A Conversation With the Vet

So Blu, having been put on blood pressure meds after a seizure last month, went in to have his blood pressure checked today.  They put an itty bitty blood pressure cuff on his tail, which he immediately whipped around himself because ICK SOMEBODY AT THIS PLACE TOUCHED ME!!!!!!  But he didn't try to pull it off - just huddled with his head buried against me and growled.  Which is what he always does at the vet's.

Since several measurements had to be taken, the vet and I chatted.  Turns out she has lost her insurance, courtesy of the ACA.  She has several health problems, including pulmonary ones.  She's been trying to replace her policy, of course.  But the closest she can come boosts her deductible to $6,000.  She'll lose her pulmonary specialist.  The standard meds for her problems don't work - she will see an increase of $200 per month per medication in cost.  She's not dumb enough to fall for the "It's the insurance company's fault" line.

I've been to her house - she's comfortable, but not rich.  She has an office, staff, overhead.  A lot of overhead.  She's just middle class, same as most of us.  And she is getting screwed just because people were too stupid to actually think out, let alone care, what the end result of turning the entire health system into the DMV on a bad day would be.

They Can't Ask and You Don't Have To Tell

Caught a little bit of Rush Limbaugh today, and heard a caller say that a medical practice wouldn't take his wife as a patient until she answered questions about guns in the house.  With all the changes that this mess is causing, we need to remember that under the law that has created the mess - the Affordable Care Act - no practice or insurance company can do this.


Section 1001\2717: 
 
"C) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.

‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness
and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—
‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.

‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;
‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

‘‘(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.—A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

‘‘(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

If I Like Your Plan

The thing is - I don't believe the president's lies will make a difference to liberals.  Oh, they may squirm a bit, but Obama is their warm fuzzy and warm fuzzy is easier to cling to than integrity. So "integrity" will, like "diversity" and "choice", simply be defined to suit the Obama marching orders of the day.

And I really don't get all the hollering about it.  We knew he was a liar from the get-go.  Every one of us that opposed him said so.  And we have been called racist, terrorists, stupid, and every other contemptible name liberals could think up for us just for pointing out the simple truth of the matter.

How Does It Serve the Community?

I assume that pretty much everybody knows that portions of Obamacare are looked on by many people as a serious infringement of their religious rights.  This delights many, I am sure, who take pleasure when people of faith are poked in the eye, particularly when it's Catholics whose eyes are being poked.  Some of that is simply because many people in our secular society do not understand what the concept of moral or immoral acts means to us.  In the Secular Church and the Church of What's Happnin Now there's not much room for the idea that to us an immoral act is one that separates us from God, possibly forever.  For all the different pictures of hell that exist, at its core is the absence of God.  And with the absence of God, there is the absence of all that we humans know as good:  friendship, love, affection, beauty.  All that's left is a howling, bleak emptiness that is eternal, and the full knowledge that we could have chosen not to be there.

Even if one doesn't care about another faith's views of the spiritual ramifications, I'm not clear on why people don't care about the societal ramifications - the impact on our communities. 

The news (at least the conservative news) recently pointed out that The Little Sisters of the Poor have concerns about being able to remain in the U.S. after the full force of Obamacare laws come into effect.  Like all Catholic charities, their mission is to people of all faith and no faith, in their case specifically care of the elderly.   Like most Catholic charities, the sisters both serve AND employ, which is why they are affected. Under the HHS mandate the fine for those who stop providing health insurance to their employees is $2,000 per employee and the fine for those who provide insurance without contraception/abortion coverage is $100 per day per employee.  Those sisters, along with many other religious organizations, are now being forced towards a choice:  limit their care and employment to only those of the same faith, or cease their activities in the United States.

I'd really like to know how requiring religious charities to limit their services and their employment rolls to people of their own faith or end their services completely serves the community, large or small. 

And what does it say about the United States when so many people have such disdain of religious views other than their own that they would rather deprive the needy and vulnerable of care than fight for the rights of those who have given that care so faithfully for so long?

