A National Healthcare Mandate? May 22, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Government, Media , add a comment
The questions asked in this video (link ) should be taken to actually cover any “national healthcare” plan, similar to how social security works, a forced deduction from your pay check. Do you like how government has raped the social security trust fund? Do you want to trust them with even more of your money? Or your health?
Trust every medical professional with your medical records?
Lower Health Care Costs by Investing in Electronic Information Technology Systems: A key feature of Barack Obama’s health care plan is the use of technology to lower the cost of health care. Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes them difficult to use to coordinate care, measure quality, or reduce medical errors. Processing paper claims also costs twice as much as processing electronic claims. Barack Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records. He will also phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT and commit the necessary federal resources to make it happen. Obama will ensure that these systems are developed in coordination with providers and frontline workers, including those in rural and underserved areas. Obama will ensure that patients’ privacy is protected. A study by the Rand Corporation found that if most hospitals and doctors offices adopted electronic health records, up to $77 billion of savings would be realized each year through improvements such as reduced hospital stays, avoidance of duplicative and unnecessary testing, more appropriate drug utilization, and other efficiencies.
Let’s jump to the real world , outside the utopian bubble . Think about the credit bureau report that is maintained on you buy the three/four CRA’s.
- All your information is available to anyone with access to the system.
- How many times are there errors in the information?
- How many times is the system breeched?
Now look at Obama’s plan here again; “avoidance of duplicative and unnecessary testing”
- Have you ever tried to get a error corrected on your credit file ( if you knew it was there) ?
- Have you ever sought enforcement for unauthorized access to your credit file by a hostile party?
An error on your medical records because of a transcription error, and the government saying you cant have the test again, or that test is unnecessary, again places the government in the physicians role. And the selling of some comfort that your rights will be protected is a pipe dream too.
Trust the government with your life?
Plan Would Bar Treatment of Elderly, Chronically Ill in Medical Disasters
By Associated Press
CNSNews.com
May 05, 2008(Chicago/AP) - Doctors know some patients needing lifesaving care won’t get it in a flu pandemic or other disaster. The gut-wrenching dilemma will be deciding who to let die.
Now, an influential group of physicians has drafted a grimly specific list of recommendations for which patients wouldn’t be treated. They include the very elderly, seriously hurt trauma victims, severely burned patients and those with severe dementia.
The suggested list was compiled by a task force whose members come from prestigious universities, medical groups, the military and government agencies. They include the Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The proposed guidelines are designed to be a blueprint for hospitals “so that everybody will be thinking in the same way” when pandemic flu or another widespread health care disaster hits, said Dr. Asha Devereaux. She is a critical care specialist in San Diego and lead writer of the task force report.
The idea is to try to make sure that scarce resources — including ventilators, medicine and doctors and nurses — are used in a uniform, objective way, task force members said.
Their recommendations appear in a report appearing Monday in the May edition of Chest , the medical journal of the American College of Chest Physicians.
“If a mass casualty critical care event were to occur tomorrow, many people with clinical conditions that are survivable under usual health care system conditions may have to forgo life-sustaining interventions owing to deficiencies in supply or staffing,” the report states.
To prepare, hospitals should designate a triage team with the Godlike task of deciding who will and who won’t get lifesaving care, the task force wrote. Those out of luck are the people at high risk of death and a slim chance of long-term survival. But the recommendations get much more specific, and include:
– people older than 85.
– those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.
– severely burned patients older than 60.
– those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer’s disease.
– those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.
Dr. Kevin Yeskey, director of the preparedness and emergency operations office at the Department of Health and Human Services, was on the task force. He said the report would be among many the agency reviews as part of preparedness efforts.
Public health law expert Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University called the report an important initiative but also “a political minefield and a legal minefield.”
The recommendations would probably violate federal laws against age discrimination and disability discrimination, said Gostin, who was not on the task force.
If followed to a tee, such rules could exclude care for the poorest, most disadvantaged citizens who suffer disproportionately from chronic disease and disability, he said. While health care rationing will be necessary in a mass disaster, “there are some real ethical concerns here.”
James Bentley, a senior vice president at American Hospital Association, said the report will give guidance to hospitals in shaping their own preparedness plans even if they don’t follow all the suggestions.
He said the proposals resemble a battlefield approach in which limited health care resources are reserved for those most likely to survive.
Bentley said it’s not the first time this type of approach has been recommended for a catastrophic pandemic, but that “this is the most detailed one I have seen from a professional group.”
While the notion of rationing health care is unpleasant, the report could help the public understand that it will be necessary, Bentley said.
Devereaux said compiling the list “was emotionally difficult for everyone.”
That’s partly because members believe it’s just a matter of time before such a health care disaster hits, she said.
“You never know,” Devereaux said. “SARS took a lot of folks by surprise. We didn’t even know it existed.”
History of US Health Insurance
‘During the Great Depression, hospitals and doctors organized their own insurance companies, known respectively as Blue Cross and Blue Shield (or “the Blues”). The Blues lobbied and convinced the states to treat them as nonprofit charity corporations rather than “for-profit” insurance companies, on the grounds that they were organized by doctors and hospitals. The Blues also requested and received tax-exempt status from the federal government. In return for their nonprofit status, the Blues agreed to offer health insurance on the basis of “community rating,” which meant that every customer would pay the same premium, regardless of age, sex, health history, lifestyle choices, or regional demographics. (This was occasionally modified to reflect different premiums for age and location and was then called “modified community rating.”)
The primary goal of the Blues was to obtain steady income for their member doctors and hospitals by guaranteeing that they received payment for all the services they provided. Their strategy was to provide coverage for all expenses—even routine, ordinary, easily affordable medical services. In contrast to the original purpose of health insurance—which was to protect against rare, unforeseen, catastrophic expenses that could bankrupt a family—the Blues turned health insurance into a form of pre-paid medical care in which the insurance company (rather than patients) would pay doctors and hospitals for all medical services—catastrophic, routine, and everything in between—on a cost-plus basis.
The model created by the Blues was not the result of free-market thinking and competition. It was a direct result of government meddling and intervention, giving preferential treatment and economic advantages to one insurer (and its health plans) over others. This initial distortion of the health insurance market was exacerbated by the 1942 Stabilization Act, passed during World War II. This act froze wages nationwide but allowed employers to provide or increase employee benefits such as health insurance, since benefits were not considered wages under the Act. In 1943, in response to the Act, the IRS decreed that health insurance premiums paid by employers are not taxable income to employees and are therefore exempt from federal income tax. The IRS further decreed that health insurance premiums are a legitimate cost of doing business and can be deducted from the employer’s taxable income.
These income tax laws are largely responsible for the explosive growth in employer-purchased health insurance. In 1939, only 6 percent of the population had health insurance of any kind, and only a small fraction of those insured had employer-sponsored health insurance. By 1960, 18 percent of the population was insured under an employer group plan, and that percentage grew to almost 70 percent of the insured by 1980.The percentage has since declined, but even today about 60 percent of insured Americans obtain health insurance through their employer”
Think very hard with your mind
Government today is trying to figure out what we are going to do come 2019 with Medicare going bankrupt and at 2040 with Social Security (even though they continue to rape the fund today). This is our forced government pension fund and our government medical care for senior citizens. The last thing done to stabilize it was to increase taxes during the Reagan administration to offset this but Congress has continued to rape the fund year after year and it is in trouble.
If we can’t trust them with our retirement funds why would any rational human think they should be given even more control over our lives and our money when they have proven they could not be trusted with what they already have?
This is like having your stock broker steal all your money from your 401 k and instead of holding him responsible, let him sell you health insurance too. Has the nation lost its collective mind?
 |
Currently Listening Breakfast in America By Supertramp The Logical Song see related |
Senator Byrd makes Hillary’s case for her May 20, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Government, Media , add a commentIs the democratic party law of unintended consequences kicking in? (again)
I am well aware that Robert Byrd did not endorse Hillary Clinton despite Hillary Clinton’s 41 point win in his state. In fact, that is my point.
