While Secretary of State Hillary was telling an audience in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that government should own business, the president was spreading his disinformation to a partisan crowd in New Hampshire.

His pack of disinformation is too long for this blog, so I will include just the fist two falsehoods that the president spun for not only the crowd in the school but a National Television audience. After all, that is the purpose of these type meetings. Not to convince an adoring audience of Democrats , but to get more propaganda out to the nation watching the "show" on TV!!

“I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter.” This is directly contradicted by candidate Barack Obama’s own website which quotes Obama at a rally in Ames, Iowa form 2008: “If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system. … So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices….Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system.” So there you have in one paragraph the true purpose of Obama’s public option: a vehicle to slowly transition all Americans out of private coverage and into a government-run single payer health care system. This Trojan Horse view of the public option has been reaffirmed by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

“Under the reform we’re proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” This statement is also plainly false. Again, as demonstrated above, the true purpose of Obama’s public option is to move Americans out of their private coverage and into government run health care. Independent, non-partisan analysis from the Lewin Group has confirmed the House bill, H.R. 3200, will do exactly that: About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.

And because I am a senior citizen chronologically, I have to include this: "“We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors.” This is just plain false. The AARP released a statement late yesterday directly contradicting the President: “While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.”

“I just want to be clear, again: Seniors who are listening here, this does not affect your benefits. This is not money going to you to pay for your benefits; this is money that is subsidizing folks who don’t need it.” Under the current system, more and more seniors are discovering that it is becoming harder and harder to find and keep doctors who will accept Medicare patients.

A 2008 survey found that 29% of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them. Obamacare will only make this problem worse by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients. Obama also mentioned yesterday that he wants to pay for subsidized health care by killing the Medicare Advantage program. Medicare Advantage plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coor?dinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. 22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

Apparently Obama does not know how to sell his health Care dismantling plan, so he must resort to the one thing he is good at "spin"! Some would call it lying!!
But the fact remains that the four facts that are listed above are just some of the falsehoods and misinformation peddled by President Obama yesterday. It doesn’t even include his choice to sell Obamacare as The “Post Office” of Health Care Plans. No wonder so many Americans are skeptical.

According to a new Gallup poll, 66% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they would tell their member of Congress to vote against Obamacare, while only 59% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would do the same.
Source: Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation

There has been a lot of "barn yard droppings" coming out of the White House and their spokesperson Gibbs, but probably the "topper" was uttered by Gibbs yesterday.
When asked by a White House press corps member why the White House was asking for anyone who received an email that was against Obamacare, to send it to their website.

Gibbs answered that they were just trying to correct any erroneous information about the health Care plan that Congress is trying to pass, because there is a lot of erroneous information out there!

The words are not a direct quote, but essentially illustrate the point that Gibbs was making. They were not gathering a list of opponents of Obama Care.OH,NO!!
And to reinforce that position the new director of media for the White House said this: "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care,” wrote Macon Phillips, director of New Media for the White House in a blog posting.

“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.”

The big lie is that they even need these emails, the NSA, Secret Service and numerous other government agencies controlled by the president are gathering information 24/7 with the intent of locating any email or printed material that is threatening to the president.NSA spying programs track personal phone and Internet communications daily!There is no need for this snitch plan except to make a list to hand over to some government agency like the IRS to stop dissent!!

At least one member of the U.S. Senate was not satisfied with the answers coming from Gibbs and the White House, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) wrote a letter to the president expressing that the White House request for flagging opposition to the health care plan was alarming to him. His letter asked Obama to “cease this program immediately.”

“By requesting that citizens send ‘fishy’ e-mails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, e-mail addresses, IP addresses and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House,” Cornyn’s letter said. “You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program. As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights.”

Comments by Obama have circulated through the Internet. In a 2003 speech posted on the Internet, Obama said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.”

“But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately, because first we've got to take back the White House, and we've got take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House,” Obama said.

Cornyn wanted to know how restating what the president said six years ago, when he was an Illinois state legislator, was disinformation. He also asked the White House to explain how they “intend to use the names, e-mail addresses, IP addresses, and identities of citizens reported to have engaged in ‘fishy’ speech?”

Cornyn also wanted to know if the White House would notify citizens who were reported for “fishy” speech, and, “What action do you intend to take against citizens who have been reported for engaging in ‘fishy’ speech?”

One can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had president Bush asked Americans to forward e-mails critical of his policies to the White House.
The media and ACLU would be screaming "totalitarian tactics" in condemning such a program.

To illustrate the hypocracy of what has been put in place by the White House. I am including an article from the ACLU web site that illustrates how the Left reacts to any attempt to monitor suspected terrorists.

"HELENA, MT – The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana today filed a Freedom of Information Act request on behalf of eight Montana grassroots organizations that fear they may have been monitored because they have questioned federal policies including the war in Iraq.

“These Montana organizations have real concerns that their civil liberties are being violated by sweeping and overbroad government eavesdropping on their legitimate political activities,” said ACLU of Montana Executive Director Scott Crichton. “We want to help them determine whether their meetings have been monitored and their members targeted for surveillance by one of several agencies of the government.”

The request was filed simultaneously with the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense seeking records collected by the surveillance and monitoring of legitimate grassroots organizations exercising their constitutional rights to meet, associate, and organize.

The groups, including the Montana ACLU, are the Helena Peace Seekers; the Billings Peace Seekers; the Butte-based TAPS (Taking Action for Peaceful Solutions); the Helena-based “Just Don’t Go”; the Missoula-based University of Montana Students for Peace and Justice and the Jeannette Rankin Peace Center; and the Hamilton-based environmental group Friends of the Bitterroot.

“NSA spying programs tracking personal phone and Internet communications are deeply troubling, but they are only the tip of the iceberg,” Crichton said. “We are inquiring of multiple agencies because we know, for example, that the Pentagon’s Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) has been keeping tabs on organizations speaking against the pre-emptive war in Iraq, with complete disregard for human rights and the rule of law.”
Apparently what is going on in the Obama White House is O.K. ,but when Bush was in the White House everyone on the Left was appalled!

It is a fact that president Obama said in 2003, when he was campaigning for a seat in the U.S. Senate, that he desires/wants a single payer health care system.
He said: "I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out."

Despite the president's statement, the lying Democrats keep telling the people that their plan will allow all people who have health insurance to keep it. What they do not tell you is that no insurance company can compete with a program that is priced so low that employers and individuals will be forced by economics to switch to the government plan.

Why can the government run a health plan that is actuarially unsound? Because they do not pay for the losses, the tax payer does! This has been happening for decades with the Social Security System and the Medicare and Medicaid plans. Not one of the three is actuarially sound or solvent!!
Looking at the costs of Medicare, Medicare is not controlling costs. Rather, it is allowing costs to grow faster than costs for private insurance, but balancing this by shifting an increasing share of those costs onto other payers, including the (seniors)beneficiaries themselves!

Despite the claims of "public plan" proponents, the available evidence from the nation's largest and oldest public plan does not indicate that a new or expanded public plan modeled on Medicare could provide Americans with health care that is comparable to that offered by existing private plans, much less at a lower cost.

The rationale for creating a new public program modeled on Medicare is based on four erroneous beliefs: 1. that Medicare, compared to private-sector health plans, provides comparable access to health care at costs that grow more slowly than those of the private sector; 2. that Medicare has lower administrative costs than private insurance; 3. that Medicare uses superior bargaining power to reduce health care costs without harm to patients; and 4. that public health plans are more innovative, whereas private health plans only follow the government's lead.

All of these assertions are verifiable false. Contrary to the claims of public plan advocates, and the president!

Total per-beneficiary health care costs are growing faster for Medicare patients than for private insurance patients. Medicare's per-beneficiary patient care costs appear to grow more slowly than costs in the private sector only if one ignores the fact that Medicare is paying a rapidly shrinking share of its beneficiaries' total health care costs. Total per-beneficiary patient care costs for Medicare patients are growing faster than total costs for patients with private insurance. However, spending by the Medicare program is growing more slowly than private insurance because much of the growth in health care costs for Medicare beneficiaries is offset by increased out-of-pocket spending by beneficiaries and other sources of private-sector funding.

Medicare's per-beneficiary administrative costs are substantially higher than the administrative costs of private health plans. The illusion that Medicare's administrative costs are lower comes from expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs, including patient care. Medicare's average patient care costs are naturally higher because its beneficiaries are by definition elderly, disabled, or end-stage renal disease patients, so its per-person administrative costs are spread over a larger base of health care costs.

Medicare has no "bargaining power." To the extent that the prices that Medicare pays health care providers are lower than prices paid by private health plans, it is because of the government's regulatory power, not because it reduces the actual costs of providing care or has superior bargaining power. Furthermore, lobbyists for physicians have persuaded Congress in each of the past seven years to intervene to block scheduled reductions in the prices that Medicare pays for physician services--and in six of those seven years to replace the reduction with an increase. This experience suggests that Medicare does not in fact have any bargaining power that would enable it to lower prices further, or even to maintain prices at current levels.

Historically, public plans have more often been followers, not leaders, in health care delivery innovation. It is private-sector organizations that have introduced new quality-improvement methods and new customer services, as well as disease management and coverage of preventive care.

A public health care plan would not improve the current health care situation and would likely make matters worse. Far from saving enough to cover the uninsured, it would increase the cost of covering even the presently insured at the current standard of care. A public plan could reduce overall spending only at the cost of substantial harm to patients by rationing or denial of care.

Why do the Democrats and their sycophants like AARP not want these facts known to the "mob" that is attending their propaganda sessions that they call Town Hall meetings?
As the Heritage Foundation's Robert A. Book states in his recent article: "by its nature, any public plan would be driven by congressional interventions, bureaucratic processes, and lobbying rather than by incentives to innovate in the financing and delivery of quality, efficient health care. This same phenomenon was evident with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, "public plan" mortgage companies that were established to compete with private lenders to "keep them honest" and increase levels of home ownership. Driven by congressional interventions, an implicit government guarantee, and lending policies at odds with economic reality, these public mortgage companies collapsed and threw the entire financial system into chaos. A "Freddie Doc" would eventually produce similarly disastrous results".Source:Heritage Foundation

There is a good reason why the "goons" of SEIU and ACORN have shown up at meetings about health Care reform. The Union movement has invested heavily in the passage of Obama Care.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi received union contributions that totaled the second-largest amount of labor PAC cash, getting $144,000. The California Democrat was followed by another, Rep. George Miller, the Education and Labor chairman, who received $119,540. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was next. His campaign committee collected $115,500.
Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center and a former FEC chairman, said it is not surprising that labor leads the pack in giving this year.

“The unions have an agenda in this Congress, and they are trying to move legislation,” Potter said. He added that unions, which give overwhelmingly to Democrats, also may be trying early in the election cycle to shore up the majority party in Congress, particularly its vulnerable members.

Speaking out for what you believe and then you are called a Nazi or a stooge for the Insurance Industry, and be threatened and possibly assaulted by union bullies is something out of the history of tyrants!

Democrats apparently only believe in freedom of speech when you agree with them. They are as intolerant as the Bolshevist thugs who ruled Russia for over 60 years.

Silence is acceptance! Speak out loudly and often. We want our country back! Stop National Health care! Stop Cap and Trade!
Or live with the dire consequences!!

Ex-president Bill Clinton was successful in his trip to North Korea to obtain the release of two American women that worked for Al Gore's TV station. The women were serving 12 year sentences in a North Korean jail.
What type of concessions were given to North Korea by Bill Clinton will probably not be known ever.Yjis is because the transparency promised by Obama pre-election, have never materialised! But I am glad these two women were freed!

But what about the three women who are held prisoner in Iran's jail as potential spies? Will this result in another "diplomatic" trip that Mr.Clinton takes in place of his Secretary of State wife?

