Posts Tagged ‘socialized medicine’

‘Death Panels’ Are REAL. They Are Simply Part of ANY Socialized Medicine Scheme (VA Now Your ObamaCare Next)

May 21, 2014

Remember when liberal economist Paul Krugman heralded the VA as the “triumph of socialized medicine“?  Maybe not so much to those who don’t inhale the contents of spray paint.

Let’s just face facts: Sarah Palin was wrong when she famously said:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

She was wrong only in this: you don’t GET to “stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ and face the bureaucrats who decide whether you live or die.  That’s a privilege you don’t deserve in a socialized health care system.  Rather, you are just left twisting in the wind wondering where the hell your health care is while you die of medical neglect.

In other words, Sarah Palin’s description of reality under Obama – as terrifying as it was – wasn’t anywhere NEAR terrifying enough.

When you’ve got a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mao – or a true socialist ideologue dictator like Obama – running your country, the truth is almost always more terrifying than the fiction.

The Veterans Administration debacle where veterans across the country are DYING while waiting in vain with their neglect covered up by secret lists is proof that death panels are all-too real.  And that no, you don’t get to “stand” in front of them.  Because even THAT is too much work for these bureaucrats.

You’ve got to stop and think about what the Obama administration’s excuses are.  Do they say something on the order of, “You can’t possibly blame me for this given the sheer size of government.  Now please excuse me while I make the government that is clearly already too big and too out-of-control even BIGGER and even MORE out-of-control.”

Or maybe Obama wants to say something like, “The death panels that you see are not my ObamaCare death panels, but VA death panels.  Now excuse me while I go make your ObamaCare more like the socialized VA system.”

You need to understand that: the classic Democrat talking point is that the VA disaster is one that has been going on for years, so it’s nobody’s fault.  Except that Democrats – and Barack Obama in particular – have been trying to make EVERYBODY’S health care more like the VA system.  And so how is it not their fault?

If the VA is a bad system that is too socialized, too big, too bureaucratic and too bloated, then why the hell are these Democrats (i.e., “DEMOn possessed bureauCRATS) trying to make the REST of health care just like the system they say is broken and can’t be made to work?

There are at least two reasons why socialized medicine invariably becomes a death panel from at least two different directions.  The first is because the government can force private medical practices to jump through all kinds of hoops and impose all kinds of burdensome regulations and costs.  But when they take over health care delivery, suddenly they discover that, hell, this is EXPENSIVE, and then they begin to reduce treatment to save money.  And the second is more insidious but pervasive throughout the system: once health care is socialized, there is simply no incentive for doctors to provide the sort of care they are forced to provide in private practice.  As an example of this, it was discovered in the Albuquerque VA facility that eight cardiologists were doing the work of ONE private practice cardiologist:

There are eight physicians in the cardiology department. But at any given time, only three are working in the clinic, where they see fewer than two patients per day, so on average there are only 36 veterans seen per week. That means the entire eight-person department sees as many patients in a week as a single private practice cardiologist sees in two days, according to the doctor.

For perspective, 60% of cardiologists reported seeing between 50 and 124 patients per week, according to a 2013 survey of medical professionals’ compensation conducted by Medscape. On the low end, the average single private practice cardiologist who participated in the study saw more patients in a week than the Albuquerque VA’s entire eight-person cardiology department.

In some cases, a long wait to see a doctor is just another routine inconvenience of the sort people expect in a large bureaucracy, but other times it can be a matter of life and death.

The problem is NOT money.  The problem is a stifling bureaucracy that simply ABSORBS money like a  giant sponge and the problem is the disincentivization of salaried doctors who simply do not have the incentives to work harder and see more patients the way that private practice doctors have.

It is simply a FACT that money is not the problem, contrary to socialist progressive liberal lies to the contrary:

The backlog of claims and unnecessary delays in veterans’ care has broadened despite a 235 percent increase in the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs between 2001 and 2013.

That finding has prompted veterans’ advocates to contend that it is a lack of accountability, not funding, that is at the root of the systemic crisis.

Budget increases at the VA have come as the total number of veterans is decreasing due primarily to the deaths of aging World War II participants.

According to figures from the Office of Management and Budget, funding for medical care, which composes 40 percent of the VA’s annual budget, increased 193 percent from 2001 to 2013.

During the same period, the overall veterans’ population declined by 4.3 million, Investor’s Business Daily reported.

As of June 2011, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs reported that an average of 1,100 veterans die every single day.  I recently heard the figure of 1,800 WWII vets dying per day – and you would expect that as the years go by and these veterans get older, the survivors would die at an increasingly faster rate.  There is simply no way that the relatively small number of younger veterans who are entering the system compared to the large number of older veterans who are dying off are overwhelming the system.  The fact is the opposite of what Democrats are saying: we have more money per veteran than EVER.  And yet we have more problems (under Obama) than we have EVER had.

Here is the bottom line: socialized or “single payer” medical systems are doomed to inefficiency.  The result is you keep paying more and more to keep getting less and less.  That is simply a fact.

ObamaCare is one giant ‘death panel’ in the making.  And with the above-mentioned caveat, Sarah Palin NAILED its essence in her “death panel” warning five years ago.

We now know that Obama – who has said in this scandal just as he has said in every other freaking damn scandal that he had no idea that it was happening and it can’t be his fault because everything is still Bush’s fault blah-blah-blah – is just a bystander-in-chief who is discovering the failures of his government by reading the damn newspaper.

At best, this turd is such a failure as a leader it is unreal.

Do you know that Obama hasn’t bothered to have a one-on-one meeting with Shinseki – where real problems could be discussed – in two damn years???  That’s a complete failure to lead.  Period.

But we also know that NOTHING about Obama is “at best.”  We know that this worthless disgrace is always THE WORST.  And so we also now know that Obama is a serial LIAR without any shame, any honor, any decency, any integrity, or any virtue.  The FACTS scream that Obama is a liar and yeah, HE DID KNOW this was going on for the six years he was doing NOTHING:

From the Washington Times, May 18, 2014:

The Obama administration received clear notice more than five years ago that VA medical facilities were reporting inaccurate waiting times and experiencing scheduling failures that threatened to deny veterans timely health care — problems that have turned into a growing scandal.

Veterans Affairs officials warned the Obama-Biden transition team in the weeks after the 2008 presidential election that the department shouldn’t trust the wait times that its facilities were reporting.

“This is not only a data integrity issue in which [Veterans Health Administration] reports unreliable performance data; it affects quality of care by delaying — and potentially denying — deserving veterans timely care,” the officials wrote.

And from the Washington Post, May 20, 2014:

Robert Petzel resigned last week as the top health official for the Department of Veterans Affairs, just one day after testifying before a Senate committee that he knew VA health clinics were using inappropriate scheduling practices as early as 2010.

Whistleblowers claim the schemes continued until this year, leading to a recent wave of outrage that sent the VA and White House scrambling to correct the alleged problems and restore confidence in the department.

Petzel admitted that he knew of the issue after Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) questioned him about the memo below, in which a top VA executive warned the directors of all VA health networks that questionable scheduling practices would “not be tolerated.”

The message summarized at least 17 tactics that VA hospitals were known to have used to hide treatment delays and give the impression they were meeting the department’s goal of seeing patients within 14 to 30 days.

[A PDF of the memo is available here].

Please notice that it was a REPUBLICAN who questioned the Obama administration.

So the White House comes out and says, “Oh, we’re taking measures.  Look, we’re going to fire this turd bureaucrat Petzel.”  When Petzel had ALREADY LONG-SINCE ANNOUNCED HE WAS RETIRING.

To wit: this is like every single other of Obama’s long list of scandals.  Initial professed outrage: “I’m mad as hell,” Obama’s VA turd Shinseki says.  And then not to be outdone, “Obama is madder than hell,” a top Obama aide says of his master.  And then nobody is held responsible, nobody is fired, nobody even loses their damn BONUS.

Obama – as his mouthpiece Jay Carney has been doing – is referring to the VA abominations as “allegations.”  When what has ALREADY been documented is criminal and evil.

On the “problems,” Obama said, “We have been working really hard to address them.”  He said, “Taking care of our veterans and their families has been one of the causes of my presidency.”  Which begs the question just what the hell he HAS been doing when I documented above that Obama KNEW about these “problems” for SIX YEARS and has done NOTHING to keep the crisis from growing FAR WORSE.

Obama also said that he’s not going to let this “become a political football.”  And thus as dictator and Fuehrer seized all power to investigate this so that no one can possibly hold him accountable in any way, shape or form as he deals with this scandal “the Chicago way.”

This is exactly what happened with the Fast and Furious scandal in which Obama and Eric Holder put guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels and then let them murder a Border Patrol agent.  And did NOTHING beyond their cover-up.

This is exactly what happened with the Benghazi scandal in which Obama and Hillary Clinton sent a United States Ambassador to a Libyan hellhole, refused to provide him with security he was begging for even as every other civilized power was pulling their people out of the violence-ridden region, left him to be raped, tortured and murdered while issuing stand down orders to those who pleaded to be allowed to help him and then covered-up their fiasco by dishonestly blaming the attack on a Youtube video that had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the pre-planned terrorist attack they should have seen coming.  To date, Obama’s disgustingly shameful promises aside, the only person who has EVER been held responsible for this attack is the United States citizen who was slandered as the cause for this al Qaeda-sponsored terrorist attack.

This is exactly what happened with the IRS scandal in which, at the direction of Washington and specifically at the instigation of an Obama appointee, the IRS was used as a political weapon to target and punish Obama’s political opponents.

In every case, Obama relied on the fact that the mainstream media “news coverage” amounts to naked leftist propaganda.  If you want to know how the media would have treated a Republican, just google “Donald Sterling” and see the daily outrage as the media focuses in on their target and then attacks him like red meat on a daily basis until he’s destroyed.  Whereas in Obama’s case, if they even report the story, it’s treated as done and over with.  So move on.

It is the routine script for a despicable ideologue failure.  And he’s playing the same damn game again.

Everything that conservatives said would happen with ObamaCare has either happened or is happening, versus Obama who is now documented to have lied about EVERYTHING from being allowed to keep your doctor, or your health plan, to bending the cost curve down when in fact he’s done otherwise, to there being no taxes on people earning less than $200,000 when there are now all kinds of taxes, etcetera ad nauseam.

And as ObamaCare becomes more and more like the socialized medicine of the VA system, we can look at the countries who have victimized their citizens with appalling care and see what is coming next:

What Liberals Want For Your Child (To Die). As Evidenced By What Is Now Happening In England’s NHS Socialist Health Care System.

Coming Soon To America (Thanks To Obama And Democrats): ‘Production Line’ Government Healthcare

What Lies In Store For Your Parents Under ObamaCare (It Will Be Even WORSE For You!)

Democrats, Please Explain Why You Want To Inflict Americans With This Vile Health Care System?

‘Crazy Claims About Death Panels’ Sadly Not Crazy At All

The only people in America who deserve to die slow, painful deaths of medical neglect are those who voted for Obama.  But unless Republicans take over the Senate and then take the presidency away from Hillary Clinton – who wanted socialized medicine even before Obama did – we’re ALL going to suffer death by socialism.

Veterans EARNED their health care.  By SERVING in the armed forces, and by subjecting themselves to conditions and environments that no civilian would EVER willingly experience – and by submitting to conditions in which they cannot sue the government which ordered them to do what they did – they EARNED their health care.

But the VA system – because it IS socialized, because it IS a government bureaucracy, because it IS huge – is broken.

Now Obama and the Democrats demand that every single person in America receive the benefits and care that only those who SERVED ought to receive.  And now Obama and these Democrats are breaking our health care system by letting the same government that clearly is incapable of administering the Veterans Administration run the REST of the far larger health care system into the ground.

 

 

What Liberals Want For Your Child (To Die). As Evidenced By What Is Now Happening In England’s NHS Socialist Health Care System.

November 29, 2012

From the UK Daily Mail about the closest thing we’ve got to watching the true coming horror that is ObamaCare: Congratulations, liberals.  You’re as low as Nazis:

Now sick babies go on death pathway: Doctor’s haunting testimony reveals how children are put on end-of-life plan

  • Practice of  withdrawing food and fluid by tube being used on young  patients
  • Doctor  admits starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in neonatal  unit
  • Liverpool  Care Pathway subject of independent inquiry ordered by  ministers
  • Investigation, including child patients, will look at  whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced  doctors’ decisions
By Sue Reid and Simon Caldwell
PUBLISHED:18:03 EST, 28  November 2012| UPDATED:19:54 EST, 28 November 2012

Sick children are being discharged from NHS  hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death  pathways’.

Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool  Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill  adults.

But the Mail can reveal the practice of  withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as  severely disabled newborn babies.

Sick children and babies are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial 'death pathways' (file photo)Sick children and babies are being discharged from NHS  hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death pathways’ (file  photo)

One doctor has admitted starving and  dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.

Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician  revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a  baby  becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.

The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and  terminally-ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an  independent inquiry ordered by ministers.

More…

The investigation, which will include child  patients, will look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway  targets have influenced doctors’ decisions.

Medical critics of the LCP insist it is  impossible to say when a patient will die and as a result the LCP death becomes  a self-fulfilling prophecy. They say it is a form of euthanasia, used to clear  hospital beds and save the NHS money.

The practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies The practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is  being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies

The use of end of life care methods on  disabled newborn babies was revealed in the doctors’ bible, the British Medical  Journal.

Earlier this month, an un-named doctor wrote  of the agony of watching the protracted deaths of babies. The doctor described  one case of a baby born with ‘a lengthy list of unexpected congenital  anomalies’, whose parents agreed to put it on the pathway.

The doctor wrote: ‘They wish for their child  to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped. They wish for pneumonia.  They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious  baby.

According to a BMJ article, a doctor had presided over ten such deaths in just one hospital neonatal unitAccording to a BMJ article, a doctor had presided over  ten such deaths in just one hospital neonatal unit

‘Their wishes, however, are not consistent  with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most physicians think;  reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration  to death was ten days.

‘Parents and care teams are unprepared for  the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical  appearance as severe dehydration ensues.

The use of end of life care methods on disabled newborn babies was revealed in the doctors' bible, the British Medical JournalThe use of end of life care methods on disabled newborn  babies was revealed in the doctors’ bible, the British Medical Journal

‘I know, as they cannot, the unique horror of  witnessing a child become smaller and shrunken, as the only route out of a life  that has become excruciating to the patient or to the parents who love their  baby.’

According to the BMJ article, the doctor  involved had presided over ten such deaths in just one hospital neonatal  unit.

In a response to the article, Dr Laura de  Rooy, a consultant neonatologist at St George’s Hospital NHS Trust in London  writing on the BMJ website, said: ‘It is a huge supposition to think they do not  feel hunger or thirst.’

The LCP for children has been developed in  the North West, where the LCP itself was pioneered in the 1990s. It involves the  discharge to home or to a hospice of children who are given a document detailing  their ‘end of life’ care.

One seen by the Mail, called ‘Liverpool  Pathway for the Dying Child’ is issued by the Royal Liverpool Children’s NHS  Trust in conjunction with the flagship children’s hospital Alder Hey. It  includes tick boxes, filled out by hospital doctors, on medicines, nutrients and  fluids to be stopped.

The LCP was devised by the Marie Curie  Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool for care of dying adult patients more  than a decade ago. It has since been developed, with paediatric staff at Alder  Hey Hospital, to cover children. Parents have to agree to their child going on  the death pathway, often being told by doctors it is in the child’s ‘best  interests’ because their survival is ‘futile’.

Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice paediatric nurse,  has written to the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health to criticise the  use of death pathways for children.

‘‘I have also seen children die in terrible  thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die’

She said: ‘The parents feel coerced, at a  very traumatic time, into agreeing that this is correct for their child whom  they are told by doctors has only has a few days to live. It is very difficult  to predict death. I have seen a “reasonable” number of children recover after  being taken off the pathway.

‘I have also seen children die in terrible  thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die.

‘I witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer  die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give  him liquids by tube. His death was agonising for him, and for us nurses to  watch. This is euthanasia by the backdoor.’

Alder Hey, pictured, confirmed that children and babies are discharged for LCP end of life care 'after all possible reversible causes for the patient's condition are considered'Alder Hey, pictured, confirmed that children and babies  are discharged for LCP end of life care ‘after all possible reversible causes  for the patient’s condition are considered’

Alder Hey confirmed that children and babies  are discharged for LCP end of life care ‘after all possible reversible causes  for the patient’s condition are considered’.

‘There is a care pathway to enable a dying  child to be supported by the local medical and nursing teams in the community,  in line with the wishes of the child patients, where appropriate, and always  their parents or carers.’ Alder Hey said children were not put on the LCP within  the hospital itself.

Teresa Lynch, of protest group Medical Ethics  Alliance, said: ‘There are big questions to be answered about how our sick  children are dying.’

A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘End  of life care for children must meet the highest professional and clinical  standards, and the specific needs of children at the end of their life.

‘Staff must always communicate with the  patient and the patient’s family, and involve them in all aspects of decision  making.’

