Health Care Redux
By J. Patrick Bertroche, D.O.
Pres. Obama has now decided that HE will write the new health care “reform” bill. In a bid to save a bill that “isn’t about me, it’s about America”, Pres. Obama now has “written” his own health care reform bill, in order to save one of his platform pieces. We all know by now he is a Socialist Elite. But to stepping in and writing this bill is saying, “Ok, it is about me after all”.
With the Looney Left at a fever pitch over the last year, I can see why they won’t give up the “reform” of the best health care system in the world. They want socialism, and they want it now. No matter what the citizens say. They know better than we do what is good for us. They want a nanny state, because they are the nannies.
Since the people have decried the health care “push”, (more like a shove down and kick) the next obvious tactic is to simply eliminate those people from the debate. And they are attempting to do so by introducing a bill that looks pretty much like the Senate and House bills, but with no public option. By doing it this way, they just need a simple majority. What the Looney Left is not getting is , whether or not you are for or against the public option, people are NOT for more taxes, or more bureaucrats, or having our “option” be government health care. The Dems are “lukewarm” to the bill, according to Fox News, and the CBO has said that it is too vague to really estimate how much it will cost. The WSJ said it would cost $950 billion. As I have said many times, health care reform should not cost a trillion dollars.
We need to reform the health care system in our country. No one disputes that. But what the Looney Left doesn’t understand, and most people don’t realize, is that our health care system is in such a mess because of government interference. At a recent campaign stop, a person asked me why the insurance companies are starting to cut back on reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. The answer is simple: They follow what Medicare does. Medicare reduced payments, insurance companies reduce payments. Medicare this year eliminated consultations. So if you are in the hospital, and something happens beyond the scope of your doctor’s expertise, Medicare won’t pay for another doctor to help you. And here the Looney Left is telling us there will not be any rationing.
The next good example of government interference raising the cost of health care is immunizations. It costs somewhere around $78 to immunize a child during its first year of life. That comes to around $320million for immunizations for the first year of life. The taxes (yes, the government taxes immunizations) is about $6 per child per year, or about $25million. The indirect taxes, such as getting FDA approval, for example, drive the government’s share of the immunization close to $40 per child, and maybe even as high as $60 per child. If you eliminated the government’s taxes from just immunizations for just the first year of life, you would save a minimum of $25million, and potentially $280 million PER YEAR!
But the Looney Left doesn’t see anything wrong with taxes. Or government interference. They just see something wrong with free enterprise and limited government.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Congressional Cowardice
Congressional Cowardice
By J. Patrick Bertroche, D.O.
Congressional candidate, Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District
With McCain-Feingold shot down by the Supreme Court, the Looney Left is decrying the decision as a blow “to the little person”, and, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, accusing the “rich” and corporations of now being able to buy politicians. Of course, the Right is celebrating like it is “1999”, since “free speech” for all citizens will now reign. Really.
If you recall, at the time McCain-Feingold was passed, the issue was Republicans “buying” the White House, and there was a tremendous uproar over corporations being able to “buy” influence. The bill was framed as a victory for “the little people” and a strike against the evil, nasty corporations. By creating another layer of paperwork, it was felt that people would be “more equal” in the ability to buy their legislators influence.
If a corporation, with its army of lawyers, can figure its way around the tax code, then working around McCain-Feingold was like playing “Chutes and Ladders” for them. So they play the game, file the extra papers, and continue business as usual.
Of course, any law that could potentially change the flow of cold, hard cash to the politicians in power will always have a fatal flaw designed into it. Among the most basic laws of the land is Free Speech. And that was the fatal flaw designed into this bill. Corporations are viewed, legally, as people. They have the right to free speech just as everyone else does.
What Congress does, always, is take an issue that is important to the people, create a bill or law that they KNOW will not stand up to legal challenge, and then they can keep the people happy without any real risk to the status quo. Or to themselves. Campaign finance a real issue? McCain-Feingold to the rescue. Back in the 1980’s, it was deficit spending and balanced budgets. Gramm-Rudman came charging in like the cavalry.
The common factor is that both were designed to lose a legal challenge.
Both bills “tried” to solve a pressing and current issue. The same issues are important today, but now Congress can blame the Courts for striking the laws down. Either these guys are dumb as rocks, without any clue about Constitutional Law, or they are just cunning enough to create these bills. The challenges to automatic congressional pay raises haven’t gone anywhere, because the bills were written well, with no fatal flaws.
But the bottom line is that those in Congress, for the most part, are cowards. They try to cover themselves so they can continue to reap the tremendous rewards they give themselves. They run from issues important to the nation in order to continue their “free” lunch at our expense. (There are exceptions: Sen. Grassley, Rep. King, Rep. Latham) The current health care laws are a great example. Sen. Ben Nelson sold his vote to help keep Nebraska’s Medicare/Medicaid rates the same, instead of his state taking cuts. But this also bears out my very pointed opinion that Congress, after a while, lose touch with the people they represent. Sen. Nelson should have known that Nebraskans, much like Iowans, play fair. And would hate the deal that he made, even though it benefitted them. It was underhanded, and Nebraskans didn’t like it.
