Recently in Health Care Category

If you were a doc, what would you do?

The number of doctors refusing new Medicare patients because of low government payment rates is setting a new high, just six months before millions of Baby Boomers begin enrolling in the government health care program. Recent surveys by national and state medical societies have found more doctors limiting Medicare patients, partly because Congress has failed to stop an automatic 21% cut in payments that doctors already regard as too low.

The fraudulent arguments and lies that were told to "justify" Democrats ramming through Obamacare are becoming exposed day by day.

Obama's drive to create a permanent Democratic majority by providing unaffordable health goodies will fail if those who are supposed to provide them say "no."

And that's what is happening.

Why reform American healthcare? Dig below the UN statistics and it's clear that it is the best in the world. All we really need is to curb the tort lawyers and allow insurance companies to sell their health plans in any and all states. We don't need government bureaucrats making life and death decisions for us.

Where U.S. Health Care Ranks Number One
Isn't 'responsiveness' what medicine is all about?

By Mark Constantian
Wall Street Journal Opinion January 8, 2010

The cover of Time pictured President Obama in white coat and stethoscope. The story opened: "The U.S. spends more to get less [health care] than just about every other industrialized country." This trope has dominated media coverage of health-care reform.

Yet a majority of Americans opposes Congress's health-care bills. Why?

The comparative ranking system that most critics cite comes from the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO). The ranking most often quoted is Overall Performance, where the U.S. is rated No. 37. The Overall Performance Index, however, is adjusted to reflect how well WHO officials believe that a country could have done in relation to its resources.

The scale is heavily subjective: The WHO believes that we could have done better because we do not have universal coverage. What apparently does not matter is that our population has universal access because most physicians treat indigent patients without charge and accept Medicare and Medicaid payments, which do not even cover overhead expenses. The WHO does rank the U.S. No. 1 of 191 countries for "responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient." Isn't responsiveness what health care is all about?

Data assembled by Dr. Ronald Wenger and published recently in the Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons indicates that cardiac deaths in the U.S. have fallen by two-thirds over the past 50 years. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Childhood leukemia has a high cure rate. Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S.

The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies. The U.S. has some of the highest breast, colon and prostate cancer survival rates in the world. And our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

We have the shortest waiting time for nonemergency surgery in the world; England has one of the longest. In Canada, a country of 35 million citizens, 1 million patients now wait for surgery and another million wait to see specialists.

When my friend, cardiac surgeon Peter Alivizatos, returned to Greece after 10 years heading the heart transplantation program at Baylor University in Dallas, the one-year heart transplant survival rate there was 50%--five-year survival was only 35%. He soon increased those numbers to 94% one-year and 90% five-year survival, which is what we achieve in the U.S. So the next time you hear that the U.S. is No. 37, remember that Greece is No. 14. Cuba, by the way, is No. 39.

But the issue is only partly about quality. As we have all heard, the U.S. spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product for health care than any other country.
Actually, health-care spending now increases more moderately than it has in previous decades. Food, energy, housing and health care consume the same share of American spending today (55%) that they did in 1960 (53%).

So what does this money buy? Certainly some goes to inefficiencies, corporate profits, and costs that should be lowered by professional liability reform and national, free-market insurance access by allowing for competition across state lines. But the majority goes to a long list of advantages that American citizens now expect: the easiest access, the shortest waiting times the widest choice of physicians and hospitals, and constant availability of health care to elderly Americans. What we need now is insurance and liability reform--not health-care reform.

Who determines how much a nation should pay for its health? Is 17% too much, or too little? What better way could there be to dedicate our national resources than toward the health and productivity of our citizens?

Perhaps it's not that America spends too much on health care, but that other nations don't spend enough.

--Dr. Constantian is a plastic and reconstructive surgeon in New Hampshire.


Sound thinking on health care from Sarah Palin. Here's the health care plan for sensible Americans:

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


Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care

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


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

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

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

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

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

View Full Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where do Canadians get medical treatment when they REALLY need it?

President Obama in the past has said he favors a single-payer (government only) health care system. He has also said he knows it would be difficult to get that in one giant step. So he knows he has to proceed incrementally, as now, with a "public option," which in short order can be manipulated to undercut all private systems. Before long, the world's best medical treatment system is destroyed.


Citizen Sarah Palin is emerging as a leading conservative voice by speaking directly to the people. Her accurate description of the "death panels" implicit in the Obama "health reform" legislation alerted seniors and parents of the handicapped of the danger of government bureaucrats having yes or no power over peoples' lives. She has now challenged the president why there is no tort reform, no reining in of the trial lawyers in his "reform" plan? Who's he for -- the trial lawyers or the patients?

