“For The Children”…Vatican Style

•March 10, 2009 • 1 Comment

I have my own personal reasons for disliking organized religions.  I also have my own first hand experienced reasons for hating the Catholic Church.  They are entitled to their positions, it is their God-given right.  But so am I.  The difference is, I don’t try to force them to live by my personal beliefs, whereas they try to force all of to live by theirs.

I heard a piece of a story on CNN yesterday, though missed the bulk of it.  An internet search tonight found the world talking about this case.

A nine-year old girl, in Brazil, is raped by her step-father, ends up pregnant, with twins.  The doctors find she is too small to handle carrying and giving birth to one child, but two would kill her.  Her mother and doctor feel that abortion is the only thing to do.  Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases where the mothers life is in danger, or rape.  This girl met both those conditions, even leaving out the fact that she’s ONLY nine.

So what is the Church’s reaction?  In their tolerant, loving, understanding, following Jesus Christ manner……………………the mother, doctor and everyone else who in any way assisted and allowed this abortion is to be excommunicated!  Personally, I don’t really find this to be such a bad thing, but that’s just me.  According to CNN even the Pope had his say in this matter, which of course was just backing up the Church of Brazil.

The church at least had the good grace to take the girl’s age into consideration and felt she didn’t deserve to be excommunicated.  Too bad they don’t think her age is important enough regarding the pregnancy and death sentence they wanted to force on her.

And just to add insult to injury?  There is NO mention in any of the articles about the low-life male who was her step-father being excommunicated.  So this just confirms what I’ve always believed religious folks think, in the eyes of the Church, a man can rape and impregnate his child/step-child/any child/woman and it’s ok, just don’t let that child/woman have an abortion to save to her life.  Talk about disgusting and twisted!

By Gary Duffy
BBC News, Sao Paulo

A Brazilian archbishop says all those who helped a child rape victim secure an abortion are to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

The girl, aged nine, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, became pregnant with twins.

It is alleged that she had been sexually assaulted over a number of years by her stepfather.

The excommunication applies to the child’s mother and the doctors involved in the procedure.

The pregnancy was terminated on Wednesday.

Abortion is only permitted in Brazil in cases of rape and where the mother’s life is at risk and doctors say the girl’s case met both these conditions.

Police believe that the girl at the centre of the case had been sexually abused by her step-father since she was six years old.

The fact that she was pregnant with twins was only discovered after she was taken to hospital in Pernambuco complaining of stomach pains.

Read the FULL STORY here.

According to the various stories I found, this same man also raped this girls older and disabled 14-year old sister.  And the Church has not said one word, not one, about this man’s actions.  But then why should I expect them to, they consistently try to cover up all their priest who sexually molest/abuse little boys.

I’m not sure what has me more disgusted the man raping the child or the church not caring about the child’s life.

“What would Jesus Do?” is a question they should be asking themselves.  The dogma they spout is nauseating as is the blindness of these people who think they know what is best for everyone.

They care more about a fertilized egg or two in a womb than they  do in a living, breathing, walking this earth human being.  That child will carry the scars of the sexual abuse and rape with her for her entire life.  They are not even worried about that.

And people wonder why I hate organized religions so much!   No room for understanding, forgiveness, exceptional cases.  Bunch of hypocrites!

Karma!  That’s all I can say and I’m glad I won’t have theirs.


Advertisements

Harassment or Boredom?

•March 7, 2009 • 3 Comments

You can’t make some of this stuff up!  Honestly!  The nannyism going on in the world today has definitely gotten out of hand.

From the UK, I bring you what could possibly happen if a police officer is bored working in what obviously must be a crime-free town:

Motorist stopped by police for laughing

A motorist was stopped by a police officer and questioned because he was laughing at the wheel.

Motorist stopped by police for laughing

When Mr Saunders got out of his car, the policeman told him: ‘Laughing while driving a car can be an offence.’ Photo: ELEANOR BENTALL

Gary Saunders, a company director, was using a hands-free phone when he burst out laughing at a joke told by his brother-in-law, who he was talking to.

A few moments later he noticed a traffic officer flashing his lights at him and gesticulating at him to stop his Renault.

When Mr Saunders got out of his car, the policeman told him: “Laughing while driving a car can be an offence.”

The officer spent half an hour questioning his suspect before reluctantly allowing him to carry on his way.

However, he took another hour-and-a-half of Mr Saunders’ time by ordering him to produce his licence and other documents at a police station.

Mr Saunders, the managing director of Spontex Workwear, of Liverpool, said the delay meant that he missed an important appointment.

“I couldn’t believe it when he told me I’d been pulled over for laughing,” he said.

“I was driving very safely in the Birkenhead Tunnel and took a call.

“He said something funny and I was laughing – simple as that. I never took my eyes off the road and was in full control of the car.

“I definitely wasn’t speeding so I asked what the problem was and he told me I was laughing too much.”

Now, I’m fully aware of the fact that just about anything can be  distraction while driving.  I’m also fully aware of the fact that the majority of us know this AND are responsible enough to NOT allow distractions to actually distract us to the point of being irresponsible.   Personally, I think having kids in the car with you is one of the most distracting things you can do, but I don’t hear about that being an offense.

You really have to wonder if they officer was in a bad mood and looking to harass someone or if he was just so terribly bored he needed something to do.  Worst case cause would be he had to meet a ticket quota.

But wait, it gets better:

He went on: “The officer accused me of throwing my head back in a dangerous way, which I denied since it is definitely not something I do.

“It became a bit ridiculous when he wanted to know the colour of my hair as I have alopecia and there isn’t a hair on my head.

“When I pointed this out he asked: ‘What colour was your hair when you had some?’

“It went from ludicrous to unbelievable. He definitely had a bee in his bonnet about something and I got the brunt of it.

“In the end he reluctantly admitted that he had nothing he could accuse me of, but still required me to take my documents to the station.”

© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2009

WHAT exactly does the color of his – or lack of as the case may be – have to do with any of this?  Nothing, that’s what!  This officer was just in the mood to give someone a hard time I think.

You can read the FULL STORY here.

There’s just nothing else I can say about this as it is just too ‘way out there’ for even me…..LOL

Happy Saturday everyone!!  And don’t forget “NO LAUGHING WHILE DRIVING“!

Government Controlling Invitro Fertilization?

•March 5, 2009 • 6 Comments

I’ve tried really, really hard to ignore writing anything about the “Octomom”.  Honestly, I did try!  But the more I hear, the more I can’t ignore it.

The office I work in has CNN on TV all day long, and of course I sit right there.  I won’t go on a rant about how all the anchors sound “screechy” and how some days my poor ears just can’t take it; which is why I try tuning it out as much as possible.  But every now and then, something comes through that catches my attention.

I will admit that I love Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty.  It amazes me that they are allowed to say the things they do say, given that I’ve noticed how biased and one sided the “news” is on CNN.  Anyway, one of Jack Cafferty’s commentary’s/questions earlier this week was related to the “Octomom” (as she’s been dubbed) as her actions have spawned some new legislation being considered in a couple of states to limit the number of embryos that can be implanted at one time:

Octuplets’ birth spawns bills limiting embryos

Women under 40 could have no more than 2 embryos implanted at one time

updated 5:05 p.m. MT, Wed., March. 4, 2009

ATLANTA – Lawmakers in two states, outraged by the birth of octuplets to a California mother, are seeking to limit the number of embryos that may be implanted by fertility clinics.

The legislation in Missouri and Georgia is intended to spare taxpayers from footing the bill for women having more children than they can afford. But critics say the measures also would make having even one child more difficult for women who desperately want to become mothers.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Read the FULL STORY here.

According to the story, these implantations cost upwards of $10,000 per session:

Supporters say the bill would cut down on the number of unused embryos. But opponents argue that would severely limit the options of women paying $10,000 to $15,000 for each fertility cycle.

Now, since this whole circus began, and it has slowly come out that Nadya is, in fact, on welfare; the one question I have not heard asked is “how did she afford the implantation?”  I mentioned this to my roommate tonight, who promptly told me she heard on one of the news reports that Nadya claims to have used her severance pay from her last job to pay for it.   I’d love to know what job that was that gives out such hefty severance pay.  So I did a search to see if I could find that answer.  No luck really.  Some say she was on disability.  Again, nice that disability pays so well? I wonder why my roommate’s disability doesn’t pay that well?  Who knew that disability paid so much that someone could afford a $10,000 doctor’s visit?

But seriously, why would any ethical doctor, whether he treated her all along or not, implant so many embryos into a woman who had NO income, 6 children under the age of 7 at home already?

And because of her selfishness, stupidity, delusions; and her doctor’s unethical and negligent actions, lawmakers now want to control IVF treatments for every other woman – innocent and responsible women no less – so that their states’ won’t get stuck paying the bills that California is now saddled with to support Nadya and her 14 children.

Here’s Jack Caffety’s commentary/question regarding this topic:

March 4, 2009

Should government limit embryo implants?

Posted: 06:00 PM ET

From CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

The California woman who had octuplets to go with the six children she already had continues to stir debate around the country. The latest comes from Georgia, where lawmakers want to prevent the same thing from happening in their state.

Should government limit embryo implants?

A Georgia state senator has introduced a bill limiting the number of embryos that can be used during in-vitro fertilization.

A state senator has introduced a bill that would limit the number of embryos that can be implanted in a woman’s uterus during in-vitro fertilization. He doesn’t want taxpayers to have to end up paying for raising children that result from multiple births if the parents can’t afford it.

The limits would be two embryos for a woman under 40 and 3 for a woman older than 40. These numbers are slightly lower than what’s considered normal by most doctors. Breaking the law could result in a fine of up to one-thousand dollars.

And it’s not just Georgia. Missouri is considering a similar bill and laws just like this are already on the books in England and Italy.

Some fertility doctors suggest the proposed legislation would hurt a woman’s chance of getting pregnant, that there are special cases where they need more than 3 embryos.

Critics also suggest this bill is a backdoor effort to ban abortion. That’s because the bill says “a living in vitro human embryo is a biological human being who is not the property of any person or entity.”

It’s not likely to pass in Georgia anytime soon because of a crowded legislative calendar, but the fact that it’s being discussed at all is cause for alarm in some circles.

Here’s my question to you: Should the government limit the number of embryos a woman can have implanted?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

You can read some of the responses HERE.

The responses he got were of course mixed.  Some people said YES and some said NO!  Go figure….LOL   But the question and responses got me to thinking hard.   Of course my first reaction was of course they should if the woman is on welfare.   That makes perfect sense to me.  Then again, exactly how does someone on welfare afford in-vitro fertilization?

This is where my conflict comes in though.  If you are collecting welfare, disability, whatever, you are basically being supported by the taxpayers.  And while I don’t believe that has to mean the taxpayers get to decide what you can and cannot do, I do think it means that you are less free to make choices if those choices deliberately end up costing the taxpayer even more.   I’m not a fan of government intrusion as it is, and definitely NOT wanting government intruding into MY personal life choices at all!!!!  I couldn’t live that way.  And yet, I would feel obligated to if the very basics of my life’s needs were being paid for by others.

One of the responses Jack got, was the perfect response.  The writer said that the government had NO place legislating this, but that the states needed to re-vamp their welfare programs.  This is so very true.  Some people fall on hard times and require a helping hand, however, that hand shouldn’t be only feeding them indefintely, but instead helping them learn to feed themselves again, so they can once again stand on their own two feet.  Welfare was never supposed to be a career or heirloom passed from generation to generation.

I’ve always said that if you need to apply for welfare, then what you received when you applied is all you should ever be allowed….except for maybe cost of living increases.  However many children you have at that time, you could receive monies/food stamps for, but that you should not receive more just for having another child or three.  The only exception I can see to this is if you are already pregnant when you apply, OR you were raped and can’t bring yourself to have an abortion.  Other than that, there is NO excuse for expecting the hard working taxpayers to continually and endlessly pay for your pregnancies, and children.

I’ve heard that medicare (which is usually part of the welfare/food stamps package) does not pay for birth control.  THAT makes no sense to me.  It is far less expensive to cover the price of a woman’s birth control pill/method than it is to pay for her repeated pregnancies, births, child-raising for 18 years.

So, my response to these legislators in Missouri, Georgia and any other state, considering this outrageous intrusion, would be to look at your own states’ welfare program and fix it!

If something is broke you fix it, you don’t pass new laws to pretend something isn’t broken.  And you don’t pass new laws that infringe on the people’s right to make their own choices in life.

Learn to enforce your existing laws.  Learn to create laws that make sense and don’t infringe upon responsible people.  Learn to audit and/or oversee the agencies responsible watching that clinics operate properly.

Just once, I’d like to see these irresponsible people pay for their actions instead of us innocent, responsible people!

21st Century “Scarlet Letter”

•February 26, 2009 • 2 Comments

Do you remember “The Scarlet Letter”?

The Scarlet Letter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Scarlet Letter (1850) is a novel written by Nathaniel Hawthorne. It is considered his magnum opus. Set in 17th-century Puritan Boston, it tells the story of Hester Prynne, who gives birth after committing adultery and struggles to create a new life of repentance and dignity. Throughout the novel, Hawthorne explores themes of legalism, sin, and guilt.

The novel takes place in 17th-century Boston, Massachusetts during the summer, in a then Puritan village. A young woman, Hester Prynne, is led from the town prison with her infant daughter in her arms and on the breast of her gown “a rag of scarlet cloth” that “assumed the shape of a letter. It was the capital letter A”. The scarlet letter “A” represents the act of adultery that she has committed and it is to be a symbol of her sin – a badge of shame – for all to see.

Jump ahead to the 21st Century and real life, NOT a novel, presents us with an updated version using the premises of this well known novel:

Bill calls for special Louisiana licenses, plates for drug dealers

By Mike Hasten • Louisiana Gannett News • February 16, 2009

BATON ROUGE — If drug dealers want to stay in business after being arrested more than once, they should have to let the world know what they are, says a Lafayette lawmaker who says he’s tired of seeing drug deals and their effects in his neighborhood.

Rep. Rickey Hardy, D-Lafayette, has pre-filed HB11, which would require second-offense drug dealers to carry special driver’s licenses and put brightly colored license plates on their cars.

“I’m pushing for it to be bright orange,” said Hardy, who envisions that if dealers know they could face such a stigma, they might get out of the trade.

“Drugs destroy communities and destroy families,” he said.

“They lead to rape, murder, burglaries, drive-by shootings and the list goes on and on. We can no longer defend the drug dealers. We need to do something about them.”

Hardy said the intent of his bill is “to embarrass them. If they don’t want to be upstanding citizens, make them stand out. They want a badge of honor? Here it is.”

Copyright ©2009 The News Star

Read the FULL STORY here.

Now, before anyone asks me “what’s wrong with that?”, let me state that my first thought was YES!!! That lasted all of about 2 seconds before I realized the implications, and path this could take.

The article mentions about the wife who may have to also use the dealers’ car and the kids riding in it being stigmatized. The legislator’s response is that since they are benefiting from the dealers’ activities they can wear the same shame. What IF the wife doesn’t know he was dealing drugs to start with? Seriously, consider that a moment. And not for nothing, but I don’t think the sins of the father should be forced upon the innocent children (who have NO choice or control about who their parents are and what they do).

From here, you can see they could do the same thing with sex offenders, murderers, thieves, etc. Do you honestly think they will stop with drug dealers? There will always be someone out there trying to shame/stop someone else for/from doing something that mr/ms “I am perfect you need to live as I do” doesn’t like.

Before you know it, we all will be bearing the “mark of sin” for something or other.

Granted, drug dealers are the scum of the earth as far as I’m concerned. Yet I feel our government, and the puritanical nannies that never seem to disappear, helped fuel this problem. Personally, if they legalized this stuff, they could tax it. Think of the revenue THAT would bring in, not to mention the billions of dollars, of taxpayers’ money, that could be saved that are currently wasted on the failure known as the “war on drugs”. The enforcement people at the DEA could be put to better use fighting other crimes, helping protect our borders, maybe even working with the FDA to do the job they have trouble doing….protecting our food! There’d be no job loss if the DEA were disbanded, they could all be reassigned to other areas where good help is really needed.

So while part of me applauds this man’s gumption with this idea; a greater part of me sees the implications and where it could lead.

I also have to wonder, are all the problems in Louisiana taken care of that this man feels it wise to pursue this with taxpayer dollars?

Mandating Health Insurance Behind Closed Doors

•February 24, 2009 • Leave a Comment

If certain politicians, lobbyists, insurance companies, the medical profession and pharmaceutical corporations get their way, having health insurance will not only be our individual responsibility, BUT IT WILL BE A MANDATORY OBLIGATION as well.  And there is talk of actually punishing, via special taxation, anyone who does not have health insurance if they are able to.

AND these discussions and plans are being made secretly:

Behind closed doors

How many Americans knew that since last fall, key stakeholders in the health insurance industry and lobbyists for a wide range of interests in managed care have been secretly meeting with Democratic staff of Senator Edward Kennedy, working to develop the terms for legislating universal health insurance? As the New York Times reports, the talks taking place behind closed doors are unusual. Staff aides said that anyone who revealed the details of the group’s plans outside the secret meetings have been threatened with expulsion.

Reporter Robert Pear writes:

The ideas discussed include a proposal to penalize people who fail to comply with the “individual obligation” to have insurance. “There seems to be a sense of the room that some form of tax penalty is an effective means to enforce such an obligation, though only on those for whom affordable coverage is available,” said the memorandum, prepared by David C. Bowen, a neurobiologist who is director of the health staff at the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

Now, I’m fully aware of the importance of health insurance.  Most especially if you are one who needs to see a doctor several times a year, has medication to be regulated and taken, or was in an accident or has terminal illness.  Yet, how many stories do we hear about people with health insurance who still end up losing everything due to medical bills because the health insurance doesn’t or won’t cover their medical expenses.  What good is having health insurance then?

Then you have someone like me, I see a doctor once a year only because I have to have my thyroid checked to get my prescription renewed.  If not for that, I wouldn’t see a doctor even that often.  I’m a healthy person, even though I smoke, I rarely get ill, let alone sick enough to need a doctor.  Yet I keep paying into my employee sponsored health insurance every month, never meeting even the lowest deductible so that one visit and lab work is always out of pocket for me.  So WHAT exactly do I have this insurance for?  Just in case?  Hell, given how insurance companies do everything they can to avoid covering your particular need, I call that a waste of money I could just put into a flexible spending acct, so it’s ready for me to use when I do need to.

According to the New York Times article Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company (bold emphasis is mine):

Many of the parties, from big insurance companies to lobbyists for consumers, doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, are embracing the idea that comprehensive health care legislation should include a requirement that every American carry insurance.

While not all industry groups are in complete agreement, there is enough of a consensus, according to people who have attended the meetings, that they have begun to tackle the next steps: how to enforce the requirement for everyone to have health insurance; how to make insurance affordable to the uninsured; and whether to require employers to help buy coverage for their employees.

The talks, which are taking place behind closed doors, are unusual. Lobbyists for a wide range of interest groups — some of which were involved in defeating national health legislation in 1993-4 — are meeting with the staff of Mr. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, in a search for common ground.

While President Obama is not directly represented in the talks, the White House has been kept informed and is encouraging the Senate effort as a way to get the ball rolling on health legislation.

Well, so much for transparency in this administration!

IF health insurance were affordable, they wouldn’t have to think about making it a law and mandating it.  If you’re let go from your job, you are usually offered the chance to get COBRA, as I was when I left my job in NYC to relocate here to Phoenix.  It was only going to cost me about $400 a month, and they wanted 2 months payment up front.  Someone explain to me how anyone NOT working can afford that?  Needless to say, I was without insurance (which I really didn’t notice) for a few months until I found a good job.

Some participants in the talks said Congress should specify the benefits. But “the sense of the room seemed to be” that Congress should leave details to a group of experts, according to the memorandum.

Under this proposal, the experts would define the minimum coverage “within statutory parameters” set by Congress. Insurers might be allowed to offer different benefits with the same overall value.

The group has also been discussing the possibility that federal standards “may supersede state benefit mandates.”

I don’t know about you, but the thought of politicians setting standards parameters disturbs me.  I mean, they’ve pretty much shown that they don’t have a whole lot of love or respect for us simple taxpayers.

While I totally agree that healthcare costs are out of control and health insurance costs are not affordable to the average person privately, I find my heels digging in over this idea of actually mandating that every one have health insurance, and if you can afford it on your own and don’t have it, you will be punished.

Maybe it’s a rebellious streak in me, but I’m fed up with these people dictating MY private life choices this way.

Make insurance affordable to the average low-middle income person and we will more than likely choose on our own to have health insurance.  Try to FORCE me, and I WILL resent it, and fight back.

If You’re Camera Shy

•February 22, 2009 • 2 Comments

Don’t go to England! They have cameras all over the place. All in the name of safety, mind you. Ignore the fact that the cameras don’t actually stop any crimes from happening, and don’t really aid in arresting the culprits they do catch on cameras. But hey! At least you think your safe!

Well England is taking it to the next level. Why? Well apparently they are as incapable of enforcing certain laws as we are here in the States, so their answer, in this really trying economy with everyone including governments being flat out broke, is to spend MORE taxpayer money to install MORE cameras inside stores that sell alcohol. They want to cut down on the number of minors who buy alcohol.

Buying some wine? Spy cameras will be watching

By James Slack
Last updated at 1:43 AM on 21st February 2009

© 2009 Associated Newspapers Ltd

Big Brother CCTV cameras are to be fitted inside shops and supermarkets on the orders of the state to keep track on anybody buying alcohol.

A law is being quietly pushed through Parliament giving councils the power to order licensed premises to fit the surveillance cameras. Pubs will also be covered.

The footage of people innocently buying a bottle of wine in a shop or a pint of beer in a bar must be stored for at least 60 days, and be handed over to the police on demand.

CCTV camera

Anyone buying alcohol – in pubs, shops and supermarkets – will be monitored by CCTV cameras

Critics say it will mean that citizens will now be tracked everywhere they go. The UK already has more than four million closed-circuit TV cameras covering the streets – the largest number in the world.

Cars are also automatically monitored using cameras that check registration plates. Now shops and pubs will also be covered.

The measures form part of the Policing and Crime Bill, but have not been highlighted by Ministers.

Under a code of conduct, which will be enforced by the Bill, any business that intends to sell alcohol will have to agree to install the cameras.

Phil Booth, of the NO2ID privacy campaign, said: ‘We are already a country with more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the civilised world, but this law is systemising the surveillance of a nation. People will be treated like suspects wherever they go.’

James Brokenshire, a Tory home affairs spokesman, said: ‘The risk is that these provisions could be used as a way to impose blanket CCTV requirements where they just aren’t necessary. This mustn’t be another way of extending the surveillance society by the back door.’

Earlier this week, the Mail revealed how police were warning pubs they would not support their licensing applications unless they agreed to train the intrusive cameras on their customers.

The first blanket policy has been introduced in the London borough of Islington, where all applicants wanting a licence to sell alcohol are being told they must fit CCTV.

Other forces are adopting similar tactics. But the planned new law goes much further, as it will allow councils – which ultimately hand out all licences – to insist on the CCTV cameras.

Ministers have also been restricting the public’s right to ‘watch the watchers’.

Earlier this week, a law came into force which carries a maximum ten-year jail term for anybody taking a picture of a police officer if it is ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.

Home Office Minister Alan Campbell, who is piloting the CCTV measure through the Commons, recently admitted that he couldn’t remember the last time he was in a pub.

Mark Hastings, spokesman for the British Beer and Pub Association, said: ‘It’s an extraordinary admission from someone who is proposing measures that, on the Government’s own admission, will cost the pub sector hundreds of millions of pounds a year.

‘It shows how disconnected he is from the realities of what it’s like trying to stay in business in the current environment.’

What really caught my attention in this article though was at the end. I’ve bolded it here:

The Home Office said the clause in the Bill was intended to allow police and councils to target premises where problems were occurring, such as underage sales.

It was not meant to penalise businesses that act responsibly. It will be up to councils to decide which premises must have cameras, and they will be trained on the areas where alcohol is sold.

Excuse me, BUT if you know what premises were selling to underage people, why not just shut them down or pull their liquor license? WHY does everyone always have to be inconvenienced or punished or watched just because they can’t or won’t enforce existing laws? They do the same damned thing here too.

It is the word “was” that really caught my attention. Note they didn’t say “is intended” but “was intended”, which tells me they are just trying to soften the blow because they know that that local councils will push this more and more for even more reasons. In other words, the bill is NOT limited in scope but free to be expanded upon at will apprently.

Don’t think it won’t happen hear, remember earlier this month I posted about Madison, Wisconsin looking to put cameras outside of bars, supposedly to prevent fights and such.

Cameras prevent NOTHING.

Personally, I’m getting a little sick and tired of all this “for the children” crap. What is the problem with parents watching their own kids, and what’s wrong with law enforcement people actually enforcing the law as they are paid to do? Granted, teens are rebellious, and you know what? You really can’t stop them. IF they can’t get it one way, they’ll get it another. Our total failure of the “war on drugs” should be proof enough of that.

Here’s a wild idea – why not actually educate the kids to be smart and responsible? Why not actually teach them about making smart choices? And while we’re at it, why NOT insist that law enforcement actually enforce existing laws and strip liquor licenses from those establishments that you KNOW are selling to the underage? Is this really too hard to do?

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Snuck Into The ‘Stimulus’ Package

•February 18, 2009 • Leave a Comment

I really hate how our elected officials truly believe we are too stupid to see what they are doing. President Obama assured us there were NO ‘earmarks’ in the stimulus package. Now, the way I interpret that is he was assuring us that everything dollar in that package was there to help actually stimulate the economy; that there are no ‘earmarks’ for special interest pet projects that really are not necessary, at least not immediately.

Using my understanding of “no earmarks” I actually expected to find that all the money we are borrowing from China and Saudi Arabia will actually be used to help ailing businesses stay afloat so more citizens don’t lose their jobs, and also to help the citizens with more food stamps, some financial aid while looking for a new job after being dumped from the job they did have, and helping the State’s pay for some infrastructure such as teachers, fire and police, etc.

Well, in this wonderful ‘stimulus’ package, that I’m not sure we should be doing to start with, is about $3 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services. I know, you’re probably thinking “what’s so wrong about that”, aren’t you? Well, you have to read the bill to understand. To me it looks like there is NO stimulus for anyone other than the agency involved with this money. OH, and government starting to dictate our health and wellness regimen.

Sandy over at the Junkfood Science Blog did a nice breakdown on this segment of the bill. I strongly urge you to read the whole thing and then tell me this is still a good thing:

Government-oversight of healthcare — End of discussion?

As we all know, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R.1). Whether or not the enormity of this legislation, and what it means for the future of our healthcare, is understood probably depends on whether people have read the 1,434 pages of legislation and get the real meaning of words like quality, cost effective, harmonize, biosurveillance, public health, health disparities, genomics and preventive wellness.

There are seven versions of the legislation at various stages, including the final version the House approved, the Senate’s amended sections, and the most current print version for the public. There are widespread misunderstandings, rumors and healthy doses of doublespeak in the media about what the legislation says. The simplest solution is to go directly to the source.

© 2009 Sandy Szwarc


Read the FULL STORY here.

I don’t know, the words Government and oversight being used together looks like an oxymoron to me. I mean, the government couldn’t oversee itself out of a paper bag with a detailed map. I personally am not confident that they know better than I or my doctor what is best for my health.

The language is vague and many argue that it really doesn’t say that the HHS will have the final say over how your doctor treats you; but that is why government cannot be trusted. They have it worded so it doesn’t explicitly say that, but use language that actually implies they most certainly can. That is IF you really read it carefully. How many will actually do that?

What really bothers me about this though is the additional $3 Billion that will be used for a National Health IT database.

National Coordinator for Health Information Technology

For years, JFS has been warning of the plans being made for nationalized integrated Health IT, the research on its effects on patients’ clinical outcomes, costs (both financial and to lives and medical errors), the public-private stakeholder interests behind this agenda, and privacymultiple security concerns. As reviewed here, the National Coordinator for Health IT position was created in 2004. To date, it has focused efforts on mandating integrated electronic medical records for providers of care to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. and

This legislation expedites the adoption of nationalized electronic medical records with $3 billion in additional funding and empowers the Office of the National Coordinator to establish the technical standards, certify and regulate electronic medical records (EMRs) in accordance with the determinations of the Secretary of HHS and “towards a coordinated national goal.” It also “updates the Federal Health IT Strategic plan to include specific objectives.” These include mandating:

You’ll have to read the full story linked above for the rest of this. But let’s just say that the government’s idea of ‘voluntary’ is to dictate that if a hospital or doctor doesn’t comply with the EHR and/or HHS standards of care (meaning what they deem you need and not what you may really need) they may or may not get paid.

All this is supposedly going to save billions of dollars in healthcare costs and millions of lives (as IF no one will ever die again?). Sandy did another piece that shows just how such programs really don’t save anything or anyone:

Medical Homes and care coordination are tested

Older Americans who, understandably, have more chronic conditions of aging, are sadly also blamed for accounting for “disproportionately” large amounts of Medicare spending. It is sometimes thought that the increased services those suffering from chronic conditions require could be due to inadequate counseling on diet, medication, and self-care or not having ready access to medical care.

~snip~

So, in 2002, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) competitively awarded grants to 15 health care programs to study care coordination. It also contracted with Mathematica Policy Research Inc. to conduct an independent evaluation of the findings. Their conclusions were reported in the current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

~snip~

Findings

“None of the 15 programs generated net savings,” the authors found. “None of the programs reduced regular Medicare expenditures, even without the fees paid to the care coordination programs.” In fact, “for total Medicare expenditures including program fees, the treatment groups for 9 programs had 8% to 41% higher total expenditures than the control groups did, all statistically significant,” they said.

Read this FULL STORY here.

So this study found it actually increased costs rather then lowered them. The government in it’s intelligent way (and I use the word intelligent very loosely and sarcastically here) will go ahead and implement such plans anyway.

I don’t know about you, but this sure does look like ‘pork’ to me. I call THAT an ‘earmark’.

As I said when I started, “government oversight” is an oxymoron.