What happened to defunding socialized medicine?

Discussion in 'Health Care' started by Flanders, Apr 25, 2011.

  1. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Money talk, Libya, and Donald Trump, pushed defunding socialized medicine off the face of the earth. The media push was deliberately designed to make Americans forget about The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I, for one, cannot forget.

    The Supreme Court will not touch it either; at least not until after the election in 2012.

    Years before 2008, I posted messages saying that the medical industry needed to be reformed. Instead of reform the Democrats imposed socialized medicine on the country and called it reform. With Democrat reform came the first legal step on the road to euthanasia, renewed funding for infanticide, and medical diagnoses by government bureaucrats instead of insurance industry bean counters as in HMOs. Democrat party healthcare reform needs to be reformed before HillaryCare II is set in cement.

    Hussein must have gotten his definition of reform from a Klingon dictionary. As usual, he plays fast and loose with the truth so it fits into his socialized medicine sales pitch.

    Remember how hard the insurance industry had to sell HMOs to the public? Once the sale was made HMOs opened the door for many of the government-controlled medical decisions that you’ll get with socialized medicine. It was inevitable that a government-run healthcare system would outdo insurance industry dictates. I suspect that HMOs will be the only part of the private sector insurance industry that will be allowed to coexist with socialized medicine. That is how the Liar in Chief gets away with saying the government won’t shut down private insurance.

    My definition of reform did not call for tax increases to pay for socialized medicine. I thought that reform should center on government oversight buttressed by severe penalties for medical malpractice, and even jail time, for offending medical industry professionals and hospital administrators.

    My reforms focused on faulty diagnoses, administering the wrong medication, unnecessary and botched surgery, stopping HIV/AIDS tainted blood from donors in Africa from reaching patients in American hospitals and so on.

    Specifically, whenever expensive cures and medication kills a patient the medical community covers it up by saying the patient was too far gone or some such thing.

    NOTE: No one can prove that chemotherapy kills patients. Nor can anyone prove that a person who survived chemotherapy would not have lived without chemotherapy. There’s just too much money involved to take a chance finding out one way or the other.

    So long as the medical industry is getting rich on tax dollars compassionate treatment is not the prime mover in the Left’s culture of death. If no one was paying the freight doctors would not be so quick to recommend surgery and other cures when they are not necessary. Take it from me, the older you get the more the doctors want to cash in on your aging body before you check out.

    The unnecessary deaths that take place in American hospitals is already astronomical. Incompetence, fueled by appeasing the parasite class, in this country permeates the entire healthcare industry not only in hospitals. The government HMO will only make the number of unnecessary deaths climb out of sight when Hussein dumps 60 million new people into the system before correcting, or at least addressing, the disgraces in our charnel houses, pharmaceutical industry, and testing labs.

    At this point, it’s too much to expect Congress, or the states, to pass laws that will severely punish doctors, drug company executives, and hospital personnel whose neglect causes an unnecessary death. Some states charge drunk drivers with murder. It’s time the same tough approach applied to everyone in the healthcare industry.

    Instead of cracking down on medical industry butchery, coverups, and larceny, congressional leaders from both political parties call for tort reform that gives the incompetents and the butchers even more protection than they already have.

    One of the few good things that lawyers do is to ride herd on doctors and hospitals. Nothing reforms as well as a lawsuit forcing a charnel house to straighten up and fly right.

    I can understand Republicans wanting to reduce the incomes of trial lawyers, one of the Democrat party’s core constituencies, but why would Democrats go along with tort reform if not to protect healthcare professionals by limiting awards handed out by juries?

    And let’s not forget how many people die each year in hospitals from infections they picked in the hospital. And don’t forget hospitals buying AIDS-tainted blood from Africa. Before millions more are sent into the healthcare system —— hospital deaths caused by hospitals should be reduced to zero.

    One of my heartfelt reforms focused on hospital deaths caused by staph infections that patients pick up in unsanitary hospitals. How many Americans know that staph infections kills more people every year than does HIV/AIDS? Most of those death-causing infections are contracted in hospitals. Conditions have worsen after millions of parasites get jobs with what amounts to lifetime tenure. Unions will see to it that no dues-paying, filthy, lazy, bum will ever be fired.

    One of my reform suggested that the government give hospitals five years to convert to single occupancy rooms as one way to cut down on the spread of staph infections and subsequent deaths. Any hospital failing to meet the deadline would not get a penny of healthcare money from the government until it was in compliance.

