Our little place to talk about and share about life.
ABC News reporter Jon Karl presses Jay Carney with tough Obamacare questions on the enrollment process.
Karl grills him to the point where he says ‘I give up.’
And, it all started because Karl asked for clarification on something Obama said.
Obama said that you don’t need to worry because there are other ways to sign up. He said you can fill out some papers or you can call in.
Only one problem with that: Everything goes through the Obamacare website.
Here, just watch for yourself:
(CJS Forum – Zachary Gappa) – The future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA – a.k.a. “Obamacare”) is more in question than ever after Friday’s ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The divided court ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional (The individual mandate is a part of the PPACA that forces citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a hefty penalty). Since another appellate court (the 6th Circuit) ruled in favor of Obamacare, the matter will surely be taken up by the Supreme Court next year. At this point, the greatest hope for overturning or significantly changing this federal overreach lies in the hands of the nine justices who make up our Supreme Court.
With Mitt Romney in the running for president in 2012, he is certain to face critics when it comes to the health care issue. Which would probably be why his first major action as candidate, and president, is to take an early stance against ObamaCare. To separate himself from the laundry list of 2012 GOP hopefulls, Romney has issued a 5-step plan.
USA Today | Health care is more than just one-sixth of the American economy. It is a source of well-being for individuals and families. We are blessed with much that is good in American health care. But we have taken a turn for the worse with ObamaCare, with its high taxes and vastly expanded federal control over our lives. I believe the better course is to empower the states to determine their own health care futures.
First, the good news: Health care in the United States has made remarkable advances in our lifetimes. Dramatic improvements in medical technology have expanded both the length and quality of life. And the U.S. health care system continues to provide consumers with many choices.
But our health care system has several well-known problems: high and rising costs, significant numbers of Americans without insurance, and glaring gaps in quality and efficiency.
We can fix these problems. Unfortunately, with the passage of ObamaCare last year, the president and the Congress took a wrong turn. ObamaCare will lead to more spending, greater federal involvement in health care and negative effects on U.S. economic activity. The president definitely forgot the admonition to “do no harm.”
My plan is to harness the power of markets to drive positive change in health insurance and health care. And we can do so with state flexibility (unlike ObamaCare’s top-down federal approach), no new taxes (as opposed to hundreds of billions of dollars of new taxes under ObamaCare), and better consumer choice (as opposed to bureaucratic, government choice under ObamaCare). This change of direction offers our best hope of preserving both innovation and value.
Florida US district judge, Judge Roger Vinson ruled on Monday that the entire Obamacare was unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause. At this point, it is almost certain that it will be placed before the Supreme Court. At which time, it would likely be ruled unconstitutional as well putting a hault to Obamacare.
In Vinson’s words (in a FoxNews report):
“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here,” Vinson wrote.
“While the individual mandate was clearly ‘necessary and essential’ to the act as drafted, it is not ‘necessary and essential’ to health care reform in general,” he continued. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void.”
In the coming week, Congress will vote on the repeal of Obamacare. But why? Obama has already stated that he would veto it, and with a democrat majority still in the Senate that would likely block it from going further, why would Congress still push through with efforts to repeal it? Simple.
The first matter of business for the 112th Congress is to repeal Obamacare. And there was no waiting to put out their work and an initial timeline for voting on it. Very short and to the point, the two page document can be summed up by its official title: The “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.”
by Ken Connor
“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson
On December 13, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson issued a decision on the Commonwealth of Virginia’s challenge to the constitutionality of Obamacare’s “minimal essential coverage provision,” sparking a flurry of controversy and commentary by declaring that neither the Interstate Commerce nor the General Welfare clauses of the Constitution permits Congress to mandate that Americans purchase health insurance.
As a conservative, of course I am delighted with the decision. As an attorney, I am impressed by Judge Hudson’s admirable exercise of judicial restraint in crafting his opinion. Continue reading . . .
by WebMD Health News
New guidelines released today by the American Heart Association recommend that the three steps of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) be rearranged.
The new first step is doing chest compressions instead of first establishing the airway and then doing mouth to mouth. The new guidelines apply to adults, children, and infants but exclude newborns.
The old way was A-B-C — for airway, breathing and compressions.
The new way is C-A-B — for compressions, airway, and breathing.
“By starting with chest compressions, that’s easy to remember, and for many victims that alone will be lifesaving,” says Michael R. Sayre, MD, chair of the emergency cardiovascular care committee for the American Heart Association and co-author of the executive summary of the 2010 AHA guidelines for CPR and emergency cardiovascular care.
The old approach, he says, was causing delays in chest compressions, which are crucial for keeping the blood circulating.
The new guidelines may inspire more people to perform CPR, says Sayre, an associate professor of emergency medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus. “Mouth to mouth is hard if you’re not trained,” he tells WebMD. ”Anybody can do chest compressions, whether they have had a class or not. Good chest compressions really help save lives. In many cases, there is a reserve of oxygen left in the patient’s blood and lungs, from the last breath, and we can take advantage of that oxygen reserve and just do chest compressions.”
While the polls in Missouri closed, the nation looks on as the votes are being counted in the highly debated Prop C. And, as the polls have been closed for almost two hours now, the naiton waits no longer. The people have spoken with resounding support for a ‘YES’ vote.
A yes vote on Prop C says that MO would basically opt out of Obamacare, while a no vote says that you are for government takeover of the health care industry.
And, as some say, ‘How the midwest goes, so does the nation.’ With as much attention as Prop C has had, and with the weight of the nation on the shoulders of the Missouri voters, polls are showing 70% of the voters voted YES.
It is only a matter of time before other states follow suit, and before the administration steps in and says shame on MO for trying to shut Obamacare down.
Among studies that are released, the majority of them are found to be ignorant. Especially when there are studies being performed on veterans. PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) is a horrible thing. However, when you combine something like PTSD with illegal psycotropic drugs like ecstasy, you are discrediting the science platform in which liberal-studies like these are performed. Take it how you may. Here is the article as it appears at Popular Science.
War veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder have found unexpected relief from the banned drug MDMA, known more commonly as ecstasy. The psychedelic drug typically associated with hard-partying clubbers appears to cure PTSD entirely in some cases, Scientific American reports.
The findings were presented at a conference held in San Jose last month, titled “Psychedelic Science in the 21st Century,” and have psychiatrists excited over the unprecedented results. They came out of a study sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which launched in 2004.
Of 21 patients, 13 took ecstasy and then talked with psychiatrists about their wartime traumas. They saw huge drops in PTSD symptoms compared to the eight-person placebo group. Seven out of the eight in the placebo group also eventually chose to receive ecstasy following the study.
After three and a half years, 13 out of 16 patients who kept in touch still appeared free of the criteria for PTSD. One psychiatrist who worked with a Veterans Affairs Medical Center told Scientific American that should definitely try ecstasy as a therapeutic tool, if it were not illegal.
This wasn’t a complete victory over PTSD — two patients suffered clear relapses, and several of the other patients remained on antidepressants or similar psychoactive medication. Still, the patients required lower amounts of the psychoactive drugs compared to before their treatment.
Physicians and scientists have long struggled with pinpointing the causes of PTSD among individual warfighters, as well as diagnosing and treating the condition. We imagine the recent successes of using ecstasy therapeutically might cause the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to rethink its prior five rejections of proposals from MAPS to work together.
The blog of American Veteran Magazine adds a helpful note that war vets should not take ecstasy on their own, given that it remains illegal — the MAPS study was conducted under psychiatrist supervision and with FDA approval.
[via Scientific American]