THEY WISH FOR THEIR BABY TO GO  QUICKLY. BUT I KNOW, AS THEY CAN’T, THE UNIQUE HORROR OF WATCHING A CHILD SHRINK  AND DIE

Here  is an abridged version of one doctor’s anonymous testimony, published in the BMJ  under the heading: ‘How it feels to withdraw feeding from newborn  babies’.

The voice on the other end of the phone  describes a newborn baby and a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies.  I have a growing sense of dread as I listen.

The parents want ‘nothing done’ because they  feel that these anomalies are not consistent with a basic human experience. I  know that once decisions are made, life support will be withdrawn.

Assuming this baby survives, we will be  unable to give feed, and the parents will not want us to use artificial means to  do so.

Regrettably, my predictions are correct. I  realise as I go to meet the parents that this will be the tenth child for whom I  have cared after a decision has been made to forgo medically provided feeding.

A doctor has written a testimony published under the heading: 'How it feels to withdraw feeding from newborn babies'A doctor has written a testimony published under the  heading: ‘How it feels to withdraw feeding from newborn babies’

The mother fidgets in her chair, unable to  make eye contact. She dabs at angry tears, stricken. In a soft voice the father  begins to tell me about their life, their other children, and their dashed hopes  for this child.

He speculates that the list of proposed  surgeries and treatments are unfair and will leave his baby facing a future too  full of uncertainty.

Like other parents in this predicament, they  are now plagued with a terrible type of wishful thinking that they could never  have imagined. They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and  fluids are stopped.

They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no  suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious  baby.

Their wishes, however, are not  consistent  with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most  physicians think;  reflecting on my previous patients, the median time  from withdrawal of  hydration to death was ten days.

Parents and care teams are unprepared for the  sometimes severe changes that  they will witness in the child’s physical  appearance as severe  dehydration ensues.

I  try to make these matters clear from the  outset so that these parents do not make a decision that they will come to  regret. I try to prepare  them for the coming collective agony that we will  undoubtedly share,  regardless of their certainty about their  decision.

I know, as they cannot, the unique horror of  witnessing a child become smaller and shrunken, as the only route out of a life  that has become excruciating to the patient or to the parents who love their  baby.

I reflect on how sanitised this experience  seems within the literature about making this decision.

As a doctor, I struggle with the emotional  burden of accompanying the patient and his or her family through this  experience, as much as with the philosophical details of it.

‘Survival is often much longer than most  physicians  think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time  from withdrawal of  hydration to death was ten days’

Debate at the front lines of healthcare about  the morality of taking this decision has remained heated, regardless of what  ethical and legal guidelines have to offer.

The parents come to feel that the disaster of  their situation is intolerable; they can no longer bear witness to the slow  demise of their child.

This increases the burden on the care-givers,  without parents at the bedside to direct their child’s care.

Despite involvement from the clinical ethics  and spiritual care services, the vacuum of direction leads to divisions within  the care team.

It is draining to be the most responsible  physician. Everyone is looking to me to preside over and support this process.

I am honest with the nurse when I say it is  getting more and more difficult to make my legs walk me on to this unit as the  days elapse, that examining the baby is an indescribable mixture of compassion,  revulsion, and pain.

Some say withdrawing medically provided  hydration and nutrition is akin to withdrawing any other form of life support.  Maybe, but that is not how it feels. The one thing that helps me a little is the  realisation that this process is necessarily difficult. It needs to be.

To acknowledge that a child’s prospects are  so dire, so limited, that we will not or cannot provide artificial nutrition is  self selecting for the rarity of the situations in which parents and care teams  would ever consider it.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html#ixzz2DdeVXdSm Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

In the coming hell otherwise known as ObamaCare, patients will have a choice of receiving abuse, cruelty and neglect or simply being “humanely” euthanized.

Coming Soon To America (Thanks To Obama And Democrats): ‘Production Line’ Government Healthcare

December 30, 2011

Obama fell in love with government health care; you’ll learn to hate it more than you’ve ever hated anything in your life:

Scandal of NHS ‘production line’
The number of NHS patients who have to undergo emergency readmission to hospital within a month of being discharged has increased by more than three quarters in the last decade, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.
By Robert Winnett, Political Editor
9:54PM GMT 29 Dec 2011

Hospitals have been accused by ministers of treating patients “like parts on a production line” after official figures suggested that hundreds of thousands of people every year are being sent home before they are well enough.

More than 660,000 people were brought back to hospital last year within 28 days of leaving, statistics show, sparking allegations that patients are being “hurried through the system” so the NHS can meet waiting-list targets.

The official figures show that some NHS trusts have seen their emergency readmission rate rise more than three-fold over the past decade – while some hospitals have seen only a modest increase.

Last night, Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said that the “hugely distressing” trend must stop.

“Patients have a right to expect that when they go in for treatment that they are looked after properly and that the treatment they are given helps them to recover,” he said.

Related Articles

Thousands left for a year on ‘hidden’ NHS waiting lists 17 Nov 2011

NHS queue app gets PM’s approval 16 Nov 2011

40% rise in NHS patients still waiting after a year 16 Sep 2011

“Having to be readmitted and treated all over again is hugely distressing. These figures show how Labour’s obsession with waiting time targets meant that patients were treated like parts on a production line to be hurried through the system rather than like people who need to be properly cared for.”

The Department of Health has released detailed information on the number of emergency readmissions in every area across Britain.

The figures show that 620,054 patients had to be readmitted in 2009-10 – compared to just 348,996 a decade before, a 78 percent increase. Over the past five years, there has been a 31 percent rise and a five percent increase on the previous 12 months.

The data also highlights the widespread regional variations. The rate of readmission in the Kensington & Chelsea PCT area has risen by 287 percent over the past decade to 1,582 people.

However, North Lincolnshire PCT has only experienced a 3.37 percent rise over the same period.

Hospitals within the Hampshire PCT area readmitted 13,239 people last year. The nearby area covered by the Isle of Wight PCT only had to readmit 1,098 people.

The figures, do not include patients suffering from cancer or mental health problems or maternity patients.

Most of the areas with the highest increases in readmission numbers are in London and the south east, where pressure is greatest on the NHS. The Department of Health has analysed the social make-up of each area and concludes that the so-called “thriving London periphery” – the relatively wealthy commuter hinterland around the capital has suffered the biggest recent deterioration.

Some of the rise in readmissions may be due to the increase in population in these areas or changes in the way that the data is collected.

About 10 million people are admitted to hospital wards each year. Critics claim that government targets, such as the demand that patients be admitted to hospital for treatment within 18 weeks of seeing their GP, mean hospital managers are pressured into releasing patients early to make beds available.

Earlier this month, The Daily Telegraph disclosed that the Government is moving from a system of targets for hospitals based on waiting and treatment times – to a system of so-called “outcomes” which measures the success of treatment.

In a criticism of previous targets which he blames for the increase in emergency readmissions, Mr Lansley said: “Instead of focusing on the results which actually matter for patients, they focused on narrow processes to the detriment of patient care. That is why we have taken action to address these increases in emergency readmissions.

“One of the new goals we are setting the NHS is reducing emergency readmissions. In order to help achieve this we have created a re-ablement fund of £300 million and we have taken action to stop hospitals being paid when they readmit a patient after discharging them too early. These steps will turn Labour’s poor performance around.”

Under the Government scheme, hospitals will effectively be responsible for people’s care in the weeks after they return home and will be financially penalised for discharging patients too soon.

Ministers have also increased funding for so-called “tele-health” where people can “manage” their long-term conditions independently at home but are remotely monitored by doctors.

The official figures have been released as NHS managers claimed that one in four people being treated in hospital should be at home – which could lead to even more re-admissions if the programme is not properly monitored.

Mike Farrar, the head of the NHS Federation, said: “Hospitals play a vital role, but we do rely on them for some services that could be provided elsewhere. We should be concentrating on reducing hospital stays where this is right for patients, shifting resources into community services, raising standards of general practice, and promoting early intervention and self care.”

However, concerns are growing that GPs will be unable to cope with the demands of more people being treated at home. Earlier this week, it emerged that some GP practices now had up to 9,000 people registered.

Yesterday, Jacqui Davis, head of the NHS Consultants’ Association, said: “Why would you want to have people isolated in their homes? This is not going to save money and it is unfortunately the wrong message.

“GP’s are swamped, social services are having their budgets cut. While it may be more appropriate for more people to be treated within the community we simply can’t do it without making much better arrangements than we’ve got at the moment.”

Here’s another example of what will surely be “coming soon” unless ObamaCare gets repealed:

NHS delays operations ‘as it waits for patients to die or go private’
NHS managers are deliberately delaying operations as they wait for patients either to die or go private in order to save money, according to an official report.
By Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent
10:00PM BST 28 Jul 2011

Health service trusts are “imposing pain and inconvenience” by making patients wait longer than necessary, in some cases as long as four months, the study found.

