Thursday, July 5, 2012


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Speed and Detail On the Pledge of Repeal

Do you trust the Congressional GOP to do everything they can to repeal Obamacare if Mitt Romney wins the presidency and if at least 51 GOP senators are elected and the House GOP majority maintained?
Do you trust them to move as quickly as possible to do so?
I do, because the political consequences of failing to do so would be so immense as to cost the GOP their newly won majorities in 2014. If empowered by the voters, the failure to repeal Obamacare will result a massive repudiation of the GOP by its own base.
But large numbers of voters don't see it the way I do. (I hear from them Monday through Friday, on air and off, in person and via the new media.) These activists point to a disappointing 2011 as their reason for skepticism. They point to a series of House votes in 2011 that did not cut spending as deep as they had expected and to the negotiations over the supplemental appropriation in the spring and then the debt ceiling in the summer which did not bring home even one major symbolic victory like an end to NPR funding.
Posted By Woody Pendleton


Obamacare Negatively Impacts Minorities

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) constitutional, I am concerned about its effect on those who need quality healthcare the most: the poor and vulnerable. The Court, of course, was not called upon to determine whether the law would actually have its intended effect. While the White House appears to have consulted many experts during Obamacare’s formative months, they also hung up twice on Dr. Ben Carson as he offered his advice.
Why did the White House hang up on the world-renown African-American neurosurgeon? Because he admitted to being an Independent, not a Democrat. Dr. Carson, who is director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, has been openly critical of the US current healthcare system. He has also made it clear, however, that he thinks Obama’s Affordable Care Act is not the answer.
Dr. Carson should understand better than almost anyone in the White House the importance of affordable access to healthcare for the poor and needy. He was born in Detroit, Michigan and raised by a single mother. He overcame early struggles in his life to graduate from Yale and University of Michigan’s Medical School and made medical history in 1987 when he successfully separated the Binder Twins, who were conjoined at the head.
So why doesn’t Dr. Carson believe Obamacare will provide better outcomes for people in circumstances similar to those of his own childhood? Because countries like Canada and Great Britain have already tried similar plans for decades, and those plans are now failing their patients. In an April interview with World Magazine, Dr. Carson explained, “Great Britain and some other places with socialized medicine are looking at privatization because they're running out of money. The problem with socialized medicine is that you can't seem to keep up with costs over the course of time, so you have to ration.”
In addition to running out of money, the European and Canadian healthcare systems have poorer results for what they spend. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis both Europe and Canada have worse cancer survival rates than Americans do under our current system. Furthermore, Americans are more likely to get screened and once diagnosed, we have faster access to treatment. As someone who survived esophageal cancer, I am grateful for the superior treatment I received here. And every time I entered Johns Hopkins, I literally saw people from all over the world—including Britain and Canada—who had come to America for higher quality healthcare.
What’s more, there is growing evidence that government-controlled systems not only fail to close the healthcare gap between whites and minorities, but may even exacerbate racial differences in health outcomes. The Centre for Health Services Studies at the University of Kent recently released a study of racial disparities in the British healthcare system, which has been under government control for over fifty years. It found that racial minorities still had the highest rates of mortality from coronary heart disease and were less likely than white patients to receive coronary revascularization according to need. Racial minorities in Britain also have the highest rates of diabetes and diabetes related mortality, as well as AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Patient surveys also indicated multiple problems with minority access to cancer screenings and treatment.
The Wellesley Institute of Canada recently released a paper called “Colour Coded Health Care: The Impact of Race and Racism on Canadian Health," which raised serious questions about racial disparities in Canada’s system. It noted that immigrants come to Canada in generally better health than their Canadian racial counterparts, but shortly after settling there, their health declines significantly. Studies showed a large disparity between healthcare providers’ perception of racial equality and the actual experience of ethnic minorities in the Canadian healthcare system: ethnic minorities reported being discriminated against in the healthcare system, whereas the majority of family doctors studied reported that racial differences created no social tensions in their offices. Given these pathetic realities, there is no reason to expect that a government takeover of American healthcare will have any positive effect on the health of racial minorities in this country.
At the end of the day, Obamacare survived the Roberts Court because its attorneys argued what President Obama specifically denied before the bill was passed: Obamacare is a tax. Not only that, it is the largest tax increase on the middle class in the history of the nation. In such a fragile economy, it will bring harm to people of all races.
Blacks and Hispanics will not only lose financially because of this new policy, but the experience of other countries indicates they will receive inferior care. In other words, the president’s crowning legislative achievement will hurt the people he claimed to want to help. Society as a whole will have to pay for an expensive new bureaucracy to administer this inferior care.
Leaders like Dr. Carson warned the White House about these impending problems. The administration's response was to hang up the phone. No one wanted to hear the truth. Politics as usual? No! It’s politics at its worst. 

Sadly the Obamacare Health plan is accepted by minorities because Obama is half black rather than on the plans true merits.  It is a shame that our determination of a man's worth is so often colored by the color of his skin rather than the color of his soul.      wp


Posted By Woody Pendleton



Posted By Woody Pendleton


Supreme Court Disregards Constitutional Limits of Federal Power

The shocking verdict to uphold the entire ObamaCare law is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in recent history. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor in the majority opinion stating that the individual mandate requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance is not valid under the Commerce Clause but it can survive as a tax. This ruling officially turns ObamaCare into the largest tax hike in American history and sets a dangerous precedent of virtually unlimited federal power. The surprising fact that Chief Justice Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush, sided with liberal activist judges to uphold one of the most blatant unconstitutional laws of our lifetime is an absolute disgrace. Justices Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas joined Thomas joined together in dissent arguing that “the act before us is invalid in its entirety.” Those who respect the original intent of our Founding Fathers cannot constitutionally justify any part of ObamaCare. The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” Does this mean that there is nothing that the federal government cannot force us to buy? Following Chief Justice Robert’s logic, the federal government may not be able to force us to eat vegetables but it can force us to buy broccoli if they call it a “tax.” President Obama could sign a law requiring all Americans purchase Chevy Volts and the Supreme Court would foolishly rule it constitutional. A long line of campaign promises that Obama made on the campaign trail have been broken. He repeatedly swore repeatedly swore that the individual mandate was not a tax. And remember this Obama pledge? “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see any of your taxes increased one single dime. I repeat: not a single dime.” Yeah, right. Not only is the individual mandate a penalty tax, but it disproportionally hurts the poor and middle-class. At least 75 percent of the mandate tax will fall on Americans who make less than $120,000 annually, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Twenty-one percent of the tax hike will fall on people who earn just above the poverty level of $11,800 per individual, or $24,000 for a family of four. The individual and employer health insurance mandate will cost an estimated $65 billion between 2014 and 2019. That’s a whole lot of dimes. ObamaCare amounts to $1.7 trillion in taxes over the next decade. These taxes range from excise taxes on medical device manufacturers to hospital insurance taxes. Unless the law is repealed, it will be illegal for any American to not carry health insurance starting in 2014. Never before have American citizens been punished through taxation for refusal to buy a product simply because they exist. The alarming ramifications of this mandate tax should scare the daylights out of every freedom-loving American. This Supreme Court ruling makes the IRS the enforcement arm of ObamaCare. Too bad if you don’t want to buy health insurance, an IRS agent might come knocking on your door. You have the false choice of buying health insurance or paying a hefty tax—but “it’s for your own good!” President Obama has even refused to rule out jail time for people who don’t buy health insurance and refuse to pay the penalty tax in previous interviews. And this guy won a Nobel Peace Prize? The Founding Fathers would be outraged that the federal government has the power to impose harmful taxes on citizens for not purchasing a private company’s product. Thomas Jefferson declared that states were “duty bound to resist” any federal law that violated the Constitution. Perhaps the states are really our best hope in stopping all unconstitutional federal actions. Now that the Supreme Court has upheld ObamaCare, it’s more urgent than ever to abolish ObamaCare in its entirety. Full steam ahead—nothing but complete repeal of this monstrous law is acceptable. No exceptions, no excuses. 
 It now becomes our problem to deal with.  Do we continue to allow an out of control Federal Government that has consistantly shown that it has very little respect for the will of, We The People, and will continue to follow the insane party attitude it has lived in for the last 6-7 decades?  Or do we stand up and say  "  enough is enough " and get rid of this rogue government before it sells us all to the NEW WORLD ORDER they want so badly ??      wp


Political Cartoon of the Day

Jerry Holbert
Jerry Holbert
Posted By Woody Pendleton


Click here to find out more!

A Vast New Federal Power

A Vast New Federal Power

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street, If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
-- The Beatles in "The Taxman"
Of the 17 lawyers who have served as chief justice of the United States, John Marshall -- the fourth chief justice -- has come to be known as the "Great Chief Justice." The folks who have given him that title are the progressives who have largely written the history we are taught in government schools. They revere him because he is the intellectual progenitor of federal power.
Marshall's opinions over a 34-year period during the nation's infancy -- expanding federal power at the expense of personal freedom and the sovereignty of the states -- set a pattern for federal control of our lives and actually invited Congress to regulate areas of human behavior nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. He was Thomas Jefferson's cousin, but they rarely spoke. No chief justice in history has so pronouncedly and creatively offered the feds power on a platter as he.
Now he has a rival.
No one can know the true motivations for the idiosyncratic rationale in the health care decision written by Marshall's current successor, John Roberts. Often five member majorities on the court are fragile, and bizarre compromises are necessary in order to keep a five-member majority from becoming a four-member minority. Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts really means what he wrote -- that congressional power to tax is without constitutional limit -- and his opinion is a faithful reflection of that view, without a political or legal or intra-court agenda. But that view finds no support in the Constitution or our history. It even contradicts the most famous of Marshall's big government aphorisms: The power to tax is the power to destroy.
The reasoning underlying the 5 to 4 majority opinion is the court's unprecedented pronouncement that Congress' power to tax is unlimited. The majority held that the extraction of thousands of dollars per year by the IRS from individuals who do not have health insurance is not a fine, not a punishment, not a payment for government-provided health insurance, not a shared responsibility -- all of which the statute says it is -- but rather is an inducement in the form of a tax.
The majority likened this tax to the federal taxes on tobacco and gasoline, which, it held, are imposed not only to generate revenue but also to discourage smoking and driving. The statute is more than 2,400 pages in length, and it establishes the federal micromanagement of about 16 percent of the national economy. And the court justified it constitutionally by calling it a tax.
A 7 to 2 majority (which excluded two of the progressive justices who joined the chief in rewriting tax law and included the four dissenting justices who would have invalidated the entire statute as beyond the constitutional power of Congress) held that while Congress can regulate commerce, it cannot compel one to engage in commerce. The same majority ruled that Congress cannot force the states to expand Medicaid by establishing state insurance exchanges. It held that the congressional command to establish the exchanges combined with the congressional threat to withhold all Medicaid funds -- not just those involved with the exchanges -- for failure to establish them would be so harmful to the financial stability of state governments as to be tantamount to an assault on state sovereignty. This leaves the exchanges in limbo, and it is the first judicial recognition that state sovereignty is apparently at the tender mercies of the financial largesse of Congress.
The logic in the majority opinion is the jurisprudential equivalent of passing a camel through the eye of a needle. The logic is so tortured, unexpected and unprecedented that even the law's most fervent supporters did not make or anticipate the court's argument in its support. Under the Constitution, a tax must originate in the House (which this law did not), and it must be applied for doing something (like earning income or purchasing tobacco or fuel), not for doing nothing. In all the history of the court, it never has held that a penalty imposed for violating a federal law was really a tax. And it never has converted linguistically the congressional finding of penalty into the judicial declaration of tax, absent finding subterfuge on the part of congressional draftsmanship.
I wonder whether the chief justice realizes what he and the progressive wing of the court have done to our freedom. If the feds can tax us for not doing as they have commanded, and if that which is commanded need not be grounded in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional limit to their power, and the ruling that the power to regulate commerce does not encompass the power to compel commerce is mere sophistry.
Even The Beatles understood this.

 It makes one wonder who the Supreme Court and Congress think they are representing.  IT SURELY CAN NOT BE THE PEOPLE!!     wp


Posted By The Circuit Rider



12 Jun
LIFESAVERS: Heart surgery by SACH doctors at Wolfson Hospital in Holon
(Sheila Shalhevet / SACH)
LINDA GRADSTEIN visits an Israeli hospital that saves the lives of hundreds of infant heart patients from around the world each year
From The Jerusalem Report, issue dated June 18, 2012
The two doctors move to the side of the pediatric ICU at the Wolfson Hospital in Holon and speak in hushed tones.
“I looked at the smear and it is definitely sickle cell anemia,” Amir Lotan, a hematologist, tells his colleague Tzion Houri.
“We’ll have to treat that first before we can do the surgery,” Dr. Houri, an expert in internal medicine, says with a sigh. “We’ll have to do a blood exchange and try to get it under control.”
Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease which causes red blood cells to form an abnormal crescent shape. These blood cells deliver less oxygen to the body’s organs, which can complicate the heart surgery that the baby has come to Israel to undergo.
Houri looks toward the mother who hasn’t understood a word of the exchange in Hebrew. Palmira Sebastian, 32, is from Angola and arrived with her nine-month-old son Juliom just a few days earlier for heart surgery sponsored by Save a Child’s Heart (SACH). Dressed in a colorful print dress, she sits quietly by her baby’s hospital bed. Wrapped in a blue and white hospital sheet like a cocoon, Juliom sleeps deeply.
“The doctors found the heart problem as soon as he was born,” she tells The Report. “I’m happy that he will get better here and I just want him to be healthy.”
From Gaza
In the next bed is four-month-old Farah Mershed from Gaza. Farah is awake and smiling, her dark brown eyes fringed by strikingly long lashes. At the end of her bed floats a blown-up surgical glove decorated with a drawing, and a stack of diapers. Her mother, Hulud, 28, dressed in a purple hijab, smiles. She has been in the hospital for almost two months straight, never leaving her daughter’s side. Houri says that in addition to the heart defect, Farah had a hernia which was also successfully operated on. In the next day or two she will go home to Gaza.
“This is my first time in Israel and at first I was very nervous,” she says. “I don’t know Hebrew, but everyone here has been so nice, and I am so happy that they helped my daughter,” she says.
Farah is taking Viagra to counteract pulmonary hypertension and several other expensive medicines that SACH will continue to provide.
NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS: Mohammed, a baby from Gaza, with Dr Sion Houri at the Wolfson Hospital in Rehovot
(Sheila Shalhevet / SACH)
Houri says both of these babies would have died without the operations performed by SACH, a hospital-based charity that finances heart surgery for more than 200 children each year from the developing world. Funded by donations and the Israeli government, the children are brought to Israel, often with their parents, for a stay that usually averages between two and three months.
When they are not in the hospital, the children and their caretakers live in Legacy House, a building completed in April a few minutes away in Holon. They spend most of their time in a well-equipped playroom or in the garden outside. Each caretaker cooks for her own children, although the ingredients are supplied by the house.
How much does all of this cost each patient? Nothing.
“It’s like Club Med here – everything is included,” Houri says with a grin. “The surgery, the hospital stay, the plane tickets, the follow-up care – we provide it all.”
In the US, he says, each surgery would cost between $100,000 and $400,000. Here at Wolfson, it costs between $7,000 and $8,000. The doctors’ salaries are paid by the hospital and all other costs are covered by donations from family foundations and businesses. For example, the children from Angola are financed by the LR Group, a large Israeli construction company founded by three former pilots which has extensive interests in the African nation.

The only color skin we don’t like is blue. That means the child is not getting enough oxygen

The European Union finances much of the care for the Palestinian children, and the Ministry of Regional Cooperation chips in as well. The SACH annual budget is $2.5 to $3 million dollars. Since its founding in 1995 SACH has performed surgery on 2,800 children from all over the world.
“The only color skin we don’t like is blue,” says Houri, “because that means the child is not getting enough oxygen.”
SACH is also training dozens of doctors, hoping to expand the number of children it can help.
Naiz Majani, 34, from Tanzania, has been in Israel for two months. A pediatrician, she is here on a one-year fellowship to become a pediatric cardiologist – the first in her region of Mwanza, which has three million people. One of her colleagues is studying to become Tanzania’s first heart surgeon.
Majani has left her three children, including four-year-old twins, behind, while she studies here.
“In Tanzania there are an estimated 500,000 children who need heart surgery,” she says. “I was expecting the highest quality teaching and hospital before I came here and that’s what I’m getting.”
SACH also sponsored a medical mission to Tanzania last summer, performing the first heart surgeries ever carried out in the country.
While the organization describes itself as non-political, hospitals are one of the few places in Israel where Israelis and Palestinians are officially in daily contact.
Medical diplomacy
“I like to think of it as medical diplomacy,” says Simon Fisher, 40, the British-born director of SACH. “We are establishing ongoing and everyday relationships between Israeli and Palestinian parents through the medical profession. We also want to extend the medical cooperation between hospitals in Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”
Behind Fisher’s desk are 19 miniature flags of member countries of the NGO Committee of the UN. In 2011 SACH received a special “consultant” status and has participated in several UN discussions.
The organization is also hoping to expand at the Wolfson Medical Center and build a new state-of–the-art pediatric ICU. They have launched a capital campaign to raise $25 million and already have $5 million in the bank. The new ICU will enable them to double the number of children they treat every year.

SACH trains dozens of doctors,hoping to expand the number of children it can help

