Friday, October 23, 2009

ObamaCare Fails Senate Test Vote 47 - 53

The Senate took its first floor vote on Obamacare yesterday and the White House lost.

The New York Times reports:
"Democrats lost a big test vote on health care legislation on Wednesday as the Senate blocked action on a bill to increase Medicare payments to doctors at a cost of $247 billion over 10 years. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, needed 60 votes to proceed. He won only 47. And he could not blame Republicans. A dozen Democrats and one independent crossed party lines and voted with Republicans on the 53 to 47 roll call."

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel tried to smooth passage of the $1 trillion-plus health care overhaul by transferring a quarter of its cost into a separate, and completely unpaid for, bill. This apparently didn't sit well with Democratic Senators like Evan Bayh (D-IN), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Wyden told the Times:
"On the eve of a historic debate on health care, it's essential to show a commitment to real reform," including fiscal responsibility.

A recent Gallup poll showed that Americans, more than ever, feel that health care costs will increase, the quality of health care will decrease and that insurance company requirements will become complicated under ObamaCare.

By 58% to 38%, Americans would generally prefer to see Congress deal with health care reform "on a gradual basis over several years" rather than "try to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan this year."

Reforms such as equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance purchases, allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines, and allowing states more flexibility on Medicaid spending are what the American people want, why aren't the Democrats and Obama listening.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

CBS: Swine Flu Not As Prevalent As Feared

CBS recently published this latest article in regards to the H1N1 Virus (Swine Flu), in the article they open with the following two paragraphs:

If you have been diagnosed "probable" or "presumed" 2009 H1N1 or "swine flu" in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn’t have H1N1 flu.

In fact, you probably didn’t have flu at all. That's according to state-by-state test results obtained in a three-month-long CBS News investigation.

The article goes on to say:

While we waited for CDC to provide the data, which it eventually did, we asked all 50states for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico.

One has to wonder what the alarm is all about, the Swine Flu is attributed to about 1,700 deaths worlwide, about 30,000 people in the U.S. alone die from the regular Flu every year. So I can't understand what the urgency is in the development of this vaccine and its hurried distribution.