Executives believe the delays mean some people will remove themselves from lists “either by dying or by paying for their own treatment” claims the report, by an independent watchdog that advises the NHS.

The Co-operation and Competition Panel says the tactic is one of a number used by managers that “excessively constrain” patients’ rights to choose where to be operated upon, and damage hospitals’ ability to compete for planned surgery.

It claims unfair practices are “endemic” in some areas of England and pose a “serious risk” to the Government’s drive to open up the health service to competition.

But managers, who are already rationing surgery for cataracts, hips, knees and tonsils, say they must restrict treatment as the NHS is under orders to make £20 billion of efficiency savings by 2015.

Related Articles

Tips for buying private medical cover 29 Jul 2011

Patients struggle even to get on NHS waiting lists 29 Jul 2011

NHS managers spend £100,000 on staff events 07 Oct 2011

Stem cell treatment ‘could prevent MS brain damage’ 29 Jul 2011

Breast cancer screening has ‘little detectable impact’ 29 Jul 2011

Shake-up for elderly care 27 Jul 2011

Lord Carter of Coles, chairman of the panel, said: “Commissioners have a difficult job in the current financial climate, but patients’ rights are often being restricted without a valid and visible reason.”
 
Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association, said: “It is outrageous that some primary care trusts are imposing minimum waiting times. The suggestion that it could save money because patients will remove themselves from the list by going private or dying is a callous and cynical manipulation of people’s lives and should not be tolerated.”
 
Since 2006, NHS patients who need routine elective care have had the right to choose between at least four hospitals including privately-run units. But there have been claims that trusts, the local bodies that pay for treatment, restrict choice and favour some hospitals to balance their books. The panel investigated whether the allegations were true.
 
It found “many examples of PCTs excessively constraining patients’ ability to choose, and providers’ ability to offer routine elective care services”.
 
Managers restricted GPs’ ability to refer patients to some hospitals by imposing “caps” on the number a provider would be paid to treat and by imposing minimum waiting times, its report said.
 
Under government targets, patients should be treated within 18 weeks of referral by a GP. But even when surgeons could see them far sooner, the study found that some trusts made hospitals wait as long as 15 weeks before operating. The tactic forced private hospitals, which were more likely to be able to treat patients quickly, to operate as slowly as overcrowded NHS units in an “unfortunate levelling down”.
 
Some managers insisted that longer waiting times would lead to overall savings as “experience suggests that if patients wait longer then some will remove themselves from the list”. Interpreting this statement, the panel noted: “We understand that patients will ‘remove themselves from the waiting list’ either by dying or by paying for their own treatment at private sector providers.”
 
It said that minimum waiting times should only be used as a “last resort” and told trusts to publish their policies on the home page of their websites.
 
The panel also found that trusts tended to give elective business to their local NHS hospital, rather than allowing choice, in order to ensure its other services such as casualty departments remained financially viable.
 
The findings come as the NHS is under pressure from increasing demand and tighter budgets. Waiting times have lengthened since last year’s general election and more trusts are increasing the number of procedures of “low clinical value” they turn down or insisting that patients’ conditions worsen before they are seen.
 
Labour yesterday unearthed Treasury figures that show health spending totalled £101.985 billion in 2010-11, down from £102.751 billion in the last year of Labour, despite David Cameron’s pledge that “the money going into the NHS will actually increase in real terms”. The Tories pointed out that the fall represented the last part of the previous government’s five-year spending plan.
 
Ministers welcomed the competition panel’s study. Paul Burstow, the care services minister, said: “This report illustrates exactly why we need to modernise the NHS and increase choice for patients.
 
“Trusts will want to take a hard look at practices in light of this report and ensure they are always in the best interest of patients and the taxpayer.”
 
Under the Health and Social Care Bill, which has been watered down in the face of opposition from the medical profession and Liberal Democrats, power to buy treatment will be handed from trusts to new bodies led by GPs.
 
The new Clinical Commissioning Groups are intended to be more accountable to patients, while the number of sectors where choice and competition apply is being extended. David Stout, director of the NHS Confederation’s primary care trust network, said: “Today’s report rightly acknowledges that each situation will be different and the extent that any benefits outweigh the loss of choice should be considered on a case-by-case basis.”
 
He added: “Commissioners will still be left to decide the right course of action when faced with trade-offs between patient choice and value for money. The suggestion that many current trust decisions are not justifiable on these grounds is largely unsubstantiated by the detail in the report as the CCP has not investigated specific cases in detail.”

A wise woman once looked at what she saw coming under ObamaCare, looked at the hell that such socialized medicine was based on, and saw “death panels.”

There are actually about 160 death panels created by ObamaCare:

When you see NHS (or “National Health Service), just think “ObamaCare for England.”  And then think about the hell that you voted for your parents to experience in voting for Obama.

The beast is coming – that is, if you’re still healthy enough after ObamaCare gets its fangs into you that you’re still alive to suffer under his tyranny.

What Lies In Store For Your Parents Under ObamaCare (It Will Be Even WORSE For You!)

April 30, 2010

ObamaCare, in a picture:

Thursday, April 29, 2010
This Is What Government-Run Health Care Looks Like

Those of us who see Obamacare as a distinct step backwards are often branded as alarmist and out of touch. When we point to the regular horrors of government run systems, especially the UK, we’re shouted down with healthy dollops of “it-can’t-happen-here-because-the president-said-it-won’t.”

Read on.

But before you do, look at this photo from London’s MailOnline:

Not pretty.

It’s a photo taken in a UK (government run) hospital of 84-year-old Clara Stokes. The photo was taken by her outraged daughter who discovered that her mom was living a nightmare – starved, dehydrated, and lying in her own feces.

Apparently, the ward was very short-staffed, to the point that Clara’s family members were not only forced helped her, but also other patients who were in similar circumstances.

Here’s a partial list of horrors. If this isn’t clear, cold abuse of a person with a severe medical disability, I don’t know what is:

Maltreatment 1:

Doctors and nurses who misplaced health notes even thought Mrs Stokes was a man for the first two days, after she was admitted on December 16.

Maltreatment 2:

A temporary nurse misread Mrs Stokes’ notes and forced uncrushed tablets down her throat, almost causing her to choke to death.

Maltreatment 3:

She [Clara's daughter] added: ‘We finally walked in and my daughter said what is that under her arm? We lifted it up and she was covered in her own diarrhoea.

Maltreatment 4:

Helpless and confused after suffering a stroke, the 84-year-old was left dehydrated, hungry and lying in her own faeces in a hospital bed for six hours. . . . ‘She was paralysed and couldn’t call for help. This was after 3pm in the afternoon and the last time she had been checked was at 9am.’

Maltreatment 5:

Just 24 hours later the family found a stricken Mrs Stokes’ foot trapped between bed posts caused by a faulty bed pump. It was not known how long she was trapped and had to be freed by the matron.

The hospital, of course, denies, denies, denies. Here’s part of the snippy statement issued by the hospital spokesperson:

‘We regret that Mrs Stokes’ family have felt the need to complain about her care while she was on ward 17 and ward 15 and the hospital has apologised for any distressing circumstances recognising how upsetting some aspects of personal care can be for relatives.

Stay tuned, because I’ll bet my last dollar that the pro-death crowd will spin the horrible photo above as a case of people dying “without dignity,” and use it as a propaganda tool, captioning Clara’s abuse with: This is not dying with dignity: Support legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia.

If anything, the Daily Mail article referenced reveals that the story of this poor woman who was abandoned to die in her own filth by the government health care system is even worse.

And what the author of this article points out in the last paragraph is exactly right.  The federal government took over a massive chunk of the health care system with Medicare and Medicaid.  They broke it, and then they used the fact that the system was broken (thanks to them) to call for ObamaCare so they could finish the job of socializing the system.  You don’t think that the same people who did that will ultimately point to the fact that the people who are dying in their own filth (thanks to the left) should instead be humanly euthanized?

I think D. James Kennedy put it best when he said:

“Watch out, Grandma and Grandpa!  Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”

It’s happening.

Sarah Palin desribed her fear of her Down Syndrome son Trig being forced to one day stand before an ObamaCare death panel.  There are 111 death panels under ObamaCare in a byzantine bureaucratic maze that looks like this:

It’s now an obvious and open fact that the death panels are real:

Via Breitbart TV:

Amazing. First [New York Times columnist Paul] Krugman and now Obama’s own OMB Director confirm what Governor Palin has been saying all along: the advisory panel within ObamaCare responsible for rationing health care will effectively be a death panel for those deemed unworthy of the cost of the care. More on Orszag’s vindication of Governor Palin from Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey here  and Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft here.