Another good example is this week the Hawaiian legislature voted against a gay marriage law in their state. But they didn’t vote it down by taking a vote and having the votes recorded. They took a “voice vote”, which is just everyone saying “yea or nay”, and not recording who voted which way. Hawaii is a strange state, in as much as religion and worship is deeply ingrained, alongside very non-traditional liberal values. So it was interesting to read the papers as everyone, both right and left, dodged the issue in an election year.
It really doesn’t matter at what level politicians operate. They are interested in getting re-elected, and will do what it takes to make sure they take no stand they cannot weasel out of. That’s why I believe strongly in term limits for all elected officials. And I also believe strongly campaign spending limits. Instead of limiting what we, as citizens, can give candidates, I think the limitations should be on how much the candidates can spend on being elected.
By J. Patrick Bertroche, D.O.
Congressional candidate, Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District
With McCain-Feingold shot down by the Supreme Court, the Looney Left is decrying the decision as a blow “to the little person”, and, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, accusing the “rich” and corporations of now being able to buy politicians. Of course, the Right is celebrating like it is “1999”, since “free speech” for all citizens will now reign. Really.
If you recall, at the time McCain-Feingold was passed, the issue was Republicans “buying” the White House, and there was a tremendous uproar over corporations being able to “buy” influence. The bill was framed as a victory for “the little people” and a strike against the evil, nasty corporations. By creating another layer of paperwork, it was felt that people would be “more equal” in the ability to buy their legislators influence.
If a corporation, with its army of lawyers, can figure its way around the tax code, then working around McCain-Feingold was like playing “Chutes and Ladders” for them. So they play the game, file the extra papers, and continue business as usual.
Of course, any law that could potentially change the flow of cold, hard cash to the politicians in power will always have a fatal flaw designed into it. Among the most basic laws of the land is Free Speech. And that was the fatal flaw designed into this bill. Corporations are viewed, legally, as people. They have the right to free speech just as everyone else does.
What Congress does, always, is take an issue that is important to the people, create a bill or law that they KNOW will not stand up to legal challenge, and then they can keep the people happy without any real risk to the status quo. Or to themselves. Campaign finance a real issue? McCain-Feingold to the rescue. Back in the 1980’s, it was deficit spending and balanced budgets. Gramm-Rudman came charging in like the cavalry.
The common factor is that both were designed to lose a legal challenge.
Both bills “tried” to solve a pressing and current issue. The same issues are important today, but now Congress can blame the Courts for striking the laws down. Either these guys are dumb as rocks, without any clue about Constitutional Law, or they are just cunning enough to create these bills. The challenges to automatic congressional pay raises haven’t gone anywhere, because the bills were written well, with no fatal flaws.
But the bottom line is that those in Congress, for the most part, are cowards. They try to cover themselves so they can continue to reap the tremendous rewards they give themselves. They run from issues important to the nation in order to continue their “free” lunch at our expense. (There are exceptions: Sen. Grassley, Rep. King, Rep. Latham) The current health care laws are a great example. Sen. Ben Nelson sold his vote to help keep Nebraska’s Medicare/Medicaid rates the same, instead of his state taking cuts. But this also bears out my very pointed opinion that Congress, after a while, lose touch with the people they represent. Sen. Nelson should have known that Nebraskans, much like Iowans, play fair. And would hate the deal that he made, even though it benefitted them. It was underhanded, and Nebraskans didn’t like it.
Another good example is this week the Hawaiian legislature voted against a gay marriage law in their state. But they didn’t vote it down by taking a vote and having the votes recorded. They took a “voice vote”, which is just everyone saying “yea or nay”, and not recording who voted which way. Hawaii is a strange state, in as much as religion and worship is deeply ingrained, alongside very non-traditional liberal values. So it was interesting to read the papers as everyone, both right and left, dodged the issue in an election year.
It really doesn’t matter at what level politicians operate. They are interested in getting re-elected, and will do what it takes to make sure they take no stand they cannot weasel out of. That’s why I believe strongly in term limits for all elected officials. And I also believe strongly campaign spending limits. Instead of limiting what we, as citizens, can give candidates, I think the limitations should be on how much the candidates can spend on being elected.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Obamacare: Disaster for Iowans
Obamacare: Disaster for Iowans
By Dr. Patrick Bertroche, 3rd Congressional District Candidate
Lost in the megalomaniacal debate over health INSURANCE reform, formally known as “health care reform”, is how bad it really will be for Iowa. Nowhere is the negative impact of this horribly conceived monument to Obama’s ego on Iowa being discussed. I don’t see any articles of Obamacare and its impact on Iowa, or any news stories. So let me detail the problems Iowans will face if Obamacare is completed.
The most obvious way Iowa will be negatively impacted is the reduction in reimbursement to physicians and hospitals that is scheduled to take place during 2010 if Obamacare is passed in 2009. Physicians and hospitals are scheduled to “receive” a “pricing structure readjustment” of 21%. That means that every doctor and hospital in Iowa will receive 21% less for treating seniors. And since Iowa already has the least reimbursement of any other state or territory, including Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., our ability to treat the elderly and infirm is threatened. Doctors, who face the decision of closing their doors or not taking Medicare, are not going to take Medicare.
Hospitals are FORCED to take Medicare, or they cannot be hospitals. In order to survive, they will cut services and staffing, and will not be able to provide the services elderly and rural Iowans need. Most elderly Iowans already drive at least an hour to get their medical care now. If you put this kind of unsustainable pressure on the rural hospitals, some will close, and others will cease to be hospitals and convert to urgent care clinics.
Group home, independent living homes, assisted living homes, and nursing homes will all refuse to accept Medicare, because they can’t remain open with these budget cuts. That means people recovering from cancer won’t have care, people with Alzheimer’s won’t have care, kids who have no family and nowhere to go will be homeless, and people with debilitating diseases will have no care.
The next obvious way Iowans will be affected by Obamacare is the recruitment and retention of physicians. Recruiting a physician is hard enough with Iowa having the lowest reimbursement. Hospitals and physician groups often give much more money than they can hope to recoup just to get a physician to practice in Iowa. Add to that the National Health Service Loan Repayment Program, you are spending a tremendous amount to get a physician to Iowa. And then he discovers Iowa’s 10% tax bracket. So guess what happens when his/her contract expires?
They leave Iowa.
And they take our investment in them, with them. If you reduce reimbursement further, how does Iowa expect to retain physicians?
The next problem is far more subtle, but costs Iowans far more than the points already mentioned. Medicaid is a program partially funded by the federal government, and partially by the state. The state runs the program to help its citizens, and they are the ones who qualify a person for Medicaid. In Iowa, we have a 70/30 split with the federal government. The federal government pays 70% of Iowa’s Medicaid program. Usually, there is some kind of matching grant or fund that accompanies the federal payment for Medicaid and the support services that Iowans need.
Since Iowa Medicaid receives its 70% from Medicare, Medicaid recipients and the doctors and hospitals that provide care for them, will be reimbursed even less. This means doctors and other providers will not be able to provide the services needed for our citizens, and our neediest citizens won’t be able to get services. Since they cannot get the services they need, they will visit emergency rooms to get care, driving up costs that hospitals will recover from the private sector, and the dance goes on.
And now we talk about how our embattled Governor, Chet Culver, put the last straw on the camel’s back. With most non-profit health care entities, such as Children and Families of Iowa, who provide care and nurturance to victims neglect and abuse, or Orchard Place, who provide homes and care for children of sexual abuse and much worse, or Youth Homes of Mid America, who provide a home for homeless and abandoned youth, the funds they receive from the state, are matched with federal funds. So if the state grants $100,000 to a facility to treat our citizens, the federal government will match it. With Culver’s 10% across the board reduction, he effectively screwed our non-profit health care providers, the very ones who will care for the people no one else will care for. You see, when you have to make a 10% across the board cut with matching funds, it is effectively a 20% across the board cut. Coupled with the reduction of 21% in Medicare payments, the cuts are unsustainable for our health care providers.
How do you sustain a facility that provides care for people who don’t pay when your own Governor stabs you in the back like that?
The answer is, you don’t. You make cuts to the programs that, by the very nature of the people it serves, don’t make money. Now what will those people do? We are talking about children molested and abandoned by their families, schizophrenics who have finally found a home and peace in their lives, and the elderly who have no one else to take care of them.
Is this the Iowa you want? I don’t want an Iowa like that.
If I am elected, I will work hard for fair reimbursement for seniors and the ill. I will work closely with state and local officials to make sure OUR needs are met. I will LISTEN to Iowans, and get the help to our neediest citizens in a fiscally responsible manner.
For more information, you can check out his website, www.bertroche4congress.com, you can call the campaign headquarters at 515-556-0526, or his Campaign Chairman at 515-710-0798. Email: PatBertroche4congress@yahoo.com.
You can also follow him on Twitter at PatBertroche, and on Facebook, Pat Bertroche.
ACORN: Growing Corruption at the Highest Levels
ACORN: Growing Corruption at the Highest Levels
ACORN has won the court battle to keep the government from cutting funding to the Looney Leftwing organization. The decision is disastrous for the US, and not just for the obvious reasons of taxpayers being forced to support corruption, graft, and fraudulent voters.
To recap the vile nature of ACORN, they are a Looney Left organization that worked “hand in hand” with Pres. Obama before the election, during the election, and after the election, until two enterprising defenders of truth unmasked exactly how terrible and convoluted the organization was. ACORN is under indictment in several states, and under investigation in others, for vote rigging, voter intimidation, and election fraud, along with an investigation regarding irregular campaign finances.
