Why Can't They Stop? Bill Clinton Calls Opponents of Democratic Healthcare Reform: "Teabaggers"

Why can’t liberals and Democrats stop talking like teenage boys? It is beyond juvenile. It's definitely unpresidential. First, Obama referred to conservatives using juvenile terminology. Apparently, Bill Clinton couldn’t resist, either:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Clinton described the ongoing tea party protests against the Democratic agenda as a sign their party was making progress.

Whitehouse quoted Clinton arguing: "The reason the tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning."

Bill, given your history, don’t you think you’re the last person that should be using sexual metaphors?

Let’s get to his overall point:

"The point I want to make is: Just pass the bill, even if it's not exactly what you want," Clinton told Democrats. "When you try and fail, the other guys write history."

He expounds on this point later in the interview:

Clinton’s overall message was one the Obama administration has tried to make: not passing a bill is worse than passing one that’s not perfect. "So it’s not important to be perfect here, it’s important to act, to move, to start the ball rolling, to claim the evident advantages that all these plans agree with, and whatever they can get the votes for, I’m gonna support,” Clinton said he told the senators. “I think it is good politics to pass this and to pass this as soon as they can. But I think the most important thing is it is the right thing for America. The worst thing to do is nothing.”

Everyone can agree that something has to be done, but I disagree that "nothing" is the worst that can be done. They can pass this bill and make things worse. It'll raise the national debt even higher, lowering the quality of health care by running driving out the competition, not adequately addressing tort reform, etc.

I agree that we must act, move, and start the ball rolling, and do what is the right thing for America, but we can't do something just for sake of doing something. Does the plan have to be perfect? No, but it can't be rushed into without giving all sides adequate consideration. The Democratic leadership hasn't done that, not even from within their own party.

Canada: Private Health Care Is Making a Comeback As People Flee Canadians' "Public Option"

President Obama and Democrats are inching towards a single-payer healthcare system much like the one in Canada. However, many of the Canadians currently under the system seem to be looking for a way out:

Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system.

Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.

"Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.

Long lines and wait times have long since been a failing of the Canadian system. Any wait time for medical treatment would be an enourmous frustration for anyone sick, dying, and in great pain. That is exactly what would happen if such a system was put in place in this country.

Sen Baucus (D): Taxing Health Benefits Might Wait Until After Obama is Elected in 2012

The Democratic senator from Montana suggested that enacting new taxes on health benefits could wait until 2013:

Legislation to be outlined next week in the Senate Finance Committee will likely include a new tax on workers with the costliest employer-provided health coverage, officials said Friday, but with implementation delayed until 2013 to minimize any political fallout.

The date is an obvious attempt to keep it out of the minds of voters until they get the Savior-in-Chief locked in the White House until 2017. This shows me that they know that people don't want this and will voice their displeasure at the polls come election.

Officials familiar with internal deliberations said the leading option under consideration by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, would mean higher taxes for workers whose family coverage costs $15,000 a year or more in premiums paid by employer and employee combined.

The provision could generate hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade to help pay the $1 trillion or more the Obama administration has estimated is necessary under its plan to extend health care to millions of Americans who lack it. Cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending are expected to make up much of the rest.

Overall, what does this mean? It could mean that Obamacare isn't going to happen without further borrowing more money from China to pay for it. If that is the case, it could effectively put Obamacare on ice for a few years.

The question that plagues my mind about this is this: if they know that people don't want this, why are they so persistant in their push to cram it down our thoats? Don't they know that think that most Americans resent the government telling them what to do and abhor nanny states?

Green Bay: Around 1,000 Protestors Greet Obama, Protest His Healthcare Plan

An estimated 1,000 people came out to a Green Bay high school where Obama was stumping for his healthcare plan to express their opinion his plan:

Organizers said about 1,000 people lined the east side of Packerland Drive Thursday morning to protest President Obama's stop in Green Bay. Stretching four blocks long, the protest parked itself along the motorcade route between Austin Straubel Airport and Green Bay Southwest High School.

Most of the protestors were part of a grassroots movement that calls itself "The Party of Know." Jerry Bader, a conservative talk show host on WTAG 1360, helped organize the rally. Most protestors said their purpose Thursday was to let President Obama know just exactly how they feel about a government backed health care system.

Here's a quote from one of the protesters that sums up conservatives' argument against universal healthcare:

"It doesn't work," Dawn Papapetru said. Papapetru said she feels an obligation to speak out. She now lives in Green Bay but was born and raised in Canada, a country that provides universal health care for its citizens.