If there was ever a case to be made to take this to the convention and fight it out, Robert Byrd just made it for Hillary Clinton.
Here is an excerpt from the Washington Wire of Wall Street Journal (link):
In a statement, the 90-year old-Senate legend lauded Obama as a “shining young statesman” a “noble-hearted patriot” and a “humble Christian.” In particular, Byrd said that his shared opposition to the Iraq war with Obama was a key factor in his decision.
“After a great deal of thought, consideration and prayer over the situation in Iraq, I have decided that, as a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, I will cast my vote for Senator Barack Obama for president,” Byrd said, adding that Obama “possesses the personal temperament and courage necessary to extricate our country from this costly misadventure in Iraq.”
His announcement came less than one week after the Illinois senator lost Byrd’s state by a 41-point margin to rival Sen. Hillary Clinton. As the senior democratic statesman for the United States Senate, he dissed his own states popular vote and delegates on his personal feelings and liking.
I bet Senator Obama does not view this as selection , rather than election. Did Senator Byrd lose his bearings? Whether he did or not, I believe the law of unintended consequences kicked in. What say you?
Jimmy Carter, Jr. May 19, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : culture, Government , add a comment
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and
keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times… and then just
expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not
leadership. That’s not going to happen.” Say what?
Can you say Jimmy Carter?
RadioGrace™ and other home school resources May 19, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : culture, Theology , add a comment
Carried to the table May 19, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Theology , add a commentIt has been a while since I have taught on a Sunday Morning. Here was my outline–as my outlines normally go, there are many points in the outline but I focus on the theme and have them there in case I blank.
Outline 2 Samuel 9~~ 5.18
In Bible Study the past month we have been discussing how
· Many Christians either don’t realize who they are in Christ, or
· They just don’t live like they believe it
· Pastor asked a few weeks ago do you think people really believe it?
In discussion we talked about how American society and democracy actually make these concepts more difficult to understand
· Kings · A Sovereign · Lordship · And to a lesser extent Covenants
Let’s take a look back into the day of the Kings for a minute to puit them in perspective:
In 2 Samuel 9 verse 1 David asked,
”Is there anyone still left of the house of Saul to whom I can show kindness for Jonathan’s sake?”
6 When Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, came to David,he bowed down to pay him honor.
David said, “Mephibosheth!”
”Your servant,” he replied.
7 “Don’t be afraid,” David said to him, “for I will surely show you kindness for the sake of your father Jonathan. I will restore to you all the land that belonged to your grandfather Saul, and you will always eat at my table.”
8 Mephibosheth bowed down and said, “What is your servant, that you should notice a dead dog like me?”
9 Then the king summoned Ziba, Saul’s servant, and said to him, “I have given your master’s grandson everything that belonged to Saul and his family. 10 You and your sons and your servants are to farm the land for him and bring in the crops, so that your master’s grandson may be provided for. And Mephibosheth, grandson of your master, will always eat at my table.”
13 And Mephibosheth lived in Jerusalem, because he always ate at the king’s table, and he was crippled in both feet.
Now unless we understand what it was like to live under a king we may miss what was going on.
· First, David did this because he was honoring his covenant with Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:14-15). His actions were not only based on feelings, but also on the promise of a covenant.
His covenant took precedence over tradition (and cultural practice). It was customary in those days for the king of a new dynasty to completely massacre anyone connected with the prior dynasty. David goes against the principle of revenge and against the principle of self-preservation and asks what he can do for the family of his enemy. You must remember that Mephibosheth was the next living heir to the throne since Jonathon was dead, so it would have been doubly so for him.
In going beyond the covenant he not only restored what would have been his inheritance, he also provided servants to tend the land so they could provide for his family
When we begin to understand the importance of covenants and living under a Sovereign we can begin to see how you could replace your name with Mephibosheth ‘s
. Jesus told the disciples that they would eat and drink at His table in heaven (Luke 22:30)
David’s grace to Mephibosheth is a wonderful picture of God’s grace to us.
We are Mephibosheth.
· We are hiding, poor, weak, lame, and fearful before our King comes to us
·
We are separated from our King because of our wicked ancestors
·
We are separated from our King because of our deliberate actions
·
We separated ourselves from the King because we didn’t know him or His love for us
·
Our King sought us out before we sought Him
·
The King’s kindness is extended to us for the sake of another
·
The King’s kindness is based on covenant
·
We must receive the King’s kindness in humility
·
The King returns to us what we lost in hiding from Him
·
The King returns to us more than what we lost in hiding from Him
·
We have the privilege of provision at the King’s table
·
We are received as sons at the King’s table, with access to the King and fellowship with Him
· We receive servants from the King
·
The King’s honor does not immediately take away all our weakness and lameness, but it gives us a favor and standing that overcomes its sting and changes the way we think about ourselves
Many times we hear people say they don’t want to helpo someone because they really don’t deserve it, but is that what God is teaching us here?
ii. David’s grace to Mephibosheth is also a pattern for us in serving and ministering to others. We are David.
We should minister to our enemies and seek to bless them
·
We should minister r the poor, weak, lame, and hidden to bless them
·
We should bless others when they don’t deserve it, and bless them more than they deserve
· We should bless others for the sake of someone else
· W must show the kindness of God to others
In March ,I took Amanda and Emily to see Casting Crowns at the Bryce Jordan Center in State College and a band that opened up for them was Leeland.
Lead into song- Amanda leads congregation in singing-lyrics on back of bulletin
Lyrics
Carried to the table- Leeland
Wounded and forsaken
I was shattered by the fall
Broken and forgotten
Feeling lost and all alone
Summoned by the King
Into the Master’s courts
Lifted by the Savior
And cradled in His arms
I was carried to the table
Seated where I don’t belong
Carried to the table
Swept away by His love
And I don’t see my brokenness anymore
When I’m seated at the table of the Lord
I’m carried to the table
The table of the Lord
Fighting thoughts of fear
And wondering why He called my name
Am I good enough to share this cup
This world has left me lame
Even in my weakness
The Savior called my name
In His Holy presence
I’m healed and unashamed
As I’m carried to the table
Seated where I don’t belong
Carried to the table
Swept away by His love
And I don’t see my brokenness anymore
When I’m seated at the table of the Lord
I’m carried to the table
The table of the Lord
I’m carried to the table
Seated where I don’t belong
I’m Carried to the table
Swept away by His love
And I don’t see my brokenness anymore
When I’m seated at the table of the Lord
I’m carried to the table
The table of the Lord
EPA says Climate Change Bill will raise gas prices $1.50 a gallon. May 16, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Government, Media , add a comment“[L]et me tell you what’s heading down the tracks. In a few weeks, we expect that the cap-and-trade legislation that’s been voted out of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) Environment and Public Works Committee will be on the floor and according to the Environmental Protection Agency it will increase gas prices by $1.50. The National Association of Manufacturers says it will increase it as much as $5 per gallon,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) says. (video link)
Congress must be seeing if they can get their approval rate to drop even further
|
Survey |
Approve | Disap- prove |
Unsure | Approve minus |
||
| Dates | % | % | % | Disapprove | ||
|
. |
||||||
|
Quinnipiac RV |
5/8-12/08 | 16 | 76 | 8 | -60 | |
|
. |
||||||
|
Gallup |
5/8-11/08 | 18 | 76 | 6 | -58 | |
|
. |
||||||
| NPR LV | 5/7-8, 10/08 | 22 | 73 | 4 | -51 | |
The theme of this campaign has been change, and I agree. It is time to dump the incumbants. Remember Congress went Democratic in 2006 and since we have had the Housing Crisis and now the Gas crisis, and their solution is to push legislation through that the EPA says will raise our gas prices 1.50 a gallon and promise the tax cuts will expire in 2011. If this is representation, who needs enemies?
I agree it is time for change and so does America.If this is a forecast of the type of change that people are hoping for theycan keep it. It has all failed in Europe and it WILL fail here too. Our Congress is either intentionally weakening this nation or they are just incompetent. Neither is acceptable
Compared to Congress President Bush is wildly popular among the folks!
|
Survey |
Approve | Disap- prove |
Unsure | Approve minus |
||
| Dates | % | % | % | Disapprove | ||
|
. |
||||||
| Quinnipiac RV | 5/8-12/08 | 28 | 67 | 5 | -39 | |
|
. |
||||||
| ABC/Washington Post | 5/8-11/08 | 31 | 66 | 2 | -35 | |
|
. |
||||||
| NPR LV | 5/7-8,10/08 | 33 | 65 | 3 | -32 | |
source:
http://pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
It is time for change, but not the type that we are being offered. You need to contact your congressman and let them know if they vote for this bill you will remember to vote against them on election day.
Barack’s Cross May 16, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Theology , add a comment“Barack Obama has a flier out in Kentucky that addresses his faith and his attempts to fulfill “God’s will” — and it could be a sign that the Illinois senator is returning to his religious roots as he gears up for a general election battle.”
I can not help but wonder, will this be Obama’s Cross that he gets caught in ???
After yesterday’s California homosexual marriage ruling Joan Walsh asks the question :
Will homosexual marriage doom the Democrats?
I disagree with her conclusion. I believe it is the thing that breaks the camels back and gets people really to consider just how much and what type of change they are looking for. Don’t get me wrong, I am not even for a federal marriage amendment, I believe it is a states rights issue and a state decision.(The state can’t really redefine marriage they can only skew the lexicon. )
I see the Kentucky decision as the worst possible card the Obama campaign could play. Why? Because while homosexual marriage alone is not enough to bring Obama and the democrats down, start coupling this with Obama posting on his own website: AP:NARAL Pro-Choice backs Obama, and Obama starts to get caught in the cross of fence straddling; one of his own creation.
He has stated before he is for strong civil unions. In fact, During the electoral special, one of the West Chester University students asked Obama about his homosexual marriage stance.Obama reiterated that he supports “strong” civil unions, leading Matthews to wonder whether that counts as discrimination. Obama went onto iron out the details: (more at link below) Also on a personal level Obama believes in abortion, not just as a right you have but he couldn’t’t consider, no he believes it is valid birth control for his own daughters, “I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”.
Add in Dr. Jeremiah Wright and then Oprah’s denial of Christ on national TV and the ties between the three of them and this whole new kind of politician aura comes crashing in on him, and he is exposed as willing to exploit faith for political gain, and that his relationship with Wright was political and not religious, bringing all of Wrights past political statements , Wright being a former Muslim and Obama being a former Indonesian school enrolled as a Muslim all comes into reconsideration.
It seems he may get caught in the cross he is trying to use. What say you?
Forget what I think- it doesn’t matter. Forget what you feel. The question really is, How do you think this is going to play with the average voter? What impact if any will this have on Obama in the general election?
Links
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/15/obama-faith-flier-hints-at-general-election-strategy/
http://race42008.com/2008/05/12/barack-obamas-pitch-in-kentucky/
http://www.slate.com/id/2191500/
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/san_francisco/2008/05/16/gay_marriage/
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBlqR
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/obamawatch/2007/03/barack_obama_on.html
http://www.queerty.com/obama-on-hardball-on-gay-marriage-20080403/
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15074.html
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a74fca23-f6ac-4736-9c78-f4163d4f25c7&p=8
Has MSNBC laid off all their producers? May 15, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Government, Media , add a commentDid anyone see the KO rant about President Bush? link Listen, I am no “fan” of the president but this was just a rant.
Is MSNBC having serious rating issues that demands going over the top? Why is the guy who could not cut it on the sports channel a political expert on MSNBC?
Popular vote? May 14, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Government , 4commentsBelow is a comment I received on another blog post. Do you agree or disagree with the premise of the poster and why ?
- The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 17 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect.
A Presidential mindset? May 12, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Government, Media , add a comment“If black nationalism would uplift the race, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence.” - Barack Obama, Dreams From My Father, (about his attraction to his pastor’s church as a vehicle for social change.)