The Democrats’ have flat-out stated it: “We’re going to let you die.”  And Obama’s own handpicked czars already have a policy (“the Complete Lives System”) to carry that policy out.

The horror that ObamaCare will quickly become will be biblical.  So it takes the Bible to put it into proper perspective:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth – Romans 1:18

You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3

But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4

.

Democrats, Please Explain Why You Want To Inflict Americans With This Vile Health Care System?

March 2, 2010

Up to 1,200 needless deaths, patients abused, staff bullied to meet targets… yet a secret inquiry into failing hospital says no one’s to blame

By Fay Schlesinger, Andy Dolan and Tim Shipman
Last updated at 1:45 PM on 25th February 2010

  • Up to 1,200 patients died unnecessarily because of appalling care
  • Labour’s obsession with targets and box ticking blamed for scandal
  • Patients were ‘routinely neglected’ at hospital
  • Report calls for FOURTH investigation into scandal

Not a single official has been disciplined over the worst-ever NHS hospital scandal, it emerged last night.

Up to 1,200 people lost their lives needlessly because Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust put government targets and cost-cutting ahead of patient care.

But none of the doctors, nurses and managers who failed them has suffered any formal sanction.

Enlarge   stafford

Relatives of patients involved in the report hold pictures of their loved ones outside the Moat House hotel near Stafford, after Robert Francis QC delivered his report

Indeed, some have either retired on lucrative pensions or have swiftly found new jobs.

Former chief executive Martin Yeates, who has since left with a £1million pension pot, six months’ salary and a reported £400,000 payoff, did not even give evidence to the inquiry which detailed the scale of the scandal yesterday.

He was said to be medically unfit to do so, though he sent some information to chairman Robert Francis through his solicitor.

The devastating-report into the Stafford Hospital-shambles’ laid waste to Labour’s decade-long obsession with box-ticking and league tables.

The independent inquiry headed by Robert Francis QC found the safety of sick and dying patients was ‘routinely neglected’. Others were subjected to ‘ inhumane treatment’, ‘bullying’, ‘abuse’ and ‘rudeness’.

Enlarge   Stafford

Anguish: Sandra Whitehouse with pictures of her mother Joan Morris and a copy of the Francis report

The shocking estimated death toll, three times the previous figure of 400, has prompted calls for a full public inquiry.

Bosses at the Trust – officially an ‘elite’ NHS institution – were condemned for their fixation with cutting waiting times to hit Labour targets and leaving neglected patients to die.

But after a probe that was controversially held in secret, not a single individual has been publicly blamed.

The inquiry found that:

• Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets;

• Four members of one family, including a new-born baby girl, died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital;

•  Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying;

•  Wards were left filthy with blood, discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made whistleblowers too frightened to come forward.

Last night the General Medical Council announced it was investigating several doctors. The Nursing and Midwifery Council is investigating at least one nurse and is considering other cases.

Enlarge   Stafford Robert Francis QC outside the Moat House hotel near Stafford

Ministers suggested the report highlighted a dreadful ‘local’ scandal, but its overall conclusions are a blistering condemnation of Labour’s approach to the NHS.

It found that hospital were so preoccupied with saving money and pursuit of elite foundation trust status that they ‘lost sight of its fundamental responsibility to provide safe care’.

Health Secretary Andy Burnham accepted 18 recommendations from Mr Francis and immediately announced plans for a new inquiry, to be held in public, into how Department of Health and NHS regulators failed to spot the disaster.

But Julie Bailey, head of the campaign group Cure the NHS, condemned his response as ‘outrageous’ and backed Tory and Liberal Democrat demands for a full public inquiry into what went wrong.

Tory leader David Cameron said: ‘We need openness, clarity and transparency to stop this happening again.’ Gordon Brown described the scandal as a ‘completely unacceptable management failure’ and revealed that the cases of 300 patients are now under investigation.

He told MPs the Government was belatedly working on plans to ‘strike off’ hospital managers responsible for failures. The hospital could also lose its cherished foundation status.

Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said ‘These awful events show how badly Labour has let down NHS patients. It should never again be possible for managers to put a tick in a box marked “target met” while patients are pushed off to a ward and left to die.’

The Francis probe was launched following a Healthcare Commission report on Stafford Hospital in March last year. It found that deaths at the hospital were 27 to 45 per cent higher than normal, meaning some 400 to 1,200 people died unnecessarily between 2005 and 2008.

Enlarge   Stafford

Sonia Burnhill, of campaign group Cure the NHS, who lost her husband Peter whilst he was a patient at Stafford General Hospital

Two weeks before the report’s publication, the Trust’s chief executive Martin Yeates was suspended. He eventually resigned in May after being offered £400,000 and a £1million pension pot.

The Francis report said staff numbers were allowed to fall ‘dangerously low’, causing nurses to neglect the most basic care. It said: ‘Requests for assistance to use a bedpan or to get to and from the toilet were not responded to.

‘Some families were left to take soiled sheets home to wash or to change beds when this should have been undertaken by the hospital and its staff.’ Food and drink were left out of reach, forcing patients to drink water from flower vases.

While many staff did their best, Mr Francis said, others showed a disturbing lack of compassion to patients.

He added: ‘I heard so many stories of shocking care. These patients were not simply numbers. They were husbands, wives, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandparents. They were people who entered Stafford Hospital and rightly expected to be well cared for and treated.’

Family who lost four loved ones

Kelsey Lintern was at the centre of one of the worst tragedies in the hospital’s appalling catalogue of failure.

She lost four members of her family within 18 months, her grandmother, uncle, sister and six-day-old baby.

Mrs Lintern, 36, almost became the fifth victim when a nurse tried to give her pethidine while she was in labour, despite her medical notes and a wristband clearly stating she was allergic to the drug.

The horrific story began in January 2007 when her baby daughter Nyah had to be delivered by her own grandmother because a distracted midwife was not looking.

Laurie Gethin 37, was one of four members of the same family who died at the hospital within the space of 18 months

Laurie Gethin 37, was one of four members of the same family who died at the hospital within 18 months

The baby was not breathing but she was resuscitated, then discharged by a junior paediatrician just two days later, despite the family’s fears she was seriously ill.

She was not feeding properly and still appeared blue. She died four days later. A post-mortem examination revealed four holes in her heart. Mrs Lintern accepts that Nyah may have died in any case, but said the hospital should at least have ‘realised there was a problem’.

It was when she was in labour with Nyah that a nurse arrived with a syringe of potentially-fatal pethidine, oblivious to the fact Mrs Lintern was allergic to it.

In April 2007, Mrs Lintern’s sister, Laurie Gethin, 37, died of lung, bone and lymph cancer, which had taken 18 months to be diagnosed, even though she was displaying tell-tale symptoms.

Lillian Wood Latta, 80, died after hospital staff failed to give her enough fluids, her family claimLillian Wood Latta, 80, died after hospital staff failed to give her enough fluids, her family claims

Her body, with her eyes still open, was left on her blood-splattered bed in full view of other patients. Tests revealed that Mrs Gethin had ‘markers’ in her blood which can indicated cancer.

But it was only when she was sent for a scan at another hospital that tumours were discovered. Mrs Lintern’s uncle, Tom Warriner, 48, died in January 2008 after his intestine was accidentally pierced in an operation for bowel cancer.

A coroner ruled the death was accidental. That summer, her grandmother Lilian Wood Latta, 80, died hungry and dehydrated after suffering a stroke. She was left in her own excrement during her final days and the family said the dehydration was caused by staff failing to give her adequate fluids.

Mrs Wood Latta had been referred to the hospital by her GP after suffering a series of mini-strokes at home. She was moved between wards three times, and it was left to relatives to change her incontinence pads.

Her dying wish had been to see Mrs Lintern’s new baby Khalen, so, after checking with staff, Mrs Lintern took her daughter in. But as the frail pensioner held her great-grandchild, a nurse appeared and said: ‘What on earth is a baby doing here? You do know we’ve got MRSA and C-Diff on this ward?’

Mrs Lintern, who lives in Cannock, Staffordshire, with husband David and their two daughters, said: ‘It is called the caring profession. But where is the care?’

James Reay died in agony after a junior doctor at Stafford Hospital failed to check his medical history and gave him the wrong drug.

The 67-year-old former miner was admitted to A&E in May 2006 with a swollen leg. Medics administered the anticoagulant Heparin – but failed to take into account Mr Reay’s history of stomach ulcers, which are known to react badly to the drug.

Two days later he was rushed to another hospital where he died from internal bleeding after three weeks of intense pain. Yesterday his widow Olwen won a five-figure pay-off in an out-of-court settlement after Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust admitted liability.

Mrs Reay, 69, said: ‘I have won my case but to me it is blood money and I cannot enjoy it. I would rather have my husband.’