"I know what the free health system is all about. It's wrong. Taxes will go up, gas will go up and the lines get longer in hospitals," Papapetru said.

Imagine the lines in the hospital, if every hypochondriac could go to the hospital for every little thing without having to worry having to pay for every single visit.

Also, as one of the protesters sign points out: "'Free' healthcare isn't free. Everyone pays." And pay we will through all kinds of new and increased taxes, like S-CHIP, fat tax, and etc.

Hide Your Wallets: Democrats Want $600 B Tax Increases to Pay For $1 T Obamacare Plan

Democrats are once again looking to raise everyone's taxes in order to pay for their spending spree:

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

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

Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion over a decade, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.”

One trillion dollars is too much for us to spend on anything right now. Obama is breaking spending and deficit records left and right. Oh, and here.

Democrats have come out with many ways to raise taxes (not just on the top 5% either), but they have repeatedly put the tax cut for 95% of Americans on the back burner.

Democrats Consider Fining Americans Who Refuse Buying Health Insurance While Taxing Health Benefits

House Democrats seem determined to taking our money away from us one way or another:

Officials say top Democrats in the House are circulating health care proposals that would require individuals to purchase insurance if they can afford it and slap an unspecified financial penalty on those who refuse.

The Democrats want to tell us what to do with our money, and if we do not comply with their demands they will fine us until we do. That is called extortion. Tony Soprano would be proud of what the Democrats are proposing.

Purchasing insurance is always a good idea for anyone. However, it is not the government's place to force us to do what is best.

Not only do they want to force us to buy insurance, but they also want to tax the health benefits that they are forcing us to purchase:

These officials — both Democrats and others briefed — also say top lawmakers in the House are considering imposing a new tax on certain health insurance benefits as one of numerous options to help pay for expanding coverage to the uninsured. No details are available, and these officials stressed that no final decisions have been made.

This a huge extortion racket. The government might force Americans to buy insurance and, then, turn around and tax those benefits to pay for insurance for those who don't make enough for the government to tax into submission.

If this passes, it would be a huge intrusion into our lives and invasion of our individual rights.

May 30: Seattle Tea Party Leader Heads Funeral for Health Care Protesting Obama's Health Care Plan

From one of the founders of the Tea Party Revolution, Liberty Belle aka Keli Carender, comes the Funeral for Health Care:

Do you get a sinking feeling (or rising nausea, or both) when you read about some giant, collectivist march or rally that just happened in your city, and you did nothing to show your opposition? Do you wish that you could go back in time and at least show up so that your point of view is represented and the other side does not speak for you? Do you hope that someday people will stand up and show the world the immorality of stealing from one person to give to another under the guise of "the greater good," which basically amounts to buying votes?

WELL HERE'S YOUR CHANCE!!!The unions, socialist and communist groups, and special interests are getting together to have a nationwide rally to support Obama's vision* of single payer health care on May 30th. Unlike all the years prior to this date, we are finally organized enough to make a stand against them! This is why we gathered email addresses at the Tea Parties! So please join us, on May 30th, 2009, to stand against socialized medicine, and attend the Funeral for Health Care.

Back in 1994, Hillarycare was defeated largely because of rallies like the one in Seattle that started the backlash that defeated healthcare under Clinton. I agree with Michelle that I hope that this will lead to universal healthcare being defeated one more time.

Captain Obvious Declare Costs Are Biggest Problem For Obama's Healthcare Plan

The AP states that Obama's ambitious plan to insure everyone has hit a slight snag:

Costs are emerging as the biggest obstacle to President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to provide health insurance for everybody.

The upfront tab could reach $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years, while expected savings from wringing waste and inefficiency from the health care system may take longer to show.

Isn't this what we've been saying for months even during the campaign? Has the light bulb finally clicked on over the AP's headquarters?
When will liberals learn that the fantasy land that they live in never works when it meets reality?

Sure, universal healthcare sounds great until it's actually implemented. Just ask the Canadians.

The cost will be more than our government and economy can take. We need to find ways to lower health costs that will in turn lower insurance.

The first thing that they should do is limit frivolous lawsuits as much as they can, but trial lawyers are a big constituency of the Democrats. So, I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

Two senators have apparently seen the writing on the wall and are getting wary of the added financial burden of a universal healthcare plan:

"You go to a town meeting and people are talking about bailout fatigue," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. "They like the president. They think he's a straight shooter. But they are concerned about the amount of money that is heading out the door, and the debts their kids are going to have to absorb."

