Bioethics

US Rumor and Hospital Report | The Health Care Blog

“US News needs to stop relying on unsupported and unsupportable reputation, often influenced by anecdote, personal relationships and self-serving public appearances, and work on real — and more recent — data. Maybe that will also cause hospitals to be more willing to report their data so they can be named to the “Honor Roll.” As it is, you are better off keeping things opaque to protect your reputation.

“I think it is time to acknowledge that this ranking offers very little in the way of valuable information. It is mainly a vehicle for advertisements from the pharmaceutical industry, who know that this issue of the magazine gets a lot of attention and high circulation. As you flip through to each specialty, you are blasted with ads for drugs related to syndromes within that specialty.”

via US Rumor and Hospital Report | The Health Care Blog.

LifeEthics on WSJ: Who gets drunk and why

LifeEthics.org linked to “Who Gets Drunk and Why,” a Wall Street Journalarticle originally titled, “Testing the Limits of Tipsy: Many factors Alter the Effects of Alcohol; A Party Experiment,” on variations in response to alcohol intake.

ObamaCare’s Most Frightening Consequence: Not Enough Doctors – HUMAN EVENTS

It’s more about the hassles and the regulatory burden than the money. We want to help people, but we end up bean counters and paper pushers.

According to Roe, only 4% of the nation’s students are getting into primary care fields.

This is significant. Family Practice residencies have been shut down because the program can claim to have enough “primary care” resident slots in the Internal Medicine department. However, if 96% of those IM docs go on to a subspecialty, they will not practice primary care. We lose both ways.

A survey by the Associations of American Medical Colleges found the nation’s doctor shortage likely will increase the project shortfall of 62,900 doctors in 2016 to 91,500 in 2020.

“When these older doctors who are used to working 70 or 80 hours quit, I don’t know what we are going to do for internists and primary care,” Roe said.

via ObamaCare’s Most Frightening Consequence: Not Enough Doctors – HUMAN EVENTS.

On human potential

“TheRealSasha” has commented, here, on my essay, “Why Ethics?”

From the comment:

However I believe the application of the argument is limited.. As it doesn’t address the contested questions such as definition of when life begins. As such your ‘hierarchy of importances’ only follows if the assumption is make that life begins at conception.

I think an issue the post doesn’t consider, is the greatest potential of the woman and man who will be caring after the child when they are born. If the child/fetus in the womb is found to be severely deformed and close to a vegetated state, which will involve a lifetime of the most basic care for their needs, it will mean the life of the carers will be such that the large part of it will have to be devoted to looking after a child that may not even comprehend who their own parents are.

I believe that taking your own argument of the greatest potential, it can be argued that the child given in the above example has less potential in having something resembling ‘life’, than the potential life/lives lost of their carers.

Science depends on the study of events that can be observed by different observers in different labs, under similar conditions.

The one-celled embryo, the zygote, is unique in that the products of two cell lines, a sperm and an egg, which are at the end of their life cycle, combine to form the beginning of a new life cycle. Any argument in favor of potential is only a personal belief, inconsistent with observable facts. We know that fertilization is a point that a technician can identify in the in vitro lab. No one implants unfertilized eggs. In fact, we can watch the changes by serial ultrasounds and blood hormone levels that result from the new embryo.

Philosophy can utilize the same criteria: what would happen in another place if the same value were given to another child at another age? Why not kill the child with less “potential” after birth?

Sasha gives a classic example of utilitarian ethics: the greatest good for the greatest number, without regard to individual, inalienable rights. Utilitarianism allows fickle, faddish and selfish motives or might makes right to determine the safety that each of us can expect from society and law.

Anyone is at risk of becoming like the human in the example Sasha gives: a fall, a bad allergic reaction, an assault could leave any of us at least temporarily or permanently dependent on others for “the most basic care for their needs.” Why not snuff out the life of these people?

Judge Tosses Suit Seeking to Stop Gov. Perry’s Sponsorship of Texas Prayer Rally – FoxNews.com

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to stop Gov. Rick Perry from sponsoring a national day of Christian prayer and fasting, ruling Thursday that the group of atheists and agnostics did not have legal standing to sue.

U.S. District Judge Gray H. Miller said the Freedom From Religion Foundation argued against Perry’s involvement based merely on feelings of exclusion, but did not show sufficient harm to merit the injunction they sought.

“The governor has done nothing more than invite others who are willing to do so to pray,” Miller said.

via Judge Tosses Suit Seeking to Stop Gov. Perry’s Sponsorship of Texas Prayer Rally – FoxNews.com.

Texas DPS Bureaucratic Snafu

On August 1st, a bureaucratic snafu might cause me to lose my ability to write prescriptions and, if so,there’s a good chance that hospital privileges will be suspended until some future date.

The Texas Department of Public Safety regulates prescription permits for Controlled Substances – the right to prescribe medicines – for doctors, dentists, advanced practice nurses, pharmacists, and veterinarians. (That ‘script for Oxycontin has the line, “Patient or pet owner’s name.)  The unofficial rumor is that the cuts in their Department because of the tight State budget caused a manpower shortage. Knowing that there would be less staff, the Department chose that moment to initiate a new, complicated software system. Those who were not laid off or re-assigned had to learn the new input and verification system at the busiest time of year. With fewer people and more work, they’ve gotten way behind in issuing the pieces of paper. The powers that be refuse to give extensions to those who have paid, are in the system, and who should have received those little pieces of paper by the last day of July.

The Texas DPS permits are redundant in light of the fact that the Federal government also issues prescriber permits through the Drug Enforcement Agency. This latter number is what most pharmacies ask for, along with our State license number. While Texas requires re-credentialing each year, the DEA permits are valid for five years.

Since most docs in Texas qualified for their first DPS permit at the end of their internship (with the permits issued July 31), there’s no telling how many prescribers will lose their ability to treat patients with antibiotics, blood pressure and diabetes medications, or Botox unless we can find some doc whose renewal is due at a later date and who is willing to co-sign. Oh, and of course, they have decreed that we can’t prescribe narcotics and other truly controlled substances under any circumstances.

Another giant bureaucracy stumbles once again, putting the process first, complicating the practice of medicine and endangering patients. The stifling regulations and paper pushing is frustrating!

NIH-Backed Study Examined Effects of Size of Male Genitalia in Gay Community

This source  and subject of this post is rated PG13, at least, even though I’ve cleaned up the title a bit.

There is a bit of scientific knowledge gained: an association with size and rate of STD’s. However, in medicine, I was taught that we probably shouldn’t measure test if there is no treatable condition involves.

It appears that the stipend for a post-doctoral fellow (someone who has already finished his Ph.D, but is doing further research under the supervision of a professor or committee, was covered by the National Institute of Health (the NIH), as some part of a large grant which was then awarded to subsidiaries:

“Those researchers then compiled data from a survey of more than 1,000 gay and bisexual men at events in New York City for the gay community.

     ”    . . . . But one of the researchers involved with the report told FoxNews.com that NIH funding was only used to help “analyze and write up” data that had already been collected without the use of taxpayer funds.  

“The data were not collected using taxpayer funds,” Jeffrey Parsons, a professor with Hunter College, said in an email. “NIH funds were not used to measure anyone’s penis size.” 

“This study was funded by the Hunter College Center for HIV/AIDS Education Studies and Training,” the National Institutes of Health said. “Dr. Christian Grov was supported as a postdoctoral research fellow at the time the research was conducted by a National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded training grant.”

An Open Letter to Republican Leaders

Conservative Republicans from my home town of New Braunfels and all over Texas have made it a point to tell me that they are frustrated with you. Even as you begin asking for our support in next year’s election, y’all don’t seem to remember who brought you to the dance, and that we are supposed to lead.

You may have heard our Conservative song at times; even going so far as to dance all around your own Bills in order to appear in step with us. But you still dance to a beat we don’t like far too often.

We worked so hard last year to send a Republican majority to Austin and Washington, only to have the people we elected seem to pay little attention to us and our Party Platform.

In Austin, it was a compromise on the Speaker and toll roads. In DC, we’re watching this political theater about the budget and the debt ceiling.  Why are Republicans, with a majority in the House and a clear mandate from the voters, still getting bogged down in “negotiation?”

And don’t tell us how hard it is to hammer Bills into Laws. This is your job, the one you volunteered for. It can’t be any harder than what we did to get you there in 2010, and what you’ll ask us to do in 2012.  And we did it on top of our regular duties, not as a paid, full-time job!

After all the time and money we  invested in your campaigns before the primaries, some of us spent  thirteen hours working the polls on Primary Day and rushed from there to attend our Precinct Conventions.  Delegates to our Precinct and County Conventions gave up hours on Primary night and on a Saturday later in the month. Before these meetings, we reviewed the old Party Platform and carefully crafted new resolutions. Then we defended them at our Precinct, County and State Conventions. Some of us served on Convention Committees at the County and State level, giving more time to sift through the Resolutions, put them in order and finally come up with a Platform that our Delegates approved at the State Convention.

I’m sorry if this seems like I’m giving you a hard time, and I’d rather be spending my time encouraging you than griping. But, still,  if we can do all that, why can’t y’all cut spending in DC?

Franken got it wrong

Al Franken, (See the Politico story, here) the nominal Senator from Minnesota, attacked the representative of Focus on the Family, Tom Minnery, claiming that Mr. Minnery is unreliable because of the way he read a report on statistics on marriage and the health of children. Mr. Minnery’s testimony is here.

Franken claimed that Minnery was wrong in assuming that the families in question were composed of one husband and one wife. Hamming it up, pausing for laughter, Franken claimed to have read the study from the “Department of Health and Human Services” and to understand it better than Mr. Minnery. Franken’s claim was that Mr. Minnery had no reason to assume that the definition of “nuclear family” used in the study (“A nuclear family consists of one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family.”) did not include same-sex married couples.

Franken was wrong. See the original CDC study, “Family Structure and Children’s Health, in pdf, here.

The CDC paper Franken waved around about specifically mentions – on Page 12 – that it is referring to the “‘traditional” nuclear families” and further confirms that “spouse” is defined as “husband/wife.” The data came from 2001 to 2007, and Massachusetts became the first State to legalize homosexual marriage in 2004. There were evidently not enough same sex married parents to cause a bump in their years-long process. The definitions and clarifications in question are on page 12.

Regardless of your personal political leanings, there simply is not enough empirical or historical evidence to justify changing the basic unit of society. First same sex legal marriage in the States was less than 10 years ago. There have always been legal interracial marriages throughout history, with evidence that the marriages produce stable families. There’s more historic evidence that polygamous families are stable forces in society than there is for same-sex couples.

The social eugenics are bad enough, but in the litigious United States, the problem then becomes, if you don’t want a church that preaches homosexual acts are a sin and won’t bless their marriages, don’t go to one. Or, if you don’t want an Inn that refuses to host same-sex weddings, don’t own one. Sure —- The problem becomes lawsuit here a lawsuit there, etc.

Conservatives in Action: TED CRUZ THE SQUEAKY CLEAN TEXAS SENATORIAL CANDIDATE

Conservatives in Action

Conservatives in Action: TED CRUZ THE SQUEAKY CLEAN TEXAS SENATORIAL CANDIDATE.

From “Red Sonja”, Conservatives in Action:

In an attempt to bring first hand information to you about some of our 2012 candidates I sat down and visited with Texas Senatorial candidate Ted Cruz. The YouTube video is just 5 minutes and 17 seconds in length. Actually, I spent more like 30 minutes visiting with him. Cruz has never run for elected office before but has a very successful record as former Texas Solicitor General. He has a very impressive family background and other than not graduating from a Texas university, has a squeaky clean record. He has a way about him that is pleasing and his manner of speaking is easy listening. He seems sure of himself and is passionate and unshakable about his conservative values. Because of his court battles he is unflappable and knowledgeable in the critical issues facing us. I believe he would stand firm against the Obama Administration and against tyranny.

As the Solicitor General under Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, Cruz was instrumental in winning several landmark cases in the US Supreme Court and the Federal Court of Appeals. He has personally argued cases before the US Supreme Court, such as Medellin vs Texas and successfully defended the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2006. Consequently he is well versed in understanding what it takes to win. His knowledge and expertise will be extremely effective if he is elected to the Senate.

Cruz exemplifies the American Dream. His father born and raised in Cuba fought in the Cuban Revolution and was imprisoned and tortured. Ted’s grandfather got him out of prison and he fled to America in 1957 seeking freedom from oppression. Ted’s father enrolled at the University of Texas and worked hard all his life. Ted’s parents, as small business entrepreneurs, managed a data processing company in the oil and gas field. It was great listening to Cruz comment that his father was his ‘hero’.

Read the transcript from the interview, here and watch the video on YouTube:

Dividing Conservatives: Who Started This, Anyway?

(The ACLU is probably hiring lawyers as we speak. See! Government can create jobs outside of Government bureaucracies.)

Remember when we were told not to pay attention to what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Now, they’re forcing us to watch. We didn’t start this round, but get ready: Conservatives who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman will be treated as divisive and accused of splitting the Conservative vote.

President Obama has declared his support for legislation ending the Defense of Marriage act. The bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, will be heard today in the Senate Judicial Committee.

The full title is, “S.598, The Respect for Marriage Act: Assessing the Impact of DOMA on American Families.” In the House, it’s H.R. 1116. According to the Examiner.com,

The bill which was introduced by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) would repeal all three sections of DOMA which places a strong federal hold against states rights in the matters of legalized same sex marriage recognition.

The new bill is set out to repeal specifically the sections in which DOMA defines marriage as the union between a man and a women, instructs states not to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states and prohibits the federal government from recognizing legally performed same-sex marriages.

Which is probably exactly where it should be heard. After all, now there can be more lawsuits,like this one in Vermont against private business owners who does not want to celebrate same sex marriage in their Inn.

There’s a conversation on Facebook about whether the phrase “gay conservative” is an oxymoron. I maintain that it is.  Will organizations like the Log Cabin Republicans still want to vote with Conservatives who are happy to form coalitions on fiscal  matters, small government, and the sanctity of life, but who won’t support the change they want to make in the family or the definition of marriage? Will they join in the debate in favor of “Respect for Marriage,” and how will they do it?

The basic unit of society is the family. Social experiments with the family are not conservative because they risk weakening that basic unit, the source of support and protection in times of crisis and where we learn the skills that allow us to function in the greater society.

There is no historical support for same sex couples forming a stable family.  There’s more empiric evidence for stable families resulting from polygamy. For that matter, the Egyptian Pharaohs, who practiced incest in order to keep their power in the family, managed to hold their reign together longer than the entire history of open same-sex lifestyle, much less the legalization of their “marriages.”

Those who disagree with me tell me to go along to get along and to quit bringing “the church” into politics, “because parties are about politics & policy issues not religious ideology.”

While I do have strong religious convictions, I don’t like to use religious arguments in politics. I don’t need to claim that the only reason to support traditional monogamous marriage is because marriage is a covenant with our Creator. I consider the fact that I can debate tough philosophical (even “ideology”) by using empirical arguments is proof that my position is close to the truth.

My fellow conservatives and I did not start this. The ones bringing in “controversy” are the ones who demand to make us aware of what should be a very private matter and that we agree with their redefinition of marriage and the family.  It is they who insist on dividing conservatives by identifying first as homosexual, then as fiscal conservatives, etc. This identification declares that their purpose is not to cut spending or support small government: their primary purpose in forming a political group is to gain sympathy for their true cause.
(edited, 11AM, 7-20-11, to remove a repeated sentence. 8-9-11, for grammar and to add link to NYT story on Vermont Inn.)

Pump It! Wash it! Hospital videos for handwashing – cute!

“From the 6th floor right on down to Rehab!”

Paradise Valley Hospital in National City, California, has produced several videos to remind staff, patients and the rest of us to wash our hands to save lives.

So, which is your favorite, the Black-eyed Peas(or is it Robert Rodriquez?) take-off, “Pump It!” or the Michael Jackson-like “Wash it!” There’s a more traditional video with soothing “spa” music, and a language lesson, too, “Clean Hands Save Lives.”

(Thanks to Dr. LR for the heads up!)

We Republicans

“We ended up with candidates chosen by the least knowledgeable voters.”

Here’s an older post that I wrote June 1, last year. It still applies, more than ever!

We Republicans are the Tea Party. If you look at the Tea Party, you will see the Conservative foundation, the remnant that have opposed “centrists” and “moderates” for years. We are the ones who have known all along what the Dems relearn each election cycle, but some of our own never seem to: Americans are conservative, to the right of center. When all the couch potatoes woke up last year, we were the ones who were here to welcome them and give them somewhere to start.

Some of us sat out the 2006 and even 2008 elections to “teach them a lesson;” that they need to legislate like Republicans if they want us to support them. Where Republicans turned out to vote, we held offices. Where the Republican voters were no-shows, we lost ground and offices. In a few cases, Republicans crossed over in the name of Chaos and strong conservatives were narrowly defeated in the Primaries, leaving us with a choice between a RINO, a Democrat or an under vote. We ended up with candidates chosen by the least knowledgeable voters.

Well, that was successful, wasn’t it? Can’t you just imagine all the true conservative candidates in the Presidential primary of 2008, each wishing the Chaos voters had turned out for them?

The Dems won a majority and then a super majority in the Federal House, Senate and the White House, allowing them to ram-rod their agenda to spread the wealth around, undermine families and threaten the weak and sick at all stages of life. Corrupt and corrupting Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, and John Conyers wield Committee Chairmanships when they should be indicted. The media ignored – and continues to ignore – our plainly stated opposition, underreporting our numbers and drowning out our voices as they proclaim that we lost because the Left better represented the voters and the Country was ready for Change! And now, the media and the liberals are crowing about the power of the tea partiers, and asking everyone who will give them a few seconds what we’ll “do” with “them.”

Unfortunately, the “moderate” Republicans and some of our conservatives didn’t learn the lesson we wanted to teach them. Instead, they decided they need to spend more time and money wooing the swing voters and undecideds. The Big Tent is looking more like a Circus. (See CPAC and “gay conservatives.”)

Many who have appropriated the title of “conservatives” – those who have never been active (or even voted) in the Republican Party before and those who spend their “meet-up” time with the Libertarian Party – are using any and all opportunities to infect the Party with their discontent. If they can destroy us for their own political gain and “Revolution,” they will be happy.

If your goal is to throw the bums out for the sake of defeating the old established leadership, if you think it’s your turn at power, even if you’ve never been involved, much less been a leader, then perhaps your motives aren’t as pure as they should be. Please reconsider what your real goal is and how – whether – your actions will achieve your purpose.

WingRight

Today’s newspaper is out. I’m still getting the bugs out. If you find some of the chosen articles are inappropriate, please let me know. WingRight.

First Amendment: excuse for lawsuits or freedom?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Texas Tribune, that NPR/University of Texas online news organization that accepted $150,000 from George Soro’s “Open Society,” (whose url is “soros.org”), reports that atheists backed by an organization from Wisconsin, have filed suit to stop Governor Rick Perry’s participation in the prayer gathering in Houston next month. They claim that the 1st Amendment prohibits State Governors from public religious expression. It doesn’t seem odd to to them that the same Government should defend their right to not be religious while forcing others to refrain.
Forget for a moment that the Constitution is talking about the Federal Congress and not a State Legislature or Governor – look at the rest of the Amendment.

“… shall make no law” – no law for and no law against
“. . . the free exercise thereof . . . “
“ . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .”
“. . . right of the people peaceably to assemble . . .”

