The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for August 14th, 2009

Video: Pelosi used to love town hall protestors and disruptors….when Bush was president.

Posted by iusbvision on August 14, 2009

Via Brietbart News:

Posted in Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Steven Crowder: Go Flag Yourself!!

Posted by iusbvision on August 14, 2009

I am flagging myself. You should too!

Linda Douglass is the White House “disinformation officer”…

TO: Linda Douglass

Dear Linda,

I wanted to let you know that I have been reading HR3200 and I have been posting sections of it, including what people like Sarah Palin, Dick Morris, Sam Brownback, William Jacobson and others have been saying about the bill and can you believe that they have the guile to dare back up what the say with information I can verify!

Don’t they know that its better to ignore things like evidence and just trust the word of someone like you, who told us that you were scratching names off of emails to in violation of federal law!

So to you I issue this challenge, since you were able to make the leap from virtual Obama spokesman at ABC to official Obama spokesman at the White House and since you are the public information officer, how about YOU and Rahm debate Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich and someone from the Congress in public about death panels and other issues.

It would be my pleasure to bring the popcorn to watch you and Rahm get your rhetorical buns handed back to you on a platter!

All the best,

Chuck Norton

Editor, IUSB Vision Web Log

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Congressional Budget Office: Obama Health Care Bill Numbers Don’t Add Up

Posted by iusbvision on August 14, 2009

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Senator Specter shocked to find out that individuals get punished if they dont take the proposed national health care.

Posted by iusbvision on August 14, 2009

He didn’t read the bill folks.

Ed Morrissey at has a totally devastating post that every person in the country should examine.

In the following video a union guy asks Senator Specter if there are any individual mandates in the health care bill. Specter, in so many words says no.  

Of course Specter is incorrect. Ed Morrissey at takes over from here with the facts:

The key takeaway comes at the end:

“In a free society, if people absolutely insist on not being covered, that’s ultimately going to be their choice.”

Had Specter done his job, he would already know about Section 401 of the House version of ObamaCare. King Banaian read it over a week ago and highlighted this particular portion in order to make clear that the bill does indeed impose individual mandates and assigns penalties for non-compliance:

In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:

Subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
‘Subpart A–Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage

‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

Sec. 59b. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

‘(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of–
‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
‘(b) Limitations-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
‘(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the ‘applicable national average premium’ means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
‘(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (e) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting ‘family coverage’ for ‘self-only coverage’.
2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of tax so imposed (determined without regard to this paragraph and after application of paragraph (1)) as–
‘(A) the aggregate periods during such taxable year for which such individual failed to meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears to
‘(B) the entire taxable year.

Why doesn’t Specter know about this part of ObamaCare?  Shouldn’t he have educated himself on the particulars of the “reform” before attempting to defend it in town-hall meetings?  More critically, would Specter commit to opposing a bill that explicitly rejects his stated standard?  If not, why not?

Read the bill, Senator.  Inform yourself rather than spread “disinformation,” or Linda Douglass may have to track you at the White House’s Snitch Central.

IUSB Vision asks, What would the elite media be doing if a key Republican who opposed the bill had gotten this so wrong?

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Real Clear Politics: USA vs. Canada vs Britain Health Care Statistics – UPDATE: WHO Report Refuted.

Posted by iusbvision on August 14, 2009

Even NewerBritish Govt Hospital Causes “Unimaginable Suffering”: Up to 1,200 needless deaths, patients abused, staff bullied to meet targets… yet a secret inquiry into failing hospital says no one’s to blame.

NEW – British National Health Service late cancer diagnosis kills 10,000 a year LINK.

Real Clear Politics:

By Deroy Murdock

Imagine that your two best friends are British and Canadian tobacco addicts. The Brit battles lung cancer. The Canadian endures emphysema and wheezes as he walks around with clanging oxygen canisters. You probably would not think: “Maybe I should pick up smoking.”

The fact that America is even considering government medicine is equally wacky. The state guides health care for our two closest allies: Great Britain and Canada. Like us, these are prosperous, industrial, Anglophone democracies. Nevertheless, compared to America, they suffer higher death rates for diseases, their patients experience severe pain, and they ration medical services.

Look what you’re missing in the U.K.:

* Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.

* Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.

* Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the U.K.’s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America’s. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.

* The U.K.’s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) just announced plans to cut its 60,000 annual steroid injections for severe back-pain sufferers to just 3,000. This should save the government 33 million pounds (about $55 million). “The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients,” Dr. Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospitals Trust told London’s Daily Telegraph. “It will mean more people on opiates, which are addictive, and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate.”

* “Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets,” Daniel Martin wrote last year in London’s Daily Mail. “Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour [party] pledge. The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 911 calls. Doctors warned last night that the practice of ‘patient-stacking’ was putting patients’ health at risk.”

Things don’t look much better up north, under Canadian socialized medicine.

* Canada has one-third fewer doctors per capita than the OECD average. “The doctor shortage is a direct result of government rationing, since provinces intervened to restrict class sizes in major Canadian medical schools in the 1990s,” Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian physician and Manhattan Institute scholar, told the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee on June 24. Some towns address the doctor dearth with lotteries in which citizens compete for rare medical appointments.

* “In 2008, the average Canadian waited 17.3 weeks from the time his general practitioner referred him to a specialist until he actually received treatment,” Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes, a Canadian native, wrote in the July 2 Investor’s Business Daily. “That’s 86 percent longer than the wait in 1993, when the [Fraser] Institute first started quantifying the problem.”

* Such sloth includes a median 9.7-week wait for an MRI exam, 31.7 weeks to see a neurosurgeon, and 36.7 weeks – nearly nine months – to visit an orthopedic surgeon.

* Thus, Canadian supreme court justice Marie Deschamps wrote in her 2005 majority opinion in Chaoulli v. Quebec, “This case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.”

Obamacare proponents might argue that their health reforms are neither British nor Canadian, but just modest adjustments to America’s system. This is false. The public option – for which Democrats lust – would fuel an elephantine $1.5 trillion overhaul of this life-and-death industry. Having Uncle Sam in the room while negotiating drug prices and hospital reimbursement rates will be like sitting beside Warren Buffett at an art auction. Guess who goes home with the goodies?

A public option is just the opening bid for eventual nationalization of American medicine. As House Banking Committee chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) told SinglepayerAction.Org on July 27: “The best way we’re going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option to demonstrate its strength and its power.”

Barack Obama seconds that emotion.

“I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” Obama told a March 24, 2007 Service Employees International Union health-care forum. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision [single payer] a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.” As he told the AFL-CIO in 2003: “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health-care coverage. . . . That’s what I’d like to see.”

And why a public option just for medicine? Wouldn’t government clothing stores be best suited to furnish the garments Americans need to survive each winter? And why not a public option for restaurants? Shouldn’t Americans have universal access to fine dining?

All kidding aside, government medicine has proved an excruciating disaster in the U.K. and Canada. Our allies’ experiences with this dreadful idea should horrify rather than inspire everyday Americans, not to mention seemingly blind Democratic politicians.

Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

UPDATE: Refuting WHO report nonsense.

This post has gone viral on the internet and is posted on thousands of message board around the world and the most common response I have seen are some profoundly ignorant postings from leftists screaming that the WHO Report ranks the United States number 37 in care world wide, therefore we must suck. If said leftists had taken the time to actually read the report they would see that the WHO ranks the United States number one in patient responsiveness and care, but putting the United States as number one offends the WHO’s socialist sensibilities, so they had to find a way to lower America’s ranking. They were at least nice enough in the report to admit what they were doing and how they did it.

The WHO figures into the ranking weather or not the country in question has socialized health care, that means that if health care dollars come from the private sector, charities or the consumer the WHO lowers the ranking. WHO also skews the mortality rates by including people who die from crime and more importantly WAR.

When you look at the breakdown the United States according to WHO  is number ONE in patient responsiveness and care.

The WHO divides the report into sections – Here is the section on patient responsiveness and level of care – the United States is ranked number one

The WHO ranks the United States overall as 37 because we don’t have socialized health care; meaning that doesn’t meet socialists standard of “fairness”. – look here and do a search for the words “fairness in contributions” to see for yourself.

This means that the ranking of 37 has little to do with the quality of care people recieve and it has everything to do with ideology and politics.

UPDATE II – 12- 15- 09 An article coming to the same conclusion that we did above about the WHO report LINK.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Leftist Hate in Action | 17 Comments »

Senator Brownback on Death Panels

Posted by iusbvision on August 14, 2009

Anyone who tells you that these things don’t amounting to death panels either didn’t do the homework, is in denial or is just BS’ing you.

See more on death panels and other health care bill info using our health law category.

Senator Brownback writing in National Review Magazine:

Don’t Punish Seniors for Health-Care Reform

Denying care options to retirees is necessarily a part of the Democrats plan.

By Sam Brownback

In addition to being fiscally unsustainable, the health-care-reform plan emerging from Democrats in Congress raises disturbing questions for our nation’s seniors. If President Obama pushes through proposed “reforms,” seniors could very well face rationed care as the result of a raid on the coffers of a Medicare program that’s already nearly bankrupt.

One particular provision in the Democratic bill has seniors worried, and rightly so. A new “Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation” could ration access to medicines and treatments based on the government’s assessment of the value of a human life and the “cost-effectiveness” of treatment.

This became abundantly clear when Senator Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) introduced an amendment designed to ensure that the new center could not put a value on life-saving treatment by using “quality of life” and “cost-effectiveness” measures “for the denial of Medicare benefits to patients against their wishes.” Because Democrats rejected the amendment in a party-line vote, the proposed new entity would be able to impose restrictions on access to treatment, as is common in European countries with socialized medicine. Elderly, disabled, and medically dependent patients would be at greatest risk of being denied necessary care.

One reason for the rationing of care is to use “savings” from Medicare to pay for a radical, risky, and enormously expensive proposal for government-run health care. Except that it doesn’t: These short-term “savings” are a drop in the bucket compared to the massive expenditures required by the bill.

When I examined the comments at the Politico Arena and other pundits it became clear what pundits did the homework and who did not (most didn’t). When you examine the end of life counselling, with the comments of three presidential advisors Sunstien, Holdren and Emanuel & their radical ideas when it comes to who is worth of care and who is not, population control and cost/benefit analysis,  combined with the fact that they want to add 30 million uninsured and 80 million who’s employers would drop their care for the “public option”, and claim that the trillion dollar bureaucracy will still save money in spite of all this, and then combine it with a “health points” incentive that disincentives treatment for the very young and old… well death panels are the logical extension of what it adds up to. Half the money is spent at end of life so if they want to save with such a system that is where the money is.

Palin’s “death panels” comments (LINK1LINK2) were backed up with facts that you don’t see the pundits even attempting to refute point by point. Those who say otherwise either didn’t do the homework or are BS’ing us.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Utopia vs. Freedom – How Politicians are Ruining Healthcare by Trying to Make it “Perfect”

Posted by iusbvision on August 14, 2009

A Must read

Utopia Versus Freedom

By Thomas Sowell

“Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.” We have heard that many times. What is also the price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections. If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether “change,” “universal health care” or “social justice.”

Famed Author and Economist Thomas Sowell

Famed Author and Economist Thomas Sowell

If we can be so easily stampeded by rhetoric that neither the public nor the Congress can be bothered to read, much less analyze, bills making massive changes in medical care, then do not be surprised when life and death decisions about you or your family are taken out of your hands– and out of the hands of your doctor– and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington.

Let’s go back to square one. The universe was not made to our specifications. Nor were human beings. So there is nothing surprising in the fact that we are dissatisfied with many things at many times. The big question is whether we are prepared to follow any politician who claims to be able to “solve” our “problem.”

If we are, then there will be a never ending series of “solutions,” each causing new problems calling for still more “solutions.” That way lies a never-ending quest, costing ever increasing amounts of the taxpayers’ money and– more important– ever greater losses of your freedom to live your own life as you see fit, rather than as presumptuous elites dictate.

Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should “do something” about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don’t have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom.

Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke said, “It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know much of an evil ought to be tolerated” and “I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes.”

But today’s crusading zealots are not about to tolerate evils or infirmities. If insurance companies are not behaving the way some people think they should, then their answer is to set up a government bureaucracy to either control insurance companies or replace them.

If doctors, hospitals or pharmaceutical companies charge more than some people feel like paying, then the answer is price control. The actual track record of politicians, government bureaucracies, or price control is of no interest to those who think this way.

Politicians are already one of the main reasons why medical insurance is so expensive. Insurance is designed to cover risks but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 4 Comments »