Facts Are Stubborn Things [flag@whitehouse.gov]

TUESDAY, AUGUST 4TH, 2009 AT 6:55 AM Facts Are Stubborn Things Posted by Macon Phillips

Opponents of health insurance reform may find the truth a little inconvenient, but as our second president famously said, "facts are stubborn things."

Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.

In this video, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office, addresses one example that makes it look like the President intends to "eliminate" private coverage, when the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.

For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them. He has even proposed eight consumer protections relating specifically to the health insurance industry.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Note: The following post is a quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2326163/posts

Tragic Tales From The NHS
IBD Editorials ^ | August 27, 2009 | INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY Staff
Posted on August 27, 2009 5:08:40 PM PDT by Kaslin

Health Care Reform: A study by the British Patients Association tells the true story about socialized medicine in Britain. It’s one of willful and woeful neglect of millions, missed diagnoses, and elderly patients left in pain.

BD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure
While reading this disturbing analysis of the pitiful state of medical care in Britain in the Daily Telegraph, the Vincent Price horror classic “The Abominable Dr. Phibes” came to mind. Price portrayed a man who used bizarre methods to dispatch his victims.

The abominable British National Health Service, based on this report, is only slightly better.

The Patients Association’s primary focus was the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Health Trust, where it was found that up to 1,200 people died through failings in urgent care the past six years. Their analysis was prompted by an avalanche of complaints of shameful care at the hands of the NHS.

Claire Rayner, president of the group and a former nurse, said: “For far too long now, the Patients Association has been receiving calls on our help line from people wanting to talk about the dreadful, neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel treatment their elderly relatives had experienced at the hands of NHS nurses.”

There was the case of 82-year-old piano teacher Pamela Goddard. She was suffering from cancer and was left to suffer in her excrement as her condition deteriorated due to bed sores.

Before Florence Weston died at age 85, she remained without food or water as her scheduled hip replacement operation was repeatedly canceled.

(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...

http://www.lifeissues.org
http://www.lifeissues.org/euthanasia/pdf/YLYC_Page_21.pdf

http://lifenews.com/bio2942.html

“Pro-Life Advocates Should be Upset by Veterans Guide Pushing Euthanasia”
by Bradley Mattes
August 28, 2009

SNIPPET: “The “instructions” that follow sent a chill up my spine. If the veteran more than once checked the column called “worth living, but just barely,” he or she is asked what combination of those would it take to make his or her life “not worth living”? If the veteran checked “can’t answer now” he or she is asked what would it take to “help you decide”? See page 21 in its entirety.

The obvious purpose of this booklet is to be an advance directive of sorts for medical treatment. Several of the pages even asked for the veteran’s initials and date. But at the back of the booklet where resources are listed, the only group indicated under “advance directives” is Choice in Dying, formerly known as the Euthanasia Society. The purpose of this organization is solely to advocate euthanasia.

The Veterans Administration might as well abandon all subtleties, dig a grave and push our nation’s heroes into it. We owe a debt of gratitude to America’s veterans that we can never repay. The VA has not only brought shame upon its department but also on our whole nation.

After the group Aging with Dignity brought this booklet to light, a disclaimer has been added that a revision is in the works. But no amount of change can take away the stain of the intended purpose—to nudge America’s war heroes toward the grave in an effort to protect limited government resources. If you’d like to see the entire publication, click here.

Please contact the Veterans Administration: vhaethics@va.gov Phone: 202.501.0364. Mail: National Center for Ethics in Health Care, Veterans Health Administration (10E), 810 Vermont Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20420.

Tell them America’s veterans deserve better.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/08/28/urnidgns852573C4006938800025762000775433.DTL

Note: The following post is a quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2327279/posts

White House sued for free speech violations
sfgate.com ^ | August 28, 2009 | Jaikumar Vijayan
Posted on August 29, 2009 12:32:56 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper

Two conservative organizations, a physicians’ group and a social policy think tank, are suing the Obama administration for privacy and free speech violations over a recent attempt to get people to e-mail the White House about any “fishy” misinformation they hear regarding health-care reform.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, claims that the call for such information was designed to shut up opponents of President Obama’s health-care reform proposal and to chill free speech.