"To enter a house of the Little Sisters of the Poor today is to recapture what Dickens experienced. Elderly men and women with no one else to care for them are given exquisite attention; the dignity of every resident is honored, no matter how difficult that dignity may be to discern amidst the trials of senility and disease. The Little Sisters of the Poor and their residents are living reminders that there are no disposable human beings; that everyone is a someone for whom the Son of God entered the world, suffered and died; and that we read others out of the human family at our moral and political peril."George Weigel, 2009 

Uphill Battle

Folks wandering around the shooting blogosphere know that among the good causes that the guys work for is Kilted to Kick Cancer.  Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in America.  It is insidious, leaving the victim symptomless until it is well advanced.  Catching it early is crucial to treatment and cure, and over the last few decades one of the weapons enlisted to spot it before it is too late has been the prostate specific antigen test, or PSA.

Well, guess what guys?  ObamaCare empowers the U.S Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) to determine what preventive medical procedures are appropriate.  And they have given the PSA a "D" grade.  What does this mean?  It means that the test's neck is much more on the block when any insurance cuts, Medicare or otherwise, occur. 

Dr. Patrick Walsh of the James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute at Johns Hopkins states:

To understand this recommendation, you need to know that the panel had no urologists or other prostate cancer experts.   Rather it was composed of individuals with little or no knowledge of the disease who are described as “independent scientists who are better able to objectively evaluate the literature without bias”.

In other words, a panel of government bureaucrats has made a declaration concerning a test that they've only read about that helps in the fight against a disease they have never studied.  For all who mocked the idea of death panels - voila. 

Americans have for so long enjoyed better and better health care leading to longer and longer life spans.  That has now become an uphill battle, with the ever increasing government bureaucracy being the deeply entrenched enemy holding the high ground.  

Dr. Walsh's full response, including an explanation of USPSTF's use of flawed data to make their determination, is here. 

From Wikipedia:

Forced conversion

A forced conversion is the religious conversion or acceptance of a philosophy against the will of the subject, often with the threatened consequence of earthly penalties or harm. These consequences range from job loss and social isolation to incarceration, torture or death.

Forced conversions have been common throughout history, usually as part of a political policy to consolidate power under a conqueror.  An expanding empire, an official religion, unity.  The Hasmoneans forced those they subjugated to convert to Judaism .  With the Muslims driven out of Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella forced conversion onto the Jews and Muslims of their newly re-Christianized land, eventually giving the order in 1492 for those that did not convert to leave the country.  The task of keeping an eye on the converts to make sure they didn't relapse fell to one Torquemada, who was very good at his job and made the Spanish government very rich with confiscated property and the sale of Jews into slavery.

In the New World, the population pressed westward, and as it overcame the Native Americans, many thought the best approach would be assimilation.  Boarding schools were established, and throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s children spent years being indoctrinated into a new religion and culture, forbidden to practice their own.

What is it that hath been? the same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? the same that shall be done.   Ecclesiastes 1:9, Douay-RheimsVersion

Nothing is new under the sun.  

The re-election of Obama solidifies Obamacare.  And within those thousands of pages is a mandate for the forced religious conversion of millions of people.  The Catholic Church is the most visible face of that forced conversion, but many others - Jews, Muslims, Evangelicals - are facing the same choice as others have faced in the centuries before.  Change your religion, or suffer the consequences.  It's an attempt at forced conversion no less than that imposed by Charlemagne, Ferdinand and Isabella, or the Carlisle Indian Industrial School.  Those who are so enthusiastic about making the Catholics abandon their principles, to place their eternal souls in jeopardy,  may not have inherited the physical lines of Ferdinand and Isabella, but they are heirs to their age-old philosophy.

Yes, the Medicare Cuts Matter

Betsy McCaughey lays it out:

Expect Joe Biden to tee up Medicare in tonight’s debate against Paul Ryan. In campaign stops this week, the vice president repeatedly harangued that the Romney/Ryan ticket “says that we’re cutting Medicare. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Sorry, Joe: It’s exactly the truth.