The two defenders of truth went undercover, and discovered that ACORN was also willing to assist bringing in illegal immigrants for human trafficking. Incredibly, the ACORN staffers gave several tips on how to make even more money on the horrible trade of slaves.
As if that weren’t bad enough, Stimulus 1, the first trillion dollars Pres. Obama spent, in an emergency manner because we were “three hours from martial law” if we didn’t spend it, mandated that ACORN receive 4% of all monies disbursed from Stimulus 1. That’s right. Stimulus 1, the package all Democratic Representatives and one Senator from Iowa voted for, GAVE $40,000,000,000 (that’s BILLION if you don’t want to count the zeroes) to this organization over the next 2-3 years. Talk about making sure the Democrats get elected for the next 50 years.
When the videos of the ACORN staffers aiding and abetting human traffickers made the news, Congress finally did the right thing and voted to rescind the federal funding of ACORN. ACORN then sued the US Government to continue the funding, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional to single them out to rescind funding. The courts have decided in ACORN’s favor, ruling that it is unconstitutional to rescind funding specifically against one organization.
What a terrible and tragic decision. ACORN was singled out to receive federal funds, but apparently it can’t be singled out to rescind funding, even in the face of fraud, graft, corruption, and supporting human trafficking. And the news media has completely ignored this decision. In fact, the Des Moines Register had the court’s decision on the very back page in the upper left hand corner. Great reporting on a critical issue like this guys.
So why is this decision so monumental?
By making this decision, the courts have said that once money is granted, no matter what, or how it’s used, or how it may affect the budget, you cannot take it away. Congress can give money, but cannot take it back. Just think of the things that we now can’t get our money back from. $8 billion for a train in the desert for Harry Reid, Sens. Boxer and Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi. We’ll never be able to cut off funding to ACORN. Or Wall Street. Or the car companies. It just means the government will never be able to balance the budget, ever, because they will have the excuse that the courts won’t let them balance it.
I want to know why our Representatives, Boswell, Loebsack, and Braley, and Sen. Harkin voted for such a terrible funding project. I want to know why they are such devotees to the Cult of Obama. And most importantly, I want to know why Iowa did not get anything out Stimulus 1. $40 billion in Iowa for our infrastructure would help our economy directly for several years, and indirectly for decades. We could recruit big companies to Iowa, and improve Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement to retain and recruit physicians, and assist our small business to grow and prosper, creating the jobs that Iowans now don’t have and won’t return to any time soon.
Is this the kind of representation that Iowans need? Is it what Iowans want? It’s not what I want. It is shameful that people, who claim to have Iowa values, do not vote Iowa values, but California values. I am encouraging every Iowan in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Districts of Iowa to stand up and throw out the incumbents who voted for this funding of ACORN. They spent $40 billion dollars to support graft, fraud, corruption, and human trafficking, and did not even bother to make sure that Iowans were taken care of first.
I will listen to the people of Iowa, and not blindly follow the herd. I will vote for the small business people of Iowa, and help bring our money back to Iowa to help our infrastructure. And I will NOT be anyone’s lap dog.
Dr. Patrick Bertroche
YOUR 3rd District Congressional Candidate.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
What is the value of a woman’s life?
By J. Patrick Bertroche , D.O.
When the US Preventive Services Task Force, released the new breast screening recommendations yesterday, it ignited a firestorm of debate within the medical community and the nation. To recap what the recommendations are, I will briefly go through them. No mammograms for those over 74, no routine screening for women under 50 years of age, don’t do regular breast self exams, and pushes back recommended screenings from every year, to every two years. The USPSTF cited a lack of evidence as the reasons for the new recommendations. Keep in mind that this very same government organization found sufficient evidence for the recommendations it now does not recommend a short seven years ago.
As a side note, just not a week ago, the government agencies responsible for tracking and warning about H1N1 admitted they “may have inflated” the numbers for H1N1 in the “interest of national health”.
What’s left out of the debate, is the role of government, and how that will change with Obamacare. Right now, the different groups involved with breast cancer, such as doctors, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology, are all discussing the merits, or demerits, of the latest government guidelines. Does it strike anyone else funny that the USPSTF is REVERSING itself in the midst of the worst economic meltdowns in recent history? If they issue guidelines that ration care, which is what they are doing, then it saves money on Medicare costs. Conspiracy? The USPSTF is funded from Oregon.
But the scariest thing about the guidelines is that it points out the glaring problems with a “best practices panel”, which both the House and Senate bills contain. 7 years ago, there was sufficient evidence for breast self exams, annual mammograms for EVERYONE, and routine yearly screenings starting at 40. What happened in the meantime? Did they have studies that showed these procedures weren’t helpful? Or did they have studies that showed there was something better?
Nope. The authors of the guidelines admit that there aren’t any studies that support the new guidelines, and in fact says there aren’t enough studies for the recommendations, and call for studies to study the recommendations. Sheesh. So if there aren’t adequate studies, upon what are they basing their recommendations? Britain. Just like I’ve said before. Pres. Obama is setting up a system exactly like the British. How has that worked for Britain? Breast cancer survival rate is 69%. In the US, it is 84%. Why is there a difference? According to a study in the 2008 Lancet Oncologist, it is due to Britain’s “best practices panel” recommendations that mirror almost exactly the latest USPSTF recommendations. And those recommendations boil down to delays in diagnosis, delays in treatment, and limited access to quality treatments.
If the Government has a “best practices panel”, they would have to change the way women receive breast care. And the USPSTF study isn’t even proven. It’s just a recommendation. Medical recommendations change rapidly. Can you imagine the chaos surrounding this subject if the Government had to decide what to do now? Well, I know. They would ration care, because that’s what they do. Why do you think we have four (4) Medicare supplemental programs? Is it because the Government isn’t rationing care? Or because they are?
And, more importantly, who should decide what a woman's life is worth? Who should decide how often you need to be screened for breast cancer? You and your doctor? Or a panel of government bureaucrats and their lackeys?
And for the best part. As we speak, James Sokolove and his ilk are firing up the copiers to file suit against every doctor, x-ray manufacturer, and hospital who ever did mammograms. Pres. Obama has plenty of reform for doctors and hospitals, who actually try to help people, but no reform for lawyers, who only want to line their pockets with other people’s grief and greed, driving up everyone’s cost for health care.
I’ve had enough. Haven’t you?
Pat Bertroche, D.O.
YOUR Congressional Candidate
By J. Patrick Bertroche , D.O.
When the US Preventive Services Task Force, released the new breast screening recommendations yesterday, it ignited a firestorm of debate within the medical community and the nation. To recap what the recommendations are, I will briefly go through them. No mammograms for those over 74, no routine screening for women under 50 years of age, don’t do regular breast self exams, and pushes back recommended screenings from every year, to every two years. The USPSTF cited a lack of evidence as the reasons for the new recommendations. Keep in mind that this very same government organization found sufficient evidence for the recommendations it now does not recommend a short seven years ago.
As a side note, just not a week ago, the government agencies responsible for tracking and warning about H1N1 admitted they “may have inflated” the numbers for H1N1 in the “interest of national health”.
What’s left out of the debate, is the role of government, and how that will change with Obamacare. Right now, the different groups involved with breast cancer, such as doctors, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology, are all discussing the merits, or demerits, of the latest government guidelines. Does it strike anyone else funny that the USPSTF is REVERSING itself in the midst of the worst economic meltdowns in recent history? If they issue guidelines that ration care, which is what they are doing, then it saves money on Medicare costs. Conspiracy? The USPSTF is funded from Oregon.
But the scariest thing about the guidelines is that it points out the glaring problems with a “best practices panel”, which both the House and Senate bills contain. 7 years ago, there was sufficient evidence for breast self exams, annual mammograms for EVERYONE, and routine yearly screenings starting at 40. What happened in the meantime? Did they have studies that showed these procedures weren’t helpful? Or did they have studies that showed there was something better?
Nope. The authors of the guidelines admit that there aren’t any studies that support the new guidelines, and in fact says there aren’t enough studies for the recommendations, and call for studies to study the recommendations. Sheesh. So if there aren’t adequate studies, upon what are they basing their recommendations? Britain. Just like I’ve said before. Pres. Obama is setting up a system exactly like the British. How has that worked for Britain? Breast cancer survival rate is 69%. In the US, it is 84%. Why is there a difference? According to a study in the 2008 Lancet Oncologist, it is due to Britain’s “best practices panel” recommendations that mirror almost exactly the latest USPSTF recommendations. And those recommendations boil down to delays in diagnosis, delays in treatment, and limited access to quality treatments.
If the Government has a “best practices panel”, they would have to change the way women receive breast care. And the USPSTF study isn’t even proven. It’s just a recommendation. Medical recommendations change rapidly. Can you imagine the chaos surrounding this subject if the Government had to decide what to do now? Well, I know. They would ration care, because that’s what they do. Why do you think we have four (4) Medicare supplemental programs? Is it because the Government isn’t rationing care? Or because they are?
And, more importantly, who should decide what a woman's life is worth? Who should decide how often you need to be screened for breast cancer? You and your doctor? Or a panel of government bureaucrats and their lackeys?
And for the best part. As we speak, James Sokolove and his ilk are firing up the copiers to file suit against every doctor, x-ray manufacturer, and hospital who ever did mammograms. Pres. Obama has plenty of reform for doctors and hospitals, who actually try to help people, but no reform for lawyers, who only want to line their pockets with other people’s grief and greed, driving up everyone’s cost for health care.
I’ve had enough. Haven’t you?
Pat Bertroche, D.O.