In both instances Palin's words were immediately picked up around the nation and the world by citizens, cable shows and the rest of the media. Yet her platform was not Meet the Press or the New York Times, but her own website on facebook, where "friends" are signing up in amazing numbers. Check out this graph showing Palin's facebook presence compared to other leading politicians.


Not bad for the supposedly uneducated, ill-informed hick from Alaska.


After Sarah Palin posted her facebook comment asking why the president hasn't talked about tort reform in connection with health reform when it could save billions of dollars, her words sped around the world, hit the news wires and the cable shows in a few hours.

A blogger on a popular site complained that he had been talking tort reform for years, and how come Sarah Palin gets all the attention?. Another blogger had it right:

So how come when I mention Tort Reform, 5 times daily for the past 2 years, nobody on hotair says, "All Hail kirkill?" Oh, I didn't use Facebook...darn. ;-)

kirkill on August 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Hey, don't feel bad...Rush has mentioned tort reform for a long time. So has Hannity. So has Levin and Laura Ingraham. But the libs did a stupid thing when they made Sarah the butt of their slander, criticism and jokes, because they made even libs want to know what she says. She is now the most powerful voice in the conservative movement, writing face book pages from her living room in Wasilla. When Sarah speaks/writes, people listen. And what of the greek-column, logo making, teleprompting orator of the century? She's making him all wee-weed up.

Christian Conservative on August 21, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Just as she highlighted the central danger of Obama's health care push -- government control over peoples' lives -- she now puts the question squarely: Who are you for, the trial lawyers or the people?

As we saw throughout the campaign and now the first part of his presidency, Obama has a full deck of race cards, which he plays with abandon and gusto. Disagree with the master, you're a racist.

Jonah Goldberg has it right:

Two weeks ago, town hallers were supposed to be members of the Brooks Brothers brigade, Astroturf division. Now they're well-armed anti-government militias. At this rate, they'll soon be android ninjas with laser vision. Wait, strike that. They'll be really racist android ninjas with laser vision.

Suddenly, if conservatives want to transcend race, we have to agree to massive increases in the size of government and socialized medicine.

That's not transcending race, it's using Obama's race to bully the opposition into acquiescence. Actually transcending race would require treating Obama like any other president. Which is pretty much exactly what conservatives have been doing. Seriously, if Hillary Clinton were president, would conservatives really be rolling over for the same health-care plan because she's white.

It is getting quite old, but racism has been so effective (after all, it bought him the presidency) it's hard if not impossible to give up.

August 21, 2009, 0:00 a.m.

A Deck Stacked with Race Cards
The great irony of the Obama presidency.

By Jonah Goldberg

What if America transcended race, and Barack Obama wasn't invited?

Continue reading. . .

While Obama has been talking about health care reform as the vehicle for his real purpose, which is running of the lives of all Americans, he hasn't ever mentioned the reform needed the most: Tort reform.

Sarah Palin reminds him of that today:

Why no legal reform? Why continue to encourage defensive medicine that wastes billions of dollars and does nothing for the patients? Do you want health care reform to benefit trial attorneys or patients?
Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, points out that Obama is counting on his belief that the American public is really stupid and if he, Goebbels-like, keeps repeating his lies about what his health care plan will do, at the end of the day he will be believed and get the control of American lives that he wants.

Both Lowry and Obama may be right.

So the battle against Obama's war against freedom must not ease up.

Read Stupid Nation

And, as for being calm and not using inflammatory terms such as "death panels,' nuts to that. What Obama wants is the power of life and death over all. It's his narcissistic craving that drives him for dominion over our lives. Andrew McCarthy explains why the arguments of his editors at the National Review and Krauthammer for quiet "civility" are mistaken.

Obama wants our freedom:

His purpose is revolutionary change in an American society he grew up understanding to be fundamentally unjust, racist, materialist, imperialist, and the agent of global misery. He is in Washington to transform the nation from the top down. Nationalized health care is key for him. If he gets it, sovereignty shifts from the citizen to the state. By law, government will be empowered to manage minute details of our lives. Over time -- when, as the American Thinker's Joseph Ashby observes, a "1,000-page health-care law explodes into many thousands of pages of regulatory codes" -- that is precisely what government will do.

