A provision in President Obama's health care reform bill encourages "end-of- life" counseling for seniors -- sparking euthanasia fears among some of the legislation's critics and leading others to believe that the White House is looking to save money by pressuring insurers to provide less coverage to seniors. 

The provision, tucked deep within the House bill, would provide Medicare coverage for an end-of-life consultation every five years, and more frequent sessions if a person is suffering a life-threatening disease. 

Health providers would be required to explain to seniors the end-of-life services available, including "palliative care and hospice." 

"This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich. said in a statement last month.

But the sessions are not required...

What these 'informational' articles keep refusing to point out is -- this provision was put in the bill by a REPUBLICAN with Democratic co-sponsors.

This bill has bipartisan support (the main cosponsor is a Republican doctor) as well as support from a diverse coalition like AARP, the American College of Physicians, and Catholic health systems.

" The section under question was based on a stand-alone piece of legislation sponsored by Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Republican Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana.

Republicans are trying to scare seniors about this issue -- despite the fact that end-of-life consultations have been embodied in federal law since 1990, and supported by both Republicans and Democrats for years.

Don't you just love hearing the Republicans claim they think the kind of reform we really need is to attain a MARKET BASED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM? 

I mean really folks......isn't that exactly what we currently have. 

Based on their plan for reform...it would be THEIR plan that could eventually eliminate Medicare, the Veterans Health Care system and Medicaid.  Market based means exactly that - not government controlled.

Under their plan it's the insurance industry, medical profession and employers that would decide which plan is best for you --- you wouldn't be the one choosing, they would be.

The GOP is 'more of the same' (status quo).  The Democrats plan is to give 'you' more choices, more control and more rights.

Whereas most news stations and websites are discussing the DIP in the unemployed news of the day, Fox News feels that the week old story about the Joker's Wild picture of President Obama and how it compares to the photo of former president Bush in Vanity Fair last year.

Goes to show you what THEY think is important news for Americans to read.

CNN was grading Obama's 2nd 100 days Thursday night and plan to do another grading in November of his 300th day in office.  None of which they did during the presidency of George W Bush. 

Most of the guests mentioned that they felt Obama was trying to "do too much" and it was hurting his polling with the American people.  The "honeymoon is over" they said.

What choice did he have folks?  Just as Gloria Borger implied last night, Barack Obama walked into an agenda already in place for him; a failing economy (worst since the Great Depression), corruption on wall street and in banks, major companies like AIG, GM, Chrysler, Citigroup going bankrupt, etc.., two wars, North Korea testing missiles, a corrupt Iran election with Iranians rioting.  He also brought along his own agenda that he ran his campaign on, that being, getting out of Iraq, fixing Afghanistan, energy and environment reform, nuclear perforation, tax cuts for middle class and health care reform. 

That doesn't count the 'normal' business of a newly elected President, like the transitional period of nominating his cabinet members and staff, moving into the White House, setting up his children in school, shutting down campaign headquarters, his current home in Illinois, picking a dog, meeting with foreign officials, meeting with all members of Congress, getting everyday type bills passed, etc...

To top all that off, he's had to nominate and get her confirmed, a new Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.

From the very beginning of Obama's administration, they've had to face a worldwide economic crisis.  Instead of doing what most presidents would have done, concentrate on stopping that crisis- only.  He and his administration, along with the Democratic Party decided to take the situation head on.  Not only did they want to stop the situation from getting worse, they decided why not take advantage of the crisis and fix what caused it, as well as maybe fix some things like our energy dependence on oil, fixing our electric grids, roads and bridges, reforming our health care system, our health records system, even the things we spend money on at the Pentagon like eliminating wasteful spending like on the F22s, all of which encompassed some of their own agenda that they ran their campaign on.  The things Americans voted them into office to do.

This administration is not only trying to 'control' the situation in America, they are remaking the way American's live and work.

Think of this situation like you would if you went to a credit counseling service.  They wouldn't just fix your monthly premiums so you could 'get by' or 'get over' the hump in your life; they'd rewrite the way you should live your daily lives, hopefully to improve it in the long run.  They'd tell you how to run your budget, how much to spend for food, luxuries, entertainment, gas, future home repairs, insurances, and health care, etc...

