You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘universal healthcare’ tag.



Industry watchers say the trend is worrisome. Half of all doctors in the nation operate a private practice. So if a cash crunch forces the death of an independent practice, it robs a community of a vital health care resource.

“A lot of independent practices are starting to see serious financial issues,” said Marc Lion, CEO of Lion & Company CPAs, LLC, which advises independent doctor practices about their finances.

Doctors list shrinking insurance reimbursements, changing regulations, rising business and drug costs among the factors preventing them from keeping their practices afloat. But some experts counter that doctors’ lack of business acumen is also to blame.

The AP reports ( that the new health care law would force couples making up to $64,000 into Medicaid – a program designed for society’s most vulnerable. Medicaid already struggles to deliver quality care for those it serves now. Rather than force millions more into it, we need to save & strengthen Medicaid. Here’s our plan to do just that:

With every passing day, we keep discovering more and more problems with President Obama’s national health care law. The Associated Press points out the latest glitch:

      Her boss called every day Americans “Nazis”, but Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is more offended by others, including Congressmen, referring to the healthcare legislation as “OBAMACARE”:

Democrat suggests ‘ObamaCare’ rhetoric should be banned from House floor

By Pete Kasperowicz – 02/18/11 09:57 AM ET

House Republicans and Democrats started Friday morning’s debate over whether to defund last year’s healthcare law, and as part of this debate sparred over whether members should be allowed to call that law “ObamaCare.”

After two House Republicans called it “ObamaCare,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) asked the chairman whether these “disparaging” remarks should be allowed on the House floor.

“That is a disparaging reference to the president of the United States; it is meant as a disparaging reference to the president of the United States, and it is clearly in violation of the House rules against that,” she said.

Because Wasserman Schultz only asked if it would be appropriate to curb the use of the term “ObamaCare,” the chairman said he would not rule on a hypothetical. But he did urge members to “refrain from engaging in personalities or descriptions about personalities in general.

for full article: “

from America’s Right, starting with a great “coaching” story:

I’m a teacher and assistant principal and have been now for nearly two decades.  I’m also a high school baseball coach, something that I’ve also been doing for an even longer period of time.  Obviously, working with kids is about much more than winning and losing; however, one of the the things that I always teach my players is that once we get between the white lines, it is, in fact, time to win.

To that end, one of the most important things that I’ve always impressed upon my players is to never take their foot off the gas pedal.  At our school, it’s an even more paramount consideration, since we are, truth be told, an athletic powerhouse in addition to a nationally-renowned school for academic excellence (don’t those private institutions just get in the way of all the fun?).  Once we get out to an early lead in a given contest, it’d be pretty easy for them to take things for granted and to start mentally coasting; after all, they’re out in front, and of course, they’re wearing the uniformed equivalent of the New York Yankees (and that’s a painful admission for me).  An aura goes a long way.

Consequently, one of the coaching tactics that I always employ is to gather my entire team together after having taken any kind of a lead and to implore them that now that they’ve hurt the other guys, to go in for the kill; our defense becomes our offense, it’s eyes-wide-open, and all hands on deck.  Demoralize them.  Period.

I know….that just sounds so “mean”, doesn’t it?  

I begin by painting this picture because we now have a similar situation as it regards the implementation of Obamacare.  The conservative, freedom-oriented Right in America has the Left on its heels.  Now is not the time for any of us to begin to  coast mentally and to assume that everything has begun to right itself in the world of hometown America; now is the time to demoralize liberals once and for all, to overwhelm them.  It’s time to up the ante.

As one would expect, those on the political Left will be howling over the next weeks and months as it regards their crown jewel, but I suspect that what we’ll see will be akin to “situational ethics”, something for which liberals are famous.  In other words, rather than look at the totality of what this law represents and all of the history behind it, we’ll most likely hear smaller arguments about individual pieces of the bill, this judge’s ruling or that judge’s ruling, conservatives’ wanting people to die in the streets, etc., etc.  It is, therefore, very important to look at the entirety of what America is facing at this point in history and to note the nature of what exactly is at stake.  Let’s start with history.

for full article:

A tea party shoutout

From the Vinson ruling:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate givingthe East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failingto engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.

from the Wall Street Journal:

The White House expressed confidence yesterday that ObamaCare will survive a federal judge’s ruling that invalidates the law’s health insurance mandate. But behind the optimistic facade, many liberals are worried that the current political climate could give the Supreme Court cover to strike down a key part of the law.

“The states challenging the law are calling for an expedited review of the decision, citing the enormous costs they face in complying at a time of budget stress,” one Democratic congressman told me. “We could see this struck down by the Supreme Court sometime in 2012, just in time to undercut Obama’s greatest accomplishment.”

for full article:

     Round One goes to Virginia and its Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

     Federal District Court Judge Henry Hudson has ruled, based on the merits of the case, that the individual mandates that lie as the foundation of the ObamaCare legislation are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Here’s a PDF of the decision

        It goes without saying that the Justice Department will appeal this decision, the next step on the way to the Supreme Court. But this ruling also give optimism to the 20+ states who have filed suit together in Florida on similar grounds.

       Stay tuned!!!!!!!

Former president Bill Clinton, a champion of healthcare reform, admitted on Sunday that he made the wrong prediction about the popularity of President Obama’s healthcare bill.

Initially, Clinton had predicted that the polls in favor of Democrats would be boosted as soon as the legislation was signed into law. Instead, Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” his prediction was wrong for two reasons.

“First of all, the benefits of the bill are spread out of three or four years. It takes a long time to implement. And secondly, there has been an enormous and highly effective attack on it,” he said.

Several leading Republicans have vowed to repeal the healthcare reform bill next year.

On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Clinton said Republicans deserve “their fair share of credit” for Obama’s stumbles, including a sinking approval rating.

“I think he was shocked at the intensity of the Republican opposition,” Clinton said. “But they learned from my first two years that, if you just say no, even though people hate it, you get rewarded for it because it discourages the Democrats and it inflames your base. So they’re doing just what they did in ’93 and ’94. And so far it appears that they’re being rewarded for it.”

For full article: