Statist

Even the CDC is victim to the #ShutDown #TemperTantrum!

Someone was paid to put this notice on the Centers for Disease Control website! On the home page, it’s on a red background! (But don’t worry: they also have a reminder to sign up for ObamaCare.)

Due to the lapse in government funding, only web sites supporting excepted functions will be updated unless otherwise funded. As a result, the information on this website may not be up to date, the transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted.

Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at http://www.usa.gov.

via CDC – Diabetes Public Health Resource – Data & Trends.

Update, 7:30 PM 10/7/13: The National Institutes of Health also has a disclaimer.

1996: Virgin Islands beach reopened

Judge orders Virgin Islands beach reopened

January 4, 1996

Web posted at: 12:45 a.m. EST

ST. CROIX, U.S. Virgin Islands (CNN) — A federal judge Wednesday ordered the National Park Service to reopen the Buck Island Reef National Monument despite the ongoing federal budget crisis.

Two Virgin Island residents sued in federal district court to have the park reopened, arguing they were being hurt by the closure of the beach at Buck Island. They said the shutdown had denied them the ability of “freely enjoying a cherished natural resource.” They further argued that the Park Service had violated the federal Open Shorelines Act by closing the beach.

The National Park Service argued it had no choice because the budget crisis had forced it to reduce the normal staff of “two to three employees” to one employee and one volunteer.

via CNN – Virgin Islands beach reopened – Jan. 4, 1995.

Feds “own” or “run” too much – Update

It’s not just that this is the first time that US citizens have been barred from the Lincoln Memorial due to a government shutdown, the National Parks service is barring us from  scenic drives and overlooks on public and state highways, open beaches and the waters around them, and private businesses that are paying tenants of “government” lands and waters.

One former Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, flatly states that these decisions are political and most likely being made in the White House.

Perhaps, instead of blaming one Party or another (or increasing government involvement in something as vital and intimate as the delivery of medical care), it’s time to decide whether our government is responsible enough to own and control so much of our lands.

Update: more closings

1. The City Tavern in Philadelphia, because the Feds own the building, not the business.

2.Nauset Knoll Motor Lodge, which leases land in Cape Cod National Seashore.

3. All sorts of fishing, rafting and hiking. Search the news on any of these topics – there are too many to post.

4. Government sponsored travel, such as the President’s Asian trip. But it also will block scientific conferences. 

Edited Oct 4, 2013 at 2 PM to change the picture to one that I own.

White House Ordering Hundreds of Privately Run, Privately Funded Parks to Close

The order to shut down business that pay money to the Federal government rather than cost money came from ” ‘above the department’, which I presume means the White House” . . .

“My company, based in North Phoenix, operates nearly over 100 US Forest Service campgrounds and day use areas under concession contract. Yesterday, as in all past government shutdowns, the Department of Agriculture and US Forest Service confirmed we would stay open during the government shutdown. This makes total sense, since our operations are self-sufficient (we are fully funded by user fees at the gate), we get no federal funds, we employ no government workers on these sites, and we actually pay rent into the Treasury.”

via The PJ Tatler » BREAKING: White House Ordering Hundreds of Privately Run, Privately Funded Parks to Close.

Special penalties in USVI during shutdown

From that blog post on Obama’s #TemperTantrum:

” However, only one of our beaches is staffed with lifeguards under normal circumstances anyway, and when the Park closes on holidays, beaches are not barricaded, nor are citations issued to beach-goers.  It should also be noted, interestingly, that according to VI Coastal Zone Management Act Section 903 (b) (6), all Virgin Islands beaches are public, from the high tide mark down to the water line…”

There have never been barricades (#Barrycades ) before, but there are under #HarryReidsShutdown?

The Government Shutdown Goes Caribbean

Shutdown 2013: Furloughed Workers Signing Up As Tourists Guides (Demonstrating in Union shirts)

With the help of AFSCME national and the AFL-CIO’s Washington D.C. Metro Council, the unions created the “Federal Worker’s Guide to Shutdown D.C.,” which gives the status of major points of interest.

The furloughed workers will be in green and blue union t-shirts on the Constitution Avenue side of the Natural History Museum from 10 a.m. until noon on Wednesday. If the shutdown is long and the effort is successful, they may add volunteers at other museums.

Furloughed workers will be carrying signs.

via Shutdown 2013: Furloughed Workers Signing Up As Tourists Guides, Sans Pay – Skift.

Padre Island National Seashore Closes (even the Gulf water!)

How do they justify the extra people to close the WATER around Padre Island?

“Technically, they can’t even fish in park waters, we’ll have rangers on patrol to make sure that people know the waters as well as the land that’s under are jurisdiction is closed,” he added.

via Padre Island National Seashore Closes After Government Shutdown | Corpus Christi, TX | KRISTV.com |.

(Arizona) State highway through Grand Canyon to close

Think you own your business? Not if you contract with the Federal government!

The Arizona State highway through the Grand Canyon, along with all the private businesses (hotels, restaurants, gift shops, art galleries and even the historic Grand Canyon Railroad train from Williams, Arizona) that are not dependent on money from the Federal government, are arbitrarily “Shutdown” by the Obama Administration.

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz. (AP) – The state highway that runs through the Grand Canyon is closing Thursday morning after visitors disregarded the park closure.

Residents of Grand Canyon Village still can access State Route 64.

The Grand Canyon was forced to turn away visitors after the federal government shut down.

The highway had been open to through traffic, but visitors were pulling off the road and removing barricades from overlooks to get a glimpse of the canyon.

Park spokeswoman Maureen Oltrogge says motorists also were turning around on blind corners, tour buses were parking on the roadside and visitors were darting in front of ongoing traffic.

She says the highway closure is to ensure safety and protect resources. She says anyone caught in restricted areas could receive a citation or be arrested.

via State highway through Grand Canyon to close.

Nationalization: One step at a time

The people relying on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security didn’t fail. They (we) were sold a tax scheme (sound familiar, Justice Roberts?) that claimed to be insurance and pension plans.

If you’ve ever scoffed at the rumors that the Federal government might confiscate your retirement savings, it’s time to reconsider. And you don’t have to look to the actions of Greece, Ireland, Poland or Cyprus to do so.

I recently read a radical extension of past theories for a Nationalized health care solution to the costs of Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly:  Since many elderly citizens receive more out of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security than they paid in, and so many eventually rely on Medicaid to pay their bills, it was suggested that our government “nationalize” all Nursing Homes and Assisted Living businesses and confiscate of Senior citizen’s assets. The Feds could then expand the Veterans Administration system in order to provide housing and medical care until death.

Isn’t the entire purpose of any insurance a bet that the insured will someday need more than he pays into the fund? Couldn’t the claim be made that many Social Security beneficiaries often receive more money over their lifetimes than they paid into the funds?

Since the Federal government got into the health care business with Medicare, Congress has done everything possible to ensure that Seniors are dependent on what we now know are failures. Everyone who becomes “Medicare eligible” –  turns 65 years old – faces penalties for not signing up with Medicare.  Janet Reno threatened Federal charges and prosecution for any Medicare-eligible senior who dared to pay for their own health care with their own money or entered into “private contracts” with their own doctors. Their doctors faced the penalties that go with “opting out” of Medicare. For anyone planning ahead, Congress wrote laws severely limiting Health Savings Accounts.

In the meantime, Federal (and State) government(s) failed to put money aside for the future of the people who were paying taxes that could have gone into genuine savings or the purchase of real insurance.  Private insurance and pension funds acting the same way would have been shut down and the officers imprisoned for doing the same thing.

Under the “tax” of the ACA, everyone will be forced by law – and the IRS, Federal lawyers, guns and prisons – to buy “insurance” (in reality, pre-paid health care). Since the scheme is rigged to benefit the government-run exchanges, that’s how most will buy their “insurance” – or pay their tax.

When the “Affordable Care” scheme proves to be as false as Medicare and Social Security, what next? Where to stop with “nationalization” and confiscation of property? 401K’s? Private pensions? The family home and Mama’s jewelry?

Edited to clean up punctuation, order of ideas – BBN

Senate Dems Sauntering Toward #HarryReidsShutdown #DCtime

Harry Reid is sauntering toward a Federal gov’t shutdown at midnight, tonight.

Even though the House passed a compromise Continuing Resolution (no longer defunding Obamacare, simply delaying it) just after midnight yesterday (Sunday) morning, Harry refused to allow the Senate to gather until 2PM, DC time, today (Monday).

Then, he made his motion to table the House CR. The motion passed along strict Party lines, 54-36. Then . . . might as well wait for it . . .  he announced “debate” until 4PM, DC time.

Dr. Jeffrey Singer: The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less – WSJ.com

Nothing in the world is free, but we’re being told that a lot of expensive health care will be, thanks to ObamaCare. Why would anyone think that this time, government interference will result in anything different?

The savings talked about in this article aren’t an option for anyone eligible for Medicare, because few doctors and virtually no surgical facilities are willing to take their cash since any “provider” who enters into these cash-pay contracts must “opt out” of Medicare for two years.