The Congressional Budget Office confirms that the Obama health law cuts $716 billion from Medicare’s future funding over the next decade. That will result in less money to pay hospitals, doctors, hospice care, dialysis centers and Advantage plans that care for seniors.

Hospitals will have $247 billion less to care for the same number of seniors than if the law had not been enacted. Guaranteed benefits only mean something if there is money to pay for them — and it won’t be under ObamaCare.

The cuts will force hospitals to reduce care, diminishing survival rates for elderly patients. President Obama tried to pull the same fast one in last week’s presidential debate, saying the Medicare cuts will merely stop “overpaying” providers.

That’s a whopper. Medicare already pays hospitals less than cost, on average about 91 cents for a dollar of care, according to federal data. Further slashing payments to hospitals isn’t about trimming profit margins.

Richard Foster, chief actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, has warned Congress that ObamaCare’s cuts in hospital payments are so severe that 15 percent of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare. Many more will respond by spreading nurses thinner and reducing care.

History proves it. When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, hospitals hit with the largest reductions in Medicare revenue (over $1,000 per patient) trimmed nursing staff to make ends meet. Eventually, patients at these hospitals had a 6 percent to 8 percent worse chance of surviving a heart attack than patients at hospitals hit less hard by the Medicare cuts,according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

And even the largest cuts to hospitals in 1997 are small compared with what’s coming under ObamaCare.

Last week, Obama said that cutting what hospitals are paid is “savings.” Not true: His cuts will cost lives, not save them.

Elderly patients treated at low-spending hospitals get less care and are at higher risk of dying. Research sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011 (Annals of Internal Medicine) shows that heart-attack patients at low-spending hospitals (bottom quintile) are 19 percent more likely to die than patients of the same age at higher-spending hospitals (top quintile).

Similarly, patients with pneumonia, congestive heart failure and stroke had worse chances of dying at the low-spending hospitals than patients of the same age and illness at hospitals that spend more per senior.

Yet the authors of the Obama health law decided to compel hospitals in all 50 states to imitate low-spending hospitals, where death rates are higher. On top of the across-the-board cuts in hospital payments, the administration just started awarding bonuses to hospitals that spend the least per senior.

Cutting hospital payments is a sneaky way to control Medicare spending. Politicians can claim they’re not changing benefits; more seniors will suffer more and die prematurely, but their loved ones will be none the wiser about why.

Our health-insurance system needs reform. An estimated 18,000 Americans a year die because they lack insurance. That tragedy needs to be fixed. But the Obama/Biden remedy — slashing funds from what hospitals would spend on seniors — will cost more lives.

It’s not reform, it’s murder.

I've often mentioned the hypocrisy of the left.  The same people who babble "You can't legislate morality" are quite happy to legislate mine with Obamacare.  And these same people who chant "choice" are also happy to make sure that we don't have a choice in our medical care - the choice to have a knee replacement at 80, the choice, as my grandmother made, to have surgery for cancer at 95.  She had 5 good years after that surgery. But the left would have denied her that choice without knowing a thing about her. 

h/t New York Post

They'll Fine Us If We Do, So No Bed For You

For the last two years of her life, Mom cycled in and out of the hospital.  In fact, she was back in our local hospital three days after the first time I brought her home.  She was elderly.  Things kept going wrong.  If it wasn't a bout of pneumonia it was something else.

So now, in the infinite wisdom of Obamacare, the numbers have been crunched.  Hospitals that have Medicare re-admittances within a month of discharge will be fined, with the fine scaled upward according to the number of Medicare re-admittances per month.

The end result will be rationed health care for the elderly and disabled.  Bet on it.

Today's Decision

In the end, what the Supreme Court says today will tell us not about justice or right but only about how hard we are going to have to fight going forward on this particular issue.  If the Court were infallible then Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott would never have happened.

Much is wrong in our culture and our government.  Obamacare is just one facet of it.  There is a much, much bigger battle that needs to be waged to take back the rights that have been eroded and to destroy the nanny state mentality that is leading us down the path to becoming Europe.