Qualify for government subsidy: become a(n involuntary) unionized government employee

 Next up: doctors, section 8 housing owners, ????? Grocery stores, drug stores???

A year ago in December, Ms. Berry and more than 40,000 other home-based day care providers statewide were suddenly informed they were members of Child Care Providers Together Michigan—a union created in 2006 by the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union had won a certification election conducted by mail under the auspices of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission. In that election only 6,000 day-care providers voted. The pro-labor vote turned out.

Many of the state's other 34,000 day-care providers never even realized what was going on. Ms. Berry tells us she was "shocked" to find out she was suddenly in a union. The real dirty work, however, had been done when the state created an "employer" for the union to "organize" against.
Of course, Michigan's independent day-care providers don't work for anybody except the parents who were their customers. Nevertheless, because some of these parents qualified for public subsidies, the Child Care Providers "union" claimed the providers were "public employees."
Michigan's Department of Human Services then teamed with Flint-based Mott Community College to sign an "interlocal agreement" in 2006 establishing a separate government agency called the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council. This council was directed to recommend good child-care practices—and not coincidentally, to serve as a "public employer." Although the council had almost no staff, no control over the state subsidies and no supervision of the providers' daily activities, it became the shell corporation against which the union could organize.
Thus the state created an ersatz employer and an ersatz "bargaining unit" against which what was essentially an ersatz union could organize.
Today the Department of Human Services siphons about $3.7 million in annual dues to the union—from the child-care subsidies. The money should be going to home-based day-care providers—themselves not on the high end of the income scale. Ms. Berry now sees money once paid to her go to a union that does little for her. She says she is "self employed and wants nothing to do with the union."

Open Letter to AMA: I quit

Emailed to the AMA Board:
I paid my Texas Medical Association dues for 2010 but will not renew my American Medical Association membership. I do not want to be counted as an AMA member.

I dropped my membership once before due to political moves by the leadership of the AMA. I rejoined hoping to work within the House of Medicine to influence policies of the AMA. I became more active in my TMA, the Texas Academy of Family Physicians, national meetings of the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians and accepted the Chairmanship of the Family Medicine Section of the Christian Medical Association.

This weekend, AMA President-Elect Wilson announced support for the Reid substitute and manager’s amendment, which dropped the effort to correct the “Sustainable Growth Rate” and does not even mention (much less achieve) tort reform. Instead, current language provides billions of dollars in special deals for Democrat Senators, support for payment for elective interventional abortion in healthy mothers and on healthy babies, and an expansion of Medicaid that threatens to bankrupt my State of Texas.

The AMA leadership have told us that they hoped to protect our patients and the practice of medicine in the final legislation, just as I had hoped to influence AMA policies by lending my name and paying my dues to them. I will no longer give the AMA my name or my money, since neither of us has achieved our goal.

Beverly B. Nuckols, MD
New Braunfels, Texas

LifeEthics quoted about Doctors for America posts

I've been a little distracted, getting my house ready for the New Braunfels Republican Women's Christmas Tour of Homes, but I should be blogging more in the future.

Found a post at "RBO," (RealBarackObama) that quoted my reports (here and here) on the conference call with "Doctors for America," back in September. I like being known as someone capable of "serious sleuthing."

?No self breast exams?

The recommendation *not* to teach exams throws the whole report into question for me. If we are changing the frequency of mammograms, should we also change the recommendation to do self exams? Won't the first change the effectiveness of the second?


In the news, the report by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. The "conventional wisdom" about breast cancer screening was turned on its head - or, at least tweaked, this week.

I think we might have been over doing the mammograms ("MMG"), but the old recommendation to do a "baseline" MMG between 35 and 40, with self exams each month and MMG each 2 years from 40 to 55 and then one a year or each 2 years according to risk, made sense to me.

What I absolutely don't get is the recommendation to stop teaching self exams. Teaching self breast exams received a "Grade D" recommendation - meaning there's no empirical evidence that the procedure is "effective." In other words, it has "moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits." The practice would be "discouraged" -- considered bad medicine, and actually put the doctor at risk for criticism. It most certainly won't be paid for.

There's a reason to find masses: it will change what we do, we have treatment that we can and should do for positive changes. Any mass that's fast growing and lasts over a month is highly suspicious and any mass we can feel should be biopsied. Even though the sensitivity may be low (compared to MMG), patients who do regular exams have been proven to be more likely to find masses earlier and smaller than the doc would at an annual exam, and it's non-invasive, cheap, and accessible. Teaching the self exam gives me something to talk about while I'm doing my own exam of the patient and is an opportunity to explain what I've written, above.

It looks like the fuss over the recommendation will be the first test of the realities of "Comparative Effectiveness Panels" which was funded by $1 Billion allocated in the 2009 "Stimulus Package."  Emotions and reactions are high, with Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius,  Medicare and most insurance companies already reporting that their policies (paying for annual MMG and recommending teaching at doctors' exams) won't change. The Mayo Clinic has absolutely renounced the recommendations.

For more information on the policies of other nations, see this article.

Aristotle ethics, RFK, and health care reform

The Wall Street Journal's daily newsletter by James Taranto, The Best of the Web Today, debunks a quote floating around the Internet to support the "right" to health care paid for by government. The blurb has been attributed to a translation from the writings of Aristotle, a translation from the original Greek by Robert F. Kennedy.

Unfortunately, the first reference to the quote is from 10 years after Senator Kennedy died, is credited to someone else, and the original cannot be found in the existing works of Aristotle.

From an article by Edmond Pellegrino, the last chairman of President Bush's President's Bioethics Council, written in 2008:

In attempts to establish the provenance of the text in question we have conducted an extensive search for its source and original wording. We have not been able to locate it. Our initial curiosity was aroused by several things, including that rights language did not seem to have the Aristotelian context, and health care, as such, was not included in Aristotle's works. We searched Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics, and the Magna Moralia without successfully locating the quote. Nor could we find it in other of works of Aristotle: On Length and Shortness of Life, De Anima, Economics or the Fragments. "Rights" language certainly would stick out in Aristotle's virtue-based ethics.

That article by Dr. Pellegrino is available in pdf, here, thanks to the WSJ and Georgetown Bioethics.

Intentionally Skewed Cancer Survival Rates

 From Ann Coulter's latest report on Health Care Reform Myths:

European women are only 55.8 percent likely to live five years after contracting any kind of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent for American women.
In five cancers -- breast, prostate, thyroid, testicular and skin melanoma -- American survival rates are higher than 90 percent. Europeans hit a 90 percent survival rate for only one of those -- testicular cancer.
Most disturbingly, many cancers in Europe are discovered only upon the victim's death -- twice as many as in the U.S. Consequently, the European study simply excluded cancers that were first noted on the death certificate, so as not to give the U.S. too great an advantage.

I didn't know about that last manipulation of the cancer survival rates. 

Politics bites science

For a clear outline as to why you shouldn't believe that 45,000 people die each year because they don't have insurance, read the blog entry by John Milloy, publisher of "Junk Science" on last week's report in the American Journal of Public Health.

Forget that the authors are blatantly biased members of the "Physicians for a National Health Plan."

All you need to know is:
# Among the many problems with the study, here are four of the most glaring; all of which will likely be missed by the media:

* The researchers assumed that study subjects lacking health insurance at the time of the interviews did not subsequently gain or regain insurance coverage. In fact, a study subject could have received health coverage the very next day after the interview and this would not have been considered by the researchers.
* The researchers essentially assume that lack of health insurance at the time of interview is the causal factor in the deaths that occurred. No data was gathered to back up this assumption.
* None of the data collected during the interviews, including insurance status, was validated by the researchers.
* The study result is statistically weak. Combined with the peculiar date-of-death cutoff (the year 2000 as opposed to any other year), it raises questions as to whether the study result was produced by “data dredging” – essentially cherry-picking data that provides the desired result.

Playing doctor with the White House

Who’s playing doctor with the White House: Another example of the lack of openness in the dealings of the Obama Administration

(Informed consent blurb: Organizing for America, etc., along with all the White House websites, are collecting data including email and other information from everyone who visits or contacts their sites. I got a couple of those emails from David Axelrod last month.

Don't worry - they already have my data. I used to email President Bill Clinton at least once a month and ask him to resign for the sake of our daughters – they are about the same age - because he'd set the women's movement back 50 years. He never answered. However, it occurs to me now that maybe that's why I was named to the Bush Administration's National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women.)

