The VA, Ebola and me.

The family and I live about 35 miles northeast of Dallas. The wife works at the Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas. If the name sounds familiar, thats where we now have a walk-in case of Ebola making the news. Maybe it shouldn't be "walk-in" as he was delivered by an ambulance, but he DID initially show up under his own steam at the ER few days prior to that.

Whatever.

FWIW, the wife works nowhere near where "Ebola Man" is now located. She's safe.

So as soon as the man is diagnosed it appeared that everyone in authority and his brother loudly proclaimed, "Nothing to fear, we got it. No problem. Don't be looking behind any curtains."

Yeah right.

One of the lessons learned over the past 62 years has been that when everyone starts saying, "No problem." there is a definite problem not being addressed.

So today I was scheduled to go to the Dallas VA for a followup visit with my doctor there. I cancelled it because I can easily visualize some guy sitting next to me in the waiting area as he shows all the outward signs of flu. Flu is what Ebola can be mistaken for until you start oozing blood out of every hole of your body. Got the picture?

I'll just sit things out here in my little farming community for the next few weeks. That should be long enough for whatever is going to happen to appear.

Did you hear they now have 100 people under surveillance for this disease that poses "no problem"?

Sometimes paranoiacs have a reason for their suspicions.

If your kid isn't in good health the doctors won't treat him!

Okay; here's the link: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/30/health/disabled-transplants/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

So I can understand that the supply of spare organs is limited. Got it. But completely throwing in the towel on a child (as every hospital but the last cited in the article did) is just plain wrong.

Seek a second opinion? At least.

This will spill over into the "geezer generation" soon too, if it hasn't already.

Please understand this has absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with Obamacare or any political consideration. These doctors were in their positions of authority long before The One came into the Oval Office. The problem shown here is typical of our entire culture. We've lost our Christian moorings and are adrift now. The solution is the rebuilding of our civilization from the ground up, starting with the children. Inculcate Christian values into them, raise them properly and the problems plaguing our nation will subside.

But by the time those children are running the show it will probably be too late. God's will be done, may He have mercy upon us all.

A Texas Mother Thanks Dear Leader...

Evidently this little missive is making the rounds of the internet;

Dear President Obama,

I wanted to take a moment to say thank you for all you have done and are doing. You see I am a single Mom located in the very small town of Palmer, Texas. I live in a small rental house with my two children. I drive an older car that I pray daily runs just a little longer. I work at a mediocre job bringing home a much lower paycheck than you or your wife could even imagine living on. I have a lot of concerns about the new “Obamacare” along with the taxes being forced on us Americans and debts you are adding to our country. I have a few questions for you Mr. President.

Have you ever struggled to pay your bills? I have.

Have you ever sat and watched your children eat and you eat what was left on their plates when they were done, because there wasn’t enough for you to eat to? I have.

Have you ever had to rob Peter to pay Paul, and it still not be enough? I have.

Have you ever been so sick that you needed to see a doctor and get medicine, but had no health insurance because it was too expensive? I have.

Have you ever had to tell your children no, when they asked for something they needed? I have.

Have you ever patched holes in pants, glued shoes, replaced zippers, because it was cheaper than buying new? I have.

Have you ever had to put an item or two back at the grocery store, because you didn’t have enough money? I have.

Have you ever cried yourself to sleep, because you had no clue how you were going to make ends meet? I have.

My questions could go on and on. I don’t believe you have a clue what Americans are actually going through and honestly, I don’t believe you care. Not everyone lives extravagantly. While your family takes expensive trips that cost more than most of us make in two-four years, there are so many of us that suffer. Yet, you are doing all you can to add to the suffering. I think you are a very selfish and cold hearted man, who does not care what is best for the people he was elected by (not by me) to represent, but more so out for the glory of your name attached to history. So thank you Mr. President, thank you for pushing those of us that are barely staying afloat completely under water and driving America into the ground. You have made your mark in history, as the absolute worst and most hated president of the United States. God have mercy on your soul!

Sincerely,

Yolanda Vestal
Average American

Go to the doctor and shaddup you face.

MINNETONKA, Minn. (WCCO) – Susan Krantz has a medical and business background; but when she got her latest medical bill from a recent visit, the Minnetonka woman was perplexed.

“Even as a registered nurse, I can’t figure out what this is,” she said.

Krantz was upset when she opened a recent bill. Along with the list of procedures was the itemized charge of $50.06 for something she couldn’t make out. When she questioned Park Nicollet, the response puzzled her.

“You can be charged an extra office visit if you ask too many questions,” she said. “I said I don’t understand that, because isn’t that what this visit is for?”
 Medical services are carefully coded for insurance purposes. As Park Nicollet explained to us, the billing has to accurately reflect the medical services provided. If the doctors feel their work goes beyond the scope of the visit, they must code that on the bill. That’s to assure that coverage for a “wellness” visit doesn’t fraudulently cover care given to an “acute care” matter.

In Krantz’s case, the question that triggered her extra charge was for a concern she raised about a sore hip.

She added: “As always the doctor’s visit started out with her asking what questions do you have? And I had a little list. This one and this one and this one. And she said, OK.”

Park Nicollet says it’s an insurance issue. In a written statement, the medical provider said that “the insurance company may require that patients pay or make a co-pay for services beyond the ‘preventive’ part of the appointment.”

The statement goes on to say that the total amount billed to the insurance provider is the same as if it were one appointment, only it’s “broken out separately on the invoice.”

Krantz is now spreading the word among her friends. “I’d have never known had I not taken the time to call,” she said.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

I don't think this can be blamed on Obamacare. It sounds like an insurance problem. But it DOES illustrate what happens when the beancounters are in charge of things. Anyone whoever dealt with the military's version (Champus, now TriCare) knows what I'm talking about. FWIW, the people within the system whom I or the wife have dealt with have uniformly been accommodating, decent folks with both feet solidly on planet Earth. But the idiots in charge, the ones who are kept away from the general public probably for their own safety, will happily pinch pennies whenever possible.

Here's a personal example; Back during my second marriage we had a boy born with poly cystic kidneys. That was a death sentence and sure enough he passed away 30 hours after birth. The wife had to spend a few days in the civilian hospital recuperating so she was placed in a private room. CHAMPUS refused to pay, saying she was only allowed a semiprivate room (do they even have those these days? I haven't seen one lately.) Fortunately we were able to have the hospital (Yale/New Haven, not exactly a dinky backwoods facility, go to bat for us and the idiocy was rescinded.

But like the story pasted above, it's proof of what happens when the idiots have charge of the purse strings. While it definitely CANNOT be blamed on Obamacare it illustrates whats going to happen as the government gets more involved with paying healthcare costs. Contrary to popular opinion, the Feds don't have an endless supply of money, so the health care WILL eventually reach a rationing point. This will require some schmoes sitting at a table and deciding who gets treated and who doesn't.

Can you say "death panels"? Sure you can!

And if you're not thoroughly disgusted right now and can stand to be outraged a bit further, this is dedicated to arrogant pennypinching chairpolishing cube apes everywhere: http://youtu.be/sFacWGBJ_cs

How soon before the dead start piling up at the ER door?

Here's the link: http://grouchatrighttruth.blogspot.com/2012/10/death-panels-are-here.html

So this was from an ER doctor, who should know better than someone like him about how medical care is affected by current politics?

Two months ago I went into our local ER with an increasingly bad cough. Turned out to be bronchitis. A couple of weeks later I walked back in and informed the nurse that 45 minutes prior to that I had a very sharp, strong pain in my upper chest. How sharp? Well my yell woke the wife who was sleeping at the other end of the house.

I didn't know ER personnel could move that fast.

Turned out to be a muscle spasm but everyone told me (as I repeatedly stated the pain had left as soon as it happened, so what was the fuss about?) it was better to be safe than sorry.

I'm not on Medicare yet, that happens in a few more years. Another one of the "good deals" they provide retired military personnel, don't get me started on how our benefits have eroded over the years.

Guess I'd better not get too sick too often after I start drawing it though.

Hey, I know life isn't fair. I know that if you trust the government for ANYTHING you're only setting yourself up to get screwed. So if those of us "of a certain age" are going to get the brush off, so be it.

But stop telling me how grand our healthcare system is, under either the Republicans or Democrats. They're all a bunch of damned liars. The main problem with "Obamacare" is that all too soon government funded healthcare will be the only game in town. All other private competitors will close up shop. If you don't believe me, just wait.

Please don't tell me how great things will be if Romney gets elected either. He brought his own version of healthcare to the folks in Massachusetts. They're still dealing with that crap. Check it out if you've any doubts.

Death Panels? We got 'em!

by Rachel Bohannon | LifeNews.com | 8/29/12 10:21 AM

Until last week, a 12-year-old gunshot victim’s life was endangered more by his doctor than his injury.

Zach McDaniel of Abilene was shot in the head on August 6 when he got caught in the crossfire of a drug deal gone bad. He was rushed into emergency surgery, and then transferred to Cook Children’s Medical Center in Fort Worth for more intensive care.

At the time of transfer, Zach was stable, despite being on a ventilator and in a drug-induced coma. But as soon as Zach was admitted to the intensive care unit at Cook, doctors painted a grim picture for his parents, claiming that he would not live for long, and that part of his brain had been removed during surgery. His parents were urged to “let him go” and sign an organ donation consent form.
His parents considered signing, but a brain scan later revealed that Zach’s brain was whole. Cook staff said that there must have been miscommunication between the two hospitals. Consequently, Zach’s parents refused to sign the donation form.

Just a week later, the hospital convened a death panel — called an “ethics committee” — to review Zach’s case. Under Texas law, if the panel members agree among themselves that a patient’s care would be “futile” in order to improve or save the patient’s life, then the hospital reserves the right to terminate all care — including food and water — after 10 days.

In the panel’s opinion, Zach’s case was futile. But because of procedural mistakes, the panel couldn’t issue a ruling. However, they made it clear that they no longer wished to treat Zach, even though the family wanted to give Zach a chance to recover.

Three days later, Zach was able to breathe on his own and his ventilator was removed.

That same day, a friend asked Zach’s parents why Zach was receiving “palliative care,” meaning no food or water — just morphine. That’s when Zach’s mom, Jessica, called Texas Right to Life.

Texas Right to Life told Jessica what questions to ask the nurses and doctors. She also looked through Zach’s chart and discovered, shockingly, that Zach’s doctor had slipped a “Do Not Resuscitate” order into Zach’s chart, without her knowledge or consent.

Texas Right to Life advised Jessica to confront the doctor immediately. Removing food and water without a death panel’s proper approval is criminal. And as Zach’s legal guardian and medical decision maker, it was Jessica’s right — and not the doctor’s — to direct her son’s care.

Secret “in-hospital” DNRs, however, are legal in Texas. Zach’s doctor neither needed the death panel’s nor Jessica’s consent to place one in Zach’s chart.

When confronted, the doctor reluctantly removed the DNR and reinstated Zach’s food and water, but again stressed to Zach’s parents that he no longer wished to treat their son.

Afterwards, the hospital threatened to reconvene the death panel — presumably following all the rules — and continued threatening Zach’s parents up until the day Zach was moved to a hospital closer to home.

On August 21, Zach was transferred by ground ambulance to Hendricks Medical Center in Abilene. Interestingly, Cook placed a DNR in Zach’s chart for the duration of the transfer. The family was able to remove it once he was safely at Hendricks.

Zach’s new neurologist at Hendricks is hopeful. So far, tests are positive, and it is the doctor’s opinion that Zach has a survivable injury. Zach will slowly be weaned off the sedatives until he comes out of his drug-induced coma.

These types of cases don’t always have happy endings. But for Zach, at least, it seems that the worst may be over.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

So just why was a DNR placed in the kid's chart for the duration of the transfer? Pardon me all over the place but that sounds like someone being vindictive and nothing else.

Death panels? Yep, doing real fine here in Texas.

A very good summation....

Found via Moonbattery.com

About the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare...

We got screwed. End of story. Stand by for the shit to hit the fan when Obamacare really kicks into gear. Hopefully by that time people of faith and especially Catholics will have grown a big enough set of balls that we're getting tossed into jail on a regular basis. I'll be the tall, fat, white haired guy with lousy hearing and a tattoo on his right forearm, just sitting in the back of the cell. Remember, no playing "drop the soap".

More on the mutated superflu

Feb 17 (Reuters) - Two studies showing how scientists mutated H5N1 bird flu into a virus that could create a human pandemic will be made public eventually, but a moratorium will remain for biosecurity officials to assess the risks, the World Health Organisation (WHO) said on Friday.

Speaking after a high-level meeting of flu experts and U.S. security officials in Geneva, a WHO spokesman said an agreement had been reached in principle to publish the controversial work only after deeper risk analyses have been carried out.

The WHO called the meeting to break a deadlock between scientists who have studied the mutations needed to make H5N1 bird flu transmit between mammals, and the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), which wanted the work censored before it was published in scientific journals.

Biosecurity experts fear mutated forms of the virus that the research teams in The Netherlands and the United States independently created could escape or fall into the wrong hands and be used to spark a pandemic worse than the 1918-19 outbreak of Spanish flu that killed up to 40 million people.

"There must be a much fuller discussion of risk and benefits of research in this area and risks of virus itself," the WHO's Gregory Hartl told reporters.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

Nothing, I mean absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G about this sounds good.

Catholics should prepare for Civil War II.

Found this on http://catholiclane.com:

Obama’s Contempt for Religious Liberty

Posted By Bill Donohue


Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on today’s announcement from the Obama administration that it is going forward with its original “Obamacare” policy that mandates coverage of sterilization and contraceptive services in most healthcare plans:

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said today that aside from houses of worship, all other religious agencies and organizations will be required to provide sterilization and contraceptive services, including abortifacients, in their employee healthcare plans; none will be allowed to charge co-pays or deductibles. The policy goes into effect in August 2013 for these entities; all others will be required to provide these services in August 2012.

Sebelius explained how her directive applies to non-church religious entities such as Catholic hospitals and universities: “Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.” She also said, “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”

The language is Orwellian. With stunning magnanimity, Sebelius tells Catholic non-profits that they can take advantage of their one-year reprieve as long as they seek the blessings of the federal government. If they pass muster with the bureaucrats, then they have time to figure out how they can prostitute their religiously ground convictions, or prepare for bankruptcy. To top things off, after shoving the radical secular agenda down the throat of Catholics—and other people of faith who share their concerns—Sebelius congratulates the Obama administration for striking a “balance” between religious liberty and Obamacare. But, of course, no balance was struck: the edict grants nothing to those who believe in religious liberty, and she knows it.

That this dictatorial edict is being announced in an election year indicates both contempt for the First Amendment and plain stupidity.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

No damnit, it does NOT indicate plain stupidity. It shows how confident the present Administration is of winning this year's election.

Look at how the most reliably conservative (and prolife) candidates have been picked off, one by one. I spoke briefly about it recently: http://agangershome.blogspot.com/2012/01/republican-whack-mole.html

Soon we'll have the choice of Obama or ObamaLite (Romney). I've no doubt there will be an unexpected revelation about "Mittens" waiting to be used in the campaign should he seem likely to win. Look to the past and how Obama won his selection as the Democratic Senatorial candidate and final election to the Illinois seat in the Senate.

Once he's solidly in place for another four years we can expect the American Dictatorship to go full throttle. I foresee the complete demise of our representative government. Then all dissenters will be dealt with in harsh and uncompromising terms.

Stand by folks, it's going to get damned rough with no guarantee of relief.

Here are more stories on the topic: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/obama-administration-refuses-to-change-contraception-mandate and also http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/religious-leaders-blast-hhs-over-contraception-mandate

We march onward to the Brave New World...

The encroachment of the nannystate continues: http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journals/metro/education/parkway-s-use-of-fitness-monitors-raises-privacy-questions/article_af46b549-0f1e-5a41-8a26-7f77c91ced20.html#ixzz1iaLCRtpt

This is pure and utter bullcrap. End of story. What follows is an example of where I feel good intentions can lead.

As it now stands, when my kids visit a pediatrician we'll be asked if there are firearms in the house. My wife, the RN, initially saw nothing wrong with this. Then I gave a "what if" speech:

"What if Texas enacts gun control laws mandating that ammo and firearms in a home are to be kept separate. We both know that's baloney, when you need a gun you need it immediately and fully loaded. So we disregard the idiocy.

Our kids go to the doctor and in a discussion about the home it comes to light that Daddy emptied the .38 the other night before cleaning it. The doctor knows the law and also knows about potential liability for doing nothing. So CPS gets notified.

The next thing we know, theres a CPS worker at our front door with a local cop. Asking to be let inside and explaining just why gets a refusal from you and I. The CPS worker turns to the cop (just doing his job, the poor schmuck) and says theres a real potential the children are in imminent danger in the house. THAT is enough cause for the cop to demand entry with the CPS toady in tow.

Our firearms are produced, the presence of bullets in the cylinder is noted. The CPS worker demands our kids be taken away. It happens.

So now we begin trying to justify our case. Lottsa luck, in the history of Texas there has been only one couple who successfully fought CPS and won. Don't expect your status as an RN to help, as a matter of fact, since you knowingly broke a law designed to protect the children, you'll have to fight like hell not to lose your nursing certification. Tell me if I'm wrong on that one (silence ensued). We can also forget about my status as a retired military man, churchgoer and activist in the local prolife movement. As a matter of fact, those items might count against us.

Okay, now just for a moment realize that none of this really requires an avid anti-gun activist. All it is are a bunch of folks who do their job and don't want any future repercussions from it.

Do you now see why my panties are in a twist about telling the pediatrician anything regarding our home?"

End of my trip down Memory Lane. FWIW, the wife was convinced. I'm sure you see how it pertains to the linked article, the unintended consequences of seemingly beneficial policies can get good people really caught up in the gears of our society.

Now we see the possibility of 24/7 monitoring for health reasons. It currently speaks about activity levels, the article also notes the potential for expanding into the nutrition of a child. But why should it stop there?

"It's for the sake of the children" has become the greatest irrefutable position to take for any legislation. It is also a great tool for removing parental control of the little darlings.

So Billy and Mary are monitored for exercise levels at home. After that comes checking their caloric intake and filling out questionnaires about what gets served for dinner. What laws will be proposed/passed with the information gleaned from that?

What follows after that?

"Arab Spring", where we're at and where we're going...

This is a first hand account of whats going on in Egypt: http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/503496

Yet the talking heads in the MSM are giddy about the supposed freedoms being brought about by the ousting of Mubarak. More lies, more spin in order to further the aims of our present Administration.

The same Administration that stayed mum while the Iranian dissidents were dying in the streets two years ago.

The same Administration that spoke out when the Honduran military, acting in accordance with their nation's Constitution, ousted President Manuel Zelaya after he sought to extend his reign.

The same Administration that assured China any concern over human rights would be tabled in favor of trade negotiations.

Do I have to go on?

Now the fools in Foggy Bottom are aligning themselves with the "Occupy Wall Street" tantrum throwers. Is this in hopes of riding a soon to be born tiger of social change in our nation?

Could the tiger's birth be brought about by the EPA regulations set to go into effect in January? These regulations are projected to remove anywhere from 8-25% of our electric power generating capability, resulting in nationwide rolling blackouts and skyrocketing electrical rates. When those rates go up, so will the cost of everything else.

Prior to Hitler's rise, a loaf of bread cost a wheelbarrow full of German currency. The lousy economy was instrumental in bringing "Der Fuhrer" to power. In Germany of the 1930's a large part of their problem were the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. Could a deliberately engineered repetition of those conditions here help another demagogue to power? Just as the Nazis could use the Jews as scapegoats in energizing their base, could various groups in this nation (Jews, wealthy, Religious Right, etc.) serve the same purpose?

But a comparison to Hitler and Germany of his time isn't the only one that can be made. I'm thinking of Mao's takeover, where property owners were executed, professors were sent off for "rehabilitation". Or Russia when the Soviets took over and all farm land was collectivized.

Sinclair Lewis wrote, "It Can't Happen Here" in 1935. Read the sucker if you can. Maybe he was onto something. The possible parallels to our own time are just a bit scary.

I began this post on the topic of the "Arab Spring" and how it is anything but a new dawning of freedom for those living in Muslim countries. The post seems to have morphed into an observation of how our nation is heading down a path it never should have gone, led by those who keep quiet whenever true freedom lovers are oppressed but speak out in favor of despots. It's also become an open question of just where the Hell we're headed.

My guess is, nowhere anyone sane would want to go.

I see a bunch of damned fools aligning themselves with clueless anarchists occupying Wall Street and other financial districts in the land. I see an Administration up to it's neck in an operation that provided high powered firearms to the Mexican drug cartels. I see a President who favors killing the unborn at all times of a pregnancy for whatever reason may present itself. I see a Health & Human Services under his sway trying to mandate the dispensing of birth control pills, abortion on demand, etc from all hospitals no matter what their religious affiliation. An EPA gone hog wild and trampling over the rights of anyone in their path. A Department of Homeland Security that furtively issues a memo for all the nation's police to be aware of "right wing extremists" and their groups being the fertile recruiting grounds for domestic terrorists. That same agency, along with the Department of Justice, does backflips through hoops to avoid placing followers of Islam in the same category. The aforementioned Dept. of Justice has dismissed a case of outright voter intimidation, solely on the grounds of the ethnicity of the perpetrators. The same agency that refuses to enforce DOMA (a duly enacted law of the land).

I see all of this and I wonder what the future holds for my kids? What does it hold for any one of us?

Now I think I'll get some more ammo. It'll eventually get used at the range if nowhere else. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Stay healthy, Big Brother is watching...

Found this at washingtonexaminer.com:

Obamacare HHS rule would give government everybody’s health records
By: Rep. Tim Huelskamp

It’s been said a thousand times: Congress had to pass President Obama’s health care law in order to find out what’s in it. But, despite the repetitiveness, the level of shock from each new discovery never seems to recede.

This time, America is learning about the federal government’s plan to collect and aggregate confidential patient records for every one of us.

In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients.

(See Proposed Rule: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment, Volume 76, page 41930. Proposed rule docket ID is HHS-OS-2011-0022 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-15/pdf/2011-17609.pdf)

The HHS has proposed the federal government pursue one of three paths to obtain this sensitive information: A “centralized approach” wherein insurers’ data go directly to Washington; an “intermediate state-level approach” in which insurers give the information to the 50 states; or a “distributed approach” in which health insurance companies crunch the numbers according to federal bureaucrat edict.