In the lawsuit, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CARE) claim the White House had “illegally” used its power to collect information on political speech. It claimed that the White House knew its data collection would chill free speech and in fact intended to do just that. The suit demands that the White House remove any information it might have already collected and that it be prohibited from collecting personal data in the future.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...

Note: The following post is a quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2328277/posts

Doctors: Reimbursement cuts may affect cancer treatment (Target:Radiation Treatments)
BayNews9 ^ | 08/30/2009
Posted on August 30, 2009 7:17:59 PM PDT by devane617

The U.S. Department of Health is proposing a major reduction in reimbursement for cancer treatments.

Recently the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced they’re planning on cutting reimbursement rates for radiation cancer treatment — in some cases by 44 percent.

“The radiation oncology community was shocked,” said Dr. Robert Miller with Wellspring Oncology Cancer Center. “At the time our cost have gone up higher and higher, they were going to cut the reimbursement by almost in half.”

Last year Wellspring spent more than $2 million to by a TomoTherapy machine. It targets only cancer cells while leaving healthy cells unharmed.

Doctors fear with a cut in reimbursement rates many people will not be able to afford the best treatment possible.

“We are hoping that, there probably will be some cutback, but we are hoping more realistic — 5 percent, 7 percent — but not a dramatic 44 percent,” Miller said.

Miller says the consequences of such a large cut could be a healthcare nightmare. Doctors may no longer use the most advanced technology to treat cancer patients, or perhaps even more alarming, they may refuse to treat patients with Medicare altogether.

Patients have until Monday to comment on the proposed cuts.

Miller has been encouraging his patients to call and write their lawmakers. Bay News 9 tried to contact St. Petersburg Rep. Bill Young for comment, but he could not be reached.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2328378/posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/south_yorkshire/8228544.stm

Page last updated at 15:49 GMT, Saturday, 29 August 2009 16:49 UK

“NHS sorry for dead patient letter”

SNIPPET: “The NHS has apologised after writing to a man to address concerns over his treatment - three-and-half years after he died.

Tom Milner’s daughter emailed the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) after her 76-year-old father died at Sheffield’s Northern General Hospital.
Janet Brooks said when she received a response, it was entitled “Dear Tom”.
The agency said it had reviewed its systems to ensure the error did not happen again.

Mr Milner, who had terminal leukaemia, was not given his prescribed pain-relieving morphine in the last two days of his life, his family say.

It’s an example of the careless and shambolic attitude by the NHS towards my father and our family

Janet Brooks

They claim he was left in agony and lay in his own urine and blood at the NHS palliative care ward at the hospital.

The health trust responsible for his care said staff had “acted appropriately”.
Mrs Brooks, 54, of Emsworth, Hampshire, said she had outlined her concerns about her father’s treatment in an email to the NPSA.

“They responded with ‘Dear Tom’.

“It’s an example of the careless and shambolic attitude by the NHS towards my father and our family.””

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html

“Sentenced to death on the NHS”

SNIPPET: “Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors warn today.”

By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 10:00PM BST 02 Sep 2009

SNIPPET: “In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.

As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients.”

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.”

Note: The following text is a quote:

http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1338

Press Releases
Contact:
Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami
202-226-7616
For Immediate Release
09/08/2009

Pelosi, Reid Remarks at Press Availability Following Meeting with President Obama

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid held a brief press availability following their meeting with President Obama at the White House this afternoon. Below is a transcript of their remarks followed by question and answer session.

Speaker Pelosi. We had a very productive meeting with the President and the Vice President. The main subject was, of course, health insurance reform, but we talked about other issues that relate to the fall agenda and other issues.

In terms of health care reform, we’ve come together at a time where three bills have been passed out of Committees in the House, one in the Senate. Hopefully, soon, the Finance Committee will act and we have plenty to work from to pass comprehensive, affordable, accessible, universal health care. It’s a pretty exciting time.