Jeffrey Singer writes about the benefits of self-pay medicine and the hazards of involving a third party in the Wall Street Journal:

This process taught us a few things. First, most people these days don’t have health “insurance.” They have prepaid health plans. They pay premiums to take advantage of a pre-negotiated fee schedule arranged for and administered by a third party. My patient, on the other hand, had insurance.

Second, even with the markdown for upfront “cash-pay” patients, none of the providers was losing money on my patient. Otherwise they wouldn’t have agreed to the prices. With the third-party payer taken out of the picture, we got a better idea of the market prices for the services. It is the third-party payment system that interferes with true price competition, so “market clearing prices” can’t develop.

Take the examples of Lasik eye surgery or cosmetic surgery. These services are not covered by insurance. Providers compete on the basis of quality, outcomes and price. And prices have continually dropped as quality and services have improved—unlike the rest of health care.

When my patient returned for his post-op visit we discussed the experience. It was clear to both of us that the only way to make health care more affordable is to diminish the role of third-party payers. Let consumers and providers interact through market forces to drive down prices and drive up quality, like we do when we buy groceries, clothing, cars, computers, etc. Drop the focus on prepaid health plans and return to the days of real health insurance—that covers major, unforeseen events, leaving the everyday expenses to the consumer—just like auto and homeowners’ insurance.

A little history: Before I went to Medical school, my husband and I felt lucky to have major medical insurance, to cover hospital bills and some procedures. We paid cash for office visits – less than we pay for co-pays now. My first childbirth wasn’t covered by insurance, but we paid less than $1000, including the hospital and the $300 to the doc. Twenty years ago, I received $1100 (Medicaid) to $1800 (Insurance) for pregnancy and delivery Obstetrical care and the hospital charged about the same. Today, the total is $20,000 or more. (In Texas, 55% of those babies are paid for by you, the taxpayer, through Medicaid.)

While some people think our National problems began back when employers first started offering insurance, at least that was insurance and medical costs remained fairly stable until the late 1960’s. The real problems began when Medicare allowed Congress to collect taxes with a promise of a (hospital, Part A) safety net for those over 65, but spent all the money by “loaning” it to the general budget. From the beginning, Medicare inflated costs by encouraging doctors to raise their fees 10% a year. Private health care costs followed or leaped ahead.

Less than 10 years later, the Democrat Congress invented HMO’s in a failed attempt to control costs – but they still didn’t stop spending Medicare and Social Security dollars. A few years later, there was the very mistaken attempt to limit training to cut the numbers of doctors. The Hill-Burton Act, Stark laws, HIPPA, and on and on, further increased the actual costs, the hassle factors, and government ownership of medical care, while promising more by adding outpatient and drug coverage. Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno not only armed Donna Shalala’s Health and Human Services Inspectors, she threatened to prosecute Medicare-eligible patients for contracting private pay agreements with their doctors. She and Shalala held “fraud rallies” in football stadiums with the Director of the FBI, to teach Medicare patients how to turn in their doctors for fraud.

If there is to be a government “solution” (short of getting out of the way), future laws should support innovations like “Direct Primary Care” combined with patient-owned major medical *insurance,* rather than pre-paid health care. For those who truly need help, give tax credits similar to the child credit or even the earned income credit.

Obamacare months behind in testing IT data security: government

Just in case you thought we were exaggerating:

The missed deadlines have pushed the government’s decision on whether information technology security is up to snuff to exactly one day before that crucial date, the Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general said in a report.

As a result, experts say, the exchanges might open with security flaws or, possibly but less likely, be delayed.

****

 

IDENTITY THEFT?

When people try to enroll in health insurance starting on October 1 for insurance plans taking effect in 2014, their identity, income and other information they furnish with their application will be funneled through a federal “data hub.”

The hub is like a traffic circle for data. It does not itself store information, but instead has digital spokes connecting to the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies that will allow it to verify information people provide. Opponents of Obamacare have repeatedly raised concerns that sensitive personal information could be stolen.

 

Read more of the story via Obamacare months behind in testing IT data security: government | Reuters.

Hat Tip to Congressman Michael Burgess and today’s “TMA Member Physician’s Daily”

Podcast: Stop ObamaCare – Greg Abbott

From the Greg Abbott Campaign website:

Communications Director Matt Hirsch speaks with Dr. Beverly Nuckols on location at The Texas Mailhouse in Austin about the negative impact ObamaCare is having on small businesses and the health care industry, while U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services tries to sell an unworkable, expensive healthcare takeover in Texas.

via Podcast: Stop ObamaCare – Greg Abbott.

(I’m a doctor, not an audio/visual expert. And I certainly can’t afford one. Since I can’t get the podcast to embed, so please go to the site. While you’re there, volunteer, donate, help out!)

ObamaCare’s effects difficult to measure: USA Today

From the USAToday, August 8, 2013:

When California announced that individual premiums in its health insurance exchange could be 29% lower than expected, President Obama cheered. When Indiana announced premiums might be 72% higher than before, state officials predicted doom. So who is right? Are health insurance premiums going up or down?

We don’t know, at least in part, because both sides are playing with the numbers. To be sure, natural variation exists in how state insurance markets will be affected, but consumers should also be aware of how premium comparisons are twisted to reach predetermined results. Here are five ways they have been slanted: . . .

read more via ObamaCare’s effects difficult to measure: Column.

Edited 8-9-13 – Changed the title and post to make it more clear that this is from the USAToday, not my own writing. BBN

Texas or DC: Who do you want regulating your doctor?

Peggy Fikac once again proves that she’s not a reporter, and most certainly not anything like a fair and balanced media representative.

From the Houston Chronicle’s coverage of events in Austin, today:

“Obamacare is the wrong prescription for American health care, and I will never stop fighting against it,” Abbott said, joined by small business people and a doctor who also oppose the law at a company, the Texas Mailhouse.

One reason that Abbott gave for fighting the law came in response to a doctor who asked him from the audience about what Texas could do to keep the federal law from interfering with doctors’ judgment about the best way to treat their patients.

“You’re raising one of the more challenging components of Obamacare, and a hidden component in a way, and that is government is stepping in between the doctor-patient relationship and trying to tell you what you can and cannot do, interfering with both your conscience and your medical oath to take care of your patient,” said Abbott, who is campaigning to succeed Gov. Rick Perry.

That is similar to arguments raised against tighter abortion restrictions approved in special session, including a ban on the procedure at 20 weeks, along with stricter regulations on clinics and abortion-inducing drugs.

 

I am that doctor from the audience. Ms. Fikac is correct that I voiced concern over the Federal interference between the patient and the doctor. She’s flat wrong about Texas regulation of medicine by bring abortionists up to standards being equivalent to the

I prefaced the question by noting that it is the State of Texas that properly regulates Texas Doctors and medicine. At the State level, patients and doctors have more influence on our elected officials and the people they appoint to write regulations and enforce the law than we do on the Federal level.

I also noted that because of the increasing interference over the years by Medicare, I am concerned about the reach that this new set of regulations will have, including ever-invasive micro-reporting of patient’s private medical conditions. (I named the upcoming move to the ICD-10, which will be a nightmare, requiring doctors to make distinctions between medical conditions, out to five (5) decimal places.

As bad as the bureaucracy of the Office of the Inspector General for the Federal Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have been in the past, I don’t look forward to the additional layer of IRS income verification, audits and enforcement.

We could stick closer to home, with the Texas Health and Human Services, the Texas Medical Board, and the Texas Insurance Commission!

Freedom2Care: Now Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is not radical enough to work at Rite Aid

Conscience? More “Trust me, I’ll violate my conscience” news:

Tolerance. Diversity. Broad-mindedness. Those are the words.

Bullying. Discriminating. Compelling. Those are the deeds.

The contradictory words and deeds often come from one and the same individuals–and in a case I learned about today, companies. Turns out the words of tolerance, diversity and broad-mindedness only apply to those who comply with the dogma and submit to the will of the speakers.

Here’s an email I received this morning from a pharmacist member of the Christian Medical Association:

“Subject: Forced to resign over mandate to sell the morning after pill.

“Just to let you know that Rite-Aid corporation came out with a stricter policy on July 5, 2013 that requires all employees to accommodate the sale of the morning-after pill to all comers, of either gender and of any age.”

Read more via Freedom2Care: Now Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is not radical enough to work at Rite Aid.

While I don’t believe that Plan B is an abortifacient, I do believe it’s a powerful drug and that adolescents shouldn’t be able to buy it over the counter. I also find it hard to trust someone who will agree to go against their conscience!

Dr. Wes: A Case of (Medicare) “Fraud”

A real-life, real medicine tale of the risk that doctors face – and are willing to face – when taking care of our patients under arbitrary and often outdated Medicare regulations. It will only get worse under ObamaCare and the IRS.

He was a slender-framed man, mid- to late-sixties, with a kind of ridden-hard-put-away-wet complexion.  It was clear the years had not always been good to him, but being the kind soul that he was, he had plenty of friends.  It was a beautiful summer day to spend with friends for a barbecue, but he arrived feeling puzzled why he collapsed at home earlier in the day.