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said cost control has to come ahead of getting more people covered. "Unless we halt skyrocketing health care costs, any attempt to expand coverage will be financially unsustainable," he said.

Will Pelosi, Reid, and Obama be able to see the same writing and put a freeze their massive spending spree?

The AP had another interesting little nugget in the article:

The U.S. spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care, more than any other advanced country. Experts estimate that at least one-third of that spending goes for services that provide little or no benefit to patients. So theoretically, there's enough money in the system to cover everybody, including an estimated 50 million uninsured.

But one person's wasteful spending is someone else's bread and butter.

So, why is Obama and Co. wanting to spend more money? Maybe if they take out what doesn't work, they'll have enough to try to do some of what he proposes.

Unfortunately, I think those whose "bread and butter" is those wasteful programs have lobbyists in the goverments ears convincing them not to cut them out.

Isn't that what Obama promised to do, though? He promised to use a scalpel on government programs and take out what is useless and wasteful. Maybe he should focus on that instead of thinking of raising taxes especially in this bad economy.

Arlen Specter (D-PA) Exploits Jack Kemp's Death For Personal Political Gain

If only, we had socialized medicine. There would be no more pain. No one would ever die. At least, that is what Sen. Specter (D-PA) implied this past Sunday:

Jack Kemp would still be alive if the federal government had done a better job funding cancer research, Sen. Arlen Specter said Sunday, one day after Kemp, the 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee and former congressman, died of cancer.

The Pennsylvania senator, who last week switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, made the claim on two Sunday shows.

Not only did Arlen make this claim once, but he turned around and said it again the same day. Sorry, Harry Reid, there are no takebacks.

"Frankly, I was disappointed that the Republican Party didn't want me as their candidate. But as a matter of principle, I'm becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats' approach," Specter said. "And one of the items that I'm working on ... is funding for medical research. I've been the spear carrier to increase medical research."

Specter added: "If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."

It is despicable to think that anyone would exploit Jack Kemp's death for personal political gain.

His claims are totally unfounded. This country has spent more on cancer research than any other country in the world.

Democrats Determined to Shove Obama's Health Care Plan Down Our Throats, Whether We Like It or Not

Democrats are not going to take "no" for an answer. They are tenacious in their devotion to taking over healthcare for millions of Americans.

By a 227-196 vote, the House affirmed Democrats' plans to move health care legislation under rules that block Republicans in the Senate from being able to slow progress of the legislation -- or even stop it, through a filibuster.

The vote came as senior House and Senate Democrats negotiated the issue in private talks on the 2010 budget. Republicans are passionately against the idea of putting health care on a "fast track," saying it is too important and too complicated to be rushed through Congress under rules permitting just 20 hours of Senate debate.

What is the rush to change healthcare in this country dramatically? They rushed the porkulus and TARP through with little debate. The porkulus bill was 1434 pages. We all know how well that worked out.

As a practical matter, passing health care measures under fast-track procedures would give Democrats far more control over the details of the legislation. It would reduce the influence of not only Republicans but also conservative Senate Democrats.

The ability to "fast track" legislation was meant for bills that were imperative to the immediate survival of our country. It wasn't for a extremely complex bill that would dramatically change the country.

They need to allow as much debate as possible. If they do not, they will not have all the facts and will likely pass a severely flawed bill.

S-CHIP Tobacco Tax Hike Takes Effect Wednesday, Affects Many Low-Income, Middle Class People

Smoke break gets more expensive with tax boost
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press Writer
Mar 29, 2:16 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- However they satisfy their nicotine cravings, tobacco users are facing a big hit as the single largest federal tobacco tax increase ever takes effect Wednesday. Tobacco companies and public health advocates, longtime foes in the nicotine battles, are trying to turn the situation to their advantage. The major cigarette makers raised prices a couple of weeks ago, partly to offset any drop in profits once the per-pack tax climbs from 39 cents to $1.01.

Medical groups see a tax increase right in the middle of a recession as a great incentive to help persuade smokers to quit.
Tobacco taxes are soaring to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. President Barack Obama signed that health initiative soon after taking office.

Other tobacco products, from cigars to pipes and smokeless, will see similarly large tax increases, too. For example, the tax on chewing tobacco will go up from 19.5 cents per pound to 50 cents. The total expected to be raised over the 4 1/2 year-long health insurance expansion is nearly $33 billion.

Smokers are mulling their options.

Standing outside an office building in downtown Washington last week, 29-year-old Sam Sarkhosh puffed on a Marlboro Light. His 8-year-old daughter has been pleading with him to quit, he explained, and he has set a goal to give up smoking by his 30th birthday.