‘Failed boss with £1million pension pot’

StaffordStafford Hospital former chief executive Martin Yeates was suspended on full pay in March last year

With a background in the hotel and catering industry, Martin Yeates was brought in to help Mid Staffordshire achieve the holy grail of foundation trust status as a supposed beacon of quality in the NHS.

A profile on the Trust’s website, since removed, boasted that he had developed ‘a more businesslike approach for the organisation’ after his appointment in September 2005.

The Trust finally achieved foundation status two years later. Mr Yeates’s career in the NHS began when he switched from the hotel trade to manage the catering department at Walsgrave Hospital in Coventry in 1977.

It has now ended with a £1million pension pot, six months salary and a possible £400,000 pay-off for the father of two – despite the Trust’s catastrophic failings.

Mr Yeates, who lives with second wife Lynn in a converted barn in a hamlet outside Stafford, was not at home last night and a neighbour said he had not been seen since Christmas.

It is believed he has spent at least some time in Egypt since being suspended on full pay of £169,000 in March last year – two weeks before an investigation revealed the deaths of at least 400 more patients than would have been expected, and an ‘appalling’ catalogue of failings in care.

Yesterday’s inquiry report said Mr Yeates resigned with effect from June 14, and was paid six months full salary in lieu of notice.

In his report, Mr Francis said Mr Yeates had failed to resolve ‘governance and staffing issues’ at the Trust and that he and colleagues had ‘focused on systems’ instead.
Stafford

The probe was launched into events at Stafford Hospital after a damning report last March from the Healthcare Commission revealed a catalogue of failings

Of the other Trust bosses, former chairman Toni Brisby resigned in March last year after the NHS watchdog Monitor said it intended to remove her. She told the Francis report she received no termination payment of any kind. Jan Harry, the trust’s director of nursing from 1998 to 2006, oversaw disastrous changes to the organisation of wards.

But she told the inquiry she could not recall a decision to axe 52 nursing posts and was ‘not aware’ of plans to drastically alter the ratio of trained to untrained staff. She also said it was not her job to monitor ward standards – a claim later described as ‘absurd’ by Dr Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing.

Helen Morrey, former director of operations at the trust, admitted that risk assessments about the impact of job cuts were inadequate and accepted responsibility for a failure to thoroughly investigate complaints by patients. She was put on paid leave last July, before leaving the trust in November.

Milton Friedman prophetically Described (BAD) Move Toward Government Health Care In 1978

September 29, 2009

Legendary economist Milton Friedman explained why he believed there would be a move toward government health care – and why it would be a really bad idea.

Some things change.  Some things stay the same.  And some things “change” greatly for the worse.

Tax Increases on ‘Rich’ People Planned by Democrats Would Hit Over A Million Small Businesses

July 17, 2009

Let’s file this under the category, “Yet another stupid Democrat idea”: Let’s finance a socialized medicine plan that Americans don’t want by taxing the owners of small business who create the few jobs we’ve got left.

Tax Increase on ‘Rich’ People Planned by House Democrats Would Strike More Than a Million U.S. Small Businesses
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
By Christopher Neefus

(CNSNews.com) – More than a million small business owners and about two-thirds of the profits earned by U.S. small businesses would be hit by the income tax increase on the “rich” that House Democratic leaders want to enact to pay for the health-care reform plan President Obama wants passed this summer, a taxpayer watchdog say s.

Ryan Ellis, director of tax policy for Americans for Tax Reform, told CNSNews.com he calculated that 1.09 million of 21.5 million small business owners would see a one- to three-percent surtax on their profits in order to fund the House of Representatives’ trillion-dollar health care reform bill.

While only about five percent of small business owners would be exposed to the extra charge, Ellis says two in every three dollars of profit made by small businesses would be subject to it.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, announced late Friday that Democrats want to enact  this tax increase.

The plan reportedly would include a one percent increase in the income tax rate paid by individuals earning $280,000 or more and by households earning at least $350,000. Steeper rate increases of up to three percent would be imposed on those earning $500,000 and $1 million or more. The committee hopes these income-tax rate increases will raise about $540 billion for the federal government over a decade.

Small business owners would be subject to the income-tax rate increases because many of them report the profits of their small businesses on individual tax returns. As a result, the roughly five percent who make more than $200,000 a year would be hit with the extra tax.

Ellis said the Obama administration’s claims that only a few small businesses will be affected misses the point. “(T)hat’s what the Obama guys will always tell you. It’s a small, single-digit percentage of small businesses that would be affected by this, and that’s absolutely true. It’s probably somewhere between five and 10 percent … of all small businesses.

“But if you actually look at the small business profits being reported, two-thirds of all small business profits are reported in these households.”

Indeed, IRS figures from 2006, the most recent year reported, show that $479 billion of the $707 billion in small business profits was reported by households in the top two percent of earners, those earning more than $200,000.

Republicans went on the offensive after Rangel’s Friday announcement. A spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said, “In the middle of a serious recession, with unemployment nearing double digits nationwide, the last thing we need is a tax increase on small businesses, which will cost the American economy even more jobs.”

Blue Dog Democrats in the House also voiced some concern. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) told CQ Today, “I have a concern with going outside the health care system” when discussing funding options.

“I feel like the House has moved this issue so far to the left we’ve taken ourselves out of the discussion entirely.”

But Ways and Means Committee member Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) told The Washington Post that “if (the bill) works right,” the high earners who pay extra taxes will also see lowered health insurance premiums.

Ellis, however, is skeptical. “If you’re a very successful company and you’re making more than a million dollars a year,” he said, then at “a three percentage point surtax, you basically have to assume that their healthcare costs will go down by 3 percent of their profits in order to even themselves out.”

“That’s just not reasonable to expect,” he told CNSNews.com. “(T)here’s not one example of where the government is going to go in and take over something and start spending money on something and then it saves money.”

Rea Hederman, assistant director of the Center for Data Analysis at the conservative Heritage Foundation, also said small business owners will not see their money back unless they force their employees to take the proposed public health care option.

“The only way they would see reductions in health care,” he said, “is if small businesses just say we’re not going to offer health care to our employees all together, and I don’t think that’s a direction that people want to go,” Hederman said.

While the surtax for small businesses may top out at three percent, Hederman said, “in percentage terms, the tax burden is jumping somewhere between four and a half to five percent, and this is going to be combined with the expiration of some of President Bush’s tax cuts.”

The health care surtax would come in addition to the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010, which will move the federal top rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

In a statement, Thomas Hodge, president of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, said total top rates, including federal taxes, could push past the 50 percent mark in some states.

“Combining top federal and state rates, and factoring in all deductions, the government would be taking over half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers in two-thirds of the states under this latest funding scheme.”

According to Hederman, “Unfortunately, right now, businesses are going to have trouble pricing in (these) cost increases.

“(So) businesses will continue to try to wring out as much efficiency as they can in the labor force, and that means cutting back hours and cutting back jobs,” he said.

A May 2009 survey performed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, small business owners identified high taxes as the second biggest problem facing them, trailing only poor sales.

The tax increase, if enacted, would take effect in 2011.

People see the “small number” of small businesses affected by the tax and think it’s no big deal.  But think about it: there’s the difference between small businesses that are truly small and small business that are big enough to actually hire people.

When I was a kid I had a paper route.  I didn’t work directly for the newspaper; rather, I was listed as “an independent contractor.”

I had a small business.  And like the overwhelming majority of small businesses, I didn’t make a ton of money, and I certainly didn’t hire anybody.

The small businesses that are going to be the most impacted – and the most negatively impacted at that – are the ones that hire people.  And given that these small businesses are going to experience the double whammy of having to pay for Obama’s imposed health care burden even as their profits are taxed to pay for everyone else’s health care, there are going to be a lot of job losses, as surely as 1 + 1 = 2.  Only a fool, or a Democrat, would 1) raise a business’ cost while 2) reducing its profits and NOT expect that business to cut back.

The Democrats’ plan imposes an additional 8% payroll tax on businesses unless they meet the Democrats’ health care requirements.

Another (related) factor that needs to be contemplated emerges from thinking about the concern of the blue dog Democrats regarding going outside the health care system to fund the Obama health care system.  If the darn Democrat health care plan is REALLY something that will save money for the health care system, then why do you have to go outside the system to pay for it?  Why impose so much in additional taxes for something that is supposed to cost LESS? The fact of the matter is that this thing is going to cost TRILLIONS.  It will be like Medicare, with its $61.6 trillion unfunded liabilities, and which is expected to go completely bankrupt by 2015.