Comparing the Obama administration's first and second 100 days to that of the Bush administrations is just plain silly.  Compare instead what each administration was facing during those first 200 days in office. 

What did former president Bush have to face during his first 200 days?  If memory serves me right, all he had to worry about was getting a tax cut rebate passed in Congress.  Oh, and in March of that year he had the famous patrol aircraft on a routine surveillance mission in international airspace over the South China colliding with one of two Chinese fighters that were shadowing our plane. Both aircrafts were damaged in the collision.  Our aircraft made an emergency landing at an airfield on China's Hainan Island.  For political reasons, I believe, the Bush administration made this story out to be their big 'foreign policy mission', making the story out to be a very dangerous one, even though we are allies with the Chinese on many issues; and ignoring the fact that the Bush family use to live in China for years when Bush senior was an ambassador.

Now look at the polls after comparing both administration's jobs during the first 200 days, they still show Obama's team even with that of the Bush administration this time in August of 2001.

Just imagine what Obama's poll numbers would be like if not for the economic crisis that the Bush administration and the GOP left behind.

 

 

Apparently the Republican Party and it's right winged extremists would rather 'fight' about Health Care Reform at town hall meetings instead of conducting constructive talks about the issue with their constituents, so why do Democrats even bother trying to have them.  Why not just go back to work and get the job done?

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama should just recall the representatives and senators in two weeks, giving senators a short break, since representatives have had one.

Call them all back into Congress and start working on health care and don't stop till it's signed into law.

News Corporation chief Rupert Murdoch today announced a bold new Internet strategy for his company, saying that News Corp. would begin charging users for news on its sites "if we ever publish any."

There are some out there saying that Murdoch is taking a big risk here.  I think they are wrong.  I think, just as his other endeavor's took to the airwaves successfully, even though millions thought it would fail, I think he will be beginning another new trend throughout the Internet.

Unfortunately, I agree with Murdoch on the idea of charging money for viewing the news.  I say unfortunately because I will be one of those having to sign up because I get 99.9% of my news from the web now, as I'm sure thousands more do. 

The Internet is quicker.  It's less paperwork to handle.  There's no more waiting for the newspaper or news station to get the facts about a news story, or see it with your own eyes.  And there's a huge difference in the way each website will report a piece of news.  Just as my previous post points out about headlines being distorted.  You can judge the 'truth of a story' by seeing how everyone reports on the story, so much easier.  Before the internet you had to try and scan all the tv stations to hear what each said.

Another reason I feel the plan will work is because of the advertisements on websites -- I don't think they are working like they did in newspapers or television.  Viewers have learned to 'block' them out of site, ignore them.  For that reason, news stations are losing money trying to run their websites.  They probably have just as many people working their websites as they do the television stations now, just to keep up with the Jones, sort of speak.

Because of this loss of income and because of demand for faster information, I think people (like myself) are 'hooked' on the Internet News.  Once you are addicted, you will more likely than not,  'pay' to keep that addiction.

That is why I think Mr. Murdock will be successful (unfortunately).  In the short run he may take a hit, however, in the long run -- I'm betting all websites will soon follow suit.

Tom Bevan has a report out today on Real Clear Politics about a newly released poll by CNN, his headline says the following (note this article's headlines are on The Drudge Report):

After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

It's only after you get to the nitty gritty that you see the facts.  51% of Americans think President Obama's first 6 months a success and 11% say it's still "too soon to tell."

The 37% they report saying his administration is a failure matches the total that have disapproved of his administration since day one of taking office.

He points out that Bush had a 56% approval rating in August of 2001, well duh....that's one month after Americans began getting rebates in the mail from the first tax cut he approved.  He wasn't doing anything real controversial at that point (just giving money away), like starting a war with Iraq, torturing prisoners, etc...

Headlines like the above by Bevan are distorting and unfair.  Goes to show you who he supports. 

I just hope Americans will read the whole article and not just the headlines -- before making judgments.

