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 the ‘Health Law’ Category

Democrats Health Care Bureaucracy Charted. Democrats propose massive new tax to drive wealth out of the country.

Posted by iusbvision on July 15, 2009

Just click HERE.

This massive bureaucracy between you and your health-care is supposed to lower your costs and improve service? Ok who is taking bets? Of course This is the new tax they say will pay for it, but when the wealth start to hide their assets and income and or leave the country how much money will the government really get?  – LINK.

Daily Mail UK:

A 9-month wait for arthritis treatment: Delay can mean a lifetime of agony for victims
By Daniel Martin
15th July 2009

Thousands of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers face a lifetime of agony because they are not being treated quickly enough, a report says.

Guidelines state that patients should receive treatment within three months of the first symptoms appearing.
But the average wait is nine months – and GPs are not trained well enough to know what help to offer.

There is no cure, but experts say that if arthritis is diagnosed in the first three months, drugs can be given which limit its progression. This means the disease will not be as painful as it would have been if the condition was diagnosed later.

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

Stimulus jobs in New Hampshire cost $8.32 million per job.

Posted by iusbvision on July 14, 2009

This is what we mean by stimulating government and not the economy, as if any of us who are suffering under this awful economy needed to be told that.

Via our friends at

With the entire nation wondering at the effectiveness of a stimulus package that has resulted in not saving 2 million jobs thus far, the data on job creation has finally begun to arrive.  In New Hampshire, which got $416 million dollars, officials have proudly announced that the money has created jobs — 50 of them, to be exact.  Only 34 of them are full time.

More than $400 million in federal stimulus money has come to New Hampshire this year, and more is on the way.

The Office of Legislative Budget Assistant reported last week that $413.6 million made its way to the state under a list of programs that involve education, highways, environmental, health and human services, energy and law enforcement. …

So far, a total of 50 jobs have been created by the funding, 34 of them full time. The OES will be headed by a director whom Gov. John Lynch has not yet appointed. All five OES jobs are described as full-time temporary positions that will go out of existence in September 2011, the end of the federal fiscal year.

You read that right.  The stimulus package in New Hampshire has created 50 temp jobs, apparently all of them bureaucrat positions, and none of them permanent.  The Office of Economic Stimulus (OES) employs five of those people, and when the governor appoints the director, that position will pay a $110,000 salary, plus benefits.

Roughly speaking, those 50 jobs cost the American taxpayer $8.32 million per position.  If we calculate part-time positions as one-half of a full-time job, the cost per full-time job would be $9.9 million.  At that rate, the $787 billion Porkulus package should generate about 79,495 jobs across America — or about what we lose today by 1:37 pm in new unemployment claims. And of course, all of those would last only as long as the stimulus money kept coming to fund them.

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

Voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on 8 out of 10 key issues for the second straight month

Posted by iusbvision on July 12, 2009

Rasmussen Poll:

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They’ve also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that voters trust the GOP more on economic issues 46% to 41%, showing little change from the six-point lead the party held last month. This is just the second time in over two years of polling the GOP has held the advantage on economic issues. The parties were close on the issue in May, with the Democrats holding a one-point lead.

Voters not affiliated with either party trust Republicans more to handle the economy by a 46% to 32% margin.

Last week’s report of 9.5 percent unemployment, the highest since 1983, raised doubts about the economy and the president’s handling of it. Consumer and investor confidence is now down to the lowest levels in three months. Just 39% now say President Obama is doing a good or an excellent job on the economy while 43% rate his performance as poor. Those are by far the weakest numbers yet for the president.

The president’s approval ratings also have fallen to new lows in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

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

NPR: Lobbyists acting as fund raisers for Democrats all over the health care reform bill.

Posted by iusbvision on July 9, 2009

Remember folks, Obama promised that this would end if he was elected. Now its worse than ever.

Yip, baught and paid for…….


NPR’s Dollar Politics series looks at the business of crafting legislation, specifically the big three issues now before Congress: health care, climate change and financial regulation.

In this installment, Andrea Seabrook and Peter Overby report on how lawmakers juggle that work with their other big job — raising money to get re-elected.

Lobbyists As Fundraisers

Obama Health Care Promises

Senator Chris Dodd

The fundraiser was a $1,500-a-plate luncheon, hosted by two lobbyists, with proceeds going to support Dodd’s re-election campaign.

The lobbyists hosting the fundraising event work for U.S. Oncology, a major provider of cancer drugs and services. Their business is all wrapped up in the health care proposals.

According to Dodd’s campaign manager, there were other donors in attendance — not just those with a stake in health care policy. But this scenario is a snapshot of something that happens all the time on Capitol Hill.

A member of Congress will routinely spend part of the day legislating — and part of the day raising money. And that money often comes from the industries that will gain or lose from that legislation.

Paying To Play?

Some people call it the way the system works. Others call it bribery — but not the Supreme Court. The high court has said that campaign contributions are not bribes.

Lobbyists don’t think so either, especially because the money usually comes from political action committees — a step removed from corporations themselves.

Nicholas Meyers, who runs the lobbying operation for the American Psychiatric Association, representing 38,000 psychiatrists, says it’s simply the price of admission.

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Democrats Health Care Bill Packed With Frivolous Spending

Posted by iusbvision on July 9, 2009

..and how much of that spending will make it back to the pockets of politicians and lobbyists???

Here we go again, who needs a new stimulus bill to grow the size of government on the backs of tax payers and businesses when any old bill will do?

Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON – Sweeping healthcare legislation working its way through Congress is more than an effort to provide insurance to millions of Americans without coverage. Tucked within is a provision that could provide billions of dollars for walking paths, streetlights, jungle gyms, and even farmers’ markets.

The add-ons – characterized as part of a broad effort to improve the nation’s health “infrastructure’’ – appear in House and Senate versions of the bill.

Critics argue the provision is a thinly disguised effort to insert pork-barrel spending into a bill that has been widely portrayed to the public as dealing with expanding health coverage and cutting medical costs. A leading critic, Senator Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, ridicules the local projects, asking: “How can Democrats justify the wasteful spending in this bill?’’

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Health Law | Leave a Comment »

England’s sex-ed program doubles teen pregnancy rate.

Posted by iusbvision on July 8, 2009

If it feels good do it….

DailyMail UK:

A multi-million pound initiative to reduce teenage pregnancies more than doubled the number of girls conceiving.

The Government-backed scheme tried to persuade teenage girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex.

But research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of £2,500 each, were ‘significantly’ more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice.

A total of 16 per cent of those on the Young People’s Development Programme conceived compared with just 6 per cent in other programmes.

It gets worse –

The £5.9million YPDP programme was also designed to slash cannabis use and drunkenness among teenagers, but made no difference whatsoever.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Health Law | 1 Comment »

Crony Capitalism – Obama’s Legacy

Posted by iusbvision on July 7, 2009

What is Crony Capitalism? It has several names like corporatism and like “political market economics” and what does it mean?

Corporatism is political market economics on steroids. Political market economics is not like regular market economics which is a meritocracy (where you make the best product at the best price for consumers), in political market economics the goal is to manipulate and lobby regulators and politicians to tilt the rules in your favor, which in turn enriches politicians by donations.

This is partially explained by Norton’s First Law:

Big business loves big government, which is why big business loves domestic taxes and regulation because it keeps the small and medium sized competition out of the competition. It also causes inflation, so ultimately it is you who pays and the poor who are hardest hit. (Big business often gets loopholes written in the laws for themselves such as Nancy Pelosi trying to get a part of the tuna industry exempted from the minimum wage law).

We have written about the dangers of crony capitalism many times and how it leads to more and more government corruption (1, 2, 3, 4,).

Which leads us to this article in The Weekly Standard:

The Triumph of Crony Capitalism

Want to get ahead in business? Make friends in Washington.

by Fred Barnes

First President Bush, then President Obama poured billions into General Motors and Chrysler to keep the companies alive but barely breathing. That was just for starters. Next came Obama’s creation of an Auto Task Force to oversee the auto companies. To head the task force, the president picked Steve Rattner, a Wall Street investor with no experience in automaking but lots in raising campaign money for Obama and Democrats.

GM and Chrysler were quickly restructured, mostly to the benefit of the United Auto Workers, the union which spent millions in 2008 to elect Obama and Democrats. The UAW now owns 17.5 percent of GM and 55 percent of Chrysler–quite a return on an investment of zero dollars. Obama said all parties should “sacrifice,” but only bondholders did. They got a fraction of what they were legally entitled to receive. UAW retirees, in contrast, got a gift of $9.5 billion at GM and $14.2 billion at Chrysler.

There’s an epilogue. Delphi, the auto parts manufacturer once owned by GM and still its biggest supplier, has been in bankruptcy for four years. To acquire its assets and run the company, Delphi and Obama’s Auto Task Force picked an affiliate of the private equity firm Platinum Equity. There was no auction or competitive bidding, though Platinum stands to make millions in the deal. Why Platinum? The UAW favored it, sources said.

There’s a name for all this: crony capitalism. Obama insists he believes in capitalism, but it’s not the free market variety that he’s been promoting since he became president. Obamanomics is a different strain entirely.

Crony capitalism is usually identified with Third World despots, like Hugo Chávez, who reward their friends and allies in the business and financial communities. Some might be appointed to top government jobs, as Rattner was. But the chief characteristic of crony capitalism is favoritism for some companies or organizations (unions, for example)–in loans, grants, giveaways, and specific policies.

There’s another aspect. Obama isn’t merely rewarding a few cronies, he’s seeking more and more favored groups to reward. One way he’s doing this is through his energy, health care, and other policies, which would boost certain companies and industries over others. Another way is by providing cheap capital, which gives firms an advantage over competitors who must acquire capital at higher interest rates in private markets. The Federal Reserve, along with Obama’s Treasury Department, plays a big role here.

The effect of Obama’s approach to business has been enormous. In less than six months, he’s changed the relationship between the private sector and Washington. Companies increasingly “compete for government favoritism, not for consumer choice or preferences,” says Republican representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

“Members of Congress are being besieged with calls from businesses who have an expectation of getting a check from Washington,” Ryan says. “The business mindset is, if the government is going to pick winners and losers, I want to be a winner. What it means is all roads lead to Washington.”

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 2 Comments »

Washington Post selling access to Obama officials. All new Definition of “in the tank”

Posted by iusbvision on July 2, 2009

In a yet another shocking breech of journalistic ethics from the elite media, this is perhaps the greatest of all. The Washington Post is selling access to Obama officials to lobbyists and others for cash.

Talk about having a financial interest in keeping the administration happy. Why would anyone trust anything in the Washington Post ever again?


For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few”: Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”

UPDATE – Watchdog journalist Michelle Malkin was on FNC today talking about this new scandal:

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

Obama: Old people don’t need life saving treatments they can take a pain pill (and be left to die) – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on June 26, 2009

[Welcome Associated Content readers! – Editor]

UPDATE – See this video from Obama advisor and former Labor Secretery Robert Reich – LINK.

Take out the fluff talk…. and this is what you are left with. Sick ……

Transcript with Rush Limbaugh’s comments:

Member of the audience. Jane Sturm: “My mother is now over 105. But at 100, the doctors said to her, ‘I can’t do anything more unless you have a pacemaker.’ I said, ‘Go for it.’ She said, ‘Go for it.’ But the specialist said, ‘No, she’s too old.’ But when the other specialist saw her and saw her joy of life, he said, ‘I’m going for it.’ That was over five years ago. My question to you is: Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?”

Obama: “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s ‘spirit.’ Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.” Do you realize how cold and heartless that answer is? This woman is asking about her mother. And everywhere she went, except one doctor, refused to put in the pacemaker. “Nah, she’s too old; she’s going to die anyway.”

So they found a specialist: “Maybe this woman really loves living. I’ll put it in.” She’s lived five years with the pacemaker, and still Obama: “Maybe you’re better off to tell your mother to take a pill, take a painkiller.” See, we have to have rules. “We have to have rules. Your mother should have died five years ago, lady. She would have been better off taking that painkiller.” Who says we have to have his rules? The President of the United States is not a king. He’s not an autocrat. He’s not a ruler. He doesn’t get to set the rules. Obama has taken it upon himself to do so. This woman found a way to get her mother a pacemaker. With Obamacare, you just heard the answer: It wouldn’t have happened.



Obama Advisor and former Labor Sec. Robert Reich: We are going to let the old die because its to expensive and we are going to make the drug companies poor so they cant innovate new drugs so you young people likely will not live much longer than your parents.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Economics 101, Health Law, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 19 Comments »

Jake Tapper: Another Obama Campaign Reversal

Posted by iusbvision on June 24, 2009

Update – RNC releases Ad:

Jake Tapper:

Once Opposed to ‘Forcing’ Americans to Get Health Insurance, President Obama Now Says His Thinking Has ‘Evolved’

June 24, 2009 9:40 AM

It was once a major bone of contention between then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, as they campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton’s health care proposal required Americans to have health insurance, similarly in theory to how drivers are required to have car insurance. Obama’s didn’t.

“Senator Clinton is arguing that the only way to get every American covered is if you force every American to buy health care,” Mr. Obama told Iowa reporters in November 2007. “And unfortunately she hasn’t told anybody how she would enforce this mandate.”

During a contentious debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, Mr. Obama said “the only difference between Senator Clinton’s health care plan and mine is that she thinks the problem for people without health care is that nobody has mandated — forced — them to get health care. That’s not what I’m seeing around Nevada. What I see are people who would love to have health care. They — they desperately want it. But the problem is they can’t afford it.”

He underlined again during the debate: “I don’t think that the problem with the American people is that they are not being forced to get health care.”

But during his interview with Diane Sawyer, President Obama said that while “mandates are an example of… something that I was resistant to during the campaign… this is an area where people have made some pretty compelling arguments to me that if we want to have a system that drives down costs for everybody, then we’ve got to have healthier people not opt out of the system. And I think that you have to be careful to make sure that there’s a waiver. So that if we haven’t made health care affordable yet, you’re not punishing people, not only because they can’t afford health care, but — now giving ’em an additional fine.”

The president said that “any program that we put in place, I think there will be some phase-in period. So that we can calibrate and adjust to make sure that there really is affordability there before we start trying to penalize people. But I think my thinking on the issue of mandates has evolved. And I think that that is typical of most people who study this problem deeper.”

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Jake Tapper, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

ABC Doing Special on Obama’s Health Care Proposal but……

Posted by iusbvision on June 19, 2009

Instead of hosting the special from ABC’s studio, the White House is giving ABC space to do the entire special from the White House. Normally an appearance of a conflict of interest would prevent a news network from doing that.

Via Matt Drudge:

Wed Jun 17 2009 15:15:00 ET

ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!

The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party’s views during the Obama special.

Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60-second spot immediately preceding ‘Prescription for America’.

Statement from Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights:

“It is unfortunate – and unusual – that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care event. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a pricetag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers’ money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC’s decision – as of now – to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider.”

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

Democrats propose “health care” law with $600 Billion in new taxes. Move to tax your health care benefits.

Posted by iusbvision on June 14, 2009

Barack Obama threatened voters in the campaign that if John McCain was elected president that you would face taxes on health care benefits. McCain proposed no such thing, but just a few months after Obama’s inauguration for the second time Democrats are proposing doing just that. Critics say the plan to tax your health care benefits is designed to price private health insurance out of the market allowing a government plan to take over.

Barack Obama also promised in the campaign that if you made under $250,000 a year you would face not one dime in new taxes. This promise was broken almost immediately with new taxes on tobacco and the unfunded mandates that came as strings attached to the stimulus bill funds which has forced many states such as Indiana to raise taxes in order to pay for them. If the new health care bill proposed by Democrats become law that promise will have been broken for the third time.

Bloomberg News:

June 12 (Bloomberg) — Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.

Democrats will work on the bill’s details next week as they struggle through “what kind of heartburn” it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. The measure’s cost is reaching well beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a 10-year down payment for the policy changes.

Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion over a decade, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.” Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, say the costs will likely exceed $1.5 trillion.

House Democrats plan to release their legislation next week. Obama is working with Congress to get legislation to his desk by October.

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

ABC News: Canadian Health System Cracking

Posted by iusbvision on June 6, 2009

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Health Law | Leave a Comment »

Rep. Jankowski: Bill is a Trojan Horse for nationalization of healthcare

Posted by iusbvision on April 28, 2009

Nationalized healthcare is a disaster around the rest of the world so why would we want to copy them? We need a unique American solution for our health care problems. Our Government has spent 12.8 Trillion buying up banks while Americans are losing their homes and losing their jobs. They are incompetent.

When the IRS siezed the “Mustang Ranch” brothel in Nevada they could not run it to make a profit and sold it for a fraction of its value (LINK). Does anyone honestly believe that government can run banks, car companies or healthcare and keep costs down? They may artificially keep prices down for a time, but not costs. Washington DC public schools spend $14,000 per year per student and their reading and math conpetency rates from 13%-22% from school to school according to ABC news. The Democrats shut down the $7,500 DC voucher program because the students were excelling and the failed teachers union wanted the money for themselves, this hurting those children (LINK).


Rep. Jan Schakowsky tells the audience that the bill is a Trojan horse for single-payer, and that she’s not interested in waging a “principled fight”, as Verum Serum discovers:


How about we listen to someone who has lived under nationalized health care:

Posted in Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Britain’s Dan Hannan, “Nationalized healthcare has made us iller”. Speaks out on G20 and Stimulus

Posted by iusbvision on April 4, 2009

Hannan on the British National Health Service: “Nationalized healthcare has made us iller”

This is a brilliant and accurate explanation of the causes of the current crisis and the solutions are hurting us more.

Hannan with heavy sarcasm:

Just what we need to stimulate growth then, eh? More dirigisme, more red tape, more state control, more centralisation. And the markets have risen. Will you never learn, boys?

Recent history in Europe and the US has shown that doing nothing would have been better than what we have done, but smart people came up with ideas such as lowering the corporate income tax, buying up bad mortgage loans to renegotiate them with home owners, forgiving one years worth of student loan payments, forgiving the federal income tax for 9 months etc. These are ideas that would have injected big cash into the economy now. Only 23% of the stimulus was even designed to be spent before the end of 2010. The government spends money for political reasons, whereas citizens and families spend money and pay off debt for economic reasons.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 2 Comments »

Democrats move to tax health benefits – Flashback Obama, “If McCain is elected your health benefits will be taxed for the first time in history.”

Posted by iusbvision on March 13, 2009

Remember this from the campaign? USA Today:

McCain’s health plan was distorted, in turn, by Obama.

“Your health care benefits will get taxed for the first time in history,” Obama warned voters in attacking it. He often leads voters to think that’s the full story. Hardly.


Workers’ Health Benefits Eyed for Taxation
Revenue Would Fund Expansion of Coverage

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 12, 2009; Page D01

With President Obama’s plan to tax the rich to pay for health care facing deep skepticism on Capitol Hill, key lawmakers are pressing a different way to raise money: taxing the health benefits workers receive from their employers.

Since companies began offering group health insurance on a large scale during World War II, the value of that benefit has never been counted as income, reducing workers’ taxable earnings by an average of $9,000 a year for family coverage.

In recent weeks, however, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the tax-writing Finance Committee, has repeatedly advocated changing tax laws to include employer benefits, arguing that it makes sense to fund the health-care changes by sucking cash out of the existing system. Meanwhile, 13 other senators — from both sides of the aisle — have signed on to a plan for universal coverage that includes a tax on employer-provided benefits.

UPDATE – The obligitory Sunday morning talk show non-denial denial. 

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Obama wants to charge injured vets for treatment! – How can they be this stupid? – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on March 12, 2009

Imagine the elite media reaction if Bush did this…..

UPDATE – The head of the American Legion met with Obama and came out from the meeting outraged: 

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.


“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”


The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, “This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘ to care for him who shall have borne the battle’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America’s veterans!”

*****Original Story Here*****

As if insulting our greatest ally multiple times wasn’t enough, after Obama giving Gordon Brown a pack of DVD’s that he couldn’t even play after Brown gave obama priceless artifacts from the people of the United Kingdom, after multiple botches in dealing with Russia, after nominating a pack of tax cheats to hold high positions in the administration, after nominating an anti-semite who thought that the Chinese government  at Tienanmen Square didn’t do enough to hold a position in national intelligence only to have leaders in Congress tell obama “no way” and after breaking his promises at a frantic rate since the inauguration…..

….after all of these stupid moves it finally took this story to convince me that Obama is just not nearly as bright as “everyone” said he was. Indeed the Obama teleprompter and stupid jokes are coming.

Sadly this hits on a theme that we have noticed in Obama Administration positions, they are often just plain cruel.


WASHINGTON (CNN)— Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

But the proposal would be “dead on arrival” if it’s sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance. …

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

The groups also cited an increase in “third-party collections” estimated in the 2010 budget proposal — something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.

Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under “consideration.”

“A final decision hasn’t been made yet,” he said.

Our friends at are even surprised by the shocking stupidity of such a move:

Let’s see.  The same administration that wants to give tens of billions of dollars to GM, Citigroup, AIG, and a host of other banks and manufacturers wants men and women injured in service to their country to pay for the medical care that arises from these injuries?  In what universe does Shinseki and the Obama administration live, anyway?

And people used to complain that Bush didn’t care enough about veteran care – even though he increased the VA budget by 56% from 2001 to 2008.  Bush never offered the notion that the nation should shirk its duty to those who gave their health for the defense of America, especially not in the same week in which his administration signed a record omnibus bill with 8,000 pork items in it.  In fact, I don’t think any administration has ever signaled such a policy, mostly because previous administrations weren’t dumb enough to try it, let alone crass enough to consider it an area to save a little cash.

UPDATE – After much yelling and screaming Obama changed his mind.  – LINK.

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

Profiles in Stupid: California Court Shuts Down “Good Samaritan Law”

Posted by iusbvision on December 23, 2008

The “good samaritan law”. Most of us have heard of it. It means that if you see a terrible accident or a medical emergency you may take “reasonable action” to help preserve life and limb without fear of being sued for not being able to give top notch medical care in the middle of a crisis.

In most states the good samaritan law is written in statute, but has always been considered a part of “equity law”. That means that judges would protect such people who acted reasonably in the interests of justice.

In California this is no more. A good samaritan who pulled a crash victim out of a likely burning car can be successfully sued for damages an idiotic California court has ruled:

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn’t immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn’t medical.

The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident in good faith could be sued.

Lisa Torti of Northridge allegedly worsened the injuries suffered by Alexandra Van Horn by yanking her “like a rag doll” from the wrecked car on Topanga Canyon Boulevard.

Torti now faces possible liability for injuries suffered by Van Horn, a fellow department store cosmetician who was rendered a paraplegic in the accident that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004. comments:

The court has sent a signal to the people of California: don’t get involved. If someone’s drowning, don’t jump in the lake and save them. If someone’s trapped in a car that’s about to explode, sit there and watch the show. Just make a phone call, and who cares that it might be several minutes before an EMS team can make it to the scene? If you sit on your hands, no one can sue you for all you’re worth.

Now if the woman pulled the victim out in a state of panic or acted carelessly then the care given was “not reasonable” and she should pay, which may be the case, but to take the “good samaritan” rule and trash it goes beyond all good sense and is just plain stupid.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Health Law, Stuck on Stupid | Leave a Comment »

Planned Parenthood Caught Covering Up Child Abuse Again – This Time in Indiana

Posted by iusbvision on December 16, 2008


Indianapolis – The Indiana Attorney General says his office is also investigating Planned Parenthood of Indiana.

The development comes after a health center aide was caught on video telling a woman who claimed to be a pregnant teen to lie about the age of the father.

A pro-life group member posed as a 13-year-old and secretly shot the video at a Bloomington clinic in June. She told an aide she’d been impregnated by a 31-year-old man.

The aide told the woman she could get an abortion in Illinois where parental consent is not needed and to not reveal the father’s age.

Sick… The video is at

Posted in Health Law, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Canada’s New Solution to Long Waiting Lists for Medical Care – Make Patients Draw Straws to Get a Doctor

Posted by iusbvision on August 18, 2008

When I took Dr. Zechowski’s class on film documentaries we watched Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko” and he claimed that Canada does not have a problem with waiting lists for health care.

MD uses lottery to cull patients

Not first such case as lack of doctors causes huge caseloads

Tom Blackwell, National Post Published: Wednesday, August 06, 2008

In the latest jarring illustration of the country’s doctor shortage, a family physician in Northern Ontario has used a lottery to determine which patients would be ejected from his overloaded practice.

Dr. Ken Runciman says he reluctantly eliminated about 100 patients in two separate draws to avoid having to provide assembly-line service or extend already onerous work hours, and admits the move has divided the community of Powassan.

Yet it was not the first time such methods have been employed to determine medical service. A new family practice in Newfoundland held a lottery last month to pick its caseload from among thousands of applicants. An Edmonton doctor selected names randomly earlier this year to pare 500 people from his heavy caseload. And in Ontario, regulators have heard reports of a number of other physicians also using draws to choose, or remove, patients.

The unusual practice seems to be a symptom of the times, said Jill Hefley, spokeswoman for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. A paucity of medical professionals has left an estimated five million Canadians without a family doctor.

Pierre Lemieux has an analysis of this situation here –

Hat Tip to Dr. John Lott for the heads up on this article.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Health Law, Other Links | Leave a Comment »