It’s par for the course with the federal government, but abstract terms are used to distract from the real objectives of this idea: no matter which “option” is chosen, government bureaucrats would have access to the health records of every American - including you.

There are major problems with any one of these three “options.” First is the obvious breach of patient confidentiality. The federal government does not exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to managing private information about its citizens.

Why should we trust that the federal government would somehow keep all patient records confidential? In one case, a government employee’s laptop containing information about 26.5 million veterans and their spouses was stolen from the employee’s home.

There's also the HHS contractor who lost a laptop containing medical information about nearly 50,000 Medicare beneficiaries. And, we cannot forget when the USDA's computer system was compromised and information and photos of 26,000 employees, contractors, and retirees potentially accessed.

The second concern is the government compulsion to seize details about private business practices. Certainly many health insurance companies defended and advocated for the president’s health care law, but they likely did not know this was part of the bargain.

They are being asked to provide proprietary information to governments for purposes that will undermine their competitiveness. Obama and Sebelius made such a big deal about Americans being able to keep the coverage they have under ObamaCare; with these provisions, such private insurance may cease to exist if insurers are required to divulge their business models.

Certainly businesses have lost confidential data like the federal government has, but the power of the market can punish the private sector. A victim can fire a health insurance company; he cannot fire a bureaucrat.

What happens to the federal government if it loses a laptop full of patient data or business information? What recourse do individual citizens have against an inept bureaucrat who leaves the computer unlocked? Imagine a Wikileaks-sized disclosure of every Americans’ health histories. The results could be devastating - embarrassing - even Orwellian.

With its extensive rule-making decrees, ObamaCare has been an exercise in creating authority out of thin air at the expense of individuals’ rights, freedoms, and liberties.

The ability of the federal government to spy on, review, and approve individuals’ private patient-doctor interactions is an excessive power-grab.

Like other discoveries that have occurred since the law’s passage, this one leaves us scratching our heads as to the necessity not just of this provision, but the entire law.

The HHS attempts to justify its proposal on the grounds that it has to be able to compare performance. No matter what the explanation is, however, this type of data collection is an egregious violation of patient-doctor confidentiality and business privacy. It is like J. Edgar Hoover in a lab coat.

And, no matter what assurances Obama, Sebelius and their unelected and unaccountable HHS bureaucrats make about protections and safeguards of data, too many people already know what can result when their confidential information gets into the wrong hands, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Republican Tim Huelskamp represents the first congressional district of Kansas.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

For an excellent example of what can happen when the government gets too much private information, read Edwin Black's "War Against The Weak".

It details how the eugenics movement in America was successful in sterilizing "undesirables". And just how was someone deemed "undesirable" you may ask. Simple, they answered questionnaires that would pinpoint who came from families with chronic poverty, who had a mass of relatives with chronic diseases, it went all the way to determining who was a compulsive masturbater in the quest to purify the human race.

We've a whole slew of laws protecting patient confidentiality right now. But under Obamacare they'll evidently take a backseat to the desires of chair polishers in Foggy Bottom. If you think common sense will prevail and it's no big deal, consider what happens when any kind of government entity gets too powerful. Here's a recent post proving my point: http://agangershome.blogspot.com/2011/09/when-crooks-do-it-its-called-extortion.html

So our government will now tell us what to eat (http://agangershome.blogspot.com/2011/09/usda-get-hell-out-of-my-kitchen.html), they'll actively indoctrinate our kids against our beliefs (http://agangershome.blogspot.com/2011/09/teen-muzzled-for-stating-his-religious.html)they'll soon mandate our homes have remotely controlled thermostats so THEY can decide if we're actually cool/warm enough, knowledge of our health problems will be available for the de facto "death panels" to decide if we should be eliminated.

How much of this sounds like tinfoil hat thinking? I keep hoping someone will answer questions like that and assure me I've gone around the bend. Really, I do.

Because I'll be 59 in a few weeks and my years on this earth may not be for much longer. Even if I get to 80 that's chump change, comparatively speaking. So I can happily thumb my nose at the bastards as far as my own future is concerned. But my children are just starting out in life. Even if they didn't have "special needs" I'd be concerned for them. They'll need a lot of extra attention over the next couple of decades in order to compete with "normal" kids. So I pay attention to whats happening with just a bit more incentive than otherwise.

God help us all. When did the United States of America become the People's Republic of Amerikka?

The unkindest cut of all...

..SHELBYVILLE, Ky. (AP) — The dispute between a Kentucky man and a surgeon over the necessity of amputating the patient's penis during surgery in 2008 is set to go to trial this week.

The doctor maintains he found cancer in the man's penis during surgery and that it had to be removed, according to the physician's attorney. The patient claims the surgery was supposed to be a circumcision and he never authorized the amputation, nor was he given a chance to seek a second opinion.

Jury selection begins Thursday in the lawsuit brought by Phillip Seaton of Waddy and his wife, Deborah, against Dr. John Patterson of Louisville. Attorneys hope to start opening statements that afternoon.

The Seatons sued Patterson in Shelby County Circuit Court in 2008 after an operation that resulted in the amputation.

Seaton, now in his 60s, was having the procedure on Oct. 19, 2007, to better treat inflammation.

Neither Kevin George, the attorney for the Seatons, nor Clay Robinson, the attorney for Patterson, would comment on the case. George said Shelby Circuit Judge Charles Hickman asked the lawyers to refrain from making public statements. Robinson did not respond to phone and email messages left at his office in recent weeks.

The lawsuit alleges Patterson removed Seaton's penis without consulting either Phillip or Deborah Seaton.

George said during a pre-trial hearing on Aug. 2 that the case comes down to whether jurors believe the amputation "was a necessary part of the surgery.'

"This is really a fact-driven case," Shelby Circuit Judge Charles Hickman said during the pre-trial conference.

