Hey man ! Vaccines are safe !

by Greg Farber

He was a guest on freedomizer radio..

I was a guest on Freedomizer Radio today, speaking on Autism again PART 1

I was a guest on Freedomizer Radio today, speaking on Autism again PART 2

Obama – Health Care Magic in Ohio

by Greg Farber

The completely false talking point going around is that the health care bill will get 30 million new people covered. It does nothing of the kind. All the bill does is to mandate that people write horribly expensive checks to the Insurance Monopolies, and become their victims and slaves — with no choices and no options. But no actual “care” is ever assured. The Insurance Companies set all the rules, and can continue to deny treatments, deny surgeries, deny tests, and even terminate your entire policy (for a small fine) if you get too expensive.

So the entire rationale for this bill that is being made by Obama, the Democrats in Congress, and even so-called “progressive” groups like MoveOn.dog is a lie.

It’s a LIE folks. But, unlike others who don’t even bother to read the fine print, Dennis Kucinich knows all of this, but he just folded his tent up and is going to vote yes.. Their going to pass this bill… This country is toast.

ObamaCare Would Cause Long Waits and Rationed Care, Says New Study

by Tom Remington

Washington, D.C.: ObamaCare would drive practicing doctors out of business and suppress the recruitment of new physicians, resulting in long waits and rationed care for health care consumers.

So concludes a new paper “ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business” by Matt Patterson, health policy analyst for the National Center For Public Policy Research.

Among the findings:

* ObamaCare’s high taxes and new regulations would increase doctors’ overhead and red tape.

* At the same time, millions of newly insured individuals would swell their patient rosters.

* The increased work load, costs and stress, coupled with a decrease in income, would make the practice of medicine more trouble than it’s worth for many doctors.

* In one recent survey, 46 percent of responding primary care physicians say they would quit or try to quit medicine if ObamaCare passes.

* In addition, 63 percent of physicians would prefer Congress take a gradual, incremental approach to health care reform, as opposed to the massive, one-size-fits-all overhaul favored by the Obama administration.

* The shrinking pool of physicians brought on by ObamaCare, coupled with the coming retirement of the Baby Boomers, would put massive stresses on an already overburdened health care system, leading to rationing, long waits, and unhappy, overworked medical care professionals.

Says Patterson, “President Obama and Congressional leaders promise to subsidize health insurance for millions of Americans, but what good is insurance if you can’t find a doctor? Our elected leaders have continued to ignore the public’s opposition to this bill; now they are ignoring our doctors, who warn of grave consequences if this legislation passes.”

Lindsey Williams March 16, 2010 – Q&A Part 2 on The Elite Speak DVDs

by Greg Farber

You gun owners may want to hear this !

Urgent Healthcare vote Next Week.. Unemployment over 20% .. and a View of Whats to Come

by Greg Farber

Black Leader Against Reconciliation

by Tom Remington

Black Leader Speaks Out Against Obama Recommending Reconciliation to Pass Government-Run Health Care

Washington, DC: Mychal Massie, chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network, is condemning President Barack Obama’s decision to urge Senate leaders to employ controversial reconciliation rules to force a government takeover of health care.

“The people have spoken, and they have said no to Obama’s radical brand of health care reform,” said Project 21’s Massie. “Putting his seal of approval on usurping regular Senate procedure showcases not just an extraordinary arrogance and a willingness to abuse legislative power, but it also unambiguously indicates his contempt and disregard for the will of the American people.”

In an address from the White House today, Obama expressed a willingness to work with Republicans to pass health care reform. But Obama also suggested that the Senate leadership might instead employ reconciliation rules to limit debate and lower the vote threshold normally needed to pass legislation in that chamber. This would allow the plan’s more unpopular provisions to be enacted.

“During the judicial battles of the Bush years, when there was talk of the employing the ‘nuclear option’ to overcome filibusters, there was great respect among liberals for Senate the procedure of cloture,” noted Massie. “Ultimately, conservative legislators agreed with them and the option was never used. Now, with the shoe on the other foot, liberals are quick to do the very thing that once horrified them. They are refusing to hear the pleas from their colleagues and the American people to scrap their plan and start over.”

Massie continued: “The question to be answered is why are these senators willing to risk their careers and Obama his legacy to force such a miserable piece of legislation? Trying to obfuscate and confuse the use of reconciliation to pass a fundamental overhaul of such a substantial portion of the American economy is dishonest on a level likely never before imagined in the history of the legislative branch. Misrepresenting it as cost-cutting is morally opprobrious and fraudulent. But this is apparently not out of character for those determined to make a free citizenry dependent upon government from cradle to the grave.”

In a February 25 Wall Street Journal commentary, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) called the use of reconciliation to pass Obamacare “a total affront to the legislative process.” He noted that the process had previously been used only for incremental budget issues or those with wide bipartisan support.

“Individual Mandate” at Core of ObamaCare is Unconstitutional, New Report Concludes

by Tom Remington

Washington, D.C.: Arguments by backers of President Obama’s health care proposals that the U.S. Congress has the constitutional authority to mandate that individual Americans purchase health insurance through the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which permits the federal income tax, are incorrect.

So concludes a new “What Conservatives Think” publication, “Is a Health Insurance “Individual Mandate” Constitutional?” written by policy analyst Matt Patterson of the National Center For Public Policy Research.

Among the findings:

* Both the House and Senate versions of ObamaCare contain penalty taxes on Americans who do not have government-approved health insurance, the so-called “individual mandate.”

* Such a tax would function as a direct, or capitation, tax, as opposed to a tax on activity, such as excise or income taxes, and would therefore fall outside Congress’ authority to tax income granted by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

* The Constitution places strict restrictions on Congress’ power to lay capitation taxes under But Article I, Sec. 9, which reads “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

* Exemptions for some people built into the Senate bill’s individual mandate tax would make it impossible for ObamaCare to meet this strict constitutional standard.

Says Patterson, “Some of the finest legal minds in the country have concluded that the enforcement provisions of ObamaCare’s individual mandate would violate the both spirit and the letter of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, President Obama and members of Congress think they are smarter than these scholars – and smarter than the authors of the Constitution.”

“Is a Health Insurance “Individual Mandate” Constitutional?” is available online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT.html.

Obama Health Plan Would Lead to Public Option

by Tom Remington

Report Concludes President Obama’s Health Proposal Would Lead to Public Option

Washington, D.C.: President Obama’s new health care plan will all but guarantee the elimination of private insurance and lead to a single payer government-run health care system, says a new report, “White House Health Care Plan Contains Back Door to a Public Option” by policy analyst Matt Patterson of the National Center For Public Policy Research.

Among the findings:

* The President’s plan would create a new federal agency charged with monitoring health insurers to make sure that proposed premium increases are not “unreasonable” or “unjustified.” This agency could compel private insurers to lower premiums, offer rebates or “take other actions to make premiums affordable.”

* The President’s plan would also dictate that health insurers cover those with pre-existing conditions and saddle them with billion in new taxes and fees.

* Health insurance is one of the least profitable industries America. In terms of profit margin, in 2009 it ranked a dismal 87th out of 215 industries; their overall profit margin was a mere 3.4 percent.

* The President’s proposed combination of new taxes and price controls would cause a wave of health insurer bankruptcies, devastating the industry and reducing health insurance options for consumers.

* Eventually, the shrinking pool of private insurers would force the government to enact a single payer system to provide the insurance that Congress mandates that all Americans have.

Patterson calls Obama’s ploy “breathtakingly audacious,” noting, “Far from being able to keep the plan you like, the President’s health care plan seems designed to make sure you end up with only one option for your health care – the government.”

“White House Health Care Plan Contains Back Door to a Public Option,” by Matt Patterson is available on the National Center For Public Policy Research website at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA603.html.

Medicare is Cheating Seniors Out of Care, Says New Study

by Tom Remington

This is No Time to Expand the Government’s Role in Health Care, Says Think-Tank

Washington, D.C.: Chronically low Medicare reimbursement rates to physicians and hospitals are forcing doctors to limit the number of Medicare patients they see – or opt out of the program altogether – with devastating results to seniors’ health care options, says a new study, “Medicare Doctor Shortage Endangers Seniors’ Access to Care,” by Matt Patterson of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

From the Southwest to Florida, from the Midwest to New York, primary care doctors and specialists at both hospitals and private practices are turning away Medicare patients because they cannot afford to treat them, the study concludes.