The American hikers were detained by Iran after allegedly straying across the border, and now have been moved to Tehran, according to a report from ABC News. This may be a signal that their ordeal will continue if the USA does not intercede.

Kurdish officials in Iraq, said the three contacted a colleague to say they had entered Iran by mistake on Friday and were surrounded by troops. Iran's state television countered this claim later, saying the Americans were arrested after they did not heed warnings from Iranian border guards.

A newscaster on state television also cast doubt on whether they were hikers who had lost their way, saying Western media had also reported some of them were journalists.
And as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle; they are! Source:KRONTV.com

Sarah Shourd of Oakland and Shane Bauer who graduated from U.C. Berkeley are two of the three Americans being held after they accidentally crossed into Iran while hiking in Northern Iraq. Joshua Fattal from Oregon is the third U.S. detainee.
Shourd is a writer and teacher based in the Middle East. She's written for the Matador Pulse. Bauer, a fluent Arabic speaker, is a correspondent for New America Media. He's also written for the San Francisco Chronicle and other U.S. papers.

So far our State Department has only contacted the Swiss to "confirm" (the arrest) reports with Iranian authorities and, if true, to seek consular access" to the two men and one woman.

The U.S. does not have diplomatic relations with Iran, and the Swiss represent U.S. interests there.

My suggestion is that since Obama has already extended his offer to meet with the "little tyrant" Ahmadinejad with no pre-conditions, he now negotiate the release of these three Americans.

The following story explains the present situation going on in Iran.
"Iraq has appealed to Iran for information about the detention of three Americans who crossed the border while hiking in the Kurdish north, the foreign minister said Saturday.

The request came as the three entered their second week in captivity facing the possibility of an investigation on spying charges despite the insistence of U.S. and Kurdish authorities that they accidentally went astray.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said he raised the issue Thursday during a meeting with Iran's ambassador to Iraq.

"He did confirm that they have been arrested for entering the country without proper visas and they are now being interviewed to determine more details," Zebari told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, promised to pass the request for more information to his government, Zebari said.

Iranian lawmakers were scheduled to discuss the case Sunday during the weekly meeting of parliament's foreign policy committee, according to Press TV, the English language Iranian state television.

"We will discuss the additional information (handed to us) and the details of the case," said Hossein Sobhaninia, the deputy chair of the commission, in a report on the channel's Web site.

While these American citizens languish in a Tehran prison, there is a trial ongoing that is unlike any other trial in Iran's judicial history.

A young French academic and local employees of the British and French embassies appeared before an Iranian judge Saturday along with dozens of opposition figures accused of involvement in the country's postelection unrest that turned violent in the streets.

The extraordinary mass trial in Tehran's Revolutionary Court demonstrates the government's resolve to discredit Iran's pro-reform movement as a tool of foreign countries. Particularly Britain and the United States, who allegedly are trying to spark a revolution to topple Iran's Islamic system. It sounds to me like a good time for Obama to demonstrate if his silvery tongue works as well on our known enemies as it does on the people who put him in the Oval Office!

No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism...Winston Churchill

You would not know it if you relied on the Obama propaganda network, aka:major newspapers and TV networks,but we are still fighting two wars. Iraq and Afghanistan, with North Korea rattling the nuclear sabres and an Iran that is rapidly approaching nuclear weapon capability. We can little afford to ignore the military needs of our country. After all that is one of the main reasons why we have a federal government!
President Obama is not commander in chief of our health care and economy. He is Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. acting like he is the designate to destroy our military preparedness. Never in the history of my life and it has been a long and lucky life has a president chosen to reduce spending on our defense in a time of war!

But as this report submitted in the Heritage Foundation web site by William Rivers will illustrate, that is what our POTUS is doing!

"President Obama’s purportedly “flat” defense budget is in actuality a declining budget, beginning with 3.81 percent of GDP in 2010 but dropping to 3.01 percent by 2019. Considering that research and development for new weapons programs is taking the brunt of the blow, the United States is staring at a repeat of the 1990’s Clinton procurement holiday from which the military still hasn’t recovered.

Now in 2009, after seven years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, personnel and essential equipment have suffered tremendous strain. The Obama Administration celebrates its victory over cutting seven F-22s from the defense budget, but in 2008 the Air Force had to ground over 300 F-15s in response to an incident where one of the aged fighters “broke in half” during a training exercise. Never mind that the F-22 was supposed to replace those legacy fighters, we’ve still got the F-35. Right?

Already over a trillion dollars, the F-35 program is $38 billion over budget and 27 months behind schedule according to the GAO. And now, Pentagon leaders may decide to make cuts to that program, as well. So after killing the F-22 on the grounds that the F-35 is the silver bullet solution, now we’re eyeing the F-35 for future cuts? What exactly are America’s airmen and women supposed to use, paper planes?

The solution is simple. Heritage has advocated that President Obama commit to spending four percent of the nation’s GDP on core defense programs—excluding funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama has already promised three percent of GDP to ‘science,’ so defense would hardly be a stretch. Protecting Americans is the first job of the federal government. A commitment to a larger defense budget will ensure that the military can buy enough next-generation equipment to fight and win for the next 40 years".

Obama was once quoted as saying that "if they bring a knife to a fight we will bring a gun".Well, apparently he doesn't feel that strong about the men and women who go to fight his wars. He might as well send them to battle with sticks and stone for their sling shots!

This man must be stopped by the voters in the voting booths in 2010 and then sent out to write more books in 2114!!