And a frightening corollary to that is exactly why people like me keep calling Obama’s health care grab “socialized medicine” to begin with.  Because the plan will necessarily push people into the government plan in FAR greater numbers than Democrats claim will go in.  Small business who employ most American workers, squeezed by the double whammy, will have absolutely no choice but to push their workers into the government plan.

Democrats naively argue that a government plan would not be intended to replace private health care plans, but would only reduce costs by “competition.”  They just don’t have enough functioning brain cells to understand that a government system – which does NOT have to depend upon profitability the way private systems do, and which can draw its funding by forcing even its competition to pay for it through taxation – doesn’t “compete.”  It devours.  The way Republican Rep. Mike Pence put it:

But what I heard yesterday at my town hall meeting was profound skepticism about the introduction of a government option to compete with private health insurance companies within this economy. I think most Americans know that the government competes with the private sector the way an alligator competes with a duck. It consumes it.

That, and of course, the fact that every conspiracy theory about government health care is about to come true: Democrats are openly claiming that they are going to use Obama’s health care plan as a backdoor to socialized medicine.

Bottom line: we’re going to tax our producers into non-producers in order to create a socialized medicine boondoggle that is going to be a disaster.

It is long past time we stopped listening to liberals’ Marxist class warfare messages.  The rich aren’t the bourgeoisie, and the rest of us aren’t the proletariat.  Rather than welcoming the government seizing the rich’s wealth to create one social program after another, we seriously need to start demanding that government finally get the hell out of the way and let all the people have the freedom to invest and spend as we see fit.  For it is liberty and freedom, rather than tyranny and big-government control, that made this country great.  And only returning to the fundamental principles of liberty and freedom are going to be able to get us out of the massive crisis that too much government has forced us into.

Swine Flu Pandemic And Why We DON’T Want Socialized Medicine

May 1, 2009

Let’s see. Obama unveils his socialized medicine plan just as the swine flu hits the headlines. The Teleprompter of the United States of America told Americans that the swine flu proved that $12.8 trillion of government spending isn’t enough. You’d almost think there was a hand on a switch somewhere.

The left – being the ideological partisan demagogues they are – immediately engaged in a “YES WE CAN . . . . blame the Republicans” campaign.

If they didn’t demonize, they wouldn’t be Democrats. And when I talk about “the Dems,” you know I’m referring to “the Demagogues.”

As a matter of practical reality, the administration may be right in not wanting to take the economy-harming step of closing the border with one of our top trading partners (although there are LEVELS of closing the border – and we NEED to do a MUCH better job of protecting our borders). But their argument for not closing the border is absolutely pathetic. They claim that since the flu is now here, closing the border would be tantamount to closing the barn after the horse has left. The problem with the logic of their argument is that there are clearly way too many infected horses in Mexico who are infecting still healthy American horses.

Mexico is a country of over one hundred million people – and it is a country in crisis. The first “American” causality of swine flu was a Mexican child who died in an American hospital. And infected Mexicans are continuing to flow across the border and infect Americans.

The difference in how the swine flue has hit Mexico versus the United States raises a very simple question:

Swine flu worse in Mexico than US, but why?
By MIKE STOBBE
AP Medical Writer

ATLANTA — Why has the swine flu engulfing Mexico been deadly there, but not in the United States?

Nearly all those who died in Mexico were between 20 and 40 years old, and they died of severe pneumonia from a flu-like illness believed caused by a unique swine flu virus.

The 11 U.S. victims cover a wider age range, as young as 9 to over 50. All those people either recovered or are recovering; at least two were hospitalized.

“So far we have been quite fortunate,” said Dr. Anne Schuchat of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Saturday, just hours before three new U.S. cases were confirmed.

Health experts worry about a flu that kills healthy young adults — a hallmark of the worst global flu epidemics. Deaths from most ordinary flu outbreaks occur among the very young and very old.

Why the two countries are experiencing the illness differently is puzzling public health experts, who say they frankly just don’t know.

Conservatives know.

But . . . but . . . Mexico has socialized medicine!

By JAMES TARANTO APRIL 27, 2009

This is a Bicentennial Minute. Eleven Americans, ranging in age from 9 to 50, have come down with swine flu, the Associated Press reports: “All those people either recovered or are recovering; at least two were hospitalized.”

In Mexico, however, the toll has been much worse. “About 70 deaths out of roughly 1,000 cases represents a fatality rate of about 7 percent,” the AP notes. This is far higher than the 2.5% fatality rate from the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-19, although the latter was many orders of magnitude more widespread, killing 40 million people world-wide.

“The Mexican rate sounds terrifying,” the AP writes. “But it’s possible that far more than 1,000 people have been infected with the virus and that many had few if any symptoms.” Which is somewhat, though not entirely, reassuring.

The AP dispatch is titled “Swine Flu Worse in Mexico Than US, but Why?” There’s no definitive answer, but here’s one of the possibilities:

Access to medical care has been an issue in Asia, where a rare bird flu–which does not spread easily from person-to-person–has killed more than 200 over the last several years. Maybe Mexican patients have also had trouble getting medical care or antiviral drugs, some have speculated–even though the government provides health care.

Wouldn’t this paragraph make more sense if it ended “. . . BECAUSE the government provides health care”?

You see, we have a successful health care system because we haven’t allowed the government to ruin it yet.

When Obama DOES ruin it by having the government take it over, we’ll be rationing our medical resources, too.

Obama inserted medical rationing into his porkulus package.

It was always such a no-brainer (so you’d think even our no-brain-no-pain liberals would understand): socialized medicine invariably leads to the rationing of health care resources. There were hard facts supporting this over a decade ago.

While Obama is saying, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” on socialized medicine, the very countries we are wanting to be like such as Canada have been saying, “This utopia isn’t working out so well.”

Do you recall the very recent death of actress Natasha Richardson on a Canadian ski resort? She very likely died as a result of socialized medicine, medical rationing, and poor diagnoses as a result of “the very finest care the government can provide.”

As long as there is private competition, you can always take your business elsewhere. That has always – up until Barack Obama and his fondness for nationalizing – led to be tendency of the free market to provide the best services at the lowest prices.

California – yes, liberal, Kool-Aid-drinking California – recently rejected socialized health care.

Allow me to quote myself as to Obama’s plan:

One thing is extremely important to understand: Obama’s health care plan is modeled on the Massachusetts plan. How are things going there? Well, in the three years of the program’s existence, the tiny state is now already facing cost overruns of over $400 million. Does that sound like a rousing success? Massachusetts is facing a projected 85% increase in its costs by 2009 – which should set up a serious red flag that such programs are MASSIVELY underfunded.

And Obama would take those massive cost overruns and multiply them like Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes.

Government run health care is based on a fool’s premise: that the government can save money by employing the economies of scale. The simple fact of the matter is that government bureaucracies, government boondoggles, government hyper-regulation, government susceptibility to massive systemic fraud, and government mismanagement will always kill the golden goose of scale. One hundred percent of the time.

Which was why the Senate couldn’t even run a damn cafeteria without going millions of dollars into the red.

The promise is that they will be able to cover millions more people for the same or less money by efficiency. But government is inherently inefficient. Which means they not only don’t SAVE money, they LOSE money. And then they’ve now got millions more people to cover.

Hence rationing. Hence more people die.

Demonization And Other Examples Of Liberal Hypocrisy

April 29, 2009

I recall a bit from a Seinfeld episode that involved a bedroom technique known only as “the move.” It was apparently a very potent and successful “move,” indeed:

Elaine: I was with David *Putty* last night.

Jerry: Yeah, so.

Elaine: He did the move.

Jerry: What move?

Elaine: You know…*the* move.

Jerry: Wait a second. *My* move?

[Elaine nods].

Jerry: David Putty used *my* move?

Elaine: Yes, yes.

Jerry: Are you sure?

Elaine: Jerry! There is no confusing *that* move with any other move.

Jerry: I can’t believe it. He *stole* my move.

Elaine: What else did you tell [reaches over to slap Jerry] him. [does it

again] The two of you must have had *quite* a little chat!

Jerry: Oh, it wasn’t like that! I didn’t even mention you. You know, we

were in the garage. You know how garages are. They’re conducive to sex

talk. It’s a high-testosterone area.

Elaine: Because of all the pistons and the lube jobs?

Jerry: Well, I’m going down to that garage and telling him to stop doing it.

Elaine: Well, wait—wait a second.

Jerry: What?

Elaine: Isn’t that a little…rash?

Jerry: No! He stole my move!

Elaine: Yeah, but…*I* like the move.

Jerry: Yeah, but it’s like another comedian stealing my material.

Elaine: Well, he doesn’t even do it exactly the same. He–he–he uses a

pinch at the end instead of the *swirl*!

Jerry: Oh, yeah. The pinch. *I’ve* done the pinch. That’s not new.