The comments on TT  concerning the lawsuit are the typical Austin liberal screed, with an added anti-religious hatefulness and the obligatory hair comments thrown in. Knowing the type of readers who comment on these pages, I’m still surprised at the prejudice and lack of knowledge displayed. So, here’s my answer to their questions and doubts:

Yes, Christians do believe that the Lord chooses our Governors and other leaders. And, yes, Christians do have a need and “Commission” to testify about our faith and blessings. And many of us do not believe that we can abdicate our own private duty to Christ to care for the sick, poor or children to government, which hasn’t proven a good steward. And, no, you don’t have the right to be free from knowledge and tolerance of our free exercise of religion, speech, and assembly.

God bless their little hearts.

Opinion: Why let IPAB control health care? – Sen. John Cornyn – POLITICO.com

Senator John Cornyn, my Senator from Texas, has introduced a Bill to repeal the power of the (Medicare) Independent Advisory Board. As the Senator says, the Board of 15 appointed, non-elected bureaucrats will determine what services are offered to Medicare-eligible patients. Those recommendations will be based on economics, not on actual patients or on their needs. (Did you know that the US Preventive Services says that the evidence for  Prostate Specific Antigen tests and prostate exams and annual mammograms or teaching breast self-exams is “insufficient?”)

From the Senator:

We should learn from Britain’s mistakes rather than repeat them — and we should also listen to voices of Texans in our state. The IPAB has created “immediate uncertainty at hand,” says Scott & White Healthcare in central Texas, for their 12 hospitals and more than 800 physicians. Many more organizations and associations have expressed similar concerns and urged me to do what I can to repeal this ill-conceived bureaucratic board.

That’s why I have introduced the Health Care Bureaucrats Elimination Act, and why I’m testifying Wednesday on the other side of the Capitol to build support in the House. This legislation seeks to repeal the IPAB completely and defuse this bureaucratic bomb before it explodes.

Opposition to the IPAB is already a bipartisan affair in the House. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), for one, is in favor of abolishing this panel. As Pallone put it, “I’m opposed to independent commissions or outside groups playing a role other than on a recommendatory basis.”

Repealing this unelected board of bureaucrats does not mean giving up on efforts to reduce costs in Medicare. A better model is Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage, which has come in under budget by more than 40 percent. It has achieved this by introducing competition and choice into the system.

Several other initiatives at the state level and in the private sector have also cut costs without sacrificing quality or access to care. Congress should take a look at them as well.

Our seniors have paid their hard-earned money into Medicare for years. They deserve far better than to see their health care placed at the mercy of 15 unelected bureaucrats.

via Opinion: Why let IPAB control health care? – Sen. John Cornyn – POLITICO.com.

The United Nations Bans Opposition to Its Global Tax Design Meeting

News on UN meeting on taxing carbon and energy, in Japan July 13-14, from Cathie Adams and the Eagle Forum:

The Committee consists of representatives from 40 nations, including the U.S., who are considering taxes on carbon, international aviation and shipping, international financial transactions and a wire tax for producing electricity. The UN is also pushing for removal of fossil fuel subsidies and redirecting them to its international green agenda, which would cause the U.S. to be even more dependent on foreign oil.

The purpose of the Fund is to enable the UN to implement its global blueprint for sustainable development called Agenda 21. This green agenda is the new Marxism that requires government ensured economic equity and environmental neutrality. Agenda 21 is not a treaty, but a plan of action produced by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

via The United Nations Bans Opposition to Its Global Tax Design Meeting.

Need more info on Obamacare?

Ben Hoffman has written a comment in response to my post of earlier today, “53% want repeal of health care law,”  to let me know that he doesn’t believe that the Rassmussen Poll is accurate (or maybe it’s that I’m wrong.):

If people knew the truth about the reform, more would think it was good for our country. But right-wing propaganda has taken hold over facts. The main issue people cite when asked why they’re against it is the mandate, which won’t affect people who already have insurance and for those who don’t, well… they’re just sponging off the rest of us when they get sick or hurt and they have to go to the emergency room, so who cares what they think.

I disagree with Mr. Hoffman on whether or not people know “the truth” and whether or not they will like the healthcare bill as they learn more about it and about whether or not the mandate is the greatest objection or will affect other insurances. The mandate is bad enough  – as is commonly repeated these days, if the government can force you to buy health care, it can force you to buy anything.

First, the poll itself is evidence that people are changing their minds as they learn. As I do, and as I’m sure you do, the people I’ve talked to are researching, following the news and the bits of the law and the regulations that are already coming to be known.

One bit of the law that has already affected many of us is the restriction on Health Savings Accounts. The before-tax contributions were limited, cutting the amount that people can save to pay for their own health care. We can no longer use our HSA to pay for over the counter meds and devices without risking a huge penalty. Doctors are being asked to write scripts for aspirin and other over the counter meds that are medically necessary, but no longer paid under the HSA regs.

Many of us are bothered by the waivers that are going out to some companies.

And, we laughed when we all found out that the Bill had no “separate and severability” clause and would have outlawed all Congressional staffers’ insurance if the Office of Personnel had not engaged in a slight-of-hand trick.

Personally, I found the rules change abuse by Senator Reid to be offensive. He has bound all further Congresses to his debate rules: no debate at all without a 2/3 majority vote and then very limited time for each side to present their case. He also forced any changes to go through the Senate Finance Committee.

However, the biggest danger has not kicked in, yet. The Independent Medicare Advisory Board will soon be mandating cuts in Medicare services by determining what is and is not medically and financially effective. Those cuts may only be overturned by the 2/3 vote, then Senate Finance Committee route, and then only if other cuts can be substituted to meet the same dollar amounts.

The IMAB will make us forget that we ever laughed at “death panels.” This is where the government will control what your doctor does in that little exam room. What Medicare does, everyone does or they risk “exclusion” from Medicare and all those who participate with Medicare.

And finally: “rightwing propaganda?” Please give people the same credit for thinking that you do, Mr. Hoffman.

53% want repeal of healthcare law

Rassmussen’s latest poll is out concerning the Health care law sometimes known as “Obamacare.”

The numbers of those who want the law repealed have not changed much in the last year. While about a third think the law will be good for the country, but 48% believe it will be bad.

People are changing their minds about what they think the healthcare law will do. “Since June of last year, belief that the health care law is likely to force a change in health insurance has ranged from 34% to 51%.”

New Budget Committee Report: Skyrocketing Debt Hampering Private-Sector Job Growth

Cut spending first. Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment with caps. Then we can talk about true “loop holes,” but leave things that we want to encourage alone – like child and mortgage interest breaks.

New Budget Committee Report: Skyrocketing Debt Hampering Private-Sector Job Growth | Speaker of the House John Boehner | speaker.gov.

Federal Court Scheduled to Hear Challenge to Texas Sonogram Law

Can you imagine what would happen if Cardiologists hid the screen while a heart sonogram was being performed?

Federal Court Scheduled to Hear Challenge to Texas Sonogram Law. From Joe Pojman, Executive Director of Texas Alliance for Life:

The Office of Attorney General Greg Abbott is defending the law and filed a response yesterday demonstrating that the law is constitutional. The first hearing will be today. Texas Alliance for Life’s staff will be present.

Texas also has laws mandating informed consent for hysterectomies, radiation therapy and electric-shock therapy – all passed because of the public perception that doctors were patronistically making decisions for their patients, “for their own good.”

The sonogram has become standard of care, much as the sonogram of the heart or a catheterization before bypass surgery. Patients are already being required to pay for the sonogram in addition to or as part of the abortion fee. And yet, patients were not being allowed – in some cases, refused – to see their own medical information and the results of the test they had paid for.

For some reason, the Houston Chronicle, in its July 2 note on the lawsuit, only says that, “The center for Reproductive Right’s class action lawsuits were filed on of a San Antonio abortion provider. ” Planned Parenthood is not identified in today’s HC article, either.

Meatheads: MD Anderson grilling scare won’t cure cancer or cover up failure | JunkScience.com

When will our experts  learn to be responsible and careful? Junk Science exposes a silly press release from what should be a careful, reliable source.

Meatheads: MD Anderson grilling scare won’t cure cancer or cover up failure | JunkScience.com.