Our Hopeful and Change oriented President once again orates passionate demagogic and false comparisons. Recently at a speech in Grand Junction the President resorted to a common tactic - false comparisons.

"Obama Criticizes 'Scare Tactics' of Health Care Reform Critics
Aug 15, 2009 6:35 PM EDT

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. -- President Obama on Saturday criticized what he termed as the "scare tactics" of opponents to health care reform. He told a town hall meeting "what is truly scary is if we do nothing" to solve the nation's health care problems.
Obama said Americans no longer should be "held hostage by health insurance companies" that deny coverage for various reasons.
And he attempted to deflect some of the sharpest criticism of the health care bill before Congress from those who say it would mean government control over health care system.
"I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in our health care - but the point is I don't want insurance companies' bureaucrats meddling in our health care either," Obama declared, unleashing a cheer from the audience."

It is a false choice to say that rejection of his healthcare plan "...is truly scary is if we do nothing". You should reject Obama Care because it is a a experiment that will result in poorer health and economic destruction. The alternative is not to "... do nothing." It is to have a free market reform that removes both insurance control and government control. We do not have to trade a corporate task master for a government task master. Trust the people to make their own health decisions. Insist that Congress get the govenment out of Health Care. (See my last blog)

The second false choice in President Obama's speech is that to stop the "...insurance company bureaucrats meddling..." your only choice is to give that that over to a federal government regulator. A real alternative is to take control from the insurance companies and give control back to the patient.

Please save our health care system by rejecting false alternatives and insisting on real reform. Call your representative now. Ask them to stop Obama Care and help with real reform.

Most importantly PLEASE do not stop until we have a meaningful reform that will not destroy our ecomony.

I am encouraged that many of us in the United States are Hopeful that we will Change our health care system, in order to improve it. The current system proposed by the Obama administration and the Congress is the polar opposite direction that we need to go. We should all work hard (calling and writing our representatives) to defeat this disastrous experimental take over of health care and our economic system. Once defeated we should push for real, helpful change. We have the best medical care in the world. We have an overly expensive system. We have a system that is becoming less and less responsive to the patient each passing day. Lets all agree to use the current debate to help improve and fix the current problems. Now a peaceful picture and my suggestions are below the picture.




Here are the general principles to improving access, service and cost control.

1) You can not have both inexpensive and unlimited quantity of resources. You have to either limit the access to resources or pay increased amount. We need an honest and open public discussion of this principle. The current administration fabricates an unrealistic fairy tale when they insist that they can lower cost and still provide unlimited access for all your health needs. Only self deceptive wishful thinking allows you to believe that. If the administration is not a lying to us, they are it is unbelievably naive. I am not sure which is more dangerous, when they are talking about a take over of 20% of our economy.

2) To improve care and cost, the consumer (the patient) must have final and ultimate control their medical care . They must also have financial responsibility for that care. The free market works to improve quality and reduce cost when the educated consumer makes the decisions about how to spend their own money.

3) To decrease cost, there needs to be meaningful tort reform (change the laws that make suing less likely and less costly). Every physician considers whether or not they will be sued when making recommendations to patients. It is a sad but true fact. When a Professional injures a patient due to negligence, they should suffer a suit and lose that suit. When a patient has an adverse outcome, through fault of the disease or through fault of their own decisions, the physician should not have to pay. Currently the system too often results in a physician losing, simply because something bad happened. We need meaningful reform to cap awards and to better decide negligence. When a patient has a bad outcome due to their own choice or due to the process of a disease, the physician should not be held liable. In order for the free market to work, the patient needs to accept responsibility for their own choice. In order for the medical care to maintain quality, the professional must be held accountable for their negligence not the patients decision or the outcome of disease.

Here are more specific recommendations. We should have medical insurance for catastrophic illness or injury only. That means an expansion of the high deductible health insurance program already in place. We should do away with managed care. Managed care takes the choice away from the patient. The insurers should not be allowed to contract for prices or services. Physicians and Other health care providers should be required to publish costs, like restaurants advertise their menu. Consumers (patients) should be free to shop around and choose where to have medical care. Insurance should not have “networks” of providers where costs are fixed by the insurance and coverage is either “allowed” or “denied”. Medical providers should compete for patients by providing a better cost or a better service, like other business. Real competition in the free market results in lower cost and improved service. Let patients decide whom they wish to see and for how much. Some of us choose to go to McDonald's because its quick and inexpensive. Others of us choose to only eat at PF Changs, because environment, taste or service are more important. When its our dollar we pay, we make better choices.

For those who can not afford even McDonald's (ie too poor for any any medical care), I would use tax credits or rebates to offset medical costs, based on income guidelines. I would also dismantle Medicare and Medicaid. The government can provide vouchers for medical insurance purchase by the consumer, who are currently on Medicare and Medicaid. The government could also provide savings accounts to be spent on medical care within the Deductible. This would be a new savings account for persons currently on Medicare or Medicaid. Any money not spent on medical care could be carried over into the next year. If an individual saves more than their deductible, that money can be used for education or other life expenses.

All of this would have to be offset with tort reform. Without reform of the legal systems and rampant lawsuits, none of the above free market will work. Physicians and patients can not make healthy decisions without rational litigation. We should make losing lawyers and litigants pay court cost and damages for suits that are not won. There should even be allowance for counter suit for frivolous lawsuits. The lawyer would then be held accountable to not bring large harassment type lawsuits, because there would be a penalty. There also needs to be a cap on “emotional” or “punitive” damage awards for lawsuits. Damages awarded in lawsuits should be limited to actual financial loss. Perhaps if the court wishes that punitive damages be awarded the lawyers should not be able to benefit from those awards or those awards should go to charity or research. (I have not thought that one out yet.).

If we let the free market work, we can still have great quality health care. We can still maintain our safety net for senior citizens and the poor. We can hold physicians more accountable for the service and care that they provide. We can keep from further government and corporate interference in our health decisions. My suggestion is that we all work hard to defeat the current Obama planned health care initiative. Then take the momentum and lets get some meaningful reform that will not kill our economy.

After reading the Presidential Blog , I realized that I was being "fishy" in my last blog posting. I felt so guilty for subverting the President and not wanting to "Hope" for the great "Change" and degredation of your health care, that I turned myself in. I have attached my Email, to the White House. I thought you should know why I will soon be arrested for my subversive thoughts and postings. I suggest all of you who have thought badly or spoken out against the current bill... TURN YOURSELVES IN !

Here is my confession to the speech police at the White House:

From: VisitFHC [mailto:visitfhc@efamilyhealthcenter.com]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 1:11 AM
To: flag@whitehouse.gov
Cc: Kent Roberson; drroberson@efamilyhealthcenter.com; Andrea Roberson
Subject: Please investigate the following fishy stuff


I am turning myself in for the following “fishy” thoughts and publication.

(I inserted my last blog here. So as not to waste the time of those who have already read the blog. I will not reprint it. Please read my last entry now.)




You also wrote that “Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.” I suggest you investigate the following subversives who influenced my thoughts.



Margaret Chase Smith

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism: The right to criticize. The right to hold unpopular beliefs. The right to protest. The right of independent thought.



Barbara Ehrenreich:

No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.



Carl Schurz:

The peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country -- when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."



Edward R. Murrow:

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.



H. L. Mencken:

The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.



Henry Steele Commager:

Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.



Barack Obama

In a speech in June 2008, Senator Obama "...called Martin Luther King Jr. and the Abu Ghraib whistleblower patriots for pointing out injustice, and he quoted Missourian Mark Twain to applause, saying: 'Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.' "

(From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones)





Thank you, Macon Phillips, for this opportunity to be a patriot and report myself for my “Fishy” blogging. I hope reporting myself will allow us all to change our society… from the old repressive shackles of freedom of thought and speech.

I get to spend a lot of time at sports events, being the father of 5 athletes. So last year I found myself at a baseball game with my 10 year old son. His coaches have the team warm up about one hour prior to the game. So while I was detachedly watching our team warm up, I noticed the other team was warming up as well. I began to "eye the competition". They looked okay, but not nearly as good as our team. It looked like a good day for a win. I noticed the coach, Mr O'Dell. I knew him, he has been a good coach, and he is on the baseball league board. We had talked a few times about the baseball league. He was a really likable guy. He is pationate about youth baseball. Most of the parents liked him and his team seemed to respond well to his coaching. The more I watched, I noticed that he had a few good players, but a lot of rookies. I was beginning to think that we would not have much trouble winning this game. I just hoped it would not be a blow out. However, I had heard that this team had 12 wins and no losses. They sure did not look that good.

My phone rang, disturbing my musing. I was on call. As I answered my cell phone, I walked away forgetting about the teams that were warming up. The call from my answereing service was not a very intense medical need, but seemed to take forever to get sorted out. It was the kind of free care that I provided every day. By the time I finished the phone call the game had started. I wandered over the the stands. Our team was up to bat, in the first inning. I noticed that there was only one umpire. Usually there was two; one in the field and one behind the plate. Today, there was just one behind the plate. I had missed our first batter. He had struck out already. Our second batter was in trouble. The pitch was way wide, but the umpire called it a strike. Not a good call ... but as I always teach my kids, nobody is perfect. You will get a few bad calls. Some of the parents on my side started to grumble. Our next batter came up. Three pitches were thrown and three strikes were called. There was more grumbling from the stands. I could not make out who the umpire was, with his face guard on. I knew most of the umpires because I had watched what seemed like a thousand baseball games. This one seemed new to me.

During the next half of the inning we had more poor umpire calls. Consistently when it was a close call the umpires called it for the other side. The grumbling from our parents got louder each time.
"Didn't I tell you he would call it for his team.", said one father.
"Yeah, but our kids get to play the game and he doesn't cost much." said one of the mothers.
Just then I turned to look at the field. The umpire took off his mask. It was the other teams Coach, Mr O'Dell!
"What is going on?" I asked.
"Talk to O'Dell." came the chorus of replies from my stands.

The games continued, dismally, we lost 10 to nothing. The calls always going against our boys. Throughout the game, Mr O'Dell always remaind kind and cheerful. Each time a harsh comment came from the crowd he woud respond with a genuine smile and never fired back. You just felt like liking this guy. He was personable and ...well ... just likable. A guy you wanted to be around. I cornered him after the game and gently ask why he was both a league board member, a coach and an umpire. He explained that there had been a few complaints about a few of the hired umpires. The board, at his suggestion, had decided that it cost too much to pay the umpires. This way the board members could coach for less cost to everyone and provide a higher quality of umpiring. In fact, the board was considering lowering the enrollment fees.

"Don't you think its unfair for the game and the boys,that the people who make the rules also call the game?" , I asked.
"In fact," he replied, "we think it makes the game better. It adds competition for the umpires. It keeps them honest. It improves the competition and makes the boys work harder to win. We believe in our decision, whole heartedly. Its what this league has needed for a long time. And we had the votes to make it happen."

His response caught me off guard. He was so nice and seemed to know what he was talking about. I did not even know how to respond. I just walked away, shaking my head. It made no sense to me. How do you improve competition by rigging the system. If you are the one who makes the rules and enforces the rules, what makes that good.

The next day I called another board member, Mrs Pellagrino. I told her about my conversation with Mr O'Dell and asked her opinion.
"I am excited about this new system!", she replied, "In fact I just got off the phone with a baseball league organizer in Nevada. They are hoping to change their system to be like ours! It provides great quality control when you can make good rules, have coaches you trust teaching the rules and be sure the game gets umpired by those who care about the rules."
"How do you think it will affect the boys?" I asked.
Mrs Pelligrino went on, "They will love it once the novelty wears off. We just need to give them some time to get used to it. We have worked hard on this change. We studied it and talked it to death. I hope you can see that this change is for everyone's best."

She was not as kind and likeable as Mr O'Dell, but seemed like a reasonable lady. I wondered if maybe I had gotten it wrong. What was I missing? Was this really a good thing? It did not make sense, but the board was convinced. I decided to let it drop. Maybe it was not worth the effort to argue against this. I had other things to do. Other more pressing responsibilities.

A year passed and last month we were deciding whether or not to sign our now 11 year old son up for this year's baseball. When we called around to the various leagues we discovered that all the leagues were now using the same system. All the leagues board members were coaching teams and they were using only board members for umpires. We also discovered, without surprise, that no parents were willing to coach the teams. The only teams that had formed were coached by board members. We decided that our son would not play baseball this year. We will find another game to play.

Many of you reading this have already guessed that it is a fictional story. It would be absurd for a league to take over baseball like I described. No one would play the game. The parents would not allow it. The board members would be thrown out or the parents would start new leagues.

Yet, this is what our current federal government and its willing accomplices in the legislature wants to do to our economy. With the bailout of our economy, they now make the rules (via legislation), coach the team (by owning car companies) and umpire (by enforcing their regulations via "Czars"). The game is rigged and our freedom to compete is being stripped from us. They want to take over the game. Yet this game is not baseball, its our financial well being.

The President and the Legislature now wants to do the same with your healthcare. Our President wants to "improve" the system by adding "competition" for the insurance companies. But how can an industry compete with a government system that is regulated by the same people who make the rules. I am not a fan of the Health Insurance industry, and it is a big part of the problem. However, just look at Medicare, Medicaid, The VA, and Tricare. These are Government run systems and they are very badly run. These programs are a large part of the poor quality that we are getting in our current system. Why do you want to give more power to the same people who have messed up Medicare. The proposals that are currently before congress are a death to our health in this country. Please contact your federal representatives and ask them to vote "NO" to the current proposals. I will write more in my blog, in the future, about what kinds of fixes might be better for our healthcare.

Sometimes you scratch your head and do not know what to say. The thinking of the federal agency that administers Medicare is profoundly perplexing. During a meeting today, I found out that Medicare will not pay for the cost of an injection performed in my office. In other words I can give an injection of antibiotic, but medicare considers my cost of ordering, buying and dispensing the injection a normal part of an office visit. So when a patient comes with a skin infection, requiring an antibiotic injection. I can give an antibiotic injection ( but will not be paid for the cost of that injection) or I can send them on to the emergency room where they can get an injection. In their infinate wisdom, Medicare will pay the hospital for the cost of the antibiotic injection (when given in the Emergency Room). The cost of an Emergency Room visit to Medicare is around $300 and my visit costs Medicare around $50. Why spend $50 when you can spend $300. The fortunate Medicare patient can spend less than an hour in my office and spend half a day in the Emergency Room. Lets see, what would I chose. You might begin to understand my concern about a federally mandated health insurance system. Our president and congress was elected to bring Change. It is change, but does it make sense?