Well, with that that long bit of introduction, the Democrats have their very own “move,” – an extremely potent and successful “move” – and they are clearly angry that Republicans are beginning to steal their move.

The Democrat’s “move” – by the way – is demonization.  It’s their move, they’ve used it to great effect for the last twenty years or so, and they don’t want their rivals using it.

Here’s a little story to illustrate the Democrat’s and their “move”:

It Takes One to Know One
“Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon, one of the most prominent Catholic conservative intellectuals in the United States, announced yesterday that she would refuse a prestigious award from the University of Notre Dame rather than appear on the same platform on which President Obama is being awarded an honorary degree,” the Boston Globe reports.

The Globe notes that not all Catholics are unhappy with Notre Dame’s plan to give the president an honorary degree:

“There are some well-meaning people who think Notre Dame has given away its Catholic identity, because they have been caught up in the gamesmanship of American higher education, bringing in a star commencement speaker even if that means sacrificing their values, and that accounts for some of this,” said the Rev. Kenneth Himes, chairman of theology department at Boston College. “But one also has to say that there is a political game going on here, and part of that is that you demonize the people who disagree with you, you question their integrity, you challenge their character, and you brand these people as moral poison. Some people have simply reduced Catholicism to the abortion issue, and, consequently, they have simply launched a crusade to bar anything from Catholic institutions that smacks of any sort of open conversation.”

Now read this 2006 Associated Press dispatch:

Nearly 100 faculty members at Boston College have signed a letter objecting to the college’s decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree.

The letter entitled “Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree,” was written by the Rev. Kenneth Himes. . . .

“On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice’s approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College’s commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university’s work,” the letter said.

Himes, it seems, is an expert on demonization.

Kenneth Himes lectures us: How DARE you do what I did to you!  There must be something morally WRONG with you!!!  Demonization is “OUR” move, and you can’t steal it!

Well, as Obama folk like to say, “YES, WE CAN!”

Being a liberal means being a hypocrite.  Hypocrisy defines liberals; their shriveled little souls swim in it.  And part of being a total hypocrite means having the pathological ability to be perfectly at home with their own massive contradictions.

For instance, liberals are “tolerant,” which means they lash out and demonize anyone who doesn’t think exactly like them – in the name of “tolerance.”

A few other examples of liberal hypocrisy:

Liberals support high taxes on the rich.  As long as it is understood that they have no expectation to pay such taxes themselves.  Ask pretty much anyone on Barack Obama’s cabinet.  Liberals like “Turbo Tax” Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Ron Kirk, Hilda Solis, Nancy Kelleher, and Kathleen Sebelius.  And that doesn’t include Congressional Democrats such as Charles Rangel – who is writing YOUR tax laws even as he cheats on HIS taxes.  And don’t forget the mantra from Rangel’s former fellow member of the House Ways and Means Committee William Jefferson: “FBI sting money hidden in freezers is NOT taxable.”

Liberals claim that it is the rich’s “patriotic duty” to pay a shockingly high percentage of total income taxes while simultaneously pandering to the clearly unpatriotic – by their own standard – 42% of Americans who pay NO federal income taxes at all.

Liberals claim that they are generous and conservatives are stingy; yet the facts demand the exact OPPOSITE conclusion.  The fact of the matter is that conservatives are FAR more “liberal” givers than liberalsConservatives give 30% more than liberals even though liberals earn slightly more.  And religious conservatives give THREE AND A HALF TIMES more of their income to charities than secular liberals.  If you’d like some particular cases, consider the loathsome lack of personal generosity displayed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden relative to the extremely generous conservatives like Dick Cheney, George Bush, and John McCain.

Liberals love racial diversity – as long as they can continue demonizing black conservatives such as Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, and Condoleezza Rice as “Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimahs” or “race traitors.”  Janeane Garafalo is completely free to be a hard-core racist, just as long as the minorities she viciously attacks are conservatives.  Newsweek Magazine –  in wholehearted agreement with Garafalo – literally argued that whites who don’t vote for Obama are racist.

In the same vein, liberals are pro-woman – just as long as “women” are defined as “liberal feminist”; otherwise, they hand out the Sarah Palin treatment (e.g., “Palin: Bad Mother, Bad Woman”).  Ultimately, of course, Sarah Palin is a “bad mother” for allowing her baby born with Down Syndrome to live.

Liberals stand for the helpless and oppressed victim: as long as that helpless and oppressed victim isn’t a baby having his brains sucked out.  Meanwhile liberals attack conservatives as not caring about the poor, even though – as has already been pointed out – conservatives are in fact FAR more generous than liberals (example 1, example 2).

Liberals continually decry the “rightwing smear machine” even as they have hard-core hate sites such as Moveon.org, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos – which DWARF anything even remotely compatible on the right.   The primary funding comes from documented Nazi collaborator George Soros, an American-sovereignty-undermining trans-nationalist who has made his billions undermining currencies all over the world – including America’s.  And his friends have been just as bad.  And Soros and friends such as Peter Lewis, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler have used their massive fortunes to ensure that NOBODY smears like the left: think “General Betray Us.”

Liberals “interpret” the Constitution to find “penumbras and emanations” that they allege mandate a constitutional and sacred right to abortion on demand, but twist and contort the English language until the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give the people the right to bear arms.

Liberals demand socialized medicine.  Michael Moore made a ton of money demonizing America’s privatized system and claiming that Cuba’s socialized medicine was better; yet when that fat SOB needed heart surgery, he elected to go to Cleveland rather than Cuba.  Even more glaring, Belinda Stronach of the Canadian Parliament opposed even allowing private medicine in Canada; but when she was diagnosed with breast cancer she came to the United States to obtain the very thing she denied her fellow citizens from having.

As to the death penalty for convicted murderers, liberals argue that inserting a hypodermic needle into the vein of a death row inmate constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, yet insist that sucking the  brains out of a viable baby whose head is sticking out of a birth canal is compassionate.

They also say that a 13 year old girl should be able to have an abortion without her parents’ consent, then tell parents that they face jail if they don’t ensure that that same 13 year old girl doesn’t miss school (with attendance being the barometer for public school funding).

Liberals demand that they be able to teach issues such as homosexuality in the guise of open-mindedness and diversity, but come absolutely unglued if any school board so much as suggest that evolution is only a theory rather than a law, let alone present any alternative to evolution whatsoever.

On the subject of evolution as it relates to morality, liberals denounce any dependence on the natural law (grounded in a transcendent Creator God) as the only basis for objective morality, and then impose one utterly subjective moral norm after another.  In so doing, they literally subjective natural law and objectivize their own highly subjective moral preferences.

Liberals demand that all children go to government schools and fight any effort to provide vouchers to parents, and then send their own children to private schools.  For all of liberals’ indignant outrage concerning “the children,” the fact is that the teachers’ unions are far more important than the education of children.   Barack Obama ensured that children like Marquis Greene couldn’t go to his daughters’ Sidwell Friends School.

Liberals take private jets to denounce people for being polluters.

Liberals claim that whether the Antarctic ice sheet grows or whether it shrinks, it still proves global warming.

Liberals lampooned President Bush for his verbal gaffes, and yet idolize the “sublime speaking ability” of a man who can’t so much as say, “Good morning” without reading from a teleprompter screen.  Barack Obama has already used his teleprompter FAR more in just his first 100 days than George Bush did in his entire 8 year term.

Liberals repeatedly (falsely) claimed that Jefferson said “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” when conservatives attacked their lack of patriotism.  They were terribly upset with any insinuation that they might be unpatriotic – because when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed defeat in Iraq (QUOTE: “I believe that this war is lost” UNQUOTE) even as our troops were in the field fighting to prevail, he was surrendering as a “patriot.”  And when John Murtha proclaimed Marines who turned out to be innocent of murderous war crimes in Haditha, his demonization of our Marines was “patriotic.” Now, of course, Democrats are all over themselves labeling Republican opposition to their socialist agenda as “unpatriotic.”

As for liberals’ view on patriotism, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words – when that picture is a cartoon drawn by Ted Rall:

ted-rall-hate-military-cartoon

Let’s see: racial hatred directed at white males.  Check.  Cynicism of the patriotism that would make a young man fight for his country.  Check.  Mockery of religion.  Check.  Contempt for America as a country of suicide bombers.  Check.

Or another liberal cartoon.  America as viewed through the warped lenses of the liberal New York Times: the Statue of Liberty swinging a whip at the poor, tired, huddled masses.

statue-of-liberty_whip_ny-times

As liberals now demand that conservatives stop using “their move,” realize that they will NEVER stop using it themselves.  It is simply who they are.  So we might as well sick their own dog on them – and let us make sure that dog is foaming at the mouth when it bites them back.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers