would rather spend their money on a new car or a bigger home!
Another 12 million are illegal aliens!

Before we allow Congress to pass this heinous legislation we should look at what is happening in Tennessee. A state that tried to run a government controlled health plan.Of course the Liberals say we can run it better than the state of Tenn. but when has the Federal government run a program better? Medicare, Social Security, Amtrak, Postal Service? I think NOT!

Tennessee is in the process of cutting about 150,000 people from the TennCare program after a reevaluation of enrollee eligibility to participate in the state-run insurance program.

TennCare, the managed care Medicaid program that began in 1994, now serves about 1.2 million people in the state and has a $7 billion budget. That’s after cuts were made.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) was a Tennessee state senator through much of the TennCare problems and believes it is a forecast of what would happen under federal health care “public option” plan. While supporters of the Tennessee program said it would save money, it wound up eating 38 percent of the state’s budget, she said.

“As a result of this, insurance rates for those who have private coverage were going through the roof,” Blackburn told a gathering at the conservative Heritage Foundation last week.Source:CNS NEWS

“There is no example that you can point to that shows where having private insurance in competition with the public option brings the costs down. It leads to exploding costs,” she said.
WE are already in debt up to our noses. Obama will take us to the drowning point!

The fourth amendment to the Constitution guarantee that contracts legally made are enforceable and non-violate. When Obama and his henchman the Car Czar put the interests of the auto workers union before the interests of the bond holders of Chrysler corporation, he violated the fourth amendment of the Constitution.
Thus began the litany of violations of the oath of office of the President that includes the duty to uphold and defend the Constitution!

The 4Th amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.The key word is "seizures". By putting the Union ahead of the bond holders . Obama in effect seized the bonds out of the hands of their lawful owners and gave the rights intrinsic in the bonds to the union!


In the House bill, the health insurance exchange, governed by a commissioner, would be a national institution and function as a powerful regulatory agency. Combined with federal benefit setting and a public plan, it would effectively limit personal choice and reduce competition, as the federal government would erode private coverage and limit the kind of plans that could enter and compete in the market. States could only set up a state-based exchange with federal permission.

Under the House bill, Congress would not forge a federal-state partnership; rather, it would enact federal domination of the states. It would also undermine, not advance, state innovation in the provision of new health insurance options.

Contrary to the House sponsors' claims, it is hard to imagine a "level playing field" where Congress creates a special government plan to compete against private health plans while also creating the rules for its competitors.

The 9TH amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the 10TH amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.In plain English this amendment to the Constitution says that the Federal government should not abrogate the God given rights that are too numerous to list.
The 10th specifically states that if the Constitution does not delegate to the President, Congress or the Supreme Court the right to carry out specific duties. It is the States rights that apply.

The 10TH amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.Source: Wikapedia


No where in the Constitution is there a listing of the right of the Federal Government to decide who shall treat a citizen who is sick, or to limit the treatment for the individual for the sake of saving money or to gain power over the citizens.The Obama and Congressional Health plans are nothing less than a power grab of socialistic proportions!

While the House bill would set up an account within the Treasury for the deposit of start up funds and premiums, the bill would also require taxpayers to retain the risks and depend on Congressional restraint in the appropriation of additional taxpayer funds for the public plan. In light of recent Congressional bailouts of automakers and financial institutions, belief in such restraint would amount to a triumph of imagination over experience.

And if the fact that the Federal govt. has no constitutional right to enact a universal health care scheme. This fact may be enough to convince open minded people that all the proises and statements that this debacle can be funded by taxing only the rich is a lie. Consider this. "When Medicare was set up in 1965, the politicians projected its cost in 1990 to be $3 billion -- which is equivalent to $12 billion when adjusted for inflation to 1990 dollars. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion -- eight times as much." Source:Patriot Post

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

The best chance for compromise legislation on health care may be a plan under construction in the Senate Finance Committee that would pay for a public plan in part by taxing some worker health benefits.

But the union workers who helped Democrats win Congress and the White House and whose support will be key in getting a health bill signed into law would not pay the tax.

With cost estimates already as high as $1.6 trillion, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., has proposed paying for the bill in part by taxing health care benefits for workers who earn more than $100,000, or $200,000 for married couples, according to those familiar with the discussions.Just like all taxes they will begin taxing only those earning over 100K, but when they admit the tax reciepts will not bring in enough money. They will report the crisis as a threat to the health plan now in force, and tax all wage earners!

Baucus is also weighing a tax based on the value of health care benefits that exceed a yet-to-be determined cap. A tax on benefits that exceed the cap by a mere $3,000 could amount to $750 in taxes annually for a worker who earns as little as $34,000, say experts.
The key words are " not yet determined". They are asking us to buy a "pig in a Polk"!

But those union members serving under collective bargaining agreements would not be subjected to the tax, according to proposals under discussion. Another pay off to the Union movement. Are Americans ready to accept this pay off to unions?

