The GrassCity Gazette

[aaronman]

US trials for H1N1 Vaccine Announced

(CNN) -- In a race to beat the flu season, medical institutes across the United States will begin human trials for a new H1N1 flu vaccine starting in early August, the University of Maryland announced Wednesday.

In the hope of getting the vaccine to those who will need it most by October, the clinical trials will enroll as many as 1,000 adults and children at 10 centers nationwide, said officials at the Center for Vaccine Development at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, which will lead the effort. The trials will measure the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine.

The research is a first step toward U.S. health officials' goal of developing a safe and effective vaccine against H1N1, also known as swine flu, which has been declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization

The time frame for developing a vaccine is a tight one.

"It's going to be close," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. "I believe it can be [ready by October] if things run smoothly. We hope they will, but you never can tell when you're dealing with biological phenomena like making vaccines and administering them."

The announcement of the U.S. trials followed the announcement earlier this week, by an Australian company, CSL Ltd., of the first human trials of a swine flu vaccine.

Concern about the H1N1 virus grew after it spread quickly around the globe earlier this year.

"This virus has the potential to cause significant illness with hospitalizations and deaths during the U.S. flu season this fall and winter," said Dr. Karen Kotloff, professor of pediatrics and lead investigator and researcher at Maryland's Center for Vaccine Development. "Vaccines have always been a vital tool for controlling influenza. The results of these studies will help to guide the optimal use of the H1N1 vaccines in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world."

After careful screening, volunteers will be inoculated and then asked to keep a diary on how they feel. After eight days their blood will be checked and after 21 days they will receive another dose, followed again by diary logs and blood tests.

Patients will be monitored two months for safety issues, followed by a four-month and six-month checkup.

"The purpose of these trials is always to make sure they are safe," Kotloff said. "But even after six weeks, if things look good, we're pretty sure the vaccine will work."

She noted the response to the vaccine may vary in different age groups. "This is because young people have not seen a flu virus like this one before," she noted. "Older adults might have some immunity to the new H1N1 virus as a result of being exposed to similar flu viruses in the past. As a result, older adults might need fewer doses or a lower strength of the vaccine than younger individuals."

The vaccine at this point has been tested only in animals, where it has shown to be effective. Further trials will examine questions such as how the vaccine works in combination with the seasonal flu vaccine and whether including an adjutant, a substance that boosts the immune response to vaccines, can make it work better at lower doses.

Other trial sites along with the University of Maryland Medical Center are Baylor College of Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Emory University, Saint Louis University, Seattle Group Health Cooperative, the University of Iowa, and Vanderbilt University. They will be joined by Children's Mercy Hospital and Duke University Medical Center.

We're from the government, and we're here to help.

[aaronman]

Drug giant GlaxoSmithKline predicts swine flu gold rush

Britain's biggest pharmaceutical company is preparing to sell £3bn worth of swine flu drugs this year, it emerged today.

GlaxoSmithKline revealed its vaccine, one of the world's first, could be available by September after the UK government placed advance orders for 60m doses.

It also disclosed that international governments were stockpiling large supplies of GSK's anti-viral treatment Relenza, which can relieve swine flu symptoms.

Worldwide sales from the two drugs are expected to reach £3bn by January, but the company rejected claims it was exploiting the pandemic – stressing that profits would be much lower once development costs were taken into account.

It also said poorer nations would receive the vaccine for free with 50m doses to be donated to the World Health Organisation. More could follow, depending on demand.

The chief executive, Andrew Witty, said the company had been preparing for a pandemic for the last three-and-a-half years and had spent more than £1bn to ensure its factories could crank up production at short notice. "We don't know how big this deal is going to be, but no-one can say we aren't ready," said Witty. "We are working flat out with governments around the world to come up with a solution."

GlaxoSmithKline has also developed an anti-viral face mask, which is expected to be used by people such as "front line health workers."

Swine flu is thought to have led to the deaths of 31 people in Britain so far and further details of its rapid spread are due to be released by the NHS tomorrow.

The world's first human trials of a swine flu vaccine have begun in Australia, drug company officials said, as the global death toll from the virus rose to 700.

Two biotechnology companies have started injecting adult volunteers in the southern city of Adelaide.