    My cost-cutting reforms also said that every medical industry entity that is traded on Wall Street not be eligible to receive healthcare dollars. Take a guess at the odds of having that reform being picked up by Congress?

    Needless to say, Democrat healthcare reform includes tax increases coupled with reduced patient-care because this entire healthcare thing is a battle between taxpayers and the parasite class. The parasites want more for themselves and the only way they can get it is to use the government to get it for them. Heaven forbid that the leeches actually create wealth instead of absorbing it.

    Democrat strategy is not that difficult to understand either. Elected Democrats are learning that demonizing concerned Americans is not working even with government stooges on network television pushing it. Now, some Democrats are cautiously admitting that there are strong passions on both sides of the issue. I guess opposing socialized medicine qualifies as strong passions.

    Framing the case for socialized medicine for “reasonable” people in the middle is suddenly the name of the Democrat game. That’s bullcrap, too. Democrats rammed socialized medicine down the public’s throat and that’s where it will stay.

    Continued in part two.
     
  2. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    PART TWO

    Socialized medicine’s champions always point to healthcare systems in countries like England, Canada, and Cuba then tell us how wonderful they are. It’s only fair that I say a few words about socialized medicine in foreign countries to show that it ain’t so wonderful. Namely, for every horror story the Left tells about people without healthcare, there are 100 horror stories done to the sick under socialized medicine.

    Great Britain’s wonderful socialized medicine is a road map to where Hussein’s government care will lead the sick.

    J. R. Dunn puts deaths from iatrogenic "superbug" infection at 30,000 a year in Great Britain:


    The British National Health Service, the mother of all nationalized health systems, has had what amounts to a "death panel" system since 2005. Under the terms of the Mental Capacity Act, patients unable to communicate with hospital personnel are considered to be "due to die" and are removed from all forms of life support, including food and water. In other words, given the same treatment meted out to Terry Schiavo.

    The most notorious recent case involving this act occurred last year when Mrs. Ellen Westwood, an 88-year-old retiree, entered Birmingham's Selly Oak hospital for shoulder surgery. While recovering she caught the inevitable iatrogenic "superbug" infection, a daily occurrence in British hospitals, and one which costs up to 30,000 lives a year. Without further ado, the Selly Oak doctors declared Mrs. Westwood "due to die" and began the process of shutting her down.

    August 20, 2009
    Palin v. ObamaCare
    By J. R. Dunn

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/palin_v_obamacare.html

    Staph infections and iatrogenic infections are not the same thing as near as I can determine. I don’t suppose it matters to anyone who dies from either.

    Incidentally, America’s population is over 300,000,000 while the UK has a population of 61,000,000.

    The number of deaths from staph infections in the UK is a condemnation of socialized medicine everywhere. It is also a fair argument to use against those who point to socialized medicine in the UK as a model of compassion and efficiency.

    The unsanitary conditions in existing hospitals has long been one of my complaints. That is multiple-occupancy rooms. My contention has been that single-occupancy rooms would go a long way towards reducing infections acquired in hospitals not to mention improving overall patient comfort and care.

    I suggested that existing hospitals be given five or so years to convert to single occupancy rooms. Any hospital failing to comply after the grace period has elapsed would lose ALL government reimbursements —— federal and state. Such a move toward reform on behalf of patients instead of reform designed to enrich insurance companies and hospital-owners would spark a wave of new, “healthier” hospitals once the cost of new construction is compared to the cost of conversion.

    Since hospitals are profit-making enterprises the owners could be given tax breaks to make the transition. I would not give them a penny of taxpayer money directly whether they build new, or convert existing, hospitals. There is also a built-in financial stimulus to the economy; one that actually helps everyone rather than just the Wall Street crowd

    There’s plenty about hospital horrors out there for anybody who wants to followup. Here are three articles that will give you a good handle on where socialized medicine ends up:


    JANUARY 8, 2009
    Hospital Scrubs Are a Germy, Deadly Mess
    Bacteria on doctor uniforms can kill you.
    By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137245971962641.html

    XXXXX​

    John C. Goodman
    How Safe is Your Hospital?

    http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2011/04/16/how_safe_is_your_hospital

    XXXXX​

    By Jon Swaine
    Last Updated: 10:58AM GMT 06 Jan 2009

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/4...tal-mistakes-up-60-per-cent-in-two-years.html
     
  3. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I originally thought the SCOTUS was playing politics by not ruling on the constitutionality of the healthcare bill in order to give Hussein a helping hand in 2012. It’s worse than I feared:

    This protracted journey will allow Obamacare to embed itself in our health care system so deeply that, by the time the Court deigns to hear one of the challenges, it may be impossible to safely extract the tumor.

