A Letter To The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

We are writing to you because of our tremendous concern. We have read that your industry has decided to “back” the health care legislation (being promoted by the White House/Congress) through a series of commercials. Please, please do not do this, for the sake of your industry and for the sake of our country.

We understand (from your perspective) that if this health care legislation passes, your industry could stand to make a substantial profit (from the newly insured who need medication). We do not oppose capitalism; in fact, we believe that it is a cornerstone of our successful democracy. However, in this instance, we believe that the Federal government may be misleading you when they encourage your “free enterprise,” after all, as evidenced by the auto industry, nothing done with/for the government (these days) is ever “free” and tends to come with a substantial price tag.

Is your industry prepared for more government bureaucracy? Don’t you (at times) feel as though current government regulations hamper research and development? By “getting in bed” with the White House, are you prepared to be told how to make your product, how much of it to make, how much it can cost, and to whom you may distribute it? We are fearful that this is exactly what will happen to your industry if in fact you associate yourself with the proposed health care legislation. Not only will the federal bureaucracy of this legislation take away average American’s freedom of choice, we believe that in the long run, it will take away your livelihood as well.

Please take a step back from the situation and view these concerns, not as businesspersons, but as husbands/wives, fathers/mothers who want to continue to have a choice in what is best for their families. As a husband/wife, father/mother, how will you feel if you know that you have a product that can improve, potentially even save someone’s life (maybe someone in your own family), only to be told by the federal government that you can’t manufacture that product anymore because it’s too costly, or if the government starts mandating who can/cannot receive your medications? Again, just take a look at the auto industry and the government’s use of “creative destruction.” Your industry, as you now know it, will probably be replaced by one run by the Federal government (unless of course, you are hoping for a government bailout).

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider our concerns. We hope that you will decide to remain “neutral” in the ongoing debate over health care. Please, for the sake of our country, for the sake of your industry!

Please consider sending an email to PhRMA expressing your concern for their involvement in the health care debate. God Bless America!

http://www.phrma.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=105

Are you "un-American?"

The next few weeks are going to be very important for America. As you head out to express (peaceably) your concerns, please keep the words of Rep. Steny Hoyer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi in mind!

'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate

By Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer

Americans have been waiting for nearly a century for quality, affordable health care.

Health coverage for all was on the national agenda as early as 1912, thanks to Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose presidential run. Months after World War II came to an end in 1945, President Harry Truman called on Congress to guarantee all Americans the "right to adequate medical care and protection from the economic fears of sickness." From President Lyndon Johnson to President Bill Clinton, to President Obama's winning campaign on the promise of reform, there hasn't been a more debated domestic issue than the promise of affordable health care for all.

(Steny Hoyer)

(Nancy Pelosi/USA TODAY)

We believe it is healthy for such a historic effort to be subject to so much scrutiny and debate. The failure of past attempts is a reminder that health insurance reform is a defining moment in our nation's history — it is well worth the time it takes to get it right. We are confident that we will get this right.

Already, three House committees have passed this critical legislation and over August, the two of us will work closely with those three committees to produce one strong piece of legislation that the House will approve in September.

In the meantime, as members of Congress spend time at home during August, they are talking with their constituents about reform. The dialogue between elected representatives and constituents is at the heart of our democracy and plays an integral role in assuring that the legislation we write reflects the genuine needs and concerns of the people we represent.

However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.

Let the facts be heard

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

Health care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts.

The first fact is that health insurance reform will mean more patient choice. It will allow every American who likes his or her current plan to keep it. And it will free doctors and patients to make the health decisions that make the most sense, not the most profits for insurance companies.

Reform will mean stability and peace of mind for the middle class. Never again will medical bills drive Americans into bankruptcy; never again will Americans be in danger of losing coverage if they lose their jobs or if they become sick; never again will insurance companies be allowed to deny patients coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

Lower costs, better care

Reform will mean affordable coverage for all Americans. Our plan's cost-lowering measures include a public health insurance option to bring competitive pressure to bear on rapidly consolidating private insurers, research on health outcomes to better inform the decisions of patients and doctors, and electronic medical records to help doctors save money by working together. For seniors, the plan closes the notorious Medicare Part D "doughnut hole" that denies drug coverage to those with between $2,700 and $6,100 per year in prescriptions.

Reform will also mean higher-quality care by promoting preventive care so health problems can be addressed before they become crises. This, too, will save money. We'll be a much healthier country if all patients can receive regular checkups and tests, such as mammograms and diabetes exams, without paying a dime out-of-pocket.

This month, despite the disruptions, members of Congress will listen to their constituents back home and explain reform legislation. We are confident that our principles of affordable, quality health care will stand up to any and all critics.

Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change — America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal.

This fall, at long last, we must reach it.

Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is speaker of the House and

Steny Hoyer, D-Md., is House majority leader.

Posted at 12:15 AM/ET, August 10, 2009 in Forum commentary, Health care/Insurance - Forum, Politics, Government - Forum | Permalink

Consider contacting both Rep. Hoyer and Speaker Pelosi and tell them that you are not (in her words) "afraid" because we have the Constitution of the United States on our side! God Bless America

The St. Louis Tea Party will hold a press conference and peaceable protest at SEIU Headquarters

Refusing to back down to the SEIU Labor thugs bought and paid for by the White House with Stimulus Funds, our fellow Tea Party Patriots in St. Louis show that we, The Tea Party Patriots, will not be kept from excercising our Right to Free Speech.

From the St. Louis Tea Party Patriots --

CONTACT: Billy Hennessy
PHONE: 314.266.1775
DATE: Saturday, August 8, 2009

TIME: Noon
LOCATION: SEIU Headquarters 5585 Pershing Ave., Suite 130, St. Louis, MO 63112 View Map

The St. Louis Tea Party will hold a press conference

and peaceable protest at SEIU Headquarters

St. Louis Tea Party will be protesting tomorrow is to demand justice for Kenneth Gladney, an African-American conservative who was brutally beaten by 4 individuals, at least 2 of whom were identified as SEIU representatives. The beatings included racial slurs and required hospitalization of Mr. Gladney.

As videos show, the attack was unprovoked and no one retaliated against the union thugs.

This attack followed hours of taunts and verbal assaults by SEIU and ACORN members upon citizens gathered to express their views under the First Amendment. We believe this brutal beating is part of an organized plan to suppress dissent to the Administration's planned seizure of the medical industry in the United States.

Anyone who believes in non-violent protest, in the rule of law, in the right of black men and women to express conservative political views, in the right to peaceably assemble, to speak freely, and to petition Congress for a redress of grievances is invited to attend.

The Tea Party specifically requests the NAACP and the ACLU to come out in support of Kenneth Gladney's rights which were trampled by these hooligans. We call on Representative Russ Carnahan to denounce the beating. We call on President Obama to denounce the beatings. We call on St. Louis County to prosecute the assailants to fullest extent of the law.

###

Phase II for Obamacare: The new strategy

Phase II for Obamacare: The new strategy

by Michael Franc

House Democratic leaders sent their rank-and-file members home for the August recess armed with a stunningly disingenuous memo that sets forth the Democrats' new strategy for health-care reform. "Our message is simple," the memo began. "It is in sync with the White House. And it counters the Republican 'government takeover' message."

Yes, all that "government takeover" rhetoric that has contributed to the recent round of negative polls does need to be addressed. After all, a plurality of Americans now believe that Obama-style health-care reform will increase the cost of health care not only for the nation as a whole but, most ominously, for them personally. A plurality also believe Obamacare will limit their access to care and lower the quality of health care in the United States. And then there are all those nettlesome town-hall meetings . . .

