Update: Cuba said? (who said? who cares?) Michael Moore's documentary, Sicko "-blatant misrepresentation of healthcare in Cuba"

Or not- According to HuffPo  (mr Moore that is writing at HuffPo) that wasn't the case at all. Instead, he proudly refers to the accolades received by the Communist regime quoted by an AP writer:

June 16, 2007 Saturday 1:41 AM GMT [that's 7 months before the false cable]

HEADLINE: Cuban health minister says Moore's 'Sicko' shows 'human values' of communist system

BYLINE: By ANDREA RODRIGUEZ, Associated Press Writer

OK- I guess thats better? Ah well. We'll leave Mr Moore to his paranoid rantings of the insurance company being out to get him and move on. Guess Wikileaks isn't all that after all. 

Ah, sweet irony.
From the Guardian:

Cuba banned Michael Moore's 2007 documentary, Sicko, because it painted such a "mythically" favourable picture of Cuba's healthcare system that the authorities feared it could lead to a "popular backlash", according to US diplomats in Havana.

1. Sicko
2. Production year: 2007
3. Country: USA
4. Cert (UK): 12A
5. Runtime: 113 mins
6. Directors: Michael Moore
7. More on this film

The revelation, contained in a confidential US embassy cable released by WikiLeaks , is surprising, given that the film attempted to discredit the US healthcare system by highlighting what it claimed was the excellence of the Cuban system.

But the memo reveals that when the film was shown to a group of Cuban doctors, some became so "disturbed at the blatant misrepresentation of healthcare in Cuba that they left the room".... more

ObamaCare Cuts Drug Discounts to Children's Hospitals

From Raleigh News, H/T Catholic Caveman

Nancy Pelosi said that we wouldn't know what was in ObamaCare until it was passed.

It's been passed, and now we are finding out exactly what a nightmare it really is.

Case in point; for the past 18 years, Congress has ordered that specialized drugs, better known in the pharmaceutical industry as 'orphan drugs', to be sold to children's hospitals at a discount rate that ranged anywhere from 30%-50%.

That was before ObamaCare.

More here

From HotAir

255 million: The number of Americans with existing health insurance coverage.

20 million: The number of Americans without any health coverage at all due to economic circumstances.

375,000: The number of Americans with pre-existing conditions HHS said would apply for coverage in the first year of ObamaCare, one of the main political arguments for its implementation.

8,011: The number that actually did.

Not Just AGs Suing Over Healthcare

According to One News, a group of nearly 5,000 American physicians, The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), is also suing to overturn the newly enacted healthcare bill. 


Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of AAPS, says several issues are of concern.
"It's an issue of freedom, it's an issue of saving the country from bankruptcy, it's an issue of access to medical care -- all of these things," she says. "This bill is a monstrous threat to Americans; and the more they find out about it, the more they dislike it [and] the more they fear it." (more)

Obamacare was mainly aimed at redistributing wealth

In case anyone actually had any doubts....

From the Washington Examiner

The Truth About the Health Care Bill- From the Left's View

Some myth busting from the Left, courtesy of FDL:

The bill will make health care affordable for middle class Americans.	The bill will impose a financial hardship on middle class Americans who will be forced to buy a product that they can’t afford to use. A family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income — out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible.
5. This plan is similar to the Massachusetts plan, which makes health care affordable.	Many Massachusetts residents forgo health care because they can’t afford it. A 2009 study by the state of Massachusetts found that: 21% of residents forgo medical treatment because they can’t afford it, including 12% of children 18% have health insurance but can’t afford to use it
6. This bill provide health care to 31 million people who are currently uninsured.	This bill will mandate that millions of people who are currently uninsured must purchase insurance from private companies, or the IRS will collect up to 2% of their annual income in penalties. Some will be assisted with government subsidies.
7. You can keep the insurance you have if you like it.	The excise tax will result in employers switching to plans with higher co-pays and fewer covered services. Older, less healthy employees with employer-based health care will be forced to pay much more in out-of-pocket expenses than they do now.

More

Political Folly

From the Newsweek Blog no less...

