Will You Let God Set You Free!?

Obama: Taking the Care from our Health and how to put it back in!

Progressives….Listen-Up!

This is the Lie about Health Care as stated on the White House Web-Site!

Learn the basic principles of President Obama’s health insurance reform plan as presented to Congress on September 9, 2009.

In a recent interview, President Obama explained who will be footing the bill for healthcare reform, Bill Plante reports. Moneywatch.com’s Jill Schlesinger broke down Obama’s healthcare wish list.



It should be noted here I in no way believe ALL of what is said here BUT the Monster that is the Fed I in no way believe ever so the imbalance is greatly in her favor compared to my views of progressive crap being stated daily about these same topics. The Proof WILL COME in the next few years as this Health-Scare Bill becomes the Cancerous nightmare it is, THEN WHAT WILL THE DETRACTORS SAY THEN?



“I hope to stand firm enough to not go backward, and yet not go forward fast enough to wreck the country’s cause.” Abraham Lincoln

beating-a-dead-horse

Got the time? Wish to read what your congressmen refuse to read? GO HERE NOW and type in HR-3200 in the search window click bill number! Also check out BILL # HR-676 to replace DIV-A of HR-3200

Why do Washington types like to “Beat their Dead Horses”?

Simple..they don’t kick back
(Except for the Financial kind)

and they don’t cry foul!

Everyone in America knows that our health care system needs some work to make it PLEASE EVERYONE (If that’s even possible) BUT what it does not need is to be operated on by bunch of blind doctors with dull tools
(That’s Brainless politicians to the uninitiated)
our health care is still the best in the world no matter what the left says about the need to overhaul it QUICKLY!

The last time we heard that we went to war…did we not? We live in a time when Liberals can get away with classifying FACTS as nonsense and pure lies as facts. This happens on both sides of the aisle in Washington.

It is obvious that the TRUTH takes the hit when politics is at stake, GROW UP Washington and leave the unbroken alone.

Universal healthcare’s dirty little secrets
Patients in countries that provide government insurance often experience hurdles to care such as extremely long waitlists.
By Michael Tanner and Michael Cannon, MICHAEL TANNER is director of health and welfare studies and MICHAEL CANNON is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute.

April 5, 2007

AS THEY TACK left and right state by state, the Democratic presidential contenders can’t agree on much. But one cause they all support — along with Republicans such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and California’s own Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — is universal health coverage. And all of them are wrong.What these politicians and many other Americans fail to understand is that there’s a big difference between universal coverage and actual access to medical care.

Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain’s Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year.

In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that “access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare.”

Supporters of universal coverage fear that people without health insurance will be denied the healthcare they need. Of course, all Americans already have access to at least emergency care. Hospitals are legally obligated to provide care regardless of ability to pay, and although physicians do not face the same legal requirements, we do not hear of many who are willing to deny treatment because a patient lacks insurance.

You may think it is self-evident that the uninsured may forgo preventive care or receive a lower quality of care. And yet, in reviewing all the academic literature on the subject, Helen Levy of the University of Michigan’s Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, were unable to establish a “causal relationship” between health insurance and better health. Believe it or not, there is “no evidence,” Levy and Meltzer wrote, that expanding insurance coverage is a cost-effective way to promote health. Similarly, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year found that, although far too many Americans were not receiving the appropriate standard of care, “health insurance status was largely unrelated to the quality of care.”

Another common concern is that the young and healthy will go without insurance, leaving a risk pool of older and sicker people. This results in higher insurance premiums for those who are insured. But that’s only true if the law forbids insurers from charging their customers according to the cost of covering them. If companies can charge more to cover people who are likely to need more care — smokers, the elderly, etc. — then it won’t make any difference who does or doesn’t buy insurance.

Finally, some suggest that when people without health insurance receive treatment, the cost of their care is passed along to the rest of us. This is undeniably true. Yet, it is a manageable problem. According to Jack Hadley and John Holahan of the left-leaning Urban Institute, uncompensated care for the uninsured amounts to less than 3% of total healthcare spending — a real cost, no doubt, but hardly a crisis.

Everyone agrees that far too many Americans lack health insurance. But covering the uninsured comes about as a byproduct of getting other things right. The real danger is that our national obsession with universal coverage will lead us to neglect reforms — such as enacting a standard health insurance deduction, expanding health savings accounts and deregulating insurance markets — that could truly expand coverage, improve quality and make care more affordable

As H. L. Mencken said: “For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.” Universal healthcare is a textbook case.

A Doctor’s prescription on providing better health care in America
SOURCE: Information gathered by the American Policy Roundtable
Compiled by Professor Charles McGowen, M.D. and Chief Medical Advisor to the American Policy Roundtable
March 13 2008
Email to a Friend

The rise in health care costs is a result of cost shifting from the medical community to the business community, HMOs and Insurance Companies.

1. Return to the free enterprise, market based system of the years prior to 1968.

A. Physician visits were fewer and fee for service.

B. The indigent were provided free or “in kind” care.

2. Make health insurance policies catastrophic and $1000 deductible. That will reduce the unnecessary visits to the doctor’s office.

3. Eliminate the middle man. The business of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) run by businessmen and paying manager physician’s inflated salaries. This is one bureaucratic layer that can be eliminated.

4. Make suits more difficult by penalizing the attorney and client who sue for trivialities. As it is there is no pain for the sue-er.

5. Lower mal-practice fees thereby making the practice of medicine more affordable. The savings are passed on to the patients.

6. By lowering the rate of law suits physicians will be less apt to practice “defensive medicine.”

7. Get government out of the medical field. Medicare has raised the cost of medical care exponentially. We cannot provide free care or we are penalized.

8. Make people more responsible for their own health care by rewarding non-smokers and persons with a body mass index below 30.

9. Get drug companies to stop ads on TV and give the cost savings to the patient customers.

10. Allow the one’s who are trained in the care of patients to decide what is best for them. Steps to cut U.S. uninsured can be taken now–CEOs

SOURCE: Michael Connor, Reuters; February 15, 2008.

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Feb 15 (Reuters) – America’s growing ranks of 47 million people without medical insurance could be thinned dramatically by tapping health programs already operating, leading health executives said on Friday.

With health care reform a dominant issue in the U.S. presidential race, the chief executives of big health insurers Aetna Inc (AET.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and WellPoint Inc (WLP.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) said the candidates had so far provided insufficient details about their proposals for clear judgments to be made.

But the executives said much can be done now with existing programs to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance coverage.

“Twenty percent of the uninsured are actually eligible today for Medicaid and the state children’s health program. They simply aren’t enrolled,” Aetna CEO Ron Williams said in an interview at a meeting of the Business Council group of corporate leaders.

Aetna, the No. 3 health insurer, urges local community leaders and officials to identify and bring more of the eligible uninsured into the Medicaid programs aimed at poor people, Williams said.

“If we did a better job at that, we could reduce the uninsured by 20 percent,” Williams said.

College students account for 10 percent of the 47 million and could be easily and relatively cheaply enrolled for health care insurance, Williams said.

“States like Massachusetts, for example, actually have done a good job of covering them,” Williams said. “They have what’s called a hard waiver, meaning that, when you enroll in college, you either have to demonstrate you have coverage or purchase coverage as part of the academic experience.”

Angela Braly, president and chief executive at WellPoint, the No. 1 U.S. health insurer by membership, said in an interview that her company wanted state programs aimed at children and low-income families to be widely expanded.

WellPoint, whose health networks operate in many states under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield names, has forecast that broadening those programs could cut the uninsured by 25 million if all 50 states acted.

“All children should be covered,” Braly added.

The company also advocates public-private partnerships that could help subsidize insurance costs for low-income individuals now ineligible for government programs.Universal healthcare’s dirty little secrets
Patients in countries that provide government insurance often experience hurdles to care such as extremely long waitlists.

SOURCE: Michael Tanner and Michael Cannon, Los Angeles Times; April 5, 2007.

What these politicians and many other Americans fail to understand is that there’s a big difference between universal coverage and actual access to medical care.

Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain’s Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that “access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare.”

Supporters of universal coverage fear that people without health insurance will be denied the healthcare they need. Of course, all Americans already have access to at least emergency care. Hospitals are legally obligated to provide care regardless of ability to pay, and although physicians do not face the same legal requirements, we do not hear of many who are willing to deny treatment because a patient lacks insurance.

You may think it is self-evident that the uninsured may forgo preventive care or receive a lower quality of care. And yet, in reviewing all the academic literature on the subject, Helen Levy of the University of Michigan’s Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, were unable to establish a “causal relationship” between health insurance and better health. Believe it or not, there is “no evidence,” Levy and Meltzer wrote, that expanding insurance coverage is a cost-effective way to promote health. Similarly, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year found that, although far too many Americans were not receiving the appropriate standard of care, “health insurance status was largely unrelated to the quality of care.”

Another common concern is that the young and healthy will go without insurance, leaving a risk pool of older and sicker people. This results in higher insurance premiums for those who are insured. But that’s only true if the law forbids insurers from charging their customers according to the cost of covering them. If companies can charge more to cover people who are likely to need more care — smokers, the elderly, etc. — then it won’t make any difference who does or doesn’t buy insurance.

Finally, some suggest that when people without health insurance receive treatment, the cost of their care is passed along to the rest of us. This is undeniably true. Yet, it is a manageable problem. According to Jack Hadley and John Holahan of the left-leaning Urban Institute, uncompensated care for the uninsured amounts to less than 3% of total healthcare spending — a real cost, no doubt, but hardly a crisis.

Everyone agrees that far too many Americans lack health insurance. But covering the uninsured comes about as a byproduct of getting other things right. The real danger is that our national obsession with universal coverage will lead us to neglect reforms — such as enacting a standard health insurance deduction, expanding health savings accounts and deregulating insurance markets — that could truly expand coverage, improve quality and make care more affordable

As H. L. Mencken said: “For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.” Universal healthcare is a textbook case. Solutions to the Rising Cost of Healthcare
There are Solutions to the Rising Cost of Healthcare

SOURCE: Information gathered by the American Policy Roundtable
Compiled by Professor Charles McGowen, M.D. and Chief Medical Advisor to the American Policy Roundtable; August 11, 2008.

Free enterprise is one of the utmost benefits of democratic republic; and that form of government is what our founding fathers established. Consumer driven free enterprise may even be, not just the greatest stimulus to the maintaining of a democratic society but also, the means by which we preserve the reasonable health of a nation‘s economy. As individuals taste the freedom that comes from our democratic system, they are inclined to feel free to start their own businesses; they become entrepreneurs. Throughout the 232 years since our founders broke away from the suppressive control of the British monarchy and established, as Lincoln said at Gettysburg, “a new nation, conceived in liberty,” free enterprise, especially deriving from the small business community, has been the mainstay of the wealthiest nation on earth; the United States of America.

Beginning in 1965 the nation’s healthcare system began an insidious and persistent slide away from the economic principle of free enterprise; a decline that has brought it to its present state of subservience to the business community (namely HMOs established by insurance companies) and the state and federal governments. 1965 was a time when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare into law, congress having been contemplating the legislation since the 1961 letter that President John F. Kennedy had sent to them recommending health insurance for the elderly under the Social Security Act. The alleged purpose of handing the reins of the practice of medicine over to the federal government was to enable all senior citizens to obtain affordable healthcare. As with most collectivist, liberal ideas, it has had the opposite effect of that which was promised.

When the Medicare program was inaugurated in 1965, the federal government projected that Part A—the segment of Medicare that pays for hospitalization—would cost $9 billion by the year 1990. The program’s actual cost that year was $66 billion. Thus we find that, after inflation, the cost of Medicare was 165 percent higher than the government had predicted it would be. Is anyone surprised by that? When the figures had come in, a sane person would have immediately seen the failure of the government controlled health care system and turned the health and welfare of the senior citizens back to where it had been in 1965; the hands and brains of private physicians. But then, insanity is defined repeating the same errors while fully expecting a different result.

When I entered the practice of internal medicine in 1967, health insurance companies (Such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield), and the government controlled Medicare plan, each required that a patient had to be admitted to a hospital before they would pay for certain radiological testing; upper gastrointestinal X-rays and barium enema examinations for example. We physicians thought that the restrictions were both inane and unnecessarily expensive. It meant that the cost of a patient’s X-ray would also have to include at least one night’s stay in the hospital, paying for room and food, as well as a minimum amount of laboratory work that an admission to a hospital required. Furthermore it necessitated payments to nurses, orderlies, nurse’s aids, dietary personnel, lab technicians, administrative personnel and housekeeping workers, not to mention the doctor’s fee for making at least one hospital visit and performing a complete physical examination. All of those costs could have been avoided if someone in the world of business and politics, had simply taken the sage advice from those of us who really new how to run a healthcare system. That is just one example of the unnecessary, financial waste that one finds in a bureaucratic system of big business and government.

Despite the failures in the Medicare system, the new “control freak” on the block would be the brainchild of the Nixon administration in 1971 and what would become known as managed healthcare. The plan would see to it that planning grants would be issued to HMOs (health maintenance organizations) such that by 1980, 90% of the US citizens would be enrolled in an HMO. In fact, by 1996 there were 600 HMOs in the country and only 25% of our citizens (65 million at the time) were enrolled. Once again the impetus for the plan was to control the cost of healthcare. However, as everyone knows who pays a healthcare premium or is aware of what their employer pays on their behalf, the Nixon plan has been as dismal a failure as the Watergate break-in that brought Nixon to an infamous, embarrassed retreat from the world’s most powerful position.

The question thus arises, can we do anything to put an end to the upward spiraling healthcare costs and if so what are the alternatives? The answer is a resounding “Yes. “ Over the next several weeks of this newspaper’s Sunday edition I will attempt to explain to the reader why we have to pay so much for healthcare and that viable and reasonable solutions to the exorbitant rise in healthcare costs do exist. The answer is not to be found in a national healthcare program, as some who are running for the offices in our executive and legislative branches of the federal government would have you believe. The solution is found in that which has motivated both the success, as well as the cost control, of businesses of every stripe in this great nation. The solution is found in a consumer driven medical economy of free enterprise, a system that puts the patient in charge of what we are willing to pay and our ability to find the best doctor for the best dollar cost. It works in the world of commerce and it will also work in the world of affordable healthcare as well. I know that because I practiced medicine for a few of my early years in a world of free enterprise. While health care is a privilege and not a right under our constitution, affordable healthcare is something we should all strive for in this nation where each citizen has been “endowed by our Creator with” other “inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It is high time that the controlling reins in the art and science of medicine should be handed back to those who really know how to run the medical system; physicians. The bureaucrats have failed us miserably.

C.H. McGowen, MD                                                 Solutions to the Rising Cost of Healthcare
Seeking the Cause of the Problem

SOURCE: Information gathered by the American Policy Roundtable
Compiled by Professor Charles McGowen, M.D. and Chief Medical Advisor to the American Policy Roundtable; August 11, 2008.

The average American citizen is utterly unaware of the multiple levels of bureaucratic managers and their respective underling work force that siphon off the dollars that he, she or their employer spend on health care. Even if one happens to be fortunate enough to work for a company that pays the premium, at the end of the day, every worker eventually shells out because the healthcare dollars spent by industry are monies that could otherwise have gone toward the take-home income of the employees; whether they are salaried or hourly wage earners.

There used to be an assumed, unspoken patient/doctor contract in force whenever we had to seek medical care by making a visit to a physician’s office. There were few, if any complaints about the $7.00 office fee that I charged back in 1967. But when the so-called Health Maintenance Organizations (MCO) took over the healthcare system, the patient and his or her doctor were suddenly out of the loop. The MCO negotiators met with the business executives and their employee’s union representatives and the healthcare contract was settled to the satisfaction of the union, the employer and the MCO. The patient and the physician had no voice in the matter what-so-ever and furthermore the patient’s personal physician may not have even been included in the HMO’s panel of “primary caregivers,” as we ultimately were called. The patient was thus forced to seek medical care elsewhere, attended by some unfamiliar physician who did not know them as well as their personal doctor had.

A large survey of companies, performed in September of 2007, indicated that that the average healthcare plan for a family of four costs an employer $12,100, with payment almost evenly divided between the employer and employee. The price tag of an insurance plan for a single employee was $4,400. Average premiums increased 7.2% for all plans in 2007. That was at a time when the median, net income of physicians was dropping due to the increasing costs of practice without a subsequent increase in reimbursement from Medicare or the HMOs. The 7.2% increase in dollars spent by the combined efforts of the employer and worker obviously went to fund the multiple layers of bureaucratic management. In fact, since the institution of the MCOs, that were allegedly put in place to stem the rising cost of medical care (which at the time had been erroneously attributed to the wasteful misappropriation of monies by those of us in the practice of medicine), the costs of medical care have risen in a logarithmic progression while the net, take home pay of physicians has steadily fallen. The cost of a medical practice continually rises due to increased malpractice fees, cost of goods and office supplies, utilities and employee salaries, while the reimbursement for physician services has been gradually pared away by both the federal government‘s Medicare plans and the MCOs.

For example, when I retired from active practice in 1998, having never been sued, my malpractice premium was $7,000 per annum; when I started practice in 1967 it was less than $300/yr. As an internist I and my fellow internists were at the bottom of the risk scale; while plastic surgeons and obstetrician/gynecologists lead the pack and paid 10 times that much in annual premiums. Now an internist pays $25,000 per year, while remaining at the bottom of the scale of risk and an obstetrician in Dade Florida paid as much as $270,000/yr in 2004. My employees expected and received an annual increase in salary and that also involved an increase in my contribution to their 401K plan which was based upon their base salary.

There has been a perpetual cost shift in the medical economic paradigm. The physicians who invested many years of their lives to learn the art and science of medicine and surgery, who do the tireless, conscientious, dedicated hands-on care in their attempts to point the health of our citizens in a positive direction, have been deprived of a portion of their income while that fraction, plus the steady increase in insurance premiums every year, go to line the pockets of the MCO administrators and their employees. As long as that trend continues, we will see the cost of medical care parallel the cost of driving our cars to receive that care. Furthermore, fewer young men and women in our nation will seek entrance to medical school and study to practice in the profession I love so dearly.

MCOs, being bureaucrats, have to find a way to justify their existence. They do that by adding rules and regulations that have little or nothing to do with the quality of care that you and I receive. If the truth be known, given the time those rules and regulations take from a physician’s work day, they may actually have the opposite effect. Physicians and hospitals have had to hire additional help to handle the paper work and address the countless regulations which have been built into the MCO and Medicare plans. When I entered into a year of internship and three years of residency in internal medicine at what was then known as the Youngstown Hospital Association, that fine institution had 1000 beds and residencies in internal medicine, surgery, family practice, pediatrics, radiology, anesthesiology and pathology. It also had a school of nursing and training for radiology technicians. We were the tenth largest, teaching, community hospital in the country. During my intern year, 1961-62, we had one chief administrator and a medical director and they shared the same secretary. The hospital ran like a clock and medical care was excellent. After two years on active duty with the USAF and during my residency in 1964 through 1967, I saw more and more administrators added to the mix and when Medicare finally impacted the hospital in 1967, with all of its rules and regulations, the three piece suits (administrative staff), records clerks, secretarial help, etc. rose in direct proportion to the increasing number of people who signed up for the federal government health program. Needless to say, when the MCOs began there was a concomitant and exponential rise in numbers of administrators and clerical help. Even the nurses, who used to spend most their time attending to the patients with tender, loving care, were required instead to spend a majority of the work shift filling out paper work. Where once we saw registered nurses assisting patients in their rooms, we eventually saw them spending more time writing in the patient’s chart while sitting at a desk. National health care will further exaggerate all of the current bureaucratic interference without improving our medical care one iota.

While I have entitled this series “Solutions to the Rising Cost of Healthcare,” being an internist I have learned to seek the cause of a problem (that’s called diagnosis) before prescribing the means to evoke its cure; I.e. the solutions. The recommendations for curing the problem will be forth coming but first we must identify the disease process that got our system to be as sick as it obviously is. Next week, we will look at that Obama plan for nationalizing healthcare in more detail and as you will see, it is not a solution. If anything it will exacerbate the issues that caused the best medical care in the world to suffer from its debilitation in the first place.                                  Solutions to the Rising Cost of Healthcare
National Health Care is not the Answer

SOURCE: Information gathered by the American Policy Roundtable
Compiled by Professor Charles McGowen, M.D. and Chief Medical Advisor to the American Policy Roundtable; August 11, 2008.

It must be obvious by now to all reasonable observers that the Federal Government’s control of this nation’s senior citizen healthcare through the Medicare system, the care of the indigent by means of a state controlled Medicaid organization and the supervision of the remainder of healthcare recipients’ medical issues by numerous Managed Health Organizations (MHOs) have each been a dismal failure. They were experiments doomed to malfunction from the outset because their prospective success was based upon the faulty premise that cheap healthcare would be inexpensive healthcare; cheap, in some cases for the recipient yes, but not inexpensive for the nation’s economy, the federal budget or the business community. On the contrary, when one is offered any commodity at a reduced cost, the inevitable shortages produced by the enticing bargain price cause the ultimate costs to spiral out of control; for the less economically informed it’s called the law of supply and demand.

Supply and demand is perhaps one of the most fundamental concepts of economics and it is the backbone of a capitalistic, free market, consumer driven economy. Demand refers to how much of a product or service is desired by the buyers at any given time. In this case (I.e. the context of these essays) the product is medical care. The quantity demanded is that amount of a particular sort of medical care that people are willing to buy at an affordable price; the relationship between the fee for service and the quantity of medical service demanded is known as the demand relationship; unfortunately quality of care, as we have come to discover, does not necessarily enter into the equation. Supply represents how much the market can offer; in this case how many physicians are available and how many patients each one of those doctors can effectively see per day. The quantity supplied refers to the amount of medical care that certain physicians are willing to supply when receiving a certain amount of remuneration for their service. The direct correlation between the price (physician’s fee) and the amount of a good or service (medical care) that is supplied to the market is known as the supply relationship. Price, therefore, is a reflection of supply (in this case the number of physicians available) and demand (the number of patients seeking care in their community). The price is inversely proportional to the supply and directly proportional to the demand.

Barack Obama and his fellow, ideologically liberal cohorts currently employed by the government are admitting the conspicuous failure of the current systems that control (I.e. manage) our healthcare simply by their patently obvious desire to change the way healthcare is delivered and to create a national (I.e. socialistic) healthcare system. They want to turn 16% of our gross domestic product (GDP), the current dollars spent on providing healthcare to our citizens, over to the same kind of people who demonstrably missed the boat when they originally declared in 1965 that the 1990 bill for Medicare would be a “mere” 9 billion dollars, when in fact it turned out to be an exorbitant 66 billion of the hard earned dollars which the average, hard working citizen pays in taxes. Our average GDP for the year 2007 was approximately 14 trillion dollars. 16% of that is two and one quarter trillion dollars.