George has said that the doctor's post-surgical notes show Patterson thought he detected cancer and removed the penis. But, George added, the situation was not an emergency.

"It didn't have to happen that way," George said in 2008, shortly after the lawsuit was filed.

Robinson has previously said that Patterson, a Kentucky-based urologist, had permission to perform any medical procedure deemed necessary and that the doctor found cancer in the organ during the surgery. Robinson has said that Patterson "had no reasonable option" but to remove the cancer.

"Mr. Seaton's problem was not the surgery, it was the cancer," Robinson said in 2008.

The trial had initially been set for January, but Hickman delayed the proceedings because of pre-trial publicity.

"I'm optimistic we can seat this jury," Robinson said during the pre-trial hearing.

The Seatons are seeking unspecified damages from Patterson for "loss of service, love and affection."

The Seatons also sued Jewish Hospital, where the surgery took place. The hospital settled with the Seatons for an undisclosed amount.

The Seatons' suit is similar to one in which an Indianapolis man was awarded more than $2.3 million in damages after he claimed his penis and left testicle were removed without his consent during surgery for an infection in 1997.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

I'd guess it's a good thing Seaton didn't go in for a colonoscopy, he might have come out sporting a colostomy bag.

Your life at greater risk to appease the PC gods...

Found this at www.nationaljournal.com my comments in the story are in bold italics:

A policy that bars gay men from donating blood for life is “suboptimal,” advisers to the Health and Human Services Department said on Tuesday, and needs another look. This is another example of medical science taking a backseat to political correctness.

HHS asked a committee of experts on blood and tissue donations to reexamine the policy and see if there is a way to let at least some gays donate blood. In Truespeak that means "find a way to peddle the idea there's no added risk in the donation of blood from a group that has proven historically to contain added risk for donating blood."

“If the data indicate that a change is possible while protecting the blood supply, we will consider a change to the policy,” HHS said in a statement. Meaning they're already busily twisting the truth.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, an HHS agency, has banned blood donation by any man who has had homosexual sex because of the risk of the AIDS virus. Soon after the AIDS pandemic began in the 1980s, people such as hemophiliacs who received frequent blood transfusions or blood products began to become infected with the deadly and incurable virus.

Men who have sex with other men, including gay and bisexual men, have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than that of the general population, the FDA says. They have an infection rate 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than the rate of repeat blood donors. Tests cannot pick up a new HIV infection in the blood with 100 percent accuracy; because blood is often pooled, many people may be at risk from a single infected donor. None of this will make a fat rat's patoot, it's already been decreed in some back room that the general population will now be placed at needless risk in order to appease the gods of political correctness.

But the Red Cross, always struggling with blood shortages, and other groups such as gay-rights organizations oppose the blanket policy. They say that there are other ways to screen out donors at high risk of HIV infection. Really? Name some! Sen. John Kerry, D–Mass., has also been pushing for a change in policy.

“We’ve been working on this a long time in a serious way, and I’m glad Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius responded with concrete steps to finally remove this policy from the books,” Kerry said in a statement. “HHS is doing their due diligence, and we plan to stay focused on the endgame – a safe blood supply and an end to this discriminatory ban.” What a steaming crock. Hey Numbnuts, any group indulging in the sexual practices prevalent in the gay community has an astronomical risk of AIDS transmission. It's why the virus is primarily a heterosexual problem in Africa, over there "packing fudge" or "driving down the Hershey Highway" isn't limited to homosexuals.

“This announcement by HHS means we’re moving in the direction of finally ending this antiquated and discriminatory policy,” agreed Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill. “Senator Kerry and I will continue to push for a behavior-based screening process both in the name of fairness and a safer blood supply.”

Some of the questions the Blood, Organ, and Tissue Safety Working Group will ask: What motivates a man who has had sex with other men to donate blood? Who cares? Can men understand what puts them at high risk of HIV infection? Will donors answer honestly? Don't bet the farm on that last one.

“It is anticipated that the described studies will yield data for reevaluation of the current deferral policy and potentially establish safety of blood collection from a subset of men who have sex with men or other currently deferred donors (e.g. men with a history of abstinence from MSM behavior for a defined time period),” HHS said. In other words, "We'll bend the truth to justify our desired result."

Other people with potential but unknown exposures to infectious diseases are banned from giving blood in the United States, such as people who lived in Britain in the 1980s, when bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known mad-cow disease, was sweeping dairy herds. And nobody thinks twice about that ban, I know because I'm under it. Shit happens and you deal with it.

(End of story, further comments follow.)

I'm reminded of how the DSM was amended back in the 70's for the sake of political expedience. In one edition, homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder. Following the Stonewall riots the next edition was amended to have that changed. No explanation was ever given except a lot of hot air from the headshrinkers. So never mind that the science wasn't there, the desired result was obtained. End of story for that.

Because of that idiocy we've been told for decades that homosexuality is "just another lifestyle", that it's inherited (no science there either), that it's all relative. If it's all relative than the Almighty owes the city of Sodom one heck of an apology.

But with this latest foray into political correctness every single person who may need a blood transfusion will be saddled with an additional health risk.

All in the name of "acceptance", "tolerance" and "equality".

I feel ready to barf.

When do you let strangers care for family?

A little background to this post: My mother resides in an assisted living facility about 2 miles away. She's 85, not quite in her right mind, needs someone to monitor her taking her meds, getting bathed, etc.

I've never even considered having her live with me. Ain't happening, to be honest we never were that close. I maintain contact and visit once every 2-3 weeks more out of a sense of duty than anything else.

But I was raised at a time when you took care of family at home. Putting someone in "the old folks home" was just warehousing them and considered rather despicable.

So theres some inner conflict about the whole setup.

What brings this up is the following article found at http://www.latimes.com/ via Lucianne.com:
Death of 91-year-old spotlights line between care and killing

In reading the article I was initially revolted to read of the level of filth in the home. But thinking about it I came to the conclusion that perhaps the niece was just a slob. That isn't a crime. I've known families where filth was a part of daily life. Children from those families grew up just as healthy as those from cleaner homes. Some of those children continued living like pigs, others seemed to become uber neat freaks and cleanliness nuts. But like I said, being a slob isn't criminal, just disgusting.

Regarding the main thrust of the article, I came away with the sense that we'll see more problems of this sort as geriatric medicine improves. Taking care of the very elderly will require an increasingly higher level of medical knowledge, not to mention additional time. John & Joan Q. Public won't have that know how or time at their disposal, so nursing facilities, hospices, etc. will proliferate.

The most any family will be able to do is find the best facility. That would be one where mercy killings won't happen and elder abuse isn't present. It isn't much but its what we can expect when two income families are the norm and a stay-at-home caregiver is a real exception. That caregiver also needs a lot more formal schooling on caring for old folks than was needed in past times. We can pontificate all we want about the decline of personal relationships involved in this, we can decry the inability of society to compassionately care for it's weakest members, it's still a situation to recognize and work with.

Does it sound cold & callous? Maybe it is. Maybe I'm only trying to justify my own choices regarding my mother.

I don't know. But the hyperlinked article proves once again this ain't the world of 50-60 years ago. Someone else can decide if thats good or bad, the rest of us just have to deal with it.

"Submit to the operation or lose your kid."

Found this via Pewsitter at both LifeSiteNews.com and www.dailymail.co.uk (where I copied it from);

Baby girl kept away from mother for five years after she refused to sign C-section consent form

A baby girl has been kept away from her mother for almost five years after she refused to sign a form consenting to a Caesarean section - even though she did not end up needing to have the operation. (the emphasis is mine)

The extraordinary case began after staff at a New Jersey hospital claimed that refusal to give permission for the procedure amounted to child abuse.

The agonising decision triggered a protracted legal battle which has led to the mother being separated from her child for five years.

The woman, known only as VM, launched an appeal after authorities took her baby away from her immediately after the birth in 2006 at St Barnabas Hospital in New Jersey.

The first appeal failed but she was given a ray of hope when a higher court ruled in her favour.

The case is now waiting to go back to the lower court which is yet to make a decision.

The hospital said that her refusal to give permission for the C-section amounted to child abuse and thus reported her to welfare authorities.

This was despite VM saying that she would agree to the operation if it became necessary and going on to deliver a healthy baby.

The courts agreed with welfare agencies in New Jersey that the baby, born on April 16 2006, should be kept in care and revoked parental rights.

VM was successful at an appeal hearing that reversed the lower court's decision saying that the mother was 'unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm facing the child' and that 'termination of parental rights will not do more harm than good.'

In its ruling the Superior Court in New Jersey said: 'JMG cannot be lost in this process. She is "the beating heart at the centre of this controversy" and she is entitled to the benefit of permanency with parents who hopefully will be in a position both physically and mentally to sustain her.

'Unfortunately that decision cannot yet be made. In the interim, she has been the beneficiary of a loving foster home but at the same time, she has a sustained relationship with loving parents.

'Termination (of parental rights) is among the most extraordinary remedies that can be exercised by a court. We must insist that the remedy be reserved for those instances where the state meets the extraordinary burden imposed by the law.

'That burden has not been met here.'

According to the original appeal hearing, when VM went into labour medical professionals at the hospital said she 'demonstrated combative and erratic behaviour including a refusal to consent to a Caesarean section.

'Despite the medical opinion that the foetus demonstrated signs of distress and that the procedure was necessary to avoid imminent danger to the foetus, the child was born by vaginal delivery without incident.'

At the appeal in 2009, the court gave the baby's father, BG, access to his daughter but ruled that she should remain in the care of the authorities.

The Superior Court made its decision in August last year and the family is now waiting to hear whether or not it can be reunited.

(End of story. My comments follow.)

How soon before this becomes standard practice? How soon before the threat of losing your child is used to coerce someone into having other medical procedures, such as aborting a baby because "Mom and Dad" already have too many children and can't provide an arbitrarily determined quality of life for their kids if there's another mouth to feed?

Do you think that might be farfetched? Just how farfetched would this story have seemed not too long ago?

We've gone from medical personnel providing needed services to them becoming our self-appointed lords and masters. This is happening WITHOUT universally government funded healthcare (althought the couple in question seem to have been on the dole). Just how will this "I know better than you" attitude and arrogance skyrocket once we have our healthcare system completely taken over by the Feds? Check the attitude at your local DMV for an idea of where it might end.

To all fellow military retirees: BOHICA, MF

Found this at thehill.com via Lucianne.com, some harsh language is in my commentary:

Military healthcare reform no longer taboo to talk about
By John T. Bennett - 02/28/11 08:05 PM ET

For the first time in nearly 20 years, members of the U.S. military might have to pay more for healthcare.

With the nation at war for nearly a decade, military healthcare and benefit programs have been considered sacrosanct. The Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts have generated reverence among the public for the U.S. military, making it unthinkable for most lawmakers to vote against any proposal that would take dollars out of troops’ pockets.

“This is one of the hardest rocks to crack,” said Gordon Adams, who ran defense budgeting for the Clinton administration. Reform in the area of benefits has proven “very, very hard,” he added.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, however, are pushing of late for a modest hike in healthcare premiums paid by military members, and some lawmakers are listening.

Mullen recently told the House Armed Services Committee that people costs account for “60 [percent] to 70 percent of our budget,” adding that the military is “on track to almost be immobilized” by healthcare and benefits costs.