Thanks to the new talking points, town-hall participants in Democratic districts won't be bored with last month's tired old rhetoric. Gone is all that happy talk about keeping the health plan you like, or continuing to see your family doctor whenever you want. Gone is the claim that reform will "bend the cost curve" and lower overall medical costs. And don't expect to hear that the reform will, all things considered, reduce your personal health-care costs by $2,500 per year.

Pelosi and Co. have hit the rhetorical reset button.

Last month's ineffective talking points have been thrown under the bus, supplanted by attacks on the "villains" who run the nation's insurance industry. The strategy memo continues:

Hold the insurance companies accountable. Remove them from between you and your doctor. No discrimination for pre-existing conditions. No dropping your coverage because you get sick. No more job or life decisions made based on loss of coverage. No need to change doctors or plans. No co-pays for preventive care. No excessive out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles, or co-pays. No yearly or lifetime cost caps on what insurance companies cover.

In their totality, these mandates would effectively socialize the market for health insurance and transform health insurers into de facto public utilities. No word yet on how much they would increase the cost of a basic, government-approved health plan. Nor do we have the details on the extent to which this socializing effect would subsidize some (e.g., older, less healthy workers) at the expense of others (e.g., the young and the healthy). But never mind. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius assures us that these reforms will deliver "peace of mind" to Americans worried about their health coverage.

The radically altered sales pitch reflects a radically altered state of play for ObamaCare. Its advocates find themselves on the short end of public opinion, and lobbying powerhouses are starting to jump off the bandwagon.

Consider the pharmaceutical industry. It had offered tens of billions in concessions on drug pricing to get a seat at the negotiating table. Now, however, it is opposing the so-called Tri-Committee Bill in the House. In a very direct letter to House leaders, Big Pharma's industry association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, explained:

[T]he House Tri-Committee Bill . . . would effectively act as a tax increase by raising premiums for seniors in the popular Medicare prescription drug program, severely restrict patient access and choice and hurt an innovative sector that currently employs hundreds of thousands of workers. The result could mean significant job losses in the middle of a recession . . .

Under the House bill, we're concerned that the federal government will wind up rationing health care and dictating what medicines doctors can prescribe to their patients. This may well prevent patients from gaining access to the critically important medicines they need to fight diseases such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

What's more, even the Congressional Budget Office has said that government negotiation of Medicare Part D prices would save little, if any, money.

Wow. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln . . .

Finally, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, and hundreds of small-business owners signed a sobering letter to House leaders. The government plan, they argue, will "significantly increase costs for every American who purchases private insurance." The proposed mandate that employers "either provide health insurance or pay huge fines or payroll taxes" will "kill many jobs." Consequently, employers "will not be able to continue offering their current plans, which cover more than 170 million Americans."

The employers' bottom line: "Market forces and employer autonomy should determine what benefits employers provide, rather than Congress."

Add in a growing rump group of influential physicians and state medical societies furious with the American Medical Association for its inexplicable endorsement of the House legislation, and the contours of the next phase of the debate are now in focus.

Expect to see it portrayed by the Left as a good, old-fashioned populist street fight - the little guy vs.big special interests; David vs. Goliath.

Specifically, the president and his allies in Congress will jettison all these large interest groups they sought to co-opt through back-room negotiations and turn elsewhere for support. They'll join hands with an entirely different collection of interest groups: think MoveOn.org, Families USA, the unions, the liberal blogosphere, and the Democratic National Committee, and you get the picture. Collectively they will don the robes and carry the slingshot of the young David and sanctimoniously seek to slay Goliath - i.e., those special-interest defenders of the status quo.

You can see the dramatic possibilities. However, this strategy poses a host of problems for the president. For one, handing over this priority issue to the tender mercies of the single-payer crowd, a cast of characters not exactly known for its volume control or subtle political judgment, will inevitably bring on a leftward shift in policy. A leftward lurch, in turn, will make it well nigh impossible for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) to cobble together a truly bipartisan proposal. Moreover, the 52 House Blue Dogs are already having palpitations at the new approach and would almost surely oppose en masse the resulting legislation. That would make passage in the House all but impossible.