"I'm trying to quit smoking, and it could help," said Sarkhosh, an information systems specialist. "I don't think it will stop me from buying cigarettes every now and then, but definitely not as often." A friend who smokes Camels went out and bought four cartons in advance, he said.

The tax increase is only the first move in a recharged anti-smoking campaign. Congress also is considering legislation to empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. That could lead to reformulated cigarettes. Obama, who has agonized over his own cigarette habit, said he would sign such a bill.

Prospects for reducing the harm from smoking are better than they have been in years, said Dr. Timothy Gardner, president of the American Heart Association. The tax increase "is a terrific public health move by the federal government," he said. "Every time that the tax on tobacco goes up, the use of cigarettes goes down."

About one in five adults in the United States smokes cigarettes. That's a gradually dwindling share, though it isn't shrinking fast enough for public health advocates.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says cigarette smoking results in an estimated 443,000 premature deaths each year, and costs the economy $193 billion in health care expenses and lost time from work. Smoking is a major contributor to heart disease, cancer and lung disease.

Public health officials are urging individual doctors and staff at telephone "quit lines" in every state to make the most of the tax increase by reaching out to smokers. But it's unclear how deeply the tax will cut into tobacco consumption.

Eric Lindblom, research director for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, says he expects a drop of at least 6 percent to 7 percent among young smokers.

Philip Gorham, who tracks the tobacco business for Morningstar, the investment research firm, said he expects an overall drop of 4 percent to 5 percent this year. What happens after that is less certain, especially as the economy recovers.

"I would expect a road bump this year," said Gorham. "But these companies will still be extremely profitable. I still think they will make their return on capital by wide margins in the long run."

Philip Morris USA, the largest tobacco company and maker of Marlboro, is forecasting a drop, but spokesman Bill Phelps said he cannot predict how big. Philip Morris raised Marlboro prices by 71 cents a pack early this month, and prices on smaller brands by 81 cents a pack. Other major companies followed suit.

The pricing moves raised eyebrows. "That's nothing more than greed," said Kevin Altman, an industry consultant who advises small tobacco companies. "They weren't required to charge that until April 1. They are just putting that into their pockets."

Responded Phelps: "We raised our prices in direct response to the federal excise tax increase, and people who are upset about that should find out how their member of Congress voted, and contact him or her."

Some policy analysts have questioned the wisdom of boosting tobacco taxes to finance health care for children. They argue that the fate of such a broad program should not depend on revenues derived from a minority of the adult population, many of whom have low incomes and are hooked on a habit. The tobacco industry is also warning that the steep increase will lead to tax evasion through old-fashioned smuggling or by Internet purchase from abroad.

But smoking control advocates such as Lindblom say tobacco taxes should be even higher. "There's a lot of room to go after cigars and smokeless," he said. "We are certainly hopeful that health care reform will include some more increases."

Standing outside a Washington department store, attorney Margaret Webster, 42, puffed on a Marlboro Ultra Light and lamented the fact that the government is reaching deeper into her pocketbook.

"I don't think we (smokers) like it," she said. "But I've heard so many people say they were going to quit when the price went up ... and they're still smoking."


New tobacco tax rates: http://tinyurl.com/bt9c32

© 2009 The Associated Press.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TOBACCO_TAX?SITE=ININS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

"Some policy analysts have questioned the wisdom of boosting tobacco taxes to finance health care for children. They argue that the fate of such a broad program should not depend on revenues derived from a minority of the adult population, many of whom have low incomes and are hooked on a habit."

That was I was saying back when the tax hike was being voted on.

Now, I agree that cigarettes are bad, and people should quit. However, should the Democrats or anyone else for than matter be using the tax codes to change our behaviors or to punish smokers? No, they shouldn't.

Plus, if it is as they say: the higher the less people smoke, then they aren't going to get enough money to pay for S-CHIP, and it'll be another big buden on the American taxpayers.

Did Natasha Richardson's Life End Prematurely Because of Canada's Healthcare?

CANADACARE MAY HAVE KILLED NATASHA
By CORY FRANKLIN


March 26, 2009 --
COULD actress Natasha Richardson's tragic death have been prevented if her skiing accident had occurred in America rather than Canada?

Canadian health care de-emphasizes widespread dissemination of technology like CT scanners and quick access to specialists like neurosurgeons. While all the facts of Richardson's medical care haven't been released, enough is known to pose questions with profound implications.

