MMedsolution – Medical Dental Tourism Resource On-line

This isn’t about me,” President Barack Obama famously announced as support for his massive government takeover of health care began to falter.

Oh, but it is.

It is about him because it is his vision that has given us a so-called stimulus of staggering size and dubious value. It is his instincts that guide him to sacrifice the American economy on the altar of climatological junk science. It was his wish to run General Motors.

As with other issues, the cost to taxpayers is an annoying side issue that he and his administration simply do not want to be bothered with. Their attitude is a wave-off: How can you pester us with those trifles when we’re trying to do something titanic here?

And “titanic” is a fitting adjective, since much of what makes the American health care system the envy of the world is about to be dashed against the jagged iceberg of socialized medicine.

There is something darkly comical about these people seeking to comfort us by telling us we may keep our current health plan and our current doctors if we wish. Pardon me if I do not ooze gratitude when government chooses in its mighty benevolence to let me keep something that is a basic right.

And speaking of rights, health care is not one. It is a responsibility. It is something we should secure for ourselves, through our employers or through the open market.

That open market is about to be steamrolled by the same Obama tank brigade that flattened free-market solutions to the banking and housing problems of the last year.

As the first hot summer of the Obama era sees shoulders finally turning cold to this bum-rush of government seizures of more and more of our economy and our lives, the administration has to wonder: Are they onto us?

One can only hope.

The M.O. of this White House, on display for issues from the stimulus to climate change to health care: First, assert phony urgency; then insist that only their solutions have merit and mischaracterize opponents as seeking to “do nothing.”

It worked for the stimulus, and trillions of dollars later, some people are wondering if we’ve been had.

We have. And here they come again.

This White House’s usual logic for hastily jamming things down the public’s throat is to deny voters time to realize what is being done to them. But the health care urgency card is being played with particular ferocity, with absurd original calls for votes in both houses within mere weeks, before the August congressional recess.

They know that if members of Congress return home with the issue still pending, voters will drown them in righteous objections to a plan that brings more deserved opposition by the day.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina has suggested that a health care plan born of one-party rule will fail, and with it will topple this season of madness in which a silver-tongued leader with glib PR soldiers has had its way with an inattentive nation.

“It will be his Waterloo,” DeMint suggested, giving Obama the chance to divert attention from his plan’s flagging support by accusing Republicans of “playing politics.”

As if he isn’t.

Of course it’s about politics, to the extent that the political arena is where policy matters get settled. President Obama and his party have a plan to hijack one-seventh of the national economy; the Republican Party is trying to muster the spine and strength to pry government’s grubby hands from a health care system that most Americans like.

Debates are about ideas, but Barack Obama is the face and voice of this looming health care nightmare. Yes, this is about him, and it will continue to be about him as long as he continues his assault on free markets and individual liberty.

http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2009/07/26/fight-is-about-obama/

Import Auto Canada

Vancouver Canada Auto Trader

British Columbia Craig’s List

http://www.mmedsolution.com

It is more than amazing.  On top of that medical tourism medtravel may well see more than its projected increases in use and implementation over the next several years.

While it is true that many in the US choose or almost forced by economics to seek health care outside the US it was their choice.  Medical tourists who had cash and wealth – King of Jordan , foreign politicians , oil sheiks did not choose anywhere else generally but the US – be it the Mayo Clinic , John Hopkins or other such respected venues. US health care may of been expensive to many – yet it was available and set the standards of excellence , as opposed to British health care or E.U.  Even though most of the health care institutions overseas are touted as “high quality”  or “as good as “  no one sets these as the highest standard to compare to.

Note the following article of the health care cuts – to the most needy of top of that – by the bureaucrats of the upcoming US socialized non-socialized medical system.

If you have any sense that you may be getting sick in the years ahead, I suggest you get sick immediately. If you will be in need of surgery or any other medical procedure, do it now! If not immediately, be certain that you hand yourself over to the health care professionals before Oct. 15 of this year. That is the date on which President Barack Obama hopes to sign his health care bill once it has gone through the congressional baloney grinder.

At the heart of President Obama’s plan is his stated goal to cut medical costs. That might sound good to you, but it means cutting services, nurses, technicians, medical tests and, most prominently, the use of expensive technology. The president’s top medical advisers are quite frank about this. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel and a health policy adviser in the Office of Management and Budget, has chided Americans for the expense of their being “enamored with technology.” Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, charges medical innovations as being responsible for fully two-thirds of the annual increase in health care spending. Their solution is to limit expensive innovations. A 2008 Congressional Budget Office report agrees with their cost analysis but concludes happily that such innovations “permit the treatment of previously untreatable conditions.” As I shall show, there are more humane ways to cut health care costs.

Also at the heart of President Obama’s plan is the restriction of services for people 65 and older, who by virtue of modern medicine may actually be 10 to 15 years younger in terms of good health than they would have been a generation ago. Alas, they still have higher health risks and costs than younger people. Thus, they are going to bear the brunt of the Obama administration’s cost cuts, for 27 to 30 percent of Medicaid spending is spent for caring for people at the ends of their lives. With the government taking over more of the nation’s health care costs under the Obama regime, it already has been decided that government monies are spent more economically on younger people than on older people. If a 65-year-old needs the cost of a hip replacement covered, the government will say it would better spend that money on a younger person, whose hip will last longer. Or perhaps the government will decide the money is better spent on preventive medicine for younger people.

In the federal stimulus legislation that the president signed Feb. 17, we find funding for a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. “Comparative effectiveness research” is a term used by economists in health care for making health comparisons based often on age, which leads to limiting care based on a patient’s age. In Great Britain, comparative effectiveness research is actually used to deny patients treatment for age-related diseases, such as heart disease and macular degeneration. When the federal stimulus bill was going through Congress, there were warnings regarding the consequences of comparative effectiveness research. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a heart surgeon, warned that it would lead to “denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care.”

Yet the policy remained in the bill, along with requirements for doctors’ offices and hospitals to maintain databanks on patients while creating a national network to monitor patients’ care. The good side of that is that a central database can send out the latest information on treatments, though doctors who keep up with their medical journals already know about these treatments. The dark side is that it will allow the federal government to control how our doctors treat us. The bill speaks of “appropriate” and “cost-effective” care and provides penalties against doctors, beginning in 2014. Now there is an Orwellian twist to the Obama promise of “hope” and “change.”

As Betsy McCaughey has written in a groundbreaking analysis of the Obama health care proposals, Draconian cost-control measures are not the answer to health care reform, and they are based on erroneous data. Health care’s spending increases over the past five years have been about half what they were in the recent period before that. Average family spending on food, energy and health care has remained the same for decades. Moreover, contrary to myth, there are not 47 million uninsured Americans, but actually about 22 million. Rather than pass a health care reform that mercilessly would limit health care to older citizens (and to chronically ill citizens) while still increasing federal expenditures by at least a trillion dollars, she suggests a modest reform, to wit, debit cards for the uninsured and the needy.

Appearing in a recent installment of Spectator.org, McCaughey wrote, “Providing sliding scale assistance, based on household income, to families to purchase . coverage would cost $20 to $25 billion a year.” That is one reform that would deal with our present problems. There are others, which I shall take up in later columns. What we do not need is Orwell’s Big Brother overseeing the rationing of health care to senior citizens, particularly senior citizens with years of life ahead of them.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/tyrrell061809.php3

MMedsolution

dimebon online pharmacy

http://lakol.org/

www.mmedsolution.com