Doctor’s View

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

 

You shouldn’t judge the Affordable Care Act based on headlines or by listening to politicians or talking heads. I tried for a while, but only heard wildly conflicting stories that seemed to have little basis in reality.

Instead, you should ask someone who actually deals with the law on a daily basis — a doctor, for instance.

The Physicians Foundation did exactly that in its “2014 Survey of American Physicians,” which was released last month. The survey, which reached over 80% of doctors in the U.S. and elicited responses from some 20,000, is doctors’ collective report card on the Affordable Care Act’s first four years.

The grades aren’t good. Only 25% of doctors give it an “A” or a “B” grade. Nearly half ( 46%) give it a “D” or an “F”.

I can help explain why so many of us are fed up with the law: In many cases, it shifts our focus from patients to paperwork, from finding cures to filing documents.

The survey indicates that physicians now spend 20% of their time on non-clinical paperwork. I now spend many hours at a desk or a computer rather than at the bedside assisting patients. This isn’t why I became a doctor.

Unsurprisingly, this shift negatively influences patients’ access to health care — doctors simply don’t have the time to see the same number of patients.

The survey indicates that 44% of doctors “plan to take one or more steps that would reduce patient access to their services.” This includes “cutting back on patients seen, retiring, working part-time, closing their practice to new patients or seeking a non-clinical job.”

I would add another important effect based on my own observations: Spending less time with patients.

The ACA’s regulatory burden directly bears on these decisions. There are already at least 11,000 pages of government regulations related to the law. Some of it applies to insurers, some of it applies to doctors and some applies to the relationship between the two.

No matter who it applies to, it adds bureaucratic hassles to the health care process that may impact your doctors’ ability to attend to your medical needs.

It should come as no surprise, then, that 69% of physicians “believe their clinical autonomy is sometimes or often limited,” meaning they have a diminished ability to make medical decisions in consultation with patients.

And “limited” may be an understatement. The ACA’s implementation has also coincided with a dramatic decline in private practice — the small, personal doctors’ offices that have been in local communities for generations.

The number of private-practice doctors has dropped by nearly half in a mere six years, with the most dramatic drops occurring in the four years since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law.

According to the survey, 35% of physicians are now independent practice owners. In 2012, half were independent. In 2008 — two years before the ACA was passed — 62% were independent. In the last two years alone, the number of solo practitioners has dropped from 25% to 17%.

No wonder: Private and solo practitioners often lack the staff and the financial resources required to implement and keep up with the ACA’s dramatic changes to medicine.

The Physicians Foundation survey indicates that our country’s health care is still going in the wrong direction. Of course, it’s important to note that the Affordable Care Act is only one of many issues affecting doctors’ decisions and outlook.

But it is not a good sign that in the law’s first few years, physicians are seeing fewer patients, private practices are disappearing and nearly twice as many doctors believe the law is harming, not helping, American health care.

• Fodeman is an internal medicine doctor practicing in Tucson, Ariz. (IBD)

War on Doctors

In an address to the House on Wednesday, Alabama Representative Mo Brooks read aloud a letter sent to him by Dr. Marlin Gill of Decatur. The letter holds nothing back while detailing the excessive costs and regulations that Dr. Gill calls Obamacare’s “war against doctors.”

Here is the full text of the letter, courtesy of Rep. Brooks’ office:

Dear Congressman Brooks,

 

As a practicing family physician, I plead for help against what I can best characterize as Washington’s war against doctors.

 

The medical profession has never before remotely approached today’s stress, work hours, wasted costs, decreased efficiency, and declining ability to focus on patient care.

 

In our community alone, at least 6 doctors have left patient care for administrative positions, to start a concierge practice, or retire altogether.

 

Doctors are smothered by destructive regulations that add costs, raise our overhead and ‘gum up the works,’ making patient treatment slower and less efficient, thus forcing doctors to focus on things other than patient care and reduce the number of patients we can help each day.

 

I spend more time at work than at any time in my 27 years of practice and more of that time is spent on administrative tasks and entering useless data into a computer rather than helping sick patients.

