I’m grateful to AAPLOGfor drawing my attention to yet another study showing a strong link between abortion and mental illness.The paper, titled ‘Associations Between Abortion, Mental Disorders, and Suicidal Behaviour in a Nationally Representative Sample’ was published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry in April 2010 and confirmed ‘a strong association between abortion and mental disorders’.
As such it adds further support to the landmark meta-analysis by Priscilla Coleman which I highlighted on this blog in August which showed that abortion raises the risk of mental health problems by an average of 81%.
The Canadian researchers used the National Co-morbidity Survey (NCS) replication data collected between 2001 and 2003. Key points (courtesy of AAPLOG) are:
• A large nationally representative US sample was examined for associations between abortion and life-time prevalence of numerous mental disorders and suicidal behaviors.
• Pro-choice researchers frequently claim the associations between abortion and mental health problems in the literature are due to an unmeasured history of violence exposure being related to both the choice to abort and to mental health problems. These researchers tested this assumption by controlling for violence in all the analyses conducted. They also controlled for age, education, marital status, household income, and ethno-racial background.
• The results revealed statistically significant associations between abortion history and a wide range of mental health problems after controlling for the experience of interpersonal violence and demographic variables.
• When compared to women without a history of abortion, those who had an abortion had a 61% increased risk for Mood Disorders. Social Phobia was linked with a 61% increased risk and suicide ideation with a 59% increased risk.
• In the area of substance abuse, the increased risk for alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, drug abuse, drug dependence, and any substance use disorder were equal to 261%, 142%, 313%, 287%, and 280% respectively.
• Between 5.8% and 24.7% of the national prevalence of all the above disorders was determined to be related to abortion.
The forces of mainstream psychology are bent on proving that abortion is a benign psychological experience for most women. The American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force report of 2008 is a classic example of this agenda (See AAPLOG critique)
This Canadian report represents the latest in a series of articles from across the globe (US, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, and South Africa) published in recent years directly contradicting the findings of the APA Task Force report.
Large scale, well-controlled studies using sophisticated data analysis methodologies consistently confirm a relationship between abortion and psychological distress that the national professional organization has dismissed.
Posts Tagged ‘Health Care’
Posted in Abortion, Health Care, tagged AAPLOG, Abortion, Care Not Killing Alliance, Christian Medical Fellowship, Dr. Peter Saunders, Health Care, lifenews.com, mental disorders, mental health, National Co-morbidity Survey, NCS on November 3, 2011|
Posted in Abortion, Economy, Health Care, News, Politics, Religion, tagged Alabama, Attorneys General, Barack Obama, CNSNews, Congress, Democrats, Florida, H.R. 3590, Health Care, health care overhaul, lawsuit, Nancy Pelosi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Obama, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pennslyvania, President Barack Obama, President Obama, Reuters, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington on March 22, 2010|
CNSNews has two different stories here and here saying that the lawsuits against the U.S. Government are about to begin as soon as Obama signs the health care legislation (H.R. 3590) into law. The lawsuits are an attempt by States and other agencies to strike down the required health care insurance law in the latest bill.
Update (1/22 @13:29): Reuters reports that 11 Attorneys General are geared to sue the Government after it is signed. The full story is at the bottom.
Health Care Legislation: Here Come the Lawsuits
Monday, March 22, 2010
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor(CNSNews.com) – The American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative civil liberties group, says it is preparing to file a federal lawsuit challenging the “flawed” health care package that passed the House 219-212 on Sunday night.
The law “fails the American people and does not provide permanent protections for the life of the unborn,” the group said in a Sunday night news release.
The ACLJ said it would file a lawsuit “soon” in federal court, challenging the forced mandate that penalizes Americans who choose not to participate in universal health care. “That is unconstitutional, and we believe ultimately it will be overturned by the courts,” it said.
“The fact remains that the actual health care bill just approved does fund abortion,” ACLJ said.
“Those self-proclaimed pro-life Democrats put their trust in an executive order — subject to being rescinded by the president — a move that is not only short-sighted but does not provide the guarantees and pro-life protections secured by statutory language in a law approved by Congress.”
Which President Obama do you believe? ACLJ asked: The president who repeatedly and publicly opposed the pro-life language in the earlier House-passed bill, or the president who now promises an Executive Order to secure the votes he needed to pass a very dangerous health care package?
ACLJ noted that an executive order “is not a legislative fix and does not carry the force of congressionally approved legislation. It does not supersede law. It can be rescinded.”
Another concern, the group said, is that the executive order promised by President Obama will put Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in charge of the funding process – and she is a cabinet member “who has a long and documented history of supporting abortion.”
Virginia Is First to Announce Lawsuit Over Health-Care Bill
Monday, March 22, 2010
By Bob Lewis, Associated Press
Richmond, Va. (AP) – Less than eight hours after Congress passed sweeping healthcare reforms, Virginia’s Attorney General became the first to announce a legal challenge against it.
Republican Ken Cuccinelli said early Monday that he will file a court challenge against what he and other conservatives decry as an unconstitutional overreach of federal authority.
Cuccinelli said he would file the lawsuit as soon as President Barack Obama signs the bill passed Sunday night into law.
Earlier this month, Virginia became the first state to finish legislative passage of a law that bucks any effort by President Barack Obama and an allied Democratic Congress to impose federal health care reform in the states.
Similar measures were filed or proposed in 34 other state legislatures.
Cuccinelli is expected to argue that the bill, with its mandate that requires nearly every American to be insured by 2014, violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The attorney general’s office will file suit once President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which could occur early this week.
“At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service,” Cuccinelli said in a statement Sunday night.
Word of the impending legal action came as the U.S. House debated late into the evening and passed the landmark reform legislation, 219-212.
Update from Reuters:
States launch lawsuits against healthcare planCHICAGOMon Mar 22, 2010 1:21pm EDT
CHICAGO (Reuters) – Less than 24 hours after the House of Representatives gave final approval to a sweeping overhaul of healthcare, attorneys general from several states on Monday said they will sue to block the plan on constitutional grounds.
Republican attorneys general in 11 states warned that lawsuits will be filed to stop the federal government overstepping its constitutional powers and usurping states’ sovereignty.
States are concerned the burden of providing healthcare will fall on them without enough federal support.
Ten of the attorneys general plan to band together in a collective lawsuit on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
“To protect all Texans’ constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation’s founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation,” said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in a statement.
The Republican attorney generals say the reforms infringe on state powers under the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who plans to file a lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, said Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. The bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance, he added.
“If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce,” Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. “If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?”
In addition to the pending lawsuits, bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
So far, only two states, Idaho and Virginia, have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. But the actual enactment of the bill by President Barack Obama could spur more movement on the measures by state lawmakers.
As is the case on the Congressional level, partisan politics is in play on the state level, where no anti-health care reform legislation has emerged in Democrat-dominated states like Illinois and New York, according to the NCSL.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican candidate running for governor, said the mandate would cost Florida at least $1.6 billion in Medicaid alone.
All states would receive extra funding to cover Medicaid costs that are expected to rise under the reform, including 100 percent federal coverage for new enrollees under the plan through 2016.
Medicaid is the healthcare program for the poor jointly administered by the states and federal government.
Posted in Abortion, Economy, Health Care, News, Politics, tagged 44, Barack Obama, Byrd Rule, Democrats, filibuster, Health Care, Obama, Obamacare, President Barack Obama, President Obama, reconciliation, Senate on February 26, 2010|
LetterFromTheCapitol brings us a post explaining that the current threat by Democrats to use reconciliation to bypass a Republican filibuster would violate the Senate’s “Byrd Rule”. Reconciliation was designed to only be used for bills dealing with the budget and nothing else.
February 26, 2010
LFTC – ObamaCare: Filibuster Flim-Flam
As for Democrats threatening to use the “nuclear option”–bypassing the 60-vote cloture number that cuts off filibusters, using special rules designed for budget reconciliation votes, which require only 51 votes to pass and cannot be filibustered–Human Events collected quotes from top Democrats, including then-Senators Obama & Biden, warning against ending hallowed Senate tradition. Enjoy the quotes & watch the video (4:48) at the end. There is much more to the flim-flam involved here….
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) published “The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s ‘Byrd Rule'” in March 2008; the CRS paper makes clear that the 2001 & 2003 Bush tax bills were exempt from the Byrd Rule because they included sunset provisions that kept the bills within budgetary bounds–they expired within the budget reconciliation time window. Senator Byrd sent a Feb. 23, 2010 “Dear Colleague” letter urging that supporters not use his Byrd Rule to bypass cloture. In his Feb. 12, 2009 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee Sen .Byrd lambasted both parties for slipping non-germane amendments into reconciliation bills. Sen. Byrd’s single-page April 2, 2009 “Dear Colleague” letter text contains the operative language (which I could not copy & paste). Sen. Byrd, author of a history of the Senate, with more than a half century of service that makes him the longest serving senator, is legendary as an authority on the Senate Rules.