On Thursday, September 17, 2009, I was web-surfing and searching Google news hits on the September 12th March on Washington and health care reform when I found information about a conference call between "Doctors for America," the White House "Office of Public Engagement" and doctors like me who somehow found out about the conference call.

I called in, but wasn't called on to ask my questions, so I re-wrote them as an essay (see below) and emailed it to info@drsforamerica.org I'm also sending the essay to the White House OPE.

When I started writing up my notes from the call, it finally occurred to me that – even though there was no attempt at disclosure - there might be a connection between "Drs for America," "Organizing for America" (whose website address is still "http://www.barackobama.com/ ," the same url once used by - and the remains of - “Obama for America,” the Barack Obama campaign machine.

I was slow to catch on, but I was right: The leadership at Doctors for America is made up of nearly the same roster of men and women who, in 2008, were the leadership of “Doctors for Obama” in 2008. Common names are Vivek Murthy, MD MBA, Mandy Krauthamer, MD MPH, Nikhil Wagle, MD, Alex Blum, MD, and Jay Bhatt, DO MPH

And, I was wrong: there’s a disclaimer at the bottom of the “Doctors for Obama” leadership page that says “Not affiliated with Obama for America.” (Yeah, right.)

In fact, former Obama Administration transition chief John Podesta's “Center for American Progress” funds the group :

May 04, 2009
'Doctors for America' launches

This may not wind up being decisive in the health care fight, but the organizing gap between the two sides continues to widen.
Sen. Max Baucus and the Center for American Progress Action Fund are announcing a new group on a conference call later this morning: Doctors for America, which is a reincarnation of Doctors for Obama, an arm of the Obama campaign that boasted more than 10,000 members.
The question of patients' relationships with their doctors is always a flashpoint in debating changes to the health care system, so doctors are often particularly credible messengers.
Today they'll "release new reports detailing the depth and breadth of America's health care crisis and announce a new effort to amplify physicians' voices in support of health care reform," according to the advisory.
By Ben Smith 11:07 AM

Here's the bio on the President and Co-founder, Vivek Murthy, MD MBA, at the Center for American Progress website:

Vivek Murthy is an internal medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an Instructor at Harvard Medical School. He received his undergraduate degree in Biochemical Sciences from Harvard University, his MD from the Yale School of Medicine, and his MBA from the Yale School of Management. He completed his residency training in Internal Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Vivek is the co-founder of VISIONS and the Swasthya Project, international health non-profit organizations focused on HIV/AIDS education and women’s health, respectively. He is also the co-founder and chairman of Epernicus, LLC a web-based professional networking service for individual researchers and scientific institutions. Vivek’s past research has focused on the participation of women and minorities in cancer clinical trials; his current research interests include physician satisfaction and burnout. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Vivek served as a member of the Obama Health Policy Advisory Committee and the Obama New England Steering Committee.

Notes on the Conference Call

I couldn't catch all the names and I am not very good at telling who was speaking, but did try to take some notes from the opening statements. The quotations are the actual words of the speakers, the rest is my own interpretation and from memory.

The moderators talked about the "public option" as though it's a done deal and strongly pitched it as just a way to provide health care for people who have lost their insurance.

We were told that everyone will be required to have insurance, and that businesses will be asked to "chip in their part."

The White House has a plan to fix the SGR that has been pushed off over and over. In fact, there are plans for a “complete reform of the physician payment system.” without incentives for doing more procedures.

The President has given instructions to begin the medical liability demonstration projects to find a way to decrease defensive medicine while "mitigating risks to patients."

We were told that we are closer than we've ever been to health care reform this year.

The moderators were surprised by the second doctor who said he was from the former Soviet Union and that the public option would soon become the only option. They were adamant that the public option is not a pathway to single payer. (And besides, we all know that being paid by and regulated to the teeth by the government is not at all like working for the government.)

Later, one of the docs who called in asked specifically about the news stories that the public option was finished and the White House representative reminded us that the legislation is not written, yet. He was adamant that we shouldn't rule the public option out and that we should advocate with our patients and fellow doctors for that option.

One doctor asked about the effect on doctors with concierge or boutique practices and the other doctors who "opted out." The answer from one of the men was that these practices were just a reaction to cash pay patients who couldn't afford insurance.

There was a lot of excitement about one doctor's suggestion that doctors be required to give two years to a sort of National Healthcare Workforce. And huffy about the shortage of doctors that a Massachusetts doc reminded them that they'd have if all the uninsured were suddenly looking for primary care.

The woman naturopath was reassured that naturopathic primary care doctors would be evaluated by the same evidence based medicine that the traditional docs were judged by.

My letter to Doctors for America and the White House Office for Public Engagement

I’m Beverly B Nuckols, MD, the National chair of the Family Medicine Section of the Christian Medical Association as well as a member of the AMA, the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians. I'm not officially representing the above, but I believe that my opinions are shared by a large number of doctors.

Many of my colleagues and I see the Patient Centered Medical Home plans, the protocols at Mayo and other medical centers that have been praised are attempts to model a bureaucratic form of practice for large practices so that they can do what the family doctor does every day.

My experience is that government bureaucracy is not only more restrictive and punitive than private insurers, the clout of the Federal government results in undesired UNINTENDED consequences all across the board. Doctors used to be the good guys, but now we feel as though we are assumed to be guilty of abuse of the system, largely due to Federal legislation and regulation.

These result in time and money spent on our futile attempt to keep up with Medicare regulations in order to avoid charges of fraud, abuse and waste. For instance: HIPPA, National Provider Identification numbers, bullet points and check boxes, E & M’s, procedure and diagnosis codes and qualifiers that change each year, and a whole alphabet soup of regulators.

In addition, government cost control attempts in the '90's actually limited the numbers of graduate medical slots, while encouraging sub specialty growth in relation to numbers of primary care doctors.

Making it all worse is the fact that under current Medicare payment schemes, Family Doctors who provide the same services as sub-specialists are paid less by Medicare.

Like the laws and regulations in the past, this year's “reform bills” and proposals are overly complicated and try to guarantee too much: school based clinics, nutrition data on menus and buffet lines, an overhaul of the federal income tax code, new lists of “enhanced penalties,” taxes, fines and the mixing of all of the above abuses with an overhaul of the Federal Income Tax.

Today’s announcement about the study of liability makes me worry that our Texas laws concerning tort reform will be over come by Federal inertia and interference.

1. Why not just look at Texas’ experience with tort reform rather than wasting time and money on new studies?

2. Is it possible to make the legislation smaller in scope so that it is focused on providing help for those patients and families who cannot afford or access medical care?

3. What plans are there to ensure training and sufficient payment for family physicians and other primary care doctors who are in the best position to coordinate care for our patients in the "Medical Home?"

Edit: added this 4th question that I believe I sent to Doctors for America:

4. Could the fines and mandates be replaced with tax incentives, removal of restrictions on Health Savings accounts, return of the major medical plans and the removal of the barriers preventing patients from owning their own health care insurance?

Comments on President's 9-9-9 speech

You can read the speech, here.

As of 8:30 AM on September 10, there's not much comment from the AMA or other powerful, interested observers. I wonder if, like me, they're waiting to see the actions that result from the speech?

Here are my own(Beverly Nuckols) thoughts after the speech:

Quality, timely, or cheap medicine: Pick two. If you think you can have all three, please, tell Walmart how to do it.

The President is still talking about mandating that everyone buy insurance. He still ties it to employers and there is no mention of tax breaks for individuals who buy their own insurance. (Will companies still be forced to ensure dependents, and will "children" include adults to the age of 26?)

Instead, we hear about fines and new taxes, and more negative comments about profit-seeking companies and "the wealthiest Americans."

First, show me the wording in the actual proposed Bill, give me time to read and understand it and reassure me that you’ve read it. Will that wording be clear on the various promises?

Second, let’s get this straight: tax cuts don’t cost the government, taxes cost the taxpayers. If the government wants more money, give incentives to those who earn money that you tax. Don’t punish them by taxing them at higher rates! If the government has less, the government should do what the rest of us do: cut what you spend!

It seems illogical to me to tax insurance companies for offering "the most expensive plans." These are plans that people decide to buy for themselves. The only result of such a tax would be to kill the "expensive plans."