 

Doctors have been forced by ill-informed bureaucrats to implement electronic medical records (“EMR”) that, in our four doctor practice, costs well over $100,000 plus continuing yearly operational costs . . . all of which does not help take care of one patient while driving up the cost of every patient’s health care.

 

Washington’s electronic medical records requirement makes our medical practice much slower and less efficient, forcing our doctors to treat fewer patients per day than we did before the EMR mandate.

 

To make matters worse, Washington forces doctors to demonstrate ‘meaningful use’ of EMR or risk not being fully paid for the help we give.

 

In addition to the electronic medical records burden, we face a mandate to use the ICD-10 coding system, a new set of reimbursement diagnosis codes.

 

The current ICD-9 coding system uses roughly 13,000 codes. The new ICD-10 coding system uses a staggering 70,000 new and completely different codes, thus dramatically slowing doctors down due to the unnecessary complexity and sheer numbers of codes that must be learned.

 

The cost of this new ICD-10 coding system for our small practice is roughly $80,000, again driving up health care costs without one iota of improvement in health care quality.

 

Finally, doctors face nonpayment by patients with ObamaCare. These patients may or may not be paying their premiums and we have no way of verifying this. No business can operate with that much uncertainty.

 

On behalf of the medical profession, I ask that Washington stop the implementation of the ICD-10 coding system, repeal the Affordable Care Act, and replace it with a better law written with the input of real doctors who will actually treat patients covered by it.

 

America has enjoyed the best health care the world has ever known. That health care is in jeopardy because physicians cannot survive Washington’s ‘war on doctors’ without relief.

 

Eventually the problems for doctors will become problems for patients, and we are all patients at some point.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Dr. Marlin Gill of Decatur, Alabama

Brooks warned of the serious – and, in some cases, life-threatening – consequences of ignoring Dr. Gill’s warning. Let’s hope that America will listen.

This is What It Looks Like When the State Just Doesn’t Care About Your Rights Anymore

Well, Liberal know what’s best for you better than you do, in their minds. And this was about helping the uninsured get insurance, in their minds, so since they only had the intentions of angels of mercy the fact that they are devils incarnate will never occur to them and since they have been waiting almost 100 years for this they will never give up their toys. And they sure as hell will never understand the damage they have caused or will cause because their intention were good.

It’s someone elses fault for screwing up their angelic vision. Or your lack of cow towing 100% to their will, resistance is hurting YOU.

That’s the kind of denial you’re going to get.

Deal with it.

When asked if there were any parts of Obamacare that would “absolutely” not be delayed in the future, Sebelius responded: ”I don’t have any idea how to answer that question.”

It’s complicated…. 🙂

“This is a complicated law,” Sebelius told Breitbart News. ”It’s in place right now and we anticipate full implementation.”

The governor (a Republican) told a reporter that he had no plans to meet with Sebelius when she came through Nashville on Thursday.

“She didn’t ask,” Haslam said. (CBS)

Not on her Agenda! 🙂


146347 600 Obamacare countdown cartoons


146312 600 Yet Another Obamacare Delay cartoons

The Devil’s Choice

Experts say the move by insurers to limit consumers’ choices and steer them away from hospitals that are considered too expensive, or even “inefficient”, reflects the new competitive landscape in the insurance industry since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare law.

It could become another source of political controversy for the Obama administration next year, when the plans take effect. Frustrated consumers could then begin to realise what is not always evident when buying a product as complicated as healthcare insurance: that their new plans do not cover many facilities or doctors “in network”. In other words, the facilities and doctors are not among the list of approved providers in a certain plan.

Under some US health insurance plans, consumers can elect to visit medical facilities that are “out of network”, but they would probably incur high out of pocket costs and may need referrals to prove that such care is medically necessary.

The development is worrying some hospital administrators who see the change as an unintended consequence of the ACA.

“We’re very concerned. [Insurers] know patients that are sick come to places like ours. What this is trying to do is redirect those patients elsewhere, but there is a reason why they come here. These patients need what it is that we are capable of providing,” says Thomas Priselac, president and chief executive officer of Cedars-Sinai Health System in California.

One of the biggest goals of “Obamacare” was to make subsidised healthcare plans that are being sold on the new exchanges as affordable as possible, while also mandating that certain benefits, like maternity care, were covered and that people with pre-existing medical conditions could not be denied access.

Amid these new regulatory restrictions, says Tim Jost, a health policy expert, insurance companies have had to come up with new ways to cut the cost of their products. In this new era, limiting the availability of certain facilities that are seen as too expensive – in part because they may attract the sickest patients or offer the most cutting edge medical care – is seen as the best way to control costs.

As has been pointed out numerous times, we are heading for a two tiered health care system where the rich – and friends of Barack like unions – will have access to the very best doctors and facilities while the rest of us get whatever is left over.

Winners and losers folks. And guess which one the majority of us are? (AT via FT)

“President Obama famously promised, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Doesn’t that turn out to be just as false, just as misleading, as his promise about if you like your plan, you can keep your plan?”

Emanuel tried heading toward after-the-fact nuances, but Wallace wouldn’t let go: “It’s a simple yes or no question. Did he say if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?”

“Yes,” Emanuel finally admitted before quickly turning another corner. “But look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. This is a matter of choice.”

Which Wallace jumped on, soon forcing Emanuel to admit that Americans under Obamacare “are going to have a choice as to whether they want to pay a certain amount for a selective network or pay more for a broader network.”

And that led to the key admission in the following segment of the interview:

“Which will mean your premiums will probably go up,” Wallace noted.

“They get that choice,” Emanuel said. “That’s a choice they always made.”

“Which means your premium may go up over what you were paying so that, in other words — ”

“No one guaranteed you that your premium wouldn’t increase,” Emanuel added. “Premiums have been going up.”

“The president guaranteed me I could keep my doctor,” said Wallace.

And if you want to, you can pay for it,” said Emanuel. (Blaze)

And if you can’t, oh well, you get the leftovers. Government Charity. Be happy. 🙂

But always remember, it wasn’t the Government’s fault! 🙂  Vote For me the other guy’s an asshole!

“Everyone was rich, and no one was poor. At Least no one worth talking about”-Douglas Adams.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

141014 600 Obamacare Site Fixed cartoons

 

 

The Coming of ObamaCare Ethics

Just when you thought Obamacare and  Contraceptives were fun…

All student health care plans covering female college students in the United States must include coverage for free voluntary sterilization surgery, the Department of Health and Human Services announced late Friday afternoon.

Women of college age who do not attend school will also get free sterilization coverage whether they are insured through an employer, their parents, or some form of government-subsidized plan.

“In a study of the cost-effectiveness of specific contraceptive methods, all contraceptive methods were found to be more cost-effective than no method, and the most cost-effective methods were long-acting contraceptives that do not rely on user compliance,” said the Institute of Medicine report on its mandate recommendations.(CNS)

Say Just say “yes” to Sterilization, and No to “Just say no” abstinence!

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” HHS Secretary Sebelius has said in the past.

The prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics has just given us a sneak-peek into what ObamaCare will surely be mandating in the not-too-distant future.

The Journal published an article this month seeking to mainstream the view that infanticide is a health-improving measure.  Calling it “after-birth abortion,” two philosophers argue that killing a newborn should be a purely elective decision of parents who believe the baby would be a burden or would negatively impact their family’s well being. (life News)

So, they way to cover cost of Obamacare is to have less people in the system!!

For the past several years, the medical profession has been undergoing a disturbing transformation. The process was begun by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in an effort to control exploding Medicare costs, and was accelerated by the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. As a surgeon in practice for over 30 years, I have witnessed this transformation firsthand. I fear that my profession will soon abandon its traditional code of ethics and adopt one more suited to veterinarians.

For centuries, my predecessors and I have been inculcated with what has come to be called the “Hippocratic Ethic.” This tradition holds that I am ethically required to use the best of my knowledge to recommend to my patient what I consider to be in my patient’s best interests—without regard to the interests of the third-party payer, or the government, or anyone else.

But gradually the medical profession has been forced to give up this approach for what I like to call a “veterinary ethic,” one that places the interests of the payer (or owner) ahead of the patient. For example, when a pet owner is told by a veterinarian that the pet has a very serious medical condition requiring extremely costly surgery or other therapy, the veterinarian presents the pet’s owner with one or more options—from attempt at cure, to palliation, to euthanasia—with the associated costs, and then follows the wishes of the owner.

In a few years, almost all doctors will be employees of hospitals and will be ordered to practice medicine according to federally prescribed guidelines—guidelines that put the best interests of the state ahead of the interests of individual patients.

Several factors in combination are bringing this ethical approach to my profession.

Since the mid-1980s, Medicare has imposed price controls on health care providers. Over the years, in order to accommodate increasing Medicare utilization, physician payments have steadily dropped.

Meanwhile, the regulatory burden on physicians has increased. In the last few years, CMS required all providers to adopt electronic health records or face economic sanctions from Medicare. It is the ultimate goal that every health care provider, including pharmacies, will have electronic databases that will be accessible to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In 2009, as part of the so-called stimulus bill, the Federal Commission for the Coordination of Comparative Effectiveness Research (FCCCER) was created. Its mission is to collect the data culled from all electronic health records and make recommendations regarding the comparative effectiveness of drugs, procedures, and therapies. In rendering advice, the FCCCER will essentially answer the following question: What is the most cost-effective way of allocating a fixed amount of resources among a population of roughly 310 million people?

With this same question in mind, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a committee that reports to HHS, concluded in 2009 that mammogram screenings should not be recommended to women under age 50. This caused an uproar among both private health care providers and breast cancer advocacy groups, and the task force soon backed down. Similarly, in the fall of 2011, the task force recommended the abandonment of certain routine prostate cancer screenings. Once again, health care providers and cancer advocacy groups protested, and the task force rescinded its recommendation.

In 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act established an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Beginning in 2014, the 15 presidential appointees on this board will determine what therapies, procedures, tests, and medications will be covered by Medicare, using advice provided by the FCCCER. Such determinations will then be used to design the coverage packages for the non-Medicare insurance offered through the government–run exchanges. The decisions of the IPAB are not subject to Congressional oversight or judicial review.

Meanwhile, in an effort to control costs now, CMS has developed practice guidelines and protocols for physicians to follow. Committees of health care academics and statisticians developed these guidelines, using data from large population samples.

These protocols govern the therapeutic decisions made by the health care practitioner—right down to the pre-operative antibiotics a surgeon may order. Despite the fact that several recent peer-reviewed studies concluded that the protocols have had no positive effect—in fact, one study showed post-op skin infections increased since the protocols were instituted—CMS imposes financial penalties on hospitals that fail to get protocol compliance from their medical staff.

Medical students and residents are now being trained to follow federally-derived protocols and guidelines as a normal part of medical practice. As a result, this new generation of doctors will be less inclined to challenge the recommendations of federal task forces and agencies. Some academics also worry that “teaching to the protocol” might discourage independent thinking and the use of intuitive knowledge, two traits essential to the practice of good medicine.

In addition, decreased reimbursements and increased regulatory demands on physicians have led many to sell their practices to hospitals. The New England Journal of Medicine* estimates that 50 percent of the nation’s doctors are now hospital employees. As private medical practice becomes more economically untenable, look for the overwhelming majority of doctors to become salaried hospital employees—many working in shifts—in the next few years. Virtually every doctor now graduating a residency program is taking a position as a salaried hospital employee.

Ten thousand people will turn 65 every day for the next 19 years, placing an even greater fiscal burden on the Medicare program.

One way CMS is trying to deal with this is by penalizing hospitals and doctors who treat patients with resistant problems. Effective this year, any patient readmitted to a hospital within 30 days of discharge for the same or a related problem will be treated by the hospital without compensation. The plan is to implement the same policy with respect to the original treating physician in the near future.

To help deal with this more definitively, an old concept with a new name is being promoted and encouraged by the Affordable Care Act: the Accountable Care Organization (ACO). The ACO harkens back to the infamous HMO capitation system of the early 1990s over which the population rebelled.