To begin paring down some of those bills, the Pentagon’s 2012 budget plan seeks to increase medical premiums for working-age military retirees by $30 — from $230 to $260 — and by $60 for family policies — from $460 to $520. That plan is one aspect of a Pentagon goal of slashing personnel costs by about $7 billion.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), House Armed Services Committee ranking member, recently told reporters changes are needed to bring down costs.

“We have to examine where some of that money is going,” Smith said during a Feb. 17 breakfast with reporters in Washington. “It is a significant driver of the budget.”

When a business encounters budget trouble, “the first place it goes is labor costs,” Smith said. “There may have to be some increases in those fees [for] employment-age retirees.”

Asked about DoD healthcare changes during a Feb. 15 roundtable with reporters, Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee, said: “Everything needs to be on the table” as Washington grapples with its budgetary woes.

Other lawmakers are talking openly about — or at least not dismissing outright — changes to DoD healthcare policies untouched since 1995. That was the last time any fees in TRICARE — the name of the decades-old military healthcare system — were changed.

Pentagon officials have tried in recent years to bring about changes.

During a major budget speech last May, Gates referred to several attempts by the department to convince lawmakers to approve “modest [TRICARE] increases in premiums and co-pays.” All were defeated by a “furious response from Congress and veterans groups,” Gates said.

Defense leaders were spurred to seek those increases because “healthcare costs are eating the Defense Department alive,” Gates said at the time.

The military expected to spend $244 billion on personnel costs in 2010, more than a third of the $636 billion appropriated to DoD. Some analysts peg the actual number at over $300 billion.

Pentagon officials have said healthcare costs have swelled over the last 10 years, from $19 billion to $50 billion.

With the nation in dire fiscal straits and the defense budget expected to shrink, Congress watchers see lawmakers’ resistance ebbing.

David Berteau, a former Defense Department official and now a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) analyst, said “the votes may be there this time.”

Berteau sees evidence of “cracks in the uniform procedure of voting against” dollars for defense programs.

Any enacted reforms likely will come after several legislative moves, “not a one-time, everyone-come-together kind of solution,” Berteau said Friday.

But there will be resistance among some lawmakers.

One is Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who has promised to fight the department’s latest try to boost premiums.

“As someone who grew up in the military and served in the military, I start from the presumption that lifetime healthcare for career military personnel is part of a moral contract between our government and those who have stepped forward to serve,” Webb said in a statement. “For this reason, I oppose any proposal to raise TRICARE fees for military retirees.”

Some say tightening budgets and ever-escalating personnel costs are setting up a fight inside the Pentagon budget: people versus machines.

But Michael Bayer, until recently chairman of the influential Defense Business Board, on Friday said personnel programs will compete for funding with overhead and support functions, not hardware programs.

“Political constituencies for forces decline and increase for overhead over time,” Bayer said. “In past [defense spending] downturns, overhead and support won political [battles] with forces.”

(End of story. My comments follow.)

Patriotism doesn't end with retirement after a military career. There will be occasions when those of us who proudly wore this nation's military uniform can bet we'll be asked for further sacrifice.

So I'll go for having my medical benefits adjusted AGAIN (as the article states, it last happened in 1995) if that's what the country needs. But only if every other federal retiree of any stripe, every federal welfare queen, every Medicare/Medicaid/SSI recipient is impacted in a similar manner. That means each and every swinging dick currently sucking on the public tit.

Otherwise stand the fuck by, if you think the NRA has clout in Washington just wait until all the veterans organizations get revved up on this one.

The Imperial White House has spoken...

Washington (CNSNews.com) – White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com today that the administration will "rightly" continue to implement the Obamacare law even though the federal judge who sided with 26 states in declaring it unconstitutional said that his ruling was “the functional equivalent of an injunction” against the law.

In his ruling last week, Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida wrote that in his opinion an injunction is an extraordinary measure, particularly when a ruling is against the federal government.

The ruling said an injunction would be an extraordinary measure. “It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption ‘that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction,’” it said.

However, Gibbs said that other court rulings were in the administration’s favor.

“There are many courts that have heard many cases on this. More than 12 have dismissed the case,” he told CNSNews.com. “Two have ruled in our favor as to its constitutionality. Two have ruled against us. Implementation of the health care bill rightly continues to move forward as the law of the land.”

A total of 27 states – a majority of the 50 states – have sued to have the law declared unconstitutional. Virginia brought its own case against the federal law, while 26 states led by Florida brought a separate case.

In both cases involving states, courts declared the law unconstitutional, with a primary focus on the individual mandate.

Last year a federal judge in Michigan found that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional, and later, a federal judge in Virginia dismissed a separate lawsuit brought by Liberty University that challenged its constitutionality, the White House has noted. In other cases, the courts dismissed cases or determined that plaintiffs lacked standing.

Gibbs referenced two states that are moving forward with implementing the law despite the litigation.

“Despite the attorney general’s participation in the lawsuit, the state of Wisconsin announced that implementation moves forward,” Gibbs said.

“I would point out that one of the state houses in the commonwealth of Virginia passed by a vote of 95-3 to begin setting up health care exchanges,” he added.

(End of story. My comments follow.)

Abiding by the judge's decision until the case has been heard on appeal is the norm for this. By going forward with their agenda the denizens of the Executive Branch only reveal their contempt for the due process of the land.

So what else will they set aside when it runs counter to their wishes? How about election results in 2012?

No, I don't think the military would jump into any fray of that sort. IMO they'd distance themselves so far from it, we'd still be remarking on that fact decades later.

But there are some really rabid supporters of B.O. & Company, the sort of folk who feel the ends always justifies the means.

It's for possibilities like this the 2nd Amendment was written.

Unhealthy light bulbs mandated by the government...

Found this over at Sig94's blog.



Note to self; stock up on some more incandescent bulbs and check out shifting to halogen lights.