He stopped at the keg and poured himself a beer in a red solo cup, and as he approached his friends with a smile, he did it again, this time which such gusto that his beer went flying and the thud he made when he hit the ground made everyone gasp.  He laid motionless for a moment face down on the ground while his friends rushed to his aid.  An ambulance was summoned as others rolled him over onto his back.  He began to move – slowly at first – then more purposefully.  As sirens approached, he asked his friends, “What just happened?’

Read the rest of the story here.

The author’s comments:

It is becoming abundantly clear that conflicts between the [sanctity] of human life will confront the government’s unwillingness to pay for procedures. No where is this more clear than with approval of payment for the implantation of an ICD, which might run in excess of $200K for the procedure at some instituions. As a result, doctors who strive to provide state-of-the-art care to their patients will continue to confront similar ethical dilemmas that risk their legal standing (and credentials) as they care for their sickest arrhythmia patients.

By publishing this case scenario, my hope was to draw attention to these ethical dilemmas that are becoming increasingly prevalent in medicine as a result of these outdated, inconsistent, and incomplete coverage decisions, guidelines for care, and “appropriateness use” criteria. Further, the potential for legal action against physicians y imposes real fear for do

ctors if they stray at all from these outdated decisions. This fear is to the point where it might do actual harm – and even cause death – to patients who are left without appropriate treatment as a result.

via Dr. Wes: A Case of Fraud.

Texas Still Fighting Funding to Planned Parenthood!

In spite of repetitive fraud, in spite of Texas’ laws prohibiting sending money to affiliates of abortionists, in spite of all our work.

Planned Parenthood clinics could be facing a legal fight that could keep them from receiving funding for impoverished Medicaid patients.

When the state passed the Women’s Health Program in 2005, legislators said the intent was to provide more family planning services, but not abortions, to low-income Medicaid patients.

State Sen. Bob Deuell said due to a loophole in the law, Planned Parenthood is part of the program, but thinks they shouldn’t be. As such, he has requested the attorney general clear up the matter.

*****

While Sen. Deuell admits he isn’t in favor of Planned Parenthood, he said his “goal is to provide comprehensive care and — abortion issue aside — the Planned Parenthood clinics don’t provide comprehensive care.”

It could take Attorney General Greg Abbott months to give his opinion.

In a brief HHSC officials sent to Abbott, they told him if the agency limits providers based on the way the law currently reads, the state risks violating Medicaid rules. State health officials said that could result in a loss of federal funding for the program.

via AG to rule on Planned Parenthood funding question – YNN – Your News Now.

Every Slice of Drug-Rep Pizza Counts Starting Aug. 1

It’s possible that I can be bought, and no one’s come up with the right amount of money (or pens or pizzas), yet.

Or maybe, just maybe, I’m honest. Of course not!

I’m assumed to be guilty (where’s the opportunity to prove innocence, much less their duty to prove me guilty?) of all sorts of fraud by authors of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act included in the thousands of pages of PPACA – otherwise known as Obamacare:

From now on, companies must keep track of virtually every payment and gift bestowed on each clinician and report them to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which will report them to the world.

This accounting exercise stems from a provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that seeks to expose the financial dealings between industry and physicians and discourage conflicts of interest for the latter that might skew education, research, and clinical decision-making. Under the ACA provision, called the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, drug and device makers must report any “transfer of value” of $10 or more made to a physician. Transfers of value under $10 — a cup of coffee, say — aren’t reportable unless they add up to more than $100 in a year. Companies also must disclose whether physicians have any ownership stake in them.

via Every Slice of Drug-Rep Pizza Counts Starting Aug. 1.

Of course lawmakers assume that we’re being bribed – that’s what they do! Why aren’t the limits at least as high as those our Senators and Representatives are allowed? Like Democrat Senator Harry Reid, can we form a “Friends of Dr. Practice” and get more, as long as we don’t accept donations at our office?

BTW,  there’s an app available to help doctors keep up with the bribes.

Texas Planned Parenthood pays $4.3M (but media attacks Greg Abbott)

The $1.4 Million previously reported was the part that Texas will receive, not the total. Can you guess how the (very few) media reports (if you can find them) are playing the story?

From the July 30, Houston Chronicle:

Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast Tuesday settled a whistle-blower lawsuit that alleged the Houston nonprofit engaged in fraudulent Medicaid billing for $4.3 million – nearly $3 million more than was announced last week by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Yes, Planned Parenthood is quoted as claiming that the settlement for the AG’s finding that they are guilty of over $30M in fraud is “baseless” and simply a way to end harassment and to avoid turning over the (altered) medical records of patients. But the spin on the story is that Texas’ Attorney General, Greg Abbott, didn’t report the total and sent out his announcement before the settlement was signed by all parties.

My news search yields some op-eds and stories by Texas’ newspapers and a few more on pro-life sites.

‘Obamacare’ National Marketing Campaign To Cost Nearly $700 Million « CBS DC

In the meantime, doctors who still accept Medicare (not hospitals or other “providers”) are facing decreased payments and increased hassles.

As President Barack Obama’s health care law moves from theory to reality in the coming months, its success may hinge on whether the best minds in advertising can reach one of the hardest-to-find parts of the population: people without health coverage.

The campaign won’t come cheap: The total amount to be spent nationally on publicity, marketing and advertising will be at least $684 million, according to data compiled The Associated Press from federal and state sources.

via ‘Obamacare’ National Marketing Campaign To Cost Nearly $700 Million « CBS DC.

Wrinkle in Health Law Vexes Lawmakers’ Aides – NYTimes.com

Oh! What a tangled web we weave . . .

Under a wrinkle that dates back to enactment of the law, members of Congress and thousands of their aides are required to get their coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.

But the law does not provide any obvious way for the federal government to continue paying its share of the premiums for the comprehensive coverage.

via Wrinkle in Health Law Vexes Lawmakers’ Aides – NYTimes.com.

Medicaid Expansion: money, politics, and plain talk

Ross Ramsey of the Texas Tribune only sees the political debate behind both HB2’s restrictions on abortion and Medicaid expansion.

The state didn’t expand its Medicaid program, and you’ll still find legislators across the spectrum thinking about the consequences, good or bad.

This summer’s debate on abortion restrictions turned entirely on politics. It wasn’t about the money.

via The Economic Debate Behind the Political Debate | The Texas Tribune.

Lay aside the silliness that any Conservative considers abortion simply about the money or politics. Let’s look at the Medicaid debate.  Rather than the TT’s simplistic view of “9 Federal dollars for every 1 dollar the State spends,” remember that the operative word in “Medicaid expansion” is “expansion.”

Under the expansion, the only criteria would be income. Any asset test or obligation to look for work would be forbidden by Federal law.

Healthy men and women who choose not to work, not those on disability – and even those whose employers offer some sort of health insurance would have come under the State’s Medicaid.  Many more would find it “cheaper” to quit work or avoid work and go under Medicaid and other benefits.(Back when I was delivering babies, I had several two-income families who found it better for mom to quit work after she became pregnant, since Medicaid picked up the cost of insurance and co-pays for her and the kids.)

I remember a tall, healthy-appearing (I’m qualified to judge, BTW) 30-year-old man who testified against HB2 and all its precursors. He not only showed up for repeated Committee meetings, he was there every time there for the House and Senate hearings. He loudly claimed to be a Texas law school graduate who is (STILL!) unemployed – and criticized and ranted at our Legislators for not “giving” him a job and benefits. Who wants to pay his Medicaid?

The expansion wouldn’t significantly cut the oft-quoted high rate of uninsured in Texas, even according to TT’s own numbers. Over 1/2 of Texas’ uninsured make too much money for Medicaid, and 1/3 make more than $50,000 a year.  Lawbreaking immigrants (someone’s bound to be insulted if I use the term “illegal immigrants”) make up 1/4 of the uninsured, but they wouldn’t be covered without breaking a few more laws. The disabled, low-income mothers and children and the elderly in nursing homes would have continued to be covered under current programs – at least as long as the money holds out.

Book Review: The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture

The Secret Knowledge

“Success in life comes not from the ability to choose between the four presented answers, but from the rather more difficult and painfully acquired ability to formulate the questions.”  Mamet, David (2011-06-02). The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (p. 28). Sentinel Trade. Kindle Edition.

I’m reading “The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture,” by David Mamet. Those of you who follow me on FaceBook or Twitter have probably seen a few quotes that I’ve shared.

I’m afraid that I might be indulging in the same thing Mr. Mamet accuses the Liberal Left of doing: surrounding myself with like-minded thinkers and writers. If so, Mr. Mamet at least expresses himself differently than most of the Conservative writers I read.

As an example, I was struck by his description of the new love story, in which two people who don’t even like each other are thrown together by fate and somehow decide they are meant for each other. This is in contrast to the traditional love story in which a couple first falls in love but are separated by outside forces, finally triumphing by their will to be together. (Compare “Sleepless in Seattle” with the movie it references, “An Affair to Remember.”) The difference is subtle, but one of fatalism vs. making a deliberate, conscious choice.

Mr. Mamet is critical of Liberal Arts education, socialism, “change” and “hope.” He explains why Conservatism is better than Liberalism in phrases that go far beyond sound bites and the bumper sticker he sometimes refers to.

From Amazon’s “Popular Highlights:”

“The Good Causes of the Left may generally be compared to NASCAR; they offer the diversion of watching things go excitingly around in a circle, getting nowhere.”