In a nutshell, hospitals, clinics, and health care providers have been given incentives to organize into teams that will get assigned groups of 5,000 or more Medicare patients. They will be expected to follow practice guidelines and protocols approved by Medicare. If they achieve certain goals established by Medicare with respect to cost, length of hospital stay, re-admissions, or other “core measures,” they will get to share a portion of Medicare’s savings. If the reverse happens, they will face economic penalties.

Private insurance companies are currently setting up the non-Medicare version of the ACO. These will be sold in the federally subsidized exchanges mandated by the Affordable Care Act. In this model, there are no fee-for-service payments to providers. Instead, an ACO is given a lump sum, or “bundled” payment for the entire care for a large group of insurance beneficiaries. The ACOs are expected to follow the same Medicare-approved practice protocols, but all of the financial risks are assumed by the ACOs. If the ACOs keep costs down, the team of providers and hospitals reap the financial reward: a surplus from the lump sum payment. If they lose money, the providers and hospitals eat the loss.

In both the Medicare and non-Medicare varieties of the ACO, cost control and compliance with centrally-planned practice guidelines are the primary goal. The hospital and provider networks will live or die by these objectives.

When almost all health care providers are salaried employees of hospitals, hospitals might then be able to get ACOs to work better than their ancestor HMOs. The hospital administrators will have more control over their medical staff. If doctors don’t follow the protocols and guidelines, and desired outcomes are not reached, hospitals can replace the “problem” doctors.

So where does all this place the medical profession with respect to its ethical credo? In a few years, almost all doctors will be employees of hospitals and will be ordered to practice medicine according to federally prescribed guidelines—guidelines that put the best interests of the state ahead of the interests of individual patients.

When the physician’s primary obligation is to satisfy the wishes of the payer—ultimately the wishes of the state—how can patients be truly confident in their doctors’ decisions?

I submit that it all boils down to a question of professional ethics.

The medical profession must decide—and soon—which ethical doctrine to follow: Are doctors to be agents of their patients or agents of the state? All of us should dread the latter choice—because we will all be patients some day.

Jeffrey Singer practices general surgery in Phoenix, Arizona, writes for Arizona Medicine, the journal of the Arizona Medical Association (Goldwater Institute)

Obama Memo on the Obamacare Case at the Supreme Court:

WHERE’S MY RECOVERY?

Today, over 4 years since the recession started, there are still almost 24 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. That includes 5.6 million who are long-term unemployed for 27 weeks, or more than 6 months, the highest since the Great Depression. The number of Americans employed part-time for economic reasons was still 8.1 million. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) says, “These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

Another 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. The BLS says, “These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”

African Americans have been suffering an outright depression under Obama, with unemployment today, 51 months after the recession started, still over 14%. Black unemployment has been over 14% for Obama’s entire term in office. Black teenage unemployment today is still nearly 35%, where it has persisted for Obama’s entire term as well.

Hispanics have also been suffering a depression under Obama, with unemployment today still in double digits at nearly 11%, where it has also persisted for Obama’s entire term. Over one fourth of Hispanic youths remain unemployed today, which also has persisted for years.

The Census Bureau reported last September that more Americans are in poverty today than at any time in the entire 51 year history of Census tracking poverty. Americans dependent on food stamps are at an all time high as well. White House spokesman Jay Carney recently tried to blame the Republicans for that, saying that it was their policies of deregulation that caused the recession. But actually it was liberal policies of overregulation forcing the looting of the banks for subprime loans under threat of discrimination suits that caused the recession. See, e.g. Paul Sperry, The Great American Bank Robbery.

Moreover, it was Obama’s responsibility to foster a timely, robust recovery restoring traditional American prosperity. Where is that? The absence of that is because Obama doesn’t believe in traditional American anything. (American Spectator)

The New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness has released a new document entitled “Terrorism Awareness and Prevention”. The paper is aimed at raising awareness on how New Jersey residents can help combat terrorism, including tips on how to spot signs of suspicious activities and behaviors.

So what are these suspicious behaviors? “Look for signs of nervousness in the people you come in contact with.” This includes “exaggerated yawning when in a conversation,” “repetitive touching of face,” “increased breathing rate,””unusual perspiration,” “excessive fidgeting,””trembling” and “goose bumps.” Though some might say these are all completely natural body reactions, the document says otherwise.

While pacing around and being jumpy is also listed as a potential indicator of malicious intent, standing still in a rigid posture also fits the bill of terrorist intent. So what should you do to avoid getting flagged as a potential enemy of the state? Stand still, or gesture profusely? In reality, there’s probably not much you can do.

You’re just toast.

Hot dogs. Bison Wellington. Baby back ribs.

President Barack Obama is roaming all over the culinary map this week.

The president made a lunchtime detour to a barbeque and ribs joint Thursday on his way back to the White House after a speech about energy policy.

The president came away from Texas Ribs & BBQ with a takeout bag containing 2 slabs of baby back ribs and a brisket sandwich with fries.

Earlier in the week, Obama downed a hotdog at an NCAA basketball game in Ohio. And on Wednesday, he dined on bison at a fancy state dinner.

So “Let’s Move”!! 🙂

ANOTHER TSA UPDATE

Passengers at airports can now avoid TSA pat downs, long lines and can carry liquids on board by paying $100.

However, the TSA’s new fast track ‘Precheck’ screening is likely to rile the family of a wheel-chair bound toddler who was recently subjected to invasive security checks.

Unlike the background check passengers in the scheme, who will be able to skip screening, the three-year-old was stopped at O’Hare Airport in Chicago.

‘We can reduce the size of the haystack when we are looking for that one-in-a-billion terrorist,’ TSA Administrator John Pistole told the Journal.

And a Three year old in a wheelchair is definitely a candidate for that 1 in a Billion!
So you just have to bribe them a $100 bucks! Gee…
FAST & FURIOUS

Breitbart.com has uncovered video from 1995 of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

Holder was addressing the Woman’s National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to “change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC” about guns.

“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”

Liberal leopards don’t change their spots.
Now don’t you feel better about Obamacare, The TSA, Security and The Economy! 🙂
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Greed

I went to the movies yesterday. I saw “I Want Your Money” http://www.iwantyourmoney.net/

Every American should see this movie.

I Want Your Money Poster - Click to View Extra Large Image

But admittedly, it will make Liberals and Progressives explode, it has some harsh words for Republicans especially after 2003 when they did become Democrats and how we can’t afford that again.

But the big one that I thought was really fascinating was: Greed.

The Liberals have made this their center post for most of my life and they especially have made it the big focus now that they stand on the precipice of not having it like they did or not at all.

What is Greed?

And one of the questions raised in the documentary,” Name me one society that is not based on greed?”

That’s a more profound question than it looks because if you’re truly honest with yourself and with others you already know the real answer.

None.

It doesn’t exist.

So using “greed” as a political weapon is dishonest at best.

The liberals and the progressives are greedy. There just greedy with your money.

They are greedy for their own power.

And their class warfare against “the rich” is just using your greed to further theirs.

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money [to spend].” (attributed to many people).

And we’ve run out of money period. But yet, Obama and crew still want to spend even more. They don’t know any other way.

Greed is a pernicious thing.

We all do it.

I do it.

Getting “something for free” is a form of greed because nothing tangible is ever free.

Just yesterday I saw a new version of the Andy Griffith Health Care pimp-me commercial talking about all the “free” stuff that Medicare patients were going to get under ObamaCare.

That’s disingenuous at best, and a lie at worst.

1) If Doctors stop taking Medicare patients then you’re screwed. And they are.

2) the “free” service has to be paid by someone. That someone being you. it’s called the premium. That shared risk pool money you pay for insurance.

So they are being greedy with your money.

And Medicare is going to be cut by $500 Billion (at least according to the bill), especially Medicare Advantage.

Do Democrats tout that one? Of Course not!

And then the Democrats go after “the rich” and make you envious of them.

That’s a form of greed. Because you lust after their money. You covet their money. The money they’ve earned and you haven’t.

Mind you, Democrats have plenty of “rich” people backing them and plenty of  Unions that are International entities (AFL-CIO and SEIU just to name 2) and could get money from foreign sources.

But they aren’t going to mention it.

And neither will the Ministry of Truth Media.

Why would they. They are playing on your emotions. They are manipulating you. Why point out their duplicity. 🙂

Welfare is greedy.

You’re being paid by other people’s labor.

So, name me a society free of greed.

It doesn’t exist.

So when the Democrats trot out class warfare and  proclaim piously how they are for the working man and the poor against “the rich” and the”greedy” laugh in their both of their two faces!!

Just this weekend: “They’re fighting back. The empire is striking back. To win this election, they are plowing tens of millions of dollars into front groups. They are running misleading negative ads all across the country.”-President Obama

And Democrats aren’t?

What about his front groups like Moveon.Org (Foreign Billionaire George Soros), The SEIU, The AFL-CIO, The UAW, Media Matters, and on and on and on??

What of their nothing but negative ads??

And where is the “fair” media. The “journalists”??

They are in bed with Obama. Incestuously so.

Have  you seen any of this out of Katie Couric? Or Brian Williams? Or Diane Sawyer?

No. And you won’t either.

“I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of, you know, fat-cat bankers on Wall Street,” President Barack Obama told CBS’ “60 Minutes.” He also has decried the “arrogance and greed” and “excess greed, excess compensation” of America’s business executives.

Top Democrats like Obama constantly denounce private avarice. But when the fat cats are feds, not financiers, they go silent. To leading Democrats, government greed is good.

Just as Wall Street and corporate America relentlessly pursue profits, Congress and federal bureaucrats possess a ravenous hunger for trillions of tax dollars to fuel lavish spending schemes, underwrite gluttonous public salaries and benefits, and seize increasing power.

These days, the wallets of many American taxpayers feel like helium balloons. Yet Washington always wants more.

A post-election, Democrat-led, lame-duck congressional session may tax “the rich” ― specifically, individuals who earn north of $200,000 annually and married couples who make above $250,000.

If so, top tax rates would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Remember: These disgusting plutocrats are expected to pay higher taxes and simultaneously hire the unemployed.

Furthermore, the capital gains tax could jump from 15 percent to 20 percent (rising to 23.8 percent in 2013, thanks to ObamaCare), and the dividends tax could soar from 15 percent to 39.6 percent. This also would snatch growth capital from the productive sector.

The Death Tax now dead could be resurrected at 55 percent on estates exceeding $1 million. If key Democrats prevail, they would slam this sickly economy with at least $678 billion in higher taxes, the National Taxpayers Union estimates.

Meanwhile, as Americans miss mortgage payments, shutter businesses and abandon their dreams, it’s happy hour for government employees. What reformist Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey properly calls “shared sacrifice” means something completely different in Washington: The American people sacrifice, and the feds share in the proceeds.

As the Heritage Foundation calculates, between December 2007 (the start of the Great Recession) and July 2010, private-sector employment shrank by 7,837,000 positions, or 6.8 percent.

However, federal civilian employment grew by 198,000 positions, or 10 percent, not counting temporary Census workers. In 2009, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports, private-sector salaries and benefits averaged $61,051.

The federal-civilian figure? $123,049 ― more than double. Also, the Office of Personnel Management found that between December 2007 and June 2009, the number of federal employees earning at least $170,000 zoomed 93 percent.

As if devouring your money were not enough, Washington also sticks its collective snout everywhere. The feds have ordered New York City to change 250,900 street signs from ALL CAPS to caps and lower case, supposedly because “BROADWAY” is tougher to read than “Broadway.”

Rather than invite D.C. to SHOVE IT, Mayor Michael Bloomberg rolled over and appropriated $27.6 million to obey Washington’s latest edict. This sum could pay 219 rookie cops their $41,975 starting salaries for three years. (Deroy Murdock in Korea Times)

But the Democrats aren’t “greedy”. 🙂

It’s only Republicans and non-Democrats who are “greedy” for both money and power. 🙂

Don’t believe me? Just ask them…