Even though it appears that Obama is losing the battle, McCarthy fears we can "still blow this thing." We cannot forget the Democrats control all the levers of power and can push this bill through. As McCarthy observes, only a handful of wavering Democrats have the votes to kill it. What will make the difference, he asks?

The ardor of public opposition will determine whether this battle is won or lost.

We must not let up.

Jonah Goldberg exposes Obama's false promise with a simple example:

Under the plan discussed at President Obama's infomercial-esqe town halls, America would cut costs and expand coverage while avoiding rationing. Apparently, it's paranoid to think that's too good to be true.

Imagine you're in charge of bringing pie to a company picnic. You're planning to provide dessert for 100 people. Then, your boss says you need to hand out pie to 150. Fine, you say, I'll make more pies. But -- oh no! -- you can't, because you've also been told costs must go down. Okay, then you can cut slices of the existing pies smaller so everyone can have a piece. Wait! You can't do that either, because you're not allowed to ration (i.e., give less to more).

But, as Jonah points out, it's more than healthcare that's at stake, it's personal freedom:

When it comes to civil liberties, liberals are often distrustful of government power. But, for reasons that baffle me, they are quite comfortable with Uncle Sam getting into the business of deciding, or providing "guidance" on, which lives are more valuable than others. A government charged with extending life expectancy must meddle not just with our health care, but with what we eat, how we drive, how we live. A government determined to cut costs must meddle not just with how we live, but how we die.

That sounds scary and un-American to me. And if that makes me paranoid and unpatriotic, then I am what I am.

Some would call Obamacare totalitarian socialism.

Do read all of what Jonah has to say on the Obama plan to "meddle" in every aspect of your life.


Help kill the Obamacare nationalization of healthcare right from your computer.

The Obamabots want you to report anyone making -- or even thinking -- "fishy" things about the government takeover of your health care. That it will add trillions to the national debt and require crushing taxes on you and your descendants is something you aren't supposed to talk about.

Tell them to leave our healthcare alone.

Stephen Crowder has a plan.

Write to and tell them you oppose the government takeover of healthcare.

President Obama tried to brush aside the "death panels" in the Democrats' health "reform" bill that former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin had warned about. The trouble for Obama is that the text of the bill (section 1233) and other commentators, even champions of the Democrats, support Palin.

Palin herself carefully cited chapter and verse in responding to the President' statement, which she called "misleading" in her posting on facebook.

One of the huge advantages of the internet and services like facebook is that information can be distributed worldwide in an instant without having to rely on the whims of major media outlets to carry the message (or not) and their power to spin the information any way they want. The New York Times can twist her statement however it wishes, but the statement itself is accessible to all as she wrote it.

It seldom happens that the media calls the president on his misstatements, mischaracterizations and downright falsehoods, but with the actual text of his remarks, the bill itself and Palin's commentary for all to see, their ability to fudge the facts is greatly diminished.

Has Palin identified what is at the heart of the Obama health plan? Indeed, she has. It's government power over life and death: It can make decisions about the relative value of the lives of the healthy and the ill, the unborn and the aged, the professor and the cop.

Nothing doing.

Concerning the "Death Panels"
Yesterday at 8:55pm (August 12, 2009)
Yesterday (a August 11, 2009) President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these "unproductive" members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

"Let me just be specific about some things that I've been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we've decided that we don't, it's too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they're ready on their own terms. It wasn't forcing anybody to do anything." [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled "Advance Care Planning Consultation." [2] With all due respect, it's misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Continue reading...

Theodore Dalrymple, a British physican and noted essayist, compares the health care of a human and a dog in Britain and concludes the dog has it better.

The one kind of reform that America should avoid is one that is imposed uniformly upon the whole country, with a vast central bureaucracy. No nation in the world is more fortunate than America in its suitability for testing various possible solutions. The federal government should concern itself very little in health care arrangements, and leave it almost entirely to the states. I don't want to provoke a new war of secession but surely this is a matter of states' rights. All judgment, said Doctor Johnson, is comparative; and while comparisons of systems as complex as those of health care are never definitive or indisputable, it is possible to make reasonable global judgments: that the French system is better than the British or Dutch, for example. Only dictators insist they know all the answers in advance of experience. Let 100--or, in the case of the U.S., 50--flowers bloom.

The reasoning that led to these conclusions by Dr. Dalrymple can be found here.


What kind of reform is need in health care?

How about some changes that benefit the people and lower costs?

Charles Krauthammer, himself trained as a physician, offers a simple, understandable, workable plan without the government bureaucratic build-up and control over who lives and dies.