Former GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN) explains why GOP tax cuts in 2001 & 2003 could use reconciliation without violating precedent: they did not increase a deficit, but rather returned an estimated revenue surplus to taxpayers:
The first use of this special procedure was in the fall of 1980, as the Democratic majority in Congress moved to reduce entitlement programs in response to candidate Ronald Reagan’s focus on the growing deficit. Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, reconciliation was used to reduce deficit projections and to enact budget enforcement mechanisms. In early 2001, with projected surpluses well into the future, it was used to return a portion of that surplus to the public by changing tax rates.
Senators of both parties have assiduously avoided using budget reconciliation as a mechanism to pass expansive social legislation that lacks bipartisan support. In 1993, Democratic leaders—including the dean of Senate procedure and an author of the original Budget Act, Robert C. Byrd— appropriately prevailed on the Clinton administration not to use reconciliation to adopt its health-care agenda. It was used to pass welfare reform in 1996, an entitlement program, but the changes had substantial bipartisan support.
In 2003, while I was serving as majority leader, Republicans used the reconciliation process to enact tax cuts. I was approached by members of my own caucus to use reconciliation to extend prescription drug coverage to millions of Medicare recipients. I resisted. The Congress considered the legislation under regular order, and the Medicare Modernization Act passed through the normal legislative procedure in 2003.
Byrd, for his part, rejects Frist’s analysis, because he believes that the Bush 43 tax bills added to the deficit, which if true would violate the Byrd Rule. Eyeballing a chart showing the federal budget deficits from 1940- 2009 shows tax revenues slightly higher in 2009 than in 2001, with a dip in the middle; the deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product narrowed to about 1.5 percent of GDP in 2007, before the financial meltdown began and sent the deficit soaring into the stratosphere.
More on the Senate filibuster’s origin & use: Here is Wiki’s filibuster entry–the word comes from European antecedents meaning “freebooter,” giving rise to the imagery of pirating or hijacking a bill.
George Will adds fascinating historical filibuster perspective:
The summit’s predictable failure will be a pretext for trying to ram health legislation through the Senate by misusing “reconciliation,” which prevents filibusters. If the Senate parliamentarian rules, as he should, that most of the legislation is ineligible for enactment under reconciliation, the vice president, as Senate president, can overrule the parliamentarian. This has not happened since 1975, but liberals say desperate times require desperate measures.
Today’s desperation? Democracy’s majoritarian ethic is, liberals say, being violated by the filibuster that prevents their enacting health legislation opposed by an American majority.
GW adds telling numbers:
Liberals also say the filibuster exacerbates the Senate’s flaw as “inherently unrepresentative.” That is, the Founders — who liberals evidently believe were dolts or knaves — designed it to represent states rather than, as the House does, population.
Liberals fret: 41 senators from the 21 smallest states, with barely 10 percent of the population, could block a bill. But Matthew Franck of Radford University counters that if cloture were blocked by 41 senators from the 21 largest states, the 41 would represent 77.4 percent of the nation’s population. Anyway, senators are never so tidily sorted, so consider today’s health impasse: The 59 Democratic senators come from 36 states containing 74.9 percent of the population, while the 41 Republicans come from 27 states — a majority — containing 48.7 percent. (Thirteen states have senators from each party.)
Since there have been 50 states, Republicans have never had 60 senators. There were 60 or more Democratic senators after seven elections — 1960 (64), 1962 (66), 1964 (68), 1966 (64), 1974 (61), 1976 (62) and 2008 (60, following Arlen Specter’s discovery that he is a Democrat and the protracted Minnesota recount). But both parties have been situational ethicists regarding filibusters.
There is more, including, GW notes, that President Obama’s deficit commission requires a 14 out of 18 vote to adopt recommendations! GW adds: filibusters (a) serve a valid purpose and (b) have never prevented adoption of legislation ardently desired by the majority of the American public:
Filibusters are devices for registering intensity rather than mere numbers — government by adding machine. Besides, has a filibuster ever prevented eventual enactment of anything significant that an American majority has desired, strongly and protractedly?