In a sign of how quickly GSK is working to make sure a vaccine is available from September, the company said that "clinical trials will be limited, due to the need to provide the vaccine to governments as quickly as possible.

"Additional studies will therefore be required and conducted after the vaccine is made available."

[stoned budda]

So sad, too bad....

House Blue Dogs flex new muscle on health care
By LAURIE KELLMAN (AP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON —

Conservative-leaning Blue Dog Democrats are enjoying a power surge like no other in their 15 years, forcing President Barack Obama and their own party leaders to deal with their demands for cost cuts and tax restraints in overhauling health care.
The evidence is everywhere these days: Polls show the public shares their concerns about the cost of Obama's plan to insure all Americans who seek health coverage. Obama himself has spent valuable presidential time in private talks with these Democrats and in near-daily appeals for the public to prod Congress into action. And the group's political fund raising is peaking.
All the while, Obama and Democratic leaders have issued shout-outs to the faction of 52 House members, a sign of the clout Blue Dogs wield over some of the president's top priorities — none more than his plan to provide health care to virtually all Americans.
"I think, rightly, a number of these so-called Blue Dog Democrats — more conservative Democrats — were concerned that not enough had been done on reducing costs," Obama said Tuesday in an interview with CBS News.
That's a measure of validation for a group that spent its first decade being ignored by Republicans and tolerated by more left-leaning Democrats.
There was more.
On Wednesday, the Blue Dogs saw their organizing principle, a pay-as-you-go fiscal spending policy, pass the House by a 99-vote margin. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called a news conference to praise the group. Her second-in-command, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, thanked them from the well of the House chamber and called the group "real Democrats" at a time when they are less popular with the party's liberal flank.
"How sweet it is," said Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C.
The Blue Dogs' political action committee raised $1.1 million in the first six months of this year, more than it raised for the entire 2003-04 fundraising cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity.
Established when Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, the mostly Southern Blue Dogs named themselves for an old saying: Southerners would vote for a yellow dog if it were on the Democratic ballot. A blue dog, they reasoned, would represent a moderate or conservative who had been "choked blue" by their more liberal Democratic colleagues in the years leading up to 1994.
Political descendants of the Boll Weevils who supported President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and the states' rights Democrats before that, the Blue Dogs can now count members who represent districts as far from the South as California, Utah, Iowa and New York.
Nowadays, their power stems from the plain math in a House controlled 256-178 by Democrats. If the 52 Blue Dogs stick together and vote no on health care or any other bill Republicans oppose, the president's party doesn't have a majority.
Still, it's not yet clear whether Obama, Pelosi & Co. are merely flattering the Blue Dogs with attention and a salute to the group's top priority, fiscal discipline - or truly willing to accommodate their concerns on health care.
Pelosi says House Democrats have the votes to pass health care reform, the Blue Dogs' concerns notwithstanding.
"I'm more confident than ever," Pelosi told reporters Thursday. "The momentum is there. When the bill is ready we'll go to the floor. And we will win."
To some ears, those comments undercut the Blue Dogs' leverage in the negotiations.
Yet the Blue Dogs apparently have succeeded in shaping the legislation's development.
Their list of 10 changes they wanted made to the bill inspired Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to postpone a committee vote on it.
"I've been meeting to death, so if that has been for naught until they counted votes and just to occupy our time, I'm sorry," said Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La. "I thought we were legitimately having conversations about writing a good health care bill for America."
Health care is Obama's top legislative priority, an overhaul that could affect every American voter and employer and ranks in recent polls as the public's top concern.
But only half of Americans approve of the president's handling of the issue, slightly lower than his rating in April, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released Tuesday.
More telling: The number who disapprove jumped from 28 percent in April to 43 percent, with Obama losing support from independents. And those who have confidence in Obama's ability to reform the nation's health care system dropped from 63 percent before his inauguration in January to 56 percent now.
The AP-GfK Poll, conducted July 16-20 by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media, interviewed 1,006 adults nationwide and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Obama's "yes we can" rallying cry is qualified somewhat by his ability to keep his party together. And that means a working alliance with the Blue Dogs even as liberals in the president's party pillory the group for holding up what they say is badly needed change.
House passage Wednesday of the founding centerpiece of the Blue Dogs' agenda, the "pay-go" policy designed to keep new laws from adding to the deficit, may be just a coincidence. But it also could be a carrot that Obama and Democratic leaders hope will attract some Blue Dog votes for the health care overhaul.
That bill appeared to be on track until last week, when Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, said it lacked steps to control the costs of health care in the future, one of the Blue Dogs' biggest concerns.
Meetings on the health care bill between the Blue Dogs, Democratic leaders and the White House are continuing. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., said he spent much of Wednesday in closed-door negotiations with Waxman and planned to resume them Thursday.
"We didn't get an agreement," Ross said after Wednesday's meeting, adding that Obama's goal to have a bill passed by mid-August wasn't part of the talks.
"I refused to discuss any artificial deadlines," Ross said. "That's not part of the talks."
On the Net:

• Blue Dog Coalition: http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[AK Infinity]

YouTube - CNN's Dobbs Problem: Birther Obsession...

Like an unreasoning horse, you can lead a goon to water but you can't make them drink.

[stoned budda]

From the Atlantic.....



Jul 23 2009, 1:57 pm by Megan McArdle
Is Health Care Reform Falling Apart?

I find it hard to believe that Congress is going to get a good, substantive bill passed before the August recess. The leadership will not bring it to the floor unless it is basically guaranteed to pass. That means either buying people off with increasingly expensive giveaways, and then letting Republicans run ads in Blue Dog districts asking about the budget deficit, or a considerable amount of lengthy log-rolling and arm-twisting. Meanwhile, all Democrats who are afraid to vote for it have to do is . . . stall.


Ezra Klein makes a persuasive case that they need to deliver health care reform for the party's survival, and thus their own electoral fortunes:

Minnick represents Idaho's 1st District. He took office in 2008, after squeaking by the Republican with 50.6 percent of the vote. According to The Washington Post's vote tracker, he's the least reliable Democrat in Congress, voting with his party a mere 65 percent of the time. The question is, what should Minnick do?

The place to start, it seems, is to ask how Minnick won. And there the story is clear: He was carried in on the Democratic wave that washed through Congress in 2006 and 2008. His district is heavily Republican. But disgust with the Republican Party let him eke out a win in 2008. Minnick, however, is exactly the sort of marginal congressman who is likely to be turned out of office if voters turn against the Democrats. And they will do that if the tide turns against major Democratic initiatives and health-care reform fails and Barack Obama begins to seem less popular and Democrats like Minnick begin to distance themselves from the party.
Minnick is thus in a tricky position: His district will always be more conservative than the Democratic Party. But he needs them to not hate the Democratic Party so totally that they will vote for any Republican who runs against the specter of Obamacare. He needs, in other words, for Democrats to be successful even as he appears independent of them.
There's another former congressman who was frequently associated with the centrists and who learned this lesson rather well. Before Rahm Emanuel was Barack Obama's chief of staff, he was in Congress trying to get guys like Minnick elected. In September of 2007, he gave an interview to Politico on the lessons he learned from 1994. "You've got to have a plan for universal coverage," Emanuel said. "But you also have to have some product at the end of the process you can deliver." You may not win, in other words. But you cannot fail to pass a bill.
Emanuel has carried that lesson with him into the Obama White House. "The only thing that's not negotiable is success," he likes to say. The worst outcome for the party -- in part because it's the worst outcome for its marginal members -- is defeat. Voters punish defeat. That's what happened to Minnick's Democratic predecessor in Idaho's First District, Larry LaRocco. LaRocco captured the seat in 1990 only to lose it in 1994, the last time Democrats failed to sign a health-care reform bill. It's possible, of course, that LaRocco would have lost his seat with or without health-care reform. But it's evidence that a bill not passing was not a great outcome for Idaho's lonely Democratic congressman. If you're a centrist in a district that doesn't like Democrats and events turn your constituents further against your party, your odds of survival are very poor.

Ezra may be right. But I'm not sure. For one thing, this assumes that everyone in Minnick's district admires the Democrats for passing national health care. But let me propose a couple of alternative scenarios. One is that basically center-right districts elect Democrats because the Republicans did things they didn't like: raising taxes, raising spending, getting into costly wars in the Middle East that don't go so well. When a national health care program passes, this reminds them that delivering a gigantic raspberry to the GOP has a price. Another is that the health care plan passes, the mid-session budget review delivers the bad news that we're missing a few more percent of GDP, Republicans start running effective ads in your district about hog-wild Democratic spending. Maybe five years down the road everyone in your district is won over, but meanwhile, you, Congressman Minnick, are back to hawking shrubbery at the SummerWinds Garden Centers.
These are not precisely unlikely scenarios in the heavily Republican 1st Idaho. Congressman Minnick might well be better off distancing himself from his party and trying to ride the incumbents advantage into a second term. Best case scenario might be that your party doesn't do anything to piss the voters off; second best is that they do, but you vote against it. Neither bodes well for the bill.

That doesn't mean that Obama won't pass something. I am pretty sure that something called "health care reform" will go through Congress and be signed. But I am increasingly sure that it will be a very bad bill--larded with pork and inefficiency in order to bribe districts like Walt Minnick's into keeping him in office.

[aaronman]

Makers of Swine Flu Vaccine cannot be sued

ATLANTA — The last time the government embarked on a major vaccine campaign against a new swine flu, thousands of people filed claims contending they suffered side effects from the shots. This time, the government has already taken steps to prevent that.

Vaccine makers and federal officials will be immune from lawsuits that result from any new swine flu vaccine, under a document signed by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, government health officials said Friday.

Since the 1980s, the government has protected vaccine makers against lawsuits over the use of childhood vaccines. Instead, a federal court handles claims and decides who will be paid from a special fund.

The document signed by Sebelius last month grants immunity to those making a swine flu vaccine, under the provisions of a 2006 law for public-health emergencies. It allows for a compensation fund, if needed.

The government takes such steps to encourage drug companies to make vaccines, and it has worked. Federal officials have contracted with five manufacturers to make a swine flu vaccine. First identified in April, swine flu has so far caused about 263 deaths, according to numbers released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday.

The CDC said more than 40,000 Americans have had confirmed or probable cases, but those are people who sought health care. It's likely that more than 1 million Americans have been sickened by the flu, many with mild cases.

The virus hits younger people harder than seasonal flu, but so far hasn't been much more deadly than the strains seen every fall and winter. But health officials say the virus could mutate to a more dangerous form, or at least contribute to a potentially heavier flu season than usual.

"We do expect there to be an increase in influenza this fall," with a bump in cases perhaps beginning earlier than normal, said Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

On Friday, the Food and Drug Administration approved the regular winter flu vaccine, a final step before shipments to clinics and other vaccination sites could begin.

The last time the government faced a new swine flu virus was in 1976. Cases of swine flu in soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J., including one death, made health officials worried they might be facing a deadly pandemic like the one that killed millions around the world in 1918 and 1919.

Federal officials vaccinated 40 million Americans during a national campaign. A pandemic never materialized, but thousands who got the shots filed injury claims, saying they suffered a paralyzing condition called Guillain-Barre Syndrome or other side effects.
"The government paid out quite a bit of money," said Stephen Sugarman, a law professor who specializes in product liability at the University of California at Berkeley.

Vaccines aren't as profitable as other drugs for manufacturers, and without protection against lawsuits "they're saying, 'Do we need this?'" Sugarman said.

The move to protect makers of a swine flu didn't go over well with Paul Pennock, a prominent New York plaintiffs attorney on medical liability cases. The government will probably call on millions of Americans to get the vaccinations to prevent the disease from spreading, he noted.

"If you're going to ask people to do this for the common good, then let's make sure for the common good that these people will be taken care of if something goes wrong," Pennock said.

[Dickie4:20]

Healthcare and Free Press: Two Human Rights We Lack | AfterDowningStreet.org

[420420420]

Campaign For Liberty — Collectivist Republicans Losing Their Fight?   | by Tom Mullen

[stoned budda]

quote:
Should President Obama Control The Internet?
Austin Hill
Sunday, July 19, 2009


President Barack Obama wants to control the internet.
And if our President has his way, this website may soon be under legal attack from the White House. Since the internet’s emergence in the private sector (it actually began in the public sector, through developments at the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1960’s), officials in our U.S. Government have generally viewed the internet as a good and necessary thing.