In the month of August our Members have heard from their constituents and have communicated with them — they bring back the benefit of that thinking. They also have had a chance to explain to their constituents the opportunity that is in the bill. That again we have legislation that will lower costs, improve quality, expand coverage, and retain choice. You like what you have, you can keep it. If you have something you would like to improve upon, that can happen. If you are not insured, you will have that opportunity. This will be done in a fiscally sound way.

It is necessary for us to act. The present situation is unsustainable and as the President has said, “health care reform is entitlement reform.” So, in order for us to reduce the deficit, it is essential that we have real health care reform.

So we go forward welcoming our Members back in a series of caucuses and meetings. We will be prepared to bring our three bills together in the House to prepare to meet the Senate in conference.

Senator Reid, Mr. Leader…

Senate Majority Leader Reid. The President and Vice President were very positive and it’s in keeping with the conversation I had with my members the past week, that is we’re reenergized, we’re ready to do health care reform. Keeping in mind that it’s even before the august recess, 80 percent of health care is already done. In fact it’s the 20 percent we still had to work on. In our conversations today, we think we’re up to 90 percent of things that are agreed upon. We have 10 percent that we need to work on and we can do that.

As far as the speech tomorrow, the President didn’t give us a dress rehearsal of a speech, but he did tell us that he’s going to be outlining to the American people and, of course, the Congress, the health care reform bill that he contemplates that we will do. And we’re in agreement with him in that regard. I have every belief that when he finishes his speech tomorrow, the American people will be able to put aside some of the ridiculous falsehoods that have been perpetrated these past few weeks and focus on what’re going to do for this country.

We have a lot of work to do, we understand that, but we’re still approaching this in the form of bipartisanship. We want a bipartisan bill. We do not want to do reconciliation unless we have no alternative.

* * *

Q: There’s no public option at this point?

Senate Majority Leader Reid. I think that — I personally am in favor of public option. The majority — in my mind, there’s no question that the majority of — I can’t speak for the House caucus, but if I were betting and I think the majority of them also believe in a public option. And we’re going to do our very best to have a public option or something like a public option before we finish this work.

Q: Why was there no place for Republicans at the table today at this meeting?

Senate Majority Leader Reid. You know, I think that…

Q: The President talks to Republicans, doesn’t he?

Senate Majority Leader Reid. Yes, we’ve had a large table on the Finance Committee and Health Committee in the Senate — there’s always a place for them. And so I think that today it was again a very positive meeting and that’s how I feel.

Speaker Pelosi. The President was meeting with the Speaker of the House and the Democratic Leader of the Senate. He has other meetings that we are not invited to that Republicans are at. So I don’t know what the point of the question is. But the point is also, in our Committees in the House, three Committees have passed the bill out. All of them have strong numbers of Republicans on those Committees. I saw to that when we did our ratios. So they had a place at the table as our bills had come through the legislative process and that’s what we’re engaged in now — the legislative process.

Q: (Inaudible) essential for House passage (inaudible).

Speaker Pelosi. Yes.

Q: And can you discuss any kind of schedule that would envision (inaudible) bill by the middle of October?

Speaker Pelosi. That’s two questions, two separate questions. On the public option, I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives because, as the President has said, and I listen to him very carefully — he believes that the public option is the best way to keep the insurance companies honest and to increase competition in order to lower cost, improve quality, retain choice. If you like what you have, you can keep it — and expand coverage in a fiscally sound way that saves money. And that’s why — but he said, if you have a better idea, put it on the table. And so if somebody has a better idea of how to do that, put it on the table. For the moment, however, as far as our House members are concerned, the overwhelming majority of them support a public option.

Q: Would a trigger (inaudible) be an acceptable alternative?

Speaker Pelosi. Well, you know, this, as I say, is the legislative process. And right now, we will have a public option in our bill.

Q: (Inaudible) said that (inaudible)?

Speaker Pelosi. We’re very pleased, as Leader Reid has mentioned, that the President will be making his address [tomorrow] evening. I think that we have been on schedule, we continue to be on schedule. But this speech tonight will be a very important factor — excuse me — tomorrow will be a very important factor in how we go forward.

Q: Madam Speaker, Congressman Clyburn said that a trigger public option is a doable alternative because it saves the public option. Is that a fair assessment?