There is more. In the quotes linked above my favorite is actually Chris Dodd’s, which underscores Will’s point about major legislation winning bipartisan support:
Chris Dodd 5/18/2005: “I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have a lead co sponsor that was a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood Mr. President that there is a tyranny of the majority.
WSJ columnist Kimberley Strassel explains why passage of ObamaCare is far from a slam dunk, even if the Senate manages to use the 51-vote trick to pass its version, due to a very dicey head count in the House. Bil Kristol’s mini-blog captures House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s disdain for incrementalism. Nonetheless, Peggy Noonan casts her gimlet eye on the 7-hour summit and finds Democrats prepared to try to ram their bill through and risk voter wrath in November.
Bottom Line. The filibuster is a valuable tool of Senate rules. The House runs on majority diktat; the Senate on consent of 100. While both parties have been guilty of playing footsie with filibusters, using parliamentary sleight-of-hand to ram through the restructuring of one-sixth of the American economy is without comparable precedent. Voters do not track procedural niceties, but if ObamaCare is rammed through Democrats will answer come November.
Posted in Health Care, News, Politics, tagged 44, Allen Quist, Barack Obama, Democrats, Health Care, marriage penalty, marriage tax, Obama, Obamacare, President Barack Obama, President Obama, WND, WorldNetDaily on February 11, 2010|
WorldNetDaily reports that the House and Senate bills that were passed both contain the “marriage penalty”, increasing the penalty (up to $10,000 annually) for married couples who don’t comply with the nationalized health care system but significantly reduce the penalty for non-married couples.
It’s ba-ack! Health-care plan redoubles ‘marriage penalty’
Congressional proposals could penalize couples $10,000 for saying ‘I do’
Posted: February 10, 2010
11:03 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Bills pending in Congress that would nationalize health care by setting up mandatory insurance purchases and fines for not complying could penalize married couples $10,000 annually and are a direct attack on marriage, families and the church because of their discriminatory provisions, according to a congressional candidate.
“This is as awful, I will say evil … this is as evil as it gets,” Allen Quist, who is running to unseat Democrat Tim Walz in Minnesota’s 1st congressional district, told WND.
Quist said the fine print of provisions still alive in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives deliberately create enormous pressure for couples to live together without marriage – or even get divorced – by charging married couples thousands of dollars more in premiums and fees.
“And it’s deliberate,” Quist added, “This is clearly not accidental.”
“In fact you have government policies tearing apart marriage,” he said. “Marriage is the foundation of society. It’s the foundation of our government and to a large degree the basic unit in the church. [The policy] undermines the church’s teaching and undermines church structure.
“It weakens the family. It weakens the church, and it weakens our country,” he said.
Quist is retired adjunct professor of political science at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato, Minn., and has written five books, including his most recent, “America’s Schools: The Battleground for Freedom.” He played a role in legalizing home schools in Minnesota and was one of seven delegates elected from the state to the White House Conference on Families in 1980.He currently writes and edits curriculum modules that can be used by teachers to supplement school texts. The material focuses on “exciting new information that will not be included in textbooks because the information contradicts politically correct worldviews including Darwinism and global warming.”
The Democrats’ health care legislation essentially would restore the old “marriage penalty,” Quist said. Under the U.S. Tax Code for many years, people who were married and had two incomes paid income tax on the second income that started at the highest rate for taxes on the first income.
A husband’s first $5,000 in income was taxed at the same – or next higher rate – as the wife’s highest $5,000 in income in a year.
However, if the two people were living together without marriage, the incomes were separate, and the second income would be taxed starting at the lowest rate of the tax table.
Members of Congress worked for years to repeal the measure and take away the financial penalty for being married.
Quist said the new health-care provisions restore the penalty and double it. He said all he needed to figure that out was his knowledge of how government works – he’s been a state representative for multiple terms – and a calculator. Under the two proposals pending, which are similar, two unmarried people with a combined income of about $59,000 would pay about $1,320 a year in medical insurance.
For a married couple with the same approximate income, the tab would be about $12,000.
It would hit young married couples hard and even would bite back at empty-nesters whose children have moved away from home, he said.
Two WND columnists previously have cited the disparity in the health care programs’ recommended costs for couples. Phyllis Schlafly wrote, “Even though all evidence shows that marriage is the best remedy for poverty, lack of health care, domestic violence, child abuse and school dropouts, federal welfare programs continue to discriminate against marriage and instead give taxpayer handouts to those who reject marriage.”