In 1996, when former Sun Microsystems Officer John Gage began a movement to get high-tech companies involved in providing internet infrastructure for the world’s schools, libraries, and clinics, President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore marked the first ever “NetDay” celebration by traveling to Concord, California, and spending the day re-wiring a high school campus with computer cables.
Similarly, both President Clinton and President George W. Bush pushed for “every school in America” to be connected to the world wide web, and internet connectivity generally flourished around the globe under the leadership of both Presidents, and by both public and private funding means.
But today, things are different. After approximately seven months in office, President Obama controls, in varying degrees, General Motors, Chrysler, and a variety of financial services companies. He is seeking to control, among other things, the health care industry, the energy industry, and the amount of money that business executives are paid by their employers.
And now it appears that the President who ran the most successful, web-savvy political campaign in world history, wants to curtail what other people can do online.
Cass Sunstein, an American legal scholar and Harvard Law Professor, has been appointed by President Obama to head up the “White House Office Of Information And Regulatory Affairs.” His title is sufficiently broad and ambiguous, but he wields plenty of power. And with advance copies circulating of his new book “On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done,” Americans who still care about their rights to “freedom of speech” should be paying close attention.
You owe it to yourself to review what has been reported in both the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal about Mr. Sunstein, and the ideas that he advances in his book. And while we don’t know precisely what Obama and Sunstein will be doing, many of the thoughts that Mr. Sunstein expresses about the internet seem consistent with President Obama’s proclivity to control things, generally.
Perhaps most disturbing is Mr. Sunstein’s vision for the future of web content, as he argues for a so-called “notice and take down” law. Under this provision, those who operate websites - - The Washington Post, radio stations, private bloggers, and perhaps even you, yourself -we would all be required “take down falsehoods upon notice” from the U.S. government.
And not only would the original content of websites be scrutinized by the government for “falsehoods,” website operators would also be held responsible for the content of “posts” created by the website’s visitors and readers. At first blush it may seem that, for a web operator to be held accountable for content generated by “posters,” is completely untenable. But that may very well be Mr. Sunstein’s goal - - to create an “untenable situation” for website operators - given his assertion that “a ‘chilling effect’ on those who would spread destructive falsehoods can be an excellent idea..”
But who shall determine what, exactly, is “true” and “false?” Mr. Sunstein laments the supposed “lie” that emerged during last year’s presidential race, that “Barack Obama pals around with terrorists.” Despite that fact that a friendship between Obama and known domestic terrorist William Ayers was something that both men acknowledged, Sunstein alludes to the notion that this was one of those “destructive falsehoods” of the sort that needs to be policed.
As I was recently talking about this matter on-air at Arizona’s NewsTalk 92-3 KTAR radio, a caller to the show observed that “there’s no way this could be legal, or constitutional..” Thoughtful Americans of all sorts will immediately view this situation through the lenses of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
But issues of “legality” don’t seem to matter, at times, with the Obama Administration. In March of this year, there was nothing illegal about executives of the AIG Corporation being paid bonuses that they earned from their employer, but they were harassed and publicly belittled, nonetheless. President Obama himself demonized them, while dozens of Obama supporters “demonstrated” in front of the private residences of the executives, alleging that it was “unfair” for those executives to be making “so much money.” In a similar way, it appears that the Obama Administration may be ushering-in an era of harassment for website operators. Regardless of what U.S. courts may or may not say about this in the future, a “notice and take down” letter from the White House could have quite a “chilling effect” for today.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

[Dickie4:20]

We need an energy revolution | Grist

"
The United States today spends some $400 billion a year importing oil from countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Mexico, Russia, and Venezuela. Think for a moment what an incredible impact that same $400 billion a year could have on our country if that money were invested here and not abroad, in such areas as weatherization, energy efficiency, sustainable energies like wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, public transportation and automobiles that are energy efficient or don’t use fossil fuels at all.
What we are talking about is an energy revolution that leads us toward energy independence, the cessation of support for foreign dictatorships and the ability to avoid Mideast wars fought over oil. What we are talking about is an energy revolution that will substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enable us to address the global warming crisis that threatens our planet with increases in floods, drought, extreme weather conditions, disease and wars fought over limited natural resources. What we are talking about is an energy revolution that will result in cleaner air, water and food and make us a healthier nation.
And, as our nation struggles to recover from the worst economic times since the Great Depression, what we also are talking about is an energy revolution that has the capability of creating millions of good-paying green jobs.
These are jobs that will occur at every level of education and for every skill set. These are jobs for scientists, engineers, machinists, and electricians. These are jobs for workers who weatherize older homes and buildings and save consumers substantial sums on their fuel bills. These are jobs for factory workers who produce advanced insulation material, energy-efficient windows, improved roofing materials and LED light bulbs. These are jobs that build, distribute, install and maintain wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, solar hot water systems, geothermal heating and cooling systems, and biomass heating systems. These are jobs on our farms and in our forests producing biofuels and converting farm waste to electricity.
I see a future where by 2025, we are producing a quarter or more of our electricity from clean, sustainable energy sources. I see a revitalized American manufacturing base where instead of importing 90 percent of the batteries used in hybrid vehicles, 46 percent of solar photovoltaic cells and modules, and half of all wind turbines used in the U.S., those product are made right here at home. I see a future where American companies lead the world in the production of hybrid-plug in cars and electric vehicles.
I see a future where instead of creating 330 jobs to build yet another fossil-fuel power plant, we create 4,000 jobs building a solar thermal plant that has no carbon dioxide emissions and does not pollute our air because the only fuel is endlessly renewed, no-cost sunlight. These plants, according to the Interior Department secretary, could provide up to 29 percent of the electrical needs of our country.
I see a future where by 2020 our nation follows the example of a state like Vermont, which, in the last two years, has seen electricity demand lowered because of energy efficiency efforts. Investing in energy efficiency is cost-effective; it saves 3 cents per kilowatt hour compared to the 14 cents it costs to generate the same amount of power.
I see a future where states compete with one another to see which can be the most efficient, and where businesses seek out efficient states in which to locate so they can reap the economic and environmental benefits for their businesses and employees.
I see a future where getting to work, or to school, or to the store does not have to cause pollution. I see a future where plug-in hybrid cars and electric vehicles are commonplace, producing a fraction of the emissions of conventional vehicles while providing the same mobility for drivers.
I see a future where we rebuild our mass transportation and rail systems. For every $1 billion we invest in public transportation, we create 30,000 jobs, save thousands of dollars a year for each commuter, and dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The bad news is that if we do not act boldly to address the global warming crisis, the consequences for our planet and future generations will be dire. The good news is that we have the knowledge and technology today, which will only improve in the future, to address that crisis. Yes, we can dramatically cut greenhouse gas emission. Yes, we can create an energy independent nation. Yes, we can create millions of good paying green jobs in the process. Let’s do it!"

-Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont)

[AK Infinity]

msnbc.com Video Player

Facts don't and will never matter to a goon.

[Dickie4:20]

Commentary: Single-payer national health care the way to go | McClatchy


"Once Congress finishes mandating that we all buy private health insurance, it can move on to requiring Americans to purchase other defective products.
A Ford Pinto in every garage? Lead-painted toys for every child? Melamine-laced chow for every puppy? Private health insurance doesn't work. Even middle-class families with supposedly good coverage are just one serious illness away from financial ruin.
Illness and medical bills contribute to 62 percent of personal bankruptcies - a 50 percent increase since 2001. And three-quarters of the medically bankrupt had insurance, at least when they first got sick.
Coverage that families bought in good faith failed to protect them. Some were bankrupted by co-payments, deductibles and loopholes. Others got too sick to work, leaving them unemployed and uninsured.
Now Congress plans to make it a federal offense not to purchase such faulty insurance.
On top of that, it's threatening to tax workers' health benefits to meet the costs of simultaneously covering the poor and keeping private insurers in business.
President Obama's plan would finance reform by draining funds from hospitals that serve the neediest patients. His other funding plans aren't harmful, just illusory. He's gotten unenforceable pledges from hospitals, insurers and the American Medical Association to rein in costs, a replay of promises they made (and broke) to Presidents Nixon and Carter. And Obama trumpets savings from computerized medical records and better care management, savings the Congressional Budget Office has dismissed as wishful thinking.
The president's health plan can't make universal, comprehensive coverage affordable.
Only single-payer health reform - Medicare for All - can achieve that goal.
Single-payer national health care could realize about $400 billion in savings annually - enough to cover the uninsured and to upgrade coverage for all Americans. But the vast majority of these savings aren't available unless we go all the way to single payer.
A public plan option might cut into private insurers' profits. That's why they hate it. But their profits - roughly $10 billion annually - are dwarfed by the money they waste in search of profit. They spend vast sums for marketing (to attract the healthy); demarketing (to avoid the sick); billing their ever-shifting roster of enrollees; fighting with providers over bills; and lobbying politicians. And doctors and hospitals spend billions more meeting insurers' demands for documentation.
A single-payer plan would eliminate most insurance overhead, as well as these other paperwork expenses. Hospitals could be paid like a fire department, receiving a single monthly check for their entire budget. Physicians' billing could be similarly simplified.
With a public insurance option, by contrast, hospitals and doctors would still need elaborate billing and cost-tracking systems. And overhead for even the most efficient competitive public option would be far higher than for traditional Medicare, which is efficient precisely because it doesn't compete. It automatically enrolls seniors at 65 and deducts their premiums through the social security system, contracts with any willing provider, and does no marketing.
Health insurers compete by NOT paying for care: by seeking out the healthy and avoiding the sick; by denying payment and shifting costs onto patients; and by lobbying for unfair public subsidies (as under the Medicare HMO program). A kinder, gentler public plan that failed to emulate these behaviors would soon be saddled with the sickest, costliest patients and the highest payouts, driving premiums to uncompetitive levels. To compete successfully, a public plan would have to copy private plans.
Decades of experience teach that private insurers cannot control costs or provide families with the coverage they need. And a government-run clone of private insurers cannot fix these flaws."

[stoned budda]

Return to the Article

July 23, 2009
Obama bullies CBO chief the Chicago Way

Rick Moran
This is a story that was broken by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air and has now hit the MSM - without crediting Morrissey or Hot Air which is typical behavior for the lazy reporters at most news outlets.

After CBO chief Doug Elmendorf told Congress that passing Obamacare would add substantially to the federal deficit over the next ten years - unwelcome news for Obama who has watched Dems in Congress begin to get cold feet over his health care reform - the president "invited" (ordered?) Elmendorf to a meeting at the White House.

Understand that the Congressional Budget Office is answerable to Congress, not the White House. But this didn't seem to matter to our Chicago Machine president who apparently had some words with the CBO chief about playing ball and not rocking the boat.

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece explains:

Writing on his blog after news of the meeting became public, Mr. Elmendorf diplomatically noted that "The President asked me and outside experts for our views about achieving cost savings in health reform." No doubt he did. But Mr. Elmendorf, a Democrat, will also have received the message that continuing apostasy will not be good for his future political career.

As Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the Republican who ran CBO from 2003 to 2005, put it, "The only appearance could be that they're leaning on him. CBO was created for Congress, for independent analysis. The White House did him [Elmendorf] a terrible disservice." On second thought, perhaps we're being unfair to LBJ, whose method was a combination of muscle and flattery. Mr. Obama learned his methods in Chicago.

I don't care who you are in Washington, being summoned to the White House is intimidating in and of itself. We might wonder what the next report coming out of the CBO will tell us when the Democrats finally get their act together and come up with a final bill.

It will probably have White House fingerprints all over it.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky

[stoned budda]

Washington Times

Poll: President's popularity suffers in health reform push

For the first time since President Obama entered the Oval Office, a majority of voters disapprove of the president's job performance in a Rasmussen tracking poll - a downturn that has the potential to sap the White House's clout as it begins the heavy lifting required for health care reform.
Political strategists and pollsters said Mr. Obama is likely sacrificing his popularity by pursuing an ambitious agenda that engenders opposition.
"As the president attempts to rebuild the economy and improve the health and welfare of an entire nation, he must use his political capital," said Democratic political strategist Donna Brazile. "I don't believe the president can produce [that] kind of change without it taking a toll on his personal popularity."
Mr. Obama is down in most polls but he dropped to the lowest level in the Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, which reflects voter attitudes before the president's prime-time TV press conference Wednesday, when he labored to regain lost momentum for health care reform.
The survey showed 49 percent of likely voters approved of Mr. Obama's job performance and 51 percent disapproved. It reflects a steady decline from a high job-approval rating of 60 percent immediately following his inauguration Jan. 20.
The president lost support among members of every political persuasion and nearly every demographic, though his job-approval rating from black voters rose from 90 percent shortly after his inauguration Jan. 20 to 98 percent Friday, according to Rasmussen polls. The poll has a margin of error of three percentage points.
The steepest decline in popularity - a 15 percentage point drop - the survey found was among independent voters, who were crucial to Mr. Obama's election victory. They cooled from a 52 percent approval rating March 1 to 37 percent Friday.
Women, another key voting bloc for Mr. Obama, defected by double digits, slipping from 63 percent March 1 to 51 percent Friday.
Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, said Mr. Obama is caught in a vicious circle in which an aggressive agenda pushes down job approval and low job approval threatens to undermine the agenda.
"He is naturally incurring more opposition than if he did nothing," Mr. Newport said.
In a Gallup Poll released Friday, 56 percent of adults approved of Mr. Obama's job performance while 39 percent disapproved. His approval rating was up from 55 percent Wednesday but the overall trend remained downward from a high of 69 percent following the inauguration.
Mr. Obama's numbers are similar to those of his predecessor, George W. Bush, who Gallup showed had a 56 percent job-approval rating in mid-July 2001. Most presidents watch their approval rating dip as they wade into their first term in office.
Still, the slide in popularity comes as Mr. Obama pushes for the health care system overhaul that tops his domestic agenda and weathers criticism over mounting federal debt and rising unemployment.
Just 25 percent of likely voters believe Mr. Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus has helped the economy, the Rasmussen survey showed.
The survey showed Mr. Obama's disapproval rating at 80 percent among Republicans. But 83 percent of Democrats continued to approve of Mr. Obama's performance.

[stoned budda]

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll


Sunday, July 26, 2009





The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 29% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11. That’s the first time his ratings have reached double digits in negative territory (see trends).
These updates are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. Today is the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted afterthe President’s prime time televised press conference. The number who Strongly Approve of the President has remained unchanged since the press conference but the number who Strongly Disapprove has gone up by five percentage points (from 35% on Wednesday morning to 40% today).
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.
The President received generally poor grades for his response to a question about a Cambridge police incident involving a black Harvard professor. However, the results show a huge divide between black Americans and white Americans on all questions.
Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove. It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama’s numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That’s because some of the President’s most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.
The President is now seen as politically liberal by 76%. That’s up six points from a month ago, 11 points since he was elected, and the highest total to date. Forty-eight percent (48%) now see him as Very Liberal, up 20 points since he was elected (Premium Members can see trends and crosstabs.)
(More Below)





Check out our review of last week’s key polls to see “What They Told Us.”Topics include health care, the economy, 2012, state polls, and more.
While the President’s ratings have slipped over the past month, 54% believe that President George W. Bush is still primarily to blame for the nation’s economic problems. Just 25% believe that the economic stimulus package has helped the economy.
California Senator Barbara Boxer is clinging to a four-point lead in her bid for re-election.
Fifty-three percent (53%) now oppose the Congressional health care reform package. That’s up eight points over the past month. Just 20% now see health care as the most important of the President’s priorities. Nearly twice as many, 37%, say deficit reduction is most important.
See recent demographic highlights from the Presidential Tracking Poll. For more measures of the President’s performance, see Obama By the Numbers.
Please take our Daily Prediction Challenge and predict the results of upcoming polls.
If you'd like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott's favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.
When comparing Job Approval data from different firms, it's important to keep in mind that polls of likely voters and polls of all adults will typically and consistently yield different results. In the case of President Obama, polls by all firms measuring all adults typically show significantly higher approval ratings than polls of likely voters. Polls of registered voters typically fall in the middle. Other factors are also important to consider when comparing Job Approval ratings from different polling firms.
A Fordham University professor has rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review.
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past four years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.
Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 39.0% Democrats, 32.5% Republicans, and 28.5% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.
A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.