“The essence of socialism is for Party A to get Party B to give something to Party C.”

“. . . Wrights, Cyrus McCormick, Henry Ford, Tesla, Tom Edison, Meg Whitman, Bill Gates, Burt Rutan, and Steve Jobs. How would they and American Industry have fared had Government gotten its hands upon them at the outset—if it had taxed away the capital necessary to provide a market for their wares; if it had taxed away the wealth, which, existing as gambling money, had taken a chance on these various visionaries? One need not wonder, but merely look around at the various businesses Government has aided.”

“Government itself, where waste is the end product.”

Mr. Mamet’s central point is that culture is the unconscious and pre-verbal adaptation of people that creates predictability, allowing us to get along with one another. When we throw out our culture and try to create a new one, the “change” leads us to uncertainty and the necessity to weigh each new stimulus because we don’t know what it means under the new conditions.

“The tool of culture is the capacity to predict the operation of the social environment—a property right little different from a right in land or wealth. This cultural right exists not limitlessly—for any property right is limited, by chance, death, inflation, erosion, theft, laws, confiscation, etc. but, as with a material property right, founded upon an abstract concept: predictability, which differs from omniscience, but is of immeasurably greater worth than ignorance. Culture exists and evolves to relegate to habit categories of interactions the constant conscious reference to which would make human interaction impossible.”

(Mamet, David (2011-06-02). The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (pp. 12-13). Sentinel Trade. Kindle Edition.)

He compares the new situation to “The First Night in A New Home,” where each creak or thump is unfamiliar, and could mean danger or nothing. No one gets any rest, many will get angry, and far too many will simply stop evaluating those noises for themselves. In societies, those who stop questioning and wish only for peace, end up ceding their will and ability to innovate and create to the herd.

Kindle will let you read the first chapter, free. (I don’t profit from promoting the book.)

Pro-abort McClendon Amendment Redefines “Child”

. . .as someone whose mother chose not to abort him!

Democrat Ruth McClendon, from District 120 of San Antonio, proposed an Amendment to HB 2 today that she thinks is necessary, “if we’re not going to allow women to control their own bodies.” The Amendment would re-define “child” as one,

B. whose mother declares in writing in accordance with rules adopted by the executive commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission, that, because of Section 245.010 (a), Health and Safety Code, or Subchapters C and D, Chapter 171, Health and Safety Code, the mother chose not to or did not have access to a facility to exercise her right to an abortion at the time the child was born.

Isn’t it obvious that the mother of each and every born child chose not to abort them? Whether or not there’s a “constitutional right?”

And, please, “at the time the child was born?” Does that mean the mother chose not to abort at birth or that she made the declaration at the time of birth?

Representative Kenneth Sheets, Republican from the Dallas-area District 107, explained that his family is going through adoption and that he knows that the same benefits are available to his family and to everyone.

“No Cost” Contraception (Obama Administration fantasy)

The Obama Administration has published its final rule on health insurance coverage of contraception. “Religious employers” are supposed to be happy with the Obama decree that insurance companies will provide contraception “at no cost.”

We all know that there’s no such thing as “no cost.” Everyone will “share” the cost, since everyone will be forced to buy health insurance.

Here’s the letter, thanks to one of the Conscience groups I follow:

From:   Lauren Aronson
             Director, Office of Legislation
             Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
 
Re:       Administration Issues Final Rules on Contraception Coverage and Religious Organizations
 
Today, the Obama administration issued final rules that balance the goal of providing women with coverage for recommended preventive care – including contraceptive services prescribed by a health care provider – with no cost-sharing, with the goal of respecting the concerns of non-profit religious organizations that object to contraceptive coverage.  The final rules reflect public feedback received in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in February 2013. 
 
Today’s final rules finalize the proposed simpler definition of “religious employer” for purposes of the exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement in response to concerns raised by some religious organizations.  These employers, primarily houses of worship, may exclude contraceptive coverage from their health plans for their employees and their dependents. 
 
The final rules also lay out the accommodation for other non-profit religious organizations – such as non-profit religious hospitals and institutions of higher education – that object to contraceptive coverage.   Under the accommodation these organizations will not have to contract, arrange, pay for or refer contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds, but such coverage is separately provided to women enrolled in their health plans at no cost.  The approach taken in the final rules is similar to, but simpler than, that taken in the proposed rules, and responds to comments made by many stakeholders.
 
With respect to an insured health plan, including a student health plan, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its insurer that it objects to contraception coverage.  The insurer then notifies enrollees in the health plan that it is providing them separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for them for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan. 
 