...In Gallup's new poll, Americans by narrow margins agree that the new health-care law will improve coverage (44–40 percent) and the "overall health of Americans" (40–35 percent). In a way, it's astonishing that sizable minorities could disagree with those two statements, since everyone agrees the law will provide medical coverage to 32 million more Americans.


But that's where support, however ambivalent, ends. Americans think the law will harm the U.S. economy (44–34 percent), the overall quality of health care in the U.S. (55–29 percent), and the federal balance sheet (61–23 percent).



It's almost as bad when you ask voters how the law will affect them personally. There is lots of doubt and some considerable belief (or hope) that the new law won't affect them at all. But respondents who said the measure would affect them generally fear what that change would be. They think the measure would adversely affect "the health-care coverage you and your family receive" (34–24 percent); "the quality of health care you and your family receive" (35–21 percent); and the "costs you and your family pay for health care: (50–21 percent).... (more)

Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients

Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President
Barack Obamaas a national model for efficient health care,
will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of 
its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government 
pays too little.

The Government Takeover of Health Care

On October 29, 2009, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats released their latest version of a government takeover of America’s health care system.

∙ The Democrats’ Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) is the antithesis of patient-centered reform that empowers Americans to truly own and control their health coverage and provides more choices, more competition, more innovation, higher quality and lower costs.

∙ In deciphering the ins and outs of the new health care system, Americans will have to get familiar with a host of new czars and bureaucrats, including the Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Sec. 223), the Health Choices Administration and the Health Choices Commissioner (Sec. 241).

∙ Americans can say goodbye to personal, private insurance as individual health insurance coverage is grandfathered out of existence (Sec. 202) and more limitations are added to health savings accounts (Sec. 531 & Sec. 533).

∙ Fears of government-run health care are alive and well with experts saying the government health insurance plan (Sec. 321) will force tens of millions out of their existing coverage.

∙ The U.S. Constitution and the principle of limited government are tested as never before by forcing Americans to purchase “acceptable” health care coverage or face a tax of 2.5% of modified adjusted gross income (Sec. 501).

∙ Trial lawyers get off scot-free as Democrats pay lip service to real medical malpractice reform, opting to hand over money for lawyer-friendly “alternatives” (Sec. 2531) instead of limiting attorneys’ fees or capping damages.

∙ Washington goes after employers, by mandating they provide health care coverage or pay a tax equal to 8 percent of wages (Sec. 512), and S Corp filers, by instituting a 5.4 percent surtax on taxpayers (Sec. 551).

∙ More low-income individuals (now up to 150% of the federal poverty level) will be pushed onto the rolls of Medicaid (Sec. 1701) leaving already over-stretched State Governments to pick up the tab.

∙ Future costs will be borne by your children and grandchildren. A preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the true cost of the bill is $1.055 trillion.

∙ It permits federal funds to be spent on abortion services (Sec. 222).

∙ Community organizations like ACORN may assist the Health Choices Commissioner in enrolling individuals in the Health Insurance Exchange (Sec. 305).

∙ Members of Congress are not subject to the same health care system Americans will have to live by under the public health insurance option (Sec. 330).

White House Says No ‘Veracity’ to Argument That Forcing Individuals to Buy Health Insurance Is Unconstitutional

Not going to confuse you with an English major either but that is another issue.
You're not really surprised they would say that are you? Interesting that Mr Gibbs also says that,

"I won't be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don't believe there's a lot of--I don't believe there's a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of what they're commentating on," said Gibbs.

Well, of course there isn't any case law on it because the government HAS NEVER TRIED IT BEFORE!

As CNSNews points out:

In 1994, when the Clinton administration attempted to push a health care reform plan through a Democratic Congress that also mandated every American buy health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office determined that the government had never ordered Americans to buy anything. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO analysis said. “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

But of course the Constitution does not appear to be a very large consideration for this Administration in this or (m)any other matters.

13 New Tax Hikes In the Dems Healthcare Bill

Let's see 1,990 pages divided by 13 is one tax hike every 153 pages.....From Americans For Tax Reform:

H.R. 3962, the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" has been introduced--all 1990 pages of it. This gargantuan beast contains thirteen new tax hikes. Here they all are, with description and page number (PDF version):
***
Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.

read the rest here...