If the government mandates well care for everyone, there will not be enough manpower or other resources for sick care. If you mandate the addition of both numbers of people and services to the health care that is paid for not only by private funds but public funds, you will increase costs and demand.

Show me the “patient safety trials” that will decrease defensive medicine. As to the tort reform and "trials" to allow doctors to practice with less concern about lawsuits, I suggest that the President simply look at Texas since our own tort reform passed in 2005.

President Obama promised that abortion will not be funded by federal funds and that the current conscience laws will remain in place. Does this mean that no mandates for private insurance to cover abortion will be allowed? Does this mean that he will enforce the conscience laws that exist?

We must remember that the President signed an Executive Order in his first week to fund organizations that pay for abortions and referral for abortion overseas and who overturned the last Administration’s ruling to affirm the enforcement of conscience laws. What will he do in the face of the House’s passage of a Bill that will fund abortions in Washington, DC?


Cross-posted at Comal GOP blog.

Forget conscience - go straight to mandate

Human Events has an editorial from Christian Medical And Dental Association's Jonathan Imbody.

Here's an excerpt:

A national poll showed that Americans favored the “conscience clause” regulation and the civil rights laws it enforced by a two-to-one margin. During a 30-day public comment period, an astounding 340,000 comments and petitions poured in favoring the regulation.

The White House and Congress ignored public opposition, and instead moved even more aggressively to evolve abortion from a choice into a mandate.

Besides the House bill opening the door to mandated abortion coverage in all health insurance plans, the House of Representatives in July voted to force taxpayers to fund abortions in the District of Columbia. The Senate is now eyeing publicly funded abortions under the eight million-member Federal Employee Health Benefits Program.

In each of these actions, the President and Congress tacitly assert that abortion ideology trumps the conscience rights of taxpayers, patients and health professionals like Katrina Belova.

"I became very concerned when I learned about President Obama’s plan to rescind the conscience clause," Katrina said. "It made me uneasy to think that my adopted country, which was always proud of its democratic heritage, had begun to remind me of a communist country my family fled ten years ago.

"If the conscience rule is rescinded and I am obligated to choose between performing an abortion or losing my job, I will choose the latter. And then where will I flee next?"[vii]

Former Senator Explains Consequences of Bill Language

Former Senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson, explains the consequences of the language concerning end of life care that is included in the current version of House Bill 3200.

I do read the language as making the counseling mandatory, although not necessarily a demand that doctors (or nurses, if they are the "primary care providers") tell a patient that they must refuse or be willing to withdraw medical intervention at the end of life.

Of course, there's the pesky problem that no one has written the approved counseling language or produced the approved documents, yet. That will be done by "the Secretary," if and when the Bill passes with this provision still in place.

Here's what I think happened: the Committee or staffer who wrote that section thought that offering payment for what was mandated in the "Stimulus bill" earlier this year would be a politically advantageous move.

However, since no one knows what will actually be required by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and there is no note as to which doctors will be responsible to counsel patients, I forsee a repeat of the confidentiality snafus and stumbling blocks that happened after the "HIPAA" became law. Remember when every single doctor and pharmacy had each patient sign a disclaimer, no one knew who could talk to whom, and a whole lot of money, time and energy was wasted making sure that you knew that the provider knew that the government wanted us to keep your medical information private - at least from everyone except the government agencies who demanded documentation, ICD-9 and CPT codes and qualifiers?

Here's Senator Thompson's essay:

FRED THOMPSON: Phantom pains at The Post

Fred D. Thompson

A Page One article in Saturday's Washington Post blaring the headline "Talk Radio Campaign Frightening Seniors" states, "A campaign on conservative talk radio ... has sparked fear among senior citizens that the health care bill moving through Congress will lead to end-of-life 'rationing' and even 'euthanasia,' " and that the bill has been described as "guiding you in how to die."

The story's continuation inside -- under the headline "Conservatives Have Seniors Fearing 'Euthanasia' as Part of Reform" says that, like arguments about abortion coverage, this has become a distraction to the president's broader health care agenda.

The reader looking for examples of this "talk show" campaign will be disappointed. Not one talk-radio host is quoted, and no specific radio show is mentioned (though The Post does quote an interview done on my radio show, without telling the reader the interview was done on a radio show). However, the article does make use of information supplied by off-the-record "Democratic strategists." One is free to conclude for oneself who has launched a "campaign."