Richardson died of an epidural hematoma -- a bleeding artery between the skull and brain that compresses and ultimately causes fatal brain damage via pressure buildup. With prompt diagnosis by CT scan, and surgery to drain the blood, most patients survive.

Could Richardson have received this care? Where it happened in Canada, no. In many US resorts, yes.

Between noon and 1 p.m., Richardson sustained what appeared to be a trivial head injury while skiing at Mt. Tremblant in Quebec. Within minutes, she was offered medical assistance but declined to be seen by paramedics.

But this delay is common in the early stages of epidural hematoma when patients have few symptoms -- and there is reason to believe her case wasn't beyond hope at that point.

About three hours after the accident, the actress was taken to Centre Hospitalier Laurentien, in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, 25 miles from the resort. Hospital spokesman Alain Paquette said she was conscious upon reaching the hospital about 4 p.m.

The initial paramedic assessment, travel time to the hospital and time she spent there was nearly two hours -- the crucial interval in this case. Survival rates for patients with epidural hematomas, conscious on arrival to a hospital, are good.

Richardson's evaluation required an immediate CT scan for diagnosis -- followed by either a complete removal of accumulated blood by a neurosurgeon or a procedure by a trauma surgeon or emergency physician to relieve the pressure and allow her to be transported.

But Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts is a town of 9,000 people. Its hospital doesn't have specialized neurology or trauma services. It hasn't been reported whether the hospital has a CT scanner, but CT scanners are less common in Canada.

Compounding the problem, Quebec has no helicopter services to trauma centers in Montreal. Richardson was transferred by ambulance to Hospital du Sacre-Coeur, a trauma center 50 miles away in Montreal -- a further delay of over an hour.

Because she didn't arrive at a facility capable of treatment (with the diagnosis perhaps still unknown) until six hours after the injury, in all likelihood by that time the pressure buildup was fatal. The Montreal hospital could not have saved her life.

Her initial refusal of medical care accounted for only part of the delay. She was still conscious when seen at a hospital and her death might have been prevented if the hospital either had the resources to diagnose and institute temporizing therapy, or air transport had taken her quickly to Montreal.

What would have happened at a US ski resort? It obviously depends on the location and facts, but according to a colleague who has worked at two major Colorado ski resorts, the same distance from Denver as Mt. Tremblant is from Montreal, things would likely have proceeded differently.

Assuming Richardson initially declined medical care here as well, once she did present to caregivers that she was suffering from a possible head trauma, she would've been immediately transported by air, weather permitting, and arrived in Denver in less than an hour.

If this weren't possible, in both resorts she would've been seen within 15 minutes at a local facility with CT scanning and someone who could perform temporary drainage until transfer to a neurosurgeon was possible.

If she were conscious at 4 p.m., she'd most likely have been diagnosed and treated about that time, receiving care unavailable in the local Canadian hospital. She might've still died or suffered brain damage but her chances of surviving would have been much greater in the United States.

American medicine is often criticized for being too specialty-oriented, with hospitals "duplicating" too many services like CT scanners. This argument has merit, but those criticisms ignore cases where it is better to have resources and not need them than to need resources and not have them.

Cory Franklin is a physician who lives outside of Chicago. 2009 Chicago Tribune; distributed by Tribune Media Services.

---------------------------------------
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03262009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/canadacare_may_have_killed_natasha_161372.htm---------------------------------------

Friday, March 20, 2009
Natasha Richardson, Epidural Hemorrhage and No Help in Canada

The Death of Natasha Richardson

Kevin, M.D. today adduces that Natasha Richardson indeed had a CT of the brain at Centre Hospitalier Laurentien--after falling ill with a recent history of head trauma, but there was no neurosurgeon available to do a STAT craniotomy which would have saved her life; however, this is not a fault of the Canadian system:

in remote resort areas in the United States, small community hospitals would likely lack neurosurgical coverage. In fact, because of the huge malpractice risk associated with the field, even if there was a neurosurgeon available, whether he or she would take emergency call at a community hospital would be in question.

How Remote?

Mont Tremblant is one of the most recognized and popular ski resorts in the world. It is famous for celebrity sitings, and the rich and famous frequently take up seasonal residence there.

As of 2005, Mont Tremblant had been recognized by Ski Magazine as the #1 ski resort in Eastern North America for 8 consecutive years.

Given the popularity of the area and the nature of skiing and snowboarding, Natasha Richardson may be the most famous person that’s ever come down from Tremblant’s slopes needing emergency neurosurgery, but I doubt that she is the first.