I'm curious.  Has anybody done some research on pricing for health care policies for different age, sex, etc.. brackets lately?

I'd like to know what insurance companies were charging for health care say a year ago compared to what they are willing to take for that same policy today?  I may be wrong, but I'm betting the pricing has dropped dramatically and that those prices haven't dropped because the cost of health care has, they've dropped because the insurance companies are afraid of the health care reform that will be passed this year.

I'm betting these companies are offering at least a 20% drop in their prices, just so they can hopefully trap new customers into their system before the new system is put into place.

Get the customer interested in their doctor, their hospitals, just as you would try to get the customer to buy Pepsi over Coke.  Once they are 'hooked', they will most likely stick with that company.

Yes indeed, it would be interesting to know those statistics.  How much did each insurance company charge for the basic coverage in August of 2008 and 2007, and how much are they now charging that same bracket of customer today?  Even if the amount is a bit more, did the level of increase match those increases in previous years?

If the prices have dropped or the level has slowed, you can rest assured the insurance companies are pretty sure that some sort of reform 'will' happen soon.

It's also a bit of a good thing, at least for those having to buy insurance right now, they are getting it cheaper than the rest of us...Unless of course, that same insurance company is also dropping premiums for current customers.

As a side question, wouldn't it be nice if you could buy a health plan for a specific rate, that can never go up unless it goes up for ALL customers, like some life insurances work?

I sincerely hope that the Democratic Party and President Obama use more of former governor of Virginia, Mark Warner out on the trail to campaign for health care reform.

He does a great job.  I watched him on Hardball last night.

Remember, he may be able to help get independents and even some republicans back supporting the reform -- he was governor of a conservative state.

Just a suggestion.

WASHINGTON --  Consumers opened their wallets and pocketbooks a bit more in June, increasing their spending for the second straight month while saving a bit less, even as incomes fell sharply.

Consumer spending is closely watched because it accounts for about 70 percent of total economic activity. The increase could provide a lift to the economy, but may be hard to sustain if incomes continue to fall.

The Commerce Department said Tuesday that consumers boosted their spending 0.4 percent in June, slightly ahead of analysts' estimates. That comes after spending rose 0.1 percent in May.

Why isn't this HEADLINE NEWS?  Half the problem with any recession is psychological -- if consumers FEEL safe, they will SPEND more.  Geez!

It's like the fifth story down in a list of stories on Fox News.  MSNBC has it on their front page along with a story about pending home sales being up.  I don't see the story at all on CNN's website.

Pretty much tells you how Fox and CNN care about getting the economy moving again.

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea welcomed former President Bill Clinton to Pyongyang with flowers and hearty handshakes Tuesday as he arrived in the communist nation on a surprise mission to bring home two jailed American journalists.

Clinton landed in the North Korean capital in an unmarked jet. On arrival he shook hands with Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Kwan and the deputy speaker of parliament. Footage from television news agency APTN showed Clinton bowing and smiling as a young girl presented him with flowers...

"This is a very potentially rewarding trip. Not only is it likely to resolve the case of the two American journalists detained in North Korea for many months, but it could be a very significant opening and breaking this downward cycle of tension and recrimination between the U.S. and North Korea," Mike Chinoy, author of "Meltdown: The Inside Story of the North Korean Nuclear Crisis," said in Beijing.

I mentioned awhile back that perhaps we should use a little reversed psychology, that we should show North Korea and Iran a little 'respect' and maybe, just maybe, they will want to be a part of the rest of the world. 

With all my heart I pray that former President Bill Clinton's appearance in North Korea can bring some sort of agreement between North Korea and the U.S. along with the rest of the world.

For the past 8 years House and Senate Republicans were the Party of "YES SIR", MR. PRESIDENT, "WHATEVER YOU SAY SIR".  

For the past 7 months these same House and Senate Republicans have been the Party of "NO SIR" MR PRESIDENT, "WHATEVER YOU SAY -- WE DISAGREE".

For the past 8 years House and Senate Democrats were the Party of "NO SIR", MR. PRESIDENT, "WE'LL FIGHT YOU ON THIS ISSUE SIR", then they flip and become the, "YES SIR", MR. PRESIDENT, WHATEVER YOU SAY SIR.

For the past 7 months these same House and Senate Democrats have been the Party of, "YES SIR "MR PRESIDENT, WHATEVER YOU SAY SIR", then they flip and become the, "NOT SO FAST MR PRESIDENT...." Party.

One thing you can say for Republicans, at least they are consistent.  They are the Party of PUPPY DOGS -- (follow their leader everywhere).

On thing you can say for Democrats, at least they are inconsistent.  They are the Party of  DOGS (ready to byte and chase after their own tails, even it if hurts).

The key to next years election is -- which members of congress and the senate had a balanced approach to legislation, which were willing to work for the people?  Which of them listened to the people and not the opinion's of their own Party, on how they voted on the issues?  Those are the members that should stay in office, not the ones that vote along party lines only.

I just watched Rachel Maddow's show about corporations and lobbyists organizing disruptive groups at townhall meetings across the nation over health care reform.

She was asking how to counter this kind of action?  I have a suggestion.

When you are at an event with your Congressman/woman or Senator, and if a group of people start rudely interrupting the speaker, refusing to let them speak, if you support health care reform (even if you disagree with parts of the bill) -- stand by your man/woman (the speaker).

Get up, walk slowly to the speakers side-- but stay silent.  Give them your support by being nearby.  The speaker should also clam up and stand still and wait till the people stop talking and yelling. 

Meanwhile, have police nearby to remove disruptive persons from the events if they refuse to be civil.

The Republican Party is suppose to be the Party of Moral Values --- for the past 8 and half years, their values have seemingly gone down the tubes.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=player_embedded]

Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will 'Eliminate' Private Insurance

While I'm sure we are hearing just a small portion of the conversations or speeches in this video, I still think explanations are due Americans by all those shown.

John McCain: Is He a Birther?

Has anybody asked how John McCain stands on whether he agrees with the 'Birthers' that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen? 

Democrats and Barack Obama stood up and knocked down efforts of the extreme to claim the John McCain was not a natural born citizen -- we he and other Republicans do the same for Obama?  Somehow I doubt it.

President Obama may have to raise taxes to pay for public health care and the growing deficit, an eventuality that administration officials touched lightly on Sunday as they promoted an economy emerging from recession.

With an expected deficit next year of $1.8 trillion, and spending still being planned for a $1 trillion, 10-year health care reform, officials say something will have to be done to prevent further erosion of the economy.

"We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we ... can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on ABC's "This Week."

Asked point blank whether it was right to suggest it is a matter of when, not if, taxes will be raised, Geithner responded, "It is absolutely right."...

He added that it's not a good idea to rule out future taxes.

"There is a lot that can happen over time. ... But what the president has been completely clear on is that he is not going to pursue any of his priorities -- not health care, not energy, nothing -- in ways that are primarily burdening middle-class families. That is something that is not going to happen," Summers said.

Looks like the media is hoping to put President Obama on the spot by closing the door on future options.  Usually those options are discussed about foreign policy; but this time it's about the economy, health care and the deficit.  They want a, "Read My Lips" moment like they got from the first President Bush years ago when discussing not raising taxes.

Just as ruling out attacking a nation that is a threat to the U.S.; so should the idea of possibly needing to raise taxes on everyone.

If they can prove that my health care costs will go down by implementing their plans, then I'm ok with a minor tax increase to help pay for the initial start of the program and to help pay down the debt leaving less for the next generation.

Besides all that, President George W Bush raised taxes too, by increasing user fees - not counting the spending he did which left us over a trillion dollars in debt (he came into office with a surplus):

He raised user fees (taxes on those who use the items) by billions of dollars.  Camping grounds parking, hiking, camping and riding, passports, patients, stock transactions, federal court filings, agricultural inspections, higher co-pays for veterans for drugs, more fees for FDA to charge pharmaceutical companies (which by the way raises our insurance premiums), the transportation industry, airline passenger ticket charges, excise taxes on fuel for private jet owners and savings deposits....just to name a few.