    Repeal is the only option. That means that conservatives will have to win a super majority in both Houses and the White House in 2012. Repeal means four million additional parasites will be denied access to the public trough in the healthcare industry:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFWdiS55_j8&feature=player_detailpage"]YouTube - Try Not to Laugh Watching This Video of Nancy Pelosi[/ame]

    Democrats will never vote for repeal just as none voted against the bill in the first place. The parasite class is the Democrat party. They can’t vote for repeal regardless of what a vast majority of Americans want.

    Even with a Republican super majority, you can count on a RINO or two in the Senate voting with the Democrats; just enough to defeat repeal. Unless the High Court surprises everyone and eventually overturns HillaryCare II it looks like it is here to stay. Bottom line: The parasites win again.


    Supreme Court Allows Obamacare to Metastasize
    By David Catron on 4.26.11 @ 6:09AM

    The Supreme Court's decision to deny Virginia's request for expedited review of its Obamacare lawsuit was disappointing but not surprising. Even the Old Dominion's Attorney General, Kenneth Cuccinelli, has admitted all along that his chances of convincing the high court to grant his "petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment" were quite low. Nonetheless, the White House and its accomplices in the "news" media have greeted the decision with thinly disguised glee. And it is indeed a significant victory for the supporters of Obamacare. Despite the virtual certainty that the Supreme Court will eventually hear one of the myriad constitutional challenges to the unpopular "reform" law, today's decision dooms these cases to another year of wandering aimlessly in the appellate wilderness.

    This protracted journey will allow Obamacare to embed itself in our health care system so deeply that, by the time the Court deigns to hear one of the challenges, it may be impossible to safely extract the tumor. As Sam Stein gloats in the Huffington Post, "The rejection of Cuccinelli's effort to short-circuit the process represents a small but welcomed victory for the law's defenders. There will be more time for the laws to be implemented before it comes before the court." This extra time is obviously what the Department of Justice (DOJ) hoped to gain when it opposed Virginia's petition. Considering its professed confidence in Obamacare's constitutionality, it's difficult to imagine any other reason for the DOJ's strenuous efforts to prevent the Court from "short-circuiting the normal course of appellate review."

    What, you ask, happened to that expedited appeals process we've read so much about? Well, the word "expedite" has a different meaning for lawyers and judges than it does for the rest of us. While it is true that Virginia v. Sebelius and several other Obamacare challenges will be heard in various appeals courts during the next couple of months, the resultant rulings won't materialize until the end of the summer. Then, as legal scholar Brad Joondeph explains, "The losing side has 90 days to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, and the winner 30 days to respond, at which point the petition will be calendared at the Supreme Court." After all that, assuming the Court agrees to hear one of the cases, the justices will "hear argument in the spring of 2012, and issue a decision by the end of June 2012."

    Meanwhile, the infection spreads. While the lawyers argue over hopelessly arcane points of law and the judges issue dueling opinions, Obama administration apparatchiks will be working furiously behind the scenes to implement Obamacare. They have already introduced a voracious tape worm of regulations that will wind itself so thoroughly around the entrails of the health care system that removal will be a virtual impossibility in a year or so. The latest example can be found in the rules promulgated by CMS administrator Donald Berwick concerning Accountable Care Organizations (ACO), the government's latest rebranding of the old HMO gambit. Although the section of the law calling for the creation of ACOs is a mere six pages long, Berwick's bureaucrats transmuted them into no fewer than 429 pages of regulations.

    And the number of rule-generating agencies is also growing. In addition to cozy little boutiques like the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO), whose primary function seems to involve providing waivers for labor unions and other sources of Democrat campaign funds, Obamacare provides for more than 100 new bureaucracies. How many will be up-and-running by the time the Supreme Court stoops to consider the individual mandate? No one knows exactly. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, "The precise number of new entities" that will eventually be created by the Byzantine health law is "currently unknowable." We do not, however, need to consult the Delphic Oracle to know that more than a few will sprout up while we await the pleasure of the Court.

    Also coming on line while we wait is the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act, Obamacare's federally subsidized entitlement for long-term care. This program was shown to be fiscally unsustainable a year before the law was passed and is now the target of repeal legislation introduced by South Dakota Senator John Thune. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, admits the program is unsustainable as written but plans to move forward with implementation nonetheless. She has told Congress that she will fix the CLASS Act by making a variety of changes to the program. The HHS Secretary is not, it turns out, authorized under the law to make such changes. But, as Sebelius has demonstrated before, mere legal authority is not a particularly important consideration.

    Fiscally unsustainable new entitlements, proliferating bureaucracies, and over-regulation are by no means the only ways Obamacare will metastasize while Virginia v. Sebelius wanders through the appellate wilderness. There will be new taxes on businesses, downward adjustments in Medicare rates, the gutting of the Medicare Advantage program, restrictions on the right of physicians to own certain types of health care facilities, ad infinitum. Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute advises: "That the Supreme Court declined to take up the Obamacare litigation before even a single appellate court had ruled on it is neither surprising nor game-changing." Strictly from the perspective of constitutional law, he is presumably right. However, in terms of the health of our medical delivery system, the decision is definitely a "game-changer."

    If Obamacare has another year to metastasize, it may well be impossible to eradicate the disease without killing or at least badly maiming the patient. In fact, it is conceivable that the DOJ will make that very argument when the case finally arrives before the Court, betting that the justices will be loath to strike down Obamacare -- or even the individual mandate -- knowing that such a ruling would create chaos in the midst of an election year. And it is by no means obvious that such a ruling would work against Obama's bid for reelection. It isn't hard to imagine the President including the Court in the "the enemies of change" against whom he will inevitably run in 2012. The eleven words, "The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied," represent worse news than most people realize.

    http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/26/supreme-court-allows-obamacare
     
    Lady Luna and (deleted member) like this.
  4. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In #3 permalink I said that repeal is the only option. I hope I was mistaken. State legislators might be another option:

    But it's now taken another shot across the bow, in a vote in the North Dakota legislature where lawmakers determined it "likely" is unconstitutional and "may violate its true meaning and intent as given by the founders."

    Catch 22 is the biggest obstacle to states declaring a law unconstitutional. No matter what states do, the American people have been led to believe that only the Supreme Court decides what is, and what is not, constitutional. The enclosed article tells us why that is not so.

    The question is this: Will a majority of Americans finally accept the limitations the Constitution places on the Supreme Court?

    And what will Americans do if the federal government refuses to recognize laws passed by state legislatures; laws that are in complete harmony with the Constitution?

    You can be certain the parasite class will fight this tooth and nail. A loss here is more than losing one or two programs. Should states assert themselves the parasite class loses the power to legislate from the bench. That means they will have to amend the Constitution when they want something.

    Incidentally, Americans who want to uphold the Constitution were placed in the position of amending the Constitution in order to undo the welfare state. A balanced budget amendment is just one example. The will of the American people will be better served when the parasites are required to go the Amendment route.


    State declares Obamacare unconstitutional, null and void
    Federal health plan already struck down by 2 judges
    Posted: April 29, 2011
    6:40 pm Eastern
    By Bob Unruh

    President Obama's signature accomplishment to date, the Obamacare health care reform law that is just a year old, twice has been ruled unconstitutional by federal judges, and it is expected eventually to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    But it's now taken another shot across the bow, in a vote in the North Dakota legislature where lawmakers determined it "likely" is unconstitutional and "may violate its true meaning and intent as given by the founders."

    The lawmakers decided that "no provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 may interfere with an individual's choice of a medical or insurance provider except as otherwise provided by the laws of this state."

    According to officials with the Tenth Amendment Center, the law adopted by the legislature and signed yesterday by Gov. Jack Dalrymple is a modification of model legislation it has offered a number of states under the title of the Federal Health Care Nullification Act.

    That simply provides that the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves."

    In North Dakota, the new law explains, "The legislative assembly declares that the federal laws known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [Pub. L. 111 - 148] and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 [Pub. L. 111 - 152] likely are not authorized by the United States Constitution and may violate its true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers."

    It continues, "The legislative assembly shall consider enacting any measure necessary to prevent the enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 within this state."

    The legislative report on the bill, SB 2309, notes it was introduced first in the state Senate on Jan. 24 and approved by the body on Feb. 18. It struggled through House committees, and ultimately earned approval in the Senate 32-15 and in the House 69-24. The governor signed it yesterday.

    It also requires, "No provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 may interfere with an individual's choice of a medical or insurance provider except as otherwise provided by the laws of this state."

    Officials with the Tenth Amendment Center noted that it was Thomas Jefferson who said a state's action that would leave a federal requirement void in a state is "the rightful remedy" to unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

    James Madison also was cited, in his Virginia Resolution of 1798, where he said: "That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are ... duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."