The late George Santayana (1863-1952) wisely said, “He who fails to learn from past history is doomed to repeat it.” The past history of every country that has previously nationalized its health care system has shown it to be a predictable, pathetic and expensive failure. Consider our neighbor to the north; Canada. Why do those who can afford to pay for health care out of their own wallets flock to bordering American cities like Buffalo and Detroit when they incur a serious illness? The answer is certainly not because it is less expensive. Canadian healthcare is “free.” That is, they have already paid for it with confiscatory taxation. For example, a citizen of British Columbia earning $97,600 pays 14.7% of his or her wages in provincial tax and 26% in federal income taxation. Add to that 40.7% income tax the further sales taxes they pay on necessary commodities; they forfeit two types of sales tax on every purchase: The PST (or provincial sales tax) which in British Columbia is 7% and the GST (a federal tax on goods and services) currently at 5%. The Canadians obviously pay dearly for their “free” healthcare and so will we if Senator Obama has his way.

The answer to the question regarding the reason for their exodus southward, when a medical problem arises, has nothing to do with what they don’t have to pay; it has everything to do with accessibility; and especially a timely accessibility of health care. For example, in a 1990 study of the comparative availability of MRI units in the United States compared to their relative convenience in Germany and Canada revealed the following statistics: US had 2,900 units or 11.2 per million population; Germany 3.7 units per million inhabitants; Canada 1.1 units per million of its citizens. It is little wonder that the waiting period for obtaining an MRI exam is far too excessive in Canada. Compare these other 2005 statistics chronicling the two country’s respective managements of our nation’s number one killer; coronary artery disease (CAD). The number of patients with CAD undergoing investigative, diagnostic angiography was 34.9% U.S. vs. 6.7% in Canada. Those CAD patients being treated with the less invasive percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty was 11.7% U.S. vs. 1.5% in Canada. The numbers of CAD patients going on to have coronary-artery bypass surgery was 10.6% U.S. vs. 1.4% Canada. Those statistics are not a reflection of the incidence of CAD in the two nations but instead would suggest that the procedures are being rationed in Canada, where the patient has no out of pocket expense. The qualifications for having those procedures (I.e. the screening by age, symptoms, etc.) have weeded out more people. Canadians certainly are at no less risk for developing CAD than are Americans.

Consider this conclusion from a 2004 study, reported in the popular medical journal Circulation on September 28, 2004, comparing the relative mortality from myocardial infarction (I.e. heart attacks) in the two countries. The article was published by a collaboration of investigators from the University of Alberta, Duke University, Toronto University and the Cleveland Clinic. The conclusions read as follows: “Our results suggest, for the first time, that the more conservative pattern of care with regard to early revascularization in Canada for ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction may have a detrimental effect on long-term survival. Our results have important policy implications for cardiac care in countries and healthcare systems wherein use of invasive procedures is similarly conservative.” The word conservative may be interpreted as being synonymous with rationing in a socialistic system such as that planned by Senator Barack H. Obama.

The law of supply and demand states that, other factors being equal, the lower the price of a good, the more people will demand that good (in this case medical care). In other words, the lower the price (in national health care it is zero), the higher the quantity demanded. The amount of a good that buyers purchase (I.e. healthcare) at a lower price (or at no immediate cost to the patient in a national health care system) is more because as the price of a good goes down, the opportunity of buying that good increases. As a result, people will naturally overuse a product that is free and which will not force them to forgo the consumption of something else they value more; like food, recreation, clothes or entertainment. When the demand for medical care exceeds the medical community’s ability to provide it (I.e. the supply), shortages and rationing will inevitably occur; it‘s not rocket science. That has occurred in all socialistic economies that have provided the type of delivery system proposed by first term senator Barack Obama. When fewer young Americans apply for medical school because of the institution of socialized medicine, shortages will inescapably occur, and with those predictable shortages rationing of health care is sure to follow.

Rationing can be implemented in numerous ways; by reducing the number of facilities performing a service (I.e. MRI units or heart labs, as in Canada), by placing an age limit on those who qualify (I.e. no renal dialysis or coronary artery bypass if you are over age 60), or by increasing the stipulations that qualify a person for a given treatment or diagnostic procedure, such as age, number of dependants relying on your employability or co-morbid diseases that might impact the success of the treatment being requested. That is the alleged “cure” that Sen. Obama is offering to reverse the sick, but not yet terminally ill, state of our medical system. If he has his way, the prognosis is not good.


Download a copy of the graphic at: http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House…

chart1Congressman Kevin Brady Presentation on the health care bill at the Houston Tea Party Society’s townhall on August 8, 2009.

Click this for a Health Alert | “Are Health Insurance Companies the Villains?”
Find out about “The Myth of Medical Bankruptcy

If our system is as bad as THEY claim why is it that more Canadians with serious issues come HERE for their Health Care than use their own “Universal happen on both sides of the Care”?

The real Monster is Government run ANYTHING! Medicare and Medicade are Government RUN Monsters that never have worked right, so what makes us think that MORE of the same will work any better?


10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care (Click)American inovation

There has been much discussion lately about health care reform, and sometimes it can get quite complex and confusing. In hopes of simplifying the major policy initiatives, The Heritage Foundation has highlighted key provisions in both the House and Senate bills, including the public plan, the exchange, new federal regulations and employer mandates, Medicaid expansion, and new health care subsides.
A Federal Health Insurance Exchange Combined with a Public Plan: The House and Senate Bills
Micromanaging Americans’ Health Insurance: The Impact of House and Senate Bills
Employer Health Care Mandates: Taxing Low-Income Workers to Pay for Health Care
Medicaid Expansion: The Impact of the House and Senate Health Bills
New Taxpayer Subsidies: The Impact of the House and Senate Health Bills

>> For more information about health care, visit FixHealthCarePolicy.com.

The Health Care Debate is a Showdown Between Socialism & Freedom?

A recent issue with White House e-mails and Foxes Major Garret at a press conference has gotten its own legs, not because its a big brother issue per-say but it is a case in point to the fact that this White House can’t answer simple questions without making us wonder why we didn’t “just say no” in the first place.Wake up America and look to our past…did we not fight to get away from a government that wanted to control our lives from birth to death…why in Gods name would we as a nation allow THIS GOVERNMENT to control Health Care when they can’t even control themselves?

They Lie, cheat and steal like drunken fools and in the midst of it all can’t read anything they put forward and then want us to believe they can hold a town-hall meeting to tell us what’s in it…..please! More of the public has read this bill than the people who should have before voting on it!


July 30, 2009 from the Heritage Foundation Website

One Pill, Two Pill, Red Pill, Blue Pill: Top 10 Reasons Obamacare Is Wrong for America


1. Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance. Period. End of Story:

President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like, but research from the government, private research firms, and think tanks show this is not the case. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan like the one proposed in the House bill, would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.

2. Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway:

Even if you kept your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans—whether employer plans or individual plans—would have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan “upgrades” will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums.

3. The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman:

The main argument for a “public option” is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a health care plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector “competitors” out of business sooner or later.

4. The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said:

“They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. … If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that’s going to make you well.” Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your health care decisions

5. Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes:

Although he once opposed the idea, President Obama is now open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don’t buy government-approved health plans.

6. Higher Taxes Than Europe Hurt Small Businesses: A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hit hundreds of thousands of small business owners who are dealing with a recession. If it is enacted, America’s top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden than France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., with a total average tax rate greater than 52%. Is that the right recipe for jobs and wage growth?

7. Who Makes Medical Decisions?

What is the right medical treatment and should bureaucrats determine what Americans can or cannot have? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factors. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.

8. Taxpayer-Funded Abortions?

Nineteen Democrats recently asked the President to not sign any bill that doesn’t explicitly exclude “abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan” or any bill that allows a federal health board to “recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package.” Currently, these exclusions do not exist.

9. It’s Not Paid For:

The CBO says the current House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And that number will likely continue to rise over the long term. Similar entitlement bills in the past, including Medicare, have scored much lower than their actual eventual cost.

10. Rushing It, Not Reading It:


We’ve been down this road before—with the failed stimulus package. Back then, we also heard that we were in a crisis and that we needed to pass a 1,000-plus-page bill in a few hours—without reading it—or we would have 8% unemployment. Well, we know what happened. Now, one Congressman has even said it’s pointless to read one of the reform bills without two days and two lawyers to make sense of it. Deception is the only reason to rush through a bill nobody truly understands.

Author: Rory Cooper

October 24, 2008


The Obama Health Care Plan: A Closer Look at Cost and Coverage

WebMemo #2114

Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has put forth an ambitious health care plan.[1] The plan proposes:

  • Expanding eligibility for existing public programs, including both Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP);

  • Creating a National Health Insurance Exchange to serve as a federal regulator of private insurance plans that would compete alongside a new National Health Plan;

  • Providing income-related subsidies for those without employer-sponsored health insurance while mandating that children have coverage; and

  • Requiring that medium and large employers provide coverage or pay a tax, while extending tax credits to small businesses and creating a government reinsurance program to cover businesses’ catastrophic health costs.

Differing Estimates

Analyzing proposals based on campaign documents and media accounts is inherently difficult, as these materials lack the level of detail necessary for a rigorous econometric analysis. Nonetheless, several organizations have done so, using a variety of assumptions and methodologies.[2] Most notable are the Lewin Group,[3] Health Systems Innovations Network,[4] and the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.[5]

The best independent research shows that the Obama plan would cover roughly half of the 45 million uninsured through an expansion of public coverage; rely on soft methods of cost-savings; and require significant increases in federal expenditures.

Coverage. According to the Lewin Group, the Obama plan would reduce the number of uninsured by 26.6 million in 2010 if fully implemented in that year. The plan would also bring about significant shifts in sources of coverage. While 21.6 million people would lose their private health insurance, 48.3 million people are projected to obtain public coverage through Medicaid, SCHIP, or the new National Plan. Private employer-sponsored coverage would decline by 13.9 million, and private non-group coverage would decline by 7.7 million. Meanwhile, 18.6 million employees would buy into the new public plan through their workplace (as their employers switched to this plan from private coverage), 13.1 million individuals would buy into the public plan in the non-group market, and 16.6 million individuals would become newly enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP. Therefore, the expansion of coverage under the Obama plan would be driven by enrollment in public coverage. This would entail a crowd-out of existing private non-group and private employer-sponsored insurance.

Estimates of sources of coverage, however, are sensitive to assumptions about the level at which provider reimbursement is set for the National Plan. The figures above are based on the assumption that the National Plan would reimburse providers at a level halfway between private market rates and the lower rates set by Medicare. In an alternative scenario modeled by Lewin, reimbursement was reduced to Medicare payment levels. Enrollment in the National Plan reached as much as 42.9 million, contributing to a 32-million-person decrease in private health insurance and a 60.1-million-person increase in public coverage. While sources of coverage would change significantly, there would not be a significant change in the net reduction of the uninsured.[6]

Lewin applied a type of model known as a micro-simulation.[7] Health Systems Innovations Network (HSI) conducted an analysis (funded by the McCain campaign) also using this type of approach.[8] It found that the plan would reduce the uninsured by 25.5 million. It also found that 24.6 million people would enroll in the new public plan through employers or in the non-group market. However, the HSI study did not look at the proposed expansions of Medicaid and SCHIP that would further increase enrollment in public coverage.

In contrast, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) applied a different type of model known as an elasticity-based approach.[9] The TPC estimated the Obama plan would reduce the number of uninsured by 18.4 million in 2009. In that year, 4.3 million people would gain employer sponsored insurance, 5.8 million would obtain non-group coverage, and 8.3 million would enroll in public coverage. The TPC did not take into account the differences in provider reimbursement between the National Plan and private insurance.[10] Moreover, the results are somewhat confusing because it is impossible to determine enrollment in the National Plan.

Cost. According to the Lewin Group, health care system-wide savings over the 2010-19 period would be about $571.6 billion. Since the plan does not fundamentally change incentive structures in the health care sector,[11] most of its anticipated savings come from various delivery system improvements common to Obama’s and McCain’s plans, ranging from health information technology to disease management. The effectiveness of these initiatives assumes major behavioral changes. As Professor Mark Pauly, a prominent health care economist at the University of Pennsylvania, explains:

The main problem is that these [popular, common methods] are “if only’ savings, which can be achieved “if only’ certain events would occur, such as physicians’ being willing to adopt health IT, consumers being willing to accept changes in diet and exercise. … There is little evidence that there are known methods to cause the “if only’ behavior to occur, and to occur quickly on a large enough scale to matter.[12]

The efficacy of these “if only’ savings has been seriously questioned by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO has reported that evidence of disease management,[13] comparative effectiveness,[14] health information technology,[15] or prescription drug re-importation[16] reducing costs quickly and appreciably is lacking.

Obama says the reason people lack health insurance is that they cannot afford it. The Obama campaign, in an effort to “talk to people in a way they understand,’[17] made an audacious promise: The typical family would save $2,500 on premiums under the Senator’s health plan. In calculating this figure, the Obama advisors relied on their own best-guess estimates of “if only’ system savings at full implementation. In its analysis of the Obama plan, the Lewin Group projects that the average savings per family would be $426.

Lewin, HSI, and TPC all found that spending by the federal government would, on net, have to increase significantly in order to implement the plan.

Lewin projected that the Obama proposal would increase federal spending by about $1.17 trillion over the 2010-19 period.[18]

HSI estimates the Obama plan would cost $452 billion per year, or more than $6 trillion over a 10-year period.[19] The dramatic difference between this estimate and others is largely a result of HSI’s assumption that under Obama’s mandate to cover children, the federal government would subsidize virtually the full cost of coverage. Also, HSI finds that the employer mandate would add sizeable costs to the federal government.

The TPC projects the Obama plan would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years. However, the TPC model did not account for any of the savings measures in the plan.

In May 2007, advisers to the campaign issued a memorandum to “interested parties’ that estimated the plan’s cost.[20] Under “best-guess’ assumptions, the Senator’s advisers estimated the plan’s net cost at $50-$65 billion a year at full implementation. The memorandum then claimed any new cost could be covered by rolling back part of the Bush tax cuts. It is controversial because of both its cost and savings estimates,[21] and other analysts have called into question the memorandum’s conclusions.[22] Since the Bush tax cuts are set to expire within two years anyway, they are not a viable offset, because beyond expiration they are built into the federal government’s budget baseline. Complicating the matter further, repealing the Bush tax cuts early has already been proposed by Obama as potential source of revenue for a number of other policy initiatives.[23]

Expanding Government Control

The Obama plan would reduce the number of uninsured citizens, but it would not control costs in any significant way while demanding considerable increases in federal expenditures. Coverage expansion would be driven by enrollment in public plans in which the government would set benefit levels and provider reimbursement rates. Cost-savings would not come from fundamentally realigning economic incentives but would rely on dubious “if only’ propositions related to changes in health care delivery.

Greg D’Angelo is Policy Analyst in the Center for Health Policy Studies and Paul L. Winfree is a Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. Jeet Guram, a Heritage health policy intern from the University of South Carolina, contributed to the research in this paper.



[1] Obama for America, “Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s Plan to Lower Health Care Costs and Ensure Affordable, Accessible Health Coverage for All,’ at http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/Health careFullPlan.pdf (October 23, 2008); for an analysis of the Obama plan, see Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., and Nina Owcharenko, “The Obama Health Care Plan: More Power to Washington,’ Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2197, October 15, 2008, at www.heritage.org/research/health care/bg2197.cfm.

[2] See Kevin Sack, “On Health Plans, the Numbers Fly,’ The New York Times, October 21, 2008, at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/us/politics/22health.html?hp (October 23, 2008).

[3] The Lewin Group, “McCain and Obama Health Care Policies: Costs and Coverage Compared,’ October 8, 2008, at http://www.lewin.com/content/Files/The_Lewin_Group_McCain-
Obama_Health_Reform_Report_and_Appendix.pdf
(October 23, 2008).

[4] Roger Feldman, Lisa Tomai, and Sally Duran, “Impact of Barack Obama 2008 Health Reform Proposal,’ HSI Network, August 21, 2008, at http://www.hsinetwork.com/Obama
_HSI-Assess_08-21-2008.pdf
(October 23, 2008)

[5] Len Burman et al., “An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans: Revised August 15, 2008,’ Tax Policy Center, updated September 12, 2008, at http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF
/411749_updated_candidates.pdf
(October 23, 2008).

[6] See Lewin, p. 21. Only 1.4 million would gain coverage in the alternative scenario compared to the initial scenario where payment levels were assumed to be at the midpoint between Medicare and private payer levels.

[7] A micro-simulation is based on a utility-maximizing model of how individuals choose insurance plans, allowing for variation on a range of variables, including price and income. This type of modeling combines individual characteristics and behavior to estimate how each person, or subgroup, within a population would react to a policy change. However, micro-simulations face the possibility of selection bias, as they make a series of assumptions based on a small sub-population and then apply them to a larger group. Lewin used their Health Benefit Simulation Model (HBSM), a micro-simulation of the U.S. health care system developed by Lewin in 1989 and continuously applied and refined ever since. Lewin’s work has been deemed “the gold standard of independent health-care analysis.’ See “A Liberal Supermajority,’ The Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2008, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html (October 23, 2008). For a detailed description of the HBSM, see the Lewin Group, “Summary Description of the Health Benefits Simulation Model (HBSM),’ January 29, 2007, at http://www.lewin.com/content/Files/HBSMSummary.pdf (October 24, 2008).

[8] For a detailed description of the HSI micro-simulation model, see Roger Feldman et al., “Health Savings Accounts: Early Estimates of National Take-Up,’ Health Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 6 (2005), pp. 1582-1591, at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/24/6/1582 (October 24, 2008).

[9] An elasticity model applies the same measure of responsiveness (how consumers respond to changes in variables, such as insurance cost) to an entire population, but different groups within that population may have different individual levels of responsiveness to changes in the variable(s) of interest. A micro-simulation allows for variation among different individuals and groups. Like a micro-simulation, an elasticity-based approach also faces the possibility of selection bias, as the population to which the elasticity is applied may vary systematically from the population within which it is established. For example, there may be significant differences between consumers in the non-group market today and individuals who would lose group coverage and enter this market under a policy change.

[10] E-mail communication with Surachai Khitatrakun, an author of the Tax Policy Center report, on October 15, 2008.

[11] For a longer discussion see Joseph Antos, Gail Wilensky, and Hanns Kuttner, “The Obama Plan: More Regulation, Unsustainable Spending,’ Health Affairs, w462, September 16, 2008.

[12]Mark V. Pauly, “Blending Better Ingredients for Health Reform,’ Health Affairs, Vol. 27, No. 6 (2008), pp. w482-w491, at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.27.6.w482/DC1 (October 23, 2008).

[13] “There is insufficient evidence to conclude that disease management programs can generally reduce overall health spending.’ Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, letter to Don Nickles, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget, October 13, 2004, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/59xx/doc5909/10-13-DiseaseMngmnt.pdf (October 24, 2008).

[14] “It would probably be a decade or more before new research on comparative effectiveness had the potential to reduce health care spending in a substantial way.’ Congressional Budget Office, Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments, December 2007, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc889
1/12-18-ComparativeEffectiveness.pdf
(October 24, 2008).

[15] “By itself, the adoption of more health IT is generally not sufficient to produce significant cost savings.’ Congressional Budget Office, Evidence on the Costs and Benefits of Health Information Technology, May 2008, at https://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9168/05-20-HealthIT.pdf (October 24, 2008).

[16] “The reduction in drug spending from importation would be small.’ Colin Baker, “Would Prescription Drug Importation Reduce U.S. Drug Spending?’ Congressional Budget Office, April 29, 2004, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/54xx/doc5406/04-29-PrescriptionDrugs.pdf (October 24, 2008).

[17] Kevin Sack, “Health Plan from Obama Spurs Debate,’ The New York Times, July 23, 2008, at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/23health
.html?scp=1&sq=cutler%20talk%20to%20people%20in%20way%20und
erstand%20obama&st=cse
(October 24, 2008).

[18] According to Lewin, the Medicaid expansion would cost $910.9 billion, the premium subsidies would cost $365.6 billion, the small employer tax credit would cost $77.9 billion, the reinsurance program would cost $419.2 billion, and there would be a total of $599.3 billion in offsets.

[19] The 10-year cost assumes 7 percent medical inflation per year. While the proposal would altogether cost $452 billion a year, its parts considered alone would sum to an annual cost of $562 billion. These parts include costs of minimum benefits ($23.2 billion), community rating ($32.7 billion), the mandate for children ($211.7 billion), the employer mandate ($179 billion), the low-income subsidy ($44.3 billion), small business tax credits ($30.8 billion), and government reinsurance ($40.4 billion).

[20] David Blumenthal, David Cutler, and Jeffrey Liebman, letter to interested parties regarding the Obama health care plan, at http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/finalcostsmemo.pdf (October 23, 2008).

[21] Kevin Sack, “Health Plan from Obama Spurs Debate.’

[22] See Joseph Antos, “Obama’s $2,500 Promise: Unhealthy moves,’ National Review Online, October 10, 2008, at http://article.nationalreview.com/?
q=Zjk5YWE5Y2I3YTZmODQxODIxNmFiYTFmMGNjZDA3MmU=#more
(October 23, 2008).

[23] Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D., “‘Roll back the tax cuts': An exercise in shady financing,’ Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 26, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072608a.cfm.

It is Washington DC that’s broken not the Health care system! Maybe we should shut down Washington for the overhaul instead or better yet have them put it out in a bill of “Billions” of pages THEY WON’T READ but will vote on! Because in the Long run…the ONLY people who will listen to Obama on Health Care ARE SCHOOL CHILDREN who were for all intents and purposes “Born Yesterday” not people who KNOW”THE CONSTITUTION” AND “BILL OF RIGHTS”!

7 Comments »

  1. Outstanding site! I give up here all of the time!Hoard up up the fantabulous work!

    Comment by Tom Brady Jersey — January 24, 2012 @ 10:34 AM

  2. Hey, i’ve been reading this blog site for a while and have a question, maybe you can help… it’s how do i add your feed to my rss reader as i want to follow you. Many thanks. Respectfully, Lore.

    Comment by Lore — November 20, 2010 @ 3:10 AM

  3. Took me a while to understand each of the remarks, however I really loved the blog. It proved actually Very useful to me and I’m guaranteed to all the commenters here! It?s always pleasant when you can’t just be told, but additionally entertained! I?m in no doubt you had a good time penning this article.

    Comment by Justin Hilyard — October 5, 2010 @ 12:27 PM

  4. Thanks for best news!

    Comment by personal finance software — August 11, 2010 @ 1:31 PM

  5. Great article, thank you very much!

    Comment by Okely Sunglasses — May 24, 2010 @ 12:29 PM

  6. very well information you write it very

    clean. I’m very lucky to get this information from you.

    Comment by free trial — May 7, 2010 @ 9:40 PM

  7. Hey I think you have a great blog going here, I found it on Bing and plan on returning regularly for the information that you all are providing.

    Comment by wholesale slippers — April 29, 2010 @ 4:47 AM


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply or a Testimony

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Silver is the New Black Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.