Does He Lie?

Was Wilson right? Does Obama lie? Krauthammer says no, its more subtle than that. I guess it all depends upon what your definition of "is", is. I know if my child did this, I'd say he lied.
This is even more devious than a lie.

From Charles Krauthammer via Town Hall:

Three examples within a single speech -- the now-famous Obama-Wilson "you lie" address to Congress on health care -- of Obama's relationship with truth.

"I will not sign (a plan)," he solemnly pledged, "if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future. Period."

And then, part two:

"And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."

This apparent strengthening of the pledge brilliantly and deceptively undermines it. What Obama suggests is that his plan will require mandatory spending cuts if the current rosy projections prove false. But there's absolutely nothing automatic about such cuts.

Medicare had a similar plan in 2003 to institute automatic cuts to sustain its growth. Every year since it was enacted Congress has waived the cuts.

This same deceptiveness is used regarding providing health care coverage to illegal immigrants. Obama says they will not be covered, yet all four committee-passed bills in Congress allow illegal immigrants to take part in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange.

Also, there is no provision to require proof of citizenship of those who seek health care and two attempts by Republicans to include such language have been shot down by Dems. This raises the question of why the Dems care so much about making illegal immigrants happy. Is it a future block of potential voters or perhaps it represents those already signed up by ACORN? But that is a different post.

After Wilson’s outburst the Senate Finance Committee revisited the language of its bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any federal benefits. To which Krauthammer asks, “Why would the Finance Committee fix a nonexistent problem?” Why indeed.

(3) Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of Obamacare by eliminating "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" from Medicare.

That's not a lie. That's not even deception. That's just an insult to our intelligence. Waste, fraud and abuse -- Meg Greenfield once called this phrase "the dread big three" -- as the all-purpose piggy bank for budget savings has been a joke since Jimmy Carter first used it in 1977.

Moreover, if half a trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of Medicare, why wait for health care reform? If, as Obama repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the budget, why hasn't he gotten started on the painless billions in "waste and fraud" savings? (more)

This type of deception and misdirection has been a hallmark of this administration even in while he ran for the office. I have never been so distrustful of any President in my entire life.

Rasmussen Polls- Bad News For Dems, Libs and the President

Rasmussen has some bad news for Congress, Health Care Reform (as currently preached) and the President:

Republicans Widen Lead Over Democrats on Generic Ballot

Voters Say Town Hall Meetings Should Be for Congressmen to Listen, Not Speak

51% Say Congress is Too Liberal, 22% Say It’s Too Conservative

57% Would Like to Replace Entire Congress

Support for Congressional Health Care Reform Falls to New Low

60% Say Tax Hikes Hurt The Economy Americans Say

We Want A Healthcare System Like The British! (sounds like a "death panel" to me)

The elephant in the room here, in addition to the obvious warning about government health care, is that hospice care can be deadly. Palliative care, such as morphine can actually hasten death. But that discussion is for another time. Time and again we are told that all the horror stories we hear about Britain's Health care system are simply part of the "myths" that those bad old, uncaring "political terrorists" people on the Right are peddling. Well, maybe not. From the Telegraph H/T Touchstone:

In 2007-08 16.5 per cent of deaths in Britain came about after continuous deep sedation, according to researchers at the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, twice as many as in Belgium and the Netherlands.

In a letter to the Telegraph, palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others warn:“Forecasting death is an inexact science,” they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.”

Sounds like a panel of experts "helping" by keeping health costs down.

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.
It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.

Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.

They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems. Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for instance.

When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of benefit.

If a patient is judged to still be able to eat or drink food and water will still be offered to them, as this is considered nursing care rather than medical intervention.

Dr Hargreaves said that this depended, however, on constant assessment of a patient’s condition.

He added that some patients were being “wrongly” put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die.

He said: “I have been practising palliative medicine for more than 20 years and I am getting more concerned about this “death pathway” that is coming in.“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.”

He said that he had personally taken patients off the pathway who went on to live for “significant” amounts of time and warned that many doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice improvement in their condition.“If they are sedated it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better,” Prof Millard said.