Speaker Pelosi. Well, I’m sorry. Out of context, I really can’t speak to Mr. Clyburn’s remarks. I do know that Mr. Clyburn is a strong supporter of a public option. Where we go, seeing what the Senate puts forth and the rest is another place. But I said it before and I’ll say it again: The health insurance industry, which is out there fighting the public option tooth and nail because it does increase competition, which they don’t want. They’d be better getting a public option now than one that is triggered because if you have a triggered public option, it’s because the insurance industry has demonstrated that they’re not cooperating, they’re not doing the right thing, and I think they’ll have a tougher public option to deal with.

Note: The following text is a quote:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=130383728434

Sarah Palin: Written Testimony Submitted to the New York State Senate Aging Committee

Sarah Palin’s Notes

Written Testimony Submitted to the New York State Senate Aging Committee
Today at 1:49pm
Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz
Chair, New York Senate Aging Committee
Legislative Office Building
Room 307
Albany, NY 12247

September 8, 2009

RE: H.R. 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and Its Impact on Senior Citizens

Dear Senator Diaz,

Thank you for asking me to participate in the New York State Senate Aging Committee’s hearing regarding H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” You and I share a commitment to ensuring that our health care system is not “reformed” at the expense of America’s senior citizens.

I have been vocal in my opposition to Section 1233 of H.R.3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.”[1] Proponents of the bill have described this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. That is misleading. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.”[2] During those consultations, practitioners are to explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services.[3]

To understand this provision fully, it must be read in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.”[4] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As one commentator has noted, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to ‘bend the curve’ on health-care costs?”[5]

As you stated in your letter to Congressman Henry Waxman of California:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign.[6]

It is unclear whether section 1233 or a provision like it will remain part of any final health care bill. Regardless of its fate, the larger issue of rationed health care remains.

A great deal of attention was given to my use of the phrase “death panel” in discussing such rationing.[7] Despite repeated attempts by many in the media to dismiss this phrase as a “myth”, its accuracy has been vindicated. In the face of a nationwide public outcry, the Senate Finance Committee agreed to “drop end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”[8] Jim Towey, the former head of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, then called attention to what’s already occurring at the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, where “government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.”[9] Even Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, a strong supporter of President Obama, agreed that “if the government says it has to control health care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.”[10] And of course President Obama has not backed away from his support for the creation of an unelected, largely unaccountable Independent Medicare Advisory Council to help control Medicare costs; he had previously suggested that such a group should guide decisions regarding “that huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives….”[11]

The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a “death panel.” The work of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama’s health policy advisor and the brother of his chief of staff, is particularly disturbing on this score. Dr. Emanuel has written extensively on the topic of rationed health care, describing a “Complete Lives System” for allotting medical care based on “a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”[12]

He also has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”[13]

Such ideas are shocking, but they could ultimately be used by government bureacrats to help determine the treatment of our loved ones. We must ensure that human dignity remains at the center of any proposed health care reform. Real health care reform would also follow free market principles, including the encouragement of health savings accounts; would remove the barriers to purchasing health insurance across state lines; and would include tort reform so as to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending connected to the filing of frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 3200 is not the reform we are looking for.

Thank you for calling attention to this important matter. I look forward to working with you again to ensure that we keep the dignity of our senior citizens foremost in any health care discussion.

Sincerely,

Governor Sarah Palin

1 See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
2 See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
3 See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
4 See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
5 See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html
6 See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200
7 See http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434
8 See http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/54617-finance-committee-to-drop-end-of-life-provision
9 See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html
10 See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html
11 See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1
12 See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
13 See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf

Note: The following text is a quote:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=130481448434

Sarah Palin: Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care by Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin’s Notes

Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care by Sarah Palin
Today at 5:34pm

The president’s proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers.

By SARAH PALIN

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that “no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.” Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.”

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep.

Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .”

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .”

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration.

Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats’ proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.

The economic effects won’t be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they’ll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats’ proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise “the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers.” Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.

Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats’ proposals “will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.” Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.

Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.”

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it.

Ms. Palin, Sen. John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential election, was governor of Alaska from December 2006 to July 2009.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.