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation." --John Marshall

Despite the plethora of talk radio and TV commentary shows. No one except Glenn Beck is questioning if the way Congress and president Obama are spending money and grabbing powers that are not delegated to him in the Constitution, whether or not our once strong and proud Republic will fail and we will loose our personal freedom to a "nanny" state?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently warned Congress, again, that the trajectory of the federal budget is on an unsustainable course.[v] For fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will reach the largest deficits--annual budget short falls--as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) since the close of World War II.[vi] The national debt--the sum of all previous deficits--is set to reach 60 percent of GDP by the end of fiscal year 2010.[vii] The CBO warns that these "Large budget deficits would reduce national savings, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, the accumulation of debt would seriously harm the economy."
A country burdened by such a massive debt must be dependent on foreign Countries to support that debt, and some who now hold our "paper" are not what I would call friends. Communist China for example!
While the deficit and debt is driven largely by entitlement spending--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--the proposed spending by the Youth PROMISE Act and all other new programs being advocated in Congress only move the nation closer to fiscal insolvency. Not including "such sums as necessary" authorizations for the PROMISE Implementation Grants (Section 215) and "Mynisha's Law" (Section 505), the five-year cost of the Act is just shy of $1.3 billion from fiscal years 2010 to 2014. However, the version of the Youth PROMISE Act from the 110th Congress (H.R. 3864) set the budget authority for the Implementation Grants at $2 billion per year. Therefore, a more credible estimate of the cost of the act is $11.3 billion from fiscal years 2010 to 2014. This estimate does not include the cost of "Mynisha's Law" that funds comprehensive gang prevention and relief areas.

Too often, the focus of Congress and grant-making bureaus is the easy and wide dissemination of grants to constituents. As a result, the number of mediocre programs funded under the Youth PROMISE Act will vastly outnumber the number of exceptional programs receiving funding. In addition, the Office of Justice Programs has had difficulty monitoring and evaluating grant-funded programs to ensure that the funding is not being wasted.

Congress should contemplate the fact that government's intervention in the lives of youth can cause more harm than good. SOURCE:THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Then we have the distinct possibility of a militarist Russia as was demonstrated by the presence of at least two Akula class nuclear submarines two hundred miles off the coast of Georgia. Who knows how close they came to our coast line only GOD knows!

To combat the threat of a belligerent Putin led Russia,a nuclear North Korea, and a very soon nuclear Iran. We must have the best available nuclear and stealth submarines in the world.
Most countries have the missile capability of destroying any surface ships we send to combat any aggressor, but the nuclear sub can deliver more fire power than a fleet of air force bombers, by launching it's nuclear missiles.
Unfortunately many of our first line attack submarines are old by today's standards.

The U.S. submarine fleet has declined by 41 percent in just a decade. Only by upholding the long-held SSN standard and moving to a two-per-year built rate by the next fiscal year will the Navy's submarine fleet meet combatant commander requirements that have only increased since 9/11.
The Heritage foundation's recommendation to the Defense Department is that Congress appropriate monies for one new SSN submarine be built in 2010 and then two be built each year after until our submarine fleet is capable of defending our freedom and our allies, if we still have any!

The U.S. Navy's requirement for its undersea fleet is 48 nuclear attack submarines (SSNs); however, the backbone of this fleet, the Los Angeles-class boat, is aging quickly, while overall SSN numbers are projected to drop to the low 40s by the 2020s

If we have 3 billion dollars to spend on supporting the automobile dealers in the "clunkers" scheme, we sure should have enough money to defend ourselves when, not if, an enemy attacks the USA! One Virginia class submarine costs 3.4 billion dollars, and they last a lot longer than any car, and will save us when we need saving!

If Congress doesn't stop spending like our tax dollars are MONOPOLY money, the days of freedom from oppressive taxation and Federal Government regulations will come to a grinding halt, and we will be like any other third World Country whose citizens rely on government largess for scraps of our daily bread!!

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!!

So much for campaign promises. It appears that another betrayal of trust of American voters who were confused by the silvery tongue of Obama, is about to happen.
Remember Obama the "Messiah" demonizing rich people and corporations who give large bonuses, who were the Target of massive tax hikes to pay for his myriad of social programs.
Well, they found out there is not enough money to pay for his socialization of America even if he takes all the money the "rich" have. Even if he begins with people who make 250K a year. The middle class small business owners! The back bone of the middle class.


Appearing on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” Sunday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner floated President Obama’s next big move: a tax increase on middle-class Americans.

Geithner made it clear during the interview that the administration believes that new federal revenues are needed, and he declined to rule out raising taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 per year to get those revenues.

During the interview, host George Stephanopoulos pointed out to Geithner that the “Congressional Budget Office estimates that your budget will add $9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.”

Stephanopoulos also noted that former Clinton Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman has said that a tax increase is needed.

“Independent analysts also say ... you're going to have to find new government revenues,” said Stephanopoulos. “The former deputy treasury secretary, Roger Altman, said: ‘It is no longer a matter of whether tax revenues must increase, but how.’ Is he right?”

Geither did not disagree with Altman.

“George it is absolutely right and very important for everyone to understand that we will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we are--can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established,” said Geithner.

Geithner said the country is going to have to face what he called “a very difficult challenge: in getting the size of the deficit down.

“And the necessary path to fiscal responsibility, the necessary path to getting this country living within our means again is not just health care reform, to bring down those costs, but we're going to do a range of other things,” Geithner said. “And that's going to be a very difficult challenge to this country. We can do this, it just requires the will to act.”

Asked Stephanopoulos:”Including new revenues?”

“Well, we're going to have to look at--we're going to have to do what is necessary,” said Geithner. “Remember the critical thing is people understand that when we have recovery established, led by the private sector, and we have to bring these down, deficits down very dramatically. We have to bring them down to a level where the amount we're borrowing from the world is stable at a reasonable level. And that's going to require some very hard choices. And we're going to have to try to do that in a way that does not add to the--unfairly to the burdens that the average American already faces.”

Stephanopoulos then tried to get Geithner to rule out a tax increase, which Geithner would not do.

“So revenues are on the table as well?” asked Stephanopoulos.

“Again, we're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take,” said Geithner.

“But you're not ruling it out. You can't rule it out,” said Stephanopoulos.

“Well, I think that what the country needs to do is understand we're going to have to do what it takes,” said Geithner. “We're going to do what's necessary".
SOURCE:CNSNEWS/COM

The 2008 OECD study found that the US taxed the top 10% more than all other OECD countries. Yes, more than Sweden, France, etc). If they're going to spend money like water, it's almost inevitable the tax revenue extracted from the middle class had to increase. What's ironic is that the Obama administration keeps claiming health reform is needed to address budget deficits!