Healthcare Reform In One Page

Instead of a 1000+ page document created by 100's of lobbyists, so unwieldy that its supporters have read (like the POTUS) or understand, I offer this (simple) alternative:

Goal: Insure the uninsured.
How: Extend Medicaid

Goal: Increase competition
How: Allow insurance to be purchased beyond state lines

Goal: Decrease medical costs
How: Tort reform and make medical costs tax deductible

I think that makes a fine start. Its manageable, and lays the groundwork for additional reform down the road. Easily understood, so maybe the POTUS can quit lying about what it says (e.g. "you can keep your present plan" and "there will be no rationing") and it doesn't saddle our children with a debt they won't be able to pay off.

Raise your voice. There ARE alternatives to government takeover of health care.

Obamacare 2.0 or Bait and Switch

Charles Krauthammer delivers a "Plan B" for Obamacare. As I have said before, no reasonable person will deny that we need some changes, but reasonable people can and do disagree on complete overhaul, deficit spending, and putting government in control of healthcare matters. Here's one such proposal:

"...Obamacare 2.0 -- promulgating draconian health-insurance regulation that prohibits (a) denying coverage for preexisting conditions, (b) dropping coverage if the client gets sick and (c) capping insurance company reimbursement.
What's not to like? If you have insurance, you'll never lose it. Nor will your children ever be denied coverage for preexisting conditions.

The regulated insurance companies will get two things in return. Government will impose an individual mandate that will force the purchase of health insurance on the millions of healthy young people who today forgo it. And government will subsidize all the others who are too poor to buy health insurance. The result? Two enormous new revenue streams created by government for the insurance companies.

Its not perfect but its another idea/option, something congress seems to be woefully short of these days.

but then Krauthammer then lets the other leather boot drop as it were:

"...Isn't there a catch? Of course, there is. Government-subsidized universal and virtually unlimited coverage will vastly compound already out-of-control government spending on health care. The financial and budgetary consequences will be catastrophic. And the only solution will be rationing. That's when the liberals will give the FCCCER regulatory power and give you end-of-life counseling. " (more here)

ABC, NBC Won't Air Ad Critical of Obama's Health Care Plan

So, if there was ever any doubt in your mind which way the media leans, this should put it to rest. It's unconscionable that anyone should be allowed to present an opposable view the Obama Administration.

Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding

CHICAGO—The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.
Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.

We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.

About the American College of SurgeonsThe American College of Surgeons is a scientific and educational organization of surgeons that was founded in 1913 to raise the standards of surgical practice and to improve the care of the surgical patient. The College is dedicated to the ethical and competent practice of surgery. Its achievements have significantly influenced the course of scientific surgery in America and have established it as an important advocate for all surgical patients. The College has more than 74,000 members and is the largest organization of surgeons in the world.
Web site: www.facs.org

The president's "most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation"

Camille Paglia, my favorite feminist, lesbian, liberal weighs in on "the administration's grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform." Out of the mouths of liberals....

From Salon:

Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.

You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.

I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks?...
The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.

But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.

...

A Euthanasia Mandate

Far from being an unfounded scare tactic the current healthcare bill has some troublesome language that may lead down some very dark roads. Think it couldn't happen? Well, it already has:

In an April 28 New York Times interview, the president spoke of having government guide a "very difficult democratic conversation" about "those toward the end of their lives [who] are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here." Those statements sounded a little creepy to us. Deciding who gets denied care at the end of life should not be dependent on government cost controls.

Presidential health care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and chairman of the Department of Bioethics at the Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health, has argued that independent government boards should decide policy on end-of-life care. He also has defended rationing care more strictly for older people because "allocation [of medical care] by age is not invidious discrimination."

...the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals this spring ruled that Georgia can override a doctor's decision about how much care is warranted for a handicapped child because the state is "the final arbiter" of medical decisions. ...

...the Oregon health plan last year refused to pay for a recognized drug to prolong the life of lung cancer patient Barbara Wagner even after her oncologist prescribed it. Yet the same bureaucrats told Ms. Wagner that the plan would indeed cover doctor-assisted suicide if she chose that option. ... (more)