    To the argument that no one can override federal law, the center argues simply that the Founders agreed the federal government would only be able to exercise those powers delegated in the Constitution, and that anything beyond that was not really a law at all.

    "For a federal law to be supreme, it must be made in pursuance of a power delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. If not, it's no law at all, and state law is supreme," the center explains.
    "For people who are sick and tired of being told by the federal government what size toilet to have, what kind of light bulbs to use and what kind of fine they'll pay for not buying a health insurance plan, there's been a lot of shots across the bow the last few years," Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, told WND.

    "By signing this nullification act, Gov. Dalrymple and the people of North Dakota have responded with the first full retaliatory strike in what will likely be a long struggle by the people to restore the proper balance of power under the Constitution. Like James Madison told us – the powers reserved to the states and people are 'numerous and indefinite...' while those delegated to the federal government are 'few and defined.'"

    Already eight states have passed Firearms Freedom Acts which simply say firearms made, sold and kept in the state are free from federal regulation, and more than a dozen others states are using the 10th Amendment ideals to defy various federal laws on marijuana.

    The Real ID Act of 2005 has faced such resistance it's effectively useless and another five states are considering measures to nullify TSA groping and body scanning.

    WND recently reported on Obama's plans to expand the power of his Obamacare Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is to be an unelected, unaccountable board that controls payments for seniors medical care.

    Critics have described it as the ultimate "death panel" because of the authority it would have – even over Congress and the courts – to determine what care is paid for and what isn't.

    U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, author of the new book "Doctor in the House" on the nationalization of health care, said the IPAB was a bad idea when ex-Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., proposed it and voters removed him from office, and it hasn't gotten better.

    "Now for the first time ever the primary party for health care for seniors, Medicare, is going to be able to tell you what kind of care you can get, where and when you can get it and worst of all, when you've had enough," he told WND.

    "If all you're looking to do is be able to figure how to take care of old people cheaply, this is the way to go," he said. "If what you want to provide is meaningful medical care, why would you set up or embellish a system that leads to waiting lists and rationing?"

    Citing Obama's recent comments, he said the board will become "the central command and control system" and the "primary tool" to limit, ration, reduce or restrict treatments.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292737
     
  5. darckriver

    darckriver New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,773
    Likes Received:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To darckriver: So is Olympia Snowe. She and Pelosi are sisters under the skin —— sneaky sisters I might add.

    Remember it was eight Republicans in the House that gave Pelosi the votes she needed, but it was Senator Snowe all by her lonesome who provided Harry Reid with the 60th vote he needed to move the healthcare bill forward. That terrible bill would have been stopped in its tracks were it not for Snowe. Just think of the grief this country would have been spared had HillaryCare II never become law.

    Now, Snowe is in trouble with Tea Partiers; so she and her Democrat pals are running a game on Maine’s voters:


    Facing possible Tea Party challenger, Snowe moves right
    By Alexander Bolton - 05/06/11 06:00 AM ET

    Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), once the Democrats' great hope for bipartisan healthcare reform legislation, has taken surprisingly conservative positions in the Senate this year.

    Snowe said observers should not be surprised. She said that while her actions may have prompted a backlash from Democrats, they’re in keeping with long-held views.

    Snowe stunned long-time Democratic colleagues Wednesday by blocking action on a small business bill she co-wrote because Democratic leaders refused to allow a vote on an amendment they saw as a political hit job.

    “Senator Snowe actually wrote this bill,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), chairwoman of the Senate Small Business Committee. “She killed her own bill under the guise that she feels so strongly about reg reform.”

    Snowe, the ranking Republican on the Small Business Committee, filibustered the bill because Democrats wouldn’t allow her a vote on an amendment she co-sponsored with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the Senate’s most outspoken conservatives. The amendment would curb federal agencies’ power to implement regulations. For example, it would require regulatory agencies to first study the potential impact on small businesses.

    Snowe told The Hill that her Democratic colleagues shouldn’t be surprised. She said her amendment on regulatory reform is relevant to the underlying bill because it affects businesses across the country. She believes she had no recourse but to filibuster after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took the unusual step of denying her, the ranking member on the committee of jurisdiction, a chance to vote on her own proposal.

    Landrieu said Snowe’s demand was inconsistent with her earlier request that the Small Business Committee advance a “clean” small business bill, free of extraneous policy provisions.

    Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) described themselves as “surprised” by Snowe’s stand on a bill that otherwise had broad bipartisan support.

    “This is something eight, ten years ago never would have happened, there never would have been cloture on this,” Feinstein said in reference to the procedure Democratic leaders pursued to end Snowe’s filibuster.

    Snowe said the burden of federal regulations is a problem that must be addressed immediately, while the national economy continues to struggle.

    “We have got a serious problem in America,” Snowe said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “It’s persistently high unemployment, it’s sub-par growth. The economic conditions are deeply troubling. We have to get the show on the road. That means regulatory reform. It is one of the chief, foremost concerns among small businesses.”

    It’s one of several conservative positions Snowe, long considered one of the Senate’s pre-eminent centrists, has taken this year.

    She disappointed environmental activists last month by voting for an amendment sponsored by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) barring the Environmental Protection Agency from taking action to address greenhouse gas emissions.
    It was a rare instance of splitting with her home-state colleague, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who opposed McConnell’s proposal.

    David Hamilton, director of global warming and energy programs at the Sierra Club, said it’s the latest example of Snowe moving to the right on the issue of climate change. He noted that she voted for an amendment sponsored last year by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to tie the EPA’s hands.

    “She’s already veered from her longtime pro environment history to side with those who would stop EPA in its tracks,” he said and called the McConnell amendment an “onerous” and drastic repeal of EPA authority.

    Snowe said she supports regulations of emissions from utilities but worries that EPA regulation of the manufacturing and transportation sectors would stifle the economy. She notes that manufacturers have reduced carbon emissions by 17 percent over the past two decades and it doesn’t make sense to penalize industries voluntarily trying to reduce their carbon footprint.

    Snowe said that when she sat down with Kerry in the summer of 2009 to discuss climate change legislation, she told him “we should not include manufacturing and transportation in the broad regulatory authority for the EPA, it would have a devastating impact for manufacturing which is important to Maine.”

    Another surprising vote came last month when Snowe was one of only a handful of lawmakers to vote for a resolution offered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a Tea-Party favorite, stating the president “does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize an attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the United States.”

    Snowe said she voted for Paul’s amendment because it was her only opportunity to register concern over President Obama’s decision to bomb forces loyal to dictator Moammar Gadhafi without consulting Congress.

    Snowe, who has long supported abortion rights, in March voted for a package of House-passed spending cuts, known as HR 1, which would have eliminated federal funding for Title X and Planned Parenthood.

    Forty-three other Republicans, including centrists such as Collins, Murkowski, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) also voted for H.R. 1.

    Snowe said she voted for the House package, even though she didn’t support all of it, because Democrats would not allow any amendments to modify it.

    “For me it became a vote about registering concern about our debt and deficit problem,” she said. “Democrats were offering four billion in cuts and Republicans were offering 62 billion,” she said.

    Democrats were “putting everything in an either/or and we can’t do that and solve the problem” she said.

    Planned Parenthood forgave Snowe for that transgression after she voted against a subsequent measure linked to the 2011 bipartisan budget deal that would have stripped federal funding of family planning and women’s health services.

    “There is no question that Sen. Snowe supports Planned Parenthood and the preventive health care we provide. When the Senate had a specific vote on the proposal to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds, Sen. Snowe voted no,” said Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood. ?

    Democrats accuse Snowe of scrambling to appease conservative voters at home in anticipation of a possible Tea-Party challenge next year.

    “For good reason, Olympia Snowe is terrified of a conservative primary challenge,” said Shripal Shah, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “Today she tried to score political points with her base at the expense of Maine’s economy and small businesses.”

    But Snowe pushed back, saying Democrats don’t own her votes. She said she wouldn’t have the threat of a conservative primary challenge if she didn’t reach across the aisle from time to time, noting that she voted for the repeal of the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and the New START nuclear treaty last year.

    GOP Senate aides point out that Snowe is in line to take over as senior Republican on the powerful Commerce Committee at the end of this Congress.

    If Sen. Orrin Hatch loses to a conservative challenger next year in Utah’s Republican primary, she would be next in line to take over the even more prestigious Finance Committee.

    But conservatives might object to Snowe become ranking member or chairman of one of the chamber’s most powerful committees if she didn’t prove her conservative credentials. Conservative activists nearly derailed former Sen. Arlen Specter’s (Pa.) bid to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2005 over similar concerns.

    Conservatives have noticed that Snowe is voting more in line with their positions.

    “Clearly the senator has been voting more conservative over the past few months,” said Brian Darling, senior fellow for government studies at the Heritage Foundation.

    Darling noted that Snowe has worked with her leadership to push Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to allow an open amendment process on the Senate floor.

    “I wouldn’t consider her all of a sudden to be a conservative but she’s voting more conservatively,” he said.

    But Darling and other conservatives wonder whether Snowe can be counted on to head the Commerce or Finance panels if she wins re-election.

    “Conservatives worry that Senator Snowe will go back to serving as a swing vote for liberal Democrats after the November 2012 election,” he said. “Not many analysts believe that Snowe’s more conservative voting record this year signals a heartfelt ideological swing to the right.”

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/159483-snowe-moves-to-the-right-and-defends-her-actions
     
  7. kmisho

    kmisho New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How do we repeal something that we don't have?
     
  8. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To kmisho: What is it that you cannot follow? Don’t answer until after you convince me that you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
     
  9. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I have to admit I was wrong when I said:

    “The Supreme Court will not touch it either; at least not until after the election in 2012.”

    The SCOTUS is going to hear the healthcare case. That still does not mean it will be overturned.

    Since it’s all about money the number of deaths caused by hospitals is known, but Betsy McCaughey gives the cost in dollars:


    When the nation is struggling to control health costs, hospital infections are adding at least $35 billion to the nation’s annual tab. Worst of all, patients who contract them pay a terrible price.

    Let me repeat:

    “And let’s not forget how many people die each year in hospitals from infections they picked up in the hospital. And don’t forget hospitals buying AIDS-tainted blood from Africa. Before millions more are sent into the healthcare system —— hospital deaths caused by hospitals should be reduced to zero.”

    The following article names the culprit and says it is getting worse:

    Blame the CDC for Slow Progress Against Hospital Infections
    Wednesday, November 23, 2011 03:20 PM
    By: Betsy McCaughey

    In the emergency room with my injured daughter, I watched as rules to protect patients from infection were disregarded: a nurse wearing bangle bracelets (carrying bacteria from patient to patient); doctors touching contaminated privacy curtains and then their patients; the uncleaned stethoscope pressed on one bare back after another, caregivers pulling on gloves without cleaning their hands first, which contaminates the outside of the gloves and offers patients no protection.

    On October 19, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced “impressive progress” in reducing hospital infections. That statement is as misleading as the gloves. Some hospitals are aggressively preventing infections, but the CDC’s shockingly timid goals give other hospitals a pass to do too little.

    A decade ago, hospitals began seeing exponential increases in a previously uncommon infection called Clostridium difficile or C. diff, for short. It is now outstripping the infamous MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphlococcus aureus) in Pennsylvania and New York, according to recent state reports. But the CDC cannot tell us how many C. diff cases there are nationwide. Clifford McDonald, an infectious disease professional at the CDC, estimates it kills 28,000 annually, but admits he is relying on data from 2008 or earlier.

    C. diff causes watery diarrhea, allowing the germ to race through the hospital on contaminated nurses’ uniforms, wheelchairs, and other objects. Patients touch bedrails, the call button and other surfaces where C. diff lingers, then touch their lips or pick up food without washing their hands first, and swallow the germ along with the food.

    Faced with soaring cases in 2000, Carlene Muto, M.D. at the University of Pittsburgh-Presbyterian responded by cleaning patient areas with bleach, ensuring caregivers washed their hands with soap and water (alcohol based cleaners do not kill C. diff), isolating infected patients rapidly, and curbing antibiotics. Over five years, Muto brought down C. diff cases 71 percent and severe cases down 89 percent.

    Cleaning is the first line of defense. The Mayo Clinic reduced C. diff by an amazing 79 percent in five months by making one change: wiping frequently touched surfaces around the patient’s bed once a day with Clorox bleach wipes. Yet, the CDC has set a five year goal of reducing C. diff by a paltry 33 percent.

    Another type of infection, the central line associated blood stream infection or CLAB, is so preventable that Medicare calls it a “never event ” and will not pay hospitals to treat it. Some seriously ill patients have a tube inserted into a major vein to deliver multiple medications. The risk is that bacteria will invade the tube.

    Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Allegheny Hospital in Pittsburgh, Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City and other hospitals proved CLABS can be eliminated when the medical team uses a checklist: Clean your hands, put on a gown, use a sterile drape over the insertion site, prepare the patient’s skin with chlorhexidine soap, insert the line above the waist, and remove it as soon as possible.

    Despite evidence that CLABS can be eradicated, the CDC’s goal is to merely cut them in half by 2013.

    Catheter-related urinary tract infections are also “never events.” A major cause is leaving the catheter in too long (3 days or more). Studies show a reminder on the bed can solve this problem. Yet the CDC’s goal is a mere 25 percent reduction by 2013.

    We have the knowledge to prevent infections. What is lacking at the CDC is the will. In 2002, the CDC estimated that hospital infections from all types of bacteria kill 99,000 Americans yearly. As shocking as that toll is, even more alarming is that the CDC has not updated its 2002 figure.

    In 2008, the General Accounting Office alerted Congress that the CDC’s estimates are questionable. Surveys by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control on the number of MRSA and C. diff infections indicate that the burden of hospital infections is several times as large as the CDC estimates. Understating a problem is one way to ignore it.

    When the nation is struggling to control health costs, hospital infections are adding at least $35 billion to the nation’s annual tab. Worst of all, patients who contract them pay a terrible price.

    http://www.newsmax.com/McCaughey/hospital-infections-CDC-/2011/11/23/id/419037
     
  10. jturnbow

    jturnbow New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why do you keep referring to the president as "Hussein"?

    I've never heard the president himself, any of his staff, advisers, or even political rivals refer to him as "Hussein", so why are you? Does it help you prove some kind of point? What point are you trying to make by calling a person by a name that they are not commonly called by (even if it is their name)?


    Any way, Hussein is scads better than that retarded, draft dodging, chicken hawk, Walker you used to have as president. And you lot put Walker in twice. You (and we) are still reeling from that disaster.

    You do usually call him Walker...right?
     
  11. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To jturnbow: The first answer that comes to mind is that it is none of your business. And I don’t give a rat’s rear end what anybody calls you. If attacking Bush the Younger is the only defense for Hussein and his policies you can offer you are well-advised to remain silent.

    For your edification, I could call him a lot worse. Dumbo —— because he does not want anyone talking about those wind sails he calls ears, or the Chicago Sewer Rat which is what he is, or a Communist traitor, or the Liar in Chief, or any number of apt derogatory names.

    You are not the first liberal to voice displeasure over my use of the name Hussein. Had you researched my messages you would have found a number of angry liberals preceded you. Research would have told you that I started calling him Hussein when he said America is a Muslim country. My standard response follows:


    Mr. President is the accepted form of address when speaking directly to a president. I have it on good authority that Obama prefers Your Holiness or Your Highness. To date, those forms of address have not caught on with anyone except his inner-circle and liberal journalists doing an interview.

    The evolution of how to address Barack Hussein Obama in print is unique in the annals of presidential names and nicknames.

    Much has been made of Obama’s name over the course of his time in the limelight. Since he moved into the White House some call him Barry while others prefer Barack. The recalcitrant among us insist on calling him President Obama even though the question of his eligibility remains unanswered.
    The evolution of Obama’s name began when Senator Kennedy called Barack Hussein Obama by the name Osama Obama. By the time Obama got the nomination the wags stopped referring to the nominee as Osama, and the press dropped Hussein altogether.

    Obama’s supporters have always been in search of a universally accepted nickname. Joining that exclusive club with TR, FDR, JFK, LBJ, and RR seems unlikely. Let’s face it —— BHO, or simply BO, conjures up an odor that is offensive in polite society.

    With no chance of joining the initials-only elite, the best Obama can hope for is membership in the one-name-only club alongside Eleanor, Hillary, Madonna, and Cher.

    As for me, after Kennedy’s little slip of the tongue, I wrote “Osama Obama” in my posts. Later on, I switched to Barack H. Obama. For some months now, I’ve used plain Obama in my messages.

    At long last the evolutionary trail has come to an end for me. Now that Obama has taken America out of the Muslim closet, I will refer to him as Hussein.

    I must add that I have no intention of converting to Islam. With or without Hussein’s permission, I will remain a member of the Christian minority in a Muslim country.

    Finally, since “Hussein” bothers you so much do not read my messages.
     
  12. jturnbow

    jturnbow New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Flanders,

    You're barking up the wrong tree with that liberal jibber jabber. I'm English NF.

    I was just wondering why you condescend to calling him Hussein. We just call him nig nog or sooty and are done with it. Doesn't leave any questions as to our point of view.

    And you well advising me to keep silent is very rich over the safety of the internet. Bit of a keyboard warrior are we?

    Finally, for your edification; They are ALL Liars in Chief.
     

Share This Page