web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > healthcare

Obamacare-Backing Big Insurance – Looking to Again Expand Government Medicine

Westlake Legal Group danger-big-government-1-620x446-copy Obamacare-Backing Big Insurance – Looking to Again Expand Government Medicine senator lamar alexander republicans Politics Policy Patty Murray Obamacare News medicare for all lower health care costs act of 2019 law healthcare Government Front Page Stories Front Page Economy democrats Business & Economy Bipartisanship bipartisan

One heinous aspect of the heinous history of the woefully misnamed Affordable Care Act – aka Obamacare – was…and is…the vociferous backing of the inanity by huge insurance companies.

Notice I didn’t say small insurance companies.  Few such animals still exist – most having already been murdered by government medicine programs.

Small insurance companies can’t afford all the crushing costs of huge government medicine – so they die.

Which is good for huge insurance companies.  You know – less competition.

Also good for Big Insurance?  A law mandating everyone in the nation purchase their products – which Obamacare did.

Did Big Insurance know the law was awful – and it would make their products MUCH more expensive?  Of course they did.  Bad news for We the People – great news for them.

On average, Obamacare doubled premiums and tripled deductibles for those of us subjected to its heinousness.  Great news for Big Insurance.

Even better news…for Big Insurance?  Government would hand them ongoing, rolling, huge rafts of cash – i.e. around $1 trillion in premium subsidies.

But Obamacare was so awful – those ongoing, rolling, huge rafts of cash…weren’t nearly enough.  So President Barack Obama started unilaterally, illegally handing Big Insurance even more of our money.

So when the Donald Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans, God bless them all, started rolling back all the omni-directional Obamacare heinousness – we were delivered some of the most unsurprising headlines in the history of human communication.

Insurers Come Out Swinging Against New Republican Health Care Bill

Insurers Oppose Latest Republican Obamacare Repeal Effort

Insurers Oppose Repeal of Obamacare Individual Mandate

Not Even Insurance Companies Want Obamacare Repealed

“Not even” – should actually read “most especially.”

Because of the $1+ trillion in government money.  Because of the government mandate We the People buy their stuff.

Who cares if government medicine always and everywhere makes things demonstrably, exponentially worse for 300+ million Americans?

There are Big Insurance executives’ estates to be maintained.  And trillions of dollars of government money – covers a lot of lawn and house work.

So when any opportunity arises to increase government’s screwing up of medicine – Big Insurance is all the way down with the struggle.

Senators Release Plan to Lower Health Costs, End Surprise Bills

Because as has – yet again, very recently – been thoroughly demonstrated…government is excellent at lowering health costs.

A huge fan of this government medicine expansion – is a man by the name of Loren Adler:

“‘From a policy perspective, there’s a rationale that this is the ideal approach,’ said Loren Adler, the associate director of USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy….

“It’s possible that this option will upset provider groups, who risk receiving lower payments and having less leverage with insurance companies. Adler said these fears are mostly unfounded….”

Adler seems to be the media’s go-to fan of this latest attempt at government medicine expansion:

“Loren Adler, associate director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, estimated that the proposed benchmark payment rate provision could help lower health insurance premiums by about 0.5% across the country.”

Wow.  A whole one-half of one percent.  Maybe.

Government yet again assaulting the medical industry – to get a MAYBE 0.5% rate reduction.

Thank you, no.  We the People pass.  Congress – should not.

And this minuscule prospective reduction – is according to this guy Adler.

The media loves mentioning Adler’s college gig.  But did you catch that “Brookings” reference?:

“Loren Adler is associate director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy,  a partnership between the Center for Health Policy at Brookings and the University of Southern California Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics.”

“Brookings” – is the Brookings Institute.  A Leftist “think” tank headquartered in Washington, D.C.

Did you catch the “Schaeffer” reference?  “Schaeffer” – is Leonard D. Schaeffer.

Let’s flash back to February 2016, shall we?

Leonard D. Schaeffer Initiative for Innovation in Health Policy Established:

“Leonard D. Schaeffer, a trustee of both Brookings and the University of Southern California, has provided a gift of $4 million to establish the Leonard D. Schaeffer Initiative for Innovation in Health Policy….

“The Initiative aims to inform the national health care debate with rigorous, evidence-based analysis leading to practical recommendations using the collaborative strengths of USC and Brookings.”

That’s an extraordinary amount of coin.  But that really ain’t nothing.

New Gift Strengthens USC Schaeffer Center’s Influence in Health Policy:

“Ten years after they created a research center at USC dedicated to advancing health policy, Leonard and Pamela Schaeffer have renewed their investment with a donation of $17 million….

“They established the center in 2009 and endowed it three years later with a $25 million gift.”

Tens of millions of dollars.  Dedicated by Schaeffer – to affecting government medicine policy.

Which seemingly means – expanding government medicine…yet again to the benefit of Big Insurance.

And how, pray tell, did Schaeffer acquire so much money – that he can afford to donate this manner of big coin to affect government policy?

Let us flashback to October 2003, shall we?

Acquisition Would Create Nation’s Largest Health Insurer:

“In a marriage of Blue Cross giants, Anthem Inc. agreed yesterday to buy WellPoint Health Networks for $16.4 billion in stock and cash, creating a company that would be the nation’s largest health insurer….

“WellPoint’s chief executive, Leonard D. Schaeffer, who created the company on the foundation of a successful turnaround of Blue Cross of California, will hand the reins to Larry Glasscock, Anthem’s chief executive….Mr. Schaeffer, 58, a former government health care official, will be chairman.

“Mr. Schaeffer’s WellPoint holdings — 3.3 million shares, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing last month — jumped in value by more than $70 million yesterday, to over $300 million.

“He would also receive $27.5 million under a change-of-control clause in his contract and about $10 million more in executive retirement benefits, according to the WellPoint proxy and other filings.”

Well isn’t all of that utterly unsurprising.

Schaeffer – was a government health care official.

Who then became the key player in turning already-big insurance – into the biggest of Big Insurance.

And received more than $300 million by so doing.

And now he and his minions are trying to expand government medicine – to the benefit of Big Insurance.

How very DC of…everyone involved in this very terrible idea.

The post Obamacare-Backing Big Insurance – Looking to Again Expand Government Medicine appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group danger-big-government-1-620x446-copy-2-300x112 Obamacare-Backing Big Insurance – Looking to Again Expand Government Medicine senator lamar alexander republicans Politics Policy Patty Murray Obamacare News medicare for all lower health care costs act of 2019 law healthcare Government Front Page Stories Front Page Economy democrats Business & Economy Bipartisanship bipartisan   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A 24-Year-Old with a Failing 2nd Heart Makes a Wish List, and Maybe You Can Help

Westlake Legal Group jennifer-ortiz-heart-transplant-SCREENSHOT-620x350 A 24-Year-Old with a Failing 2nd Heart Makes a Wish List, and Maybe You Can Help Uncategorized kdvr jennifer ortiz healthcare Front Page Stories Fox 31 Featured Story Denver Culture Conservatives Colorado Allow Media Exception

[Screenshot from KVDR, https://kdvr.com/2019/09/10/local-24-year-old-woman-in-heart-failure-asking-for-help-with-her-bucket-list/]

 

24-year-old Jennifer Ortiz, of Commerce City, Colorado, has started a GoFundMe page.

The reason? Her bucket list.

It’s one she shouldn’t — at such a young age — have to make.

But after being denied a third heart transplant — and with only a biventricular assist device keeping her alive — she doesn’t know how much longer she’ll have.

Her father, Danny, explained to Denver’s Fox 31:

“[BiVAD’s are] not designed to be a total artificial heart.”


Jennifer underwent her first transplant at 12 years old, following the diagnosis of an enlarged heart initially manifested by a prolonged cough.

In 2017, she received a 2nd heart, which is now failing.

As reported by Fox News, on September 5th, she was told she was being placed on palliative care.

Now she’s looking to do what she can with the time she has left.

“We’ve got to condense a lifetime into as much time as we have,” Danny explained.

A few of Jennifer’s hopes? To see the Big Apple, attend a Cowboys game, see The Ellen DeGeneres Show live, meet the Jonas Brothers, and enjoy a Broadway musical.

So why am I writing all this? Because of Jennifer, and because of you. After all — despite some claims to the contrary, conservatives have generous hearts. If you have a way of helping — whatever that might be — now you know of one more person in a world of need. Maybe you’ll assist her with your prayers. Or maybe you work for Ellen.

If you’d like to visit her GoFundMe — for which, of course, I cannot vouch — you can do so here.

On the page, Jennifer writes:

“If any of you have travelled to the destination I am going to, I’d love to get some ideas of what to do and see while I am there!”

Perhaps you have advice.

Politics and culture mean nothing without life; here’s to hoping Jennifer Ortiz has much more of it to live.

And in that gifted loan of time, may she — and may we all — find something wonderful.

Including the wonder of helping others.

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

This Video Of Parents In The Armed Forces Surprising Their Little Children Will Leave You In Tears

HILARIOUS: A Little Boy Calls 911 Because He’s Hungry. What Happens Next Will Be Your Favorite Story This Week

Louisiana Woman Tries To Beat Boyfriend To Death With His Prosthetic Leg After He Says He Wants To Date Someone Else

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.

The post A 24-Year-Old with a Failing 2nd Heart Makes a Wish List, and Maybe You Can Help appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group jennifer-ortiz-heart-transplant-SCREENSHOT-300x169 A 24-Year-Old with a Failing 2nd Heart Makes a Wish List, and Maybe You Can Help Uncategorized kdvr jennifer ortiz healthcare Front Page Stories Fox 31 Featured Story Denver Culture Conservatives Colorado Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Eyes a New Program to Detect Warning Signs of Mass Murder Among the Mentally Ill. But How Slippery’s That Slope?

Westlake Legal Group camera-4277525_1280-620x413 Trump Eyes a New Program to Detect Warning Signs of Mass Murder Among the Mentally Ill. But How Slippery’s That Slope? white house washington D.C. Uncategorized safehome mental illness mental health mass shootings healthcare harpa Guns gun control geoffrey ling Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump DARPA crime bob wright Allow Media Exception

 

 

The Trump administration is peering into a proposal wresting mental illness’s role in mass shootings.

During a speech following the El Paso and Dayton murders, the President touted “reform[ing] our mental health laws to better identify mentally disturbed individuals who may commit acts of violence, and mak[ing] sure those people not only get treatment, but when necessary, involuntary confinement.”

The Commander-in-Chief pointed to a comparative irrelevancy of firepower when it comes to the slaying of innocents:

“Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun.”

As reported by The Washington Post, now the White House is contemplating the creation of a new agency to study how such atrocities may be averted via the signs of mental disturbance:

The White House is considering a controversial proposal to study whether mass shootings could be prevented by monitoring mentally ill people for small changes that might foretell violence.

Former NBC chairman Bob Wright, a longtime friend and associate of President Trump’s, has briefed top officials, including the President, the Vice President and Ivanka Trump, on a proposal to create a new research arm called the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA) to come up with out-of-the-box ways to tackle health problems, much like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) does for the military, according to several people who have been briefed.

The Daily Wire notes that a three-page proposal — sent to Health and Human Services Sec. Alex Azar among other officials — rolled out a plan called “SAFEHOME” (Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes). The initiative would determine how technology could pinpoint warning signs. Cell phone data would be included in that implementation.

For those interested in the slipperiness of a slope, the proposition emphasizes that participation would be on a volunteer basis. There would, as stated, be no “profiling of any kind.”

How many would-be murderers would say, “You’re right; I’m probably gonna try to kill everybody; here’s my consent so you can stop me”?

Among the mentally ill, there surely might be some; but a lot?

As the Post relayed, Geoffrey Ling — HARPA’s lead researcher — defended the program with maybe not the most convincing sales pitch:

“To those who say this is a half-baked idea, I would say, ‘What’s your idea? What are you doing about this? … The worst you can do is fail, and failing is where we are already. You need to find where the edge is so you can push on that edge.”

The FBI indicates a quarter of mass shooters have been diagnosed with a mental illness.

So we’d be looking at volunteers among that 25%, and then the government’s ability to effectively discern and extinguish impending evil?

How slick is that incline again?

What are your thoughts on the program? Let us all know in the Comments section.

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

A Television Icon Laments America’s Divide, But There’s A Greater Lesson – A Forgotten One We Learned Long Ago

Pioneer David Hogg Changes His Tune – The Cause Of Violence In America Is No Longer Guns

The NRA Pulls No Punches In Its Strike Against Walmart’s New Anti-Gun Policy

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Trump Eyes a New Program to Detect Warning Signs of Mass Murder Among the Mentally Ill. But How Slippery’s That Slope? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group camera-4277525_1280-300x200 Trump Eyes a New Program to Detect Warning Signs of Mass Murder Among the Mentally Ill. But How Slippery’s That Slope? white house washington D.C. Uncategorized safehome mental illness mental health mass shootings healthcare harpa Guns gun control geoffrey ling Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump DARPA crime bob wright Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pharma Regulations Bite Worse Than Snakes

Overregulation is killing competition in the pharmaceutical industry. Rather than letting markets work, companies are essentially allowed monopolies that drive prices to astronomical heights. Take anti-venin for example. Chances are you’re not going to be bitten by a poisonous snake or scorpion but, if you are, that’s just the first bite. The next one is out of your wallet.

Here’s how it works. You get bitten, you go to the hospital because you don’t want to die. You are injected with 4-6 vials of  CroFab (the recommended starting dose), and it saves your life with few of the side effects that used to plague anti-venins. Then you get the bill. It turns out that the wholesale price for that medicine is more than $3,000 per vial. Once they get enough in you to save your life and you pay the consumer price? Let’s hope you aren’t stuck with a price tag of nearly $68,000. It’s happened before.

It should be good news for bite victims, then that there’s something new on the market- Anavip.However, pharmaceutical regulations are such that competition isn’t likely to bring the prices down significantly. Anavip seems less expensive at $1,220 per vial but, with a recommended initial dose of 10 vials, the price is pretty equal.

Robin Feldman, a professor at University of California, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, who specializes in pharmacy law told NPR “When we allow a system of perverse incentives to flourish, this is the result we get.” It’s the generic drugs which really bring down drug prices, and bureaucracy is making it just about impossible for anti-venins to enter that market.

NPR reports:

In the U.S., even when the FDA approves another drug, the maker can manipulate the patent process to keep competitors out. A patent allows a drug manufacturer to claim ownership of certain product information and bar others from making, using or selling a drug based on the protected content for 20 years. This gives manufacturers a powerful edge – they can sue potential competitors for patent infringement.

“The most creative activity in the drug company should be in the lab, not in the legal department” says Hastings law professor Feldman, paraphrasing a former FDA commissioner.

One solution? The 340B medical drug pricing plan which provides life-saving medications cheaper for lower-income Americans at no cost to taxpayers. At Banner Health in Arizona, scorpion bites are more common than in other parts of the country, and their 340B pricing program saves lives without breaking the bank.

Page Smith, director of Banner’s 340B program, explains:

 

The post Pharma Regulations Bite Worse Than Snakes appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group antibiotic-black-and-white-bw-1537009-200x300 Pharma Regulations Bite Worse Than Snakes Venom venin snakebite medicine medical healthcare Health Care Front Page Stories free market Featured Story competition Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Administration Takes Action Against Hospital That Forced a Catholic Nurse to Assist in an Abortion

Westlake Legal Group roger-severino-620x317 Trump Administration Takes Action Against Hospital That Forced a Catholic Nurse to Assist in an Abortion Vermont University of Vermont university of vemont medical center stephen leffler roger severino republicans Politics Office of Civil Rights HHS healthcare Health Care Government Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats American Center for Law and Justice Allow Media Exception Abortion

Roger Severino, director of the Office for Civil Rights, poses for a portrait, Thursday, Feb. 1, 2018, at the office of Health and Human Services in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

The HHS civil rights office has sent a notice of violation to the University of Vermont Medical Center for pressuring a Catholic nurse to assist in an elective abortion.

In 2017, the hospital started performing elective abortions. I’m not really sure of the reason but one can’t help but notice that they chose to do this even as abortion rates were declining and think that 2017-butthurt-over-Clinton-OrangeManBad played a significant role in the decision. When the decision was announced several staff members told their supervisors that the were not good in participating in infanticide and, under the provision of the Church Amendments, federal laws enacted in the 1970s that states that employees in facilities that receive federal funds do not have to participate in abortions.

This case came about when a Catholic nurse was called in to assist in what she was told was a gynecological procedure.

According to HHS’s investigation, the nurse was told she would be treating a patient who had experienced a miscarriage. When she walked into the procedure room, the doctor allegedly said to her, “Don’t hate me.” The nurse asked for a replacement, but was allegedly told no. The abortion was not an emergency procedure, but an elective one. Fearing losing her job, the nurse relented.

“This should never happen in America. There is room for disagreement on these issues without having to coerce people to choose between a career dedicated to supporting life versus instances or circumstances where they are being forced to take a life,” Roger Severino, head of HHS’s Office of Civil Rights, told reporters on Wednesday.

For the record, the left thinks Severino is the devil himself (see here and here) and the next time someone at The Bulwark or one of their fellow travelers tries to claim Trump has done nothing for conservatives, tell them to go screw themselves.

The Washington Post has more details:

Asked whether the case focused on a Vermont hospital because lawmakers there are trying to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion, Severino said that played no role. “If there was ever a violation of the Church amendments that needed to be enforced, it was this one,” he said.

Manion, the Kentucky-based attorney representing the nurse, said a co-worker of hers brought the incident to his attention. He then filed a three-page letter of complaint with HHS’s civil rights office in May 2018. He said the nurse had worked at the hospital for several years and left voluntarily within the past year, in large part because “she felt the atmosphere over this issue had become toxic.”

Manion said his client was not an antiabortion activist but had placed her name on a list of employees objecting to participating in the procedure. The day of the incident, he said, the nurse had scrubbed in and, when she learned the doctor was performing an abortion, was reluctant to leave, fearing that abandoning a patient could jeopardize her license. She asked whether a co-worker could replace her, Manion said, and was told that could not happen.

(Read the Notice of Violation.)

The hospital has 30 days to bring its rules into compliance with federal regulations or risk losing all federal funding for its operations. The Post says it amounts to $1.6 million for patient care over three years. I find it doubtful that a teaching hospital has only that amount of money as research grants to faculty at the hospital would also be up for grabs. According to the hospital’s chief medical officer, they are afraid that HHS will claw-back money already paid to the hospital and HHS can just f*** right off.

“They threatened to take back $1.6 million for services, but we won’t be blackmailed into changing our policy,” Dr. Stephen Leffler said. “Our hope is they don’t take the dollars back. It will harm other people who have nothing to do with this.”

Leffler said he was unable to say exactly what the federal funds are used for, but that they go to patient services.

The hospital’s current policy, Leffler said, is that employees can opt out of procedures for religious or moral reasons, but that they may be required to participate anyway if a critical situation arises, such as a mass trauma.

This statement shows just how little conscience protection means without an administration that is willing to go to bat for the little guy. By letting the hospital define “a critical situation,” all medical personnel must either participate or stand to lose their medical license. The CMO’s screw-you attitude needs to be beaten out of him in court and the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing the nurse, is just the outfit to administer that legal ass-whipping.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Trump Administration Takes Action Against Hospital That Forced a Catholic Nurse to Assist in an Abortion appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group roger-severino-300x153 Trump Administration Takes Action Against Hospital That Forced a Catholic Nurse to Assist in an Abortion Vermont University of Vermont university of vemont medical center stephen leffler roger severino republicans Politics Office of Civil Rights HHS healthcare Health Care Government Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats American Center for Law and Justice Allow Media Exception Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pants on Fire! CBS Host Explains Why U.S. Doesn’t Have Universal Health Care

Westlake Legal Group new-york-times3 Pants on Fire! CBS Host Explains Why U.S. Doesn’t Have Universal Health Care NY Times - Everything is tied to slavery Nikole Hannah-Jones Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism healthcare Government Gayle King Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats dean baquet Culture Allow Media Exception 2020

Mainstream media outlets are falling in line with the decree issued by New York Times’ executive editor Dean Baquet last week which demanded that virtually everything be tied to slavery.

CBS host Gayle King did not disappoint during an interview with Nikole Hannah-Jones, a writer for the New York Times. It was Hannah-Jones who penned the essay which introduced the newspaper’s new initiative, the “1619 Project.” The exchange can be viewed in the video below.

King, who has adopted the new narrative eagerly and completely, said, “The thing that’s so amazing about this that makes me so proud, you can look at just about anything happening in the world today and tie it to slavery…You look at the naming of Wall Street. You look at sugar that we eat. But the thing that stuck out to me was health care, you can tie health care to slavery.”

And Hannah-Jones responded:

We’re the only western industrialized country that doesn’t have universal health care. It starts with opposition to universal health care that occurs right after slavery when the Freedsmen’s Bureau was trying to offer free health care to the formerly enslaved and there was opposition to that. And so even today, you see with polling white Americans will reject social programs if they think large numbers of black people will benefit from them. So, the harms from slavery have not been contained because there are millions of white Americans, there are millions of Latinos and Asians and black Americans who don’t have health care, who can’t get insurance because of slavery.

That’s some profound analysis from Hannah-Jones. It’s so ridiculous, it’s difficult to take seriously. Universal health care was not even a thought in 1865 when the U.S. was reeling from a long and bloody war that had nearly torn apart the country.

Approximately 625,000 white American men had just died in a fight to eliminate slavery. According to Ancestry.com, this number is greater than the number of American deaths in “both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam combined. This amounted to 2 percent of the population at the time, which would be equivalent to about 6 million Americans dying today.”

Hannah-Jones would like us to believe the U.S. doesn’t have universal health care in 2019 because white Americans were opposed to providing free health care to former slaves 154 years ago.

On the contrary, it might surprise these ladies to hear that following the Civil War, from 1865 to 1870, the U.S. government provided free health care to over one million sick and dying slaves. The government established the “Freedmen’s Bureau” which built 40 hospitals and employed over 120 physicians.

Perhaps most important is that prior to the early 1900s, no governments were in the business of providing healthcare to their citizens. Blacks weren’t excluded from federal healthcare. There was no federal healthcare.

There were two exceptions. In 1798, President John Adams signed a public health law called “An act for the relief of sick and disabled Seamen.” Every seaman paid 20 cents per month which paid for marine hospitals to be built and for the care of sick and disabled marines. It covered no other segments of the population, not even the spouses of covered marines.

Additionally in 1854, the “Bill for the Benefit of the Indigent Insane passed both houses of Congress, but was vetoed by President Franklin Pierce.” His reason? “The federal government should not commit itself to social welfare, which should be the responsibility of the states.”

The next time the issue of federal government involvement in healthcare was raised was by then-former President Theodore Roosevelt (he was out of office at that time) who ran for president in 1912 and campaigned on “sickness insurance.” He was defeated and that ended that.

European countries were the first to pass any form of social welfare. In 1911, the United Kingdom passed the National Insurance Act of 1911 that provided medical care and replacement of some lost wages if a worker became ill. It did not, however, cover spouses or dependents.

It wasn’t until the Great Depression until the government became involved in social welfare.

This brief history indicates that, outside of the seaman’s monthly premium system, the federal government did not provide healthcare for any of its citizens, white, black, Native-American or otherwise until President Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930’s. It simply was not even on the government’s radar until then.

The fact that the U.S. government has not passed universal healthcare is because the majority of American voters oppose it. This has zero, zip, nada to do with race or slavery and everything to do with defeating Trump. To suggest otherwise is to be disingenuous. This is BS and I think both Hannah-Jones and King  know it is.

Maybe we shouldn’t be so hard on them. After all, they’re just following orders.

 

(Relevant segment begins at 4:00)

The post Pants on Fire! CBS Host Explains Why U.S. Doesn’t Have Universal Health Care appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group new-york-times3-300x143 Pants on Fire! CBS Host Explains Why U.S. Doesn’t Have Universal Health Care NY Times - Everything is tied to slavery Nikole Hannah-Jones Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism healthcare Government Gayle King Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats dean baquet Culture Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Trump Presidency Just Became The Most Pro Life One Ever.

Westlake Legal Group pro-life-300x182 The Trump Presidency Just Became The Most Pro Life One Ever. white house washington D.C. Social Media SCOTUS progressives President Trump Never Trumpers Morning Briefing Media journalism Human Rights Hillary Clinton healthcare Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Courts Conservatives Allow Media Exception Abortion 2019

Will miracles ever cease?

I hope not.

I’m going to start this article with an admission.

I walked away by and large from doing “political” things during the 2016 primaries early on because of the sheer stupidity of how the candidates’ supporters were going on and on about how great their candidate was and how crappy Donald Trump was acting. I had friends on all sides of the issue that were busting up friendships over, in my mind, the candidate who would win the GOP nod and lose in the fall.

I personally was lobbied after the GOP Clevland convention to get on board with candidate Trump and I always refused politely. Not because I thought Clinton was great or anything like that, but I didn’t believe that Donald Trump was truly pro-life. I had enough of the jerking the pro-life chains during the Bush 43 administration and the other officials who talked a great game but feared the pro-abortion smear campaign if they touched any of the sacred money going to Planned Parenthood.

Well, I am here to say that I was 100% wrong about Donald Trump and his views on pro-life. His administration has successfully taken the fight to the biggest abortion provider in the nation and said you can’t use federal dollars to promote abortion.

Here is what happened according to CBS News

Planned Parenthood said all of its clinics will formally leave Title X, the marquee federal program dedicated to providing birth control to low-income women. A change to the program last year requires beneficiaries to comply with a so-called “gag order” on abortion services — something that Planned Parenthood said it isn’t willing to do. The clinic’s exit will result in a loss of millions of federal dollars.

In a conference call with reporters on Monday, Planned Parenthood’s new leader, Alexis McGill Johnson, announced all the health care clinic’s affiliates would be sending letters to the Department of Health and Human Services Monday, formally announcing their resignation from Title X. She warned that without Planned Parenthood, low-income women in rural areas would struggle to find affordable birth control options.

Title X funds have never been authorized to pay for abortions. Instead, the money is used for wellness exams, STD and HIV screenings, birth control and contraceptive education, according to Planned Parenthood. Anti-abortion rights advocates argue that any money given to Planned Parenthood — even if it’s not used for abortions — frees up funding to be used for the procedure.

But in February, a 312-page filing from the Department of Health and Human Services proposed what abortion rights advocates have referred to as a “gag rule.” Under the proposal, the agency wrote that “none of the funds appropriated for Title X may be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” The changes impact not just Planned Parenthood, but any clinic that supports, performs or even refers patients for abortion services.

PP has for a long time used federal money to free up and promote abortions. They have denied it but the evidence is clear and all the puff pieces in the MSM won’t obscure any of that.

No Republican administration since the adoption of Roe v Wade since 1972 has taken the fight to all levels on abortion as this one has. I would have never believed this even if someone from the future came back to tell me this in 2016. As I write this now I’m still somewhat dazed.

How is it that a New Yorker who was born into a real estate family and developed a media persona, now leads the most Pro-Life Presiedcy this nation has ever seen?

I don’t know, but I’m glad that miracles never cease.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post The Trump Presidency Just Became The Most Pro Life One Ever. appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group pro-life-300x182 The Trump Presidency Just Became The Most Pro Life One Ever. white house washington D.C. Social Media SCOTUS progressives President Trump Never Trumpers Morning Briefing Media journalism Human Rights Hillary Clinton healthcare Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Courts Conservatives Allow Media Exception Abortion 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Kamala Harris Says She’s Not Okay With the Bernie Sanders’ Healthcare Plan Co-Sponsored by Kamala Harris

Westlake Legal Group kamala-harris-donkeyhotey-620x443 Kamala Harris Says She’s Not Okay With the Bernie Sanders’ Healthcare Plan Co-Sponsored by Kamala Harris Politics medicare for all kamala harris healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2020

Kamala Harris – Caricature by DonkeyHotey, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

Yeah, you read the title correctly.

According to the Daily Caller, the 2020 presidential candidate and California Senator Kamala Harris recently said that she’s opposed to the healthcare plan put forth by fellow Democrat and 2020 competitor Sen. Bernie Sanders despite the fact that she herself co-sponsored it.

Harris noted during a series of fundraisers with wealthy donors in the Hamptons that she “has not been comfortable” with the Medicare-for-all plan despite putting her signature on it in 2018. Joining her signature is Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Corey Booker, 2020 candidates all.

This is yet another confusing turn from Harris, who seems to have a different answer to the health care question by the day. At one point, Harris said she wanted to eliminate private health insurance completely, but quickly walked that back when it proved to be unpopular. Then, once again, she endorsed the idea of getting rid of private insurance, even going so far as to endorse Sanders’ Medicare-for-all bill, but made it clear that she doesn’t want to walk back all private insurance despite it being in Sanders’ bill.

…which she co-sponsored.

…despite the fact that she’s apparently uncomfortable with it.

…even though it does exactly what she wants, give or take a longer timeline.

If you’re confused, don’t blame me. This is Harris’s doing.

What is likely going on is that Harris is caught between two types of voters. The moderate voters and wealthy donors who have private insurance they’d like to keep, and the radical base that has taken over her party which seeks to eliminate privatized anything. It’s not just you who’s confused, Harris seems to be too.

The more Harris tries to line up her messaging to embrace what’s popular, the more confused she becomes, but it does expose a fatal flaw in her as a politician. She’s not concerned about principle, she’s concerned about popularity. What she embraces today may be taboo tomorrow, and when it comes to the mob, what is taboo changes frequently.

Harris will soon find herself on the bad side of everyone and will see her approval numbers begin to freefall as a result.

The post Kamala Harris Says She’s Not Okay With the Bernie Sanders’ Healthcare Plan Co-Sponsored by Kamala Harris appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group kamala-harris-donkeyhotey-300x214 Kamala Harris Says She’s Not Okay With the Bernie Sanders’ Healthcare Plan Co-Sponsored by Kamala Harris Politics medicare for all kamala harris healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Crazy: A Women Rushes to the Hospital for Kidney Stones. One Goes in, Four Come Out

Westlake Legal Group easter-2144595_1280-620x411 Crazy: A Women Rushes to the Hospital for Kidney Stones. One Goes in, Four Come Out Uncategorized triplets South Dakota rapid city medicine healthcare Health Front Page Stories dannette glitz childbirth babies austin glitz Allow Media Exception

 

 

Ever think you have kidney stones and then surprisingly end up expelling other human beings out of an orifice?

It happened to a woman in South Dakota.

Dannette Giltz had had kidney stones previously — she should know the feeling. So on August 10th, she was rushed to the hospital for more of that same ol’ kidney stone crampin’.

But the medical masters told her: Those aren’t stones, lady; they’re people.”

She was in labor.

She didn’t even know she was pregnant.

What’s more — she’d actually had a baby before, too.

Twice.

Still, nothing had rung a bell. Just memories of the stones.

But doctors told her to expect twins.

One came out, and within 4 minutes, there was another.

She started thinking about names.

But POW! A third popped out within another 4 mins.

It was Surprisebabies on Parade.

She and her husband, Austin, named the kidney st– I mean, children…Blaze, Gypsy, and Nikki. Two chicks and a dude.