YOUR Congressional Candidate
Monday, October 26, 2009
National State of Emergency for Swine Flu
Even Pres. Obama Knows the Government Interferes with Efficient Health Care
by Pat Bertroche, D.O.
As Swine Flu, or to be PC, H1N1 influenza, sweeps across our nation, the media is filled with all kinds of contradictory information. There are vaccine shortages, but they are not critical now. Or there’s a problem with the vaccine, but it’s safe. And, of course, the inevitable slew of experts giving their expert opinion that disagrees with the other experts. However, there is one sparkling point of clarity: the US government, and even Pres. Obama, knows that government interference leads to less health care efficiency, more costs for health care, and hampers everyone trying to do their best to protect our citizens from disease and illness.
Here’s my proof. Pres. Obama declared a National State of Emergency, and because he declared a National State of Emergency, “Doctors and hospitals are relieved of the usual governmental regulations and this will help more efficiently treat patients with H1N1.” (ABC news 10-24-09 morning)
Here’s more proof from CNN. The lifting of regulations "gives the federal government more power to help states…by lifting bureaucratic requirements -- both in treating patients and moving equipment”. Later in the article, another great analysis about why you don’t want government in your medicine. “Obama's action allows Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "to temporarily waive or modify certain requirements" to help health care facilities enact emergency plans to deal with the pandemic.” Here’s the link to check it out yourself. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/24/h1n1.obama/index.html
And what does the Washington Post say about it? They quote Jennifer Nuzzo of the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Biosecurity as saying “…we can focus on the care of patients rather than focus on administrative hurdles. In disasters, you often don't have the time or luxury to keep the paperwork in order. You want hospitals focusing on patients."
What about when there isn’t an emergency? It’s ok then to clog up the Health Care machine with government paperwork and bureaucracy?
I wonder what CBS has to say about it? “President Obama has declared the virus a national emergency, cutting bureaucratic red tape. “ Imagine that! The government cutting red tape, and it actually helps! That’s not what the Loony Left and Pres. Obama say. Here’s what else CBS said. “With the H1N1 flu virus spreading farther and faster than expected, the emergency declaration from the White House means health care providers can respond to the crisis faster and bypass some federal regulations. This is a proactive move to basically get rid of the red tape so that hospitals don't have to fight with regulators if the H1N1 epidemic gets bad later on," said Dr. Martin Makary of Johns Hopkins University Hospital.
Hmmm. Pres. Obama declares a National State of Emergency, which reduces government interference, so doctors and hospitals can more effectively treat a serious illness. Well, how ‘bout that? Turns out that the government is as bad for health care efficiency and effective patient treatment as it is for mail delivery. So can anyone explain to me why we are still having any further discussion about government run health care?
by Pat Bertroche, D.O.
As Swine Flu, or to be PC, H1N1 influenza, sweeps across our nation, the media is filled with all kinds of contradictory information. There are vaccine shortages, but they are not critical now. Or there’s a problem with the vaccine, but it’s safe. And, of course, the inevitable slew of experts giving their expert opinion that disagrees with the other experts. However, there is one sparkling point of clarity: the US government, and even Pres. Obama, knows that government interference leads to less health care efficiency, more costs for health care, and hampers everyone trying to do their best to protect our citizens from disease and illness.
Here’s my proof. Pres. Obama declared a National State of Emergency, and because he declared a National State of Emergency, “Doctors and hospitals are relieved of the usual governmental regulations and this will help more efficiently treat patients with H1N1.” (ABC news 10-24-09 morning)
Here’s more proof from CNN. The lifting of regulations "gives the federal government more power to help states…by lifting bureaucratic requirements -- both in treating patients and moving equipment”. Later in the article, another great analysis about why you don’t want government in your medicine. “Obama's action allows Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "to temporarily waive or modify certain requirements" to help health care facilities enact emergency plans to deal with the pandemic.” Here’s the link to check it out yourself. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/24/h1n1.obama/index.html
And what does the Washington Post say about it? They quote Jennifer Nuzzo of the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Biosecurity as saying “…we can focus on the care of patients rather than focus on administrative hurdles. In disasters, you often don't have the time or luxury to keep the paperwork in order. You want hospitals focusing on patients."
What about when there isn’t an emergency? It’s ok then to clog up the Health Care machine with government paperwork and bureaucracy?
I wonder what CBS has to say about it? “President Obama has declared the virus a national emergency, cutting bureaucratic red tape. “ Imagine that! The government cutting red tape, and it actually helps! That’s not what the Loony Left and Pres. Obama say. Here’s what else CBS said. “With the H1N1 flu virus spreading farther and faster than expected, the emergency declaration from the White House means health care providers can respond to the crisis faster and bypass some federal regulations. This is a proactive move to basically get rid of the red tape so that hospitals don't have to fight with regulators if the H1N1 epidemic gets bad later on," said Dr. Martin Makary of Johns Hopkins University Hospital.