With Obama's poll approval numbers falling and the polls showing that a majority of Americans oppose the government take over of the best health care in the World.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives is using an Obamaism to deflect the anger that the voters have toward her and Harry Reid for trying to ram through socialized medicine.

The Reuters News Service has this report in which Pelosi attempts to demonize the Insurance Industry. The same people who made it possible to put down the HMO Industry's attempt to control and dictate who and how Americans could be treated by doctors. The insurance industry brought us the PPO concept, that allows patients to select any doctor and pays the doctor a decent fee unlike the HMO's who dictate that you use one of their panel doctors and limit the amount of payment that is covered under the provisions of the HMO contract!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday "the glory days are coming to an end" for the health insurance industry and predicted it will fail to stop healthcare overhaul legislation moving through Congress.

Speaking to reporters as the House prepared to go into a monthlong August recess, she cited the example of cancer patients who "will not have a cap on the benefits that they receive," if the current proposals are passed.

She said Democrats in August will counter the insurance industry's "shock and awe" campaign against healthcare reform and said the industry is "the biggest opponent of this passing with a public option in it." The House bill would include a government-run public insurance option to compete with private insurers.

Maybe "the glory days" for Pelosi should end. She flies home with her entourage very frequently on a military plane, an if it is not a big plane she complains to the military authorities.

Representatives for Judicial Watch, which obtained e-mails and other documents from a Freedom of Information request, said the correspondence shows Pelosi has abused the system in place to accommodate congressional leaders and treated the Air Force as her "personal airline."

Pelosi's office disputed the claim, pointing to White House policy enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks allowing for the House speaker to travel to his or her congressional district via military aircraft whenever possible for security reasons. Her office said she typically uses the same kind of aircraft used by her predecessor, Dennis Hastert.

But Judicial Watch said that Pelosi was notorious for making special demands for high-end aircraft, lodging last-minute cancellations and racking up additional expenses for the military.

The e-mails showed repeated attempts by Pelosi aides to request aircraft, sometimes aggressively, and by Department of Defense officials to accommodate them.
According to the group, she took at least 50 military flights between February 2007 and November 2008.

Using private charter rates, 50 flights coast to coast would cost close to $1 million.
This is not about her having secure communications and secure aircraft available to her. It's about an arrogance of extravagance that demands a jumbo jet that cost $22,000 an hour to operate to taxi her and her buddies back and forth to California.

CNN and The Washington Times reported that it's the equivalent of a 757 military aircraft. It has 42 seats. It's what the Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense use to travel to the Middle East. . This is what we use for cabinet secretaries to get halfway around the world.

Pelosi is the last one who should refer to any business as living the "the glory days"! But then as a Democrat and a devotee of Obama, she comes by the identity demonizing naturally!

Behind the slippery smooth talk that president Obama spins almost every day is a calculating community organizer who wants to "change" our Republic into a collective "nanny" state.
He is a student of history in some areas, even if he did not know that Hirohito was NOT the Japanese representative that signed the surrender on the battleship Missouri.He apparently is trying to follow the methods and procedures that Roosevelt used to get Social Security passed, and LBJ used to pass the original Medicare bill.

If you bear with me, and work your way through this lengthy Blog. You will see the comparison.

In 1965 the Social Security Act was amended and Medicare became a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria.To begin with the thrust was to help people pay for M.D. and hospital care!

Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system. The Social Security Act of 1965 was passed by Congress in late-spring of 1965 and signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson as amendments to Social Security legislation. At the bill-signing ceremony President Johnson enrolled former President Harry S. Truman as the first Medicare beneficiary and presented him with the first Medicare card.

Now America stands on a precipice that may turn 1/6th of the GNP over to government control.The medical care industry is the greatest and admittedly the most expensive in the world. Therefore, it is appropriate to study how we got to this point.
Democrats and Socialists in Congress did not wake up on Obama's inauguration day and decide we need to Nationalize the health care!


This attempt to socialize our medical care began decades ago, and this blog will review how we go to this point.
Americans now face the transferring of massive additional powers over their personal health care to the federal government. Politico-economic techniques used to pass the original Medicare legislation in 1965 are being employed again in 2009 to secure passage of expansive new health care measures despite resistance of the public at large. Passage in 1996 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act,whose less publicized provisions criminalize aspects of the practice of medicine and jeopardize the privacy of doctor-patient relations through a compulsory nationwide electronic database,was achieved largely through techniques similar to those used to pass Medicare.

Correct interpretation of Medicare's politico-economic history is therefore central to understanding ongoing attempts to enlarge the federal government's role in the market for medical care.

Like the Social Security Act that it amended, the 1965 Medicare program was ostensibly a vehicle for reducing dependency in old age. In reality, both laws were dependency-shifting rather than dependency-reducing: mandated dependence of the elderly on the federal government and taxpayers replaced potential dependence on family and charity. This blog describes how and why Medicare became law and considers what the observed pattern of institutional change implies for America's future.

For more than 50 years before the 1965 enactment of Medicare, the American people repeatedly rejected the idea of government-mandated health insurance. Yet advocates of such federal power inside and outside of government did not take no for an answer. Year after year they kept coming back--pursuing incremental strategies, misrepresenting their proposals, even distributing propaganda paid for with government money in apparent violation of existing law. In the end Medicare's passage was anything but a spontaneous societal embrace of one of the pillars of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society."

The federal government's involvement with this issue began in earnest in 1934. In that year President Franklin Roosevelt established the Committee on Economic Security (CES) and charged it with drafting a Social Security bill. Although the original CES report on Social Security stated with Roosevelt's approval that a "health insurance plan would be forthcoming," the CES statement caused such a stir that Roosevelt decided to postpone the health insurance issue, fearing that it jeopardized passage of the Social Security bill (Corning 1969: 38).

The provision in the original Social Security bill proposing a "Social Insurance Board" and authorizing study of health insurance was changed so as to delete all reference to health and "rechristen" the board as the "Social Security Board" (Chapman and Talmadge 1970: 342). President Roosevelt had decided that "health insurance should not be injected into the debate at that point, nor should the final report on health be made public as long as the social security bill was still in the legislative mill." Indeed, as of 1969 the final CES report on health still had not been made public.

By 1964 sustained efforts to legislate compulsory health insurance at the national level had continued for three decades. For 30 years since the Committee on Economic Security first endorsed the idea, Congress and the public repeatedly rejected it. In these circumstances, how could a Medicare bill possibly be passed in 1965? First, as shown below, the 1965 bill and the procedures employed in its passage were rife with transaction-cost augmentation, allowing government officials who supported it to impede public opposition.

Consistent with the theory, concurrent changes in the variables posited to be determinants of this behavior more strongly encouraged legislators to support such transaction-cost-increasing measures on the Medicare issue than at any previous time in U.S. history.

Politically, what changed in 1964 was the resounding victory by Democrats in the general elections in November.( sound familiar?) Many perceived the election of Lyndon B. Johnson as an endorsement of compulsory national health insurance and other social programs regarded as pillars of his personal vision of the "Great Society." Congress was heavily in the hands of the Democrats.(This is the way we find ourselves today).
A Gallup poll released on January 3, 1965, showed that efforts to sway public opinion on the national health insurance issue had been at least superficially successful: 63 percent of respondents now approved of the idea of a "compulsory medical insurance program covering hospital and nursing home care for the elderly. To be financed out of increased social security taxes",even though 48 percent of those interviewed still did not know why the AMA opposed the program (Gallup 1972, Vol. 3: 1915).

Political and ideological winds had shifted, nursed by the incremental politics of preceding years. But they had not shifted enough to procure compulsory health insurance for Social Security beneficiaries without deploying a full arsenal of transaction-cost augmenting stratagems to deflect and silence the opposition.

A major obstacle to Medicare legislation was widespread fear that compulsory federal insurance would result in federal control over medicine and over doctor-patient relationships. To counter this fear, the bill's authors drafted a provision specifically disavowing such control,( sounds strangely similar to Obama, Pelosi and Reid's line) the same strategy used to secure passage of public education bills in 1958 and 1965 (Twight 1996).

Questioned about whether the 1964 bill represented socialism, Celebrezze directly addressed the issue of control, stating: "There is nothing in this bill which tells a doctor whom to treat or when to treat him.There is nothing in this bill by which the Government would control the hospital, and as I understand socialism, it is Government control and operation of facilities.It is merely a method of financing hospital care, and that is all" (U.S. House Hearings 1963-64: 50).

He added,we are a paying agency and I don't see where you get any control of any kind out of that.(today we know he who pays the piper, calls the dance) Naturally, there will be minimum requirements like these which are required now under Blue Cross. I see no evidence where this would lead to control over the doctors [U.S. House Hearings 1963-64: 54]. Note: In those days Blue Shield was still run by the Doctors!

Underlying government officials' support for the insurance approach and the myth of the separate trust fund was their desire to remove the associated taxing and spending from the official budget. Such off-budget strategies exemplify a recurrent form of political transaction-cost augmentation in the United States (Twight 1983). Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee, HEW Secretary Celebrezze stated that "what we are attempting to do,is that we are trying to get away from making the assistance program our first line of defense. To get away from heavy Government expenditures out of general funds"( a flat out lie!) (U.S. House Hearings 1963-64: 67).

They succeeded, at least initially. As Marmor (1970, 1973: 22) noted, the Social Security programs were "financed out of separate trust funds that were not categorized as executive expenditures; the billions of dollars spent by the Social Security Administration were until 1967 not included in the annual budget the president presented to Congress." But in 1967 that came to a screaching halt!!

In addition to manipulating political information costs in the ways described above, governmental supporters of national health insurance used a variety of other transaction-cost-increasing strategies to increase the costs of taking political action to resist the Medicare proposal. Even in 1965, proponents of compulsory health insurance feared that it could not be passed as a stand-alone measure. Accordingly, they packaged it with the "Social Security Amendments of 1965." Most politically irresistible among the measures contained in the amendments was an across-the-board 7 percent increase in cash benefits to Social Security recipients, a benefit increase made retroactive to January 1, 1965.

The Social Security amendment package also contained politically appealing benefits such as grants for maternal and child health services, liberalization of disability coverage, and the like. Without doubt, these linkages increased the political transaction costs facing the public and facing members of Congress of resisting the compulsory medical insurance proposal.

The tying was not happenstance. In 1964 hearings held by both the House and Senate on Social Security amendments, including compulsory medical insurance as well as an increase in Social Security benefits. The House and Senate passed different versions of the bill increasing benefits, with the medical insurance provisions omitted from the House bill but included as an amendment to the Senate bill. When the conference committee appointed to reconcile the two bills ended in deadlock over the Medicare issue, conferees decided to forgo the Social Security benefit increase passed by both the House and the Senate in a deliberate effort to give Medicare another chance in the following year. As Rep. Byrnes (R., Wisc.) put it, "The amendments to the old-age survivors disability insurance sections of this bill could have been passed last fall if the word had not come down, and the insistence made that 'Oh, no, you have to tie all of these together because of the fear that the medical part of this program could not stand on its own merits'" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-House 7 April 1965: 7219). The administration's insistence on this linkage was central to its transaction-cost-increasing strategy.

In 1965 the executive support, party support, ideology, and media publicity variables more strongly favored transaction-cost augmentation on the Medicare issue than in any previous year. Both President Roosevelt and President Truman had favored compulsory national health insurance, but for a variety of reasons,Social Security, World War II, the Korean War,each put Medicare legislation on the back burner. President Kennedy was constrained by his narrow electoral margin.

In contrast, after making Medicare a major campaign issue, President Lyndon Johnson won a landslide victory and proceeded to support Medicare actively as one of the pillars of his "Great Society" agenda. Active presidential support for Medicare and the transaction-cost-increasing measures needed to pass it thus encouraged other government officials to employ transaction-cost-augmenting measures on this issue as never before.

The fact that no public hearings were held in the House of Representatives in 1965 meant that the media was less able to inform the public regarding transaction-cost-increasing features of the legislation. Rep. James F. Battin (R., Mont.) noted that if open hearings had been held "the working press of the country could then have advised the people of all 50 States on what the proposals were, the arguments for and against, and then we as representatives of the people could have had an expression from our constituents on their thinking" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-House 8 April 1965: 7399). The lack of publicity given to transaction-cost-increasing features of the legislation also favored government officials' support for such measures.

Moreover, following the general practice of the Ways and Means Committee, Mills insisted that the committee's bill be considered by the House under a "closed rule" that prevented floor amendments. In floor discussion, representatives complained bitterly about these transaction-cost-increasing strategies. Rep. Curtis (R., Mo.) said he had "urged that there should be open hearings and people with knowledge in our society on this subject should be given the opportunity to come before us" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-House 4 April 1965: 7229). Curtis recounted the secretive nature of the committee's deliberation:

Congress members knew in 1965 that in passing Medicare they were legislating for all time to come. Political transaction costs had been molded to accomplish precisely that end. Senator Mundt (R., S.D.) regarded it as an "irreversible step" in that Medicare "would be exceedingly difficult to discontinue without breaking faith with those who have to pay the tax" (U.S. House Hearings 1963-64: 264). Senators and administration officials alike understood that they were "legislating in perpetuity" and would face strong pressures to expand the program (U.S. Senate Hearings 1965: 134).

They also knew that Medicare would create a vast new public dependence on the federal government for financial security in old age, continuing the pattern set by Social Security in 1935. Senator Mundt (R., S.D.) described it as "another step toward destroying the independence and self-reliance in America which is the last best hope of individual freedom for all mankind" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-Senate 9 July 1965: 16122). Moreover, legislators knew that Medicare would take money from the poor and middle classes to subsidize the rich. Senator Gordon Allott (R., Colo.) described it to the Senate as a "program of 'Robin Hood in reverse'" that showed "complete disregard for need in disbursement" and represented a "giant step" toward making "every citizen as dependent as possible on his Government for his every need" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-Senate 8 July 1965: 15935).

But they also knew that Medicare would serve their political interests. As majority leader Rep. Carl B. Albert (D., Okla.) told his colleagues on the House floor, H.R. 6675 "is a bill which in my opinion will serve well those of us who support it, politically and otherwise, through the years" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-House 8 April 1965: 7435). Or, as Rep. Phillip Burton (D., Calif.) more crassly expressed it, "This bill is going to put into the pockets of my fellow Californians some $213 million its first year.

All in all our fair State and its people in the first year will be favored to the tune of some $550 million, a not modest sum" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-House 8 April 1965: 7429). Without doubt, the Social Security Amendments of 1965 were "so drafted that quite a bit of honey had been placed under the beehive in order to attract the bees" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-Senate 9 July 1965: 16071). TODAY WE CALL IT PORK!

We have seen that political transaction-cost augmentation enabled government officials to embed Medicare in America's institutional structure at precisely the time when all the theoretical determinants of such behavior supported its pro-Medicare use for the first time in U.S. history. Indeed, the strategies most influential in passing and entrenching Medicare had as their goal and effect the manipulation of political transaction costs. By tying Medicare with a 7 percent increase in Social Security benefits, proceeding incrementally, narrowing the bill's coverage, misrepresenting its content, concealing its costs, and using countless other transaction-cost-increasing strategies described in this blog, government supporters of Medicare were able to achieve their objectives. These same tools, so instrumental in passing Medicare, today continue to serve those who seek further increases in federal control over U.S. health care. SOUND FAMILIAR?
Source: Ihe Cato Institute

(CNSNews.com) - The House health-care reform bill proposes to decrease hospital visits by establishing a “medical home pilot program” for elderly and disabled Americans.Is this part of Obama's grandiose schemes?
Such a medical home would not require a physician to be on the staff, and therefore could be run solely by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Medical homes also would practice “evidence-based” medicine, which advocates only the use of medical treatments that are supported by effectiveness research.

To quote Judie Brown "The current debate over health care is one of those scenarios that might play well in a science-fiction thriller, but must not be allowed to play out on the backs and over the dead bodies of the uninformed. The intent to create a nationalized health-care system appears more and more like a behind-the-scenes project based on government control over who lives and who dies".

In the draft now circulating in the House of Representatives is an alarming concept, but apparently interests only a few of those who should be warning the public about it. The target audience should be those who are approaching age 65 and, of course, those who are elderly and needing care. This target audience is going to become the walking target of Obama’s health-care “reform.”It was not long ago when people like me warned that the culture of death would not be satisfied with abortion, but would push for euthanasia soon. Well, the time is NOW!!

It is time to review the tragedy that beauracratic medicine begets! The following is from an article entitled "IT COULDN'T HAPPEN IN GREAT BRITAIN" PUBLISHED ON THE NET BY NHS BLOG DOCTOR.
• Assessing the priority of care for patients in accident and emergency (A&E) was routinely conducted by unqualified receptionists.

• No all-day, on-call cover by consultants because of shortages meant junior doctors were not adequately supervised.

• The trust had two clinical decision units (CDUs) which staff said were used as dumping grounds to avoid breaching the four-hour target for being treated in A&E

• There were not enough nurses to care properly for emergency patients

• Nurses lacked training

• The shortage of nurses on wards meant call buttons went unanswered…patients were sometimes left for hours in wet or soiled sheets...

• Delays in operations were commonplace

• There was often no experienced surgeon in the hospital after 9pm

• Few patients were given the drug warfarin to help prevent blood clots

• Essential equipment was not always available or working

• The trust board was more concerned with finance, targets and achieving foundation status, with little evidence that poor standards of nursing care were identified or discussed

• The trust was poor at identifying when things went wrong and managing risk

As a result of hospital's "appalling" emergency care, many patients died needlessly! The NHS watchdog has said about 400 more people died at Staffordshire General Hospital between 2005 and 2008 than would be expected, the Healthcare Commission said.Note the words "then would be expected"! If Obama Care is passed all patients "too old" and infirmed will be encouaged to die!

It said there were deficiencies at "virtually every stage" of emergency care and said managers pursued targets at the detriment of patient care.

One of the most damning provisions of the bill being circulated through the House of Representatives and the Senate, includes provisions to designate MEDICAL HOMES!
Provisions for the medical home pilot program are an amendment to the Social Security Act, which governs the administration of Medicare and Medicaid services.

The medical home is an approach to medical practice that “facilitates partnerships” between patients and physicians, according to the proposed bill.

The pilot program targets Medicare beneficiaries who have a high medical “risk score” or who require regular monitoring, advising or treatment. This currently applies to more than 22 million Americans, according to Kaiser Family Foundation statistics.

At least $1.5 billion would be redirected from the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund to fund the medical homes, “in addition to funds otherwise available,” according to the bill.

The Senate health-care reform bill also includes provisions for medical homes, although to lesser detail than the House bill.

If this portion of the legislation passes through Congress, medical homes will be part of the greater health-care reform experiment known as "the public (health insurance) option."

According to the committee, the provisions for medical homes will make the public option a stronger competitor against private health insurance companies.

“The public health insurance option will be empowered to implement innovative delivery reform initiatives so that it is a nimble purchaser of health care and gets more value for each health care dollar,” the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s summary says about the bill.

Medical homes are tied to “comparative effectivness research” via something called “evidence-based medicine.”

“It will expand upon the experiments put forth in Medicare and be provided the flexibility to implement value-based purchasing, accountable care organizations, medical homes, and bundled payments. These features will ensure the public option is a leader in efficient delivery of quality care, spurring competition with private plans,” the committee’s summary also said.

A statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) said that the effectiveness of the medical home model should be carefully evaluated before applying the model far and wide.

“There should be more research to demonstrate the benefits and continuing costs associated with implementation of the full (patient-centered medical home) model,” the ACEP statement said.

“Demonstration projects being conducted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services must be carefully evaluated. There should be proven value in healthcare outcomes for patients and reduced costs to the healthcare system before there is widespread implementation of this model.”

The proposal, meanwhile, specifically allows for facilities to be run by staff who do not possess medical degrees – including nurses and nurse practitioners.

While the House bill being pushed by the president reduces access to cures and specialists, it ensures that seniors are counseled on end-of-life options, including refusing nutrition where state law allows it (pp. 425-446). In Oregon, the state is denying some cancer patients care that could extend their lives and is offering them physician-assisted suicide instead. DO AMERICANS WANT THIS TO SATISFY THE 47 MILLION UNINSURED!!

For decades our presidents have recognized that Communist China is one of the "bad Guys" in our universe. They violate the basic human rights of their citizens, have provide arms, materials and soldiers to fight our troops in the Korean and Viet Nam wars.
Now they have backed the USA into a corner with their buying of a massive amount of our Treasury Bonds that are the result of profligate spending by our Congress during the last two years of the Bush administration, and the first six months of Obama has made it worse!

At any rate, the attitude of the Communist Chinese has not changed toward their quest to dominate the economy of the world. And for the past decade our Congress has helped them to attain that objective. Now Obama is poised to make it easier for them with his Cap and Trade and Card Check legislation that will drive what little industrial jobs we still have to either China or India.

As a result of China's holding so much of our debt, and the apparent propensity of Obama for liking totalitarian leaders such as Chavez, Putin and Medvedev and an apparent devotee of One World Order. The attitude of our present government in Washington has softened toward Chinese Communists.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has really gotten the Obama diplomatic routines down pat in the last six months. And right now she's laying things on especially thick. Clinton stood before the assembled journalists, next to the head of the 100-person strong Chinese delegation that's come to Washington for two days of talks, and really let it fly. "Thorough, comprehensive, very open' are the words she uses to describe the two days of talks. She throws in 'direct' and 'very useful' for good measure."What Ms.Clinton did not mention was that China executed 1718 people in 2008. Some for political corruption! Whereas the USA which is a target for anti-death penalty people executed only 37!!

"Enthusiastic words, even for a top diplomat who's practically obliged to be welcoming all high ranking members of foreign countries. And Clinton wasn't alone with her praise. President Barack Obama sounded like a fan of the Chinese Communists in his address. "Cooperation, not confrontation,' he said, should be the goal with China. The US-Chinese relationship would shape the 21st century."

"That's perhaps the most telling part of his message to this meeting, which many experts see as carving a sort of 'G-2' alliance in stone. A new world order, where the US and China will set the tone."
Source: DerSpiegel.com

America is rarely this softspoken. They are ( our elected officials) not quite kowtowing, but bowing quite low to greet the dignitaries from China who have traveled to Washington for bilateral strategy and economic summit. Gone are the days when US politicians made long (and honest) speeches about human rights to the powers that be in the Middle Kingdom. Likewise, they've abandoned the old ritual of criticizing the way China subsidizes its exports, and devalues their money to make their products more appealing to foreign buyers like the USA!

Instead, it is exercising humility. Washington knows what it owes Beijing! The Chinese hold US bonds worth at least $800 billion in their hands. No other nation in the world is in as much debt as is the USA!
The Obama administration should remember that it needs all the friends it can get at this point,and many allies like Germany , England and France are not as inclined to cozy up to China the way Obama's minions are. For example, China shouldn't talk about the USA responsibility, but instead act on their own. And it would be helpful if China was on our side with important problems like North Korea, and Iran.

Obama should be trying to get the Chinese to stop manipulating its currency. It’s buying about $400 billion a year of U.S. dollars with their yuan that it prints, giving them to us by buying our "paper", and that basically keeps their currency cheap and makes those products artificially cheap in our markets.