The report analyzes government data, health care provider statistics, and news reports from across the country to paint a frightening picture of a government program failing the most vulnerable members of our society: our seniors. Among the findings:

* Some Mayo Clinic facilities are no longer accepting Medicare patients for primary care, turning thousands of seniors away from their trusted physicians.

* 30 percent of Medicare patients seeking a new primary care doctor reported difficulty finding one, including 17 percent who claim they had “big” problems finding a new doctor.

* Only 73 percent of Medicare participating family doctors are accepting new Medicare patients.

* Only 38 percent of Texas primary care physicians say they will accept new Medicare patients in the face of low Medicare reimbursements.

* More than half of California hospitals reported operating at a loss, due in part to low Medicare reimbursements.

* Hospitals in Iowa report trouble recruiting new doctors thanks to low Medicare reimbursements, and warn that the trend may be a threat to the quality of future care.

Says Patterson, “At a time when President Barack Obama is proposing yet another $1 trillion health care plan, Medicare – the original government health insurance program – is going bankrupt, underfunding doctors, and cheating seniors out of care. Why don’t we worry about meeting our existing health care obligations before we take on additional burdens?”

“Medicare Doctor Shortage Endangers Seniors’ Access to Care,” by Matt Patterson, is available on the National Center For Public Policy Research website at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA602.html.

Proposed Soda Taxes Fall Flat, Says Black Activist, Calls Demonization of Carbonated Beverages Yet Another Progressive Attack on Liberty

by Tom Remington

Washington, DC: Proposed soda taxes fall flat, according to Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network, who says the demonization of carbonated beverages is just another example of the progressive attack on liberty.

“After the Obama Administration tried to put itself between me and my doctor with its health care plan, the White House – along with Governor David Paterson and Mayor Gavin Newsom – now want to come between me and my can of soda,” said Borelli.

“Raising taxes during hard economic times is a horrible idea and it’s doomed to failure,” added Borelli. “Elected officials should be focused on lowering taxes to getting our economy growing in order to stimulate job growth. Instead you have Mayor Newsom in San Francisco and Governor Paterson in New York using the ‘obesity card’ to make up for their budget shortfalls. Punishing consumers, beverage companies, bottling companies and small business owners will only add to our economic troubles. These politicians need to put themselves on a spending diet and worry about their bloated budgets and let me worry about my waistline.”

Borelli continued: “And then you’ve got Michelle Obama and the Obama Administration leaning on schools and on the beverage and snack food industries to reform their wicked ways. In spreading their gospel against sugary treats, they will hurt the ability of Paterson and Newsom to reap their sin taxes. It’s clear the progressives can’t have it both ways despite their ambitions. The only one harmed in the end will be the American consumer.”

In New York, Governor David Paterson (D) has reintroduced a $1.28 per gallon tax on sugared sodas – a proposal he first proposed and later abandoned in 2009. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) has announced his intention to introduce legislation to impose a undisclosed fee on retailers selling sugary beverages. By targeting retailers, Newsom bypasses the need to subject the tax to a voter referendum.

At the same time, First Lady Michelle Obama is the public face of the Obama Administration’s legislative drive to attack the presence of soda and snacks in schools. On February 9, she announced the “Let’s Move” campaign to allegedly “end the American plague of childhood obesity in a single generation.” While she asserted the role of the government would be “minor” in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” program, her husband is creating a federal task force on the issue charged with formulating a “long-term action plan.” Additionally, Obama Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on February 8 that he intends to ban candy and soda from schools. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) is expected to introduce legislation codifying this ban as part of the reauthorization of school meal programs.

“Social engineering is at the heart of the progressive movement,” Borelli continued. “The Obama Administration sought a cap-and-trade emissions policy that would raise energy prices and thus force Americans to use less energy. Then it was government mandates on health issues. Now, it’s discriminatory taxes on food and beverages. It seems there is nothing the so-called progressives will not tax and no liberty they will not assault to support their worldview.”

Next Page »