Hmmm. Pres. Obama declares a National State of Emergency, which reduces government interference, so doctors and hospitals can more effectively treat a serious illness. Well, how ‘bout that? Turns out that the government is as bad for health care efficiency and effective patient treatment as it is for mail delivery. So can anyone explain to me why we are still having any further discussion about government run health care?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Is sendign troops to Afghanistan irresponsible?
More Troops in Afghanistan Irresponsible?
By Pat Bertroche, D.O.
3rd Congressional District Candidate
As Pres. Obama ponders whether to listen to his hand picked (hen pecked?) general, Gen. McChrystal, there is a lot of very heated, and needed, debate. The elections in Afghanistan are, in large part, fraudulent. As I write this article, Pres. Karzai and his opponent are negotiating a power sharing agreement. There is talk among the Afghani government of inviting the Taliban back into the fold. Pres. Obama has talked about inviting the Taliban back into Afghani government. The idea of inviting the Taliban back is the philosophy that if you give them power, they will have a vested interest in maintaining peace.
The debate about the troops comes down to two philosophies: Either win this war and prop up the Afghani Democracy, however fraudulent and corrupt it may be, or to pull out and leave the Afghan’s to their own fate. Either way, the US doesn’t really win.
However, the most important part of the debate is missing, and that is the Rules of Engagement for our military.
Historically, in America, the incoming President has had a disadvantage when inheriting a war or conflict. The new President must define what he wants to gain in the conflict, and then try to make that happen.
The problem really is, do you follow the preceding President’s doctrine and goals, and commit yourself to the outcome? Or do you change the doctrine and set your own goals? Both strategies carry a great deal of risk. I would like to take a look at historical precedent.
WWII was a great success overall for us, because we had one President, and one goal and one doctrine, throughout most of the war. WWI was a success for America, basically due to the fact that Pres. Wilson led throughout, and we had one goal and one doctrine.
The Korean War, though, had several different doctrines and goals. First, Pres. Truman wanted to contain Communist influence, and we committed our troops to the Korean War. As the war progressed, the attitudes within the Truman Administration changed, and the goal became to avoid embarrassment, and our doctrine changed. Then the goal became to win the Korean War, but not if it meant war with China. The doctrine changed again. We all know how that turned out.
Then Viet Nam. Our first War of Defeat. Pres. Kennedy started it, Pres. Johnson expanded it, and Pres. Nixon finished it. Why was Viet Nam so disastrous? There are many factors, but the number one factor is explained by Gen. George Patton, who said “Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser”. We did not have a strategy to win, therefore Americans turned against the war. Since there were many goals throughout Viet Nam, and none of the goals included winning, the doctrine therefore did not include winning. We would like to win, but not if Cambodia was invaded, or China became more involved, or not if we can’t win the hearts and minds of the people. As doctrine goes, so go the Rules of Engagement.
When the Rules of Engagement (ROE) change from winning to containing, you’ve gone from winning to not winning. It is important to understand how ROE impacts troop discipline, morale, and functionality. The Marines in Viet Nam weren’t potheads and opiate fiends because they were in combat. They developed drug problems because ROE made them impotent targets of the enemy. By that time the Marines got clearance to fire, call in air strikes, or artillery, the enemy had fled leaving the devastated Marines to carry their dead and wounded back. The VC used villages as bases, and utilized women and children as human shields, and some of those women and children carried weapons and ammunition for the VC. We had ROE that went along with the goal of “winning hearts and minds”, not winning, so our Marines suffered terrific casualties as a result, and horrendous drug use because of rightly perceived impotence on the part of their leadership.
This sounds very close to what is happening in Afghanistan. We have had a change in the Presidency, from one ideologue to another, but Pres. Bush wanted to win and had clearly defined goals. But Pres. Obama has changed our goals from ridding the world of Taliban and Al Qaeda, to winning the hearts and minds of Afghani’s. ROE now in Afghanistan denies our Marines air strikes and artillery support. If our Marines are being fired upon by women and children, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda are using civilians as human shields, right now their only option is to die and hope enough survive the ambushes that they can make it back safely to the base. The UN has defined targeting civilians as a war crime. And rightly so. But if the “civilians” are loading weapons for the Taliban, carrying ammunition for Al Qaeda, and giving material support, then they are now combatants. The Geneva Convention spells out that using human shields is a war crime, and that countries that attack those human shields and the combatants that give material support are therefore not committing ” war crimes, and the “civilians” are not granted “civilian” protection. But Pres. Obama has decided that terrorist lives are just as important, and valuable, as our Marine lives, because the ROE puts Marine lives in danger far more than they need to be. By terrorists using human shields, and Pres. Obama creating a ROE that focuses on limiting “civilian” casualties, even if the “civilians” are actively engaging in firefights with our troops, we have gone from winning the war, to maintaining the war. I don’t want any war maintained, I want it won.