Similarly, with respect to self-insured health plans, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its third party administrator that objects to contraception coverage.  The third party administrator then notifies enrollees in the health plans that it is providing or arranging separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for them for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.  The final rules provide more details on the accommodation for both insurers and third party administrators.

 
To view the Final Rule: http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2013-15866_PI.pdf
 
To view technical guidance on the temporary enforcement safe harbor visit: http://cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/preventive-services-guidance-6-28-2013.pdf
 
To view the self-certification form for eligible organizations visit: http://cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Forms-Reports-and-Other-Resources/index.html#Prevention
 
If you have any questions, please contact the CMS Office of Legislation. Thank you

Secular reasons to be pro-life

There are plenty of secular reasons to oppose elective abortion.

One of the main charges (read the comments on just about any blog, news story that even touches the subject) against pro-life advocates is that we are trying to force our religious views on everyone else. We’re accused of attempting to create a theocracy and compared to – or called – the “Taliban.”

First, for those of us who are human-centric, it is a fact that on this planet, humans are the only species having this conversation, which makes us special.

For atheists and agnostics who believe that this is our only life, doesn’t that give weight to the right not to be killed?

Finally, and most importantly, there’s the ethical viewpoint put forward by the Declaration of Independence. (Ignoring the “Creator,” and “created,” of course.) The Declaration clearly states that rights are endowed on the individual rather than bestowed by the government. that might does not make right. The proper function of government and society is to protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Where might makes right to the point that the whoever has the biggest gun or can win the most votes, no one is truly safe.

Even if “We the People” decide who is human enough and who is not human enough to have the right not to be killed, there is no liberty and no pursuit of happiness.

Please let me know if you have other secular pro-life arguments.

Don’t Experiment with Marriage (children aren’t guinea pigs)

Government could decree that “East” is now “North.” After all, they’re just arbitrary names for concepts, right? However, until all the old signs and maps (and compasses!) are replaced and gone forever, a lot of people will be lost and possibly hurt in transportation accidents.

Changing the family structure by government laws and regulations on marriage is reckless social experimentation, more like changing “up” to “down,” than “East” to “North.”

Rand Paul, (small-l)ibertarian Republican junior Senator from Kentucky and the son of perennial Presidential candidate Ron Paul, told the National Review that the Republican Party’s “problem” with gay marriage could be solved by changes eliminating references (and benefits) to marriage in the tax codes.

However, as an editorial in The Hill commentary noted,

Paul did not address in the interview how he might deal with other advantage and privileges extended to legally wed heterosexual couples, like federal spousal benefits, pension plans, health care, and Social Security survivors benefits.

And Paul ignores the societal consequences on our children of tomorrow.

Research confirms that the best environment for children is to live in a home with their married biological parents. When the ideal is not possible, statistics still favor stable, traditional marriage and the 2 parent home for the successful adult child of blended families and adoption. Please take a look at peer-reviewed studies published on the effects of stable families on children, here and here.

Want proof that government interference can change society for the worse? Look at the harm government has done to lower income families all those years when benefits were denied to families when the father was in the home. Or the negative influence of housing subsidies on marriage. (I can email the full article.)
Society and government ignore facts at the risk of harming the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of future generations. Don’t expect me to vote for or pay for dangerous societal experimentation – or even to sit quietly while someone outlines his intention to play social engineer.

Update: see this post from May 5, 2013, showing more evidence for the benefit to children of being reared in the home with their biological parents.

NIH funded study: “the tobacco industry and the Tea Party”

How reliable is a US government funded study that uses the term, “astroturf?”

Research using your tax dollars is under scrutiny – once again – and the subject of recent hearings in Congress. The National Cancer Institute, a wing of the National Institutes of Health, paid for this “study.” It was published in a “peer reviewed” journal, Tobacco Control, one of the “BMJ Group” (British Medical Journal) publications.

Discussion

The tobacco companies have refined their astroturf tactics since at least the 1980s and leveraged their resources to support and sustain a network of organisations that have developed into some of the Tea Party organisations of 2012.

***

 

What this paper adds

Rather than being a grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party organisations have had connections to the tobacco companies since the 1980s. The cigarette companies funded and worked through Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), the predecessor of Tea Party organisations, Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks and other Tea Party-related organisations.

***

• Funding This research was funded by National Cancer Institute grants CA-113710 and CA-087472. The funding agency played no role in the selection of the research topic, conduct of the research or preparation of the manuscript. SAG is American Legacy Foundation Distinguished Professor in Tobacco Control.

• Competing interests None.

• Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

via ‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts’: the tobacco industry and the Tea Party — Fallin et al. — Tobacco Control.