If this scenario sounds irrational, consider the leftist mindset. A government takeover of our health-care system has been the stuff of liberal dreams since the Truman administration. But, for one reason or another, that dream has never materialized. Now, our leftist friends believe the stars have aligned for "robust" reform. Why compromise your principles on your most treasured issue if, like Elvis, the Republicans, Blue Dogs, and moderate Senate Democrats have left the building?

Tragically, the prospects for legislation that would inject much-needed market principles and consumer control into health-care financing and delivery would vanish in a vitriolic debate. And that would only aggravate the undeniable problems in our current health-care system.

The rosiest possible scenario? The leftist gambit fails; congressional leaders, acknowledging that they overreached, embark on Phase III of the reform effort; ultimately, they agree on a more modest set of reforms that even conservatives can embrace.

Unfortunately, rosy is not likely.

REALLY ????

Emanuel has written in medical journals of how health care should be rationed, with priority given to younger people over seniors and over those suffering from dementia, according to John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). Ezekiel also believes that very young children should be lower on the priority list than younger people who have received public educations.

Goodman cites an article Ezekiel co-authored with two other men that appeared in the January 31, 2009, edition of the British medical journal, The Lancet. Goodman also cites a 1996 article by Ezekiel that appeared in The Hastings Report. In the latter, which was titled "Where civic republicanism and deliberative democracy meet," Ezekiel argued for limiting health care for “individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.” He cited "not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” as an example.

Really?? My son is Autistic. How do they expect me to be conferable under a public health care plan when this guy is the Health Care adviser to Obama?

FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE BLOGGERS

FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE BLOGGERS

Posted using ShareThis

Never in my wildest, ugliest dreams did I imagine an America where the White House would encourage it's own citizens to forward "casual conversations" to them.

Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Uhhh, anybody else hear the jackboots coming? I want my country back, enough said.

Republicans on Senate Finance Committe wobbling on Socialized Health Care

Our fight against the socialist style health care being rammed down the throats of Americans is far from over.

Again proving the some members of the "Republicans" are NOT representing the will or voices of conservative voters -- State of Oh Bloggers Alliance member, Matt Hurley at Weapons of Mass Discussion, offers up some comments on a Washington Post article about how the three Elephant Clan members on the Senate Finance Committee appear all too eager in forcing a colonoscopy on conservatism in the name of compromise....

Three Republicans, in Gang of 14 style, are trying to bow to the Democrats and der Fuhrer, er, excuse me, The One's wishes on Healthcare. Senators Olympia "Lying RINO" Snowe of Maine, Senator Chuck"I Smoke Too Much Grass" Grassley of Iowa, and Senator Enzi of Wyoming are the three Republicans in the Senate Finance Commitee working on a supposed compromise bill that "Republicans can believe in."

Olympia Snowe is no better than Arlen Specter. She has betrayed the cause before. Just when we are snatching victory, she wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Just when we are beginning to see movement to kill this horrible rights grab by the government, she is trying to lead us further into fascism/statism. Do not trust this woman. She has never been trustworthy. So, what are some of the points of their plan? More...

Majority Leader Harry M. Reid said he thinks they are so close in agreeing, that he expects a panel vote before the Senate recess on August 7th. Tea Party Patriots -- we CANNOT allow these three Senate Stooges to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!

Because of your dedication & support, the Tea Party Patriots alone recorded over 10,000 calls made to the Blue Dogs in about 1 week. Combine that with the calls of all the other groups and you can just imagine the amount of calls. So, not only must we continue this fight, we must turn it up a notch and double our efforts.

We must let them know that the "Silent Majority will be Silent No More!"

Please call & let these right's pilfering politicans know that as Free-Thinking, Sovereign Individuals -- goverment mandated health care is NOT our cup of tea!

OLYMPIA SNOWE
154 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5344

CHUCK GRASSLEY
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3744

MIKE ENZI
379A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3424