SPECIAL BULLETIN: America's Health Scare

[And Such Were Some Of You]

SPECIAL BULLETIN: America's Health Scare

SPECIAL BULLETIN


NATIONAL HEALTH SCARE

By Rick Joyner


When I read the brief on what was contained in the National Health Care bill that is now being presented before Congress, I could not believe I was reading something that was actually being considered in the United States of America. This is not about money or government mismanagement—this is about something far more diabolical than that. As incomprehensible as it may seem, this is about euthanasia, the power to determine who lives or dies in America. Hitler and Stalin would have loved to have had a means such as this for dispatching the millions they killed—it would have made their job much easier, and probably given them the ability to kill many more than they did. THIS BILL IS THAT SINISTER. This is not a joke—this is actually the nature of what is being proposed in the National Health Care legislation, and it is the obvious reason why the Obama Administration wants to ram it through Congress before anyone gets a chance to read it.

I have resolved to always be as generous as I can toward people with opposing views of my own. I do this because I believe it is the mandate of I Corinthians 13 to always believe the best about people, rather than the worst. I know this opens me up to be misled by some, but I consider that a small price to pay to not become cynical. I also do it because I think it is wise to always try and understand the position of my opponents—to be open to consider their positions and not be too rigid or inflexible to change because we all “see in part,” and “know in part.” Because of this, I have been chided for being too generous by giving those I do challenge grace by believing that they had not thought through the consequences of their proposals, or had other good intentioned reasons for doing what they were doing. However, after reading the brief on this health care bill, I don’t see how anyone could not see that there is profound evil and evil intent at work here. I just do not see any way to be any more generous with those who proposed this bill than that. It is that bad.

This bill is obviously designed to put the authority to determine who lives and dies in America into the hands of government bureaucrats. As outrageous as that seems, it is true—you can read it yourself. It even gives the government access to all of your accounts, and the authority to make withdrawals. I know this is hard to believe, but you can read it yourself.


[click the title to read the full article]

[anointedteacher]

I am so sick of these ppl with their false alarm... to scare the simple minded about something that already have been tested and used in other country for years. I've read what those who live in Canada and France say. The ppl are alot healthier and live longer... than here, in the US.

The Health Reform will provide the same care that of Congress and Federal Workers receive... You will have choice of Doctors... and everybody will be cover.... You will also have a choice in keeping your insurance if you want to... But it is nothing close to what Pastor Joyner descibed.... NO What Pres. Obama want to elimates is waste... Unnecessary tests, operations, doctors visits...

I had a doctor that try to get me to come in every week! For what? Nothing... he made money each time I walk in to his office. Another doctor who not my primary... schedule me every three months when it should be one a year if I am nagative. I had so many unneccessry chest xrays. The government is not going to control, but regulates, so money is not wasted. Most ppl can't afford health insurance... what is his solution, may be Pastor Joyner can get a group plan for his congregation? that is the problem with the GOP... no realistic solution... A party of No...

[anointedteacher]

Real Canadians Stick Up For Universal Health Care

Amid all the hyperbole in the ongoing debate about the future of American health care, some of the most extreme public disagreements are over the experiences of our neighbors to the North, in Canada.

Many progressives say the Canadian system of universal care is an excellent role model for our own country. The the upfront costs of establishing such a system, they argue, would eventually be offset by the competitive advantages to American business.

By contrast, American conservatives see the Canadian approach as signifying the end of the freedom to choose your own doctor, the rationing of crucial treatments, and an enormous tax burden.

The argument has played out in congressional hearings, in full-page ads in national newspapers, online and in television commercials.

To see how well a universal health care system like Canada's actually works, the Huffington Post went straight to the source: actual Canadians.

In a decidedly unscientific survey, we emailed about a dozen Canadians with three basic questions, requesting they respond and pass the survey on. We asked which system they would prefer -- their system of universal care, or the U.S. system dominated by private insurers. In addition, we asked them to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Canadian system. And some respondents volunteered personal stories about how they have been treated.


All of the two dozen people who wrote in said they preferred Canadian health care system.

"Anyone who cries 'Socialism!' or 'Communism!' to prevent Americans from achieving universal health care is a liar and a thief -- and more to the point, has plenty of money of his own. He's got his!" wrote Lori Covington. "I just hope the American people won't be dumb enough to continue falling for the line that socialized health care means a loss of personal freedom. In fact, it's quite the opposite."

From Nova Scotia, Maureen Moffatt wrote: "I have seen American politicians speak about our system. Just because something doesn't work perfectly in other countries should not be used as support for the status quo in the U.S."

Respondents wrote that no health care system is perfect. The weaknesses of the Canadian system, they said, includes the need to wait for elective surgery, occasional lines in emergency rooms and a shortage of general practitioners and nurses in some provinces. But all felt that security of knowing that you have health care despite your employment situation more than compensated for the disadvantages.

Canada's universal heath care, wrote Peter Puxley, "still falls short in using medical resources efficiently. The use of electronic records is not widespread enough, specialists, family doctors, nurse practitioners, paramedics, etc are not yet organized into the multifaceted health units that the system now envisages to distribute the burden of care more effectively, but that is coming."

Despite the inefficiencies, Puxley would not want to switch to the system in use across the border. "No one is denied care because of an inability to pay," he continued. "I have never been without care when needed. I don't have to worry about my family's needs in that respect either. Nor is my care dependent on my employer."

Many of our respondents took the position that universal health care is an issue of human rights. "A major strength of our system is accessibility," Covington wrote. "I think it is worth paying higher taxes for universal health care. I think access to universal health care should be a universal right."

David Likely, a retired psychologist living in New Brunswick, wrote about the treatment he received for a near-fatal heart attack seven years ago -- treatment he said would have been provided to any Canadian. "Our federal program is a strong unifying influence across the country, encouraging (nearly) equal treatment of people who live in richer or poorer provinces or territories."

Likely needed surgery for a pacemaker and spent two weeks in the hospital recovering. Two years later, he was again hospitalized, that time for diabetes. Those problems, combined with regular preventive care, would have exceeded his savings. Yet his out-of-pocket expense, he said, was nothing.

"I can't believe that I could have got better treatment anywhere in the world," Likely wrote, "but I can easily believe that the cost in the USA would have exceeded my modest retirement savings."

One respondent had lived in both Canada and the U.S. and was able to compare the two. "I have found the quality of the care I've had in Canada to equal or exceed that of the U.S.," he wrote. "Every man, woman and child is covered. It's my opinion that a civilized country takes care of its people."

[anointedteacher]

FACT CHECK: Distortions rife in health care debate

WASHINGTON — Confusing claims and outright distortions have animated the national debate over changes in the health care system. Opponents of proposals by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats falsely claim that government agents will force elderly people to discuss end-of-life wishes. Obama has played down the possibility that a health care overhaul would cause large numbers of people to change doctors and insurers.

To complicate matters, there is no clear-cut "Obama plan" or "Democratic plan." Obama has listed several goals, but he has drawn few lines in the sand.

The Senate is considering two bills that differ significantly. The House is waiting for yet another bill approved in committee.

A look at some claims being made about health care proposals:

CLAIM: The House bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia," House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said July 23.

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey said in a July 17 article: "One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years ... about alternatives for end-of-life care."

THE FACTS: The bill would require Medicare to pay for advance directive consultations with health care professionals. But it would not require anyone to use the benefit.

Advance directives lay out a patient's wishes for life-extending measures under various scenarios involving terminal illness, severe brain damage and situations. Patients and their families would consult with health professionals, not government agents, if they used the proposed benefit.

CLAIM: Health care revisions would lead to government-funded abortions.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says in a video, "Unless Congress states otherwise, under a government takeover of health care, taxpayers will be forced to fund abortions for the first time in over three decades."

THE FACTS: The proposed bills would not undo the Hyde Amendment, which bars paying for abortions through Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor. But a health care overhaul could create a government-run insurance program, or insurance "exchanges," that would not involve Medicaid and whose abortion guidelines are not yet clear.

Obama recently told CBS that the nation should continue a tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care."

The House Energy and Commerce Committee amended the House bill Thursday to state that health insurance plans have the option of covering abortion, but no public money can be used to fund abortions. The bill says health plans in a new purchasing exchange would not be required to cover abortion but that each region of the country should have at least one plan that does.

Congressional action this fall will determine whether such language is in the final bill.

CLAIM: Americans won't have to change doctors or insurance companies.

"If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing," Obama said on June 23. "You keep your plan; you keep your doctor."

THE FACTS: The proposed legislation would not require people to drop their doctor or insurer. But some tax provisions, depending on how they are written, might make it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage. Their workers presumably would move to a public insurance plan that might not include their current doctors.

CLAIM: The Democrats' plans will lead to rationing, or the government determining which medical procedures a patient can have.

"Expanding government health programs will hasten the day that government rations medical care to seniors," conservative writer Michael Cannon said in the Washington Times.

THE FACTS: Millions of Americans already face rationing, as insurance companies rule on procedures they will cover.

Denying coverage for certain procedures might increase under proposals to have a government-appointed agency identify medicines and procedures best suited for various conditions.

Obama says the goal is to identify the most effective and efficient medical practices, and to steer patients and providers to them. He recently told a forum: "We don't want to ration by dictating to somebody, 'OK, you know what? We don't think that this senior should get a hip replacement.' What we do want to be able to do is to provide information to that senior and to her doctor about, you know, this is the thing that is going to be most helpful to you in dealing with your condition."

CLAIM: Overhauling health care will not expand the federal deficit over the long term.

Obama has pledged that "health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."

THE FACTS: Obama's pledge does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase Medicare fees for doctors. The White House says the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy.

Beyond that, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the House bill lacks mechanisms to bring health care costs under control. In response, the White House and Democratic lawmakers are talking about creating a powerful new board to root out waste in government health programs. But it's unclear how that would work.

Budget experts also warn of accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says they include back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

[anointedteacher]

AP Fact Check: No 'Death Panel' In Health Care Bill

WASHINGTON — Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.

Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes. Here are some questions and answers on the controversy:

Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?

A: No.

Q: Then what's all the fuss about?

A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.

Q: Is anything required

Monsignor Charles Fahey, 76, a Catholic priest who is chairman of the board of the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit service and advocacy group, says no.

"We have to make decisions that are deliberative about our health care at every moment," Fahey said. "What I have said is that if I cannot say another prayer, if I cannot give or get another hug, and if I cannot have another martini – then let me go."

Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?

A: No. It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.

Q: Who supports the provision?

A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors' lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.

Q: Should the federal government be getting involved with living wills and end-of-life questions – decisions that are highly personal and really difficult?

A: It already is.

The government requires hospitals to ask adult patients if they have a living will, or "advance directive." If the patient doesn't have one, and wants one, the hospital has to provide assistance. The mandate on hospitals was instituted during a Republican administration, in 1992, under President George H.W. Bush.

Q: How does a living will work, and how is it different from a health care proxy?

A: A living will – also called an advance directive – spells out a patient's wishes if he or she becomes incapacitated. Often people say they don't want to be kept alive on breathing machines if their condition is terminal and irreversible.

A health care proxy empowers another person to make medical decisions should the patient become incapacitated.

There's also a power-of-attorney, which authorizes another person to make financial decisions for someone who is incapacitated.

Such legal documents have become standard estate-planning tools in the last twenty years.

Q: Would the health overhaul legislation change the way people now deal with making end-of-life decisions?

A: It very well could.

Supporters of the provision say the main consequence would be to formally bring doctors into a discussion that now takes place mainly among family members and lawyers.

"When you execute a legal document with your lawyer, it ends up in your files and in the lawyer's files," said John Rother, a senior policy and strategy adviser for AARP. "Unless the doctor is part of this discussion, it's unlikely that your wishes will be respected. The doctor will be the one involved in any decisions."

The American Medical Association says involving doctors is simple common sense.

"There has been a lot of misinformation about the advance care planning provisions in the bill," AMA President Dr. James Rohack said in a statement. "It's plain, old-fashioned medical care."

Q: So why are some people upset?

Some social conservatives say stronger language is needed to protect seniors from being pressured into signing away their rights to medical treatment in a moment of depression or despair.

The National Right to Life Committee opposes the provision as written.

"I'm not aware of 'death panels' in the bill," said David O'Steen, executive director of the group. "I'm not aware of anything that says you will be hauled before a government bureaucrat. But we are concerned ... it doesn't take a lot to push a vulnerable person – perhaps unwittingly – to give up their right to life-sustaining treatment."

The White House says it is countering false claims with a "reality check" page on its Web site, . www.whitehouse.gov