[T]oday's ruling Democrats propose to fix our extremely high quality (but inefficient and therefore expensive) health care system with 1,000 pages of additional curlicued complexity -- employer mandates, individual mandates, insurance company mandates, allocation formulas, political payoffs and myriad other conjured regulations and interventions -- with the promise that this massive concoction will lower costs.

This is all quite mad. It creates a Rube Goldberg system that simply multiplies the current inefficiencies and arbitrariness, thus producing staggering deficits with less choice and lower-quality care.


Tort reform eliminating the medical-malpractice system driven by trial lawyers.

Ending employer-paid health insurance.and let each family buy its own.

The [employer-provided] health care benefit exemption is the largest tax break in the entire U.S. budget, costing the government a quarter-trillion dollars annually. It hinders health-insurance security and portability as well as personal independence. If we additionally eliminated the prohibition on buying personal health insurance across state lines, that would inject new and powerful competition that would lower costs for everyone.

As Krauthammer says, Obamacare is the surest route to financial ruin. It's also the way to total control of peoples' lives that Obama socialism wants.

Read it all.

Protests are springing up around the country. Stunned by a pork-laden stimulus package and a kill the economy cap-ane-trade bill, average Americans cried "too much" when the government-will-care-for-you health care bill was launched. The government will save money by running health care? That's Brooklyn Bridge talk. The government will control your life-and-death decisions because it's paying the bills: People understand that and they don't want it.

A reader of a column by the New York Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman said this:

The display of rage in crammed healthcare town hall meetings around the Country is not necessarily attributable to healthcare alone. It's much broader than that -- our fellow countymen are at wits' end trying to maintain their heads above water. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get such a huge turnout at a town hall meeting in the middle of August? The mob is turning ugly, not because they do not want anyone to "touch their Medicaid," but because the fuse has been lit by those who have taken advantage of middle class Americans and played them for fools.

Zuckerman had said this:

Ruinous tax increases are inevitable if spending cuts remain outside the President's agenda.

Everybody is dazed and confused by all this talk of additional indebtedness in the trillions of dollars. Our soaring national debt will require cataclysmic adjustments to accomplish the restoration of a balance in our fiscal position.

Obama's hatred of capitalism and free markets has led to this debt explosion. Kill the free enterprise system and the government will step in to take care of you. People aren't buying it.

Obama never had a real job so he doesn't know how wealth is created. By choking free markets and individual initiative, he will find his socialist society has no revenues. American citizens will be the losers.

Read it all.


This astonishing picture of our self-absorbed narcissistic president could not be more revealing. Shame.

July 31, 2009
Obama's revealing body language
Thomas Lifson in The American Thinker
This picture truly is worth at least a thousand words.


Click to enlarge.

I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.

Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

In my own dealings with the wealthy and powerful, I have always found that the way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. Do they understand that the others are also human beings with feelings? Especially when they think nobody is looking.



Mark Steyn asks:

How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?

This isn't about health care, it's a liberty issue. Obama wants a totalitarian socialist state in which left-wing elites (like himself) make decisions for all the people.

A Liberty Issue

Government health care would be wrong even if it "controlled costs."

By Mark Steyn

My conservative friends -- and even a few media liberals -- are agreed: The bloom is off the Obama rose. He's not the Obamessiah, just another 50-percent president. He tried to do too much too fast, and his numbers are sinking. The Europeanization of health care is dead. Fuhgeddabouddit.

I wouldn't be so sure. President Obama has no choice but to move fast, in part because the image he presented during the campaign -- a post-partisan, post-racial, post-anything-unpleasant-and-controversial, pragmatic centrist -- was a total crock. He has a vast transformative domestic agenda and -- because most of its elements are not terribly popular -- he has to accomplish it at speed, or he won't get it done at all.

Health-care "reform"? As we've seen this past week in the House of Representatives, put not your trust in "Blue Dog Democrats." And, as we'll no doubt see in the weeks ahead in the Senate, put not your trust in "moderate Republicans" whose urge to "reach across the aisle" is so reflexive it ought to be covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The president needs to get something passed. Anything. The details don't matter. Once it's in place, health-care "reform" can be re-reformed endlessly. Indeed, you'll be surprised how little else we talk about. So, for example, public funding for abortions can be discarded now, and written in -- as it surely will be by some judge -- down the road. What matters is to ram it through, get it done, pass it now -- in whatever form.

Questions, anyone?


Click on picture to enlarge.
Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Health Care category.

Free Trade is the previous category.

Housing crisis is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.