According to JAMA :

...head injuries are common in alpine skiers and snowboarders. Head injury is the most frequent reason for hospital admission and the most common cause of death among skiers and snowboarders with an 8% fatality rate among those admitted to hospital with head injuries. Of the 3277 patients with injuries recorded, 578 patients (17.6%) had head injuries. Head injuries accounted for 288 (17.9%) of 1607 alpine skiing injuries, 248 (17.8%) of 1391 snowboard injuries, and 32 (17.9%) of 179 of Telemark skiing injuries.

Head injuries constitute only 5% to 15% of all injuries from ski and snowboard accidents, yet are the primary cause of serious disabling injuries and death. There are approximately 10 fatalities per year in Colorado from accidents on the ski slopes, and among the fatally injured in one study, head injury was the cause of death in 87.5%;

Another report lists the incidence of ski head injury incidence at 0.77 per 100 000 ski visits

And a mega-study estimated rate of one death per 1.5 million skier-days.

Comparable ski areas in the U.S. – say Vail and Park City – both list neurosurgeons in their cities. Vail, Colorado has a population of 4,589 and is home to 1 practicing neurosurgeon. Park City, Utah population 7,371 also lists 1 practising neurosurgeon.

So, ski resorts should probably think hard about neurosurgical availability, is my impression, but all of the above begs the real issue, which is the differences between the Canadian model for health care and ours -- and where ours is going.

Availability of Neurosurgeons

Kevin, M.D. rightly states that a neurosurgeon is probably just as unlikely to be available in a U.S. ski town, as in Canada, and that may be so but the reasons are diametrically the opposite.

Neurosurgeons are not so easy to find in Canada where subspecialization is not rewarded, and 50-60% of boarded neurosurgeons leave the country to practice somewhere else within 2 years of their certification.

The last good data I could find listed only 174 neurosurgeons in the entire country. In the U.S. we have 3,500. A study on the need of neurosurgeons listed the density of neurosurgeons in the U.S. to be about 1/55,000 people which means that an analogous number of neurosurgeons needed in Canada would be about 604.

It is true that neurosurgeons eschew emergency room coverage in the United States, but it is for completely different reasons than in Canada. Here, our ED’s don’t want to pay what it takes to hire a neurosurgeon for coverage; in Canada, no one wants to even be a neurosurgeon.

So, in a sense, the Candian model for health care failed Natasha Richardson because of an artificially created shortage of subspecialists, which is a purposeful design meant to keep costs low in a taxpayer-funded-system. The U.S. would very much like to go in this direction and the plan is to broaden non subspecialized care options while reducing higher-tech procedures, diagnostics and physicians.

But as we go towards a single-payer system, we can all expect that when we need it most, the system will not be there for us, as it was not there for Natasha Richardson.
Posted by Dr.T at 12:17 PM

---------------------------------------
http://tedstumor.blogspot.com/2009/03/natasha-richardson-epidural-hemorrhage_20.html
---------------------------------------

My Thoughts

As tragic as Natasha's death is, it is even more tragic if it could have been avoided. Liberals always think that they're doing what they do for the people. However, it usually ends up hurting people more than it helps. To add something else to the story, I will also say that Democrats keep saying that they will make healthcare cheaper. People need to remember that you get what you pay for. If they are paying less for healthcare that will probably mean that it is not as good and could cost you your life.

Socialist-in-Chief Extols Greatness of UK/Canada's Healthcare Systems

Video: Our “legacy” is all that separates us from Euro-Canada health care
posted at 2:47 pm on March 26, 2009
by Ed Morrissey

If you want a peek at the direction Barack Obama will take health care, or at least where he would like to take it, check out this moment from an otherwise dull, dreary “virtual town hall”.  Obama extols the virtues of single-payer systems in Europe and Canada while lamenting the “legacy” that keeps America from its nationalized destiny.

Obama’s right about the “historical accident” of employer based care, from which Obama obviously drew the wrong lesson.  Government intervention in markets — in this case, the labor market — produces strange and sometimes problematic results.  This was the very issue that John McCain wanted to address in his plans to make employer-financed health insurance taxable income while providing a balancing refundable that would have disconnected insurance from employment and created a new market for individual — and portable — plans.  Obama and the Democrats misrepresented McCain’s plans, and then turned around this month and suggested they might co-opt the McCain approach now.

As for his description of Canada and “England” as places where one just walks in and gets treatment, perhaps Obama should talk to more Canadians and “English”.  Most have to wait months for tests and treatments.  The British have a chronic lack of dentists and transplant surgeons, just to name two specialties, because of the lack of compensation for specializations.  Both have a healthy “health tourism” outflow of patients to countries that allow for free-market health care.  Most people in the systems that Obama hails would laugh outright at the notion that they get health care on demand.

