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 > Posts tagged "healthcare"

Neil deGrasse Tyson Tells Ben Shapiro What He Thinks Should be Done with Transgender Athletics

Westlake Legal Group neil-degrasse-tyson-ben-shapiro-SCREENSHOT-620x330 Neil deGrasse Tyson Tells Ben Shapiro What He Thinks Should be Done with Transgender Athletics Uncategorized transgender The Sexes Sports Science Neil deGrasse Tyson healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Ben Shapiro athletics

[Screenshot from The Daily Wire, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=287&v=Z3yyOL2cCLI]

 

As reported by The Daily Wire, on this week’s episode of The Ben Shapiro Show: Sunday Special — that’s Nazi troll Ben Shapiro, by the way, who, according to a doctor, should be placed in a straitjacket (here) — astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson stopped by. I guess that would be, then, Nazi supporter Neil.

And the fan of the Führer had stuff to say about his latest book, in addition to offering a word or two on transgender sports.

Ben posed the following:

“Moving on from climate change, which is an area — as I said — where some people on the Right are not particularly interested, to areas where it seems like the Left is militating against the advent of science. One of those areas is the area of transgenderism, where the argument…”

Neil pointed out there are “no transgender letters” in his brand new Letters from an Astrophysicist.



Ben went on:

“It’s true — nothing in the book. We’ve strayed now far from the topic of your book. But since I have you here and you’re a science person, I’m going to ask you to science for me a little bit.

“[W[hen it comes to transgenderism, the argument that is typically made by gender theorists is that gender is entirely separate from sex. You’ve seen the argument made that it makes no difference, on average, if men are stronger than women are — that if we were to allow transgender women to compete with non-transgender women, then this would somehow not disadvantage biological women. This seems to me absolutely a-scientific, that if we’re actually gonna have a discussion about gender and sex, that [discussion] should be based in data, which suggests that mammals are in fact binary in terms of their sex, unless you have intersex birth defects typically, or genetic defects.”

Neil was happy as a pig in slop. Or something like that:

“I’m happy to opine on this. … So there’s the matrix of what you are biologically, how you express yourself, who you choose as a sexual partner. If we actually live in a free country as we tell ourselves, people’s freedom to behave in any of those ways should not concern you at all. Nor are they requiring that you behave that way. Okay, this is for their own freedoms because we live in a free country.”

The space man thinks maybe athletics should be parted based on hormones rather than sex.

Take it away, Tyson:

“Now, what is unresolved here is, what do you do with sports? It’s unresolved, and I’ve followed that closely. And I don’t see any — I don’t see any meaningful solutions to come down off of that. We know that hormones manifest differently in different people, and — that’s the whole thing with steroids, steroids are hormones — we rallied against steroids in professional sports because it gives you an undue advantage. So, I try to think of what the future of sports would be in the world of a gender spectrum, and it may be, you don’t specify whether it’s a male or female sport. You just take measurements of what your hormonal balances are, and so you compete based on your hormones. It’s a thought I had, I don’t know where it’s going to land.”

Ben wanted to talk tykes:

“So, you talk in your book about the education of children and teaching children about science. Right now, children are being taught about the quote-unquote ‘gender spectrum,’ which is not scientifically based. That is a theory-based idea.”

Neil for the block:

“No, wait, wait, wait, hold on. People express themselves on a spectrum, so you learn that.”

Ben asserted that’s an expression, not something related to science.

The older dude between the two dudes was interested in a different kind of fact.

Do it, deGrasse:

“So, whether the fact that people want to express themselves on a spectrum, on a gender spectrum, whether that fact is something you want to put in a sociology class or in a science class, maybe that remains to be determined. But it is a real fact about real society.”

But splitting men and women according to hormones is not, according to Neil fan Joe Rogan, a way to go about it (here).

The reason: Those hormones are coursing through a body —big, tall, wide-spanned one, in the case of a man. And that man has male hips. And male bones. And all that brick and mortar was transformed by male puberty.

The difference is so great, as Joe’s stated, that an untrained male’s reaction times are superior even to a professionally-trained female’s.

Neil is certainly right, of course — people do absolutely have the freedom to identify how they wish.

And despite the fact that expression doesn’t affect physical reality, the two are being merged right quickly — consider a medical form from a California doctor’s office. The document asks new patients their gender — Male of Female.

Then we seal our masks and point our fins toward the surface:

Which best describes the patient:

  • Identifies as a Male
  • Identifies as a Female
  • Female-to-Male
  • Male-to-Female
  • Genderqueer neither exclusively male nor female
  • Additional gender category or other, please specify
  • Choose not to disclose

If the patient is taking hormones, that is — of course — important to know, as symptoms from the intake or blood work results will be interpreted accordingly. But what’s the relevance of a patient declaring their “additional gender category” of identity, when medicine — like athletics — only concerns itself with biology?

If I’m my own original, never-before-having-existed gender, “@!#?@!” — named after Q*bert’s cuss word (and I believe the Q Man might also have his own gender thing going on) — how does the doctor differently care for my arm? Or my more difference-making parts? Is there a @!#?@! prostate check? Or a special mammogram? @!#?@!, both of those hurt.

But what do I know? I’m just someone eating a turkey and swiss omelet paired with high-pulp OJ.

Someone better traveled — Chelsea Clinton — knows differently than I, as she recently dished:

Chelsea also expressed delight at the National Health Service’s new policy of assigning single-sex wards according to gender identity rather than biology (here):

“How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?”

So take it from her — she’s the First Daughter. Or Son.

Or @!#?@!.

However she wants to identify.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: herehere, and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Women In Vancouver Lose Their Businesses As A Man Tries To Legally Force Them Into Waxing His LadyScrotum

She Just ‘Woke’ Up: Hillary Compares Staying In Her Marriage To Affirming A Transgender Child. Clinton 2020?

A Tribunal Rules Against A Christian Doctor Refusing To Use Transgender Pronouns – It’s ‘Incompatible With Human Dignity’

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. 

The post Neil deGrasse Tyson Tells Ben Shapiro What He Thinks Should be Done with Transgender Athletics appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group neil-degrasse-tyson-ben-shapiro-SCREENSHOT-300x160 Neil deGrasse Tyson Tells Ben Shapiro What He Thinks Should be Done with Transgender Athletics Uncategorized transgender The Sexes Sports Science Neil deGrasse Tyson healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Ben Shapiro athletics   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Worse Than Bad Legislation? Lobbyists Writing Multiple Bad Executive Power Grabs

Westlake Legal Group obama-keep-your-doctor-SCREENSHOT-620x332 Worse Than Bad Legislation? Lobbyists Writing Multiple Bad Executive Power Grabs senator lamar alexander republicans Politics Policy Obamacare News medicare for all lower health care costs act of 2019 law kevin brady healthcare Government Front Page Stories Front Page Economy democrats Business & Economy Bipartisanship bipartisan

Barack Obama spent his first two years as President – enjoying a Democrat-controlled Congress that was as awful for America as he was.

The Democrat Congress passed a lot of really awful legislation – which Obama very happily signed.

We the People loathed said legislation.  So We incepted the Tea Party Movement – and elected a Republican House majority the very next chance we had.

We did this – to impede the previously unimpeded flow of really awful Democrat legislation to which we had been subjected.

Obama’s response to our electoral blockade?  Let’s just say it wasn’t self-reflective – or respectful of our wishes:

“We are not just going to be waiting for legislation….I’ve got a pen – and I’ve got a phone.  And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions….”

But wait a second….  Here’s Obama in 2008 – running for the gig:

“We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.”

I much prefer Obama – Edition 2008.

Why any Republican would seek to emulate Obama 2.0’s executive fiat policy – is light years beyond me.

But that’s exactly what some Republicans may be trying to do.

Some Republicans have thankfully gained no traction with their Elephant colleagues on a really awful bill….

Why Are Some Republicans Looking To Add More Government To Health Care?

Why Do Republicans #Persist In Adding Government To Health Care?:

“Behold – Tennessee Republican Senator Lamar Alexander.  Who very recently penned an editorial defending his government-expanding decision.  His very own title – admits the inherent error.

“‘Lower Health Care Costs Act’ Aims to End Surprise Billing

“Your legislation ‘aims to end surprise billing’ – ?!?

“Government is the worst shot in the history of aiming.

“Obamacare aimed to ‘reduce premiums by $2,500 per year.’  They DOUBLED.

“I guarantee you no one around at Medicare’s inception said they were aiming to put US taxpayers $38 trillion underwater.  Yet that’s what it’s done.

“Yet Senator Alexander #Persists.”

While Alexander #Persists in the Senate – Texas Republican Congressman Kevin Brady may be in the throes of #Persist in the House.  And may be – looking to go one awful step farther.

Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Richard Neal realizes this legislative duck his dead.  So Neal is looking to end run the Congress to which he was elected – and obviously shouldn’t have been:

“House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) is proposing a new way to move forward on crafting rules to protect patients from surprise medical bills….

“In a letter to Democratic lawmakers…Neal is proposing a new solution that would essentially punt the details of the fix to a committee consisting of stakeholder groups and the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury.

“The committee would come up with recommendations that would then be issued in a regulation from the administration.”

This is a Congressman – and the Chairman of an allegedly important Committee.  His constituents elected him to the Legislative Branch – thinking they were electing someone to draft and vote upon legislation.

And this person is looking to “punt the details of the fix to a committee consisting of stakeholder groups and the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury.”

Which is an entire gaggle of people – whom NO ONE ELECTED.

This is an unelected gaggle – made up of industry lobbyists…and career Swamp bureaucrats.

Now, we know lobbyists write most of the bills Congress extrudes. Here, gone is even the pretense of legislators legislating.

This unelected gaggle would draft a…not a bill, because that’s what Neal and his colleagues are supposed to draft.  This unelected gaggle would draft a…something.

And then the three departments’ worth of unelected bureaucrats – would unilaterally impose what they’ve unilaterally concocted.

NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with the Constitution – or the representative republic the Constitution created.

If We the People don’t like what these clowns have done to us – we can’t do a thing about it.

Where are the Republicans on this unilateral assault on our Constitution, government and freedom?

The answer isn’t heartening:

“Neal wrote in the letter that he is ‘optimistic’ that Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas), the top Republican on the committee, will agree to his proposal.

“‘Committee Republicans support banning surprise medical billing to protect patients and look forward to reviewing the details of this and other possible solutions to solve this problem in a balanced way for the American people,’ a Brady spokesperson said.”

HARD NO, Congressman Brady.

The ONLY government attempt – MUST come directly from the Legislative Branch.

Your inability to pass this awful piece of legislation – is what the FBI used to call a clue.

You can’t pass this awful piece of legislation – because members of the Legislative Branch have rightly deemed it awful.

This is supposed to mean – the bill dies.

It is NOT an invitation to outsource your gigs.

It is NOT an invitation to hand off crafting law – to unelected lobbyists and bureaucrats.

It is NOT an invitation to the impose this unconstitutional creation – via Obama-esque unilateral fiats.

Congress:

Do your jobs.

Which very often means – doing nothing at all.

The post Worse Than Bad Legislation? Lobbyists Writing Multiple Bad Executive Power Grabs appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group obama-keep-your-doctor-SCREENSHOT-300x161 Worse Than Bad Legislation? Lobbyists Writing Multiple Bad Executive Power Grabs senator lamar alexander republicans Politics Policy Obamacare News medicare for all lower health care costs act of 2019 law kevin brady 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 

Matthew Lesh: The radical neoliberal programme which can revitalise the Conservatives

Matthew Lesh is the Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute.

As the flus from last week’s Conservative Party Conference slowly fade, it is worth turning our minds back to a conference that we must never forget.

It was the autumn of 1980. The country was facing economic turmoil. Decades of Keynesianism was taking its toll with high inflation and low growth.  But there was a leader, a radical neoliberal, who refused to accept the status quo or allow the doomsters to take her off course.  “You turn if you want to, the lady’s not for turning,” Margaret Thatcher told Conservative Party Conference.

Thatcher unashamedly spoke not just of policy change but creating “a new independence of spirit and zest for achievement”. She called her administration “one of the truly radical ministries of post-war Britain”.

Boris Johnson’s party conference speech last week has been lauded for its political nous: get Brexit done, and fund the NHS and other public services.

This makes a lot of political sense, particularly for the party’s ‘Go Midlands, Go North’ strategy: the plan to win northern Leave working class areas who traditionally voted Labour Party.

But Johnson’s spending is frustrating to many free marketeers, who have traditionally found their home in the Conservative Party. Boris speaks of a “dynamic enterprise culture” and the Conservative Party’s history in pioneering “free markets and privatisation”. But so far there has been little meat on the bone, while the party is giving up its reputation for fiscal conservatism by committing to big-spending plans.

Politically, this approach undermines support from economic liberals in London and the Southeast. This danger is heightened by the likes of Sam Gyimah’s defection, signalling the acceptability of the Liberal Democrats to Tory economic liberals. With the Lib Dems also winning over the likes of Chuka Umunna there’s a danger the two main parties are seen by voters to leave the centre stage to the Liberal Democrats — and leave governing alone to the scrap heap of history.

To get a strong majority, Boris needs to win both Chelsea and Fulham as well as Stoke-on-Trent. He needs to be able to hold up his economic credentials to win back Remain-voting Conservatives voters – not just give them another reason to abandon the party.

But this balancing act is nothing new. Thatcher, despite some reforms to childcare and housing subsidies, oversaw a huge increase in social spending. She declared that the NHS is “safe with us” and bragged about “enormous increases in the amount spent on social welfare to help the less fortunate”. David Cameron similarly declared that the NHS is “safe in my hands,” while cutting taxes, introducing free schools and reforming welfare.

Thatcher and Cameron balanced public spending with undertaking fundamental free market economic reform to boost the economy. To ensure the Conservative Party remains a broad coalition, it is important that Boris’ free market rhetoric is given meaning. There needs to be some meat on the bone. The Conservative Party will be much weaker if it does not have a serious economic policy offering that creates a clear distinction with Labour.

On the political left, while many may disagree with their approach and ideas, there is undeniably a radical reimagining of policy and a clear agenda: a four day work week, shutting down private schools and nationalising industry.

Some on the Right have chosen to respond to the emboldened Left by adopting parts of their agenda in the hope of placating and preventing the worst. But, as Theresa May’s premiership displays being Labour-lite and adopting policies like the energy price gap, or nanny state policies like the sugar tax, simply does not work.

The Neoliberal Manifesto, a joint project between the Adam Smith Institute and 1828 released last week at the Conservative Party Conference, presents a positive vision for Britain’s future. In the past, the word “neoliberalism” has been twisted by those seeking to manufacture a strawman on which to blame every societal ill.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Neoliberals are champions of freedom. We want government to protect and facilitate your ability to flourish; we believe in the power and ability of each individual; we believe in doing what is most effective; we are optimistic about the future; we support market intervention to address specific issues but reject paternalism; we are cosmopolitan and outward-looking to the world.

The manifesto calls for a liberal, free market approach to trade that encompasses cutting tariffs and pursuing deals based on the principle of mutual recognition. It declares that need to reform Britain’s outdated planning laws to allow for the building of more houses to fix Britain’s housing crisis. The manifesto also calls for a simpler, fairer tax system by getting rid of stamp duty and allowing capital expenditures to be expensed in full immediately.

On migration, it calls for a liberal system that brings the most talented people to our nation. On education, it explains the need for more choice. On innovation and technology, it calls for an optimistic approach defined by permissionless innovation.  It also calls for a liberal approach to drugs and personal choices, a compassionate but cost-effective approach to welfare, and addressing climate change without sinking our economy.

Many of these ideas are radical, and today can be expected to receive a mixed reception. But we think that our politicians should lead from the front, not the back. These policies are not designed with the idea of what may or may not be popular today, but rather setting the agenda for the future.

While not every action she took was immediately popular, Thatcher’s agenda transformed the country for the better and proved a politically successful formula across three general election victories. Cameron similarly won a majority after undertaking difficult decisions.

If the Government does not have an offering for people who want lower taxes and the state to live within its means, they risk unexpected losses.  Johnson can follow in the footsteps of successful leaders with his own liberal, free market agenda.

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

Damian Green: Labour’s dishonest attack on us this week will only work if we narrow our appeal

Damian Green is a former First Secretary of State.  He is Chair of the One Nation Caucus and MP for Ashford.

The cover of Labour’s Conference Guide this year is full of the usual upbeat (and of course impractical) promises: “More doctors and nurses”, “Free bus passes”, “Reduced class sizes”. You only have to turn the page to find what they really want to talk about-a distortion of what today’s Conservative is about.

The Welcome to Conference message contains a familiar dishonest litany. “The impact of almost ten years of Tory austerity is clear; in work poverty, Universal Credit, NHS Funding Cuts, regional inequality, and acts of malice like scrapping free TV licenses”……”We need a Government that will work for the common good, not just to reward the rich.”

Of course it’s unfair propaganda. The new element is that Corbyn’s Labour seeks constantly to make this attack personal. They want to create an atmosphere where every individual Tory must by definition be cruel and unfeeling, as well as rich and posh. From the “Never kissed a Tory” badges to Labour MPs saying they could never be friendly with Tory colleagues, the Labour attack is a calculated part of modern culture wars. The aim is not just short-term political advantage, but a long-term wish to make individuals who espouse Conservative values seem unfit for decent society. The more this attack succeeds, the more difficult it is for us to attract new supporters, particularly young supporters. So we have to refute it strongly and effectively.

As ever, the most effective argument follows the rule “show, don’t tell”. Throughout its history, the Conservative Party has been at the forefront of social reforms which have helped the poor and disadvantaged, flatly disproving the Labour thesis. Paul Goodman is writing a series of articles on ConHome this week showing this repeated phenomenon.

Modern history is equally full of evidence of this vital strain of Conservatism which seeks to bind society together by ensuring that no one is left behind. Some of the most neglected communities in the country in the early 1980s, from East London to Liverpool, have been utterly transformed by the practical energy displayed by Michael Heseltine. Where there was once dereliction and despair, there is now prosperity and hope, thanks to Conservative Governments.

The Environment is another issue where lazy or malevolent commentators assume the left must have the best tunes. In fact, the first prominent British politician to realise its central importance was Margaret Thatcher. Bringing the story more up to date, David Cameron was equally seized of its importance (at least in his younger, more idealistic days). We still remember the huskies. The current Conservative Government will certainly continue this honourable tradition, and we should all publicly proclaim it. Vote Blue Go Green should be a slogan for the ages.

We should also be relentless in pointing out how the children of poorer households have benefitted from Conservative education reforms over recent years. All of this was outweighed by the anger of teachers at the last general election over spending levels during the period of austerity, so it is very important that the extra spending that will be made in schools in the coming years is accompanied by a continuing commitment to reform. For example, Michael Gove’s Free Schools are a great innovation which would certainly be killed by a Labour Government.

Equally, for all of its teething problems we can be proud of Universal Credit. The best argument for how it is helping benefit recipients is the historically low level of unemployment. The fact that it is always better to work, and always better to work longer hours, is the biggest single change in the benefit system since Beveridge, and it is good news for those on benefits as well as for the general health of society. Work is always the best long-term route out of poverty, and we should happy to argue with the Left on this point.

So we are able to show numerous examples where practical Conservative policies are hard-headed but not remotely hard-hearted. By contrast, they are helping people who have no advantages make the most of themselves and share in rising prosperity. Now we have moved out of the period of austerity this is an easier argument to make, so we can be more aggressive in calling out Labour’s attempts to demonise all of us.

At the same time, we must be vigilant in not giving Labour the chance to claim that the moderate Conservative tradition is in danger. This is not the article in which to discuss in detail the removal of the Whip from some of my colleagues, but it is absolutely the place to remind us all that the One Nation tradition is a central part of conservatism, and its underlying insight that the Conservative duty is to bind society together is more important than ever in these troubled times.

The biggest task for any Conservative is to convince a dubious electorate that properly regulated capitalism is the best system both for creating wealth and for spreading it fairly. We will need the maximum number of supporters, and the full breadth of all Conservative traditions to make this argument with force. At a time when Labour is determined to convince the non-political majority that Conservatives are basically evil, it is more important than ever that we demonstrate on a daily basis that we are the normal, decent majority in this country.

Even in the short term we should remember that the Liberal Democrats attract some normally Conservative voters in the same way that the Brexit Party does. We need to be careful on both our flanks. A strategy of delivering Brexit and simultaneously demonstrating that we can improve public services to the benefit of everyone is not just the best approach for the coming election, but the most convincing way of dismissing the Labour smear about our underlying motives.

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

Pelosi’s Drug Price Controls, Confiscatory Taxes and Socialized Medicine for All

Westlake Legal Group pills-620x405 Pelosi’s Drug Price Controls, Confiscatory Taxes and Socialized Medicine for All socialist Nancy Pelosi medicare for all Medicare healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story Drug Price Controls Allow Media Exception

This morning, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi unveiled her long-awaited Socialist drug price control plan. It’s everything you’d expect from the now Socialist Democratic party which now openly embraces socialism and government control of everything.

Pelosi’s exremist plan titled the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, includes multiple provisions allowing the government to interfere in the healthcare market, mandating direct negotiation with manufacturers, severe fines and taxes and substantial changes to the competitive Medicare Part D program:

It calls for the Department of Health and Human Services to target 250 drugs that lack competition. Under the plan, their prices would be about 1.2 times the average of the medication’s cost in other nations. The plan also orders fines — as much as a 95 percent tax of a drug’s gross sales — for companies that don’t negotiate price.

This steep, escalating penalty creates a powerful financial incentive for drug manufacturers to negotiate and abide by the final price, while ensuring that patients maintain uninterrupted access to the medicines they need.

After this, the Secretary can negotiate with companies further, forcing them to accept even lower prices.

The Pelosi plan would drastically distort market forces that create incentives for private companies to create new products, reducing patient choice and ultimately hurting the U.S. health system and industry.

Under Pelosi’s scheme bureaucrats will establish a maximum price which the government will pay for a drug, based upon an average taken from foreign countries which already use socialist pricing to determine the cost of their medicines.

Under current law, the Health and Human Services Secretary is barred from engaging in negotiations for prescription drugs covered by Medicare. That prohibition was contained in 2003 Medicare Modernization Act that set up Medicare’s prescription drug benefit.

Pelosi’s price controls caps the market, skews market forces which incentivize companies to compete with one another, while simultaneously forcing companies to adjust their business models. This new market will force pharmaceutical manufacturers to reduce investment into research and development of new cures as there will be less capital available to reinvest.

I should be clear, Pelosi’s price control plan is not a voluntary process. One of the cornerstones of our market-based economy is any firm or individual’s ability to enter into or not enter into a contract or negotiation which they do not want. Speaker Pelosi’s price control scheme eliminates that longstanding principle. Instead the plan forces companies to accept negotiation with the government. Worse, these companies are selected by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, meaning that they have no recourse to even challenge the premise of the negotiations. The government controls their choices.

But Pelosi’scheme gets even worse, if the government negotiates a price which the company cannot accept, they have no choice. Speaker Pelosi’s bill gives companies two options, accept the new price or pay an “escalating excise tax” on the company’s “annual gross sales” that will start at 65 percent.

The tax can escalate and finally maxes out at 95 percent. That’s right the government could charge private companies a 95 percent tax on their sales. This is, obviously, untenable and unacceptable. How would a company afford to pay its employees, offer benefits, pay its rent, if 95 percent of their revenue is going to the government?

Pelosi’s price control bill even imposes a retroactive inflationary penalty for all drugs covered under Medicare Parts B and D. The proposal links price increases to the average rate of inflation, meaning that if a drug’s price rises above the rate of inflation than the manufacturer would be forced to pay the difference to the U.S. Treasury Department in the form of a rebate. This retroactivity goes back to 2016, the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto laws be damned.

Finally, the plan forces these companies to offer these prices, negotiated via the government’s buying power in Medicare, to all payers, meaning that Pelosi’s price caps would extend to the private market, creating an even greater chilling effect.

While I’m not surprised Socialist Democrats have proposed a plan that ignores reality in favor of government control, the thoughtlessness of linking prices to inflation is staggering.

Look, we’re all frustrated that healthcare expenses are high, and it can be hard to afford the medicines we need. But the solution to these questions is not more government control. It is not more Socialism. The answer is having a free-market for price competition, faster FDA approval times, and price transparency.

Pelosi’s plan is a step toward the Socialists’ $30 trillion Medicare for All, under which the Socialist Democrats will try to take employer-provided health care away from more than 150 million Americans. I look forward to watching Conservatives reject it.

The post Pelosi’s Drug Price Controls, Confiscatory Taxes and Socialized Medicine for All appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group capsules-chemistry-coated-143654-300x200 Pelosi’s Drug Price Controls, Confiscatory Taxes and Socialized Medicine for All socialist Nancy Pelosi medicare for all Medicare healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story Drug Price Controls Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ted Cruz Hilariously Points Out a Major Problem with California’s New Iowa Travel Ban

Westlake Legal Group TedCruzAPimage-620x317 Ted Cruz Hilariously Points Out a Major Problem with California’s New Iowa Travel Ban Xavier Becerra Uncategorized transgender Ted Cruz medicaid Kim Reynolds kamala harris healthcare gender reassignment Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats Campaigns California 2020

Senator Ted Cruz speaks at the George H.W. Bush Commemorative Center in Midland, Texas for a campaign stop Wednesday, Oct. 31, 2018. Cruz is on his bus tour campaigning before the mid-term elections. (Mark Rogers/Odessa American via AP)

 

 

Last Friday, California continued its intolerance of other states having politics different than its own.

Following Iowa’s failure to bill taxpayers for gender-transition surgeries under Medicaid, Attorney General Xavier Becerra made the “Land Where the Tall Corn Grows” the 11th state on California’s travel ban list.

I thought Democrats are against travel bans?

Anyway, state employees are now prohibited from traveling to nearly a quarter of the United States on the citizenry’s dime.

Actually, that doesn’t sound like a bad idea.

But — as pointed out by Ted Cruz — for 2020 Democrat hopeful Kamala Harris, it ain’t so good.

Ladies and gentleman, note the political footshot:

The Daily Wire observes that Iowa hosts “the first nominating contest in the Democratic Party presidential primaries.”

It’s interesting how the same legislation can be framed so differently. This was Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds’s description of House File 766:

“This narrow provision simply clarifies that Iowa’s Civil Rights Act does not require taxpayer dollars to pay for sex reassignment and other similar surgeries. This returns us to what had been the state’s position for years.”

Contrast that with AG Xavier’s sum-up:

“The Iowa Legislature has reversed course on what was settled law under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, repealing protections for those seeking gender-affirming healthcare. California has taken an unambiguous stand against discrimination and government actions that would enable it. That’s why my office is adding Iowa to the list of states subject to state-funded or sponsored travel restrictions.”

Shouldn’t the Left Coast state help one of its own? Kamala could use it.

More from The Daily Wire:

Harris has enough troubles of her own without being banned from traveling to Iowa; her poll numbers plunged right after Rep. Tulsi Gabbard slammed her at a Democratic presidential debate and haven’t recovered; she’s hovering at a puny 6.2% in the RealClearPolitics average.

Oh, well.

As for the Medicaid regulation, at least one Twitter user gave Iowa’s governor a high-five, and she even provided her street cred:

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

Great News: Hillary Clinton’s Story – Which Proved Women In Politics Have A Glass Ceiling – Is Coming To Netflix

Former Sex Educator: Planned Parenthood Is Grooming Girls For Abortion Via The Public Education System

Pow! Ted Cruz Mercilessly Lays Out Bernie Sanders Over His Pro-China Comments

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 Ted Cruz Hilariously Points Out a Major Problem with California’s New Iowa Travel Ban appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group TedCruzAPimage-300x153 Ted Cruz Hilariously Points Out a Major Problem with California’s New Iowa Travel Ban Xavier Becerra Uncategorized transgender Ted Cruz medicaid Kim Reynolds kamala harris healthcare gender reassignment Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats Campaigns California 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Jenny Jackson: A winning Conservative NHS manifesto would focus on life’s first thousand days

Jenny Jackson is a health consultant. She was previously a Special Adviser at the Department of Health, and Director of Women and Child Health at University College London Partners.

I remember working on the Conservative health manifesto in 2007 for an election that never happened. Osborne pulled inheritance tax breaks out of the hat, and Brown bottled calling a poll.

Today, as Brexit speculation grips Westminster, I can’t help thinking that Labour is bottling it once again because they lack imagination. They’ve zero to offer people beyond their duplicitous EU policy. Right now, there’s probably some poor spud-faced nipper in Labour HQ piecing together the health sections of their manifesto from Socialist Worker back copies.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have already laid the cornerstone for their manifesto: more NHS funding. The public backs raising taxes for this purpose, including a majority of Conservative Party supporters. The other abiding issues remain access to primary care and waiting times.

But beware the latter. One top pollster disclosed to me his unpublished findings, which show repeatedly that, if you talk about waiting times, the public is always left with a negative impression. Even if the waits are going down, there’s still a wait.

Beyond these key building blocks, what should be our focus? I think we should begin at the beginning.

Every new administration has a plan for the first hundred days of office. During this time, the tone is set for the duration of that term. A strong start sticks. And so it is with each one of us.

The first thousand days, from conception to two years old, frames the rest of our life in terms of health and prosperity. Clinical academics have also shown the benefits of maternal preconception health as a determinant in the lifelong health of children. Public policy needs to catch up with this new body of evidence. But how do we translate it without creating the mother of all nanny states?

The key is to empower people with information that doesn’t suggest blame, but is matched by a range of solutions, tailored to their preference. The current mistrust about MMR is a classic case in point. Despite campaigns to counter misinformation on MMR, many are still sceptical about its benefits. So we should conduct a cost benefit analysis to give parents a choice between single doses or the all-in-one vaccination. If it means sustaining herd immunity, it’s worth a shot.

Choice should extend to the range of services required post-birth. The NHS is good at offering expectant mothers a choice of birth location, and so it should be after birth. If mothers were empowered to exercise choice over their health visitor for example, it’s likely they’d be more responsive to advice and to more visits. This is especially important when it comes to supporting mothers with post-natal depression because of the social stigma attached to it.

The NHS offers free prescriptions, including for health supplements, to expectant mothers and in the year post-birth. This option should be extended to parents planning a pregnancy, given the evidence between maternal health pre-conception and a child’s long-term prospects.

Suggestions like these, designed to make the NHS more responsive to an individual’s choice at the most important juncture in our life cycle, would sit best in our Conservative manifesto. Corbyn’s Labour doesn’t understand about choice in public services. And no-one knows what the Liberal Democrats stand for beyond the repeal of Article 50.

A focus on the first thousand days is compatible with the progress we’ve already made with early years initiatives. In particular, the work of Tim Loughton strikes at the core of our compassionate Conservative values in terms of supporting the most vulnerable families. And Andrea Leadsom’s leadership on innovative cross-departmental partnerships, in order to provide a more holistic and seamless service to parents and children, is key.

Our approach could also draw judiciously on the recommendations set out in the recent reports from the Health Select Committee and the Science and Technology Committee, which have both looked at the evidence base for interventions in the first thousand days of life.

The upcoming election will centre on Brexit. The health manifesto will rightly front up NHS spending. But beyond that, I hope the Conservative health ministers and their advisers, with their wealth of expertise, will prioritise policies that support the first thousand days of life. That is how we will make the biggest gains in national prosperity for the long term and start to regain the debate beyond Brexit.

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

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