It does seem that the words attributed to unnamed conservative culprits are fairly mild compared to the hysteria coming out of left-wing Web sites and blogs. My favorite is the one found on the Huffington Post, where Republicans are accused of saying that granny would be shot in her wheelchair under a provision in the Obama-Pelosi-Waxman health care bill.

Let's discuss whether these deranged seniors are being misled by people who actually may have read the bill. (Presumably this offense cannot be laid at the feet of their representatives of Congress.) Although I have never said anything like the things attributed to radio talk hosts, the article states that "the attacks on talk radio began when Betsy McCaughey ... told former senator Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.) that mandatory counseling sessions with Medicare beneficiaries would 'tell them how to end their life sooner' and would teach the elderly 'how to decline nutrition -- and cut your life short.' "

The basic position of the bill's proponents seems to be that these consultations are totally voluntary, that seniors should have the benefit of such end-of-life consultations and that the consultation provision is nothing more than to get doctors reimbursed when a consultation occurs at the patient's request. The "let's get the doctor paid" rationale was swallowed whole by The Post's writer, Ceci Connolly.

Those concerned by this provision believe it to be mandatory and wonder why the government is involving itself in the doctor-patient relationship and with end-of-life decisions.

Section 1233 of the bill, having to do with Medicare, describes the "advanced care planning consultation" as between the individual (a spouse and next of kin are not mentioned) and a "practitioner," described as a physician, a nurse practitioner or a physician's assistant. (It does not appear that it is a requirement that the physician in question be the patient's physician of record.)

In legislation, an issue as to whether an action is mandatory or not can be resolved quickly by a glance at the statute, which will state that (in this case) the consultation either "shall" be taken or "may" be taken. Remarkably, neither phrase is used in the statute in question.

Rather, the statute just describes what a consultation is and then strictly prescribes in mandatory language what must be included in the consultation as well as what may be included. For example, in Paragraph 4, a consultation "may include the formulation of an order regarding life-sustaining treatment" and may include an order for "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

The drafters of the provision were either sloppy, befitting a situation in which a complicated, 1,000-plus-page bill, controlling one-sixth of the economy, is rushed through the legislative process. Or it might be that the drafters desired an intentionally vague statute, knowing administration officials would be drafting regulations for the implementation of the bill after it passed.

As it stands, there is more than ample reason to believe the provision was meant to be mandatory with regard to the practitioners. Otherwise, why have the provision in the bill at all? If getting the doctors paid for a voluntary consultation really was the provision's intent, an amendment of two or three lines would have fixed it. As it is, it is two lines in a five-page provision full of specific instructions about what doctors, nurses or doctor's aides must explain to the patients.

Seniors are reminded daily by the media that Medicare is going broke, that the country must cut Medicare costs and that the last days of life are by far the most expensive. Now they are being told by the administration -- one that has been less than transparent on this bill and a host of other issues -- that this bill will cut Medicare costs. They are learning that they are "coincidentally" being asked about end-of-life issues at the government's behest, perhaps by a stranger who is receiving Medicare reimbursement payments. How long do you think it will take a Medicare patient to figure out which decisions will cost the government money and which will save the government money?

This is no reflection on medical professionals. They clearly are being put in a position they neither have asked for nor are completely qualified for. However, I am gratified that a president who can matter-of-factly accuse doctors of routinely removing a child's tonsils solely for financial gain has newfound trust in a doctor's or some hospital employee's ability to consult and even help draw up legal documents regarding end-of-life issues.

If this is all just a misunderstanding about whether this provision is mandatory or not, it can be resolved readily. Let's see if the supporters of the provision are willing to add language to the bill making it clear that there is no requirement that these consultations take place. Better still, they should drop this provision from the bill and let patients discuss these matters with their families, their clergy, lawyers who have expertise in living wills and powers of attorney, or whomever else they desire.

So is this a conspiracy to kill off granny? No. Will seniors be forced to make decisions they don't want to make? No. But will "practitioners" be encouraged to have end-of-life discussions that include when it might be best for patients to allow their life to end earlier than it has to? Of course. And seniors have a right to be satisfied that there is not, at the heart of this process, undo consideration given to cost-cutting.