Maybe Obama should do more research on Canada and “England”.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/26/video-our-legacy-is-all-that-separates-us-from-euro-canada-health-care/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

At last, it's refreshing for "The One" to tell us what he really wants for this country. It's like when he was actually honest with Joe the Plumber. He wants us to become a socialist country no matter how hard he tries to convince the New York Times and the American people otherwise.

To add to what Ed said, the reason why there is a lack of doctors is because they migrate to the US where they get paid much more. This is especially true for the more experienced and talented doctors. So, Canada and England are hemorraging the best doctors they have to the US because of their "free" healthcare system.

Also, their healthcare isn't really free. Everyone pays out the wazoo through heavy taxes to wait forever for adequate healthcare.

Obama Contemplating Healthcare Tax Hike Affecting Millions

Administration Is Open to Taxing Health Benefits
By JACKIE CALMES and ROBERT PEAR
Published: March 15, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system.

The proposal is politically problematic for President Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as "the largest middle-class tax increase in history." Most Americans with insurance get it from their employers, and taxing workers for the benefit is opposed by union leaders and some businesses.

In television advertisements last fall, Mr. Obama criticized his Republican rival for the presidency, Senator John McCain of Arizona, for proposing to tax all employer-provided health benefits. The benefits have long been tax-free, regardless of how generous they are or how much an employee earns. The advertisements did not point out that Mr. McCain, in exchange, wanted to give all families a tax credit to subsidize the purchase of coverage.

At the time, even some Obama supporters said privately that he might come to regret his position if he won the election; in effect, they said, he was potentially giving up an important option to help finance his ambitious health care agenda to reduce medical costs and to expand coverage to the 46 million uninsured Americans. Now that Mr. Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.

At a recent Congressional hearing, Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat whose own health plan would make benefits taxable, asked Peter R. Orszag, the president's budget director, about the issue. Mr. Orszag replied that it "most firmly should remain on the table."

Mr. Orszag, an economist who has served as director of the Congressional Budget Office, has written favorably of taxing some employer-provided health benefits and using the revenue savings for other health-related incentives. So has another Obama adviser, Jason Furman, the deputy director of the White House National Economic Council.

They, like other proponents, cite evidence that tax-free benefits encourage what Mr. McCain called "gold-plated" policies, resulting in inefficient and costly demands for health care and pressure on employers to hold down workers' pay as insurance expenses rise. And, they say, the policy discriminates against those - many of whom are low-income workers - who do not have employer-provided coverage.

When Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, advocated taxing benefits at a recent hearing of the Finance Committee, which he leads, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner assured him that the administration was open to all ideas from Congress. Mr. Geithner did, however, allude to the position that Mr. Obama had taken as a candidate.

The administration's receptivity to the idea is owed partly to the advocacy of Mr. Baucus, whose committee has jurisdiction over tax policy and health programs, and to support from Republicans. There is less enthusiasm among Democrats in the House, though the health debate is at an early stage and no comprehensive plans are on the table.

Also, Mr. Obama's own idea for raising revenues for health care - limiting the income tax deductions that the most affluent taxpayers claim - has run into opposition not only from Mr. Baucus but also from his counterpart in the House, Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, who is chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Obama's proposed limit on deductions would raise an estimated $318 billion over 10 years, or half of his proposed "health care reserve fund." That is a fraction of the revenues that could be raised from taxing employer-provided health benefits.

In the campaign, Mr. McCain estimated that taxing all health benefits would raise $3.6 trillion over a decade - "a multitrillion-dollar tax hike," one Obama advertisement said.

The Congressional Budget Office says that including health benefits in taxable income could mean $246 billion in additional revenue for a single year. Stopping short of full taxation, as Mr. Baucus and others suggest, would mean less new revenue.

The latest government figures, for 2007, show that 70 percent of the 253 million people with health insurance received at least some of their coverage through employers. Employment-based insurance covers three-fifths of the population under 65.

Those who want to tax benefits in whole or in part make two main arguments. They say the tax exclusion is a generous subsidy that insulates employees from the true costs of health care, leading them to demand more of it and driving up overall costs. Critics also say the policy is unfair because it favors higher-income people. "It's too regressive," Mr. Baucus said. "It just skews the system."

But in a blueprint for health legislation that he issued last November, Mr. Baucus said taking the exclusion on health benefits out of the tax code would go "too far" and "cause widespread disruption in employer-based health benefits." Mr. Obama has also said he wants to preserve employer-provided coverage. Mr. Baucus, in his paper, cited other options, like taxing benefits above some value, taxing only wealthy employees or both.

However the proposal is devised, advocates will not have an easy time selling it.

Republicans, like Mr. McCain and former President George W. Bush before him, tend to favor taxing the benefits to finance other incentives for people to buy their own insurance. But given Mr. Obama's use of the issue in his campaign, Republicans are unlikely to support a change unless the president himself proposes it, a senior adviser to Senate Republicans said.

Many Democrats, especially House liberals, are opposed. "It's a dumb idea," said Representative Pete Stark of California, chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health. "We have to maintain as much as we can of the employer payments."

Administration officials often say they will not repeat the mistakes of former President Bill Clinton, whose plan for universal health insurance collapsed in 1994. But Frank B. McArdle, a health policy expert at Hewitt Associates, a benefits consulting firm, said, "If President Obama agrees to cut back the tax break for employee health benefits, he will risk repeating one of Mr. Clinton's errors by disrupting health insurance for people who have it and like it."

Some big businesses consider nontaxable employment benefits a tool for recruiting and retaining workers. The United States Chamber of Commerce opposes eliminating the exclusion on health benefits, but James P. Gelfand, senior manager of health policy, said the group had not taken a position on limiting it.

Organized labor, a pillar of the Democratic Party base, considers the benefits among the union movement's historic achievements for the middle class. But a split could be developing between the manufacturing unions, which have negotiated rich benefit packages, and the growing service employees unions, which include many low-wage workers without generous benefits.

Alan V. Reuther, legislative director of the United Automobile Workers, said: "These proposals would represent a tax increase on working families. They would undermine good health care coverage."

But at the Service Employees International Union, which was an early supporter of Mr. Obama, Dennis Rivera, the coordinator of the union's health care campaign, said that while his organization was "predisposed not to agree to the taxing of health benefits," he would wait to pass judgment. The union, Mr. Rivera said, wants to see how any tax changes fit into the overall effort to revamp the health care system. "We need to see the total picture," he said.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.xml
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Michelle Malkin had an excellent point on this story. If he's open to taxing healthcare benefits, "What isn’t the Administration Open to Taxing?"

This tax would infuriate both sides of the aisle. The unions, middle class, and businesses all are against this idea. John McCain had a similar plan during the campaign, and Obama blasted him for it.

This would be a trojan horse that would be used to pay for universal health care. Clinton made the same mistake and paid for it in the '94 midterm elections. It would also be another break of the campaign promise of not raising taxes on "the other 95%".

Obama Administration to Wounded Vets: FU

Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insurance

• Story Highlights
• Obama team considering plan in which vets would use private insurance for wounds
• No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly
• Veterans organizations have been lobbying Congress to oppose the idea
• Lawmakers say plan would be rejected if it goes to Congress

By Adam Levine CNN

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

Lawmakers say they'd reject a proposal to make veterans pay for treatment of war wounds with private insurance.

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

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

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

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

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

"A final decision hasn't been made yet," he said.

Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.

Charging for service-related injuries would violate "a sacred trust," Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis said. Davis said the move would risk private health care for veterans and their families by potentially maxing out benefits paying for costly war injury treatments.


-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

I think Obama is missing the point of the VA. This is almost guaranteed to go nowhere, but the very thought of his administration contemplating such a move is not just shocking but preposterous. Insult doesn't seem like a strong enough word for how the administration has offended all vets, current military, and their families.

This seems in conflict with his rhetoric of everyone having a right to healthcare and the universal healthcare the Democrats and the left seem so fond of implementing here in the US.

What in the world could posses them to even suggest it?

Update on the Tax Hike on the Poor to Help the Poor

Obama gets his S-CHIP Trojan Horse, first tax hike of 2009: “The first step”
By Michelle Malkin  •  February 4, 2009 04:56 PM

As expected, the House today gave final approval to the S-CHIP government health care expansion funded with a massive tax hike on smokers. President Obama is set to sign the bill amid great “progressive” fanfare. The kiddie human shield strategy strikes again.

The vote was 290-135.
Yeas Democratic 250 Republican 40.
Nays Democratic 2 Republican 133.

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/04/obama-gets-his-s-chip-trojan-horse-first-tax-hike-of-2009/
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2009&rollnumber=50
---------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts
Hold your wallet tight. The tax hikes on everyone is starting.