She cited tables revealing the House bill cost for an unmarried couple with $50,000 in combined income would be $3,076 a year. Married, they would pay $5,160.
Columnist Craige McMillan went further, noting that the head of a family making $44,000 a year would see periodic take-home pay of $2,854 reduced to $1,604 because of mandatory health insurance costs.
He reported, however, a single woman with the same income would have her income drop only from $2,687 to $2,603 because she could opt to pay a penalty instead of buying insurance.
“If she gets sick the new ban on pre-existing illnesses means she can sign up the month before she needs an expensive operation – and drop coverage a month later. And since emergency rooms will still have to treat the uninsured, no questions asked, why would she carry insurance?”
But Quist went further, charging that it is a deliberate attack on Christians.
“It’s persecution of the church, because of the church’s involvement with marriage,” he said.
“Millions of families [will have the choice] of staying married and not making their house, their mortgage payments or getting divorced and making their payments,” he said.
“This thing is designed to destroy marriage in the middle class – just as we’ve destroyed it on the poverty level,” he said, citing aid programs that lend more benefits to a single mother with children than the same family with a father present.
Quist said. “It’s going to come in like a freight train.”
According to a Heritage Foundation analysis, the provisions in the Senate bill confirm that “saying ‘I do’ would cost some couples over $10,000 a year.”
“At nearly all age and income levels, the bill profoundly discriminates against married couples, providing far less support to a husband and wife than to a cohabiting couple with the same income,” the analysis said.
“Under the Senate bill, married couples in general would receive between $1,500 and $10,000 less in government health care support than would cohabiting couples with the same total income.”
“For example, a young couple without children, age 20, each making $20,000, would receive $4,317 more in health benefits each year if they cohabit rather than marry. Slipping on the wedding ring would cut the couple’s annual disposable income by more than 10 percent. Rather than pay this new wedding tax, the couple is likely to postpone marriage or forego it entirely,” the analysis said.
Empty-nesters “would pay an effective tax of $5,000 to $10,000 per year for the right to remain married,” the report continued. “For example, a 60-year-old couple, each earning $30,000 per year, would receive $10,425 per year less in benefits if they marry or remain married. Simply by divorcing and then living together, the couple can boost their post-tax, take-home income by nearly one-fourth.”
The Heritage report warned, “The bill’s wedding tax is perpetual. … Some couples who remained married throughout their adult lives would face cumulative penalties of over $200,000 during the course of their marriage.”
Robert Rector, the author of the analysis and a Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at the foundation, concluded, “On the other hand, the bill establishes cohabiters as a privileged special interest, quietly channeling tens of thousands of dollars to them in preferential government bonuses. Offering couples massive financial rewards on the condition they jettison their wedding vows, or decline to make them in the first place, is absurd social policy. But that would be the established policy of the U.S. government if Obamacare becomes law.”
CNSNews reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that Obama is dropping the idea to change veterans’ health care insurance coverage.
The fact that it was even considered should be a red flag to every American.
Pelosi: Obama Scraps Idea of Billing Veterans’ Private Insurance for Treating Service-Related Injuries
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
By Fred Lucas and Michael Chapman
(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced on Wednesday afternoon that President Barack Obama is shelving a controversial proposal that would have forced the private health insurance of veterans to pay for their war- and service-related injuries.
“President Obama listened to the genuine concerns expressed by the veteran service organizations regarding the option of billing service-connected injuries to veterans’ insurance companies,” said Pelosi. “Based on the respect President Obama has for veterans and the principle concerns of our veteran leaders, the president made the decision that combat wounds should not be billed through their insurance policies.”
Pelosi made her comments at a meeting with veterans’ service organizations at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. After her announcement, the group gave her a standing ovation.
The proposal, which was discussed in recent hearings of the Veterans Affairs committees in the House and Senate and in the House Budget Committee, would have shifted more of the cost for service-related injuries from the government–through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)–to the private, third-party insurance plans held by many veterans.
Currently, the VA covers the full cost of medical ailments related to military service and bills third-party insurers only for non-service related ailments.
For example, if an injured veteran is treated for the flu, the veteran’s personal insurance is billed. If the injured veteran is treated for a service-related injury and requires hearing aids or prosthetics, for example, the VA covers the cost. The proposal Obama has decided to abandon would have shifted the expense of treating service-related injuries and illnesses from the VA to private insurance companies.
Last week, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed to the House and Senate committees on veterans’ affairs that the idea to bill veterans’ private individual insurance was being considered by the administration but was not yet a formal proposal.
“It is a consideration. It is not in the budget, but it is a consideration, and I’ll be sure that your concerns are delivered,” Shinseki told the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee. “And again, we’re talking–in health care–the two aspects of this are delivery of health care and the financing of it. This is about the financing. I want to assure you that there should be no concern about the delivery.”
But the idea had already generated strong opposition from veterans’ groups and members of Congress, and the veterans’ service organizations were making their concerns known to the White House.
Also last week, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, said, “I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line for our safety. When our troops are injured while serving this country, we should take care of those injuries completely. We shouldn’t nickel and dime them with their care.”
House Veterans Affairs Committee Rep. Michael Michaud (D-Me.) told Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki during the Mar. 10 hearing, “If that [third-party payment proposal] is in the budget, I will not be supporting the budget. It is unconscionable and is an insult to our veterans who’ve been hurt overseas. So hopefully, you will give that message to OMB as it relates to third-party collections for disabled veterans, which is just unbelievable that anyone would ever think of doing that in this budget.”
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, also expressed opposition. “If this proposal reaches the Senate, I will strongly oppose it,” Burr told CNSNews.com in a statement Monday.
“The VA was created for the purpose of caring for those who have fought and sacrificed for our country, and the care for injuries sustained while serving is our responsibility.”
Posted in Economy, Health Care, News, Politics, tagged Americans for Prosperity, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, cartelized, Democrats, Health Care, Kennedy, Obama, Obama Administration, Peter Wallison, play-or-pay, President Barack Obama, President Obama, Wall Street Journal, WSJ on March 17, 2009|
Americans for Prosperity has an article describing how it looks like America will be “cartelized” by the Obama Administration.
Instead of a full frontal attack on the economy and health care, the Administration will slowly piecemeal the legislation into being and couple it with big business. This way they can avoid a head on confrontation by Republicans and “concerned citizens” by making it more palletable and getting the more liberal-leaning Republicans on their side. It will be a Government+big business solution that will effectively eliminate the smaller entities and eventually force everyone into the Government-controlled system with the appearance of a private entity.
None Dare Call It Healthcare Fascism
Tuesday, March 17th 2009
by Lawrence A. Hunter, Ph.D.
AFP Senior Fellow
A WSJ article by American Enterprise Institute scholar Peter Wallison today illustrates how America is being cartelized by big government — none dare call it Fascism –so call it Corporatism. Wallison describes how in the process of creating a new “Systemic Risk Regulator” to prevent future financial-system meltdowns the federal government will create a whole host of new, implicitly government-backed financial institutions (similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), namely those designated “systemically significant,” i.e., too big to fail. Wallison sums up the consequences:
“Financial institutions that are not large enough to be designated as systemically significant will gradually lose out in the marketplace to the larger companies that are perceived to have government backing, just as Fannie and Freddie were able to drive banks and others from the secondary market for prime middle-class mortgages. A small group of government-backed financial institutions will thus come to dominate all sectors of finance in the U.S. And when that happens they shall be called by a special name: winners.”
While Barney Frank and Co. are busy cartelizing the financial services sector, Senator Kennedy and President Obama are working quietly behind the scenes to also cartelize the healthcare sector with it’s healthcare reform scheme. Americans convincingly snubbed a single-payer, government-operated national healthcare system more than a decade ago when it rejected Hillarycare. Obama and Company have learned from that experience and are planning to co-opt Republicans and conservatives opposed to a single-payer system by cartelizing the private health insurance industry. They will call it a “public-private partnership;” it will really be healthcare run by agents of the state — it really is called fascism.
Not only will the new healthcare system likely impose a “play-or-pay” mandate on individuals (join the nationalized healthcare or pay a tax/fine), it also will impose government play-by-our-rules controls on any insurance plan that participates. The effect of these controls will be to drive all but the largest health insurance companies from the field. When it’s all said and done, Obamacare will leave Americans imprisoned in a system that has all the appearance of a private system with choices but in practice will be a nationalized system out-sourced to a few select healthcare giants. None dare call it healthcare fascism but that’s what it will be.