Union workers enjoy some of the most extensive and costliest health benefits, and union officials complained their members would be unfairly burdened by a health care tax because their contracts cannot be changed quickly enough to avoid it. This is an absurd claim made by the group that was necessary in the days of Samuel Gompers, but has made the Auto Industry and many others non-competative due to their absured salary and bnefit demands.This is no more or no less than a payoff for poiltical support in the last two elections!

Union members represent one of the biggest and most powerful Democratic constituencies and their support of any health care reform proposal is viewed as essential to getting a bill passed in Congress.Who is the Congress of the United States responsible to the general population, or the Unions?

Baucus has proposed the tax threshold on health care benefits be set higher than the cost of policies available to federal employees and he has proposed exempting until 2013 those plans negotiated as part of union contracts.

“It’s a means of making sure that unions are foursquare behind any reform bill that comes out,” said Henry Aaron, a health care policy expert at Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

I believe the Baucus proposal to exempt unions from a health care benefits tax ,could be used to lure into unions employees who are anxious to avoid the benefits tax.Another unintended perk for a select group that is not available to the general population.

President-elect Obama during his campaign pledged to build a health care system in which Americans can be assured of access to affordable health insurance. He guaranteed Americans who already have insurance that nothing would change except that their coverage would be less expensive. He pointed to the health system that Members of Congress have as your model for expanding coverage. And he agreed that choice of doctor and care is a basic principle. These laudable themes struck a chord with Americans.But it appears to be just another lie that Obama is telling to the guilable American public.

Even worse than congressionally mandated benefits would be mandatory coverage designed by the powerful Federal Health Board proposed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD). Daschle envisions a remote board of "experts," perhaps modeled on the Federal Reserve Board. This board, he says, would be "insulated from politics. Congress and the White House would relinquish some of their health-policy decisions to it." Shielded from public opinion and from representative government, it would have "teeth," says Daschle, potentially deciding such things as premiums and appropriate services, and "all federal programs would have to abide by [its recommendations]." He also imagines that the board would "link the tax exclusion for health insurance to insurance that complies with the Board's recommendations."

Tom Daschle's Federal Health Board would have enormous power over medical decisions affecting every American. This is unacceptable, and would break Obama's pledge to give Americans choice. This scheme should be rejected!!
Source: Thomas Sowell

The latest health scare has awakened the American electorate to the way our Medical System treats patients who are or suspected to be infected with the latest strain of swine flu.Any one who feels they have the flu can go to the emergency room and receive examination, and if need be treatment.

An article in the today's "Daily Telegraph" shows the fatal faults of going down the road to government controlled medical care. Great Britain has had socialized Medicine for thirty years. Run by bureaucrats, not doctors. As a result many physicians have fled Great Britain to practice in America, and many hospitals have closed as the budget for health care is gradually reduced to switch money to the social welfare system.

The following is a a copy of an article warning the British people of the dire circumstances that await them if the Swine Flu hits hard in their country!
" The world is now on the brink of the first flu pandemic in 40 years, with the World Health Organisation's (WHO) alert status at five out of six.

The Department of Health is printing leaflets to put through every door urging people to find "flu friends" who can bring them groceries and supplies if they fall ill.

However, the Department of Health (DoH) document seen by The Daily Telegraph warns that, during the peak of a flu pandemic, complications such as pneumonia could mean there are 10 times as many people requiring ventilators as the NHS can supply.

If demand cannot be met, it recommends doctors deny treatment to the weakest patients so that resources can be shared among the greatest number.

The draft document, which was written in September before the outbreak of swine flu, acknowledges that its recommendations open "controversial ethical issues" and could cause anger and violence from relatives of those refused care.

Doctors taking decisions to deny care are urged to fully document their decisions to protect themselves from litigation, while hospitals are warned that "additional security decisions may be necessary because of the risks of violence directed at staff making triage decisions".

The document, Pandemic Influenza: surge capacity and prioritisation in health services, sets out the criteria which doctors should use to determine which patients receive intensive care.

If there is competition for places in intensive care units, patients suffering from advanced cancer could be refused beds along with pensioners suffering from severe burns, those with multiple organ failure and children suffering from advanced cancer, severe burns or trauma.

If patients competing for life support are likely to have an equal benefit from treatment, decisions should be taken by lottery, the guidance concludes.

The document describes the pressures that the NHS suffered during the last two pandemics, in 1957 and 1969, which caused a total of 3 million deaths worldwide.

It states that the impact of the 1969 outbreak was lessened by a high number of spare hospital beds at the time. The document says cuts to spare bed capacity, so that the health service is now working "at or near capacity", a 31 per cent increase in the number of over-65s, a more complicated out-of-hours system for GPs and more widespread use of critical care would all make it more likely that intensive care units could be "rapidly overwhelmed".

Meanwhile, NHS Direct took a more than 10,000 calls in total on Wednesday and almost 3,000 of them related to swine flu – more than double the calls received on Monday about the virus, reflecting how public concern is growing.

A spokesman for the DoH said: "We have published this draft guidance to help clinicians to work within an ethical framework during a pandemic."
Note: bold letters are used by me to emphasize the critical issues of this article that should alert all senior citizens and especially AARP. But since they are not really concerned about seniors other than when it comes to Liberal causes. I do not expect to see any warnings from them!