In the end, it depends on how comfortable one is with having the government in the middle of this process. That is what this discussion is really all about.

Fred D. Thompson, a former Tennessee Republican senator, hosts a nationally syndicated radio show (www.fredthompsonshow.com).

Page 425 (end of life counseling)

I received several emails over the last few days concerning page 425 of the House Bill on Health Reform, HR 3200, which outlines mandatory end of life "options" counseling.

Technically, it appears on the surface to allow doctors (and other "providers") to charge for the counseling. But, yes, it's mandated counseling and in the wrong hands, it might encourage withholding of care more than some of us would like -- and certainly more that others might like.

Can you imagine a more personal and private subject? The subject should be broached by your family doctor. But it appears that every doctor who sees Medicare patients will be responsible. I can imagine the emotional undertones of different doctors as they recite the standardized language and present the forms to be signed! And then, the counseling will be reported to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, with the appropriate modifying code.

I object to the mandated repeat counseling when someone gets sick, the inclusion in the "Medicare and Me" handbook with language to be formalized by the Secretary and forms for the counseling. I've mentioned before how "hot" an issue this could be, even with my limited exposure to the debate.

I hope that someone with sensitivity is in the Secretary's office, assisting with decisions on the literature and forms.

Congressman Henry Cuellar on Planned Parenthood

Went to this morning’s McQueeney, Texas meeting where Henry Cuellar was met with an overwhelming group of constituents upset over what's happening in Washington, DC.

Rep. Cuellar told us that he voted in favor of Planned Parenthood funding yesterday because they give care to “mothers” and he does everything he can do to support mothers. (I suggested that we go to any PP office today and that I bet no mothers come out of the building.)

The people of Guadalupe County- maybe 100 to 150? - turned out to protest the health bill and tax and cap. There were some tough questions about gas prices and about whether private insurance will survive.

People laughed when Cuellar said the bill is “revenue neutral.”

Believe it or not, the man was adamant that he has good private insurance and that he wants to keep *his* private insurance! Why not put all the government employees on Medicare or the VA (depending on their background). Why do we give and give so that our employees can have better benefits than we can afford?

He constantly talked about organizations and corporations that supported the bills, ignoring that the constituents in front of him do not. He handed out paper after paper (how green is that?) supporting the health bill and tax and cap.

He talked against the Blue Dogs, but did say that he wouldn’t allow Pelosi to bring the bill to a vote by bypassing the Committees.

Myth: doctors take out tonsils needlessly

Then, there's the charge that doctors will needlessly take tonsils out. First, it's unlikely that your Family Physician or Pediatrician does surgery. Second, I don't think the ENT's are getting paid for these anymore, unless they jump through hoops to prove that they're not over-doing it.

AP: In trying to rally support for health care overhaul, Obama described a patient who sees a physician for a sore throat, or a parent who brings in a child with a sore throat.

"Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. ... The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'" Obama told a prime-time news conference.

The president added: "Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference."

Video and here.

Obama Press Conference Transcript

The transcript of the press conference is on line at the Washington Post.

However, if you want an annotated version, try this blog.

Thoughts on Obama's health speech July 22, 2009

Why doesn't the President just say that the Executive branch employees in his Administration will get rid of their insurance and go on Medicare???

Not a doggone thing that the President is talking about tonight - except for the taxes, the increased bureaucracies and the requirements that Pharmacy companies discount meds - is in the Bills that are being proposed by the House or the Senate.

The government is not paying for those private insurance costs -- the tax cuts for insurance is not the burden that will break the federal budget.

(And by the way - the White House is the people's house. It's only being used by this man.)

Ann Coulter on government Health Care finance

On the other hand, there's Ann Coulter's take.

Give Ann a chance, here. She makes some very good points.

Addendum -- Including this one:

Now the Democrats want to force us all into one gigantic national health insurance plan that will cover every real and mythical ailment that has a powerful lobby. But if you have a rare medical condition without a lobbying arm, you'll be out of luck.

Governor Jindal reminds us how FEMA helped flood insurance

You may not be aware that the only way to buy flood insurance is through FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In fact, the Agency draws the lines for the Flood Plains and so, decides whether you need flood insurance.