When I was a young resident here, I saw Israeli children die because we didn’t have enough surgeons,” says Tunisian-born Houri, who immigrated to Israel as a child. “Today every Israeli child who needs surgery gets it. But there are at least five million children around the world who are waiting for heart surgery.”
Just under one percent of children around the world are born with congenital heart disease, and half of them will need surgery in their first year of life. Others need surgery because of complications arising from untreated diseases such as strep throat.
Fresh paint
SACH was founded in 1995 by Maryland-born Dr. Ami Cohen, a heart surgeon at Wolfson. Cohen died in an accident while climbing Mount Kilimanjaro in 2001. Photos of the pudgy, balding doctor are scattered around the hospital.
The Legacy Home, where the children and parents live, is a new addition. Until last month, they lived in a rented apartment, and space was tight. Here, the smell of fresh paint is still in the air. The small bedrooms have two single beds and wooden closets. Multi-colored tiles decorate the shared bathroom and shower.
“We are responsible for the children from the moment they arrive at the airport – even if it’s 3 a.m. someone goes to meet them,” says housemother Laura Kafif, 50, originally from Northern Ireland. “We try to make life as normal as possible for them.”
Kafif helps impose a daily schedule, with the help of volunteers. For children who do not need to go to the hospital for tests or check-ups, there are volunteer helpers and quiet activities. Children either before or after surgery can’t play ball, as a ball to the chest could be dangerous.
“We don’t even have slides in the garden outside,” says Kafif.
Volunteers come to teach the children how to use computers or to celebrate the holidays. Some volunteers live in the house for several weeks at a time. Others, like Molly Piccione, 23, originally from Babylon, New York, come twice a week. Piccione gently holds Harith, a ten-month-old from Zanzibar, so his aunt can eat her lunch.
Ton of fun
“I love being here,” says Piccione. “For the first few weeks I was a stranger and I didn’t know how to connect with the children or their families but now it’s a ton of fun. Today I played Bingo with the children. Sometimes we put on music and dance.”
Piccione is on a Jewish Agency sponsored program called Masa. She hopes to attend medical school next year.
A few days later, the baby with sickle cell anemia is out of the ICU and staying at the house while he receives treatment in advance of surgery.
“She’s familiar with the disease because her brother has it as well,” says Houri. “It’s hard because she knew about the heart problem but now she has another disease to deal with as well.”
Houri says there is no cure for sickle cell anemia but there is treatment which Juliom will receive. His surgery will be performed in a few weeks.
As for Farah, she has gone home to Gaza and will return in a month for a follow-up visit.
“She’s looks like magic,” Houri says happily. “She’s gained so much weight. She’s smiling and the mother’s smiling. It’s all good.”

 It is amazing that with so many sick children in the world, that the world hates the one nation and people that are doing the most and best for children from all nations.  Our world has lost its collective mind and common sense.   wp

 if the Lord leads you to donate to sachs please do so.


Posted By Woody Pendleton



Posted By Woody Pendleton



The great Social Security lie

If you think the retirement of baby boomers is the problem, perhaps you should know about the real root of the problem -- and how it needs to be addressed.

Image: Worried Woman, © Stockbyte, Getty Images
The headline machine was in overdrive earlier this year with the arrival of the latest Trustees' Report on SocialSecurity and Medicare. And while much of the media continues to herald the coming bankruptcy of Social Security, they do so at the risk of ignoring the real story -- a story that is neither difficult to explain nor hard to understand.
Technically speaking, an entity is deemed bankrupt when its obligations exceed its revenues. Therefore, if the projections are accurate, Social Security will, indeed, be deemed bankrupt in 25 years -- absent modifications to resolve the funding problems.
However, that does not mean that the money will be all gone come 2035. Nor do the headlines explain why we have the projected shortfall.

Subsequent to the projected expiration of the period where the trust can pay out 100% of the promised benefits, the fund will then be in a position to pay out 75% of promised benefits for the foreseeable future -- and that is not OK. Clearly, there need to be some changes made to Social Security so as to make up the 25% annual shortfall in benefits we anticipate will begin a quarter of a century from now.

The cause of the shortfall

But if we are to hope to make these adjustments in a sensible and realistic way, it might not be a terrible idea for the American public to actually understand the real causes of the shortfall in anticipated trust revenues.
We are consistently led to believe that it is the "aging workforce" that rests at the heart of Social Security' funding problems. Tune in to any of the media reports covering the numbers just out and this is what you are going to see and hear.
The claim, while legitimately representing a small piece of the problem, fails to explain the lion's share of the crisis we will experience in the Social Security Trust --and by lion's share, I mean a full 60% of the entitlement's funding shortages.
The "aging workforce" narrative serves to encourage and support the critics who claim that our problem is too many retirees lining up to collect their entitlements only to find that the government has failed to properly manage the Social Security Trust -- leaving the next generation of beneficiaries to be shortchanged 25 years down the line. As a result, the privatization pushers argue that Americans would be far better off looking out for their own retirement accounts so that government mismanagement will not come between hard-working citizens and their retirement money.
This is the Great American Social Security Lie.
It is a lie concocted by those seeking to fulfill Wall Street's eternal quest to get its sweaty palms on trillions of dollars of our retirement cash, allowing them to expand their casino operations beyond their wildest imaginations -- and Wall Street has a very healthy imagination.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...