Each rugrat weighed just 4 pounds.

Lotsa 4’s in this story..

Dannette and Austin — who’ve been married for 12 years (a multiple of 4)– hadn’t planned to have any more kids.

Austin told Rapid City’s KOTA TV, “Once we left the hospital, she’s out of the hospital, I know she’s okay. I’m overwhelmed, honestly. It’s still exploding in my head.”

Dannette still can’t figure out how she was 34-weeks knocked-up without knowing. And the trio’d troop was a particular shock, given that she’d received no outside help:

“You don’t ever see triplets being conceived naturally, let alone going 34 weeks without knowing. So, everyone’s like I can’t believe it, I’m like we’re still in shock, trust me, we know what you mean like I go to the doctor’s thinking I’ll have surgery for kidney stones and end up going into labor with a c-section that night. It’s crazy.”

Yes. It is.

According to the new mommy, the family’s received a ton of support, from both friends and strangers:

“It’s amazing in a small town how many people will come together for stuff that’s not expected.”

You know what’s really unexpected? A woman having two ladies and a gentleman inside her without realizing it.

I guess sometimes you don’t know if you’re dealing with a kid or kid(ney).

A little wordplay there. That’s what I’m here 4.

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

In Order To Save The Planet, President Jair Bolsonaro Asks Brazilians To Hold In Every Bowel Movement For Two Days

The 10 Stages Of Genocide: A Social Media Marvel Provides A Window Into America’s Growing Mental Disorder

At Playboy, #TimesUp: The Woke Rabbit’s New Man In Charge Is A Gay Millennial

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.



 

 

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Crazy: A Women Rushes to the Hospital for Kidney Stones. One Goes in, Four Come Out appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group easter-2144595_1280-300x199 Crazy: A Women Rushes to the Hospital for Kidney Stones. One Goes in, Four Come Out Uncategorized triplets South Dakota rapid city medicine healthcare Health Front Page Stories dannette glitz childbirth babies austin glitz Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A UK-US trade deal. Never mind the economics (at least for a moment). Feel the politics.

“While trade deals have taken on an important political and symbolic value in the context of Brexit,” Dominic Walsh of Open Europe wrote recently on this site, “their economic benefits are typically smaller and slower to materialise than many realise.” This is the place to start when considering a possible UK-US agreement on trade.  Boris Johnson’s enthusiasm for one is as much political as economic: a successful deal would show Britain, as it moves a bit further from the EU, also moving a bit closer to America.

Such a rebalancing is a strategic consequence of Brexit, at least in the eyes of many backers of leaving the EU.  Future trade deals were a Vote Leave EU referendum priority – though it may be significant that the United States was not one of the headline countries named.  Perhaps the reason was a wariness of anti-American sentiment among a section of the voting public.  None the less, the prospect of a trade agreement with the United States was mooted during the 2016 campaign: hence Barack Obama’s line, written for him by Team Cameron, of Britain being “at the back of the queue” for such a deal.

The obstacles to one are formidable.  For while the Prime Minister is bound to view it through the lens of politics, Donald Trump is more likely to do through that of economics – though the one admittedly tends to blur into the other.  America’s approach to such matters as food safety and animal welfare, environmental protection and intellectual property rights is different from ours in any event.  Never mind the red herring of chlorinated chickens – so to speak – or autopilot claims from Corbynistas about NHS selloffs. The real action is elsewhere.  The United States has long had a protectionist streak, and is resistant to opening up its financial services markets, for example.

The conventional view is that Trump is the biggest America Firster of all; that he would drive a hard bargain, that he has the muscle to do so – and that he wouldn’t be in control of an agreement anyway.  Congress could block one if it wished, and might well do so in the event of No Deal, since the Irish-American lobby is as well-entrenched as ever.  It has been a headache for British governments over Ireland-linked matters before: remember the McBride principles.  A different take is that politics may win out in the end, because both Trump and Congress will want a UK trade deal in order to put economic and political pressure on the EU: we will publish more about that later this week.

John Bolton, Trump’s National Security Adviser, is visiting Britain.  He said yesterday that the UK will be “first in line” for a trade agreement post-Brexit – a deliberate counter to Obama’s line.  Bolton will be dangling the prospect as an inducement.  He will want Johnson to take a more resistant line to Huawei than Theresa May did, and for the UK to move closer to America’s position on Iran.  But the possibility of early sector deals – or at least the exclusion of Britain from new pro-protection moves – seems to be real enough.  As with the NHS, policing, immigration and stop and search, so with trade.  Johnson wants progress towards a quick win as a possible election looms.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com