I will tell you this unequivocally: My Marine is more valuable than all the terrorists put together. And if we do not have ROE that will support our Marines being able to fight and defend themselves, we need to bring them home. It is irresponsible to send more troops to Afghanistan if Pres. Obama does not have the ROE to support them.
By Pat Bertroche, D.O.
3rd Congressional District Candidate
As Pres. Obama ponders whether to listen to his hand picked (hen pecked?) general, Gen. McChrystal, there is a lot of very heated, and needed, debate. The elections in Afghanistan are, in large part, fraudulent. As I write this article, Pres. Karzai and his opponent are negotiating a power sharing agreement. There is talk among the Afghani government of inviting the Taliban back into the fold. Pres. Obama has talked about inviting the Taliban back into Afghani government. The idea of inviting the Taliban back is the philosophy that if you give them power, they will have a vested interest in maintaining peace.
The debate about the troops comes down to two philosophies: Either win this war and prop up the Afghani Democracy, however fraudulent and corrupt it may be, or to pull out and leave the Afghan’s to their own fate. Either way, the US doesn’t really win.
However, the most important part of the debate is missing, and that is the Rules of Engagement for our military.
Historically, in America, the incoming President has had a disadvantage when inheriting a war or conflict. The new President must define what he wants to gain in the conflict, and then try to make that happen.
The problem really is, do you follow the preceding President’s doctrine and goals, and commit yourself to the outcome? Or do you change the doctrine and set your own goals? Both strategies carry a great deal of risk. I would like to take a look at historical precedent.
WWII was a great success overall for us, because we had one President, and one goal and one doctrine, throughout most of the war. WWI was a success for America, basically due to the fact that Pres. Wilson led throughout, and we had one goal and one doctrine.
The Korean War, though, had several different doctrines and goals. First, Pres. Truman wanted to contain Communist influence, and we committed our troops to the Korean War. As the war progressed, the attitudes within the Truman Administration changed, and the goal became to avoid embarrassment, and our doctrine changed. Then the goal became to win the Korean War, but not if it meant war with China. The doctrine changed again. We all know how that turned out.
Then Viet Nam. Our first War of Defeat. Pres. Kennedy started it, Pres. Johnson expanded it, and Pres. Nixon finished it. Why was Viet Nam so disastrous? There are many factors, but the number one factor is explained by Gen. George Patton, who said “Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser”. We did not have a strategy to win, therefore Americans turned against the war. Since there were many goals throughout Viet Nam, and none of the goals included winning, the doctrine therefore did not include winning. We would like to win, but not if Cambodia was invaded, or China became more involved, or not if we can’t win the hearts and minds of the people. As doctrine goes, so go the Rules of Engagement.
When the Rules of Engagement (ROE) change from winning to containing, you’ve gone from winning to not winning. It is important to understand how ROE impacts troop discipline, morale, and functionality. The Marines in Viet Nam weren’t potheads and opiate fiends because they were in combat. They developed drug problems because ROE made them impotent targets of the enemy. By that time the Marines got clearance to fire, call in air strikes, or artillery, the enemy had fled leaving the devastated Marines to carry their dead and wounded back. The VC used villages as bases, and utilized women and children as human shields, and some of those women and children carried weapons and ammunition for the VC. We had ROE that went along with the goal of “winning hearts and minds”, not winning, so our Marines suffered terrific casualties as a result, and horrendous drug use because of rightly perceived impotence on the part of their leadership.
This sounds very close to what is happening in Afghanistan. We have had a change in the Presidency, from one ideologue to another, but Pres. Bush wanted to win and had clearly defined goals. But Pres. Obama has changed our goals from ridding the world of Taliban and Al Qaeda, to winning the hearts and minds of Afghani’s. ROE now in Afghanistan denies our Marines air strikes and artillery support. If our Marines are being fired upon by women and children, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda are using civilians as human shields, right now their only option is to die and hope enough survive the ambushes that they can make it back safely to the base. The UN has defined targeting civilians as a war crime. And rightly so. But if the “civilians” are loading weapons for the Taliban, carrying ammunition for Al Qaeda, and giving material support, then they are now combatants. The Geneva Convention spells out that using human shields is a war crime, and that countries that attack those human shields and the combatants that give material support are therefore not committing ” war crimes, and the “civilians” are not granted “civilian” protection. But Pres. Obama has decided that terrorist lives are just as important, and valuable, as our Marine lives, because the ROE puts Marine lives in danger far more than they need to be. By terrorists using human shields, and Pres. Obama creating a ROE that focuses on limiting “civilian” casualties, even if the “civilians” are actively engaging in firefights with our troops, we have gone from winning the war, to maintaining the war. I don’t want any war maintained, I want it won.
I will tell you this unequivocally: My Marine is more valuable than all the terrorists put together. And if we do not have ROE that will support our Marines being able to fight and defend themselves, we need to bring them home. It is irresponsible to send more troops to Afghanistan if Pres. Obama does not have the ROE to support them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