Executive Order 12127

President Carter's 1979 executive order merged many of the separate disaster-related responsibilities into the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Among other agencies, FEMA absorbed: the Federal Insurance Administration, the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, the National Weather Service Community Preparedness Program, the Federal Preparedness Agency of the General Services Administration and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration activities from HUD. Civil defense responsibilities were also transferred to the new agency from the Defense Department's Defense Civil Preparedness Agency.
John Macy was named as FEMA's first director. Macy emphasized the similarities between natural hazards preparedness and the civil defense activities. FEMA began development of an Integrated Emergency Management System with an all-hazards approach that included "direction, control and warning systems which are common to the full range of emergencies from small isolated events to the ultimate emergency - war."

As we learned in 2005, the centralized bureaucracy is not the most efficient method of responding to the disasters of flooding. (It might have helped if the former Governor had allowed earlier response.)

Governor Jindal discusses possible "bipartisan" health care reform measures, here.

Health Care Reform: Tax and Spend (and abortion on tax dollars)

(Editorial correction: Sermo was not begun by the AMA. It is a private group, possibly funded originally by pharmaceutical companies. But, no one there knew the funding source.)
(The vote is now nearly 11,000, and still against the new plan.)

How about a simple solution to the rising government expenditures for health care: don't "force Congress" (See President Obama's press statement video, here. At 6 minutes 40 seconds, he says "force Congress.") to spend more money!

Or, we could try Biden's plan to spend more so we won't go bankrupt as we bankrupt the insurance companies and increase the numbers of people on government-paid health care and increasing mandates that health care funding cover more and more "benefits."

The AMA started a blog-type website that can only be accessed by licensed physicians in the US. 94% of the 2949 docs who have responded to the poll on that site, Sermo, oppose the AMA's endorsement of the current House plan. 96% say that the AMA does not speak for them. The top concerns that the doctors have include interference in the doctor-patient relationship (34%) and malpractice/tort reform (32%).

I've already sent my request to the AMA Board of Trustees to rescind their endorsement. CBS news reports that

"Separately, the White House urged Speaker Nancy Pelosi to toughen the emerging bill so it will hold down the future increases in Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals and other providers. The request, in a letter from Budget Director Peter Orszag, came one day after Congress' top budget official warned that as drafted, the legislation fails to slow the growth in health care costs nationally."

The House Bill still doesn't have a bill number. It's gone from 300 pages to 600 pages, to the current 1018 pages. It's here http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

All of the Democrat-controlled committees in the House and the Senate have blocked amendment after amendment that would have limited or blocked taxpayer funding of abortion. This is at the same time that the House Finance Services legislation passed, which will allow tax money to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia!

The House's plan will make it impossible to have private insurance if you don't have it at the time the plan passes and those plans will be restricted from changing, except for adding costly benefits that the House mandates. They won't be able to charge anyone any copays for "preventive services" - well child care, physicals and colonoscopies, etc. These requirements will bankrupt the insurance companies.

Everyone who does not have a plan at the time the House "reform" goes into effect will be forced onto the public plan on day one. If they don't sign up, they pay a fine of 2% of their income - this is in addition to the new employer tax and the new "surcharge" tax on the rich - or as Speaker Pelosi says, "a very few people will help with the revenue stream."

(Cross posted to Comal County GOP blog)

Obama cancels meeting of President's Council Bioethics

I wonder whether the new commission/committee/council will have even one pro-life member? Will Robert P. George (one of only 3 or 4 conservative bioethicist with tenure at a major university), for example, have a spot?

And remember the fuss and bother when some of the members of President Bush's Council were replaced in March, 2004? Bet there's none, now!

Obama Plans to Replace Bush’s Bioethics Panel
By NICHOLAS WADE

Members of the President’s Council on Bioethics were told by the White House last week that their services were no longer needed and were asked to cancel a planned meeting, a council staff member said Wednesday.

The council was disbanded because it was designed by the Bush administration to be “a philosophically leaning advisory group” that favored discussion over developing a shared consensus, said Reid Cherlin, a White House press officer.

President Obama will appoint a new bioethics commission, one with a new mandate and that “offers practical policy options,” Mr. Cherlin said.